I think it would be clear that Thailand was making democratic progress if you selected the 30 year period from 1976 to 2006.
2006-2014 was just a mess.
I do also think it is obvious that the 1997 constitution was more democratic and progressive than the 2007 constitution. And I don’t expect that the 2014 constitution is going to be any better.
The coup has now been proven to be nothing more that the continuation of Suthep’s scheme by another mean and will eventually end in failure just like all coups were in this country. Unlike 2007 where there was widespread dissatisfaction with Thaksin, the junta has to make enormous effort to suppress opposition while being mindful of its own actions since one wrong move could mean the demise of the junta itself. This is why Prayuth can not decide on what to de with the fuel subsidies schemes despite the growing debt in the subsidies fund. It should be reminded also that Prayuth is potentially more expendible than any other coup leader in Thai history since he is 3 month away from retirement and getting rid of him and other coup makers (who are also scheduled to retire by the end of September)would not implicate any promotion in the arm force. If he decides not to retire and self-absorbingly convinces that he can become a prime minister (and not suffer the same fate as Suchinda), its possible that the junta could be among the shortest-live regime in Thai history.
Democracy is not an either/or position, but something that is moved towards or away from. Looking at Thai politics since, say, 1976, would you say that, prior to the latest coup, it was moving towards or away from the definition of democracy as described above ?
Another point here is that “informal” civil society is a network of potential incubators of civil resistance, according to Gene Sharp. In that sense they should be supported in efforts to preserve their independence.
Indonesian, Sri Lankan and other workers
in the Gulf States, like Saudi Arabia, are persistently abused, often raped, and accused
of “witchcraft”, according to Wahhabi “interpretations” of satanic and other vices, none of which are scientific or logical. Indonesian women, at present about two or three, have been beheaded for “witchcraft”, one recent well-known case, where the home care worker ostensibly attacked and killed her mistress. She was tried, no on the basis of homicide, but “witchcraft”, which meant Shari’a based standards of what represents the occult in Saudi Arabia. This woman was afforded no legal defence, and found guilty
on hearsay by the husband and his relatives. We have no way of knowing the truth because
forensic science and forensic psychology is non-existent in the Islamic State of Saudi Arabia, which applies Shari’a Law to Indonesian workers, almost all of whom, are Muslim (irrelevant that they are Shaf’i Muslims, and not Wahhabi Muslims). Finally, there are about 12 Indonesian women on death row, waiting to be executed, ostensibly based on “witchcraft” and not felonies. From my internal contacts, none of the 12, other than the recent case mentioned above, have committed attacks on employers, let alone homicide or murder. It is purely “Witchcraft”. As Saudi Arabia also bans Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, one is not even able to assess whether any of these
Indonesian workers, suffer from some mental
illness, which can range from mild depression to dangerous psychoses. There exists no legal avenue for them to be assessed, let alone argue, in their defence, that they might suffer from diminished capacity. Ditto, the Sri Lankan workers, except, most are Hindu, and Shari’a Law will have a different outcome for them on paper, but they also are subject to beheadings, and Sri Lankan women have been beheaded before in Saudi Arabia. Whether it is Prabowo or Jokowi, whomever takes the mantle of leadership, they had better damn well study the condition and treatment of Indonesian home care workers in Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf States, and the Middle-East in general.
David said: One group, and perhaps the majority of voters, broadly defines democracy based on the will of the majority determined by periodic elections with a constitution that guarantees fundamental rights and sets out a structure of elected government subject in some way to mechanisms of public accountability.
I couldn’t agree more, but in the system before the coup you could have all the elections you like and have keep military and ‘royalists’ entirely out of the political process and you still wouldn’t get anywhere near it. Doesn’t that tell you something?
notdisappointed@#23 cites an excellent article by Grant Evans. The only point I’d make in contradistinction to Professor Evans is that far from ALL Isan people drive “shiney white cars”. MANY still use motorcycles – and the poorer even still use bicycles. They’re only somewhat richer than their Lao phi-nong cousins. But yes – Evans main point is correct : so far Prayuth has deftly managed an incredibly complex crisis, and may well succeed to become one of Thailand’s great nation-saving generals, especially if he can restore economic growth while keeping a lid on corruption. But to fully succeed he’ll probably have to loosen up on de-centralisation, at some appropriate time.
3) Anyone that claim to be of Chinese origin are classified as Tayoke. Tayoke is Tayoke be it letshay, letho (mainly in Yandon) or Sechuanese, Hunanese (maily in Mandalay).
4) Kala are classified, by their religions as Muslim,Hindu or Sigh. Anyone either darker than the native or have a Drividian resemblace or claim to be of being originated from British India.
5) WA are originally Tayoke of GMD and subsequent mixture with Shan, Thai and other groups.
They exist unmoleated only because of their symbiosis with the regime as well as China.
6) There are still many unrecognized, unclassified group b/t Myanmar and other bordering countries.
“Conclusion: In my opinion what’s happening in Burma has more to do with racial discrimination than a religious conflict combined with blatant hypocritical double-standards and Sino-Orwellian double-speak which seems to be ubiquitous in many parts of Asia 9especailly amongst the upper ruling classes)”
Absolutely useless and careless to justify:
a) Trashing the better of Tayoke (the ruling class) instead of learning from how they succeed instead of bridging the much wider divide between Muslim Kala and Buddhist Bamar.
b) Justifying again the divisive use of Rohingyas. A group in Yakhine as noting other than Muslim-Kala.
Both men confused national defence with foreign policy. It was a pretty sad affair. Most politicians learn about foreign policy on the job anyway – domestic issues get votes.
Contrary to this analysis, I think democracy wouldn’t be in danger with the election of Prabowo. He has a military background but also a multicultural and great education, which is a symbol of impartiality in a country with several religions and cultures.
On the contrary, the Jokowi’s vision looks more anti-democratic: for example the idea to change the education system making the moral education up to 80 percent of the curriculum against science is a typical anti-democratic vision. Imposing the idea of what is good or bad through the education system is normally the first point of a dictatorship agenda. Definitively I think Prabowo has the best education and background to guarantee a progress of the Indonesian democracy, against sectarianism and ideology.
While I don’t recall seeing him smile in the last few years, back in the 2000s he used to accompany his wry comments on politics with wry smiles. BTW although he is not allowed to vote, as a citizen he is not barred from making public comments, although he does have to be judicious in what he says. But his increasing frailty coinciding with the ongoing attacks of PM Thaksin and his proxy leaders on all democratic checks and balances has seen him focus his efforts on the judiciary to uphold their oath of office.
Yes of course not disappointed, as you have eluded before, Thaksin must have full control over the thoughts and opinions of nearly every government, newspaper, academic and individual person in the developed world and this explains why they widely condemn repressive dictatorships like Thailand’s. Thanks for breaking this unprecedented news to us again.
For a while there I thought repressive dictators we’re widely disliked because history has taught us some fundamental truths about them.
I guess that despite the lessons of history, you and your minority group of friends who fully support repressive dictatorships just know better than everyone else.
I think your comment “press on, ……. with complete disregard…..” pretty much sums up your approach and that of most dictators. Did you borrow that phrase from a little dictators handbook or was it original?
@angrymagpie: my apology for offending you with the words “to make matter worse.” It is very difficult to convey snarks and I agree that I should have worded it better. In my defense, I was a bit rushed in doing this review (the debate finished at 10 PM and I had to submit this at 8 AM). But again, I accept the blame, it was poorly worded, so my apology.
@Bart: actually I didn’t use “watching paint dry.” My original wordings were: “In essence, watching this debate was like watching two people in a cafe, having friendly banter while drinking coffee and snacking on crumpets. There were some tense moments, but literally nothing was going on.” — but it was too verbose, so the editor tried to shorten it, which unfortunately brought the impression that the debate was completely boring.
Still, I do not wish to blame the editor, because by the end of the day, it was my fault for not convey what I meant clearly. So, my apology.
Other than that, I agree with what you wrote. Yes, you are right that Jokowi seemed a bit hesitant once in a while, but my overall impression was that his performance was much better yesterday than a week before.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Not really…The polls are accurate as “saying you are un-happy about the coup” is a jailable offence! Oh. sorry! calling it a coup is also an offence.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
“Keeping a lid on corruption” I like that
As in “keeping a lid on secrets”
“keeping a lid on scandals”
I guess the Military is well qualified for “keeping the lid on” as they have been keeping a lid on their corruption for so many years.
Mr. Heinecke cannot have his coup and eat it too
I do not agree that 2013 was just a mess. Similarly neither I, nor the constitutions of 1997 & 2007 accept the rather narrow definition of non-participatory democracy as above. 2013 was notable in that the Stop Global Warming Association used the constitution to foil the disaster of Plodprasop’s 350 billion baht water scheme. This advance has regrettably been ignored by most commentators of the political scene in Thailand. I suggest it’s time to begin discussing how to build on this victory.
Here’s the link to the relevant section : http://ourchiangmai.com/2011/02/22/%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%83%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%82%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%82%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%A5/
Foreign affairs a stranger to Indonesia’s presidential hopefuls
I wasn’t offended at all. I was just wondering if you thought both candidates should include more Australia-bashing in their performances.
Mr. Heinecke cannot have his coup and eat it too
I think it would be clear that Thailand was making democratic progress if you selected the 30 year period from 1976 to 2006.
2006-2014 was just a mess.
I do also think it is obvious that the 1997 constitution was more democratic and progressive than the 2007 constitution. And I don’t expect that the 2014 constitution is going to be any better.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Dear Chris Beale
The coup has now been proven to be nothing more that the continuation of Suthep’s scheme by another mean and will eventually end in failure just like all coups were in this country. Unlike 2007 where there was widespread dissatisfaction with Thaksin, the junta has to make enormous effort to suppress opposition while being mindful of its own actions since one wrong move could mean the demise of the junta itself. This is why Prayuth can not decide on what to de with the fuel subsidies schemes despite the growing debt in the subsidies fund. It should be reminded also that Prayuth is potentially more expendible than any other coup leader in Thai history since he is 3 month away from retirement and getting rid of him and other coup makers (who are also scheduled to retire by the end of September)would not implicate any promotion in the arm force. If he decides not to retire and self-absorbingly convinces that he can become a prime minister (and not suffer the same fate as Suchinda), its possible that the junta could be among the shortest-live regime in Thai history.
Mr. Heinecke cannot have his coup and eat it too
Democracy is not an either/or position, but something that is moved towards or away from. Looking at Thai politics since, say, 1976, would you say that, prior to the latest coup, it was moving towards or away from the definition of democracy as described above ?
The decline of Lao civil society
Another point here is that “informal” civil society is a network of potential incubators of civil resistance, according to Gene Sharp. In that sense they should be supported in efforts to preserve their independence.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
I’m sorry but those are not functions of the military in a modern country.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Do polls under despotic regimes have any credibility? I’m sure Kimg Jong Un scores 100% approval in his country.
People do not answer truthfully even in free countries if they think it’s going to be used against them or if it might make them look bad.
Review of Indonesia Etc
[…] and Jim Della-Giacoma, in New Mandala […]
Hope, migrated
Indonesian, Sri Lankan and other workers
in the Gulf States, like Saudi Arabia, are persistently abused, often raped, and accused
of “witchcraft”, according to Wahhabi “interpretations” of satanic and other vices, none of which are scientific or logical. Indonesian women, at present about two or three, have been beheaded for “witchcraft”, one recent well-known case, where the home care worker ostensibly attacked and killed her mistress. She was tried, no on the basis of homicide, but “witchcraft”, which meant Shari’a based standards of what represents the occult in Saudi Arabia. This woman was afforded no legal defence, and found guilty
on hearsay by the husband and his relatives. We have no way of knowing the truth because
forensic science and forensic psychology is non-existent in the Islamic State of Saudi Arabia, which applies Shari’a Law to Indonesian workers, almost all of whom, are Muslim (irrelevant that they are Shaf’i Muslims, and not Wahhabi Muslims). Finally, there are about 12 Indonesian women on death row, waiting to be executed, ostensibly based on “witchcraft” and not felonies. From my internal contacts, none of the 12, other than the recent case mentioned above, have committed attacks on employers, let alone homicide or murder. It is purely “Witchcraft”. As Saudi Arabia also bans Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, one is not even able to assess whether any of these
Indonesian workers, suffer from some mental
illness, which can range from mild depression to dangerous psychoses. There exists no legal avenue for them to be assessed, let alone argue, in their defence, that they might suffer from diminished capacity. Ditto, the Sri Lankan workers, except, most are Hindu, and Shari’a Law will have a different outcome for them on paper, but they also are subject to beheadings, and Sri Lankan women have been beheaded before in Saudi Arabia. Whether it is Prabowo or Jokowi, whomever takes the mantle of leadership, they had better damn well study the condition and treatment of Indonesian home care workers in Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf States, and the Middle-East in general.
Mr. Heinecke cannot have his coup and eat it too
David said: One group, and perhaps the majority of voters, broadly defines democracy based on the will of the majority determined by periodic elections with a constitution that guarantees fundamental rights and sets out a structure of elected government subject in some way to mechanisms of public accountability.
I couldn’t agree more, but in the system before the coup you could have all the elections you like and have keep military and ‘royalists’ entirely out of the political process and you still wouldn’t get anywhere near it. Doesn’t that tell you something?
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
notdisappointed@#23 cites an excellent article by Grant Evans. The only point I’d make in contradistinction to Professor Evans is that far from ALL Isan people drive “shiney white cars”. MANY still use motorcycles – and the poorer even still use bicycles. They’re only somewhat richer than their Lao phi-nong cousins. But yes – Evans main point is correct : so far Prayuth has deftly managed an incredibly complex crisis, and may well succeed to become one of Thailand’s great nation-saving generals, especially if he can restore economic growth while keeping a lid on corruption. But to fully succeed he’ll probably have to loosen up on de-centralisation, at some appropriate time.
Rohingya: denied the right to be human
It seem that these are the personal issues that require resolution:
1) Myanmar is the name of the country of what used to be colonial “Burma”.
2) Bamar the majority ethnic group among 8 other major recognized groups.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_Burma
3) Anyone that claim to be of Chinese origin are classified as Tayoke. Tayoke is Tayoke be it letshay, letho (mainly in Yandon) or Sechuanese, Hunanese (maily in Mandalay).
4) Kala are classified, by their religions as Muslim,Hindu or Sigh. Anyone either darker than the native or have a Drividian resemblace or claim to be of being originated from British India.
5) WA are originally Tayoke of GMD and subsequent mixture with Shan, Thai and other groups.
They exist unmoleated only because of their symbiosis with the regime as well as China.
6) There are still many unrecognized, unclassified group b/t Myanmar and other bordering countries.
“Conclusion: In my opinion what’s happening in Burma has more to do with racial discrimination than a religious conflict combined with blatant hypocritical double-standards and Sino-Orwellian double-speak which seems to be ubiquitous in many parts of Asia 9especailly amongst the upper ruling classes)”
Absolutely useless and careless to justify:
a) Trashing the better of Tayoke (the ruling class) instead of learning from how they succeed instead of bridging the much wider divide between Muslim Kala and Buddhist Bamar.
b) Justifying again the divisive use of Rohingyas. A group in Yakhine as noting other than Muslim-Kala.
Just as the author of this article hope to.
Foreign affairs a stranger to Indonesia’s presidential hopefuls
Both men confused national defence with foreign policy. It was a pretty sad affair. Most politicians learn about foreign policy on the job anyway – domestic issues get votes.
Indonesia’s democracy is in danger
Contrary to this analysis, I think democracy wouldn’t be in danger with the election of Prabowo. He has a military background but also a multicultural and great education, which is a symbol of impartiality in a country with several religions and cultures.
On the contrary, the Jokowi’s vision looks more anti-democratic: for example the idea to change the education system making the moral education up to 80 percent of the curriculum against science is a typical anti-democratic vision. Imposing the idea of what is good or bad through the education system is normally the first point of a dictatorship agenda. Definitively I think Prabowo has the best education and background to guarantee a progress of the Indonesian democracy, against sectarianism and ideology.
The King Never Smiles?
While I don’t recall seeing him smile in the last few years, back in the 2000s he used to accompany his wry comments on politics with wry smiles. BTW although he is not allowed to vote, as a citizen he is not barred from making public comments, although he does have to be judicious in what he says. But his increasing frailty coinciding with the ongoing attacks of PM Thaksin and his proxy leaders on all democratic checks and balances has seen him focus his efforts on the judiciary to uphold their oath of office.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Yes of course not disappointed, as you have eluded before, Thaksin must have full control over the thoughts and opinions of nearly every government, newspaper, academic and individual person in the developed world and this explains why they widely condemn repressive dictatorships like Thailand’s. Thanks for breaking this unprecedented news to us again.
For a while there I thought repressive dictators we’re widely disliked because history has taught us some fundamental truths about them.
I guess that despite the lessons of history, you and your minority group of friends who fully support repressive dictatorships just know better than everyone else.
I think your comment “press on, ……. with complete disregard…..” pretty much sums up your approach and that of most dictators. Did you borrow that phrase from a little dictators handbook or was it original?
Foreign affairs a stranger to Indonesia’s presidential hopefuls
Thank you for your comments.
@Davaus: YES!
@angrymagpie: my apology for offending you with the words “to make matter worse.” It is very difficult to convey snarks and I agree that I should have worded it better. In my defense, I was a bit rushed in doing this review (the debate finished at 10 PM and I had to submit this at 8 AM). But again, I accept the blame, it was poorly worded, so my apology.
@Bart: actually I didn’t use “watching paint dry.” My original wordings were: “In essence, watching this debate was like watching two people in a cafe, having friendly banter while drinking coffee and snacking on crumpets. There were some tense moments, but literally nothing was going on.” — but it was too verbose, so the editor tried to shorten it, which unfortunately brought the impression that the debate was completely boring.
Still, I do not wish to blame the editor, because by the end of the day, it was my fault for not convey what I meant clearly. So, my apology.
Other than that, I agree with what you wrote. Yes, you are right that Jokowi seemed a bit hesitant once in a while, but my overall impression was that his performance was much better yesterday than a week before.
In any case, I do hope you enjoy my analysis.