Comments

Nick nailed it.

To Vichai N.: Once again the logic of you question points to the flawed assumptions of those who tolerate (or worse yet, those who advocate) extraconstitutional solutions to political conflict. If you understood the the seven questions above and the arguments I make related to them (not the ones you assume I’m making, or “the side” you assume I’m taking), you would realize you wrongly assume my point was that thuggish violence would “cease by itself” (your words, not mine).

And though you may disagree, you would understand that one of my main points is that repetitive coups and intervention into politics by the military is the fundamental source of Thailand’s political instability; that power does not justify itself but must be gained via popularly accepted procedure under the rule of law if it is to be accepted as legitimate.

The assumption behind your question is that thuggish violence against protestors is Thailand’s primary problem to be solved at all costs, even to the suspension of the rule of law, parliamentary governance, and civil liberties in the country. The imperatives of democratic practice reject such assumptions. Following democratic theory, thuggish political violence could not possibly be the country’s primary problem given what we know about Thai political history and its 18 failed attempts at constitutional rule. And to the extent thuggish violence is a problem, repetitively solving it (or other ills) by means of a military takeover and suspension of constitutional order is simply indicative of a far greater problem: the capricious and self-serving “rule by law” by those wielding weapons granted to them by society for entirely different purposes.

By definition, the rule of law demands that ALL problems in society be addressed through legitimately established procedure grounded in basic law. That the process remains consistently legitimate is more critical to political order than the sometimes undesirable, costly, or even unjust outcomes that may result from that process.

A professionalized military that is properly subservient to a legitimately established government can be called on by that government to assist it in maintaining the rule of law, but it has no legitimate authority whatsoever to dismiss the government and unilaterally suspend the constitution. That is an indisputable premise in democratic theory and practice.

Just please, stop being naive. This has nothing to do with reform. The parliament cannot be under a Phua Thai majority (or any other reincarnation of it) when the king passes away because this would bring the crown prince as monarch. Some of the elite (a group of aristocracy, generals, businessmen under the supervision of Prem-Prawit-Anand) wants to avoid this at all cost. The only way to change the succession is to hold the majority in Parliament. Majority cannot be achieved through election, which explains the coup. The army will draft a new constitution, probably establishing ab appointed parliament or any other design which evict the opposition. It will solve all of the problems of Prems inc.
So stop being so na├пve as to believe that anyhting in this coup has to do with “reform” in any kind. The only reform they have in mind is succession order.

Thanks. Interesting. Not sure that I buy every line of it. But now it is clear what you meant.

Most New Mandala readers use the “Quality comment” button, James, to attack the poster or to register that they diagree with a point of view.

They are not voting for the quality of the comment but expressing their own opinion. Not very bright but as I have been told by the administrators of this site they are not able to control how people use it.

Just ignore the voting system. It’s only a game to most of them. They aren’t able to make any real comments themselves.

You still prevaricate Roy Anderson.

The bombs and grenades and machine gun attacks during the six months Kamnan protests were all, I repeat all, directed at the Kamnan and his protesters (while on their protests march and while camping). While children, women and innocent bystanders were killed and maimed by these murdereous attacks, the Red Shirts were cheering with glee.

Did you cheer with them too Roy?

Hi Suriyon Raiwa. I presume you’re referring to the following sentence:

‘Assuming that a major objective of the NCPO is to more effectively restrict the movement of migrants, thereby suppressing wage inflation to maintain the global competitiveness of border industries such as agriculture, garments and textiles, it remains to be seen what will be offered to workers in exchange and where the balance of interests will fall.’

Average wages in Mae Sot have increased from approximately 70/80THB eight years ago to 180THB today. Labour intensive industries such as garments and agriculture are considering alternative sites – Cambodia and Myanmar, for example. One of the reasons for this increase is that migrants in Mae Sot often move inland to areas such as Bangkok, where they are often promised 300THB/day.

For Myanmar migrants at least, and based on anecdotal evidence, aside from higher wages one of the reasons they remain in Thailand rather than return home is because they appreciate the relative freedom and level of development (7/11s and mobile phones, for example).

Myanmar is liberalising its economy and developing its infrastructure, and migrants are seriously considering returning. I believe many would consider staying in Thailand if they were not subject to current levels of exploitation and extortion from employers and authorities, if they were not often too scared to access healthcare because of their legal status, and if they could still earn more than they could at home. For this I suspect they wouldn’t mind not being able to go to work in Bangkok, and accepting wages they currently receive. Ultimately this would be in the interests of both the migrants and Thailand (though not Myanmar).

However, given the issue has initially at least been framed as a security issue, it’s not clear whether these interests will be well-balanced, and if much will be given to workers in return. Such a policy would be foolish and short sighted.

Careful, Charlie, about awkward questions. You might find yourself heading to the border.

Excellent article by Streckfuss – he really has his finger on the pulse of Isarn, and not only Isarn – much of Thailand elsewhere also.