The persecution on ‘foreign influence’ has begun in Thailand. There is (was) a thriving Burmese community of food venders and simple shops in the Phrakanong Market, Bangkok. Last night soldiers shut it down and made arrests. I was told that one Burmese national had his documents destroyed by the authorities.
A female shop vender who sells basic Burmese items such as traditional clothing was threatened. Told that Burmese should not start businesses, their place in Thai society is maids (female) or manual laborer (male). This morning most of the shops are closed and there is a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Unless the military decide to rubber-stamped the next constitution without (free and participatory) public consent, it will be difficult to sell. We Thai was lied and blacked-mailed into voting for the previous constitution and we will never willingly allow ourselves to be tricked into endorsing any new constutution even if it mean no having an election in the near future (the card the military is likely to use). We don’t care if we can not vote as long as the constitutional court who dumped our vote into the trash at its own discretion remains in existence.
The persecution on ‘foreign influence’ has begun in Thailand. There is (was) a thriving Burmese community of food venders and simple shops in the Phrakanong Market, Bangkok. Last night the police shut it down and made arrests. I was told that one Burmese national had his documents destroyed by the authorities.
A female shop vender who sells basic Burmese items such as traditional clothing was threatened. Told that Burmese should not start businesses, their place in Thai society is maids (female) or manual laborer (male). This morning most of the shops are closed and there is a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Meaning only those who “understand” democracy can vote and the Thais from rural areas don’t qualify since it’s so easy to fool them into voting for parties with social policies rather than for the “greater food”? That you don’t need free elections since Bhumibol & Prem Inc. are invariably doing what’s best for Thailand already?
This argument has been used to justify authoritarian rule in Thailand since back when Thai communists were still strong and shows a lack of understanding what democracy means.
As usual, Clive Kessler has written a fine essay. Those interested might like to read the attached pieces – which try to examine the royal role in detail, and come up with somewhat different conclusions. They argue, in part, that the ‘new royalism’ is not new, and not clearly contradicted by the Malaysian Constitution. The former Lord President of the Federal Court, Raja Azlan Shah (later Sultan Azlan Shah) once said that it is “a mistake to think that the role of a King, like that of a President, is confined to what is laid down by the Constitution. His role far exceeds those constitutional provisions.” If the debate continues to develop in Malaysia it will be important to look hard at the historical record, including the key public documentation.
I’ve always found a direct correlation between parties that argue the most vehemently that they can’t be bought off and parties that are most likely to be bought off.
“Did Prayuth have any choice…?” The assumption behind the question is precisely the problem. Military leaders do not face choices in parliamentary democracy, they only follow the orders of the recognized government.
My response to your question is, “Who gave the military the choice?” Do you accept the military’s legal justification citing a law decreed under “rule by law” absolute monarchy–in 1912, wasn’t it?
The endless threat of coup, the constant questions from the Thai public to the military with each politica conflict (“Will you intervene?” “Will you stage a coup?” “Should you stage a coup?”), and the belief that the military has the right to unilaterally suspend the constitution and take over are far more harmful to the country’s political order than acts of political violence on the ground between rival groups you argue justify the end of constitutional order.
Violence against protestors is a horrible and indefensible crime and tit-for-tat revenge between rival groups is no doubt a dangerous cycle. Nevertheless, at some point in ongoing Thai history, the Thai polity (in total) has to accept the tougher reality that military intervention and the tolerance for extraconstitutional means to solve political crises is the ultimate source of its political disorder, not corruption, not policy disagreements, and not thugish political violence.
Under the rule of law, why should extraconstitutional means be used at any time to resolve political problems? Who would argue that the many extraconstitutional interventions in Thai history HAVE NOT created a moral hazard for the resolution of future political crises? What is the ultimate source of political disorder in Thailand?
Yes he had a choice. He could have supported the King’s appointed government, which also, unusually for Thailand, was elected with an absolute majority. The fact that he did not gave enormous encouragement to the street demonstrations. Most particularly Prayuth and the army could have ensured that the February election was completed successfully. It would not have required anything more than making it clear that the army would not permit disruption of the process. I doubt very much if any force would have been necessary. But of course, as always with the army and just as we have in the present situation, making clear that it is to be deployed decisively is enough.
Having said that, I am not at all sure that Prayuth is the real power behind the coup any more than Sonthi was in 2006. What has happened shows all the signs of having been a concerted plan to undermine the elected government in which, the army, the courts, the Election Commission, the NACC, the “Democrat” party and Suthep’s street parties were all just part players. Furthermore I suspect that the plan was already in development at least from 3rd July 2011. Wild conspiracy theory? No, I don’t think so. The pieces all fit together far too snugly to allow any other sensible conclusion.
As this coup was planned after the last election and as the military decided NOT to interfere whilst the PDRC ere criminally opposed to the elected govt and as the courts favoured the PDRC and their thugs and of course the army failed to protect the electorate on the 2nd of Feb, the simple answer is YES.
You are so fun Vichai N.
Not a question of choice here since the violence and street pressure have been orchestrated to legitimate the coup.
The other choice would have been to stop trying to evict an elected government (but that was settled a long time ago). Prayuth was not so happy to intervene directly because he knew the intervention of the army could be really dangerous for the whole country. So he came only when every option to kick Thaksin and co. out of power was exhausted (street pressure, cancelling election results, judicial coup…). It was actually ironic that when the coup was made, violence was no more obvious. And that red shirt had threatened a civil war only in case of a coup.
So I admire dreamers, but here you really have to wake up. Prayuth is not here to stop the escalation of violence but to ensure majority in parliament for the succession. And he is ready to do that even if it must tear down Thai society and economy.
It is obvious, at least to me, that he had a choice. He could have supported the government, like he was supposed to, at an early stage. Instead he remained passive, a clear signal of support for Suthep. Some of his soldiers and officers actively took part in the demonstrations. I believe that he wanted this to happen, and step by step he, together with his privy council friends and PDRC, engineered the development that lead to a failed state. End result: A leader with absolute power and no checks and balances whatsoever. It takes an exceptional mant to handle such a situation with integrity, and Prayuth does not fit the bill. We all know what is said about ‘absolute power’.
The seven questions to the junta are fair, and, perhaps as expected.
But my question is: Did General Prayuth really have any choice … other than to take the extra-constitutional measure of military law-then-coup because six months of political paralysis, and non-stop violence and killings being directed (by the black shirts) against the Kamnan protesters are at truly near the boiling point … that could escalate to tit-for-tat mayhem?
A recent study and research by Nikolay Marinov and Hein Goemans uses new data on coups d’état and elections to document a striking development: whereas the vast majority of successful coups before 1991 installed durable rules, the majority of coups after that have been followed by competitive elections.
While the coup d’état has been (and still is) the single most important factor leading to the downfall of democratic governments, these findings indicate that the new generation of coups has been far less harmful for democracy than their historical predecessors.
As they say the highest form of ignorance is to reject something you don’t know anything about. Filled with your prejudices and fixation on 112 and faux democracy: you reject what others have to say.
Regarding the use of force against political opponents, you can see this kind of speech almost everywhere, on the internet, online newspaper, comments on facebook.
Regarding the court, please see my latest article “Thailand’s Forgotten Key.” There are details of what the courts have done in the past few years. Different paces of prosecution.
Last but not least, people did say they dont want democracy. This kind of conversation is all over the social media.
For other points, thank you krub. I will be more careful next time.
So which persona of Prabowo you think will come to the fore if he is elected president?
“It’s important that foreigners tempted to see Prabowo as the leader Indonesia needs understand just how different these two personas are, and ponder which one will come to the fore if Prabowo is elected president”
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
“Foreign influence” in Red Shirt demonstrations
The persecution on ‘foreign influence’ has begun in Thailand. There is (was) a thriving Burmese community of food venders and simple shops in the Phrakanong Market, Bangkok. Last night soldiers shut it down and made arrests. I was told that one Burmese national had his documents destroyed by the authorities.
A female shop vender who sells basic Burmese items such as traditional clothing was threatened. Told that Burmese should not start businesses, their place in Thai society is maids (female) or manual laborer (male). This morning most of the shops are closed and there is a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Unless the military decide to rubber-stamped the next constitution without (free and participatory) public consent, it will be difficult to sell. We Thai was lied and blacked-mailed into voting for the previous constitution and we will never willingly allow ourselves to be tricked into endorsing any new constutution even if it mean no having an election in the near future (the card the military is likely to use). We don’t care if we can not vote as long as the constitutional court who dumped our vote into the trash at its own discretion remains in existence.
“Foreign influence” in Red Shirt demonstrations
The persecution on ‘foreign influence’ has begun in Thailand. There is (was) a thriving Burmese community of food venders and simple shops in the Phrakanong Market, Bangkok. Last night the police shut it down and made arrests. I was told that one Burmese national had his documents destroyed by the authorities.
A female shop vender who sells basic Burmese items such as traditional clothing was threatened. Told that Burmese should not start businesses, their place in Thai society is maids (female) or manual laborer (male). This morning most of the shops are closed and there is a climate of fear and uncertainty.
Prabowo’s dog-whistling
there is no IF….he will not be elected as president as Indonesian citizens are smart enough not to vote for him 😉
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Does this begin to answer your question? http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/transport/415050/transport-plan-costs-surge-to-b3tr
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Meaning only those who “understand” democracy can vote and the Thais from rural areas don’t qualify since it’s so easy to fool them into voting for parties with social policies rather than for the “greater food”? That you don’t need free elections since Bhumibol & Prem Inc. are invariably doing what’s best for Thailand already?
This argument has been used to justify authoritarian rule in Thailand since back when Thai communists were still strong and shows a lack of understanding what democracy means.
Songsuda Yodmani and the 2014 coup
the mirrored version isn’t blocked:
http://politicalprisonersofthailand.wordpress.com/
The confusion about “Constitutional Monarchy” in Malaysia
As usual, Clive Kessler has written a fine essay. Those interested might like to read the attached pieces – which try to examine the royal role in detail, and come up with somewhat different conclusions. They argue, in part, that the ‘new royalism’ is not new, and not clearly contradicted by the Malaysian Constitution. The former Lord President of the Federal Court, Raja Azlan Shah (later Sultan Azlan Shah) once said that it is “a mistake to think that the role of a King, like that of a President, is confined to what is laid down by the Constitution. His role far exceeds those constitutional provisions.” If the debate continues to develop in Malaysia it will be important to look hard at the historical record, including the key public documentation.
http://www.ukm.my/ikmas/pdf/book/malaysia%20monarchy.pdf
http://englishkyoto-seas.org/2012/08/vol-1-no-2-of-southeast-asian-studies-now-available-online-2/ “
Prabowo’s dog-whistling
A former general said Prabowo has emotional stability issue. To have multiple personalities might be a valid opinion. Or schizophrenic.
Prabowo’s dog-whistling
I’ve always found a direct correlation between parties that argue the most vehemently that they can’t be bought off and parties that are most likely to be bought off.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
“Did Prayuth have any choice…?” The assumption behind the question is precisely the problem. Military leaders do not face choices in parliamentary democracy, they only follow the orders of the recognized government.
My response to your question is, “Who gave the military the choice?” Do you accept the military’s legal justification citing a law decreed under “rule by law” absolute monarchy–in 1912, wasn’t it?
The endless threat of coup, the constant questions from the Thai public to the military with each politica conflict (“Will you intervene?” “Will you stage a coup?” “Should you stage a coup?”), and the belief that the military has the right to unilaterally suspend the constitution and take over are far more harmful to the country’s political order than acts of political violence on the ground between rival groups you argue justify the end of constitutional order.
Violence against protestors is a horrible and indefensible crime and tit-for-tat revenge between rival groups is no doubt a dangerous cycle. Nevertheless, at some point in ongoing Thai history, the Thai polity (in total) has to accept the tougher reality that military intervention and the tolerance for extraconstitutional means to solve political crises is the ultimate source of its political disorder, not corruption, not policy disagreements, and not thugish political violence.
Under the rule of law, why should extraconstitutional means be used at any time to resolve political problems? Who would argue that the many extraconstitutional interventions in Thai history HAVE NOT created a moral hazard for the resolution of future political crises? What is the ultimate source of political disorder in Thailand?
What goes unsaid: Indonesia’s environment
I have gone further and wrote that we Indonesians need a new sila in Pancasila: ‘Kelestarian alami yang berkelanjutan’. 🙂 Read here:
https://sites.google.com/site/tamanbahasa/blog/saptasila
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Yes he had a choice. He could have supported the King’s appointed government, which also, unusually for Thailand, was elected with an absolute majority. The fact that he did not gave enormous encouragement to the street demonstrations. Most particularly Prayuth and the army could have ensured that the February election was completed successfully. It would not have required anything more than making it clear that the army would not permit disruption of the process. I doubt very much if any force would have been necessary. But of course, as always with the army and just as we have in the present situation, making clear that it is to be deployed decisively is enough.
Having said that, I am not at all sure that Prayuth is the real power behind the coup any more than Sonthi was in 2006. What has happened shows all the signs of having been a concerted plan to undermine the elected government in which, the army, the courts, the Election Commission, the NACC, the “Democrat” party and Suthep’s street parties were all just part players. Furthermore I suspect that the plan was already in development at least from 3rd July 2011. Wild conspiracy theory? No, I don’t think so. The pieces all fit together far too snugly to allow any other sensible conclusion.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
As this coup was planned after the last election and as the military decided NOT to interfere whilst the PDRC ere criminally opposed to the elected govt and as the courts favoured the PDRC and their thugs and of course the army failed to protect the electorate on the 2nd of Feb, the simple answer is YES.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
You are so fun Vichai N.
Not a question of choice here since the violence and street pressure have been orchestrated to legitimate the coup.
The other choice would have been to stop trying to evict an elected government (but that was settled a long time ago). Prayuth was not so happy to intervene directly because he knew the intervention of the army could be really dangerous for the whole country. So he came only when every option to kick Thaksin and co. out of power was exhausted (street pressure, cancelling election results, judicial coup…). It was actually ironic that when the coup was made, violence was no more obvious. And that red shirt had threatened a civil war only in case of a coup.
So I admire dreamers, but here you really have to wake up. Prayuth is not here to stop the escalation of violence but to ensure majority in parliament for the succession. And he is ready to do that even if it must tear down Thai society and economy.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
It is obvious, at least to me, that he had a choice. He could have supported the government, like he was supposed to, at an early stage. Instead he remained passive, a clear signal of support for Suthep. Some of his soldiers and officers actively took part in the demonstrations. I believe that he wanted this to happen, and step by step he, together with his privy council friends and PDRC, engineered the development that lead to a failed state. End result: A leader with absolute power and no checks and balances whatsoever. It takes an exceptional mant to handle such a situation with integrity, and Prayuth does not fit the bill. We all know what is said about ‘absolute power’.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
The seven questions to the junta are fair, and, perhaps as expected.
But my question is: Did General Prayuth really have any choice … other than to take the extra-constitutional measure of military law-then-coup because six months of political paralysis, and non-stop violence and killings being directed (by the black shirts) against the Kamnan protesters are at truly near the boiling point … that could escalate to tit-for-tat mayhem?
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
A recent study and research by Nikolay Marinov and Hein Goemans uses new data on coups d’état and elections to document a striking development: whereas the vast majority of successful coups before 1991 installed durable rules, the majority of coups after that have been followed by competitive elections.
While the coup d’état has been (and still is) the single most important factor leading to the downfall of democratic governments, these findings indicate that the new generation of coups has been far less harmful for democracy than their historical predecessors.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8991494
As they say the highest form of ignorance is to reject something you don’t know anything about. Filled with your prejudices and fixation on 112 and faux democracy: you reject what others have to say.
But I guess that the NM way.
Thailand, what next?
Thank you Khun Niphon for your comment.
Regarding the use of force against political opponents, you can see this kind of speech almost everywhere, on the internet, online newspaper, comments on facebook.
Regarding the court, please see my latest article “Thailand’s Forgotten Key.” There are details of what the courts have done in the past few years. Different paces of prosecution.
Last but not least, people did say they dont want democracy. This kind of conversation is all over the social media.
For other points, thank you krub. I will be more careful next time.
Prabowo’s dog-whistling
So which persona of Prabowo you think will come to the fore if he is elected president?
“It’s important that foreigners tempted to see Prabowo as the leader Indonesia needs understand just how different these two personas are, and ponder which one will come to the fore if Prabowo is elected president”