Thanks Khun Niphon for the comprehensive list, but unfortunately, IMO, none of those things would have worked in a ‘state within a state’ system where powers outside the system were hellbent on removing the government of the people’s choice.
I do appreciate the effort you went to in compiling the list of things reasonable politicians could have done to diffuse the situation, but unfortunately I’ve come to the conclusion that being reasonable just doesn’t cut it in the system the prevails in Thailand.
This article makes for very depressing reading, and I personally see no justice and fairness on the horizon for a sizeable portion of the Thai population. They simply have too powerful and entrenched forces against them. What Thailand needs would be a Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the kind in South-Africa but the elite and their sycophants would never agree to this.
An alternative would be international ostracization though Thailand is not important enough to get this off the ground.
Revolution and an overthrow of the whole corrupt system would be too difficult to achieve since only the army possesses the firing power. The same goes for a civil war. How galling the General┬┤s admonition sounds that “people should be happy” under these hopeless circumstances.
As an educator, I have to say that without a complete overhaul of the Confucian-based formal education system which is intended (among other things) to dumb-down the poor and middle class and so keep them in their place, nothing will change much because the masses will always need to follow a leader and their money – and once they’ve been bought they know the social expectation is that they ‘stay bought’.
“And as for the threats he made against ethnic Chinese in 1997-98 over capital flight during the Asian financial crisis, and his courting of Islamists, why, Prabowo is promising to open a church in Bogor blocked by local Muslim groups. His billionaire brother Hashim Djojohadikusumo has become a born-again Christian, just like many Chinese-Indonesians.”
I find this paragraph to be very uncompelling.
The author seems to be suggesting that just because his brother is a Christian (like many Chinese Indonesians) and that he’s expressed support for following the Supreme Court’s ruling on GKI Yasmin, Prabowo was not involved in inciting anti-Chinese violence in 98 or courting radical Islamists.
There are many much more plausible reasons behind Prabowo’s “alleged” support for GKI Yasmin.
Hashim is GKI. Many Indonesian Chinese business elites are GKI. Gerindra has been courting them via Kristen Indonesia Raya since 2008. It sure makes sense to have a solid position on a high profile issue like GKI Yasmin, especially when your brother is a member of GKI.
Besides, despite the current impasse, pro-GKI Yasmin activitists have managed to raised the profile of the issue both domestically and internationally throughout the years; it has the support of the media, the political mainstream, and the Indonesian judiciary. In other words, at least in politics, it’s difficult for one to oppose the reopening of the church without been relegated to the extremist peripherals, with the likes of FPI. Not to mention the fact that the current mayor of Bogor is a PAN politician with a vested interest to avoid the issue of GKI Yasmin from escalating further. PAN, being a key Gerindra coalition member, most likely have consulted with Prabowo on this issue. In fact, GKI has been in conversation with Gerindra on the issue of GKI Yasmin through Hashim and Kristen Indonesia Raya for a few years, with numerous proposals been entertained.
In light of this, it’s not at all surprising that Prabowo chose not to go full retard on GKIYasmin.
None of these factors rexonerate Prabowo’s dark past – especially when there’s been numerous well-documented facts that show otherwise.
To be more precise. If Thaksin had resigned from politics in 2005, the “frog” would easily have been evicted from power by a nice and quiet “inside palace” revolution. Maybe, as for another king in 1946, the eviction would be called an “unsolved mystery” forever after. And outside of the palace, Thailand would still be a nice and smilly dictatorship called democracy for the fun with poor people agreeing to their own exploitation.
Great article.
It is very much in line with my own laymans observations, mainly based on reading the local english language press.
My question then is: How can these serious issues be almost ignored when the ‘reforms’ are discussed? Is it because any criticism of court decisions is illegal?
I can totally relate to Jokowi’s concern that character-building is sorely needed as major part of Indonesian education.
I own a small business myself, I have seen lots of people and how they work, and I could say that their biggest problem is indeed ethics.
There’s serious lack of self responsibility and integrity here. People often don’t live up to their word, and they tend to be dishonest, they cheat, they lack the drive to strive for excellence, basically they want easy gains and no responsibility. It’s frustrating, and to me that’s actually the number one cause of Indonesia’s backwardness, not to mention stupidity on the part of the ruling elite, causing us to be trapped in some bad choices. So yes, we really have to fix this attitude problem first. They have to really believe they can be better and they have to want it. Then the rest will follow. Truth is the people here are quite messed up, repairing their mental will take a generation or two, but it has to be done. Otherwise we’ll just keep on repeating our screw ups.
I’ll add that it’s very difficult to say whether the Thai citizenry are “willing to withhold [their] suspicions and wait to see”, given that anyone expressing such suspicions has a good chance of landing in jail.
Jokowi’s jejune call for a ‘mental revolution’ is alarming, as the author of this post suggests. There have been mental revolutions in Indonesia before. There was one in the early years of the New Order, when Indonesians had to abandon what was called ‘mental Orde Lama’ and adopt ‘mental Orde Baru’. New Order supporters patiently explained to me what this all meant in January 1968, but I can’t remember any longer what exactly had constituted the ‘mental Orde Lama’. It was probably pretty bad.
Presumably the P4 courses that Soeharto imposed on his long-suffering country a decade and a half later helped solidify the ‘mental Orde Baru’ and rid it of any vestiges of wrong thinking.
One recalls that Roeslan Abdulgani, the nimble Sukarnoist ideological acrobat who had been the spokesman (jubir) for Guided Democracy’s featherweight doctrine, Manipol USDEK, found late-career employment as Soeharto’s principal adviser for P4.
Let’s hope that the character-building program of a more modern Sukarnoist will bear no resemblance to the mind-numbing and dumbing-down excesses of P4, whatever proportion of the educational curriculum it is permitted to swallow up.
Vichai, you have a touching faith in the sincerity of General Prayuth’s call for “reconciliation”. But I agree with your point about failure and success. If Prayuth succeeds, the future of Thailand will be one of suffocating repression; if he fails, further violence is likely on the cards. Either way, Prayuth’s actions have been the final nail in the coffin of Thai democracy.
Great article. Very informative of the institutional failures that have led to and perpetuated this current crisis. One wonders how the country can move forward if people in key positions (civil servants, judges, military etc etc.) are so overtly political, or at least unhelpful to the cause. In my opinion a lot of problems in Thailand are due to an almost insurmountable deference to authority figures (it is quite charming to see this when the people in question are a ‘nong’ young man and a ‘p’ old lady for example but when it is a government official, police man, landlord etc it is more worrying). The people in these positions become, as the writer suggested, to see themselves as like demi-gods. It seems it would be quite easy for things to go terribly wrong in this country with the attitude that the rich have for the poor.
Always like it when people like Niphon tries to justify their general “all Thais” support.
One simple question being asked over and over again… If you have all that support from the farmers, why not go for an election and then RESPECT the result. Otherwise your claiming to speak for the majority of Thais is simply a LIE!
Brit Counter Insurgency in Malaya was for a while a template for the U.S in Vietnam. ABRI civil defence doctrine wasn’t borrowed from the U.S but arose organically from the Independence struggle and suppression of the subsequent regional rebellions. In a contested zone TNI will first form a civilian defence unit, then Brimob will follow and set up their own unit to defend law and order until a permanent Police post is established, or to continue to help Police depending on the security situation. If UNPOL had been just as quick to follow INTERFET in 99, murders and rapes may have been prevented.It’s an ongoing problem for UN Missions.
This counter-factual history seems to assume that it is the figure of Thaksin who lies at the root of the conflict in Thailand. Personally, I’m not so sure. My guess is that even if Thaksin and all his family had resigned from politics in 2005 and been replaced at the head of Thai Rak Thai by a paragon of incorruptibility, we would still have had yellow-shirt demonstrations, a string of judicial and military coups, and the resulting backlash by redshirts. It’s not who the Thai masses vote for that really irritates the Suthepites; it’s the fact that they vote at all.
Can Thailand ever achieve procedural democracy if the army does not accept the principle of civilian control of the military. By 2006 many thought that we as a country had matured enough to stop flirting with military coups. But the events of that year changed that perception, and we’re back on the treadmill of constitution, conflict, crisis, coup d’ état.
One problem is that the military, when it deems it in its interests, and therefore the country’s, will play to a different tune than the government’s symphony. During the PDRC protests the army commander claimed to be neutral, which in fact meant he was aligning himself against the government; this emboldened the PDRC to wreak havoc with impunity, giving the army an excuse to intervene. Thus I would like to add one more question to Prof. Dayley’s seven: With the return to democracy, and for the ultimate good of the country, will the army accept civilian control?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Who’s who in the Thai coup?
Thanks Khun Niphon for the comprehensive list, but unfortunately, IMO, none of those things would have worked in a ‘state within a state’ system where powers outside the system were hellbent on removing the government of the people’s choice.
Perhaps you didn’t see this from December: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/13/us-thailand-protest-military-idUSBRE9BC0PB20131213
It should be noted that is nearly 6 months before the coup – presumably you have noticed the appointments by the junta since the coup?
My guess is the planning started back when Suthep was Deputy PM and Prawit was Defence Minister, and a certain persons health and an arrogant & incompetent government probably forced their hand.
See how many of the names mentioned in Seri Thai’s fine article above are in this old Bangkok Post report: http://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/political-intelligence-privy-council-visits-thai-army-war-room-for-political-c3/
I do appreciate the effort you went to in compiling the list of things reasonable politicians could have done to diffuse the situation, but unfortunately I’ve come to the conclusion that being reasonable just doesn’t cut it in the system the prevails in Thailand.
Thailand’s forgotten key
This article makes for very depressing reading, and I personally see no justice and fairness on the horizon for a sizeable portion of the Thai population. They simply have too powerful and entrenched forces against them. What Thailand needs would be a Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the kind in South-Africa but the elite and their sycophants would never agree to this.
An alternative would be international ostracization though Thailand is not important enough to get this off the ground.
Revolution and an overthrow of the whole corrupt system would be too difficult to achieve since only the army possesses the firing power. The same goes for a civil war. How galling the General┬┤s admonition sounds that “people should be happy” under these hopeless circumstances.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
The famous line will not be “Let them eat cake”
It will be “let them eat Tom Yam Gung”
Thailand’s forgotten key
As an educator, I have to say that without a complete overhaul of the Confucian-based formal education system which is intended (among other things) to dumb-down the poor and middle class and so keep them in their place, nothing will change much because the masses will always need to follow a leader and their money – and once they’ve been bought they know the social expectation is that they ‘stay bought’.
Persona non grata no more?
“And as for the threats he made against ethnic Chinese in 1997-98 over capital flight during the Asian financial crisis, and his courting of Islamists, why, Prabowo is promising to open a church in Bogor blocked by local Muslim groups. His billionaire brother Hashim Djojohadikusumo has become a born-again Christian, just like many Chinese-Indonesians.”
I find this paragraph to be very uncompelling.
The author seems to be suggesting that just because his brother is a Christian (like many Chinese Indonesians) and that he’s expressed support for following the Supreme Court’s ruling on GKI Yasmin, Prabowo was not involved in inciting anti-Chinese violence in 98 or courting radical Islamists.
There are many much more plausible reasons behind Prabowo’s “alleged” support for GKI Yasmin.
Hashim is GKI. Many Indonesian Chinese business elites are GKI. Gerindra has been courting them via Kristen Indonesia Raya since 2008. It sure makes sense to have a solid position on a high profile issue like GKI Yasmin, especially when your brother is a member of GKI.
Besides, despite the current impasse, pro-GKI Yasmin activitists have managed to raised the profile of the issue both domestically and internationally throughout the years; it has the support of the media, the political mainstream, and the Indonesian judiciary. In other words, at least in politics, it’s difficult for one to oppose the reopening of the church without been relegated to the extremist peripherals, with the likes of FPI. Not to mention the fact that the current mayor of Bogor is a PAN politician with a vested interest to avoid the issue of GKI Yasmin from escalating further. PAN, being a key Gerindra coalition member, most likely have consulted with Prabowo on this issue. In fact, GKI has been in conversation with Gerindra on the issue of GKI Yasmin through Hashim and Kristen Indonesia Raya for a few years, with numerous proposals been entertained.
In light of this, it’s not at all surprising that Prabowo chose not to go full retard on GKIYasmin.
None of these factors rexonerate Prabowo’s dark past – especially when there’s been numerous well-documented facts that show otherwise.
Days of future past in Thailand
To be more precise. If Thaksin had resigned from politics in 2005, the “frog” would easily have been evicted from power by a nice and quiet “inside palace” revolution. Maybe, as for another king in 1946, the eviction would be called an “unsolved mystery” forever after. And outside of the palace, Thailand would still be a nice and smilly dictatorship called democracy for the fun with poor people agreeing to their own exploitation.
Songsuda Yodmani and the 2014 coup
Unfortunately this website is blocked in Thailand. An indication of good quality is my take on that.
Thailand’s forgotten key
Great article.
It is very much in line with my own laymans observations, mainly based on reading the local english language press.
My question then is: How can these serious issues be almost ignored when the ‘reforms’ are discussed? Is it because any criticism of court decisions is illegal?
So what is Jokowi’s message?
I can totally relate to Jokowi’s concern that character-building is sorely needed as major part of Indonesian education.
I own a small business myself, I have seen lots of people and how they work, and I could say that their biggest problem is indeed ethics.
There’s serious lack of self responsibility and integrity here. People often don’t live up to their word, and they tend to be dishonest, they cheat, they lack the drive to strive for excellence, basically they want easy gains and no responsibility. It’s frustrating, and to me that’s actually the number one cause of Indonesia’s backwardness, not to mention stupidity on the part of the ruling elite, causing us to be trapped in some bad choices. So yes, we really have to fix this attitude problem first. They have to really believe they can be better and they have to want it. Then the rest will follow. Truth is the people here are quite messed up, repairing their mental will take a generation or two, but it has to be done. Otherwise we’ll just keep on repeating our screw ups.
Who’s who in the Thai coup?
I’ll add that it’s very difficult to say whether the Thai citizenry are “willing to withhold [their] suspicions and wait to see”, given that anyone expressing such suspicions has a good chance of landing in jail.
So what is Jokowi’s message?
Jokowi’s jejune call for a ‘mental revolution’ is alarming, as the author of this post suggests. There have been mental revolutions in Indonesia before. There was one in the early years of the New Order, when Indonesians had to abandon what was called ‘mental Orde Lama’ and adopt ‘mental Orde Baru’. New Order supporters patiently explained to me what this all meant in January 1968, but I can’t remember any longer what exactly had constituted the ‘mental Orde Lama’. It was probably pretty bad.
Presumably the P4 courses that Soeharto imposed on his long-suffering country a decade and a half later helped solidify the ‘mental Orde Baru’ and rid it of any vestiges of wrong thinking.
One recalls that Roeslan Abdulgani, the nimble Sukarnoist ideological acrobat who had been the spokesman (jubir) for Guided Democracy’s featherweight doctrine, Manipol USDEK, found late-career employment as Soeharto’s principal adviser for P4.
Let’s hope that the character-building program of a more modern Sukarnoist will bear no resemblance to the mind-numbing and dumbing-down excesses of P4, whatever proportion of the educational curriculum it is permitted to swallow up.
Who’s who in the Thai coup?
Vichai, you have a touching faith in the sincerity of General Prayuth’s call for “reconciliation”. But I agree with your point about failure and success. If Prayuth succeeds, the future of Thailand will be one of suffocating repression; if he fails, further violence is likely on the cards. Either way, Prayuth’s actions have been the final nail in the coffin of Thai democracy.
Thailand’s forgotten key
Great article. Very informative of the institutional failures that have led to and perpetuated this current crisis. One wonders how the country can move forward if people in key positions (civil servants, judges, military etc etc.) are so overtly political, or at least unhelpful to the cause. In my opinion a lot of problems in Thailand are due to an almost insurmountable deference to authority figures (it is quite charming to see this when the people in question are a ‘nong’ young man and a ‘p’ old lady for example but when it is a government official, police man, landlord etc it is more worrying). The people in these positions become, as the writer suggested, to see themselves as like demi-gods. It seems it would be quite easy for things to go terribly wrong in this country with the attitude that the rich have for the poor.
Who’s who in the Thai coup?
Always like it when people like Niphon tries to justify their general “all Thais” support.
One simple question being asked over and over again… If you have all that support from the farmers, why not go for an election and then RESPECT the result. Otherwise your claiming to speak for the majority of Thais is simply a LIE!
Persona non grata no more?
Brit Counter Insurgency in Malaya was for a while a template for the U.S in Vietnam. ABRI civil defence doctrine wasn’t borrowed from the U.S but arose organically from the Independence struggle and suppression of the subsequent regional rebellions. In a contested zone TNI will first form a civilian defence unit, then Brimob will follow and set up their own unit to defend law and order until a permanent Police post is established, or to continue to help Police depending on the security situation. If UNPOL had been just as quick to follow INTERFET in 99, murders and rapes may have been prevented.It’s an ongoing problem for UN Missions.
Thailand’s forgotten key
A good article, should be read by everyone.
Days of future past in Thailand
This counter-factual history seems to assume that it is the figure of Thaksin who lies at the root of the conflict in Thailand. Personally, I’m not so sure. My guess is that even if Thaksin and all his family had resigned from politics in 2005 and been replaced at the head of Thai Rak Thai by a paragon of incorruptibility, we would still have had yellow-shirt demonstrations, a string of judicial and military coups, and the resulting backlash by redshirts. It’s not who the Thai masses vote for that really irritates the Suthepites; it’s the fact that they vote at all.
Thailand’s forgotten key
[…] Original Source […]
Days of future past in Thailand
That’s a movie plot line that gonna break Thai box office record.
Seven questions for Thailand’s military
Can Thailand ever achieve procedural democracy if the army does not accept the principle of civilian control of the military. By 2006 many thought that we as a country had matured enough to stop flirting with military coups. But the events of that year changed that perception, and we’re back on the treadmill of constitution, conflict, crisis, coup d’ état.
One problem is that the military, when it deems it in its interests, and therefore the country’s, will play to a different tune than the government’s symphony. During the PDRC protests the army commander claimed to be neutral, which in fact meant he was aligning himself against the government; this emboldened the PDRC to wreak havoc with impunity, giving the army an excuse to intervene. Thus I would like to add one more question to Prof. Dayley’s seven: With the return to democracy, and for the ultimate good of the country, will the army accept civilian control?