It seems the junta’s international PR blitz is moving into gear with summonses to foreign nationals residing overseas charged with violations of Section 112 to report to the army auditorium at their own expense, including Giles Ungkaporn (British), Rose Amornphat (British) and Jakrophob Nualkair (Cambodian?).
It is a wonder that MICT has not been ordered to block NM in Thailand and that the junta has not yet invited Prof Walker and other foreign academics in for a chat at the army auditorium too. In this context I wonder what effect coming “out of the closet” by publicly criticizing the monarchy has on the ability of foreign Thai studies academics to work effectively in their chosen field. Being unable to travel to Thailand to do field work or even just talk to ordinary Thais must create a certain distance from the subject matter and a staleness of perspective. Do they risk becoming like the Cuban exiles in Miami who dream of a Cuba that exists only in their imaginations, as they plan to put McDonalds and KFC on the Malecon and reintroduce casinos, brothels and drug related crime to their homeland?
Khun Nganadeeleg, I believe you have misunderstood me.
I did not say or mean to imply that there is no difference between a coup and an election. Clearly a coup is illegal and an election is not.
I was pointing out that there are alternative interpretations to the one offered by some that the King’s acceptance of coup governments means that he supported the illegal takeovers and in some case was secretly behind them. I suggest that one possible alternative is that the King may generally see his role as one that is constitutionally outside of political conflict and therefore formally endorses whatever government manages to win de facto control of the country. I also suggested that if he had denounced previous coups, such as those by Pibulsonggram and Sarit, the military might have eliminated the monarchy. More important, royal opposition to a coup might have triggered civil war and great loss of life. In 1981 a coup by one faction of the military seized Bangkok, but failed to gain control over the rest of the country. The King did not denounce the coup, but he did not formally approve the coup group as government and it was ultimately defeated. Only few lives were lost in that conflict, but it could easily have been much worse.
One argument in favor of this alternate interpretation — that formal acceptance does not mean approval or support — is that at several times in our history coup or popular uprising has overthrown a government installed by a coup group that was formally accepted by the King. This happened in 1973 and 1977, and, it could be argued, in 1992 when coup leader and army commander Gen. Suchinda was forced to resign and give up ambitious to be PM. If the king was so supportive of the coup groups, it seems strange that he would so quickly support their overthrow. Whether or not this is the correct interpretation of events, I am not certain. But, since we have little hard evidence of the King’s thinking, we should be open to alternative interpretations.
We should also consider that it is easy for us to say the King should oppose and denounce every coup because our words have no consequences, but the King’s words against the powerful military could lead to serious violence and loss of life.
In considering the current situation, however, I don’t think we should focus so much on the role of the monarch. My main point was that Prof. Walker not only overemphasizes the role of the monarch, but greatly oversimplies the factors that led to the coup. While I agree the refusal of the Democrats to participation in the election was a factor, much more attention should be paid to the failure of civilian politicians on all sides to settle their differences within the framework of the law. Also critical was the power and the thinking of the military leadership in seizing power at this time.
Going forward, these factors will be important in shaping future events. How will the military manage announced plan to return to elections? What change will they make to rules of the game? Will they easy up on their suppression of civil rights? What kind of interim administration will they appoint? What role will generals play as the process moves forward? Will they try to maintain powerful role after elections?
On civilian side: How will Thaksin and Pheua Thai react to the military process – oppose it or go along, expecting to win in elections in the end game? How will the grassroots Red Shirts react — lay low and avoid violence while preparing for elections or start the kind of violent actions that have torn the three southernmost provinces? Will Suthep and his followers accept elections that could return Pheua Thai to power in 15-18 months? Will Democrats agree to participate in an election that will probably lose? Will they insist on rules changes that undermine a reasonably democratic system? How can the good governance interests of the income tax-paying middle class be protected in a future government controlled by Pheua Thai? What rules will all sides accept on limitations on protests that will prevent the disruption and chaos that have disoriented the country for nearly a decade? Can police be reformed so they fairly enforce the law?
These, I think, are the questions that we should be discussing.
We have never been told, have we? There have been six or seven months of continuous demonstrations during which time nobody has clearly set out what reforms they actually want – certainly not Abhisit, despite his “reforms together with elections” scheme. The only issue regularly mentioned is vote-buying, which most serious analysts consider no longer plays a significant role and clearly did not help the “Democrats” in 2011, when they actually outspent Pheu Thai. So I guess PT and the Thaksinites could live with that. Obviously their real objective is to completely neuter the rural pro-Thaksin/PT vote; no more, no less. Two approaches seem possible. The first is to find a means of restricting by law the ability of parties to campaign in future on genuinely (and in my view, necessary) wealth re-distributive policies, which they deride as “populist”. However trying to do this may be fraught with difficulties. More likely and as Bangkok Pundit has pointed out, the plan is to introduce functional constituencies rather like Hong Kong, where key professions have seats reserved for them Clearly it does not represent democracy but, if they get the percentages right, it should enable them to control the result.
Yes Ross, those of us who indulge in the minutiae of Indonesian esoterica are a bit like men who try to tell women what to wear, we should probably get a life.
In the meantime, your reference to the Flobamora Institute allows me to introduce their spokesman, top cop from Atambua Alfons Loemau. Alfons is a frequent flyer to Perth, where he has family and a business. Prabowo has anointed him as a Foreign Affairs spokesman so perhaps we should take a peek at his past. For, along with his boss, Alfons has some pademelons bopping around the top paddock too.
SBY sent local plods Alfons and Mere to bribe militia and save face for Indonesia after the Atambua UNHCR murders. Flushed with success, Alfons threw his hat in the ring for Governor, using rentacrowd militia as his Tim Sukses. Sadly, predictably really, Tim Sukses began pummelling passersby who declined their offer to participate in his campaign,and were sent down to the slammer. In strides Alfons, breaks a few doors, snots a coupla cops and pulls his guys outta jail. After that it was byebye to Governor Alfons.
Suharto, Habibie, Mega and SBY all had Perth connections. Perhaps Prabowo is heading the same way? Will Tim Sukses get freebies to check out the nightlife and army surplus stores? Or should we get a life.
Pierre, Suthep’s a demogogue. He’s a politican. You don’t need to like him. But doesn’t his rethoric about graft and corruption and democractic tyranny hold some substance? That’s the main issue that you and your friends disseminate. Focus on the issue of democracy and how Thailand can accomplish it in this environment whhen the people only see it as being voting. How Naive!!
But that’s not the main issue. The main issue is that a felon-in-flight is ochestrating through his sycophants and cronies, the demise of democracy
Your interview is to me an over-simplification of the situation. You never analyse or discuss why any previous governments whether through elections or put in place by coups have never put any emphasis on buildiing up the awareness and instilling in the population in the countryside what democracy is all about. All that our policitcians have done is to say that democracy is elections and majority rules.
You never ever mention the fallacy of the devious attempts by thaksin to bastardize and undermine democracy by placing emphasis on voting, not on awareness and understanding. You never mention the bloated bureaucracy and huge budget of the Ministry of Education that is top heavy in admnistrative roles but has no endeavors to improve the knowledge and skills of teahers. You never mention that through democractic means thaksin muzzled the local media using state budget for advertising.
All you’ve done is to continue the old and well-worn cliche of monarchy as an impediment to democracy. The King’s role as Head of State does allow him legally to interfere whith politicians or the Military. It is only through his prestige and stature that he can have any influence. Would you wish of him to involve himself with the every day dealings of geovernment then you’d have more of your New Madalites jumping on him as an absolute monarch. Democracy should be left to politicians to grow and nurture. HMK has done his best, in his own way, to help and nurture his people through his Royal initiatives.
It’s the politicians, business oligarchies, and the military who must change their attitudes towards democracy. It’s the politicians, business oligarchies, and the military who must put in the effort to ensure that corruption, graft, nepotism, intimidation, and murder is not embedded in democracy. These things you have not mentioned.
Do you really think that things will change overnight if there wsn’t a king? The rot is withy our politicians, businessmen, and military. And that’s the fallacy of your insistent concern and focus on Monarchy and military.
IF its all about Thaksin why don’t the elite have him bumped off or disappeared?
Please don”t get me wrong I’m not saying he should be bumped off or disappeared just saying why they won’t do it.
Hell knows there are plenty of hit men available to the elites and nuisance people disappear all the time.
No the elites worst nightmare must be that someone might take out Thaksin. If that happened people might say ah Thaksin has gone we can have democracy and elections again.
Ah that would never do.
What the elite wants to do is rig the system so they and only they can control parliament.
memo to @notdisappointed
Calling the voters who vote for Mr. T “Kwai Daeng” as Mr. Suthip had been doing nightly is not a smart way to win friends and influence people, don’t you think?
But having said that I’d personally like to see true reform of the process of and understanding of democracy. A democracy that doesn’t just rely on the vote. We should start with education; unhindered electioneering; do away with promises of populist policies that are fiscally irresponsible; have neutrality of the government apparatuses on the ground from village headmen on up to the governor of provinces and provincial police and government ministries and so forth.
I’m sure with so many of the brain trust here on New Mandala that ideas can be garnered to provide ideas for good, well-meaning reforms. Without the snide witticism and sarcasm that is so emblematic of this site.
Erico Damanche and other leftists and well-meaning farangs.
“It is a contest between a royalist establishment, including the military brass, elite bureaucrats and big business, and a mainly rural-based “red shirt” movement loyal to populist former premier Thaksin Shinawatra” This is such OLD news replayed over and over. A well-worn cliche used so often to disseminate from the real facts and truth.
The truth is that there is this preoccupation with the Monarchy, royalists elites, and the poor against the elites.
The facts are plainly simple. Thaksin wishes to turn Thailand into a private piggy bank. He sees himself as the President with a Prime Minister under him, who he controls. He wishes to become an imperial president as in the case of Putin and formerly Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. He wishes a one party state where he can dictate policy and state programs to enrich himself, his family, his sycophants and supporters.
Why is there no mention of the inept governance of his sister, the corruption plagued rice scheme that has seen Baht500Billion in losses to the state coffers and the disappearance of 3.0MM tons of rice from government warehouses, abuse of power, turning the country into a facist police state?
Many so-called “knowledgeable” Western writers disseminate, gloss over or at best, misunderstands the intention of the call for a People’s Council. This coup should reform the failed democratic system in Thailand. It is not intended to govern the country long-term. The intention is to reform the present failed system, then hold elections in one-year’s time. Is that so hard to understand? It’s intent is to do away with vote-buying and populist agendas that enriches politicians and gives handouts to the poor farmers as a form of government sponsored bribery. These populist policies sounding good on paper actually drains the country’s tresury and is fiscally irresponsible. Thais want democracy,but we do not want parliamentray dictatorship or a tyranny of the majority. We want real democracy where the voices of the minority is just as important as that of the so-majority. A true democracy not a faux-democracy under the guise of elections that just brings in a form of majoritanism or tyranny of the majority. A democracy that isn’t disguised as populism and concern for the poor. A democracy that is fiscally responsible not used to pillage the country’s treasury.
It’s not about the King, royalists, elites, reds against yellows, and etc. it’s about thaksin and will always be about thaksin. It’s about his repeated and continuing attempts to undermine true democratic principles and replace it with democratic dictatorship. It’s an oyymoron to say that thaksin is a democratist. And if you guys think that way then you are misinformed at best and dillusional at worse.
What about this do you people don’t get? But of course you can’t and won’t listen to opionions that differ form yours. you.d rather listen to political dillitantes such as Pavin, and bought and paid for, fake-journalists such as Andrew Macgregor Marshall who has a ‘thing’ with all things dealing with the Monarchy. Or how about BBC’s J. Head who should know better but downplays the facts and overplays your well-worn cliches.
@Niphon: That you do not see any difference between formally endorsing elected governments and formally endorsing military coups explains a lot about you, and about Thailand.
btw, the King CAN withhold consent and has done so before.
I cannot put my website address here as it is under attack at the moment and so cannot be reached.
Rather than refute an argument, any argument, the Royal Thai Army’s approach is always to destroy that argument and its author if possible, or in this case merely its purveyor … if your only tool is a gun, then quick, kill someone or something.
We’re very lucky the Royal Thai Army has no nuclear weapons … if they had, our world would by now be a radioactive cinder.
I see that the Thai police, in the role of snatch and grab artists, have come under the Royal Thai Army’s command. Perhaps the Royal Thai Army’s Leader – who so resembles Sarit – has also adopted the aphorism of Phao, as did Thaksin before him, according to Chang Noi,
“There is nothing under the sun that the Thai police Army cannot do.”
I’ll explain to my friends as they ask, young Thai enthusiasts of English or Biology or Chemistry or NASA’s endeavors, at one or another of the other domains on the same server, that, in order to make us “happy”, the Royal Thai Army has removed our work.
And to Americans involved in American politics at other domains that the Royal Thai Army – archenemy of democracy worldwide, wherever it raises its ugly head – has seen fit to censor them. That the Royal Thai Army is spreading “happiness” their way as well, with respect to American electoral politics and constitutional amendment.
I’m sure all will be able to draw their own conclusions – “happy” or not – as to the true nature of the Royal Thai Army, as it continues to spread “happiness” throughout the world from the barrels of its guns.
The power of the military isn’t due to the failure of politicians, their intervention can be due to it but not entirely.The military career path leads to political power after retiring , unless of course by way of coups. The Thai military, as opposed to Western militaries, which are for professional soldiers in an army set up as a defence force against external threat; are a
integral part of Thai governance. It shouldn’t be so as it usurps the role of Parliament.Unless this role is changed in the constitution we’ll always have the possibility of coups.The King should have never rubber stamped military coups. The fact that he did so many times (not this time though,he isn’t capable giving assent in his condition)tells me that he wasn’t acting independently. I do agree with you that the King couldn’t denounce coup leaders, he is hostage to manipulators and probably was from the get go.The monarchy is a tool for the elite to keep the class system in place. The military is part of that class system. Prayuth could be the next PM to be elected after he retires and heads a political party. This has been the norm. Next step would be the Privy Council. You never let go of control. The problem for them now is that they have to find another pliable King to play a role . If they can’t do that, we have a system change on the cards.
Yes, very good. As you have just shown, there are some instances when one can get in trouble for saying certain things. The example you chose is a great one. Causing offense and inciting violence are the obvious other ones- ‘On Liberty’ by John Stuart Mill talks about these issues. Social norms very often conflict with Rights of expression/ speech etc. Examples include burning flags, using racist language, criticising political figures etc etc. I suppose the burden of proof should be with those who are curtailing freedoms but it is a complicated issue. Personally, I can’t see why someone should be arrested for saying anything. If we had the power to (which we may already have) read peoples thoughts, would we charge them for thought crime, that’s the next step along this road of ‘logic’.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Video: Andrew Walker on latest Thai coup
It seems the junta’s international PR blitz is moving into gear with summonses to foreign nationals residing overseas charged with violations of Section 112 to report to the army auditorium at their own expense, including Giles Ungkaporn (British), Rose Amornphat (British) and Jakrophob Nualkair (Cambodian?).
It is a wonder that MICT has not been ordered to block NM in Thailand and that the junta has not yet invited Prof Walker and other foreign academics in for a chat at the army auditorium too. In this context I wonder what effect coming “out of the closet” by publicly criticizing the monarchy has on the ability of foreign Thai studies academics to work effectively in their chosen field. Being unable to travel to Thailand to do field work or even just talk to ordinary Thais must create a certain distance from the subject matter and a staleness of perspective. Do they risk becoming like the Cuban exiles in Miami who dream of a Cuba that exists only in their imaginations, as they plan to put McDonalds and KFC on the Malecon and reintroduce casinos, brothels and drug related crime to their homeland?
Video: Andrew Walker on latest Thai coup
Khun Nganadeeleg, I believe you have misunderstood me.
I did not say or mean to imply that there is no difference between a coup and an election. Clearly a coup is illegal and an election is not.
I was pointing out that there are alternative interpretations to the one offered by some that the King’s acceptance of coup governments means that he supported the illegal takeovers and in some case was secretly behind them. I suggest that one possible alternative is that the King may generally see his role as one that is constitutionally outside of political conflict and therefore formally endorses whatever government manages to win de facto control of the country. I also suggested that if he had denounced previous coups, such as those by Pibulsonggram and Sarit, the military might have eliminated the monarchy. More important, royal opposition to a coup might have triggered civil war and great loss of life. In 1981 a coup by one faction of the military seized Bangkok, but failed to gain control over the rest of the country. The King did not denounce the coup, but he did not formally approve the coup group as government and it was ultimately defeated. Only few lives were lost in that conflict, but it could easily have been much worse.
One argument in favor of this alternate interpretation — that formal acceptance does not mean approval or support — is that at several times in our history coup or popular uprising has overthrown a government installed by a coup group that was formally accepted by the King. This happened in 1973 and 1977, and, it could be argued, in 1992 when coup leader and army commander Gen. Suchinda was forced to resign and give up ambitious to be PM. If the king was so supportive of the coup groups, it seems strange that he would so quickly support their overthrow. Whether or not this is the correct interpretation of events, I am not certain. But, since we have little hard evidence of the King’s thinking, we should be open to alternative interpretations.
We should also consider that it is easy for us to say the King should oppose and denounce every coup because our words have no consequences, but the King’s words against the powerful military could lead to serious violence and loss of life.
In considering the current situation, however, I don’t think we should focus so much on the role of the monarch. My main point was that Prof. Walker not only overemphasizes the role of the monarch, but greatly oversimplies the factors that led to the coup. While I agree the refusal of the Democrats to participation in the election was a factor, much more attention should be paid to the failure of civilian politicians on all sides to settle their differences within the framework of the law. Also critical was the power and the thinking of the military leadership in seizing power at this time.
Going forward, these factors will be important in shaping future events. How will the military manage announced plan to return to elections? What change will they make to rules of the game? Will they easy up on their suppression of civil rights? What kind of interim administration will they appoint? What role will generals play as the process moves forward? Will they try to maintain powerful role after elections?
On civilian side: How will Thaksin and Pheua Thai react to the military process – oppose it or go along, expecting to win in elections in the end game? How will the grassroots Red Shirts react — lay low and avoid violence while preparing for elections or start the kind of violent actions that have torn the three southernmost provinces? Will Suthep and his followers accept elections that could return Pheua Thai to power in 15-18 months? Will Democrats agree to participate in an election that will probably lose? Will they insist on rules changes that undermine a reasonably democratic system? How can the good governance interests of the income tax-paying middle class be protected in a future government controlled by Pheua Thai? What rules will all sides accept on limitations on protests that will prevent the disruption and chaos that have disoriented the country for nearly a decade? Can police be reformed so they fairly enforce the law?
These, I think, are the questions that we should be discussing.
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
I think BangkokPundit has lined out where it might be heading:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/123475/analysis-of-professional-organization-constituencies-in-hong-kong/
..and I’m sure it’s going to be ugly for all sides
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
We have never been told, have we? There have been six or seven months of continuous demonstrations during which time nobody has clearly set out what reforms they actually want – certainly not Abhisit, despite his “reforms together with elections” scheme. The only issue regularly mentioned is vote-buying, which most serious analysts consider no longer plays a significant role and clearly did not help the “Democrats” in 2011, when they actually outspent Pheu Thai. So I guess PT and the Thaksinites could live with that. Obviously their real objective is to completely neuter the rural pro-Thaksin/PT vote; no more, no less. Two approaches seem possible. The first is to find a means of restricting by law the ability of parties to campaign in future on genuinely (and in my view, necessary) wealth re-distributive policies, which they deride as “populist”. However trying to do this may be fraught with difficulties. More likely and as Bangkok Pundit has pointed out, the plan is to introduce functional constituencies rather like Hong Kong, where key professions have seats reserved for them Clearly it does not represent democracy but, if they get the percentages right, it should enable them to control the result.
Freaky Friday
Yes Ross, those of us who indulge in the minutiae of Indonesian esoterica are a bit like men who try to tell women what to wear, we should probably get a life.
In the meantime, your reference to the Flobamora Institute allows me to introduce their spokesman, top cop from Atambua Alfons Loemau. Alfons is a frequent flyer to Perth, where he has family and a business. Prabowo has anointed him as a Foreign Affairs spokesman so perhaps we should take a peek at his past. For, along with his boss, Alfons has some pademelons bopping around the top paddock too.
SBY sent local plods Alfons and Mere to bribe militia and save face for Indonesia after the Atambua UNHCR murders. Flushed with success, Alfons threw his hat in the ring for Governor, using rentacrowd militia as his Tim Sukses. Sadly, predictably really, Tim Sukses began pummelling passersby who declined their offer to participate in his campaign,and were sent down to the slammer. In strides Alfons, breaks a few doors, snots a coupla cops and pulls his guys outta jail. After that it was byebye to Governor Alfons.
Suharto, Habibie, Mega and SBY all had Perth connections. Perhaps Prabowo is heading the same way? Will Tim Sukses get freebies to check out the nightlife and army surplus stores? Or should we get a life.
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
Pierre, Suthep’s a demogogue. He’s a politican. You don’t need to like him. But doesn’t his rethoric about graft and corruption and democractic tyranny hold some substance? That’s the main issue that you and your friends disseminate. Focus on the issue of democracy and how Thailand can accomplish it in this environment whhen the people only see it as being voting. How Naive!!
But that’s not the main issue. The main issue is that a felon-in-flight is ochestrating through his sycophants and cronies, the demise of democracy
Video: Andrew Walker on latest Thai coup
Andrew.
Your interview is to me an over-simplification of the situation. You never analyse or discuss why any previous governments whether through elections or put in place by coups have never put any emphasis on buildiing up the awareness and instilling in the population in the countryside what democracy is all about. All that our policitcians have done is to say that democracy is elections and majority rules.
You never ever mention the fallacy of the devious attempts by thaksin to bastardize and undermine democracy by placing emphasis on voting, not on awareness and understanding. You never mention the bloated bureaucracy and huge budget of the Ministry of Education that is top heavy in admnistrative roles but has no endeavors to improve the knowledge and skills of teahers. You never mention that through democractic means thaksin muzzled the local media using state budget for advertising.
All you’ve done is to continue the old and well-worn cliche of monarchy as an impediment to democracy. The King’s role as Head of State does allow him legally to interfere whith politicians or the Military. It is only through his prestige and stature that he can have any influence. Would you wish of him to involve himself with the every day dealings of geovernment then you’d have more of your New Madalites jumping on him as an absolute monarch. Democracy should be left to politicians to grow and nurture. HMK has done his best, in his own way, to help and nurture his people through his Royal initiatives.
It’s the politicians, business oligarchies, and the military who must change their attitudes towards democracy. It’s the politicians, business oligarchies, and the military who must put in the effort to ensure that corruption, graft, nepotism, intimidation, and murder is not embedded in democracy. These things you have not mentioned.
Do you really think that things will change overnight if there wsn’t a king? The rot is withy our politicians, businessmen, and military. And that’s the fallacy of your insistent concern and focus on Monarchy and military.
Songsuda Yodmani and the 2014 coup
There is this take on the old fascist as well: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/damned-foreigners/
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
IF its all about Thaksin why don’t the elite have him bumped off or disappeared?
Please don”t get me wrong I’m not saying he should be bumped off or disappeared just saying why they won’t do it.
Hell knows there are plenty of hit men available to the elites and nuisance people disappear all the time.
No the elites worst nightmare must be that someone might take out Thaksin. If that happened people might say ah Thaksin has gone we can have democracy and elections again.
Ah that would never do.
What the elite wants to do is rig the system so they and only they can control parliament.
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
memo to @notdisappointed
Calling the voters who vote for Mr. T “Kwai Daeng” as Mr. Suthip had been doing nightly is not a smart way to win friends and influence people, don’t you think?
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
Andrew walker.
If I knew I’d be part of the Junta.
But having said that I’d personally like to see true reform of the process of and understanding of democracy. A democracy that doesn’t just rely on the vote. We should start with education; unhindered electioneering; do away with promises of populist policies that are fiscally irresponsible; have neutrality of the government apparatuses on the ground from village headmen on up to the governor of provinces and provincial police and government ministries and so forth.
I’m sure with so many of the brain trust here on New Mandala that ideas can be garnered to provide ideas for good, well-meaning reforms. Without the snide witticism and sarcasm that is so emblematic of this site.
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
How will an election in a year or so be different to the elections since 2001? How will the reforms prevent a pro-Thaksin party from winning again?
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
Erico Damanche and other leftists and well-meaning farangs.
“It is a contest between a royalist establishment, including the military brass, elite bureaucrats and big business, and a mainly rural-based “red shirt” movement loyal to populist former premier Thaksin Shinawatra” This is such OLD news replayed over and over. A well-worn cliche used so often to disseminate from the real facts and truth.
The truth is that there is this preoccupation with the Monarchy, royalists elites, and the poor against the elites.
The facts are plainly simple. Thaksin wishes to turn Thailand into a private piggy bank. He sees himself as the President with a Prime Minister under him, who he controls. He wishes to become an imperial president as in the case of Putin and formerly Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. He wishes a one party state where he can dictate policy and state programs to enrich himself, his family, his sycophants and supporters.
Why is there no mention of the inept governance of his sister, the corruption plagued rice scheme that has seen Baht500Billion in losses to the state coffers and the disappearance of 3.0MM tons of rice from government warehouses, abuse of power, turning the country into a facist police state?
Many so-called “knowledgeable” Western writers disseminate, gloss over or at best, misunderstands the intention of the call for a People’s Council. This coup should reform the failed democratic system in Thailand. It is not intended to govern the country long-term. The intention is to reform the present failed system, then hold elections in one-year’s time. Is that so hard to understand? It’s intent is to do away with vote-buying and populist agendas that enriches politicians and gives handouts to the poor farmers as a form of government sponsored bribery. These populist policies sounding good on paper actually drains the country’s tresury and is fiscally irresponsible. Thais want democracy,but we do not want parliamentray dictatorship or a tyranny of the majority. We want real democracy where the voices of the minority is just as important as that of the so-majority. A true democracy not a faux-democracy under the guise of elections that just brings in a form of majoritanism or tyranny of the majority. A democracy that isn’t disguised as populism and concern for the poor. A democracy that is fiscally responsible not used to pillage the country’s treasury.
It’s not about the King, royalists, elites, reds against yellows, and etc. it’s about thaksin and will always be about thaksin. It’s about his repeated and continuing attempts to undermine true democratic principles and replace it with democratic dictatorship. It’s an oyymoron to say that thaksin is a democratist. And if you guys think that way then you are misinformed at best and dillusional at worse.
What about this do you people don’t get? But of course you can’t and won’t listen to opionions that differ form yours. you.d rather listen to political dillitantes such as Pavin, and bought and paid for, fake-journalists such as Andrew Macgregor Marshall who has a ‘thing’ with all things dealing with the Monarchy. Or how about BBC’s J. Head who should know better but downplays the facts and overplays your well-worn cliches.
After the coup
It seems like ASEAN chair “Myanmar” (phama in thai) is supporting the newest military junta in Thailand (yodhaya in burmese). See:
http://www.dvb.no/dvb-video/word-of-support-from-burma-says-thai-army-coup-burma/41256
Video: Andrew Walker on latest Thai coup
@Niphon: That you do not see any difference between formally endorsing elected governments and formally endorsing military coups explains a lot about you, and about Thailand.
btw, the King CAN withhold consent and has done so before.
Jokowi the party man
i hope the best win 🙂 jokowi or prabowo
yeah jokowi using unique way, different than prabowo, just wait and see at june 9
Thailand’s invitation to violence
I cannot put my website address here as it is under attack at the moment and so cannot be reached.
Rather than refute an argument, any argument, the Royal Thai Army’s approach is always to destroy that argument and its author if possible, or in this case merely its purveyor … if your only tool is a gun, then quick, kill someone or something.
We’re very lucky the Royal Thai Army has no nuclear weapons … if they had, our world would by now be a radioactive cinder.
I see that the Thai police, in the role of snatch and grab artists, have come under the Royal Thai Army’s command. Perhaps the Royal Thai Army’s Leader – who so resembles Sarit – has also adopted the aphorism of Phao, as did Thaksin before him, according to Chang Noi,
“There is nothing under the sun that the Thai
policeArmy cannot do.”I’ll explain to my friends as they ask, young Thai enthusiasts of English or Biology or Chemistry or NASA’s endeavors, at one or another of the other domains on the same server, that, in order to make us “happy”, the Royal Thai Army has removed our work.
And to Americans involved in American politics at other domains that the Royal Thai Army – archenemy of democracy worldwide, wherever it raises its ugly head – has seen fit to censor them. That the Royal Thai Army is spreading “happiness” their way as well, with respect to American electoral politics and constitutional amendment.
I’m sure all will be able to draw their own conclusions – “happy” or not – as to the true nature of the Royal Thai Army, as it continues to spread “happiness” throughout the world from the barrels of its guns.
Video: Andrew Walker on latest Thai coup
@Niphon
The power of the military isn’t due to the failure of politicians, their intervention can be due to it but not entirely.The military career path leads to political power after retiring , unless of course by way of coups. The Thai military, as opposed to Western militaries, which are for professional soldiers in an army set up as a defence force against external threat; are a
integral part of Thai governance. It shouldn’t be so as it usurps the role of Parliament.Unless this role is changed in the constitution we’ll always have the possibility of coups.The King should have never rubber stamped military coups. The fact that he did so many times (not this time though,he isn’t capable giving assent in his condition)tells me that he wasn’t acting independently. I do agree with you that the King couldn’t denounce coup leaders, he is hostage to manipulators and probably was from the get go.The monarchy is a tool for the elite to keep the class system in place. The military is part of that class system. Prayuth could be the next PM to be elected after he retires and heads a political party. This has been the norm. Next step would be the Privy Council. You never let go of control. The problem for them now is that they have to find another pliable King to play a role . If they can’t do that, we have a system change on the cards.
NTEU condemns Thai coup
Yes, very good. As you have just shown, there are some instances when one can get in trouble for saying certain things. The example you chose is a great one. Causing offense and inciting violence are the obvious other ones- ‘On Liberty’ by John Stuart Mill talks about these issues. Social norms very often conflict with Rights of expression/ speech etc. Examples include burning flags, using racist language, criticising political figures etc etc. I suppose the burden of proof should be with those who are curtailing freedoms but it is a complicated issue. Personally, I can’t see why someone should be arrested for saying anything. If we had the power to (which we may already have) read peoples thoughts, would we charge them for thought crime, that’s the next step along this road of ‘logic’.
Video: Andrew Walker on latest Thai coup
I agree, I usually agree with their statements, and appreciate someone being able to articulate thoughts well beyond my ability to state.