Second, you have come across as an ill-informed person or may be you are just na├пve. Your question: “On Theravada Buddhism & Thai polity, are they co-related? My answer is: No, they do not have to be “co-related.” Monks ( mere mortal) and laypersons, who have “hijacked” the Buddha’s religion to fuel their agendas and thus, make dirty of the Buddha’s robe, have been criticized by both the social media and in on-line news publication. The example of that is the monk, Issara, who has been linked to Mr. Suthep, a PDRC’s leader. An excerpt of written conversations about the monk, Issara, is bellow.
Thai Intelligence тАП@thai_intel ┬╖ Feb 6
elite serving, #election commission head, invite #religious symbol of #Fascist #Suthep movement, bless commission> pic.twitter.com/PaMrUHJZdu
Media War тАП@MediaWar ┬╖ Feb 6
@thai_intel uhhmmm…. Terry, pls explain: WTF some monk (supposedly RENOUNCED person) has anything to do with politics?
Another article which I deem useful to understand religion and politic in Thailand is ‘Thailand’s 3D Conflict,’ which published recently here on New Mandala.
Does that not just show what a fickle, ignorant bunch most of the Bangkok middle-class are? Benedict Anderson of Cornell University famously described them as “timid, selfish, uncultured, consumerist and without any decent vision of the future of the country”. Truth to tell, I know many of them socially – actually often delightful people in many cases, who are nonetheless not a jot more knowledgeable about Thailand’s realities than are the Isaan “buffaloes”, who they so disparage, I met many of the latter at Rachaprasong in April 2010 and I can tell you that they were far from ignorant of the political and economic realities that Thailand faced then and continues to face.
The “reforms” will be the following: The election results will be declared null and void, the Pheu Thai Party will be disbanded and be declared illegal, voting rights of the poor and disadvantaged in the North and Northeast will be revoked, the Constitutional Court will be packed with “yellow-shirts” ( already accomplished), the Bangkok beaurocracy and civil service staffed only by “yellow-shirts” supporters( just about completed). The unelected and appointed “Council” by Mr. Suthep will consists only of aristocrats, industrialists with ties to the Democratic Party and the cream of Thai academia that are “yellow-shirt” supporters.This clique will govern the country untill the end of days.
By that time the North and Northeast will break away from the Kingdom, and set up their own Lanna state.
Why does Jory put the Crown Prince in the red Corner ? Personally, I think the Crown Prince is his own man.
If you’re right, a certain Zenjournalist is a bit buggered cos he has as his central thesis Thaksin & CP vs Queen & a couple of princesses & whole royalist establishment … and the book has just gone off to the publisher.
There will not be a military or judicial coup. The invisible hand has been checkmated. Yes – excited by Egypt, too bad that Egypt is thousands of miles farther away from China, which is where the real play is. The US is forced to go with its librul democracy card vs their ideological opponents – The Chinese. I’m sure China doesn’t care as long as the money flows, and since the US is anti-sino at any and all costs, this is the outcome. Judicio-mil coup at this stage would devastate morale, and stop up the all important money flow. So here we are. A different country.
Perhaps the professor would consider a more valid date for the “judicialisation of politics” (source?) the laughable exoneration of asset concealment charges against Thaksin – which enabled him to take the Prime Ministership in the first place.
There is little potential profit in comparing turnout figures in this election to previous elections because of the unusual circumstances, and there are a number of explanations for the low turnout unrelated to voter apathy or doubts about the integrity of the process or changes in levels of support for one party or another.
First, because the Democrat party boycotted the process many voters didn’t have a candidate to vote for, and others knew that without competition their candidate was sure to win, so both groups had little motivation to go to the polls. Second, the decision by the PDRC to block access to polling stations in some areas may have convinced many voters that trying to vote would be risky or dangerous. Third, because of the boycott participation would be perceived as taking a particular side, undermining the secrecy of the vote, and in areas where significant numbers in the community supported the protestors, potential voters may have worried that defying the blockade or boycott could lead to social pressure or ostracism.
Taken together these factors easily explain lower turnout for this election, and make it impossible to use these figures as indicators for what would have happened in a free and fair election without a boycott.
Singapore will be dictating the economy of Malaysia.
Even Chinese interests has to go through Singapore.
Malaysia through it forever “Malay/Muslim first” will never be able to compete with its tiniest neighbor as long as any reforms take the above characteristic as priority.
Reply to Aj Somsak: I think my view is actually quite close to yours, except that I think that perhaps the “material power” of the military and the Courts is more limited. This is my reasoning:
First, as we know, the current military leadership owes their positions to “the Establishment”. As I argued, as the barami of “the Establishment” is fading (due to health and old age and the coming succession), that naturally weakens the position of those people who depend on it. The longer the current stand-off continues, the more power ebbs away from these people. That’s why from a political point of view I think it suits the Thaksin forces for this standoff to continue, more than the royalists – even if the country is more or less ungovernable in the meantime. Time is on their side.
Second, the political culture in Thailand is that the military needs the Palace to legitimize (either explicitly or implicitly) a military action – a coup, or a crackdown like the suppression of the Red Shirts in May 2010. Unlike in some countries they can’t act in their own right. So the question is, would the King legitimize such an action now? I think it would have catastrophic consequences for the monarchy if He did. So that kind of military action is fraught with danger if it were actually used.
Third, if you were an ambitious officer in the military, perhaps with a grudge about being passed over for promotion in recent years in place of officers with Palace connections, would you be cultivating ties with the old “Establishment” whose power is rapidly ebbing, or would you look to ally yourself to the rising political force? The material rewards under a new regime are potentially enormous. I think that there must be many of these people in the military. Of course, everyone must appear loyal to the King, but as an Australian politician once said, “In the race of human life always back self-interest, because at least you know it’s trying.”
Last, the international consequences of a military coup or a crackdown are very severe. Even so, I’ve read that some royalists are quite excited about the Egypt example, which the US went along with because it basically returned the relationship to the old status quo. But I think the cases are quite different. Suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood and suppressing a secular liberal democratic movement in Thailand are quite different, at least from the point of view of US public opinion (sadly). Then there is the question of what China would do in the very unlikely scenario that the US did decide to back an unpopular military-royalist regime. From Wikileaks we know that the US more or less gave the military royalists a green light in 2006; I think that now they would be giving them the red one. The US wants a friendly Thailand with a popular, stable government (ie. elections) in their struggle against growing Chinese hegemony in East Asia.
So the military has this potential power, but it is so circumscribed that its use is extremely difficult and dangerous. They are actually quite “locked in”. 2014 is not like 2006.
As for the Courts, all they can do is dissolve Thaksin’s parties or legally paralyse the government. But what next? And similar to the military, if they did this it would be assumed that it was done “in the name of the King” – who began “the judicialization of politics”, back in 2006. Again, I think such an action could have extremely serious consequences for the monarchy.
So I think that even though the military and courts have this “material power”, if it were actually used it would play into the hands of the Thaksin forces. Hence my view that the “Red corner” has the upper hand.
On Therevada Buddhism & Thai polity, are they co-related?
Please study Monastic Code and the Eight-fold path – transcend all world views.
Every morning in Thailand except deep south, there is no polity when monks’ alms round.
So can we assume that you are from Thailand? And if we can, what, exactly, does your Thai-ness tell you is not factual. Tell us rather than keeping it a secret that seems lodged in your genes.
Sorry, used the wrong tag to close italics! The post should read:
The whole point the King was making was that he can do wrong, otherwise he would not be human. Thaksin, on the other hand, while undoubtedly full of human frailties, is far from being the evil tyrant monster of his detractor’s construction. He is, furthermore the only Thai political figure to have both a real sense of vision coupled with the drive and capacity to put it into effect.
Thank-you Neptunian for your interest and comment. I have never previously encountered such a malicious and mendacious opposition as the “yellow-shirt” opposition before. They have duped the middle class to take to the streets in the name of “a fight against corruption”, whereas the truth lies elsewhere. They are after the windfall of kickbacks from contracts involving huge future projects of infrastucture.
I srsly don’t understand why someone would have to dislike your comment of loving the king. I wonder who the hell did that. They have to respect our opinions.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Dear Weng,
First, compassion to you.
Second, you have come across as an ill-informed person or may be you are just na├пve. Your question: “On Theravada Buddhism & Thai polity, are they co-related? My answer is: No, they do not have to be “co-related.” Monks ( mere mortal) and laypersons, who have “hijacked” the Buddha’s religion to fuel their agendas and thus, make dirty of the Buddha’s robe, have been criticized by both the social media and in on-line news publication. The example of that is the monk, Issara, who has been linked to Mr. Suthep, a PDRC’s leader. An excerpt of written conversations about the monk, Issara, is bellow.
Thai Intelligence тАП@thai_intel ┬╖ Feb 6
elite serving, #election commission head, invite #religious symbol of #Fascist #Suthep movement, bless commission> pic.twitter.com/PaMrUHJZdu
Media War тАП@MediaWar ┬╖ Feb 6
@thai_intel uhhmmm…. Terry, pls explain: WTF some monk (supposedly RENOUNCED person) has anything to do with politics?
Another article which I deem useful to understand religion and politic in Thailand is ‘Thailand’s 3D Conflict,’ which published recently here on New Mandala.
яЕР
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Does that not just show what a fickle, ignorant bunch most of the Bangkok middle-class are? Benedict Anderson of Cornell University famously described them as “timid, selfish, uncultured, consumerist and without any decent vision of the future of the country”. Truth to tell, I know many of them socially – actually often delightful people in many cases, who are nonetheless not a jot more knowledgeable about Thailand’s realities than are the Isaan “buffaloes”, who they so disparage, I met many of the latter at Rachaprasong in April 2010 and I can tell you that they were far from ignorant of the political and economic realities that Thailand faced then and continues to face.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
The “reforms” will be the following: The election results will be declared null and void, the Pheu Thai Party will be disbanded and be declared illegal, voting rights of the poor and disadvantaged in the North and Northeast will be revoked, the Constitutional Court will be packed with “yellow-shirts” ( already accomplished), the Bangkok beaurocracy and civil service staffed only by “yellow-shirts” supporters( just about completed). The unelected and appointed “Council” by Mr. Suthep will consists only of aristocrats, industrialists with ties to the Democratic Party and the cream of Thai academia that are “yellow-shirt” supporters.This clique will govern the country untill the end of days.
By that time the North and Northeast will break away from the Kingdom, and set up their own Lanna state.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
Dear Neptunian,
I love this comment of yours. A man after my own heart.
Greetings from Helsinki
The weakness of the Thai royalists
If you’re right, a certain Zenjournalist is a bit buggered cos he has as his central thesis Thaksin & CP vs Queen & a couple of princesses & whole royalist establishment … and the book has just gone off to the publisher.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
There will not be a military or judicial coup. The invisible hand has been checkmated. Yes – excited by Egypt, too bad that Egypt is thousands of miles farther away from China, which is where the real play is. The US is forced to go with its librul democracy card vs their ideological opponents – The Chinese. I’m sure China doesn’t care as long as the money flows, and since the US is anti-sino at any and all costs, this is the outcome. Judicio-mil coup at this stage would devastate morale, and stop up the all important money flow. So here we are. A different country.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
Perhaps the professor would consider a more valid date for the “judicialisation of politics” (source?) the laughable exoneration of asset concealment charges against Thaksin – which enabled him to take the Prime Ministership in the first place.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
CP talk to Police chief that was appointed by TK.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Crown-Prince-urges-police-protesters-to-avoid-clas-30212093.html
Thai election by the numbers
There is little potential profit in comparing turnout figures in this election to previous elections because of the unusual circumstances, and there are a number of explanations for the low turnout unrelated to voter apathy or doubts about the integrity of the process or changes in levels of support for one party or another.
First, because the Democrat party boycotted the process many voters didn’t have a candidate to vote for, and others knew that without competition their candidate was sure to win, so both groups had little motivation to go to the polls. Second, the decision by the PDRC to block access to polling stations in some areas may have convinced many voters that trying to vote would be risky or dangerous. Third, because of the boycott participation would be perceived as taking a particular side, undermining the secrecy of the vote, and in areas where significant numbers in the community supported the protestors, potential voters may have worried that defying the blockade or boycott could lead to social pressure or ostracism.
Taken together these factors easily explain lower turnout for this election, and make it impossible to use these figures as indicators for what would have happened in a free and fair election without a boycott.
Malaysia’s economic transformation programme
Singapore will be dictating the economy of Malaysia.
Even Chinese interests has to go through Singapore.
Malaysia through it forever “Malay/Muslim first” will never be able to compete with its tiniest neighbor as long as any reforms take the above characteristic as priority.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
Reply to Aj Somsak: I think my view is actually quite close to yours, except that I think that perhaps the “material power” of the military and the Courts is more limited. This is my reasoning:
First, as we know, the current military leadership owes their positions to “the Establishment”. As I argued, as the barami of “the Establishment” is fading (due to health and old age and the coming succession), that naturally weakens the position of those people who depend on it. The longer the current stand-off continues, the more power ebbs away from these people. That’s why from a political point of view I think it suits the Thaksin forces for this standoff to continue, more than the royalists – even if the country is more or less ungovernable in the meantime. Time is on their side.
Second, the political culture in Thailand is that the military needs the Palace to legitimize (either explicitly or implicitly) a military action – a coup, or a crackdown like the suppression of the Red Shirts in May 2010. Unlike in some countries they can’t act in their own right. So the question is, would the King legitimize such an action now? I think it would have catastrophic consequences for the monarchy if He did. So that kind of military action is fraught with danger if it were actually used.
Third, if you were an ambitious officer in the military, perhaps with a grudge about being passed over for promotion in recent years in place of officers with Palace connections, would you be cultivating ties with the old “Establishment” whose power is rapidly ebbing, or would you look to ally yourself to the rising political force? The material rewards under a new regime are potentially enormous. I think that there must be many of these people in the military. Of course, everyone must appear loyal to the King, but as an Australian politician once said, “In the race of human life always back self-interest, because at least you know it’s trying.”
Last, the international consequences of a military coup or a crackdown are very severe. Even so, I’ve read that some royalists are quite excited about the Egypt example, which the US went along with because it basically returned the relationship to the old status quo. But I think the cases are quite different. Suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood and suppressing a secular liberal democratic movement in Thailand are quite different, at least from the point of view of US public opinion (sadly). Then there is the question of what China would do in the very unlikely scenario that the US did decide to back an unpopular military-royalist regime. From Wikileaks we know that the US more or less gave the military royalists a green light in 2006; I think that now they would be giving them the red one. The US wants a friendly Thailand with a popular, stable government (ie. elections) in their struggle against growing Chinese hegemony in East Asia.
So the military has this potential power, but it is so circumscribed that its use is extremely difficult and dangerous. They are actually quite “locked in”. 2014 is not like 2006.
As for the Courts, all they can do is dissolve Thaksin’s parties or legally paralyse the government. But what next? And similar to the military, if they did this it would be assumed that it was done “in the name of the King” – who began “the judicialization of politics”, back in 2006. Again, I think such an action could have extremely serious consequences for the monarchy.
So I think that even though the military and courts have this “material power”, if it were actually used it would play into the hands of the Thaksin forces. Hence my view that the “Red corner” has the upper hand.
Middle class rage threatens democracy
On Therevada Buddhism & Thai polity, are they co-related?
Please study Monastic Code and the Eight-fold path – transcend all world views.
Every morning in Thailand except deep south, there is no polity when monks’ alms round.
The King Never Smiles?
So can we assume that you are from Thailand? And if we can, what, exactly, does your Thai-ness tell you is not factual. Tell us rather than keeping it a secret that seems lodged in your genes.
The Laksi gunfight
Police forensics indicate 39 shots came from the PDRC and 3 from the red shirts.
http://www.khaosod.co.th/en/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNNU1UUXlPRFl3TkE9PQ==§ionid=TURRd01BPT0=
The King Never Smiles?
Sorry, used the wrong tag to close italics! The post should read:
The whole point the King was making was that he can do wrong, otherwise he would not be human. Thaksin, on the other hand, while undoubtedly full of human frailties, is far from being the evil tyrant monster of his detractor’s construction. He is, furthermore the only Thai political figure to have both a real sense of vision coupled with the drive and capacity to put it into effect.
Thai election by the numbers
About the “Vote No” There is an interesting analysis of Thai Intelligence News:
http://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/democracy-no-vote-dominate-feb-2nd-thai-election-a-signal-of-rejection-of-fascist-suthep/
Thai election by the numbers
Thank-you Neptunian for your interest and comment. I have never previously encountered such a malicious and mendacious opposition as the “yellow-shirt” opposition before. They have duped the middle class to take to the streets in the name of “a fight against corruption”, whereas the truth lies elsewhere. They are after the windfall of kickbacks from contracts involving huge future projects of infrastucture.
The King Never Smiles?
I srsly don’t understand why someone would have to dislike your comment of loving the king. I wonder who the hell did that. They have to respect our opinions.
The King Never Smiles?
It seems accurate to you cause you’re not from Thailand.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
PT will play by the wishes of the electorate or PT will not play. Ask PDRC, the powerful [sic] mil or the kangaroos how this equation factors.