There are a few factual mistakes in the article, most glaring is that the author got the years mixed up. Somchai was PM in 2008, and not 2009, and the yellow shirts protested against PPP in 2008, not in 2009.
Lets also not forget that most of the human rights violations committed under Thaksin’s government were supported by many parts of society, especially ones that are now poised against this government. In particular the drug war killings were supported by many members of the privy council, for example. Privy Councilor Pichit Kunlawanit said that “if we execute 60 000 the land will rise and our descendents will escape bad Karma”.
One of the most glaring abuses in the South was the Tak Bai incident, which locally stationed military was responsible for. The responsible officers were cleared by the courts – under the Abhisit government.
As to the claims that the way how Abhisit’s government was formed is business as usual also in western countries, i can cite the example of how Kohl became chancellor in Germany by defection of the liberal party from the coalition with the Social Democrats and a subsequent vote of no confidence in parliament. Kohl, different than Abhisit and the Democrats, understood the legitimacy problems with not having a popular mandate, and soon dissolved parliament and called for general elections, which his party won.
Is Blaxland kidding about “greediest PM ever”? What about Phibun Songkhram, Sarit Thanarat, Thanom/Praphat??? And we won’t even mention the Crown Property Bureau AKA the Royal piggy bank. Can Blaxland read Thai? Speak it well enough to comprehend nuance? Does he talk with any Thai who aren’t in the upper crust? Just wondering.
If Mom Rajawongse Pridiyathorn Devakula says it, then it definitely must be right (and it even stood in “The Nation”, so that’s even more convincing!).
You failed again to answer Neptunians question: Why did the Dems chicken out when Yingluck is so despised by a majority.
My stance on what should happen now regarding the opposition is nicely summed up in a WSJ editorial: “When a party in a modern democracy behaves like a spoiled child and boycotts an election, its punishment should be sitting on the sidelines until it decides to grow up.”
Rod
This comment indicates much that is wrong in Thailand. One side has the courts on their side and use them as political weapons the other side can get away with murder and has nothing to fear from the courts.
I am sure that they are making fun of her. What else would the PDRC’s cronies do besides spool out their vomitus. An example here is… Rod. Why so much hate? What ever is the negative impact on the Thai’s economy, one would be sure that the other players (PDRC) play an active role in bringing down the economy.
Thank you for your excellently written article. To put it at my level of knowledge, most Thais (not all, thanks the Buddha/God) are failing to connect the dots, because most only relate to the situations externally. The Buddha’s religion had long been “hijacked” by self-serving people of high and low to perpetuate myths and legends. And, therefore, ignoring truths that the Buddha had expounded. The fundamental truths of cause and effect (consequence) are ignored by Thais in favor of superstition. Vengeance is a norm and replaces compassion. Culturally, Thais are sensitive to truth. And it is because truth, or at least a well-rounded information, has never been a part of the Thai society and its educational system. To move forward in the 21st century, these areas need reform. It begins with telling people the truth. People with ability and wherewithal can substantiate the claims by doing research and keeping an open-mind.
Another offering in a familiar but tiresome vein.A useful analysis of the main factors but flawed because the author while condoning constitutional shenanigans falls into the educated old timer’s trap of attributing too much significance to Buddhist kharma.Those pesky most modern Western” observers receive a rap on the knuckles for not comprehending the kharmic distance between dark skinned Northerners and the Bangkok mobsters.All of this gibberish might be slightly more plausible if most of the Sino Thai middle class were not only a few generations away from sweating in Swatow rice paddies.
Former Australian Defence Attaché to Thailand writing here so I would like to clarify a couple of military-related matters. Just how much would Thaksin have been ‘in control’ of the military if he had been able to go ahead with his reshuffle in 2006? The reason for General Prayuth’s inaction could be that he takes his orders from the queen, and right now she’s in no state to be issuing orders?
I am just waiting for all the plaints to come in as to PM Yingluck being a mere scapegoat, and being absolved of any responsibility, since there are no sins of the brother to be visited upon the sister, in the first instance. I sill have that bridge in Brooklyn, in case you want to buy it.
Democracy can of course work in a Buddhist state, as U Nu demonstrated in Burma, in 1960, and as arguably Thailand still remains
more democratic than most of ASEAN, since GDP and Democracy are not synonymous (as LKY has pointed out many times). The problem is not Buddhism (The Hindu-Buddhist Majapahit Empire was quite peaceful), it is Thaksin, Inc. and his relatives/subcontractors.
But why has the turnout dropped so low in the North and Northeast, even in Red-Shirt strongholds like Chiang Mai, Udon Thani and Khon Kaen? You cannot explain this by voters being illegally prevented from voting by PDRC, can you? There is certainly some level of disenchantment of former PT/Yingluck voters. According to Bangkok Pundit’s estimates, PT lost around 3 million voters only in North and Northeast.
This of course does not mean that they would have become Democrat and/or PDRC supporters now. There is simply no alternative in sight for these voters – they are disappointed by the current gov, but they do not want the Democrats or Suthep, either. Millions of Thais belong to neither camp in this conflict and have no representation at all, while all spots are on a vociferous minority.
These figures are not significant, as no one sees these minor, “political dinosaur” parties as serious alternatives. The interesting question is, how many voters voted “no” or made their ballots invalid. The number of abstainers does not tell much, because they may have been hindered or scared to go to the poll, at least in Bangkok and the South, but the amount of “no”s and invalid ballots (i.e. those who had the guts to show up at the poll, and chose to protest against both the government and Suthep) is the really interesting variable in this election (and perhaps the number of votes PT lost in its heartlands).
But Deputy PM had announced nearly daily that he will be shutting down the protests sites and making arrests. Why use the M79 grenade launching, but democratically-minded, peace enforcers of the UDD/Red Shirts?
If PM Yingluck could NOT restore law and order, and enforce her authority (if she thinks she has a mandate, which she may not, considering the awful outcome of the recent election turnout/results), then perhaps Yingluck had reached redundancy and should resign gracefully now.
” …It would be quite remarkable if the conservative monarchist/military/judicial complex were to allow this election to stand …” – Sceptic’s nonsense (again)
There is a Thai constitution and the preponderance of evidence(s) to-date would suggest that the recent Thai elections was significantly flawed as to render such elections unconstitutional. But that is for the Thai courts to rule and for every Thai citizen, and political parties, to obey.
Separation of powers at work in Thailand’s democracy, and an independent/impartial judiciary is one key institutional pillar thereof.
Another one sentence nonsense that Yingluck/Thaksin and their gang will declare untiringly: “I/We come from the elections”. As if such inane utterance will explain away all the very serious scandals; and dispel criticisms of the Shinawatra’s opaque, difficult to pierce clouds of secrecy, in their administration of government affairs.
“In a democracy, the principle of accountability holds that government officials–whether elected or appointed by those who have been elected–are responsible to the citizenry for their decisions and actions. Transparency requires that the decisions and actions of those in government are open to public scrutiny and that the public has a right to access such information. Both concepts are central to the very idea of democratic governance. Without accountability and transparency, democracy is impossible. In their absence, elections and the notion of the will of the people have no meaning, and government has the potential to become arbitrary and self-serving.” Amen to that; and underscore arbitrary and self-serving!
Yingluck’s Rice Pledge Program: Despite the hundreds of billions of mounting losses annually, despite the suffering and impoverishment and further indebtedness of the farmers, despite the literal ‘murder’ of the Thailand’s rice industry and significant injurious infliction to Thailand’s global rice export leadership ranking, despite the rotting of the mountains of rice, despite the rampant opportunistic crookedness and graft, despite the disgust and outrage of the Thai people that Yingluck’s scheme is a monstrous failure …. to this day there is zero ACCOUNTABILITY and zero INFORMATION. Nada. Nyet.
Yingluck’s democracy is self-serving, Yingluck’s democracy is definitely deeply corrupt, Yingluck’s democracy is untransparent, Yingluck’s arrogantly refuses accountability.
Good post and link Norman. Thanks. I think an outright military coup would trigger massive splits within the military, and the launching of a protracted guerilla war in Isarn and Lanna, that would make Pattani’s so far very succesfull separatists look like holiday picnic amateurs. I think the more likely scenario is a very, very protracted wearing-down of Yingluck, through endless court battles, etc. She could be “caretaker” PM for six months !! I think the ultra-Royalist elite / Suthep strategy is based on the idea that a constitutional war of attrition, and government dysfunctionality, will gradually sap her, and many of her supporters, will to fight on.
I would like to read the book but 504,000 Vietnamese Dong would feel like a big chuck of my disposable income right now, on this seventh day of Tet.
So I was hoping the reviewer could provide more insight, seeing as a project that involved foreigners coming to Vietnam and interviewing scores of ordinary people would seem like one doomed to failure.
For starters, is there a comparable work, in Vietnam or in the region? I would have thought getting a team of interviewers to parachute in and interview regular folk on the street would be an undertaking that invited failure. Every stage from translation, to transcription, to the editing process would invite contamination of the data.
Then there are the interview subjects – the reviewer alludes to problems here. Suffice to say that information does not come free in Vietnam and among Vietnamese – such an undertaking would be much easier in Thailand, for example, and I would have appreciated hearing more of the reviewer’s ideas here.
Now to: “Vietnam’s history of war marked the course of life and work of the veteran who fought the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia as well as that of the erstwhile ‘boat people’ struggling to make a living in the United States.” – forgive me, I cannot parse this. Does ‘erstwhile’ add anything to the meaning? Must we always mention war? Is the reviewer (or the author) determined to cast this research against the background of a ‘struggle’? Were any of the interviewees ‘boat people’ (ie one who escaped the country by boat in the late 70’s, mid 80’s or early mid 90’s)?
I get the impression the reviewer is looking down on the Vietnamese workforce from that lofty position at the Vietnam National University. As I said everyone seems to have to ‘struggle’ – even those who drew the winning ticket – according to any Vietnamese outlook – and landed in the US or Australia. Not all the interviewees were ‘looking for food’ – ‘kiem an’ is a low-class term.
And I wouldn’t say the economic, social and cultural changes have been all that ‘incredible’. The Communists are still firmly in control. Just the Internet has brought more opportunities – however an image of people sitting comfortably designing websites or selling things online wouldn’t fit that ‘struggle’ narrative right?
It would be quite remarkable if the conservative monarchist/military/judicial complex were to allow this election to stand. Just like 2011, it stands for every thing they don’t want. Whereas last time they couldn’t find any reasonable excuse to intervene and abort the result, this time there are obvious technical possibilities alowing them to do just that. Besides, I am sure the “Democrat” leadership would not have left themselves so exposed unless they had been given assurances that their sacrifice would not be in vain!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The weakness of the Thai royalists
Wonderful stuff. We’ve been waiting for this!
Thailand’s ‘Days of our Strife’
There are a few factual mistakes in the article, most glaring is that the author got the years mixed up. Somchai was PM in 2008, and not 2009, and the yellow shirts protested against PPP in 2008, not in 2009.
Lets also not forget that most of the human rights violations committed under Thaksin’s government were supported by many parts of society, especially ones that are now poised against this government. In particular the drug war killings were supported by many members of the privy council, for example. Privy Councilor Pichit Kunlawanit said that “if we execute 60 000 the land will rise and our descendents will escape bad Karma”.
One of the most glaring abuses in the South was the Tak Bai incident, which locally stationed military was responsible for. The responsible officers were cleared by the courts – under the Abhisit government.
As to the claims that the way how Abhisit’s government was formed is business as usual also in western countries, i can cite the example of how Kohl became chancellor in Germany by defection of the liberal party from the coalition with the Social Democrats and a subsequent vote of no confidence in parliament. Kohl, different than Abhisit and the Democrats, understood the legitimacy problems with not having a popular mandate, and soon dissolved parliament and called for general elections, which his party won.
Thailand’s ‘Days of our Strife’
Is Blaxland kidding about “greediest PM ever”? What about Phibun Songkhram, Sarit Thanarat, Thanom/Praphat??? And we won’t even mention the Crown Property Bureau AKA the Royal piggy bank. Can Blaxland read Thai? Speak it well enough to comprehend nuance? Does he talk with any Thai who aren’t in the upper crust? Just wondering.
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
If Mom Rajawongse Pridiyathorn Devakula says it, then it definitely must be right (and it even stood in “The Nation”, so that’s even more convincing!).
You failed again to answer Neptunians question: Why did the Dems chicken out when Yingluck is so despised by a majority.
My stance on what should happen now regarding the opposition is nicely summed up in a WSJ editorial: “When a party in a modern democracy behaves like a spoiled child and boycotts an election, its punishment should be sitting on the sidelines until it decides to grow up.”
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
Rod
This comment indicates much that is wrong in Thailand. One side has the courts on their side and use them as political weapons the other side can get away with murder and has nothing to fear from the courts.
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
I am sure that they are making fun of her. What else would the PDRC’s cronies do besides spool out their vomitus. An example here is… Rod. Why so much hate? What ever is the negative impact on the Thai’s economy, one would be sure that the other players (PDRC) play an active role in bringing down the economy.
Thailand’s 3D Conflict
Thank you for your excellently written article. To put it at my level of knowledge, most Thais (not all, thanks the Buddha/God) are failing to connect the dots, because most only relate to the situations externally. The Buddha’s religion had long been “hijacked” by self-serving people of high and low to perpetuate myths and legends. And, therefore, ignoring truths that the Buddha had expounded. The fundamental truths of cause and effect (consequence) are ignored by Thais in favor of superstition. Vengeance is a norm and replaces compassion. Culturally, Thais are sensitive to truth. And it is because truth, or at least a well-rounded information, has never been a part of the Thai society and its educational system. To move forward in the 21st century, these areas need reform. It begins with telling people the truth. People with ability and wherewithal can substantiate the claims by doing research and keeping an open-mind.
Thailand’s ‘Days of our Strife’
Another offering in a familiar but tiresome vein.A useful analysis of the main factors but flawed because the author while condoning constitutional shenanigans falls into the educated old timer’s trap of attributing too much significance to Buddhist kharma.Those pesky most modern Western” observers receive a rap on the knuckles for not comprehending the kharmic distance between dark skinned Northerners and the Bangkok mobsters.All of this gibberish might be slightly more plausible if most of the Sino Thai middle class were not only a few generations away from sweating in Swatow rice paddies.
Thailand’s ‘Days of our Strife’
Former Australian Defence Attaché to Thailand writing here so I would like to clarify a couple of military-related matters. Just how much would Thaksin have been ‘in control’ of the military if he had been able to go ahead with his reshuffle in 2006? The reason for General Prayuth’s inaction could be that he takes his orders from the queen, and right now she’s in no state to be issuing orders?
Thailand’s ‘Days of our Strife’
” …have seen the wicked in great power; and it is spreading like a banyan tree …” in Thailand, and thus must be stopped.
Thailand’s ‘Days of our Strife’
I am just waiting for all the plaints to come in as to PM Yingluck being a mere scapegoat, and being absolved of any responsibility, since there are no sins of the brother to be visited upon the sister, in the first instance. I sill have that bridge in Brooklyn, in case you want to buy it.
Democracy can of course work in a Buddhist state, as U Nu demonstrated in Burma, in 1960, and as arguably Thailand still remains
more democratic than most of ASEAN, since GDP and Democracy are not synonymous (as LKY has pointed out many times). The problem is not Buddhism (The Hindu-Buddhist Majapahit Empire was quite peaceful), it is Thaksin, Inc. and his relatives/subcontractors.
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
But why has the turnout dropped so low in the North and Northeast, even in Red-Shirt strongholds like Chiang Mai, Udon Thani and Khon Kaen? You cannot explain this by voters being illegally prevented from voting by PDRC, can you? There is certainly some level of disenchantment of former PT/Yingluck voters. According to Bangkok Pundit’s estimates, PT lost around 3 million voters only in North and Northeast.
This of course does not mean that they would have become Democrat and/or PDRC supporters now. There is simply no alternative in sight for these voters – they are disappointed by the current gov, but they do not want the Democrats or Suthep, either. Millions of Thais belong to neither camp in this conflict and have no representation at all, while all spots are on a vociferous minority.
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
These figures are not significant, as no one sees these minor, “political dinosaur” parties as serious alternatives. The interesting question is, how many voters voted “no” or made their ballots invalid. The number of abstainers does not tell much, because they may have been hindered or scared to go to the poll, at least in Bangkok and the South, but the amount of “no”s and invalid ballots (i.e. those who had the guts to show up at the poll, and chose to protest against both the government and Suthep) is the really interesting variable in this election (and perhaps the number of votes PT lost in its heartlands).
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
The Red Shirts terror arm-Black Shirts are firing their M79 grenade launchers at protesters again.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/393599/m79-grenades-hit-chaeng-wattana-rally-site
But Deputy PM had announced nearly daily that he will be shutting down the protests sites and making arrests. Why use the M79 grenade launching, but democratically-minded, peace enforcers of the UDD/Red Shirts?
If PM Yingluck could NOT restore law and order, and enforce her authority (if she thinks she has a mandate, which she may not, considering the awful outcome of the recent election turnout/results), then perhaps Yingluck had reached redundancy and should resign gracefully now.
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
Rod,
A brilliant analysis of Yingluck’s “failed government” and lack of “any ability to impose authority”.
Might I suggest, however, that there is one factor you haven’t brought into the equation.
It’s called the army.
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
” …It would be quite remarkable if the conservative monarchist/military/judicial complex were to allow this election to stand …” – Sceptic’s nonsense (again)
There is a Thai constitution and the preponderance of evidence(s) to-date would suggest that the recent Thai elections was significantly flawed as to render such elections unconstitutional. But that is for the Thai courts to rule and for every Thai citizen, and political parties, to obey.
Separation of powers at work in Thailand’s democracy, and an independent/impartial judiciary is one key institutional pillar thereof.
Another one sentence nonsense that Yingluck/Thaksin and their gang will declare untiringly: “I/We come from the elections”. As if such inane utterance will explain away all the very serious scandals; and dispel criticisms of the Shinawatra’s opaque, difficult to pierce clouds of secrecy, in their administration of government affairs.
“In a democracy, the principle of accountability holds that government officials–whether elected or appointed by those who have been elected–are responsible to the citizenry for their decisions and actions. Transparency requires that the decisions and actions of those in government are open to public scrutiny and that the public has a right to access such information. Both concepts are central to the very idea of democratic governance. Without accountability and transparency, democracy is impossible. In their absence, elections and the notion of the will of the people have no meaning, and government has the potential to become arbitrary and self-serving.” Amen to that; and underscore arbitrary and self-serving!
Yingluck’s Rice Pledge Program: Despite the hundreds of billions of mounting losses annually, despite the suffering and impoverishment and further indebtedness of the farmers, despite the literal ‘murder’ of the Thailand’s rice industry and significant injurious infliction to Thailand’s global rice export leadership ranking, despite the rotting of the mountains of rice, despite the rampant opportunistic crookedness and graft, despite the disgust and outrage of the Thai people that Yingluck’s scheme is a monstrous failure …. to this day there is zero ACCOUNTABILITY and zero INFORMATION. Nada. Nyet.
Yingluck’s democracy is self-serving, Yingluck’s democracy is definitely deeply corrupt, Yingluck’s democracy is untransparent, Yingluck’s arrogantly refuses accountability.
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
Good post and link Norman. Thanks. I think an outright military coup would trigger massive splits within the military, and the launching of a protracted guerilla war in Isarn and Lanna, that would make Pattani’s so far very succesfull separatists look like holiday picnic amateurs. I think the more likely scenario is a very, very protracted wearing-down of Yingluck, through endless court battles, etc. She could be “caretaker” PM for six months !! I think the ultra-Royalist elite / Suthep strategy is based on the idea that a constitutional war of attrition, and government dysfunctionality, will gradually sap her, and many of her supporters, will to fight on.
Review of It’s a Living
I would like to read the book but 504,000 Vietnamese Dong would feel like a big chuck of my disposable income right now, on this seventh day of Tet.
So I was hoping the reviewer could provide more insight, seeing as a project that involved foreigners coming to Vietnam and interviewing scores of ordinary people would seem like one doomed to failure.
For starters, is there a comparable work, in Vietnam or in the region? I would have thought getting a team of interviewers to parachute in and interview regular folk on the street would be an undertaking that invited failure. Every stage from translation, to transcription, to the editing process would invite contamination of the data.
Then there are the interview subjects – the reviewer alludes to problems here. Suffice to say that information does not come free in Vietnam and among Vietnamese – such an undertaking would be much easier in Thailand, for example, and I would have appreciated hearing more of the reviewer’s ideas here.
Now to: “Vietnam’s history of war marked the course of life and work of the veteran who fought the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia as well as that of the erstwhile ‘boat people’ struggling to make a living in the United States.” – forgive me, I cannot parse this. Does ‘erstwhile’ add anything to the meaning? Must we always mention war? Is the reviewer (or the author) determined to cast this research against the background of a ‘struggle’? Were any of the interviewees ‘boat people’ (ie one who escaped the country by boat in the late 70’s, mid 80’s or early mid 90’s)?
I get the impression the reviewer is looking down on the Vietnamese workforce from that lofty position at the Vietnam National University. As I said everyone seems to have to ‘struggle’ – even those who drew the winning ticket – according to any Vietnamese outlook – and landed in the US or Australia. Not all the interviewees were ‘looking for food’ – ‘kiem an’ is a low-class term.
And I wouldn’t say the economic, social and cultural changes have been all that ‘incredible’. The Communists are still firmly in control. Just the Internet has brought more opportunities – however an image of people sitting comfortably designing websites or selling things online wouldn’t fit that ‘struggle’ narrative right?
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
Coup watch: Bloody days ahead for Bangkok
Thailand’s dysfunctional politics are setting the stage for more violence in 2014 @
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/thailand/140203/coup-watch-bloody-days-ahead-bangkok
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
It would be quite remarkable if the conservative monarchist/military/judicial complex were to allow this election to stand. Just like 2011, it stands for every thing they don’t want. Whereas last time they couldn’t find any reasonable excuse to intervene and abort the result, this time there are obvious technical possibilities alowing them to do just that. Besides, I am sure the “Democrat” leadership would not have left themselves so exposed unless they had been given assurances that their sacrifice would not be in vain!