Usually by the time I hit New Mandala, I’ve had an extreme overdose of Anti-Thaksin rhetoric to the point I could barely write coherently.
Simply put, a part of my family are not pro-thaksin at all and were quite critcal of quite a number of his policies, esp the implementation. (we do like a number of policies too of course). But the hate-thaksin part hated Thaksin so much, they sprout such crazy stuff, we are forced to say: look, those are not true, or that is a beyond ridiculous deliberate misinterpretation of what thaksin actually says. For that we are branded ‘red-shirts’ and pro-thaksin.
At this point in time, we branded red (oppose to the equally crazy pro-thaksin part) are firmly against PAD and against Democrat Party.
Reasonable discourse is impossible because hatred of Thaksin obliterates any policy discussion. Any disagreement is because we are blind or we love you know who.
Worse, we cant even not talk about it because they feel a need to educate us on our error.
PS; Jit Phoomisak didn’t survive so long in Thailand’s anti-intellectual society – certainly not long enough to have the sort of difficulties I have had to endure working to survive here over the past 25 years with no servers, slow servers and lack of peer support. So thank you for so providing yours.
Fact check: I don’t agree it is “widely accepted” that that self enrichment was “Thaksin’s raison d’├кtre” in office. In fact, he sacrificed a lot of wealth in pursuit of power, and like most Thai politicians thought it was fair enough that he should be allowed to recoup some of this while in office. To view Thaksin’s motivations as revolving around embezzlement is to grossly misunderstand him.
Much is made of the fact that Chuan Leekpai and Abhisit Vejjajiva are not personally highly corrupt, in terms of enriching themselves. But neither did anything to reform the system and indeed both relied on people they knew to be corrupt to keep them in power. Chuan required the services of Suthep Thaugsuban and then Sanan Kachornprasart to prop him up during his times as PM, and indeed it was Suthep’s corruption that brought down one of Chuan’s administrations in the 1990s.
Abhisit became PM thanks to a Faustian pact with Newin Chidchob, whose Bhumjai Thai party was given the three most lucrative ministries to loot – Interior, Commerce, and Transport & Communications. Newin and his cronies looted 25 percent of the funds assigned to these ministries, far higher than the “usual” 10 percent routinely embezzled by successive administrations. The whole strategy of the Democrat Party ahead of the 2011 elections was for Bhumjai Thai to use this looted money to outbid Pheu Thai in vote buying in Isaan. The fact the strategy was a dismal failure and Bhumjai Thai were routed is one of many decisive pieces of evidence showing the falsity of establishment claims that poor Thais vote against their interests in return for bribes.
Finally, if you really were Jit Phoomisak’s ghost, you sure as hell wouldn’t be supporting the Democrat Party. Enough said.
I must say I’m slightly surprised that you would be so scathing about an article you haven’t bothered to read, and so incurious as to be ignorant of all the fairly straightforward ways to circumvent Thai internet censorship, Mr Ghost. Jit Phoomisak certainly wouldn’t have been so easily deterred.
Anyway, you will be pleased to know that you can read the article on my mirror site by clicking here.
Once you have read it, you will realize that rather banal points like the one you make above don’t invalidate the thesis at all. Indeed, the point you make is what the Thai establishment have always assumed would be the case. It was Thaksin’s arrival on the scene that threatened this political calculus, and this is at the heart of the Thai conflict since 2005.
Not to mention that Ghandi put pen to paper to express his belief that Black Africans were sub-human and Mandela was pals with several genocidal dictators, for example, his long-standing friendship with Muammar Gaddafi, and likewise couldn’t even be arsed to comment on when Durban I, II, and III turned into anti-Semitic hate-fests that would have made the Nuremberg Rally organizers blush.
Quite interesting what “right-thinking people” will overlook when selecting their “heroes”.
Fair point, Chris. Thaksin’s relationship with his kids (and Pojaman) is definitely one of the most likeable things about him. Another is his natural rapport with ordinary people.
( One of the sleights of hand the major capitalist countries [in particular the USA] have pulled on the world is to convince it “free market economy is synonymous of individual freedom” )
Of course, another egregious “slight of hand” was to convince the world that the increasingly collectivist, mixed-economy welfare state that exists in the modern USA is somehow, in any manner, representative of “the free market”.
I hope this article is a sign of a trend of higher-quality scholarship here at NM. Not that I have ever thought NM ever produced low-quality scholarship, but it seems as of late, NM has been attracting submissions from a greater pool of scholarly institutions and it seems the quality of work has increased.
Kudos to Khun Hanvongse and to Nich and Andrew as editors!
BTW I am unable to access your article in Thailand, except for the brief review of it on PTT. However, I believe the issue of secession is very exaggerated: As it was put to me over 15 years ago by my own ‘secret source’: “Whoever succeeds the present monarch will obviously have only a small fraction of the barramee that he has built up, and hence have only a commensurate amount of influence beyond constitutional boundaries in any forseeable circumstance.” That was the gist of his statement anyway: I wonder whether people have made similar comments to you?
Believe what you will, but the King managed to read his birthday speech audibly enough, so it’s reasonable to assume that in fact he will be around to appoint the next PM.
Excellent article, Apivat Hanvongse. Probably the best that I’ve seen in the current cycle of the political crisis.
Please expand on how conditions for cooperative negotiations could be built. In particular, please suggest some potential common and superordinate goals, and also suggest how a joint effort could be built to achieve those goals.
‘Rent a crowd’ is a cheap shot at anti-Thaksin supporters for (allegedly) doing what everyone knows Thaksin has been doing for years. All the Thais I know went to the recent protests partly because of their disgust at the unprecedented scope of systemic corruption for the enrichment of the Thaksin clique.
Thank you for this contribution Dr. Lumayag. However, I’m admittedly quite sceptical that appeals to the reason, conscience and political sincerity of political leaders will be sufficient to address the protection concerns of migrant workers in the region. It seems to me that the precarity of these migrants, rather than resulting any ignorance of their “indispensable role… in the overall development agenda of the region,” is in fact intimately bound up such a recognition.
Fact Check: It is widely accepted that neither Chuan Leekpai nor Abhisit Vejajiva sought to enrich themselves while serving as PM, whereas it is widely accepted these days that this was Thaksin’s raison d’etre.
Ok so its based on a misunderstanding. Thanks for explaining. This nothing like PAD’s weasel-like version, where if NOTA comes first politics is suspended. Its a pity that PAD have given this option a bad name.
True NOTA means that voters have the ability to decide if any of the candidates are worth their vote. If they feel that none of the candidates meet their expectations then they can choose NOTA.
If this option comes first in any election, lets say in a constituency election voting for a MP, then then there is a clear and well legislated process where elections are held again ASAP and new candidates have to be fielded. This process will continue until voters find a candidate that is worth their vote over and above NOTA.
As things stand, the power in the electoral process resides with the people who decide which candidates to field in an election, which is essentially with political parties. This is not democracy in my view. Power should reside with the electorate, they should be able to ensure only candidates they feel will represent their interests will be able to take office and if they are disappointed they have the full ability of rejecting them, without having to choose an unpalatable option.
Essentially the electorate act as the check and balance of the electoral system and politics as a whole.
Its a powerful sea change in how politics will be conducted in this country and in any country where this system is adapted.
In a democracy power should reside with the electorate and no-one else.
Andrew MacGregor Marshall – Ghandi was a terrible father, his son suffered horribly. Mandela’s children suffered hugely also – not because Mandela was a bad father – but because he was an absent one. Thaksin, by contrast, has been far better than either, as a father. It’s not hard to see why postive emotional bonds still bind the Shinawatras. And why isarn and Lanna look up to Thaksin as a good father-figure.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s stark choice
I can empathize totally.
Usually by the time I hit New Mandala, I’ve had an extreme overdose of Anti-Thaksin rhetoric to the point I could barely write coherently.
Simply put, a part of my family are not pro-thaksin at all and were quite critcal of quite a number of his policies, esp the implementation. (we do like a number of policies too of course). But the hate-thaksin part hated Thaksin so much, they sprout such crazy stuff, we are forced to say: look, those are not true, or that is a beyond ridiculous deliberate misinterpretation of what thaksin actually says. For that we are branded ‘red-shirts’ and pro-thaksin.
At this point in time, we branded red (oppose to the equally crazy pro-thaksin part) are firmly against PAD and against Democrat Party.
Reasonable discourse is impossible because hatred of Thaksin obliterates any policy discussion. Any disagreement is because we are blind or we love you know who.
Worse, we cant even not talk about it because they feel a need to educate us on our error.
Peace. Please.
Thailand’s stark choice
PS; Jit Phoomisak didn’t survive so long in Thailand’s anti-intellectual society – certainly not long enough to have the sort of difficulties I have had to endure working to survive here over the past 25 years with no servers, slow servers and lack of peer support. So thank you for so providing yours.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
Can we stop all those ‘facts’ nonsense.
Just stick to opinions, rants and lies. That’s more fun Ghost and Marshall.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
Fact check: I don’t agree it is “widely accepted” that that self enrichment was “Thaksin’s raison d’├кtre” in office. In fact, he sacrificed a lot of wealth in pursuit of power, and like most Thai politicians thought it was fair enough that he should be allowed to recoup some of this while in office. To view Thaksin’s motivations as revolving around embezzlement is to grossly misunderstand him.
Much is made of the fact that Chuan Leekpai and Abhisit Vejjajiva are not personally highly corrupt, in terms of enriching themselves. But neither did anything to reform the system and indeed both relied on people they knew to be corrupt to keep them in power. Chuan required the services of Suthep Thaugsuban and then Sanan Kachornprasart to prop him up during his times as PM, and indeed it was Suthep’s corruption that brought down one of Chuan’s administrations in the 1990s.
Abhisit became PM thanks to a Faustian pact with Newin Chidchob, whose Bhumjai Thai party was given the three most lucrative ministries to loot – Interior, Commerce, and Transport & Communications. Newin and his cronies looted 25 percent of the funds assigned to these ministries, far higher than the “usual” 10 percent routinely embezzled by successive administrations. The whole strategy of the Democrat Party ahead of the 2011 elections was for Bhumjai Thai to use this looted money to outbid Pheu Thai in vote buying in Isaan. The fact the strategy was a dismal failure and Bhumjai Thai were routed is one of many decisive pieces of evidence showing the falsity of establishment claims that poor Thais vote against their interests in return for bribes.
Finally, if you really were Jit Phoomisak’s ghost, you sure as hell wouldn’t be supporting the Democrat Party. Enough said.
Thailand’s stark choice
I must say I’m slightly surprised that you would be so scathing about an article you haven’t bothered to read, and so incurious as to be ignorant of all the fairly straightforward ways to circumvent Thai internet censorship, Mr Ghost. Jit Phoomisak certainly wouldn’t have been so easily deterred.
Anyway, you will be pleased to know that you can read the article on my mirror site by clicking here.
Once you have read it, you will realize that rather banal points like the one you make above don’t invalidate the thesis at all. Indeed, the point you make is what the Thai establishment have always assumed would be the case. It was Thaksin’s arrival on the scene that threatened this political calculus, and this is at the heart of the Thai conflict since 2005.
Best wishes
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
Not to mention that Ghandi put pen to paper to express his belief that Black Africans were sub-human and Mandela was pals with several genocidal dictators, for example, his long-standing friendship with Muammar Gaddafi, and likewise couldn’t even be arsed to comment on when Durban I, II, and III turned into anti-Semitic hate-fests that would have made the Nuremberg Rally organizers blush.
Quite interesting what “right-thinking people” will overlook when selecting their “heroes”.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
Fair point, Chris. Thaksin’s relationship with his kids (and Pojaman) is definitely one of the most likeable things about him. Another is his natural rapport with ordinary people.
Reflections on the king’s speech
( One of the sleights of hand the major capitalist countries [in particular the USA] have pulled on the world is to convince it “free market economy is synonymous of individual freedom” )
Of course, another egregious “slight of hand” was to convince the world that the increasingly collectivist, mixed-economy welfare state that exists in the modern USA is somehow, in any manner, representative of “the free market”.
But I have a feeling you knew that already.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
I hope this article is a sign of a trend of higher-quality scholarship here at NM. Not that I have ever thought NM ever produced low-quality scholarship, but it seems as of late, NM has been attracting submissions from a greater pool of scholarly institutions and it seems the quality of work has increased.
Kudos to Khun Hanvongse and to Nich and Andrew as editors!
Thailand’s stark choice
BTW I am unable to access your article in Thailand, except for the brief review of it on PTT. However, I believe the issue of secession is very exaggerated: As it was put to me over 15 years ago by my own ‘secret source’: “Whoever succeeds the present monarch will obviously have only a small fraction of the barramee that he has built up, and hence have only a commensurate amount of influence beyond constitutional boundaries in any forseeable circumstance.” That was the gist of his statement anyway: I wonder whether people have made similar comments to you?
Thailand’s stark choice
Believe what you will, but the King managed to read his birthday speech audibly enough, so it’s reasonable to assume that in fact he will be around to appoint the next PM.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Excellent article, Apivat Hanvongse. Probably the best that I’ve seen in the current cycle of the political crisis.
Please expand on how conditions for cooperative negotiations could be built. In particular, please suggest some potential common and superordinate goals, and also suggest how a joint effort could be built to achieve those goals.
Thailand’s stark choice
Maybe it’s because we don’t try to compare apples with oranges.
Thailand’s stark choice
‘Rent a crowd’ is a cheap shot at anti-Thaksin supporters for (allegedly) doing what everyone knows Thaksin has been doing for years. All the Thais I know went to the recent protests partly because of their disgust at the unprecedented scope of systemic corruption for the enrichment of the Thaksin clique.
Migrant workers: Whose responsibility to protect?
Thank you for this contribution Dr. Lumayag. However, I’m admittedly quite sceptical that appeals to the reason, conscience and political sincerity of political leaders will be sufficient to address the protection concerns of migrant workers in the region. It seems to me that the precarity of these migrants, rather than resulting any ignorance of their “indispensable role… in the overall development agenda of the region,” is in fact intimately bound up such a recognition.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
As a good patriarch for sharing some of the spoils of office via shrewdly marketed but unsustainable populist policies.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
Fact Check: It is widely accepted that neither Chuan Leekpai nor Abhisit Vejajiva sought to enrich themselves while serving as PM, whereas it is widely accepted these days that this was Thaksin’s raison d’etre.
Private: More creativity needed in defence of democracy
Ok so its based on a misunderstanding. Thanks for explaining. This nothing like PAD’s weasel-like version, where if NOTA comes first politics is suspended. Its a pity that PAD have given this option a bad name.
True NOTA means that voters have the ability to decide if any of the candidates are worth their vote. If they feel that none of the candidates meet their expectations then they can choose NOTA.
If this option comes first in any election, lets say in a constituency election voting for a MP, then then there is a clear and well legislated process where elections are held again ASAP and new candidates have to be fielded. This process will continue until voters find a candidate that is worth their vote over and above NOTA.
As things stand, the power in the electoral process resides with the people who decide which candidates to field in an election, which is essentially with political parties. This is not democracy in my view. Power should reside with the electorate, they should be able to ensure only candidates they feel will represent their interests will be able to take office and if they are disappointed they have the full ability of rejecting them, without having to choose an unpalatable option.
Essentially the electorate act as the check and balance of the electoral system and politics as a whole.
Its a powerful sea change in how politics will be conducted in this country and in any country where this system is adapted.
In a democracy power should reside with the electorate and no-one else.
I hope you understand what I mean now.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
Andrew MacGregor Marshall – Ghandi was a terrible father, his son suffered horribly. Mandela’s children suffered hugely also – not because Mandela was a bad father – but because he was an absent one. Thaksin, by contrast, has been far better than either, as a father. It’s not hard to see why postive emotional bonds still bind the Shinawatras. And why isarn and Lanna look up to Thaksin as a good father-figure.
Private: More creativity needed in defence of democracy
So who was creative and bullied?