There’s no way they can put the genie back into the bottle. The political awakening of the rural poor is bad news for the Bangkok elite so they go on a personal vendetta on the man who tried to break the mold and as they see it betrayed his own class. Let’s hope ASSK in Burma will succeed in doing the same but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
[…] and admirers across Asia and worldwide have been calling for his safe return. Among those who expressed solidarity are prominent Asian civil society leaders, former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Hillary Clinton and the […]
Actually, that is not quite true.
My mother, who follows thai political history closely, who is also a big fan of khun Pridi, made the same declaration when Thaksin took over as PDP head from Khun Chamlong in the mid 1990s.
The reasoning and logic is very straightforward if you understand the workings of the Bangkok society. Since 1932, the establishment has maintained status quo via the Democrat Party, the Army, and the buddhist-like-dietification of the monarchy trinity using exactly the same tactics in various incarnations.
So, assuming that old dogs cannot learn new tricks, it will take a new generation to put together a team to take on the emancipation process started by Thaksin. 5-10 years for a new generation to come out of high school and college, 10-15 years to gain experience, make personal fortune, and create own new political support network.
My mother never said Thaksin is a good man. She only siad Thaksin is a technocrat poltitician who understood very well how Thai polticians think, who unlike previous politicians who tried, Thaksin is the first with the resoutces and the ego to really fight back. The Thai establishment will be in for a rude shock, she said back then.
It is really not difficult for Khun T to make the same calculations and deduce that if he could give the rural people a taste of access to capital, a glimpse of the power of a vote, a taste of more equal treatment via access to some infrastructure and healthcare, that the rural people will fight for the hope of more. And given the level of inertia, flexibilty, etc of the democrat party, it will take at least 20 years for a viable alternative to appear and fight back. Especially as any small new parties can always be welcomed into a coalition via negotiations.
So yes, Thaksin is nauseatingly arrogant, but sadly, he is not wrong in making that 20 years statement.
Just look at the Anti-Thaksin crowd. Since the 2006 coup, all they did was blame Thaksin and went on an international witch hunt. They did not even expend a tenth as much effort on Suchinda! (and all previous coup leaders). They jumped about in a panic at every single movement Thaksin made in Hongkong, in Dubai, in Nigeria etc. Could they not have come up with policies to win over the masses since 2001? And now, after 5 electoral loses, Suthep now expanded the witch hunt to include the entire Shinawatr clan instead of improving themselves. Seriously, as much as I find Thaksin nauseatingly arrogant, I am thinking the 20 years (I am assuming Thaksin said it because you said so because I heard atotally different statement in Thai) that Thaksin alledged said and my mom estimated is turning out to be a little on the extremely conservative end. Afterall, the Democrat Party just admitted they cannot win an election, and we are at year 12 going 13 from 2001.
“Thaksin most certainly did help bring about an awakening of political awareness in the countryside. They may not be deep thinkers but they have started to see the hoodwinking that has been going on for three quarters of a century. And they have had enough.”
There is no unambiguous evidence for this, it is well-accepted mythology, principally held by those who support Thaksin (no surprise there). Most Thais have had enough, but (given your comment below) YOU infer that only rural less-educated Thais have had enough and that affluent non-rural Thais
in Bangkok don’t even deserve change, irrespective of their political views, which is in itself bigoted (and I will repeat that below).
“Your suggestions seems to be the Bangkok middle-class-and-up are politically and socially aware. On the contrary they are often bigoted, narcissistic and think toting Gucci handbags and driving fancy cars equates to “freedom” and a just society. They are arrogant in believing everything they take for themselves is deserved but anything the farmers and workers ask is unnecessary.”
I didn’t explicitly say that that urban middle-class Thais are necessarily all politically and socially aware but your
inference of what I implied is basically correct. What isn’t correct is your own
bigoted, generalized, derisive and arrogant
comment on urban middle-class Thais which
is not accurate, you provide no evidence,
and hypocritical at the same time. If your presumed goal is change and political awareness among all Thais, taking a bigoted
view (which by the way, I do not, opposing Thaksin doesn’t mean that I judge his ethnicity or his personal consumer preferences) of urban affluent Thais will not engender change for urban or rural Thais.
And I end on a personal (subjective, I admit)
note: If you honestly believe (which you might and can infer) that Thaksin (since you
brought up the term) isn’t in the top ten
(if not # 1) of the most narcissistic Thai politicians, or Thais in general, I do not think you are in any objective position to
comment on urban Thai people’s preferences on handbags or anything else.
(That Suthep might not exactly be clean or highly principled, hardly makes Thaksin cleaner or more principled).
It should be noted that “the remarkable success” in poverty reduction from 2000-2005 is partly a result of the v-shaped recovery from the 1997-98 financial crisis when there was significant negative GDP change. So part of this success was just getting back to the poverty level before the crisis. Some of the recovery was due to the painful economic steps taken under the Democrat government while some was undoubtedly due to the expansionist economic policies of the Thaksin government.
The sources of rural-urban differences in income probably include:
– globalization of the Thai economy leading to greater income opportunities for people with technical skills, entrepreneurial spirit and access to world markets. This works against the less educated rural poor and reflects similar trends in other countries.
– cultural values in some areas that place less importance on education. Whether a cause or a result, those areas tend to have lower quality schools and teachers.
– a brain drain from rural areas by the brightest young people to the cities, especially Bangkok. Even the less well-educated young people tend to leave their rural homes for the cash income of the factory
– it should also be taken into consideration that poverty is calculated in cash and cash is more easily available in the cities. Rural areas, however, include quality of life advantages that are usually omitted from poverty studies: clean air, cheap or free food, freedom from stress and regimentation.
This is quite shocking if its true. The REAL reason why workers go to Little India.
While most readers and residents in the country may not know, the real reason for the workers to descend to Little India every weekend is not for entertainment/entertainment alone. Most get paid there for the week of work done in arrears!! They collect their monies from agents who pay them in cash.
I have lived in Thailand for nearly 2 decades and I have followed the former prime minister’s career closely.
I will never forget his comments soon after his first election where he stated that it would be impossible for any other political party to win an election for at least 20 years. It’s quite simply impossible for A politician to make such a statement in a democracy.
Since that time I have seen him attempt to crush power centers throughout the country as he ran roughshod over all laws and make a country that was otherwise corrupt even more so.
It’s my opinion that almost any alternative is better than his continued control of the political system.
To figure out the credibility of the article posted here you only have to read other pieces by Tony Cartalucci, like this ridiculous piece on the Thai military as a great ‘independent institution’!
“Chinese, by nature, hold their emotions very close to their chest.” – Now I see why you are such a fan of LKY. Both of you mistake crude racial stereotyping for brutally frank insight. It’s an issue “Nina Ong” discusses perceptively in the review.”
1. You make false and unsubstantiated comments about my being a “fan of LKY” for which you have no statement or any other evidence to back that up. And, in light of your haughty commentary on your recent Thai posting to not pontificate and to provide elaboration and clarity, you yourself do neither here.
2. Your comment about “Crude racial stereotyping is both false, shows your lack
of knowledge of Chinese culture, completely misinterprets what I was saying, and is in fact pejorative. You are also wrong in “saying both of you” as Cassandra (who I assume you are referring to) never made
the same comments that I did (so please read
more carefully in the future), and if you are referring to her comment about:
“Having said that I struggle a little to see the mostly “timid selfish and consumerist” (hat tip Benedict Anderson) Sino Thai middle class in Bangkok as particularly emotionally multi faceted.”
I see nothing crude, racist or stereotyping in her comment, which I will also address separately to her. I do find her comment inaccurate and generalized but not racist or crude.
Finally, as I have exhaustively described (not pontificated and not ranted), “Nina Ong’s” analysis of Lee’s comment about the Balfour Declaration is misinterpretation of Lee’s meaning, her own interpretation of the supposed difference between a “National Homeland” and “State” is a red herring and superfluous and is invalidated (as I have described) by historical evidence. Her incorrect assertions and her facile analysis of LKY and Singapore are hardly perceptive and there is nothing in what she wrote above that provides any substantiated novel insight about LKY, Singapore or anything else. She is wrong about LKY’s interpretation of the Balfour Declaration, as well as other things,
and her need to use a pseudonym, when many critics of LKY, do not does neither prove that she has reason to fear LKY’s “Toxic Legacy” nor does my criticism of her prove
(if you had bothered to actually read ALL my posts about Singapore which include, on some points, rather clear criticism of LKY and Singapore itself) that I am a “Fan of LKY”
which, unless I actually stated such, has no basis. YOUR crude equating of anyone that defends a single point or comment made by LKY or anyone disagreeing with an individual who apparently disagrees with LKY (or may dislike LKY) as synonymous with being a “Fan” of LKY is, in my case, false and an incorrect equation.
Yesterday, I did my grocery shopping at a supermarket.
I look at the price of a packet of akitikomachi sushi rice, and then I look the the price of a packet of kaohommali jasmine rice that is of the same weight.
I could not help but think about the annual income of Japanese rice farmers vs Thai rice farmers.
Thaksin most certainly did help bring about an awakening of political awareness in the countryside. They may not be deep thinkers but they have started to see the hoodwinking that has been going on for three quarters of a century. And they have had enough.
Your suggestions seems to be the Bangkok middle-class-and-up are politically and socially aware. On the contrary they are often bigoted, narcissistic and think toting Gucci handbags and driving fancy cars equates to “freedom” and a just society. They are arrogant in believing everything they take for themselves is deserved but anything the farmers and workers ask is unnecessary.
There are in my opinion two main camps at this time. One side, the red shirt/UDD etceteras are saying:
“No more of ‘the same'”,
and the reactionary Bangkok peacocks are saying;
2) “bring back the good old days” (that never were)
However IMO more than Thaksin’s influence is the free flow of information. Until recently it was easy to control the collective mindset of the entire population. But the same does not any longer work.
Suthep lives in a past where the absence of a proper availability of information probably saved him from having to be accountable for, say his corrupt land dealings in the 1990s.
There is also one essential ingredient in all of this almost everyone seems to ignore or sidestep: Suthep is charged with MURDER.
The absolute best chance he might have of avoiding having to stand trial and risk being imprisoned, or even the death penalty in theory, is toppling the current government.
Should he succeed he will refer to this government as having been illegitimate and therefore, so too will the charges against him be brushed off as having come while under the thumb of the PTP government.
He is acting like a cornered dog because…that is exactly what he is.
“If you take a decision and choose sides, this matter will be over. If you decide quickly, the people will praise you and you will be a hero,” Suthep told General Thannark, Supreme Commander of Thai armed forces at their Saturday’s (yesterday Dec 13th)meeting.
Suthep just confirmed what I feared: His ‘reform-Thailand-politial system’ was meant to be a one-sided endeavor with the tanks and a junta behind him to enforce his one-sided reforms.
Aaaah Suthep. You had reached your apex of
incompetence in politics. You and the Democrats repeatedly belittle/belittled PM Yingluck as a ‘dumb bitch’ (I myself must now apologize for my previous harsh and uncalled for similar slurs I addressed to the lady Thai PM), yet incapable of negotiating with the lady, unless backed up by junta tanks and soldiers.
No more tanks. No more coups. And no more Democrat Party of Thailand.
“Chinese, by nature, hold their emotions very close to their chest.” – Now I see why you are such a fan of LKY. Both of you mistake crude racial stereotyping for brutally frank insight. It’s an issue “Nina Ong” discusses perceptively in the review.
Peter, rather than just pontificate about how wrong it is to see succession as the decisive factor driving this conflict at the elite level – as this article and my long analysis “р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д” have argued – perhaps you can take the debate forward by explaining why, in your view, succession is irrelevant. Just ranting that others are wrong without putting forward your own counterargument is rather pointless. It’s worth noting that viewing Thai politics in the context of succession explains many previously baffling aspects of the situation, and in “р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д” I made some very specific predictions back in October which have proven very accurate. So given the explanatory and predictive power of this thesis, you really do need to provide considerably better arguments and evidence if you wish to discredit it. Best wishes.
There are surely several levels of emotion in every human being, and it isn’t necessary to have a specialist knowledge of Chinese culture or any other culture to grasp this rather commonplace truth.
Having said that I struggle a little to see the mostly “timid selfish and consumerist” (hat tip Benedict Anderson) Sino Thai middle class in Bangkok as particularly emotionally multi faceted.
You could be wrong; but you couldn’t be more wrong. Your analysis of HRH King Bhumibol is, at best, facile. I won’t even mention what it is at its worst. Your hardly veiled obsequiousness to the Shinawatra clan is consistent with the general tenor of this website, so I am not the least surprised.
Nevertheless, your implication that Thaksin engendered political and social consciousness
among the “poor, uneducated voters in the north and northeast of Thailand” is in equal measure unsubstantiated and condescending, as is your statement that the urban middle-class and upper classes are afraid of Thaksin. I think not. On the contrary, I think you are afraid of those Thai individuals who have no fear of Thaksin.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Reflections on the king’s speech
There’s no way they can put the genie back into the bottle. The political awakening of the rural poor is bad news for the Bangkok elite so they go on a personal vendetta on the man who tried to break the mold and as they see it betrayed his own class. Let’s hope ASSK in Burma will succeed in doing the same but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The Case of Sombath Somphone
[…] and admirers across Asia and worldwide have been calling for his safe return. Among those who expressed solidarity are prominent Asian civil society leaders, former Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Hillary Clinton and the […]
Reflections on the king’s speech
Actually, that is not quite true.
My mother, who follows thai political history closely, who is also a big fan of khun Pridi, made the same declaration when Thaksin took over as PDP head from Khun Chamlong in the mid 1990s.
The reasoning and logic is very straightforward if you understand the workings of the Bangkok society. Since 1932, the establishment has maintained status quo via the Democrat Party, the Army, and the buddhist-like-dietification of the monarchy trinity using exactly the same tactics in various incarnations.
So, assuming that old dogs cannot learn new tricks, it will take a new generation to put together a team to take on the emancipation process started by Thaksin. 5-10 years for a new generation to come out of high school and college, 10-15 years to gain experience, make personal fortune, and create own new political support network.
My mother never said Thaksin is a good man. She only siad Thaksin is a technocrat poltitician who understood very well how Thai polticians think, who unlike previous politicians who tried, Thaksin is the first with the resoutces and the ego to really fight back. The Thai establishment will be in for a rude shock, she said back then.
It is really not difficult for Khun T to make the same calculations and deduce that if he could give the rural people a taste of access to capital, a glimpse of the power of a vote, a taste of more equal treatment via access to some infrastructure and healthcare, that the rural people will fight for the hope of more. And given the level of inertia, flexibilty, etc of the democrat party, it will take at least 20 years for a viable alternative to appear and fight back. Especially as any small new parties can always be welcomed into a coalition via negotiations.
So yes, Thaksin is nauseatingly arrogant, but sadly, he is not wrong in making that 20 years statement.
Just look at the Anti-Thaksin crowd. Since the 2006 coup, all they did was blame Thaksin and went on an international witch hunt. They did not even expend a tenth as much effort on Suchinda! (and all previous coup leaders). They jumped about in a panic at every single movement Thaksin made in Hongkong, in Dubai, in Nigeria etc. Could they not have come up with policies to win over the masses since 2001? And now, after 5 electoral loses, Suthep now expanded the witch hunt to include the entire Shinawatr clan instead of improving themselves. Seriously, as much as I find Thaksin nauseatingly arrogant, I am thinking the 20 years (I am assuming Thaksin said it because you said so because I heard atotally different statement in Thai) that Thaksin alledged said and my mom estimated is turning out to be a little on the extremely conservative end. Afterall, the Democrat Party just admitted they cannot win an election, and we are at year 12 going 13 from 2001.
Reflections on the king’s speech
RA,
You are zero for two.
“Thaksin most certainly did help bring about an awakening of political awareness in the countryside. They may not be deep thinkers but they have started to see the hoodwinking that has been going on for three quarters of a century. And they have had enough.”
There is no unambiguous evidence for this, it is well-accepted mythology, principally held by those who support Thaksin (no surprise there). Most Thais have had enough, but (given your comment below) YOU infer that only rural less-educated Thais have had enough and that affluent non-rural Thais
in Bangkok don’t even deserve change, irrespective of their political views, which is in itself bigoted (and I will repeat that below).
“Your suggestions seems to be the Bangkok middle-class-and-up are politically and socially aware. On the contrary they are often bigoted, narcissistic and think toting Gucci handbags and driving fancy cars equates to “freedom” and a just society. They are arrogant in believing everything they take for themselves is deserved but anything the farmers and workers ask is unnecessary.”
I didn’t explicitly say that that urban middle-class Thais are necessarily all politically and socially aware but your
inference of what I implied is basically correct. What isn’t correct is your own
bigoted, generalized, derisive and arrogant
comment on urban middle-class Thais which
is not accurate, you provide no evidence,
and hypocritical at the same time. If your presumed goal is change and political awareness among all Thais, taking a bigoted
view (which by the way, I do not, opposing Thaksin doesn’t mean that I judge his ethnicity or his personal consumer preferences) of urban affluent Thais will not engender change for urban or rural Thais.
And I end on a personal (subjective, I admit)
note: If you honestly believe (which you might and can infer) that Thaksin (since you
brought up the term) isn’t in the top ten
(if not # 1) of the most narcissistic Thai politicians, or Thais in general, I do not think you are in any objective position to
comment on urban Thai people’s preferences on handbags or anything else.
(That Suthep might not exactly be clean or highly principled, hardly makes Thaksin cleaner or more principled).
Poverty, inequality and national unity
[…] ц│░хЫ╜чЪДш┤лхЫ░чОЗхЬиф╗Цф┐бцЙзцФ┐цЬЯщЧ┤хдзх╣Еф╕ЛщЩНя╝МхЬиц│░хЫ╜ф╕ЬхМЧщГихЬ░хМ║я╝Мш┐ЗхО╗чЪДчй╖ф║║х╖▓ч╗Пх╝АхзЛф╕КхНЗф╕║ф╕нф║зщШ╢ч║зуАВцИСх╜УцЧ╢ф╜ПхЬиф╕ЬхМЧщГихЬ░хМ║чЪДф╕нх┐ГхЭдцХмх╕Вя╝Мф║▓чЬ╝шзБшпБф║Жш┐Щф╕кхЯОх╕ВчЪДх╖ихПШя╝ЪхЬихЗаф╕кцЬИчЪДцЧ╢щЧ┤щЗМцЛФхЬ░шАМш╡╖чЪДщлШх▒ВщЕТх║Чя╝Мф╗ехПКцЦ░чЪДхдзхнжцХЩхнжце╝хТМш╢ЕхдзчЪДш┤нчЙйф╕нх┐ГуАВх░╜чобш┐Щх╣╢ф╕НхоМхЕицШпф╗Цф┐бчЪДхКЯхК│я╝Мф╜Жхп╣ф║Оф╕Аф║Ыф║║цЭешп┤я╝Мф╗Цф╗мцнгцШпш┐Щца╖шзЙх╛ЧчЪДуАВ […]
Poverty, inequality and national unity
It should be noted that “the remarkable success” in poverty reduction from 2000-2005 is partly a result of the v-shaped recovery from the 1997-98 financial crisis when there was significant negative GDP change. So part of this success was just getting back to the poverty level before the crisis. Some of the recovery was due to the painful economic steps taken under the Democrat government while some was undoubtedly due to the expansionist economic policies of the Thaksin government.
The sources of rural-urban differences in income probably include:
– globalization of the Thai economy leading to greater income opportunities for people with technical skills, entrepreneurial spirit and access to world markets. This works against the less educated rural poor and reflects similar trends in other countries.
– cultural values in some areas that place less importance on education. Whether a cause or a result, those areas tend to have lower quality schools and teachers.
– a brain drain from rural areas by the brightest young people to the cities, especially Bangkok. Even the less well-educated young people tend to leave their rural homes for the cash income of the factory
– it should also be taken into consideration that poverty is calculated in cash and cash is more easily available in the cities. Rural areas, however, include quality of life advantages that are usually omitted from poverty studies: clean air, cheap or free food, freedom from stress and regimentation.
Little India: Speculation, evidence and lessons
This is quite shocking if its true. The REAL reason why workers go to Little India.
Reflections on the king’s speech
I have lived in Thailand for nearly 2 decades and I have followed the former prime minister’s career closely.
I will never forget his comments soon after his first election where he stated that it would be impossible for any other political party to win an election for at least 20 years. It’s quite simply impossible for A politician to make such a statement in a democracy.
Since that time I have seen him attempt to crush power centers throughout the country as he ran roughshod over all laws and make a country that was otherwise corrupt even more so.
It’s my opinion that almost any alternative is better than his continued control of the political system.
Ramkhamhaeng: A view from inside the stadium
To figure out the credibility of the article posted here you only have to read other pieces by Tony Cartalucci, like this ridiculous piece on the Thai military as a great ‘independent institution’!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/thailands-military-an-important-independent-institution/5360806
Review of One Man’s View of the World
“Chinese, by nature, hold their emotions very close to their chest.” – Now I see why you are such a fan of LKY. Both of you mistake crude racial stereotyping for brutally frank insight. It’s an issue “Nina Ong” discusses perceptively in the review.”
1. You make false and unsubstantiated comments about my being a “fan of LKY” for which you have no statement or any other evidence to back that up. And, in light of your haughty commentary on your recent Thai posting to not pontificate and to provide elaboration and clarity, you yourself do neither here.
2. Your comment about “Crude racial stereotyping is both false, shows your lack
of knowledge of Chinese culture, completely misinterprets what I was saying, and is in fact pejorative. You are also wrong in “saying both of you” as Cassandra (who I assume you are referring to) never made
the same comments that I did (so please read
more carefully in the future), and if you are referring to her comment about:
“Having said that I struggle a little to see the mostly “timid selfish and consumerist” (hat tip Benedict Anderson) Sino Thai middle class in Bangkok as particularly emotionally multi faceted.”
I see nothing crude, racist or stereotyping in her comment, which I will also address separately to her. I do find her comment inaccurate and generalized but not racist or crude.
Finally, as I have exhaustively described (not pontificated and not ranted), “Nina Ong’s” analysis of Lee’s comment about the Balfour Declaration is misinterpretation of Lee’s meaning, her own interpretation of the supposed difference between a “National Homeland” and “State” is a red herring and superfluous and is invalidated (as I have described) by historical evidence. Her incorrect assertions and her facile analysis of LKY and Singapore are hardly perceptive and there is nothing in what she wrote above that provides any substantiated novel insight about LKY, Singapore or anything else. She is wrong about LKY’s interpretation of the Balfour Declaration, as well as other things,
and her need to use a pseudonym, when many critics of LKY, do not does neither prove that she has reason to fear LKY’s “Toxic Legacy” nor does my criticism of her prove
(if you had bothered to actually read ALL my posts about Singapore which include, on some points, rather clear criticism of LKY and Singapore itself) that I am a “Fan of LKY”
which, unless I actually stated such, has no basis. YOUR crude equating of anyone that defends a single point or comment made by LKY or anyone disagreeing with an individual who apparently disagrees with LKY (or may dislike LKY) as synonymous with being a “Fan” of LKY is, in my case, false and an incorrect equation.
Reflections on the king’s speech
Yesterday, I did my grocery shopping at a supermarket.
I look at the price of a packet of akitikomachi sushi rice, and then I look the the price of a packet of kaohommali jasmine rice that is of the same weight.
I could not help but think about the annual income of Japanese rice farmers vs Thai rice farmers.
Both countries are constitutional monarchies.
The achievements speak for themselves.
Reflections on the king’s speech
Thaksin most certainly did help bring about an awakening of political awareness in the countryside. They may not be deep thinkers but they have started to see the hoodwinking that has been going on for three quarters of a century. And they have had enough.
Your suggestions seems to be the Bangkok middle-class-and-up are politically and socially aware. On the contrary they are often bigoted, narcissistic and think toting Gucci handbags and driving fancy cars equates to “freedom” and a just society. They are arrogant in believing everything they take for themselves is deserved but anything the farmers and workers ask is unnecessary.
There are in my opinion two main camps at this time. One side, the red shirt/UDD etceteras are saying:
“No more of ‘the same'”,
and the reactionary Bangkok peacocks are saying;
2) “bring back the good old days” (that never were)
However IMO more than Thaksin’s influence is the free flow of information. Until recently it was easy to control the collective mindset of the entire population. But the same does not any longer work.
Suthep lives in a past where the absence of a proper availability of information probably saved him from having to be accountable for, say his corrupt land dealings in the 1990s.
There is also one essential ingredient in all of this almost everyone seems to ignore or sidestep: Suthep is charged with MURDER.
The absolute best chance he might have of avoiding having to stand trial and risk being imprisoned, or even the death penalty in theory, is toppling the current government.
Should he succeed he will refer to this government as having been illegitimate and therefore, so too will the charges against him be brushed off as having come while under the thumb of the PTP government.
He is acting like a cornered dog because…that is exactly what he is.
Thailand’s stark choice
“If you take a decision and choose sides, this matter will be over. If you decide quickly, the people will praise you and you will be a hero,” Suthep told General Thannark, Supreme Commander of Thai armed forces at their Saturday’s (yesterday Dec 13th)meeting.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/14/us-thailand-protest-idUSBRE9BD02L20131214
Suthep just confirmed what I feared: His ‘reform-Thailand-politial system’ was meant to be a one-sided endeavor with the tanks and a junta behind him to enforce his one-sided reforms.
Aaaah Suthep. You had reached your apex of
incompetence in politics. You and the Democrats repeatedly belittle/belittled PM Yingluck as a ‘dumb bitch’ (I myself must now apologize for my previous harsh and uncalled for similar slurs I addressed to the lady Thai PM), yet incapable of negotiating with the lady, unless backed up by junta tanks and soldiers.
No more tanks. No more coups. And no more Democrat Party of Thailand.
For me personally no more quandary, thankfully.
Reflections on the king’s speech
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2013/12/14/reflections-on-the-kings-speech/ […]
Reflections on the king’s speech
[…] View Original: Reflections on the king’s speech […]
Review of One Man’s View of the World
“Chinese, by nature, hold their emotions very close to their chest.” – Now I see why you are such a fan of LKY. Both of you mistake crude racial stereotyping for brutally frank insight. It’s an issue “Nina Ong” discusses perceptively in the review.
Reflections on the king’s speech
Peter, rather than just pontificate about how wrong it is to see succession as the decisive factor driving this conflict at the elite level – as this article and my long analysis “р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д” have argued – perhaps you can take the debate forward by explaining why, in your view, succession is irrelevant. Just ranting that others are wrong without putting forward your own counterargument is rather pointless. It’s worth noting that viewing Thai politics in the context of succession explains many previously baffling aspects of the situation, and in “р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д” I made some very specific predictions back in October which have proven very accurate. So given the explanatory and predictive power of this thesis, you really do need to provide considerably better arguments and evidence if you wish to discredit it. Best wishes.
Review of One Man’s View of the World
There are surely several levels of emotion in every human being, and it isn’t necessary to have a specialist knowledge of Chinese culture or any other culture to grasp this rather commonplace truth.
Having said that I struggle a little to see the mostly “timid selfish and consumerist” (hat tip Benedict Anderson) Sino Thai middle class in Bangkok as particularly emotionally multi faceted.
Reflections on the king’s speech
Correct. Glad to see more people starting to report what is really going on.
Reflections on the king’s speech
You could be wrong; but you couldn’t be more wrong. Your analysis of HRH King Bhumibol is, at best, facile. I won’t even mention what it is at its worst. Your hardly veiled obsequiousness to the Shinawatra clan is consistent with the general tenor of this website, so I am not the least surprised.
Nevertheless, your implication that Thaksin engendered political and social consciousness
among the “poor, uneducated voters in the north and northeast of Thailand” is in equal measure unsubstantiated and condescending, as is your statement that the urban middle-class and upper classes are afraid of Thaksin. I think not. On the contrary, I think you are afraid of those Thai individuals who have no fear of Thaksin.