Mr Sommer’s final sentence suggests to me that he knows next to nothing about current investment in Myanmar and how it is organised and channelled. Only recently Suu Kyi was observing that the rate of actual foreign investment was not at all significant. Certainly it will take time for major infrastructure funding to begin to flow into Myanmar, and many projects will be supported financially by the World Bank, IMF and Asian Development Bank.
There is a saying in US, for a Republican to win a presidential election, one must run as far right as possible in the primary and then run back to the center as fast as possible before the Presendential campaign begins.
With the practice of malapportionment, we know that UMNO would only need to get the right 16% votes to secure 50% of the parliamentary seats.
2013 played out well for UMNO as such, with the ultra racist agenda of Perkasa.
Until Pakatan learn the same, 2018 would run the same course, no matter how Pakatan got to unite itself and address all issues mentioned.
To win an election is to provide the best deal to the corrupt government of feudal Taib, and to fill the pockets of many of the modern royal children of ex-ministers. To win an election is to pour out more favors generously than UMNO to the Ketuanan Melayu agenda in minority small kampungs at the expense of the majority urban votes. To win an election, is to both double talk Wahabist Sunni tradition to out-Islam the most ethically moral Islam nation internally, while out-Wasatiyah the most moderate Islamic nations pandering to fancies of liberal God-less West internationally.
Just as God is dead, democracy is dead the day Malaysians have collectively buried and denied the ugly truth of how existing modern day ruling elites rob Malaysians their only chance to realize a just society, as we kept silence while witnessing how the history of May 13 1969 has been twisted.
Democracy would not come alive. At least, not until all Malaysians who still has conscience understood the meaning of civil disobedience.
Except for the elite few feudal lords, all Malaysians are mere grass. As mere grass, we should and could live out the freedom of being grass and stop working for the feudal lords collectively. Choose a day, say Monday, every Monday of 2014. Rest, and stay at home. Away from work, away from school, away from trouble, away from this very filthy nation of greed controlled by a few elite feudal children lords of ex-ministers.
Just as we realize only through death and resignation would Allah comes to life, we would learn the meaning of democracy only as when we resign from working for an unjust system.
We may loose our job, we may goto jail. But, alas… we may not loose our conscience for being free, just and loving for our generations
to come.
And I will disagree with Chris Baker; the segment that includes the mention of historical unity/solidarity does not show a past tense. In fact it seems to this old linguist to be clearly perfective, that was then and now: р╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕╢р╕Бр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щр╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕Др╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╣Ир╕бр╣Ар╕вр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕кр╕╕р╕Вр╕бр╕▓р╕Кр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕▓р╕Щ. I get that from the р╕бр╕▓р╕Кр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕▓р╕Щ, which I read as having р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕╢р╕Бр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щр╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕Др╕З in its scope too. I think that’s actually pretty clear in the syntax.
A question to ask may be how would you react if you were in the reverse position and saw a person of African origin who looked like a student use the facilities? Would you ask the question?
Based on the scenario explained, it’s clear he thought you didn’t look like a staff. Nonetheless, the assumption that the reason “you didn’t look like a staff” was based on your skin colour, hair style, looks or dressing is not clear.
He may very we’ll be racist but he could also have just assumed it for other reasons. For us to assume its a racist remark may suggest that, those concerns are at the forefront of our minds and as a result, we assume the worst due to our own insecurities. Of course therein a great deal which is not captured in the scenario, such as tone, look, etc. that may also indicate racist behaviour.
Just saying that sometimes people aren’t racist just because the other party accuses them of such. I have also met people who have been victims of racism turn around and be racists to others without even realising it.
For avoidance of doubt, I am not accusing you of being racist nor am I defending the other person as “not” being racists. I wasn’t there and haven’t seen how the person reacts other such similar situations to make a judgement.
Just playing Devil’s advocate as food for thought on an alternate perspective.
Did I suggest ‘breaking ranks’ among Thaksin-servants-pretending-to-be-legislators? Heavens forbid. Not when every Peau Thai Party MP depends on the Potjaman/Thaksin payroll system.
It’s definitely a ‘tango’ invitation from Yingluck to Suthep, but Suthep may still be too enraged to remember the basic dance steps.
The 400,000 massive number is my conservative estimate and Yingluck/Thaksin/Thaksin-servants I suspect must have been shocked into panic when they saw the video clips and drone photo shots of the masses of angry anti-Thaksins. My wife thinks more than 500,000 and my househelp who is a math whiz thinks conservatively at least 600,000.
But if you won’t take my estimate, maybe you’d consider Bangkok Post’s arithmetic below:
Excerpts – ” .. .A conventional method to estimate the size of a crowd is to base it on the ground area. Usually, a ratio of three people per square metre is used in the case of crowds of protesters. If the crowd is not tight, with some walking space, then a ratio of two people per square metre is used. According to official figures, Ratchadamnoen Klang Avenue covers an area of 50,400 sq m (a length of 1,200m and a width of of 36m.) This means the areas estimated to have been occupied by the protesters total about 89,550 sq m. Based on the three people per square metre formula, the number of protesters at Ratchadamnoen Avenue on Sunday would have been about 268,650 people. Sanam Luang, meanwhile, has an area of about 118,400 sq m. Since demonstrators were estimated to have occupied only about half the area, it can be calculated that between 118,400 to 177,600 people could have been there. This would put the total number of protesters at between 387,050 and 446,250.”
According to my wife BangkokPost omitted to calculate the masses of people tightly choking every small streets along Rachadamnern Ave. plus the long Pinklao Bridge that was packed with people from head to toe because they literally could not move any further. Thus she estimated more than 500,000.
But SteveCM if you think there were a million, many will not disagree with you.
Can we see a Thai transcript, please? This might be highly relevant to these of us working in Thai universities, as the rectors keep closing them down, presumably to give the impression we are ‘on strike’. (There’s absolutely no physical danger – the main campuses are dozens of miles from the protest sites).
I do not want to crush the party, but I am not completely convinced by this theory. Many questions arise: Chuan was the son of a simple market vendor from Trang. Why is he considered part oft the “traditional elite”? Chatichai was the son of Field Marshal Phin Choonhavan, member of the powerful Soi Ratchakru clan and was promoted General when he was 31. Why is he not part of the “traditional elite”? Samak was a grandson of King Rama VI’s private doctor, leader of the right wing of the Democrats during the 1970s, then leader of the Prachakorn Thai Party, that was voted nowhere but in Bangkok. Why is he not part of the “traditional elite”?
Suchinda’s government was based on MPs from the provinces, it was the Bangkokian middle-class who toppled him. Why is he not in the same category as Banharn and Chavalit? The Democrats won the election in September 1992. Why is Chuan I not a “normally elected” government?
During the 1990s, Thailand had a multiparty system. There were not two major parties. Coalitions of seven and more parties were usual. The Prime Minister was not chosen at the ballot box, but in behind-closed-doors negotiations. Banharn and Chavalit did not win power through elections, but through coalition talks. In 1995, Banharn’s party had only 92 of 391 seats. In 1996, the Democrats won more votes than Chavalit’s New Aspiration Party (but two seats less, due to the single-winner constituencies) If the Democrats had been better at convincing minor parties to join them, they would have won.
By the way, Bangkok was not a stronghold of the Democrats before 2006. Bangkok voted Palang Dharma (=Chamlong/Thaksin/Sudarat), Prachakorn Thai (=Samak) and then Thai Rak Thai. Yes! In 2001 TRT won a higher share of seats in Bangkok than they did in the Northeast. The Bangkok middle-class was mostly pro-Thaksin, they believed in his new-style politics and “CEO premiership”.
I do not want to say that this theory completely misses the point. I just want to suggest that the two categories (“traditional elite” vs. “normally elected”) may be too simplistic and the reality more multi-dimensional…
The Bangkok Post introduced its report on the speech with this: “His Majesty the King advised Thai people to properly fulfill the role and duties their work requires of them for the sake of the stability and security of the nation …,” which seemed to me like an indirect call to government workers not to quit working to join the protests.
The Post did not, however, provide a quote to support this interpretation. Its closest quote was this: “‘All Thais should realise this point a lot and behave and perform our duties accordingly, our duty for the sake of the public, for stability, security for our nation of Thailand,’ His Majesty said …” No specific reference to fulfilling the duties their work requires of them.
[…] An interesting question has been raised by Murray Hunter in the New Mandala: Whether Pakatan Rakyat deserves to be in government!!!! See (link here) New Mandala […]
“…we recall the 400,000 or so Sunday mass of angry anti-Thaksins that poured into the streets of Bangkok…”
Do you (plural?) also “recall” any credible evidence whatever for even half that figure? Or are you happy to rely just on the claims made by Suthep stepson and publicist Akanat – and, if so, why not on the repeated “million(s)” claims of Suthep himself?
Your cite from Pheu Thai MP Samart conveniently cuts off a key element (arguably the main if not whole point) of what he was saying:
After that, the House could be dissolved and the power returned to the people via a general election. He suggested Mr Suthep set up a new political party and put his proposals for reform to the electorate, and let the people decide whether to elect him to form a government. This way he could have the legitimacy to set up his proposed “people’s council”.
[The bold emphasis indicates what your “etc etc” cut-off conceals]
Given what Suthep & Co’s prospects in such an election would almost certainly be (i.e. dismal), Samart’s suggestion starts to look rather more like an artful trap than a breaking ranks moment, wouldn’t you say? If you really want to talk credibly about what is “significant”, it’s as well to ease off on the conspicuous cherry-picking and purposeful editing.
20-30 thousand Yellow shirts protesters (big proportion of which are “rent a crowd”) get an appointed Prime Minister and Govt is “speaking for the Thai people, whereas 30-40 million Thai citizens “voted in” Govt is not “speaking for the Thai People?
How is that even logical or conceivable except in a Feudal setting? That is really what the Democrats backed “yellow shirts” want. Back to the good old Feudal days where the lords enjoy the fruits of the “serfs labour”.
I really want to know, how the people tying to justify this as OK, sleep at night.
According to intercepted radio communications, the jets and helicopters are being piloted by foreigners, mainly Chinese.
The Burmese pilots weren’t pressing home the attack very aggressively.
The developments of recent weeks have confirmed the main thesis of my long article “р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д – Thailand’s Era of Insanity” which set out a detailed prediction back in October of how events would unfold. It has proven to be extremely accurate:
Another terribly damaging crisis is looming. The Yellow bloc will do its best to once again incite mayhem in Bangkok in coming days and weeks. The Democrat Party has totally abdicated its duty to be a responsible parliamentary opposition that holds the government to account via constitutional methods. Instead, they intend to continue to sabotage parliament’s ability to function, and then claim democracy in Thailand is no longer working… The Yellow movement also intends…to mount more mass rallies in Bangkok to paralyse the city. And when they have ramped up chaos and tension to fever pitch, they intend to remove the government via a judicial coup by partisan judges. They will then seek to freeze democracy for years and instal a government probably headed by Prawit Wongsuwan with no democratic mandate.
This plan is pure insanity. If it fails, as it most probably will, the Yellow establishment will try even more desperate measures. Wild talk of kidnap and assassination, including the murder of Thaksin or Vajiralongkorn or both, has become increasingly commonplace in the ultra-royalist camp. A few bullets, they believe, could fix the situation once and for all.
If the plan succeeds, as it may, Thailand will be plunged into vicious internecine conflict far bloodier even than the darkest days of 1976 and 2010. A mass popular uprising in Bangkok, Isaan and Lanna is inevitable. There are two ways it could end. Events could follow the same script as Egypt in 2011, with mass resistance to authoritarian rule forcing democratic elections. Or they could follow the script of Egypt in 2013, in which the deep state enforces order and unity through military dictatorship and savage massacres of those who dissent.
I had expected Preah Vihear to be more prominent as a pretext for the Yellow insurrection (and this was indeed their Plan B) but it became unnecessary when Thaksin gifted his opponents the perfect issue to rally around with his amnesty bill debacle. Otherwise the situation has played out exactly as I forecast.
That’s a pretty remarkable achievement, which demonstrates the explanatory power of the central thesis, and the exceptional quality of the confidential sources (the article was based on interviews with more than 300 sources, many of whom I speak to several times a month). Indeed the interpretation of Thai politics that I set out in р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д is the only one that explains many apparently irrational or unfathomable aspects of contemporary Thai politics – the feral intensity of the traditional establishment’s hatred of Thaksin Shinawatra, a fairly ordinary unprincipled Thai political leader, although admittedly more effective than most; the interpretation of “corruption” as somehow specifically linked to Thaksin and his allies rather than corrupt politicians and officials in general (thereby allowing the notoriously crooked Suthep Thaugsuban to lead a mass movement protesting against Thaksin’s corruption); the erosion of the elite’s traditional pragmatism and willingness to compromise, replaced by inflexible fanaticism and determination to crush Thaksin whatever the cost; the peculiar desperation and urgency of the Yellow movement to prise parliament out of Thaskin’s grip immediately, even though the establishment never took parliament particularly seriously in the past and real power mostly lies elsewhere; Vajiralongkorn’s recent political interventions, etc.
So if anybody still doesn’t understand what lies behind Suthep’s insurrection, and indeed the whole Yellow campaign against Thaksin since 2005, I suggest you read р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д to find out.
SPOILER ALERT: It’s a succession conflict. The Thai establishment is secretly – and desperately – battling to keep Vajiralongkorn off the throne.
Vichai N: I’m genuinely confused. I thought the Constitutional Court just ruled that parliament had no power to alter clauses in the constitution, so how could Section 291 be amended? And by whom?
Or are you assuming that the CC only meant that the constitution cannot be amended to make it MORE democratic?
I agree with Pavin’s assessment, but there’s one pedantic and interesting point. For the key term of “unity” in the opening sentence, he did not use the Sanskritic samakkhi, which has been the favored term since the Fifth Reign, or an nueng an dieo, “oneness,” probably invented to translate the English-language “unity,” and favored in the constitution and other similar documents. Rather he used р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ър╕╢р╕Бр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щ, pen buek phaen. Since this was not the obvious word, I think it must have been a considered choice.
I believe pen buek phaen is an old Thai phrase as it typically expresses a concept by using simple concrete words. Buek means to clog together, to form a lump; and phaen is a sheet. So being united together like a lump or a sheet. It’s stronger than “unity,” which has been the translation used by the English-language press. Pavin was right to use “solidarity” instead. Better (though clumsier) would be “united to be solid.” The point is: it’s stronger than “unity.” And note that this opening sentence is clearly in the past tense: this is how we were.
So, yes, this is his usual message, but with a twist, I suspect a deliberate twist. But I guess the whistle people have blown their ear drums by now.
The solution is so simple, that it is almost impossible for Thaksin haters to comprehend, much less implement.
1) Stop giving Thaksin free PR
By hating him so much and going around forever yabering how ‘evil’ Thaksin is keeps him in the limelighT and keeps him relevant. By hammering incessantly about Thaksin’s ‘evils’ also only serve to remind people that the hammerers also shared the same ‘evils’ ie Corrupt, egoistic, arrogant etc. It also behooves some curious people to read up and realise Thaksin has done some good stuff (as almost all politicians do no matter how corrupt).
2) Do unto others what you want them to do unto you
Stop calling them water buffalos, ee-lao or other condescending terms. Start seeing them as fellow citizens. Start giving them the same access to infrastructure etc. (putting education on hold as seriously I am quite certain Isaan is much better getting access to overseas homestudy programs than access to Bkk education) Start seeing them as fellow Thais, treating them as fellow Thais.
Under TRT, an underclass stirs (quoting LKY). Once they’ve tasted access to capital, sorry. Theres no turning back. So many of them has shown entrepreneurship and started their own businesses, watched by many many more who now have the same dreams and hopes.
So, yes. Stop hating Thaksin and going around screaming how evil he is. And start respecting your fellow baan-nok citizens. Do that and Thaksin will soon fade into obscurity.
And how much does (1) and (2) cost? Best part: Nothing! will even make you a happier friendlier and likeable person. And more electable too.
Of this this route translate into no more or much less old style corruption revenue. But since Democrat Party is ‘clean’, this should not be an issue.
In the meantime, we should head up to Washington to study how modern pork barrelling works in modern politics.
You betcha there’s something going on. All of a sudden, Thailand’s authoritarian hierarchy are telling Suthep to pull his head in or they’ll dump him. Suthep is guilty of shining too bright a light on them.
The Dem is playing indirect game.
They cant come out to dispute Suthep, cause last time Abhisit himself asked for appointed PM.
They cant come out to endorse Suthep, cause that’s a possible party dissolution case.
Better let Suthep and other parties (court and Senators) play the game.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Myanmar’s military: Money and guns
Mr Sommer’s final sentence suggests to me that he knows next to nothing about current investment in Myanmar and how it is organised and channelled. Only recently Suu Kyi was observing that the rate of actual foreign investment was not at all significant. Certainly it will take time for major infrastructure funding to begin to flow into Myanmar, and many projects will be supported financially by the World Bank, IMF and Asian Development Bank.
Pakatan Rakyat does not deserve to be government
There is a saying in US, for a Republican to win a presidential election, one must run as far right as possible in the primary and then run back to the center as fast as possible before the Presendential campaign begins.
With the practice of malapportionment, we know that UMNO would only need to get the right 16% votes to secure 50% of the parliamentary seats.
2013 played out well for UMNO as such, with the ultra racist agenda of Perkasa.
Until Pakatan learn the same, 2018 would run the same course, no matter how Pakatan got to unite itself and address all issues mentioned.
To win an election is to provide the best deal to the corrupt government of feudal Taib, and to fill the pockets of many of the modern royal children of ex-ministers. To win an election is to pour out more favors generously than UMNO to the Ketuanan Melayu agenda in minority small kampungs at the expense of the majority urban votes. To win an election, is to both double talk Wahabist Sunni tradition to out-Islam the most ethically moral Islam nation internally, while out-Wasatiyah the most moderate Islamic nations pandering to fancies of liberal God-less West internationally.
Just as God is dead, democracy is dead the day Malaysians have collectively buried and denied the ugly truth of how existing modern day ruling elites rob Malaysians their only chance to realize a just society, as we kept silence while witnessing how the history of May 13 1969 has been twisted.
Democracy would not come alive. At least, not until all Malaysians who still has conscience understood the meaning of civil disobedience.
Except for the elite few feudal lords, all Malaysians are mere grass. As mere grass, we should and could live out the freedom of being grass and stop working for the feudal lords collectively. Choose a day, say Monday, every Monday of 2014. Rest, and stay at home. Away from work, away from school, away from trouble, away from this very filthy nation of greed controlled by a few elite feudal children lords of ex-ministers.
Just as we realize only through death and resignation would Allah comes to life, we would learn the meaning of democracy only as when we resign from working for an unjust system.
We may loose our job, we may goto jail. But, alas… we may not loose our conscience for being free, just and loving for our generations
to come.
Myanmar’s military: Money and guns
China is a hypocritical double-faced dragon (it has something to do with their belief in Sun-Tzu strategy rubbish). The Chinese are also supplying the ethnic insurgent groups in Burma with deadly weapons:
http://www.janes.com/article/12159/china-sends-armed-helicopters-to-myanmar-separatists
The king’s birthday speech
Here is Matichon’s rendering of the speech in Thai:
р╕Вр╕нр╕Вр╕нр╕Ър╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕▒р╕вр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Вр╕нр╕Ър╣Гр╕Ир╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕лр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕вр╕┤р╣Ир╕З р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╣Др╕бр╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╕Юр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕Юр╕гр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Юр╕гр╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕Бр╕┤р╕Ф р╕гр╕зр╕бр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕│р╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕кр╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▓р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ж р╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕Юр╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕Вр╕нр╕кр╕Щр╕нр╕Зр╕Юр╕г р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Др╕бр╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╣Гр╕Ир╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ
р╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕╢р╕Бр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щр╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕Др╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╣Ир╕бр╣Ар╕вр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕кр╕╕р╕Вр╕бр╕▓р╕Кр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕▓р╕Щ р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕вр╕╢р╕Фр╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Ър╕│р╣Ар╕Юр╣Зр╕Нр╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡р╕вр╕Бр╕┤р╕Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕бр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕кр╕нр╕Фр╕Др╕ер╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Бр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╕Бр╕╣р╕ер╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Вр╕вр╕Кр╕Щр╣Мр╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕гр╕зр╕бр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ р╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Др╕Щр╕Ир╕╢р╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕гр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Хр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╣Гр╕Щр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕бр╕▓р╕Б р╣Бр╕ер╕▒р╕зр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Гр╕Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Юр╕др╕Хр╕┤р╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕Ър╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕кр╕бр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╕░р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕кр╕│р╣Ар╕гр╣Зр╕Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Вр╕вр╕Кр╕Щр╣Мр╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕гр╕зр╕бр╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕Др╕Зр╕Ыр╕ер╕нр╕Фр╕ар╕▒р╕вр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤р╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕Чр╕в
р╕Вр╕нр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╣Бр╕лр╣Ир╕Зр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▒р╕Хр╕Щр╕Хр╕гр╕▒р╕вр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕кр╕┤р╣Ир╕Зр╕ир╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕┤р╣Мр╕кр╕┤р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╣М р╕Ир╕Зр╕Др╕╕р╣Йр╕бр╕Др╕гр╕нр╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Др╕Щр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ьр╕▓р╕кр╕╕р╕Бр╕гр╣Ир╕бр╣Ар╕вр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╕ер╕нр╕Фр╣Др╕Ы”
And I will disagree with Chris Baker; the segment that includes the mention of historical unity/solidarity does not show a past tense. In fact it seems to this old linguist to be clearly perfective, that was then and now: р╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕╢р╕Бр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щр╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕Др╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╣Ир╕бр╣Ар╕вр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕кр╕╕р╕Вр╕бр╕▓р╕Кр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕▓р╕Щ. I get that from the р╕бр╕▓р╕Кр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕▓р╕Щ, which I read as having р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕╢р╕Бр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щр╕бр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕Др╕З in its scope too. I think that’s actually pretty clear in the syntax.
Say what, cakap apa?
A question to ask may be how would you react if you were in the reverse position and saw a person of African origin who looked like a student use the facilities? Would you ask the question?
Based on the scenario explained, it’s clear he thought you didn’t look like a staff. Nonetheless, the assumption that the reason “you didn’t look like a staff” was based on your skin colour, hair style, looks or dressing is not clear.
He may very we’ll be racist but he could also have just assumed it for other reasons. For us to assume its a racist remark may suggest that, those concerns are at the forefront of our minds and as a result, we assume the worst due to our own insecurities. Of course therein a great deal which is not captured in the scenario, such as tone, look, etc. that may also indicate racist behaviour.
Just saying that sometimes people aren’t racist just because the other party accuses them of such. I have also met people who have been victims of racism turn around and be racists to others without even realising it.
For avoidance of doubt, I am not accusing you of being racist nor am I defending the other person as “not” being racists. I wasn’t there and haven’t seen how the person reacts other such similar situations to make a judgement.
Just playing Devil’s advocate as food for thought on an alternate perspective.
Thailand’s stark choice
Did I suggest ‘breaking ranks’ among Thaksin-servants-pretending-to-be-legislators? Heavens forbid. Not when every Peau Thai Party MP depends on the Potjaman/Thaksin payroll system.
It’s definitely a ‘tango’ invitation from Yingluck to Suthep, but Suthep may still be too enraged to remember the basic dance steps.
The 400,000 massive number is my conservative estimate and Yingluck/Thaksin/Thaksin-servants I suspect must have been shocked into panic when they saw the video clips and drone photo shots of the masses of angry anti-Thaksins. My wife thinks more than 500,000 and my househelp who is a math whiz thinks conservatively at least 600,000.
But if you won’t take my estimate, maybe you’d consider Bangkok Post’s arithmetic below:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/381682/were-there-a-million-or-only-59000
Excerpts – ” .. .A conventional method to estimate the size of a crowd is to base it on the ground area. Usually, a ratio of three people per square metre is used in the case of crowds of protesters. If the crowd is not tight, with some walking space, then a ratio of two people per square metre is used. According to official figures, Ratchadamnoen Klang Avenue covers an area of 50,400 sq m (a length of 1,200m and a width of of 36m.) This means the areas estimated to have been occupied by the protesters total about 89,550 sq m. Based on the three people per square metre formula, the number of protesters at Ratchadamnoen Avenue on Sunday would have been about 268,650 people. Sanam Luang, meanwhile, has an area of about 118,400 sq m. Since demonstrators were estimated to have occupied only about half the area, it can be calculated that between 118,400 to 177,600 people could have been there. This would put the total number of protesters at between 387,050 and 446,250.”
According to my wife BangkokPost omitted to calculate the masses of people tightly choking every small streets along Rachadamnern Ave. plus the long Pinklao Bridge that was packed with people from head to toe because they literally could not move any further. Thus she estimated more than 500,000.
But SteveCM if you think there were a million, many will not disagree with you.
The king’s birthday speech
Can we see a Thai transcript, please? This might be highly relevant to these of us working in Thai universities, as the rectors keep closing them down, presumably to give the impression we are ‘on strike’. (There’s absolutely no physical danger – the main campuses are dozens of miles from the protest sites).
We’ve seen your theories…
I do not want to crush the party, but I am not completely convinced by this theory. Many questions arise: Chuan was the son of a simple market vendor from Trang. Why is he considered part oft the “traditional elite”? Chatichai was the son of Field Marshal Phin Choonhavan, member of the powerful Soi Ratchakru clan and was promoted General when he was 31. Why is he not part of the “traditional elite”? Samak was a grandson of King Rama VI’s private doctor, leader of the right wing of the Democrats during the 1970s, then leader of the Prachakorn Thai Party, that was voted nowhere but in Bangkok. Why is he not part of the “traditional elite”?
Suchinda’s government was based on MPs from the provinces, it was the Bangkokian middle-class who toppled him. Why is he not in the same category as Banharn and Chavalit? The Democrats won the election in September 1992. Why is Chuan I not a “normally elected” government?
During the 1990s, Thailand had a multiparty system. There were not two major parties. Coalitions of seven and more parties were usual. The Prime Minister was not chosen at the ballot box, but in behind-closed-doors negotiations. Banharn and Chavalit did not win power through elections, but through coalition talks. In 1995, Banharn’s party had only 92 of 391 seats. In 1996, the Democrats won more votes than Chavalit’s New Aspiration Party (but two seats less, due to the single-winner constituencies) If the Democrats had been better at convincing minor parties to join them, they would have won.
By the way, Bangkok was not a stronghold of the Democrats before 2006. Bangkok voted Palang Dharma (=Chamlong/Thaksin/Sudarat), Prachakorn Thai (=Samak) and then Thai Rak Thai. Yes! In 2001 TRT won a higher share of seats in Bangkok than they did in the Northeast. The Bangkok middle-class was mostly pro-Thaksin, they believed in his new-style politics and “CEO premiership”.
I do not want to say that this theory completely misses the point. I just want to suggest that the two categories (“traditional elite” vs. “normally elected”) may be too simplistic and the reality more multi-dimensional…
The king’s birthday speech
The Bangkok Post introduced its report on the speech with this: “His Majesty the King advised Thai people to properly fulfill the role and duties their work requires of them for the sake of the stability and security of the nation …,” which seemed to me like an indirect call to government workers not to quit working to join the protests.
The Post did not, however, provide a quote to support this interpretation. Its closest quote was this: “‘All Thais should realise this point a lot and behave and perform our duties accordingly, our duty for the sake of the public, for stability, security for our nation of Thailand,’ His Majesty said …” No specific reference to fulfilling the duties their work requires of them.
The king’s birthday speech
Deliberate & considered by who I wonder?
Pakatan Rakyat does not deserve to be government
[…] An interesting question has been raised by Murray Hunter in the New Mandala: Whether Pakatan Rakyat deserves to be in government!!!! See (link here) New Mandala […]
Thailand’s stark choice
Vichai…..
“…we recall the 400,000 or so Sunday mass of angry anti-Thaksins that poured into the streets of Bangkok…”
Do you (plural?) also “recall” any credible evidence whatever for even half that figure? Or are you happy to rely just on the claims made by Suthep stepson and publicist Akanat – and, if so, why not on the repeated “million(s)” claims of Suthep himself?
Your cite from Pheu Thai MP Samart conveniently cuts off a key element (arguably the main if not whole point) of what he was saying:
After that, the House could be dissolved and the power returned to the people via a general election. He suggested Mr Suthep set up a new political party and put his proposals for reform to the electorate, and let the people decide whether to elect him to form a government. This way he could have the legitimacy to set up his proposed “people’s council”.
[The bold emphasis indicates what your “etc etc” cut-off conceals]
Given what Suthep & Co’s prospects in such an election would almost certainly be (i.e. dismal), Samart’s suggestion starts to look rather more like an artful trap than a breaking ranks moment, wouldn’t you say? If you really want to talk credibly about what is “significant”, it’s as well to ease off on the conspicuous cherry-picking and purposeful editing.
Thailand’s stark choice
20-30 thousand Yellow shirts protesters (big proportion of which are “rent a crowd”) get an appointed Prime Minister and Govt is “speaking for the Thai people, whereas 30-40 million Thai citizens “voted in” Govt is not “speaking for the Thai People?
How is that even logical or conceivable except in a Feudal setting? That is really what the Democrats backed “yellow shirts” want. Back to the good old Feudal days where the lords enjoy the fruits of the “serfs labour”.
I really want to know, how the people tying to justify this as OK, sleep at night.
Myanmar’s military: Money and guns
According to intercepted radio communications, the jets and helicopters are being piloted by foreigners, mainly Chinese.
The Burmese pilots weren’t pressing home the attack very aggressively.
Thailand’s stark choice
The developments of recent weeks have confirmed the main thesis of my long article “р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д – Thailand’s Era of Insanity” which set out a detailed prediction back in October of how events would unfold. It has proven to be extremely accurate:
I had expected Preah Vihear to be more prominent as a pretext for the Yellow insurrection (and this was indeed their Plan B) but it became unnecessary when Thaksin gifted his opponents the perfect issue to rally around with his amnesty bill debacle. Otherwise the situation has played out exactly as I forecast.
That’s a pretty remarkable achievement, which demonstrates the explanatory power of the central thesis, and the exceptional quality of the confidential sources (the article was based on interviews with more than 300 sources, many of whom I speak to several times a month). Indeed the interpretation of Thai politics that I set out in р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д is the only one that explains many apparently irrational or unfathomable aspects of contemporary Thai politics – the feral intensity of the traditional establishment’s hatred of Thaksin Shinawatra, a fairly ordinary unprincipled Thai political leader, although admittedly more effective than most; the interpretation of “corruption” as somehow specifically linked to Thaksin and his allies rather than corrupt politicians and officials in general (thereby allowing the notoriously crooked Suthep Thaugsuban to lead a mass movement protesting against Thaksin’s corruption); the erosion of the elite’s traditional pragmatism and willingness to compromise, replaced by inflexible fanaticism and determination to crush Thaksin whatever the cost; the peculiar desperation and urgency of the Yellow movement to prise parliament out of Thaskin’s grip immediately, even though the establishment never took parliament particularly seriously in the past and real power mostly lies elsewhere; Vajiralongkorn’s recent political interventions, etc.
So if anybody still doesn’t understand what lies behind Suthep’s insurrection, and indeed the whole Yellow campaign against Thaksin since 2005, I suggest you read р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д to find out.
SPOILER ALERT: It’s a succession conflict. The Thai establishment is secretly – and desperately – battling to keep Vajiralongkorn off the throne.
Thailand’s stark choice
Vichai N: I’m genuinely confused. I thought the Constitutional Court just ruled that parliament had no power to alter clauses in the constitution, so how could Section 291 be amended? And by whom?
Or are you assuming that the CC only meant that the constitution cannot be amended to make it MORE democratic?
The king’s birthday speech
I agree with Pavin’s assessment, but there’s one pedantic and interesting point. For the key term of “unity” in the opening sentence, he did not use the Sanskritic samakkhi, which has been the favored term since the Fifth Reign, or an nueng an dieo, “oneness,” probably invented to translate the English-language “unity,” and favored in the constitution and other similar documents. Rather he used р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ър╕╢р╕Бр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щ, pen buek phaen. Since this was not the obvious word, I think it must have been a considered choice.
I believe pen buek phaen is an old Thai phrase as it typically expresses a concept by using simple concrete words. Buek means to clog together, to form a lump; and phaen is a sheet. So being united together like a lump or a sheet. It’s stronger than “unity,” which has been the translation used by the English-language press. Pavin was right to use “solidarity” instead. Better (though clumsier) would be “united to be solid.” The point is: it’s stronger than “unity.” And note that this opening sentence is clearly in the past tense: this is how we were.
So, yes, this is his usual message, but with a twist, I suspect a deliberate twist. But I guess the whistle people have blown their ear drums by now.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
The solution is so simple, that it is almost impossible for Thaksin haters to comprehend, much less implement.
1) Stop giving Thaksin free PR
By hating him so much and going around forever yabering how ‘evil’ Thaksin is keeps him in the limelighT and keeps him relevant. By hammering incessantly about Thaksin’s ‘evils’ also only serve to remind people that the hammerers also shared the same ‘evils’ ie Corrupt, egoistic, arrogant etc. It also behooves some curious people to read up and realise Thaksin has done some good stuff (as almost all politicians do no matter how corrupt).
2) Do unto others what you want them to do unto you
Stop calling them water buffalos, ee-lao or other condescending terms. Start seeing them as fellow citizens. Start giving them the same access to infrastructure etc. (putting education on hold as seriously I am quite certain Isaan is much better getting access to overseas homestudy programs than access to Bkk education) Start seeing them as fellow Thais, treating them as fellow Thais.
Under TRT, an underclass stirs (quoting LKY). Once they’ve tasted access to capital, sorry. Theres no turning back. So many of them has shown entrepreneurship and started their own businesses, watched by many many more who now have the same dreams and hopes.
So, yes. Stop hating Thaksin and going around screaming how evil he is. And start respecting your fellow baan-nok citizens. Do that and Thaksin will soon fade into obscurity.
And how much does (1) and (2) cost? Best part: Nothing! will even make you a happier friendlier and likeable person. And more electable too.
Of this this route translate into no more or much less old style corruption revenue. But since Democrat Party is ‘clean’, this should not be an issue.
In the meantime, we should head up to Washington to study how modern pork barrelling works in modern politics.
Thailand’s stark choice
You betcha there’s something going on. All of a sudden, Thailand’s authoritarian hierarchy are telling Suthep to pull his head in or they’ll dump him. Suthep is guilty of shining too bright a light on them.
Thailand’s stark choice
The Dem is playing indirect game.
They cant come out to dispute Suthep, cause last time Abhisit himself asked for appointed PM.
They cant come out to endorse Suthep, cause that’s a possible party dissolution case.
Better let Suthep and other parties (court and Senators) play the game.