Peter, your comparisons are right. The freedom of the individual, in just about every respect (save only the Lèse Majesté law), is infinitely greater in Thailand than almost anywhere else in the region – and all this maintained in a country supposedly under Thaksin’s “electoral dictatorship” for most of the last dozen years. Remarkable.
The Democrat Party is not likely to reach the heart of the rural poor in the north in the foreseeable future. What it can do, is to offer social programs to the urban poor and the upwards mobile part of the non-rural working class. Doing this, they can inch towards offering a viable political alternative to about 50% of the electorate as a sort of economically oriented urban right-wing movement that incorporates the traditional elites.
It’s all about dividing the population of Thailand in the long run into two comparably strong main political camps, as this has happened in other democracies around the world.
From there, it’s checks and balances.
Ideally with smaller parties in the centre of the spectrum, which by changing alliances can smoothen the change of governments after elections and provide some of the much needed continuity.
The current elected Gov. Ha, ha, the always win by buying vote is more like it. And why it always win again and again, because it use the money from corruption to buy more votes. It is like compound interest thing.
Better dictator that consider long term consequences to the country, than those elected leader who care about nothing but his own pocket and selling his/her country to the banker cartel abroad.
I was interested in the discussion between Hanuman and Peter Cohen about the possibility that there may have been serfdom and inequality in the reigns of Rama IV and V. Unfortunately, I can’t pursue it because it comes under the lese majeste rules. See here:
Peter, if people are forbidden to discuss not only the personal characteristics of previous kings but even the characteristics of their reigns, surely that must contribute something to the “mystery” around the monarchy.
I suggest the Myanmar solution.Fifty years of military rule should get rid of the Thaksin regime and pave the way for democracy.
Don’t know how to get rid of the “Thaksin influence” though which seems to be Suthep’s latest aim. Perhaps a committee of PAD historians could rewrite the last 13 years and replace Thakin’s name with “a person of no importance or influence whose name we can’t remember”
How are the protestors misinformed about Thaksin? He wouldn’t allow freedom of press and would sue any journalist who questioned his policies, he used extra judicial killings against anyone suspected of drugs, (His nephew Soon was the biggest Ya Ba addict I ever knew but he never arrested him), used his position to promote his family to high positions in the police, army and politics (Nepotism), is corrupt, and a fugitive. He is not good for the country! May be the Puea Thai govt. can plan another Rice Scheme. Ouch!
On another point, I believe that Pheua Thai rejected the authority of the Constitutional Court to rule on the validity of the amendment rather than its interpretation. So they have left the amendment to make its normal passage to the King for his signature. If and when that amendment is enacted and signed by the King, the Constitutional Court may indeed become the authority that can legitimately rule on its validity. I’m not a legal expert so I’ll defer to other authorities but I presume that Pheua Thai are preparing legal arguments. I thought by the way that the Supreme Court is the highest court.
“First, back-footed, the ruling Pheu Thai party announced that it would not accept an upcoming ruling of Thailand’s Constitutional Court in relation to its attempt to amend the Constitution. Despite the opposition’s recent success in favorably politicizing a Court that actually saved Thaksin’s premiership in 2001, a majority of the country’s legislators is not justified in such a blatant and preemptive dismissal of its highest judicial entity”
Benjamin, get your facts straight. Thaksin was not convicted of corruption. He was convicted of “abuse of power” for putting his signature to his wife’s property purchase. There is a significant difference.
This is not to say that he wasn’t corrupt. But it was not what he was convicted for.
In general,I agree with parts of your thesis. I can’t help but point out though that Thailand’s democracy would conceivably be a lot stronger if previously respected bodies like Amnesty had argued for free speech and supported those accused of lese majeste.
well written mr. phakin. I’m pleased that Thammasat students are able to write such great article with mental clarity, in the time of such great moral debacle and epistemic obscurity in Thailand. Vote buying does not seem to be a major obstacle to democracy in Thailand. There’s a strong and practical institutional mechanism to keep a check on vote buying during voting sessions. What the problem is, and is acute, is the lack of general morality among the Thai population. The city dwellers, the rural farmers, and the law enforcers, all have grown indifferent to corruption at every level of the society, not just in the poll. Kids in school grew up in an environment that instills into them the sense that cheating in exam is acceptable. not only is it acceptable, but the friends also have an obligation to help them. corruption is rampant from the very youth age in Thailand.
IMO the fact that no one liked my post and four disliked it strongly suggests a high level of partisanship and/or ignorance on behalf of your readers. FYI the term “government manager” is an obvious reference to Suthep (not Abhisit) as he held this post in the Abhisit govt.
The prejudice against the ‘illiterate’ is deeply embedded in the Thai middle-class consciousness. If I remember correctly the 1997 Constitution, arguably the most democratic in content of all the Constitutions so far, specified that members of the Parliament and Senate have to be ‘graduates’, which goes against the principle of equal rights to power for all the citizens. Thai academics too have a much louder voice in the country’s affairs than in many other nations around Asia. In a nutshell the Thai middle-classes worship ‘respectability’ in outward form without really caring too much about the actual content involved. As long as it is ‘packaged’ well it is acceptable it seems. Someone should remind them that some of the greatest of Buddhist thinkers and philosophers were not PhDs in religious studies.. but men of humble origin…and came from families like those of ordinary ‘illiterate’ Isaan farmers.
“It began almost unnoticed on the eve of 1 November, when small numbers of peaceful protesters came out against a government-sponsored amnesty bill.” This is a serious comment, right? It began even before the election was over in 2011. Suthep then stated quite clearly and succinctly that the election result didn’t matter. It continues with various attempts to mobilize and practice runs in the south with “rubber farmers”. It continued with the Democrat Party being violent in parliament, and even then Suthep was stating exactly what was going to happen. There were ongoing demonstrations at Sanam Luang and Lumpini Park for some time. It began quietly in 2011. Some might choose even earlier dates.
My advice is give up. The title of this article should read Who can stop the pettiness, arrogance, narcissistic obsessiveness and vindictive incompetence of Thaksin’s opponents.
Peter, you deride “this obsessive devotion to Thaksin”, but have you not noticed that it is his opponents obsessive hatred of Thaksin and everything to do with him that has completely obscured, indeed replaced, debate about anything else in Thailand for at least the last ten years? What does the “Democrat” party stand for; what are its policies? Frankly all that ever comes across is their loathing of all things Thaksin. It is true that for the last election they presented, though without any real conviction, their own raft of “populist” policies, but these were designed purely as a very feeble attempt to counter Thaksin’s Pheu Thai platform. They were not grounded in anything else and appeared to have no rationale of their own. Inevitably the tactic failed. Similarly all the protest groups that have emerged and withered over the period, from the PAD to PEFOT and now the CPRD(?) have been characterised only by their loathing of Thaksin. Not one of them has ever come forward with any positive policies except for ways to subvert democratic to suit their end. That side of the coin, being purely negative and destructive, surely presents a much bigger problem than anyone else’s “devotion” to Thaksin, doesn’t it?
Thanks for drawing attention to these facts. It is difficult to comprehend why in the case of Suthep all what he and his collegues like Abhisit etc. did (and do) is ignored. Reently there was a governhment led by Suthep and Abhisit (without clear majority though). Was that clean, open, pluralistic etc.? Through the creation of two opposing blocks (Suthep – Thaksin)the issues become de-politicized by personalization. Consequerntly, no need for political arguments. Furthermore, political change can not be brought about by political agendas, but requires “good and honest persons”. It is about time that the political arguments of Suthep are explained, and whether the Bangkok middle class has a democratic or authoritarian orientation.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s elite coup culture
Peter, your comparisons are right. The freedom of the individual, in just about every respect (save only the Lèse Majesté law), is infinitely greater in Thailand than almost anywhere else in the region – and all this maintained in a country supposedly under Thaksin’s “electoral dictatorship” for most of the last dozen years. Remarkable.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
The Democrat Party is not likely to reach the heart of the rural poor in the north in the foreseeable future. What it can do, is to offer social programs to the urban poor and the upwards mobile part of the non-rural working class. Doing this, they can inch towards offering a viable political alternative to about 50% of the electorate as a sort of economically oriented urban right-wing movement that incorporates the traditional elites.
It’s all about dividing the population of Thailand in the long run into two comparably strong main political camps, as this has happened in other democracies around the world.
From there, it’s checks and balances.
Ideally with smaller parties in the centre of the spectrum, which by changing alliances can smoothen the change of governments after elections and provide some of the much needed continuity.
Time to vote Democrat!
The current elected Gov. Ha, ha, the always win by buying vote is more like it. And why it always win again and again, because it use the money from corruption to buy more votes. It is like compound interest thing.
A tale of two cities, again?
Better dictator that consider long term consequences to the country, than those elected leader who care about nothing but his own pocket and selling his/her country to the banker cartel abroad.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
What should they do now, “Buy vote” is not really a problem? Look at this ..http://prachatai.com/journal/2012/08/42190
Thailand’s elite coup culture
I was interested in the discussion between Hanuman and Peter Cohen about the possibility that there may have been serfdom and inequality in the reigns of Rama IV and V. Unfortunately, I can’t pursue it because it comes under the lese majeste rules. See here:
http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3751
Peter, if people are forbidden to discuss not only the personal characteristics of previous kings but even the characteristics of their reigns, surely that must contribute something to the “mystery” around the monarchy.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
neptunean, it’s a hypothetical exercise … I’m not saying that this in any way a desirable scenario
A tale of two cities, again?
Excellent article. Very pleased to see it come from the university at which I teach.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
I suggest the Myanmar solution.Fifty years of military rule should get rid of the Thaksin regime and pave the way for democracy.
Don’t know how to get rid of the “Thaksin influence” though which seems to be Suthep’s latest aim. Perhaps a committee of PAD historians could rewrite the last 13 years and replace Thakin’s name with “a person of no importance or influence whose name we can’t remember”
Who’s who in Thailand’s anti-government forces?
How are the protestors misinformed about Thaksin? He wouldn’t allow freedom of press and would sue any journalist who questioned his policies, he used extra judicial killings against anyone suspected of drugs, (His nephew Soon was the biggest Ya Ba addict I ever knew but he never arrested him), used his position to promote his family to high positions in the police, army and politics (Nepotism), is corrupt, and a fugitive. He is not good for the country! May be the Puea Thai govt. can plan another Rice Scheme. Ouch!
November rain for democracy in Thailand
On another point, I believe that Pheua Thai rejected the authority of the Constitutional Court to rule on the validity of the amendment rather than its interpretation. So they have left the amendment to make its normal passage to the King for his signature. If and when that amendment is enacted and signed by the King, the Constitutional Court may indeed become the authority that can legitimately rule on its validity. I’m not a legal expert so I’ll defer to other authorities but I presume that Pheua Thai are preparing legal arguments. I thought by the way that the Supreme Court is the highest court.
“First, back-footed, the ruling Pheu Thai party announced that it would not accept an upcoming ruling of Thailand’s Constitutional Court in relation to its attempt to amend the Constitution. Despite the opposition’s recent success in favorably politicizing a Court that actually saved Thaksin’s premiership in 2001, a majority of the country’s legislators is not justified in such a blatant and preemptive dismissal of its highest judicial entity”
November rain for democracy in Thailand
Benjamin, get your facts straight. Thaksin was not convicted of corruption. He was convicted of “abuse of power” for putting his signature to his wife’s property purchase. There is a significant difference.
This is not to say that he wasn’t corrupt. But it was not what he was convicted for.
In general,I agree with parts of your thesis. I can’t help but point out though that Thailand’s democracy would conceivably be a lot stronger if previously respected bodies like Amnesty had argued for free speech and supported those accused of lese majeste.
A tale of two cities, again?
well written mr. phakin. I’m pleased that Thammasat students are able to write such great article with mental clarity, in the time of such great moral debacle and epistemic obscurity in Thailand. Vote buying does not seem to be a major obstacle to democracy in Thailand. There’s a strong and practical institutional mechanism to keep a check on vote buying during voting sessions. What the problem is, and is acute, is the lack of general morality among the Thai population. The city dwellers, the rural farmers, and the law enforcers, all have grown indifferent to corruption at every level of the society, not just in the poll. Kids in school grew up in an environment that instills into them the sense that cheating in exam is acceptable. not only is it acceptable, but the friends also have an obligation to help them. corruption is rampant from the very youth age in Thailand.
What does Suthep really want?
IMO the fact that no one liked my post and four disliked it strongly suggests a high level of partisanship and/or ignorance on behalf of your readers. FYI the term “government manager” is an obvious reference to Suthep (not Abhisit) as he held this post in the Abhisit govt.
Time to vote Democrat!
Yes I’m sure Thaksin would love Abhisit to step down – because Abhisit has far more international credibility than Thaksin.
A tale of two cities, again?
The prejudice against the ‘illiterate’ is deeply embedded in the Thai middle-class consciousness. If I remember correctly the 1997 Constitution, arguably the most democratic in content of all the Constitutions so far, specified that members of the Parliament and Senate have to be ‘graduates’, which goes against the principle of equal rights to power for all the citizens. Thai academics too have a much louder voice in the country’s affairs than in many other nations around Asia. In a nutshell the Thai middle-classes worship ‘respectability’ in outward form without really caring too much about the actual content involved. As long as it is ‘packaged’ well it is acceptable it seems. Someone should remind them that some of the greatest of Buddhist thinkers and philosophers were not PhDs in religious studies.. but men of humble origin…and came from families like those of ordinary ‘illiterate’ Isaan farmers.
November rain for democracy in Thailand
“It began almost unnoticed on the eve of 1 November, when small numbers of peaceful protesters came out against a government-sponsored amnesty bill.” This is a serious comment, right? It began even before the election was over in 2011. Suthep then stated quite clearly and succinctly that the election result didn’t matter. It continues with various attempts to mobilize and practice runs in the south with “rubber farmers”. It continued with the Democrat Party being violent in parliament, and even then Suthep was stating exactly what was going to happen. There were ongoing demonstrations at Sanam Luang and Lumpini Park for some time. It began quietly in 2011. Some might choose even earlier dates.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
My advice is give up. The title of this article should read Who can stop the pettiness, arrogance, narcissistic obsessiveness and vindictive incompetence of Thaksin’s opponents.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
Peter, you deride “this obsessive devotion to Thaksin”, but have you not noticed that it is his opponents obsessive hatred of Thaksin and everything to do with him that has completely obscured, indeed replaced, debate about anything else in Thailand for at least the last ten years? What does the “Democrat” party stand for; what are its policies? Frankly all that ever comes across is their loathing of all things Thaksin. It is true that for the last election they presented, though without any real conviction, their own raft of “populist” policies, but these were designed purely as a very feeble attempt to counter Thaksin’s Pheu Thai platform. They were not grounded in anything else and appeared to have no rationale of their own. Inevitably the tactic failed. Similarly all the protest groups that have emerged and withered over the period, from the PAD to PEFOT and now the CPRD(?) have been characterised only by their loathing of Thaksin. Not one of them has ever come forward with any positive policies except for ways to subvert democratic to suit their end. That side of the coin, being purely negative and destructive, surely presents a much bigger problem than anyone else’s “devotion” to Thaksin, doesn’t it?
A tale of two cities, again?
Thanks for drawing attention to these facts. It is difficult to comprehend why in the case of Suthep all what he and his collegues like Abhisit etc. did (and do) is ignored. Reently there was a governhment led by Suthep and Abhisit (without clear majority though). Was that clean, open, pluralistic etc.? Through the creation of two opposing blocks (Suthep – Thaksin)the issues become de-politicized by personalization. Consequerntly, no need for political arguments. Furthermore, political change can not be brought about by political agendas, but requires “good and honest persons”. It is about time that the political arguments of Suthep are explained, and whether the Bangkok middle class has a democratic or authoritarian orientation.