The Thaksin System was ‘sufficiency’ 10% in 2006 and no doubt has been refined and updated (30% is the oft-quoted new ‘sufficiency’ rate). The Thaksin System is brilliant, it is criminal, and it is unstoppable!
————
Who pays for politics? (Nation News May 15/06)
Last week, Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra was reported telling a Thai Rak Thai Party meeting that she would bear only half the costs of the coming election. She called on other leaders to chip in. How much do they need? And where does the money come from?
Matichon Daily recently calculated that the average cost per constituency in the 2005 election was Bt20 million, shared half-half between the candidate and the party. That would make the Thai Rak Thai Party’s share about Bt4 billion (US$100 million) for the whole country.
Besides these campaign costs, the party also needs a regular budget. Most Thai Rak Thai MPs are said to receive a regular monthly retainer from the party or their faction head. One senator recently said that some 70 to 80 of the previous senators were also on the payroll. These payments have been estimated as high as Bt200,000 per head per month, but Matichon plumped for a more conservative estimate of Bt50,000. On top of this there are large publicity costs. Political leaders and political parties no longer advertise themselves only at campaign time, but keep up a constant drip-feed of ads, just like detergent brands. Then there are the operating costs of Thai Rak Thai’s splendid big building. With sundries, this must all add up to Bt2 billion to Bt3 billion a year.
Thai Rak Thai’s exceptional presence in Thai politics over the past six years has been underwritten by exceptional amounts of cash. Where does this come from? Since the party’s foundation, Pojaman has been the largest donor according to official figures. But her generous largesse nowhere near covers the estimated budget for the party’s operating expenses and election campaign costs. Other leaders of this billionaires’ party have chipped in. In 2005, party-list candidacies and minister posts were awarded to some big moneybags, including alleged stock market fraudsters. Still, it’s difficult to account fully for Thai Rak Thai’s massive financial power in Thai politics.
Recently a suggestion appeared in the fourth of the series of “Ru Than Thaksin” (Understanding Thaksin) books edited by former senator Chirmsak Pinthong. This volume is subtitled “The Insiders”, though “The Rat Laundry” might have been more appropriate. Four former supporters of Thaksin explain why they have defected (ratted), and try to justify (launder) their past actions in supporting him.
The longest confession is from Snoh Thienthong, who truly qualifies as an “insider”. He was formerly adviser, whip, and deputy leader of the Thai Rak Thai Party, and number 18 on the Thai Rak Thai party list in both 2001 and 2005. He connived with Thaksin in the infamous land deal over the Alpine golf course, and has often claimed to be the kingmaker who put Thaksin in power.
In this book, Snoh makes the following allegation.
“He placed one of his own people in every ministry. These people did not need to have a powerful post, but everybody knew who they were … If any minister wanted to propose a project using the central budget, the minister would first have to clear it with ‘his person’ first. Many ministers were approached by ‘his person’ saying, ‘The budget is coming. You can have five or six billion, but 10 per cent must go to the party … Any minister who would not do this, could not remain.”
Snoh then explained how the system worked.
“For this 10 per cent policy, the minister would have to pad the budget proposed for approval to include the 10 per cent that would go to the party. Then once it was agreed with ‘his person’ via Khunying, the matter could be sent to his trusted ‘permanent political representative’, who used to be his company employee. To date nobody knows how much this 10 per cent amounts to. Probably need to ask Khunying.”
Snoh claims to have asked Pojaman what she needed so many billions for, and got this answer: “In politics you have to hand out money. It has to be considered a business.” Snoh asked her what would happen if things blew up, and she replied, “If Thaksin falls, the Thai Rak Thai Party will have to stay in power for at least two more terms for safety.”
Of course, allegations over percentage commissions on budget projects are nothing new at all. It is other aspects of this allegation which make it so arresting.
First, the centralisation. We are used to hearing about gangs of ministers, senior officials, and businessmen conspiring to take a percentage on budget projects through overpricing and similar devices. But this allegation suggests another subtraction which supplants or (more likely) supplements that form of corruption. We are told there is a centrally directed network that reaches into “every ministry”. Ten per cent of the total capital budget is about Bt20 billion.
Second, the proceeds are allegedly channelled to the Thai Rak Thai Party. In other words, Snoh alleges that the party’s massive financial strength is financed by the taxpayer.
Is Snoh credible? He’s a very old-style politician. He gave Thaksin considerable help and has a lot to excuse himself for. He has been gradually sidelined by Thaksin over the past five years, and has reasons for feeling aggrieved. He still has political ambitions and has already launched his own new party. His allegation could be seen as nothing more than another move in the political chess game.
But that makes it all the more extraordinary that the accusation has brought forth no pained denial, no counter-charge, and none of the defamation suits which have become the confetti of Thai politics. This allegation was not some careless words heard by a few people. It was not one of those newspaper reports that the speaker can deny on the following day and blame on journalistic incompetence. It appeared in print in a signed article in a book that has quickly become very popular. Is there silence because Snoh is so lacking in credibility that denial is deemed unnecessary? Or is he too close to the truth for comfort?
——————-
“Life is unfair, elections are unfair” I could almost hear Abhisit/Suthep and the sad lot of Democrats moaning.
Colombia GDP(2012) $369.8 billion. Thaksin Shinawatra and family $1.7 billion. Even allowing for inaccuracies in the figures, Peter’s statement is clearly ridiculous. These figures show Thaksin’s total net worth to be less than half of 1% of Colombia’s GDP! It does however illustrate the sort of mindless claims that are so regularly churned out by the Thaksin-haters.
Surely the path to goodness must depend on corruption-free democracy. So to beat Thaksin requires a party to do a better job looking after the cheap buyable votes that are Thaksin’s power base. The taxation system should support wealth redistribution. Political donations should be a matter of public record. Principles of open and transparent government should be part of the constitution.
The hypothetical anti-Thaksin strategy suggested by pp is exactly was is going on, backed by the military. Yingluk has been trapped and as she knows she has no support from the armed forces, she is even forced consider the ‘people’s council’ proposed by Suthep as a debatable proposal, instead of rejecting it as the crap it is. But I doubt of the long-term success of such strategy.
Hallo Mr Cohen,
you are just that kind of people that riot Bangkok presently.
You doubt everything (from Forbes to whatever), but you have no prove for your claims. Why jail Thaksin?? For that he gave his signature for his wife’s (legal) land deal? Don’t you know that Thailand is so far behind that women can’t acquire land without the signature of their husbands?!
And that the court, which was chosen by the military junta, just didn’t care about it? Also, that the judges who convicted him received a percentage from the money seized?
Do you think this is the way to do it?
Moreover, according to the International Corruption Index, corruption during Thaksin’s time was much lower than later under Abhisit (but you doubt this anyway, don’t you?)
For me democracy is a political system, a represenrative one, where the majority rules. When a PM or MP can get away with corruption like Suthep or Thaksin, it is not a fault of democracy. It’s due to failures that continue to allow rampant corruption on all sides. Don’t blame democracy. Democracy is the only way out of this situation.The problem that should be being addressed is corruption and crony capitalism that is rampant on BOTH sides.
[…] Jahrzehnten bislang 18-mal einen Staatsstreich ver├╝bt, doch bei genauem Nachz├дhlen könnte man auch auf mehr Putsche kommen, darunter einige in den letzten […]
The Amnesty Bill was entirely consistent with Yingluck’s present policy of rapprochement. Calmly enduring the latest explosion of hate, she has persevered with that policy, now rapidly gathering new supporters as the extremists shrink to an embittered, stinking residue.
Western lawyers love to revive the violent past wherever they can dig it up, because hate is such a money-spinner.
The protesters say they are democratic and the government is not, while simultaneously giving speeches to discredit democracy (the ‘Hitler was elected’ lie, Thaksin buys all the votes, etc.).
The protesters claim they are the majority, while simultaneously saying the government “abuses the majority vote” and declaring “parliamentary dictatorship.”
The protesters claim they are against patronage, while simultaneously insisting on partially or entirely appointed senators and MPs. Patronage doesn’t work if it can’t appoint.
The Constitutional Court rules making senators elected is a violation of article 68, an attempt to overthrow the government through non-constitutional means. The ruling, passed by majority vote, emphasized that majority rule could lead to dictatorship. The same court has not said anything about the recent protests taking over the government.
And now we have Suthep, a man with a long history of corruption, who ordered soldiers to use live fire to clear protesters against him in 2009 and twice in 2010, lecturing us about state violence on his protesters. And, despite insisting he represents the peoples voice, refuses elections.
What kind of government would he lead? One where the leader uses live ammunition against protesters and refuses elections, perhaps? He calls it, the “People’s Committee for Thailand’s Absolute Democracy under the Constitutional Monarchy.”
Where have we heard that before?
“Democratic Peoples Republic of [North] Korea”
“People’s Republic of China”
“People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria”
“Lao People’s Democratic Republic”
“Democratic Republic of the Congo”
This isn’t about Thaksin, the ‘dictator’ who is freely and vehemently criticized in the press, who isn’t even allowed in his own country, whose supporters are continually imprisoned and whose opponents never see prison, whom has never cracked down on protesters and at most only used tear gas fired by police, whom has not changed a single law of the constitution (and his opponents entirely wrote the constitution), and has won the last 5 national elections by an overwhelming majority each time.
If Suthep wins this, they’ll soon learn what a real dictatorship is.
This is the citation: ‘Does Racial and Ethnic Discrimination Vary Across Minority Groups? Evidence From a Field Experiment’ (with Alison Booth and Elena Varganova) (2012) Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4): 547–573 (working paper version: IZA DP 4947)
Well… The problem is that the term “democracy” encompasses many evil and totalitarian forms of rule. Your definition, that of a populist electoral state, does not necessarily mean a state without absolute rule.
The problem is that Thailand has a populist dictator who makes absurd, fiscally unsound promises in order to get elected, and once in power he fleeces the State enriching his empire exponentially.
Here is a regime that just borrowed 4 TRILLION baht against the treasury to purchase stimulus projects from his own development companies.
This represents an historically unprecedented transfer of public wealth to his private accounts. And all the whole he does so to popular support because the promises things that are grossly unsustainable in the long term. Buying just enough votes to continue his fleecing operation.
“the Reds’ equivalent, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD),…. is democratic in neither composition nor intent. Its leaders are largely self-appointed and seek power for its spoils and impunity, rather than a people’s mandate.”
This is just ridiculous. I can find inane nonsense like this anywhere but I really don’t expect it on a site like this.
Turning to day’s (this week’s) events, I think we are seeing an extra dimension: the kids are fighting in the sandbox, as they have so many times before. But this time, mum and dad aren’t around to decide who gets the sweets and who gets clipped round the ear. So there’s no reliable precedent, or recognised exit strategy. This time, they’re on their own.
What types of largesse did you recieve for supporting the democrats and ultra royalists for telling complete rubbish and even turning a blind eye to Lese Majeste prisoners of CONSCIENCE?
“Think what that word means. The good citizens of both China and Vietnam are able to bring to book representatives – elected representatives actually – who misbehave. I don’t ever see that happen in Thailand. Democracy tainted with impunity is not worth much.”
That is patently false nonsense. The average citizen in China and Vietnam cannot bring a local or federal cadre “to book” for malfeasance. They dare not and do not, at the risk of being convicted themselves, or losing face. China and Vietnam, if you have been there, are authoritarian countries with leaders who have no regard for their citizens. Democracy is about being free to criticize your government, being free to reproach a local official without fear of
punishment, the freedom to publish whatever you want without censorship, the freedom to practice you religion or culture without arrest; and the freedom to directly vote for an elected representative who will represent your interests. On ALL counts, China and Vietnam fail, and fail miserably. The Press in Thailand is free and widespread; there are numerous parties in Thailand, even if corrupt
(China and Vietnam have only one party). Protesters in China and Vietnam are “shot first and then asked questions.” In Thailand, that level of violence is not achieved. Don’t even mention the abuse and de-culturation of Tibet and Uighur minorities by Han Chinese, the systematic persecution of Catholics who pray to the Vatican rather than the “Chinese Pope” who has no legitimacy. The jailing of Christian activists in Vietnam, the ‘re-education’ of political dissidents in both China and Vietnam which happens constantly no matter how rich and modern Shanghai has become. I could go on, but it is not necessary. If you honestly believe that China and Vietnam are more democratic than Thailand, with its openly-contested political battles, I do not suggest you visit Beijing or Hanoi anytime soon. Thailand, with all its problems, is far ahead of China and Vietnam in political openness and a free press. And, by the way, a citizen of Thailand can report on a criminal or non law-abiding citizen with far less fear than their counterparts in China or Vietnam. The rural countryside of China and Vietnam, in particular, still maintains a cadre-based semi-Socialist political system where you don’t tell on the
local official. And it is even risky in Beijing and Shanghai. I am sorry, but your analysis of China, Vietnam, and Thailand is very skewed, to say the least.
Regardless, racism is something that is entrenched in the psyche of all races and nationalities. It will take a lot of effort, active education and a long time to reduce it. But we will never fully eradicate it.
Indeed, as any Caucasian visitor to China will experience, frequently and uncomfortably.
You are right. My statement was pejorative. And quite snotty. I did not mean it that way but I was feeling somewhat combative. My apologies.
Thank you for conceding that you were incorrect about the Forbes list. I see so many comments on here where people simply refuse to acknowledge that they made a misstatement in the light of further evidence. It takes strength of character to admit you were wrong.
Forbes has been publishing the list on Thailand’s wealthiest since 2006, but I am not sure if you were referring to the wealth rankings or the Thai version of the magazine in your statement about above. In any case, you are quite right that they have little competition. It would be nice if there were some other research organizations doing the same kind of rankings for comparison (I’m sure there are, but probably they are financial consulting groups who sell the information at a high cost). If you know any think tanks or other journalistic sources doing this kind of in-depth research, I would appreciate learning about them.
Yet, I am still confused about your statement about wanting to see the print version. That doesn’t make sense to me. But since you are done speaking with me, I guess I will never know!
Yet, after leaving Malaysia many ‘former’ Malaysians (referring to those that have given up their Malaysian citizenship) still identify themselves as Malaysians.
Of course, this is mostly a cultural identity rather than a racial one.
Discrimination in Australia is quite prevalent and entrenched as far as I could tell. Here is an example I have personally experienced:
During a visit to a clinic, I noticed that the staff at the counter was exceptionally polite and nice to all white customers/patients but was abrupt and borderline rude to Asians. A white gentlemen who spoke broken English (possibly a new migrant) was treated with utmost respect and she went above and beyond to ensure he was comfortable and had everything he needed during his visit. But when it was my turn I was greeted with a disinterested look and a curt, “Yes?” to which I reply in good, clear English the reason for my visit. Not only she did not acknowledge me but just look down, grab some paperwork and slap it in front of me before telling me “Fill this in and get back to me.” There was no ‘please’ or ‘could you’ in the conversation. Nor was there any bit of politeness. It was obvious I was an irritant as she did the same to a family of Asians earlier who, like me, spoke good English but was treated coldly much akin to an irritant. I guess Asians are not welcome here and I was SURE there were no signs stating ‘Asians not welcome here’. After my appointment I left behind something and had to return to pick it up. Upon seeing me I was greeted by the same staff with a “Oh…you’re back” and an annoyed look. But before I could say anything, she just walked off and left me standing there (there were no other staff present) until someone came out and actually was polite and friendly for a change and helped me with my need.
With this being said, discrimination and racism is also prevalent among Asians in which early migrants discriminated against new migrants or recent arrivals. A minority of Asians who migrated as toddlers or were born in western countries such Australia seem to have a superiority complex towards those that were deemed ‘fresh off the boat’ (their term, not mine). I was told by an Aussie born Chinese that he is “…an Australian through and through and doesn’t understand why so many Asians are migrating here and spoiling everything for all good, decent Aussies. They should all just go back where they came from.” I never felt the need to respond. Recently, the sentiment is directed towards migrants from China as there have been an influx of them in places such as Melbourne.
Regardless, racism is something that is entrenched in the psyche of all races and nationalities. It will take a lot of effort, active education and a long time to reduce it. But we will never fully eradicate it.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
The Thaksin System was ‘sufficiency’ 10% in 2006 and no doubt has been refined and updated (30% is the oft-quoted new ‘sufficiency’ rate). The Thaksin System is brilliant, it is criminal, and it is unstoppable!
————
Who pays for politics? (Nation News May 15/06)
Last week, Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra was reported telling a Thai Rak Thai Party meeting that she would bear only half the costs of the coming election. She called on other leaders to chip in. How much do they need? And where does the money come from?
Matichon Daily recently calculated that the average cost per constituency in the 2005 election was Bt20 million, shared half-half between the candidate and the party. That would make the Thai Rak Thai Party’s share about Bt4 billion (US$100 million) for the whole country.
Besides these campaign costs, the party also needs a regular budget. Most Thai Rak Thai MPs are said to receive a regular monthly retainer from the party or their faction head. One senator recently said that some 70 to 80 of the previous senators were also on the payroll. These payments have been estimated as high as Bt200,000 per head per month, but Matichon plumped for a more conservative estimate of Bt50,000. On top of this there are large publicity costs. Political leaders and political parties no longer advertise themselves only at campaign time, but keep up a constant drip-feed of ads, just like detergent brands. Then there are the operating costs of Thai Rak Thai’s splendid big building. With sundries, this must all add up to Bt2 billion to Bt3 billion a year.
Thai Rak Thai’s exceptional presence in Thai politics over the past six years has been underwritten by exceptional amounts of cash. Where does this come from? Since the party’s foundation, Pojaman has been the largest donor according to official figures. But her generous largesse nowhere near covers the estimated budget for the party’s operating expenses and election campaign costs. Other leaders of this billionaires’ party have chipped in. In 2005, party-list candidacies and minister posts were awarded to some big moneybags, including alleged stock market fraudsters. Still, it’s difficult to account fully for Thai Rak Thai’s massive financial power in Thai politics.
Recently a suggestion appeared in the fourth of the series of “Ru Than Thaksin” (Understanding Thaksin) books edited by former senator Chirmsak Pinthong. This volume is subtitled “The Insiders”, though “The Rat Laundry” might have been more appropriate. Four former supporters of Thaksin explain why they have defected (ratted), and try to justify (launder) their past actions in supporting him.
The longest confession is from Snoh Thienthong, who truly qualifies as an “insider”. He was formerly adviser, whip, and deputy leader of the Thai Rak Thai Party, and number 18 on the Thai Rak Thai party list in both 2001 and 2005. He connived with Thaksin in the infamous land deal over the Alpine golf course, and has often claimed to be the kingmaker who put Thaksin in power.
In this book, Snoh makes the following allegation.
“He placed one of his own people in every ministry. These people did not need to have a powerful post, but everybody knew who they were … If any minister wanted to propose a project using the central budget, the minister would first have to clear it with ‘his person’ first. Many ministers were approached by ‘his person’ saying, ‘The budget is coming. You can have five or six billion, but 10 per cent must go to the party … Any minister who would not do this, could not remain.”
Snoh then explained how the system worked.
“For this 10 per cent policy, the minister would have to pad the budget proposed for approval to include the 10 per cent that would go to the party. Then once it was agreed with ‘his person’ via Khunying, the matter could be sent to his trusted ‘permanent political representative’, who used to be his company employee. To date nobody knows how much this 10 per cent amounts to. Probably need to ask Khunying.”
Snoh claims to have asked Pojaman what she needed so many billions for, and got this answer: “In politics you have to hand out money. It has to be considered a business.” Snoh asked her what would happen if things blew up, and she replied, “If Thaksin falls, the Thai Rak Thai Party will have to stay in power for at least two more terms for safety.”
Of course, allegations over percentage commissions on budget projects are nothing new at all. It is other aspects of this allegation which make it so arresting.
First, the centralisation. We are used to hearing about gangs of ministers, senior officials, and businessmen conspiring to take a percentage on budget projects through overpricing and similar devices. But this allegation suggests another subtraction which supplants or (more likely) supplements that form of corruption. We are told there is a centrally directed network that reaches into “every ministry”. Ten per cent of the total capital budget is about Bt20 billion.
Second, the proceeds are allegedly channelled to the Thai Rak Thai Party. In other words, Snoh alleges that the party’s massive financial strength is financed by the taxpayer.
Is Snoh credible? He’s a very old-style politician. He gave Thaksin considerable help and has a lot to excuse himself for. He has been gradually sidelined by Thaksin over the past five years, and has reasons for feeling aggrieved. He still has political ambitions and has already launched his own new party. His allegation could be seen as nothing more than another move in the political chess game.
But that makes it all the more extraordinary that the accusation has brought forth no pained denial, no counter-charge, and none of the defamation suits which have become the confetti of Thai politics. This allegation was not some careless words heard by a few people. It was not one of those newspaper reports that the speaker can deny on the following day and blame on journalistic incompetence. It appeared in print in a signed article in a book that has quickly become very popular. Is there silence because Snoh is so lacking in credibility that denial is deemed unnecessary? Or is he too close to the truth for comfort?
——————-
“Life is unfair, elections are unfair” I could almost hear Abhisit/Suthep and the sad lot of Democrats moaning.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
Colombia GDP(2012) $369.8 billion. Thaksin Shinawatra and family $1.7 billion. Even allowing for inaccuracies in the figures, Peter’s statement is clearly ridiculous. These figures show Thaksin’s total net worth to be less than half of 1% of Colombia’s GDP! It does however illustrate the sort of mindless claims that are so regularly churned out by the Thaksin-haters.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
Surely the path to goodness must depend on corruption-free democracy. So to beat Thaksin requires a party to do a better job looking after the cheap buyable votes that are Thaksin’s power base. The taxation system should support wealth redistribution. Political donations should be a matter of public record. Principles of open and transparent government should be part of the constitution.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
The hypothetical anti-Thaksin strategy suggested by pp is exactly was is going on, backed by the military. Yingluk has been trapped and as she knows she has no support from the armed forces, she is even forced consider the ‘people’s council’ proposed by Suthep as a debatable proposal, instead of rejecting it as the crap it is. But I doubt of the long-term success of such strategy.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
Hallo Mr Cohen,
you are just that kind of people that riot Bangkok presently.
You doubt everything (from Forbes to whatever), but you have no prove for your claims. Why jail Thaksin?? For that he gave his signature for his wife’s (legal) land deal? Don’t you know that Thailand is so far behind that women can’t acquire land without the signature of their husbands?!
And that the court, which was chosen by the military junta, just didn’t care about it? Also, that the judges who convicted him received a percentage from the money seized?
Do you think this is the way to do it?
Moreover, according to the International Corruption Index, corruption during Thaksin’s time was much lower than later under Abhisit (but you doubt this anyway, don’t you?)
A tale of two cities, again?
For me democracy is a political system, a represenrative one, where the majority rules. When a PM or MP can get away with corruption like Suthep or Thaksin, it is not a fault of democracy. It’s due to failures that continue to allow rampant corruption on all sides. Don’t blame democracy. Democracy is the only way out of this situation.The problem that should be being addressed is corruption and crony capitalism that is rampant on BOTH sides.
Counting Thailand’s coups
[…] Jahrzehnten bislang 18-mal einen Staatsstreich ver├╝bt, doch bei genauem Nachz├дhlen könnte man auch auf mehr Putsche kommen, darunter einige in den letzten […]
November rain for democracy in Thailand
The Amnesty Bill was entirely consistent with Yingluck’s present policy of rapprochement. Calmly enduring the latest explosion of hate, she has persevered with that policy, now rapidly gathering new supporters as the extremists shrink to an embittered, stinking residue.
Western lawyers love to revive the violent past wherever they can dig it up, because hate is such a money-spinner.
A tale of two cities, again?
The protesters say they are democratic and the government is not, while simultaneously giving speeches to discredit democracy (the ‘Hitler was elected’ lie, Thaksin buys all the votes, etc.).
The protesters claim they are the majority, while simultaneously saying the government “abuses the majority vote” and declaring “parliamentary dictatorship.”
The protesters claim they are against patronage, while simultaneously insisting on partially or entirely appointed senators and MPs. Patronage doesn’t work if it can’t appoint.
The Constitutional Court rules making senators elected is a violation of article 68, an attempt to overthrow the government through non-constitutional means. The ruling, passed by majority vote, emphasized that majority rule could lead to dictatorship. The same court has not said anything about the recent protests taking over the government.
And now we have Suthep, a man with a long history of corruption, who ordered soldiers to use live fire to clear protesters against him in 2009 and twice in 2010, lecturing us about state violence on his protesters. And, despite insisting he represents the peoples voice, refuses elections.
What kind of government would he lead? One where the leader uses live ammunition against protesters and refuses elections, perhaps? He calls it, the “People’s Committee for Thailand’s Absolute Democracy under the Constitutional Monarchy.”
Where have we heard that before?
“Democratic Peoples Republic of [North] Korea”
“People’s Republic of China”
“People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria”
“Lao People’s Democratic Republic”
“Democratic Republic of the Congo”
This isn’t about Thaksin, the ‘dictator’ who is freely and vehemently criticized in the press, who isn’t even allowed in his own country, whose supporters are continually imprisoned and whose opponents never see prison, whom has never cracked down on protesters and at most only used tear gas fired by police, whom has not changed a single law of the constitution (and his opponents entirely wrote the constitution), and has won the last 5 national elections by an overwhelming majority each time.
If Suthep wins this, they’ll soon learn what a real dictatorship is.
Say what, cakap apa?
Hi Jon.
This is the citation: ‘Does Racial and Ethnic Discrimination Vary Across Minority Groups? Evidence From a Field Experiment’ (with Alison Booth and Elena Varganova) (2012) Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4): 547–573 (working paper version: IZA DP 4947)
The soft copy: http://cbe.anu.edu.au/media/13771/obes_664.pdf
A tale of two cities, again?
Well… The problem is that the term “democracy” encompasses many evil and totalitarian forms of rule. Your definition, that of a populist electoral state, does not necessarily mean a state without absolute rule.
The problem is that Thailand has a populist dictator who makes absurd, fiscally unsound promises in order to get elected, and once in power he fleeces the State enriching his empire exponentially.
Here is a regime that just borrowed 4 TRILLION baht against the treasury to purchase stimulus projects from his own development companies.
This represents an historically unprecedented transfer of public wealth to his private accounts. And all the whole he does so to popular support because the promises things that are grossly unsustainable in the long term. Buying just enough votes to continue his fleecing operation.
… Is that democracy?
November rain for democracy in Thailand
“the Reds’ equivalent, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD),…. is democratic in neither composition nor intent. Its leaders are largely self-appointed and seek power for its spoils and impunity, rather than a people’s mandate.”
This is just ridiculous. I can find inane nonsense like this anywhere but I really don’t expect it on a site like this.
Thailand’s elite coup culture
Turning to day’s (this week’s) events, I think we are seeing an extra dimension: the kids are fighting in the sandbox, as they have so many times before. But this time, mum and dad aren’t around to decide who gets the sweets and who gets clipped round the ear. So there’s no reliable precedent, or recognised exit strategy. This time, they’re on their own.
November rain for democracy in Thailand
What types of largesse did you recieve for supporting the democrats and ultra royalists for telling complete rubbish and even turning a blind eye to Lese Majeste prisoners of CONSCIENCE?
Thailand’s elite coup culture
“Think what that word means. The good citizens of both China and Vietnam are able to bring to book representatives – elected representatives actually – who misbehave. I don’t ever see that happen in Thailand. Democracy tainted with impunity is not worth much.”
That is patently false nonsense. The average citizen in China and Vietnam cannot bring a local or federal cadre “to book” for malfeasance. They dare not and do not, at the risk of being convicted themselves, or losing face. China and Vietnam, if you have been there, are authoritarian countries with leaders who have no regard for their citizens. Democracy is about being free to criticize your government, being free to reproach a local official without fear of
punishment, the freedom to publish whatever you want without censorship, the freedom to practice you religion or culture without arrest; and the freedom to directly vote for an elected representative who will represent your interests. On ALL counts, China and Vietnam fail, and fail miserably. The Press in Thailand is free and widespread; there are numerous parties in Thailand, even if corrupt
(China and Vietnam have only one party). Protesters in China and Vietnam are “shot first and then asked questions.” In Thailand, that level of violence is not achieved. Don’t even mention the abuse and de-culturation of Tibet and Uighur minorities by Han Chinese, the systematic persecution of Catholics who pray to the Vatican rather than the “Chinese Pope” who has no legitimacy. The jailing of Christian activists in Vietnam, the ‘re-education’ of political dissidents in both China and Vietnam which happens constantly no matter how rich and modern Shanghai has become. I could go on, but it is not necessary. If you honestly believe that China and Vietnam are more democratic than Thailand, with its openly-contested political battles, I do not suggest you visit Beijing or Hanoi anytime soon. Thailand, with all its problems, is far ahead of China and Vietnam in political openness and a free press. And, by the way, a citizen of Thailand can report on a criminal or non law-abiding citizen with far less fear than their counterparts in China or Vietnam. The rural countryside of China and Vietnam, in particular, still maintains a cadre-based semi-Socialist political system where you don’t tell on the
local official. And it is even risky in Beijing and Shanghai. I am sorry, but your analysis of China, Vietnam, and Thailand is very skewed, to say the least.
November rain for democracy in Thailand
Ben
Do you still view the lese majeste law as necessary?
And do you also still believe that incarcerated Thai political prisoner Da Torpedo is NOT a prisoner of conscience and deserved to be in prison?
Say what, cakap apa?
Regardless, racism is something that is entrenched in the psyche of all races and nationalities. It will take a lot of effort, active education and a long time to reduce it. But we will never fully eradicate it.
Indeed, as any Caucasian visitor to China will experience, frequently and uncomfortably.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
You are right. My statement was pejorative. And quite snotty. I did not mean it that way but I was feeling somewhat combative. My apologies.
Thank you for conceding that you were incorrect about the Forbes list. I see so many comments on here where people simply refuse to acknowledge that they made a misstatement in the light of further evidence. It takes strength of character to admit you were wrong.
Forbes has been publishing the list on Thailand’s wealthiest since 2006, but I am not sure if you were referring to the wealth rankings or the Thai version of the magazine in your statement about above. In any case, you are quite right that they have little competition. It would be nice if there were some other research organizations doing the same kind of rankings for comparison (I’m sure there are, but probably they are financial consulting groups who sell the information at a high cost). If you know any think tanks or other journalistic sources doing this kind of in-depth research, I would appreciate learning about them.
Yet, I am still confused about your statement about wanting to see the print version. That doesn’t make sense to me. But since you are done speaking with me, I guess I will never know!
JOM magazine
Yet, after leaving Malaysia many ‘former’ Malaysians (referring to those that have given up their Malaysian citizenship) still identify themselves as Malaysians.
Of course, this is mostly a cultural identity rather than a racial one.
Say what, cakap apa?
Discrimination in Australia is quite prevalent and entrenched as far as I could tell. Here is an example I have personally experienced:
During a visit to a clinic, I noticed that the staff at the counter was exceptionally polite and nice to all white customers/patients but was abrupt and borderline rude to Asians. A white gentlemen who spoke broken English (possibly a new migrant) was treated with utmost respect and she went above and beyond to ensure he was comfortable and had everything he needed during his visit. But when it was my turn I was greeted with a disinterested look and a curt, “Yes?” to which I reply in good, clear English the reason for my visit. Not only she did not acknowledge me but just look down, grab some paperwork and slap it in front of me before telling me “Fill this in and get back to me.” There was no ‘please’ or ‘could you’ in the conversation. Nor was there any bit of politeness. It was obvious I was an irritant as she did the same to a family of Asians earlier who, like me, spoke good English but was treated coldly much akin to an irritant. I guess Asians are not welcome here and I was SURE there were no signs stating ‘Asians not welcome here’. After my appointment I left behind something and had to return to pick it up. Upon seeing me I was greeted by the same staff with a “Oh…you’re back” and an annoyed look. But before I could say anything, she just walked off and left me standing there (there were no other staff present) until someone came out and actually was polite and friendly for a change and helped me with my need.
With this being said, discrimination and racism is also prevalent among Asians in which early migrants discriminated against new migrants or recent arrivals. A minority of Asians who migrated as toddlers or were born in western countries such Australia seem to have a superiority complex towards those that were deemed ‘fresh off the boat’ (their term, not mine). I was told by an Aussie born Chinese that he is “…an Australian through and through and doesn’t understand why so many Asians are migrating here and spoiling everything for all good, decent Aussies. They should all just go back where they came from.” I never felt the need to respond. Recently, the sentiment is directed towards migrants from China as there have been an influx of them in places such as Melbourne.
Regardless, racism is something that is entrenched in the psyche of all races and nationalities. It will take a lot of effort, active education and a long time to reduce it. But we will never fully eradicate it.