I would like to see a hard copy of the original magazine.”””
Well then, Mr Cohen, I would suggest that you go buy on and see for yourself instead of flapping your jaw, Ranting, and disagreeing with everything that is said here.
Interesting and timely review; looks like a good post-election addition to Kheang Un’s review, which I haven’t read. It would also be interesting if the reviewer could dig a little into what all this lessons would mean to Cambodia’s current post-election “democratic reemergence of sort.”
Unless my memory is failing one of the main reasons there is no opposition is long ago Thaksin gave financial incentives to (bought) MPs from other parties to strengthen the old TRT party. This was well known and talked about at the time. Is my memory playing tricks or was this the case?
The anger we are presently seeing from people is not against how the government came to power but the believed unprecedented level of corruption. Is a rejection of corrupt practices undemocratic?
You can object to the leaders of the demonstrations and their rhetoric. You can mourn the failure of democratic principles. I even see supposedly thinking people admit the corruption but claim the right to retain power because 32% of the population voted for them (some of those people wish they hadn’t). The question is surely: has the government acted in good faith? If you believe the government stands for good then by all means shout your support from the rooftops. However, if you accept that they are self serving and stealing billions do not insult everybody’s intelligence by claiming the people of Thailand have given them that right at the ballot box and they must be allowed to continue.
Does the government deserve to stay in office or have they forfeited that right because they have abused their power? Answer that question honestly and then we can discuss what democracy means.
Najib Razak explains his strategy to galvanise UMNO and Malaysia in preparation for the UMNO General Assembly this weekend.
The interview was given to a team of senior journalists led by General Manager Datuk Yong Soo Heong and Editor-in-Chief Datuk Zulkefli Salleh.
In the 40-minute interview, Najib, who is also the Umno president, spoke of the challenges, hopes and direction of Umno in the wake of the 13th general election in May and the party elections in October
“Many Thais want the Democrat Party to do better in the electoral arena and parliament. The Democrats boycotted an election in 2006 and may do so again to lay conditions for an outside intervention. Their core supporters need to revamp the party with new leadership, new policy ideas, and renewed commitment to parliamentary democracy. If the Democrats fare better at the polls, they will be less likely to resort to street-based and extra-parliamentary outcomes.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304355104579231990341006898.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
OK, rising to the Machiavellian challenge, the anti-Thaksin elite should have let the amnesty bill pass, then pour funding into a (not too obvious) media campaign about all the Red Shirts sold out by that bill, and funded an anti-Thaksin Red Shirt group to create a split in Thaksin’s base. (Of course, they would have to be careful because their point is to split the rural base, not to create a more principled Red Shirt movement freed from Thaksin’s self-serving.)
Just to make it completely clear, I oppose this. It would be morally evil and bad for Thailand. But it would serve the interests of the anti-Thaksin power brokers.
Who can stop the Thaksin system? A loyal opposition probably could. Which means that, under current circumstances, the Thaksin system really is unstoppable. It will remain so until Democrat party becomes meaningless enough to create a niche for another major opposition party.
For this reason, I wonder: are the Democrats too on Thaksin’s paycheck?
I think the question is less about the acceptability of coups than it is about faulty conception of democracy.
The false assumption shared by many in Thailand is that some magical constitutional arrangement will solve all problems and inhibit all political conflict. Thailand’s elites are especially prone to this thinking.
The reformed constitution the elites put in place in 2007 in fact prevented the amnesty bill from being passed in the Senate. Rather than take that as victory enough, however, they yet discuss “people’s power,” and “people’s assembly,” and “perfect democracy” even as they occupy government buildings and demand power be handed to them for yet more “reform”….the magical order awaits further definition apparently.
An alternative thesis to the persistence of “coup culture” is that each extra-constitutional event (military coups, royal interventions, sudden court orders to dissolve a party names, protests, occupations, etc.) chips away and erodes the legitimacy of these methods themselves in the eyes of a broader public. The desperation of elite political actors to justify their extra-constitutional actions as being “democratic” or necessary to “save democracy” only reinforces the broadly-shared desire in Thailand for a stable rule of law and for democratic constitutionalism itself. Appealing to the broader public on these grounds seems self-defeating in the long run. But as long as elites put faith in democratic “reform” and “perfection” it is arguable that extra-constitutional methods will remain a feature in Thai politics.
Hypothetically speaking, if I were an anti-Thaksin strategist what would my advice to the relevant powerbrokers? … Perhaps a media strategy to convince a significant proportion of the lower middle class – in Bangkok but in the North and Northeast as well – that, for the sake of the country in the name of both the king and the people, Thailand needs a temporary government lead by ‘good men'(virtuous, incorruptable – basically the opposite of Thaksin) to set things right. These good men should only call for elections once they are convinced that part of what they deem an unsophisticated Thaksinite electorate is swayed and has realized the error of Thaksin’s ways. These good men should remain unblemished so they can play good cop (while men like Suthep play bad cop and get their hands dirty by smearing the Shinawatra family and political supporters). This media campaign should foster the illusion that these good men are not too intimately tied to the democrat party or the army. The exact time to call for an election is crucial: there might just be a narrow window of opportunity at the time when the temporary rule of the good men is perceived as still legitimate, when support for Thaksin seems to be be wavering and when a revamped and reformed democrat party (bolstered with some new ideas and with people like Abhisit, against who the red shirts can mobilize, staying out of the limelight) rides this momentum and has some kind of a chance in the ballot box
“The current Thai king also has been a moderate and wise one no doubt and genuinely popular too.”
If you read my inference I believe that was one of my points; however, your earlier comments about Rama V, and serfdom, and inequality, as well as your most recent posting, hardly leads one to believe that you
are affectionate towards, or particularly supportive of, the Monarchy. Thus, your positive comment, which I reproduce above, about HRH King Bhumibol’s philanthropy,
popularity and caring is not consistent at all with your previous comments about the Monarchy in general, and King Bhumibol, specifically. Finally, your apparent devotion to Thaksin and/or the Phuea Thai Party is admirable but misplaced, and I am not “mistakenly helping anything to become a reality,” mostly because, unlike you, I neither claim to have all the answers, nor do
I contradict myself in who and what I support
in Thailand and elsewhere.
Sure, put Thaksin in prison if you want, but make sure the nine Thais who are richer than him also go to jail at the same time. They all made their money the same way so let there not be selective justice against one rascal alone.
Also, talking about serfdom by Rama V, it is obvious from the venomous demand for an unelected government put forth by Suthep and Co., that all those former slave owners want to bring that obnoxious system back.
And as for monarchy – power and privilege are not essential to the institution in our times- there are plenty of royals all over Europe who lead humble lives and serve as cultural symbols and even models for their population. The current Thai king also has been a moderate and wise one no doubt and genuinely popular too. But the Thai institution itself has never been a constitutional monarchy it is supposed to be and always remained much closer to being an absolute one. The concentration of power and wealth is simply the wrong way to go about trying to preserve the institution of monarchy. In fact, that is the surest way of making it disappear completely- which is something you may be opposed to but are mistakenly helping to become a reality.
What is “Thaksin system”? I think it is just a monster in the mist they, Thaksin’s opposition created because they can not find the new ideas for the market to bring them back to power.
Simply strategy – offer things that market wants!
Besides offering things that the market wants at the same time campaigning how badly the projects that Thaksin and the gangs have done and are doing to this country and I will do it better and will improve this country.
“reluctance to redemocratise” ??? Just when have the Thais “democratised”? That’s a false beginning that underpins a weakness in your thesis. Thailand still has not gotten over the hump. The “elite” and their supporters in the middle class and peasantry still do not see parliamentary democracy as working. The time it “worked”, at least according to those who thought the 1991 coup ended a forward-moving period, it was mostly under the tough hand of the top general, Prem. So not sure when you think it had “democratized”. A couple years under Chatichai? The mid-1990s when the Prem people continually interfered? Indeed, your article leaves out entirely the issue of whether the parliament does perform and how its work is perceived. Making sure that the public sees parliament as non-functioning (at best) and utterly corrupt (at worst) is a key to why coups are accepted and encouraged when the country is judged in “turmoil”.
Nletschze has a point. Avoiding real issues. Mai pen rai, until it blows up. Then it becomes wain-kam (karma). Being a Thai, I feel that what is lacking is a mirror to see ourselves as what we really are, gullible, shallow, selfish, and full of ourselves. Our priorities are screwed up. We can not accept that we may be wrong, or that “others” may have valid points, lets we will loose face or “sia-na”. We cannot be seen to accept advice from others especially form those younger or lower or we look stupid. And we can’t be caught dead looking stupid. This is not the Thai way.
Until we accept accountability from ourselves, our thoughts, and our actions, we should not expect accountability from others, let alone our politicians. We are all culpable, we are all to blame.
Not to be a fan of Suthep (Kamnan Thep) does not mean to be a fan of Thaksin. It just means that the ability to think independently remains, or a rest of sanity is maintained.
I have already seen the link and I doubt it’s veracity regarding Thaksin being only the # 10 richest person in Thailand. I will check other sources. Yes, the link seems to say so, but I do not believe it. I think he is far richer than reported.
“I never said the King should be thrown out, those are your words. I think the monarchy should be preserved but without the mystery surrounding it or the monopoly it represents in terms of power, prestige and privilege.”
All monarchies have power and prestige, if you remove the power and privilege, it is no longer a monarchy. King Bhumibol is not surrounded by “mystery” as you stated. He is
a people’s King.
“What we are witnessing now is the last episode of the abolition of serfdom by Rama V that has dragged out much longer than anybody imagined.”
The inference here can be taken to mean that the removal of Rama V will end “serfdom,” It can be interpreted that way.
I never said Thaksin was the only crook, just one of the bigger ones. The fact that there are other crooks does not absolve Thaksin of his commercial crimes. He belongs in jail not because there are other crooks in Thailand, but because of his own actions. Your defense of Thaksin is indefensible. Setting an example by jailing Thaksin is a start; it will not solve all of Thailand’s problems at once, but it will show that not everyone can get away with money and mayhem.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
I would like to see a hard copy of the original magazine.”””
Well then, Mr Cohen, I would suggest that you go buy on and see for yourself instead of flapping your jaw, Ranting, and disagreeing with everything that is said here.
Review of Aid Dependence in Cambodia
Interesting and timely review; looks like a good post-election addition to Kheang Un’s review, which I haven’t read. It would also be interesting if the reviewer could dig a little into what all this lessons would mean to Cambodia’s current post-election “democratic reemergence of sort.”
What is to be done in Thailand?
Unless my memory is failing one of the main reasons there is no opposition is long ago Thaksin gave financial incentives to (bought) MPs from other parties to strengthen the old TRT party. This was well known and talked about at the time. Is my memory playing tricks or was this the case?
The anger we are presently seeing from people is not against how the government came to power but the believed unprecedented level of corruption. Is a rejection of corrupt practices undemocratic?
You can object to the leaders of the demonstrations and their rhetoric. You can mourn the failure of democratic principles. I even see supposedly thinking people admit the corruption but claim the right to retain power because 32% of the population voted for them (some of those people wish they hadn’t). The question is surely: has the government acted in good faith? If you believe the government stands for good then by all means shout your support from the rooftops. However, if you accept that they are self serving and stealing billions do not insult everybody’s intelligence by claiming the people of Thailand have given them that right at the ballot box and they must be allowed to continue.
Does the government deserve to stay in office or have they forfeited that right because they have abused their power? Answer that question honestly and then we can discuss what democracy means.
Najib to receive honorary degree from Monash
Najib Razak explains his strategy to galvanise UMNO and Malaysia in preparation for the UMNO General Assembly this weekend.
The interview was given to a team of senior journalists led by General Manager Datuk Yong Soo Heong and Editor-in-Chief Datuk Zulkefli Salleh.
In the 40-minute interview, Najib, who is also the Umno president, spoke of the challenges, hopes and direction of Umno in the wake of the 13th general election in May and the party elections in October
Read more: Special interview with PM in conjunction with the 2013 Umno General Assembly – Latest – New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/latest/special-interview-with-pm-in-conjunction-with-the-2013-umno-general-assembly-1.419316#ixzz2mMfd4D3y
Time to vote Democrat!
From Thitinan:
“Many Thais want the Democrat Party to do better in the electoral arena and parliament. The Democrats boycotted an election in 2006 and may do so again to lay conditions for an outside intervention. Their core supporters need to revamp the party with new leadership, new policy ideas, and renewed commitment to parliamentary democracy. If the Democrats fare better at the polls, they will be less likely to resort to street-based and extra-parliamentary outcomes.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304355104579231990341006898.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
OK, rising to the Machiavellian challenge, the anti-Thaksin elite should have let the amnesty bill pass, then pour funding into a (not too obvious) media campaign about all the Red Shirts sold out by that bill, and funded an anti-Thaksin Red Shirt group to create a split in Thaksin’s base. (Of course, they would have to be careful because their point is to split the rural base, not to create a more principled Red Shirt movement freed from Thaksin’s self-serving.)
Just to make it completely clear, I oppose this. It would be morally evil and bad for Thailand. But it would serve the interests of the anti-Thaksin power brokers.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
Who can stop the Thaksin system? A loyal opposition probably could. Which means that, under current circumstances, the Thaksin system really is unstoppable. It will remain so until Democrat party becomes meaningless enough to create a niche for another major opposition party.
For this reason, I wonder: are the Democrats too on Thaksin’s paycheck?
Thailand’s elite coup culture
I think the question is less about the acceptability of coups than it is about faulty conception of democracy.
The false assumption shared by many in Thailand is that some magical constitutional arrangement will solve all problems and inhibit all political conflict. Thailand’s elites are especially prone to this thinking.
The reformed constitution the elites put in place in 2007 in fact prevented the amnesty bill from being passed in the Senate. Rather than take that as victory enough, however, they yet discuss “people’s power,” and “people’s assembly,” and “perfect democracy” even as they occupy government buildings and demand power be handed to them for yet more “reform”….the magical order awaits further definition apparently.
An alternative thesis to the persistence of “coup culture” is that each extra-constitutional event (military coups, royal interventions, sudden court orders to dissolve a party names, protests, occupations, etc.) chips away and erodes the legitimacy of these methods themselves in the eyes of a broader public. The desperation of elite political actors to justify their extra-constitutional actions as being “democratic” or necessary to “save democracy” only reinforces the broadly-shared desire in Thailand for a stable rule of law and for democratic constitutionalism itself. Appealing to the broader public on these grounds seems self-defeating in the long run. But as long as elites put faith in democratic “reform” and “perfection” it is arguable that extra-constitutional methods will remain a feature in Thai politics.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
Hypothetically speaking, if I were an anti-Thaksin strategist what would my advice to the relevant powerbrokers? … Perhaps a media strategy to convince a significant proportion of the lower middle class – in Bangkok but in the North and Northeast as well – that, for the sake of the country in the name of both the king and the people, Thailand needs a temporary government lead by ‘good men'(virtuous, incorruptable – basically the opposite of Thaksin) to set things right. These good men should only call for elections once they are convinced that part of what they deem an unsophisticated Thaksinite electorate is swayed and has realized the error of Thaksin’s ways. These good men should remain unblemished so they can play good cop (while men like Suthep play bad cop and get their hands dirty by smearing the Shinawatra family and political supporters). This media campaign should foster the illusion that these good men are not too intimately tied to the democrat party or the army. The exact time to call for an election is crucial: there might just be a narrow window of opportunity at the time when the temporary rule of the good men is perceived as still legitimate, when support for Thaksin seems to be be wavering and when a revamped and reformed democrat party (bolstered with some new ideas and with people like Abhisit, against who the red shirts can mobilize, staying out of the limelight) rides this momentum and has some kind of a chance in the ballot box
Thailand’s elite coup culture
Hanuman,
“The current Thai king also has been a moderate and wise one no doubt and genuinely popular too.”
If you read my inference I believe that was one of my points; however, your earlier comments about Rama V, and serfdom, and inequality, as well as your most recent posting, hardly leads one to believe that you
are affectionate towards, or particularly supportive of, the Monarchy. Thus, your positive comment, which I reproduce above, about HRH King Bhumibol’s philanthropy,
popularity and caring is not consistent at all with your previous comments about the Monarchy in general, and King Bhumibol, specifically. Finally, your apparent devotion to Thaksin and/or the Phuea Thai Party is admirable but misplaced, and I am not “mistakenly helping anything to become a reality,” mostly because, unlike you, I neither claim to have all the answers, nor do
I contradict myself in who and what I support
in Thailand and elsewhere.
Thailand’s elite coup culture
Sure, put Thaksin in prison if you want, but make sure the nine Thais who are richer than him also go to jail at the same time. They all made their money the same way so let there not be selective justice against one rascal alone.
Also, talking about serfdom by Rama V, it is obvious from the venomous demand for an unelected government put forth by Suthep and Co., that all those former slave owners want to bring that obnoxious system back.
And as for monarchy – power and privilege are not essential to the institution in our times- there are plenty of royals all over Europe who lead humble lives and serve as cultural symbols and even models for their population. The current Thai king also has been a moderate and wise one no doubt and genuinely popular too. But the Thai institution itself has never been a constitutional monarchy it is supposed to be and always remained much closer to being an absolute one. The concentration of power and wealth is simply the wrong way to go about trying to preserve the institution of monarchy. In fact, that is the surest way of making it disappear completely- which is something you may be opposed to but are mistakenly helping to become a reality.
What is to be done in Thailand?
This thread is beginning to remind me of Statler and Waldorf – but without the jokes.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
What is “Thaksin system”? I think it is just a monster in the mist they, Thaksin’s opposition created because they can not find the new ideas for the market to bring them back to power.
Simply strategy – offer things that market wants!
Besides offering things that the market wants at the same time campaigning how badly the projects that Thaksin and the gangs have done and are doing to this country and I will do it better and will improve this country.
Thailand’s elite coup culture
“reluctance to redemocratise” ??? Just when have the Thais “democratised”? That’s a false beginning that underpins a weakness in your thesis. Thailand still has not gotten over the hump. The “elite” and their supporters in the middle class and peasantry still do not see parliamentary democracy as working. The time it “worked”, at least according to those who thought the 1991 coup ended a forward-moving period, it was mostly under the tough hand of the top general, Prem. So not sure when you think it had “democratized”. A couple years under Chatichai? The mid-1990s when the Prem people continually interfered? Indeed, your article leaves out entirely the issue of whether the parliament does perform and how its work is perceived. Making sure that the public sees parliament as non-functioning (at best) and utterly corrupt (at worst) is a key to why coups are accepted and encouraged when the country is judged in “turmoil”.
What is to be done in Thailand?
Nletschze has a point. Avoiding real issues. Mai pen rai, until it blows up. Then it becomes wain-kam (karma). Being a Thai, I feel that what is lacking is a mirror to see ourselves as what we really are, gullible, shallow, selfish, and full of ourselves. Our priorities are screwed up. We can not accept that we may be wrong, or that “others” may have valid points, lets we will loose face or “sia-na”. We cannot be seen to accept advice from others especially form those younger or lower or we look stupid. And we can’t be caught dead looking stupid. This is not the Thai way.
Until we accept accountability from ourselves, our thoughts, and our actions, we should not expect accountability from others, let alone our politicians. We are all culpable, we are all to blame.
Najib to receive honorary degree from Monash
I wonder what are you going to say when you re-read about all the news today.
Increase in GST, petrol prices, sugar, and etc.
And I am not criticizing, just stating certain facts which are used to rebut. That’s about it.
What is to be done in Thailand?
Not to be a fan of Suthep (Kamnan Thep) does not mean to be a fan of Thaksin. It just means that the ability to think independently remains, or a rest of sanity is maintained.
What is to be done in Thailand?
I think that both sides are pretty bad. One side cares for self aggrandizement, while the other is under the illusion of righteousness.
Who can stop the Thaksin system?
I have already seen the link and I doubt it’s veracity regarding Thaksin being only the # 10 richest person in Thailand. I will check other sources. Yes, the link seems to say so, but I do not believe it. I think he is far richer than reported.
Thailand’s elite coup culture
“I never said the King should be thrown out, those are your words. I think the monarchy should be preserved but without the mystery surrounding it or the monopoly it represents in terms of power, prestige and privilege.”
All monarchies have power and prestige, if you remove the power and privilege, it is no longer a monarchy. King Bhumibol is not surrounded by “mystery” as you stated. He is
a people’s King.
“What we are witnessing now is the last episode of the abolition of serfdom by Rama V that has dragged out much longer than anybody imagined.”
The inference here can be taken to mean that the removal of Rama V will end “serfdom,” It can be interpreted that way.
I never said Thaksin was the only crook, just one of the bigger ones. The fact that there are other crooks does not absolve Thaksin of his commercial crimes. He belongs in jail not because there are other crooks in Thailand, but because of his own actions. Your defense of Thaksin is indefensible. Setting an example by jailing Thaksin is a start; it will not solve all of Thailand’s problems at once, but it will show that not everyone can get away with money and mayhem.