I think the military tried this idea last night, forcing two sides to meet and then let the military take credit for it . . . didn’t work out as planned . . .
I am continuously frustrated by this. Supposedly educated people that neither know nor care about truth or fairness. Every time you point out failures of the political system they simply yell ‘democracy’. Should you mention the hypocrisy of a billionaire representing the poorest in society you are ridiculed. Mention corruption and they scream, ‘he won the election’. It’s not partisan politics but simply the delusion that they can champion socialism in a foreign country after having watched it abandoned by their chosen parties in their own homelands.
Thailand’s systematic failures all stem from a lack of accountability. This lack of accountability has been consistent in Thai politics since before Thaksin’s time, he simply profited more from it. He is a very rich man and the poor are still very poor.
Killings and bombings never make sense of course. After the Red protesters left Rajamangala stadium, the snipers-shoot-students rampage at Ramkhamhaeng U was malice with unmistaken (Sceptic’s Gandhian) message: “We could and we will kill your children is our ‘or else’.”
” … a 21-year-old (Ramkhamhaeng U)political science student of the university, who called himself Kung, recalled the clash on Saturday evening. She said gunfire could be heard from 8pm. A motorcycle rider was seen opening fire from the university’s gates, while others saw snipers in the high-rise building opposite.”
although they don’t pay taxes. The money that could have been used– to improve thai educational system, health care, etc.–was spent extravagantly by the royals
I will try to get the “funding story” as well as the “mass support” for future posts as I believe they will be crucial to understanding the anti-govt protesters. The moving parts in this round of protesters are very fluid and amorphous and there seems to be little evidence suggesting a more organized and structured hierarchy emerging. Perhaps the latest clash with casualties is testament to the unruly nature of the mob rule.
“Maybe it suggests something about China too. (Just speculating) Perhaps the middle class in Beijing and Shanghai is less opposed to the current non-democratic system there because they sense that democracy in China would empower internal migrants and rural people at their expense. Obviously, there are major differences, but perhaps there is a shared pattern of those who have managed to climb into the global middle class seeing those trying to follow them up the ladder as the enemy.”
Your analysis is correct and is one of several reasons for income and social disparities between affluent coastal Chinese (e.g, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Fujian Province), as well as well-off Chinese in Beijing and Nanjing, and poor rural agrarian-based farmers in the hinterlands. South Korea succeeded because it is ethnically homogeneous and instituted a government-funded and government-guided infrastructure program which worked, and which also accounts for Singapore’s success.
Taiwanese politics can be raucous (thus the fist fighting in the Taiwanese Parliament)
and Taiwan still has a ways to go, but does
have some semblance of democracy. Singapore is small and well-managed and not Democratic, likewise South Korea is relatively well-managed. Taiwan, like Japan (and South Korea) have institutionalized corruption so that it is more a part of the federal government negotiation process than actual acquisition of illicit funds by citizens.
China’s middle and upper classes, at best, are apathetic about the urban and rural poor, and at worst, are conspicuous about their affluence. This is not aided by the abandonment on the part of the Chinese Communist Party of any semblance of previously-mandated agrarian reforms. The affluent Chinese citizen is merely following the attitudes of their government, which is
superficial neo-Maoist foreign policy and
old-style archaic cadre-based domestic political policies in the hinterlands, while at the same time getting rich from the oxymoronic ‘policy’ of so-called Chinese Socialist Market Capitalism (with ‘Chinese Characteristics,’ of course) which is another way of saying that Shanghai has become, once again, the flashy, wealthy, corrupt, cosmopolitan, and very naughty, city it once was in the 1930s. The CCP could care less about other Chinese, especially those far away in Sichuan, Yunnan and Xinjiang Provinces. The CCP talks tough, boasts of its economic growth and military prowess, bleats out tired and anachronistic pseudo-Communist rhetoric at the United States, but is beset by internal squabbling and jousting for political positions of authority for purely selfish reasons. Meanwhile, slums form in major cities and the gap between the rural/urban poor and the affluent Chinese expands exponentially.
Other groups deemed “degenerate” or “asocial” received exclusionary treatment by the Thai Style Democracy state and included homosexuals, blacks, Thai Malays, Rohinya, Laos, Khmer, Burmese, Islamic and political opponents.
You paint with too broad a brush. The rank-and-file of TSD are aware of the influence of Thai Muslims, such as the House of Ahmedchula or House Nana, has upon their movement. Much less the motivation for Thai Muslims of a lesser pedigree to support TSD against House Shinawatra considering Taksin’s hand in the Southern bloodshed during the early to mid 2000s.
And let’s not forget the very important role a certain retired high-ranking military officer of ambiguous sexual orientation plays in all of this.
The desire of at least some parts of the general population in Bangkok to eliminate democracy because they are being outvoted by rural voters runs contrary to the theory that economic development creates a middle class that then demands democracy (as happened in South Korea and Taiwan).
Maybe it suggests something about China too. (Just speculating) Perhaps the middle class in Beijing and Shanghai is less opposed to the current non-democratic system there because they sense that democracy in China would empower internal migrants and rural people at their expense.
Obviously, there are major differences, but perhaps there is a shared pattern of those who have managed to climb into the global middle class seeing those trying to follow them up the ladder as the enemy.
“So the current government can go and have 50 protestors shot dead now and say “well it is worse in Uganda”.
Does Thailand want to be “better than the worst” or “among the best”.
Something tells me you have an old “America Love It Or Leave” sticker on your bumper or your forehead.”
1. Thai politicians don’t eat human flesh, as
bad as some of them are, Idi Amin did. Comparing Uganda with Thailand is like comparing durians with raspberries.
2. Any intelligent observer will tell you the
quality of life in Thailand, despite all its pressing problems, exceeds Burma by leaps and bounds.
3. Your rhetorical comment about bumper stickers leads to question about both your
knowledge of the United States and your civility.
4. Finally, I never said Thailand lacked problems or that, particularly given recent events with some injuries and deaths, there doesn’t need to be some answers and solutions
to fix Thailand’s mess. But, unlike some commentators, I don’t claim to have all the answers. I do believe Thaksin has done some damage to Thailand (as have others) and I also sense a high level of anger and vitriol on New Mandala which is often misdirected.
Great Post. But I can’t help wondering if the coalitions against the government seem to be just as ephemeral and personality-led as the formal political parties in Thailand. Is there an order to these coalitions of students and PAD etc? ie do they (and their opponents) represent a deeper transition or emergence of groups? I kinda suspect that a dividing line could be what different groups think about the rice subsidy scheme? If they are in favour of that -and still oppose the government on amnesty – then I guess that puts them in a ‘pro-people, anti-corruption’ group… but if they are against that does that make them ‘traditionalists’ alone? I’m trying to work out what is happening at a deeper level here…
I am at present reading your book and decided to check up on some recent comments concerning this old route to Singapore. When I made my two and a half year global trip in a L/Rover 110 back in 1995, alone, it seemed prudent to say the least to ship from Madras direct to Singapore ! I was very disapointed not to be able to follow in the footsteps of the Oxford/Cambridge Exp., of 1955 and Peter Townsend”s lone trip in 1957 along this old road. Your trip has only just come to light for me, for which I must thank the Amazon website !! Looking forward to finishing the book.
Regards, Michael Redgrove.
Please define what you mean by democracy? The current Govt is voted in by a MAJORITY of Thais. That to me means the majority of Thais want them to rule. NOT some pretend feudal lords who claims to represent Thais (but can’t get the votes)and want to rule without the voting process.
I would like to rule Thailand as well, but I am not so bloody minded as to half kill the country to get my way!
I find Thailand’s obsession with the size of the crowds at its endless street protests interesting. The leaders of this latest anti-government movement were keen to point out that there were more people at last week’s protest than the 2010 red-shirt demonstration. They talk about the “millions” who’ve supposedly been out on the streets, and they seem to believe that the right to rule can be derived from “the people”. Fair enough, I say. And seeing as how everyone seems to agree that this is a worthy system, I’m wondering whether Thailand might devise a more efficient legitimacy-determination system? I’m just thinking out loud here, really, but how about a system in which – instead of having to go out in the blazing sun for days on end – each citizen could simply indicate their preferred party of government on a piece of paper at an official “nomination station”? Then, all they’d have to do is wait till everyone had indicated their preference and count the marks in favour of each party. The one with the most “marks” could then be judged to have the right to rule. Obviously in practice it might be a bit more complicated than that – maybe they’d divide the country up, say, geographically, and have citizens choose people to represent them in the government instead of parties themselves. But these details could all be ironed out later. I think this system would save a lot of time and effort and there’d be no need for anyone to be out in the bloody sun all day! Also, maybe there wouldn’t be all this beastly fighting and stuff. You might object that it would be vulnerable to corruption, but hey – if you can pay a person to nominate you, you can pay them to turn up at a street rally! I’d like to call it the “Engendering Legitimacy and Executive Control of Thai Institutions through Orderly Nomination” system, though if anyone has a suggestion for something snappier, I’d love to hear it. One to think about?
” The response to the protests by Yingluck, the government, the Red Shirts and the police has been almost Gandhian in its commitment to non-violence.”
Gandhian! Sceptic you are being sarcastic, yes?
Yingluck is NOT in control, never had been, and I’ll bet she won’t have a clue what Gandhian means. The Red Shirts were or are on a violent rampage at Ramkhamhaeng sniping to kill or maim Ramkhamhaeng University students (thousands of Ramkhamhaeng U students terrorized by Red snipers from Saturday midnight to Sunday afternoon requiring the army to give them cover to evacuate) …
The pro-Thaksin Thai police forces are suspected to be those deadly killing/bombing Black Shirts and those Black Shirts were there at Ramkhamhaeng sniping and throwing grenades at Ramkhamhaeng U students.
An interesting article. You recognize the faces and rhetoric, and names here and there but it is good to see them lumped together in print.
I believe what they want is what all reactionary movements in Thailand have always wanted and succeeded with: bringing democratic evolution to a snail’s pace.
It is a wonderful tricksters sleight of hand when it succeeds. Once they dismantle the democratic framework at any given time they say “look, democracy does not work”. But democracy keeps coming back, of course to be dismantled again and again, and begin all over from “start” each time.
Of course democracy could work in everybody’s favor if they would realize people do after all to a large extent vote by the size of their pocketbooks. If enough people can be brought up out of the morass they will want to keep the status quo. Millions and millions eking out a living means the old elites will always lose at the polls. But only 10% of 15% “poor” means the status quo has a better chance to survive. In no way am I suggesting this is a good thing to leave behind so many but that is after all the way democracy in a capitalist society works. Thailand though is in part still a feudal society dressing itself in Gucci thinking.
But the wealthy and powerful have ruled the roost like feudal lords for so long they are loathe to share even the crumbs that fall from the table.
We must remember too Suthep’s game is one of “life or death”, both figuratively and in a certain sense literally. Should he succeed in toppling the government he would probably also succeed in avoiding having to ever stand trial. He is after all under indictment for murder. As is the man the foreign press at times referred to as “the butcher of Bangkok”.
And so Suthep is a dangerous man as his back is against the wall. he will fight tooth and nail and if need be shoot his way out of the corner into which he is boxed.
We had a quick chat online mon the recently banned Economist article. I am still waiting for your reply on that site on how would you propose a Thai-democracy? Who decides when the people are ready? North Korean is still not ready.
The fact that you disagree with the policy does not make the government illegitimate as long as none of your rights is violated. But I guess since you don’t think people are supposed to be equal, your rights carries more weight than other.
It’s not my call. The majority of the electorate voted for Yingluck and if that’s who they vote for it doesn’t matter if she has two heads, the morals of a snake, and the IQ of a turnip.
In a democracy, one may think that the electorate has made a poor choice but one must abide by that choice until the next election.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A royal intervention?
I think the military tried this idea last night, forcing two sides to meet and then let the military take credit for it . . . didn’t work out as planned . . .
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Suthep-says-he-met-Yingluck-chiefs-of-three-armed–30221120.html
What is to be done in Thailand?
Julian,
I am continuously frustrated by this. Supposedly educated people that neither know nor care about truth or fairness. Every time you point out failures of the political system they simply yell ‘democracy’. Should you mention the hypocrisy of a billionaire representing the poorest in society you are ridiculed. Mention corruption and they scream, ‘he won the election’. It’s not partisan politics but simply the delusion that they can champion socialism in a foreign country after having watched it abandoned by their chosen parties in their own homelands.
Thailand’s systematic failures all stem from a lack of accountability. This lack of accountability has been consistent in Thai politics since before Thaksin’s time, he simply profited more from it. He is a very rich man and the poor are still very poor.
Uprooting the Thaksin regime
And all this are brought about by?
Let’s see – Democratic Republic of Korea – Supreme Leader Kim Yong Eul (Head of People Council
Going to be Democratic ??? of Thailand Supreme Leader Suthep (head of People’s council)
Chew on that for a while will you?
Uprooting the Thaksin regime
Vichai, I find colours get very confusing. I thought the Black Shirts were now people like Suthep and his co-leaders of the street mob, no?
Uprooting the Thaksin regime
Killings and bombings never make sense of course. After the Red protesters left Rajamangala stadium, the snipers-shoot-students rampage at Ramkhamhaeng U was malice with unmistaken (Sceptic’s Gandhian) message: “We could and we will kill your children is our ‘or else’.”
” … a 21-year-old (Ramkhamhaeng U)political science student of the university, who called himself Kung, recalled the clash on Saturday evening. She said gunfire could be heard from 8pm. A motorcycle rider was seen opening fire from the university’s gates, while others saw snipers in the high-rise building opposite.”
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/382617/don-t-exploit-thaweesak-death-implores-dad
Giles Ji Ungpakorn on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
although they don’t pay taxes. The money that could have been used– to improve thai educational system, health care, etc.–was spent extravagantly by the royals
Who’s who in Thailand’s anti-government forces?
I will try to get the “funding story” as well as the “mass support” for future posts as I believe they will be crucial to understanding the anti-govt protesters. The moving parts in this round of protesters are very fluid and amorphous and there seems to be little evidence suggesting a more organized and structured hierarchy emerging. Perhaps the latest clash with casualties is testament to the unruly nature of the mob rule.
Time to vote Democrat!
Jessica,
Re:
“Maybe it suggests something about China too. (Just speculating) Perhaps the middle class in Beijing and Shanghai is less opposed to the current non-democratic system there because they sense that democracy in China would empower internal migrants and rural people at their expense. Obviously, there are major differences, but perhaps there is a shared pattern of those who have managed to climb into the global middle class seeing those trying to follow them up the ladder as the enemy.”
Your analysis is correct and is one of several reasons for income and social disparities between affluent coastal Chinese (e.g, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Fujian Province), as well as well-off Chinese in Beijing and Nanjing, and poor rural agrarian-based farmers in the hinterlands. South Korea succeeded because it is ethnically homogeneous and instituted a government-funded and government-guided infrastructure program which worked, and which also accounts for Singapore’s success.
Taiwanese politics can be raucous (thus the fist fighting in the Taiwanese Parliament)
and Taiwan still has a ways to go, but does
have some semblance of democracy. Singapore is small and well-managed and not Democratic, likewise South Korea is relatively well-managed. Taiwan, like Japan (and South Korea) have institutionalized corruption so that it is more a part of the federal government negotiation process than actual acquisition of illicit funds by citizens.
China’s middle and upper classes, at best, are apathetic about the urban and rural poor, and at worst, are conspicuous about their affluence. This is not aided by the abandonment on the part of the Chinese Communist Party of any semblance of previously-mandated agrarian reforms. The affluent Chinese citizen is merely following the attitudes of their government, which is
superficial neo-Maoist foreign policy and
old-style archaic cadre-based domestic political policies in the hinterlands, while at the same time getting rich from the oxymoronic ‘policy’ of so-called Chinese Socialist Market Capitalism (with ‘Chinese Characteristics,’ of course) which is another way of saying that Shanghai has become, once again, the flashy, wealthy, corrupt, cosmopolitan, and very naughty, city it once was in the 1930s. The CCP could care less about other Chinese, especially those far away in Sichuan, Yunnan and Xinjiang Provinces. The CCP talks tough, boasts of its economic growth and military prowess, bleats out tired and anachronistic pseudo-Communist rhetoric at the United States, but is beset by internal squabbling and jousting for political positions of authority for purely selfish reasons. Meanwhile, slums form in major cities and the gap between the rural/urban poor and the affluent Chinese expands exponentially.
Who’s who in Thailand’s anti-government forces?
You paint with too broad a brush. The rank-and-file of TSD are aware of the influence of Thai Muslims, such as the House of Ahmedchula or House Nana, has upon their movement. Much less the motivation for Thai Muslims of a lesser pedigree to support TSD against House Shinawatra considering Taksin’s hand in the Southern bloodshed during the early to mid 2000s.
And let’s not forget the very important role a certain retired high-ranking military officer of ambiguous sexual orientation plays in all of this.
Time to vote Democrat!
The desire of at least some parts of the general population in Bangkok to eliminate democracy because they are being outvoted by rural voters runs contrary to the theory that economic development creates a middle class that then demands democracy (as happened in South Korea and Taiwan).
Maybe it suggests something about China too. (Just speculating) Perhaps the middle class in Beijing and Shanghai is less opposed to the current non-democratic system there because they sense that democracy in China would empower internal migrants and rural people at their expense.
Obviously, there are major differences, but perhaps there is a shared pattern of those who have managed to climb into the global middle class seeing those trying to follow them up the ladder as the enemy.
Time to vote Democrat!
RA,
Re:
“So the current government can go and have 50 protestors shot dead now and say “well it is worse in Uganda”.
Does Thailand want to be “better than the worst” or “among the best”.
Something tells me you have an old “America Love It Or Leave” sticker on your bumper or your forehead.”
1. Thai politicians don’t eat human flesh, as
bad as some of them are, Idi Amin did. Comparing Uganda with Thailand is like comparing durians with raspberries.
2. Any intelligent observer will tell you the
quality of life in Thailand, despite all its pressing problems, exceeds Burma by leaps and bounds.
3. Your rhetorical comment about bumper stickers leads to question about both your
knowledge of the United States and your civility.
4. Finally, I never said Thailand lacked problems or that, particularly given recent events with some injuries and deaths, there doesn’t need to be some answers and solutions
to fix Thailand’s mess. But, unlike some commentators, I don’t claim to have all the answers. I do believe Thaksin has done some damage to Thailand (as have others) and I also sense a high level of anger and vitriol on New Mandala which is often misdirected.
Who’s who in Thailand’s anti-government forces?
Great Post. But I can’t help wondering if the coalitions against the government seem to be just as ephemeral and personality-led as the formal political parties in Thailand. Is there an order to these coalitions of students and PAD etc? ie do they (and their opponents) represent a deeper transition or emergence of groups? I kinda suspect that a dividing line could be what different groups think about the rice subsidy scheme? If they are in favour of that -and still oppose the government on amnesty – then I guess that puts them in a ‘pro-people, anti-corruption’ group… but if they are against that does that make them ‘traditionalists’ alone? I’m trying to work out what is happening at a deeper level here…
The Stilwell Road
Dear Eric Edis,
Ref: STILWELL RD.,
I am at present reading your book and decided to check up on some recent comments concerning this old route to Singapore. When I made my two and a half year global trip in a L/Rover 110 back in 1995, alone, it seemed prudent to say the least to ship from Madras direct to Singapore ! I was very disapointed not to be able to follow in the footsteps of the Oxford/Cambridge Exp., of 1955 and Peter Townsend”s lone trip in 1957 along this old road. Your trip has only just come to light for me, for which I must thank the Amazon website !! Looking forward to finishing the book.
Regards, Michael Redgrove.
Time to vote Democrat!
Please define what you mean by democracy? The current Govt is voted in by a MAJORITY of Thais. That to me means the majority of Thais want them to rule. NOT some pretend feudal lords who claims to represent Thais (but can’t get the votes)and want to rule without the voting process.
I would like to rule Thailand as well, but I am not so bloody minded as to half kill the country to get my way!
Who’s who in Thailand’s anti-government forces?
I find Thailand’s obsession with the size of the crowds at its endless street protests interesting. The leaders of this latest anti-government movement were keen to point out that there were more people at last week’s protest than the 2010 red-shirt demonstration. They talk about the “millions” who’ve supposedly been out on the streets, and they seem to believe that the right to rule can be derived from “the people”. Fair enough, I say. And seeing as how everyone seems to agree that this is a worthy system, I’m wondering whether Thailand might devise a more efficient legitimacy-determination system? I’m just thinking out loud here, really, but how about a system in which – instead of having to go out in the blazing sun for days on end – each citizen could simply indicate their preferred party of government on a piece of paper at an official “nomination station”? Then, all they’d have to do is wait till everyone had indicated their preference and count the marks in favour of each party. The one with the most “marks” could then be judged to have the right to rule. Obviously in practice it might be a bit more complicated than that – maybe they’d divide the country up, say, geographically, and have citizens choose people to represent them in the government instead of parties themselves. But these details could all be ironed out later. I think this system would save a lot of time and effort and there’d be no need for anyone to be out in the bloody sun all day! Also, maybe there wouldn’t be all this beastly fighting and stuff. You might object that it would be vulnerable to corruption, but hey – if you can pay a person to nominate you, you can pay them to turn up at a street rally! I’d like to call it the “Engendering Legitimacy and Executive Control of Thai Institutions through Orderly Nomination” system, though if anyone has a suggestion for something snappier, I’d love to hear it. One to think about?
Uprooting the Thaksin regime
Too late. A few people were already dead. And the police under Yingluck is being accused of intentionally allowing the killings to happen.
Uprooting the Thaksin regime
” The response to the protests by Yingluck, the government, the Red Shirts and the police has been almost Gandhian in its commitment to non-violence.”
Gandhian! Sceptic you are being sarcastic, yes?
Yingluck is NOT in control, never had been, and I’ll bet she won’t have a clue what Gandhian means. The Red Shirts were or are on a violent rampage at Ramkhamhaeng sniping to kill or maim Ramkhamhaeng University students (thousands of Ramkhamhaeng U students terrorized by Red snipers from Saturday midnight to Sunday afternoon requiring the army to give them cover to evacuate) …
The pro-Thaksin Thai police forces are suspected to be those deadly killing/bombing Black Shirts and those Black Shirts were there at Ramkhamhaeng sniping and throwing grenades at Ramkhamhaeng U students.
Who’s who in Thailand’s anti-government forces?
An interesting article. You recognize the faces and rhetoric, and names here and there but it is good to see them lumped together in print.
I believe what they want is what all reactionary movements in Thailand have always wanted and succeeded with: bringing democratic evolution to a snail’s pace.
It is a wonderful tricksters sleight of hand when it succeeds. Once they dismantle the democratic framework at any given time they say “look, democracy does not work”. But democracy keeps coming back, of course to be dismantled again and again, and begin all over from “start” each time.
Of course democracy could work in everybody’s favor if they would realize people do after all to a large extent vote by the size of their pocketbooks. If enough people can be brought up out of the morass they will want to keep the status quo. Millions and millions eking out a living means the old elites will always lose at the polls. But only 10% of 15% “poor” means the status quo has a better chance to survive. In no way am I suggesting this is a good thing to leave behind so many but that is after all the way democracy in a capitalist society works. Thailand though is in part still a feudal society dressing itself in Gucci thinking.
But the wealthy and powerful have ruled the roost like feudal lords for so long they are loathe to share even the crumbs that fall from the table.
We must remember too Suthep’s game is one of “life or death”, both figuratively and in a certain sense literally. Should he succeed in toppling the government he would probably also succeed in avoiding having to ever stand trial. He is after all under indictment for murder. As is the man the foreign press at times referred to as “the butcher of Bangkok”.
And so Suthep is a dangerous man as his back is against the wall. he will fight tooth and nail and if need be shoot his way out of the corner into which he is boxed.
What is to be done in Thailand?
Oh here you are Mr. Notdisappointed.
We had a quick chat online mon the recently banned Economist article. I am still waiting for your reply on that site on how would you propose a Thai-democracy? Who decides when the people are ready? North Korean is still not ready.
The fact that you disagree with the policy does not make the government illegitimate as long as none of your rights is violated. But I guess since you don’t think people are supposed to be equal, your rights carries more weight than other.
What is to be done in Thailand?
It’s not my call. The majority of the electorate voted for Yingluck and if that’s who they vote for it doesn’t matter if she has two heads, the morals of a snake, and the IQ of a turnip.
In a democracy, one may think that the electorate has made a poor choice but one must abide by that choice until the next election.