Are you accusing me of making up the quote from Dr. Keyes and misrepresenting his exact words? Unbelievable arrogance! BTW, I also received my Ph.D. from UW in Seattle and have met Dr. Keyes, and although he doesn’t like Thaksin (I don’t either) he is prepared to give him his due on the issue of raising the level of political empowerment among the rural Thai poor. I merely made the mistake of assuming that he had most recently taught at Cornell (I have been gone from UW for over 25 years).
One further point (also made in my wordy article) that is worth stressing. Given that King Bhumibol signalled in 2007 that Vajiralongkorn will remain his designated heir, and seems unlikely to change that position, the interests of the king and Thaksin are indeed aligned on the question of succession, which obsesses the Thai elite to the exclusion of almost everything else.
However, Bhumibol is no longer an active player in the game, and nor is Sirikit (who moved over to the Yellow team during 2006-2008) since her July 2012 stroke.
So forecasts of Thaksin making a deal with the “palace” are somewhat misleading. He already backs Vajiralongkorn as monarch. Any deal would have to be with Sirindhorn, whose aims remain unclear. But the main battle being fought is between Team Thaksin and the Yellows, who include almost the entire royalist establishment but are not acting with the authority of Bhumibol or Sirikit, despite their efforts to pretend otherwise.
“The esteemed Dr. Keyes is Professor Emeritus from University of Washington in Seattle, rather than Cornell University. Carry on.”
As I stated earlier. I know Dr. Keyes from my time at UW. His knowledge of Thailand is profound. And he is no fan of Thaksin. It is
easy to claim an interview took place without
an original reference. I highly doubt that
Dr. Keyes stated or even implied that Thaksin
evolved the concept in rural Thai people’s minds that votes cannot be bought, particularly as Thaksin did just that with massive financial largesse in the Northeast
region and elsewhere. The notion of an actual confluence of rural Thai self-esteem and unimpeded voting and the personage of Thaksin is a supreme contradiction.
“And it is even more depressing that, despite seemingly findings ways to be heard, the idealist pro-democratic voices would now likely to face an even higher degree of marginalisation by the revival of the broader struggle against the Thaksin.”
The struggle against Thaksin is not a sidetrack; it is part of the struggle for democratisation. Thaksin is not a theoretical abstraction; he is a contributor to the lessening of democracy in Thailand by
his autarchic personality and ideology, his behaviour towards the Monarchy, his rampant corruptibility, and his lack of any ethical principles. Thaksin gives a whole new meaning to the concept of ‘entrepreneurship’.
Wait a little longer till 11 November when the International Court of Justice gives judgment in he Peah Vihear Temple dispute. Many expect the judgment to go against Thailand and the government to be blamed. Not really fair on them since the wrong decision was made 50 years ago not to appeal against the original judgment. But if Peua Thai get blamed, expect more anti-government protests on the streets. Can you hear tank drivers starting ot rev up their engines?
“For strters at least one thing most commentators on this thread seem to agree on is that Thaksin is a crook, a shyster and, in general, a real nasty mofo (not only for his shameless self-aggrandizement and slavish worship of Mammon, his absurd, but very deadly ‘war on drugs’ – that sure worked, didn’t it?, his ham-fisted approach in the far south, dealing with the media etc. etc. etc). Even so he’s been discussed in the media every single day of the week since he high-tailed it out of the country.”
“I think that while P.Cohen may sneer at Roy A’s suggestion that TS gave ‘the people self esteem as he opened their eyes’, such a view does not really indicate such an ‘extensive’ knowledge of Thai politics as he would have us believe (and PC, can you please ‘repeat
[your] comments in Thai’ so we have your views in both languages?)”
Your sneer at me is indicative of your attitude and is offensive and arrogant. You
already acknowledge that Thaksin is a crook
but can’t tolerate a different opinion than yours. You do not know me or how long I have spent in Thailand (and not just Bangkok). Please refrain from disparagement just because you may support Thaksin or the
amnesty bill. If you think Thai self-esteem
originated with Thaksin, then you should question your own knowledge of Thailand,
and just being Thai does not make you objective. Thai self-esteem doesn’t come
from any of the Thai leaders, past and
present. And most of those rural Thai that
Thaksin supposedly helped, still look to the
Royal Family for moral and spiritual guidance.
I need only refer to you own quotes about Thaksin with which I share agreement.
It’s a very good – though wordy – piece by Andrew MacGregor Marshall, well worth reading.
But one crucial point he misses – re. Shin Corp’s 2006 Temasek sale – is that this gave Singapore’s Temasek the “in” to Thai military communications. Objections to the sale were not simply that Thaksin evaded tax on it – but also that the sale threatened Thai national security.
How real such security concerns were, and how much they were simply another weapon to use against Thaksin – in the wake of current Snowden revelations – remains to be discovered.
I’m sticking to my support of the amnesty. Given the fact the Courts are part of the Monarchist patronage system, there is no hope of justice from them, and their decisions on these matters will enrage Thaksin’s followers (the majority of Thais), undermining respect for all rules of conduct.
Western enthusiasts for punitive justice are actually pretty dumb. If you can govern a dog more effectively by non-punitive methods, why not a human being?
Thanks for your comments.
Firstly I would like to clarify my position on Thaksin opening the eyes of the people. We all know the programmes he introduced, so my comments are after 2006.
Since his disposal by an illegal military coup in 2006 the UDD was formed. Thaksin used to support the UDD for his own benefit and helped the UDD with funds to educate a lot of people in Red Shirt schools in what democracy really is. As I have not been to any school I cannot really comment on what is taught. This gives the will to fight for their rights and therefore more self esteem. As Thaksin appears to have disowned the UDD’s beliefs (if ever he really supported them)and I assume going onto attack the very people who got his sister elected, the political scene is in turmoil and splits are very likely within the UDD. However, these splits have been forecast by myself and others since the formation of the UDD. Every organisation throughout the world that encompasses all political views from the centre to the extreme left with limited goals and is undemocratic in nature has always failed and splintered after some goals have been acheived.In this case the election of the PT. I feel the next move must come from the leadership of the UDD.
About the war on drugs.
The actual figures are in doubt as to how many were murdered by the state as the compillers used dodgy figures. Thaksin was never charged with any crimes related to the ordered deaths as people at the top were in favour of his campaign against drugs. Thaksin should be re tried with any credible evidence in a proper court of law. Kangaroos need not apply for the job. Rational people believe in real justice which cannot be found in any prosecution of political offences in Thailand at the present time.
A few things to agree with re; some of the comments posted here, and a few to question.
For starters at least one thing most commentators on this thread seem to agree on is that Thaksin is a crook, a shyster and, in general, a real nasty mofo (not only for his shameless self-aggrandizement and slavish worship of Mammon, his absurd, but very deadly ‘war on drugs’ – that sure worked, didn’t it?, his ham-fisted approach in the far south, dealing with the media etc. etc. etc). Even so he’s been discussed in the media every single day of the week since he high-tailed it out of the country.
I think that while P.Cohen may sneer at Roy A’s suggestion that TS gave ‘the people self esteem as he opened their eyes’, such a view does not really indicate such an ‘extensive’ knowledge of Thai politics as he would have us believe (and PC, can you please ‘repeat
[your] comments in Thai’ so we have your views in both languages?)
In making his claim about ‘self-esteem’ and ‘opening eyes’ Roy may have been intimating that this was, in part, a consequence of some TS’s populist policies which many common people (well, many I have spoken to) regarded as ushering in a new era of Thai politics – the first time any politican, any bigwig, had ever offered them anything (other than Baht for their vote). Recognition, of sorts (from a bag of sheisse, to be sure), but recognition nonetheless, which, I think, connects in certain ways with the idea of ‘self esteem’ and ‘opening one’s eyes’.
At the same time it is very hard to disagree with P. Cohen’s view that ‘rational people recognize that Thaksin belongs in jail (gaol) and that there
should be no amnesty. The notion that amnesty will “break the cycle of bitterness” is illusory.’ Sadly, very true.
Such an ‘amnesty’ is simply another case of ‘burying the hatchet’ – let the guilty, in their suits and ties or uniforms, off the hook once more. Speaking of such things, has any one ever been indicted and imprisoned for killings on or around 14 Oct 1973, 6 Oct 1976, the cold-blooded murder of Australian camera-man/journalist, Neil Davis on the streets of Bangkok in 1985, events in May ’92 etcetera and so on? Sweep it all under the carpet, nail down those floorboards. In Thailand the all too common view appears to be – let the past remain a foreign country.
[…] I gave a lecture to a Thai Studies class here at the ANU where I introduced some old photos of Thaksin Shinawatra. They show him on the stage at an anti-drugs rally in Chiang Rai province […]
For someone who purports to understand Thai politics very well, you show complete ignorance about Thaksin’s military backed kangaroo court sentence and once again show your complete hatred for one man and say nothing about the criminal behaviour of Sondhi, Abhisit and Suthep, the military and of course the so called mysterious special army unit known as “the men in black”. Who incidently have been called out to murder demonstrators on previous occasions when the establishment is under severe pressure. I do disagree with R.N England’s statement that rational people would support this amnesty bill. Rational people understand history and that to ignore history means that it will continue to repeat itself. More bloody coups and massacres. This is no way any country can move forward as justice is tossed out of the window so that the elite can reunite in their unholy marriage and toddle off into the sunset as if nothing happened.
Thaksin is a typical elite royalist – superstitious, self-serving, eager to win the favour of the monarch mainly so he can exploit royal barami for his own ends, but also because he emotionally craves royal approval. He remains very upset that the king and queen turned against him and refuses to blame them personally (even in private conversations), preferring to believe the royal couple were given misleading information by scheming courtiers, above all Prem Tinsulanonda.
A former cabinet minister I was chatting to last week told me that he’d accompanied Thaksin to audiences with the king in Hua Hin on several occasions. He was not permitted to join the audience himself but waited in a reception room as the king and the prime minister chatted. He says Thaksin’s excitement each time he headed to Hua Hin was almost childlike, and his pride and elation afterwards were palpable. It was only in 2006 (in Thaksin’s view) that his relations with the king became strained, even though it was obvious to everybody else from December 2001 onwards, due to Bhumibol’s scathing birthday speech that year.
Thaksin’s capacity for self-delusion was entertainingly illustrated in leaked US cable 05BANGKOK7529. Over lunch in December 2005, shortly after another caustic birthday monologue by the old king, Thaksin still appears to believe that he and Bhumibol are buddies:
“Prime Minister Thaksin came to the residence on
December 7 flush from what he considered a boost from the
King’s birthday speech several days earlier. Thaksin said
there were no unpleasant surprises in the speech and noted
that the King had previewed the speech to him on November 21. The King counseled him not to be hot headed in response to his critics. Thaksin replied that as he grew closer to age
60 he would mellow. According to Thaksin, the King’s
frequent anecdotes during the December 4 speech referring to the Prime Minister had the quality of inside jokes that he
and Thaksin shared…
“Thaksin expressed satisfaction over what he termed a
uniformly good relationship with the Palace. He related to
me that when he called on the King following his massive 377 seat win last February, he intimated that it would be his
last term. ‘What, you will leave me alone?’ Thaksin said the
King replied. The Queen also urged that Thaksin see the King regularly, citing his ability to cheer up His Majesty.
Thaksin agreed that the King’s chief motivation these days is
the preservation of the status of the monarchy. He referred
humorously to the first time he attended the King’s birthday
speech as Prime Minister. The King at that time made
critical comments about him. While he visibly cringed,
Khunying Potjaman (Thaksin’s wife) dug him in the ribs with
her elbow. The King told him later that he was lucky to have
a Khun Potjaman to candidly advise him as well as encourage
him.”
One of the main reasons for Thaksin’s misjudgement of Bhumibol is that he is oblivious to sarcasm, which is a favourite weapon in Bhumibol’s rhetorical arsenal.
The real reason Thai ultra-royalists are so virulently opposed to Thaksin is not that they thought Thaksin was disloyal to the monarchy. It is because Thaksin has no qualms about Vajiralongkorn becoming Rama X and established a good relationship with the prince with the help of epic financial largesse. Their alliance, plus Thaksin’s immense electoral legitimacy, suddenly made it less implausible that Vajiraongkorn would one day become king. This horrified Prem’s circle and the wider traditional establishment, who launched all-out war in 2005 and have been fighting ever since. Obviously the fact that their opposition is to both Thaksin and Vajiralongkorn cannot be said aloud, but it’s absolutely crucial to understanding what is going on.
At the elite level, Thailand’s crisis is not between royalists and anti-monarchists, it’s between two sets of royalists, one of which (Team Thaksin) backs the prince and wants to benefit from being kingmaker, and the other (the Yellow bloc) which is desperate to stop this at almost any cost.
As the royalist elite secretively squabbles over the succession, meanwhile, ordinary Thais are increasingly losing faith in the monarchy.
All of this was explained in some detail in my wordy article the other day, with extensive supporting evidence, just in case anybody is interested.
RE: Taksin giving the Thai people self-esteem. Below is a quote from Dr. Charles Keyes (Professor Emeritus, Cornell University):
“One of the things you have to realize that Thaksin did was to create a sense of rural empowerment. And that meant that people saw themselves not just as the votes you buy or the votes that you recruit, but also they have a sense of voting for themselves. The people who are election campaigners – those that are in charge of voting, have a different role than they had 20 years ago; they are more like those in other countries that have really democratic systems, in which people really have to know their rural community, they have to be able to speak the local language, they have to be able to communicate well with the local people in order to really mobilize their support.”
–A Romance of the Rural Middle Class:
An Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
By Dr. Pun-Arj Chairatana, January 2011
So, yes, Thaksin really DID empower the rural poor, especially in the Northeast, with policies like the 30 Baht Health Care Plan. Conversely, the Bangkok elite have done absolutely NOTHING for them, and they know it.
A friend in Bangkok sent me the following which may be of (minor) interest:
A stroll through Pathumwan earlier today (4/11).
As I was walking by the Royal Thai Police Headquarters this afternoon, I could hear shouting, then I saw a group of (maybe 100) demonstrators.
It was a demonstration against the controversial amnesty bill which (among other provisions) would whitewash Thaksin for his political crimes and other criminal acts (pillaging and raping his countrymen), and allow him entry back into Thailand without any repercussions.
The high iron gates were shut, and behind them there were 3 groups of riot police kitted out with their gear and shields. As I watched, the demonstrators’ leader shouted instructions into his megaphone (letting both sides know exactly what was going to happen next), and then the police formed a phalanx by grouping up and sliding their riot shields into a protective cover just like we have all seen the Greeks and Romans do in many movies.
The demonstrators then loosed a fusillade of partially filled water bottles which bounced harmlessly off the shields.
Quite a different scene than 3 1/2 years ago when thousands of “Red Shirts” rioted, ran amok and set CentralWorld (across the street) on fire and destroyed much property in the area. At least there were no people shot and killed today, as there were then.
Oh yeah, there is a point to this story, that is typically Thai!
All this action was taking place at the exit driveway of the RTPH, while just a few meters away at the entrance driveway, the gates were wide open, as vehicular and pedestrian traffic was proceeding unhindered, with very few policemen to be seen!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Back to Thailand’s future
Peter Cohen:
Are you accusing me of making up the quote from Dr. Keyes and misrepresenting his exact words? Unbelievable arrogance! BTW, I also received my Ph.D. from UW in Seattle and have met Dr. Keyes, and although he doesn’t like Thaksin (I don’t either) he is prepared to give him his due on the issue of raising the level of political empowerment among the rural Thai poor. I merely made the mistake of assuming that he had most recently taught at Cornell (I have been gone from UW for over 25 years).
Here is the complete reference:
Chairatana,Pun-Arj (2011, September)
A Romance of the Rural Middle Class: An Interview with Professor Charles F. Keyes, Trendnovation Southeast, September 28, 2011,
retrieved from http://www.trendsoutheast.org/dialogues/2013/4/25/a-romance-of-the-rural-middle-class-an-interview-with-professor-charles-f-keyes
The end of the Red Shirts?
The end of the Red Shirts or the start of something more ideologically genuine and sincere?
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
One further point (also made in my wordy article) that is worth stressing. Given that King Bhumibol signalled in 2007 that Vajiralongkorn will remain his designated heir, and seems unlikely to change that position, the interests of the king and Thaksin are indeed aligned on the question of succession, which obsesses the Thai elite to the exclusion of almost everything else.
However, Bhumibol is no longer an active player in the game, and nor is Sirikit (who moved over to the Yellow team during 2006-2008) since her July 2012 stroke.
So forecasts of Thaksin making a deal with the “palace” are somewhat misleading. He already backs Vajiralongkorn as monarch. Any deal would have to be with Sirindhorn, whose aims remain unclear. But the main battle being fought is between Team Thaksin and the Yellows, who include almost the entire royalist establishment but are not acting with the authority of Bhumibol or Sirikit, despite their efforts to pretend otherwise.
Back to Thailand’s future
“The esteemed Dr. Keyes is Professor Emeritus from University of Washington in Seattle, rather than Cornell University. Carry on.”
As I stated earlier. I know Dr. Keyes from my time at UW. His knowledge of Thailand is profound. And he is no fan of Thaksin. It is
easy to claim an interview took place without
an original reference. I highly doubt that
Dr. Keyes stated or even implied that Thaksin
evolved the concept in rural Thai people’s minds that votes cannot be bought, particularly as Thaksin did just that with massive financial largesse in the Northeast
region and elsewhere. The notion of an actual confluence of rural Thai self-esteem and unimpeded voting and the personage of Thaksin is a supreme contradiction.
Back to Thailand’s future
The esteemed Dr. Keyes is Professor Emeritus from University of Washington in Seattle, rather than Cornell University. Carry on.
The end of the Red Shirts?
Thorn,
“And it is even more depressing that, despite seemingly findings ways to be heard, the idealist pro-democratic voices would now likely to face an even higher degree of marginalisation by the revival of the broader struggle against the Thaksin.”
The struggle against Thaksin is not a sidetrack; it is part of the struggle for democratisation. Thaksin is not a theoretical abstraction; he is a contributor to the lessening of democracy in Thailand by
his autarchic personality and ideology, his behaviour towards the Monarchy, his rampant corruptibility, and his lack of any ethical principles. Thaksin gives a whole new meaning to the concept of ‘entrepreneurship’.
Back to Thailand’s future
Wait a little longer till 11 November when the International Court of Justice gives judgment in he Peah Vihear Temple dispute. Many expect the judgment to go against Thailand and the government to be blamed. Not really fair on them since the wrong decision was made 50 years ago not to appeal against the original judgment. But if Peua Thai get blamed, expect more anti-government protests on the streets. Can you hear tank drivers starting ot rev up their engines?
Back to Thailand’s future
Kaen Phet,
“For strters at least one thing most commentators on this thread seem to agree on is that Thaksin is a crook, a shyster and, in general, a real nasty mofo (not only for his shameless self-aggrandizement and slavish worship of Mammon, his absurd, but very deadly ‘war on drugs’ – that sure worked, didn’t it?, his ham-fisted approach in the far south, dealing with the media etc. etc. etc). Even so he’s been discussed in the media every single day of the week since he high-tailed it out of the country.”
“I think that while P.Cohen may sneer at Roy A’s suggestion that TS gave ‘the people self esteem as he opened their eyes’, such a view does not really indicate such an ‘extensive’ knowledge of Thai politics as he would have us believe (and PC, can you please ‘repeat
[your] comments in Thai’ so we have your views in both languages?)”
Your sneer at me is indicative of your attitude and is offensive and arrogant. You
already acknowledge that Thaksin is a crook
but can’t tolerate a different opinion than yours. You do not know me or how long I have spent in Thailand (and not just Bangkok). Please refrain from disparagement just because you may support Thaksin or the
amnesty bill. If you think Thai self-esteem
originated with Thaksin, then you should question your own knowledge of Thailand,
and just being Thai does not make you objective. Thai self-esteem doesn’t come
from any of the Thai leaders, past and
present. And most of those rural Thai that
Thaksin supposedly helped, still look to the
Royal Family for moral and spiritual guidance.
I need only refer to you own quotes about Thaksin with which I share agreement.
Back to Thailand’s future
It’s a very good – though wordy – piece by Andrew MacGregor Marshall, well worth reading.
But one crucial point he misses – re. Shin Corp’s 2006 Temasek sale – is that this gave Singapore’s Temasek the “in” to Thai military communications. Objections to the sale were not simply that Thaksin evaded tax on it – but also that the sale threatened Thai national security.
How real such security concerns were, and how much they were simply another weapon to use against Thaksin – in the wake of current Snowden revelations – remains to be discovered.
Back to Thailand’s future
I’m sticking to my support of the amnesty. Given the fact the Courts are part of the Monarchist patronage system, there is no hope of justice from them, and their decisions on these matters will enrage Thaksin’s followers (the majority of Thais), undermining respect for all rules of conduct.
Western enthusiasts for punitive justice are actually pretty dumb. If you can govern a dog more effectively by non-punitive methods, why not a human being?
Back to Thailand’s future
Thanks for your comments.
Firstly I would like to clarify my position on Thaksin opening the eyes of the people. We all know the programmes he introduced, so my comments are after 2006.
Since his disposal by an illegal military coup in 2006 the UDD was formed. Thaksin used to support the UDD for his own benefit and helped the UDD with funds to educate a lot of people in Red Shirt schools in what democracy really is. As I have not been to any school I cannot really comment on what is taught. This gives the will to fight for their rights and therefore more self esteem. As Thaksin appears to have disowned the UDD’s beliefs (if ever he really supported them)and I assume going onto attack the very people who got his sister elected, the political scene is in turmoil and splits are very likely within the UDD. However, these splits have been forecast by myself and others since the formation of the UDD. Every organisation throughout the world that encompasses all political views from the centre to the extreme left with limited goals and is undemocratic in nature has always failed and splintered after some goals have been acheived.In this case the election of the PT. I feel the next move must come from the leadership of the UDD.
About the war on drugs.
The actual figures are in doubt as to how many were murdered by the state as the compillers used dodgy figures. Thaksin was never charged with any crimes related to the ordered deaths as people at the top were in favour of his campaign against drugs. Thaksin should be re tried with any credible evidence in a proper court of law. Kangaroos need not apply for the job. Rational people believe in real justice which cannot be found in any prosecution of political offences in Thailand at the present time.
Back to Thailand’s future
A few things to agree with re; some of the comments posted here, and a few to question.
For starters at least one thing most commentators on this thread seem to agree on is that Thaksin is a crook, a shyster and, in general, a real nasty mofo (not only for his shameless self-aggrandizement and slavish worship of Mammon, his absurd, but very deadly ‘war on drugs’ – that sure worked, didn’t it?, his ham-fisted approach in the far south, dealing with the media etc. etc. etc). Even so he’s been discussed in the media every single day of the week since he high-tailed it out of the country.
I think that while P.Cohen may sneer at Roy A’s suggestion that TS gave ‘the people self esteem as he opened their eyes’, such a view does not really indicate such an ‘extensive’ knowledge of Thai politics as he would have us believe (and PC, can you please ‘repeat
[your] comments in Thai’ so we have your views in both languages?)
In making his claim about ‘self-esteem’ and ‘opening eyes’ Roy may have been intimating that this was, in part, a consequence of some TS’s populist policies which many common people (well, many I have spoken to) regarded as ushering in a new era of Thai politics – the first time any politican, any bigwig, had ever offered them anything (other than Baht for their vote). Recognition, of sorts (from a bag of sheisse, to be sure), but recognition nonetheless, which, I think, connects in certain ways with the idea of ‘self esteem’ and ‘opening one’s eyes’.
At the same time it is very hard to disagree with P. Cohen’s view that ‘rational people recognize that Thaksin belongs in jail (gaol) and that there
should be no amnesty. The notion that amnesty will “break the cycle of bitterness” is illusory.’ Sadly, very true.
Such an ‘amnesty’ is simply another case of ‘burying the hatchet’ – let the guilty, in their suits and ties or uniforms, off the hook once more. Speaking of such things, has any one ever been indicted and imprisoned for killings on or around 14 Oct 1973, 6 Oct 1976, the cold-blooded murder of Australian camera-man/journalist, Neil Davis on the streets of Bangkok in 1985, events in May ’92 etcetera and so on? Sweep it all under the carpet, nail down those floorboards. In Thailand the all too common view appears to be – let the past remain a foreign country.
“Yes sir, I understood”
[…] I gave a lecture to a Thai Studies class here at the ANU where I introduced some old photos of Thaksin Shinawatra. They show him on the stage at an anti-drugs rally in Chiang Rai province […]
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
Pravit (The Nation) wrote about “reconciliation between Thaksin and the traditional elite” (or something in this sense).
Back to Thailand’s future
Mirror: http://www.zenjournalist.org/2013/11/01/%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%84-thailands-era-of-insanity-2/
Back to Thailand’s future
For someone who purports to understand Thai politics very well, you show complete ignorance about Thaksin’s military backed kangaroo court sentence and once again show your complete hatred for one man and say nothing about the criminal behaviour of Sondhi, Abhisit and Suthep, the military and of course the so called mysterious special army unit known as “the men in black”. Who incidently have been called out to murder demonstrators on previous occasions when the establishment is under severe pressure. I do disagree with R.N England’s statement that rational people would support this amnesty bill. Rational people understand history and that to ignore history means that it will continue to repeat itself. More bloody coups and massacres. This is no way any country can move forward as justice is tossed out of the window so that the elite can reunite in their unholy marriage and toddle off into the sunset as if nothing happened.
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
Thaksin is a typical elite royalist – superstitious, self-serving, eager to win the favour of the monarch mainly so he can exploit royal barami for his own ends, but also because he emotionally craves royal approval. He remains very upset that the king and queen turned against him and refuses to blame them personally (even in private conversations), preferring to believe the royal couple were given misleading information by scheming courtiers, above all Prem Tinsulanonda.
A former cabinet minister I was chatting to last week told me that he’d accompanied Thaksin to audiences with the king in Hua Hin on several occasions. He was not permitted to join the audience himself but waited in a reception room as the king and the prime minister chatted. He says Thaksin’s excitement each time he headed to Hua Hin was almost childlike, and his pride and elation afterwards were palpable. It was only in 2006 (in Thaksin’s view) that his relations with the king became strained, even though it was obvious to everybody else from December 2001 onwards, due to Bhumibol’s scathing birthday speech that year.
Thaksin’s capacity for self-delusion was entertainingly illustrated in leaked US cable 05BANGKOK7529. Over lunch in December 2005, shortly after another caustic birthday monologue by the old king, Thaksin still appears to believe that he and Bhumibol are buddies:
“Prime Minister Thaksin came to the residence on
December 7 flush from what he considered a boost from the
King’s birthday speech several days earlier. Thaksin said
there were no unpleasant surprises in the speech and noted
that the King had previewed the speech to him on November 21. The King counseled him not to be hot headed in response to his critics. Thaksin replied that as he grew closer to age
60 he would mellow. According to Thaksin, the King’s
frequent anecdotes during the December 4 speech referring to the Prime Minister had the quality of inside jokes that he
and Thaksin shared…
“Thaksin expressed satisfaction over what he termed a
uniformly good relationship with the Palace. He related to
me that when he called on the King following his massive 377 seat win last February, he intimated that it would be his
last term. ‘What, you will leave me alone?’ Thaksin said the
King replied. The Queen also urged that Thaksin see the King regularly, citing his ability to cheer up His Majesty.
Thaksin agreed that the King’s chief motivation these days is
the preservation of the status of the monarchy. He referred
humorously to the first time he attended the King’s birthday
speech as Prime Minister. The King at that time made
critical comments about him. While he visibly cringed,
Khunying Potjaman (Thaksin’s wife) dug him in the ribs with
her elbow. The King told him later that he was lucky to have
a Khun Potjaman to candidly advise him as well as encourage
him.”
One of the main reasons for Thaksin’s misjudgement of Bhumibol is that he is oblivious to sarcasm, which is a favourite weapon in Bhumibol’s rhetorical arsenal.
The real reason Thai ultra-royalists are so virulently opposed to Thaksin is not that they thought Thaksin was disloyal to the monarchy. It is because Thaksin has no qualms about Vajiralongkorn becoming Rama X and established a good relationship with the prince with the help of epic financial largesse. Their alliance, plus Thaksin’s immense electoral legitimacy, suddenly made it less implausible that Vajiraongkorn would one day become king. This horrified Prem’s circle and the wider traditional establishment, who launched all-out war in 2005 and have been fighting ever since. Obviously the fact that their opposition is to both Thaksin and Vajiralongkorn cannot be said aloud, but it’s absolutely crucial to understanding what is going on.
At the elite level, Thailand’s crisis is not between royalists and anti-monarchists, it’s between two sets of royalists, one of which (Team Thaksin) backs the prince and wants to benefit from being kingmaker, and the other (the Yellow bloc) which is desperate to stop this at almost any cost.
As the royalist elite secretively squabbles over the succession, meanwhile, ordinary Thais are increasingly losing faith in the monarchy.
All of this was explained in some detail in my wordy article the other day, with extensive supporting evidence, just in case anybody is interested.
Angkor revisited
Interesting. On the Mahendraparvata question, I did a blog post where you might find some useful questions for the next edition of your book. http://sophatsoeung.com/2013/06/19/angkors-founding-city-revealed-on-mount-kulen/
Back to Thailand’s future
RE: Taksin giving the Thai people self-esteem. Below is a quote from Dr. Charles Keyes (Professor Emeritus, Cornell University):
“One of the things you have to realize that Thaksin did was to create a sense of rural empowerment. And that meant that people saw themselves not just as the votes you buy or the votes that you recruit, but also they have a sense of voting for themselves. The people who are election campaigners – those that are in charge of voting, have a different role than they had 20 years ago; they are more like those in other countries that have really democratic systems, in which people really have to know their rural community, they have to be able to speak the local language, they have to be able to communicate well with the local people in order to really mobilize their support.”
–A Romance of the Rural Middle Class:
An Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
By Dr. Pun-Arj Chairatana, January 2011
So, yes, Thaksin really DID empower the rural poor, especially in the Northeast, with policies like the 30 Baht Health Care Plan. Conversely, the Bangkok elite have done absolutely NOTHING for them, and they know it.
Back to Thailand’s future
A friend in Bangkok sent me the following which may be of (minor) interest:
A stroll through Pathumwan earlier today (4/11).
As I was walking by the Royal Thai Police Headquarters this afternoon, I could hear shouting, then I saw a group of (maybe 100) demonstrators.
It was a demonstration against the controversial amnesty bill which (among other provisions) would whitewash Thaksin for his political crimes and other criminal acts (pillaging and raping his countrymen), and allow him entry back into Thailand without any repercussions.
The high iron gates were shut, and behind them there were 3 groups of riot police kitted out with their gear and shields. As I watched, the demonstrators’ leader shouted instructions into his megaphone (letting both sides know exactly what was going to happen next), and then the police formed a phalanx by grouping up and sliding their riot shields into a protective cover just like we have all seen the Greeks and Romans do in many movies.
The demonstrators then loosed a fusillade of partially filled water bottles which bounced harmlessly off the shields.
Quite a different scene than 3 1/2 years ago when thousands of “Red Shirts” rioted, ran amok and set CentralWorld (across the street) on fire and destroyed much property in the area. At least there were no people shot and killed today, as there were then.
Oh yeah, there is a point to this story, that is typically Thai!
All this action was taking place at the exit driveway of the RTPH, while just a few meters away at the entrance driveway, the gates were wide open, as vehicular and pedestrian traffic was proceeding unhindered, with very few policemen to be seen!