Basic rule is that you can only submit one theory (or set of theories). But you can vote up and down as many times as you like.
For those of you wavering, my guess is that the best tactic is to get your theory out early so that it can receive as many thumbs up as possible. Remember that the competition ends at 5 pm next Thursday.
My theory: Thaksin moved aggressively on the Amnesty Bill because of three factors:
1) his typical impetuousness;
2) his overconfidence due to his control of the parliament, “reconciliation” with the Palace and the Army, and the political stability his government has achieved over the past two and a half years; and
3) his underestimation of the potential for mass protest, due to the fact that X and Y are now incapacitated with health problems and are no longer able to play an active political role as in the past, and he has little x in his pocket (ref. AMM, “Kaliyuk”).
Another possibility is that being out of Thailand for so long he has lost touch with the mood of the country, particularly on his own side.
So, a bad misjudgment. I don’t see a deeper conspiracy theory here.
The root of this current protest is – yet again – a smokescreen scramble for a slice of the corruption cake, silently orchestrated by the mostly anonymous and behind the scenes power brokers to maintain their particular status quo.
Despite the excitable public claim by the protesters, academics and others that corruption is one of their reasons for protest, once this has settled, it will be corruption based business as usual. Various polls have long indicated that for many people corruption is acceptable and indeed expected. It’s simply a part of the Thai fabric.
To be truly effective, the protesters must actively and robustly address the critical problems of unfairness and injustice in society, an ineffective judiciary and police, military interventionism and political string pulling etc. within Thai society.
To reiterate, this people power protest – in the long term – is going nowhere.
“carry on”? just because the place is squeaky clean does not mean the bosses are clean and compassionate, does this mean that it is alright that ‘Too often maids suffer physical and personal abuse at the hands of their employers.
Plain and simple, The anti-amnesty protests should continue and force Yinluck to resign and rid Thailand of the scourge of the Shinawatra stranglehold. Remarkable the similarity to the mess that is American politics where a handful of billionaires are pulling all the strings of all the politicians. Imagine telling the parliment that the ‘have to’ vote for the amnesty bill, or what??? Suffer the wrath?? Same in America where the tea party will depose you if you aren’t voting conservative enough!!! Time for people to say enough to all this!
If so, he is surely not a very clever one. The Supreme Court ruled that he had acquired “unusual wealth” by means of “policy corruption” and used this to justify confiscating 46 billion baht of his family’s assets. This figure represented a 168% increase in the value of Shincorp shares between the day Thaksin took office and the day he sold to Temasek. However, over the same period the whole Thai stockmarket rose by a comparable 161%; many shares, including AIS’ main competitor, DTAC, fared even better. Furthermore the reason for Shincorp’s success is easily explained; over exactly the same period the number of mobile phone subscriptions virtually quadrupled from 12 per 100 head of population to 46 per 100. The anticipated subsequent growth to 120 subscriptions per hundred head of population would also have been reflected in the price. Of course it is true that his family holdings represented a clear potential conflict of interest as he belatedly acknowledged; but what is equally clear is that he does not appear to have benefited from anything other than a perfectly explicable business trend.
I will grant you that Thaksin may be a man of massive failings; vain, arrogant, extremely thin-skinned, vindictive among them. But no credible evidence has yet been produced to show that he was actually corrupt to any significant degree. On the other hand the Supreme Court’s verdict would be laughable if it was not itself so obviously corrupt.
“Any talk of his making deals, if real, will only be towards making his position stronger”
What is wrong with that? Surely it is no more than what all deal-making is about, whether it be in business, politics or any other field. Who sets out to actually weaken their position? Compromise is purely a part of this in as much as it may let one strengthen a position by disarming a source of hostility or disagreement.
The rest of what you say only amounts to the same unsubstantiated name-calling that infests so much political discussion of Thai politics.
Banharn had it 16, Chavalit 12, Samak 8, and Somchai 3. Aside from Thaksin, the duration of months Bangkokians could bear elected prime ministers has never been high. Yet, I put the Democrat leaders in a different category for a reason. And if you want to know, Chuan survived 33 and 39 for his two spells, while Abhisit, despite all the chaos, inherited 32 months.
From this numerical perspective, Yingluck has done quite well as she is now approaching her 28th month. But then it is getting closer to another milestone, the 31st month during which Chatichai was toppled by the coup in 1991.
Leaving all political-economic rationales behind, I like to propose my half-baked argument: the “monthly threshold” of Bangkokians for elected prime ministers. In the post-1980 period, the average duration of administrations led by traditional elites, including the Democrats, is approximately 30 months (Prem, Anand I and II, Suchinda, Chuan I and II, Surayud, and Abhisit) , one-and-a-half times the 20 months of the “normally elected” governments (Chatichai, Banharn, Chavalit, Thaksin I and II, Samak, and Somchai).
Seems to me that this is typical business bargaining. It obviously was expected by the opposition and it must have been expected that it would unite people against it and expose weak members in the PT alliance. A lot was learned by this from both sides. It also was extreme so it may have been that way to start a process of rejection by the opposition which has just begun. Push the extreme then push something after which probably will be rejected and so on. Eventually society will turn on the opposition and Democrats for its unwillingness to accept anything. At that point, the next bill will pass. This is a bit over-the-top but isn’t this the way one bargains in business usually with offers and rejections finally coming to an agreement and both parties feeling satisfied. Thaksin is a businessman after all.
I think the present Government greatly underestimated the opposition to the amnesty bill, particularly from the Red Shirts whom they considered would blindly follow their lead and approve of the Bill. Blind Freddy could see that the main aim was to facilitate the return of Thaksin. Despite rice schemes and other measures designed to placate the masses the Reds will not easily forget the murder of 90 plus of their fellow countrymen. This is something that, thankfully, not be swept under the carpet.
Add to this the imminent judgement in the Temple case, if it goes against Thailand then that will only exacerbate the problem. Rabid Yellow Shirt xenophobic nationalists on top of virulent anti amnesty protesters are the last thing that the Government want.
I think Yingluck will be quite relieved if and when the Senate reject the Bill. She will then have 190 days breathing space before she has to re-present. 6 months is a long time in politics, especially Thai politics and anything can happen that period. It could even be that the matter of succession may have had to be settled in that time.
How I wish I had a crystal ball. Whatever happens there are sure to be interesting times ahead. Let’s hope that these times are not too turbulent, sometimes I despair for this Country.
PT had known it would be impossible to enforce a general amnesty
PT had known the judgment of the Khao Phra viharn is spoken in November.
Everyone was warned long before November
Nevertheless, they changed their original amnesty law to a general amnesty – and whipping it through the parliamentary process
Why?
because there is a deal and this is part of the deal …
or – if this fails (because of resistance in the population is too large)
In order to create a situation that makes it possible to end impunity
I still think it’s the deal –
-but if it fails then it will be impossible to maintain impunity
-Thus, the democratic party has the choice between impunity and Thaksin back in thailand – or
– abisith , suthep and prayuth has to stand trial
– i think the last is not the choice amart want to see and also not dp
Seems quite straight forward to me. There are two positions on the streets fighting against the amnesty.
One is the people fighting for justice. People who don’t want other people to get away with a coup, murder and injuring people.
Then there are the ones who hate Thaksin and don’t want him to come back to Thailand.
Rather simple really. It is just the Thai media that has made a mess out of it, and they make it look like it is a democrat party rally, while in reality, it is two different rallies with one goal, NO AMNESTIES..!!!
As reflected in my response on this thread we are aware of the issue. We take a pro-active approach to containing the number of comments from particular commentators when they are dominating discussion. It is, as we have said before, just like a seminar — we try to keep things mildly anarchic but under control, with room for a variety of voices to be heard.
We hope everyone can have their say, even when they espouse unpopular perspectives. Indeed, Peter Cohen has already found that many of his comments do not see the light of day. Persistent, disruptive behaviour (of the likes of which we have seen in the past) will ultimately lead to a period of exclusion. This is all done quietly but it’s the only way that New Mandala has survived the past 7 years of tumult. Those who have been excluded in the past can return to the fray, but it rarely happens.
We certainly believe in giving people a chance to learn the ropes, but there’s only so far our patience can be extended.
Clearly the person behind the Peter Cohen moniker is some kind of paid troll. Why is the New Mandala moderator allowing him to endlessly inject himself in every thread in such a tedious and boring manner?
I need not give a comparative analysis since
your bias (“ranting” and “invective”) does not lead to cogent discussion. You have already made up your mind by your style of language that Thaksin is no more corrupt than Phao or Sarit, for example; thus your showmanship is not really intended for genuine analytical exchange.
You are well familiar with Thaksin’s disrespect for the law, his disloyalty to
the Royal Family, and his accumulation of inordinate wealth which exceeds that of
the other strongmen you mention. While
I support the notion of ‘taming’ the wild south teaming with ethnic Malay extremists and terrorists, his approach in the south was
rather heavy-handed.
I do not think you are interested in “cogent
arguments” as much as academic disputation.
Peter, to give some substance to your ranting anti-Thaksin comments on New Mandala, perhaps you can provide us with a brief comparative analysis that explains what makes him so different/worse from past “nakleng” strongmen like Phao, Sarit, Thanom, and Suchinda. and present examples like Suthep, Newin, and Prawit Wongsuwan. Rather than focusing on invective, your analysis would ideally provide some cogent arguments backed up with specific evidence. I for one would be very interested to read it. Thanks in advance.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Show us your theories
Thanks Patrick,
Basic rule is that you can only submit one theory (or set of theories). But you can vote up and down as many times as you like.
For those of you wavering, my guess is that the best tactic is to get your theory out early so that it can receive as many thumbs up as possible. Remember that the competition ends at 5 pm next Thursday.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Show us your theories
My theory: Thaksin moved aggressively on the Amnesty Bill because of three factors:
1) his typical impetuousness;
2) his overconfidence due to his control of the parliament, “reconciliation” with the Palace and the Army, and the political stability his government has achieved over the past two and a half years; and
3) his underestimation of the potential for mass protest, due to the fact that X and Y are now incapacitated with health problems and are no longer able to play an active political role as in the past, and he has little x in his pocket (ref. AMM, “Kaliyuk”).
Another possibility is that being out of Thailand for so long he has lost touch with the mood of the country, particularly on his own side.
So, a bad misjudgment. I don’t see a deeper conspiracy theory here.
—
How many goes can we have at this?
Show us your theories
The root of this current protest is – yet again – a smokescreen scramble for a slice of the corruption cake, silently orchestrated by the mostly anonymous and behind the scenes power brokers to maintain their particular status quo.
Despite the excitable public claim by the protesters, academics and others that corruption is one of their reasons for protest, once this has settled, it will be corruption based business as usual. Various polls have long indicated that for many people corruption is acceptable and indeed expected. It’s simply a part of the Thai fabric.
To be truly effective, the protesters must actively and robustly address the critical problems of unfairness and injustice in society, an ineffective judiciary and police, military interventionism and political string pulling etc. within Thai society.
To reiterate, this people power protest – in the long term – is going nowhere.
Show us your theories
74 senators do not fear my rural minions.
Show us your theories
good exercise
Maid to order in Singapore
“carry on”? just because the place is squeaky clean does not mean the bosses are clean and compassionate, does this mean that it is alright that ‘Too often maids suffer physical and personal abuse at the hands of their employers.
Show us your theories
Plain and simple, The anti-amnesty protests should continue and force Yinluck to resign and rid Thailand of the scourge of the Shinawatra stranglehold. Remarkable the similarity to the mess that is American politics where a handful of billionaires are pulling all the strings of all the politicians. Imagine telling the parliment that the ‘have to’ vote for the amnesty bill, or what??? Suffer the wrath?? Same in America where the tea party will depose you if you aren’t voting conservative enough!!! Time for people to say enough to all this!
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
“he is a crook of the highest order”
If so, he is surely not a very clever one. The Supreme Court ruled that he had acquired “unusual wealth” by means of “policy corruption” and used this to justify confiscating 46 billion baht of his family’s assets. This figure represented a 168% increase in the value of Shincorp shares between the day Thaksin took office and the day he sold to Temasek. However, over the same period the whole Thai stockmarket rose by a comparable 161%; many shares, including AIS’ main competitor, DTAC, fared even better. Furthermore the reason for Shincorp’s success is easily explained; over exactly the same period the number of mobile phone subscriptions virtually quadrupled from 12 per 100 head of population to 46 per 100. The anticipated subsequent growth to 120 subscriptions per hundred head of population would also have been reflected in the price. Of course it is true that his family holdings represented a clear potential conflict of interest as he belatedly acknowledged; but what is equally clear is that he does not appear to have benefited from anything other than a perfectly explicable business trend.
I will grant you that Thaksin may be a man of massive failings; vain, arrogant, extremely thin-skinned, vindictive among them. But no credible evidence has yet been produced to show that he was actually corrupt to any significant degree. On the other hand the Supreme Court’s verdict would be laughable if it was not itself so obviously corrupt.
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
“Any talk of his making deals, if real, will only be towards making his position stronger”
What is wrong with that? Surely it is no more than what all deal-making is about, whether it be in business, politics or any other field. Who sets out to actually weaken their position? Compromise is purely a part of this in as much as it may let one strengthen a position by disarming a source of hostility or disagreement.
The rest of what you say only amounts to the same unsubstantiated name-calling that infests so much political discussion of Thai politics.
Show us your theories
Banharn had it 16, Chavalit 12, Samak 8, and Somchai 3. Aside from Thaksin, the duration of months Bangkokians could bear elected prime ministers has never been high. Yet, I put the Democrat leaders in a different category for a reason. And if you want to know, Chuan survived 33 and 39 for his two spells, while Abhisit, despite all the chaos, inherited 32 months.
From this numerical perspective, Yingluck has done quite well as she is now approaching her 28th month. But then it is getting closer to another milestone, the 31st month during which Chatichai was toppled by the coup in 1991.
Leaving all political-economic rationales behind, I like to propose my half-baked argument: the “monthly threshold” of Bangkokians for elected prime ministers. In the post-1980 period, the average duration of administrations led by traditional elites, including the Democrats, is approximately 30 months (Prem, Anand I and II, Suchinda, Chuan I and II, Surayud, and Abhisit) , one-and-a-half times the 20 months of the “normally elected” governments (Chatichai, Banharn, Chavalit, Thaksin I and II, Samak, and Somchai).
Veerayooth Kanchoochat
Show us your theories
Seems to me that this is typical business bargaining. It obviously was expected by the opposition and it must have been expected that it would unite people against it and expose weak members in the PT alliance. A lot was learned by this from both sides. It also was extreme so it may have been that way to start a process of rejection by the opposition which has just begun. Push the extreme then push something after which probably will be rejected and so on. Eventually society will turn on the opposition and Democrats for its unwillingness to accept anything. At that point, the next bill will pass. This is a bit over-the-top but isn’t this the way one bargains in business usually with offers and rejections finally coming to an agreement and both parties feeling satisfied. Thaksin is a businessman after all.
Show us your theories
I think the present Government greatly underestimated the opposition to the amnesty bill, particularly from the Red Shirts whom they considered would blindly follow their lead and approve of the Bill. Blind Freddy could see that the main aim was to facilitate the return of Thaksin. Despite rice schemes and other measures designed to placate the masses the Reds will not easily forget the murder of 90 plus of their fellow countrymen. This is something that, thankfully, not be swept under the carpet.
Add to this the imminent judgement in the Temple case, if it goes against Thailand then that will only exacerbate the problem. Rabid Yellow Shirt xenophobic nationalists on top of virulent anti amnesty protesters are the last thing that the Government want.
I think Yingluck will be quite relieved if and when the Senate reject the Bill. She will then have 190 days breathing space before she has to re-present. 6 months is a long time in politics, especially Thai politics and anything can happen that period. It could even be that the matter of succession may have had to be settled in that time.
How I wish I had a crystal ball. Whatever happens there are sure to be interesting times ahead. Let’s hope that these times are not too turbulent, sometimes I despair for this Country.
The end of the Red Shirts?
The red shirts are not a monolith so a title like “End of the Red Shirts?” has little meaning.
Three perspectives:
Thitinan
Somyot
FCCT debate tonight
Show us your theories
PT had known it would be impossible to enforce a general amnesty
PT had known the judgment of the Khao Phra viharn is spoken in November.
Everyone was warned long before November
Nevertheless, they changed their original amnesty law to a general amnesty – and whipping it through the parliamentary process
Why?
because there is a deal and this is part of the deal …
or – if this fails (because of resistance in the population is too large)
In order to create a situation that makes it possible to end impunity
I still think it’s the deal –
-but if it fails then it will be impossible to maintain impunity
-Thus, the democratic party has the choice between impunity and Thaksin back in thailand – or
– abisith , suthep and prayuth has to stand trial
– i think the last is not the choice amart want to see and also not dp
Show us your theories
Seems quite straight forward to me. There are two positions on the streets fighting against the amnesty.
One is the people fighting for justice. People who don’t want other people to get away with a coup, murder and injuring people.
Then there are the ones who hate Thaksin and don’t want him to come back to Thailand.
Rather simple really. It is just the Thai media that has made a mess out of it, and they make it look like it is a democrat party rally, while in reality, it is two different rallies with one goal, NO AMNESTIES..!!!
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
Thanks Nathan,
As reflected in my response on this thread we are aware of the issue. We take a pro-active approach to containing the number of comments from particular commentators when they are dominating discussion. It is, as we have said before, just like a seminar — we try to keep things mildly anarchic but under control, with room for a variety of voices to be heard.
We hope everyone can have their say, even when they espouse unpopular perspectives. Indeed, Peter Cohen has already found that many of his comments do not see the light of day. Persistent, disruptive behaviour (of the likes of which we have seen in the past) will ultimately lead to a period of exclusion. This is all done quietly but it’s the only way that New Mandala has survived the past 7 years of tumult. Those who have been excluded in the past can return to the fray, but it rarely happens.
We certainly believe in giving people a chance to learn the ropes, but there’s only so far our patience can be extended.
Hope that clarifies the situation.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Show us your theories
ALIENS
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
Clearly the person behind the Peter Cohen moniker is some kind of paid troll. Why is the New Mandala moderator allowing him to endlessly inject himself in every thread in such a tedious and boring manner?
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
Mr. Marshall,
I need not give a comparative analysis since
your bias (“ranting” and “invective”) does not lead to cogent discussion. You have already made up your mind by your style of language that Thaksin is no more corrupt than Phao or Sarit, for example; thus your showmanship is not really intended for genuine analytical exchange.
You are well familiar with Thaksin’s disrespect for the law, his disloyalty to
the Royal Family, and his accumulation of inordinate wealth which exceeds that of
the other strongmen you mention. While
I support the notion of ‘taming’ the wild south teaming with ethnic Malay extremists and terrorists, his approach in the south was
rather heavy-handed.
I do not think you are interested in “cogent
arguments” as much as academic disputation.
Thaksin, a yellow shirt?
Peter, to give some substance to your ranting anti-Thaksin comments on New Mandala, perhaps you can provide us with a brief comparative analysis that explains what makes him so different/worse from past “nakleng” strongmen like Phao, Sarit, Thanom, and Suchinda. and present examples like Suthep, Newin, and Prawit Wongsuwan. Rather than focusing on invective, your analysis would ideally provide some cogent arguments backed up with specific evidence. I for one would be very interested to read it. Thanks in advance.