Batson’s study doesn’t pretend to be anything more than “a study of events leading to the June 1932 coup” with a focus on the king and his circle. The book is strong on economic conditions that set the stage for big change, a topic missing in Thawatt’s study, but it is weak on intellectual currents and political culture.
In 1992, on the 60th anniversary of 1932, three books were published in Thai – two by Nakharin Mektrairat, and one by Charnvit Kasetsiri. In a review of the books, Batson stated that Charnvit’s work was the more accessible, but that The 1932 Thai Coup by Nakharin (this is the early, not the newer and much different, Nakharin) was likely to set a standard for Thai-language scholarship on 1932 for some time to come. Although fair-minded in his comments, Batson didn’t really spell out the contribution made by this Thai-language study which he described as innovative and impressively broad in scope.
Barme and Copland, who shared research materials and especially the wicked political cartoons of the day when they were students together in Canberra, studied the new political culture and discovered nationalisms in the emerging public sphere completely different from the nationalism supposedly handed down from on high by the sixth Bangkok king. But on the English side of the language firewall, Nakharin’s contributions have gone unnoticed. He described new political language and thought leading up to 1932; even the meaning of “the people” (ratsadon) as separate from the aristocracy had changed. Similar themes were being sounded in the Red Shirt encampment in early 2010, which is why Thai historians return to 1932 again and again, as much in hope as in despair.
Batson’s review is in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 24.2 (Sept. 1993), 374-377.
Here’s an abstract of a British Medical Journal article on all manner of tear gas use. I don’t think they were at the Pitak Siam protest either so maybe their opinion can be considered as “armchair” too 😉
“Tear gas and pepper spray used for crowd control are not without risks, particularly for people with pre-existing respiratory conditions.
Pulmonary, cutaneous, and ocular problems can result from exposure to these agents.
Treatment for the effects of exposure to tear gas requires chemical decontamination, including protective measures for healthcare staff.
Some people are at risk of delayed complications that can be severe enough to warrant admission to hospital and even ventilation support.
Despite the frequent use of riot control agents by European law enforcement agencies, limited information exists on this subject in the medical literature. The effects of these agents are typically limited to minor and transient cutaneous inflammation, but serious complications and even deaths have been reported. During the 1999 World Trade Organisation meeting and at the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec, exposure to tear gas was the most common reason for medical consultations.1 2 Primary and emergency care physicians play a role in the first line management of patients as well as in the identification of those at risk of complications from exposure to riot control agents. In 1997 the National Poisons Information Service in England received 597 inquiries from doctors seeking advice about problems related to crowd control.3 Our article reviews the different riot control agents, including the most common tear gases and pepper sprays, and provides an up to date overview of related medical sequelae.”
Despite the health concerns of tear gas use I’ll also reiterate my comment from November 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM – I believe use of both the ISA and gas was proportionate.
We are heading for a construction-and-tourism-led boom no matter what….until the bubble bursts. Never mind the damage to the environment or national heritage sites, so long as money can be made from them we can’t wait to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
We shall say all the right things, form or join the right agencies, but the bottom line is…kerching! That we can guarantee.
Never mind the public. We shall use them and throw them some scraps from the lord’s table. Should be more than enough, they survived on frogs, shrimp and wild cress in the cyclone, didn’t they? So let them eat frog, we’ll have Peking duck and T bone steak every day.
Think you’re taking my comments very very personally and you’re clearly not reading them.
If you had you’d have seen I wrote a couple days back –
“Having said that I still think that given the resources they have and the situation at hand the Thai authorities use of gas was proportionate.”
What I questioned was your line that somehow tear gas was always going to be some kind of more “humane” response. It isn’t as it can be very indiscriminate and can have bad effects on people’s health.
I also knew it would only be a matter of time before you’d revert to your usual shrill “shut up, I was there nur nur nur” line. You’re a bit too predictable Nick. 😉
I’m with Nick on this one. Watching the videos of the police-PS clash, it is immediately clear that the tear gas stopped the violence. As the truck was driving into the police, I can only imagine how much worse it could have been if the gas wasn’t used.
@Andrew, your emotions get ahead of you sometimes. We are all on the same side, jai yen yen na krap =)
The reason why the US were not that relevant for the education of the upper echelon of the civil and military service (which included many princes) was quite simple: They were far less relevant in Siam (except the missionaries and their printing press as we all learn from the history books). Britain and France were the leading powers in the region and Germany (together with Russia what is often overlooked even though one prince married a Russian wife), were the leading European powers. Thus, it was crucial to have close ties to these powers, which – at that time – were the main “world-powers” (the time for the US started far later, even though they were then already the new colonizers of the Philippines).
Economic issues certainly played a very important role. One should not forget that 1932 is just the time, when the world economic crisis stroke Siam really hard. As Hobsbawm notes (age of extremes), suddenly those allied with the colonial powers and who expected to make their career with them (for Siam one can change this into the newly arrising young non-aristocratic elite) found their future options and careers were diminishing. The bureaucracy was shrinking and especially higher positions were reserved for the aristocrats. Thus, the non-aristocratic professionals had no chance in the competition over power and status.
An aspect that I would find very interesting, which is hardly discussed unfortunately (could be a topic for Scot Barme I guess), is the role of the bourgoisie. This was as well a newly arrising social class that was in economic competition with the aristocrats. Many of these had strong business interests.
A note on the German educated military: Phibul was educated in England, but some more senior military leaders had their education in Germany. For good reason France was regarded as the place to study law, because the British common law was less advanced then french (and later German) law.
Nick,it was obviously the right decision to wear some “neutral” identification as a journalist:
Media personnel were told to wear green armbands issued by the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) while covering the Pitak Siam protest. But the two photographers were wearing yellow armbands issued by rally organisers, meaning police might have mistaken them for protesters who tried to break down the barricades and some of them also wore yellow armbands and headbands of protest.
You mean you didn’t already look into how the ISA worked before you pronounced it as an “over-reaction”? It is utterly meaningless until the regulations pertaining to the given situation are included. This time the regulations, as I understand them, included the closing of certain roads in order to make effective containment of the protest.
And surely, the blocking of a road is not the only reason to support or not support a robust defence of democracy in the face of a violent fascist mob? Surely the government needed the legal mechanisms available to them if there was a more serious threat or violence? Why wait until that happens when clear threats were already made and then carried out, to some degree, by protesters attempting to destroy democracy?
I’d also ask why, once again, the international media, failed, almost completely, to represent the facts about Pitak Siam. This group had made it clear, repeatedly and publicly, their aim was to destroy democracy and freeze Thailand yet not one foreign correspondent reported that. Also that Abhisit’s Democrat Party tacitly supported these fascists, as they did with the PAD in 2008, is missing too. Why is that? What’s wrong with reporting some facts? Or do said facts get lost as correspondents desperately cling to some forlorn “balance” based on a highly dubious and contrived “neutrality”?
I would just like to add a bit more context to my earlier response and clarification regarding the February 2007 Environmental Completion Report on the Nam Mang 3 Hydropower Project for Electricite du Laos (EdL), under the name of MW’s company, Resource Management and Research. This project was funded by a loan from China’s Export-Import Bank and built by a contractor, China International Water and Electric Corporation (CWE) and handed over to EdL to operate on completion. RMR’s involvement came as a result of concerns by ADB and the World Bank after construction began in November 2001 without an EIA or other safeguard studies having been conducted by the developers. RMR were hired (under pressure from ADB/WB who seemed to be using it as leverage for progression on the financing and project safeguards for Nam Theun 2)to conduct an Emergency Environmental Management Plan (EMMP) and combined EIA-EMP-SAP between 2002-2005 during the construction period, paid for by CWE, as a kind of tokenistic retroactive three-in-one process to make it appear as if Lao law was being followed. In other words, a bit of a charade was being played by all.
RMR’s Completion Report on NM3 was an internal document for EdL, but was widely circulated at the time. In reality, it seems that few of RMR’s suggestions and practical advice in the EIA-EMP-SAP was ever demanded by the regulators or followed by the developers (who were clearly trying to minimise costs and maximise profits, as would be expected in the absence of independent oversight) and I suspect it was this experience as much as the THHP/THXP debacle that stirred up MW ‘s juices to not merely write a report that the developer’s wanted to hear and bank the fat pay cheque that inevitably follows a compliant consultant’s report. In other words, RMR was prepared to break ranks from the pack and make some quite novel and daring suggestions for their profession (in the context of Laos, at least), for which I guess he surely paid a high financial (and personal) cost by ultimately having to relocate from Laos.
I mentioned MW’s use of the term Status Quo Reports (SQR’s)in the NM3 Completion Report, but didn’t define what he meant by these, so reproduce below an excerpt from the Preface of the said report:
“They serve the purpose of maintaining the present system, and moving it slowly without de-stabilising discontinuities, in the directions of a development model written by the developed world’s financial institutions, centered on economic issues.
The Advisers are aware that SQR cannot, nor are they supposed to, provide information which could change directions or modalities of development investment.
There are however risks in having a reporting process which is constrained to avoid dissecting difficulties and limited to presenting only the convenient truths. Such a process lacks the capacity to change directions, detect mistakes and illuminate lessons. The more the events suggest a change is needed, the more important it becomes to hire consultants skilled in SQR drafting. So more unsatisfactory outcomes are met by more skillfully composed reports showing the general direction taken has been and remains sound.”
To my mind, these are quite radical words and reflections from an environmental specialist who seemed to regard himself as a non-partisan, positivist natural scientist, and suggests, perhaps, that MW was prepared to rock the boat when he wrote this Completion Report by proposing a paradigm shift in the standard practices of that professional community in Laos and beyond to the regulators, donors and financiers of hydropower development. In a way, his report was aimed at a root and branch reform of the EIA process, which he saw as unfit for purpose, by essentially being a foreign-demanded (read: Western) practice foisted on an unwilling local constituency of hitherto largely unaccountable decision-makers. A better excerpt to include, rather than the bit in my previous post would have been this quote from the Completion Report’s discussion (p.172-174) containing RMR’s reflections on the deficiencies of the EIA process:
“There has not yet developed internally among Lao decision makers a majority who believe that environmental and social impacts from infrastructure construction should be regulated. There is however recognition that a significant, but presently falling, proportion of foreign investments and grants require there to be a Regulatory Procedure in place. The creation of an Agency and issue of legal and administrative instruments, under strong external influence, does not suddenly persuade Lao decision makers that environmental regulation is a good idea for them. There is no framework in which the public or special interest groups can compel individuals or agencies to follow regulations. There is no Public Liability Law under which agencies or individuals can be held accountable and liable for neglect for breaches of environmental regulations leading to damage or loss. Poor performance by the Agency is unlikely to attract adverse comments in local media. The sanctions available to the Regulator under
the regulations for poor implementation are arbitrary and toothless. The main sources of discomfort for the Regulator and for parties which fail to adhere to regulations come also from external sources.”
Given the process of decision-making surrounding the Xayaburi Dam project, I would suggest that these words were quite prophetic and significant, given that they came from an industry insider, rather that an external civil society critic. And as I mentioned, this occurred well before the dispute with THPC and Norplan over-spilled into a semi-public issue, and does not tend to support the “self-interest” hypothesis proposed by “Observer”.
NB: I would like to make an amendment to my earlier posting, regarding the quotation listed as Section 8.2 (headed “Enlargement of EIA into Social Matters” which should have been introduced as “….MW’s argument to not enlarge the EIA process into social matters (Section 8.2, p. 172) of report:” In other words, MW recognised that the EIA process was failing to meet its objectives in Laos and required a radical overhaul to become a little more “fit for purpose”.
The confusion over page numbers is as a result of there being a full pdf copy of the report and a shorter Word file “Executive Summary”. If anyone would like a copy of said NM3 Completion Report, please send me a p.m.
Yes, and Andrew should read the articles properly he posts before citing from them, and over-dramatizing the issue:
“Last year PHR investigators in Bahrain found disconcerting evidence that Bahraini authorities may be using unidentified chemical agents in addition to tear gas. ”
Matter of fact is that there were no serious injuries during the rally, no deaths from teargas. CS-gas, the agent used by the police that day, and the most widely used gas nowadays, is considered less toxic than most other agents, and most studies have shown that is relatively harmless. This is quite a difference to the agents that seem to have caused the deaths in Bahrain.
I do not see that police could have stopped protesters there without the brief use of teargas, other than using heavy baton charges, or rubber bullets, both measures that would have left so many injured that rightly the protesters would have accused the police of brutality. This was a violent demonstration – it can hardly be countered with entirely peaceful measures.
But maybe Andrew should have been at the scene to see for himself the situation. Maybe instead of his armchair analyses he could then make suggestions to the police what measures they should have taken to stop the protesters from breaking through the barricades, as the application of the ISA itself and alone did obviously not stop the protesters from attacking the police.
Any ideas, Andrew, what the police should have done?
I would now like to have the opinion of a legal expert if indeed Rajadamnern Nok in front of Government House can be blocked by the government only with the ISA in force (in which case i would agree with your view that the ISA was justified), or if normal Thai laws would have allowed to block entry to that particular road (in which case i disagree with the ISA, in this case).
Comparing Abhisit’s undemocratic, unelected and unmandated regime and its complete disproportionate use of force to this government is simply false. I know that “false equivalences” are a favourite “logical” device of certain Thai “liberals” but on this occasion they are very easily exposed. (I wrote about these false equivalences here http://asiaprovocateur.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/sitting-on-fence-debunking-false.html)
The ISA is not a set of laws but gives the govt the right to suspend certain rights via regulations that are created to suit the situation. In this instance they suspended freedom of movement in a very small area by denying access to a couple of streets – hardly an overreaction. The successful containment you mention above was a result of the use of the ISA. Also, if the government didn’t use the ISA it may have faced legal challenges for breaching the constitutional right to freedom of movement.
The other thing to consider is proportionality. Every democracy has the duty to protect itself from threats and to safeguard itself. Every democracy on earth has similar laws to Thailand’s ISA as well. The key to them, in maintaining democracy and civil rights, is their proportionate use. So, when faced with a threat like Pitak Siam, in the historical context of Thailand’s coups, bodies hanging from trees, airport and government house occupations, and the threat to overthrow democracy, using a security law to close down a few streets for a few days is perfectly proportionate and perfectly democratic.
Democracies have a right to use power to protect themselves. The ISA was used to that end this weekend. When Abhisit used the ISA and SOE he didn’t even have the electoral mandate to clean Bangkok’s streets and used these laws to attack, not defend, democracy. He was not only unelected but his incompetence was matched only by his desire to unleash excessive force on unarmed civilians that was very very far from proportionate.
As for “rights” – those of the entire Thai electorate need to be taken into account as well. If PS had succeeded then the democratic rights of millions of Thais might’ve been sacrificed just to protect the rights of few thousand fascists to walk down a certain street for a few days. Democratically, legally, morally, rationally and ethically it simply doesn’t wash. PS were able to assemble and protest, were met with proportionate use of force and were almost immediately released after arrest. To claim their “rights” were abused doesn’t stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
The “they should’ve waited” line before using the ISA is also easily debunked. Wait for what? Some deaths? Govt House to be stormed? A few more students being hit with metal chairs as they twist in the wind? These fascists have proven time and time again they are capable of extreme acts of violence and to be prepared to use force to overthrow democracy.
And on that note today Seh Ai has reportedly been saying that his fascist group are going to return and that this time they will be “armed”. What should the government do? We all know what would happen in an established democracy – such fascists would be very closely monitored and arrested the moment they attempted to mobilise. What would Thailand’s “liberals” do? Protect Seh Ai’s rights? Secretly support a coup, as one of Bangkok’s key “liberals”, Sunai Phasuk, once did?
I have seen it already yesterday, and cut, pasted and saved the images. Very interesting as these images are from the incident at Makhawan Bridge. This is very useful for me to get a more complete picture of that day.
A few snippets of information for Mark Moran. I, too, once had a favourable view of Benjamin Batson’s book on RVII and the end of the absolute monarchy. However, if you dig a little bit you’ll discover it’s not as impressive as you may imagine. Indeed, for all the voluminous footnotes and references it is essentially, if I may use that word, a more sophisticated and better class hagiography than other works in this overdone genre of Thai histiography. As far as I can recall Batson based his study more or less exclusively on the Seventh Reign archives. When I was doing research in the National Library and Archives of Thailand for my MA and my PhD way back when I tracked down a number of references from the Batson book and noticed he was rather selective in what he used (in all likelihood a consequence of the Reign archives he was working with which included ‘clippings’ from the popular press). Had he actually waded through piles of dusty, bug infested, slowly disintegrating newspapers from the 20s and early 30s he may have discovered another Siam/Thailand altogether and some rather interesting public attitudes towards the princely/noble ruling elite of the day. Not all that different from some of the things being aired by people who are not that keen on yellow coloured shirts in more recent times.
Batson was apparently also on very friendly terms with RVII’s wife, Queen Ramphai, so, aside from any particular ideological leanings on his part, was very unlikely to have dumped any ordure on Prajadhipok.
Simple black and white scenarios are best left in the gawdawful realm of ‘lakhorn thii wii’ – while more shades of grey, or should that be more colours from across the spectrum, are needed to inform any worthwhile historical writing on Thailand.
And, for Ralph Kramden – yes, Matthew Copeland’s thesis is a fine work. But will it ever see the light of day in book form?
Some have said the ISA was enacted as a tool to preempt a coup, as it gives the PM the ability to remove/replace any security officials she would like (or so I understand).
Furthermore Bravo Yingluck! PM Yingluck did exceptionally well in the handling of the Pitak protests. A firm determined PM hand is needed to keep the rowdiness and the provocateurs in check.
But for so long as the Yingluck regime put the ‘Thaksin issue’ as their top priority while they govern, I doubt the Pitak and similarly angered groups would be discouraged. Corruption rans rampant and blatant in the Yingluck regime. The ‘Paddy Price Subsidy Policy’ would threaten Yingluck’s term just because it is so deeply flawed, it is so untransparent, and it would saddle the Thai government with horrendous deficit that this government could not even tally much less honestly submit a true accounting of.
Under prevailing deeply troubling Thai political circumstances, whoever (Yingluck or the opposition) is in power in Thailand should be prepared for rowdy protests and should be prepared to use whatever means to prevent such protests from sudden deterioration to violence and mayhem. Such is the divisive volatile color of Thai politics and that should terrify the Thai people and their friends.
The Thai leadership of every color and shade had failed and is failing the Thai people. I see my country more divided than ever.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Myanmar tourism after the boycott
True U Moe Aung. But fight on one must.
1932/2012: Reflecting on revolution
Batson’s study doesn’t pretend to be anything more than “a study of events leading to the June 1932 coup” with a focus on the king and his circle. The book is strong on economic conditions that set the stage for big change, a topic missing in Thawatt’s study, but it is weak on intellectual currents and political culture.
In 1992, on the 60th anniversary of 1932, three books were published in Thai – two by Nakharin Mektrairat, and one by Charnvit Kasetsiri. In a review of the books, Batson stated that Charnvit’s work was the more accessible, but that The 1932 Thai Coup by Nakharin (this is the early, not the newer and much different, Nakharin) was likely to set a standard for Thai-language scholarship on 1932 for some time to come. Although fair-minded in his comments, Batson didn’t really spell out the contribution made by this Thai-language study which he described as innovative and impressively broad in scope.
Barme and Copland, who shared research materials and especially the wicked political cartoons of the day when they were students together in Canberra, studied the new political culture and discovered nationalisms in the emerging public sphere completely different from the nationalism supposedly handed down from on high by the sixth Bangkok king. But on the English side of the language firewall, Nakharin’s contributions have gone unnoticed. He described new political language and thought leading up to 1932; even the meaning of “the people” (ratsadon) as separate from the aristocracy had changed. Similar themes were being sounded in the Red Shirt encampment in early 2010, which is why Thai historians return to 1932 again and again, as much in hope as in despair.
Batson’s review is in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 24.2 (Sept. 1993), 374-377.
The smell of teargas in the morning
Here’s an abstract of a British Medical Journal article on all manner of tear gas use. I don’t think they were at the Pitak Siam protest either so maybe their opinion can be considered as “armchair” too 😉
“Tear gas and pepper spray used for crowd control are not without risks, particularly for people with pre-existing respiratory conditions.
Pulmonary, cutaneous, and ocular problems can result from exposure to these agents.
Treatment for the effects of exposure to tear gas requires chemical decontamination, including protective measures for healthcare staff.
Some people are at risk of delayed complications that can be severe enough to warrant admission to hospital and even ventilation support.
Despite the frequent use of riot control agents by European law enforcement agencies, limited information exists on this subject in the medical literature. The effects of these agents are typically limited to minor and transient cutaneous inflammation, but serious complications and even deaths have been reported. During the 1999 World Trade Organisation meeting and at the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec, exposure to tear gas was the most common reason for medical consultations.1 2 Primary and emergency care physicians play a role in the first line management of patients as well as in the identification of those at risk of complications from exposure to riot control agents. In 1997 the National Poisons Information Service in England received 597 inquiries from doctors seeking advice about problems related to crowd control.3 Our article reviews the different riot control agents, including the most common tear gases and pepper sprays, and provides an up to date overview of related medical sequelae.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b2283?sid=0d52f75f-d761-43d3-912c-bb77282a1d73
Despite the health concerns of tear gas use I’ll also reiterate my comment from November 28, 2012 at 11:26 PM – I believe use of both the ISA and gas was proportionate.
Myanmar tourism after the boycott
We are heading for a construction-and-tourism-led boom no matter what….until the bubble bursts. Never mind the damage to the environment or national heritage sites, so long as money can be made from them we can’t wait to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
We shall say all the right things, form or join the right agencies, but the bottom line is…kerching! That we can guarantee.
Never mind the public. We shall use them and throw them some scraps from the lord’s table. Should be more than enough, they survived on frogs, shrimp and wild cress in the cyclone, didn’t they? So let them eat frog, we’ll have Peking duck and T bone steak every day.
The smell of teargas in the morning
Nick
Think you’re taking my comments very very personally and you’re clearly not reading them.
If you had you’d have seen I wrote a couple days back –
“Having said that I still think that given the resources they have and the situation at hand the Thai authorities use of gas was proportionate.”
What I questioned was your line that somehow tear gas was always going to be some kind of more “humane” response. It isn’t as it can be very indiscriminate and can have bad effects on people’s health.
I also knew it would only be a matter of time before you’d revert to your usual shrill “shut up, I was there nur nur nur” line. You’re a bit too predictable Nick. 😉
The smell of teargas in the morning
I’m with Nick on this one. Watching the videos of the police-PS clash, it is immediately clear that the tear gas stopped the violence. As the truck was driving into the police, I can only imagine how much worse it could have been if the gas wasn’t used.
@Andrew, your emotions get ahead of you sometimes. We are all on the same side, jai yen yen na krap =)
1932/2012: Reflecting on revolution
The reason why the US were not that relevant for the education of the upper echelon of the civil and military service (which included many princes) was quite simple: They were far less relevant in Siam (except the missionaries and their printing press as we all learn from the history books). Britain and France were the leading powers in the region and Germany (together with Russia what is often overlooked even though one prince married a Russian wife), were the leading European powers. Thus, it was crucial to have close ties to these powers, which – at that time – were the main “world-powers” (the time for the US started far later, even though they were then already the new colonizers of the Philippines).
Economic issues certainly played a very important role. One should not forget that 1932 is just the time, when the world economic crisis stroke Siam really hard. As Hobsbawm notes (age of extremes), suddenly those allied with the colonial powers and who expected to make their career with them (for Siam one can change this into the newly arrising young non-aristocratic elite) found their future options and careers were diminishing. The bureaucracy was shrinking and especially higher positions were reserved for the aristocrats. Thus, the non-aristocratic professionals had no chance in the competition over power and status.
An aspect that I would find very interesting, which is hardly discussed unfortunately (could be a topic for Scot Barme I guess), is the role of the bourgoisie. This was as well a newly arrising social class that was in economic competition with the aristocrats. Many of these had strong business interests.
A note on the German educated military: Phibul was educated in England, but some more senior military leaders had their education in Germany. For good reason France was regarded as the place to study law, because the British common law was less advanced then french (and later German) law.
The smell of teargas in the morning
Nick,it was obviously the right decision to wear some “neutral” identification as a journalist:
Media personnel were told to wear green armbands issued by the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) while covering the Pitak Siam protest. But the two photographers were wearing yellow armbands issued by rally organisers, meaning police might have mistaken them for protesters who tried to break down the barricades and some of them also wore yellow armbands and headbands of protest.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/323378/police-defend-media-workers-arrest
The smell of teargas in the morning
You mean you didn’t already look into how the ISA worked before you pronounced it as an “over-reaction”? It is utterly meaningless until the regulations pertaining to the given situation are included. This time the regulations, as I understand them, included the closing of certain roads in order to make effective containment of the protest.
And surely, the blocking of a road is not the only reason to support or not support a robust defence of democracy in the face of a violent fascist mob? Surely the government needed the legal mechanisms available to them if there was a more serious threat or violence? Why wait until that happens when clear threats were already made and then carried out, to some degree, by protesters attempting to destroy democracy?
I’d also ask why, once again, the international media, failed, almost completely, to represent the facts about Pitak Siam. This group had made it clear, repeatedly and publicly, their aim was to destroy democracy and freeze Thailand yet not one foreign correspondent reported that. Also that Abhisit’s Democrat Party tacitly supported these fascists, as they did with the PAD in 2008, is missing too. Why is that? What’s wrong with reporting some facts? Or do said facts get lost as correspondents desperately cling to some forlorn “balance” based on a highly dubious and contrived “neutrality”?
http://asiancorrespondent.com/92540/the-smear-campaign-against-pitak-siam/
Remaking the Nam Hinboun
I would just like to add a bit more context to my earlier response and clarification regarding the February 2007 Environmental Completion Report on the Nam Mang 3 Hydropower Project for Electricite du Laos (EdL), under the name of MW’s company, Resource Management and Research. This project was funded by a loan from China’s Export-Import Bank and built by a contractor, China International Water and Electric Corporation (CWE) and handed over to EdL to operate on completion. RMR’s involvement came as a result of concerns by ADB and the World Bank after construction began in November 2001 without an EIA or other safeguard studies having been conducted by the developers. RMR were hired (under pressure from ADB/WB who seemed to be using it as leverage for progression on the financing and project safeguards for Nam Theun 2)to conduct an Emergency Environmental Management Plan (EMMP) and combined EIA-EMP-SAP between 2002-2005 during the construction period, paid for by CWE, as a kind of tokenistic retroactive three-in-one process to make it appear as if Lao law was being followed. In other words, a bit of a charade was being played by all.
RMR’s Completion Report on NM3 was an internal document for EdL, but was widely circulated at the time. In reality, it seems that few of RMR’s suggestions and practical advice in the EIA-EMP-SAP was ever demanded by the regulators or followed by the developers (who were clearly trying to minimise costs and maximise profits, as would be expected in the absence of independent oversight) and I suspect it was this experience as much as the THHP/THXP debacle that stirred up MW ‘s juices to not merely write a report that the developer’s wanted to hear and bank the fat pay cheque that inevitably follows a compliant consultant’s report. In other words, RMR was prepared to break ranks from the pack and make some quite novel and daring suggestions for their profession (in the context of Laos, at least), for which I guess he surely paid a high financial (and personal) cost by ultimately having to relocate from Laos.
I mentioned MW’s use of the term Status Quo Reports (SQR’s)in the NM3 Completion Report, but didn’t define what he meant by these, so reproduce below an excerpt from the Preface of the said report:
“They serve the purpose of maintaining the present system, and moving it slowly without de-stabilising discontinuities, in the directions of a development model written by the developed world’s financial institutions, centered on economic issues.
The Advisers are aware that SQR cannot, nor are they supposed to, provide information which could change directions or modalities of development investment.
There are however risks in having a reporting process which is constrained to avoid dissecting difficulties and limited to presenting only the convenient truths. Such a process lacks the capacity to change directions, detect mistakes and illuminate lessons. The more the events suggest a change is needed, the more important it becomes to hire consultants skilled in SQR drafting. So more unsatisfactory outcomes are met by more skillfully composed reports showing the general direction taken has been and remains sound.”
To my mind, these are quite radical words and reflections from an environmental specialist who seemed to regard himself as a non-partisan, positivist natural scientist, and suggests, perhaps, that MW was prepared to rock the boat when he wrote this Completion Report by proposing a paradigm shift in the standard practices of that professional community in Laos and beyond to the regulators, donors and financiers of hydropower development. In a way, his report was aimed at a root and branch reform of the EIA process, which he saw as unfit for purpose, by essentially being a foreign-demanded (read: Western) practice foisted on an unwilling local constituency of hitherto largely unaccountable decision-makers. A better excerpt to include, rather than the bit in my previous post would have been this quote from the Completion Report’s discussion (p.172-174) containing RMR’s reflections on the deficiencies of the EIA process:
“There has not yet developed internally among Lao decision makers a majority who believe that environmental and social impacts from infrastructure construction should be regulated. There is however recognition that a significant, but presently falling, proportion of foreign investments and grants require there to be a Regulatory Procedure in place. The creation of an Agency and issue of legal and administrative instruments, under strong external influence, does not suddenly persuade Lao decision makers that environmental regulation is a good idea for them. There is no framework in which the public or special interest groups can compel individuals or agencies to follow regulations. There is no Public Liability Law under which agencies or individuals can be held accountable and liable for neglect for breaches of environmental regulations leading to damage or loss. Poor performance by the Agency is unlikely to attract adverse comments in local media. The sanctions available to the Regulator under
the regulations for poor implementation are arbitrary and toothless. The main sources of discomfort for the Regulator and for parties which fail to adhere to regulations come also from external sources.”
Given the process of decision-making surrounding the Xayaburi Dam project, I would suggest that these words were quite prophetic and significant, given that they came from an industry insider, rather that an external civil society critic. And as I mentioned, this occurred well before the dispute with THPC and Norplan over-spilled into a semi-public issue, and does not tend to support the “self-interest” hypothesis proposed by “Observer”.
NB: I would like to make an amendment to my earlier posting, regarding the quotation listed as Section 8.2 (headed “Enlargement of EIA into Social Matters” which should have been introduced as “….MW’s argument to not enlarge the EIA process into social matters (Section 8.2, p. 172) of report:” In other words, MW recognised that the EIA process was failing to meet its objectives in Laos and required a radical overhaul to become a little more “fit for purpose”.
The confusion over page numbers is as a result of there being a full pdf copy of the report and a shorter Word file “Executive Summary”. If anyone would like a copy of said NM3 Completion Report, please send me a p.m.
The smell of teargas in the morning
Yes, and Andrew should read the articles properly he posts before citing from them, and over-dramatizing the issue:
“Last year PHR investigators in Bahrain found disconcerting evidence that Bahraini authorities may be using unidentified chemical agents in addition to tear gas. ”
Matter of fact is that there were no serious injuries during the rally, no deaths from teargas. CS-gas, the agent used by the police that day, and the most widely used gas nowadays, is considered less toxic than most other agents, and most studies have shown that is relatively harmless. This is quite a difference to the agents that seem to have caused the deaths in Bahrain.
I do not see that police could have stopped protesters there without the brief use of teargas, other than using heavy baton charges, or rubber bullets, both measures that would have left so many injured that rightly the protesters would have accused the police of brutality. This was a violent demonstration – it can hardly be countered with entirely peaceful measures.
But maybe Andrew should have been at the scene to see for himself the situation. Maybe instead of his armchair analyses he could then make suggestions to the police what measures they should have taken to stop the protesters from breaking through the barricades, as the application of the ISA itself and alone did obviously not stop the protesters from attacking the police.
Any ideas, Andrew, what the police should have done?
The smell of teargas in the morning
I would now like to have the opinion of a legal expert if indeed Rajadamnern Nok in front of Government House can be blocked by the government only with the ISA in force (in which case i would agree with your view that the ISA was justified), or if normal Thai laws would have allowed to block entry to that particular road (in which case i disagree with the ISA, in this case).
The smell of teargas in the morning
Nick says “but i believe that careful application of teargas does prevent worse injuries.”
Simply not true nor based in evidence.
In Bahrain tear gas has been linked to the deaths of 34 people, some of whom were not involved in any disturbances.
The Physicians for Human Rights released a report on this in March 2012.
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/blog/tear-gas-or-lethal-gas.html
As said above no riot control measures are nice but to claim tear gas has no serious effects is simply not backed up by the evidence.
Everything needs to be proportionate balanced and lawful – we can’t just rely on the “beliefs” of a few certain individuals.
The smell of teargas in the morning
Comparing Abhisit’s undemocratic, unelected and unmandated regime and its complete disproportionate use of force to this government is simply false. I know that “false equivalences” are a favourite “logical” device of certain Thai “liberals” but on this occasion they are very easily exposed. (I wrote about these false equivalences here http://asiaprovocateur.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/sitting-on-fence-debunking-false.html)
The ISA is not a set of laws but gives the govt the right to suspend certain rights via regulations that are created to suit the situation. In this instance they suspended freedom of movement in a very small area by denying access to a couple of streets – hardly an overreaction. The successful containment you mention above was a result of the use of the ISA. Also, if the government didn’t use the ISA it may have faced legal challenges for breaching the constitutional right to freedom of movement.
The other thing to consider is proportionality. Every democracy has the duty to protect itself from threats and to safeguard itself. Every democracy on earth has similar laws to Thailand’s ISA as well. The key to them, in maintaining democracy and civil rights, is their proportionate use. So, when faced with a threat like Pitak Siam, in the historical context of Thailand’s coups, bodies hanging from trees, airport and government house occupations, and the threat to overthrow democracy, using a security law to close down a few streets for a few days is perfectly proportionate and perfectly democratic.
Democracies have a right to use power to protect themselves. The ISA was used to that end this weekend. When Abhisit used the ISA and SOE he didn’t even have the electoral mandate to clean Bangkok’s streets and used these laws to attack, not defend, democracy. He was not only unelected but his incompetence was matched only by his desire to unleash excessive force on unarmed civilians that was very very far from proportionate.
As for “rights” – those of the entire Thai electorate need to be taken into account as well. If PS had succeeded then the democratic rights of millions of Thais might’ve been sacrificed just to protect the rights of few thousand fascists to walk down a certain street for a few days. Democratically, legally, morally, rationally and ethically it simply doesn’t wash. PS were able to assemble and protest, were met with proportionate use of force and were almost immediately released after arrest. To claim their “rights” were abused doesn’t stand up to any reasonable scrutiny.
The “they should’ve waited” line before using the ISA is also easily debunked. Wait for what? Some deaths? Govt House to be stormed? A few more students being hit with metal chairs as they twist in the wind? These fascists have proven time and time again they are capable of extreme acts of violence and to be prepared to use force to overthrow democracy.
And on that note today Seh Ai has reportedly been saying that his fascist group are going to return and that this time they will be “armed”. What should the government do? We all know what would happen in an established democracy – such fascists would be very closely monitored and arrested the moment they attempted to mobilise. What would Thailand’s “liberals” do? Protect Seh Ai’s rights? Secretly support a coup, as one of Bangkok’s key “liberals”, Sunai Phasuk, once did?
The smell of teargas in the morning
I have seen it already yesterday, and cut, pasted and saved the images. Very interesting as these images are from the incident at Makhawan Bridge. This is very useful for me to get a more complete picture of that day.
1932/2012: Reflecting on revolution
A few snippets of information for Mark Moran. I, too, once had a favourable view of Benjamin Batson’s book on RVII and the end of the absolute monarchy. However, if you dig a little bit you’ll discover it’s not as impressive as you may imagine. Indeed, for all the voluminous footnotes and references it is essentially, if I may use that word, a more sophisticated and better class hagiography than other works in this overdone genre of Thai histiography. As far as I can recall Batson based his study more or less exclusively on the Seventh Reign archives. When I was doing research in the National Library and Archives of Thailand for my MA and my PhD way back when I tracked down a number of references from the Batson book and noticed he was rather selective in what he used (in all likelihood a consequence of the Reign archives he was working with which included ‘clippings’ from the popular press). Had he actually waded through piles of dusty, bug infested, slowly disintegrating newspapers from the 20s and early 30s he may have discovered another Siam/Thailand altogether and some rather interesting public attitudes towards the princely/noble ruling elite of the day. Not all that different from some of the things being aired by people who are not that keen on yellow coloured shirts in more recent times.
Batson was apparently also on very friendly terms with RVII’s wife, Queen Ramphai, so, aside from any particular ideological leanings on his part, was very unlikely to have dumped any ordure on Prajadhipok.
Simple black and white scenarios are best left in the gawdawful realm of ‘lakhorn thii wii’ – while more shades of grey, or should that be more colours from across the spectrum, are needed to inform any worthwhile historical writing on Thailand.
And, for Ralph Kramden – yes, Matthew Copeland’s thesis is a fine work. But will it ever see the light of day in book form?
The smell of teargas in the morning
This forum post I found has even better images, Nick. You now have competition =P
http://forum.banrasdr.com/showthread.php?tid=17932
The smell of teargas in the morning
Some have said the ISA was enacted as a tool to preempt a coup, as it gives the PM the ability to remove/replace any security officials she would like (or so I understand).
The smell of teargas in the morning
Furthermore Bravo Yingluck! PM Yingluck did exceptionally well in the handling of the Pitak protests. A firm determined PM hand is needed to keep the rowdiness and the provocateurs in check.
But for so long as the Yingluck regime put the ‘Thaksin issue’ as their top priority while they govern, I doubt the Pitak and similarly angered groups would be discouraged. Corruption rans rampant and blatant in the Yingluck regime. The ‘Paddy Price Subsidy Policy’ would threaten Yingluck’s term just because it is so deeply flawed, it is so untransparent, and it would saddle the Thai government with horrendous deficit that this government could not even tally much less honestly submit a true accounting of.
Good luck Yingluck.
The smell of teargas in the morning
Under prevailing deeply troubling Thai political circumstances, whoever (Yingluck or the opposition) is in power in Thailand should be prepared for rowdy protests and should be prepared to use whatever means to prevent such protests from sudden deterioration to violence and mayhem. Such is the divisive volatile color of Thai politics and that should terrify the Thai people and their friends.
The Thai leadership of every color and shade had failed and is failing the Thai people. I see my country more divided than ever.