Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
State within the state
This concept does not appear in progressive political science literature or research. It was used earlier to refer to the situation in Thailand during the period of the Cold War.
In fact, those who look into the structure and characteristics of the Thai politics and administration will know what this really means. This is not new knowledge. It was since the formation of the Thai Rak Thai party, when Thaksin became the Prime Minister in 2001 that we had tangible evidence that the “State within the state” in Thailand really exists. The evidence also indicates that people no longer have ownership or equal rights in this country as portrayed by current propaganda.
“State within the state” means that there is one “government” on top of another government in Thailand or Thai state, according to international legal definition. One is elected by the majority of people while the other never goes through any election process.
The real [behind the scenes] “government” is composed of the following elements:
- Senior government civil and military officers nurtured under the patronage system of the previous authority. These officers take turns to be in power, sharing wealth and privilege. They sometimes compete and even fight among themselves.
- Mechanism of absolute control by the state as among certain bodies and authorities such as Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), Special Branch of Royal Thai Police, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Royal Thai Army, Thai Airways, PTT, etc.
- Income and revenue responsible groups including both the new rich and the old establishment rich as well as development of centrifugal networks to draw either old or new capital into the center.
- Elements of academia, in particular those who know how to control the nation-state through the process of law – as among those academics with knowledge and skill to draft a constitution and other minor laws that have a hidden agenda or clauses that allow the status quo ante powers and elite privilege to continue.
- Agreement with the superpower nations, in particular the USA in regards to protecting mutual benefits and to make sure areas of authority/interest doesn’t overlap.
This kind of persisting interest “government” is therefore the real government of this kingdom because it has the absolute power to seek and maintain its power.
The elected government is only there for the sake of the country’s image. It’s like a mask that hides the real image hidden behind. The orders for the elected government will be made through telephone conversations or messengers, the same way as ordering a pizza delivery.
From the origination of PAD, formerly “we love the king” group, the judicial review, the adjudication to null the election on 2 April 2006, the car bomb to assassinate the PM of the elected government [Thaksin], the 2006 coup, the council for national security, the dissolution of TRT and PPP and most of all the lèse majesté cases were the products of the real “government” of Thailand. These are but a part of a much wider circuit of interests or products!
There is no possible way that the elected government will be able to fight against the real “government” that is resilient and works in clandestine ways. Besides, an elected government has real work to do and has to face various problems daily and has to bear all sorts of criticisms from all directions.
The apparatus of the real power or “government” in Thailand exists above electoral interests; bestowing enfranchisement or empowerment to voters through public referendum and a fair court system. From time to time this real “government” will come out to act like a guru to give a lesson to the elected government.
The missions of the real “government”, the “state within the state”, are quite clear. It will never allow a situation to occur where it will lose its power and benefits to democratic competition. Some other main duties of the hidden “government” are:
- Create a distorted image for the political system; making the electorate feel that they cannot rely on a democratic system in place, for example because of vote buying.
- Make the democratic government incapable, worthless and deserving to be destroyed, and if it appears worthy and gaining authority, the accusations are immediately raised on corruption, “dictatorship” and lèse majesté which can be deployed immediately to annihilate any oppositional voices.
- Make the bureaucrat system [the khaa-ratchakaan system], the real operational system of the hidden “government”; higher in power than the population of the whole country and engender conditions to make people more ignorant and backward than the elite bureaucrats.
- Constantly reinforce power by creating a competitive condition among the underlings and their operational staff; the ones who fail will be disposed of, while favorites are promoted without credibility or due responsibility to the feeling of others.
- Constantly promote positive propaganda to build its self-image, as a standard of the morality and good virtue for Thai society; even if there are no productive outcomes, previous outcomes that were accepted will be repeated to familiarize the public so that they dare not challenge it.
- Severely punish those who dare to challenge the status quo in public; as in “slashing a chicken’s neck to keep the monkey away” [Thai proverb].
- Never disclose oneself no matter how much pressure; the leader of the hidden “government” would instead act indirectly when necessary to allow underlings to use their imagination to interpret what is wanted and how; any subversive orders will be passed down through codes and “boys” to avoid traces to the source.
- Promises to the US, Chinese and British governments that as long as the real “government” is able to maintain its power, mutual benefits of all the three countries will be assured; this principle may be referred to as “I Live, You Live; I die, You die”. Therefore it is clear that the full extraordinary Thai ambassadors to these three countries have been selected carefully and often given special tasks after their retirement too.
Currently, Thai politics is dictated by the hidden government, the “state within the state”. The elected Abhisit Vejjajiva is also trying to take good care of itself like the meat in a shell fish, and unable to undertake any productive activities. The elected government that people truly wanted has been suppressed and unable to make itself an alternative choice. If people can choose their own government the real behind-the-scenes “government” will experience the moral law of impermanence; it will no longer be able to exist in the Thai state anymore. We may place blame on many petty details that caused so much suffering for the pro-democracy faction; however, in reality, this is all dog’s shit. The real problem is the behind-the-scenes “government” that places self-interests first, that is regressive and outright wicked and cruel. It is clear that the heart of the Thai political problem is the “state within the state”.
Most impressive. Jakrapob anticipates the judgement of History.
If the absolutists had not built such a facade of lies, there would be less to condemn.
0
0
“It was since the formation of the Thai Rak Thai party, when Thaksin became the Prime Minister in 2001 that we had tangible evidence that the “State within the state” in Thailand really exists”
What did Thaksin do with that ‘tangible evidence’?
and why did he allow the opposing/overarching side such a free kick by structuring his business & tax affairs like he did?
Was he trying to have his cake and eat it too?
(Things could have been different if only he was prepared to pay some tax).
Now there is more talk of a ‘settlement’ or reconcilation – I wonder if the final settlement will be better or worse than having paid tax on the Shin – Temasek deal in the first place?
0
0
Make the democratic government incapable, worthless and deserving to be destroyed, and if it appears worthy and gaining authority, the accusations are immediately raised on corruption, “dictatorship” and lèse majesté which can be deployed immediately to annihilate any oppositional voices.
This is it. How can democracy mature if parties are never allowed to grow?
0
0
Thanks to Andrew and the translator. Here’s my try at JP’s five constituents of the state within the state:
1 Senior officials both civil and military that flourish constantly under the patronage system of the old power, and share out valuable power among themselves, sometimes coming into conflict.
2 Mechanisms to wield state power such as ISOC, Special Branch, Foreign Ministry, Thai Airways, and PTT.
3 Income-seeking groups, both old and new wealth, and the networking to convert new wealth into old or intermediate.
4 Academics with expertise on controlling politics through law such as by constitution-making, and embedding power and self-interest in subsidiary laws.
5. Agreements with the great powers, especially the US, to preserve mutual interests and avoid conflicting interests.
0
0
Every country has a state with in a state to some extent. It is just a matter of degree. Elected representatives hold greater to fealty to others than those that voted them in and fealty holding group manipulates.
As well as the state Jakrapob sees there are others even in Thailand
A quick look around up country also exposes another state within a state of the pro-Thaksin and also leftist groups.
Mafia groups also work as a state within a state on a local level.
Some would claim the police also work as a state within the state somewhat seperate from the group Jakrapob identifies.
I am taking a state within a state here to mean an unofficial and unelected network that can influence.
Jakrapob just uses this common concept to analyse one segment from his point of view and political bent. It is of course also a very old analysis in effect. Didnt McCargo write on Network monarchy and also the attempt to create network Thaksin to supercede it?
0
0
How many countries has nobody lived in? Is s/he trying to tell us that there is no qualitative or quantitative difference between the situation in Thailand and advanced democracies? (To make just one point, the ratio of officers to soldiers in the Thai army is 30x what it is in the US Army).
Jakaprob’s state within a state holds power akin or greater than the elected government. None of nobody’s alternative examples comes even close.
0
0
Thank you Jakrapob Penkair!!!
The U.S., U.K. and China, did you hear what he said?
0
0
I am inclined to sympathize with several of Jakrapob’s comments and points made, with a divergence on the so-called car bomb against his mentor Thaksin. I believe there was ample lack of evidence that there ever really was a car bomb per se, but rather that even Thaksin himself might have engineered the whole thing to generate sympathy on the one hand, and as a fake pass on the other to divert attention from his wrongdoings, most of which Jakrapob is hardly willing to admit to.
0
0
Jakrapop must be quite frustrated that he can reach the reds mainly through his columns in the Red News. In them, he can criticize the present red leaders for limiting their political direction by supporting Democracy with the King as Head of State, and of getting rid of Prem, while, from his perspective, they should establish more fundamental goals. He must have been upset when he saw the picture of his former colleagues signing the get-well-soon book for the king at Siriraj Hospital (wearing red ties…). He might have also disliked when Veera spoke of a “New Thai State” but limited this to a change of the monarchy similar to what had erlier happened in the UK and Japan. Would Jakrapop’s presence in Thailand make things any better for the reds, I wonder?
0
0
Can state within the state be considered as totalitarian form of governance? According to its definition, a model to classify states as totalitarian, a state had to exhibit six features:
– an all encompassing ideology which in the Thai case is “nation, religion, the monarchy”;
– led by one man which in this case Phumipon;
– a system of terror of which Da Torpedo was sentenced for 18 years in prison on lese majeste charge, Sonthi Limthongkul was rained with bullets, Jakrapob Penkair and Ji Ungpakorn had to fled the country;
– a near-monopoly on all means of mass communication which we all about the censorship;
– a near-monopoly of instruments of force of which Phumipon is the head of the armed forces;
– and a centrally controlled economy, in the Thai case the economy was controlled by the network monarchy patron-client system.
0
0
There is a serious question of real danger to John Doe from the military/amalgam of antagonistic parties that constitute Thailand’s ‘deep state’ similar to that discussed in Turkey. As John Doe stated in the past, if he hadn’t been careful he would have been killed.
That open public statement from Doe has been discussed almost ad infinitum in Thailand to little avail because the state within a state, or the deep state, is without a sense of humor or tolerance. So it reinstates dangerous passages in the country’s constitution that legislate divinity and legitimate oppression, repression and suppression. All in the name of that guy John Doe that Robin Hood was trying to protect back then.
0
0
It is quite astonishing how the Kingdom of Thailand has succeded to convince the world of its democratic credendials while in fact it had been and it continues to be a totalitarian state with all its atributes (as mentioned by previous posters). Surely those must be Thai nationals, above all, who have to dismantle this far and wide network of lies and misinformation for their own benefit.
0
0
It’s a touchy issue at the very least, of course. Time and time again I have spoken and written about the need for Thais to take these issues, including LM, to court but no one bothers because they are too afraid and don’t want to be chided by their fellow Thais as being un-Thai. This is the bottleneck – fear, intimidation, ignorance, mass hypnosis.
0
0
Thought I would try my own hand, with the benefit of seeing what others have wrought, to smoothen the English translations of Jakrabhop’s five elements of the ‘Deep State,’ of state-within-a-state. I also cheated a bit with two online translation sources, comparing and trying to come up with a native English version that felt like it reads the way it was written in Thai.
1. Both civilian and military senior officials constantly thriving under the patronage system of the old power cliques, who trade power back and forth like prize possessions and sometimes compete with one another.
2. Mechanisms to completely control the Thai government, such as ISOC, the Special Branch, the Foreign Ministry, Thai Airways, and PTT (Public Company Ltd.).
3. Groups acquiring revenue both from old and new asset sources, and the developing of networks to pipeline capital – whether from old or new wealth – for centralized use.
4. Academics with specialized skills, especially to control the government using the law, such as producing a constitution, hidden strings to retain power and privileges under law that is subordinate (to them).
5. Agreements with great foreign powers, especially America, in safeguarding joint privileges and not overlapping one another.
0
0
Sam -Deedes. The ratio of officers to soldiers in the Thai army is 30x what it is in the US army. I noticed my friend the general seemed to have a lot of spare time so I asked him what he did on a typical day. He replied that as he had an inactive post he didn’t really do anything he reports for duty in the morning, the commanding officer reads a state of the nation report then they all have breakfast after that he is free for the rest of the day. he explained that while an inactive post ensured an easy life an active post is preferred as with an active post there is always a chance of making money. According to the general the most exciting time in the military is when a royal event is coming up, waiting to see who is chosen to be in attendance. This is a chance to put on the best dress uniform complete with accumulated medals and rub shoulders with the royals. As long as the military protects the royalty and the royalty protects the military they ensured an easy life.
0
0
Ditch Thaksin and we might be inclined to listen. Until you do that you will always be tainted by association with a corrupt policeman and his greedy-arse family. Until you do that your voice will have nothing wothwhile to add.
0
0
reg herring. I am not a Thaksin fan. I too would like to see a new start with a new leader
0
0
Living in Denial
Presumably, some of the “petty details” that Mr. Jakropob seems unwilling to actually name include Thaksin’s rampant corruption, his trampling on the 1997 Constitution and both Jakrapob and Thaksin’s blatant lies and incitement to violent revolution during the Songkran riots – and in Jakropob’s case afterwards as well.
These hypocrites have some nerve to try and claim the moral high ground – they are no better and certainly not much different than those they accuse.
“See the new boss – just like the old boss”
Pete Townshend, (The Who) ‘Won’t get fooled again’
It’s the Law of Karma in Action: eventually you reap what you sow, boys. Try honest means to honest ends next time.
BAD DOG.
0
0
It’s an old lawyer’s joke, but illustrates this kind of anti-morality:
There was an up and coming young lawyer who had started making his reputation but had run into the typical challenges that life offers and had already made certain life compromises. He was having a tough time and wished for some help.
Suddenly the Devil appears before him and spoke.
“I will make you very famous. I will offer you all the riches you ever wanted. I will make the most beautiful women in the world fight over themselves for you. I will provide all the satisfaction that any man, anywhere, could ever hope to achieve.”
The lawyer listened, but then asked, “And what do I have to do?”
The Devil answered, “You have to sell me your soul, the souls of your mother, children, wife, girlfriends and colleagues.”
The lawyer interrupted, “What’s the catch?”
0
0
FRANK:
Good joke!
Thanks for the laugh – there’s a bit of ‘bad dog’ in every ‘good dog’.
Your reply also seems to confirm the old saying:
‘To really understand someone, you have to speak the same language’
BAD DOG.
PS: Ref. ‘The Devil’s Advocate’ (Al Pacino)
0
0
“Thaksin’s rampant corruption” > Such as in the rubber sapling and 2-3 digit lottery cases…
0
0
Srithonchai. Yes, rampant corruption. I also have my own evidence of murder by the family concerned. The fact that other elite members are unable to nail Thaksin properly doesn’t surprise me very much. They are, of course, worried about compromising their own parasitic activities. You know as well as I know that the elite here is totally incapable of reining in the worst excess of its own. All the more reason to label them ALL useless. We do ourselves no favors by naming our slight favorites in this crass power struggle. THEY have to learn to deserve OUR respect the hard way.
0
0
Well one thing all of above shows – without any doubt – is that Thaksin still stirs immense controversy. Love him or loath him, Thaksin’s still very much alive and kicking.
Sooner or later, Thailand’s elite either come to terms with him – or Thailand breaks apart, and ceases to exist as one country.
Isaarn and Lanna become a new country – backed by China Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
The genie genius can not be put back into the bottle.
0
0
If any predictions re. Thailand’s future are made, I would go for one that calls not for any breakup of the country. Instead Thailand seems to be heading toward a more militant and superficial existence, illusion and exploitation the rule of the day.
Sorry for the lack of optimism…
0
0
Indeed it is his ‘genius’, as described by Chris Beale, that makes him such poor stuff. The country is awash with self-proclaimed geniuses of almost no practical experience in anything except bluster, backstabbing and baloney. It’s a change that’s needed. Not more of the same bullshit from a bunch of raging egotists. And yes, I definitely include the weasel Jakkraphob in that assessment. If he had any real values, he would build his own political movement, instead of cliinging on to Thaksin’s shirttail.
0
0
Let me make it absolutely clear : I am not “calling” for anything.
Certainly not the break-up of Thailand.
I am simply observing and reporting what I see, hear, and read as I travel around.
The danger of break-up has been warned of by numerous illustrious others, including one of the best-ever former Prime Ministers – Anand Panyarachun. And His Majesty The King has voiced concerns about “ruin”. It is good to see a Unity Campaign at long last being launched.
It is not long ago the PAD’s Sondhi was publicly saying “civil war has now begun”. The cost of this to ordinary Thais, and the wider region, would be horrendous. I applaud the efforts being made by all those of goodwill to find a compromise. Though this is sadly proving elusive at the moment, I pray the Thai genius for compromise will eventually succeed once again.
0
0
Yes, Ned. “Ugly crony capitalism” indeed i.e. ‘ugly’ even for Thailand.
Of course, progress is not aided by Thais like Srithanonchai when they give in to their penchant (like his namesake) for ‘monkeying around’ – good with words but not much good at anything else.
However as many of the older generation lately seem to be giving up on progress towards a properly functioning democracy, perhaps we shoudn’t be too harsh, although they do seem rather bereft of ideas compared to young guns such as columnist Voranai Vanijaka or even stalwarts like Sanitsuda Ekachai, if not intellectual phonies like Nattakorn Devakul and of course Thaksin himself.
As someone once said, Thais are more your close in shore fisherman than those who venture out into deep waters. Or as an Asian asked in the title of his book, ‘Can Asians Think?’ Of course they can, but both the quality and quantity are too low to press effectively for fundamental reforms because the school system here in Thailand at least is designed to maintain the status quo.
BAD DOG.
0
0
Susie Wong wrote: “Thank you Jakrapob Penkair!!! The U.S., U.K. and China, did you hear what he said?”
I would imagine that the masters often listen to the acolytes. I see little difference, apart from style, between the Jakrapob’s description of the Thai situation and the situation in other countries. Here in the US the main difference is that it is more the corporations that acting collectively behind the scenes, rather than individuals, after they obtained the same rights as individuals with protection under the 14th amendment to the US constitution. Thailand also differs from the US and the UK with the military being involved as major actor, although there are rumored to be right wing forces within the US attempting to co-opt the US military. But the other descriptions that Jakrapob notes, such as the elected government being there “for the sake of the country’s image” is as true in the other countries as it is in Thailand. Or, to plagiarize from one the great Southeast Asian scholars of our times, all these nation-states are but “imagined communities” with the powers in the background engineering the image no differently than Disney’s engineers when planning a theme park.
0
0
Johpa Deumlaokeng (28) insults the world’s democracies by suggesting that they are on a par with Thailand, where the royal/military mafia treat the people’s representatives with such utter contempt.
0
0
5 October 2009
Unfortunately once again, even the people’s representatives treat the people with utter contempt, depending on who the representatives are, of course. If they really hail from grassroots honest activists who are seeking justice, they will likely die trying. If they are aligned with the normal politic where promises are better than results, then no, they will not be treated with contempt. They will, instead, be welcomed and allowed to pipeline money to that fabled central machine that determines how long Thailand will remain Sakdina Siam.
I am not sure just how deeply some of the commentators on this blog become entrenched with local groups, private citizens and officials at various levels, but in my experience it is difficult to find someone, anyone, who will act on the behalf of the right thing per se. There are a few, but to cite either the police, the upper echelon elites or militarists without also including general society may not be adequately analytical.
0
0
I agree with you, Frank G Anderson (30), about the generally low standard of public morality in Thailand. This contrasts with the often high level of morality on a personal and family scale. However, history elsewhere provides good evidence that the concentration of real power in elected institutions is a mechanism that selects for higher public standards. Democracy improves public morality: it’s not a system that works only for the high-minded.
0
0
Suzie Wong – you’re certainly wrong speaking about the US military, or many others , as some sort of monolith which can be taken over by extreme right-wingers. Even when Hitler did this in Germany, there was opposition to him from within the Wehrmacht.
Today’s Thailand is certainly not Hitler’s Germany, and the Thai military has a long, long history of factionalism, almost in-built into the Chulalomklao Military Academy class system.
For decades they’ve also been far better at suppressing their own population, than defending Thailand. But since May ’92 they have become a lot more professional, in a US sense, and have performed honourably in peace-keeping roles such as East Timor, and other hot-spots. For this I greatly respect them. And especially respect their sacrifices under the appalling conditions they are fighting with in Thailand’s deep South.
0
0
Chris: When you say: “But since May ‘92 they have become a lot more professional, in a US sense, and have performed honourably in peace-keeping roles such as East Timor, and other hot-spots. For this I greatly respect them. And especially respect their sacrifices under the appalling conditions they are fighting with in Thailand’s deep South,” perhaps you leave out the respect you must have for these professionals in running the 2006 coup and for their professionalism at Kru Sae and Tak Bai where they left more than a few dead.
0
0
Ralph – yes, I respect them for the 2006 coup. Their professionalism especially – no-one was killed. The coup was necessary as a pre-emptive counter-coup against Thaksin’s own coup, which would have happened very shortly if the royalist troops had not moved. Remember Newin’s thousand rifles ready to slaughter in the center of Bangkok ?
Krue Sae and Tak Bai happened under Thaksin. Nothing I’ve written shows any support for those massacres, so stop your immature twisting of my words.
I don’t support what has happened since the 2006 coup : there now needs to be a reconciliation with Thaksin and the Red-Shirts, to avoid civil war. But I do praise General Anupong for avoiding
another coup – which will almost inevitably be very bloody, and possible a trigger to all-out civil war. Anupong has shown remarkable restraint under extremely difficult circumstances.
0
0
There is some claim that Anupong may have arranged the Sondhi assassination attempt….restraint?
0
0
Chris: In a sensible argument, you can’t really have it both ways. The army can’t be professional and engage in unprofessional behaviour like running coups (in most definitions, “professionalism” in the military means being non-political and under civilian control). In fact, at Kru Sae, the military acted against government orders. That’s unprofessional. No twisting of words, just pointing out the obvious.
On Newin’s supposed forces, give me some evidence. I have searched for anything other than a statement of this “fact” by coup leaders or PAD and have found none.
0
0
Chris Beale @32: On a separate post (Thailand’s military: perpetually political, forever factionalized, again ascendant) you said @15:
“My impression of the Thai military is that it is one of the world’s most fractious, faction-ridden collection of gangs posing as a united army for the world’s camera’s, but little else.
“Only better than an African rabble because of US training.
“…
“The Thai military has never won a foreign war – except the brief skirmish celebrated at Bangkok’s Victory Monument. …”
You don’t even agree with yourself.
0
0
Quite an interesting set of objectives on http://www.generalprem.com/foundation.html
Note that conformity, obedience, loyalty, sacrifice and even two that generally don’t exist here, truth and honesty, are included.
Sounds like indoctrination and dogma to me, but who am I?
0
0
FGA (C38). Interesting indeed. If you ever mix with people from usually an older generation and often but not always a wealthier background you hear values like these mentioned quite a bit. And we mustnt forget that elders are never wrong;) You hear it from the younger generations a lot lot less whatever background and family they come from. Those that hold these values will probably not like the Thailand they see develop over the next few generations but then again most who mention these values now will not be around in a few generations. It is a bit like Canute and the sea
0
0
this article by jakrapob is quite similar to mccargo’s ‘network monarchy’ both in form and substance. one has to live thailand and interact with its bureaucracy of C-9 level up, state enterprise technocrats, police and army figures to truely feel what he is stating. while impossible to prove one can feel ‘the state within a state’ quite strong as it is pervasive throughout. cheers to jakrapob for his extremely insightful perspective into thai political society.
0
0
Ralp – “in a sensible argument” one CAN INDEED have it BOTH ways !
As the great German philosopher Hegel argued – History is propelled by Thesis, Anti-Thesis, then Synthesis.
One the one hand – Thesis – the Thai Military is a lot more “professional” post May’92, than prior, eg. only one coup in 15 years.
On the other hand – Anti-Thesis – they are not yet as “professional” as Western militaries which stage no overt coups against their elected governments.
0
0
“What’s in a name?” WS
“State within a state” sounds so much more sinister than ‘the old boy network’, but essentially they connote the same concept – certainly not a meritocracy. As the saying goes,
“It ain’t what you know, it’s who you know.”
“Ah! There lies the rub!” WS
So who wants to support a pointless (?) radical reform party, or do you consider that Abhisit is doing pretty much all a reasonable person could expect him to – given his circumstances?
Personally, I think he’s ok – except for his liking for Barry Manilow (I mean, really! ) – but, I digress.
Frank Lee / Bangers.
0
0
Until not very long ago, Jakraphob was part of the state-within-a-state himself, as part of the PM’s overly-obsequious PR apparatus. But just as governments have oppositions, so Thailand has, at any given time, an opposition state-within-a-state. And Jakrapob demonstrates by the shovelful he is in the fold by his bold political pronouncements. And his threats. In other words a very silly person who feels big just because he has the backing of some criminally-minded soldiers and policemen with guns. This is just the sort of cheap loud-mouthed do-nothing politician that this country breeds best. But to the rest of us mere mortals, who continually have to clean the mess of these spoilt-rich political brats, he has absolutely no use whatsoever. Just another parasite on the make!
0
0
I’ve only just seen this page, so my apologies for my belated comments.
The only surprise for me is the surprise that some have expressed on here regarding Mr. Penkair’s ‘revelations’.
The network of patronage that enables the country to be ‘managed’ by a second, more powerful, state is hardly invinsible, or operating behind the scenes as some would suggest. The arrogant impunity with which it operates is evident at all levels within the public arena.
My connections with a diverse group of Thai professionals have, for me at least, revealed some interesting disclosures. The local rural amphurs that fraudulently claim debt relief intended for non existent poor farmers, local kamnans whose children are awarded education scholarships, despite their less than average abilties and local bank branch managers who are willing to give loans in return for under the table payments.
Of course, in these cases, the very public result of clandestine wheelings and dealing is there for all to see, but not to comment on, at least in public.
Anecdotal and unsubstantiated as they may appear, these sad stories seem real enough to me, reported as they were by people with a genuine concern for the people they work for. And I don’t mean their bosses.
Elsewhere on here, some have commented on the ‘generally low standard of public morality’ in Thailand. I would also suggest that for many, a sense of personal morality and public responsibilty is pushed aside by fear. The fear of being left behind and disadvantaged if one does not play the same game, or the fear of being beaten or killed if one protests against the unfairness of the system.
The network of patronage does start from the top and has spread its all pervasive tentacles throughout the many layers of Thai society.
And it is never going to go away. There is simply too much at stake for some people to lose.
0
0
It seems to me Thailand needs a “cooling off” period.
Something like the former great US Senator Daniel Moynihan called for “benign neglect” after the riots which split America during the late 1960’s.
The best way to achieve this would be through a Regency government, under Her Majesty The Queen – when the unfortunate day comes that His Majesty is no longer with us.
0
0
That kind of cooling off period will not happen. “Oh” will take over. How that plays is another issue.
0
0
After his blatant lies about Thaksin’s love of democracy, one place I’m sure Mr. Jakraphob would feel right at home would be on Fox News – although I doubt he could teach them anything new about selling snake oil.
Speaking of which, most Bangkok people I know are moderates who have lost any sympathy they may have had for extremists – whether they be yellow or red – because they are both seen as cynical opportunists representing different sides of the same elitist coin.
Why would they be willing to tolerate Thaksin Inc. a second time when, not only did he blow a historic opportunity to begin fundamental reforms and instead institute a rather virulent strain of “ugly crony capitalism” which included a brazen and sustained attempt to monopolize state power by any and all means , but he appears to have not learned a thing. The again, people who insist on doing all the talking and never listen to others never do. As for political reconciliation, that would have to start with saying sorry.
Alas, pigs might fly and dogs may stare at airplanes high in the sky.
Frank Lee / Bangers
0
0
Thaksin never intended to implement real political reform of any kind. His early years as a police office and junior minister taught him well enough that cronyism and the patronage system, so firmly embedded in Thai politics and society at large, was all he needed to achieve his self-serving interests, and establish himself as the new ‘Phu Yai’ of his and future generations.
I honestly think that any of the Thai voting public is just simply too naive to think that any Thai politician has their real interests at heart.
There is always another agenda at stake here, the one that services numerous domestic and off shore bank accounts, I imagine.
0
0
In other words, John:
I honestly believe that the Thai public isn’t so naive as to think that any politician has their real interests at heart.
It seems we agree.
0
0
[…] so his knowledge must not be purely theoretic. Here it goes, according to first New Mandala translation from his article in a red magazine:1. Senior government civil and military officers nurtured under […]
0
0
Excellent statement by Jakropob.
Under all the other fundamental issues in Thailand I think is that almost everyone has swallowed the rantings of Sondhi Lim and believes the worst of Thaksin and that we have to be cynical of all politicians…
This self-defeating conclusion means no escape from the “hidden” state is possible.
I have stood back and tried to be objective, not easy as I live under quite a stable democracy in Australia, but even here I can see similar forces at work, thankfully the forces have found a different equilibrium here, and what a difference this makes!
In Australia we have a UK based monarch with agents in Australia paid a salary that almost all the time have purely symbolic document signing and representation role.
In Thailand you have a fabulously rich royal family that is key to the overt and covert patronage networks. The hidden state uses the protection of the monarchy as their excuse for ignoring any power threat that might arise from an elected government.
The military in Australia are subservient to the elected government, cannot engage in public debate or any business activities. Their upper echelons are appointed by the government. Military personnel are subject to military and civilian law.
The Thai military (BPP, etc) are out of control, they engage in legal and illegal businesses, they threaten the government for access to public money, are famous for corrupt equipment and services acquisition and engage in all sorts of atrocities but rarely subject to legal sanctions.
This is the environment that Thaksin had to operate an elected government with a solid mandate from the people to implement his policies.
My observation is that he tried to work with the existing forces to achieve his policies and overtime attempted to exert his authority to restructure them.
He engaged with the people of Thailand and observed the democratic election cycle to maintain his mandate. Internationally, he engaged more with China than the USA perhaps to loosen the Thai-USA military nexus mentioned by Jakrapob. He broadened Thailands trade relationships. He intervened in the military hierarchy reshuffle ( a prime reason for the coup).
Meanwhile Thaksin recognised that the telecommunication industry was restructuring worldwide and changed Thai regulations to improve private competition (marginally to Shun Corp detriment).
I think Thaksin sold Shin Corp because it was near its peak value and, as is normal in Thai business he arranged the sale by share transfer knowing tax is (still) not payable on such deals. He was probably astounded when Sondhi made this a cause celebre.
I am sure we can go on ad nauseum about all the perceived Thaksin wrongs but I dont think its worth discussing things like the “extra-judicial: killings until we see the soldiers that actually committed the killings brought to justice. Once the crimes are proven then those responsible up the chain of command should be pursued. After all that I will be willing to consider charges against the relevant PM (Thaksin, Abhisit, etc) .
0
0
#51 “In Thailand you have a fabulously rich royal family that is key to the overt and covert patronage networks. The hidden state uses the protection of the monarchy as their excuse for ignoring any power threat that might arise from an elected government.”
As both sides have been known to willingly accept this status quo, and even sychophantically prostrate themselves to it, I think we can assume that neither side really has the gumption to make more than a few very cosmetic political reforms.
Let’s hope you live to see an Australian republic. It is certainly a most admirable and highly practical objective. Unfortunately, it will take much longer to bring about real change in this country, when the very best political material it can muster is such an obviously “flawed man”, in Jakkrapob’s own words.
Sondhi’s complete contradictions do not automatically whitewash his esrtwhile friend & ally. What went wrong between them, one wonders? Perhaps it would be safer to assume that the succession issue has brought out the worst in them both.
0
0
Fred Korat #52: “Let’s hope you live to see an Australian republic. ” Why on earth do you say that? In Australia we have a genuine (distanced) constitutional monarchy. It works very well. The Queen’s ‘representatives’, for many years, have been Australian citizens, chosen for their outstanding contributions to the society. We’ve had outstanding scientists, military leaders, civil servants, etc. My favorite has been Sir William Dean, who, when John Howard, the PM, refused to apologise to the ‘Stolen Generation’, went ahead & did his own thing. If we were a republic, we would have yet another sleazy politician, forever making bombastic speeches & watching the opinion polls, as Head of State. Our actual (de facto) HOS is genuinely removed from politics.
Some Australians are irked by having a Queen as H.O.S. I can’t see why. Queen Elizabeth has very little to do with Australia, but whenever she goes there, she is feted. This is very much due to the affection that Anglo-Australians in particular have for an 84-year-old woman who actually drove trucks during the second world war (not just a photo opportunity), and has kept out of politics, as well as doing a very demanding ‘ceremonial’ job, often 7 days per week, until now. I’m not a committed ‘royalist’, but I like her, & I can’t help thinking that she is a pretty good H.O.S. for UK (and the other Commonwealth countries) as they watch her family go through all the same dramas that everyone else has to go through, with some dignity & wisdom & sometimes terrible mistakes. I also like the idiosyncrasies and blunders of several of her family members, including her husband, her son, her late mother…and Fergie. Of course, we only know about all of this because UK has a free press, which watches its HOS with the same critical eye as its parliament, and its other citizens. And nobody ever gets hauled up by the cops, tortured or otherwise coerced into ‘confessing’, and gaoled for satirising them, making the caricatures that appear regularly in the press (& are collected by them), or writing condemnatory articles about what are seen to be excesses. And, although she’s fairly rich, Q.E.II pays income tax. She was trained for the job, and the continuity of her position provides a stabilising balance to the necessary changes of political persuasion in government. She is a figure-head & a symbol of unity, in societies which are extremely diverse, and no longer ‘anglo’. And she knows her place.
Australia may not be a perfect democracy (no such thing), but it stands up very well against others, especially the republics – and certainly the U.S., in areas such as media freedom, justice, availability of services, and opportunity. Our de facto HOS is pleasingly low-key. How could we possibly gain by getting rid of the Crown & becoming a republic?
0
0
I’m not sure if the Royal family is the key to patronage networks.
Historically, afaik, the provinces were run by their own bosses with their own power pyramids and Bangkok appointed civil servants were not really messing with them.
Even now, Interior Ministry appointed governors are not at the top of power spread.
They just burned provincial halls in Isan, for example, and no one even suggested it was a local rebellion against patronage.
0
0
All kudos to Australia. I am not a monarchist, but think Australia will probably get it about right under any system its citizens opt for. You could say I’m a mild anti-monarchist who is willing to live under a constitutional monarchy if it shows a high degree of professionalism in its actions. QE2, in her own inimitable fashion (rather starchy), has weathered a few storms. It is possible that the UK monarchy will eventually become an irrelevance, but any transition will likely succeed because of her mindfulness that not all her subjects were of one mind.
I’m still wondering why DB brought up Australia in this thread. I was indicating that I thought it was irrelevant to a discussion on a country in which there has only ever been the myth of a democratic system.
If Jakkrapob were capable of telling me that democracy has never really existed here, he would be far more credible. Instead, he glosses over the excesses of the government in which he ‘served’. If I hadn’t lived through that government myself, I might be excused for letting him off the hook. The excesses of the current regime are very obvious, but we won’t learn any lessons here if we try to portray the previous regime as the paradise it never was. Rather, we should see the Thaksin regime as having precipitated this crisis through its failure to be anything other than a vehicle for its PM’s own personal ambitions.
To come back to Australia some. I indicated that I thought QE2 had worked in a way that I thought was mindful of the possibility of future sea change. I suppose you could argue that the local institution has tried to do the same. The problem is, of course, that the succession here looks decidedly wobbly because of the obvious complete unsuitability of one person. Many have realised for decades that this was a real problem. Others seem far more interested in exploiting that weakness. But then again, such factions have long used that institution as a means to defend their own ruthless empire-building.
0
0
Fred Korat #54
I think you miss the point, and I think this is an issue that many Thai people fall over
noone expects democracy to be paradise
its not perfect, its just better than other ways of organising the government of a country
its definitely better for almost all the people than being ruled by a few operating symbiotically with an out of control military
and the main reasons that it is better are:
-all the people have the right to pass judgement on their Members of Parliament on a regular basis
-the government is only composed of elected people
-the whole process is controlled by a stable Constitution that is created and only modified by a free and fair vote of all the people
-all institutions, including the military and the monarchy operate under control of the government operating with the authority of the people.
regular elections means accountability!
noone is always happy but everyone every 3 or 4 years has the opportunity to register their choice for their MP and hence the government.
see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system
0
0
Fred Korat #54
After thinking about the imperfections of democracy, for example, the length of time between chances for the people to hold a government accountable.
Then please re-read the last 6 paragraphs of my #51 for my view of Thaksin as a legitimately elected PM trying to do his job and transition Thailand from a feudalistic ruled by amart/military to a democratic state ruled by regularly elected and probably changing governments.
It was another Sondhi scare story that Thaksin was going to rule forever. It doesnt happen in democracies. Unlike military/amart dictatorships democratic governments come and go at the whim of the people.
There is no way Thaksin would still be ruling at 90 like Prem!
I guess you are going to say Thaksin was not democratic, thats just another Sondhi scare story… he was elected in 2001, reelected in 2005 and went to the people for another election in 2006 (twice) when he was challenged.
Its the people you have to deal with, not Thaksin.
0
0
#56 ‘Its the people you have to deal with, not Thaksin.”
Tell that to the succession contenders DB.
0
0
Thaksin’s own plan how long to “stay at the helm” was made public at one TRT party meeting in the early years of his premiership:
He intended to be prime minister for 2 terms (8 years) and expected TRT to be the ruling party for 2 decades.
0
0
#55 I have read those 6 paragraphs several times over, and they don’t impress me very much, since I remember being distinctly underwhelmed by the tawdry reality of those times. The following is about the only paragraph of the 6 that seemed worthy of any attention.
“My observation is that he tried to work with the existing forces to achieve his policies and overtime attempted to exert his authority to restructure them.”
You seem to be doing a Jakkrapob on us – giving a very mediocre man qualities that didn’t seem particularly obvious in practice. His handling of the South was impetuously childish. In this situation in which the utmost diplomacy was called for, your portrayal of him working with existing forces was nowhere apparent. Indeed, it looks like what he did was little more than a very sleasy attempt to muscle his police allies in on some very dodgy existing cross-border business (controlled by some truly obnoxious military mafias). This situation called for tact. All politics call for tact, even when one is dealing with fla-out tealeaves. All we got was the impatience of a man who clearly did not have his mind fully engaged on the very difficult task of trying to improve one of Thailand’s most intractable problems.
No, I’m not going to bother talking about the 2,500 dead either. It’s already been done to death, but a lot of our slef-appointed local farang political pundits still continue to see nothing wrong with it. Politics has obviously been so bad here for so long that even they no longer seem capable of spotting a fake when they see one.
You are also trying to do a Jakkrapob-style PR spin job on me by trying to tarnish me with the Sondhi brush. I’ve made my view on that nerd obvious on numerous occasions, but you seem to prefer to airbrush out any signs that there are more than two sides to this debate. And unlike Uncle Sondhi, I am not hamstrung by the sort of soppy sentimental monarchism that most Thai politicians use to excuse their surfeit of negative energies. I was already convinced that Thaksin was a phoney at a time back in the mid-90s when fellow-fascists Sondhi and Chumlong still thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. Obviously, they were both already far too full of the pseudo-religious BS in which Palang Dharma and its various highly-suspect offshoots excelled.
0
0
My own take on the issue of monoarchy is that the people should have the rigth to select their Head of State rather than rely on Primogeniture to make that selection from a rather small genetic pool.
0
0
Tukkae #58
all democratic leaders plan to be reelected for as long as they can
its up to the people whether they are allowed to or not
most democracies assume there will be several people and groups (parties) competing for the public vote
its only in countries like Thailand where the military is available and willing to use force that people get lazy and think its easier to just force their way into power instead of competing fairly for people votes
Thailand needs to grow up, force its military back into their box and behave like a civilised country
0
0
Most elected leaders won’t take that long-term approach instantly or at least not admit it. But when re-elected they tend to “adjust” their timeframe. So we know little about Thaksins plans for that.
For example: The”Chancellor of German Unity” who was finally thrown out by the people in 1998 after 16 years at the helm with mostly very marginal majorities, when he went for another “last” stand.
0
0
Tukkae #61
in Australia we had John Howard for 4 terms, 8 long years, seemingly riding on George Bush’s back
hard to know why people kept voting him in but he was supported by big business who did well based on war spending and the financial boom (bubble)
workers in Oz lost a lot of rights in t e work place, less health and safety, less security, lower wages and generally less basic legal freedoms but seems voters do “like” gung ho kill the terrorists and solve crimes by throwing them in gaol type politics
now we have a Labour “more socialist” government that has moved to the right continuing many of Howards policies with only some extremes reduced
sad for us that believe in strong freedoms under the law
but at least our military are under civilian control and not permitted any involvement in business and politics
its the military that screw Thailand for their own benefit
0
0
Tukkae #61
seems to me the critical questions are:
did the German Chancellor and John Howard use military or other force outside the democratic process to maintain their rule?
did Thaksin use military or other force outside the democratic process to maintain his rule?
has Thaksin been tried and convicted of any crime that should have terminated his rule?
if not, then the Thais that did not want him in power should have just worked within the democratic processes and tried to outvote him at an election
0
0
#55 I have read those 6 paragraphs several times over, and they don’t impress me very much, since I remember being distinctly underwhelmed by the tawdry reality of those times. The following is the one paragraph that seemed worthy of attention.
“My observation is that he tried to work with the existing forces to achieve his policies and overtime attempted to exert his authority to restructure them.”
You seem to be giving a very mediocre man qualities that were far from obvious in practice. His handling of the South was impetuous to say the least. In a situation in which the utmost diplomacy was called for, your portrayal of him working with existing forces was nowhere apparent. At the time, it looked like little more than a very sleazy attempt to muscle his police allies in on some dodgy cross-border business. This situation called for tact. All we actually got was the impetuosness of a man who clearly did not have his mind fully engaged on the very difficult task of trying to improve one of Thailand’s most intractable problems. Well that’s Thaksin for you! If he could ever get his mind off his own family’s constant desire for ever more power & wealth, he might eventually begin to have the makings of second-rate local politician.
You are trying to tarnish me with the Sondhi brush. I’ve made my view on that man obvious on numerous occasions, but you seem to prefer to airbrush out any signs that there are more than two sides to this debate. Unlike Sondhi, I am not hamstrung by the sort of soppy sentimental monarchism that most Thai politicians use to excuse their surfeit of negative energies.
0
0
It does seem that most working democracies do need a balance of power to be maintained. In the US it would be the three cornered balance between the President, the Senate and Congress, and the Supreme Court.
In parliamentary democracies like the UK we again have a balance with a lower house, an upper house, and a non-executive head of state, in this case the monarch. In Australia, rightly or wrongly, this led to the removal of a prime minister in the not too distant past.
In Thailand for a long time we have had a strange power balance between the politicians, the head of state, and the army. The various constitutions written in my time here have always attempted a re-balance to get the Thai version of democracy going again.
Prior to 2006 we saw an attempt to change the balance from the political side by Thaksin in trying to get his own family and friends into leading positions in all parts of government including the army. I’m not going to try to understand what was in various people’s minds regarding the future succession, but the attacks on Prem prior to 2006 were part of whatever plans were being hatched. In a way it should be no surprise that the army did react the way it did. It’s possible they could have imagined a return to absolute power, but this time under Thaksin.
Now should there be a better balance of power in Thai democracy, one where the army doesn’t play a role? Surely the answer is yes, but we would need something like the judiciary to step up to the role that army held. (In fact I believe there have been signs of that happening.) Can extra-parliamentary street protests whether red or yellow fill this role? Can’t really see it myself.
One of the biggest drawbacks to achieving a better democracy here is the corruption of the politicians of all parties and the big political families. This is not unique to Thailand in the region. You can see it in the likes of Pakistan and Philippines. The latest constitution did in some ways try and reform the political parties, and it maybe the last chance to do that for many years. What will destroy it is handing out pardons for those caught breaking the rules.
0
0
#63 “hard to know why people kept voting him in but he was supported by big business who did well based on war spending and the financial boom”
So it’s OK to wonder that about John Howard. But when we have similar thoughts about Thaksin we are immediately labelled anti-democratic by the self-appointed ‘democracy’ mavens. Since most people in this forum remain very firmly against coup-plotters, I think we have the continuing right to be extremely critical of any of the knuckledraggers of the local elite, regardless of the shirt color they hope to profit from.
.
0
0
Fred Korat #64
thank you for your response to my attempts to onjectify and summarize Thaksins position
I was not fully engaged with Thaksins activities at that time as it seems you were, so forgive me if I am belittling your opinions
Reading what you say about Thaksin trying to “to muscle his police allies in” I wonder if Thaksin was rather than just adding police he was trying to replace the military.
Its my belief that police should be used in all actions inside the country, in the south, managing protests, protecting public figures like the King, etc. The military should be restricted to preparations and actions outside. Do you have any views on this as an objective for Thailand?
So, knowing as you do how entrenched the military are in all aspects of legal and illegal businesses and politics in Thailand how would you go about transitioning them out?
Do you think its possible Thaksin was taking some difficult initial steps towards this? And bearing furious PR attacks by the military, the monarchy and their agents as a result?
0
0
Les Abbey #65
I am pleased to see your views on the army
I would add that the army has infiltrated the monarchy through Prem, other retired generals and lackeys on the Privy Council.
Having secured 2 points of the triangle the military have also infiltrated and control virtually all significant legal and illegal businesses.
And the politicians, with the exceptions of Pridi, maybe Kukrit, maybe a couple of others until those inspired by the 1997 Constitution, Chuan, Thaksin, Samak, Somchai have been part of or at least not brave enough to try to buck the military.
So now, instead of 3 points Thailand really only has one plus some rebels who can see it badly needs to change.
Corruption is a product of the Thai structure of military dictatorship. Developing a culture of regular elections where the people hold their MPs accountable is what will resolve corruption and other issues inherent in the current pyramid balanced on one point.
The democratic government will have to sort out the military (remove them from any involvement inside Thailand) and the judiciary with the people reviewing their performance.
0
0
#68
“Do you think its possible Thaksin was taking some difficult initial steps towards this? And bearing furious PR attacks by the military, the monarchy and their agents as a result?”
If that had been the case, he should probably have taken the precaution of trying to explain his position to the public at the time. If that ever happened, we have yet to hear about it. It’s worth noting that he enjoyed a fairly tame and emasculated media at that time.
My guess is that he was too inexperienced to realize how transparency could be made to work for him. Or was it just that he was too busy trying to acheive the hidden objectives of his PM-ship to bother with such democratic notions as transparency? One can’t really imagine Thaksin making a few tactical withdrawals in order to hammer home his honest intent to the public. That wouldn’t have projected the strongman image he so obviously wishes to cultivate. Indeed, it appears that he has never really attempted to demonstrate anything other than traditional skulduggery to the electorate.
Who knows what either the man or his elite detractors really think? By failing to communicate their position they leave themselves wide open to the accusation that they only represent more of the same old worn-out incompetence and sleeziness. In any case, any practically-minded and well-grounded local politician would have realised that it always takes decades to get rid of such entrenched interests. Thaksin should by now have realised that his obsession with the short-term fix has left him wide open to accusations of profiteering. If politicians prove themselves incapable of demonstrating honest intent in a transparent manner, they shouldn’t be too surprised if they thus leave themselves very vulnerable to both honest (and dishonest) criticism.
0
0
Jakrapob is a communist fruitcake, openly admitted he is going to wage a violent, armed struggle to over throw the government, then whines about being repressed when he fails to get enough guns and bodies out onto the street this year (2009 AND 2010).
Now he has openly admitted to having foreign backers, though he refuses to mention who they are.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2969629.htm
Maybe they are part of the Chatham House, the globalist policy press that Amsterdam & Peroff are major members of – and who are currently running legal defense and lobbying services for not only Thaksin, but the UDD mob as well. Or could they be from the International Crisis Group, publishing “papers” that repeat verbatim Amsterdam’s ultimatums, and include members such as George Soros, Kenneth Adelman (former Thaksin lobbyist), and every big bank on the other side of the Atlantic.
Yes, I’m sure Goldman Sachs, the Economist, Barclays, and the rest are all just concerned about the “people.” It just warms the cockles of my heart. And so I wonder if the rest of you are just plain illiterate, or if you’re getting paid to humiliate yourselves by agreeing with a puppet shill like Jakrapob, who hasn’t spent a day in his life as a “prai” peasant.
While at face value it is noble to want to improve the poor’s plight, Thaksin, the PTP, and the UDD are up and down trash – gangsters, crooks, millionaires in their own rights, who have a consistent record of NOT caring, benefiting from immense double standards, etc. If change is going to come, it surely will not be carried on this ‘red wave.’ You’re going to end up with Hun Sen’s Cambodia – who comically, also has a “People’s Power Party,” makes long winded socialist speeches, then sells everyone’s land to foreign investers out from under them under force of his military. How progressive! Let’s not forget Thaksin is his economic adviser – I suppose they know or hope the Prai don’t read the Guardian!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/26/cambodia
0
0
[…] р╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Ир╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕ар╕Ю р╣Ар╕Юр╣Зр╕Нр╣Бр╕В р╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ “р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Лр╣Йр╕нр╕Щ”) […]
0
0