Inspired by Nicholas Farrelly’s recent post, “Analysing Thailand’s détente”, in this essay I will try to make some sense of the compromise game between the Pheu Thai Party and the so-called ammat network. Why do both groups seek a compromise after an ostensible collision in the past few years? What can the liberal-minded do in this political setting?
Thaksin and the Pheu Thai Party
With hindsight, it was Thaksin’s hand-picking of Yingluck Shinawatra as number one party-list candidate that should be considered the first détente signal sent by the Pheu Thai Party to the ammat. Through trial and error, Thaksin and his allies have learned to divide political powers between those that can bring them into office and those that can depose them. Hence they seem to focus on the former power when elections loom large, and on the latter power when elections are in the distant future.
From a structural perspective, such a power separation has emerged out of the political turmoil of recent years to become a Thai-style ‘check-and-balance’ system both now and probably also in the foreseeable future. As elections have gained ground in Thai politics, and political parties have become increasingly institutionalised, the ammat’s veto authority has also been empowered and consolidated. A zero-sum game is rare in Thai politics.
Finishing a four-year term in office and bringing Thaksin home are the two ultimate goals of the Pheu Thai Party. But why has Thaksin, despite a landslide election victory, rushed into this compromise game — rather than waiting for better timing or even an opportunity to eradicate ammat’s power? The most important drive can be conceptualised as the increasing ‘transaction cost’ that an economically rational person like Thaksin will try to minimise. The gigantic costs of running politics from abroad during the street protests should be obvious. But daily operation also requires time and budgets for bargaining, monitoring and enforcing. Before the general election last year, there was a report suggesting that Thaksin had 8 mobile phones with 20 SIM cards accompanying him at all times. The numbers might be higher with the Pheu Thai as the governing party. Thai politicians are prone to moral-hazard conduct whenever the party leader does not keep a weather eye on his members. The 2007 Constitution further divests the clout of the party’s leader vis-├а-vis his members.
The tasks of bargaining, monitoring and enforcing will be more difficult once the 111 former executives of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai Party return to the public domain. The multipolar future will pose the risk of Thaksin losing sight of daily political business, if he is still forced to work from overseas.
The Ammat network
If Thaksin worries over the transaction costs of running politics, the ammat network incurs the rising ‘transition cost’ of succession, not only at the top level but also amongst senior-ranking personnel. The 2006 coup and consequent judicial prescriptions — intended to be a miracle cure — have proved to be a dose for a suicide pact instead. Past and current secrets — political, personal and economic — of the ammat have numerous action-packed plots, thereby drawing undivided attention from both the Red Shirts and the salim. Thaksin’s transaction cost is calculable but the ammat’s transition cost depends on how people ‘perceive’ its moral value. Most Thais may acknowledge the bad things that the ammat has perpetrated, but they perceive greater merit in either supporting it or turning a blind eye to its misdemeanours. However, while a positive public perception has been overwhelmingly promoted to reach saturation point in recent years, its ‘perceived downside’ has been not only heightened but also has room for further movement. In other words, the moral margin of the ammat is deteriorating over the course of confrontation.
In business terms, what the ammat is doing at the moment is ‘consolidating’ its core power and laying-off its non-performing subsidiaries. Some draconian laws, as well as military and judicial appointments, are its core sources of power. The nominal People’s Alliance for Democracy and Democrat Party are debits and should stand on their own feet (until they succeed in rebranding themselves). Moreover, the silence of the ammat is just the tip of the iceberg. The old soldiers never die and are not bypassed – they are just byzantine. For evidence of how still waters run deep, see what another article says regarding the undercover operations of the military.
Regarding the Democrats, who seem to be the sore losers of the compromise game, we should not forget that they actually retreat into their comfort zone — Opposition — where their real comparative advantage lies and where they always sow the seeds of popularity.
Yingluck is the best choice of leader for none but the ammat. For the ammat, Yingluck is functionally equivalent, though inferior, to Abhisit Vejjajiva (that is, being a premier but acting as a spokesperson) — but endowed with Thaksin’s mass appeal. To cope with the recent rise of mass politics, the Pheu Thai Party, with Yingluck as prime minister, is therefore the most effective buffer and messenger that can soothe the angry throng and prolong the entrenched culture of elite impunity. Learned from their own experience with the docile salim, most people in the ammat network simply believe that the masses are always submissive to their beloved leaders, so the Red Shirts should be tamed easily by Thaksin and Yingluck.
The most crucial facilitating factor of the compromise game is the Ratchadaphisek land purchase case, which costs Thaksin two years in jail. Such a two-year condition is accidentally optimal. For it is not too radical to push Thaksin to the otherwise long-term tit-for-tat strategy, and not too trivial as a practical bargaining chip for the ammat. This is also due to the fact that, unlike in other colonised countries in Asia, no political hero in Thailand has been in jail. Thai leaders do not make a virtue out of detention.
Policy Consequences of the compromise game
A useful indicator of the compromise game is found in the realm of policy. Like politics and policy outcomes after the May 1992 event, elite compromise means no structural, radical change in the state apparatus and policy orientation. There will hardly be such a thing as grand bureaucratic reform, industrial upgrading, tax reforms or military budget cuts — all witnessed in Thaksin’s first administration, and to a lesser extent the Chatichai government. To please its constituencies without alienating its enemies, the Pheu Thai Party has moved towards more ‘populist’ policy packages, those that do not create severe losers (apart from the environment), such as social policies, direct money transfer, or infrastructural megaprojects. The minimum wage hike and constitutional amendment will be the most ambitious attempts. Long-term developmental plans, which may hurt some sectors but prove beneficial for the country, are trading for short-term benefits that do not trample over anybody — even the salim, who will enjoy more royalist campaigns and ceremonies during the Yingluck administration.
The Double-edged Sword of Thaksin’s return
The mission to bring Thaksin home may lead to unintended consequences once it is completed. While in exile, Thaksin can pay as much lip service as he wants in addition to reconstructing his image as a democratic figurehead. For example, in March 2009 he declared that if soldiers shot the protesters, he would return immediately to lead the march himself. In fact, that did not happen but most supporters appreciated his speech and understood that Thaksin was giving long-distance moral support. The expectation of both the party members and the voters will change once Thaksin resides in Bangkok. He will need to undertake a risky repositioning yet again. For one thing, Thaksin is not a traditional elite who can schedule the timing and set the scene for an appearance at his own discretion. Elected politicians are underprivileged as their canvassers and voters expect daily, or at least weekly, action.
What the Liberal-minded Can Do: Figure It Out
Of course, Thaksin and the Pheu Thai Party are sympathetic to the Red Shirt protesters who fought the deadly fight for them. However, they have their own way of compensating their sympathisers by materialising such a value with higher rates of remuneration. On the one hand, they think that extra rates of calculation should compensate making a human sacrifice. On the other hand, appointing Nattawut Saikua and Jatuporn Prompan to the cabinet in the nick of time is a smart move to ‘domesticate’ the only two power brokers who can effectively rally the disappointed factions against the party itself.
If my analysis is mainly true, New Mandala readers may ask what the liberal-minded can do to support further structural and democratic reform amid this compromise game? In my humble opinion, Pheu Thai voters will have more bargaining power when the next general election draws close. Well-documented proposals should be ready when such a period comes. The time may approach sooner if the party loses in local elections on a few consecutive occasions, or Thaksin experiences difficulties in repositioning himself at home.
In the meantime, the liberal-minded could encourage some credible agencies or (foreign) universities to conduct surveys or polls on how Thais think about the lèse-majesté law, the Computer Crime Act, the role of the military and extra-constitutional power in politics. Yet blending the ‘appropriate’ questions holds the key to legitimising these sensitive issues, but such questionnaires are manageable after all. The ultimate goal is to have clear figures and numbers, which can be put forward to the mainstream media and the Pheu Thai Party. The current debate on lèse-majesté and the like is based solely on principles, be they democratic values or human rights.
This is necessary, but not sufficient, to induce the undecided public and sustain the reform momentum. The Thai power structure may impede democratic progress. However, theories suggest that at a moment of ‘critical juncture’ the power of structure will be looser and human agency more determinative.
Veerayooth Kanchoochat is a PhD Candidate at the University of Cambridge
A clear analysis of the current situation. However, what appears to be missing in the article is the author’s view and analysis of how Thaksin will react and what could happen when the Reds continue with their struggle for more rights and freedom despite of Thaksin. This is already happening when there is a momentum for amending Article 112 and annulling the effect of the 2006 coup as proposed by the Nitirat group. Thaksin and his party have distanced themselves from this movement, apparently due to their hidden agreement with the ammat clique. But the momentum seems to be there and this at least shows that Thaksin cannot tell the Reds what do to and what not to do at all times. Instead of the lead character he is taking on more of a supporting role.
I don’t think this will mean that there will be a break between Thaksin and the Reds. Even supporting actors have their roles to play. The next few months thus are crucial for the development of Thailand’s political struggles.
0
0
It would be for the good of all that our dear Thaksin makes his permanent home abroad.
0
0
This thing reads more like a revolutionary manifesto than a contribution to scholarship.
There are some interesting bold assertions that once transformed into tentative falsifiable hypotheses deserve further analysis and an academic paper or two, such as:
“Yingluck is the best choice of leader for none but the ammat. For the ammat, Yingluck is functionally equivalent, though inferior, to Abhisit Vejjajiva (that is, being a premier but acting as a spokesperson) – but endowed with Thaksin’s mass appeal. ”
But in this one is hard to discern what you are imagining:
“But why has Thaksin, despite a landslide election victory, rushed into this compromise game – rather than waiting for better timing or even an opportunity to eradicate ammat’s power?”
In the past, Thaksin stacked the military and favoured his own family members and businesses in policy and appointments (See chapter in Thaksinization of Thailand). He redistributed economic rents in his and his associates favour (see Aj. Pasuk’s paper in Thai Capital). Thaksin has been and appears to still be a lot less revolutionary than you imagine him to be. In short: same same but different.
0
0
My reaction to a first read is more like #3 than #1. Interesting, but I must slowly work through it again.
0
0
Interesting read and thanks for posting this.
Biggest weakness is the lack of proper analysis of relationship between Thaksin and Red Shirts which is far more complex and nuanced than just one of simple patronage. In fact, to suggest it can only be that (which this paper doesn’t to be fair) reveals the lack of insight of those who make that claim rather than anything else.
Those who also assume the Red Shirts are “revolutionary” in a classic socialist sense are missing one key point – the Red Shirts, while having some leftists in their ranks, are broadly petit bourgeois and more closely aligned to a form of liberal democracy than outright socialism. Of course nearly all liberal democracies have mixed systems of markets and state.
So, the academics and other commentators like Fernquest who project their fantasies of what the Red Shirts should be like and who, in the same fantasies condemn the Red Shirts for aligning with their partners of choice (and I see the Thaksin/Red Shirt relationship as a partnership more than a patronage) are guilty of an abject failure. Question is, is this analysis driven more by a specific political agenda (likely) rather a lack of critical imagination?
As for the “compromise” – in many ways Thaksin pushing for this actually reveals some of how the Red Shirt/Thaksin partnership is put together and also the weaknesses of it.
To my mind the Thaksin/PT/Red Shirt coalition was at its strongest just after the election last year. They needed to move quickly and force the amaart into backing down. They didn’t and have been on the back foot since. Now the amaart are pushing at the schisms, attempting to break the partnership apart so that both elements can be dealt with individually. The Reds will be dealt with via brutal force should they protest; Thaksin/PT will be dealt with via the courts and international media/NGOs, who now must be considered as part of the amaart’s tool box.
We’re back into real politick now and all that entails. Who, ultimately, offers Thailand the best chance of progress, social justice and democracy? The amaart, with their alliance of neo-fascists, military and royalist cronies, with decades of coups, massacres and a proven opposition to democracy, or, despite all its very obvious flaws, the nexus of Thaksin/Red Shirts/Pheu Thai?
As for the Bangkok liberals – well, my view is that they have very little understanding of the Red Shirts or how to leverage political power. They are far more content standing around sneering at the ordinary grassroots Red Shirts for choosing Thaksin as a partner than actually being part of a process of change themselves. These liberals, rather than holding their endless and tiresome run of panels, talking shops and Facebook updates, need to learn to listen to those who are actually effecting social and political change rather than impose their academic “theories” on an ill-fitting model.
0
0
the game play is more complex that this piece makes out; there are two processes happening at the same time, one that we can talk about because it is newsworthy; the other hidden from view… (so we must wait and see). BTW/ Jatuporn was of course dumped by the courts last week which shows how all-powerful the amaat are and why PTP have little choice– other than jump from the top floor.
0
0
“Thaksin has been and appears to still be a lot less revolutionary than you imagine him to be.” >> Exactly…
0
0
Whatever happens, I truly believe that both the ammart and Thaksin will muck it up.
Neither side believes in or trusts democracy and both what their players at the table to participate in the Thai kleptocracy. Have they agreed on a formula for sharing the ‘corruption’?
Unlikely.
Hopefully the people will start to get a true labor movement, agrarian reform, stronger civil society through actions of community movements in the South, in red shirt villages, in outlying communities.
Perhaps there will be a movement to start decentralization and local elections and control.
0
0
An addition to the Thaksin-Red Shirt alliance.
According to Matichon (May 23, p. 3 column), Thaksin had said in his phone-in something like, “Today, we have reached the end of our path. It is like the people have rowed me in a boat to the bank. From now on it is about climbing a mountain. For this, I have to get into a car. The people do not need to carry the boat on their shoulders and send me up the mountain.”
In this context, can anybody confirm that Thaksin, in the same phone-in, said that this would be the last time that he phoned in to a UDD event?
0
0
Contin. from #9, see also from Tulsathit Thaptim in The Nation:
http://nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Thanks-for-the-ride-but-now-Ill-go-my-own-way-30182561.html
0
0
An interesting analysis that highlights Thaksin’s apparent complete lack of ideological commitment as he flits around the policy supermarket picking out the best deal of the day for himself and his clan. The truth is that he is a died-in-the-wool elitist but was too crude and pushy to be accepted by the “amartiya” that he longed to be a part of, viz his ill fated encouragement of his dissipated son’s royal dates early in his first regime. His master plan surely extends to shaping a new post-facto amartiya that he can influence behind the scenes in addition to wielding the front office power openly or through nominees. Why on earth would he want to force it into bankruptcy when he can drive down the share price and pick it up at a distressed price and recapitalize it under new management?
Veerayooth’s final call to academic red shirts to encourage polls and surveys and confront Thaksin with the statistics gleaned thus when elections approach is pathetic and weak in the extreme. They will never get what they want from Thaksin and continuing to support him is futile. Instead, they should get out from under his coat tails and face reality by pushing either from within the red shirt movement or from without for the social, legal and economic reform they believe befits Thailand’s semi-industrialized status. Of course, it will be a long, hard fought struggle without the quick money and other rewards slushing around today’s red shirt leaders. However, Thaksin’s weakness is his lack of commitment to introducing a consistent form of democratic liberal socialism or even any real interest in the ordinary Thai people. One day this will cause him and/or his clan to be outflanked in the same way he cleverly outflanked the sleepy Democrats who found themselves unwittingly forced into being a pro-coup, pro-military party 15 years after their successful positioning as an anti-military party under Chuan following the Suchinda coup.
0
0
Help please — in the paragraphs “The Ammat network” there is a reference to “another article” providing a weblink that my system can not make work. Can New Mandala please provide the link or a more complete reference so that I can hunt it up. Thank you in anticipation …
0
0
Thanks phktresident,
Some clunky code seemed to have got in the way. I have fixed it — but this should also do the trick.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
0
0
Srithanonchai,
Thaksin did make that comment about the boat and the mountain. But he also spent quite some time saying how he is a grateful person and won’t forget his debt to those who helped on the boat front.
Plus he specifically mentioned he would call on the Red Shirts for help again if democracy was ever threatened — which I take to be his all-purpose backup for if the current pact goes south or “things change”.
These were some of his less contradictory messages from a speech in which he claimed people could forget the past and also learn from the past; that Red Shirts ought to hand themselves in to justice and simultaneously that some highly-learned people in the justice system have no ability to think; and much more.
Regarding the “last speech” point, from memory he said he hoped this would be the last speech he would make from overseas. Not that he was sure — and certainly not that he wouldn’t be talking to the Reds any more, if that’s what you were thinking.
0
0
One interesting thing to emerge from the rally was that Robert Amsterdam’s message was all about the necessity of finding justice and truth as a precondition for reconciliation. His tune was radically different to Thaksin’s. In fact, I don’t recall him even mentioning Thaksin by name
If ever Amsterdam was simply the paid hireling of Thaksin, which so many have accused him of, he is certainly not that now.
0
0
Michael #14
Thanks for the info. My question was based on a quote of Natthawut Saikuea in Matichon. This direct quote sounded as if Thaksin had said that it was his last phone-in, prompting Natthawut to add that this fact would not change the love the red shirts had for Thaksin (also quoting from memory). Since this sounded quite strong to me, I have been trying to get some independent confirmation about what Thaksin actually said (if possible in Thai).
0
0
#15 Tom Hoy
“If ever Amsterdam was simply the paid hireling of Thaksin, which so many have accused him of, he is certainly not that now.”
He wasn’t accused of being a paid hireling…. He was actually hired….
What do you think he is now?
0
0
Textbook communication to near-robots who only really listen for validation of what they already Know. It’ll be full of contradictions, lies, stunning reversals, and insanity. That’s the point, I think.
I love self-determination in the 21st century. It reminds me of the 14th. Little less democratic than vassal < overlord but the rules of the game are important. 1 man = 1 vote. If you're the kind of man who can command millions of Toddler men & women to zig when they should zag and act in your perceived interests rather than their own (what interests do the victims of feudal exploitation even have, beyond making their hut their own little feudal castle & filling it with the sound of little vassal children awwh); then you will be a democratic hero of the people (that's what your branding / marketing / mass media sound bytes will say).
Power to the people. They're too dull to realise when they're being patronised. Not that I believe many or any of them could read New Mandala or would (even if it were translated for them into 'their' preferred native tongue, yet another preference of 'theirs' chosen for them by their patrons and used to exploit them); but it's still a good example of what goes on non-stop until they no longer care about thinking because their patron will do their thinking for them.
And the creeps who have exploited them since they were impressionable; that is, the patrons who patronised them into being incapable of thinking for themselves, would say, "That's rude, how dare you patronise the victims of the patron system's insulting deceit."
I'm not their patron. So it's impossible for me to patronise them. They'll never care what I say. They have a patron to identify with and listen to, or they'll really struggle with apathy & fatalism in a democratic patron-state. They barely read. They don't realise it's in their best interests. They're a little rusty on what constitutes their best interests. I know how this was achieved. A lifetime of insulting patronising just like this; perfectly phrased, 100% intended, 0% accidental – this is straight out of the Handbook for Dummy Creation, For Dummies. It's so…
Well, it's considered intelligent writing these days.
And these days, it's intelligent to remember to choose who will think for you based on how patronising they are when they visit your neck of the woods.
"Well yes I know he's not actually a hick like me, but it's the thought that counts. Identify. Confirm."
We all appreciate being insulted non-stop. It's the least those who think for us can do?
[ x ] insulting
[ x ] patronising
[ x ] deceitful
[ x ] manipulative
[ x ] brainwashing
Most supporters appreciated his [lying to their face without intent to honor his solemn promise] and understood [Thaksin was just patronising them].
0
0
Srithanonchai #16
Here is the quote:
“р╕Ьр╕бр╕лр╕зр╕▒р╕Зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Бр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕кр╕Ыр╕╡р╕Кр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ьр╕бр╣Гр╕Щр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Бр╕Фр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╣Ар╕Щр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕Ър╕гр╕нр╕Ър╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕гр╕│р╕ер╕╢р╕Бр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Кр╕╕р╕бр╕Щр╕╕р╕бр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╕Др╕Зр╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕кр╕╕р╕Фр╕Чр╣Йр╕▓р╕в …..”
Translation:
I hope that my speech [today] from overseas, on this anniversary of the dispersal of protests, might be my last.
Strictly speaking, his phrasing does leave open the possibility of dual interpretations, ie. “last speech” and “last speech from overseas”.
The clip is here, with the quoted remarks at around 22:00:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBUjdqc6XKI
Hope that helps.
0
0
I wonder whether Thaksin is trying to deceive the elites that he is own their side. There is an old saying which goes, “before you can successfully deceive your enemy, you must successfully deceive your friends first”. I wonder whether this is the plan Thaksin had in mind:
Plan 1: mislead his supporters to misunderstand him;
Plan 2: then he will not dominate the election, as Red Shirts now no longer respect the Monarchy. The more he acts that he sides with them, the more he will lose their support;
Plan 3: then the elites will allow him to come back;
Plan 4: then when the K dies and power shifts, then Thaksin will do everything to seize the elite powers into his hands.
One thing I know for sure is, Thaksin is not interested in democracy. He is interested in having all the powers in his hands. But whether or not he will commit atrocious acts, or acquiesce to the atrocity like the Monarchy is doing currently (if he becomes powerful in the future), this is an interesting question to debate.
0
0
ted paulson (18). Are we all fools being manipulated by scoundrels? I’d suggest it’s a matter of degree, and that it varies with place and time. The bigger the gap between rich and poor, the closer you are to the truth. The better educated ordinary people are, the harder it is to defraud them. Many of the poorest people realise that, and sacrifice their own meagre consumption in order to get the best possible education for their children.
Much of Thaksin’s behaviour is devoted to making himself richer than others, and the good he has done is at least partly unintentional. The Thai education system is corrupted by the monarchy, who have used it to defraud the country’s children into a lifetime of subjection. Unsurprisingly, Thailand is a country of great inequality, but the situation is improving quite rapidly. It’s my impression that the improvement has more to do with what has changed the lives of ordinary people: good technical teachers, better knowledge of what is happening in the world, cheap labour-saving machinery, contraception, improved medical treatment, internet access, and business use of mobile phones (which Thaksin used to peddle) than glittering crowns, or cremation or ploughing ceremonies.
0
0
Michael#19
Yes, this helps, thanks. One could even link his “hope” not only to the “overseas” element, but also to the “anniversary.” After all, the red shirts are supposed to forget what had happened. So, no need to celebrate aniversaries any longer. Then, there is also the element of “р╕Др╕Зр╕Ир╕░.” Maybe, even Natthawut got confused, especially when conclusions were drawn while listening to the speech at Rajaprasong, not while watching a video clip, or reading a transcript.
On the widely criticized “boat” analogy, see also an article in Matichon featuring Sombat Bunngamong, at http://kunginternews.blogspot.com/2012/05/blog-post_2478.html.
It starts with the sentence р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕зр╕┤р╕Фр╕╡р╣Вр╕нр╕ер╕┤р╕Зр╕Бр╣М р╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕ир╕гр╕▒р╕вр╣Гр╕Щр╣Вр╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕кр╕Др╕гр╕Ъ 2 р╕Ыр╕╡ р╕кр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕Кр╕╕р╕бр╕Щр╕╕р╕бр╕Др╕Щр╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╣Бр╕Фр╕З р╕Вр╕нр╕З “р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕У р╕Кр╕┤р╕Щр╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕г” р╕нр╕Фр╕╡р╕Хр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕бр╕Щр╕Хр╕гр╕╡ р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Ъ “р╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╣Бр╕Фр╕З” р╕Фр╕▒р╣Ир╕З “р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╕н” р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕кр╣Ир╕Зр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓ “р╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Эр╕▒р╣Ир╕З” р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Зр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Ир╕░ “р╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕гр╕Ц” р╣Др╕Ыр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Ар╕нр╕З р╕Бр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Щр╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Бр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕зр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╣Мр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╣Гр╕Щр╕лр╕бр╕╣р╣И “р╕бр╕зр╕ер╕Кр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╣Бр╕Фр╕З” р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Др╕Ыр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ж р╕Щр╕▓р╕Щр╕▓
Sombat starts by saying “р╕Ьр╕бр╕Ыр╕гр╕╡р╣Кр╕Фр╣Бр╕Хр╕Бр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Щр╕░ р╕Чр╕╡р╣И р╕Ю.р╕Х.р╕Ч.р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕Ур╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╣Бр╕Фр╕Зр╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Щр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╕н р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╕Эр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з … р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╣Зр╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Ир╕│р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ы р╕Ьр╕бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕лр╕ер╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕нр╕Зр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Др╕Ы !”
Closing sentence of the article: “р╕Ъ.р╕Б.р╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕Ир╕╕р╕Фр╕Чр╕┤р╣Йр╕Зр╕Чр╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕З “р╕Др╕Щр╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╣Бр╕Фр╕З” – “р╕Юр╕Ч.” – “р╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕гр╣Ир╕зр╕б” р╣Др╕Ыр╕Ир╕Щр╕Цр╕╢р╕З “р╕Ю.р╕Х.р╕Ч.р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕У” р╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Чр╕Ър╕Чр╕зр╕Щр╕Ър╕Чр╕Ър╕▓р╕Чр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕нр╕З р╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Зр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й!!!.”
0
0
CT #20. I think you are on the right track. Thaksin has no interest in democracy and loves to throw out feints and reversals to to put people off guard. He sees himself as a chess player capable of planning multiple interlocking strategies with various layers of contingency plans and the end game kept hidden until the last moment. He has among others no doubt considered all of the plans you mention and probably adopted variants of them into his master plan.
Why would he not commit atrocious acts or acquiesce to them again? He has shown many times that he not only accepts violence as a tool to get what he wants and terrorize his enemies but actually revels in it as long as he and his own family members are well out of harm’s way. Unfortunately this bloodthirsty approach often backfires, as did his brutal approach to the South.
The red shirts may soon become a liability to national reconciliation and the small minority of idealistic but noisy left wing leaders will have to be purged in the name of “unity”. The mainstream leadership, e.g. Nattawut and Jatuporn, like their PT brethren sees the movement primarily as a route to power and wealth and has no problem with any number midstream horse changes.
0
0
Woof woof Orinoco c. 17
Read my words Woof woof “simply the paid hireling”. Simply -exclusively, only, merely.
Also, the common meaning of hireling is one who works only for money and will do whatever he has asked regardless of any questions of professional integrity. I am paid by a university but I would not describe myself as their hireling.
0
0
#24 Tom “Also, the common meaning of hireling is one who works only for money and will do whatever he has asked regardless of any questions of professional integrity.”
Sure… But what do you think he actually is now? I am interested to know the reasoning that lies behind your comments on Robert Amsterdam and how you would asess his motivation for doing what he does, particularly with regards to his personal integrity….
0
0
The reconciliation process officially starts today . . . with the usual Thaksin formula: the payoff. Victims (of whatever color) of the May2010 riots/crackdown gets to collect compensation from the Yingluck government up to Bht 7 million (depending on deaths or injuries) but with caveats – – the most controversial: “. . . withdrawal of lawsuits before receiving a cheque . . .”
Eventually, and sooner rather than later, the reconciliation will have to reach the ultimate beneficiary: Thaksin Shinawatra. Not only will he get to be pardoned, but he gets, according to my reliable fortune teller, his “compensation” too with Bht 46 billion.
That’s about right I think. After all, it was the Red Shirt Supremo who suffered the most.
0
0
Firstly, Orinoco, I attributed the idea that Amsterdam was a “hireling” to others. I have never believed he was one. I take him at his word and at his deeds in opposing the coup and the repression which followed it and that his main interest as he has stated many times is to fight against the “impunity” which many government officials enjoy.
I think Amsterdam has done very valuable work in the service of fighting against the impunity enjoyed by the coupsters and I think he continues to do valuable work in fighting for justice for those who were killed and wounded in April/May 2010.
0
0
Excellent, excellent thread. I like the advice for the liberal-minded, too. Practical! A rarity.
I think the people saying that the original piece misses out on something far more complex, nuanced, mysterious etc are also missing that it may be difficult to comment on unknowns without detracting from the intent of the piece which was well put and not overbearing.
0
0
Why the compromise game?
It’s interesting that only Thaksin is being called out on his “compromise”.
Let’s not forget the likes of Pavin Chachavalpongpun sucking up to the Democrat Party and Abhisit in 2009, after the protests that year had been ruthlessly crushed by 10,000 troops.
Let’s not forget the likes of HRW’s Sunai Phasuk stating in the wikileaks Thai cables that he was a committed “anti-Thaksin activist” and supported the coup and the army.
Let’s not forget the supine response of these same Thai liberals to the recent and incredibly anti-democratic disqualification of Jaturporn as an MP.
What about these Thai liberal’s endless and repeat compromises with the army and the elites? Most of them are drawn from the same social background as the elites anyhow, and stand as much to lose as anyone from a proper process of Thai democratisation. Would Sunai Phasuk still have his job if he lived in a democracy? Not a chance. Would Pavin still be considered a credible progressive voice after sucking up to Abhisit after he’d used the army to crush a protest calling for democracy? No way.
These Thai liberals have a stake in the culture of impunity as much as anyone and their compromises need to be as questioned as Thaksin’s.
0
0
# 27 Tom Hoy
” I have never believed he was one [hireling]. I take him at his word and at his deeds.
Thank you for answering the question Tom.
#29 Andrew Spooner
“What about these Thai liberal’s endless and repeat compromises with the army and the elites? Most of them are drawn from the same social background as the elites anyhow, and stand as much to lose as anyone from a proper process of Thai democratisation.”
And where exactly are you ‘drawn’ from Khun Andrew?
0
0
Andrew Spooner is partly right. There are plenty of compromising people about. At the same time, the current compromises being made by the Puea Thai Party, Thaksin and Yingluck are very high profile and startling. Look at this one: https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/yinglucks-20-million-baht-polishing-cloth/
That surely ranks pretty high on the compromise scale.
0
0
And may I add that contrary to Spooner’s “complex and more nuanced” nonsense, the Thaksin approach remains ‘straight-forward, direct and tangible’: BUY THEM OFF.
The formula always works. Thaksin dispenses with his payoff, including the most recent ‘reconciliation cheques dispensation’ with the caveat ‘shut up from now on’. And while Thaksin/Yingluck pay and buy off everyone, analysts/liberals write ‘far more complex and nuanced’ balderdash a-la Spooner for good effect.
0
0
Orinoco Woof Woof Blanco, re your question to Andrew Spooner – I don’t think your query has much relevance to his provocative questions.
#29, no we shouldn’t forget others that play the compromise game – however, Pavin and Sunai hardly have the same gravitas as Thaksin. Thus they are perhaps excluded on the basis that they are relatively minor pots to the enormous Thaksin kettle, as opposed to letting them off the hook. To document all playing into the vicious cycle churned by the Amaat, it would require several 10,000 word volumes at the least 😉
0
0
Here is Sombat in an English version:
http://nationmultimedia.com/politics/Red-leader-takes-dig-at-egotistic-Thaksin-30182804.html
Problem is, who is Sombat?
0
0
Orinoco
I’ve written about my background before – you can find it online if you search hard enough. If it’s so important to you, you will find it.
0
0
@15 Tom Hoy
I cant help being cynical about his speech, it could easily be interpreted as a pretense so Thaksin can continue using him and Jatuporn as levers to influence the grass-root reds to his advantage and simultaneously maintaining a plausible distance from them as he is now in his car going up the mountain and is no longer in the same boat.
0
0
#35 Andrew Spooner
“If it’s so important to you, you will find it.”
In terms of accountability and integrity of purpose I think it is equally important as positing on the background of the ‘liberals’ you criticise in your internet postings…. In terms of the reality of what matters in the political debate in Thailand, I think it is of no importance at all.
0
0
I sometimes wonder if commentators actually have any understanding of how complex the relationship between Thaksin/Reds actually is.
To reduce it to simply him being the puppet master is to take the same position as the PAD, Dems etc and reduce millions of ordinary Thais/Reds to mere lumpen ciphers in a mad, evil genius’s game.
Anyone would think that Thailand’s present political problems are something from a James Bond script.
Thaksin is not as smart as many think he is and the Reds are not as dumb as many think either.
0
0
I think Veerayooth’s analysis is basically sound. The main structural conclusion is that a Grand Elite Coalition has the potential – and unfortunately also the mindset – to uphold the current order and forego any meaningful reform in the mid run. This will significantly reduce the room for maneuver for progressive actors and critiques of the current regime.
In the long run, changing opportunity structures need to be taken into account. More as an unintended consequence of the conflictive strategies of the past decde, a host of new actors have been mobilised that now claims a stake in the polical game. The elites have settled this conflict the traditional way: via a secretive backroom deal between the key patrons. However, the red shirt reaction shows that these techniques are less and less accepted by the public at large.
Unfortunately, I share the scepticism about the Bangkok liberals.Instead of joining a braod social coalition that could mobilise power to push for structural change, they mostly engage in mirror fencing. Veerayooth’s proposal seems to fit in nicely with these toothless approaches.
The problem is NOT a lack of awarenes or understanding on the part of the elites. It is the lack of a change agent that could force the grand status quo coalition into concessions. In other words, the problem is political, not academic.
0
0
Orinoco Woof Woof Blanco
“In terms of accountability and integrity of purpose I think it is equally important as positing on the background of the ‘liberals’ you criticise in your internet postings”
I disagree. My main point is that the Bangkok liberals have no real connection to the “grassroots” yet often claim to understand them or even attempt to speak for them.
In reality some of the Bangkok liberals are every bit as patronising about the grassroots Reds as the Dems and yep, in my view, that is partly founded in their inability to escape the confines of their own class position.
0
0
Longway,
Amsterdam continues to press the case against Abhisit, Suthep and the army. He asked at his speech for more witnesses to come forward and be recorded, he unambiguously talked about the need for justice before reconciliation can happen. His criticisms of the army, the democrats, and the LM law are direct, searching and uncompromising.
Of course, you can interpret it as a pretense and as part of a grand conspiracy by the puppet master if you like. But why?Out of all the catalog of criticisms of Amsterdam, the only reason ever offered for not taking him seriously is that he’s been paid by Thaksin. His arguments and research are very rarely engaged.
0
0
#40 Andrew Spooner
“I disagree. My main point is that the Bangkok liberals have no real connection to the “grassroots” yet often claim to understand them or even attempt to speak for them.”
How about Chiang Mai liberals? Its a very liberal place after all especially up past Nimmanhaemin in the lee of the mountain.
Is London a better place from which to gain insight into the motivation and thinking of the ‘grassrooots’ people and if so which borough?
0
0
Marek
“It is the lack of a change agent that could force the grand status quo coalition into concessions. In other words, the problem is political, not academic.”
Agree wholeheartedly.
The Red Shirts have emerged as a new form of “agency” but the Bangkok liberals have failed utterly to spot the potential of this and instead of seeking to align itself with the Reds have sought, instead, to attack Thaksin while forgetting the major structural issues at stake and also the source of naked power in all of this – the army.
What I can’t figure out, is that all these Bangkok liberals, academics etc, with their fancy Western educations and privileges seem oblivious to the structures that they inhabit, while the grassroot Reds are aware of this on a daily and lived basis. Hence, for me, their alliance with Thaksin is not about accommodating the existing structures but utilising his power to push for more changes. Of course, one thing always conveniently forgotten is that Thaksin’s main power comes from democratic elections. When people have had enough of him they can stop voting for him and then his power will be almost nothing. The “shadowy elements” you mention will still have their guns, their courts and their apparatus ready to crush, via force, anyone who challenges their hegemony. They remain unelected, unaccountable and outside the reach of civilian and democratic control. So while criticism of Thaksin is appropriate to single him out while forgetting the rest is simply to forego PT’s democratic mandate.
In the context of that the liberals complete failure to comment on Jatuporn’s disqualification – as heinous and undemocratic act it is harder to imagine – points directly to their failures and hypocrisies.
0
0
@CT # 20: “But whether or not [Thaksin] will commit atrocious acts, or acquiesce to the atrocity like the Monarchy is doing currently (if he becomes powerful in the future), this is an interesting question to debate.”
What’s to debate or question? He murdered thousands of innocents (according to Thailand’s Human Rights Commission) in his War on Drugs. Angry about Wat Prathum? How many Muslims did his general, now security adviser, Panlop kill at the Krue Sae Mosque and what did Thaksin do about it? Thaksin’s middle name is atrocity. You’re fooling yourself if you think for a minute he won’t be an authoritarian who will be brutal if he thinks it will suit his purpose, or just to drive his own outsized ego. Just as another poster is fooling himself by characterizing the majority of Red Shirts as “liberal democrats.” What a piece of propaganda.
0
0
Jg45 is totally deluded when he says that it’s a propaganda to say that Reds are democrats. The only way of looking at the Reds not as people struggling for democracy is to see them as puppets for Thaksin, which is totally false as Andrew Spooner and others have pointed out.
To see how this is true, one has to believe firstly that anything a person does is done out of his own self-interest. If the interests of the Reds are not advanced by supporting Thaksin, then no Red would come out and support him. To believe, as some apparently do, that the underlying reason why the Reds come out in droves to support Thaksin is that they are hired by Thaksin or are deceived by his material promises is to have a very wrong view of human nature. These people are fed up with the way Thailand has been governed for decades, a country where the few have all the privileges and the many are shunted aside and treated as if they were not humans. This is the root cause. Thaksin only happened to function as their focal point for a moment. And with Thaksin out of the picture (such as when he got his seized assets back and allowed to return as a free man) the struggle will certainly continue because the structural injustice is still there and has been brutally exposed for all to see.
0
0
@41 Tom Hoy
Of course, you can interpret it as a pretense and as part of a grand conspiracy by the puppet master if you like. But why?
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09BANGKOK3009
Leaving little doubt who calls the shots for the red-shirt movement, Thaksin called UDD leaders on November 24 and urged them to reconsider holding the protest, citing the conflict with the King,s birthday celebration. UDD leaders then met on November 25 to discuss Thaksin,s recommendation and predictably opted to stand down.
US Embassy cable 25/11/2009
0
0
@43 AS
In the context of that the liberals complete failure to comment on Jatuporn’s disqualification – as heinous and undemocratic act it is harder to imagine – points directly to their failures and hypocrisies.
Does that mean he is qualified to receive a giant comedy cheque in return for his silence?
0
0
Orinocco
“Is London a better place from which to gain insight into the motivation and thinking of the ‘grassrooots’ people and if so which borough?”
Oh, miaow.
In response, I’ve no idea. Maybe you could do some kind of research to find out?
What I would say, and this is unscientific, is that I’ve met plenty of expats, journalists, academics etc etc who are based in Thailand full-time who don’t seem to have a single clue about what is going on. In fact they seem to almost rejoice in their own ignorance up to, and including, celebrating the deaths of Thai citizens in the protests in 2010.
You’re not in that final group are you “Orinoco”?
0
0
Thursday the huge crass cartoon-size reconciliation checks begun. Friday yesterday, the ‘amnesty bill’ was tabled with beneficiaries fugitive Thaksin S. (Red Shirt Supremo and May2010 red/black violence/arson/mayhem maestro) and 2006 coup leader Gen. Sonthi.
Do you approve Spooner and company?
0
0
Here is the supposedly liberal Bangkok middle class in action:
Bodindecha students turn to Prem for help
Students and parents who are part of a demonstration against the Bodindecha School filed a petition with Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda yesterday, asking him for help to get them back into school.
Protest leader Sombat Sorthanusak led some 50 students and parents to hand a letter over to Prem at Miracle Grand Hotel in Bangkok yesterday, asking for help to get the 220 students back into school and find a way to erase corruption.
http://nationmultimedia.com/national/Bodindecha-students-turn-to-Prem-for-help-30182857.html
0
0
#48 Andrtew Spooner
“What I would say, and this is unscientific, is that I’ve met plenty of expats, journalists, academics etc etc who are based in Thailand full-time who don’t seem to have a single clue about what is going on”
It is, indeed, exceedingly unscientific and seems to be mostly about who you have chosen to socialise with and your own innate prejudices which is hardly a coherent judgement on others.
Leaving aside your thoughts on your fellow farangs, why is it you think the words ‘liberal’ and ‘Bangkok’ are arbitrarily synonymous? Why do you rule out Chiang Mai, Krabi, Nong Khai or Kanchanaburi?…. And who are these ‘Bangkok’ liberals for whom you have moulded such a dislike in all your wanderings on the world wide web?…. Or is it just a Samak like loathing for many of the Thammasat generation or those who may think like them? Thaksin after all has never really been a friend to liberals, let alone leftists. As JG45 points out in post #44, his time in power was marked by fairly murderous authoritarianism including the idea that his parliamentary majority afforded his government the right to order agents of the state to form into roving death squads and murder thousands of his own fellow citizens with no arrest and no trial. His administration had no such mandate however large his parliamentary majority. It was an abuse of human rights.
0
0
@Andrew Spooner
#43
Andrew, while I agree with most of your analysis and ceratinly understand your frustration with the Bangkok liberals / middle class, I think your political conclusions are inconsistent.
You rightfully point out that the red shirts are more than clients, but have formed an alliance with Thaksin because they share SOME interests. Or, in other words, because they don’t have much choice than to bet their luck on the lesser evil.
You rightfully point out that the Bangkok liberals should better join this alliance to promote a meaningful democracy instead of giving in to their socio-cultural misgivings.
Why is this logic then a one-way street? Instead of blaming and shaming the likes of Sunai and Pavin, why don’t invite them to this grand alliance for change?
When the grand elite status quo coalition comes into full effect, there is no more room for shadow boxing.
0
0
Longway, c.46
Amsterdam is not Thaksin.
0
0
Marek
Absolutely, yes, more than happy to invite likes of Pavin and Sunai.
But, from how I understand it, when these “liberals” (and I don’t necessarily mean these two figures personally) do interact with the grassroots they tend to talk down to them. They tend to come across to the grassroots in just the same way as the Dems or Salims do. And this is why I wonder if the “liberals” feel as threatened by the grassroots Red Shirts as the other “elites”. This might also explain why freedom of expression is such an important issue to the “liberals” while wider social justice ( e.g. healthcare, income distribution, political equality) and other structural issues (e.g constitution change, bringing army under civilian control) are less important.
In my view these “liberals” need to reach out and understand rather than seeking to be understood. I know, with almost certainty, they will be accommodated if they do.
0
0
Orinoco Woof Woof Blanco
Well aware of the War on Drugs and think it should be fully investigated the same as Tak Bai, Thammasat 1976, Krue Sai, 1992 etc. In fact I would ask why hasn’t it been?
Truth is that it was never purely Thaksin’s War on Drugs. Other important figures were involved in calling for the “war” and the lack of proper investigation – even when the coup government had the chance in 2006, as did the Dems from 2008 – points to a wider culpability in that “war”.
0
0
@Tom Hoy 53
Thaksin’s ploy is obviously working on you.
0
0
Er . . uh . . but so far the Nostitz, Spooner et al have not articulated their approval or disapproval of the ongoing ‘reconciliation cheques (but shut up)’ process and amnesty bill (for fugitive Thaksin and coup leader Sonthi) being rushed to Parliament.
What did the man say: ‘Unity before justice’? Me thinks Thailand will definitely get back Thaksin very soon, but definitely NOT justice and more definitely not unity either. What was that again Spooner about ‘fairly complex and nuanced Thaksin-Red Shirts relationship? Spooner had talked with the Red Shirts in prison, and many Red Shirts here and there . . . and Spooner should, being the journalist he prides himself to be, educate us on the ‘fairly complex and nuanced Thaksin & Reds relationship, please?
Now both General Prayuth and Abhisit Vejajiva had not changed their position that justice must take its course . . . and a full inquiry (into everyone’s roles including their own) pertaining to the April-May2010 Red/Black riots and military crackdown should go ahead. And the majority of Red Shirts and many of their leaders (not the Red Shirt Supremo Thaksin of course) are/were demanding for the same thing – – a full inquiry-investigation, judicial/parliamentary scrutiny, the works so that justice for the victims will be served, and the malevolent elements identified and prosecuted. Naaaaah said Thaksin & Yingluck: Unity before Justice it is going to be (do you want your cartoon size cheques or not? the implied threat).
I read that Col. Romklao’s (the officer-gentleman shot by a Red/Black assasin) family will be entitled to the reconciliation cheque. Will Gen. Khattiya’s (Black Shirt leader and Thaksin’s assassins-in-charge during April-May2010 arson/mayhem) family get their reconciliation cheque too?
And such questions go on as to who should be entitled and who should be locked up.
So what says you Spooner, Nostitz & co.?
0
0
#55 Andrew Spooner
“Truth is that it was never purely Thaksin’s War on Drugs. Other important figures were involved in calling for the “war” and the lack of proper investigation – even when the coup government had the chance in 2006, as did the Dems from 2008 – points to a wider culpability in that “war”.”
That is true which is why I was very careful how I articulated my words.
I am still interested for you to explain further your reference to some sort of cabal of Thai ‘Bangkok liberals’…. Sure there are plenty of liberals in Bangkok because it is so big…. But there are plenty elsewhere as well…. Furthermore you are right that they are generally not those who are now fashionably referred to as ‘grassroots’ people… Both in ’76 and ’92 the dissident movements were generally urban middle class driven. In ’76 the university based movement was by definition pretty middle class. The history of dissent post 1946 in Thailand is largely a middle class one. And indeed the Krathing Daeng who perpetrated so much brutality against democracy protesters in ’76 were actually very largely actually ‘grassroots’ people and some reappeared with some bravado as Red guards at Rajaprasong in 2010…..
So whilst there has been, and is continuing, a political awakening in Thailand (although it has been and still is vulnerable to hijacking by the same old cynical political players), the actual long term roots of protest (and the majority of dead protesters) have been from amongst the Thai liberals who you seem to see as a problem….. Fact is many of these old leftists around the country know their beans and many, many are deeply anti Thaksin…..
And as for that same generation of leftists who have allied themselves with Thaksin and the newer mercantile elites allied with him, like the hapless Thida who has an honorable background… They seem to be on the receiving end of endless snubs and humiliation at the hands of their erstwhile sponsors…. Which may be part of a newer awakening against the mercantile elite, and particularly the Thaksin dynasty, by some sections of the Red movement…. It is an interesting development.
0
0
“Vichai N”:
“So what says you Spooner, Nostitz & co.?”
Strange question.
My opinion on things isn’t really important, important is what people are saying. I think both of my recent stories
http://www.newmandala.org/2012/04/10/a-red-shirt-songkran-party-and-amnesty-thoughts/
http://www.newmandala.org/2012/04/23/songkran-in-cambodia-red-shirts-meet-thaksin/
had quite clear elements regarding this “reconciliation” process.
My personal opinion on this is in agreement with the majority of the people i have spoken with on this issue, be they Red, or Yellow – i think this form of “reconciliation” stinks. But they ones that have now agreed to “reconcile” will hardly care what this German writer/photographer thinks about this issue.
0
0
Yes Longway, I guess I’m part of the mindless zombie horde, one of the millions of dupes clutching their 500 baht notes, like the “hapless and honourable Thida”.
Just for the record, I criticized Thaksin for the murders of Kru Sae, the war on Drugs and Tak Bai in the letters pages of the Bangkok Post and The Nation when these events happened. The coup deprived me of the pleasure of seeing him thrown out of office legitimately and forced me to address the fact that he was the person that people elected. I support democracy not Thaksin./
0
0
Yes, yes. Yes. And yes!
But where is all the discussion about educating the masses in order to ensure they have agency? Every discussion about the patron system appears to be limited to the tiny handful of patrons who are wielding the masses at the time.
I agree the ammat are responsible for creating the problem with their generic aristocratic idiocy. But the incapacity to learn the lessons from historical inequality & the endless failure of the ‘beneficiaries’ of Economic Apartheid to appreciate that they are manufacturing the exploitability that will be their inevitable undoing, is ongoing!
Thaksin has never been about self-determination. He’s not interested in giving the masses agency. He just lies to their faces with endless patronising insults whilst simultaneously bludgeoning his way past every obstacle with the proceeds of his crafty self-serving management of the noisy till. Yet every time a patron hijacks the masses with a new imprinted image of stick (fear, violence & terror) & carrot (insulting ‘treats’ to nibble & choke on); so long as they’re ‘anti-establishment’, they’re widely supported by those who should know better than to blindly support yet another new master, always the same as the old.
I want every single person thinking for themSelves, because I am Selfish and I want all my options available. Patrons take blocs of millions out of play, turning them into automatons & clones; whilst the discussions endlessly focus on individuals at the apex of the corrupted pyramid scheme, who just lie and lie and patronise and insult the masses they have bought to own.
Everyone seems disturbingly focused on ignoring the tell-tale signs of manipulation & imprinting and patronage which suggest “people power” has been hijacked yet again by another individual. They call it democracy when a new overlord scoops up the pot of vassals to wield as they please; they talk up “the peoples” political savvy as if they were unaware of the continual, endless washing of “the peoples” minds with lies & insulting rhetoric, contradictions, broken promises and more.
Until the masses are educated to act in their own best interests, the insane game of exploitation will spin around…and around…and around…and isn’t it time we got off this stupid patronising, self-defeating, miserable ride already?
Do you really believe this is happening? I’m a little cynical but I see a lot of children being bred to please (i.e. bred for exploitation).
0
0
Even Sondhi, Chamlong & the Yellow Shirts do NOT want to be ‘amnestied’! Red Shirts leaders (save Thaksin/Yingluck/Jatuporn/Nattawut et al), Yellow Shirts leaders, the military generals, Abhivsit & the Democrats are insisting that justice should follow its course . . . every party/player implicated in the 2010 Red/Black shirts riots and military crackdown should submit themselves to full judicial/parliamentary inquiry, and, prosecuted if found of any criminal wrong doing. The people of Thailand, it seems, demand: Justice before unity. With justice, and the restoration of the rule of law, through this painful process of full inquiry into the year2010 tragedy, will Thailand be purged. Then unity eventually will follow.
The ‘reconciliation checks’, the ‘amnesty bill’ … the people of Thailand could see through it as a farce to allow one Thaksin Shinawatra and another General Sonthi to elude/evade scrutiny and justice.
0
0
@TM 60
You used my name in a post. Why? What has any of what you said got to do with anything I raised? I made an observation about how RA’s speech can be interpreted and provided an example with an independent link a supports my belief, you return with a rant that has nothing to do with me.
All I see is emotional hyperbole with no rational connection to anything I have said. You have no idea what I think about any issue outside our discussion. I don’t think there is anything more to say to you.
0
0
ted paulson (71), Life for the huge population of east Asia is getting better at an unprecedented rate. Thaksin, unattractive as he may be, is a small part of that phenomenon, which is one of the greatest and most gratifying events in human history. Thaksin is an opportunist riding on a tide of hope and human energy. But compare him, and his friendly outlook towards Thailand’s neighbours, with the reactionaries mired in hatred not only for him, but for everything that that threatens the old Thai nationalist slave/military order. Appreciate the complexity, irony, and strong ground for optimism in the situation, and don’t be blinded by cynicism!
0
0
I find K Voranai’s essay in today’s Bangkok Post a very thoughtful analysis of the situation. K Sondhi and K Chamlong’s reactivation in another Post story is disturbing, but it’s hard to argue with their point about the rule of law. Their demonstration on Wednesday and the next meeting of the UDD on Saturday without a call in — the times continue to be interesting.
0
0
Unity is the wrong objective for reconcilion – at least in the way it is being interpreted in the Thai discourse “unity as harmony under (traditional) common values”. Besides the obvious status quo interests behind this approach, there is an cultural unease with conflict, which is being associated with desease, decay, doom.
Thailands vibrant society needs exactly the opposite: the acknowledgement that conflict is the norm of a pluralist society. Thus, mechanisms are needed to mediate conflict, and continuously negotiate solutions that can satisfy divergent interests and bind together people with different values and ways of life.
The political conflict, as dangerous as it may be, opened space for divergency, and created fora for deliberation for people who have never before been part of the political process.
Why is it so hard to see this as an important step towards structural democratization? Because it is associated with the opportunity structure that allowed it to unfold: the elite conflict between Thaksin and the powers that be. And those who oppose Thaksin for underdstandable reasons cannot acknowledge that anything good came out of this decade of conflict.
Could we PLEASE move on? Lets say it loud and clear: Thaksin is an self-interested actor with authoritarian tendencies who is responsible for atrocities in the past. He did not, and will not promote democracy and social justice. He did not mean and will not mean to empower the poor, the marginal, the periphery. However, exactly that happened as an unintended side effect of the elite conflict that forced him to cater to his base.
The real issue now is (to finally come back to Veerayooth’s article) that this window of opportunity for democratization is closing under the elite rapprochement. The very space that the conflict opened up will soon be sealed by a grand elite coalition.
Again, without a real change agent, there will be no structural change. The inability of “progressive” and “liberal” forces alike to build an alliance is the main obstacle for this authoritarian backlash.
That is why I find this red-yellow/ lower class-middle class/ center-periphery bickering so counterproductive and annoying. It takes attention from the real challenge, and helps those with no interest in democratic change to uphold the status quo.
0
0
An interesting analysis except the last part of what the liberals can be expected to help.
Honestly, rather should it be called a compromise game, a re-bargaining game is more appropriate. By this stage, all the dubious political fake shows are revealed with their purported function — glue the ostensible crack between Thaksin and the long-entrenched political establishment for a new power arrangement.
Yet it is hard to claim if either side really compromises that much. Loss is definitely involved in the negotiation. However, ambitions of both Thaksin and amarts never cease to swell. The losses in this sense become the necessary cost for future security.
With regard to the timing, I don’t think Thaksin decided on the timing solely due to the increasingly pricy ‘transaction cost’. Monetary foundation of Thaksin has never been severely crippled in the past years. He saw opportunities to return and continue with his political pursuit after the ammarts’ moral credits experienced decline among many Thais. Thaksin knew the ammarts wanted the political game to retreat from the streets as eagerly as he wanted to wield the power stick again. His return and the re-invetion of power balance can help the ammarts.
On the other hand, Thaksin has a thin chance to achieve his aspiration with the presence of all the political machinery of ammarts including the military, the PAD, the Democrats, and the utterly vicious media. Hence, Thaksin also needs endorsement from the establishment.
A mutual needing relation bonds them together and enables such a re-bargaining game.
0
0
bunny: “His [Thaksin’s] return and the re-invention of power balance can help the ammarts.”
There is probably lurking here a principle regarding the perpetuation and renewal of the Thai state in which seeming opposites get incorporated into the system eventually allowing the system to progress and move on which Burma never seemed able to do at least until now (like the immune system of the mammalian body or similar mechanisms supporting organic growth in long-lived trees (like the Bodhi tree)). Whether it is the socialist monk whose photo now graces the desks of government officials or the radical ideas of gun-toting jungle dwelling revolutionary Jit Phumisak that are now taught in courses with his image and life being enshrined in the minds of others, or coup-leading generals who ultimately failed, were exiled and finally returned to their home and finally enshrined in a gigantic funeral urn in the family compound where they eaked out their last corporeal days, Thai history seems to repeat the idea of “let bygones be bygones” or “live and let live” or “lets get on with the show” , can even see the red-shirts getting official approval, endorsement and eventual incorporation into the system 🙂
0
0
Marek Cziobel
I have raised the issue you describe several times – why aren’t the “progressives” and “liberals” seeking to a) leverage power b) become active in a genuine political process c) organise themselves effectively rather than as a random series of individual acts.
You’re absolutely 100% right that the present moment presents an opportunity to “move on” but that far too many are being quickly reduced back into the “red” v “yellow” dichotomy. Nitirat offered some hope regarding LM but where are similar voices on wider issues such a civilian control of the army, social justice, democratisation etc etc?
In my view this leaves the Red Shirts as still the only act in town. They are not “Thaksin”, they are not neo-fascist PAD, they are not elite PR like the Dems and they are pretty open and accessible.
They choose to be aligned with Thaksin and the middle class liberals, leftists and others who claim to be progressives who look down on them will be alienated from the Red Shirts long before the Red Shirts are alienated from Thaksin.
0
0
(c49): “Thursday the huge crass cartoon-size reconciliation checks begun.”
They’re actually compensation cheques – but I, too, found the photo-op presentation of a placard-sized cheque really incongruous. What has become the norm for donor-self-promoting charity events as well as lottery/pools scheme marketing exercises seems (to me) wholly inappropriate to paying out compensation for death, injury etc. Compounding the woeful impression of “you’re so lucky to be getting this”, one picture I saw actually included a placard-sized lottery ticket presented with the cheque….. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/294923/lawsuit-furore-mars-compo-ceremony
(c57): “…the ongoing ‘reconciliation cheques (but shut up)’ process…”
Again, they’re compensation cheques….. However, the “but shut up” assertion deserves attention. There has been a lot of critical comment about a clause included in the compensation acceptance agreement preventing the recipient from pursuing a lawsuit. As I understand it, this clause relates only to not proceeding with a lawsuit for (further) government compensation – i.e. it doesn’t block a lawsuit at least against individuals (e.g. the then office-holders) to establish responsibility for wrongful death, injury etc. Nor does it interfere with – let alone block – ongoing calls for “…a full inquiry-investigation, judicial/parliamentary scrutiny, the works so that justice for the victims will be served, and the malevolent elements identified and prosecuted.”
Does anyone actually know different?
0
0
I believe ‘Cartoon Checks’ is apt. Yes they are NOT ‘Reconciliation Checks’ because even those receiving the checks were openly displaying embarrassment, hesitancy, resentment (at being bribed/coerced) and later on guilt then anger.
‘Cartoon Checks’ is apt. The Yingluck regime had NOT given any serious consideration to the victims . . . highlighting the ‘big million amounts’ to be dispensed (like a lottery win as SteveCM commented), the ‘generosity’ of Thaksin/Yingluck/PeauThai (hey people, the Thai taxpayers have NOT been consulted but their tax money dispensed in a b/s manner) and the implied threat shut-up-or-no-check.
Cartoon Checks is aprt. Where are very important from-the-heart speeches from Yingluck and her minister-designate that should underscore their mourning for the deaths, the blood shed, bones crushed and lives shattered by the May2010 tragedy? The moment for sober reflection and mourning on the occasion to compensate the victims and their families was missing . . . and its place, Yingluck chose to be absent and ask her minor minister to dispense the repugnant utterly crass Cartoon Checks.
Red Shirts are you going to continue to take this abuse, this insult and the continuing charade/deception of Thaksin and Yingluck?
But Spooner could explain this ‘fairly complex and nuanced’ Thaksin-Red-Shirts relationship, I am sure.
0
0
SteveCM
Your comments on the clauses the compensation payments are subject are spot on.
I should also add, on another point, an amnesty is only recognised by domestic Thai law. It won’t be recognised internationally or by, for example, the ICC. In fact an amnesty actually strengthens the hand for ICC involvement as it shows that Thailand is unable to investigate itself.
0
0
@Andrew Spooner
#69
Unfortunately, your pessimistic view seems to be the most realistic option. Even if you look at Nitirat, the same disturbing “go-it-alone” approach: instead of forming an alliance, they are paranoid not to be associated with anyone (not only with Thaksin/ the red shirts). The result of this struggle then was a given.
BTW, in the light of the Ombudsman disturbing assessment than “no law could overrule the Constitutional Court”, I find it harder and harder to tolerate this nonchalent approach towards the Law. I am not even talking about judicialization of politics- in those cases it is clear that the law is bend to get the political result needed by those in the shadows. More annoying is the tendency to drag every decision by any side to the Courts, but even that is a mere consequence of the overall legitimacy crisis and the conservative resistance to representative democracy (“Parliamentary Dictatorship”). What I am referring to is the use of legal argumentation in a way that insults even a Law school undergraduate….
0
0
Interesting that Yingluck didn’t show up for the photo-op. I wonder if she was off doing the land deal for the king. Whether that was the case or not, her priorities seem to say a great deal.
0
0
c71
“Cartoon checks is apt” ( x 3) etc.
I’ve already expressed my view of the style of the payment process. But that shouldn’t distract from the substance – that, if an Abhisit administration still had its way, then plainly there would still be no compensation at all. The contrast of its approach has been clear: round up as many Reds as possible and detain them without bail or trial for more than a year on what have turned out in all too many instances to be utterly spurious pretexts – with case after case eventually thrown out for want of any evidence worth the name. No agonised hand-wringing from Vichai N about any of that, as I recall.
As to stuff like “…the Thai taxpayers have NOT been consulted…”etc? At risk of stating the obvious, this government was duly elected by a popular mandate (again something of a stark contrast with its predecessor) that produced a clear majority in parliament – which duly voted on and passed all the necessary legislation for these compensation payments. But I don’t expect any of that trifling detail to deter Vichai N from continuing to wax indignant about the fact of the payments – even while now dressing it up (however unconvincingly) as condemnation of the manner in which they were made.
As I commented during last year’s floods, there was a (to me) decidely uncomfortable/inappropriate emphasis on glowingly promoting the worthiness of who was giving what for flood relief – including authorities who had a straightforward and obvious responsibility to be providing it. This “patron” factor seems to be all but endemic in Thai culture. I doubt we’ll see it disappear from individual, corporate or institutional “giving” – but it really is long overdue that it at least became less blatant where those with a statutory duty of care are concerned.
0
0
Marek
I wouldn’t say I am completely pessimistic but the liberals are as guilty of throwing away an opportunity for real change as any Thaksin follower and this is why I can’t take their criticisms of a “compromise” very seriously.
As I state elsewhere on New Mandala, the political/LM prisoners I met and spoke to – people involved at the coal face of the struggle – are far more aware of the need to form the broadest coalition as possible than those sitting in the academy or an air-con NGO/newspaper office.
0
0
Why this obsession with the “liberals” ? – other power contentions are far more important, eg. between the periphery and the centre, especially between the peripheral military and the central, Bangkok military.
0
0
Chris Beale,
Yes that is interesting. Tell us more please.
Thanks
0
0