New Mandala

23 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jon Fernquest // Dec 1, 2006 at 7:54 pm

  Sounds like there is some precedent for this from medieval Europe, namely estates of the realm:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Estate

  Come to think of it, most historical Southeast Asian states really didn’t go through a magna-carta stage, did they? Or Europe’s tortuously long “class war” or maybe they did? Anyway, yet more questions to ask of the good ol’ historical sources.

• 2 Jon Fernquest // Dec 1, 2006 at 8:50 pm

  Reading the Nation article is very reminiscent of what you read in Michael Nelson’s field work dissertation published by White Lotus (political patronage and godfathers, a campaign worker gets shot dead during the campaigning) and the PKI yearbooks (stressing voter education programmes).

  There are a lot of commonalities with the west though. When local politicians start telling you before an election that you’re going to get hooked up to a government run water supply, and the wells stopped running last year during the drought, you’re going to be favorably inclined towards the incumbent. This sort of thing is found everywhere under democracy and could hardly qualify as vote buying.

• 3 patiwat // Dec 2, 2006 at 12:29 am

  Partial non-electoral democracy was the driving philosophy behind the Transitory Clauses of the 1932 democracy. Since Thai people at the time were so uneducated in general and particularly about democracy, the Parliament would be half chosen until at least half population had completed primary education (or for ten years).

  It seems that after all these years, and 95% literacy rate, that Thais are still too stupid for democracy.

• 4 polo // Dec 2, 2006 at 1:59 am

  It’s a funny circle, this thing about readiness for Democracy: the people have been educated enough to demand it time and time again since 1932, but then they are not educated enough for it because it is messy in their hands. But no one says they are educated/not educated enough for military dictatorship (asked for or not) and no one says they are educated/not educated enough for an absolute monarchy.

  So military dictatorhsips and monarchies are only appropriate for idiots, and those people in favor are calling all their Thai mates idiots.

  What I wonder is, is all this up-is-down justification going on directed at the Thai people or at foreigners?

• 5 polo // Dec 2, 2006 at 2:09 am

  Someone needs to point out to Chaiwat Bunnag that rural people use MPs to fight imperious bureaucrats (and nauseating, condescending intellectuals). Anyone visiting the office of a rural MP would notice the line of people outside looking for help, not just handouts. Of course when the MPs don’t serve them the people then have no choice but to go to the streets.

  I didn’t like the idea that urban people “fear” the rural masses but it is beginning to sound like it.

• 6 Jon Fernquest // Dec 2, 2006 at 4:10 am

  “It seems that after all these years, and 95% literacy rate, that Thais are still too stupid for democracy.”

  If you took an American or an Australian and plopped him or her down in Thailand a week before the election, I think they would have been hard-pressed to know exactly what they were voting for too. In the end they’d probably end up voting the same way as all the other people in the neighborhood, as a sort of default.

  Thaksin revolutionised politics. Before Thaksin there were many parties but few well-defined policy platforms. One can acknowledge this while, at the same time, acknowledging that he did a lot of things to alienate a lot of people, as documented in Pasuk’s biography and this Bangkok Post article from the analysis section a few weeks ago:

  http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/shin_sale_and_coup/the_postcoup_search_for_new_th.php#article

  I know the weekend before the election this year, I went back tto the provinces from where I work in Bangkok. On Saturday we drove up to the waterfall and the street was lined with signs that almost threatened people that they would lose their 30 baht health insurance if they didn’t vote TRT. At least that’s what all the local people I talked to thought after they read it. These signs were very manipulative and, who knows, maybe against election laws. Anyway, by no means would I call any of the Thai people I know, “stupid”. People lead peaceful and comfortable lives, and this is truly smart.

• 7 Johpa // Dec 2, 2006 at 7:28 am

  It is interesting how everyone dances around the ethnic issues here, politely stated as urban vs rural. Or am I one of the few who thinks that Skinner got his assimilations arse backwards?

• 8 nganadeeleg // Dec 2, 2006 at 8:19 am

  Jon, nice summay article in you link.

  Some robber barons became philanthropic, so at least we have something to look forward to from Thaksin.

• 9 Huh // Dec 2, 2006 at 12:23 pm

  Jon, I think patiwat’s final comment was supposed to be ironic.

  Re the stupidity of the electorate, how many so-called democracies can you point to where the intelligence of the voters could be called into question ? No prizes for guessing which one springs to mind first.

• 10 Republican // Dec 2, 2006 at 3:39 pm

  Reply to Patiwat: I know you were being facetious, but the problem is not with Thais generally, but Thai academics, who are “too stupid for democracy”. What this shows is the almost total moral bankcruptcy of the Thai academic establishment.

• 11 Jon Fernquest // Dec 2, 2006 at 4:03 pm

  I don’t think it’s as much rural vs. urban as “have money” vs. “don’t have money”. When someone in a village makes money they send their kid to the provincial capital or the regional center or Bangkok to get educated.

  Money is one way of gaining respect, another is to work for the government. Two examples: As a Thai teacher would you rather earn 30,000 baht teaching (and often gratuitously baby-sitting rich kids) or earning 16,000 serving as a Ka-Ratchakan (serving His Majesty) at a university? In the later, the government paternalistically takes care of you and you have respect and standing in the community, you’re also teaching poor students on scholarship as well as rich ones so you can feel that you are working for the betterment of the country, even if your paycheck is rather small.

  Some of Thaksin’s schemes for bridging the rural-urban money -no money divide did not work, because they failed to take into account people’s need for self-respect. For instance, his urban maid training program. Is someone going to give up the independence of farming that their family has been involved in for many generations and live in the dirty city, working at wages that give them a standard of living way below what they had in the countryside, and also subject themselves to all sorts of demeaning things, like not getting paid on time or at all, having your personal liberty severely restricted, and if you’re an attractive young female, warding off the master of the house which is a major problem everywhere for maids, from Hong Kong, to Saudi Arabia, to Singapore.

  His Majesty’s self-sufficiency concept buys people self-respect and that’s important part of the equation. Hopefully, more industry, education, and money will flow out to the countryside, and I bet rural folk will become more tied into the system and become better voters as a result.

• 12 Republican // Dec 2, 2006 at 4:56 pm

  Self-Sufficiency in the Julanont Family (From ฟ้าเดียวกัน webboard: http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=517

  ทรัพย์สินของ พันเอกหญิง คุณหญิง จิตรวดี จุลานนท์ คู่สมรสของ พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์ จุลานนท์ มีมูลค่ารวมกันทั้งหมด 65,566,363.11 บาท โดยรายละเอียดเหล่านี้มาจากการแจ้งบัญชีทรัพย์สินหลังการเข้ารับตำแหน่งนายกฯ ของ พล.อ.สุรยุทธ์

  ด้านล่างนี้เป็นรายการเฉพาะแก้วแหวนเงินทอง

  1. แหวนเพชรกลม 1,408,000.00
  2. ต่างหูเพชรกลม 2 เม็ด 1,500,000.00
  3. แหวนเพชรกลม 900,000.0
  4. ต่างหูเพชรกลม 2 เม็ด 301,000.00
  5. แหวนเพชรกลม 350,000.00
  6. ต่างหูเพชรกลมมีก้าน 2 เม็ด 240,000.00
  7. แหวนมรกตสี่เหลี่ยมล้อมเพชร 210,000.00
  8. ต่างหูมรกตสี่เหลี่ยมล้อมเพชร 2 เม็ด 358,000.00
  9. แหวนเพชรรูปหัวใจล้อมนิล 514,000.00
  10. ต่างหูเพชรรูปหัวใจล้อมนิล 2 เม็ด 334,000.00
  11. แหวนรูป Pear Shape 900,000.00
  12. แหวนไพลินรูปสี่เหลี่ยมมีเพชรด้านข้าง 390,000.00
  13. จี้บุศราคัมรูปหัวใจล้อมเพชร 255,000.00
  14. แหวนแดงเพชรรูปไข่ 3 เม็ด 450,000.00
  15. ต่างหูทับทิมรูปหยดน้ำล้อมเพชร 275,000.00
  16. สร้อยข้อมือเพชร 30 เม็ด 395,000.00
  17. สร้อยคอเพชรมาคี 750,000.00
  18. สร้อยคอไพลินล้อมเพชร 217,000.00
  19. สร้อยคอทับทิมพม่ารูปหัวใจล้อมเพชร 740,000.00
  20. นาฬิกา Piaget รูปหัวใจ 1,500,000.00
  21. นาฬิกา FRANK Muller 900,000.00
  22. นาฬิกา Patek Phillippe 700,000.00
  23. เข็มขัดทอง มีหัวเข็มขัดฝังเพชร 340,000.00
  24. กระเป๋าทอง 230,000.00
  รวมรายการแก้วแหวนเงินทอง 14,157,000.00 บาท

  รวมทรัพย์สินอื่นๆ ทั้งหมด 65,566,363.11 บาท

• 13 patiwat // Dec 2, 2006 at 7:43 pm

  Republican, regarding the attitudes of most of academia, I agree with you 100%.

• 14 anon // Dec 2, 2006 at 7:51 pm

  Actions speak louder than words.

  The King might preach self-sufficiency, but he himself is a billionare, and the Queen is a walking display case for jewelry. She’s literally a shining example for the Thai elite to follow.

• 15 Vichai N. // Dec 2, 2006 at 9:19 pm

  Well I never thought those old academics can be take so seriously and terrify so many in this forum.

  All these social critics would be searching for the magic constitutional formula that would prevent a return of a Thaksin wannabe.

  But in the end good sense should prevail in the quest for a Thai constitution that would respond to the wishes of the Thai people. Hope today is my only ally after Thaksin’s corrupt and illegitimate rule that provoked the martial law in the first place.

  Will the devil we knew be replaced by a worse demon? I don’t think so. Thaksin was ONE devil in a league by himself.

• 16 Bystander // Dec 3, 2006 at 4:27 am

  Thai academia is in a sorry state. So many academics, so few scholars. So many intellectuals, so little intelligence.

  There is no incentive for academic rigor. No accountability. No competition. Once you’re hired, you’re hired for life. It’s automatic tenure.

  And yet, imagining myself in their shoes, I doubt I will do any better. Maybe when young, and motivated,… but as I get older, the futility of it all, the lazy intellectual climate, the pressing needs for kids and family, career advancement,.. if I start off as a nobody armed with naught but my degree, and not independently wealthy on my own, would I not be tempted to carry water for whatever set of people in power at the moment? How else am I going to step up the social ladder? pay off that condo I bought? sent my kids to decent (ie. private) schools?

  Anyway,… if you look at the founding purposes of all the old universities in Thailand, you may not be surprised. These are not found for higher learning and such niceties, it’s plainly a factory to manufacture bureaucrats for the expanding government. The name even said it so in the beginning. I think they have done very well in that regard (churning out lots and lots of bureaucrats with good govt. job placement). The quality is another story. It’s secondary.

• 17 Jotman // Dec 3, 2006 at 6:38 pm

  Posted some thoughts relating to the “Thai-Style” democracy issue on my blog recently.

• 18 Republican // Dec 3, 2006 at 6:59 pm

  Yes, in other words the intellectual arm of the “servants of the king”. Which explains the support most of the academics gave to the royalist coup. In fact, from the wai khru to the graduation ceremony the universities can be seen as just another cog in the monarchy’s formidable propaganda machine. Witness the disgraceful scene of university rectors and other academics now sitting in the junta’s appointed Legislative Council and receiving a fat pay cheque every month for the privilege; one would have thought that there was enough work to do in reforming their own universities than to waste their precious time legitimizing a royalist-military regime by their presence in a legislative body that ultimately has absolutely no power nor mandate. The money must have been just too good to refuse. And they say the politicians are corrupt!

  As with so many things in Thailand, the name and the thing are not the same. A university is not a university – at least in the sense of being a place for the free and independent pursuit of knowledge. This explains the extreme reluctance of most academics to engage with the English language scholarly world, because this would open them up to global competition. But in their own system they can be “king”. Proficiency in English is merely a means of gaining an advantage in Thai academic circles, rather than to engage with the global community of scholars. It is no wonder the academics will do whatever it takes to preserve their privileges, including denying the Thai people the right to elect their own government. Thailand, truly the land of kings.

• 19 Vichai N. // Dec 3, 2006 at 10:40 pm

  Republican you truly are Pissed aren’t you? Well that comes with the territory of supporting a corrupt and a truly manipulative divisive man, Thaksin Shinawatra.

  But how in the world Republican could you defend Thaksin Shinawatra as a model of a democratic leader? That I would like to hear from you.

  Thaksin Shinawatra and Ferdinand Marcos were exact clones. They tell the whole world they are defenders of democracy while they abuse the constitution to perpetuate their corrupt rules..

• 20 anon // Dec 4, 2006 at 7:01 pm

  After the Rector of Thammasat University became a running dog to the junta and its puppet parliament, I stopped paying my dues to the Thammasat Economics Association and refused to make any contributions to University activities.

  When I graduated from Thammasat, all students made an oath: they would project the Nation, the King, Religion, and the Constitution. When the Rector became a puppet of the junta that wripped up the Constitution, he lost my respect forever. He’s just another academic, and Thammasat is just another school.

• 21 Vichai N. // Dec 5, 2006 at 11:42 pm

  I dub thee Anon Thaksin’s running dog because Anon you defend Thaksin’s corrupt kleptocracy and Thaksin’s extrajudicial ways.

  Anon you graduated from one of Thailand’s preeminent institution and you actually took the Thammasart oath to protect the Nation, the King, Religion and the Constitution . . so why in the hell are you still carrying out this love affair with that kleptocrat Thaksin Shinawatra? Thaksin Shinawatra was the very enemy you took your oath at Thammsart for.

  Now write 20 formal letters of apology to the Thammasart rector as your act of contrition and next time take a worthy aka instead of your sneaky name ‘Anon’.

• 22 anon // Dec 6, 2006 at 5:49 am

  Vichai, what is wrong with you?

  Read my post – it didn\’t mention Thaksin at all. It was about the oath that all graduates of Thammasast take upon graduation, but that the Rector himself didn\’t follow. If you agree, sign the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/domedang/petition.html

  Every word out of you is Thaksin – Thaksin – Thaksin, even if the topic isn\’t about Thaksin at all. Get over it already!

  We know exactly how you feel about Thaksin and the War on Drugs. You don\’t have to repeat it with every single  post.

  [Note: this comment has been edited slightly to moderate some of the language.]

• 23 hpboothe // Dec 7, 2006 at 8:10 pm

  “those silly villagers seem to have the crazy idea that “democracy is equivalent to elections”

  This is indeed a crazy idea. How about we had an election where 51% of the people decided that it was perfectly OK to throw rocks at Andrew Walker. Are you comforable with that democratic outcome, Mr. Walker? I’m not.

  Democracy is NOT equivalent to elections. Democracy is about “self-rule” and it applies in two sometimes contradictiory spheres – the individual and the group. The group sphere of self-rule has an electoral component, yet even here it is not absolute. Most nominal democracies are not run through elections alone; can you name any state run exclusively through universal suffrage referenda? Since that is not practical, we use republican systems of representation.

  At the individual level, self-rule is embedded in individual civil rights, as without that the notion of democracy is meaningless. Civil rights and electoral outcomes often clash, just as electoral outcomes in smaller vs larger groups can often clash, as with separatist movements with strong local support but little national support.

  Jingoistic comments about silly villagers may make you feel smart, Mr. Walker, but it hardly adds to serious discussion.

  HPBoothe

Leave a Comment