New Mandala

58 responses so far ↓

• 1 anon // Dec 6, 2006 at 7:02 pm

  Something tells me that the 2007/2008/? constitution will see a higher minimum age for MPs and Cabinet Ministers, say, 40. After all, if the King has given such explicit advise, who would dare not follow it?

• 2 nganadeeleg // Dec 6, 2006 at 8:58 pm

  I’m not 79 and have not had a lifetime of having to be a stabilising influence on wayward, greedy, corrupt, power hungry politicians (and would be politicians), but I agree with the King…. ‘politics is boring’.

• 3 Vichai N. // Dec 6, 2006 at 11:45 pm

  Boring politics is preferable to divisive politics, and we all know who espoused the latter.

• 4 Republican // Dec 7, 2006 at 8:11 pm

  I think we are all bored with the authoritarian royalist politics of the last 50 years. Thankfully it is coming to an end. The royalists seem to be the only ones that can’t see it. If they took a peek outside their palaces to view the rest of the world they might be shocked. Or, if they knew how they could simply check out some of the Thai websites where there is amazing criticism of the royalist regime now.

  When I look at all these septagenarian and octogenarian royalist medelling in Thai politics it reminds me of Chuchok: old people who can not control their “kilet”, using tricks and violence to oppress the young. Remember what happened to Chuchok.

• 5 thanakarn // Dec 7, 2006 at 9:24 pm

  Republican why look at websites? Don’t you watch the TV?

  Those millions of yellow shirts, all clean-looking middle class faces were all cheering the Thai King: Long Live the King! on his 79th birthday tells the whole story of the Thai people’s deep affection for their King.

  But King Bhumibhol we have to accept is a hard act to follow and the monarchy would really find it difficult to stay relevant after King Bhumibhol.

• 6 Republican // Dec 7, 2006 at 10:13 pm

  No different to the millions of Chinese Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, or the poor North Koreans, blindly following their authoritarian leader because of all the propaganda and media control, crying out their leader’s idiot slogans.

  No I don’t watch the TV. Why? That’s the medium that the royalists have most control over. What the pictures of those millions of faces tells us is the success of the royalists’ propaganda, and the lese majeste law. Why keep this law, if the king is so popular? Obviously they are terrified of criticism, and rightly so.

  Talking about websites, can you imagine this topic ever being talked about on TV: สถาบันกษัตริย์ส่งเสริมvsเป็นอุปสรรคกับประชาธิปไตย? Now, check it out this website: http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/board/showboard.php?QID=42192&TID=6

  As the King said in his speech last year, “the King can do wrong”. We must believe what the King says.

• 7 Republican // Dec 7, 2006 at 10:18 pm

  A hard act to follow? We certainly hope no-one will follow his acts. By the way, I had to laugh when the King rambled on as usual about his water control projects in his speech the other night. 60 years of trying and he still can’t prevent Bangkok from flooding! And in Thailand they praise him as a genius?! Abolish lese majeste and find out the real truth behind the monarchy.

• 8 Vichai N. // Dec 8, 2006 at 2:30 am

  Republican you are ranting! Who is your genius Republican – Andrew Walker I presume?

  That is the problem with spiteful people who do not watch or read the relevant news. They make up their minds on superficial knowledge, then they just make it up period. Anyone who would mistake those clearly clean-faced well-dressed millions of Thais who lined up to cheer their King for the Red Guards must either be blind or just plainly malicious.

  But that was just the middle-class Republican. If you review many other TV coverage of the Thai King, you would even be more amazed at the sincere affection shown by even more and more millions of villagers and the poor for their King. Oh – I forgot you are repelled by Thai TV!

  You try to draw people to your malicious websites. Futile man! Futile.

• 9 thanakarn // Dec 8, 2006 at 3:00 am

  What truth about the monarchy Republican? Now you can not be another Andrew Walker trying to promote Paul Handly’s book . . or are you?

• 10 Andrew Walker // Dec 8, 2006 at 7:16 am

  Dear Vichai and Thanakarn: when I make posts or comments to this site I do so under my own name. I do not assume other identities. I do not invent other characters to agree (or disagree) with me. What about you?

• 11 Bystander // Dec 8, 2006 at 8:14 am

  With all due respect, I think the royalist regime is not all bad, or rather wasn’t all bad, especially during the cold war era. However, Thailand is now like a full-grown adult, but the ancien regime is still insisting on babysitting like overprotective parents. Imagine if you have grown up, has a good job, can support yourself and then some, and your parents mess with everything you’re doing, meanwhile lecturing that by virtues of ages they are smarter, have more experiences, yada yada. It’s probably motivated by good intention, but you would still find it very patronizing, annoying, and this is not going to do good to the health of the relationship. I would think Thailand is best left to deal with this growing pains of democratization without such a drastic measure as a coup.

  One of of the key messages of Handley’s is that you’ve gotta think about the big picture, you know, the future. Good time cannot last forever. He’s concerned that Thai people won’t be able to cope with the inevitable changes.

  Anyway, maybe it’s just me, but Thai people collectively seems to have this interesting fatalistic habits of not planning much for the future beyond their next meals, so to speak. As such, we always take the easy way out, despite future cost.

• 12 nganadeeleg // Dec 8, 2006 at 9:10 am

  Republican : The king himself has said he will no longer take lese majeste seriously.
  You may laugh at the king, but at least he tries, and it is obvious he has a heart.
  You should save your malice for the heartless politicians who only serve themselves and their cronies.

  It’s interesting how Republican, Andrew etc paint the king as actively manipulating the political situation, rather than accept that he only gets involved when he forced to (to provide stability)

  The kings ‘politics is boring’ statement shows that he is reluctant to be involved, and would prefer to get on with other matters (if only the politicians would do the right thing and behave properly)

  I will admit there are some things surrounding the monarchy that bother me, such as the belief that he is semi-divine, and the crawling around in his presence.
  But those things appear to be promoted by others and not the king himself (It is clear that he does not consider himself semi-divine)

  It’s a pity that Republican, Andrew etc cannot be as critical of Thaksin and others of his ilk, as they are of the monarchy.

  Also, Andrew has shown a definite bias towards the rural poor and seems to see them through rose colored glasses. In my opinion, his academic analysis would be better served if he could see their flaws, as well as their charms.

• 13 Johpa // Dec 8, 2006 at 11:01 am

  Anyway, maybe it’s just me, but Thai people collectively seems to have this interesting fatalistic habits of not planning much for the future beyond their next meals, so to speak. As such, we always take the easy way out, despite future cost.

  Well Thailand is rather notorious as the “land of short time.”

  But I daresay Khun Republican, younger Thais have as much trouble controling their greed, the ability to “daap khilet”, as do more elderly Thais. I see little difference betweeen the older Royalist circles and any of the younger middle class Bangkok up and coming young turks. Everyone is posturing for their piece of the pie with the hopes of getting a bigger piece than the next guy. Its no different than when young kids play monopoly and form temporary alliances. And one of the players is the Palace, which also enters into alliances when it is to the benefit of its members. But I agree with Handley that at the moment there is a unique subplot as these same groups posture amongst themselves for the inevitable sucession.

  By the way, I just got the Handley book yesterday from the local library. I am only a chapter or two into it, but clearly Handley has read the English language anthropological literature and is using it as a historical base point.

  The first chapters present a fairly balanced view with both positive and critical observations of His Majesty and the larger Palace, and so far it is the larger Palace that is the focus. This is interesting to me as the only person I was able to speak to who is personally familiar with the Royal Family (the now semi-retired doyenne of Southeast Asian academic journalism JS) also spoke of the Thai Palace as being broader than the immediate Royal Family.

• 14 anon // Dec 8, 2006 at 4:44 pm

  If the King doesn’t take lese majesty seriously, then why are most conservative Thai people outraged at the accusations that Thaksin insulted the King?

  Why was such a silly charge like “Thaksin was plotting with the communists to overthrow the monarchy” given so much credibility by the coup-apologists?

  The answer is that the King doesn’t have to take lese majesty seriously – his “chlear’ers” take it seriously for him.

• 15 Republican // Dec 8, 2006 at 5:44 pm

  Whatever view one has of the Handley book the truly remarkable thing is that it is the ONLY critical biography of the king written in 60 years. How to explain this extraordinary neglect of the country’s most important political institution? One would think there is enough factual material to fill dozens of critical biographies: the death of his brother; the king’s refusal to intervene to stop the executions of the three royal pages who everyone knew were innocent; the king’s alliance with the authoritarian Sarit, and then his support of the Thanom-Praphat dictatorship; the building up of the Crown Property Bureau into a multi-billion baht conglomerate; his resurrection of the demeaning tradition of prostration abolished by Chulalongkorn 100 years earlier; the royal family’s involvement in the massacre of students at Thammasat in 1976 by royalist paramilitaries; his promotion of the idiotic self-sufficiency theory when his own family are in the same league as the Suharto children; and this is just the tip of the iceberg. In my view this neglect must count as one of the greatest failures of Thai Studies as a field of study. It is understandable in Thailand where lese majeste and the ideological regime that has been erected since Sarit makes rational discussion of the monarchy impossible. But not in the case of foreign scholars. Think of all the learned studies of the military in Thai politics, the military AS the major obstacle to democratization, when the true “problem” for Thai politics remains the same as it was in 1932: the monarchy. In this sense Thailand is no different from any other country that has had a monarchy, except that by a mixture of good fortune, circumstance, skill, and let’s face it, ruthlessness, Thailand’s monarchy survived and in fact augmented its power and wealth while others fell by the wayside. But unfortunately for some, Thailand is not on the planet Mars. This historical problem will have to be faced up to, sooner rather than later. For the last 50 years the monarchy’s poltical manipulations have been largely invisible. Perhaps this is the one positive result of the coup: finally the political role of the monarchy is coming under greater scrutiny.

  As for the “kilet” of the younger people, you may be right Johpa. But they do not represent themselves ad infinitum as “khon di” in the way that the gerontocracy does, who, one would think, have had a lifetime of trying to develop their self-control in order to restrain that kilet – completely unsuccessfully it seems. What you say about the self-interestedness of the middle class – or any class – is of course true, which is why the ballot box, not tanks with yellow ribbons, is the most legitimate means of expressing that self-interest politically.

• 16 Republican // Dec 8, 2006 at 5:58 pm

  Regarding lese majeste post-Thaksin, I see the junta fleeing for cover behind the monarchy at every turn. Someone should file a lese majeste charge against the junta. The latest example is their efforts to dissuade protesters from attending the 10 December (Constitution Day!) demonstration on the grounds, that Thais should remember that this is the 60th Jubilee. How dare the Thai people protest that their Constitution was ripped up by a royalist dictatorship! Next year they will say people shouldn’t protest because of the king’s 80th birthday. 2008 it will be something else. How long will this go on?

• 17 nganadeeleg // Dec 8, 2006 at 7:23 pm

  So much malice, Republican – not only for the institution, but also for the man.
  Obviously, you are not in Thailand (or if you are you must have to keep a lot bottled up, because I dont think you would last too long expressing those thoughts on the street – forget about lese majeste laws, you would never make it to the court)

  I am just thankful that Thaksin come on to the scene while the king is still alive, because the situation would have been much worse if Thaksin rose to power after the king was gone.

• 18 Republican // Dec 8, 2006 at 8:31 pm

  Not malice, historical fact. But your point that someone would not “last too long” in the street expressing such truths is precisely my argument: violence is used time and time again against anyone questioning the role of the monarchy in Thailand. Yes, you are right that people in Thailand must keep such feelings “bottled up”; maybe even those wearing yellow shirts, because they know what might happen to them if they opened the bottle. That is the perfect explanation for the lack of open criticism of the monarchy: people are too afraid. Thailand, kingdom of fear.

• 19 Vichai N // Dec 8, 2006 at 10:54 pm

  I did enjoy your posters Republican. The spite and malice comes out blatant and pure . . . no pussyfooting, no convoluted English.
  Hope you are having fun Republican . . . you appear to be so consumed by gloom and desperation.

  You have not truly explained your motives well Republican. Maybe you cannot even explain to yourself.

• 20 nganadeeleg // Dec 8, 2006 at 10:57 pm

  I suggest you have another look at history and try to imagine what would have happened during the periods of crises if the king was not available as a stabilising/uniting force (the last resort).

  Personally, I am generally not a fan of royalty, but I think overall this king has done a good job, given the nature of the the problems and people.

  OK, lets say you had a republic – who will provide stability when power hungry/corrupt/greedy politicians/military get out of control – what institution will replace the king ?
  What will be respected by the majority of the people as well as the elite?

  I’ll let you think of the best case scenarios, but worst case would be the emergence of a Saddam-like ruler, or a series of warlords battling for control.

  You are way off the mark comparing the King to Thaksin.
  Of course the King will do what he can to protect the institution – where else is the stability going to come from?
  Thaksin, on the other hand, seeks money and power for his own sake, not for the benefit of the country or it’s people.

• 21 Republic // Dec 9, 2006 at 2:58 am

  The simple fact is that 100 years ago most countries were monarchies, today only a handful remain. The most stable and prosperous countries have been those where the monarchy plays a purely symbolic role, a la “Finland Declaration”. But the king has never been content to play that role, and his successor is certainly never going to settle for such a role.

  Yes, the key is understanding the historical background to the monarchy’s political rise since 1947. The narrative of the king as a stabilizing influence that you describe is the one that is promoted by the royalists; the reason it has been so popular is that lese majeste has been so successful in stifling alternative narratives, such as the monarchy’s role in stunting Thailand’s democratic development. The simple fact is, the image of a monarchy above and uninvolved in politics is a fiction. You talk about crises: as Handley shows, 9 of the 11 coups – “crises” – since 1947 were in fact royalists coups: engineered to secure the political dominance of the monarchy-military political alliance. Enemies of the regime were ruthlessly dealt with; political opposition exiled or worse. One has to ask in 2006, is it right for the monarchy to be using the military – which in most countries is responsible for defending the country against external enemies – to ensure its political and economic dominance? You keep on about Thaksin’s wealth; why are you so blind to the far greater wealth of monarchy? To the corruption that surrounds the monarchy’s financial interests? To the monarchy’s authoritarian streak? By all means condemn corruption, but condemn it wherever it is found. And while we are on the subject of corruption, what greater corruption can there be than stealing from 60 million people the right to elect their government? This is precisely the corruption that the king has endorsed.

  I am wondering now what Thailand’s youth are thinking; their king has just told them that they are “inferior” to the elderly, and that the country will never grow unless the gerontocracy is in control. So he is basically saying they will need to wait another 50-60 years before they are eligible to be in positions of political leadership. This is no ordinary dictatorship. Thai-style dictatorship!

  Tell me honestly, when you see members of the royal family jaunting around the world every night on the TV at 8pm, at the same time as the king is lecturing the villagers, who hardly have enough money to eat three square meals a day, and to pay their children’s school fees, and to buy the medicine for a sick grandmother, to adhere to his self-sufficiency theory, you are telling me this is a system that is worth preserving?

• 22 Bystander // Dec 9, 2006 at 7:17 am

  Well, if young people is not needed in Thailand, they will go where their skills and their energy is more appreciated.

  As a young people myself, I think we’re doomed. Or maybe not that bad, we’re just loser.

  Just look at the new budget, a cut for the ICT and Science ministry and a big boost for defense!

  To the “old” people who thinks Thailand has made it quite well: yeah, maybe, given that we’re in a rough neighborhood, but I think we can do much better, or at least we should collectively aspire to do much better. Look at Taiwan and South Korea, they started out worse off that Thailand was, but they managed to make it in this world, without the guiding light or the unity or various patronizing influence from a father figure, blah blah blah, For all I’m concerned, they’re home free now, they can take care of themselves. As for Thailand? I think we’re gonna grow old before we grow rich.

  I think we have already missed the boat. The momentum is gone.

  Maybe the king’s sufficiency economy is right after all. Coz it’s increasingly difficult if not hopeless now to catch up to the front rank of nations. We’re doomed to sell low margin labor, service, and commodities, for the foreseeable future.

• 23 nganadeeleg // Dec 9, 2006 at 9:46 am

  Bystander said: “As for Thailand? I think we’re gonna grow old before we grow rich”

  It appears that you have fallen into the trap of thinking that money can buy happiness. Maybe when you are older you will see things differently, and may even realise what the king means when he talks about ‘enough to live on and enough to live for’.
  There have been many studies that show happiness levels do not continue to increase with more money (once a certain ’sufficiency’ level has been achieved).

  You mentioned South Korea – apparently it ranks 11th in the world in terms of wealth, but only 102nd in terms of happiness.
  http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/148717.html

  Maybe it’s because they spend too much time working (they are known for having near the longest working hours per week)

• 24 nganadeeleg // Dec 9, 2006 at 10:05 am

  Republican: It’s a bit unrealistic to compare the wealth of a royal family to that of a private individual, although I am sure that Thaksin would like to get his hands on the royal wealth.

  So what do you think the palace should do with it’s wealth? (assuming the monarchy wishes to continue)

  Your interpretation of history suggests that the palace instigated the coups – another interpretation is that the coups happened and the king dealt with them in a way to provide stability.
  I have not read Handley’s book, but I did listen to him on the radio and it was fairly obvious that he has a bias against the palace – I would think his accusations would also help sell his book.

  I am not blind to the monarchy-military political alliance and corruption, but I can see some hope for a better future as a result of the rise (& fall) of Thaksin.

• 25 Vichai N. // Dec 9, 2006 at 12:11 pm

  Republican you ramble on repeating Handley at every opportunity to denigrate the Thai King. Yet you have not explained your motivations for carrying such deep malice against the Thai monarchy.

  To suggest that the Thai King held back Thailand’s economic progress must surely rank as pure blatant lie. You only have to look at Thailand’s GNP numbers during the past decades and compare it with similar sized Republican countries like Philippines to appreciate how exceptionally well Thailand performed . . inspite of coups, civilian governments riddled by corruption, and despite Thaksin’s ignoble run even. Personally I thought the Thai King was/is a true inspiration to the Thais to reach for excellence. And Republican you repeat Andrew Walker’s malicious propaganda that Sufficiency Economy impoverishes the poor, yet both of you won’t articulate or educate on that specific subject.

  I suspect your malice and spite was inspired by Thaksin Shinawatra. Because I have yet to encounter a fellow Thai with deep animosity against the King. Republican if you are Thai, you would be second. The first one was Thaksin Shinawatra.

• 26 Bystander // Dec 9, 2006 at 2:20 pm

  Money is not happiness, that much I agree. But happiness is personal and subjective and fuzzy and spiritual and so hard to define that it is useless to use it as a goal of anything on national scale.

  But one thing for sure is that part of what makes people happy is freedom from want and suffering. You know, having food, medical care, shelter, dignity, longevity of life, security, basic things like that. The important things about being prosperous is to lift the standard of living of people in the absolute sense. If the states can achieve that much, it has already done its job. People can go on feeling happy or agonizing about their wretched work hours, or whatever, but it’s all relative from there on. If the state fails to deliver the basics like these, no matter how happy and content the people think they are, that state is a lousy state.

  All this euphemism about being happy while poor is BS. It’s basically a smokescreen to hide away the fact that it’s increasingly difficult for Thailand to compete in the modern world.

  Thailand is blessed with lots of resources that living is easy enough that complacency is the national mode of thinking (or non-thinking). But we can’t be sufficient at 60 million people.. 15 million maybe, but definitely not 60. Nganadeeleg: if you have a good grasp of the big picture of what’s propping up the Thai economy, which if you have you have done a good job of hiding it, I doubt you will buy into this happiness-sufficiency BS.

• 27 Johpa // Dec 9, 2006 at 2:45 pm

  I do not find Republican’s criticisms to be filled with spite and malice. He is correct that Handley’s book is the first critical biography of His Majesty and that the western academic Thai studies people, all those sons and daughters of Cornell and their now multitudes of disciples, have conveniently ignored the subject. I mean just what does Benedict Anderson think of HRM? Enquiring minds want to know. If I were a Thai, and I am just an interested and concerned bystander, I too would be fustrated to an unimaginable degree if I were not able to critically discuss or even read criticisms of such a key element of the political scene as the Monarchy.

  Nganadeeleg, I fail to understand why it should “unrealistic” to make distinctions between the wealth of the Royal Family and the wealth of private families. Should the revenue from Siam Cement that flows to the extended Palace be different than the wealth that flows to, say, the equally extended CP family group? Better yet, at the very least, would it not be advisable for the Palace members to more clearly list their commercial possessions?

• 28 anon // Dec 9, 2006 at 5:23 pm

  nganadeeleg, the Southern border provinces see innocent people being murdered on a daily basis, yet it has the happiest people in Thailand. See here: http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/06/national/national_30018161.php But at least they got rid of Thaksin!

  Maybe that’s the model the junta should be working on

• 29 nganadeeleg // Dec 9, 2006 at 5:43 pm

  Johpa: I’m all for transparency in disclosing commercial possessions & dealings (by both the palace and the politicians)
  Maybe put it in the constitution!

  Bystander: I’m also in favour of the state making available ‘food, medical care, shelter, dignity, longevity of life, security, basic things like that’
  That’s more a european model – even the USA system has difficulty delivery those things to all its citizens.

  Thaksin was all for redistributing wealth – the only problem was he wanted it redistributed to his family and friends, rather than genuine reform (despite all the ex communists in TRT)

  Please enlighten me on your thoughts of ‘whats propping up the Thai economy’. I do have some thoughts on the Thai (& global) economy, but am not sure what your getting at.

  I do believe in the sufficiency economy and practice it in my daily life, even though it goes against the tide of what is generally happening here.

• 30 patiwat // Dec 9, 2006 at 9:28 pm

  nganadeelek, Thaksin might have fattened his and his supporters pockets, but he also reduced poverty by half.

  Some will say he did it with hand-outs, and didn’t enact genuine reform or solve any long-term problems. But if 20% of the Thai population were so poor that they went hungry every day (the formal definition poverty), then I’d say give them hand-outs first and figure out long-term measures later.

  Don’t give me any crap about the short-sightedness of “giving a poor man a fish so he eats for a day…” No government in Thai history has ever been able to “teach all the poor to fish.” That’s why in 2000, over 12 million people were still under the poverty line. First you gotta feed them – then teach them to fish.

  Some find it “boring” or “divisive” when those millions ended up re-electing the government that delivered that impact. I just call it getting their priorities right.

• 31 nganadeeleg // Dec 10, 2006 at 12:45 am

  patiwat: What about the debt repyment issues?
  Thaksin’s spin machine was always ready to claim the credit for economic performance, when in reality the performance was similar to other countries in the region.
  Overall, the rate of poverty reduction appears to have been fairly consistent apart from the hiccup from the 1997 meltdown.

  Perhaps a lot of northeast people married foreigners during the same period!

  As I have said before, perhaps some good may come from the rise & fall of Thaksin – including firmly putting the rural poor on the agenda with real expectations for performance.

• 32 patiwat // Dec 10, 2006 at 7:58 am

  Even if not a single cent of micro-credit finance was repayed it was still worth it. We’re talking about people earning less than 40B a day, people who couldn’t afford to eat 2,000 calories a day! You can’t teach a man to fish if he’s malnourished. Handouts (and microcredit was not a handout) make sense for in that situation. Besides, the middle class was much worse in repaying their debts.

  The pre-1997 boom was concentrated in Bangkok and the industrializing central regions. There was “trickle down” to the poorest areas of Thailand, but it was limited. The provinces were being “hollowed out”, the villages depopulating, and young people moved to the factories of Bangkok. Mean incomes might have increased, but poverty was never reduced by half in 5 years prior to Thaksin or in the 5 years prior to the 1997 “hiccup”.

  Don’t give me any bull about how some phantom global economic boom was to blame for economic growth under Thaksin. What happened in 2001? The global investment bubble burst. 9/11. Energy prices skyrocketed world-wide (and they never really stopped rising). Things only began getting better on a global basis in 2004/2005. Yet Thaksin’s economic policies were already making a substantial impact on rural poverty.

  And its very typical, but still disgusting, for Bangkokians to look down on northeastern ladies who marry foreigners.

  Thaksin’s poverty eradication policies deserved serious debate among the Thai electorate. Should more money have been focused on Bangkok or the provinces? The middle class or the poorest of the poor? What’s the best way to manage microfinance? Skytrains or medicines? That debate was silenced on 19 September.

  The junta and bureaucrats might enact some cosmetic reforms, but how much accountability do they have to the poor? Nobody voted them in. They never had to make any promises to an electorate. People expect them to humiliate Thaksin, not to eradicate poverty. If the Supreme Arbiter says that politics is boring and the most respected academics say that rural politics is divisive, then who is going to be an advocate for the poor?

• 33 nganadeeleg // Dec 10, 2006 at 10:37 am

  patiwat said: “If the Supreme Arbiter says that politics is boring and the most respected academics say that rural politics is divisive, then who is going to be an advocate for the poor?”

  Are you seriously proposing that Thaksin should come back?

  There are numerous references to poverty reduction at similar rates to those under Thaksin:
  Here is just one:
  http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/recon/poverty/download/disc20.pdf
  And similar rates have been achieved in many comparable countries.

  I’m not saying poverty reduction is bad, just that Thaksin is not really the champion of the poor that he claims to be (particularly when combined with his personal greed, corruption, divisive manipulation, tax avoidance etc)

• 34 Vichai N // Dec 10, 2006 at 12:56 pm

  Thaksin was probably Thailand’s most hypocritical leader ever. He was quick to claim credits and promises but does not deliver.

  nganadeeleg was correct to point out that Thailand’s poverty improvement during 2001-2005 was not unusual following immediately after the Asian financial crisis. Chuan’s regime had conveniently paved the way for Thailand’s economic resurgence (that meant surge of jobs and income to the villagers . . hence the poverty numbers should have improved) for 2001 onwards which fell, luckily, on Thaksin’s watch.

  On pure motives Thaksin exploited and degraded the poor by corrupting them with handouts. The impoverished would be easier and cheaper to buy – - Thaksin would prefer it that way, all his propaganda about poverty eradication was just that, pure propaganda meant for effect rather than substance. I remember Thaksin promising to solve Bangkok’s traffic within six months. Thaksin will promise anybody anything and Patiwat is one guillible who up to now still believes.

• 35 patiwat // Dec 10, 2006 at 7:20 pm

  Nganadirek, why are you presuming that Thaksin is the only possible advocate for the poor? With an unelected government run by academics and government bureaucrats, is it wrong to seriously ask who is going to stand for the little guy? Coup apologists seem to paint the picture of Thailand as Thaksin vs. the King, or Thaksin vs. order, etc. – everything focused on Thaksin. As if any criticism of the junta, legitimate or not, was realy an argument for welcoming Thaksin back. That’s not the case. But the Thaksin era is over. The ball is in the junta’s court, and it’s their job to say how they’re going to manage things better than an elected government.

  I’m not sure how to interpret that ILO data on poverty HCR. The figures seem inconsistent with similar data sets from the World Bank study I quoted. I tend to give more weight to the World Bank economic reports because they’re issued annually and therefore they have to be concerned with data consistency.

  Vichai and Nganadirek, we can argue forever about who is to blame or praise for economic management. It’s like arguing who deserves praise for the 90’s US boom: Bush for paving the way or Clinton for actually managing it. Or who deserves the blame for the early 2000’s recession: Clinton for paving the way or Bush for mismanaging it. In the end, individual judgements are useless – electorates decide by voting politicians into power or out of power. At least, that’s how things work in electoral democracies…

  Vichai, you seem to believe it is hypocritical for a politician to make promises in the hope of receiving support from voters. On the contrary, I think that it is a politician’s primary job to evaluate the needs of his constituents, make tangible promises about how he is going to address those needs, manage programs and policies to deliver those needs, and let the electorate decide in elections whether that politicians deserves a new chance. You might call that hypocritical, divisive, and boring – I call that core of the electoral process.

  But I agree that Thaksin screwed up big time in the 90’s. He was quoted as promising to eliminate traffic in 6 months, even though he later denied having made the promises- he famously promised to shoot himself if somebody ever produced an audio-tape of him actually making the promise. But for one reason or another, he failed. And the Phalang Dharma Party collapsed on him in the ‘95 and ‘96 elections. That’s the democratic way. It is not the democratic way for a politician to deliver on his promises, and then for the military to intervene 3 weeks before elections.

• 36 Taxi Driver // Dec 10, 2006 at 7:25 pm

  Judging from their comments, it appears that Nganadeeleg and Vichai N. consider the means to justify the ends – i.e. the overthrow of an elected government by coup d’tat was justified because (1) the elected government was corrupt, incompetent & usurping its powers; (2) constitutional means to remove the government from power failed to work; (3) the country was heading towards a violent crisis.

  In fact, this appears to be the view of the majorty of the “millions in yellow shirts” in Bangkok as well. Even the King & his privy council may have taken this view? I think most reasonable people (particularly from countries without an established, mature democratic tradition) would find this view realistic & acceptable.

  What is not so clear, however, is whether Nganadeeleg and Vichai N. (and the millions in yellow shirts, and the King himself) believe the coup was a necessary evil, and that Thailand should continue to strive to develop its democratic institutions (including judiaciary), constitutional processes, and fundamental social contract amongst its people, such that coup like this will not be necessary – nor tolerated – in the future.

  Otherwise, just point (1) above will be sufficient for these people to call for a coup, time and time again in the future. In fact, those who believe just (1) is sufficient to justify a miliatry coup should drop all pretense and call for a paternallistic dictatorship or even a return to absolute monachy for Thailand. Nganadeeleg & Vichai N., lets clarify your position!

  {p.s. I’d call for a response from “the millions in yellows” as well but I doubt this blog site can handle volume! As for the King, I doubt His Majesty will even see & read this comment, let alone respond to it. But even if he did see & read it, he wouldn’t be able to respond openly anyway….but then again maybe he already contributes regularly under a psuedonym?!! — now that’s a thought!!….:)

• 37 Vichai N. // Dec 10, 2006 at 9:20 pm

  Patiwat – It is not only in the 90’s . . . Thaksin Shinawatra screws up big time all the time. Thaksin brought the coup . . I detest the coup . . I warned (and hundreds of thousands of others as well) Thaksin many times that his abuses and refusal to step down was creating national security problems that would provoke a coup . . but the man was deaf to all counsels. Thaksin created (yes he did!) the current boil at the South that led to the bombings and savagery we see today. Thaksin was insititutionalizing corruption and that totally denigrates/degrades the whole Kingdom of Thailand. Thaksin broke the laws . . extrajudicially executed thousands during his Y2003 anti-drugs. Thaksin’s conflict of interest at that Temasek-Shin deal only the Shinawatras, and perhaps Patiwat, could not see it. Thaksin . . . .

  Patiwat – what is it about Thaksin that inspires you so? It cannot be d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y . . hell Thaksin cannot even spell the word properly.

• 38 nganadeeleg // Dec 10, 2006 at 11:51 pm

  patiwat: Despite your nickname, I took you to be pro Thaksin as well as anti coup – maybe I was reading too much into your numerous comments critical of the junta.

  Taxi Driver: Another insightful comment.
  I cannot speak for all the people in yellow, or Vichai, but my opinion is that all three applied, and hopefully the ends will justify the means.

• 39 Vichai N // Dec 11, 2006 at 3:23 am

  Yes I believe the coup was necessary . . . I haven’t made up my mind yet whether this coup will be evil or will disappoint.

  I agree w/ nganadeeleg that all three applied which provoked the coup.

  But TaxiDriver wants to know whether point (1) alone is enough to justify a coup. My answer is NO. Corruption allegations would not justify a coup.

  But Thaksin was a fool. He should have faced those many allegations of corruption/conflict of interest head on and should have agreed to an independent judicial public inquiry when clearly his legitimacy to rule, because of those allegations, had been seriously eroded. I would have kissed Thaksin if he had resigned, sportmanlike and followed constitutional ethiquette, then face his accusers accordingly. THAT would have set a beautiful constitutional precedent . . strengthened Thai democracy and earned Thaksin my respect.

  But Thaksin just showed his true colors as just another power hungry power mad elected leader who forgot keeping a mandate does NOT depend on results of a previous or more recent election alone. Because the Thais have to look up to their elected leader, and that requires qualities of integrity, transparency and that rare quality of readiness to make a personal sacrifice (by resigning) if that will prevent the country from further division and growing chaos.

• 40 Johpa // Dec 11, 2006 at 6:28 am

  Khun Patiwat wrote “Thaksin was insititutionalizing corruption and that totally denigrates/degrades the whole Kingdom of Thailand.”

  Although I am but a mere interested bystander, I have had the opportunity to observe Thailand now for over 25 years and rest assured that Thaksin’s arrival to the Bangkok political scene came well after corruption was institutionalized in the Kingdom. What Thaksin did, or was attempting to do, that was a wee bit different than his predecessors, was attempting to institutionalize himself and his family by taking an ever increasing piece of the pie to himself and his family, a relative upstart family. It is little wonder that the families that represent the ever corrupt old guard, including upper military men, Bangkok based Sino-Thais, and old Sakdina families,including the Palace, moved against him

  After reading some other links today on New Mandala, I am tempted to speculate whether Thaksin, if he had not been ousted, might have eventually moved the Thai Capitol, a la Than Shwe, up to Chiang Mai.

• 41 patiwat // Dec 11, 2006 at 7:28 am

  I’m scratching my head here, Vichai.

  You said “Corruption allegations would not justify a coup.”

  Then what is your justification for the coup? The South? The War on Drugs? Allegations of tax evasion?

  None of those seem to carry that much weight. The Southern problem has gotten worse under the junta. The War on Drugs happened way back in 2003, and nobody was calling for a coup back then. It seems quite absurd to imagine that the coup was executed to force him to pay taxes which Revenue Dept bureaucrats had (and continue to) excuse him of paying.

• 42 Vichai N // Dec 11, 2006 at 12:24 pm

  Patiwat – Read Taxi Driver one more time. Taxi Driver listed three very serious circumstances all existing. Conditions (2) and (3) alone by themselves could provoke/justify a coup. You also added tax evasion and extrajudicial killings. You also forgot Thaksin’s ineptitude at the South and his execution of Muslim prisoners.

  Patiwat – still not enough? Man your loyalty to Thaksin is like religion. You still have not replied, what is behind your love affair with Thaksin?

• 43 Vichai N // Dec 11, 2006 at 2:29 pm

  Patiwat you’re more likely bald by now from too much head scratching. Taxi Driver gave three reasons and the second and third by themselves would justify a coup. Patiwat you pile on the tax evasion, extrajudicial killings during the anti-drugs, prisoner executions during the Southern campaign not to mention Thaksin’s management ineptitude thereat plus his conflict of interest. Yet the man won’t resign, he brought his caravan of thugs to Bangkok to provoke more chaos and division.

  Patiwat maybe I should be scratching my head instead. I asked you before and I ask you again, what is it about this dangerous man Thaksin that inspires you so? I also asked Republican before, what motivates his malicious posters against the monarchy?

• 44 Taxi Driver // Dec 11, 2006 at 11:34 pm

  Ngarnadeeleg & Vichai N. I’m glad that you both say all three conditions needed to exist to justify the coup. You both seem to dispise Thaksin so much that it was hard to tell whether you were just anti-Thaksin or pro-coup (there is a difference!).

  Anyway I wish to encourage discussion on the three points I made earlier. That is: the coup was justified because:

  (1) the elected government was corrupt, incompetent & usurping its powers;
  (2) constitutional means to remove the government from power failed to work;
  (3) the country was heading towards a violent crisis.

  Point (1) is hardly unique to the Thaksin regime. The more interesting points which really need serious discussion & analysis are (2) and (3). Why did these conditions exist leading up to Sept 19th? Who caused them? Was it only Thaksin? Or were there other forces that worked to ensure that (2) and (3) existed which forced the King to intervene?

  I must point out that I believe the King was forced to intervene (rather than being a co-conspirator). I base this opinion on the fact that the King had earlier encouraged the crisis (after the April elections) to be resolved through the constitutional process (partic through the judiaciary), and Sonthi B. had repeatedly said up until the last weeks leading up to Sept 19 that the “coups were a thing of the past”. Only after it was clear that (2) and (3) had come to pass that the King intervened and ordered Sonthi to take over. Sonthi acted on the instruction of the King.

  I personally think the coup was a tremendous setback for the country, and we now have a less secure future than we had before the crisis. Unfortunately the coup was a “necessary evil” that the Palace had to employ to break the deadlock and avert the violence. But I don’t think its as simple as to say “Thaksin caused all this”. I think we all have to be very careful of the forces that conspired to drive the crisis to breaking point. Thailand may have gotten rid of a corrupt government, but are we sure we know & are happy with what we now have? What precedence does this set for future military and palace leaders? Don’t let your hatred of Thaksin blind you to the dangers that the Sept 19 coup brings to the future of Thailand.

• 45 nganadeeleg // Dec 12, 2006 at 5:10 am

  Taxi Driver: Interesting analysis. I agree there are many forces at work and not all of the political crisis was caused by Thaksin.
  As you said, there is a difference between anti-coup and pro-Thaksin.
  If more of the anti-coup commentators acknowledged Thaksin’s failures, perhaps Vichai and I would not have to continually point them out. In the end Thaksin was so divisive that he could no longer effectively govern, and the potential for violence was very real given Thaksin’s stubborn stand.

  The only other way I could see the situation being resolved was for Thaksin to step down for the good of the country.
  There were many ‘whispers in his ear’ including the April meeting with the king, but Thaksin kept playing games and sending mixed signals.
  Even if he did not step down, Thaksin could have diffused the situation by merely backing down and acknowledging some of his failures:
  -His heavy handed dealings on the southern situation had worsened things
  -Tthe drug war killings needed to be properly investigated.
  -The Temasek deal could not be undone, but why not at least pay tax on the profits.
  If Thaksin had slightly changed his ways, the other forces at play would have been stifled, but that does not seem to be Thaksins nature ,and in the end it came down to ‘Thaksin or the King’

  Obviously the country has taken a step backwards because of the coup, and there are still dangers.
  Those dangers would be less if Thaksin and his allies stopped playing games, and everyone could concentrate on getting the political institutions in order so that coups can be disposed to history forever.

  If anything, the junta has been a little soft, trying to do things ‘by the book’, but that softness may have increased the dangers by emboldening Thaksin and his allies.
  The fact that the junta has tread so lightly, even though they already threw out the rulebook, lends credence to the fact that they genuinely want reform (or at least stability) and the coup was not merely a power grab.

• 46 Taxi Driver // Dec 12, 2006 at 7:42 am

  Ngargadeeleg you agree that not all the political crisis was caused by Thaksin. But the rest of your comment seemed to again concentrate on what he did wrong or should have done right. I don’t disagree with you on these points about Thaksin, but what I’m more interested in is a discussion on “(2) and (3). Why did these conditions exist leading up to Sept 19th? Who caused them? Was it only Thaksin? Or were there other forces that worked to ensure that (2) and (3) existed which forced the King to intervene?”

  There is already ample public debate and discussion in Thailand (and on this blogsite) on the rights/wrongs of Thaksin. But there is very little public discussion on “the Other Forces” that co-conspired to drive the crisis to breaking point. Come on, you did not let Thaksin get away with it, so don’t let “the Other Forces” think they can get away with it now, otherwise the next elected government will still face the same threat from these people.

• 47 patiwat // Dec 12, 2006 at 8:03 am

  Vichai, I think it’s silly to say that the coup was caused by tax evasion, Southern violence, and the War on Drugs. The military itself has to bear a lot of blame for the southern violence, and the war on drugs might have justified a coup in 2003, but not 2006. I’ll give more weight to Taxi Driver’s comments.

  1) I think corruption, incompetence, and “usurping its powers” (whatever that means) are debatable. Was it really incompetent? In some areas yes, in some areas no. But no government is ever perfect (witness the junta) – yet voters liked how the government set its priorities. That’s why they voted him back in 2005. As for corruption, well, judicial and parliamentary due process during the Thaksin government didn’t find anything. I’m still waiting to see if the junta’s committees find anything of substance. That’s not rhetorical – I really am eager to see what the junta finds. If it’s silly stuff like Bhanapot’s alleged tax evasion (which occured during the Chuan government!), then I know that the junta is desperate.

  2) I strongly disagree that the constitutional process wasn’t working. If the democratic process wasn’t working, then why were so many political parties established prior to the October election? Why were so many parties actively campaigning, rather than boycotting? Why did the Democrat party dramatically revise it’s election platform? Why were there so many high-level defections from TRT? Why were so many senators blatantly anti-Thaksin? Because people seriously expected TRT to take a significant hit in the October elections. The electoral process set out in the constitition was working, and it was working to weaken Thaksin.

  Besides, the coup happened a month before elections, not a month after elections. If it happened after elections, it would be fair to say that the coup happened because elections didn’t work (which was Sarit’s reasoning). The fact that it happened before elections means that the military was afraid of the constitutional process working – not afraid that it wouldn’t work.

  3) Who knows whether the country was headed towards violence. The junta has made some claims, backed up with no evidence, and it has not arrested anybody or charged anybody with preparing for violence. So I really don’t believe the junta’s claims that the country was headed to violence. But we’ll never know, because the junta has stopped mentioning this and has swept it under the carpet.

• 48 nganadeeleg // Dec 12, 2006 at 9:39 am

  Taxi Driver: I was trying to show that I am anti-Thaksin and I accept the coup, now that it has happened (I was not pro-coup before it ocurred, but I have yet to see any other way the situation was going to be resolved)
  Call me elitist if you like, but I still believe the electorate was not politically sophisticated enough to kick Thaksin out, and Thaksin had proven he was unfit to govern – I won’t repeat all the reasons:)

  As for the other forces at play, I have already stated on this site that I do not place credence in many of the nonsensical claims by Sondhi L.
  Other forces at play – well there is no need to comment on the usual political suspects because it is well known why they are involved – self interest.
  As for the palace – I believe the King acts to provide stability, as a last resort ‘white knight’, and is not the the political mover and shaker (manipulator) that some on this site maintain.
  That is not to say there are not some people with connections to the palace who wished to restore some of their old privileges that were being eroded (taken over) by Thaksin & his cronies.
  I have said before that some good may come from the rise & fall of Thaksin, in that the rural poor cannot be ignored from now on.
  Would you care to comment on any other forces that I may have missed?

  patiwat: To help interpret your comments, would you please categorically state whether you are pro-Thaksin or anti-Thaksin
  I have also noticed your banter with Bangkok Pundit on his blog, a site which has a definite pro Thaksin tone.
  (We already know you are anti-coup, and it will be pretty lame if you just come back and say you are pro-democracy)

  Taxi Driver’s comments are important and should be taken on board by those currently in power.
  However, the country can only move forward again once the coup is accepted, and Thaksin is history.

• 49 nganadeeleg // Dec 12, 2006 at 9:52 am

  Good article by Chang Noi in today’s The Nation:
  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/12/12/opinion/opinion_30021310.php

  Those whining about the coup (or hankering for a Thaksin return), would be better served to focus their attention to the new constitution and not let the process be a whitewash.

• 50 patiwat // Dec 12, 2006 at 3:58 pm

  Nganadirek asks me to categorically state whether I am pro-Thaksin or anti-Thaksin.

  Sorry, but you\’re not going to get a black and white answer on that question. Gods and devils are deserving of unquestionable and unshaking love or hate – but not mortals. There is no such thing as true love in politics. My views on Thaksin have changed a lot over the years.

  While he was just the head of AIS, I was anti-Thaksin, because AIS locked their SIMs so that only expensive Telewiz-sold handsets could be used on the AIS network. Thaksin also had a weird concession that gave him sole right to operate online services. Smart for him, but bad for consumers. This was during the BBS/NECTEC/IPIED/proto-internet days, so I was very frustrated at a concession that made those growing services illegal. Thank goodness he never exercised the exclusivity clauses in his concession.

  During the Phalang Dharma years, I supported PDP, which meant that outwardly I was also wincingly pro-Thaksin (internally, I supported a different PDP faction). After the PDP collapsed, I felt a lot of bitterness to the man, and was very open about my anti-Thaksin views.

  During 1997-2000, I was pro-constitution/political reform. Which meant that I desperately wanted the 2001 election to produce a stable government. Even if that meant making myself pro-Thaksin during the Supreme Court\’s decision to acquit him. Even though it was clear that he was guilty. I\’ve been saying for the past 12 years that Thaksin should sell off Shin Corp if he wants to play politics.

  Microcredit, the War on Drugs, universal healthcare, and OTOP didn\’t really affect my wellbeing, so from 2001-2005, I was largely Thaksin-neutral. But if you forced me into a political conversation during that period, I would have told you that Thailand has had royalism for centuries and elitism/militarism for decades, and neither did very much for Thailand. So if the electorate wanted to experiment with populism for a couple of years, then we might as well give it a try. A part of me could appreciate the novelty and effectiveness of some of the TRT\’s signature policies. And I discounted any accusations of corruption, because in Thailand, everybody is accused of corruption, and I needed clear and compelling evidence to convince me that any of that slander is true.

  When my uncle was killed by terrorists in Yala, I became ferociously anti-Thaksin for a while, because although I didn\’t blame him for the insurrection, I blamed him for not being able to stop it. But when the Democrats, academics, Anand, and Prem weren\’t able to propose any better alternative policies, I decided that I hated all of those ivory castle Bangkokians – I became anti-everybody (with regards to the South).

  I feel that only rascals drag the King into their personal battles, so I was sympathetically pro-Thaksin when Sondhi started his whole \”royal powers\” slander in 2005. Plus, I had enough experience with Sondhi to realize that there wasn’t anything he wouldn’t lie about in order to further his personal goals.

  When Thaksin finally sold Shin Corp, I applauded. And when Sondhi and his rascals claimed that people should pay capital gains taxes when they sell stocks on the stock market, I looked at my own personal stock portfolio and said \”What The F***?!?\” That made me sympathetically pro-Thaksin.

  When Thaksin dissolved Parliament, I stupidly believed that the Democrats could propose a better alternative. So I became, for a very short-time, anti-Thaksin and pro-Democrat. But when the Democrats got defeatist and decided that it would be better not to bother competing in the April elections, I became vehemently anti-Democrat, which I guess made me pro-Thaksin (since there wasn’t anybody else competing in that election).

  The Democrats\’ decision to contest the October election, even though they boycotted the April election, struck me as hypocritical. Which made me anti-Democrat, Thaksin-neutral, and pro-fringe party in the months before the election. The point is, I still believed in the power of the elections and on the ongoing health of the constitutional mechanism. We could have taken him down! We were so close.

  So of course, I was anti-coup. When the junta used the shotgun approach to say that everything about Thaksin was not only bad, but inherently evil, I defended the parts of his legacy that I thought deserved defending. I guess that made me pro-Thaksin.

  I wish we could move the debate away from whether you love Thaksin or hate him. As you can see, it’s not so simple. And besides, it’s not relevant – the Thaksin era is over.

  The hard questions that should be debated today aren’t about Thaksin, but about the future of microcredit, the future of universal healthcare, the future of populism, the future of electoral democracy, the future of rural empowerment, the future of constitutionalism, the future of human rights, the future of media reform, the future of telecom/energy reform, the future of military/palace intervention, and whether future governments should be stable monoliths or shaky coalitions. This debate would be much more constructive if we would just move on and stop dragging a dinosaur like Thaksin into things.

  p.s., Whenever I start to get convinced that The Nation is full of blind zealots, I remember that they still have Chang Noi. Read the editorial; it’ll do everybody some good.

• 51 Vichai N. // Dec 12, 2006 at 8:16 pm

  Patiwat you were not asked to submit a confession; you were just asked a simple question why you still love Thaksin so? But in your place sounding embarrased and apologetic, but not contrite, to profess love for Thaksin must be about the best we should expect.

  Patiwat’s no. 41 poster is typical. Patiwat is telling us that Thaksin already escaped judicial prosecution in 2003 for his extrajudicial killings. He repeats the same argument that Thaksin’s brother in-law Banphot aso passed Revenue Dept. scrutiny 9 years ago for his tax-evasion. So bingo, Thaksin & brother-in-law Banphot should instead be congratulated, not prosecuted, for their Houdini-ability to commit crimes and avoid detection at that time.

  Pinochet must have felt the same way but murder is a crime and mass murder committed as state policy even more so and there is no statute of limitations thereof. Too bad Pinochet died before he could be jailed. But Thaksin will NOT be that lucky Patiwat . . unless he suicides before incarceration.

  And Thaksin’s brother-in-law Banphot also almost made it past the statute of limitations for tax evasion and had he succeeded Patiwat would have cheered and explained to us why he love Thaksin sooo much . . . particularly his tax finagling skills AND getting away with it too. Not this time Banphot!

  Patiwat the Thaksin you love is an extrajudicial murderer, a tax evader, a conflicted ruler, a Machiavellian divider, a subverter of the Thai constitution, a poisonous corrupter who will suborn anybody or anyone for personal interest and to perpetuate his illegitimate rule. Thaksin was a liar, a thief and a murderer. He was also a dismally inept crisis manager (Southern unrest).

  Yes certain people do find exciting romance with scoundrels and rogues. Patiwat is one such people.

• 52 nganadeeleg // Dec 12, 2006 at 8:51 pm

  patiwat: Thanks for the detailed response. The link does not work – is it the same one I refereed to in comment # 49 above?

  I agree with your last paragraph (sorry to harp on about Thaksin), but unfortunately I am not so sure that the Thaksin era is over because he obviously still has some support, and he been a very slippery customer who has shown no real signs of change, and presumably still has plenty of money to buy support/agitation.
  (Although his family seems to have dropped down the latest rich list in todays Bangkok Post – maybe that’s why they are fighting the tax bill so hard!)
  By the way, I still think you are looking at the wrong share transaction to tax – ask yourself why didn’t Ample Rich sell direct to Temasek, and why did Ample Rich sell to the kids at way below market value?
  Those transactions are much different than you or I merely buying and selling shares on the stock market.

  For the good of the country, maybe it’s time Thaksin urged his supporters to direct their energies towards ensuring the next constitution addresses a lot of the things mentioned in your last paragraph (& Chang Noi’s opinion piece).

• 53 patiwat // Dec 12, 2006 at 10:27 pm

  Nganadirek, yes that bad link was to the article linked in comment #49. I’ve often requested that several bloggers devote some space to a substantial debate on taxation. But this current topic already has 53 comments on it, and I don’t think it should be extended to contain a long technical discussion about taxation.

  I believe the support that people show to Thaksin is misinterpreted. Just because people are against the coup doesn’t mean they necessarily support Thaksin. And just because people are worried about the future of Thaksin’s populist policies doesn’t mean they would support Thaksin’s re-entry into politics. And just because people want their civil rights back doesn’t mean they love Thaksin.

  If the junta were to repromulgate the 1997 Constitution, pardon itself, schedule elections in 3 months, establish committees to investigate police, army, and politician responsibility for the War on Drugs and the Southern Insurgency (to satisfy people like Vichai), ask the King to appoint a committee to recommend amendments to reform the constitution, and ban everybody whose last name is Shinawatra-Damaphong or has ever been a Phalang Dharma or Communisty Party member from running, I don’t think anybody would complain (including the Shinawatra-Damaphongs). On the contrary, I believe that the Thai people, being such wonderful pragmatists, would thank Siamthewathiraj that the junta and its sponsors displayed such generosity to the Kingdom.

  Of course, if you read Chang Noi’s editorial, you’ll realize why this is a pipe dream.

  p.s., the reason the Shinawatra family’s wealth has gone down is probably due to the sharp appreciation of the Thai Baht these past few months under the wise management of the junta. Like any wealthy investors, they probably had a diversified international portfolio.

• 54 Vichai N. // Dec 12, 2006 at 11:05 pm

  Patiwat before we leave the taxation issue, I just cannot help getting amused by two striking epiphanies (which may or may not have taxation relevance):

  (a) The highest paid househelps in the world can be found in Thailand . . that means drivers and maids, paid in family company shares worth billions! Perhaps because that has to do with the out-of-this-world generosity of the Shinawatra/Damaphongs to their househelp, or, because those househelps were just those rare out-of-this-world extraordinary employees, or both.

  (b) Generosity begets generosity. Only in Thailand will you find a housemaid giving a Baht 740 million wedding gift, two years late by the way, to her boss’ brother.

  I conclude that only in the Shinawatra household will the world find true love . . affection that extends to every member down to drivers and maid. And love is reciprocated accordingly. I agree with Patiwat that it would be injustice for the Thailand Revenue Department to tax such love. Right Patiwat?

• 55 Taxi Driver // Dec 12, 2006 at 11:47 pm

  Ngarnadeeleg I doubt very much that my comments will be taken on board by those currently in power! I’m only a taxi driver after all .

  I don’t believe we should simply “accept the coup” so that “the country can move forward again”. I think we need to be very weary of what is happening.

  The “other forces” that won on Sept 19 are well identified in the Chang Noi article: the military, the police, and the bureaucrats. An important queston to ask is this: does Sonthi B. (& Prem for that matter) represent these forces, or are they simply the guys who are trying to keep these “other forces” on a leash?

  I think this is an important question and your own answer will determine your stance in relation to the coup leaders….do you support Sonthi & Prem because you think they are trying to do the right thing & control the “other forces”, or do you oppose them because they represent the “other forces” that stole an elected government from the peope. You & Patiwat may wish to share your view on this?

• 56 Vichai N. // Dec 13, 2006 at 1:50 am

  It is the Thai people who “won” and “lost” on Sept. 19th. The Thai people “won” by losing a dangerous divisive criminal Thaksin Shinawatra who was intent on clinging on to power, to protect his ill-gottens, even if that would rend the country apart. The victory was however bitter . . . the constitution was suspended and we have yet to see whether a better constitution will follow, or, as suspected by ‘Chang Noi’ we get a regressive constitution instead.

  I am hopeful that Thai people will get a much better constitution. But I admit we have to be wary. Once people are in power they always somehow manage to lose their way . . like the previous Thaksin regime.

  Do I support Sonthi-Surayud team? At this very moment, yes! Because so far they are doing all the right moves. I will be waiting how the reform of the constitution proceeds and my opinion could change by then – - could be more favorable or could be very negative.

  Same thing happened when I voted for Thaksin’s party TRT the first time. I was hopeful the billionaire-PM would be different and would set a new standard of integrity, transparency and honesty in the PM office. We all know what a disappointment Thaksin & TRT turned out to be.

• 57 patiwat // Dec 13, 2006 at 3:50 am

  Vichai, TRT doesn’t have a monopoly on generosity.

  Recently, Abhisit Vejjajiva realized that somebody had been using his credit card to make nearly a million baht in purchases and withdrawals. Over a hundred transactions during nearly a year, and our unemployed opposition politician never even noticed that anything strange was going on with his finances! He must have quite a bit stashed away, and he never even ran a government. Think about it: a million baht for him is a mere rounding error…

  Taxi Driver, this discussion thread has gotten a bit long – why don’t we continue the detailed discussion in a more relevant post by our kind hosts.

  To answer your question shortly: Sonthi is the representative of the military/bureaucratic/palace complex. That’s why the travesties that pass for a Cabinet and Parliament are packed with generals, current and retired bureaucrats, and the very conspicuous ex-Privy Councilor. If he was trying to keep them “on a leash”, he wouldn’t have given them so much power, would he?

• 58 nganadeeleg // Dec 13, 2006 at 6:00 am

  Taxi Driver: For what it’s worth, I think Sonthi B is simply trying to do the right thing. Prem’s role is more complex – I hope he is trying to do the right thing…. time will tell.

  My track record might not be too good though, as like Vichai, I too thought Thaksin would do the right thing because he was already so rich when he entered politics (maybe I discounted the influence of Pojaman).

Leave a Comment