New Mandala

55 responses so far ↓

• 1 Tosakan // Jan 30, 2007 at 2:06 am

  The Nation really has “jumped the shark.” I love how they blame this on the “Thaksin curse.” What the hell is that? I used to like The Nation, but now it goes after anybody who doesn’t agree with them about Thaksin. They expect the West, especially the Western press, to goose step behind the junta, and they don’t think they have to provide any evidence concerning Thaksin’s misdeeds. I have yet to see The Nation do a investigation concerning Thaksin’s nefarious empire. Everything is Thaksin this, Thaksin that, yet The Nation hasn’t done a connect the dots report about what Thaksin exactly did. The Nation talks about Thaksin’s curse and his corruption without any evidence. They are a newspapers and have a responsibility to the public. Instead, they sit on their ass waiting for orders from the junta, and blame anybody who challenges their world view.

• 2 Srithanonchai // Jan 30, 2007 at 2:10 am

  Isn’t it rather preposterous to compare Hitler with Thaksin by using the phrase “Germany and Thailand share some painful lessons that elections do not always lead to so-called ‘democracy’”? The demonstrators against Thaksin made ample use of the supposed similarity of Thaksin to Hitler. Thaksin was even seen as a reborn Hitler. The brochure puplished by Kaewsan and Khwansuan Atipoti also carried a picture of Thaksin as Hitler forcing his will on the Thais. Besides, what Germany had under Hitler was not “so-called ‘democracy’”, but “National Sozialism”, thus the “Nazis” of the “NSDAP.” And this from a high-ranking official at the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs…

• 3 Tosakan // Jan 30, 2007 at 2:58 am

  Srithanonchai-

  The Nazi Party came to power democratically and Adolph Hitler was the democratically elected leader of the Nazi Party.

  In fact, Germany politicians voted to turn Germany into a dictatorship by giving the Chancellor emergency powers.

  Mussolini, another dictator, was also elected.

• 4 patiwat // Jan 30, 2007 at 6:08 am

  The German Ambassador was being quite harsh. He pretty much called out the FM official for his bull$hit – quite undiplomatic.

  To the Thais claims that we, “cannot be measured by any benchmark set by foreign governments,” he quoted Surayud: “Your benchmarks are my benchmarks.”

  To the Thais, “No problem for foreign investment,” he noted that the recent laws on foreign investment were creating significant problems.

  He completely laid the smackdown on the poor guy for blaming him for asking hard questions about tsunami-related donations.

  Recall that Germany got quite angry when a junta-licker Banjerd Singkaneti said that Thaksin was worse than Hitler. They know bad propaganda when they hear it.

• 5 fall // Jan 30, 2007 at 12:24 pm

  Ambassador Bruemmer’s reply contains *some* barbs
  SOME barbs?
  I would say it’s a letter written on barbwire.

  Talking about German’s straightforwardness…

• 6 Vichai N. // Jan 30, 2007 at 12:28 pm

  It is amusing to me that Germany should be angered by the Thais comparing Thaksin to Hitler. Who was being offended here: the Germans or the Thais? or more specifically Hitler or Thaksin?

  If I were Germany and if a modern day rogue like Thaksin was being elevated (or is it depth-moted?) to Hitler, that must have meant Hitler may have some saving features after all because we can all agree that Thaksin is not all bad but it may take weeks to do a search but such search could reveal some good-sides of Thaksin.

  Now let us all ask Germany to apologize to Thailand one more time.

• 7 Taxi Driver // Jan 30, 2007 at 1:22 pm

  That Banjerd guy from Thammasart was quoted in the old BkkPost article (link provided by Patiwat #4) that “Hitler, despite being a dictator, had contributed a great deal to Germany…Hitler killed Jews but he did several things for his country. He was more useful for the country than Mr Thaksin was”.

  What a sad state of affairs for Thai academia when a (presumably) senior academic lacks the most basic understanding of what happened to Germany (and the rest of Europe) under Hitler. This guy must simply have no credible standing anywhere outside the gates of Thammasart. Patiwat, how do you cope with these people?

• 8 21Jan // Jan 30, 2007 at 2:07 pm

  Tosakan – It was a bit more complicated:
  First the majority of the Germans of that time had no respect for democracy, they though of something that was forced to them by the victors of the First World War. They also hated the Versailles treaty and thought of themselves as a humiliated nation.
  Second the nation was sharply divided, there was no political power for the parties of the center, left- and rightwing-parties came together (if you also count the social-democrats as left of the center) above 70% of the votes.
  In July 32 elections the Nazis (NSDAP) received 37,3 % of the votes (a gain of 19,0% compared to the 18,3% in 1930) but could not form a coalition. Soon afterwards the parlament was again dissolved and in the November 1932 elections the NSDAP received only 33,1% of the votes (they lost more than two million votes). In this political deadlock Hitler was appointed chancellor in January 1933 because he had the support of president Hindenburg and his camarilla, of the nationalist parties and of the high finance who all feared the communist / socialist threat and who thought of Hitler as the lesser evil.
  After the Reichstag fire Hitler got powerful rights through emergency decrees and he got rid of the communists who got the blame for the arson. After another election in March 1933 the NSDAP got 43,9% of the votes. With the help of some votes from the nationalists (DNVP) and the christian Center party (Zentrum) the parlament enacted the Enabling Act which gave Hitler dictatorial powers and made the parlament irrelevant.
  I would not call this excactly a democratic process – and of course regarding the comparison of Thaksin with Hitler I have to say that even if every accusation to the Antichri…err…Thaksin should be true you still can compare the two (but of course I know you are aware of that fact)

• 9 21Jan // Jan 30, 2007 at 2:25 pm

  And of course thank you Mr Bruemmer for your firm reply and the fact that not every foreign politician buys this smooth-as-silk-flower-power-coup bullshit

• 10 Srithanonchai // Jan 30, 2007 at 2:34 pm

  Tosakan: Being a German with a strong interest in recent history, I am not too badly informed about the Weimar Republic, Hitler, and what followed. That’s the reason why I caution to adopt short-cut opportunistic comparisons. By the way, that Hitler should have been the “democratically elected leader of the Nazi Party” is rather funny, since the party strictly followed the “leadership principle” (Fuehrerprinzip). Also, in mid-1934, Hitler had the leaders of a rival clique in the party murdered (Roehm Putsch). Not very democratic; or, perhaps, this was Hitler’s “post-democratic” period?
  Patiwat: I think the Germans did not get angry, but were merely in disbelief about Ajarn Banjerd’s ignorance — increased by the fact that he had graduated with a Dr. jur. from Germany. So he should have known better. By saying that Hitler was better for Germany than Thaksin for Thailand, because Hitler developed large-scale infrastructure projects, basically reflects a standard “argument” by nostalgic Germans, and by German Neo-Nazis. Not a nice company.

• 11 Republican // Jan 30, 2007 at 7:27 pm

  The Thai Foreign Affairs Ministry – one of the last bastions of the sakdina and royalists – try getting into this Ministry without the right surname. Not surprising that it is an anti-Thaksin stronghold.

• 12 Srithanonchai // Jan 30, 2007 at 7:58 pm

  21 Jan. (no. 8): Thanks very much for these data. I had in mind finding them, but was in a rush.

• 13 Republican // Jan 30, 2007 at 8:05 pm

  #1: If there is any doubt about where The Nation’s loyalties lie just look at its editorial’s glowing praise for the Constitution drafting process [http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/30/opinion/opinion_30025468.php]. This process is now headed by intelligence chief and Prem loyalist, Prasong Sunsiri. One wonders what on earth a military intelligence officer is doing heading a Constitutional Drafting panel, but of course in this case the answer is obvious.

  But is it wise for The Nation to show such support for this Constitution, which can only go down in history (if indeed it is ever drafted) as a “dictator’s Constitution”?

• 14 Tosakan // Jan 30, 2007 at 8:49 pm

  I love how all the Nazi revisionists come out of the wood work. Well all seem to agree, however, that Thaksin was no Hitler.

  Anyway, let us be honest, shall we: Hitler was brought to power through normal constitutional processes, which had democratic components to them, such as elections. The Nazis may have never been the majority party, but the other right wing parties were in coalition with the Nazis. Let us not pretend otherwise.

  Hitler was selected by his party to be the leader countless times. Sure, his rivals may have been murdered, but that doesn’t mean he still wasn’t supported by the majority of Nazis, and when Hitler became dictator, the masses loved him even more.

  Some Germans, just like some Thais, love their revisionist history, because they want to come off looking more civilized than they really are.

  I wonder if Srithanonchai is going to deny the holocaust also and pretend that didn’t happen. Or maybe Germany never invaded Poland or France or Norway or Belgium or Holland. Maybe Hitler never existed and he was just made up by Jews in Hollywood.

  Do you really want to discuss SA politics of the 1930’s?

  You mean, who was the bigger German murderer, Roehm or Hitler? Who cares? They were both thugs, and they were thugs loved by their people.

  21 Jan. You are misinformed and distorting the picture of that time.

  The Versailles Treaty and the Weimar Republic were two separate things.

  The Versailles Treaty was the peace treaty signed with the allies, listing conditions of peace and reparations, and all that.

  The Weimar Republic that followed WWI had the most liberal Constitution in the world during that time. Further, the notion that Germans hated democracy is wrong. Germany was moving towards liberal democracy in many ways long before World War 1 even began. From the mid to end of the 19th century, it would go through period or reactionary backlash and political liberalization. And certain German states were more liberal than others. For example, the Rhineland was more liberal than Prussia.

  Therefore, Liberal democracy was not imposed on Germany by any foreign power before World War 1.

• 15 Srithanonchai // Jan 30, 2007 at 9:24 pm

  Tosakan: I was quite bewildered reading your questions, “I wonder if Srithanonchai is going to deny the holocaust also and pretend that didn’t happen. Or maybe Germany never invaded Poland or France or Norway or Belgium or Holland. Maybe Hitler never existed and he was just made up by Jews in Hollywood.”

  This is like turning what I said in my post from white to black (or in this case, rather into brown). It should have been pretty obvious that I argue from an anti-Nazi position (Republican will be elated that, finally, Srithanonchai has announced a “position”). That is, Hitler was so incredibly evil that any comparison of Thaksin to Hitler is due to internal Thai political opportunism and ignorance, as opposed to the historical facts.

• 16 Vichai N. // Jan 30, 2007 at 11:11 pm

  Are we guys still at it arguing who deserves to be named ‘Mother of all Evil’ Thaksin or Hitler? No wonder the Germans were fuming mad with the Thais trying to usurp the ‘most evil’ world record.

  Maybe a more worthy question (and with this I would expect Republican, Anon, TaxiDriver to give me a well-deserved admonishment) is: Who is the Most Evil ever in Southeast Asia: Thaksin, Marcos, or Suharto?

  I would argue for Marcos of course, but Republican just to spite me will surely argue for Thaksin!

• 17 Batman // Jan 31, 2007 at 12:44 am

  Srithanonchai, tosakon’s point is that you are trying to say that because hitler wasn’t really democratically elected, the German people were not responsible for the atrocities they committed. Anyway from reading your comment that is the impression I got.

• 18 Srithanonchai // Jan 31, 2007 at 2:09 am

  Batman, I am sorry that you got this impression. However, after re-reading my post a couple of times, I don’t think that this interpretation is covered by my text, and it is very certainly not on my mind.

• 19 Tosakan // Jan 31, 2007 at 2:24 am

  Batman-Yeah, that is exactly what I thought s/he was saying.

  Vichai- We all give Thaksin a hard time, but he was far from being the worst dictator in Thailand and not even close to dictators from neighboring countries.

  Field Marshall Plaek, and generals Phao and Sarit were much bigger thugs than Thaksin–even though Thaksin paid homage to Phao’s statue many times.

  Marcos and Suharto were horrible. They were shameless murderers

  The juntas in Burma were bad and still are bad boys.

  Pol Pot tops them all.

• 20 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jan 31, 2007 at 2:51 am

  Gentlemen, gentlemen….with all this talk about whether Thaksin = Hitler, we are forgetting to address the REAL issue: Would the German ambassador have penned this poisonous letter if Thailand possessed vast subterranean fields of oil?

• 21 21Jan // Jan 31, 2007 at 3:13 am

  Tosakan, I was quite aware what the Versailles treaty and what the Weimar republic was but in case you didn’t notice, the Germans lost WW I and so the peace treaty included reparations to France and the lost of some territory why it was never accepted by the Germans of that time. Although there was some democratic movement in Germany even before WW I they didn’t had a democratic tradition before and – unlike 1945 where they probably thought as a majority that the defeat and the occupation was justified – they didn’t saw themself as deserved loser. In fact the so called Dolchstosslegende was widely accepted by the Germans – they thought that the German defeat in WW I was only possible through treason from the inside (especially left-wing parties got the blame). After the Black Friday the anti-democratic forces grew stronger and we got the sharp left-wing / right-wing divide (in fact the only party always pro-democracy during the Weimar Republic has been the Social Democrats). They got some appointed chancellors (Bruening and Von Papen) until Hitler came to power as in post no.8 stated.
  Of course you are right that the process was – kind of – democratic, because it used the channels provided by the constitution, but if the majority of the population doesn’t give a damn about democracy you get what you deserve. Especially the Enabling Act of 1933 was a shame for the parlament, for the German politicians and for the German population – and with the left quasi silenced after the Reichstag fire there was no real opposition.
  I didn’t wanted to whitewash the Germans, they knew what they got and – by a majority – they wanted it and – as said above – they got what they deserved (and they could be happy that the US bombed Hiroshima and not Berlin with the first nuclear bomb).

• 22 Tosakan // Jan 31, 2007 at 4:32 am

  21 Jan-

  I really don’t want to drag this out more than we have to, but your posts don’t make sense and keep contradicting the facts.

  You wrote “Although there was some democratic movement in Germany even before WW I they didn’t had a democratic tradition before and – unlike 1945 where they probably thought as a majority that the defeat and the occupation was justified – they didn’t saw themself as deserved loser.”

  So you are telling me there was no democratic tradition in the German states before World War 1? OK, if that is true, why did some German states have elected parliaments? And democratic government at the local levels?

  As Marx said, as every bourgeoisie class develops, so does the cry for liberal democratic institutions by that class. How can you say that there weren’t liberal democratic tradtions, especially in the more progressive parts of Germany, before World War 1? Factually, you are incorrect, because there indeed were parliaments in German states before WWI. There were democratic governments at the local level as well, going back hundreds of years.

  As for Hitler and the Enabling Act, a lot of what you are arguing doesn’t matter, because Hitler and his government were given the democratic seal of approval with a plebiscite, a direct popular vote, where he polled 85%, and the Enabling Acts were reconstituted over and over by the Reichstag up until the end of World War 2.

• 23 21Jan // Jan 31, 2007 at 6:11 am

  Additional to post no.21 I should note – if I remember right – that the evolution of civil rights and the civil revolution was associated with the “arch enemy” France since the time of the Napoleon occupation and so it was opposed by large parts of the population.
  The nationalistic and antidemocratic forces got pre WW I the upper hand after the 1870/71 war and the installation of the prussian Wilhelm I. as German Kaiser.
  After the lost war the progeressive forces got the upper hand for a short time and so Germany got its quite liberal constitution of the Weimar Republic – although with a president with large powers as a quasi Ersatz-Kaiser. This started to vanish after the soldiers – bound to a strong hierarchical structure – came back (look at the paramilitary Freikorps) and finally during the Great Depression / Hyperinflation the radical forces got the upper hand.
  @ Tosakan: I totally agree with your classification of the asian dictators

• 24 Republican // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:10 am

  The comparison between Hitler and Thaksin raises the issue of the fascist nature of the Thai state. On this there are indeed some interesting similarities:

  - Intensive cult of a charismatic, infallible leader, promoted by a relentless indoctrination program through the schools, the mass media, the bureaucracy and the armed forces
  - Extreme form of cultural nationalism, discourse of “uniqueness”
  - Anti-communism (less relevant since the end of the Cold War, but still salient)
  - Strong anti-capitalist sentiment
  - Strong anti-democratic sentiment
  - Nativist discourse about the “volk” (i.e. the idealization of village culture)
  - State control of the mass media
  - Militarized state
  - Broad, extra-legal powers of the police
  - Discourse of self-reliance / autarky (i.e. “self-sufficiency”)
  - A newly industrializing economy, with a large ‘peasant’ base
  - An economically squeezed, fearful and easily manipulated petty bourgeoisie
  - Cooption of big business by the fascist leadership
  - Cooption of the universities by the fascist leadership
  - Cooption of the judiciary by the fascist leadership
  - Cooption of the religious establishment by the fascist leadership
  - Bureaucracy under the tight control of the fascist leadership
  - Resentment at past humiliations imposed by outsiders (Western territorial incursions during the colonial era; the 1997 economic crisis)
  - Distrust of the outside world
  - Suppression of individuality; stress on national unity, and citizen’s duty and loyalty to the Leader
  - Official distaste for bourgeois culture and morality
  - Mass rallies and displays of emotion and hysteria
  - Officially enforced dress campaigns
  - Fetishist preoccupation with symbols
  - Continuous program of building grandiose monuments dedicated to the fascist idea

  It is of course necessary to point out the obvious differences, while at the same time bearing in mind that many of these differences are simply a product of the time-lag between the corresponding rise of fascist tendencies in Europe and Japan on the one hand and Thailand on the other. In Thailand’s case fascism has flowered when the international conditions are markedly different from those that pertained in the 1920s and 1930s, European fascism’s heyday.

  Of these differences one can point to the following:

  - Lack of a formal fascist party
  - Lack of explicit irredentism
  - Lack of a racial scapegoat, and a discourse of racial purity
  - Impossibility of conducting an autarkic economic policy, given the international hegemony of free market capitalism

  If Thailand can indeed be classed as a quasi-fascist state (albeit of a “soft”, rather poorly organized variety), with the King as the fascist leader, what does this mean? The implications are that the regime in Thailand, contra the advocates of “Thai-style Democracy” or “White Knight” arguments, is not sui generis but a political and cultural type of political irrationality common to many newly industrializing countries.

• 25 21Jan // Jan 31, 2007 at 12:35 pm

  Tosakan, I don’t want to stress this either, you are probably right that I underestimated the democratic pre-WW I tradition, but I have learned – unfortuntately my historical education might have been a little bit undifferentiated – that the German democratic tradition before 1919 mainly consists of the March Revolution of 1848 and of the Frankfurt Parliament (the national assembly also in 1848) and that parliamentarianism before the Weimar constitution was more of an alibi (they could have achieved some kind of constitutional monarchy in 1848 but the prussian king rejected the Kaiser title).
  To get on-topic again one could argue (regarding your rather pessimistic post no.26 in the succession discussion) that if a country who was for half a century the biggest threat to world peace, who had deep nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian roots, who deeply believed in command and obidience (Lenin stated once that if there is in Germany a revolution at the train station the Germans would buy a platform ticket first) and who were feared by most of their neighbours – that if such a nation can develop quite strong democracy it should be possible for Thailand as well.
  By the way I think the Thai official doesn’t know Fawlty Towers – otherwise he would have taken the advice of John Cleese: “Don’t mention the war!” and I think we should now keep it that way.

• 26 Vichai N. // Jan 31, 2007 at 1:49 pm

  Maybe we can rank Southeast Asia’s League of Leader Rogues:

  1) PolPot of Cambodia
  2) Newin of Myanmar
  3) Marcos of Philippines
  4) Suharto of Indonesia
  5) Thaksin of Thailand

  Will that satisfy you Republican or can you NOT breathe (your convoluted English suggested as much) to admit that Thaksin deserve to be in the select league above?

• 27 Srithanonchai // Jan 31, 2007 at 2:29 pm

  Seemingly, the dicussion drifts into the domain of semi-professional denizens of a sapha kafae.

• 28 21Jan // Jan 31, 2007 at 3:56 pm

  Republican, interesting argumentation, you could add to your points the parallels between the New Year bombings and the Reichstag fire and between Sonthis secret police and the Gestapo (ok here I did almost a Goodwin). But you have to add to your differences the relative freedom of speech (if its not against the “head of state”) and that the power is in the hands of an old elite instead of a fascist party.
  I would call it (neo-)feudalism (and of course you can’t compare the king with Hitler – but I don’t think that this was your intention)

• 29 Tosakan // Jan 31, 2007 at 4:57 pm

  Republican-

  I absolutely agree with what you wrote, except a couple parts where you made exceptions.

  You wrote:

  Of these differences one can point to the following:

  - Lack of a formal fascist party
  - Lack of explicit irredentism
  - Lack of a racial scapegoat, and a discourse of racial purity
  - Impossibility of conducting an autarkic economic policy, given the international hegemony of free market capitalism.

  1. While it is true there has never been a formal fascist party, most Thai military dictators did have phony parties in which they ran, and the Democrat Party has always been quasi Royalist party.

  But the name Thai Rak Thai says it all. You can’t get a more fascist name than that. I don’t even think our buddy Hitler would be that arrogant.

  What was Thai Rak Thai’s original platform? The Dem sold out the country to the farang during the 97 crisis Thaksin was the only leader who could save Thailand. Lets go after the dirty drug dealers, Muslims, and porn websites. Lets us save the children from the evil farang values. Let us go back to our puritanical Thai roots of clean living and modesty. Let us worship the villagers and their crappy OTOP products. And like a good fascist, Thaksin was undermining all the legitimate instruments of political power by intimidating the media, buying off officials, and creating phony political parties.

  One could say that Thaksin was trying to replace one charismatic leader, the King, with himself, and in a semi-fascist country like Thailand that is a no no, because the King has the military and his army of yellow shirted zombies and thugs. Thaksin could have had an army, but his capitalist Chinese buds go where the money goes, and Thaksin exploited the masses for their money, so they had no money to support him on their own.

  The difference between Thaksin and the King is this: People literally worship the king as a God and would give their lives and money to him just like they would to a Buddha or Hindu deity whereas with Thaksin they are just waiting for the rich Chink to give them a handout.

  2. Irredentism-Thailand does have a history of irredentism.
  Thailand went after its “stolen territories” during World War 2.
  In text books and in the popular culture(King Naresuan), there is definitely irredentist propaganda. Remember the Angkhor Wat controversy when Thais had their embassy burned down in Cambodia, because some soap opera actress said Angkhor Wat belonged to the Thais. What is the civil war in the South about? Those provinces used to be their own independent kingdoms and they are fighting for their freedom.

  3. Racial scapegoats-Thais have a long history of using racial scapegoats. Burmese, Cambodians, the Chinese, Japanese, and the farang have always been used by the Thais as the “evil other” in their propaganda. And Thais have a long history of massacring the Japanese and farang. Concerning the Chinese, King Vajirayudh referred to them as the “Jews of the East.” Plaek Pibulsongkran instituted anti-Chinese laws during his tenure as dictator. Thailand also has had a long history of ghettoizing foreigners.

  4. Autarky-King B’s Self-sufficiency theory is the code word for autarky.

  Other right-wing non-Royalists such Ajarn Sulak and Ajarn Pawat advocate autarky.

  So do many right-wing monks.

  Thailand is not a fascist state; it is a quasi fascist state.

  And the reason why it gets away with its fascist status is something I don’t understand.

  I think Thailand deserves to be treated like a pariah state like Burma, but too many Western diplomats don’t give a shit.

• 30 hpboothe // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:01 pm

  Westerners have a long history of ignoring their supposed liberal values when doing so is convenient – consider support for Marcos, Suharto, Singapore, China, the Saudis, Saddam pre-1991, Pinochet, Somoza, the apartheid regime in South Africa, Hun Sen – the list goes on and on.

  The bigger mystery is how with so much natural resources, the Burmese junta remains a pariah state.

  From what I see in Thailand, the quality of Westerners who are here is piss poor. With few exceptions, Thailand is hardly the place to make your name in any corporate or government structure – how many Thailand country managers go on to become senior executives at headquarters? If you’re looking to Asia, it’s Japan, China, Hong Kong, maybe Korea, Singapore and increasingly India. Thailand is literally not on the map.

  But lots of westerners love it here because life is cheap, the food is good, you don’t have to work very hard, chicks are hot and easy, and as a whitey making a decent paycheck you can automatically waddle your way into what passes for “high-society” – you get your picture in the paper and everyone treats you like you really know something because compared to the locals you’re probably a genius even though you’re average at best in your own country.

  You see it in the atrocious quality of the “journalism” here, the laughable “political analysis” of “thai studies” academics, the inane business plans managers put together, the research by stock analysts, and on and on.

  Since it’s such a tiny country, no one pays much attention, and people get away with what they get away with. It’s why the country will never grow very much – the more attention it brings to itself, the more the warts are evident.

• 31 Ananth // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:27 pm

  Thai people living outside may miss some experiences of ‘lives under Thaksin’. I’m living here in Thailand and I can still remember how bitter we felt when he heard of his regime’s measure against medias, like The Nation and the family of its head, Yoon family, very early after he took power. Opponents hardly appeared on TV screen for almost 5 years. Even his major opponent, Sondhi, After his programme was ousted from Channel 9, he had never appeared on any free TV. What happened then???

  And we have to recall what happened to thousands who were killed with the tag of ‘Anti-Drug’ campaign.

  So, I’d like to warn that it is likely very risky to see Thaksin rule as ‘ true, authentic, pro-democracy’ regime. You would be upset…very upset.

• 32 Tosakan // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:38 pm

  hpboothe-

  I think there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. There are exceptions, however.

  But what is intriguing to me is why? Why so much mediocrity? Everybody I talk to thinks it is the weather.

  I think Thailand has all the “potential” in the world to be a great country, but it is sub par to mediocre in every way like you said.

  My biggest fear is that if Burma ever opens up it will be immediately turn into another Thailand. Can you imagine all those beautiful pristine beaches turning into Pattaya and Phuket? That’s a horrifying thought.

  I always thought an interesting experiment would be to give one Thai province to the Americans, one to the Europeans, and another province to the Japanese. They can manage these provinces any way they see fit. There would be no political interference from the Thais whatsoever. Give them five years.
  Then let Thais vote on it. If the foreigners did a horrible job, then they would have to restore the province as it was before or pay a penalty. But if they did an excellent job, they could sort out a system of paying back the foreigners or continue to contract out its managements, but introduce an element of self-government as well.

  I wonder what would happen.

• 33 Vichai N. // Feb 1, 2007 at 12:30 am

  One thing that many Asians find perplexing about Western behaviour is their ‘extreme risk taking’. You’ll see that in ‘extreme sports’ and to the Asians, unbelievable insane behaviour of Americans, Japanese, Europeans as they dare the elements to test the limits of their physical endurance, and, dare the ‘unknown’, those pioneers of past.

  There Tosakan — I hope that helps explain to you why Thais, and Filipinos, and Indonesians and Malaysians, are so timid and mediocre.

• 34 June // Feb 1, 2007 at 4:57 am

  Don’t compare Germany and Thailand because we can not comparable, whatever the economy, the number of educated people, the technology. Thailand has lower development. The quality of leader and government teams are uncomparable.

  I used to like the Nation newspaper but now it receives high money from the coup to write the bias news. They do not write the fact of news. Most of them are opinion.

• 35 June // Feb 1, 2007 at 5:02 am

  China leader, Japan leader used to involve in the war.
  If that day Germany won the war, no one would accused Hitler.
  Nowaday, Germany is going to be giant again.

• 36 nganadeeleg // Feb 1, 2007 at 9:17 am

  Is this an academic site, or a redneck forum?

  Its gone from Thaksin being compared to Hitler, to the Chinese being the Jews of the East, to thai fascism.

  I might as well add to the sweeping generalizations:

  – IMHO many commentators on this site exhibit signs of Aryanism

  – its little wonder some Thais have a low opinion of farang, given the quality of farang that they come across.

• 37 patiwat // Feb 1, 2007 at 10:58 am

  When a prominent Thai academic acuses Thaksin of being worse than Hitler, then an “academic site” and a “redneck forum” aren’t too different.

• 38 Republican // Feb 1, 2007 at 3:50 pm

  #26: Thank you Vichai for giving me this opportunity. Of course, you would know that I could not be satisfied with your list. Obviously I would replace #5 with “Bhumibol of Thailand”, based on the following qualities he has in common, with Suharto in particular:

  (i) longetivity of his authoritarian regime
  (ii) Western education and modern outlook, disguised by a phoney pretence at embodying “traditional cultural values” of the nation
  (iii) control of the military as the basis of his political power
  (iv) promoter of authoritarian state-led developmentalism
  (v) willingness to ruthlessly crush opposition when necessary
  (vi) intolerance of criticism (hence the lese majeste law)
  (vii) tight control of his image in the state controlled media
  (viii) strong support for anti-communism (hence the support of the US)
  (ix) deep anti-democratic sentiment
  (x) head of a huge, untouchable business empire (the Crown Property Bureau)
  (xi) distrust of market liberalization (ie. “sufficiency economy”) as he realizes, rightly, that it will adversely affect his business interests and those of his allies, and hence the position of the monarchy
  (xii) widespread abuse of their privileges by his children and family
  (xiii) surrounded by cronies (the Privy Councillors, royalists in the military, “Network Monarchy”, etc.)
  (xiv) hypocritical discourse of “morality” late in his life, motivated purely by political objectives (Suharto’s interest in Islam in the final years of his regime to neutralize the Islamic movement; Bhumibol’s “sufficiency economy” to attack Thaksin’s popular brand of capitalism)

  etc. etc.

• 39 hpboothe // Feb 1, 2007 at 6:47 pm

  Tosakan – Well, yes of course there are exceptions; and I also love the weather hypothesis. I also think that Thailand suffers from its own variant of the “oil curse” – it is an amazingly rich country with tons of natural resources, fertile fields, long coastlines, few major natural disasters (yes, some floods and maybe a tsunami every 700 years, but no volcanoes, typhoons, earthquakes, etc), that has been at relative peace for decades. Instead of marvelling at how much its grown, the real mystery is why it’s still so backwards – I think it’s because life is so easy here. Why bother? There’s fish in the sea and rice in the fields – relax. Vichai is right on. Of course, this attitude also allows the more ambitious and conniving to take advantage of the situation, and they do. Driving behavior is a good metaphor, I think – 90% of Thai drivers will let you get away with all sorts of psycho behavior, and the other 10% consequently exhibit all sorts of psycho behavior.

  Your “governmental outsourcing” idea is similar to a solution I proposed when the Shin Corp sale was first announced and so many hackles were raised – how about incorporating Singapore into Thailand as its 77th (I think) province? That way, Singaporeans will automatically become Thais, and there’s no more problem of “foreign ownership” – plus the PAP could contest elections, and then we’d have a real competition going on! The Singaporeans are clamoring for a real country to run, and Thailand could sure use a bit of Singaporean efficiency – seems like a win-win to me!

  nganadeeleg – I completely agree with your point about the quality of farang here, though I see a lot of farang-worship as well as farang-hating. The hating i can understand – how do you explain the worship?

• 40 Vichai N. // Feb 1, 2007 at 7:12 pm

  Do NOT be angry Patiwat because those lousy Thai academics would dare malign Hitler, err…. I mean Thaksin.

  I will make up for that. I hereby declare that Thaksin is definitely better, not worse, than Hitler.

  Satisfied Paiwat. So I hope your neck Patiwat don’t get too red in anger sir.

• 41 Vichai N. // Feb 1, 2007 at 7:16 pm

  Republican I did expect your reply but I did not expect it to be that short. Do articulate some more sir Republican on why HMK of Thailand deserves to be no. 5 in the list. Maybe Anon, Taxi Driver and of course my friend Andrew Walker can fill in what you have missed.

  Then the four of you can keep reading and re-reading what you wrote to lull you all to blissful sleep.

• 42 Tosakan // Feb 1, 2007 at 9:54 pm

  nganadeeleg-

  Instead of throwing insults, why don’t you actually refute what has been written with an intelligent response?

  No generalizations have been made, except by you and your uncalled for snide remark.

  If you have a counter-argument, make it.

  By the way, there is plenty of evidence, none coming from rednecks, that link Thailand with fascism, empirically and theoretically. Your insults don’t change these facts.

  And King Vajirayudh and Plaek Pibulsongkran called the Chinese “The Jews of Asia”

  Waiting for your intelligent response. Thank you.

• 43 jeru // Feb 1, 2007 at 10:08 pm

  Thailand and fascists linked? Somehow I am lost in that argument because my Thai history is terrible.

  But if indeed those past leaders Tosakan were fascistic, it did not appear to have made much impression for long. Calling Chinese the Jews of Asia must have ‘threatening’ during the mid-1900’s, during the rise of fascism in Europe. But if there is country in Asia that had successfully assimilated (embraced is more like it) the Chinese, it must be Thailand.

  Tosakan are you telling us that we should be wary of black shirted fascists in today’s Thailand?

• 44 Vichai N. // Feb 1, 2007 at 11:18 pm

  There’s a culture of impunity bestowed upon the political elite that needs to be removed from the Thai mind set. Whereas constitutional checks & balances are worthy causes and should be strongly included in the constitutional rewrite, it becomes meaningless when there is no bite to the bark.

  We have to follow the example of South Korea in their rigid political discipline that there will be no one above the constitution, and, that everyone will be under the rule of law. South Korea jailed two corrupt ex-Presidents Chun and Roh vividly giving substance and meaning to constitutional rule of law.

  Thaksin cannot be allowed to go scot-free. Thaksin was blatantly corrupt, blatantly conflicted, blatantly criminally tax evasive, and, blatantly criminally violated the rule of law when he carried out the slaughter of thousands during that senseless anti-drugs war of Y2003. Unless Thaksin is judicially brought to account for all above criminal violations of constitutional rule of law, any new constitution written would be looked upon dubiously as another fruitless exercise because ‘culture of impunity’ mocks Thailand’s old or constitutions still, in the person of scot-free Thaksin Shinawatra.

• 45 Tosakan // Feb 1, 2007 at 11:32 pm

  Jeru-

  More like yellow shirted fascists.

  The simple answer to your question is yes.

  You might ask, how do I know this?

  I look at the situation as whole and from a historical context.

  And you have to realize that fascism doesn’t have to be only about Italians or Germans and their experiences

  Thailand is its own country and what happens here doesn’t mean the exact thing happened in Italy or Germany in the early 20 th century. Political theory is not a Hollywood movie.

  So, with that being said, I don’t think the Thai Gestapo will start rounding up state enemies and putting them in concentration camps.

  But there are things you have pay attention to:

  Economic laws
  Propaganda
  Visa laws
  Resident alien laws
  Property laws
  Form of government
  Civil lliberties

  You have to pay attention notions of Thai Exceptionalism that are expressed at every level of Thai society.

  You have to pay attention to the nationalist media.

  You have to pay attention when elites talk about Thai culture and the construction of Thai culture, the one that serves a nationalist political ideology.

  You have to pay attention to Thailand’s economic relationship with neighboring countries.

  You have to pay attention to the “blame the other” philosophy that pervades in Thai society.

  You have to pay attention to all the rhetoric concerning free trade agreements and the current spat between Thailand and Singapore.

  What images are conjured up? What is the propaganda? Look at the movie, King Naresuan, for example. That is fascist propaganda.

  Thailand also has a long history of using nationalist gangs and thugs to silence opponents.

  Look what happened to the Daily News yesterday?

  Look at the thuggery on the football pitch?

  Look at the thuggery between vocational schools.

  During the 70’s, you had murderous gangs like the Red Gaur, Nawaphon, and Village Scouts going after students?

  Look at the Civil War in the South.

  Look at the terrorism.

  Look at how the Thai media practices self-censorship

  Look at how the Thai populace embraces a military dictatorship.

  Look at how Thais gather together in their yellow shirted masses for their cults of personality, but have no respect for liberal institutions

  I could go on and on.

• 46 nganadeeleg // Feb 1, 2007 at 11:52 pm

  Tosakan – Your not too bad at throwing insults yourself.

  I’m guessing that you are not Thai, and I take back the following comments if you are indeed Thai.

  Post 25:
  You said:
  “……Let us worship the villagers and their crappy OTOP products.”

  What’s wrong with Thai village products?
  I am very satisfied with the one OTOP product that I have, as in my opinion it is far superior to any alternative products (which only seem to be produced in China).

  Post 29:
  You said:
  “Thailand is not a fascist state; it is a quasi fascist state.
  And the reason why it gets away with its fascist status is something I don’t understand.
  I think Thailand deserves to be treated like a pariah state like Burma, but too many Western diplomats don’t give a shit.”

  Which Thai are the fascists?
  The buddhists or the muslims, sikhs or hindus?
  The Central, Northern or Southern thais, or the Chinese, Mon, Kymer or Malay?
  Why is it up to the Western diplomats to treat it like a pariah state? Who has Thailand invaded lately?
  The reason it is not treated like a pariah state is because it is not one – anyone who has been there would know that.

  Post 32:
  You said:
  “I think Thailand has all the “potential” in the world to be a great country, but it is sub par to mediocre in every way like you said.”

  Can you please provide examples of a great country?

  You said:
  “I always thought an interesting experiment would be to give one Thai province to the Americans, one to the Europeans, and another province to the Japanese. They can manage these provinces any way they see fit. There would be no political interference from the Thais whatsoever. Give them five years.
  Then let Thais vote on it. If the foreigners did a horrible job, then they would have to restore the province as it was before or pay a penalty. But if they did an excellent job, they could sort out a system of paying back the foreigners or continue to contract out its managements, but introduce an element of self-government as well.”

  Have you ever wondered such a thing about any other countries, including your own country?

  Maybe I’m a bit sensitive, but I also find the tone of your Jump the Shark blog insulting.
  Maybe I don’t watch enough US television shows.

• 47 Srithanonchai // Feb 2, 2007 at 12:26 am

  What arguments are there to be refuted? I haven’t seen any. What facts? Haven’t seen them either. Plenty of evidence (both in theorry and empiry) — where? Thailand a fascist state? I have been here for quite some time — did I miss something? In fact, I foreign friend of mine, who had lived here for about five years, found that Thailand resembled a socialist country. Well, I would rather not go for this either, although Thailand is strongly collectivist in many respects.

• 48 Tosakan // Feb 2, 2007 at 1:26 am

  Here are some definitions of fascism and Thailand seems to fit, doesn’t it?

  * “Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”[4]

  Paxton further defines fascism’s essence as:

  * “1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination.”

• 49 Srithanonchai // Feb 2, 2007 at 1:44 am

  No, doesn’t seem to fit.

• 50 jeru // Feb 2, 2007 at 1:55 am

  Tosakan you lare osing your credibility with this nonsense that Thailand is or was fascist. Read your own definition man!

  ” . . .pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

  Where is the redemptive violence Tosakan?
  Where is the ‘internal cleansing’?
  Where is the ‘external expansion’?

  And to claim that Thailand’s yellow shirt are fascists? Those yellow shirts are Bangkok’s educated, uneducated, middle-class, poor, rich, military, police, hawkers, teachers, students . . they are nearly every Thai Tosakan. Has anyone of these yellow shirts pounded on your door in the middle of the night to coerce you to ‘conform’ or be ‘cleansed’?

  No wonder nganadaleeg doubts you are even Thai Tosakan.

• 51 Tosakan // Feb 2, 2007 at 2:03 am

  OK, so what are your reasons?

  If it doesn’t fit, then what fits?

• 52 Tosakan // Feb 2, 2007 at 2:14 am

  Jeru-

  I guess what is going on in the South is just a figment of my imagination.

  I guess the mass killings in the South are in my imagination.

  The attacks against the news media, like the one yesterday, is in my imagination.

  The constant harassment , disappearance, and murdering of NGO workers, monks, and other social activists is in my imagination.

  The terrorism in Bangkok is my imagination.

  The censorship of the news media and the internet is my imagination.

  The infiltration of political groups must be my imagination.

  Television and radio is owned and controlled by the military

  Jeru-Yes, people are forced to conform to wearing yellow shirts and forced to partake in ceremonies of allegiance, in both the public and private sectors.

• 53 Srithanonchai // Feb 2, 2007 at 2:43 am

  The point is that nothing fits, simply because this entirely bizarre “discussion” about Hitler and fascism doesn’t connect to historical events, structures, and processes in far-away countries such as Germany or Italy. Rather “Hitler” and “fascism” have become what Kasian once called, with respect to “democracy”, “freefloating signifyiers.” In other words, they are used as cultural symbols. While “democracy” stands for eternally good politics, “Hitler/fascism” stand for eternally bad politics. So, if somebody wants to denote the good, it is “democracy”, if the bad, then its “Hitler/fascism.” This has nothing to do with the historial sources of these terms, but everything with the self-referential processing of meaning of those Thais who want to advance their agendas in the Thai socio-political context.

  In this context, it is noteworthy, that “Hitler”, for many Thais, has a positive connotation, namely decisive and daring leadership — quasi a better version of Sarit. Similarly, “democracy” has also a negative connotation, namely as “western”, and “un-Thai.”

• 54 jeru // Feb 2, 2007 at 3:22 am

  Pardon if I am still bewildered but Tosakan you sounded more pissed at Thailand’s messy political aftermath, a legacy of Thaksin, rather than a ridiculous claim of Thai fascism.

  - The Southern conflagration is admittedly out-of-control with no solution in sight because of Thaksin’s mismanagement, but where is fascism?

  - The attacks against the news media (yesterday) and also during the anti-Thaksin protests (Nation and Manager) were work of thugs, and, again the Thaksin elements come to mind, but where is fascism? (thuggery during Thaksin’s rule – did that qualify as fascism?)

  - I am not familiar with attacks on NGOs and disappearances of activist-monks and thus cannot comment

  - The terrorism in Bangkok I presume you refer to the NYE bomb attack and again I suspect the culprits were Thaksinists but fascism?

  - The junta tried to persuade Thai media cooperation but was ignored . . again fascism?

  - Infiltration of political groups may or not be your imagination, who knows? but fascism?

  - military owned tvs/radios (every single station tosakan?)

  But on the people ‘forced’ to wear yellow is all figment of your imagination Tosakan! Thai people just love their King and THAT knowledge eats like acid against Thaksin’s (and Tosakan’s too perhaps) innards.

• 55 nganadeeleg // Feb 2, 2007 at 7:05 am

  hpboothe said: “….. though I see a lot of farang-worship as well as farang-hating. The hating i can understand – how do you explain the worship?”

  Is that worship of farang in general, or some individuals?

  I can understand if it is some individuals, because obviously not all farang are in Thailand for the usual exploitation/sexploitation etc

  If it is worship of farang in general, the only explanation I can offer is that they see the $ signs.

Leave a Comment