New Mandala

37 responses so far ↓

• 1 Srithanonchai // Apr 4, 2007 at 6:23 pm

  It would be useful to note that there is no unified “anti-coup protest movement,” but rather a number of groups, at least 12, with different leaders, causes, and strategies. One group (or more?) amongst them has moved against Prem.

• 2 somsak jeamteerasakul // Apr 4, 2007 at 6:56 pm

  Dear Khun Andrew,

  You write:
  “Whether or not Prem had any direct role in the coup is beside the point. What is important is that in this protest action Prem appears to be a symbolic proxy for the king himself.”

  It’s more complicated than that. Among the various groups now opposing the coup, though they are one in condemning Prem (none of them doubt his role), they are actually NOT unaniimous in their views of the monarchy and the role of the King himself in this coup (or during last year political crises). Some of them genuinely believe that Prem acted on his own. Their attack on Prem stems from (strange as this may sound) their strong royalty to the King. They naturally insist on separating Prem’s role from that of the monarch. Other groups / persons follow this separation line as a tactic (legal protection), though they are quite aware of (or see) the actual connection. (I suspect Thaksin himself in his famous “charismatic person” pronouncement during the crises could be regarded as belonging to this category, though he could be in the first group I just said too.) Finally, there could of course be some who are attacking Prem in the way you describe (but you’d appreciate why nobody can really admit this.)

  What complicates the matter further is you cannot judge who are in which category by their outward attack on Prem. Some in the first group, for instance, are among the most vituperative when it comes to the Prem issue, though they would see themselves as true royalists. In other word, the most active in attacking Prem may not be the most (in fact I know they’re not) anti-monarhist.

• 3 somsak jeamteerasakul // Apr 4, 2007 at 7:15 pm

  p.s. for anyone interested, you can listen to record of a press conference held this morning (10 a.m. BKK time) by the SaturdayVoice Anti-Coup Group who organizes the pettion, here :

  http://www.saturdaynews.org/read.php?id=334

• 4 Srithanonchai // Apr 4, 2007 at 7:57 pm

  Somsak: Very interesting, thank you. Please, keep contributing.

• 5 Andrew Walker // Apr 4, 2007 at 9:20 pm

  Thanks for the very useful comments. Here is an update from the Bangkok Post.

  Anti-coup group continues attempt to remove Prem

  (BangkokPost.com) – An anti-coup group Wednesday vowed to continue collecting signatures in support of a petition to His Majesty the King for the removal of Prem Tinsulanonda as president of the Privy Council despite warnings from the coup makers. Wiphu Poompattanathai, spokesman of the Saturday Voice group, spoke at a press conference in Bangkok that the military junta tried to make this look like a lese majeste act but he confirmed that the group had no intention to do so. He said the group would continue to collect the signatures. It has got about 10,000 signatures so far. He added that it would inform Gen Prem when it gets 30,000 names, and call on his resignation when it gets 50,000 names. Once it gets 100,000 names, it would petition HM the King to ask him to resign. The Council for National Security spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd said Tuesday that thet CNS viewed the signature campaign against Gen prem as being “inappropriate.” Col Sansern said it was improper to do that since Gen Prem was appointed to the post by HM the King, thus the act could be deemed as lese majeste.

• 6 Bangkok Pundit // Apr 5, 2007 at 12:05 am

  I agree with Somsak. A couple of points.

  First, some academics have also criticised Prem. Here is Thitinan, who is never one to hold back:

  “General Prem has been compromised,” said Chulalongkorn’s Thitinan. “He can’t have it both ways. He got so involved and now he wants to be untouchable. But we are in a big mess and people want to know who is responsible. Look at the choice of prime minister, of the National Legislative Assembly… it’s not surprising people are pointing the finger at General Prem.”

  Thitinan also worried that the increasing polarization of the Thai political scene was hurting political discourse. “Why can’t we be anti-Thaksin, anti-coup, and anti-government?” he said. “It’s dangerous for some anti-Thaksin people and pro-Prem people to be brushing aside criticism by saying if you criticize General Prem, you are paid by Thaksin. It’s very dangerous. People are frustrated, and they have the right to be mad at the master. It doesn’t mean that they support Thaksin.”

  Master? Compromised? Strong words from Thitinan.

  Second, I think you need to separate out the institutions of the monarchy from the monarchy. While, there has been much discussion on how the role/influence has increased over the last 50 years, I think you cannot ignore the institutions of the monarchy. Jim Ockey wrote an article just over a year ago arguing that the institutions of the monarchy have also increased over the last 40 years. If you follow the below link you can read up on the institutions on the monarchy and their ever increasing role. The question which is difficult to answer is, are the interests of the institutions on the monarchy the same as the monarchy? I guess the protesters don’t think so.

  Ockey’s article has been mysteriously made available here (PDF File).

• 7 Srithanonchai // Apr 5, 2007 at 1:44 am

  BP: Thanks very muchy for this link to Ockey’s article.

• 8 Republican // Apr 5, 2007 at 3:17 am

  I guess time makes fools of all of us, and it is always hazardous making predictions, but I wonder whether a year and a half after the article was published Ockey would be quite so confident that “… with the institutions of the monarchy strong and stable, the next monarch will have sufficient support, so that we should not expect a crisis…” (p.124). It would seem to me that in fact the monarchy is already in profound crisis, and the succession is still not in sight. I fail to see how Thailand’s monarchy will avoid the fate of monarchies elsewhere; the question is, whether it will be a French Revolution style event or something more orderly. But given the way dissent in Thailand has been so rigorously suppressed for so long, and that no opportunity has ever been given to discuss how the monarchy might have a more rational future in the Thai state, the former more explosive scenario unfortunately seems to me more likely.

  In fact, there is much in Ockey’s article that is highly questionable. Much of it reads to me more like a eulogy written by palace officials than a critical analysis: “… Many believe that without a wise king to take a hand in these times of crisis,Thailand would have plunged into chaos….” (p. 115) ; “… The King is thus available to rescue the nation when its political institutions fail…” (p.116); and this unfortunate statement: “Although Thais and friends of Thailand hope that the present king will reign for many more years …” (p.116). So, if one did NOT want the king to reign for many more years, if one actually wanted, at long last, a truly democratic system for Thailand without the king “reigning”, one is not a friend of Thailand? A perfect example of how Western scholarship and academic institutions have been one of the main allies of a deeply, fundamentally anti-democratic Thai monarchy.

  I could spend several pages on this but I will limit myself to comments on just a few of the article’s claims:

  (i) “…The informal role of the monarch in supporting democracy has also been shared, to some degree, with the privy council and especially with its president…” (p.124) Well, this is a staggering claim to make, it hardly needs my commentary. I mean, how can “monarchy” (especially in Thailand) be mentioned in the same sentence as “democracy”? The privy coundil?!! The president!!!!??

  (ii) the quotation by the king he gives on p.124 to describe the king’s relationship with “his” people, without any critical comment, is worthy of one of the countless royal hagiographies: “… So a constitutional monarch
  is first of all a symbol of the country [...] It’s like being a representative of our embodiment, or the soul of the country…” Well maybe, or perhaps the king is in fact the apex of a system of political control and repression unique in the modern world: the head of a rigid, fascistic ratchakan state that controls not only the civilian bureaucracy but the military, the police, the Sangha, the universities, the education system, the mass media; the head of the largest corporate group in the country, and lastly and most importantly, this control is made invisible through the lese majeste law.

  (iii) Then there is the familiar anti-Thai Rak Thai bias of most academics, Western and Thai:: “… Others have noted a further deterioration of democracy under the Thai Rak Thai government …” (p.117) Now let me get this right: when we have democratic elections won overwhelmingly by Thai Rak Thai, which send representatives from electorates all over the nation to the National Assembly, who carry out in government what they promised in their election campaign, that is a “deterioration” of democracy, but when we let a deeply authoritarian feudal ruler, who owes his position to a military dictatorship supported by the US during the Cold War, who still requires people in his presence to grovel and kowtow on the floor under the specks of dust on the soles of his feet, to “strengthen the institutions of monarchy” with the hope that he will “reign for many more years…”, that is presumably “supporting democracy”?!

  You just have to ask yourself once again: why do Western scholars, who, unlike Thai scholars, are not bound by lese majeste, feel obliged to portray the monarchy in this way?

• 9 nganadeeleg // Apr 5, 2007 at 9:36 am

  Republcian said: “You just have to ask yourself once again: why do Western scholars, who, unlike Thai scholars, are not bound by lese majeste, feel obliged to portray the monarchy in this way?”

  I’m not a schloar so I cannot answer for them, however I suspect many believe that the king is a source of stability, and things would be much worse without him.

  That’s what I believe – it will take more than your vitriol to convince me otherwise.

• 10 nganadeeleg // Apr 5, 2007 at 9:40 am

  I’m not a schloar or a scholar.

• 11 Srithanonchai // Apr 5, 2007 at 3:17 pm

  Now looking forward to Ockey’s response to Republican’s scathing criticism…

• 12 Srithanonchai // Apr 5, 2007 at 3:34 pm

  The secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, Suriyasai Katasila (of PAD fame), was also feeling some heat, because he had given an interview in Thai that contained passages critical of Prem. I read it yesterday in Matichon and thought that his remarks were quite strong. Today (April 5), The Nation provides a translation of these passages:

  The headline of the article is “Democracy advocate denies attacking Prem.”

  “Prem is a symbol of the aristocratic system. Actually, this system has never disappeared from Thailand even though we had the 1997 [People's] Constitution. If we look at Prem’s roles we can see that clearly. But the size of the system has been narrowed to some extent as civic space grows and directly challenges the system. At the same time, the aristocracy has been challenged by a new capitalist group, which brought [former prime minister] Thaksin to power.

  “We might say that feudalism borrowed people’s power to topple Thaksin’s regime or the new capitalist group. But I think Prem isn’t the symbol of the existence of ‘half democracy’. It doesn’t mean that without Prem, our country will be fully democratic. But he’s a symbol of authoritarianism or the aristocracy, which still holds some space in Thai society.

  “Today, it’s practically clear that Prem exercised that power through the Council for Democratic Reform [now the Council for National Security]. He sat controlling things at Si Sao Thewes House [his house] and nobody would have thought he would dare to. At least, nobody would have thought that when the 1997 Constitution was drafted that a privy councillor would be involved or take part in this publicly,” Suriyasai told the magazine.

• 13 John Francis Lee // Apr 6, 2007 at 1:20 am

  I guess that Republican (why do westerners find it necessary to hide behind psuedonyms?) and I have read the same article, although it’s hard for me to reconcile what I’ve read with his screed.

  In this article, I will argue that, alongside the personal popularity of the current monarch, the institutions of the monarchy have been greatly strengthened in the last four decades. Consequently, future monarchical succession should see considerable continuity and stability.
  Such preparations make the sacrifice of democracy in pursuit of stability unnecessary and unfortunate.

  My italics above. Ockey’s thesis is that the institutions of the monarchy are as strong as they need by, if the monarchy were to provide the stabilizing influence that Bhummipol Adulyadej has personally provided, not only to the nation but to the monarchic institution itself.

  Well that depends upon what you mean by stability.

  Many in Thailand have begun to worry about the future, when a new monarch will reign. They fear that without the wise use of informal royal influence, Thailand may not be able to resolve future crises without major conflict. There have thus been attempts to re-engineer the political system to increase stability, at the expense of democracy and participation. Such attempts were made by the drafters of the 1997 Constitution, which drastically limited the role of the parliament, creating an executive government led by a cabinet chosen through party lists, a cabinet that cannot be easily monitored or checked by the parliament.

  While the 1997 constitution is so often cited as the “most democratic” of Thai constitutions, Ockey points out its patently undemocratic cast. Which was ok with those who sought “stability”, ostensibly after the departure of our beloved Majesty the King, Bhumipol Adulyadej.

  Similarly, the Thai Rak Thai party has sought to monopolise the parliament, force a two party system – or even a one-and-ahalf party system – and stifle debate in the parliament. Ironically, the old system, despite its many flaws, was not unstable.

  And there you have the problem according to those who erred on the side of “stability” in the constitution of 1997 : a new political core wrapped itself up in the cloak of invulnerability that was to have been theirs. When Thaksin began to pick off the military, the last piece of the puzzle he did not control, they came out of the barracks.

  I think that Ockey gives HM the King too much credit for the construction of the massive “monarchic apparatus” which he documents. I think HM the King has been used by the old, now resurgent, political core for their purposes. That in fact his “power” is not in the monarchic apparatus at all, but exclusively of his own creation, that it inheres in his person, that he created it one year at a time over the course of sixty years.

  I think HM the King has no illusions over his power as King. The last King, his brother, was murdered. I distinctly remember him reminding Thaksin not long before the latter’s downfall that he, Thaksin, could die. That the King himself knew upon taking up the throne that he could himself die, and that he changed his behavior accordingly.

  I think it is a mistake to mix the monarchic apparatus with HM the King. I think they are distinct and in reality opposed to one another. The former is the creature, not of HM the King, but of the political core that seeks “stability” over democracy. And HM the King purposely and necessarily slowly, given the realities to which he was introduced before his majority, has worked for democracy in the face of “stability” over these past sixty years.

• 14 John Francis Lee // Apr 6, 2007 at 1:22 am

  All the Italics above are apparently the result of the blockquote tag. The sigle line I Italicized is “Such preparations make the sacrifice of democracy in pursuit of stability unnecessary and unfortunate.”

• 15 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 2:25 am

  JFL:

  “The last King, his brother, was murdered. ”

  “And HM the King purposely and necessarily slowly, given the realities to which he was introduced before his majority, has worked for democracy in the face of “stability” over these past sixty years.”

  Just to make sure: You really mean this, right?

  I am not at all sure that the introduction of a “rationalized parliament” (as it it called, I think by referring to similar processes in France) had anything much to do with the monarchy or the King. Rather, it seems to have been a technocratic idea based on the perceived instability and ineffectiveness of weak coalition governments, which translated into an unruly parliament, that could not serve to “lead” the country. Just think of the Chartchai, Chuan, Banharn, and Chavalit governments, and you’ll get the idea.

  These people wanted to make Thailand’s government more stable and effective by enabling the prime minister not only to set policy without too much interference from parliament, but also from his own party, and his coalition partners. Their ideal probably was the Anand Panyarachun government after the coup of 1988.

  They got the strong executive they wanted–but then he became too strong, and not even based on the constitution…

• 16 Sawarin // Apr 6, 2007 at 3:27 am

  Think I understand how much general readers of this site know about the history of Thai politics.

• 17 Historicus // Apr 6, 2007 at 5:30 am

  I have to say that I am amused by Somsak J’s comments concerning the splits and debates about the palace’s role in the coup. The king didn’t know, Prem acted alone. This line began the day after the coup and is laughable. Think about it. This king who is so, so great didn’t know what his own, selected, annointed president of the privy council was doing. Yeah, right. If I then say that this was the palace’s coup, the response will be that the palace itself is split. Yes, perhaps, maybe. But so what? They have family and institutional positions to protect. All of this disassembling just ignores the fact that a whole bunch of royalists who are part of the palace’s network and all are closely linked into the palace in Bangkok and Hua Hin acted to overthrow the government.

• 18 Bystander // Apr 6, 2007 at 7:34 am

  Dr. Somsak raises an interesting point. Along the same line, a lot of the discussion has focused mostly on the King. What about the Queen? It seems she play much more important if not leading roles in later years, and perhaps with different agenda from the King, but most still do not discuss them separately.

• 19 John Francis Lee // Apr 6, 2007 at 11:10 am

  These people wanted to make Thailand’s government more stable and effective by enabling the prime minister not only to set policy without too much interference from parliament, but also from his own party, and his coalition partners…

  They got the strong executive they wanted–but then he became too strong, and not even based on the constitution…

  Yes. But isn’t that the point that Ockey made? That I tried to point out by using his quote concerning the 1997 constitution? And on the ascendence of the TRT regime?

  As regards what HM the King has worked for… how can I know? How can you know? All we can go by are the results of his life’s work. All of his Royal Projects have focused on the needs of the majority of Thais.

  It seems to me that his sufficiency economy is an effort to make the basic village fabric robust in the face of predation by the political class as much as against any other setback.

  I think HM the King has been operating in the contexts of restraints, that his actions are circumscribed, as are all of our actions. I look at what he has done over the course of his reign with admiration. I think that as Ockey points out the influence of the monarchy itself comes and goes according to the calculations of people other than HM the King and that HM the King has perservered these past six decades and has done what he can do for the Thai people within the constraints of his position.

  Perhaps Sawarin is right. It may be that Thai political history is the exclusive, impenetrable preserve of the priestly initiate.

• 20 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 3:39 pm

  Bystander: Is this only a general remark, or do you also want to say that there is a rumor on the coup to this effect circulating in Bangkok?

• 21 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 3:43 pm

  Sawarin: Sorry, sorry, the coup of 1991. 1988 was the year Chartchai started his turn as prime minister.

• 22 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  “I look at what he has done over the course of his reign with admiration.” Well, you can do that.

  “Perhaps Sawarin is right. It may be that Thai political history is the exclusive, impenetrable preserve of the priestly initiate.” Oh no, that sounds too defeatist.

• 23 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 6:01 pm

  JFL: Yes, that was what Ockey said. But my point was that this might not have solely, and perhaps not even primarily, been about the question of succession, but also about a technocratic world view that looked at the way of Thai politics and how Thailand was govered in disgust and thus put its hope in other constructions, such as a “rationalized parliament” and a strong executive. As I mentioned, in France, they did not have the succession question, but still tried to “rationalize” their parliament.

  There were quite a number of people who disliked vote buying, weak coalition goverments, lack of policies and leadership etc. who, however, did not link this with the monarchy at all.

  The task would be to identify the discursive strands and to measure their respective influence on the constitution drafting exercise at that time. Obviously, this is not an easy task. Sometimes, many strands even come together within a single person. Borwornsak Uwanno, for example, has an outlook that mixes elitist, technocratic, and royalist elements. Or people might have agreed with a constitutional suggestion in the CDA for other reasons than those the originators had in mind.

• 24 John Francis Lee // Apr 6, 2007 at 8:31 pm

  I have no doubt that some, perhaps a majority of the drafters of the latest and greatest constitution (prior to the new, latest and greatest one now on the drawing board) were diligent tinkerers trying their best to create The Document that would put it all right. Put it all right that is and leave power in their hands. Stability.

  For what it’s worth I think that is the problem. Once you get over keeping things in your own hands you can set about with a much simpler design principle in mind. HM the King’s sufficiency economy, so greatly scoffed at by all the enlightened Neoliberals here, embodies just such a fractal geometry. Structure the basic building blocks of the society and let that structure recur, percolating upwards.

  This is not a recipe that requires magnificent ministries or generals with forty pounds of headlights stapled to their chests or that presents mega-opportunities for rake-off. And those are the main “rationalizations”, I fear, that are deemed essential by the political class.

  Please don’t think I am critical of Thailand. I love it here. I still think it has a very good chance to proceed along the lines that HM the King and Ivan Illich, HM’s contemporary, have given us all a glimpse of.

  It’s just that Neoliberal, god forbid Neoconservative, politics have been globalized. Have spread like bird flu. And spread chiefly amongst the chattering classes, who write the constitutions and seek “stability” at all costs.

• 25 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 10:37 pm

  “such a fractal geometry. Structure the basic building blocks of the society and let that structure recur, percolating upwards.” > Wow — I am now just curious how such a structure, started perhaps somewhere in Chiang Rai, would look like on Silom or Sukhumvit, or along the way to the eastern seaboard.

  P.S.: I am neither a neoliberal nor a neocon.

• 26 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 10:40 pm

  Activists cancel rally Friday

  An anti-coup group cancelled their rally at Sanam Luang Friday for fear that its use of public addressing system would interfere with the Chakri Day ceremony at a nearby temple.

  Wiphuthalaeng Pattanaphumthai said his Saturday People Group decided to cancel the planned rally Friday.

  But it would hold a marathon rally with other anti-coup groups starting from Saturday to Wednesday, he said.

  The Nation April 6, 2007

• 27 Sawarin // Apr 7, 2007 at 5:50 am

  John Francis Lee & Srithanonchai:

  Of course everybody; Thai, Farang, Chinois, etc. can study Thai politics. It is definitely not a special area reserved for a class of yellow/black robe chromosomes. What I meant is don’t bother to study from people who like to publish, publish, and publish. What do these people know? If you’re keen to know the history of Thai politics, study the ‘meaning’ of theory and go to the archive at Tha Wasukree. The best historian is within you. Why learns Thai history of politics from other people’s imagination? (No debate please Srithanonchai )

• 28 Bystander // Apr 7, 2007 at 7:22 am

  I don’t know anything for a fact. It’s all hearsay. Well, I imagine anyone who have first hand experience, or are players in this struggle are not going to be in the mood to tell you much of what’s going on on-line in real time. I can only encourage these people to keep a careful note of events, so that maybe decades from now, posterity can learn something about all this.

  Here’s a riddle: In a game of chess, which piece is the most powerful?

• 29 Srithanonchai // Apr 7, 2007 at 3:59 pm

  Sawarin: No debate on non-debateable statements!

• 30 Sawarin // Apr 7, 2007 at 7:08 pm

  Srithanonchai: I’m glad that there’s no philosopher of history within you (as I really dislike long wordings).

  Bystander: Which piece can you bring the game to ‘check mate’? The chess remains a ‘definite’ game, and it will have to end eventually. Although fragmented in their views, the ‘Saturday People’ are cool. They really know how to ‘play politics’. Political pundits have to learn from them. However, things are not looking so good…

• 31 Srithanonchai // Apr 7, 2007 at 8:50 pm

  Sawarin:

  But how do we deal with modern society if we are to depend on our own experience? As Luhmann said in the first sentence of his book “The Reality of Mass Media”: “Whatever we know about our society, or indeed about the world in which we live, we know through the mass media.”

  In other words, we depend on the “imaginations” of other people. And, by and larged, I am happy to do so. For example, when one of my teeth needs a root canal treatment, I am happy to depend on the professional imaginations of my dentist.

  I might have no philosophy of history, but I do have a theory of society.

  Apologies for the “debate.”

• 32 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Apr 7, 2007 at 11:28 pm

  Bystander: Are you talking about Western Chess, Chinese Chess, or Thai Chess? If you’re talking about Western Chess, then the Queen is the most powerful piece, by far.
  Since, in Thai Chess the Queen can only move diagonally one space, I’d say the Boat (rua) is the most powerful piece. If you’re talking about Chinese Chess, then it’s the Chariot.

  I don’t know what this all means in terms of political metaphor…I’m just a board game geek.

• 33 Sawarin // Apr 8, 2007 at 8:12 am

  Srithanonchai: You have not been depended on your dentist’s ‘imagination’. Your dentist has some elements of ‘fact’ of your teeth, and there is a form of ‘learning by doing’ which comes ‘close’ to a definition of ‘theory’ in the practices of your dentist. Theory is an attempt to explain ‘truth’. Mathematicians now debate whether or not there is such thing as mathematical truth. I don’t have to explain how this finding gives implications to soft sciences and science-wannabe. In fact, people working in these fields should drop the term ‘theory’ entirely. As in history, historians are fully aware of their practice (archive, emplotment, imagination, trope?). They realise how close or far their studies can get to truth. But what truth in history? Personally, I don’t think there is any (and I’m not even a Wittgensteinian or Derridian). To claim of ‘fact’ is very often beyond historian’s means. Go visit the debate on the name of Siam/Thailand and you’ll grin. Far outside the game of politics, better stop here.

• 34 Srithanonchai // Apr 8, 2007 at 3:27 pm

  Sawarin: I don’t really see that much of a principal difference in fields of knowledge. But as I said in a previous post, I am not a mathematician. So, I guess, I am not presupposed fully to understand you.

  P.S.: I would not see theory “as an attempt to explain ‘truth’”, but rather as an attempt to present a description, or what others call an “explanation.” On the operational side, theory serves to order data.

• 35 AFREETHAI // Apr 29, 2007 at 5:38 pm

  Certainly, for me in Thailand, it would be very regrettable if we saw no move from ’seniors’ amid the nation-wide conflict while the political leader could not manage anything but instigating + provoking ‘violence’ among factions. You people outside Thailand should go to library and read old papers on the events before sept 19. (If you still have belief in news fact or photos fact.).

• 36 Srithanonchai // Apr 29, 2007 at 8:22 pm

  Please note that many who post comments on this board actually live in Thailand,and closely observe politics on a daily basis.

• 37 AFREETHAI // May 1, 2007 at 1:12 am

  Me too in Thailand and closely observed politics on daily basis.
  And the fact is that i was unhappy to see our former leader had did to medias and people who criticised him. In term of leadership in the democratic style…totally not impressive.

Leave a Comment