My recent post on the Asia Foundation seminar on the Thai coup by James Klein has generated significant discussion. Yesterday I received a summary of the seminar. Of course, this is just one perspective from an audience member but it does provide some interesting insights. Here it is:
Dr. Klein — who was a Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand in the 1970s and has maintained a long time association with that country in service with the Asia Foundation — was both predictably cautious when addressing the sensitive royalty issue and somewhat apologetic regarding the coup and interim government. He wanted to dispel what he feared were several common misconceptions regarding the coup:
1. If there were an election, Thai Rak Thai party would win
Dr. Klein pointed out that Thaksin forged one super party in such a way that he was in a unique position to pursue political power with great efficiency, but under the normal party structures, Thaksin would not have been able to orchestrate such a unified amalgamation. Dr. Klein spent a lot of time trying to disabuse people in the audience of the notion that Thaksin was actually as powerful as his electoral victories made him appear. The future appears to hold for a coalition form of government, although he made no predictions.
2. Coup was Anti-Democratic
Dr. Klein insisted it was an anti-coup coup. He pointed out that Thaksin had dissolved parliament and established a caretaker government — but when Thaksin declared he was once again prime minister, that was against the constitution. The central point here is that the military coup was a counter coup, not an act of deliberate constitutional denial.
3. Military wanted to re-establish military dominance over political institutions
Dr. Klein’s main point here is that the coup’s interim government, however mediocre or ineffectual, was abiding by every one of its timetable criteria. He further emphasized that the generals realize they are not politicians and that this was not a return to the old military interventionist order. Most of the constitutional changes that are being proposed are not radical alterations of the 1997 constitution.
4. Coup was to preserve the monarchy
Dr. Klein’s point on this topic was that by definition thailand is a constitutional monarchy. anything done in support of the basic elements of the 1997 constitution would automatically necessitate recognition of the monarchy — this was mentioned to deal with the notion that Thaksin appeared to be in favor of a republican form of government and also that Thaksin had exhibited anti-royal tendencies.
There were plenty of other questions and topics. Even when delivering a speech on thailand while on American soil, Dr. Klein declined to say anything about the king — that cautiousness was quite apparent.
35 responses so far ↓
1 patiwat // May 11, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Anti-coup coup?! Nonsense!
Thaksin dissolved Parliament in the end of February 2006. His government automatically became a caretaker government, but practically speaking, the day-to-day business of government didn’t change. The opposition boycotted the elections, and in May, the Constitutional Court voided the elections. Fine… the EC set new elections for October.
That’s 8 months with a caretaker government. Thaksin was a caretaker Prime Minister. He didn’t declare himself a permanent Premier, he didn’t cancel elections, and he didn’t violate the constitution. If he did, how come nobody filed charges to the Constitutional Court?
2 anonymous // May 11, 2007 at 12:26 pm
So if “anything done in support of the basic elements of the 1997 constitution would automatically necessitate recognition of the monarchy”, then doesn’t ripping up the 1997 constitution automatically imply treason against the monarchy?
I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again: the military junta has violated the monarchy more than the masterminds of the Finland Plan (assuming the Plan even exists). The military might not be favoring a republican form of government, but they’re certainly doing their worst to make people question the compatibility of the monarchy and a democratic system of government.
3 polo // May 11, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Sounds like Klein has gone really soft in the head over Thailand.
>Counter coup is nonsense, as Patiwat said.
> “under the normal party structures, Thaksin would not have been able to orchestrate such a unified amalgamation.”. Perhaps this is the note-taker’s interpretation, but “normal party structures” are what, exactly? The 1997 constitution aimed to force a consodliation of the “too many parties” system which required someone with access to money and the military to pull enough in line to keep a majority. After the new constitution, Thaksin used his money and military pull to consolidate them. Not too different, and there is little reason to believe he or someone else couldn’t pull it off in the future. Of course, the new constitution might push in the opposite direction.
>”this was not a return to the old military interventionist order”. HMMM, it’s a new military interventionist order? Not too different from the last several coups, from what I can see. Even by his definition: The military takes power and has little idea of what to do besides protect their own power and budgets.
> “not an act of deliberate constitutional denial”. Then why did they abrogate the constitution? Because it’s there? Why are they overseeing the writing of a different constitution?
Methinks it is Klein who is in denial, and the Asia Foundation if they continue to pay him. The fact that he would not talk about the monarchy at all out of overwhelming respect shows that he is soft in the head: discussing the king openly if circumspectly is all the rage these days.
4 Republican // May 11, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Agree with patiwat on this one. I am not sure if these were Klein’s words or the words of the anonymous “audience member” who sent the summary, but the concept of an “anti-coup coup” is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for political analysis. Klein wants to dispel the “preconception” that the military overthrow of a democratically elected government is anti-democratic?! Oh my god.
If there were an Area Studies prize for the field with the worst political analysis surely Thai Studies would have to win hands down. Why is it so pathetic? The language? Cultural misunderstanding? Cultural seduction? What is it?
Having said this, I understand that the Asia Foundation would have to be somewhat politic about these things, but there are more sophisticated ways of doing it than this.
5 Srithanonchai // May 11, 2007 at 7:18 pm
One certainly can’t judge Jim Klein on this summary. Equally certainly, he is a “softy,” which might be a personal inclination, but surely is also influenced by the fact that he is the quasi-diplomatic representative of a US funding agency. His position is not that of an independent critical political analyst at some western university. If he had adopted this approach, he would have long been out of his job.
6 Jon Fernquest // May 11, 2007 at 10:03 pm
“If there were an Area Studies prize for the field with the worst political analysis surely Thai Studies would have to win hands down. Why is it so pathetic? The language? Cultural misunderstanding? Cultural seduction? What is it?”
It is not supporting a $1.2 trillion war in Iraq.
Jim Klein probably had a tip jar in front of his podium.
Burma studies is more pathetic.
At least in Thai (or better Tai) studies there are enough people doing it that you can triangulate on an issue and see it from different angles.
7 Republican // May 12, 2007 at 12:00 am
Not quite sure what Thai Studies has to do with the the Iraq War. But admittedly if the US administration – and society generally – had had a better understanding of Iraq and the Middle East, which would have balanced the neo-con idealism, it might have avoided many of the mistakes it has made. Which is precisely the argument that Area Studies academic institutions – if we can include the Asia Foundation in this group, at least partly – need to come up with more critical analyses than this one – not analyses that seem deliberately designed to please royalist-military dictatorships.
Ha ha; saying Thai Studies is ahead of Burma Studies is faint praise indeed! I will give you that one. I can use it next time I’m ridiculed at a conference for winding up in this field, where the “leaders in the field”, both Western and Thai, can call the royalist-military overthrow of a democratically elected government a step forward for democracy. Then again, on this score, surely the Burma Studies people are ahead of us? They don’t seem to like military regimes, unlike the academics over in Thai Studies…
8 Srithanonchai // May 12, 2007 at 12:56 am
People in Burmese Studies can be happy that they have a nice black-and-white situation.
9 Taxi Driver // May 12, 2007 at 7:09 am
Burma’s just black. Thailand’s pure Yellow. Chai Yo to the Anti-Coup-Coup for the Advancement of Democracy. The West has a lot to learn from this important development forged by the crappy yellow shirted protectors of democracy.
10 Srithanonchai // May 12, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Indeeed, they do have to learn a lot. After all, it is difficult for western democracy theorists (including those working on Thailand) to understand that a huge section of academics, public intellectuals, and NGO (who all consider themselves strong supporters of democracy in Thailand) more or less enthusiastically join military coup-plotters who, from those westerners’ perspectice, had just robbed democracy from them!
11 jeru // May 12, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Thai academics have concluded that under the former Premier Thaksin, Thailand’s democracy was methodically being dismembered to meaninglessness. After all, Thailand was NOT the first country to be robbed of democracy in the name of democracy (Marcos, remember?).
But of course New Mandala ‘academics’ Thaksin’s democracy was all right. Why should the Thais care what foreigners think?
12 Srithanonchai // May 13, 2007 at 12:06 am
If there only were such things as “Thai academics” (are Nithi, Worachet, Parinya, Rangsan, Kasian, Thanapol, Supalack, etc. no Thai academics?) and “the Thais” (who often enough don’t really know much about their own political system, just look at the CDC). Simplistic approaches are never good, whether they come from “New Mandala ‘academics’” (as if they were a collective) or from Thais.
13 anon // May 13, 2007 at 3:40 am
jeru, maybe because many Thai “academics” were being paid by the military to criticize Thaksin…
14 Taxi Driver // May 13, 2007 at 10:04 am
Jeru, if under Thaksin “Thailand’s democracy was methodically being dismembered to meaninglessness”, then the Junta completely destroyed it. Defending the overthrow of Thaksin as a move to save democracy is absurd.
Funny thing is, I think as time passes you and a lot of Thais who supported the coup will end up hating the Junta too.
15 nganadeeleg // May 13, 2007 at 10:29 am
Jeru (#11) is spot on, and you only have to look back as the events in Sept06 to see that it was not just academics who thought that Thaksin was methodically dismantling democracy.
Flowes on tanks – Have a look at the November06 issue of digitaljournalist for evidence (unable to post link for some reason – what’s going on Andrew?).
I also agree with Srithanonchai in this instance, even though I am not part of the collective (being a ‘New Mandala anti-academic’).
16 nganadeeleg // May 13, 2007 at 10:30 am
Flowers on Tanks: Here is the link:
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0611/dis_humphries.html
17 Peter Kauffner // May 14, 2007 at 4:25 am
What title Thaksin used is of minor concern. If he was using the wrong one, the courts could have set him straight. This issue cannot justify or explain a military coup. The conditions for the coup were created by the Constitutional Court’s decision to nullify the April election. The court’s reasoning lacked legal logic; It was a response to public comments made by the king. In other words, the king was the prime mover and was preparing the way for a coup before the military or even the “Ok pai! Ok pai!” protestors seriously considered the idea. Thaksin and the king got along well earlier, so perhaps the issue relates to royal succession. There’s been a shift in media coverage to the Crown Prince since the coup, so this issue is has gained prominence in the mind of the palace.
18 Bangkok Pundit // May 14, 2007 at 5:23 am
Nganadeeleg: On flowers on tanks, here is what blogger Nui says:
“The Thai people giving flowers and food to the soldiers? Isn’t that how they appease powerful spirits? “
19 jeru // May 14, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Seeing democracy at death’s throes, the generals merely gave the ‘coup de grace’. From destruction will bloom forth a new creation.
But I generally agree with you Taxi Driver (#14). Public love shall quickly turn to public wrath specially on shotgun marriages.
But I do think the generals will be listening to you Taxi Driver. Did not one of your kind, because of unrequited love, suicidally rammed his cab to a tank?
20 Pig Latin // May 14, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Why is the word democracy being bandied about here as though it is something tangible? Democracy is an ideal, not a toy.
It was simply a coup that overthrew ruler Thaksin. Maybe it also overthrew western hope of a more rapidly liberalised South East Asia, but that’s not going to be objectively articulated for some time.
Nevermind the subversions of ‘democracy’, Thaksin is going to use all of that illegal Singtel sale money to buy Manchester City FC! Damn. That’s well worth having a coup over!
21 Republican // May 14, 2007 at 8:21 pm
There’s nothing very intangible to grasp here. Either you have a government that is elected by the people or you have one installed by the military. But as I said above, the standards in Thai political science – both Thai and Western it seems – are so low that a military coup can be portrayed as “democratic” if it is painted yellow.
22 jeru // May 14, 2007 at 10:11 pm
And who decides whether your standards, Republican, are as high as Thaksin\’s? And while I puke trying to meet both high standards, Republican, in came those tanks, without standards BTW, to give me welcome relief.
23 Republican // May 14, 2007 at 10:23 pm
It’s very clear that your standard is the standard of the tank and gun and the yellow feudal flags. Just don’t misrepresent it as democracy. Maybe your inability to digest simple concepts is what is giving you the upset stomach.
24 jeru // May 14, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Simple concepts I like a lot Republican.
it is when I am humbled by people with superior standards, complete with documented theses and intimidating vocabulary, that i revert to common sense.
But you are right again Republican. Your high principles I find very difficult to digest. While I understand why a woman, with child in tow, would overcome her fears of guns, bullets and uniform, to hang her fresh flowers to that fascist tank.
Now how can we help that woman in yellow, Republican and cure her out of her feudal mind?
25 Pig Latin // May 15, 2007 at 1:10 am
Handbag prices at New Mandala hit an astonishing low as a result of both Republican and jeru’s tustle over a beige and too large to be practical Asia Times number. While King Solomon delt with the tustle, rival producer The Nation flooded the market with cheap imitations. The imitations all came with a distinct error marking them fake: the use of bright yellow cotton for the stiching.
New Mandala needs a fat lady (in yellow?) to sing!
26 Republican // May 15, 2007 at 2:18 am
Jeru: simple – abolish lese majeste. After all, if the king is so morally pure and all the Thai people love him then he has nothing to fear, right?
By the way, if you want to join the debate on an academic website you should accept the rules of the game, which are to engage in a reasoned debate about issues in SEA Studies. Crying “humility” because you feel intimidated by others looks quite pathetic. If you disagree then argue your point, rather than looking for sympathy.
27 Republican // May 15, 2007 at 2:50 am
For those who want a more sophisticated analysis than they got at the Asia Foundation see Phichit Likhitkitsombun’s nice piece in Prachatai a couple of months ago:
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=7319&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews
28 jeru // May 15, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Oh Republican . . an ‘academic website’ demands what exact decorum exactly? If you puff out your ‘extensive’ knowledge of your favorite subject and in humility I merely offer my common sense against yiour ‘reasoned debate’, I am not behaving properly?
You really think I was trying to draw out your sympathy? lese stupidus indeed.
BTW abolishing the lese majeste law is a simple concept we can both agree upon. But how do we convince that same woman that ‘yellow’ is an academically feudal color?
29 Fat lady (in red for the record) // May 15, 2007 at 3:50 pm
la-LA-la-laaa–la-LA
30 Republican // May 15, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Software updates: This may be of interest to Nganadit, Vichai N., Jeru and colleagues. I saw this article in the Thai version of “Wired”:
“Thais are being encouraged to update their mental software because of a number of bugs that have been discovered in the system they have been using since 1949, “RoyMil Feudal 2000”. These bugs have the ability of severely incapacitating the user as well as infecting user networks making them highly susceptible to a number of damaging viruses. A particularly dangerous recent virus which the system has helped spread is Sept19/Roycoup.A, which has led to a widespread shutdown of rational thinking. The most common reported problem is with the PolDevt program repeatedly hanging. Another glitch is that the system produces a proliferation of royal.exe files in your hard drive which quickly corrupt all other working files in your system severely affecting the speed of your machine. These files will be automatically downloaded into computers with which you have contact.
It is thought that this program has been illegally downloaded into the minds of Thai citizens over the last 60 years by the RoyMil software corporation, which gained monopoly control over the mental software market at the time (a competing firm, PeoplesP Soft, was gradually driven out of the market by RoyMil). A case is currently going through the courts challenging the legality of this monopoly.
An earlier European version of this software did once exist but most bugs have been removed over the last 200 years. Software experts expressed surprise at the fact that such outdated software was still being used in Thailand.
The updated software, “ThaiDemocracy XP” has eliminated the following bugs: king.exe, lese majeste.exe, crownprince.maf, crownpropertybureau.maf, privycouncil.maf, sufficiencyeconomy.idi, appointedsenate.wtf?, coup.mil, and monarchy.net. The new program runs extremely fast and efficiently, and unlike the old software can be used by all citizens. Also, unlike much RoyMil software ThaiDemocracy XP is fully compatible with similar software used in other countries. Users have reported huge gains in productivity.
It appears that many Thais hackers have attempted to download the new software only to find that it is incompatible with the networks provided by RoyMil. It has been alleged that RoyMil is deliberately obstructing attempts by users to update to the new software.
Besides Thai consumers it appears that many Western users may are also be victims of RoyMil’s Feudal 2000 software. They are encouraged to update to the new software as soon as possible otherwise they will only be able to operate on RoyMil networks. If left indefinitely Feudal 2000 can lead to a complete corruption of one’s hard drive.”
31 nganageeleg // May 16, 2007 at 8:20 am
Latest report: It has been found that the ThaiDemocracyXP software has also been corrupted due to it’s inability to completely remove one file.
The recommended fix is for users to delete the file named thak.sin, and then restart the system.
32 Jon Fernquest // May 16, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Newly discovered virus: Partisan Group Think 2007, a viral strain of Orwell’s Newspeak 1984 that quickly fills up your drive (aka brain) with one idea, proclaiming universal unquestioned validity and brings said hard drive to speedy grinding halt if any other idea detected on said drive. Only computers built in America, Australia, and other “true democracies” work, vendor association says, but refuses to demonstrate conclusively that computers built in other countries won’t work just as well, and perhaps even better eventually.
33 jeru // May 16, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Thanks Jon and I’ll be on my guard. I am of course referring to the ‘Republican virus’ you just mentioned, who tend to hog the forum hard drives.
Anyone with serious problem with the above mentioned virus, let me know. I have a special Yellow Anti-Virus that is guaranteed to work.
34 Taxi Driver // May 17, 2007 at 1:14 am
It is said that if you install RamaIX.kng, your PC will be cleansed of all system-destabilising viruses (although not sure if it will remove trojans, especially the Generals.gov variety that are very effective at masking themselves behind RamaIX.kng and making themselves very difficult to remove).
Many users are also worried about the next version, called RamaX.dik, fearing that this new version will be completely ineffective or worse, corrupting the hard drive and crashing the entire system,which will enable the General.gov trojan to completely takeover (unless people.pwr files are activated).
Another, easier way save yourselves from all this hassle is to switch to a Mac.
35 jeru // May 17, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Now we all realize what could happen if an extremely virulent mother of all virus with an innocous sounding initials TS is invited in: TOTAL SYSTEM BREAKDOWN. And we all thought we had pretty good operating system didn’t we? But the TS virus was able to quickly corrupt and disable every protective circuits . . even our firewalls FAILED.
The TS virus, I last heard, has migrated out now somewhere in Manchester City, but is not definitely immobilized. It was not called mother of all virus for nothing.
But in the meantime I heard a new operating system called ‘VISTA’, or new vision is being bandied around.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.