We have been told that approval of the Thai junta’s draft constitution in the referendum scheduled for 19 August will pave the way for national elections. As Thai Rat’s editorial noted yesterday, it seems likely that the promise of elections to come, and a semblance of political normality, will be sufficient to persuade many voters to vote “yes” in the referendum whatever concerns they may have about the charter’s weak points.
But is the take-it-or-leave-it constitutional offer of the junta worth supporting? Does the prospect of an election sooner rather than later justify endorsement of the draft charter? I think it doesn’t. Nor do I think the constitution should be judged simply on the merits of its various provisions. Because what voters are being asked to endorse amounts to much more…
What Thai voters are being asked to endorse is a process whereby constitutions are only as good as the limit of military tolerance. In the wake of the September 2006 coup, the promise of a future election is hollow, precisely because the reinvigorated threat of a coup strips legitimacy and moral force from the electoral process. The explicit request of the junta is that Thai voters endorse a constitution; but the implicit request is that they endorse the future abrogation of that very document if it delivers a government unpalatable to those who wield the power to overthrow it.
The weakness of the junta’s referendum campaign is that the constitutional destroyers are now posing as legislative guardians. The poachers are posing as gamekeepers. No wonder they are so keen to restrict the activities of those campaigning for a “no” vote in the referendum. Rejection of the charter itself is a minor concern. A much more alarming prospect for the junta is that the constitutional referendum will become a judgement about the legitimacy of their extra-constitutional intervention. Yellow ribbons may muddy the water somewhat but they cannot hide their hypocrisy.
[UPDATE: I should have linked to this very useful Asia Sentinel article on the constitution and the referendum.]
31 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Jul 12, 2007 at 10:02 pm
As Suthichai Yoon (!) said, “My conclusion is, therefore, no matter which side you are on, don’t feel guilty about it. Approach the referendum on August 19 with your conscience and your head clear. No calamity is awaiting us either way.” (The Nation, July 12, 2007)
2 Vichai N // Jul 12, 2007 at 10:26 pm
I haven\’t made up my mind whether to say yes or no to the junta- authored Thai constitution. But because Andrew Walker came out strongly moralizing against the \’hypocrisy\’ of the yellow shirts, but NOT against the \’hypocrisy\’ of the more criminal red shirts, I may just spite New Mandala and Andrew Walker and just say yes and to hell with New Mandala\’s hypocrisy!
3 nganadeeleg // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:22 am
“Nor do I think the constitution should be judged simply on the merits of its various provisions”
Great advice, Andrew !!!!
4 Taxi Driver // Jul 13, 2007 at 12:33 pm
As I have mentioned on a different post, a No vote would show that the people are awake. The Anti-Thaksinites are looking in the rear vision mirror when they worry that a no vote might pave a way for the return of Thaksin. Its more a case of ‘Nee Sua Pa Jorakae” and we now face a yellow-clad but khaki-underneath Chalawan.
5 Srithanonchai // Jul 13, 2007 at 2:32 pm
At the beginning of the drafting process, people such as Prasong and Somkhit challenged critics that they should wait for the content of the constitution before deciding about acceptance/rejection. The funny thing is that now that the final product is there, people also have enought reasons to reject the draft based on criticism of its content, besides basing their decisions on principles.
6 Historicus // Jul 15, 2007 at 7:02 pm
What a great idea! Vote Yes for the military because NM’s Andrew says “No”. Why not just vote Yes because you like the idea that the military will be the guardians of the future or because you fear that they might choose a worse constitution if this version is thrown out?
7 Vichai N // Jul 15, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I am actually getting more convinced Historicus that I really should vote YES because that would irritate Andrew Walker and many righteously very indignant democrracy adherents at New Mandala like Historicus, et al. After all I have NOT actually found any sense or merit or value to any of the ’causes’ dear to the NM crowd. And those so called NM causes I dismiss as spurious at best, meant to diminish the grievousness of the Thaksin crimes and keep alive “The ‘Legend of Thaksin Shinawatra as Thailand’s Champion of the Poor and Thai democracy-symbol”.
If this junta-authored constitution will substantially prevent a Thaksin or a Thaksin-wannabe return, that by itself would already merit my YES vote. And if there are flaws, as surely there would be, then the next elected government/national assembly can move towards the appropriate amendment that would remove the more serious thorns yet keep the constitutional fragrance in bloom.
There is no such thing as a perfect constitution Historicus. Thailand thought the 1997 constitution was nearly perfect until a very criminally flawed Thaksin Shinawatra demonstrated to the Thai people otherwise.
8 fall // Jul 16, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Disposable constitution.
Amnesty clause say it all. If this constitution is passed, it would put Thailand on road of military dictatorship and military power play for years to come. And every constitution would mean as much as the guy with gun want them to be; hence, a toilet paper to wipe the coup mess. Forget the reform or any promise of amendment.
9 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 17, 2007 at 4:56 pm
re fall>
Actually, in its current state, any constitution would be meaningless in Thailand. For a constitution to be vaild, it requires the concepts of civil virtue, civil society, and rule of law (as opposed to rule of men) to be presented in the culture.
As of now, all three of these concepts are absent in the Thai world-view.
10 Krid // Jul 18, 2007 at 4:11 am
It’s the economy, stupid. Right now the economy is trudging along pulled by strong global demand and the rise of the large Asian economies. Thais are too pragmatic to risk further instability and will rather swallow the new constitution including the appointed senate and police searches without warrant for the promise of quick elections and a return to “normalcy”. As the generals have shown, they will not allow a return to full democracy and the military and the older-than-old-powers will be pulling the strings in the background. Only when they ruin the economy with their “sufficient” nationalism will the people be willing to take more chances.
11 Vichai N // Jul 18, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Krid (#10) is right on the mark. The referendum in a big sense is a vote of approval or rejection of the recent coup. And the people will vote depending on their sense of economic well-being.
And I am beginning to believe the bungling generals do not at all have a clue that the currency problem, with the Thai Baht strengthening to 33, 32 or stronger, could in a sudden just crack the Thai economy before you can say “what the f..k!!”. Those factory closings could be a deluge in a flash. And farmers protesting for relief from depressing agricultural prices joining with hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers running amuck in the streets of Bangkok are NOT too farfetched nor closer than those ambivalent generals can imagine. Hey it could happen tomorrow!
12 Vichai N // Jul 18, 2007 at 10:33 pm
hose factory closings could be a deluge in a flash. And farmers protesting for relief from depressing agricultural prices joining with hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers running amuck in the streets of Bangkok are NOT too farfetched and much closer than those ambivalent generals can imagine. Hey it could happen tomorrow!
(corrrection of #11)
13 nganadeeleg // Jul 18, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Anyone care to explain the reasons for the extra-ordinary strength in the Thai baht?
It seems to be much more than just weakness in the US dollar, and the explanations of strong exports causing the strength are surprising to me, when at the same time factories are closing or relocating because they cannot compete due to the high baht.
Is there some way we can blame it on Thaksin?
14 Vichai N // Jul 18, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Hah! But of course ngana Thaksin was responsible!
The foreign investors were so glad (I’d call it irrational exuberance) that Thaksin was deposed they just kept on pouring their foreign currencies and investment money to Thailand non-stop. Bring back Thaksin tomorrow and I guarantee the Thai Baht will weaken past 40 before you can buy a plane ticket for Manchester City.
But that is my personal theory ngana. . . unless somebody else can think of a better one to blame on Thaksin.
15 Shocked // Jul 19, 2007 at 8:25 am
Unbelievable! Vichai says something half intelligent in #11 but then goes back to ranting and raving in #14.
16 nganadeeleg // Jul 19, 2007 at 10:42 am
It’s not only the generals that don’t know what to do with the baht – just look at the range of suggestions from economists, academics, business leaders & journalists.
IMO the BOT needs to place less emphasis on the USD (because it’s a basket case) – they need to manage the baht against a range of currencies, not just the US dollar.
One simplistic way of viewing the (extra) strong baht is that it has been a vote of confidence in the current government, because normally if a government is on the wrong track then the currency is dumped.
As far ways of blaming Thaksin, how’s this theory:
– While Thaksin was in power he and his cronies were secretly stashing away such large funds overseas that it kept a lid on the baht, but that has stopped now that he has been deposed .
The freezing of his (known) funds has further compounded the issue, because they need to bring some of those secret funds back into the country to fund the trouble making.
17 Vichai N // Jul 19, 2007 at 11:45 am
Shocked would not be so shocked if Thaksin manage to return to Thailand tomorrow and somehow manage again to get himself and his TRT party back into power. Thai Baht will drop like a stone to Baht 50 or even Baht 60, back to Chavalit-Thaksin induced 1997 Thai Financial Crisis day!
‘Shocked’ – As we know inflation will corrupt and devalue a currency into toilet paper. Look at Zimbabwe and look at our neighbor Burma with hyper-inflation and meaningless currencies. Thaksin’s corruption also devalued the Thai Baht currency by contributing to insidious inflation (his 30% cut on every government project, remember?). Maybe the foreigners realize the ‘corruption inflation factor’ will have been materially diminished with the banishment of Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai Party, hence the ‘irrational exuberance’ for the Thai Baht currency by these guillible foreigners!
I am just surprised Andrew Walker had not commented on whether an overly strong Thai Baht currency is bad ‘capitalistic economy’ or misdirected ‘insufficiency economy’? I am inclined to believe the ‘free market’ forces distorted the Thai Baht currency because whereas Thailand was so guillible as to follow the US of A in allowing its currency to float, other countries (also selling big to USA) like China, Malaysia, Pakistan and mahy others kept their fixed/managed currency system to make their export products competitive to Thailand’s detriment.
18 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 19, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I am inclined to believe the ‘free market’ forces distorted the Thai Baht currency because whereas Thailand was so guillible as to follow the US of A in allowing its currency to float, –Vichai N
That’s right Vichai, blame Whitey. It must be so comforting to know that any problem can be traced to being ฝรั่งจ๋า.
Let’s play a game, you and I. How about you and Ladda Tangsupachai put your heads together and come up with a list of all the things that most Thais would knee-jerkingly consider to be pure “Thai culture,” that wouldn’t exist in Thailand if it followed the nationalistic economic localism that the Juntacrats misinterpret as His Majesty’s “sufficency economy,” because these things originate from outside, and thus, are products of “globalization” *gasp!* When I get home from work, I’ll post my (long) list and we’ll compare.
I’ll give you one to get started:
Likay: Likay comes from a classical Arabian genre of performance called “Digar,” it was brought to Siam by royally-sponsored Arabian merchants during the Ayutthaya Period. Digarim were performed for the Siamese court as a show of respect by these merchants. The effect of this cannot only be seen in the adoption of Likay as a musical genre, but also in how it shaped current Thai standards of beauty (ie. fair complexed skin and a preference for Semitic, aquiline noses).
Have fun!
19 Vichai N // Jul 19, 2007 at 9:17 pm
LSamuelS hold your sch-waltzing horses! I only blame the US of A for inventing materialism and its attendant philosophy of unabashed unbridled consumption . . . which eventually led to its necessity to further invent the nuclear bomb to protect its ideology of consumerism and runaway debts that now cause havoc to the Thai currency and its economy.
LSamuelS I do not blame the US of A for your or mine\’s bad taste. Bad taste comes from our DNA. It was Thaksin\’s bad taste (but popular to the peasants btw) and malicious DNA that caused or continues to cause division in the Kingdom of Thailand merely because many in Thailand (and in New Mandala too) considered Thaksin\’s bad taste as epitome of democracy, whereas many others including myself felt it was … well just plain repulsive bad taste.
I don\’t doubt your contention LSamuelS the Thais standard for beauty were more likely Taleban or Al-Queda inspired! But I most vehemently submit that the Thais preference for square-face superseded the aquiline nose and was more recent, and certainly not Likay or Arabic inspired . . . BUT more of laws of economics driven because the millions of peasants had quickly discovered that square-face is an ATM machine, and a most wonderful Chinese-Thai (not American) invention indeed!
20 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 19, 2007 at 11:34 pm
re Vichai:> I only blame the US of A for inventing materialism and its attendant philosophy of unabashed unbridled consumption . . . which eventually led to its necessity to further invent the nuclear bomb to protect its ideology of consumerism and runaway debts that now cause havoc to the Thai currency and its economy.
I gotta admit, Vichai, you have chutzpah (or as the Thais say: มีหน้า). It cannot be denied that 21th century American culture is materialistic, but to claim that Americans “invented” materialism? Please. This coming from someone who hails from a place where just about every shop has a statue of Budai Buddha (พระมหาสังกัจจายน์) holding aloft a golden ingot. In all my time in the United States, I had never seen a crucifix depicting Jesus hanging from the cross while clutching a bag of money in each hand. Need I bring up ole’ Mr. Jatukham?
As for the United States entering WW2 for some economic reason (as opposed to the Japanese launching a surprise attack on one of our naval bases)….well, I know better than to get into arguments with conspiracy theorists; nevertheless, I must ask, aren’t you aware that the Breton-Woods system and the resultant hegmony of the dollar stem from events that happened after WW2?
However, you are right in that Thaksin has bad taste. He was a populist demagogue who screwed over the middle class by taking their tax money to buy political favor with the working class and poor. Thaksinomics would have ruined the economy eventually, and if the middle class was patient, that’s how you could have gotten rid of him without handing over the country to a military dictatorship.
Now that the post-coup euphoria has worn off, the Bangkokian middle class is just now starting to realize that the aristocratic and military elites (who were never interested in democracy; populist demagogue or not) played them like a harp from Hell. Not that they would ever admit it; can’t lose face now, can we? Better just to slip on a yellow polo shirt and hope that our new military overlords consider our help in getting rid of ไอ้หน้าี่เหลี่ยม, and thus, are kind to us. You’re right, regret does leave a bad taste in one’s mouth, doesn’t it?
Finally, as for making fun of my name, calling the working class “peasants,” refering to Arabs as “Taleban” and “Al-Queda [sic],” and comments about Chinese-Thai….well, those verbal gaffes represent an ignorance and a cockiness that I have only seen in…..wait, yes! Is our dear “Vichai” actually ICT Minister Sittichai Pokaiyaudom reading New Mandala in his free time?
21 Vichai N // Jul 20, 2007 at 12:10 am
Lleij Samuel Schwartz I apologize for making fun of your snooty sounding pretense laden not easily pronounceable lordy names! I just cannot help myself . . . my mischievous DNA just sort of took over.
Okay okay! I will also sincerely apologize for stereotyping the Arabs into Talebans and Al-Quedas but again I always quickly counterpounch to inanities and artifice when I am not otherwise drunk. But I did not realize the word ‘peasant’ can also offend the lordly-named Lleij Samuel Schwartz but I like the earthy aroma I breathe from the word ‘peasant’ not present in the technical term ‘farmer”?
But I still claim the yanks invented materialism and concupiscent consumption. Hey had the (more restrained) Brits succeeded to colonize America, I believe the world today would have been spared from being mesmerized (or should I use traumatized?) by a Michael Jackson or a Paris Hilton. But I guess LSamuelS, you prefer Eminem, huh?
22 Vichai N // Jul 20, 2007 at 12:16 am
Ooops! I meant counterpunch . . not counterpounch. Too much beer sorry . . .!
My huge paunch for Thaksin huge pouch! I get relief from my penury while Thaksin gains peace-of-mind!
23 Mr. MacGregor from Kyauktada // Jul 20, 2007 at 12:37 am
I SAY, YOU LOT NEED TO SETTLE THIS WITH A SPOT OF FENCING!
Earl Grey afterwards, jolly good what?!
24 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 20, 2007 at 2:04 am
Re Vichai>
Firstly, I see that instead of replying with any sort of intelligent argument, you choose to continue to make fun of my name and confuse your personal attacks with displaying wit.
Secondly, I’m confident that you are clinically insane.
If you have a problem with my name, don’t take it up with me; take it up with my mother! She’s the one who chose it, after all. However, as a word of caution, my dear Vichai, I wouldn’t mess about with my notoriously feisty mother. She is not a Buddhist, and thus, doesn’t hold much weight in the concept of ahimsa. If you spoke any of your garbage to her, she’d knock your block off.
As for the rest, well….if you’re such an Anglophile, then could you please take back the Beckhams? We really don’t want them in the States, their presence lowers property values, you know? And when it comes to hip-hop, I’m a Tech N9ne fan, myself.
And with that, I’m done with you. You’ve proven yourself incapable of rational argument. Any discussion with you devolves into accusations and name-calling. This is a form of pharusavaca, which as a Buddhist, I must avoid.
Good day to you, sir!
25 fall // Jul 20, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Thai Rath editorial, 20Jul07
“…ความผิดพลาดซ้ำซากเรื่องค่าเงินที่เกิดขึ้นกับประเทศไทย ตั้งแต่ ครั้งต้มยำกุ้งปี 2540 จนถึงปัจจุบัน สิ่งที่ผมสังเกตเห็นก็คือ “ความอ่อนหัด” ของ “ธนาคารแห่งประเทศไทย” และ “กระทรวงการคลัง” ที่ชอบเดินตามนโยบายการเงินสากล แต่กลับไม่มีการพัฒนาระบบป้องกันและพัฒนาสถาบันการเงิน ของไทยให้มีความแข็งแกร่ง สามารถรับมือกับต่างชาติได้ รวมทั้งการพัฒนาบุคลากรในแบงก์ชาติเอง ให้มีความรู้ความเชี่ยวชาญและประสบการณ์ด้านกลยุทธ์ และยุทธศาสตร์ ทางการเงินระดับมืออาชีพทัดเทียมกับต่างชาติ
ยิ่งย้อนดูอดีตและดูปัจจุบัน จะยิ่งเห็นชัดว่า เรามีปัญหาในเรื่องนี้
ทุกครั้งที่เกิดวิกฤติการเงินกับประเทศไทย ไล่ย้อนหลังไปดูจะเห็นว่า ผู้ว่าการแบงก์ชาติในช่วงที่มีปัญหา จะเป็นผู้ว่าการแบงก์ชาติที่ขึ้นมาจากลูกหม้อแบงก์ชาติทั้งสิ้น
ในขณะที่ผู้ว่าการแบงก์ชาติของประเทศยักษ์ใหญ่อย่างเช่น สหรัฐฯ ไม่ว่าจะเป็น นายอลัน กรีนสแปน ประธานธนาคารกลางคนก่อน หรือ นายเบน เบอร์นาเก้ ประธานธนาคารกลางคนปัจจุบัน ล้วนเป็นมือการเงินระดับเกจิที่คร่ำหวอดจากภาคเอกชนมาทั้งสิ้น
เมื่อหันมาดู “คณะกรรมการนโยบายการเงิน” หรือ กกง. ที่ เราฝากอนาคตการเงินทั้งประเทศไว้กับบอร์ดชุดนี้ ก็ยิ่งเศร้า เพราะประกอบไปด้วย “ข้าราชการประจำ” ทั้งหมด “ไม่มีผู้เชี่ยวชาญทางการเงิน” ที่มีประสบการณ์คร่ำหวอดจากภายนอกเข้าไปร่วมด้วยเลยแม้แต่คนเดียว
บอร์ด กกง. 7 คน ในชุดปัจจุบันประกอบด้วยคนแบงก์ชาติ 3 คน คือ ผู้ว่าการ และ รองผู้ว่าการ 2 คน และผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิจากภายนอกที่เป็นตัวประกอบอีก 4 คน ซึ่งไม่ได้มาจากสายการเงิน แต่เป็น ข้าราชการประจำ ทั้งสิ้น คือ อรัญ ธรรมโน อดีตปลัดกระทรวงการคลัง จักรมณฑ์ ผาสุกวนิช ปลัดกระทรวงอุตสาหกรรม อำพน กิตติอำพน เลขาธิการสภาพัฒน์ และ การุณ กิตติสถาพร ปลัดกระทรวงพาณิชย์ ยิ่งได้ นายกรัฐมนตรี ที่มาจาก ข้าราชการประจำ ด้วยแล้ว ก็ยิ่งสนุกใหญ่
เห็น “จุดอ่อนประเทศไทย” หรือยังครับ อ่อนแอตั้งแต่โครงสร้างแล้ว จัดทัพรับศึกอย่างนี้ รบร้อยครั้งก็แพ้ร้อยครั้งแน่นอน.”
Sorry to those who can’t read Thai. The gist of column concern current currency crisis and criticise the public employment experiences of BOT big shot.
26 Taxi Driver // Jul 20, 2007 at 7:51 pm
#25 … The last four lines also talks about the weakness of having a bureaucrat as PM – presumably a swipe at Surayud (eventhough structly he’s not a bureaucrat but nevertheless a public servant of another sort)
27 Vichai N // Jul 21, 2007 at 3:17 am
I would love to meet your mother L Samuel S. At least it IS your mother who carried the more cordial sounding pronounceable name Samuel.
But you do take yourself too seriously L Samuel S. If you cannot stand people making light of your intimidating names, you know you can always offer them your nickname . . . .problem solved. Hey Samuel Jr. . . . don’t you know when someone is jesting?
By the way my nickname is Chai not Vic.
28 siangmiang // Jul 22, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Thais have their back against the wall…They just want to get this whole process over with and have someone elected whoever they may be in office. It’s as simple as that. Does anyone really think the people here are going to sit and analyze the amendments when they don’t even have a functional government…In the end this is a cultural issue not a legal one. Thais want this settled.
29 New Mandala » Referendum watch // Jul 23, 2007 at 7:48 pm
[...] puppet government really care what they say?) to make their judgement on the draft constitution. As argued on New Mandala last week, the explicit vote on the draft charter matters a lot less than the more [...]
30 Vichai N // May 2, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Got lots of time and was drawn to some verbal duels of past.
I never realized I was such a schmuck at NM! But don’t blame me, blame my DNA. (Thaksin can copy this line from me if nothing else helps in his quest to recover his treasure first, and his name last).
I never did get to meet and ’sch-waltz’ Lleij Samuel Schwartz’ mother?
31 nganadeeleg // May 2, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Me too (as a schmuck, not you) although I still like by my comment #3 in this thread.
At least you didn’t have LSS quoting Catullus 16 at you!
A few blasts from the past in this thread – I particularly miss Taxi Driver ! (& Nirut)
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.