Yesterday I attended the National Thai Studies Centre’s sufficiency “discussion” on the current political situation in Thailand. As noted in previous posts the panellists for the discussion were the members of a Thai government public relations team coordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office. There were four speakers – Surat Horachaikul, Charas Suwanmala, , Somchai Homlaor and Kraisak Choonhavan. Surapong Jayawam, the head of the delegation from Surayud’s office, sat alongside his colleagues but did not speak. (See the invitation for further details on the speakers.)
Rather than summarise each presentation I will set out the main themes and lines of argument raised by the speakers. (Note that the main presentation by Surat was very similar to that presented at SOAS earlier this year.) Let me emphasise that this summary is based on my notes and recollections. Anyone else who was present is very welcome to contribute additional comments or suggest corrections.
The major argument was that the Thaksin government had an appalling human rights record. The extrajudicial killings that took place during the war on drugs, in particular, were discussed at length and some specific cases were outlined in confronting detail. Particular outrage was expressed that western commentators, governments and embassies in Thailand had done little to condemn the war on drugs. Various other negative aspects of the Thaksin government were also emphasised – corruption, abuse of power, surrendering to market principles, free trade agreements, manipulation of institutions and electoral fraud.
The second key argument was that the appalling record of the Thaksin government justified the coup. All coups are not the same. The coup did not overthrow a democratically elected government given that the 2006 election had been annulled and Thaksin had outstayed the 90 days permitted for a caretaker prime minister. There was some anger at the western response to the coup. Surat attacked both Alexander Downer and Kevin Rudd for their statements following the coup.
There was some description and defence of the new constitution, particularly by Charas. There was little attempt to discuss the referendum result in any detail. Again, Surat attacked the western media’s portrayal. Accounts of the referendum in the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald were singled out as misleading and inaccurate (and disrespectful to those who voted yes because their relatives had been murdered by Thaksin!). Surat was determined to give us “the facts.”
Speaker presentations were followed by an extended period of questions, comments and response. I expressed my concerns (previously discussed on New Mandala) about a university hosting a Thai government organised forum where the Thai government nominated the speakers and vetoed a proposal for additional speakers. I made two other points relating to the presentations:
First, all in the room would agree that there were significant human rights abuses during the period of the Thaksin government. But to suggest that the coup was staged in response to human rights abuses was fanciful. In response to Surat’s condemnation of western nations for their alleged silence in relation to human rights abuses I asked what the panel’s view was about the silence, and possibly even endorsement, of the Thai king in relation to the war on drugs (for extensive discussion on this issue see the comments on this post).
In relation to the referendum I made the point, made previously on New Mandala, that the constitution had attracted less support than Thaksin did, at the height of the political crisis, in April 2006. In relation to the regime’s preoccupation with the issue of vote buying I asked why the referendum count had been undertaken at polling booth level.
On the issue of the king’s attitude to the war on drugs, the panel members denied that he had endorsed it. Surat stated vigorously that whether or not the king had made any comment was irrelevant and did not change his (Surat’s) approach to the issue. He asked, to some audience applause, why it was necessary to bring the king into this matter.
On the issue of the referendum count. Surat asserted that there was evidence that vote counting at electorate (rather than booth) level had facilitated ballot box stuffing during the Thaksin era. I may have misheard, but I think he made reference to “six million” stuffed ballots! Charas also argued that the turnout in the referendum was relatively low because voting was non-compulsory. There were many people from Isan, he suggested who did not travel back to their village to vote (perhaps not such a good example given the strong no vote in Isan!).
Other questioners addressed a range of issues – the appropriateness of the opposition boycott of the 2006 election, the need to overcome Thailand’s culture of corruption, the need for more open discussion in Thailand about the role of the monarchy in political affairs, the future of Thaksin-era health care reforms, the extent to which the constitution had been overly focussed on countering Thaksin, and the amnesty granted to the 2006 coup makers.
All in all the public relations and propaganda purpose of the event was clear. There was limited discussion of the current political situation, which was the advertised purpose. The primary purpose was to justify the coup by highlighting the human rights abuses that occurred under the Thaksin government. In terms of the quality of the presentations I suspect a good number of members of the audience were surprised at what a loose cannon Surat, as the main speaker, was. His presentation was an emotion-charged diatribe against Thaksin and his “cronies.” And many of his arguments seemed to be motivated by nationalistic resentment of “neoliberal” western criticism of the coup . His claim that the western media had never criticised the United States after the controversial Gore-Bush presidential election, was so ridiculous that even audience members with the most yellow-tinted glasses may have had doubts about his grip on reality. By contrast the presentations by Charas and Somchai were much more sober affairs (Kraisak was Kraisak – lets talk about me!). I had some sympathy for Somchai who clearly has very strong human rights credentials. But I was left wondering why he feels that participating in this tawdry public relations exercise is the only way he can take his case to the world. I have no doubt that human rights organisations and academic institutions around the world would welcome him with open arms. Allowing his case to be cynically used to justify a coup, staged by those who care little about human rights, does his cause no good at all.
30 responses so far ↓
1 Sidh S. // Aug 23, 2007 at 3:07 pm
From your report, an apt title indeed ‘loose cannon in the war room’… I can easily think of another title ‘Thailand greatest hits: loose cannon and cool heads’ as ‘loose cannons’ seem to have been effectively employed on any side of politics – whether Gen.Saprang on CNS, Samak on TRT, and the Thai public realm seems to never be short of such colorful (and shady at the same time) figures (thinking Chuvit, Chalerm etc.). Come to think of it, former PMThaksin can be classified as a ‘loose cannon’ at times – but a deeply calculated one.
I speculate that the huge irony is this – foriegn observers often do not credit the ‘loose cannons’ enough, while on the contrary Thai observers/media do not credit the ‘cool heads’ enough on their respective impacts on the Thai public realm. In that ‘who did it?’ confusion, the foriegn finger is, quite often I observe, pointed at the monarchy. This adds another level to the misunderstanding as the vast majority of foriegners with fleeting or no knowledge of Thailand may think it is a feudal, absolute monarchy (ofcourse, the projected Thai image media does add to that exotic view). Arguably, the only absolute monarch in Thai history, if there was really any, is King Rama V – which is a far cry from today where the real powerful men in the political arena are either ambitious generals (guns) and tycoons (money). I will not go as far to say that the monarchy plays a passive role – but I will say that the role is relatively minor compared to the very active Thaksins, Sonthis (including Manager’s Sonthi), Surayuds, Somsaks, Samaks, Seris, Veeras.
I for one, support the study of the institution of the monarchy’s role in modern Thai society – but I suspect real ‘objectivity’ (if there is any) is located somewhere between the Thai’s deepest respect and the foriegner’s deep distrust…
2 Stupid Thai // Aug 23, 2007 at 3:24 pm
พระราชดำรัส
พระราชทานแก่คณะบุคคลต่างๆ ที่เข้าเฝ้าฯ ถวายชัยมงคล ในโอกาสวันเฉลิมพระชนมพรรษา
ณ ศาลาดุสิดาลัย สวนจิตรลดา พระราชวังดุสิตฯ
วันพฤหัสบดีที่ ๔ ธันวาคม พ.ศ. ๒๕๔๖
(ฉบับไม่เป็นทางการ)
…..
ไอ้การชัยชนะของการปราบไอ้ยาเสพติดนี่ ดีที่ปราบ แล้วก็ที่เขาตำหนิบอกว่า เอ้ย คนตาย ตั้ง ๒,๕๐๐ คน อะไรนั่น เรื่องเล็ก ๒,๕๐๐ คน ถ้านายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ นายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ ทุกปี ๆ จดไว้นะ มีมากกว่า ๒,๕๐๐ คนที่ตาย ที่ตายทั้งคนที่เสพติด แล้วก็ขึ้นไป ฆ่าคน หรือทำอะไร เผาอะไรต่าง ๆ รวมทั้งเจ้าหน้าที่ที่ต้องไปปราบปกติ ก็ตายมากเหมือนกัน แต่ไม่พูดเท่านั้นเอง ไม่ไปนับ แต่นี้เขาก็นับไปชี้ ชี้ ชี้นับ พวกที่ค้า พวกที่ทำ ก็ตายเยอะเหมือนกัน ก่อนนี้ แต่ไม่พูดถึง เชื่อว่าพอๆ กับที่ได้จดว่า มีผู้ที่ตายในการสงครามต่อสู้ยาเสพติด ที่ทราบว่าคนตาย เพราะยาเสพติดนี่ มากมาย
เพราะว่า สังเกตดูตั้งปีที่แล้ว บอกว่า ๔๐ กว่าปี ต้อง ๔๐ กว่าปีแน่ เพราะว่าตอนนั้นอยู่ที่พระที่นั่งอัมพรฯ ก่อน ก่อนลูกองค์นี้ อย่างน้อยลูกเกิด คนเล็กนะยังไม่เกิด ลูกคนเล็กเกิดที่พระที่นั่งอัมพรฯ แล้ว เราถึงย้ายมาที่ตำหนักสวนจิตรฯ นี่ มียาเสพติดก่อนเขา วิธีที่จะทำ ปีที่แล้วมาเล่าให้ฟัง แต่ว่าอาจจะไม่ละเอียดพอ ไม่เข้าใจ ปีที่แล้วอธิบายว่า ทำไมนึกถึงเป็นสงคราม ไอ้คำว่า สงครามเอามาจากปากคนนี้ ว่าเป็นสงคราม เพราะว่า สงคราม ๒ อย่าง สงครามการเมือง และสงครามเศรษฐกิจ สงครามการเมืองเขาใช้ยาเสพติดนี้มาก สำหรับมาบ่อนทำลายประชากรไทย รวมทั้งประชากรของประเทศ
เขาก็ได้เป็นผลพลอยได้เท่านั้นเอง ที่เขาได้เงิน แต่ที่ได้คือ ทำลาย ทำลายประชากรให้เป็นคนติดยา เป็นคนที่เขาว่า ขี้ยา คนขี้ยาคิดอะไรไม่ออก บางคนนึกว่าใช้ยานี่ทำให้แข็งแรง ทำให้มีความคิดดี แต่แท้จริงไม่ คนที่กินนั่นนะ เสพยา ตอนนั้นเป็นเฮโรอีนนะ เขาใส่ในน้ำหวาน ใส่ในกาแฟ ใส่ในน้ำแล้วก็หลอกทั้งเด็ก ทั้งผู้ใหญ่ เมืองจีนเขาทำ แล้วก็ไม่ใช่คนจีนทำ เป็นฝรั่งทำ ที่นี่มีฝรั่งหรือเปล่า เดี๋ยวเขาโกรธเอา แต่ว่าเป็นความจริงว่า ฝรั่งเป็นคนใช้ยาเสพติด ทำลายเมืองจีน แต่ไม่สำเร็จ จนกระทั่งมีสงคราม เขาก็มีสงครามเหมือนกัน แต่ตายมากกว่า ๒,๕๐๐ คน
แล้วที่บอก ๒,๕๐๐ คน นี่ก็ไม่เชื่อ มีมากกว่า ที่เขาตายแต่เราไม่รู้ แล้วก็พวกที่ทางเจ้าหน้าที่ได้สังหาร ไม่ใช่ ๒,๕๐๐ นี่เขาสังหารกันเอง แล้วนี่เราจะรับผิดชอบได้อย่างไร เขาด่าว่า นายกฯ ทำสงคราม ทำให้คนตาย ๒,๕๐๐ คน ความจริงไม่ใช่อย่างนั้น ๒,๕๐๐ คน มันหมดทั้งหมด เขานับแต่ว่า พวกที่ตายเป็นส่วนใหญ่ เป็นพวกที่เขาฆ่ากันเอง พวกที่ค้า พวกที่ผลิต เขาฆ่ากันเอง จำนวนมาก ที่ทางราชการจะรับผิดชอบ ก็อาจจะมีจำนวนหนึ่ง ก็ลองถามทางผู้บัญชาการตำรวจแห่งชาติ ไปแยก จำแนกเป็นเท่าไร ก็เชื่อว่าใน ๒,๕๐๐ นี่ มากที่เขาฆ่ากันเอง แล้วก็ความผิดของเขา มาโยนความผิดให้ท่านซูเปอร์นายกฯ
ไม่รู้ล่ะก็นายกฯ สั่งให้รองนายกฯ รองนายกฯ ก็เป็นซีอีโอ แต่นายกฯ ก็เป็นซีอีโอ ซูเปอร์นายกฯ ก็โยนให้ เพราะว่าบอกว่าเป็นผู้ชนะ ผู้ชนะกลายเป็นฆ่าหมดเลย ต้องรับผิดชอบฆ่า แต่แท้จริงลูกน้องก็ต้องรับผิดชอบ คือ ที่เข้าใจ ซีอีโอไม่รับผิดชอบอะไรเลย ต้องให้รองนายกฯ รับผิดชอบ และต้องมี ๗ คนด้วย รองนายกฯ ๗ คน คือผู้รับผิดชอบ แล้วรองนายกฯ ๗ คน เขารับผิดชอบ เขาก็ผลักให้พวกปลัดกระทรวง ให้พวกรัฐมนตรีก่อน พวกรัฐมนตรีบอกไม่รับผิดชอบ ต้องรัฐมนตรีช่วยว่าการ รัฐมนตรีช่วยว่าการก็ไม่รับผิดชอบ ต้องเป็นผู้ช่วยรัฐมนตรี ผู้ช่วยรัฐมนตรีก็บอกว่า ปลัดนั่นต้องรับผิดชอบ
นายกฯ บอก แล้วปลัดไม่ต้องรับผิดชอบอะไร ไม่ต้องทำอะไร รองปลัดก็รับผิดชอบหมด รองปลัดบอกมีอธิบดี อย่างนี้เป็นการบอกว่า ไม่รับผิดชอบ ไม่มีใครรับผิดชอบเลย ลงท้ายใครรับผิดชอบ ประชาชนซีอีโอ ประชาชนซีอีโอทุกคน รับผิดชอบหมด ไม่จะทำอย่างไร คือการปกครองสมัยนี้แปลกดี กลับไปเหมือนอย่างเก่า กฎหมายประชาชนรับผิดชอบหมด ตอนนี้คนที่เดือดร้อนคือข้าพเจ้าเอง เดือดร้อน ท่านรองนายกฯ มาบอกว่า ทรงเป็นซูเปอร์ซีอีโอ แล้วใช้คำอะไร จำไม่ได้แล้ว
แต่เข้าใจว่า เป็นซูเปอร์ซีอีโอ เราก็ลงท้าย เราก็รับผิดชอบทั้งหมด ประชาชนทั้งประเทศ โยนให้พระเจ้าอยู่หัวรับผิดชอบหมด ซึ่งผิดรัฐธรรมนูญนะ รัฐธรรมนูญบอกว่า พระเจ้าอยู่หัวไม่รับผิดชอบอะไรเลย นี่ท่านแถวนี้ ก็เป็นนักกฎหมาย แล้วกฎหมายก็บอกพระเจ้าอยู่หัว ไม่รับผิดชอบอะไรเลย ตกลงเราไม่รับผิดชอบประเทศชาติ เมืองไทยไม่มีใครรับผิดชอบเลย ใครจะรับผิดชอบ ลำบากอย่างนี้ แต่ว่าเชื่อว่าท่านพูดเล่น ท่านรับผิดชอบ ในที่สุดท่านก็ต้องรับผิดชอบอีก ๒,๕๐๐ คน แล้วก็ ๒,๕๐๐ คน ท่านก็ต้อง ตอนนี้จะต้องไปถามท่านผู้บัญชาการตำรวจแห่งชาติว่า จำแนกออกเป็นอย่างไร ไอ้ ๒,๕๐๐ คน แล้วจำแนกไปจำแนกมา ประกาศให้ประชาชนทราบ
ประกาศให้ชาวต่างประเทศทราบ ไอ้ ๒,๕๐๐ คน ไม่กี่คนที่ท่านรับผิดชอบ ที่ตำรวจ ทหารรับผิดชอบ หรือว่าได้ยิงได้ฆ่าเองไม่เท่าไร ไม่ถึงร้อย เราก็ที่เตือนอย่างนี้ เพื่อจะได้หายเครียด คนที่เครียดที่สุดในที่นี้ คือ รองนายกฯ เราไม่บอกว่ารองนายกฯ ไหน เหมือนข่าว เวลาข่าว รองนายกฯ ได้พูดว่า อย่างนั้นอย่างนี้ เราไม่รู้รองนายกฯ อะไร มาตอนปลายข่าวนั่นแหละ รองนายกฯ ชวลิต คือ เมืองไทยเดี๋ยวนี้ พูดอะไรเป็นปริศนาเรื่อย เดี๋ยวก็ที่ลำบาก แต่รองนายกฯ ชวลิต เดี๋ยวนี้หายเครียดนะ ไม่งั้น ตอนต้นทำหน้า ทำหน้าอย่างนี้ ดูในทีวีเหมือนทำหน้าอย่างนี้ตลอด ก็เลยทำให้เราเดือดร้อน ดูแล้วรัฐบาล รัฐบาลของพระบาทสมเด็จเจ้าอยู่หัว เขาพูดอย่างนั้น
เมื่อวาน ตอนเช้าเขาบอก รัฐบาลพระเจ้าอยู่หัว เรารับผิดชอบหมด น่าจะมีหน้าบึ้งเหมือนท่านรองนายกฯ แต่ไม่เป็นไร เรารู้ว่า อะไรเป็นอะไร ฉะนั้นก็ท่านยิ้มดีแล้ว ยิ้มแล้วก็จะได้ปรึกษาหารือกันทุกฝ่าย ตรงนี้มีท่านองคมนตรี ท่านรัฐมนตรีต่างๆ ท่านก็ขัดคอรัฐบาล ท่านขัดคอรัฐบาล ผ่านพระเจ้าอยู่หัว ท่านไม่รับผิดชอบอะไร ดูรัฐธรรมนูญ ผู้ที่รับผิดชอบคนเดียวคือ ท่านรัฐบุรุษ ท่านรัฐบุรุษ รับผิดชอบ เพราะว่า มีเวลามีองคมนตรีใหม่มา ท่านเป็นผู้รับสนอง ไม่ใช่นายกฯ คนส่วนมากเข้าใจว่า ตั้งองคมนตรีต้องเป็นนายกฯ รับสนอง ไม่ใช่ ท่านประธานองคมนตรีรับสนอง
ซึ่งก็เพราะว่าเกี่ยวข้องกับ รัฐธรรมนูญเขาว่าอย่างนั้น ผู้ที่รับผิดชอบรัฐธรรมนูญแถวนั้น ก็เป็นเรื่องแปลก เมืองไทยนี่ประหลาด วิธีปกครอง แต่ยังไงก็ตาม นายกฯ รับผิดชอบทุกอย่าง ถ้ารับผิดชอบทุกอย่าง ก็ต้องยอมรับการตำหนิ คือ ถ้าจะรับผิดชอบ ทุกอย่าง ผมอย่างหนึ่งคนเดียว ผมสั่งคนเดียว ถ้าเป็นอย่างนั้นคนก็ชี้คนเดียวนะ ถ้ารับผิดชอบคนเดียว คนก็ชี้คนเดียว ฉะนั้นก็เป็นของธรรมดา แต่ถ้าทำดี เรียบร้อย ทุกคนได้รับประโยชน์ ทั้งหมดทุกคนได้รับประโยชน์ และตัวเองก็ได้รับประโยชน์ เพราะว่าทำอะไรรับผิดชอบสิ่งที่ทำดี ก็โก้ คนที่รับผิดชอบสิ่งที่ดี ที่ถูกต้อง อันนี้ที่สำคัญ
ฉะนั้น ไม่ต้องโกรธ ต้องภูมิใจ แต่ว่า ต้องพยายามพิจารณาว่าอะไรมันจริง อะไรไม่จริง ในที่นี้ไอ้ ๒,๕๐๐ คน จริงหรือไม่จริง อ่านหนังสือพิมพ์ เขาบอกว่า รัฐบาลทำไม่ดี ทำรุนแรงเกินไป ไปพิจารณาให้อ่านหนังสือพิมพ์ อ่านเหล่านั้น แล้วก็ให้เขาเขียน เขาเขียนหนังสือพิมพ์ เขาติ ตำหนิเราก็ฟังเขา ว่าเขาตำหนิอะไร เขาตำหนิถูกต้องก็ขอบใจเขา ถ้าตำหนิไม่ถูกก็บอกว่าไอ้นี่มันไม่ถูก เบาๆ หน่อย แต่ว่าที่เดือดร้อน คนที่เดือดร้อน คือ พระมหากษัตริย์ เดือดร้อนเพราะว่า ใครตำหนิไม่ได้ เราไม่ได้บอกนะ ท่านที่เขียนรัฐธรรมนูญบอกว่า พระมหากษัตริย์ใครตำหนิไม่ได้ ใครละเมิดไม่ได้ ทำไมเขียนอย่างนั้น ไม่ทราบ….
3 Tosakan // Aug 23, 2007 at 3:25 pm
The thing that I keep bringing up that nobody wishes to address is what happened to all the military and police generals and other officers who were actually in charge of the national security/police agencies during Thaksin’s tenure. Are they inactive positions? Are they hanging out at Royal Golf? Are they in jail?
If the accusations against Thaksin are true, you would have thunk that they would have come out of the woodwork and report about all the orders Thaksin issued to kill people.
Further, how come nobody is asking these hypocritical junta defenders about why General Panlop, the chief mass murderer in the South, is now an executive at ISOC?
Under the previous constitution, any citizen was allowed to sue the state if their constitutional rights were violated, where are all the law suits?
One would think with Thaksin gone that the Thai press and the Thai academy would actually start reporting all of Thaksin’s so-called human rights abuses to the public, especially now that they are free to write what they want without repercussions.
The junta apologists always love to say that Thaksin undermined the check and balances system of the last constitution, yet not once was there any impeachment proceedings against Thaksin. Nobody has ever documented how Thaksin corrupted the Election Commission, the NCCC, the Ombudsman, the Senate, and every single court. No academic reports, no press reports, nothing.
And, in the final analysis, even if the accusations against Thaksin are true, I don’t get how one can morally, legally, philosophically and politically justify punishing and disenfranchising 65 million people because of the alleged criminal actions of one man.
4 Srithanonchai // Aug 23, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“But to suggest that the coup was staged in response to human rights abuses was fanciful.” >> Exactly. This sort of retrospective justification is academically unethical. As for Surat, perhaps, going abroad and doing is PhD for four to five years could provide him with some more education and time for reflection.
5 Grasshopper // Aug 23, 2007 at 7:58 pm
And many of his arguments seemed to be motivated by nationalistic resentment of “neoliberal” western criticism of the coup . But it is not at all hypocritical to argue with liberal human rights conceptions when it suits Thai politics of eternal victimization.
6 jeru // Aug 23, 2007 at 11:05 pm
From Tosakan ” . . . in the final analysis, EVEN IF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THAKSIN ARE TRUE, I don’t get how one can morally, legally, philosophically and politically justify punishing and disenfranchising 65 million people because of the alleged criminal actions of one man.”
Tosakan my man if you don’t understand your own logic, nobody does either.
(a) Thaksin as tax evader and won’t leave office of PM causing massive protests (could be riots later on) among decent Thai taxpayers is enough reason for the military to intervene.
(b) Thaksin implicated in any corruption scandal (Rajadipisek land, Suvarnabhumi, et al) and refuses to answer to parliament or independent public inquiry causing massive protests in Bangkok streets is enough reason for the military to intervene.
(c) AmpleRich-Shin-Temasek $1.8 billion sale deal, suggesting conflict of interest because the PM himself is the head of the Shinawatra clan who owns and controls the Shin enterprise, and Thaksin won’t submit himself to parliamentary inquiry or independent public inquiry provoking non-stop daily massive protests in Bangkok protests for months is enough reason for the military to intervene.
(d) Thaksin intent on clinging to power, provoking his rural followers to confront Bangkok protesters, thus real threat of blood and violence in the streets between anti and pro-Thaksins, polarizing and destabilizing the Kingdom, is enough reason for the military to intervene.
(e) Extrajudicial police killings during Thaksin’s anti-yaa baa war causing deaths by police shootings, without due process, of thousands . . . with no investigations despite protests by victims and HRW groups, clearly in violation of rule of law . . . earning Thailand’s PM the label of extrajudicial killer or murderer, could be enough reason for the military to intervene, if only to restore rule of law to Thailand.
Last but not least, Thaksin’s legitimacy had been tainted by widespread allegations that Thaksin BOUGHT his Premiership through massive vote buying.
I don’t know Tosakan . . . if I had been a General or a Colonel, because of disgust at how Thaksin had completely destroyed the spirit of the Thai constitution . . ., I too could have taken upon myself to lead a coup, the only extra-constitutional means available considering the Thaksin had completely suborned checks & balances, to rid Thailand of the Thaksin menace.
But Tosakan as usual sees only the majority vote matters . . despite the extrajudicial murders, tax evasions, conflict of interest Shinawatra deals, rampant blatant Thaksin directed corruption, and a deepening polariziation of the Kingdom between those on Thaksin handouts and those who do not wish to be corrupted.
7 Military Advisor // Aug 24, 2007 at 4:30 am
Jeru: “. . . if I had been a General or a Colonel, because of disgust at how Thaksin had completely destroyed the spirit of the Thai constitution . . ., I too could have taken upon myself to lead a coup…”. Having read your pro-military posts this comes as no surprise at all! Are you sure that you are not a General or Colonel??
8 Awzar Thi // Aug 24, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Andrew: Thanks for this post. I strongly agree with your position on the hosting of this event at NTSC. I also wondered about the participation of Somchai Homlaor and would be interested to know more about what he said in his presentation, if you wouldn’t mind giving a short summary in addition to the above.
9 Andrew Walker // Aug 24, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Thanks Awzar, here is a brief summary of Somchai’s presentation based on my notes (which are a bit sketchy): He focussed on the extra-judicial killings during the war on drugs and the events in the south (such as Tak Bai). He emphasised the number that were killed (quoting the figure of 2700 in relation to the war on drugs) and described the brutality of the killings in some detail. He claimed that extrajudicial killing was a direct policy of the Thaksin government – it was systematic and widespread. Like Surat he commented on the lack of international reaction to Thaksin’s breaches of international norms and standards. He called for Thaksin’s prosecution.
10 jeru // Aug 25, 2007 at 12:31 pm
All ye Thaksinites do sound despondent and uninspired these days. Even that pompous Republican had been reduced to bloviating the relevance of the Royal mutt! And Tosakan of course repeats his stale boring tale of democracy and the majority vote that only matters, and where is the evidence? . . .
Perhaps you grieve that from perspective it must be really looking very hopeless with that loose canon Samak (a rightwinger of all things) now head of that fascistic sounding People Power Party, comprised of hard-core Red Shirts dependent on Thaksin’s monthly stipends. Even Samak himself admits to beingThaksin’s proxy, and all the PPP executives (which includes those thugs Yongyuth and Newin) were still handpicked by Thaksin from Manchester city.
Hey Republican, Tosakan, BangkokPundit et al – - how can you describe your NEW leader Samak now?
11 fall // Aug 25, 2007 at 3:01 pm
…fascistic sounding People Power Party…
Jeru does have a point. Which crack head come up with the name semi-facist/socialist PPP?
12 Grasshopper // Aug 25, 2007 at 9:57 pm
fall – actually, since this is a blog focused on South East Asia, one in this region (not the USA) would more commonly be a methamphetamine head rather than a crack head.
Although I may have taken this out of context because you might mean crack as in, ‘ Thaksin cracked his head’ in which case your comment is rather pro-War on Drugs?
jeruchai – My point is facetious because I believe that apathy begins with submission and you have done that with your support of the military government and acceptance that your own laws are being re-written because of one scapegoat. It is quite rich that you tell us of apathy.
13 Historicus // Aug 25, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Jeru needs to get off this idea that there are only two perspectives available in this world – pro-military or pro-Thaksin. I realise that the military leaders he so admires approve of this way of looking at the world of Thai politics, but this is really an infantile perspective on politics. One could easily have seen the Thaksin government as an elected government with an arrogant and dangerous right-wing leader and have railed against his palace-inspired war on drugs and so on. At the same time, one can oppose the palace-military coup and the return to authoritarianism. Equally, one can view Samak as an opportunistic right-wing politician, a man of the past – a bit like the military sponsors – and with a despicable past himself (being involved in some horrible events in 1976-77).
14 jeru // Aug 25, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I think fascistic is not being facetious at all to describe this People Power Party (PPP) . . . the Red shirts (in lieu of Brown) all marching to the tune of the cult of Thaksin Shinawatra from the proxy leader Samak, to the deputies then to every single Red shirted member.
I have always claimed that the disgraced outlawed Thai Rak Thai party(TRT), now being revived as PPP, had only one mission (ideology would be a mislabel) and that is to serve the interest of Thaksin Shinawatra and his family. If the Shinawatra (political) party crumbles (as it did recently) because of election fraud or criminal corruption . . . that may not an all be unexpected.
Take any political party in the world and you will not find one that would continue to pledge their allegiance to the leader responsible for the disbanding of that party, and a leader facing so many criminal prosecution for the whole gamut from (extrajudicial) murder to tax evasion to election fraud to many shady criminal corruption deals. Unbelievable! Oh well I forgot Zimbabwe’s Mugabe’s party.
Mugabe and Thaksin share other similarity aside from their cult following – - they are both murderous leaders.
What is it about the Thaksin Shinawatra ‘cash’ charisma that keep a hypnotic hold on all his followers? Just look at all of Thaksin’s followers in the blogs: Bangkok Pundit, Tosakan or Fonzi of ThailandJumpedtheShark, Republican, Grasshopper, and of course Mr. Andrew Walker the outraged Aussie academic so concerned about the demise of Thaksin . . . err I mean Thai democracy.
Grasshopper Thaksin Shinawatra is no goat. Thaksin Shinawatra was/(still is) a Godzilan danger and threat to the stability and unity of Thailand.
15 Military Admirer // Aug 26, 2007 at 12:14 am
It is nice to see that jeru, the military’s mouthpiece at this and other blogs, is promoting an abti-fascist agenda by opposing Thaksin, Thaksinites, TRT, PPP (and any other group he sees as pro-Thaksin). But what is that agenda? It has usually been the military that has been in the vanguard of fascist authoritarianism in Thailand. Why support these brown shirts who march with so much more precision than the red shirts? Perhaps he supports yellow-shirt liberalism? Or are they fascists as well? Seems liek Thailand is full of them.
16 Grasshopper // Aug 26, 2007 at 1:40 am
Jeruchai: Please do not compare Thaksin with Robert Mugabe. You discredit yourself with comparing over 20,000 Ndebele murdered by North Korean trained agents in Matabeleland at the start of Zanu PF rule with the actions of Thaksin Shinawatra and TRT. Irrespective of the admittedly extreme nature of Thaksin’s “War on Drugs” they do not amount to ethnic discrimination bordering the beginnings of a genocide. Your musings lack foundation. Please postulate with facts rather than out of touch meanderings of Generals who justify their self interested actions with declarations of allegiance to Thai sovereignty.
Also, I think you’ll find that Chen Shui-bien of the Democratic Progressive Party and current Prime Minister of Taiwan retains the majority of support in parliament despite most of his family being convicted of fraud with him facing similar indictment after leaving office. Furthermore, whilst loosing face in the population polls run by the Taipei Times of 2,000 persons (of both KMT and DPP alignment), they indicate that they are prepared for him to see out the remainder of his term.
Oh yes, I’d like to know how exactly he, Thaksin, is a threat??!
Your arguments are very weak Jeruchai. I’ve had a few beers but I still am able to think of something to respond to you with… You must write for the nation ?!
17 jeru // Aug 26, 2007 at 2:20 am
Mugabe, Chen Shui-Bien, Thaksin Shinawatra, Ferdinand Marcos, Suharto and maybe a few more, the elite Corrupt Leaders Club of the World.
These are all dangerous men Grasshopper. All these men were capable of ruining and they did ruin their own country. Thailand was just lucky the Thaksin menace was surgically removed just in time – - lest more thousands were extrajudicially killed, lest criminal corruption becomes the WAY, lest Thailand descends into more divisiveness then anarchy, lest tax evasion becomes the norm what with the PM himself as the role model, lest . . . Thailand is Marcosized or Mugabeed.
Grasshopper murder is murder . . there is no way to mitigate the crime by claiming Thaksin was responsible for lesser body counts. Once a megalomaniac deliberately cold bloodedly murders for some dark lust . . . all other crimes that follow are easier to commit.
I appreciate Grasshopper why you need many glasses of beer to respond and defend Thaksin . . I really do.
18 Grasshopper // Aug 26, 2007 at 10:26 am
I am not defending Thaksin! I am defending the 1997 constitution! (my comparison of ‘extrajudicial’ killings admittedly was as appalling as your reference to Mugabe in the first place. Obviously they’re all bad apples.. Since when is politics for the innocent?) It is about accountability Jeruchai. Thaksin ought to be held accountable. The Generals also ought to be held accountable for their ’surgical’ removal of a lung (1997 constitution) that let Thailand breathe.
…Chen-Shui-bien has not ruined Taiwan!
*@#&!^!
19 Mariner // Aug 26, 2007 at 1:06 pm
To Jeru, regarding the point ‘lest tax evasion becomes the norm.’
As far as Taksin’s sale of the Shin Corp. goes, did the then PM actually break the law as it then stood? Did the sale take place just after Taksin had ammended the law in order to escape tax liability? I honestly don’t know the answers. Incidentally, I always thought Taksin was a pretty awful PM but corruption didn’t begin with Taksin and it won’t end with the next election.
I am not defending Taksin. I just recoil against the ongoing, utterly one sided, attacks against this fellow. Allowing his defenders a voice would not prevent the truth from emerging so why, here in Thailand, the relentless ‘choreographed’ denouncements? It just smacks of panic in the eyes of a military desperately seeking to justify the overthrow of a democratically elected govt.
20 Republican // Aug 26, 2007 at 2:46 pm
On Samak and Phalang Prachachon:
I think giving Samak the leadership of Phalang Prachachon is another smart political move. “Phalang Prachachon” / Thai Rak Thai would have to win close to, if not more than, the 42% of the vote they got in the NE and N for the referendum – probably more, because you would assume that the campaigning would be much freer than for the referendum. And you would expect that Samak would do a good job in Bangkok – don’t forget that TRT won almost half the Bangkok vote in the April 2006 election. He would also moderate the image the Bangkok middle class has of Phalang Prachachon as a party of Isan and northern villagers, led by former leftists and a billionaire. The name of the party – “Peoples’ Power” – is another smart PR move. The international media will love it after over a year of royalist-military dictatorship.
Result: “Thai Rak Thai” wins the election with an absolute majority. Then it’s pay-back time. If it’s true then Thaksin has played this brilliantly.
The interesting thing is why Samak is going along with it. He’s been very critical of Prem… Maybe he can see the writing on the wall for the monarchy, and wants to be on the winning side when the end comes?
21 nganadeeleg // Aug 26, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Republican: Sounds like you are hoping for civil war. All this barracking for Thaksin – are you angling for the chief executioners job?
22 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Aug 26, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Re:> nganadeeleg
A healthy democracy is constantly in a state of “cold” civil war; it is from this dynamism that change and progress come.
That’s why calls for “unity,” “harmony, and ” solidarity,” above all, are hallmarks of fascist regimes and bland, necrotic stagnation that accompanies them.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
23 ndanadeeleg // Aug 27, 2007 at 8:48 am
Lleij S- S-: So do you consider the ‘pay-back’ referred to by Republican to be part of the dynamism for healthy change & progress?
24 fall // Aug 27, 2007 at 12:14 pm
…‘ Thaksin cracked his head’ in which case your comment is rather pro-War on Drugs
Definitely out of context, but never mind. Metaphentamine head, crack head, coke head, wise-ass, ignorant fool, etc. all relatively the same meaning.
25 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Aug 27, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Re: nganadeeleg>
Well, if the “pay-back” only consists of cabinet, police, and army shuffles combined with a little
income redistribution…err…”social justice” to the villagers up in the Northeast, then I would say that’s fairly harmless. It would be nothing more offensive than the “spoils system” of the U.S.If the “pay-back” he’s thinking of consists of dragging yellowshirts from their homes and hanging them from the nearest lamppost, then, of course not.
BTW… I wholeheartedly agree with your point about the PAD in the other thread.
26 nganadeeleg // Aug 27, 2007 at 11:00 pm
LLS: I’m not so sure that’s the pay-back that Republican has in mind.
I think Jakrapob’s declaration that someone has to ‘pay’ for what has happened is an ominous warning should they ever get back into power.
BTW, the ’spoils system’ looks like business as usual in Thailand (still looks offensive to me).
27 Mariner // Aug 28, 2007 at 12:08 am
So, the date of the general election has been announced -Dec. 23, if I heard correctly. Any party which advertises itself as a proxy TRT is going to do well in the NE. So, I wonder, what’s a hypocritical, self- serving politician to do? Will they turn round and say, ‘well Taksin wasn’t as bad as we’ve been telling you. In fact, really I rather liked the man.’
The other question of course is whether the military have done enough to ensure that this time the election will produce the ‘correct’ result.
28 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Aug 28, 2007 at 4:13 pm
re nganadeeleg:> To be fair to the U.S. Civil Service, the vast majority of jobs are on the merit system. Nevertheless, I do favor the spoils system to a limited sense as a system of incentive. I think it’s the lesser of two evils when compared to the British “Yes, Minister” style civil service.
29 Fuel and fire in Burma // Aug 29, 2007 at 9:39 pm
[...] welcome any further insights from New Mandala readers. (And perhaps the ANU may be willing to host a delegation from the Burmese regime to provide us with an update on the political [...]
30 Ex-Ajarn // Aug 31, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Word on the street (well, at least what I heard from the somtom lady on the corner) was that the public opinion was turning against the coup leaders (mostly due to their miserable economic record) and Thaksin’s popularity seems to be returning. While their appears to be no reliable polling done in the country (ABAC polls grossly over represent the urban population), the PPP (TRT in disguise) seems to have a good chance of winning an outright majority if the upcoming elections (military dictatorships have a very poor record of holding free and fair elections) reflect the actual will of the people. If the PPP wins an absolute majority, there could be little doubt that Thaksin would return in triumph, something the coup leaders are deathly afraid of. As we get closer to “election” time, the possibility of another coup to once again stop an election from going forth (The last coup was not about corruption, it was about stopping the election which Thaksin was obviously going to win) appears to be a possibility. History teaches us military dictators (even those pulling the strings of the public puppets) do not easily give up power. As an observer, it as all fascinating, as a long-term resident without a guaranteed stream of income outside the country, it is all unsettling.
I continue to be amazed by the outsiders who seem to know nothing of the empirical and anecdotal evidence of what happens to countries under a military dictatorship and continue to support rule by the gun as opposed to rule by the ballot box. About a week before the coup, I assigned a class here in Thailand to read a journal article about military dictatorships in Nigeria to give an example of qualitative research methodology. It was eerie going over the assignment after the coup. Same justifications, same techniques, same propaganda, same gullible people believing in the propaganda. Studies consistently show military takeovers are correlated with future unrest, violence, economic stagnation and repressions of freedom. So far, the military dictatorship here in Thailand fits the international pattern. What has the coup given to the people of Thailand (of those of us living on the Thai economy)? Repression, economic stagnation, increases in violence, especially in the deep south, increased corruption (even the “fine” for traffic violations by the police has increased and brothels are increasing springing up in residential neighborhoods in BKK), and a continuation of the political division. How do those who
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.