I meant to say something about this earlier but didn’t have the time then. I’m normally a big fan of Pasuk and Baker’s work. But there were a few points in Pasuk’s “Thai Politics Beyond 2006 Coup” published in The Bangkok Post on 31st July which I have to say really irritated me. Because the article was circulated on some email lists as recommended reading I wanted to share my views on it.
Firstly, (i) the statement: “…When he rose to power, Mr Thaksin showed no real interest in the masses. He became a popular leader over the following years because of the demand for such a leader…”
The use of the term “the masses” here is a bit unfortunate – it conveys the image of unthinking country bumpkins / working class manipulated by venal politicians, an image that the academics and the anti-Thaksin movement popularized with devastating effect in the run-up to the September 19 coup – but I will let that go.
The real problem is that Pasuk and most academics just can’t seem to find it in themselves to credit Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai for conceiving of and campaigning on a raft of policies aimed at supporting the rural poor – the 30 baht health scheme, the village development fund, debt relief, etc. – for actually delivering on these policies as promised, and then going before the people in elections to win a mandate. Do they realize the difficulty of what Thai Rak Thai tried to do? If one looks at Thailand’s political history over the last 60 years there has been no leader or party that has ever achieved what they did.
Thai Rak Thai announced and campaigned on these so-called “populist” policies BEFORE the 2001 election. So if, according to Pasuk’s argument, Thaksin had “no real interest in the masses” when he rose to power, then why did he set up Thai Rak Thai? It follows that these policies must have been just a cynical political act, a smokescreen to hide Thaksin’s true goal, presumably (according to the common academic caricature of Thaksin) the satisfaction of his authoritarian, undemocratic “political ambitions”. For Pasuk, Thaksin became a “popular leader” purely because of the “demand for such a leader”. So we should never entertain the idea that Thaksin could actually have cared about the people. After all, he was a “wealthy businessman” and we all know that businessmen have no love for the masses.
Isn’t it just possible that Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai could actually have wanted to do something in government for the people? According to Pasuk’s argument, suddenly, after the huge investment in time and money and work involved in setting up Thai Rak Thai, the months of campaigning, the political battles involved in implementing these policies, etc. etc. Thaksin suddenly realizes, “…hey, maybe the populist path is the way to go. I can pretend to help some poor people so that they will vote for me. Then I will really be able to satisfy my own authoritarian anti-democratic desires, and all this work would have been worthwhile. Why didn’t I think of this before?”
The unstated assumption here is that the academics are the ones who have a “real interest in the masses” and who really understand democracy, whereas the politicians just use the “masses” for their own selfish political ambitions. Here we see the anti-politician bias inherent in the work of so many Thai academics, and which played such an important role in the rhetoric that was mobilized to destroy Thaksin’s legitimacy with the middle class before the coup.
(ii) Later Pasuk mentions how Thaksin alienated the middle class and was demonized. Yes, but we should also note that she was one of the academics involved in demonizing him.
(iii) “…Mr Thaksin hijacked the Constitution…”
To me this is a very irresponsible statement to make, especially in a newspaper column read by hundreds of thousands of people. To take advantage of a Constitution, or to appoint one’s own people as Constitutional judges is one thing. Most political parties around the world do the same thing when they come into government. But what is a “hijack”? An armed, violent takeover of a plane or vehicle by a criminal with the intent to steal. This is the language that
Pasuk uses for Thaksin.
(iv) “…to neutralize his political opponents …”
I’d like to know which politician or political party in other countries does not attempt to neutralize their opponents. In politics if you don’t neutralize your opponents they will defeat you, the electorate you represent and the policies that you seek to implement. Why be a politician if one is not going to fight for one’s cause, whatever it is? And in the case of Thailand, when one knows that one’s “political opponent” is a conservative military-bureaucratic alliance built around an unreconstructed feudal monarchy with virtually unlimited resources to draw upon, then one could argue that there is an added moral imperative to “neutralize” such an opponent in the interests of democracy.
I can only echo Somsak Jeamthirasakul’s fundamentally important criticism in this debate that he has been making for over a year now, but which seems to fall on deaf ears: when the academics talk about the democratically-elected Thaksin, who was given the mandate to govern by overwhelming majorities on three separate occasions because of the popularity of the policies that he delivered to the rural populace, he is the embodiment of evil: corrupt, a violator of human rights, a “populist”, ambitious, a “hijacker”, who “overrides democratic principles” (?!), “judicial process” and the “rule of law”, “authoritarian”, “enriching his cronies”, “Hitler”, etc. etc., (the Thai terms of abuse hurled at Thaksin by many Thai academics were much coarser) but when it comes to discussing the other side of politics that he is up against, ie. the monarchy and its network that has been around for the last 50 years (“old elites” in Pasuk’s code), SILENCE. Why the hypocrisy?
(v) Speaking of “…the old elite…”, “…longstanding institutions…”, “…the ruling elites…”, when, when, when, when, when, when, when are academics going to call a spade a spade and name the monarchy? Every country has “ruling elites”, “old elites” and “longstanding institutions” that attempt to dominate the political process. Only Thailand has a feudal monarchy that continually intervenes in Thai politics to undermine democratic processes using the military, bureaucracy and now increasingly the judiciary. When will you say it? Isn’t it your job? The academics are the ones who should take primary responsibility for this massive failure to properly explain to the public the true political role of the monarchy in Thailand, and their demonization of the one force that can neutralize it, the politicians.
Somsak is again the lone voice who has identified the problem: the “สองไม่เอา” position, of which Pasuk’s article is a good example. This is the illogical, ridiculous and undemocratic position taken by most academics who believed that during the confrontation between Thaksin and the “network monarchy” they could reject royalist dictatorship while at the same time not accepting Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin. Rejection of Thaksin in effect meant rejecting the democratic choice of the majority of the Thai electorate. What this demonstrates is the essentially undemocratic stance of the academics. And they have the gall to call Thaksin undemocratic!
(vi) “…The middle class gave support in public space. Even though the middle class is a minority, it shapes and dominates the public space in which politics is debated. In this space, Mr Thaksin was condemned as a demon, and the coup was given a warm welcome…”
Well, this is an ambiguously worded sentence, but what I strongly object to is the LIE that “the coup was given a warm welcome” (Chaiwat was one of the main figures responsible for popularizing this idea in his Bangkok Post article published a few days after the coup, which was taken up by the international media and which played a major role in mollifying the international response to the coup). If it was so “warmly welcomed” then why the hell stage a coup; why not wait for the scheduled elections in October? Because everyone knew that Thai Rak Thai would have won. So what was this illusion of the “warm welcome” then? NOTHING OTHER THAN THE RESULT OF HAVING A MACHINE GUN WITH A YELLOW
RIBBON TIED AROUND IT POINTED IN THE FACE OF THE ELECTORATE. To my mind, claiming that the coup was “warmly welcomed” is equivalent to spitting in the space of the Thai Rak Thai voters.
(vii) “…Mr Thaksin’s populism, the coup and ”managed democracy” are all strategies to exclude opponents from the democratic process…”
To me this is an appalling statement to make, especially in a newspaper column written, as I said above, with the intention of reaching a readership of hundreds of thousands. Essentially, Pasuk is putting Thaksin’s democratically-elected government on a par with a royalist-military dictatorship that came to power through tanks and guns and the yellow flag (=
สองไม่เอา). Apart from the offensiveness of this comparison the logic is ludicrous. Because Thai Rak Thai won government through an election based on policies designed to appeal to the electorate it “excluded” its opponents from the democratic process? How? By denying the middle class and “the old elite” the right to vote?! What “democratic process” were they excluded from?
After all this, the article finishes off by giving us a lecture on democracy…
I started out irritated by this article, but finished off quite angry.
66 responses so far ↓
1 observer // Aug 29, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I do think that Pasuk has some valid points. I have not seen much evidence that Thaksin was interested in the poor until he saw the expediency. But motive isn’t the issue. He did genuinely support the poor and they genuinely love him for it.
I also agree that the middle class broadly supported the coup. This is largely because and elitist propaganda campaign created massive negative sentiment. I expect it will become increasingly clear that this campaign was motivated as much by Prachai’s desire to get TPI back and Saprang’s desire to be army head, but that is still speculation.
On a separate but related note, the cover of The Nation’s weekly political magazine had the North and Northeast as red states with the headline:
Phai pen phai, phai het phai tham?
This translates (from Isaan/dialect) as “Who is who, who is doing it, who is making it happen?”
My read on this is that the Nation and the elite can not bring themselves to believe that the poor have a will and can actually understand and act in their own interest. To them someone must be behind it all.
Given that P-net said the military is the one buying votes and Isaan isn’t going along, that storyline seems weak.
These two stories are tied together by a common thread: At the end of the day, the circumstances, made Thaksin. Thaksin didn’t make the circumstances. Even if you take the individual out of the picture, nothing has changed.
I would be very interested to hear any other ideas on this.
2 Grasshopper // Aug 29, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Republican, this was a good rant. However, I believe your logic is Rawlsian and therefore does not account for the type of society Thailand has organically produced. Rather than eschew cultural relativism (where you are on a completely different side of the fence), it must be embraced with pluralism to avoid unnecessary conflict and then changed incrementally by persons such as yourself.
Why don’t academics take up the position of your rant? Because it would not be distanced from the action enough to gain proper perspective and would subsequently involve themselves in a siege mentality of intellectual thought which would not be very academic.
3 bangkokpundit // Aug 29, 2007 at 12:59 pm
“Somsak is again the lone voice who has identified the problem: the “สองไม่เอา” position, of which Pasuk’s article is a good example.”
I do think there is a problem with the “Song Mai Aow” position and that someone, whether an academic or anyone else, who wishes to oppose a political leader/political policy needs to also think about what the consequence of that is. Instead of hoping for some imaginary perfect political leader to come along and implement policies that they agree with, they need to be realists. Supporting no one is the easy approach. If not Thaksin, then who? This doesn’t mean they should not criticise political leaders when they disagree with their policies, but just acknowledge what the alternatives are .
I agree almost entirely with the rest of the post.
4 nganadeeleg // Aug 29, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I see that Pundit has linked to Republican’s post and has labeled it ‘the heart of the problem’.
I can see both sides:
The old elites gave nothing to the rural poor, and Thaksin did, hence his support.
Thaksin encroached on the old elites turf, and those old elites wanted to fight back.
If Thaksin had not taken the plunder to new heights, arrogantly evaded taxes and tried to manipulate everything (including succession), do you really think the old elites would have been able to pull off a coup?
It seems you think the middle classes played into the hands of the old elites, by making the ground ripe for a coup.
I see it differently, in that I think Thaksin played into their hands by wanting it all – if he had moderated his behavior he would still be in power.
We all know one of the biggest problems in Thailand is corruption and self interest.
IMO the only way for things to get better is for the majority of the electorate (rural or urban, rich, poor or middle class) to look beyond self interest, and reject corruption in all it’s forms.
5 nganadeeleg // Aug 29, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I also have a slightly different view on what is the’ heart of the problem’:
- Is Thailand politics/democracy a mess because of HMK, or in spite of him?
I believe that without HMK the country would be worse off, and more chaotic.
I am also of the opinion that networks of elites will always dominate, irrespective of whether a monarchy exists.
I would take Bhumibol over a Thaksin, Samak, Chavalit type anytime.
I agree with Handley, that overall HMK’s biggest failure is the failure to provide for a smooth succession.
6 nganadeeleg // Aug 29, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Whilst I think he is misguided to worship Thaksin, and foolish to think that the masses are actually politically sophisticated, I can however understand Republican’s irritation and anger.
I know it’s wishful thinking, but I think a lot of that frustration could be alleviated if the lese majeste law were amended such that only HMK can make the charge.
7 fall // Aug 29, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I second Observer’s comment.
8 Srithanonchai // Aug 29, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Pasuk/Baker thought that Thaksin had established TRT and tried to get into government in order to deal with the scheduled liberalization of the telecom sector. In other words, they saw his political work as part of Shin Corp’s business plan.
“warm welcome” – Obviously, Pasuk here refers to the //minority// middle class, and not to the general voter.
To equate Thaksin’s policy approach with a coup is rather disingenous.
9 observer // Aug 29, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Nganadeeleg said:
“If Thaksin had not taken the plunder to new heights, arrogantly evaded taxes and tried to manipulate everything (including succession), do you really think the old elites would have been able to pull off a coup?”
I think the answer is yes and no. It is far from clear that Thaksin took corruption to a new level. Corruption is very subjective in the eyes of the eleite. If they are doing it, it is fine. If it is those nasty poor people it is evil. Do you really believe that Suwat, Bannowit, and Saprang are entirely different creatures than Thaksin’s fund raisers?
If the middle class really believes that Thaksin was so much more corrupt, where is the outrage that all of this minions have been let off? Or that he is only being tried for a little land purchase that probably won’t even hold up in the end.
But the “manipulate everything” accusation has a lot more to do with it.
The military used the cover story of corruption (again) to unseat Thaksin. This is going to turn back and bite them. it is already obvious that they are just as corrupt and haven’t been able to convict Thaksin on anything. Where are the cases against Suriya and Newin?
Broadly though your posts above are quite good and do show both sides of the issue. If Thailand can come to a clearer and less twisted view of what happens it will make a much more solid foundation for the future than the propaganda that has been dominating the dialogue thus far.
10 Sidh S. // Aug 29, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I can emphathize with Republican. When one starts from a deep hatred of the ‘old elite’/monarchy, it is not hard to have deep affections for Thaksin. I know many who are the same.
Although taking the opposite route is not necessary true – as many Thais combine a deep love for HMK with affection for Thaksin. It does make Republican’s article somewhat reductivist and simplistic – and it is quite surprising that he/she is an active participant in a blog about Thailand. He /she seems to not understand the country, it’s history and culture at all.
I wonder if Republican should be writing on Burma or Vietnam, where the British and French colonizers systematically dismantled their ‘old elite’ system and network. Maybe if the Thai ‘domino’ fell to Communism, the country would be far better off? Or maybe America should invade Thailand and violently impose democracy like in Iraq?
Moreover, by implication, Republican brands the majority of Thais, who are royalists, feudal and backwards. But that is what Thais will have to accept as I won’t be surpised if that is what the majority of ‘democratic’ Westerners think deep inside. But I wish he/she could emphathize with us (unless if he/she happens to be Thai) – the monarchy is part of the Thais sense of identity of which we are very proud of. We maybe poor and backwards, but please don’t trample on our dignity – leave us some space to be proud – if you consider yourself a friend of Thailand…
As for PMThaksin, his greed and stinginess led to his downfall as much, if not more, than anything the ‘old elite’ could muster against him. His strong government (the result of the 1997 ‘people’s constitution’ which came about as the offspring of ‘Black May’) and populist policies has won the hearts of the people of the North and Northeast (and his 300km rail mass-transit plan would have won Bangkok). But if you want to be seen as strong and decisive the ‘Thai’ way – ‘Nakleng’, you must be ‘Jai kwang’, you must ‘give’. If you sold your shares for 70 billion baht without paying taxes – just 5-10 billion donation for good causes would have won the whole country over (maybe even the Democrat’s stronghold of the South!). PMThaksin couldn’t part with one baht while he is seen as ‘tum namphrik lalai maenam’ or ‘wasting’ the middle-class’ tax on questionable populist schemes. That is pure political suicide…
Moreover, he had offered and reneged to debate the ShinCorp sale in parliament; he the chance to ’step down’ and let Somkid Jatusripitak or other political nominee take over as PM; he was offered a chance to ‘negotiate/compromise’ with the opposition party before the 2006 election… He had numerous chances to ’save’ democracy and the 1997 Constitution (from himself) but he did not. He would have also got away with all the corruption charges (and I totally agree with nganadeeleg here). I would go as far to argue that PMThaksin was not naive – he was full aware of what he was up against, the possibility of a coup. He was willing to play a very high stakes gamble (for the sake of not paying taxes?!?!)… He saw the 1997 Constitution and ‘democracy’ as something he could, like fame and fortune, gamble with – and because of that, he is not worthy of both.
The huge irony is that Thaksin is now the ‘pin-up boy’ for Thai democracy according to some foreigners and, according to this article, the monarchy shoulders all the blame. I find this assessment extremely biased and shocking.
11 jonfernquest // Aug 29, 2007 at 10:00 pm
“…foolish to think that the masses are actually politically sophisticated…”
Political sophistication is impossible without knowing what is going on.
Everyone is always talking about decentralisation and localised political decisionmaking but there is no such thing as a **local media reporting local provincial news**.
I used to read Matthew McDaniel’s early embryo version of a blog, reporting events in Akha land northwest of Chiang Rai, as if he was reporting from from the moon, e.g. …
Hey, Akha father-in-law of Polish tennis teacher shot dead in the head and dumped on the road by you know who.
Hey, why did that 30 million baht mysteriously disappear from the Japanese educational grant.
Hey, why is that squatter camp army of Burmese migrants building this university and then, why are they building a 60 million baht spa and massage complex behind the university and what does this have to do with education? I’m confused.
Hey, why did that guy who stole the electricity generating concession for Tachileik, Burma from that Thai guy, get a silencer stuck to his head and his head blown off when he was leaving the driving range.
Hey, why did that Swiss friend who used to eat with us at my mother in law’s house just hang himself in his jail cell the day after you know who was pushing him around his jail cell for 1.5 million baht? After the most untransparent set events (not reported in the media) I’ve ever seen transpired?
Hey, why did that Farang scum ball who was seen in the woman’s room before her murder suddenly get let loose and fly back to his country after reported payments
Hey, where did that Muslim lawyer go, didn’t Chavalit tell everyone in front of the whole National Assembly and didn’t Thaksin protect the culprits?
Hey, why were those Burmese hiding in the school bathroom taking refuge from the rain shot dead in cold blood with shot guns by the local militia?
Hey, why is the corpse of that Farang floating down the Maesai river?
Hey, why did that German driving drunk wack that farmer, almost killing him, and then get off with 90,000 baht because his Thai wife’s brother is a high ranking officer.
Hey, why did that provincial have to pay three times as much everyone else in the traffic accident settlement just because he couldn’t find friends in Bangkok to vouch for him?
Hey, why did my sister-in-law’s mother-in-law steal her baby and refuse to feed my sister-in-law (essentially treating her like an animal) when she came to visit her baby?
Hey, why did those three teenagers get shot in the head by men in black ski masks and dumped out of the back of a truck at the entrance to Chiang Rai hospital in the dead of night?
Hey, why did that teacher just run a red light?
Hey, why did that hit-and-run hit the guy and flee?
There’s ***no such thing as provincial news*** so no one will ever know the answer to these questions.
The coup was a sudden unexpected surprising black swan event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
It was unpredictable and unplanned except among a tight secret **indeterminate** cabal of powerful people.
Lack of transparency is par for the course.
No one seems to know what really happened, so rumour abounds.
Then wham: black swan event.
Before and after Thaksin, no difference.
Nothing has changed except that people aren’t marching in the same direction anymore.
Only HMK can help them do that. That’s what a King does.
Me, I’m going to learn more Pali and read more Buddhist scriptures.
12 bangkokpundit // Aug 29, 2007 at 10:46 pm
“I do think that Pasuk has some valid points. I have not seen much evidence that Thaksin was interested in the poor until he saw the expediency. But motive isn’t the issue. He did genuinely support the poor and they genuinely love him for it.”
It is difficult to attribute motives to politicians, but I agree with you motive isn’t the issue as we can never really know what Thaksin’s true motive was. Actions speak louder than words.
“If the middle class really believes that Thaksin was so much more corrupt, where is the outrage that all of this minions have been let off? Or that he is only being tried for a little land purchase that probably won’t even hold up in the end.”
This is the problem for the “old power” clique description as it morphs from only Thaksin to all his “cronies”, whatever that means. It is as if they were all somehow all under his control and were manipulated by him and couldn’t get out from his control, but Thaksin’s power derived from the legislature. Thaksin stayed in power because he had enough support from MPs. When his popularity decreased some factions jumped ship. The more his support fell, the more MPs would leave as they were worried about losing their MP status. The reason some stayed as he was their ticket to being an MP. All those MPs and Cabinet Ministers could have resigned at anytime, but by staying and somehow trying to distance themselves from Thaksin is hilarious. When Thaksin did something “illegal”, weren’t the rest of them enabling him? Oddly, it is only Thaksin who is the source off all evil and the only one, with his family, who must be punished.
“If you sold your shares for 70 billion baht without paying taxes – just 5-10 billion donation for good causes would have won the whole country over (maybe even the Democrat’s stronghold of the South!). ”
Umm. You really think he would have won any votes from the “He-is-selling-out-Thailand-to-evil-foreigners-crowd”? I think it would have lessened the anger, but then he would have been accused of using “taxpayer’s money” for cynical political purposes.
13 Srithanonchai // Aug 29, 2007 at 11:15 pm
“He /she seems to not understand the country, it’s history and culture at all.” This intellectually disingenuous “argument” seems to have a long life, as have the dream worlds many Thai academics have constructed for themselves to fend off the real world.
14 CDF // Aug 30, 2007 at 1:14 am
Why don’t you channel your passions into an article or book and get it published? Even though we wouldn’t be able to identify your real name with your pseudonym, it would be a contribution to the field.
15 LouisW // Aug 30, 2007 at 1:54 am
I agree with Sidh. S. and cannot get rid of the impression that the Thai middle class has been hypocritical towards the poor all the years. I remember the months under Chuan’s government where the assembly of the poor gathered Bangkok’s streets. In those day there was much sympathy and talk about “empowerment”. But when there is someone (like Thaksin) coming into power to benefit them, the poor were dropped by the middle class as being stupid and mislead by a populist. Obviously, that is because the middle class taxes has been used for that purpose.
I wonder what the media mogul Sondhi (or Sonthi – please excuse me, I tend to confuse the romanisation for the two) is doing now. Wasn’t he the one bringing the middle class masses against Thaksin? He talked about democracy, but why isn’t he saying anything about the elitist’ takeover?
I am equally sad that due to the schematic western thinking that everything that is democratically elected is a good thing, Thaksin shines as a good boy of Thai democracy. Seemingly all but forgotten are his human rights violations, especially in the area of freedom of the media.
Please apologise my humble opinion and the fact that I may haven’t come with a well-funded standpoint.
16 Taxi Driver // Aug 30, 2007 at 3:50 am
Republican’s point about the hypocrisy of the majority of Thai academics is valid. It cannot be dismissed as the rantings of a non-Thai or a Thaksinophile.
Sure, Thai academics operate under a different set of rules (lese majeste) but this does not explain the overtly pro-elite position that most of them have taken.
17 Republican // Aug 30, 2007 at 10:23 am
Reply to Bangkok Pundit: You’re right, we have to be realists, and that is exactly why the “song mai ao” criticism is valid. Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai was (and to a large extent still is) the choice of the majority of the electorate. What political force had/has the most realistic chance of overcoming the forces of royalist dictatorship? The position of supporting no-one is not just the “easy approach”, but given the present political conditions it in effect means supporting royalist-military dictatorship.
This is where we see the pretentiousness, the hypocrisy and the political irresponsibility of the “song mai ao” academics. They want so much to appear “pure” and democratic and morally superior and intellectually more far-sighted than the rest of us that they distance themselves as much as possible from Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai. That is, they distance themselves from a former government which had done precisely the sorts of things democratically-elected governments in other countries do: respond to the demands of the electorate which put them in government, and manage the national economy effectively. But the “song mai ao” academics pretend there is some other way. Some of them even occasionally criticize the monarchy openly to display their fake “democratic” commitment and solidarity with the people. A few of them will “bravely” give papers at the ICTS – in honour of the king’s 80th birthday. That is: they criticize the monarchy, but their failure to support the Thai Rak Thai government when it was most in need was the best favour they could have done for monarchical government. And don’t forget that many of these “song mai ao” academics are active “public intellectuals”: they don’t confine themselves to writing scholarly articles in academic journals or debates on academic blog sites but write columns for newspapers read by hundreds of thousands of people, or even appear on TV. Obviously they want their criticisms to have a political effect. Kasien is the best example, his “ระบอบทักษิณ” has been taken up by the military junta, the Democrats and Thaksin’s other political enemies and is now a byword used to signify the evil of everything Thaksin stands for. His concept of “electocracy” also helped undermine the most important element of the political legitimacy of the Thai Rak Thai government. Pasuk’s criticism of Thaksin’s “populism” is another example of a discourse which attacks the legitimacy of Thai Rak Thai. When you see these “song mai ao” public intellectuals come out after the coup with their democratic protestations and their comparatively mild criticisms of the junta, one feels like pointing out, well you were the guys who helped bring down Thai Rak Thai in the court of (middle class) public opinion.
People like the “war room” academics and all the other anti-Thaksin academics talk about human rights violations under the Thai Rak Thai government, its alleged corruption and the “undemocratic” Thaksin, but are silent about the human rights abuses, corruption and undermining of democracy by the monarchy over the last 50 years. On the latter, as I keep saying, the truth is largely invisible because of the lese majeste law and the relentless royalist propaganda. But despite this law and the propaganda, anyone who has studied this country for a length of time should surely know the extent of the monarchy’s corruption of the political system, and its poisonous influence on society in general.
Go to any royal ceremony (a graduation for example) and the feudal, profoundly undemocratic nature of the monarchy is on display. Look at the way they treat the Thai people like animals, forcing them to grovel at their feet in prostration and to address them from underneath the specks of dust on the soles of their Royal Feet. Listen to the king who sits on top of a $40 billion fortune tell the villagers (whose government he has just helped overthrown) to be satisfied for what little they have, and then watch the academics give their learned papers on sufficiency economy. All this is somehow more desirable for the academics than Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin.
18 Ex-Ajarn // Aug 30, 2007 at 1:18 pm
It is amazing how blind hatred can affect a person’s outlook on issues. In this case, academia is no exception. Blind hatred of Thaksin has caused otherwise rational people to call an elected government with the support of the majority of the population “undemocratic” and an armed overthrow of an elected government by the military to stop an election from going forth, because they expected an outcome they would not like, democratic.
The discussion about whether one liked Thaksin and his policies needs to be decoupled from the issue of elections and democracy. One can not claim to favor democracy and only accept certain outcomes of elections. Democracy does not mean elites and those who control those with the most guns gets to decide who governs.
If Thaksin was so bad, why couldn’t his opponents beat him in an election? Why alternatives have been proposed by the anti-Thaksin politicians except the removal of the object of their hatred? Does Thailand want democracy that reflects the will of the people? Or does Thailand want democracy where only those the old guard elites approve of are allowed to run in elections?
So what has this “democratic’ exercise of removing the object of hatred of the elites done for the country? Economic growth has continued to decline, far below the regional average, violence in the South has intensified resulting in the deaths of many Thai citizens, the country’s international image is one of a banana republic ruled by keystone soldiers, the political division continues, the country now has a constitution that is light years behind the one it had previously in terms of guaranteed freedoms. What progress! But in one incidence, the coup leader have done the impossible, they have set a benchmark which makes Thaksin look democratic, progressive and very intelligent.
As long as hatred of Thaksin and emotions rule the debate, democracy will not move forward.
Sorry, this one removes the typos
19 jeru // Aug 30, 2007 at 10:48 pm
This really eats into Republican, Pundit and ex-Ajarn entrails that the middle class and the Thai intelligentsia had completely deserted ‘democracy’ and left Thaksin to fend for himself against those ugly generals.
It is simple gentlemen. The middle class and the Thai intelligentsia only know too well how a manipulative politician like Thaksin can abuse the constitution, guile the poor hopeful masses into a huge Thaksin cult following, for personal enrichment and ‘absolute’ power, and Thailand was indeed menaced by Thaksin and his sycophantic TRT crooks.
So all your outrage fall on our deaf ears gentlemen. Thaksin was a danger. Thaksin won’t submit to ‘constitutional’ accountability for his many criminal abuses. Too bad the constitution had to be ‘reset’. The middle class and the intelligentsia were not comfortable with the ‘reset’ and the military interevention, but it happened, so everybody will just hope for the best. (And it is looking like General Sonthi will hold the promised election nearly on schedule too!)
But if you gentlemen were expecting the Thai middle class and those Bangkok citizens to pour on the streets to challenge the tanks to save Thaksin’s skin, you can just forget it. Thaksin got what was coming to him and he had to be removed.
20 observer // Aug 30, 2007 at 10:55 pm
I had promised feedback on Jakrapop’s talk at the FCCT. Here is a quick one. Happy to do more tomorrow if requested.
Jakrapop started out by announcing that he had been released from “Prem’s jail’, before launching into a review of Thai history since Ramkhamhaeng.
The key point of a meandering, and at times over-dramatic, talk seemed to be to provide an epic narrative to describe the current struggle. Thaksin, he said, sought to overthrow a patronage system that descended largely intact of feudal times and give full rights of citizenship to the Thai people.
Prem, he said, is the current the head of this network. The goal of the protest at Prem’s house and the victory they feel they accomplished came from forcing him to reveal himself as the puppetmaster.
He appeared to link the development of the monarchy with the development of a patronage system, perhaps initially benign, but no longer useful. Thais, he said, are forced by the elite to obey and conform. In exchange they receive petty rewards and protection. They are like children in his words. Not responsible for their own lives. They are owned by the elite. But the people now know this and no longer will accept being children. He said that the old system is not compatible with modern times and a globally integrated economy. It is fated to doom.
Jakrapop seemed to admit that Thaksin was flawed and said that he was a creature of the patronage system. He said Thaksin was loyal to the King, but later in questions backed off a statement that he was 100% loyal. He does not know whether or not he will return saying he seems quite happy now. He related the story, reported today in The Nation, that they contemplated setting up a gov’t in exile but were foiled by a phone call to Thaksin. While he would not reveal that source, earlier versions of the story that I have heard claimed the initials were SS.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/08/30/politics/politics_30047095.php
He said that Thaksin consciously ignored Bangkok, because Bangkok did not need him. Bangkok people can’t name anything Thaksin did for them because he didn’t do much for them. But rural people can reel off a list of ten ways he made their lives better.
He spent some time discussing the tape of judges talking that he played at Sanam Luang. He said the tape was made by the third person in the room and that he was eager to go to court to bring the other, Prem and the judges in, to have to answer as well.
He seemed to imply that the solution would be a clash of revolutionary proportions. The elections, in his view, would solve nothing.
He was non-commital on Samak. He said he was earlier a pawn in the patronage system he has broken free and now opposed it. He said he could be a transitional leader for TRT. He said he was pained by the drug related killings and that it was a challenge when he was the government spokesman.
In my view, his talk presented a storyline that could play well in both international and rural circles.
His co-presenter sounded very academic. He was highly critical of the constitution which he described as a standard tool of the elite patronage network. He compared it to 1972. While not a member of TRT or PPP, he was far more complimentary to Thaksin than Jakrapop was.
21 Andrew Walker // Aug 30, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Thanks very much for this first hand account.
22 jeru // Aug 31, 2007 at 12:06 am
Seems to me, from Observer’s account, that Jakrapop is on substance abuse of some kind.
Thaksin sought to overthrow the patronage system? That is 5 yaa baa pills.
Thais are ‘forced’ to conform and ‘owned’ by the elite?? That is another 5 yaa baa pills. Speaking of being ‘owned’ . . was it not all those disgraceful TRT members who are servants to the Shinawatras to this day? After all Potjaman was footing nearly all the TRT expenses plus monthly stipends to TRT lieutenants. Now that is what I call patronage. Even now Jakrapop cannot even mildly criticize his paymaster Thaksin as ‘flawed’.
Jakrapop saying that Samak “was earlier a pawn in the patronage system he has broken free and now opposed it” must 12 yaa baa pills because even Samak confessed he was nominee, proxy, agent, butler to Thaksin so he can be PPP chief. What b.s.!
Jakrapop implying some future ‘clash of revolutionary proportions’ sound very bitterly like Republican. That is 7 yaa baa pills.
And finally Jakrapop now saying “he was pained by the drug related killings and that it was a challenge when he was the government spokesman” must have been 24 yaa baa pills for sheer hipocrisy!
Does anyone in TRT carry any credibility to the Thai people??? Seriously!
23 saraburian // Aug 31, 2007 at 1:06 am
Thank you, Observer, for the FCCT update.
More post on this will be highly appreciated.
24 Military Admirer // Aug 31, 2007 at 3:58 am
Col. Jeru as accuser, judge and part of the sentencing of Thaksin as well as adviser to misguided Thaksin supporters! But seriously, middle class – what is it? how big is it? Who do you mean? PAD supporters? Or is middle class a refrain for the opposite of the uneducated masses that you feel such disdain for? The middle class is such a broad term that it defies easy categorisation and is a way of speaking politically and avoiding real analysis of who did and did not support Thaksin. But we can probably agree that the middle class are contingent democrats at best.
25 nganadeelg // Aug 31, 2007 at 9:16 am
Republican boils it down to this:
– If you do not support Thaksin & TRT, you are supporting royalist military dictatorship, and there is no middle ground.
So Thaksin was as good as it gets and we have to settle for that?
What nonsense, Republican!
One day you are gloating about the success of Thaksin’s brilliant, far sighted, strategic master plan, and the next day you are bemoaning the fact that he is a victim of academics who failed to support him in his greatest hour of need.
You should save some of your vitriol for Thaksin for blowing it, and for those TRT politicians who failed to moderate Thaksin’s worst excesses. (Oh, I forgot, he didn’t blow it – it all part of his grand plan)
You also don’t seem to mind PM Thaksin using nominees, maids, tax havens, and compliant tax officials to avoid taxes, as well as policy corruption to enrich his family businesses, but you do seem to get quite hung up about the CPB fortune.
To help you deal with your anger, I suggest you start thinking of the CPB as state wealth rather than private wealth. Would you feel the same way about a branch of government having such reserves?
26 nganadeelg // Aug 31, 2007 at 9:25 am
Jon Fernquest: Good post, but the fact that you knew about all those ‘local’ events does tend to suggest that the information gets out irrespective of whether or not it is reported in the media.
Unfortunately a lot of other nonsensical ‘information’ also gets spread, so I agree it would be better if the facts were reported, but I wonder what’s the mortality rate of brave reporters in Thailand?
27 observer // Aug 31, 2007 at 11:41 am
I’ll try to add a bit more later.
Bangkok Pundit’s summary seems to agree with what I heard. The story about the relationship with the judge is correct with Jakrapop booming the word homosexual.
http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/jakrapob-at-fcct.html
I had heard months back from good sources that the call came from Surakiat who “betrayed” Thaksin. Why would Thaksin listen to Prem?
28 Ex-Ajarn // Aug 31, 2007 at 12:49 pm
“So all your outrage fall on our deaf ears gentlemen”
Exactly my point.
29 fall // Aug 31, 2007 at 12:56 pm
From talks and problems, all road seem to lead to clash between Prem, institutional monarchy, and Dem vs TRT.
If only the most important question were ask and answer:
“Does Prem and institutional monarchy really represent the king?”
If not, then they are clear parties that subvert democracy and undermind king’s delegation of authority.
If yes, then people should be content to live under semi-monarchy system or risk their own French revolution.
So many if…
30 Sidh S. // Aug 31, 2007 at 2:56 pm
There’s a lot of use of the word “real world”, “reality”, “realist” – I think the notion of a one ‘objective’ reality, ‘one truth’ that applies across times and cultures is a double-edged sword.
It’s also too easy to make statements like “hypocrisy of the majority of Thai academics” on the issue of “song mai ao” or branding my views as “intellectually disingenuous “argument”” – I don’t have much to say against that because I understand where you are coming from as I live and work in a Western society. I am use to it and I get it a lot – I’ve always tried my best to explain the ‘Thai’ worldview/version of ‘realtiy but I find it very hard.
Just to add to the notion of ‘hypocrisy’, I will admit that – apart from cheering for my favourite PL team, Liverpool, I also have a soft-spot for Manchester City (and I’m no fan of PMThaksin as a prime minister!)!!!
31 bangkokpundit // Aug 31, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Observer: I won’t say who it is, but I have heard it was not SS or someone political which does make some sense because otherwise I don’t think Jakrapob would have had a problem in naming a political figure or Prem.
Hobby: “Thaksin sought to overthrow the patronage system?”
Jakrapob stated that Thaksin didn’t intend to overthrow the patronage system. Now, whether you believe him or not is up to you.
To help you deal with your anger, I suggest you start thinking of the CPB as state wealth rather than private wealth.
I’ll wait for the government to nationalise it then.
Republican:
When you see these “song mai ao” public intellectuals come out after the coup with their democratic protestations and their comparatively mild criticisms of the junta, one feels like pointing out, well you were the guys who helped bring down Thai Rak Thai in the court of (middle class) public opinion.
Not a reply, but just agreeing as this is what grates me the most. Under Thaksin, Supinya was given frequent press coverage, now that she says that the media environment under this government is “worse” than Thaksin, she is now ignored.
32 observer // Aug 31, 2007 at 5:25 pm
fall,
I think that sounds right. Jakrapop seemed intend on underlining the inevitability of the clash and the inevitability that “modern”, democratic forces will prevail.
However, to a large degree many of the players seem to be backing the winner. For the last 30-40 years Prem has been the winner. But he is 83 years old and his powers aren’t institutionalized. Who will carry the banner?
Prem and the institutional monarchy can not be the same thing for the next thirty years that they were for the last thirty years. Their backers in the NLA and military don’t seem to have impressed during their current tenure.
I suspect much of their power will wane or collapse. The questions, then would be what will replace them and when? Will it be better or worse? I am optimistic, but uncertain.
33 Republican // Aug 31, 2007 at 6:12 pm
On the Supinya case there was an interesting post on Fa Dio Kan that suggests that there was more to it than meets the eye. Apparently one of the key actors in Network Monarchy, Anand Panyarachun, helped raise funds to help her fight the case. See Somsak’s comments 9, 10 and 11 at http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=23208
34 nganadeeleg // Aug 31, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Pundit said:
Hobby: “Thaksin sought to overthrow the patronage system?”
Jakrapob stated that Thaksin didn’t intend to overthrow the patronage system. Now, whether you believe him or not is up to you.
Pundit: I believe Jakrapob on this point – where did you get the above quote from?
(I assume you were referring to me: Hobby/Nganadeeleg?)
To help you deal with your anger, I suggest you start thinking of the CPB as state wealth rather than private wealth.
I’ll wait for the government to nationalise it then.
And let those politicians squander it – no way!
And he cannot even give it away to the poor, as even Handley documents the King’s dismay at how they just end up selling up to the carpetbaggers anyway.
Probably safest to just leave it as is.
35 nganadeeleg // Aug 31, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Observer: Prem actually turned 87 last Sunday.
“I suspect much of their power will wane or collapse. The questions, then would be what will replace them and when? Will it be better or worse? I am optimistic, but uncertain. “
Why the optimism?
36 Sidh S. // Aug 31, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Adding to Fall’s and Observer’s points, I am highly optimistic in all this viewing Thai society in a long term evolution. Things have progressed significantly albeit in increments, marked by the occasional lull, since the Siamese elite chose to impose a constitutional monarchy in 1932. We’ve had tragic violence events, but not civil wars. We’ve also had ‘heroes of democracy’ from a broad spectrum of society from the common people to the military elites. From the same spectrum, we also have people who are preoccupied with their ideologies and self-interests. This is a complex drama with no clear forces of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (unless your ‘reality’ is the same as George W.Bush’s).
Will there be more coups in the future? Fingers crossed that there’s no more. Fingers crossed that future civilian governments will be much more mature and know better not to give the military any justification for coups. It is possible and has been done before. PMChuan, as the first civilian defense minister and the then GenSurayud as army commander has done much to ‘professionalize’ the military and not politicize the annual military reshuffle (interestingly, current reforms are now aimed at the police). Another critical challenge would be to mitigate the excesses of ‘money politics’ (which distorts the democratic processes even in ‘developed’ liberal democracies).
With time, the Thai monarchy would more resemble that of Japan’s that has high status and respect in society, and gradually less role in politics. The Crown Property Bureau will continue on its path of gradually becoming an increasingly transparent (but not as yet being so large and complex and tied to so many other private and public agencies/interests), responsible business institution (and I hope its social role will also be enhanced).
Revolutions or overnight changes in Thailand just don’t seem to be the norm – the last time such an event occurred was the sacking of Ayudhya by the Burmese, if I am not wrong. Thonburi and Bangkok seem to then continue on as if nothing had happened (and many Thais just blame the current Burmese predicament on ‘karma’ – simplistic I will admit, but ‘makes sense’ according to ‘Thai reality’).
37 Srithanonchai // Aug 31, 2007 at 11:55 pm
SS: It is probably a good idea to put “Thai” in questions marks. One reason is that the reader will not know whether you represent the world view of a Chinese-Thai businessman in Chiang Mai to your critical western (US, German, Italian, French?) audiences, or rather that of a Laotian Isarn peasant, or a member of Bangkok’s consumerist white-collar middle-class work force, or perhaps even that of the royalist sufficiency-economy C10-11 bureaucrat based in a Bangkok ministry.
38 Paul L // Sep 1, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Thailand, its history, and its culture will always be an impediment, or at most a non-catalyst, to democracy in this region. I can understand Republican’s frustrations. Western observers wanted Thailand to succeed as a model of western style democracy, and saw Thaksin as the torchbearer for spreading of a more accountable and a more open form of democracy in South East Asia. But we can see that Thailand, at least those who still hold power i.e. those who have influence over the military, do not want to take on that responsibility. They see it as a threat to the old patronage system that has served them so well in the past. Let me put it in simple terms if you cannot understand what that means: the military will not be accountable to parliament. But it is exactly this ageing and creaking system that has created the great disparity between the rich and poor. I hear and read downright awful things in leading newspapers everyday to explain such things as good for the betterment of democracy in Thailand, such as democracy is only for the educated, or the poor sell themselves to the highest bidder. I feel nothing but animosity to those academics and opinion writers who write and speak with such Moaist rhetoric.
I saw three events that were the catalyst for the old powers to take advantage in the planning of the coup. The frustration from continued violence in the south, attempts to list the electricity authority, and finally, the sale of Shin Corp. All complete nonsense motives for a coup.
I won’t hide my desire to want Thailand to succeed in a truer form of democracy modeled on Western concepts. While not perfect, Thaksin was seen as perpetuating those ideals. I live in Thailand, because I like its people and its culture. But that doesn’t mean I cannot hold another set of ideals of what I have seen in the capital over the last year that one-day might be realized here.
39 pasuk // Sep 2, 2007 at 12:43 am
I’ve been busy so I’ve only just been told about this. As Republican’s post started such a good thread, we must say thank you to him. It’s hard to respond because I tend to agree with him and I don’t recognize my writing as he represents it. I don’t criticize Thaksin’s populism, I haven’t demonized him, I don’t put an elected government on par with a coup regime, I don’t avoid saying monarchy when I mean monarchy, I made clear that the coup received a ‘warm welcome’ within a limited space, etc, etc. Republican seems to be spluttering against some imaginary enemy in his head.
The only substantive point is over the Double No position, which I certainly do hold. Don’t like Thaksin. Don’t like coup even more. Don’t think this is all heaven has to offer. Believe it’s my right and duty to critique both Thaksin and this lousy junta. But the debate between the Double-No and the Black-White positions can be outlined in a couple of sentences. Republican has been going on and on and on and on about this for months and it seems a waste of his considerable talent and energy.
I have one question. If we get a new elected government (say one headed by someone like Samak), and he murders lots of people (e.g., left-wing activists), squashes the media, openly aims to be president-for-life of a one-party state, cuddles up to Bush and Burma in the pursuit of profit, and has my Dad shot as a drug dealer, must I withhold all criticism on grounds that would only encourage another military coup?
Republican, please answer like a multiple-choice exam question, not a long diatribe. This is a very simple question. And I need guidance.
40 Paul L // Sep 2, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Pasuk,
I don’t think there is any gain in trying to answer your points. You talk fiction as though Samak has already gone out and committed crimes against humanity. They are your own personal fears, not the electorate at large.
All your concerns can be addressed simply by allowing the electorate to decide their future at the polls. If certain sections of society don’t like the choice of the electorate, then criticise. But to forcefully remove the elected government is not democracy in any form or function. Democracy is the weakest form of government. It transfers power to the people. It requires great courage from great people to defend it and uphold its principles.
41 Sidh S. // Sep 2, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Srithanonchai – thanks for raising the point about the
multiplicity and complexity of Thai worldviews.
This reinforces my point about the critical
Westerner’s ‘real world’, ‘reality’, ‘realist’ -
and the notion of one truth and objectivity. It is
very modernist, very dualistic us VS them (and more
often than not, very dangerous). Since you accept that
there’s multiple ‘Thaines’ and a wide spectrum of
Thai societal grey areas – can we not approach the
subject as such and refrain from simplistic
reductivisms. Your ‘hypocritical’, ’songmaiao’ Thai
academics ‘living in fantasy world’ have the uneviable
task of addressing this multiplicity and complexity on
the ground…
As for my views, they are wholly my own and is merely
one of 65 million Thais. It is a Bangkok middle-class
voice, male, dislikes corruption, advocates
non-violent reforms, mitigation of the excesses of
globalization/economic rationalization amongst others.
It is not necessary ‘consistent’ and it tries not to
be hate-filled. It is not necessarily altruistic – not
‘good’ or ‘evil’, tries to be empathic but not
necessary successful. While I can’t claim to be ‘on
ground’ (more an armchair commentator) as I am not
living inThailand, I can only hope my views are ‘pragmatic’ and ‘appropriate’.
42 jeru // Sep 3, 2007 at 12:20 am
I read the same nonsense from Paul L that he sees “while not perfect, Thaksin was seen as perpetuating those ideals (of Western democracy).”
Nonsense and stupid lies.
43 Sidh S. // Sep 3, 2007 at 12:32 am
I agree with Paul L, we need great people with great courage to defend democracy and its principles but not from the Thai ’small fishes’, but rather from the ‘big fishes’, the so called great Western democracies who bomb Iraq to impose democracy and freedom. We also need people to explain to aspiring democracies why Thailand, implementing plans to return to a form of democracy (however imperfect), is viewed with contempt by the US, while Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia for that matter) which has been a truer military dictatorship for more than half a decade now is highly praised. Concerning Western concepts of democracy, there are broader systemic hypocrisies that needs to be addressed first and foremost. As long as democracy (and even personal freedoms and basic rights in the West I must add) is cheaply traded for oil and ‘war on terror’ – democracy would be a very hard sell – not just in Thailand, but anywhere. From the rhetoric I am hearing, I expect many heroes ready to take the fight to the Big Boys in Washington DC, London and Canberra – Bangkok is only an apprentice in democracy, you only need to give her time…
44 Srithanonchai // Sep 3, 2007 at 1:59 am
SS: “simplistic reductivisms” > Who, not me, right? You are not Chinese, right?
Are the SS of #41 and #43 the same person?
45 nganadeeleg // Sep 3, 2007 at 9:16 am
“Democracy is the weakest form of government. It transfers power to the people. It requires great courage from great people to defend it and uphold its principles.”
With power comes responsibilities – that’s the missing link.
46 Republican // Sep 3, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Reply to Pasuk: thanks for the response and clarification.
Personally I am not a fan of multiple choice questions because the answer has already been determined by the teacher who has set the exam. But I will resist writing another diatribe and try to reply briefly.
I have to admit I’m a bit surprised that you would think that I would argue that an academic should be censored from criticizing a “new” government that “murders lots of people”, “aims to be president for life” and “has my Dad shot”. (Also, I know this is a reference to the Thaksin, which I reject, but I will let it go here in the interests of brevity).
But this is a distortion of the argument. Let me put a number of questions to you:
Was it ethical (or wise, in a tactical sense) for academics to criticize in the media the leader of a democratically-elected government so strongly when before September 19 he was clearly under attack by the anti-democratic forces of the “network” led by the “phu mi barami” who controls the media and is protected from criticism by lese majeste?
Do you accept that such criticisms (“demonizations” in many cases, as you yourself pointed out), which Thaksin could hardly respond to because of lese majeste, were among the factors that paved the way for the coup (in the sense of softening up the Bangkok middle class to accept a coup)?
Is it not then hypocritical for those academics who did play major roles in demonizing Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai to now trumpet their democratic virtues?
Is it ethical for academics to continue to criticize the former leader of a democratically-elected government by writing columns in an anti-Thaksin, pro-coup, pro-CNS newspaper like The Nation when Thaksin has no right of reply in Thailand because he has been censored from the media by the junta, which has dissolved his party and continues to intimidate his supporters, many of whom still live under martial law?
If you are being honest to your profession, to balance your criticisms of Thaksin why do you not criticize the King in the mass media? Why do you not point out in a newspaper column the King’s constant undermining of Thaksin’s democratically-elected government – after the election in April 2006 when Thaksin announced he would “take a break” from politics; his speech to the three courts on 25 April 2006 following which the elections were annulled; his endorsement of the September 19 coup and strong support for the junta; his strong backing for the junta-appointed cabinet in his birthday speech; his speech to the Administrative Court on 24 May 2007 re. the party dissolution case, etc. And these are only the incidents that we actually know about in the last year and a half.
You are a very high profile academic and are much respected in political, academic and media circles. If you were to make such public criticisms it would truly be of value to the development of democracy in Thailand and Republican would be the first one to support you (on NM).
PS. re. “…Don’t think this is all heaven has to offer…”: this is a perfect example of the “song mai ao” position: your alternatives are “made in heaven” but can not exist in the real world. In the real world we have Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai and the electorate that voted for them.
(By the way, I hope you meant “heaven” in the farang saying, not in the Thai sense).
There is much else I would like to say in response but I fear that I have already gone on to long.
47 Suriyon Raiwa // Sep 3, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Remember Thianwan and his fate … I think that the “song mai ao” gang ought to consider whether there is not really one just fundamental issue here. It relates to Republican’s point concerning what was *really* going on but was never openly analyzed–let alone criticized–between the announcement of the Temasek deal and 19 September. That point must be addressed seriously by anyone–above all “academics” who would have us take them seriously– participating in this debate. Or so it seems to me, at least.
48 nganadeeleg // Sep 3, 2007 at 7:38 pm
“…what was *really* going on but was never openly analyzed–let alone criticized..”
I don’t understand – Are you talking about Thaksin’s far sighted, brilliant strategic plan?
49 Republican // Sep 3, 2007 at 9:03 pm
In #46 I implied that your article was published in The Nation when in fact it came out in the Bangkok Post. My error – apologies. But I stand by the point I made in that paragraph.
50 Sidh S. // Sep 4, 2007 at 2:53 am
Srithanonchai – yes, #41 & #43 are both my posts – why ask? And, why, may I ask, is the issue of ethnicity relevant here?
This is one of my views that is consistent – that anyone who explains the present Thai political phenomena into liberal, democratic Thaksin VS feudal, authoritarian monarchy is taking a highly simplistic and reductivist approach. I understand that the complex realities are extremely hard to articulate (probably requires theses and books) and it is rather convenient to reduce the main players till you get an ‘Us Vs Them’ scenario (and hence the #43 post). I will admit to using a few myself in past posts such as ‘ambitious generals Vs greedy tycoons’, ‘Guns Vs Money’, ‘Isaan Vs Bangkok’ – having some first-hand experience of Thai democracy (did follow politics since a young age and did always voted, with careful consideration, when in the country), I felt that more accurately reflects the situation Thailand is in – hence I can also empathize with ’song mai ao’ position. Considering the actual situation on ground, we all know that both ’song mai ao’ and Republican’s positions for Thailand is problematic and impractical. We are speculating academic ‘what ifs’ and Thai democracy will take its own course, whether we like where it goes or not…
51 Srithanonchai // Sep 4, 2007 at 3:54 pm
The issue of ethnicity is an appendix to my previous post dissolving your claim to represent “the” Thai worldview into the worldviews of different groups. You might know that Thai-Thais do not really like Sino-Thais that much, including when the latter try to re-define what Thainess is. However, if you strictly remain within the sphere of political analysis, this point might be less relevant, unless you relate all this to the question of who it is who holds economic and political power in Thailand. Thaksin, after all, was a Chinese, who was opposed by another Chinese of very similar personal traits.
My question concerning identity resulted from my impression that you had kept your Thai defensiveness in check in your first few posts, while it seemed to get out of hand in the final one.
“Thai democracy will take its own course, whether we like where it goes or not…” >> So, Thai democracy is its own actor which cannot be influenced by its component citizens and groups? The military did not like where Thai democracy or, more neutrally, Thai politics was going, and they–contrary to other forces in the polity–had the means to translate their dislike into consequential action everyone else had to follow. Sonthi L. and some of the activists also acted, but they lacked the tanks and guns. The scores of academics who joined the coup plotters also had choices, etc.
52 observer // Sep 4, 2007 at 7:34 pm
It looks like Sonthi L. did have the tanks and guns, or maybe he was just a nominee!
53 Srithanonchai // Sep 4, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Maybe, Sonthi L. was the one who rolled out the red carpet or, as it was put in Fai Diewgun, issued the invitation card.
54 pasuk // Sep 5, 2007 at 2:11 am
Thank you Republican. I think that was ‘Yes’, meaning a gag order. Am I right?
55 Republican // Sep 5, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I take it that is a No: you will not publicly criticize in your newspaper columns the king’s undermining of democracy and support for dictatorship in the same way as you criticize democratically-elected prime ministers?
56 somsakj@tu.ac.th // Sep 5, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Pasuk wites:
Thank you Republican. I think that was ‘Yes’, meaning a gag order. Am I right?
I cannot remember the last time (or the first) Pasuk makes criticism of the monarchy the way she makes of Thaksin and other politicians.
Is that a ‘gag order’? A lack of courage?
It’s rudicrous indeed for those, like Pasuk, who claim ‘right to criticize Thaksin (and other politicians), but remained forever silence of the role of the Palace.
By the way, could her imaginary scenario ““aims to be president for life” be more laughable? PRESIDENT? Can anyone even suggest that in this country, let alone “aim”?
57 Sidh S. // Sep 5, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Hehehe!
Now it’s the ‘Thai-Thai’ Vs ‘Sino-Thai’ (whatever those are!) – I rest my case Srithanonchai (so does that make it Thai-Muslim Sonthi Vs Thai-Chinese Thaksin Vs Thai-Chinese-Mon-Malay-etc monarchy too???).
58 Tim // Sep 5, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I didn’t know that Prof. Pasuk’s father was shot “as a drug dealer” – or was that a purely metaphorical allusion? Either way the point is valid and anyone who suffered loss at the seemingly indescriminate killings that were carried out under the drugs war has my deepest sympathy.
I notice that there is now a move to prosecute Thaksin on the grounds of his prosecution of the drugs war. I feel certain that any such attempt will run into the sands. And it will do so for very good reasons.
Thaksin is commonly and rightly portrayed as a populist leader; the drugs war, and the manner in which it was conducted, was the most populist of all Thaksin’s populist policies. It had the overwhelming support of the great majority of Thai people from the most humble to the very highest in the land. Endemic corruption in the police and the general feebleness of the writ of law enforcement throughout Thailand meant that this was a problem that was could never be effectively tackled by ordinary means. The Thai people in general were happy to find someone with the will to tackle the most difficult and damaging social problem of the time by whatever means, however unscrupulous they might be.
So there can be little doubt that the overwhelming majority supported the action at the time. Certainly HM The King appeared to call for it in his birthday speech in 2002 and a year later he apparently endorsed the results when he said: ““Victory in the war on drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drug trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll.”
It seems to me clear that the responsibility for this lies with the Thai nation as a whole. It is pointless (and cowardly!) to try to pin the blame on Thaksin. He was merely the people’s instrument.
59 Paul L // Sep 6, 2007 at 12:08 am
Sidh,
I think if democracy did not emanate from west, it might have had a better chance of success in other parts of the world.
By the way, to make it perfectly clear, I am not a westerner. I am in fact chinese. I am western educated though. I am inspired by how well democracy has worked and entrenched itself and worked well for the people, at least the US, the country you are demonizing. Is it such a betrayal for me to go against contemporary asian thinking and not be in such awe and ency of the success they have with democracy? This has led me to try to understand why Asians have such difficulty adopting it. What is preventing democracy from taking hold?
60 Tim // Sep 6, 2007 at 1:58 am
Put simply, Paul L, democracy in the West was a long time in the making. American democracy, for instance, has its origins in the English Revolution of the mid 1600’s, the Putney Debates and the movements of the Levellers and even the Diggers (Not those “diggers”, Australia hadn’t even been discovered by then!). Other ideas which may be associated with democratic institutions date back even earlier – trial by jury for instance originated in the reign of Henry II in the 12th century BC; Magna Carta was signed finally signed nearly 800 years ago; the first recognisable parliament (by no means a “democratic” institution) met in England nearly 750 years ago. These institutions and the rights that went with them were fought for long, hard and bloodily and, as a result, they have become deeply imbued in the people’s political consciousness. I am often struck by the apparent pride and satisfaction that many Thai people take in the last “bloodless coup”. Indeed most coups in Thailand have been comparatively bloodless and none has resulted in bloody civil war as in America, England, France and most European countries. The result is a part of our national heritages and I cannot imagine for a minute that I or my fellow countrymen would allow a group of self-important generals to take over the government of my country without there being a very great deal of blood spilled!
Perhaps equally important was the period of intellectual and scientific “Enlightenment” of the 18th centyry BC. One classic quote of the period (and which I believe he may not have actually said, but it remains a truism) is Voltaire’s “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Can you imagine your average Bangkokian saying that to a rural Thakksinite denizen of Isaan?!
The fact is that democracy is not simply a set of political ideas that can be simply be imported. It has to be a part of personal experience and, most of all, it has to be something that there is an implacable will to defend.
Of course there is far more to Thailand’s democratic problems than just that. Not least is the obsessive and often unhealthy respect for “authority” (particularly when it is dressed up in a white sailor-suit!) that so many Thais almost automatically evince.
61 A.S. // Sep 6, 2007 at 8:28 am
Has anyone seen an integrated, substantive economic analysis of the pro-poor impact of TRT’s ‘populist’ programmes? It’s curious that post-coup, these programmes are now being exalted. When TRT was in power, they did not receive much academic attention.
62 nganadeeleg // Sep 6, 2007 at 9:15 am
Paul L: Please refer to the attached links to check just how well the US is doing in the democracy ranks.
http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438&CFID=22008562&CFTOKEN=56027605
http://www.visionofhumanity.com/rankings/
I note that USA ranks higher than Thailand in both, but lower than Bhutan in one.
63 Historicus // Sep 6, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Responding to Tim and extrajudicial killings:
I was sort of perplexed by the recent statement in “On the RECORD: KILLERS IN DRUG WAR BEWARE” in the Bangkok Post (24 August 2007), where National human rights commissioner Wasant Panich is quoted as saying, “we hope the committee will be able to divide all the drug murder cases into two categories. The first group consists of really innocent people and the second group real drug suspects. After the findings, the committee must announce them officially to the public. From our experience, we don’t believe all people killed in the war on drugs were really involved in drugs.” This seemed odd at first for it seems that a National human rights commissioner is saying that the extrajudicial killing of people involved with drugs is somehow okay and that the investigations will be of the deaths of “really innocent people.” If that is what is being contemplated it is reprehensible. But then I was thinking, maybe it is because the king argued that drug users should be dealt with, and there are those incriminating quotes about, that leaving murdered people who are allegedly involved with drugs aside is a way of not having to deal with the king’s urgings on the war on drugs?
64 Thaipaul // Sep 6, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Tim,
Thanks for all the words, but I am unconvinced of your arguments that democracy takes a long time to settle in. I see democracy of Continental Europe different than that of the US. I personally believe that the US system is more open and properly accountable to the electorate, whereas Europe, including UK, are still stuck dealing with inherited problems, semi-socialist democracies if you will. US democracy has had less than half the time to develop than Europe, but is the more advanced and mature if we start from the time of the US constitution. Again just my opinion. Look at East Europe, a communist bloc just a single decade ago, and now most of it fully fledged democratically led nations. There must be something other that underscores the reasons. None of them taking centuries to manufacture, as you believe.
Looking back on Asia. I look at Japan as having the strongest democratic institutions of all the democratic Asian nations. How did it take root and now so well established? All this after a terrible war that devastated the nation.
India, still fragile, but I believe has taken root whereby it would be difficult to wrestle it from the people. And this after post-colonial handover.
Compare this with Pakistan and of course Thailand, and the people seem to not want it, until the time it is taken away.
My birth place of Taiwan is also developing democratically. Ok, it was a bit embarrassing beating each other up in parliament, but we had the strength to stick it out and we have come out the better. We have had problems in the past, and politics revolves too much around China with not much left domestically. But still I think it would be difficult to undo that. Only the China factor could change the status. And I point out that a democratic nation that we are, we still remain under threat from a communist nation.
But too far and too few between these democratic institutions are in Asia. Unfortunately, democracy is just for the few lucky ones.
65 Paul L // Sep 6, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Tim,
Paul L is my name. Thaipaul is the moniker on my laptop. Stick with Paul L.
Apol. for confusion.
66 Paul L // Sep 6, 2007 at 11:12 pm
ngandeeleg,
It takes more than an article in the economist to dislodge my convictions. The US remains the leading proponent of democracy around the world, and it is the most ideal model I hope to see perpetuated throughout Asia, and other continents.
Thaksin was seen as evil, a robber, a murderer by many of his countrymen, compared even to hitler, but I saw some aspects of his policies that delivered to the people. I ask, what leaders in the history of Thailand has kept election promises after taking power? That is what democracy is all about, is it not?
Bhutan can keep their fine democracy at home however.
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.