New Mandala

50 responses so far ↓

• 1 James Haughton // Sep 18, 2007 at 3:44 pm

  Of course, “you can have democracy as long as vote the way we tell you to” isn’t unique to Thailand. Describes most recent US foreign policy.

• 2 serf // Sep 18, 2007 at 5:42 pm

  What democracy?

• 3 Srithanonchai // Sep 18, 2007 at 5:51 pm

  Better calm down — blood pressure is a serious thing. Besides, if you require every comment on this blog to be based on substantial field research, reading of the relevant literature, talking to the relevant people, and thorough reflexion you would soon be lonely.

• 4 nganadeeleg // Sep 18, 2007 at 7:33 pm

  Luckily, visiting this site is just a hobby for me, because otherwise my blood would boil having to continually read Andrew’s tripe about the ‘rural constitution’.
  Blind Freddy knows that a lack of ethics is prevalent in Thailand, and it is obviously not limited to the one section of society, be it the elites or the rural masses.

  It is not enough to say that Thaksin has yet to be convicted of anything, nor to allege that if he ever was it would only be by a kangaroo court.
  There is already enough evidence in the public domain of inappropriate behavior of a PM by Thaksin, and it bores me to have to go over it again (for example, extra judicial killings and inflammation of the southern situation on his watch, use of tax havens, maids/nominees, wifes land deals etc, and obvious policy corruption to favor his family businesses).

  You can talk all you want about the elites, but when it comes to elections it is the rural masses that have the real power.

  Has Thaksin shown any remorse for the way the country became more divisive under his rule, or offered any apology or even an explanation for any of his misdeeds?

  Please tell us, Andrew, why you think continued support for Thaksin is the way to improve the Thai political situation?

  I would also be interested in the results of your ’serious political discourse’ (research)?, particularly whether support for Thaksin was in any instances unconditional, or conditional only on his party giving handouts to a particular region.

• 5 bangkokpundit // Sep 18, 2007 at 10:16 pm

  Has Thaksin shown any remorse for the way the country became more divisive under his rule, or offered any apology or even an explanation for any of his misdeeds?

  Has the junta shown any remorse for how the country has become more divided under their rule? Or an apology for staging a rebellion, a criminal offence, when staging the coup?

• 6 jeru // Sep 18, 2007 at 10:25 pm

  Is it just me or were others too “censored” by Andrew Walker
  when the poster does not suit his ’sufficiency’ standards?
  (by my count, Andrew Walker must have at least
  blocked at least four of my posters)

  If you can’t take the heat Andrew Walker, then drop out from
  your Thaksin cheering squad duties.

• 7 observer // Sep 18, 2007 at 10:30 pm

  nganadeeleg,

  Redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor is inherently divisive. Have the rich ever liked having the playing field leveled? In this regard, some element of divisiveness should be OK.

  However, I am unconvinced that Thaksin was responsible for the large divisions that currently rend Thai society. The gap was there before Thaksin. The poor didn’t really like being poor before Thaksin, it was just easier for Bangkokians to ignore it. But ignorance of other’s views isn’t unity.

  If the military and their gang had just let the elections run their course, I don’t think we would have had anywhere near the level of division we have now.

  Sonthi Lim, in what is now obviously a well-funded effort by Prachai and Saprang to further their own personal interests, was far more divisive than Thaksin. It was he who forced this into a confrontation, when elections were looming.

  The junta has furthered this division by marginalizing the representatives of the poor and putting their homes under martial law as if they were the enemy.

  Do you really believe this crap about handouts still? After P-net said that the military tried to buy the constitutional vote? After Saprang and Banawit loot every state-owned enterprise they can pull under their power? Puea Pandin shows up on the front page of newspapers with Vattana Asavaheme?

  Every government since 1932 has bought votes. Every one. So yes, TRT did. Yes, it is a scourge of Thai politics.

  But rural voters love TRT for the 30 Baht healthacre program, reduction of drugs and low level corruption, support for economic development, and for taking their concerns seriously.

  Yes, TRT was in part a collection of old wine in new bottles. But the junta is old wine in old bottles. Newin on one side and Vattana on the other. And you see black and white, good and evil?

• 8 jeru // Sep 18, 2007 at 11:19 pm

  I still fail to see how Andrew Walker can reconcile vote-buying with democracy? I thought it had always been taught in schools, Western or Thai, that the vote is a sacred power and to misuse that power, or SELL the vote, is just plain criminal.

  Thaksin of course in many occasions publicly said that ‘corruption is normal’, and he said that straight faced while Thai PM. But of course in Thaksin’s dead-end democracy, to preach corruption as the norm just about makes vote-buying ‘ethically’ acceptable, right Andrew?

  But think of this Andrew Walker as you contemplate your ‘rural constipation’ nonsense. The village poor KNEW they sold their vote that led to that criminal Thaksin Shinawatra being elected and re-elected to power. Meekly therefore these bought village voters accepted too the many Thaksin criminal abuses that followed.

  It is no wonder those villager poor quickly accepted that the coup was the ONLY way to get rid of Thaksin Shinawatra . . .

  People who sell their votes, whether poor or rich, have lost the moral ground to protest if their votes are subsequently made meaningless, via coup or whatever. And those who get elected through massive vote-buying also have lost that ‘moral’ ground to argue that they have a mandate to rule or to hold office.

• 9 nganadeeleg // Sep 18, 2007 at 11:50 pm

  Pundit: I’ d say there is more chance of getting an apology from the junta (at least Surayud) than there is of ever getting one from Thaksin.
  Personally I think the junta/government should apologize for trying to do too much, when they really should just be in caretaker mode pending an election. Things like nuclear energy, FTA’s, mega projects etc should be left to a new elected government.
  I also would have liked to have seen the election sooner, but think they have been spooked by Thaksin’s shadow and his fortune has long tentacles and can buy a lot of trouble.
  It’s unfortunate that Thaksin could not be trusted when he said he was finished with politics.

  Observer: Not that I doubt it, but can you please point me to an english translation of that PNet report (because the reports I saw seemed to indicate that people were paid to vote ‘No’).
  PNET reported that on Aug 25, in many areas that rejected the charter, canvassers began to make 200 baht payments to the people; this was different from previous elections where payments were made before voting. PNET also urged the public to monitor the transfer in September of officials in areas that rejected the charter.

• 10 Srithanonchai // Sep 19, 2007 at 12:39 am

  Any pills on the market to cure Jeru’s intellectual vomitting? (Such a sentence from my patient self!)

• 11 col. jeru // Sep 19, 2007 at 1:07 am

  Still not clear Srithanonchai??

  Then I am therefore provoked to elucidate further to make Srithanonchai & co. vomit even more.

  Thaksin’s dead-end democracy could not rely on ‘populist’ policies alone to keep him afloat. Because we have to remember Thaksinomics was nothing more than the Shinawatras grand enterprise to enrich themselves obscenely, tax-free of course, by every corrupt means within their orbit in addition to that AmpleRich-WinMark-Shin-Temasek $1.8 share sale deal. Populist policies, without vote-buying, would only get Thaksin elected, but NOT re-elected because the criminal scandals would surely hang him. It was imperative therefore to get the village masses complicit to the Thaksin criminal corruptions . . . and that could only be done with massive vote-buying.

  A BOUGHT buyer could not protest, much less cry foul, against the Thaksin-TRT corruptions, could they?? Hey those village venal voters have already been bought lock stock and barrel . . . Thaksin already owned their souls.

  That is what I meant by Thaksin’s dead-end democracy. It was a criminal enterprise disguised as democracy and Thaksin’s democracy depended on bought elections and re-elections over and over again . . . or a Thaksin-authored coup eventually sometime in the near horizon. That Thaksin’s dead-end democracy ended with an anti-Thaksin coup still to me stays without a doubt a godsend.

• 12 Srithanonchai // Sep 19, 2007 at 1:15 am

  Col. Jeru: Man – you really have problems… Has your girlfriend left you, are you on a diet to lose weight, or have you been trying to stop smoking, or what is it that troubles you?

• 13 Historicus // Sep 19, 2007 at 1:42 am

  Col. Jeru should not bother NM bloggers too much. He is stuck in a rut. The Col. rank is used by me to indicate that jeru does nothing more than present the junta’s position. So if you work for them you should have a rank. Here I use “work for” to indicate perhaps a self-appointed role. The rest of Thailand appears to me to have moved on from jeru’s position and is gearing up for the future. Only the most petulant of anti-Thaksin ideologues are stuck where jeru is located. jeru spends a deal of time making unfounded accusations, including about NM bloggers. When jeru calls for facts and and argument and gets them in return, jeru ignores them or doesn’t respond. Not a serious blogger but, as I said previously, an ideologue for the men in uniform.

• 14 col. jeru // Sep 19, 2007 at 11:52 am

  Who is stuck in the rut: col. jeru or srithanonchai-historicus & co.?

  Are not NM bloggers like ‘monkeys who won’t hear nor see evil’ of Thaksin’s dead-end democracy that had resulted in a complete political system break-down with its checks & balances suborned, judges and senators and majority village venal voters completely bought?

  NM bloggers-who-see-no-evil keep that stupid refrain that everything was all right during Thaksin . . . keep holding elections and reelections until those bought village voters will finally get fed up with Thaksin! Hah! No need for Thaksin to submit to public scrutiny nor public accountability into those many criminal allegations raised against him personally and against his criminal violations of the constitutional rule of law. Eventually . . . .

  Eventually, if the NM bloggers and Thaksin’s dead-end democracy have their way, I would be dead, more like extra-judicially shot.

• 15 observer // Sep 19, 2007 at 12:28 pm

  Nganadeeleg,

  First, thank you for your positive reply. After posting, I had been afraid I had been too confrontational and “divisive”. I do respect your position and think none of us know the “truth”.

  This article in Prachathai seems very clear that it was the military that bought votes and influenced the election.

  PNET: obvious military intervention in the referendum
  http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=161

  Unfortunately the link to the original article in Thai only goes to The Daily News main webpage. My impression is that the claims for “No” vote buying have been purely propaganda with sources such as Prasong or some general. Yes, the EC did pitch in, but the EC appears to be a wholly -owned subsidiary of the junta.

  The English language translation is apparently on the homepage of the Asian Human rights Commission although I was not able to find it. May try later.

  My point here is not that the TRT regime was not corrupt. It may have been more, less, or equally corrupt as other Thai regimes. None of us know and the junta has done the country a horrible disservice in not proving the case one way or the other.

  I am not a Thaksin support and have no objection to him being banned from politics for what do appear to be flagrant, if fairly minor asset concealment violations.

  My problem is with those who just unthinkingly buy the junta propaganda. It seems to me that Suwat and Vattana are obviously complicit in the Klong Tan Dam scandal, which is equal to or worse than anything Thaksin is accused of. Suriya should be convictable on the CTX scandal if exposing TRT corruption is the issue, but where is that case?

  This is not a simple issue and simple positions, pro or anti-Thaksin will inherently be wrong. But let’s face what seems to be an obvious fact. Corruption was not the issue. It was a transfer of power to a new group.

  I share the concern that Thaksin and his cronies (Newin, etc.) should not have had absolute power. But there were better ways to deal with it than just giving a different group near absolute power.

  Yes, corruption and vote buying must be addressed harshly and without pause. But let’s admit that everyone does it.

  The divisions in Thai society must be addressed with equal urgency. But let’s admit that Thaksin didn’t create divisions out of nothing. An era is passing and a new one must be constructed. A new deal needs to be struck between the urban elite and the poor. Yes, the poor are using the ballot box to further their own interest, but they always will everywhere.

  The junta regime is collapsing. I no longer fear them. In fact, I do worry more that a resurgent TRT will just take us back to chapter one again. It is essential that Thailand deal with the underlying issues rather than go through useless circles of blame.

• 16 Srithanonchai // Sep 19, 2007 at 2:31 pm

  Jeru: I don’t mind your political opinions at all. But can’t you be less obnoxious, more intelligent, and less repetitive, in your comments?

• 17 Teth // Sep 19, 2007 at 7:23 pm

  Look who’s talking, Srithanonchai. Talk about pots and kettles!

  Let me be clear here, I hate Thaksin apologists as much as I hate junta apologists!

  Thaksin correcting the income gap was merely redistributing the lottery money (in greatly simplified terms). I didn’t see concrete, system-wide educational reform or any sort of “affirmative action” for the poor. I find it funny that of all the people to be trumpeted as a hero of the poor, it is this raving capitalist and his corrupt cronies. He had his 400 MPs and managed to waste it.

  As for the junta, let’s say they’re just all idiots. Thats pretty clear.

• 18 Dickie Simpkins // Sep 19, 2007 at 7:53 pm

  Andrew:

  you say, “I continue to be both annoyed and astonished by the view that the problem with Thailand’s political system lies in the population’s lack of electoral ethics.”

  riiiight.

  I had the pleasure to be in a village in Lampang during the TRT one party ‘election’ last year. Granted, I was there for business and not for any of the communal work you guys do here, I was able to notice and sense the fear people had when they saw the ballot box facing outwards. I even pointed it out to a few people, one girl who told me she wanted to vote for no one but voted for a TRT candidate because thats what their kamnan told them to.

  I also remember in 2005 election when I was in Kalasin, and asked a restaurant owner who his pick was for the election, unsurprisingly TRT. When asked why, he answered that they gave more money to the poor, and he didn’t just mean government money, he meant cash money; not to mention the forgiving of debt that he spent on his brand new red-plated pickup truck.

  People blatantly selling their vote is annoying and astonishing.

  I would say that selling your vote without any regard for the standings and policies of the candidate, nor the candidates using the government to consolidate their own personal power and money is indeed highly unethical and makes a perversion and a mockery of democracy. If anything should be making your blood boil its the selling of the vote, khaochai?

  But I agree with you, there is a vast difference between the rural and city people in their views of governance. Debate is good, military coups are not. The main issue in my opinion is that democracy should come about within political parties. Parliamentarians should be free to vote their own conscience, not what the PM tells them to without debate. Hey wait, another major perversion of democracy, stifling debate!

  So man, if you want to stop your blood boiling, you should consider stepping on a plane to Amsterdam and having one of them space brownies and find your own 3 little imaginary birds to sing at your doorstep singing their pure and true melodic message to you.

• 19 Srithanonchai // Sep 19, 2007 at 8:24 pm

  Teth: “Talk about pots and kettles!” “As for the junta, let’s say they’re just all idiots. Thats pretty clear.” >> You are pretty daring in your simplicity…

• 20 Vichai N // Sep 19, 2007 at 8:50 pm

  More to Dickie S [#18] post.

  I recall I posted long long ago that Thailand’s true or virtuous democracy would never be possible if the Thais maintain their patronizing attitude towards the so-called ‘village poor’.

  And I said that to stop the rot, Thailand should seriously start jailing people who sell their votes . . . making arrests in a few dozen villages to put fear into their sorry asses that people who sell votes will be treated as criminals.

  But of course that will go against Andrew Walker’s high regard for the ‘rural constitution’.

• 21 Srithanonchai // Sep 20, 2007 at 12:32 am

  “And I said that to stop the rot, Thailand should seriously start jailing people who sell their votes.” >> This makes certainly more sense than to solely blame the politicians. Most of them, I assume, would be happy enough not having to spend large amounts of money. But, then, they also want to win. If all candidates stopped paying money to hua khanaen and to voters, would the election result actually be that much different from what we have now (given that the available candidate choices are very limited, and they have different sizes of voter bases)? It might be more difficult to solve the pre- and post-election patronage activities (the paying of social taxes, giving assistance, etc.). It would be a start if all civil servants stopped asking politicians for giving their underfunded institutions financial support, and also stopped their wing ten for positions. Mind you, position buying in the bureaucracy is at least as big a problem as vote buying is.

• 22 Vichai N // Sep 20, 2007 at 1:55 am

  The idealists at NM insist that the vote is empowerment of the people that gives democracy its truth and its strength. Yet the same idealists will dismiss us unavoidable, insignificant and even irrelevant the buying-and-selling of Thai votes which allow the criminal opportunists to gain political power and thus debase the very democracy the idealists hold so dear.

  I just can’t see Thai democracy having any solid foundations when educated Thais will easily dismiss Thai vote buying-and-vote-selling as the Thai way. A vote sold is criminal . . . and winking at the practice each election nourishes the evil to the monster we will call Thai democracy that the Thaksins will readily embrace and exploit, and as we recently learned, will not easily be slain.

• 23 Sidh S. // Sep 20, 2007 at 1:59 am

  My blood boils with Andrew. I keep reminding myself that the richer will always patronize the poorer, it is only universal human nature. Look at how many foriegn academics/commentators from ‘developed’ countries preaching to Thai academics/elites on how to ‘fix’ their democracy here (but do please carry on – I understand the Thais will find many aspects of the discussion/debates relevant and useful)!

  I am repeating myself here – but ‘ethical democracy’ is dead when the inventors of modern democracy the US and Great Britain (and Australia) rained bombs on poor Iraqis to impose democracy and freedom. My blood boiled when the ‘coalition of the willing’ including the colluding Western media and uncaring voters (who went on to re-elect Bush, Blair and Howard anyway) branded the death of thousands of innocent civilians through not-so-smart bombs as ‘collateral damage’ (and what of the thousands dead and the millions displaced since?). How can these actions carried out by our governments (and youth in the military) ever be conciled with basic human rights we hold so dear here in Australia? What are the short and long term repurcussions for ‘democracy’ worldwide when it is being killed in the broad daylight of the global media by rich, democratic, ‘morally-superior’ societies? What precedents are these events setting?

  And I am not going into the economics of war (OIL) otherwise we’ll also have to bomb repressed Myanmar, N.Korea, Zimbabwe etc. into becoming liberal democracies. PMThaksin and the generals in the CNS may have taken Thai democracy many, many steps back but once that is put into context with the actions carried out by democratically elected Western governments – it becomes quite clear where PMThaksin’s statement along the line of “democracy is merely a means to an end” is coming from…

  I agree with Andrew and don’t subscribe to laying the blame on the poor for democracy’s ills. My tendency is to blame those who exploit them to gain power, fame and fortune – whether the damage is within or across national boundaries…

• 24 Srithanonchai // Sep 20, 2007 at 2:35 am

  “criminal opportunists” > Do you apply this label to the great majority of Thai politicians?

• 25 Vichai N // Sep 20, 2007 at 9:22 am

  Yes Srithanonchai \’criminal opportunists\’ indeed apply to the great majority of Thai politicians . . . nourished by that \’harmless\’ village poor culture of vote selling.

• 26 James Haughton // Sep 20, 2007 at 12:34 pm

  Misprint: “disgruntled veterans of WWI” not WWII

• 27 Srithanonchai // Sep 20, 2007 at 6:13 pm

  Vichai: Since the “culture of vote buying” is only a minor factor in creating politicians, what, according to your perception, are actually the main structural conditions that serve as mechanisms to recruit people into the Thai political system, and how can they be changed to get supposedly better people? Are Thai politicians any worse than other Thais, such as bureaucrats, academics, soldiers, businesspeople, office workers, journalists, etc?

• 28 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Sep 20, 2007 at 7:04 pm

  Re: Sidh S> My blood boils with Sidh S and his consistant confusion of a logically sound and valid argument with ignoratio elenchi.

  While his criticisms of the Anglo-American industrial-military complex MAY be vaild, they have absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of democracy and universal human rights in Thailand. Freedom and liberty do not belong to any one nationality; while he may have bought into the American propaganda of the concept of a “leader of the free word,” it doesn’t mean such concept possesses any inherent reality.

  Sidh defends the actions of the current Thai stratocracy through reprehensible moral equivalence in the form of a tu quoque fallacy. If Sidh believes that the deeds of any country, especially in the West, have, or should have, any significant correlation to Thai freedom, liberty or dignity, then Sidh truly deserves to be derided as “คนผู้ฝรั่งจ๋า”.

• 29 nganadeeleg // Sep 20, 2007 at 8:38 pm

  Lleij Samuel Schwartz: While his criticisms of the Anglo-American industrial-military complex MAY be valid, they have absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of democracy and universal human rights in Thailand.

  If ‘ethical democracy’ is merely an illusion in the west, then perhaps it does have some relevance to Thailand’s attempt to achieve it .

• 30 Sidh S. // Sep 21, 2007 at 12:56 am

  “คนผู้ฝรั่งจ๋า”- I’m not sure what you mean Lleij Samuel Schwartz. If it is a Thai who ‘apes’ Westerners, then I accept your derision (fellow Thais occasionally throw that one at me). This can’t be helped, with my knowledge of English, I have absorbed a another set of cultural understandings, practices and values. There are many other Thais like me in the past and present, many in very influential positions to shape Thai socio-political directions (not me ofcourse) and they have traditionally looked to the ‘West’ for models. Consistent with Nganadeeleg’s comments, I don’t understand why you can’t see the correlation…

• 31 James Haughton // Sep 21, 2007 at 2:33 pm

  I don’t think vote buying and selling is irrelevant. It is, however, indulged in by all sides of politics (including the junta government in the constitutional referendum, if I read the various posts here correctly). TRT can’t be said to be any more guilty than the Democrats or any other group. Furthermore, Thailand’s progress on the TI and World Bank indicators of corruption under Thaksin indicated the sort of ongoing, gradual improvement that eventually leads to real change.

  In a historical perspective, the western democracies also passed through eras of “machine” or vote-buying politics, particularly in the 19th century (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_politics).

  I believe what led to the decline of this practice was the rise of populist, socialist, labour and communist political parties around the turn of the century and into the 1930s who offered not just money on the day but money (e.g. pro-poor policies) for the entire term of government. This was and is more popular than vote buying. In order to combat the threat of populism, the centrist parties had to clean up their own acts, offer pro-poor policies, and convince the populace that moderate capitalism was the way to go. Combined with the great depression and WWII, this pressure led to the growth of the modern welfare state which expects high standards of governance.

  This was a highly fraught transition in the West as well. To build on Sidh S.’s observations, it’s often forgotten that Britain, the US and Australia all came close to serious attempts to establish fascist, quasi-military dictatorships backed by those who saw social-democrat, socialist, communist, etc policies as evil. (I’m not being perjorative, this was the time of the rise of fascism in Europe and many people saw it as the only solution to communism). In Britain there was the rise of the British Union of Fascists (probably unique as the only Fascist group to attempt to gain power through the ballot box): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists

• 32 Srithanonchai // Sep 21, 2007 at 3:46 pm

  Sure, if one looks for models in the West and perceives them as being flawed, then why make the same mistakes in Thailand? But what if it is the perceptions that are flawed, thus making the conclusion invalid?

• 33 James Haughton // Sep 21, 2007 at 4:14 pm

  In America and Australia there were more sinister, though abortive attempts to short-circuit the democratic process through coups, using the disgruntled veterans of WWI as muscle. The Business Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Business_Plot) in America and and two attempts in Australia: one to draft General John Monash to lead a coup against Canberra (there’s little doubt that Monash could have succeeded in doing so if he had so desired) and another, by a group called the New Guard, to lead a coup against the socialist premier of New South Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guard) both date from this period. Notably, the New Guard listed “the abolition of machine politics” (vote buying) as one of their aims.

  In all of these cases cooler heads eventually prevailed and social-democrat compromises were arrived at, either before or after WWII. Sadly, Thailand’s elites have chosen the fascist route to resolve (or rather, suppress) the massive divisions within Thai society.

  Vote buying is a symptom of people believing that they have no say in government and so their vote is worth nothing, in which case they will take whatever they can get. It will only go away when people believe that the politicians they elect will do something for them through policy, ie. that there are real differences between political parties which will act on their policies. Thaksin delivered on that, but his opponents were unable to take up the challenge.

  The coup reverses the clock by showing a vote is worthless, and so will promote more, not less, vote buying activity.

• 34 Vichai N // Sep 21, 2007 at 5:44 pm

  To win elections in Thailand, to the majority of the politicians BUYING the vote is the only way. The ones who understand these are the many political families in Thai upcountry . . . fathers handing down the vote-buying skills to their daughters and sons who later on become MPs themselves. I think the vote-buying to-win \’ideology\’ is not unique to Thailand but also probably more notorious at the Philippines or Indonesia, for example. That is the real \’rural constitution\’ that allowed the criminal Thaksin Shinawatra to be re-elected twice, despite all the criminal allegations hanging over his head.

• 35 Dickie Simpkins // Sep 21, 2007 at 5:55 pm

  “it will only go away when people believe that the politicians they elect will do something for them through policy, ie. that there are real differences between political parties which will act on their policies. Thaksin delivered on that,”

  talk about a fantastic statement, then having to add “THAKSIN DELIVERED ON THAT”?

  What a load of bull crap.

  Thaksin delivered on buying votes through machinations of the state, not personal money with government bank loans and then forgiving of the loans. If he had only stopped at 30baht health care, OTOP, One tambol One million, etc.

  every walked through Suvarnbhumi?

  Ever wondered why AIS always got preferred treatment.

  Dude, you talk great, but you’re either purposefully or literally delusional when it comes to Thaksin’s crimes.

  Don’t bother replying if you’re gonna rant about my being undemocratic or stupid or continuing the justification of showing Thaksin is a ‘man of the poor’. You’d only be talking to a blank wall.

  If you wanna talk anti-coup, or structural problems with Thai democratic institutions (which you so eloquently put till you put mrT on the pedestal) or discuss the jibba jabba I pity the foo of my preferred Mr.T from the A team. I’d be happy to partake in the exchange.

• 36 Srithanonchai // Sep 21, 2007 at 6:52 pm

  “It will only go away when people believe that the politicians they elect will do something for them through policy, ie. that there are real differences between political parties which will act on their policies.” >> There has been huge disenchantment with politics and politicians in Western countries. Will we thus see a reemergence of vote buying there?

  Reducing Thai political structures and Thaksin’s success to vote buying is simplistic, and a moralistic perspective of this kind will remain ineffectual.

• 37 ndanadeeleg // Sep 21, 2007 at 7:39 pm

  There has been huge disenchantment with politics and politicians in Western countries. Will we thus see a reemergence of vote buying there?

  I doubt it – In the west it’s ‘pork barreling’ (plus dog whistle & wedge politics etc), not ‘vote buying’ !

• 38 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Sep 21, 2007 at 7:41 pm

  Re: nganadeeleg and Sidh>

  Even if “ethical democracy” was/is an illusion in the “West”, (and I have a sad feeling that the next decade will prove this to be true) the fact that you can see through the illusion means that you need not depend on them to justify your own pursuit of liberty.

  What you are currently seeing in the “first world” is the death throes of the nation-state. Thanks to a confluence of technology, globalization and ideology, the Westphalian model has become irrelevant. (I refer you to the work of John Robb for more information.) In the future, people will return to aligning themselves along ethno-tribalistic, linguistic, racial, or ideological lines, than by arbitrary lines drawn by cartographers. Hence, a “New Mandala” system. In the end, it will bring about a greater net-amount of personal liberty.

  Of course, the current elite who profit from the nation-state model are currently fighting this development, tooth and nail. Southeast Asia, with her history and culture of decentralized governance has the potential to lead the way for the rest of the world; however, I fear, the ghost of Sarit Dhanarajata, who lives off the heartblood of men like Sidh, Vichai, and pvt. jeru, will prevent the Thai people from claiming their true heritage until it is too late.

• 39 Andrew Walker // Sep 21, 2007 at 7:47 pm

  “I doubt it – In the west it’s ‘pork barreling’ (plus dog whistle & wedge politics etc), not ‘vote buying’ !”

  Yes, so let’s have a coup in Australia so we can reset the system and plant some ethical seeds. There is an election due but those silly voters may give John Howard yet another term, especially if he appeals to their self interest rates yet again!

• 40 nganadeeleg // Sep 21, 2007 at 11:17 pm

  so let’s have a coup in Australia

  Not sure if John Howard can be nailed on corruption, but what about war criminal?

• 41 Vichai N // Sep 22, 2007 at 12:14 am

  I am just interested to know from Andrew W. whether at Australia’s deep hinterlands . . . is the democracy practised thereat still ethical, or, as I suspect close more to Thailand’s vote-buying free-wheeling democracy?

  Australia’s 20.4 million population is less than one-third of Thailand’s 64.6 million people but Australia’s huge 7,617,930 SqKm land size (versus Thailand’s 511,770 SqKm area) suggests to me that maybe at Australia’s deep rural regions, far away from central Canberra or Sydney, the politicians thereat could possibly be less virtuous?

• 42 nganadeeleg // Sep 22, 2007 at 9:22 am

  I’m not a close follower of the Australian political scene, but if John Howard presided over large scale extra-judicial killings, used tax havens & nominees to avoid tax and practiced obvious policy corruption to benefit his family etc etc, then I would hope that the Australian electorate would rise above natural self interest, and turf him out.

  Andrew, in your anthropological studies have you ever come across any Australian politicians who acted like Thaksin (with similar characteristics), and if you have, can you please advise how successful they were and what was their ultimate fate?

• 43 James Haughton // Sep 22, 2007 at 7:13 pm

  nganadeeleg: Aus politician who acted like Thaksin: Jack Lang, premier of NSW until 1932. He’s the one the New Guard organised against. The night before the coup was sheduled, he was dismissed by the governer general of NSW (the representative of the crown) – a parallel for Thailand perhaps?
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lang_(Australian_politician)

  Vichai: In rural areas, no outright vote buying per-se but a lot of pork barreling: various special drought relief payments, government projects, etc which benefit rural areas disproportionately. THe difference is however that Australian agriculture is highly mechanised and capital intensive. Those living in rural areas and farming are a very small minority compared to the majority who are 80%+ urban dwellers. They only have political power because australia’s parliament is quite finely balanced between two parties and so small groups can sway the balance one way or the other, and because there is a lot of romanticisation of farmers, rural values, etc.

  Dickie: I can’t make sense of most of what you’re saying. The only bit I can extract from the vague surfer-ese is that you disagree that Thaksin delivered on his policy promises. I disagree with you there. Thaksin went to the polls with policies of 30 baht health care, debt moratorium, etc. When elected, he delivered. That doesn’t excuse his extrajudicial killings, nepotism, corruption, etc. The reason he was deposed, however, is not because he was corrupt, nepotistic or had people killed. Just about every Thai political leader can be described that way. He was deposed because by raising the stakes of what it took to get electoral support from the poor, he changed the rules of the game in a way the conservative elite violently objected to.

• 44 Srithanonchai // Sep 22, 2007 at 10:09 pm

  “He was deposed because by raising the stakes of what it took to get electoral support from the poor, he changed the rules of the game in a way the conservative elite violently objected to.” >> Sounds impressive. But I wonder whether anybody will be able to verify, or falsify, such structural and reductionist causal claims.

• 45 James Haughton // Sep 22, 2007 at 11:03 pm

  Srithanonchai: feel free to produce a poststructuralist, holistic, acausal account of the coup if you want to.

• 46 Vichai N // Sep 22, 2007 at 11:52 pm

  \”The reason he was deposed, however, is not because he was corrupt, nepotistic or had people killed. Just about every Thai political leader can be described that way.\” James Haughton #43

  Just about every Thai political leader I agree can be described as corrupt and nepotistic. But I believe it was only Thaksin Shinawatra who had people killed.

  And the reason Thaksin Shinawatra was deposed was because his belligerence and refusal to submit to public accountability was polarizing and divisive . . . potentially destabilizing the Kingdom.

• 47 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Sep 22, 2007 at 11:59 pm

  re: nganadeeleg> I don’t know about any Australian politicians like Thaksin, but I can name an American politician just like Thaksin: Huey “the Kingfish” Long. He was enormously popular, and might have been elected President had he not been assassinated in 1935.

• 48 nganadeeleg // Sep 23, 2007 at 10:27 am

  Thanks James & Lleij, but having read the Wikipedia profiles of both Jack Lang and Huey Long, I think you both have been very generous to Thaksin.

  Whilst I can see some similarities, I wonder what Thaksin would have thought of Long’s plan to use taxes to place a limit on personal fortunes & income in an attempt to redistribute to the needy.

  I note that Lang’s party was heavily defeated at the election (called immediately after he was dismissed) – I doubt whether the Thai electorate would have done the same to Thaksin, but you never know – maybe the junta’s biggest mistake has been hanging around too long.

• 49 Restorationist // Sep 24, 2007 at 2:08 am

  Vichai N says: “Just about every Thai political leader I agree can be described as corrupt and nepotistic. But I believe it was only Thaksin Shinawatra who had people killed.” Really, only Thaksin? Better read some more Thai history.

  Maybe you mean “elected leader” and on such a grand scale?

• 50 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Sep 24, 2007 at 3:03 am

  Re: nganadeelg> I think you’re being too generous to Long! I made the comparison because my opinion of “the Kingfish” is not too high. You have to admit, the comparison to Long is more apt than to Hitler.

  Anyway, to answer your question, I think Thaksin, if he was in Long’s position, would have understood that such a plan would have been worth it for the political capital it would have generated.

Leave a Comment