New Mandala

35 responses so far ↓

• 1 Nok Khamin // Jan 1, 2008 at 4:33 pm

  This is very interesting. While it does seem likely that those aligned against the PPP and Thaksin are trying to use their power against the party, I am wondering if anyone actually believes that all those elected PPP candidates in the northeast and other parts of the country actually got elected without buying votes. Let’s not be naive. However, surely other parties have also been doing the same.

• 2 Teth // Jan 2, 2008 at 6:53 am

  But isn’t that the whole point, Nok Khamin? The people are still voting for who they want to vote for, regardless of the fact that everyone’s paying money?

  I’m not saying its a good thing, but to assume the electorate is stupid is wrong. Instead, everybody should be talking about ways to stop the culture (and along with it those of corruption and nepotism).

  Seeing the army as the vehicle for that sort of reform is laughable.

• 3 ChrisIPS // Jan 2, 2008 at 7:18 am

  let’s assume that all of the politicians in Thailand follow the same methods, customs and procedures. That bringing campaign followers to capital cities in the course of organizing campaigns is normal activity in democratic elections all over the world. That reimbursing those people for air tickets, hotel rooms and per diems is also normal. That handing out election materials in the form of flyers, brochures or VCD’s is standard in all elections worldwide as is playing music or having some form of entertainment at campaign rallies. That organizing Bring Out the Vote drives which include helping people without convenient transportation get to the polls (as is done in all of the world’s democracies) is also normal…………..

  The question is this:

  having either supported or gone along with the first coup for all kinds of reasons visible and opaque, will the Bangkok middle-class, the Thai academics and the Thai press, now that they have seen the actual results of the first coup, passively stand back and accept a second, more devious coup that basically disenfranchises about half the citizens of Thailand, mostly rural, mostly Isan and mostly without university degrees?

• 4 mmm // Jan 2, 2008 at 10:23 am

  Answer: yes, probably

• 5 ChrisIPS // Jan 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm

  …..and will the Democrats then accept power being handed to them by a retired General who works for Sondhi as well as chairing a secretive subcommittee of the Election Commission which decides who and who is not actually elected using a process with no transparency, no evidence, no testimony, no defense allowed and no appeal……………..

  ….or will the Democrats and their Bangkok supporters be willing to stand up for a democratic Thailand………….

• 6 mmm // Jan 2, 2008 at 3:47 pm

  Answer: probably a bit of both, but probably more of the first.

• 7 Colonel Jeru // Jan 3, 2008 at 4:51 pm

  All they have to do was behave . . . but they won’t. Thaksin’s money men were all over Esan country . . . bags of cash directly from Hongkong.

• 8 Historicus // Jan 3, 2008 at 8:08 pm

  Colonel: Bags of money from HK? Are these the bags that the police and military agreed were not for election expenses? Or have you seen another set of bags? Or are you just assuming?

  In the 4-5 NE villages I visited, Phua Paendin was said to be the party dumping most money; far more than PPP (so I was told). In fact, I was in a Korat village just this morning and talking with the Phua Paendin candidate, who was elected, and he agreed that PPP didn’t dump much loot in his area. I didn’t ask him if he was vote-buying, but others claimed he was.

  My impression is that people would have voted for PPP in much of the NE, paid or otherwise. They saw it as a message they wanted to send. Notable was the defeat of Suwit in Khon Kaen. He might have been pretty much a shoe-in there, but was seen as a PPP traitor.

• 9 Colonel Jeru // Jan 4, 2008 at 1:39 am

  People would have voted for PPP paid or otherwise??? Apparently Thaksin Shinawatra did not carry your blind faith Historicus because ‘otherwise’ never entered the Thaksin metrics of how to win an election.

  But the Supreme Court will soon rule within a week whether Samak-the-Proxy or PPP the disgraced TRT party nominee, is disqualified or not in the recent election by their ‘nominee’ circumstances. And there are red cards and/or yellow cards still waiting to be handed out to players who cheated on the election (buying votes is cheating Historicus or have you forgotten the rules?).

  Me thinks Thaksin is again back to his hi-risk do-or-die win-by-my-rules style. I would have loved for Thailand to have a democratically elected civilian government (and the generals to the barracks), but Thaksin, Newin, Sudarat and all the bunch of convicted ex-TRT bunch (on election fraud) cannot help themselves to play the spoiler.

  So do I believe that Thaksin Shinawatra is sincere when he says he will gladly submit himself to Thailand’s judicial process? Ha ha ha!

• 10 Historicus // Jan 4, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  Colonel: Bags of money from HK? Are these the bags that the police and military agreed were not for election expenses? Or have you seen another set of bags? Or are you just assuming?

  As usual, you haven’t answered the question and you ignore the points made, except where you want to get all frothy at the mouth. Was it that you made up the bit about bags of money? Or was it a throwaway line? And you ignore vote-buying by other parties? Or is it that the sizeable but reduced vote for TRT/PPP just scared the pants off you?

• 11 ChrisIPS // Jan 4, 2008 at 4:23 pm

  ………in the United States, the Supreme Court was allowed to decide a close election in a pretty non-rational and opaque manner and it did not turn out well…………….

  …….all the bruhaha is not really ab0ut who did and who did not follow whatever capricious and arbitrarily enforced set of rules, nor is it about whatever ruling a shakey and opaque Supreme Court issues according to their subjective and mystical definition of the Rule of Law, nor is it about which set of Thai politicians is more pristine and virtuous……….

  ……….it is really about which of Thailand’s citizens, no matter how small their numbers might be, feel it is their inheritance and right to control and dominate the rest of Thailand’s citizens, based on education level, income level, family history and ethnic persuasion………….

  ………..not all that different from what is playing out in Kenya at the moment between the traditional rulers, the Kikuyu group, and the rest of Kenya’s citizens who have been recently disenfranchised by also having their votes and their right to elect representatives and a government of their choosing denied……….

• 12 Colonel Jeru // Jan 4, 2008 at 7:57 pm

  Frothy at the mouth am I . . . but if you review our exchange Historicus I have not raised my voice in anger one bit nor directed even a slug of spit that you’d quickly mistake for froth.

  OK Historicus I will concede that you tirelessly trekked the Northeast during the elections and was chummy with Puea Pandit candidates here and there and all you got was hearsay (2nd hand information) that another party, other than PPP, was doing the money dumping. Hearsay, yes?

  Well my hearsay was not from the Esan country sourced but from cocktails here and dinners there . . . and whispers (but hearsay information same as yours), that many sedentary almost retired police generals were reactivated to be Thaksin’s money bag men for the elections.

  Now is your hearsay as good as mine?

• 13 Teth // Jan 5, 2008 at 3:59 pm

  Now, now, Colonel, no need to emphasize your upper class connections nor flaunt the credibility of your educated yet unenlightened sources. From your first comment regarding this matter you seem very well convinced, Colonel, and dare I say quite uncritical and unaware of the dubious quality of your “hearsay”.

  All they have to do was behave . . . but they won’t. Thaksin’s money men were all over Esan country . . . bags of cash directly from Hongkong.

  Where was the mention of “hearsay” or do you operate just like the EC: without actual evidence and without proper regard for procedural fairness. Don’t be so quick in your about-face now, you might knock a few champagne glasses over. But maybe that might teach you to bring actual evidence to the discussion table.

• 14 Brian Nearing // Jan 5, 2008 at 6:17 pm

  If you are going to be spreading around bags of cash it is not much of an investment to spend it where most of the people will vote for you anyway. Does it really matter if the PPP gets 75% of the vote instead of 68% in individual districts? The intense interest in this campaign, especially in the North and Northeast, also made the turnout predictable even if a few percentage points could be said to be attributable to bags of money from Hong Kong. Perhaps people who can afford to dole out bags of money can reasonably be expected to put it where it can more likely influence the outcome of individual contests, such as in and around Bangkok.

  The PPP won handily despite a fifteen-month propaganda campaign against them. Whatever one may say about the tactics that Thaksin uses and has used in the past, it is hard to imagine them to be any worse than those of people who rode into office on the back of a Tank, and who have since done all the things they accuse Thaksin of doing to keep themselves there. We speak of rural-urban/middle/lower classes divisions but the overriding consideration here is that the the PPP won the election because the Thai People simply voted against the people who replaced the TRT. We may call the electorate dumb or uneducated or un-sophisticated, but can one honestly say that the anti-TRT crowd earned the privilege of Governing, and that a better informed electorate would have made a different choice than this one did?

• 15 Colonel Jeru // Jan 5, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  All I said was I like to gossip and to the upper class I was elevated. Before all I did was refuse to piss at the junta’s tanks, and to a Colonel’s rank I was too promoted. And Teth you’d believe Historicus gossip yet deny mine’s and that surely won’t make you asinine.

  Teth hearsay is what blogging is all about . . . and don’t give me all those hi-falutin quotes from comic books you have read.

  Historicus would continue to deny he blogs not to defend Caesar (Thaksin) nor to bury him . . . but blogs for his love of the Esan poor who loves Caesar even more. Now whose mouth is frothy or fruity or false?

  It was not I but Historicus who admitted PPP bought the Esan votes but with lesser amounts (than Puea Pandin) and won still . . . But that was ridiculous to Colonel Jeru because gossips (and Thaksin’s well-documented track record) suggested that Thaksin, when it comes to Esan votes, won’t allow himself to be outbidded.

• 16 Teth // Jan 6, 2008 at 1:06 am

  You seem to fit well with those upper class friends I described.

  Save your gossip for the entertainment blogs, because blogging is definitely not all about the gossip.

  And no, Colonel, I did not believe Historicus’ hearsay. I was merely pointing out the fact that you believed every second hand thing you heard. That is, of course, as long as it fits into your theory of how everything works.

  I treat gossip as gossip, you, however, treat it as some sort of vindication for a position which is getting harder and harder to defend.

  And, I ask, from which nursery rhyme did you get “frothy, fruity, and false”? Because the only mouth that seems fruity and tipsy is yours. Once again, mind those champagne glasses.

• 17 Gossipcus // Jan 6, 2008 at 12:23 pm

  Dear Colonel

  Teth has responded well. So my only questions remain: you wrote that bags of money came from HK. In the press, the police and the government said that the suspected bags of money from HK weren’t for the election. So are you spreading false information or was it just a throwaway line for effect? That’s my only question.

  On information gained, is living and talking with those who are said to have been the recipients of payments and those doling them out (e.g., in the case I mentioned, a Puea Paendin candidate subsequently elected) actually second-hand?

• 18 Colonel Jeru // Jan 7, 2008 at 2:34 am

  Well I guess NM bloggers like congratulating each other. Colonels and the upper class do not have that luxury I suppose.

  Was your winning Puea Paendin source second-hand? Well in your story your Puea Paendin source merely “agreed that PPP didn’t dump much loot in his area. I didn’t ask him if he was vote-buying, but others claimed he was.” Agreed with who? You continued on that you didn’t ask that winning Puea Paendin guy if he was vote-buying (that showed intelligence Historicus!), but you went out to seek other people who will confirm your suspicions that Puea Paendin bought & paid more than PPP. Nice research don’t you think so Historicus? And you don’t think your information (not gossip) were all first-hand?

  But my point all along Historicus was PPP was buying votes and you admitted it but you added that ridiculous statement that PPP would have won at NE paid or otherwise? Now that is a lot of crap.

  But mine was straight gossip except wives of policemen were talking. But hearsay just the same (but Teth was outraged I was passing on ‘gossips’ while he seriously blogs.)

  I was just passing it on just to show that your crap Historicus is just as good as my crap. But of course Teth would not have butted in on our exchange unless he was sure Historicus crap was the real shit.

• 19 Grasshopper // Jan 7, 2008 at 6:44 pm

  Colonel, don’t you think that there ought to have been measures to safeguard against vote buying before the election so as not to be in the situation where legitimate votes for the PPP are being disregarded? Why weren’t these measures in place? It must have been Thaksin and his filthy HSBC money bags!!!!!!!!

• 20 Major de Zarstre // Jan 8, 2008 at 4:51 am

  Does anyone seriously think that the ‘bribes’ paid to voters in these provinces persuaded them to vote for one party rather than another? That’s not what it was about at all, as far as I can see. The people in those electorates didn’t need to be bought. They were on side well before the coup, and the coup strengthened their loyalty to Pol. Lt-Col. Boxhead. What the bribes did was to establish a contract to get them to the polls and actually cast their votes, rather than just sit around feeling loyal to a lost cause & hopeless & victimized.

  If the gov’t had instituted strict measures to prevent ‘vote-buying’ in electorates where it was clear the ‘enemy’ would win, the measures might have worked & there would then have been no basis for declaring the results illegitimate.

  In my far-from-humble opinion, PPP has Buckley’s of forming a government & ditto Samak’s chances of being PM. It gets clearer by the day.

• 21 Historicus // Jan 10, 2008 at 9:50 pm

  Yes, Colonel Jeru appears to believe” the ‘bribes’ paid to voters in these provinces persuaded them to vote for one party rather than another?”

  The Colonel has long refused to believe that anyone could vote for Thaksin/TRT/PPP unless they are paid, stupid or duped.

  He gets this gossip from the wives of policemen, not from any contact with voters in the rural areas or from any candidates who stood for election.

• 22 Historicus // Jan 10, 2008 at 9:54 pm

  And the Colonel still hasn’t answered the question. Rather than admit that he reported false information and correcting that (even the police corrected their original assertions on the money from HK. Maybe their wives weren’t up to date?), he resorts to abuse and profanity. I guess he has had the pants scared off him? That those nasty lower-class types still vote for TRT and PPP, especially after the huge campaigns to change their minds post-coup.

• 23 Colonel Jeru // Jan 11, 2008 at 1:37 pm

  Jeez Historicus you don’t even read the crap you write! If you will re-read it, you will find that you admitted in YOUR story that PPP and Puea Paendin parties were BOTH buying votes . . . and you were actually suggesting that the Puea Paendin friend of yours won because they dumped more money – - PPP short of funds, eh? So where did you Historicus draw your ridiculous conclusion that PPP could have won anyway PAID or otherwise?

  That HK-money-source the news covered (which you seem quick to absolve Thaksin as the source) was obviously not the HK-money-bags I was talking about . . . otherwise why would those police generals wives tongues be wagging? Hey can anyone at Suvarnabhumi airport stop to search one or three police generals with lots of luggages from Hongkong?

• 24 Historicus // Jan 13, 2008 at 12:12 am

  Colonel, you are so busy frothing about things that you don’t read what has long been posted. You simply conjure things up. You are wrong and a fabricator to boot. Can you show me where I said that “that the Puea Paendin friend of yours won because they dumped more money”? I don’t think I claimed a Phua Paendin friend, either.

  You made up the money from HK story, based on gossip. You continue to make claims that are unsubstantiated.

• 25 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jan 14, 2008 at 3:22 am

  About “vote-buying”.

  I’ve seen SOME PEOPLE spend huge amount of public money “buying vote”, or, rather “buying” their “popularity” (or should I use words like “reverence status”?) for many, many years. About 50 years or so, I think, and daily too.

  But I don’t seem to remember where I saw all these. On TV perhaps? Nor do I seem to remember who those “SOME PEOPLE” are. umm.

  I must be getting confused here. I forgot that in discussion about this GREAT, thevada-protected country. Only POLITICIANS can be said to have been “buying vote”.

  Or, perhaps, I’m not confused after all, but somebody like the one who’d like to อุปโลกน์ himself as “Colonel” here is simply ดัดจริต

• 26 Srithanonchai // Jan 14, 2008 at 2:54 pm

  SJ: Surely, the condemnation of buying admiration is distributed unevenly. And while some MP-elects were shown red cards because they had mobilized an audience with “gasoline money,” the “travel allowance” paid by the provincial constitution drafting panels to mobilize audiences for their “public hearings” was quite all right with the powers-that-be. Speaking od double standards…

• 27 If Thai Supreme Court still seating after one hour then PPP is toast « thai folitics, food and fiction // Jan 17, 2008 at 12:00 am

  [...] But the Thaksin fan club over at NewMandala will forgive PPP’s vote buying shenanigans. In one New Mandala election story, a NM blogger calling himself Histrionicus (or something) went over to Esan country, confirmed that a PPP candidate was vote-buying (but allegedly outspent by a Puea Paendin candidate) and that PPP candidate LOST! Yet Mr. Histrionicus went on to declare that despite his own anecdotal first-hand election story, he believes PPP could have won anyway, PAID or OTHERWISE. Huh? [...]

• 28 Republican // Jan 24, 2008 at 3:16 am

  An enjoyable spectator sport at the moment is watching the academics and their colleagues in the media and elsewhere trying to come to terms with the democratic return of Thaksin and PPP-TRT to political power. Quite a few of them have changed their tune (having helped whip the Bangkok middle class into an anti-Thaksin frenzy in 2006) and are now saying that we need to accept the verdict of the electorate. Their recent conversion to democracy is commendable, even if it is motivated purely out of the desire to save face.

  But a number of them continue to “stick to their guns”. One example can be seen in Connor’s “Thailand’s coup by stealth or something else” that was published in Asia Sentinel a couple of weeks ago [http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=982&Itemid=35].
  When I saw this article my first thought was, well, the “song mai ao”s do not seem to have learnt their lesson from 2006. Then they failed to support a democratically elected government against a royalist-military attack, and now they look as though they are at it again. Connors’ article shows all the hallmarks of the “song mai ao” position: the belief that there is another possibility between the royalists and Thaksin-TRT-PPP; the view that the forces are “contending fractions of the Thai elite” and so equally “bad”; and most irritating of all, the image they have of themselves as being above politics and the evil, corrupt politicians. Their own political position is ambiguous. The fact that TRT-PPP have won strong victories in 4 elections in a row, the last one against active opposition from the royalist dictatorship, doesn’t seem to matter to the song mai ao.

  I found myself disagreeing with virtually every sentence of the article, but let me just take a few of the choice ones.

  The article’s argument appears to begin boldly as a refutation of the “coup by stealth” argument by questioning the portrayal of the Election Commission as a CNS “stooge”:

  1. “…In news coverage and commentary, the Election Commission of Thailand has been presented as the council’s [CNS’s] stooge. The Thaksin PR machine could not have hoped for more…”

  The sarcastic tone here suggests that the allegations of bias directed at the EC are merely a product of Thaksin’s “PR machine” (no mention of the obstacles placed in the way of Thaksin’s “PR machine” – to the extent it is allowed to operate at all – by the royalist regime). But the attempt at a rebuttle soon fizzles out when Connors actually contradicts himself by agreeing that PPP’s “claims of a plot against it surely have some substance…. But why should it be otherwise? In a war, one force uses the instruments open to its influence…”

  2. “…Is the election commission a stooge…”

  In his initial attempt to refute the coup by stealth argument Connors tries to argue that the EC is not a stooge because it was appointed during the Thaksin era, apparently by pro-Thaksin senators. There are two problems with this: (i) the point is not whether the EC is a “stooge”, but whether it is being used as a conduit for the exercise of extra-Constitutional power by the anti-Thaksin forces following the PPP’s good result in the election; and (ii) as we know, in the case of Thai politics public figures are always ready to “jump ship” when the political winds change. In Thaksin’s own party scores of members abandoned TRT after the coup when the new “power” took over. Just because they were appointed by Thaksin (at a time when politically Thaksin was extremely weak – who knows whether Thaksin in fact had the final say over these appointments?) does not mean that the commissioners could not be subject to outside influence, especially when the stakes are so high.

  Apart from this there are the scandals involving the EC’s request to the deputy director of the Santibal, who was involved with the PAD demonstrations under Sondhi Limthongkul, to “help” them with their investigations into electoral violations, and the request that Sodsri’s daughter be seconded to work for Sondhi Bunyaratkalin (which makes it a little strange that Connors should take Sodsri’s words at face value).

  3. “…For reasons that remain unclear, a day after the 19 September 2006 coup d’etat the military endorsed the Senate selection of the commissioners…”

  After everything that happened since September 19 (the coup-makers’ attempt to destroy Thaksin, as Connors himself argues) surely there is an obvious reason: they were endorsed because the coup-makers obviously knew that this EC could be bent to their will (or, more accurately, to the will of the powers behind the coup-makers). Why else spare such an important body after everything the coup-makers had done?

  4. “…One might surmise, rather generously, that the coup group acted thus because the 10 nominees forwarded to the senate by the judiciary were chosen in the shadow of the king’s appeal to judicial integrity, and thus could be expected to act with caution and impartiality…”

  This statement is quite astonishing in its credulity. Connors actually takes what the King says at face value! Anyone who has studied the king’s speeches will know that they are not to be taken literally (anymore than the speeches of any other politician) but they should be read as coded message being sent to a particular target audience for a political purpose. The king can not be seen to intervene in politics (unless in a “crisis”), but as we know, he continually makes his position and desires known to the relevant people. The phraratchadamrat have the effect of giving a “royal blessing” for controversial political actions later taken by the military, judges, senior bureaucrats, which prevent criticism of that action, eg. the 25 April 2006 speech to the judges which led to the annulment of the result of the April elections; the 25 May 2007 speech a week before the dissolution of the TRT and banning of the 111 TRT executives, following which the CNS told the whole country to stay calm and abide by the phratchadamrat; and the outrageous birthday speech last December where he outlined his wishlist of military purchases. As Somsak has argued, the fact that the king is allowed to comment in public at all without his remarks having first been sent for approval by the democratically elected leader of the government is itself a big problem for democracy in Thailand.

  5. “…Whatever one thinks of the PPP and its claim to represent the democratic will of the people…”

  What does this mean? That the PPP does NOT represent the democratic will of the Thai people? So Connors does not accept the election results? He does not think that the PPP represents the democratic will of the Thai people?

  6. “…The acute state of Thai politics at this present time has little to do with democracy…”

  What an extraordinary statement – which shows how faithful Connors is to the “song mai ao” credo. Democratic elections appear to mean nothing to him. They are just another way by which one section of the “elite” manipulates the population, who are too stupid to be able to vote for the parties which the “song mai ao” academics would like.

  7. “…they have yet to elaborate any genuinely ideological position…”

  The implication (very common of the elitist stance of the “song mai ao”) is that the PPP-TRT is purely a political vehicle for Thaksin to manipulate the electorate (because the villagers are too stupid and uneducated) so it doesn’t need any ideological stance. Well, given that the party was only formed 6 months ago, during a royalist-military dictatorship which controlled the media and made it extremely difficult for the PPP to get its message out at all, one might think that Connors might have sympathized with the party’s difficulty in pursuing its public relations. But given that the PPP is publicly recognized as essentially the resurrection of the TRT, one would think that people already have a pretty good idea of the “ideological position” of the party. Maybe that is even why so many people voted for them.

  8. “…Enlightened Thaksin forces want a bourgeois revolution …They are also hostile to liberal forms of democracy…”

  Huh? No evidence is given to back up this vague statement. Who are these “enlightened” forces? Who pronounces them “enlightened”? (this is another feature of the song mai ao academics: they see themselves as morally and politically superior to the appalling politicians). How are the enlightened Thaksin forces “hostile” to liberal democracy? Which party has utilized the discourse of liberal democracy (especially the importance of elections, following the Constitution) more than the TRT-PPP? In one paragraph Connors is saying, sarcastically again, that “They [the pro-Thaksin forces] have been unrelenting in their claim of Thaksin’s democratic mandate” and then in another he says that they are hostile to liberal democracy. The logic that makes this contradiction work for Connors is that he obviously considers TRT-PPP’s rhetoric about democracy a sham. In fact, they are just right wing, authoritarian chauvinists, ie. as bad as the royalists. It’s just that the villagers are too stupid to understand this and are being duped. So we need the far-sighted, selfless academics to lead the “people’s sector” instead. Classic ” song mai ao” discourse.

  9. “…Enlightened Thaksin forces … mobilise forces under a banner of right wing populism, including Buddhist chauvinism…”

  Oh, a beauty this one. So the support that TRT gained was because they “mobilized forces” (ie. got people to vote for them) based on populism (ie. the wicked practice of the TRT by which they promised and delivered upon policies that addressed the needs of their constituents). How is this “right wing”? Don’t right wing political movements eschew the sort of welfare programs that TRT was delivering to the poor? As for Buddhist chauvinism, who are more chauvinist than the royalists and the military when it comes to Buddhism! (This is the whole problem with Buddhism today: it has been strangled by the royalists for the best part of the last 50 years).

  10. “…it is indeed surprising that not more has been done to eliminate the Thaksin threat….”

  What an extraordinary statement. For Connors, everything that has happened since September 19 2006 is not enough: the overthrow of the TRT government by tanks and guns in a royalist-military coup; the arrest of its members and the flight of others into exile; the exile of its leader; the year-long use of martial law in half the country (which continues in many provinces); the blanket censorship of any news about Thaksin; the dissolution of the TRT; the political banning of 111 executives; the seizure of Thaksin’s assets; the drafting of a constitution by royalist-appointed members specifically designed to prevent Thaksin from returning to power; the beefing up of the powers of the military under the new security act; the obvious intimidation and obstruction of PPP campaigning, etc. etc. But all this is not enough for Connors. It is a “surprise” that not more has been done to get rid of Thaksin (since, according to Connors, he is a “historical calamity”). So the regime has been too soft on him?!

  11. “…They have been unrelenting in their claim of Thaksin’s democratic mandate, willing to ignore that democracy means so much more than a mark on a ballot paper…”

  Well, here we go. The hoary old “song mai ao” disparagement of elections. This is possibly the most offensive statement of the article. Connors can’t seem to understand the fundamental problem of Thai politics: the failure to cement the principle of popular sovereignty because of the restoration of the political fortunes of the royalists after 1947, and the subsequent indoctrination of the population through the organs of the state with the ideals and values of absolute monarchy. The only mechanism by which the people can have real leverage over politics (however flawed and open to abuse that leverage might be) in the face of the royalist manipulation of the Thai politics is elections. Everything follows from elections. And that is why the royalist attack on elections has been so violent and determined (apart from the coup itself) – from the rhetoric that the people are too stupid to understand what’s good for them, that they sell their votes, that they vote in “bad” people, that they are victims of “populism”, etc. etc., through to the rigging of the constitution, the ridiculously strict limitations on campaigning, the threat of red and yellow cards, etc. The reason why elections in Thailand at this moment are SO FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT is that they are the only means by which the legitimacy of the royalist hold on the Thai political system can be challenged. The attack on elections (“democracy means more than elections”) is a royalist ruse and Connors supports it.

  And finally:

  12. “…Thailand’s chance of returning to some form of liberal democracy are slim…”

  If it’s a “return” then this obviously rules out any government that has been or will be dominated by TRT-PPP, because Connors has already declared that these people are “hostile” to liberal forms of democracy.

  If it’s a “return” then I guess that must mean the Democrats?!!!!

  There you have it: “song mai ao” lives on.

• 29 nganadeeleg // Jan 25, 2008 at 7:20 pm

  So the regime has been too soft on him?

  Yes , definitely too soft if looked at from the perspective of a military dictator – apart from the initial coup, those guys were just a democratic as Thaksin ever was, and far less bloodthirsty.

• 30 nganadeeleg // Jan 25, 2008 at 7:37 pm

  Republican, the “song mai ao” position is as justifiable as your position that Thaksin can do no wrong all because he was elected.

  You seem to think it’s only ever the Royalists that manipulate the military, the courts, the police etc etc, and you pro-Thaksinites even go so far as to blame HMK for the drug war, and exonerate Thaksin from any culpability.
  Why is it that the only part of any royal speech you don’t want to criticize is the one where there might be some (ambiguous) support for Thaksin?

  What do you make of HMK endorsing the PPP speaker?
  So much for a coup by stealth!

• 31 nganadeeleg // Jan 25, 2008 at 7:44 pm

  “Song mai ao” is bad, but I suppose in Republican’s warped view there’s nothing art all wrong with financing an election campaign with drug money.

  It’s lucky for Pranee Khlangpha that Thaksin is not yet fully back in power, or she might not have lived to tell her story.

• 32 Michael H. Nelson // Jan 25, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  xLet’s see what “instruments” Michael will use in this “war” against his mightly “enemy” Republican. He has given him quite a number of things to chew on. Fortunately enough, this is only a war of words and ideas, not of tanks.

  “If it’s a ‘return’ then I guess that must mean the Democrats?!!!!” >> Had the Constitution Drafting Assembly adopted the suggestions concerning the introduction of a proportional voting system, then we would now have exactly this–the Democrats, led by Abhisit as prime minister, joined by CTP and Phuea Phaendin. In that case, Michael probably would have seen more than just a “slim” chance for democracy.

  Now, let’s lean back and watch the battle…

• 33 Teth // Jan 26, 2008 at 12:23 am

  Nganadeeleg, I see that you’ve acquired another hobby! Good luck with your blog! (Although it appears that I am behind on this news seeing as you’ve been posting since August of last year, I’ve somehow just noticed the link on your name and belated congratulations anyhow.)

• 34 nganadeeleg // Jan 26, 2008 at 9:44 am

  Thanks Teth – Two posts in 6 months is hardly blogging, but rather it’s a place to record some favorite comments by other bloggers (for future reference if I need them)

  Unfortunately, I’m not that much of an original thinker to run my own blog, but posting the odd comment on other peoples blogs is a good hobby for a lazy person like me.

• 35 The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics” // Jan 28, 2008 at 10:44 am

  [...] to argue about the specific role of the Election Commission (see Republican’s comment 28 here). In talking about a “coup by stealth” my intention was to highlight the ongoing [...]

Leave a Comment