Whoever is launching the attacks on the rallies held by the People’s Alliance for (Sufficiency) Democracy in Bangkok is doing the PA(S)D a big favour. With their cause looking increasingly tawdry and discredited, the most the PA(S)D can hope for is that their credibility will be boosted by the impression that they are standing firm against the dark forces of violence and dissension. The recent attacks on the PA(S)D rallies resonate nicely with claims (spread by Sondhi Limthongkul and others) that the 2006 coup was justified because Thaksin was planning a violent crackdown on the PA(S)D protesters. Whoever is organising the attacks must be aware that they are doing the PA(S)D a big public relations favour.
Everyone has a right to peaceful protest. Whatever the cause. Even if people want to protest against a democratically elected government amending a constitution imposed by a military regime in a sham referendum. (Not The Nation has some great coverage of the PA(S)D campaign).
Just let the PA(S)D stew in their own juice (with the Democrat-except-when-you-can’t-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party stirring the pot).
84 responses so far ↓
1 fall // May 28, 2008 at 11:33 pm
The better way for anti-PAD mob to move was to present itself as a group with name like “pro-constituency change”, not out-right “I am against you” group. But what’s done is done…
2 Tony Loader // May 30, 2008 at 11:15 am
The People’s Alliance (Against) Democracy may have a right to protest, but advocate violence? The Bkk Post reports today that the PA(A)D is showing video footage of May 92’s events to stir up supporters and opposition to it alike.
Coup rumours are growing ever stronger with the hasty recall of the First Army commander from overseas.
It appears the next patiwat won’t be peaceful.
3 Reg Varney // May 30, 2008 at 2:46 pm
And the palace and its supporters are scared out of their skin by the events in Nepal. Maybe the PAD mob should be showing film of 6 October 1976? That was the last time that they were scared by events affecting “brother” monarchies (in Laos that time).
4 Frank G Anderson // Jun 18, 2008 at 9:43 am
18 June 2008
Last night Dr. Jermsak standing on the stage at the PAD rally in Bangkok did show old video clips of the Takbai massacre. Of course, there was an accompanying narration underlining the roles Samak and others played in such violent put downs of public gatherings.
If I can raise a point or two without seeming to go off the deep end…this professing that the PPP victory was not a sham but a legitimate democratic election really begs everyone to keep on their rose-colored glasses and ignore the obvious. Elections in most of Thailand (perhaps Bangkok is an exception) are a sham from the word ‘go.’ They are represented as being democratic but people vote for who they are told to or for who they are paid to or who they are threatened by if they don’t. Qualifications of candidates mean very little here. It’s a game, and that’s why Thais call it “len karn meung,” playing politics.
The so-called sham of a referendum, by the way, I would contend was at least as good and even more democratic than any discussions in public that took place under the repressive Thaksin regime. I do not agree with all the PAD does or is involved with, but Thailand needs that mentality on every street corner, in every classroom and every government office. Sondhi is no angel and has his own agenda, and in some respects even this activist group does not understand the big picture.
Anyone seen such anti-government discussions on any of the Thai state-controlled stations yet? That’s what makes ASTV so popular. When I first started watching it, I did not see it as credible because it so conflicted with what the state was showing everyone, including the foreigners. But as time went by, the volume and depth of material exposed on ASTV was no longer able to be discounted so easily. That is what brings a lot of people to these rallies, by the way, is finally learning something that the Thai people are entitled to learn – what their elected leaders are involved in.
Bit Brother here in Thailand sits in Parliament and as most of you will admit, has very little interest in legitimately dealing with their fellow countrymen. They are mostly there for number 1 and no one else.
5 Srithanonchai // Jun 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm
What is this rambling all about? PAD in every class room, at every street corner, in every government office? How could one turn the resultant political-administrative anarchy into an institutionalized democracy then–one that would supposedly be better than the “undemocratic elections” the result of which everybody is entitled to ignore?
6 Frank G Anderson // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Oooohhhh! yuh gotta look beyond the hyperbole.
The comment was not written to be taken literally, but in spirit. The spirit of rooting out the crooks continuously, educating the public about what they are missing out on, and working to put the fear of God into crooks.
The problem here in Thailand is that these ‘elected’ and bought politicians get right to work cheating, raking off and hiding without any fear of losing their chair. Once in office they can do what they want and the non-interfering Thai public have traditionally let the fraud go on until it becomes an embarrassment. The PAD is getting the embarrassment right out in front at the beginning, and this is where it belongs. If guys (and girls) want to keep their jobs, be transparent, honest and prepared to answer the tough questions. This Khao Preah Vihear business, for example… You have at least two sets of maps involved, neither of which the Army or MOFA wants to let the public see until things are settled between Cambodia and Thailand. It is understood that Thaksin’s natural gas interests are at work here, but for some reason the PAD is really the only one spearheading a frank look at things like this. An elected politician in Thailand has – by some measures – the same market value as Chalerm’s Ph.D.
7 Srithanonchai // Jun 18, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I see, I am dealing not with a comment, but with its “spirit”! Didn’t know that I would need that much supernatural hermeneutics… Or is this an evasive writing strategy, suggesting that the author did not really write what he wrote? Indeed, that’s suitable for rambling.
8 Teth // Jun 18, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Frank: “The problem here in Thailand is that these ‘elected’ and bought politicians get right to work cheating, raking off and hiding without any fear of losing their chair. ”
The problem with the PAD is that its leader has been convicted of libel, yet persists in “educating” the public without any shred of evidence. The PAD’s self-righteousness is to the point of contempt for the law they supposedly want to uphold. They will push on regardless of law or reason, much like how the Eurocrats are pushing the Lisbon Treaty irrespective of Ireland’s referendum (might I say the only referendum held in the EU). So when the PAD applies the same standards to itself, it will then begin to re-gain some credibility in my eyes, because at the moment you are all talking sh*t and acting like spoilt children, basically.
BTW, what were the original reasons for the protest? If remember correctly, you were protesting was to remove Jakrapob and stop the Constitutional Amendments (which ironically all parties do support). Guess what, you’ve succeeded, now disperse. Don’t be people who ได้คืบเอาศอก, or are you protesting for protest’s sake?
9 Frank G Anderson // Jun 18, 2008 at 11:58 pm
18 June 2008
Gentlemen, and I hope I am not misusing the word…
Do not confuse issues, actions, personalities and what is said or not said. I get enough of that from expats and Thais up here in Korat. Sure you august writers should know better. Condescension and presumptions do not have a place in honest debate.
I am not backing down from my earlier point or current arguments. As well, don’t paint me in the PAD corner blindly. I am there often but stand on my own and don’t mind having differences with the PAD and/or its membership should circumstances and principles warrant.
You mention Sondhi being convicted of libel. What does that have to do with the price of chicken? Argue to the argument and not to side issues. And, I believe the decision is in appellate court, is it not?
It seems that the bigger and more powerful you are here in Thailand, the easier it is to get convictions against people you don’t like, especially when using that large harpoon lese majeste. Why is defamation in Thailand also a criminal offense? A crime to insult someone? Is 400 million Baht against a poor little female reporter not sufficient for the likes of Thaksin?
I find that reputations in the LOS don’t need to be based on anything except secrecy, insistence and intimidation. Then when someone opens the can of worms all of a sudden it’s criminal defamation! Courts here in Thailand are also subject to error, and deserve criticism whenever they make a mistake, and certainly questions when they are apparently doing so.
I listen to some of the PAD, for example such as today, and quickly reach my saturation level and get online or listen to some soothing music instead. But as I said, Thailand needs a thousand PADs all over the place – obstinate people who won’t take no for an answer, people who stick with it, people who have honest motives in trying to straighten out messes they have been handed. Not everyone in the PAD or outside the PAD is like this, but there are plenty there who have the right direction and their heads screwed on right. If these guys don’t start populating Thai society, you are headed for another 3-4 centuries of sticking your heads in the sand while everything gets stolen, cheated and otherwise mishandled. Participative democracy is not making the general population of Thailand very happy, obviously. After all, people are not conforming to the “Thai way” but instead are shouting, refusing to accept stupid explanations and persisting in getting rid of another bunch of crooks. Listening to MI1, the PM, etc., is an absolute tragedy in the best of Shakespearean tradition. As someone in NIDA where I taught many years ago said, Samak is a moron. Bush I don’t argue is any different. In fact, I support actively his impeachment by writing to my congressmen and senators, and complain to him and other agencies directly. This is not to prolong this discussion, but to offer some insight into things that people say – don’t be too ready to accuse them of waffling unless you know it, and don’t be too ready to dismiss a phenomenon that has lots of faults but more to its credit. The message to thinkers is…think.
10 amberwaves // Jun 19, 2008 at 12:38 am
(Correcting previous post by adding word “rally” in the first paragraph)
I remember Sondhi L. at a 2006 PAD rally urging soldiers to shoot Thaksin because he allegedly insulted the monarchy.
I also remember the PAD letting Manoon take the stage at another 2006 rally to go on about how the military saved the nation at various points, including 1976.
I remember just a week or so Sondhi delivering his attacks from the PAD stage in Chinese, spiced with an expression that roughly translates as “motherf***er.”
I *don’t* remember the PAD criticizing any of the business and political shenanigans pulled off by the 2006 coup makers.
Is this productive, educational discourse?
I also find it hard to imagine that anyone actually thinks “This Khao Preah Vihear business” is a matter of principle rather than pandering to the worst sort of nationalist instincts.
Frank Anderson is on the right track, but hasn’t travelled very far down the line. Participatory democracy has to come from the grassroots, not be managed by a demagogue. Some veteran activists, footsoldiers of the October generation who unlike some PAD types haven’t become star-struck, recognize this and are in it for the long haul. Their work doesn’t get covered by ASTV.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
11 Frank G Anderson // Jun 19, 2008 at 9:23 am
19 June 2008
Like I already said, don’t read between the lines when there aren’t any. Sondhi, by the way, many times criticized the junta here and called them useless, wavering and uncommitted. And it didn’t take him long.
Perhaps stressing will help – no single person is THE solution. Sondhi thinks he is perhaps, but he is wrong. But this divisiveness here in Thailand where everyone rejects the other because of partial differences is what’s killing off hopes for democratic reform.
No need to merge, like Suwat Liptapanlop did with TRT, or to accept everything Giles or Jon says, but lots of people have the intellect to uncover things that need to be addressed and fought for.
I am convinced, also, that no one on this planet is entitled to give amnesty for genocide, war crimes and/or human rights violations. Yet, people do so.
I see the state enterprise labor unions are joining with the PAD. There is a case of different interests joining together. Not in all respects, but in many.
12 Frank G Anderson // Jun 19, 2008 at 12:33 pm
This is form Prachatai and illustrates a point I made:
“What is more ironical is the recognition that the international media have a better understanding of the Thai political situation than the Thai media or Thai people.”
I believe there are at least two major reasons for this truism. First is that Thais are blindsided by their own culture of illusion, and the other is that they are also generally deprived of information and the opportunity to intellectually analyze it when it is available.
And this is not being condescending.
13 Reg Varney // Jun 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Frank G. Anderson: I have to say that I don’t buy the argument that elections in Thailand are a sham. There are numerous problems with them that are well covered in the academic research literature over the years. However, to say that elections therefore amount to nought (I am paraphrasing, of course) is to ignore a lot of recent literature that attempts to place elections in local contexts.
My observations of election periods in 2000-1 and 2007-8 suggested to me that to say that Thais are bought, ordered and/or intimidated on how they should vote is a gross exaggeration of the reality of rural political activity. No doubt there is some of that, and some areas maybe a lot of it. However, the elections where TRT were elected by landslides suggests that other factors were at work. There is academic research there to be read.
The interesting debate from some of the PAD and quite a number of royalists is to say that elections = representation but not participation. That’s an interesting line for it raises notions of participation to the level of a political desire that has not really been articulated by the conservative elite before.
14 dukdeek yoakyeg // Jun 20, 2008 at 1:32 pm
There is a new theory. Sonti Limtongkul is a foreign agent–doesn’t he look like one?–intent on subverting Thailand, hence his persistent effort at bringing anarchy to the country. He will never stop until Thailand lies in shreds. Unfortunately, there are lots of fools in Thailand who listen to this crook instead of tearing him to pieces. He is truly a bad medicine for us Thais.
15 pallop pinkmanee // Jun 20, 2008 at 5:18 pm
What’s happening in Bangkok now is “democrazy” or mass madness, thought by some to be Thai democracy.
16 F. Sinatra // Jun 20, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I think Frank may be mistaking Zimbabwe for Thailand.
17 Fonzi/Tosakan // Jun 20, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Frank-
You sound like you have been taking rhetorical lessons from the opinion writers at The Nation or, maybe, from the lack of coherent argumentation in your writing, smoking too many spliffs.
You spout a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense without a shred of empirical evidence. Typical Sondhi Lim tactic. Yet you have the audacity to insult Thais by calling them, more or less, anti-intellectual sheep. I think your average Thai is fairly cognizant of all the corruption and political shenanigans that go on in Thailand.
The problem is not awareness, but the ability or lack of ability in utilizing the tools available to deal with political problems.
And your defense of PAD tactics/mob rule is truly frightening. Mobs are inherently anti-democratic. It is nothing but a tool used by a small unrepresentative group of thugs to extort.
In the final analysis, and this is my stand, and it has always my stand is that is far better to deal with political problems with the law, democratic politics, and civilized behavior(however flawed the processes may be) rather than resort to the cycles of temper tantrums, blackmailing mobs and military coups that don’t serve Thailand in the least bit.
18 Robert Horn // Jun 20, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Yes, we should deal with political problems with the law, and peaceful protests are within the law.
While I agree that military coups don’t serve the nation, neither do governments that use their power to attempt to change the law to prevent themselves or their bank-rollers from being found guilty of breaking the law.
19 Robert Horn // Jun 20, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Teth: “The problem with the PAD is that its leader has been convicted of libel, yet persists in “educating” the public without any shred of evidence.”
Samak has also been convicted of libel, yet persists in “educating” the public about matters for which he hasn’t a shred of evidence, such as what good Buddhists those Burmese generals are.
If Samak isn’t disqualified from leading the country having been convicted of libel, why should that disqualify Sondhi from leading a street protest?
20 Frank G Anderson // Jun 20, 2008 at 8:44 pm
20 June 2008
There you go again, making accusations that will not stand a logic test. Because I agree with much of what the PAD does or some of its methods does not mean I am defending them.
But you spoke of mob rule – isn’t the political scene here in Thailand nothing but refined mobs ruling? It seems as if the mobs belong to the government, they are acceptable.
As well, that word ‘mob’ that Thais have twisted into a transliteration that does not mean what a mob is is a disservice to peaceful political protests. Mob, by definition, means ‘one bent on riotous or destructive action,’ or ‘the lower classes of a community.’ Or an out of control criminal gathering, etc. Generally, then, ‘mob’ connotes people who are doing something criminal.
I hear government officials calling groups of reporters mobs and often peaceful petitioners mobs. So the value of the word mob in this country has been diminished and convoluted just as has just about everything else.
This so-called academic research you spoke of, by the way, will not stand the acid test at a reputable university outside Thailand. Chalerm got a Ph.D., after all, didn’t he? And does anything serious think he really earned it?
Once again I enjoin you to consider what is said and not to jump on the populist conclusion that it must mean what you think it must mean.
I am 100% against the PAD using the monarchy in the way it is, but don’t most Thai people who file lese majeste charges, for example, misuse the monarchy for personal purposes?
Thailand has its charms, but truthfulness, transparency and sincerity are sorely lacking among them. If you have money on the one hand, or keep a low profile on the other, you can succeed.
Read some of Pira Sudham’s literature and you will get a glimpse of the forlorn feeling he, a Thai, has for his own culture. Not many Thai writers, and certainly intellectuals, are of this caliber or honesty. They would never get by.
21 Frank G Anderson // Jun 20, 2008 at 10:29 pm
It is always oversimplifying to make blanket statements about individuals or groups, be they Thais, farangs, Sondhis, etc. So whatever is said with as broad stroke should always be read with the proverbial grain of salt.
“The average Thai” does not exist, as there is no “average person” except in statistics. But stating that Thais in general really know what’s going on is appealing to long lost hope. They don’t. Just bring up a few things like ASTV first began bringing up, and before that Dr, Jermsak, and you will get really surprised faces. That’s why these people gathered in Bangkok are generally ASTV fans. They have seen the light, my friends. And that is why the so-called elected government here does not want ASTV or its like on regular TV. My God, can you imagine how many people would revolt if they had the same access to information that ASTV fans do?
22 Minute-by-minute from Bangkok // Jun 20, 2008 at 10:42 pm
[...] in a position to add much to the analysis of the current standoff in central Bangkok between the PA(S)D and the Royal Thai [...]
23 amberwaves // Jun 21, 2008 at 1:46 am
>My God, can you imagine how many people would revolt if they had
>the same access to information that ASTV fans do?
And the amount of “misinformation” on ASTV, to take widely inflated crowd figures as just one example, how does that figure into the mix?
I admit that I don’t keep ASTV on all the time — can anyone tell me how much airtime they have given people like Dr. Weng, Jon and Giles U., and other such people who don’t agree with their views?
I take it you’ve seen Manager Group’s Thailand Outlook Channel website (http://www.thailandoutlook.tv/)? Its “Your Say” section with messages from far-flung people with no last names is pretty clearly generated – which is to say fabricated – in-house.
Call me old-fashioned, but these sorts of things bother me.
24 Frank G Anderson // Jun 21, 2008 at 9:57 am
21 June 2008
We can argue all month back and forth about fabrication online and in print, on the air, etc. The problem with the government side with all this is that YOU are paying for it as a taxpayer on the one hand, and on the other as a citizen subject to the decisions being made.
As I said and will likely keep saying until eventually even I see light at the end of the tunnel is that things here are more illusion than substance, no matter which side they come from.
25 F. Sinatra // Jun 21, 2008 at 10:11 am
Mr Horn, the PAD protests have begun to appear increasingly violent and illegal, in rhetoric and in action. Protesters brandishing sticks and building makeshift shields, erecting barricades of barbed wire, anyone? They have not cooperated with the authorities nor and intend to do everything they can to bring down an elected government. This much they have said.
Ironically, they want to protect the constitution four months into the term of a government, but where were they when the 1997 Constitution was actually ripped up?
Based on what you’ve said, Mr Horn, I assume that you also disagree with the whole 2005 constitution and the NLA, speaking about self-serving governments that write blanket amnesties for itself? While I am highly suspect of PPP’s intentions, I do believe a fair Parliamentary procedure involving all parties to amend the 2005 is justified and necessary.
26 Frank G Anderson // Jun 21, 2008 at 10:12 am
“I also find it hard to imagine that anyone actually thinks “This Khao Preah Vihear business” is a matter of principle rather than pandering to the worst sort of nationalist instincts.”
You know, article 190 of the Constitution is interesting. It reads:
“Section 190. The King has the prerogative to conclude a peace treaty, armistice and other treaties with other countries or international organisations.
A treaty which provides for a change in the Thai territories or the Thai external territories that Thailand has sovereign right or jurisdiction over such territories under any treaty or an international law or requires the enactment of an Act for its implementation or affects immensely to economic or social security of the country or results in the binding of trade, investment budget of the country significantly must be approved by the National Assembly. In such case, the National Assembly must complete its consideration within sixty days as from the date of receipt of such matter.
Before the conclusion of a treaty with other countries or international organisations under paragraph two, the Council of Ministers must provide information thereon to the public, conduct public consultation and state information in relevant thereto to the National Assembly. In such case, the Council of Ministers must submit negotiation framework to the National Assembly for approval.
Upon giving signature to the treaty under paragraph two, the Council of Ministers shall, prior to give consent to be bound, facilitate the public to get access to the details of such treaty. In the case where the application of such treaty has affected the public or small and medium entrepreneurs, the Council of Ministers must revise or render remedy to such effects rapidly, expediently and fairly.
There shall be a law determining measure and procedure for the conclusion of a treaty having immense effects to economic or social security of the country or resulting in the binding of trade or investment of the country significantly and the revision or rendering of remedy to the effects of such treaty with due regard to the fairness among the beneficiaries, the affected persons and the general public.
A matter arising from the provisions of paragraph two falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and the provisions of section 154 (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the referring of the matter to the Constitutional Court.”
I wonder when the last public hearing on this matter took place – or was there ever one? It seems as if the government has not complied with this article, or am I wrong?
27 Robert Horn // Jun 21, 2008 at 3:34 pm
While it’s true that some of what ASTV broadcasts is misinformation, wasn’t that clearly true of iTV and other non-cable television stations under the Thaksin government (and previous governments, except in the case of iTV)?
That’s not meant as a justification for broadcasting misinformation. But, when accurate, balanced and fair news coverage can’t be found or is difficult to find, rumor and misinformation will fill the vacuum.
Had Thaksin and previous governments done more to foster the growth of an independent broadcast media, instead of using it for propaganda, ASTV would have fewer viewers.
I didn’t see Dr. Weng, Jon and Giles getting a lot of airtime on non-cable stations when they were criticizing Thaksin.
It’s also well known that TRT/PPP has a war room of paid posters using dozens of names infusing websites and web boards with pro-TRT/PPP views. Lying on the web is hardly an innovation of Manager Group.
Once again, this isn’t meant as a justification. But, you reap what you sow.
28 Frank G Anderson // Jun 21, 2008 at 3:53 pm
21 June 2008
Ah…
It’s as if the PD has committed violence, but I don’t remember seeing any, other than that wedge-barge-through yesterday when they broke the police lines to Government House.
In fact, it’s the PPP and Thaksin supporters who HAVE committed violence. What of this PPP MP Karoon who kicked Khun Somkiet of PAD in the Parliament cafeteria, then said if he was found to have really done that he’d quit, and then cops out when a penel found he did do it by saying he had not been tried in court, etc.?
Secondly, before that Dr. Kraisak Choonhavan, who was formerly Chairman of Thailand’s Senate Foreign Relations committee, was severaly kicked by an irate pro-Thaksin supporter as he was innocently standing out near a demonstration. Given Thaksin’s violence-prone record and that of his supporters, I for the life of me can’t understand how anyone could possible cite the PAD as violent. Oh, well…
29 Robert Horn // Jun 21, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Mr. Sinatra, there is no 2005 constitution. Yes, I know you mean the 2007 constitution.
All these constitutions are clearly flawed, and yes, the best solution is to have a broad-based assembly to draft a new one. That’s certainly not what the PPP is proposing. They don’t even want to put their constitutional amendments to a popular vote.
The 1997 was a disaster when it came to checks and balances. It shouldn’t have been ripped up (although every coup government has ripped up the constitution in force when it seized power), but simply reinstating the 1997 constitution without significant changes wouldn’t provide a solution.
The blanket amnesty was unnecessary, according to Abhisit Vejjajiva who spoke at the Foreign Correspondents Club last year. I don’t remember the exact reasons he stated why, but it had to do with Thai legal precedents in trying to bring coup leaders to court for prosecution. He claimed that, basically, they were already off the hook.
In any event, I’m not here to defend the coup leaders. But the PPP is an elected government, and so they have a greater responsibility to submit constitutional changes to the public for approval, instead of acting like the coup leaders.
Some of the PAD’s tactics are troubling. Nonetheless, they still have a constitutional right to protest.
I don’t like the fact that PAD “security” has baseball bats. They should not have them. But had police acted fairly and done their job to protect them from assaults with rocks, bottles and fists from pro-government supporters, it might not have escalated to this point.
We’ve had four police injuries, two of them minor, during a brief scuffle yesterday and that’s basically been it as far as “increasingly violent” is concerned. And credit goes to the police for their restraint. But it’s hardly been a “riot.”
Contrast that with over 200 injured policemen as result of the assault on Prem’s residence by the UDD demonstrators. While some UDD leaders were arrested, the UDD was allowed to continue its protests.
So why doesn’t the PAD have the same right?
30 Reg Varney // Jun 21, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Partly responding to Robert Horn:
On the media: You blame Thaksin for not fostering independent media. I would agree, but this same criticism could be made of just about every Thai administration.
On law: constitutions in Thailand have been “made” by those in power, including the 1997 version. That is basic law. And, the judiciary is not above reproach (to say the least). If you follow Samak’s recent offerings, it is clear that the govt side would compromise on constitutional reform. And, PPP did campaign on constitutional change. We can recall the last military-imposed government saying clearly that if people didn’t like the 2007 draft constitution, they could change it later. We do indeed reap what is sown.
On Samak: Whether your claim of his being convicted of libel is true or not, the fact remains that he is the leader of an elected government. As such he has every right to speak to the people. We know roughly who is behind him and what he stands for – he made it clear during the election campaign.
On Sondhi: Whether your claim of his being convicted of libel is true or not, he has a right to stand up for PAD (although currently it seems that Chamlong has taken over as chief spokesman, and he seems to be the one who can mobilize demonstrators). But do we really have a clear idea of who he represents? And do we know who is backing him? In Thailand it is often difficult to keep supporters on the streets without considerable financial backing. Who’s providing it this time?
31 Bangkok Pundit // Jun 21, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Frank: So the comminque was a treaty?
32 amberwaves // Jun 21, 2008 at 7:02 pm
re: Preah Vihear
>I wonder when the last public hearing on this matter took place – or was there ever one? It seems as if >the government has not complied with this article, or am I wrong?
I believe a court can decide if you are right or wrong. As your citation seems to indicate.
What we are talking about is intent.
Applying your logic, we could say the intent of all lese majeste complaints is to defend the monarchy. But we know it isn’t.
The intent of raising the Preah Vihear issue is to stir up an unpleasant and potent nationalistic temper. There’s always been a strong undercurrent of this, pre-dating Thaksin.
And it’s working, too.
Go down to the rally and people will talk to you about it. You know what, they’re not saying the government broke with constitutional procedures, they are saying it sold out the country and its land.
Just because there may be a legal basis for an argument doesn’t mean it isn’t really pitched at the emotions.
That’s not true only of Thailand. It’s effective, if obnoxious, politics.
P.S. Does the agreement clearly provide “for a change in the Thai territories?” More so than the joint exploration agreement with Malaysia, to take an example? Were the suggested consultations taken in those cases? I admit I don’t know.
But doesn’t law usually involves precedent as well as words?
33 Robert Horn // Jun 21, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Mr. Varney, I didn’t ever say Samak doesn’t have a right to speak to the people. Then again, so do Sondhi and Chamlong. They all have a constitutional right to air their views. It’s for the people to decide who they believe.
I don’t think the average person voting for the PPP did so because constitutional change was high on their wish list, or because they wanted Samak as PM, for that matter.
Most people agree some sort of constitutional change is needed. But not calling a broad-based assembly and submitting proposed changes to the electorate for consideration doesn’t seem an appropriate way to go about it for an elected government. The proposed changes, and especially the manner in which the PPP intended to push them through, appeared self serving. So much so, they lost the support of coalition partners and senators.
And while Samak backed down on constitutional changes, he and party members clearly stated they would raise it again. It was a tactical retreat, not a surrender.
If you read my post you will see that I also blamed governments before Thaksin’s for not fostering an independent broadcast media. Previous governments did allow, however, the establishment of iTV as an independent broadcaster and did not tamper with it.
Thaksin bought it and turned it into his personal propaganda vehicle, so he took the one advance in independent broadcasting and destroyed it for personal gain.
34 Frank G Anderson // Jun 22, 2008 at 10:31 am
22 June 2008
Thai language link to long writeup of Chakri Dynasty from beginning to current –
http://chakridynasty.googlepages.com/
I don’t know who was watching TV yesterday, but a Thai PAD supporter had been stopped by the police and after a rough interview, etc., got his arm broken. This was in the vicinity, I believe, where suddenly spikes police used, and nails, littered the highway. Police – “We don’t know anything about this.”
This so-called elected government you speak of…
Once again I would like to remind those that defend what passes off as free elections here in Thailand are also defending mass hypnosis, mass ignorance and mass ‘lemmingism.’ The wonderful goal everyone aspires to is “Sing off the same sheet” and brag about democratic elections. To me ‘free’ does not mean free to bribe, free to buy, free to connive, free to choose MPs and the Council of Ministers in the next government if your name is Thaksin and you have been ordered to stay out of politics. Yet, this is what happened. His hand was in the pie all the time. So as to free elections, not really. Of course many people did go out and vote for their hero’s appointees, but wasn’t that same group responsible for so much corruption and even mass media interference when in power?
Informed consent is the key to free elections. If the governed are foolish, ignorant, deprived, scared, intimidated, bought off and kept ignorant, can their so-called choices be said to be the result of free elections? Let’s not mince words here, or beg altruistic consideration of a process undergoing change. These are not free elections in the sense of being free to make an informed choice.
The moron [word choice by Thai academic, not me] who is now prime minister is a case in point. He would not even get a job mowing my lawn. Buffoon? As one person asked, why insult buffoons?
Samak et. al are nominees of Thaksin Shinawatra. They were from the moment they all met and agreed to this and that, and got the final OK from the man himself. So if these are free elections, God help Thailand.
Like I said before, Thailand needs thousands of PAD’s and PAD-types, not acting exactly as the PAD, but people and groups who dig up details and expose them to the public at large. People who won’t take another false promise for fact, people who are willing to take time off from work and families to show support for a good cause. Of course, because of the Thai sociopolitical infrastructure Sondhi has used the monarchy and nationalism to vanguard much of his movement. Just as one successive Thai government after another has done exactly the same thing, whether so-called elected or military junta. Everyone does it, everyone has abused the practice, and selecting PAD as worthy of criticism because it is doing the same thing as everyone else is not logical. Condemn one, condemn all.
35 Andrew Walker // Jun 22, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Frank, its good to see the old “voters are stupid country bumpkins” argument featuring again on New Mandala. But why not go and talk to some of them and see what they have to say. Those who do usually come back with a rather different perspective.
36 Frank G Anderson // Jun 22, 2008 at 12:52 pm
22 June 2008
I am glad YOU raised that issue.
From 1999 to 2006+, I was involved as a local media (English language newspaper) owner and non-official reporter in Korat/NE Thailand. During these 80+ months of close coverage of all kinds of news, events and personalities, I met and spoke with dozens of politicians, hundreds of voters, hundreds of government officials and plain Janes and plain Joes throughout the region. I was there when hundreds of villagers waited for two hours in the hot son for Suwat Liptapanlop and his entourage to arrive but was late because Suwat doesn’t really care to be on time much – any any Thai politician unless is to self-aggrandize. In all this time, I found myself on first-name basis with some, like Dr. Kraisak whom I feel honored to have met, and Khun Suwat and Korn whom I do not feel so honored to have met.
When I speak of crooks and bought votes, it’s not from standing idly by reading about it or hearing it form someone else I agree with or from someone opposed to me. It’s from direct experience. Ever since my original Peace Corps experience here in Buriram province from 1966-67 it is clear that the poor are still getting the short end of the stick and that feudalism is still very much n evidence. I am not a socialist or leftist or right-wing sympathizer, but speak from what has become a sharpened eye and ear – not to hint, Heaven forbid! that any of you are any less attuned to the truth and what’s right or wrong.
I have seen many, many instances on village, amphoe and province level, and national, where the public in general and voters in particular have been intentionally misled and then left holding the empty bucket while politicians get off the hook. Speaking of which, check my lese majeste page now on http://www.thekoratpost.com to see a few things that need to be reviewed from time to time regarding what His Majesty states he feels about people who lie and oppress.
Not a digression I hope but a reminder that the problem here in Thailand by its nature is not much different from problems in other countries as concerns relationships between politicians and voters, but the depth of depravity and suppression here in Thailand is worthy of its own award.
37 F. Sinatra // Jun 22, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Frank seems to be the Western incarnation of Sondhi Limtongkul. Perhaps he is merely caricaturing and taking the piss, I can’t tell!
38 nganadeeleg // Jun 22, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Those who do usually come back with a rather different perspective.
Or they could come back are even more dismayed at the ignorance that prevails.
39 amberwaves // Jun 22, 2008 at 5:33 pm
>I don’t know who was watching TV yesterday, but a Thai PAD supporter had been stopped by the police and after a rough interview, etc., got his arm broken. This was in the vicinity, I believe, where suddenly spikes police used, and nails, littered the highway. Police – “We don’t know anything about this.”
I was not watching TV yesterday, can you tell us what channel showed this?
Did they actually show this happening or did they show someone *saying* it happened?
Finally, where does the diagnosis “broken arm,” come from?
I believe your contributions here are valuable and thought-provoking. Just help us out a little bit on this one.
40 Robert Horn // Jun 22, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“Frank, its good to see the old “voters are stupid country bumpkins” argument featuring again on New Mandala. But why not go and talk to some of them and see what they have to say. Those who do usually come back with a rather different perspective.”
I have talked to plenty of them. I don’t think, in general, they are stupid, and I wouldn’t use the term country bumpkins for most of them.
On the other hand, it was clear that they were unaware of many of the things Thaksin and company had done that had raised the ire of urban people.
My guess, however, was that even if they knew about most (but not all) of these things, they would still vote for him because, as they see it, he delivered for them as no previous prime minister had.
Elections here are without a doubt dirty and crooked. Nonetheless, I believe the results of recent years do reflect the will of the majority of the electorate. The electorate, however, is not fully informed.
The real shame of it all is that, having delivered for these people, Thaksin could have at least tried to clean up the elections. He could have won a clean election and gone down in history as a statesman for doing so.
The fact that he never even tried speaks volumes about his character.
41 Frank G Anderson // Jun 22, 2008 at 10:19 pm
22 June 2008
Ah, proof!
Of course none of the government channels showed it, os it had to be on ASTV.
The victim was onstage in full garb, including the sling, bandaged arm and testimony that he had had I believe he said 14 stitches. That is where the story came from, the man himself, and I really don’t think even Limthongkul would go that far to arrange a show.
As to my reminding someone of a Western Sondhi, thanks for the compliment but it’s not deserved. I was never a business partner of Thaksin and I don’t go things for personal gratification, unless it’s to stomp someone who has been totally unfair to someone else.
I depart from many of the people you might have run into in the past because I don’t automatically agree with many people about anything until I know what they are talking about and get the impression that I can trust what they say. I do not feel that way about Sondhi, having met and spoken with him in Korat and coming away with the impression that like many leaders the world over he has a falsely inflated opinion of himself and the way he does things.
My wife and I have been subjected here in Korat to xenophobic public harangues on the radio and elsewhere because of stands we took. We are old-fashioned, stubborn, and hopefully willing to change our minds when we are wrong. In fact, my cross-referencing lately on this website and others has been useful in discussing with my wife the PAD thrust and its leaderships to underscore some of the imperfections in these guys and how they sometimes do things. All this flag-waving and citing the monarchy bothers me immensely, but as I said before, all sides do this and they take advantage of the monarchy in ways that are highly improper if not totally unethical and even illegal. But when politicians and others go pell-mell with this assault no one here seems to understand that the law has got to be changed on the one hand, and internal police procedures on the other.
I’ve been accused as fact on radio as committing lese majeste even though what I was supposed to have said was a total fabrication and designed to enlist support for a corrupt abbot and his little mafia. So I have been around the pole a couple of times and know that things here are not going to change voluntarily. People of goodwill must take this matter to the courts to get it resolved in a fair fashion. It’s as if people don’t want to take advice from the king when he speaks of needing to be criticized. Heck, over two years after a UK national and Thai police Lt. Col. take it upon themselves to safeguard the monarchy by insulting it further with spurious and maliciously ignorant charges. Why is is that these characters are not counter-charged themselves and have to sign some papers of responsibility before they ruin people’s careers and hurt their standing, honor and reputations? I recall when Thaksin was still around with the FEER incident. At the time I was English language editor for Tilleke and Gibbins, the firm that represented FEER. T&G didn’t want to stir up any problems and Thaksin being so powerful it would have been suicide to take the FEER side. So they engineered a shameful apology while Thai TV anchors all knowingly smiled at one another over all channels to raise the victory sign against more foreigners trying to insult the king. This incident was such a sham, and such a shame, but authorities here don’t even have the intelligence and spiritual empathy to know this or cultural sensitivity to appreciate it. This feudal attitude is what keeps the old LM ball rolling, and it is far past time that people organize in the courts and get some changes made.
Too much preaching! Sorry…
42 amberwaves // Jun 23, 2008 at 3:57 am
>Ah, proof!
Of course none of the government channels showed it, os it had to be on ASTV.
The victim was onstage in full garb, including the sling, bandaged arm and testimony that he had had I believe he said 14 stitches. That is where the story came from, the man himself, and I really don’t think even Limthongkul would go that far to arrange a show.
————–
On stage at the PAD rally, I assume you mean. For me, that would be a negative indicator of credibility. For all I _ or you, it turns out _ know, the guy could have fallen drunk off the back of a truck.
But admittedly, we are both being subjective about the credibility of the PAD. And I doubt that either you or I have the time and resources to get to the bottom of this particular case.
What I do question is your statement that “Of course none of the government channels showed it…” I’ve seen hours of coverage of the PAD actions in recent days, including extended remarks from their leaders, especially Chamlong. I do doubt the other channels showed this particular guy, but why should they – are they expected to have wall-to-wall PAD coverage?
I’m not saying their coverage is particularly praiseworthy – though spare some time for ThaiPBS – but ASTV simply regurgitating everything the PAD says is hardly an exemplar of professional journalism either.
If on the other hand your argument is that ASTV serves as an example of how there should be a diversity of opinions available, then I am with you all the way, and assume you also oppose all governments’ – most recently Thaksin’s, Surayud’s, and Samak’s – efforts to curb freedom of information, including the blocking of Web sites. Are we in agreement on that?
43 Frank G Anderson // Jun 23, 2008 at 9:39 am
23 June 2008
Of your last point we are in agreement.
Mr. Jakrabhoop, for all I agree with him on the right to speak, messed up by continuing Thaksin’s interference with the media.
44 Teth // Jun 23, 2008 at 10:06 am
I don’t support Thaksin, but I think what is said about country bumpkins is also equally applicable to the urbanites. The urban elite is often as ignorant as the rural one: it is a Thai trait to rely on rumors rather than vigorously debated fact. Also, many have as much an irrational, emotional hatred of Thaksin as the rural folk have a love for him.
Elections here are without a doubt dirty and crooked. Nonetheless, I believe the results of recent years do reflect the will of the majority of the electorate. The electorate, however, is not fully informed.
The electorate of most countries are not fully informed.
The real shame of it all is that, having delivered for these people, Thaksin could have at least tried to clean up the elections. He could have won a clean election and gone down in history as a statesman for doing so.
The truth is no Thai politician will ever clean up the thing that got them there. Thaksin is no different.
What a really a shame was the huge mandate and the hope so many had put on Thaksin during his first election into office with a brand new, progressive Constitution. That, was a shame.
45 Bangkok Pundit // Jun 23, 2008 at 4:03 pm
All this flag-waving and citing the monarchy bothers me immensely, but as I said before, all sides do this and they take advantage of the monarchy in ways that are highly improper if not totally unethical and even illegal.
What about making up stories and continuing through your editorial line and news stories that people are trying to overthrow monarchy? This is not mere citing of the monarchy. Do all sides do this?
46 Frank G Anderson // Jun 23, 2008 at 7:16 pm
23 June 2008
I miss your point.
Please rephrase.
What “editorial line?” and what do you mean overthrowing the monarchy? Are you alluding to the PAD’s accusations against Thaksin et. al? If so, you might have read I do not agree with all they are involved in. I tend to view Voltare’s statement about the right to speak as my guide. Jakrabhop’s main error is being with the TRT gang.
Hello….?
47 Robert Horn // Jun 23, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I think each side, when it comes to the monarchy, does things that are absolutely unacceptable.
48 Frank G Anderson // Jun 23, 2008 at 8:52 pm
23 June 2008
Bob – Very salient point!
BTW, does anyone know of any case in Thailand where anyone has taken the lese majeste charge to court to get it reformed or repealed? Did anyone ever come close?
Thanks.
49 Frank G Anderson // Jun 23, 2008 at 11:05 pm
23 June 2008
To illustrate –
A little while ago on ASTV Veera was on about Giles Ungpakorn making a quip to the effect that he was proud of his Chinese and English bloodlines. Veera, who had earlier hear Giles say ask whether the economy was gong to get any better by the PAD protesting Khao Preah Viharn. Disgruntled, Veera said “If Giles is so proud of being Chinese and English, why doesn’t he get the hell out of Thailand!”
I immediately called ASTV, though it won’t help much, and asked them to pass on a complaint that they keep making racist nationalist remarks and they will begin making a lot more enemies all over Thailand.
Let’s see, but this is one of those reasons I caution my wife and anyone else who will listen not to fall for anything 100%. Everyone leading a cause has an agenda.
50 Reg Varney // Jun 23, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Robert Horn: “I think each side, when it comes to the monarchy, does things that are absolutely unacceptable.” I don’t think I get the point here. How do you define “unacceptable”? The monarchy got itself into this pickle and they reap what they sow.
51 nganadeeleg // Jun 24, 2008 at 9:11 am
It does not justify untruths being peddled (by PAD), but there is no denying that the anti-monarchy camp are barracking for the Thaksin side, and are therefore seen as a subset of the pro-Thaksin camp.
Pundit, you should be aware of such matters, but for a quick example (in English) all one needs to do is a search of posts by ‘Republican’ on this site.
52 Frank G Anderson // Jun 24, 2008 at 6:33 pm
24 June 2008
This link and its other constituent links provides some very interesting information and commentaries.
http://sanpaworn.vissaventure.com/log/187/a-right-royal-hatchet-job
I was surprised at the depth of observations and willingness of the writer to come out and speculate in an appropriately academic way.
53 Bangkok Pundit // Jun 24, 2008 at 10:34 pm
nganadeeleg: Anti-monarchy camp? There is such a camp? As in a pro-Republican group? I have seen Republican and heard claims of some big movement, but I don’t see it. Some are annoyed at Prem and his role, but it is extremely rare I see anything about wanting to get rid of the monarchy. So royalist Samak is the head of the movement of the party which the republicans support? Why no dress down from HM the King last Thursday then?
54 fall // Jun 25, 2008 at 12:05 am
Why? Haven’t you heard?
Prof. Poovadon (sic), from PAD, are calling the three website as anti-monarchy, one is Prachathai and another is Hi-thaksin (dont ask me what the third one is).
He sure know how to write a speech, only one article but contain everything…monarchy, marxist, racist, sexist, and even George Soros!
http://www.manager.co.th/Politics/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9510000073952
55 nganadeeleg // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:02 am
Pundit: You are either not as widely read as I thought, or you are choosing to play games.
Perhaps anti-monarchy was a bit blunt, so yes, let’s call it an anti-Prem group, however don’t forget who appoints Privy Councilors.
I have seen Republican and heard claims of some big movement, but I don’t see it
Seen him in person, or seen his posts here?
He’s gone very quiet here of late, so maybe that’s all part of the brilliant master strategy that he was talking about a while ago.
(Obviously the last thing the PPP camp need right now is loud barracking from the likes of Republican)
You should also not that my statement: “barracking for the Thaksin side, and are therefore seen as a subset of the pro-Thaksin camp” does not say Samak, or even Thaksin for that matter, is anti monarchy, so there’s no point to your comment about a dress down from HMK.
(in any case, from my observations, HMK, does not ‘dress down’ merely because someone has a different view, but rather bangs on about doing the job correctly, and doing the right thing etc)
If you wish to learn more about this matter, I again recommend that you do a search of posts by ‘Republican’ at this site.
56 Frank G Anderson // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:14 am
http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B9%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%A5_%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%90
He is even here!
I said I am generally supportive of the PAD, and maybe better qualify that these days by dismissing myself form the nonsense in PAD or anyplace else, equally. I think part of the problem here in Thailand is that not having ever been brought up in a truly liberal democratic environment, these fringe leaders don’t know what it means when you say ‘responsible speech.’
In such an environment, things are not gong to get well anytime soon.
Anyone with ideas on the Phra Viharn situation? Is Noppadon really as straight as he is trying to make it appear?
If this is a tit-for-tat to let Thaksin in there for massive investment, why don’t people who don’t like Thaksin start spilling the beans?
That is, other than PAD?
57 Frank G Anderson // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:17 am
25 June 2008
Who appoints Privy Councilors?
Actually, a bit more detailed that “He” does it.
Don’t they generally make a joint OK on it once one of them, in varying previous talks with HM et. al, then say fine and the guy gets in? Is it not a careful appointment not just from the absolute top but from trusted submissions on who is a good candidate?
58 Andrew Walker // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:28 am
nganadeeleg – well spotted. Republican has republican tendencies.
59 Frank G Anderson // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:45 am
This word conspiracy gets thrown around almost as much as democracy. Conspiracies don’t need to be bad. Conspire also means ‘to act in harmony toward a common end.’ On this basis, everyone here in Thailand working toward social and political harmony is a conspirator.
While generally it means secretly joining with others in plotting to do something wrong, illegal or evil, it also does not necessarily mean being bad. For example, “something wrong.” In a society that often regards open debate as wrong, is it also wrong to conspire to bring about change?
Thailand’s constitutional monarchy was brought about by a set of conspiracies, was it not.
Just some rambling…
60 nganadeeleg // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:49 am
Republican has republican tendencies
and he barracks for Thaksin.
Are you implying that I am mistaken about there being a group (which is a subset of a larger group), and you think Republican is alone with those views?
61 Andrew Walker // Jun 25, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Good lord! Are you suggesting that there is more than one person with republican views that supports the rights of elected governments to govern? A “group”! It can’t be true! That is surely going too far!
62 nganadeeleg // Jun 25, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Andrew, there’s no point going over old ground – lets just leave it at:
- You are prepared to turn a blind eye to corruption, tax evasion, extra-judicial killings etc, and I am not!
Personally, I am in the ’song mai ow camp’, and I think we know what camp you and Republican are in.
63 Frank G Anderson // Jun 25, 2008 at 3:03 pm
25 June 2008
‘Nuff of the sarcasm?
In fact, there has to be more than one group that has different ideas about the monarchy and whether it is fulfilling its role, overstepping its bounds or being improperly addressed by evil-minded people who don’t know what they are talking about. On the other hand, discounting informed, well-meaning people making valuable contributions to free speech by citing them as evil conspirators and what-not begs the question of whether or not communism is worse than the system of speech here in Thailand where people do not have recourse to proper protection from a great deal of human and civil rights violations.
If there are groups that are developing ideas contrary to the accepted ones relating to Thailand’s government with all its components, more power to them. Don’t forget that conspiracies make the world go round. It’s little people with little ideas and too much power who help whatever evil exists to continue to do so. When you punish legitimate free speech and demand consent rather than informed consent, you are not running a democracy or anything like it. If oppressive governance is so attractive, vote for Thaksin/TRT/PPP, or move to North Korea. And before you do so, kill off all the academics, researchers, foreigners, students, agitators, protesters, intellectuals, democracy advocates and others who disagree with your 1,000 year-old irony against human rights.
64 Bangkok Pundit // Jun 26, 2008 at 5:55 am
nganadeeleg: My point was it is Republican and a few others. If it is a subset it is a very small subset.
65 Andrew Walker // Jun 26, 2008 at 9:43 am
nganadeelek:
Exactly! Spot on! Different people. Different opinions. That’s how society works. So when it comes to chosing a government I wonder what the best way of resolving those differences is?
66 nganadeeleg // Jun 26, 2008 at 11:10 am
Andrew: Of course I know where you are coming from (why the masses keep choosing Thaksin and his nominees), and I also know its not simply a case of ‘country bumpkins’ being bought.
My point is that if they keep ignoring the obvious negative aspects of elected politicians such as CORRUPTION and SUBVERSION of the CHECKS AND BALANCES etc, then the MESS will continue.
When I say ‘they’, I mean everyone, but please remember, at the ballot box, it is the masses that have the power.
The chant is always for ‘Democracy’, but IMO, politics in even the most advanced democracies (the ‘west’) leaves a lot to be desired, and has just become a popularity contest based on negatives (playing on peoples fears etc).
In that regard, Thailand is similar to ‘the west’, however, at least in western democracies, corrupt & incompetent politicians become unelectable – I do not believe that is the case in Thailand.
Your championing of the rights of the masses to elect whomever they want is admirable, but IMO, your cause would be better served if you also acknowledged the obvious deficiencies of the politicians they choose.
OK, we can just accept it as ‘democracy’ and say they choose who they like and get what they deserve, but I just happen to think things could be so much better than that.
67 nganadeeleg // Jun 26, 2008 at 11:19 am
Pundit: And my point is that subset (whatever its size) are barracking for Thaksin/TRT/PPP and now Samak (Oh the irony!)
They do exist, they are on one side, and therefore they are fodder for the PAD.
68 Bangkok Pundit // Jun 26, 2008 at 2:28 pm
nganadeeleg: Aren’t some of those republican types in the sorng mai aow camp too? I don’t see the PAD bringing up Republican’s posts at NM or those of republican sympathisers in the various webboards/blogs. From my reading of the various webboards, they are quite diverse. They are strongly against the coup, but doesn’t mean they are for Thaksin.
69 Frank G Anderson // Jun 26, 2008 at 6:52 pm
The King Never Smiles online!
I had not been aware of this URL before:
http://books.google.co.th/books?id=d75WYMdp8-0C&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=yut+saenguthai&source=web&ots=AIn02RCmUz&sig=tNcLjdp8IpVNHXK0o8_HlxZ5t5w&hl=th&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP16,M1
FGA
70 nganadeeleg // Jun 26, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Pundit: Aren’t some of those republican types in the sorng mai aow camp too?
Perhaps I’ve been reading too much into Republicans support of Thaksin & his derision of the song mai ow position.
Anyway, he’s not the only Thaksin supporter on this site, nor is he the only one here who is against the song mai ow position.
Actually, I’m a little surprised he has not resurfaced here, unless he has taken a new persona and toned things down a little.
(maybe he’s busy watching re-runs of ‘on the buses’, or tending to his dogs?)
71 Reg Varney // Jun 26, 2008 at 7:54 pm
PAD got a great boost yesterday with the jailing of Thaksin lawyers. I don’t have any capacity to comment on the court’s ruling, but it does seem remarkable that whenever PAD seems to reaching a bid of a dead end, the courts, the military or the palace revive them.
It does seem remarkable that Thaksin would hand his opponents this opportunity.
Good story in the Bangkok Post today about how Saprang gave PAD a coup role back in 2006.
72 Juliana James // Jun 26, 2008 at 11:58 pm
What is ’sorng/song mai aow’ ??? I thought it must have been an idiom, but I’ve asked a whole lot of Thais & they have no idea. It comes up all the time in NM. Will someone please explain.
Obviously the literal translation is ‘don’t want 2′ – does it refer to those who only want the King, and not the government; or vice-versa? Or is it something else?
Please put me out of my misery.
73 nganadeeleg // Jun 27, 2008 at 9:19 am
Juliana: When I use ’song mai ow’ I am basically referring to the position leading up to the 2006 coup where song mai ow means you don’t want either side (Thaksin side or Sondhi/PAD/Coup side)
see the ”the electorate and the acute state of thai politics” thread in January 2008 on this site for more discussion of the position.
(sorry link not provided because I think the comment gets blocked with the link)
It may be better for one of the ‘academics’ to explain further, as this is all just a hobby to me.
74 Frank G Anderson // Jun 28, 2008 at 4:45 pm
27 June 2008
A couple of excerpts from Chotisak’s Thammasart teacher I found interesting but which others may or may not:
“If he was still studying with me I would probably rebuke, argue with, censure and warn him but Khun Chotisak has already committed this act. And as a responsible adult, knowing the difference between right and wrong, he will have to accept responsibility for what he has done following the course the law takes through the judicial process.”
“Use of a kangaroo court to harass him by going through the lips of some sectors of the press is not that much different from a sinful anti-drug war ideology to fight [at all costs] to win during the Thaksin government’s term, …”
“By way of lessons we have from the past Thais must mutually restrain themselves and stop proceeding down the same old path to run into another situation like 6 October 1976 such is now being paved. People like Chotisak, the Prachatai website and magazines like Same Sky are merely edge of the road decoys for objectives ending at government house, where Jakrabhop Penkhair and Samak Sundaravej are the goals, and Thai lives, flesh and blood are the offerings.”
75 Juliana James // Jun 28, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Thank you Nganadeeleg #73.
76 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jun 29, 2008 at 3:31 pm
On the ‘origins’ of the phrase ’song mai aw’
Re: Khun Juliana #72
The phrase originated from my writings I published online during the 2006 crises leading up to the coup. In those days I posted almost exclusively on the old webboard of the Midnight University group. Unfortunately that webboard had long been closed and I myself haven’t always kept ‘manuscripts’ of what I wrote (many times I posted ‘instant messages’ online without drafts – as in the case of this one you’re reading).
The first post I can find on my computer in which I used the phrase is the following one. But I’m not sure it’s the first time I used. The file is kept under the name “จุดยืน ‘สองไม่เอา’ อีกครั้ง” (on the stanpoint ’song mai aw’ again) I think the content of the post pretty much explains what the phrase means. The file was dated 7 April 2006 but I suspect I used the phrase before. Anyway, here it is (TW in the article refered to Thongchai Winichakul)
ว่าด้วยจุดยืน “ไม่เอาทักษิณ ไม่เอานายกฯพระราชทาน” อีกครั้ง
สมศักดิ์
หมายเหตุ ถ้าขี้เกียจอ่าน ไม่เป็นไร ไม่มีอะไรใหม่นัก แค่ลองอ่าน 3-4 ย่อหน้าแรก แล้วข้ามไปตอบคำถามที่ 2-3 บรรทัดสุดท้าย
………………………………………….
กลุ่มนักวิชาการ ม.เที่ยงคืน ประชาไท กลุ่มคุณโชติศักดิ์ คุณอุชเชนทร์ คุณกานต์ ….. ฯลฯ ความจริง ผมว่า คนแถวนี้แส่วนใหญ่ และไม่เฉพาะแถวนี้ (คือรวมถึงแถวท่าพระจันทร์ เชียงใหม่ ฯลฯ) ประกาศจุดยืน “สองไม่เอา” กันทั้งนั้น ก็ไม่ทราบว่าอย่าง TW พูดถึง fan club ของผมได้ยังไง
ผมนึกว่า เหตุการณ์ล่าสุดหลังเลือกตั้งน่าจะทำให้เห็นว่า จุดยืนนี้ไม่ viable ผมไม่ใช้คำว่า ถูก หรือ ผิด ล่ะ แต่มันไม่ viable ไม่มีประโยชน์ useless อันที่จริง ผมว่า “จุดยืน” นี้ไม่มีเสียด้วยซ้ำ เพราะในทางปฏิบัติจริงๆ ก็มีแต่จุดยืน “ไม่เอาทักษิณ” เท่านั้น (ในหมู่พวกคุณ) ผมนึกว่า เรื่องนี้น่าจะเห็นๆกันจากเหตุการณ์หลังสุด แต่เห็น TW ก็ยังยืนกรานอยู่ และเพื่อประโยชน์ในการทบทวน ผมจะขอเสนอว่า ทำไมผมเองจึงยืนยัน และยิ่งยืนยัน ในคำวิจารณ์ก่อนหน้านี้ โดยเอาเหตุการณ์หลังสุดมาเปรียบเทียบ
ผมหมายถึง จากเลือกตั้ง 2 เมษา ถึงการประกาศไม่รับตำแหน่งของทักษิณ หลังเข้าเฝ้าที่หัวหิน
จุดยืนของพวกคุณคือ
(1) ทักษิณต้องออกไป ขาดความชอบธรรม (”ไม่เอาทักษิณ”)
(2) นายกฯต้องมาจากการเลือกตั้ง คัดค้านนายกฯพระราชทาน
เอาละ ทีนี้ลองมาดูกัน
ถ้าพวกคุณยืนยัน ยึดมั่นใน (2) จริงๆ พวกคุณก็สมควรที่จะต้องประกาศสนับสนุน หรืออย่างน้อย ยอมรับ สิทธิ ของทักษิณที่จะเป็นนายกฯใช่ไหม? และต้องประนาม คัดค้านใครก็ตาม ที่ปฏิเสธ ไม่ให้เขาเป็น
คือจะอ้างว่า เขาไม่ได้รับเลือกมาไม่ได้ ถ้าคุณหนุนนายกฯจากการเลือกตั้ง ก็คนนี้แหละ ได้มาจากการเลือกตั้งแน่ๆ และการปฏิเสธ เขาที่เกิดขึ้น ก็ต้องควรได้รับการประนาม
แต่จนป่านนี้ ผ่านมาหลายวัน ผมก็ไม่เห็นใครออกมาแสดงท่าทีแบบนี้สักคน ในหมู่กลุ่มคนที่เอ่ยนามข้างต้น รวมทั้ง TW
ทำไม?
หรือพวกคุณประกาศหลักการ (2) ไปยังงั้นเอง?
ผมว่านั่นแหละปัญหาแหละ เพราะที่จริง พวกคุณ locked ตัวเอง อยู่กับ (1) มากกว่า มาแต่ไหนแต่ไร ครั้นทักษิณ ได้รับเลือกตั้งจริงๆ ก็เลยไม่รู้จะทำยังไง ปากก็ประกาศก่อนเลือกตั้งแหละว่า “นายกฯต้องมาจากการเลือกตั้ง” แต่พอมี นายกฯจากการเลือกตั้ง (คือทักษิณ) จริงๆ ก็เงียบกันเป็นเป่าสากหมด มิหนำซ้ำ เมื่อเกิดการปฏิเสธนายกฯจากการเลือกตั้ง โดยอำนาจ ที่ในทางปฏิบัติ คืออำนาจเดียวกับเรื่อง นายกฯพระราชทาน พวกคุณก็ยังเงียบอีก
ผมจึงบอกว่า จริงๆแล้ว ไม่มีหลอก จุดยืน “สองไม่เอา” จริงๆ คือจุดยืน (1) แค่นั้นแหละ
ว่าด้วยการไม่มี candidate, ตัวเลือกที่ 3, Third Term และการ “คำนวนคณิตศาสตร์” ไม่เป็น
TW หาว่าผม arrowgance ที่วิจารณ์แบบนี้ ผมว่า จากย่อหน้าเมื่อครู่ ที่เห็นได้ชัดว่า พวกคุณ ไม่ยอมทำตามสิ่งที่ตัวเองประกาศไว้เอง (2) เพราะ จริงๆพวกคุณ locked อยู่กับ (1) นอกจากเสี่ยงต่อการเป็น พูดอย่างทำอย่าง hypocrite แล้ว ในความเป็นจริง ยืนยันให้เห็นชัดๆเรื่องการ ไม่มี candidate การ “คำนวนไม่เป็น” หรือที่จริงคือ ไม่ยอมคำนวน ของพวกคุณมากกว่า ซึ่งโดยสรุปคือลักษณะ arrogance ในทางการเมืองนั่นแหละ คือ คิดว่า ตัวเอง “สูงส่ง” พอที่จะ ปฏิเสธ ทั้ง 2 พวก (ทั้งๆที่ความจริงไม่มีอะไรของตัวเองพอจะทำอย่างนั้นได้)
ความจริง เรื่อง ไม่มี candidate ของตัวเอง ซึ่งทำให้ไม่มีความหมาย (ไม่ make sense) ที่จะทำตัว “สูงส่ง” ปฏิเสธว่า “ไม่เอาทั้งสองอย่าง” นี่ เห็นๆกันอยู่นะ กรณีอย่าง TW เอง ช่วงหนึ่งที่เคยเสนอว่าให้ สส.มหาชน เป็นนายกฯ ซึ่งถ้าพูดแบบ charitable ก็ต้องบอกว่าเป็นข้อเสนอแบบ weird ถ้าพูดแบบ bluntly ก็ต้องว่า ridiculous
จุดยืน “สองไม่เอา” นี้ ความจริงไม่เคยมี หรือถ้าพูดแบบ charitable อีก ก็ว่า ไม่เคย viable ไม่เคยทำได้จริงๆ เหตุการณ์ระหว่างหลังเลือกตั้ง ถึง ทักษิณถูกทำให้ไม่รับตำแหน่ง ได้พิสูจน์ให้เห็น
จนบัดนี้ ผมก็ไม่เห็นใครในค่าย “สองไม่เอา” ออกมาคัดค้าน การที่ “นายกฯจากการเลือกตั้ง” ไม่ได้เป็นนายกฯ เลย
(ก็เพราะ มีแต่ (1) ข้างต้น นั่นแหละ)
เอานะ สรุปเป็นคำถามอีกที
ถ้าพวกคุณเชื่อมั่นในหลักการ (2) ข้างต้นจริงๆ
ทำไมหลังเลือกตั้งจึงไม่ออกมาสนับสนุน (หรืออย่างน้อยก็ defend สิทธิ) การเป็นนายกฯของทักษิณ?
ทำไมไม่กี่วันที่ผ่านมา จึงไม่ออกมา ประณาม การปฏิเสธ ไม่ให้ทักษิณ เป็นนายกฯ?
I continued to criticise the ’song mai aw’ standpoint throughout the crises and after the coup. The post I published on 21 September 2006 just after the coup was titled
“นักวิชาการ แอ๊กติวิสต์ “2 ไม่เอา” มีส่วนรับผิดชอบทางการเมือง-ศีลธรรมต่อการรัฐประหารครั้งนี้เพียงใด?”
You can read it on my block at
http://somsakcouppostings.blogspot.com/2006/09/2-1-1-2-half-hearted-10-3.html
How to translate the phrase?
I think Khun Republican was the first to write the phrase transliterally as “song mai aw” right here at NM.
The literal translation is, as you say, “don’t want 2″ or perhaps “2 don’t wants”. I think a more ‘elegant’ one would be ‘2 (Two) Rejections’
In fact even in Thai the phrase is not quite grammatically correct. But there’s an ‘origin’ or a ‘reason’ of sort for it. I, like a lot of contemporary Thai intellectuals on both sides of the current conflicts, used to belong to the CPT led leftist movement, ispired overwhelmingly by Maoism. The movement ‘literature’ (party directives, analysis, even the “disciplines” of the Thai PLA) was full of such phrases “3 ต้อง 5 ไม่”, “4 ดี 5 ร่วม”. That I “invented” such a phrase and it ’sounds familiar’ among Thai political ears was, I suppose, a kind of consequence of this history.
Since, during the past two and a half years, I’ve spent quite ‘large amount’ of my time and energy on these political writtings on line without getting any pay, I sometimes entertain the idea of ‘patent’ the phrase!
77 amberwaves // Jun 29, 2008 at 7:51 pm
>A couple of excerpts from Chotisak’s Thammasart teacher I found interesting but which others may or may not: “If he was still studying with me I would probably rebuke, argue with, censure and warn him but Khun Chotisak has already committed this act….. and Thai lives, flesh and blood are the offerings.”
So, this Thammasart teacher, does he/she have a name? I don’t actually care very much who it is, just wondering if he/she is willing to put things on the line, like Chotisak is. (BTW, most professional news organizations are very reluctant – at least in theory – to print ad hominem comments from anonymous sources, so I’m curious where this is from.)
Maybe I am misreading his/her comments, but it doesn’t look like he/she supports freedom of expression, at least for one particular point of view.
Perhaps the excerpts you didn’t post condemn the PAD, Manager website, et al for “proceeding down the same old path to run into another situation like 6 October 1976 such is now being paved”?
If that’s not the case, I’d say that’s a pretty curious reading of history for a Thammasart acharn. Who is beating the ultra-nationalist drum, after all?
78 Frank G Anderson // Jun 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm
29 June 2008
I see the originator has written himself. That leaves me off the hook! Actually, I intentionally left out the name and exact source, as well as most of the translation, in part for confidentiality considerations toward the author and in part because I may be using some of that material in a book in draft on Abuse & Consequences of Lese Majeste laws in Thailand.
I have found that there is a heck of a lot of information on the topic, but it takes a great deal of time to look it up, and most of the ‘good’ material is in Thai.
Speaking of which, I am planning to include comments by Thais specifically on lese majeste and what they think about it. Again, unattributed.
79 Frank G Anderson // Jun 29, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Lese majeste as Thailand’s first major civil liberties test?
Just wondering out loud – Why hasn’t a group gotten together yet to fight this thing in court from the perspective of infringing civil liberties?
80 Frank G Anderson // Jun 29, 2008 at 9:27 pm
29 June 2008
Correction and apology – too excited from being let outside to go get a beer!
The teacher’s comments were from:
From: http://www.weopenmind.com/board/index.php?topic=6924.msg49452#msg49452
วันเสาร์ ที่ 10 พฤษภาคม 2551
‘อย่าเดินไปสู่ 6 ตุลาฯ’ : เกษียร เตชะพีระ
Posted by Canไทเมือง , ผู้อ่าน : 90 , 03:02:13 น.
Saturday 10 May 2008
“Don’t Walk Into 6 October
by Kasien Dechaphira
81 amberwaves // Jun 30, 2008 at 5:12 pm
>The teacher’s comments were from: http://www.weopenmind.com/board/index.php?topic=6924.msg49452#msg49452
วันเสาร์ ที่ 10 พฤษภาคม 2551
Thanks for the citation. I realize sources cannot always be named, but when they can it adds a lot of credibility and broadens the scope of the debate.
Be careful with that beer in this heat — you don’t want to fall asleep and miss a posting!
82 Reg Varney // Jul 4, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Back to PAD: I found this article in the Nation (of all places!?) rather interesting and thought NM readers/bloggers might have some comments:
BETWEEN THE LINES
New politics but idea is not so fresh
Published on Jul 3, 2008
The People’s Alliance for Democracy has been flying kites to test the winds, suggesting “new politics” to replace electoral/representative democracy as it believes it is fighting a losing battle to get rid of corrupt politicians.
The inner circle of the street protesters’ group is seriously discussing its ultimate goal and blueprint for a new political scene. No clear ideology or platform has emerged so far.
To many of them, electoral democracy is not the answer to removing corrupt politicians from power. If they managed to force the government of Samak Sundaravej, whom they regard as former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s proxy, to step down and call a new election, the same political faces would win at the polls again, perhaps in higher numbers than before.
Even during the military regime, the People Power Party was able to defeat many other parties in favour with the junta. There’s little doubt about how many members the party would get in the next election to be held while it is in power.
PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila came up with the idea of new politics, apparently not his own, suggesting a mixed model to bring lawmakers into parliament. The proportion between elected MPs and selected MPs should be 30:70, he said.
It is not a completely new idea – such a system is currently being run in the Senate where half the 150 members come from elections and the other half are selected by a judge-led panel. Thailand has two kinds of senator: one has a people’s mandate from elections and the other represents the elite.
The idea of new politics has not yet come into wide public discussion but political activists and PAD critics who have been closely following the street protests said the idea of new politics would be a great leap backwards from democracy.
The groups who pushed Suriyasai to float the idea represent the elite. They actually want aristocracy, rather than democracy, to run the country. Like the current Senate, the elite, mostly in the bureaucracy and judicial areas, hope to preserve the right to pick their associates to control politics.
The military coup in September 2006 allowed the elite to swallow half the Senate but failed to take any bite in the Lower House. PAD’s second round of battle is another attempt to take a big stake. Let’s see – perhaps the second bite will be too big to chew.
83 Time to go home // Jul 7, 2008 at 8:47 am
[...] ongoing rally of the People’s Alliance for (Sufficiency) Democracy (PASD) in Bangkok demonstrates the power of this form of political protest. In the face [...]
84 Msaly // Dec 10, 2008 at 10:16 am
Sonti
Why did’t you finish the job after bwe lost many good people
It is the same as General Sorayut government
You will not have the same situation like this moment You did’t killed the snake just injour them
What to do now. You can’t start all pver again
You disappoint many good people some died for it
You see Apirug accept Navin + TRT gang Whatgoing to be from now
This is your fall You can do better But you did’t
You are disappointing the King the Thai people from alover the glob
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.