Yes, it paradoxical how Jakrapob gives a 5th grade Thai history lesson to highly paid and intelligent foreign journalists, during happy hour, and at the end of his little story of Thai history, at the end of the “patronage system,” who is standing there heroically in bold relief, the Hegelian culmination and perfection of all Thai history?

Jakrapob’s patron.

Then his conclusion:

J: “Thaksin did right or wrong it’s up to history to judge.”

Yes, read the article on Thai telecommunications in the recent Baker and Pasuk volume, that article accurately summarises how he used the political power of his premiership to pump money out of his telecommunications business.

J: “You can drag him to court or international court of justice, doesn’t matter.”

That will be difficult because he has lots of money, unlimited ability to harass judges with defamation suits and arrest warrants and a lot of friends in the police department which does not operate transparently by any means.

J: “What matters is what he has put and imprinted in Thailand.”

That would be division and political strife.

J: “It’s something that people never felt before.”

Probably a good thing. Rewards usually go with economic progress, as in South Korea under Park Chung Hee or China nowadays.

Dumping money on rural Thailand without reforming the corrupt system there is like putting a bandaid on a bleeding ulcer.

J: “He almost did not do anything for the Bangkok people because he felt that they didn’t need him that much.”

No, because divide and rule was an essential part of his tactics.

Sidh: “We have to remember that it is PMThaksin’s TRT that rendered the parliamentary process and almost all checks and balances against against the ruling party ineffectual.”

Yes.

Sidh: “We also have to remember that PMThaksin’s TRT is the first democratically elected Thai civilian government to sanction police ‘death squads’ against “drug dealers and addicts” and send the full might of the Thai military on poorly armed/unarmed Thai citizens in the South.”

Yes.

Sidh: “How do we even begin to reverse this? For a start make sure that PMThaksin’s cases, already investigated, gets to court and are transparently tried.”

Yes.

For one, why are we picking on the poor, hapless Democrats with so little discussion of the all-powerful TRT-PPP political machine? I suspect it’s because they are perceived as a royalist party, in contrast to TRT-PPP who occasionally display anti-monarchist sentiments that many in NM can relate to (”they are one of US and not THEM”).

While the Democrats are clearly not angels, at least the have the decency not to be bought into some sort of ‘national government’ and served as opposition for the past eight years (could we have a democracy without an opposition?). In the context of other political parties clamoring to be part of government like hungry ghosts (preta) and Thai politics where being in opposition is equal to perpetual starvation (from the cookie jars), the Democrats have shown a lot of principle and integrity.

We have to remember that it is PMThaksin’s TRT that rendered the parliamentary process and almost all checks and balances against against the ruling party ineffectual. After selling ShinCorp to public outcry, PMThaksin promised to answer questions in parliament and reneged on that and instead chose to dissolve parliament (which I see as a Singaporean-style ‘bankrupt the opposition through elections’. I mentioned then that part of the reason the Democrats boycotted the elections is because they did not have money after almost six years in opposition. It was only before the 2007 elections when some big political contribution flowed their way and even then, they lost the bid against PMThaksin’s money to form government). If all formal mechanisms of checks and balances fail, politics of resistance naturally migrate to the streets.

We also have to remember that PMThaksin’s TRT is the first democratically elected Thai civilian government to sanction police ‘death squads’ against “drug dealers and addicts” and send the full might of the Thai military on poorly armed/unarmed Thai citizens in the South. Why are these cases not investigated and prosecuted? I suspect it is because many high ranking policemen and army officers will also be implicated. This is a very sad state of affairs for the Thai rule of law.

How do we even begin to reverse this? For a start make sure that PMThaksin’s cases, already investigated, gets to court and are transparently tried. When the most powerful person in the country is in the docks, there’s a much better chance that, one day, the others (politicians, bureaucrats, policemen, army officers, business tycoons – of any political color) will have their turn.

The fetish myth of NM Vs Networked monarchist will not push any of this forward (from the point of view of an un-networked monarchist ofcourse).

As others have stated – and you can access AHRC site – the Thai courts and judicial system are corrupt.

I would have thought that a fair reading of the Streckfuss article was exactly that LM cases are not transparent or fair. The Veera M. case was clearly a beat-up.

That a law exists does not make it fair or reasonable and free of political and elite interference. So I reject your view that “The underlying purpose of this law, however, is completely legitimate, to maintain the central position of the monarchy in the constitution of Thailand.” This law is illegitimate because of both its intent and its implementation as a highly politicised limit of political freedom. I suspect that we can go no further on this discussion as you are happy with a law that restricts while I reject it.

I did not “miss the point” at all.

The fact that his inflammatory impromptu remarks have been interpreted in so many ways is clear evidence that he was not being careful in what he was saying, that seems to be a fundamental purpose behind LM laws.

Impromptu speeches during happy hour at the FCCT are not the proper vehicle to carry on this sort of discourse.

“Bad laws and repressive laws are always challenged.”

All laws are challenged. All laws evolve. This one will too. The underlying purpose of this law, however, is completely legitimate, to maintain the central position of the monarchy in the constitution of Thailand. Jakrapob made a big mistake challenging this, effectively adding it to the agenda of all the other conflicts that are currently going on.

“See Thongchai’s piece in the JCA special issue.”

Is this another publication only available to academics with access to special databases? McCargo’s network monarchy piece is missing from Chula’s library. I can guarantee most people who work at newspapers in Thailand, like myself, could not read this article even if they wanted to.

“The selective enforcement of the law – as you yourself have blogged before – does not amount to a positive. This remains a critical problem for Thailand, especially when the courts are corrupt.”

I agree with the selective enforcement part which is pretty clear from the following article which I could get ahold of since I have JSTOR access:

Kings in the Age of Nations: The Paradox of Lese-Majeste as Political Crime in ThailandAuthor(s): David StreckfussSource: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 37, No. 3, (Jul., 1995), pp. 445-475Published by: Cambridge University Press

I wouldn’t say that the courts were corrupt in the lese majeste case. The painstaking procedures and legal rules are detailed in Streckfuss’s paper.

Its not a republic v. constitutional monarchy question. Its a question of do we really have a choice. Hardly has anybody been advocating rule of law, transparency, or human rights in Thailand’s public sphere. They talk about it, but no one actually does it. Sondhi, Saphrang, Surayud, and now, Jaruvan. Not on the scale of Thaksin, but what is the definition of rule of law again?

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/12Jun2008_news09.php

BTW, Jon, I would not say those are positive steps towards the rule of law. Politically motivated enforcement of law is hardly rule of law. In fact, it sows more discord than upholds justice.

For an election in NM “TRT=Thai Republic Party” trounces “Democrat= Thai Royalist Party”. I suspect it was never the question of ‘democracy’, ‘rule of law’, ‘human rights’, ‘media freedom’, ‘corruption’…etc…etc… Ah, the poor Thais – what chances do they have when the Ivory Tower misplace their priorities and dwell on personal fetish???

Thailand’s Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy on Thursday announced a ban on political parties meeting and barred the establishment of new parties.

Just under the wire of the ban, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva slammed the coup. He demanded military leaders call elections in six months – not a year as they said – and accelerate political reforms if they are serious about a swift return to democratic rule. “We cannot and do not support any kind of extra-constitutional change, but it’s done,” said Mr Abhisit on Thursday, just before the ban on political party activities. The country has to move forward and the best way forward is for the coup leaders to quickly return power to the people and carry out reforms they promised,” he said. “They have to prove themselves. I urge them to lift all restrictions as soon as possible,” he said of the coup council.
…

“There is no need to write a brand new constitution,” said Mr Abhisit, whose Democrats are the country’s oldest party. He and academics from Thammasat University said the 1997 “People’s Charter” constitution was basically sound but Thaksin had exploited flaws in its checks and balances. “They could make changes to the 1997 constitution and if that’s the case, there is no reason to take a year,” Mr Abhisit said, adding: “Six months is a good time.”

This is a bit weak isn’t it? Not really a brave attack on the military leaders, is it? Sounds like he supported getting rid of Thaksin by undemocratic means but wanted to get back to a post-TRT period as fast as possible. Makes the “Democrat-except-when-you-can’t-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-OK Party” seem plausible. Maybe there are other quotes where he is less wimpish (please post them if found).

His comments on the constitution make interesting reading now.