Indeed, it is still not clear what is the root cause of Thailand’s political conflict. Some academics suggest that it is essentially about the royalist establishment’s alarm that Mr Thaksin was building a base of public support to rival that of King Bhumibol. They may fear what will happen when the 80-year-old king’s reign ends. The PAD dresses itself in royal yellow and says it is saving Thailand from Mr Thaksin’s “republicanism”. Such matters cannot be discussed openly in Thailand because of its draconian lèse-majesté laws, which are often abused to sling mud at opponents.
- Extracted from “Run, Thaksin, run”, The Economist, 14 August 2008.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Aug 15, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Those who look for “root causes” of complex social phenomena cannot but fail…
2 Observer // Aug 15, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Those who ignore root causes tend to get lost in the minutia.
It is impossible to even begin to understand what is happening in Thailand without considering the pending royal succession or the chasm between those who have benefited from the system for decades and those who just got a little taste over the last six years.
3 jonfernquest // Aug 16, 2008 at 4:01 am
The obituary for Thaksin’s political life today in the Bangkok Post by Thaksin’s former spokesperson was more insightful than this Economist article, the article stresses how radical change gave birth to enemies in many quarters and conflict, not unlike Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia:
LET IT BE
For Thaksin, it is the end of the road
SURANAND VEJJAJIVA
…The TRT won the 2001 election handily…The TRT won again in the 2005 election…
Throughout, the public was willing to overlook the small “honest mistake” Mr Thaksin made in his assets declaration and the unusual share transfers…
He survived the ordeal in 2001 by a hair margin, but the storm continued to gather…
As his power grew, he became over-confident. Already collecting a fair share of enemies as he introduced radical changes in the bureaucracy, he further upset the status quo by antagonising many other interest groups, including the old establishment and the intellectuals, which were actually his early supporters….
The 2006 coup ended it all… leading to various pending cases in the courts and the NCCC.
In hindsight, it also was Mr Thaksin’s own ethical dilemma that became his undoing. Although he started his political path with creative ideas and supposedly good intentions, he could never entirely separate his public life from that of his business.
[The article on Thai telecoms in Pasuk and Baker's Thai Capital gives all the details]
His shareholdings and financial dealings tangled with him throughout his political career….
But as the financing of his businesses was perceived as being indistinct from the financing of political ambitions, and as the power of government seemed to benefit selected businesses, that trust was lost.
I sincerely hope that history will be kinder to Mr Thaksin and give due credit to his accomplishments while, of course, apprehending his failure to recognise the complex moral issues that led him to the end of the political road….
http://www.bangkokpost.com/150808_News/15Aug2008_news27.php
[Hopefully, this obituary is for real and its the end of three years of political conflict.]
4 Frank G Anderson // Aug 17, 2008 at 1:52 pm
17 August 2008
I initially hesitated to get into the foray of what really, so to speak, went wrong n Thailand that has exposed, not caused, this political and social divisiveness, but feel the need to speak.
I doubt that any single person knows what happened or who made it happen, even those who were involved and responsible for it. But that very possibly many Thais, call them democrats or just people who have an independent mind and know what democracy means, have had enough of subversion of democracy and want to be out from under the yoke. Unfortunately, when you begin to define what the yoke is and what it does to Thai society, things get sensitive and people begin to counter-react.
I am not a Jakrapob fan per se, but must state that what he said was not lese majeste, nor was that of Chotisak. Thais are falling over one another to claim the top “I am loyal” spot and cite anyone who has reservations, as they should, about the way the monarchy here is being ;run.’
The hypocrisy of the Thais, and the Thai nation, is proclaiming loyalty and love is evidenced in countless daily failures to live up to the honor and right-doing so often extolled by the king but not always practiced by members of the household and of society in general. At issue, which does inhibit legitimate social development, is the right to discuss the role of the monarchy, to comment on behavior of its members, to permit people to speak as they are entitled to speak and as they should be protected to speak.
I have said before that I strongly support the PAD in many ways, but recently faxed to them an objection in their citing of Chotisak as having committed lese majeste. He has not been officially charged nor convicted, and, to cite his actions as lese majeste in fact is probably defamation itself.
5 manning sawwinner // Aug 19, 2008 at 1:46 pm
As a Thai, let me put it simply. Please forgive me if I appear oversimplistic. I think one of the root causes is that we Thais are hypocrites at heart. Take care when you have any dealing with a Thai.
6 Sidh S. // Aug 20, 2008 at 12:20 am
“…we Thais are hypocrites at heart”. And who isn’t KhunManning? PMThaksin was learning a lot from the best and most democratic – Bush/Blair/Howard… ‘Democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are merely business transactions in the service of Halliburton’s and ShinCorp’s bottom lines.
7 Frank G Anderson // Aug 20, 2008 at 10:32 am
20 August 2008
I agree with the “who isn’t”? rationale but doubt whether Thaksin learned much from Bush et. al. Thaksin was in a class all of his own, and while he may have rationalized some of his wrongdoing because of what he saw Bush was up to, he did what he did on his own.
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.