New Mandala

21 responses so far ↓

• 1 ratisee rumruay // Sep 11, 2008 at 1:40 pm

  Let’s hope that former PM Samak thinks of the country most of all, and will not seek the coming premiership. Let’s be prepared to give him a big hand and wish him a well-earned rest.

• 2 Jim Taylor // Sep 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  Nonsense! this has nothing to do with Samak- he is the right man for the job- honest, direct and tough enough to handle these buggers- PAD want to bring down the legitimately elected government and install their own puppet (guess who that is?)

• 3 matty // Sep 11, 2008 at 5:35 pm

  My bet is those prepaid PPP party members will heed the long-distance advice from the exiled fugitive paymaster Thaksin Shinawatra at UK and renominate Samak Sundaravej as PM. Samak Sundaravej has to accept the renomination of course . . .Samak too is prepaid to do a proxy job for at least 7 months . . . and he has only fulfilled seven.

  If only Thaksin Shinawatra could muster enough mojo to face all the judicial cases against him . . . and more probably win . . . then Jim Taylor won’t be crying a river at his tiresome post about his Dear Leader.

• 4 Ed Norton // Sep 13, 2008 at 8:48 am

  SO has the bet been lost matty? Can PAD now go home? I guess not. According to the Bangkok Post: Ousted prime minister Samak Sundaravej ended his campaign to regain his position on Friday – and street protesters of the People’s Alliance Democracy vowed to step up their campaign to overthrow the rest of the government.

  So, in the end, another election result is looking like it will be overturned.

• 5 Jim Taylor // Sep 13, 2008 at 10:15 am

  … Many of my Thai colleagues, most in fact long time Democrat supporters, are now coming around to the realisation that they were blinded by Sondhi and his game show and overlooked the gains to the Thai people during Thaksin’s time. But propaganda is effective. This is the latest: Suriyasai said last night that PAD would only accept an unelected Democrat Government with Abhisit as [puppet] PM otherwise there will be a coup. PAD would not stop unless a “special” government was formed under these conditions. Second option was a formula with five other parties to join with Democrats to form a government- though still with Abhisit as PM. This is all going to be determined in parliament by mid-week. If, within 5 days this does not eventuate then there will be a coup. This is the third option: a military-Democrat fascist alliance as in September 2006. Now, Somyot, from the “24 June Democracy Group” announced in Nonthaburi that enough is enough. He asked people to gather on 19 September (Friday) at Sanam Luang. This is the anniversary date of the illict 2006 coup. PAD clearly want to override the rule of government and democracy in a fiction of creating an autocratic democracy. If readers cannot see this, then the world really has turned upside down in the decline of morality and virtue predicted in the suttas. We should all be prepared to keep an open mind but there seems to be little honesty anymore. As my friend Prof Yos Santasombat at Chiangmai Uni said recently “…so what’s wrong with my saying I like Thaksin or that his policies actually worked”? The trouble is that most people have now gone too far to turn around. Like many academics of Thailand I was also anti-Thaksinite (I didn’t as a rule like rich folk) in the early years while teaching at Pol.Sc., Chula. I read too much of the Sondhi’s free media during Thaksin’s time -that was anti-Thaksin), and knew both Chamlong and Surayud at different times, one post 1992, the other in 2005. But over time I came to see through the smoke and distorted mirrors being erected by Sondhi and friends out of personal greed, jealousy and hatred, and of course a loss of traditional power bases by these folk. Yes Matty I am crying, but not for myself but for Thailand. …

• 6 matty // Sep 13, 2008 at 11:34 am

  “PAD clearly want to override the rule of government and democracy in a fiction of creating an autocratic democracy. ” – J Taylor

  Is ‘autocratic democracy’ defined as that arbitrary 70/30 solution from PAD J. Taylor? Or is there more? But I can only agree with PAD that after evaluating all the current political parties, the Democrat Party seems to be the best choice by a wide margin among the bad lot. But that hardly qualifies the ‘Democrats’ as fascists, unless you believe all those b/s from Fonzi.

  Hell I don’t know what PAD wants. But whatever it is, I don’t want any part of it.

  But I can see J. Taylor that despite Thaksin’s divisive politics, mother-of-corruption run, extra-judicial killings, huge tax cheating and many other ‘honest mistakes’, you are still enamored by the Thaksin charisma.

• 7 Jim Taylor // Sep 13, 2008 at 1:42 pm

  It was not Thaksin who caused divisiveness. The divisiveness that has led to the serious split in Thai society was created by Sondhi not Thaksin. Sondhi has created a lot of bad kamma in his lies and spins and has lots to answer for as Thailand goes down the gurgler. Thaksin actually brought the country together very effectively as the majority of people saw their own prosperity and opportunity grow. Markets flourished at all levels. It also benefitted efficient enterprises such as Shin Corp. Again, in relation to “mother of corruption run” (whatever that means??) I reiterate, there
  have been only innuendos and rumours on corruption as a necessary ploy to discredit him and legitimise the coup and the ambitious Democrats who know they would never get back into power following the existing rules of the game given TRT’s popularity. Since late 2006 until early this year the coup-makers set up a massive bureaucracy to find evidence against Thaksin. I knew a chief prosecutor tasked with this by khor Mor Chor. To date there is no evidence. This is despite enticements to pay informers and bride former colleagues. What happened was Sondhi would start a rumour in his media such as …(this I can recall to memory) “Thaksin has gone to Singapore with suitcases hidden full of Thai banknotes” & etc…The media then ran with this. In the process it actually became a truth that many believed (because they wanted to believe this). Thaksin was super-rich sure; his highly publicised sale of his shares was a commercial decision as the market was right at the time; his tax exemption for tax on this was applied to all investors who sold shares. Why should he be singled out to pay tax if he was not supposed to pay tax? It may not have looked good…Neither would I pass a guilty verdict on a man because of his character. I would not pay tax if I didn’t have to. There was no “tax cheating” as you put it. The problem was simply the sheer scale of the transaction & the Sondhi media making this a national crisis issue. We really need to be fair in passing judgement based on heresay, conservative propaganda and vested interests as the old guard try to regain some of their lost cultural capital…

• 8 matty // Sep 13, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  Uh uh Jim Taylor. Let me repeat your story.
  1) Sondhi L. is a good for nothing bankrupt. This is fact and I don’t dispute this point.
  2) Thaksin S. is a very successful billionaire who turned politician then led the biggest political party in Thailand to win an overwhelming majority and became Thai PM. He is loved by millions of Thais. Again this is fact and I don’t dispute this point.
  3) Now tell me again Jim Taylor why did Thaksin S. choose self-exile and not face those many legal a-l-l-e-g-a-t-i-o-n-s (still innocent until prove guilty ok?) just because his wife Potjaman was recently convicted of tax evasion?

  Sumtingwong . . . does not make sense. A defender of democracy, and a protector of the poor and an honest politician, with millions of people still adoring him, do not behave like a Thai criminal rat and seek protection by hiding under the skirts of the Queen of Britain.

  Sumtingwong . . . .

• 9 Nick Nostitz // Sep 13, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  “Jim Taylor”:

  You posted:

  “It was not Thaksin who caused divisiveness. The divisiveness that has led to the serious split in Thai society was created by Sondhi not Thaksin.”

  Personally i do try to get away from the battle of the elites when i can. I believe the divisiveness in society has not been created by either, but only brought to the surface by mostly Sondhi L. and his backers as a counter reaction of TRT’s mobilization of previously relatively unpoliticized sectors of society.
  I do see the reasons more in decades of mismanagement of the country, especially by some social classes having unproportionally benefitted from Thailand’s boom years, while other sectors, especially the rural poor of the Northeast and the North, including the ones formerly from those disadvantaged areas and social classes now morphing into the suburban industrial underclass, have lagged behind.
  Rightly or wrongly – the aspirations of those people were increasingly reflected in TRT policy and politicians, and Sondhi L. and his movement, and the ones who backed it, have both a deep distrust of those, and a so typical lack of knowledge of these sectors of society, their way of lie and their problems.

  Instead of trying to understand, PAD dehumanizes these rural poor, insults them on a constant base, and will not accept that these people voted for TRT/PPP out of rational thought and not because they are bought/duped/uneducated. That way PAD is fueling a already dangerous social situation here in Thailand, and in the way of progress.

  There is a huge reluctance in the Army to stage a coup. So far, most sectors have, after the failed aims of the last coup, accepted that military coups are no solution anymore in Thailand, and make things only worse. Otherwise we would have seen a coup already the evening before both camps clashed, as there was ample forewarning of what was to come.
  It still might come to a coup if the situation turns unbearable, but i believe that most factions in the army would not like to be forced into a coup. The so far visible army backing for the PAD is from already retired Generals, whose still active supporters have very few key positions necessary to stage a pro PAD coup.

• 10 nganadeeleg // Sep 13, 2008 at 7:45 pm

  I would not pay tax if I didn’t have to. There was no “tax cheating” as you put it.

  Here’s a tip for you Jim: Try using tax havens, maids etc as nominees & concealing assets – it might even make you good PM material.
  (I hear PPP are struggling to find a suitable candidate)
  

• 11 matty // Sep 13, 2008 at 8:10 pm

  Isn’t it ironic that for nearly two weeks now Thailand has a bankrupt (Sondhi L.) literally occupying the Thai PM’s office . . .

  Each day Sondhi L, the bankrupt, holds on to that Thai PM’s office, is one more day the Thai nation gets closer to its own political and economic bankruptcy.

  The noise is deafening but Thailand is asleep . . . only the wolves stir.

• 12 Jim Taylor // Sep 13, 2008 at 9:50 pm

  It seems that some folk need further evidence…

  Thailand’s New (Old) Politics
  FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA
  September 2, 2008

  “Democracy is the worst form of government,” Winston Churchill once remarked, “except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Thai citizens might want to remember that when they listen to the latest ideologue who promises to fix their country’s democracy by — once again — breaking it.

  For much of the last week, Sondhi Limthongkul and his People’s Alliance for Democracy followers have occupied Government House, disrupted flights and briefly taken over a state-run television station. Mr. Sondhi claims that the current government, led by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, is a proxy for former leader Thaksin Shinawatra; both of whom, he alleges — and they deny — are corrupt. If he succeeds in ousting the government, Mr. Sondhi promises to run “a clean and efficient political system.”

  He may want to review his history. After leading street protests against Mr. Thaksin in 2006, the same Mr. Sondhi and his followers cleared the way for a military coup. The ensuing junta-led government sent the Thai economy into a tailspin by clamping down on foreign investment, restricting capital flows and seizing intellectual property. The junta then forced through a constitution to entrench the military — and Bangkok elites — in power.

  Mr. Sondhi isn’t much of a democrat himself. Back in July, he outlined his vision for a “new politics,” under which only 30% of members of parliament should be elected. The rest, he argued, should be appointed by various professional classes, while the military’s role should be expanded. The bulk of Thailand’s voters — rural, and poor — would be disenfranchised.

  The real problem with Thai politics, from Mr. Sondhi’s and the PAD’s perspective, is the voters’ irritating habit of electing Mr. Thaksin and his followers. After a year-and-a-half of military governance, Thai voters overwhelmingly plumped for Mr. Samak’s PPP in December, giving them over half the seats in the parliamentary lower house. That’s not a bad showing in what was seen to be a largely free and fair election.

  Prime Minister Samak has refused to bow to Mr. Sondhi’s raucous demand that he step down, and rightly so — he has an electoral mandate, after all. But he is quickly getting pushed into a political corner. On Friday, when he ordered police to evict protestors from Government House, pursuant to a court order, the protestors fought back. The ensuing melee evoked memories of 1976, when Mr. Samak — who was deputy interior minister at the time — talked up anticommunist rhetoric at a time when leftist students were protesting in Bangkok. The military later brutally cracked down on the protestors, killing and wounding hundreds. Mr. Samak denied that he helped spark the riots.

  The stalemate has left a big opening for the opposition Democrat Party to exploit. On Sunday, during an emergency session of parliament, opposition leader Abhisit Vejjajiva asked Mr. Samak to resign and hold elections. If the opposition were serious about protecting democracy, they would get behind the government and call on the protestors to go home. A party spokesman yesterday said that so long as they respect the rule of law, the party supports all Thais’ right to free speech and assembly.

  By egging on the protestors, however, the Democrats, like the PAD, are playing a dangerous game. If the Samak government is overthrown, there’s no telling what might follow it. The best way to “fix” democracy isn’t to junk it, but to let it mature through peaceful transfers of power.

• 13 rookie // Sep 13, 2008 at 10:33 pm

  Another coup by Anupong or whoever at this time is suicidal. To launch a coup is easy but what happens after that ? You must find good excuses for a coup, find a new prime minister, present him to the King, etc. Besides, the PPP grass roots in the North and Northeast and democratic-minded people in Bangkok are more than ready to deal with another coup because they have learned a lot from the previous coup staged by the bigamist Muslim general Sonthi. In other words, the resistance to this new coup will be massive and unimaginable.

  Those of you who live overseas do not read vernacular newspapers and listen to local radio stations as I am doing everyday. One daily reported that a military officer nicknamed Sae Daeng had helped train members of the anti-PAD group called UDD, which led to the unfortunate clash last week. I am sure this military officer was upset to see an Army general with full uniform had blatantly joined PAD and climbed the stage to attack Samak. The radio station I listen to belongs to the taxi drivers association and both the announcers and the phone callers expressed disgust at the continued occupation of the Government House.

  With this in mind, I would like to stress again that another coup is suicidal and people will rise to oppose it immediately, unlike last time when some stupid people offered flowers to the coup-makers’ soldiers.

• 14 jonfernquest // Sep 13, 2008 at 10:34 pm

  “The best way to “fix” democracy isn’t to junk it, but to let it mature through peaceful transfers of power.”

  Thaksin “junked” democracy way before the coup got to it (See Pasuk Phongphaichit and Chris Baker (2004) “Thaksin dismantles Thailand’s Opposition,” Far Eastern Economic Review, March 2005)

  Peaceful transfer of power? You mean “peaceful transfer of power” back to the PPP and then back to Thaksin, after gerry-rigging the constitution and appointing cronies to every conceivable office so that we can start heading down the one party, one leader road again?

  Thai democracy has evolved with coups, most recently with coup legislation that could never have passed under a house of business interests that bought their way into the house, with non-elected appointed auditors like Jaruvan, and public Thai TV stations. The 1997 constitution itself arose in the wake of a coup. Coups (hopefully now only the threat of a coup forcing compromise) are part of the evolution of Thai democracy.

• 15 Jim Taylor // Sep 14, 2008 at 11:17 am

  Rookie- that is good; accurate and well penned. Others listen to the propanganda and twisting of truths by Sondhi media corp that they can no longer see truth when it stares them in the face (jonfernquest is a classic case of these easily-duped nazis). My suggestion to those who really want to know is to get out (yes, even in the taxis), listen to the ordinary folk, hear about their struggles, frustrations and sincere love of a man and his government that was illegally dumped in a “good”? coup by elitist interests (and the law then rewritten to protect them from any future prosecution); a former government which gave them hope, moderate prosperity and power, and opportunity. They voted more than once and their voice is not going to be heard. Even vote buying, comon to all parties, leaves the buyer with a choice.

• 16 matty // Sep 14, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  From Jim Taylor: ” . . . Even vote buying, common to all parties, leaves the buyer with a choice.”

  What was the point of this sentence and what depth of inanity have you now descended yourself into Jim Taylor?

• 17 Jim Taylor // Sep 14, 2008 at 6:29 pm

  Matty thanks for the credits: it makes sense as “consumers” voters can choose. If you have all parties offering to buy votes then logically you would still go for the person/party that serves you best? Got it?? And that is what happens. Spend some time in the villages next election (if there is a next free election)

• 18 matty // Sep 14, 2008 at 7:46 pm

  Jim Taylor may I remind you, before you bloviate more on your inane conviction about vote-buying, that buying and selling of votes is illegal (unconstitutional, got it?) in Thailand, and illegal in USA, and illegal in Europe and in . . . . . . . . must I go on?

• 19 jonfernquest // Sep 14, 2008 at 7:48 pm

  Matty: ‘What was the point of this sentence and what depth of inanity have you now descended yourself into Jim Taylor?”

  Exactly, that vote-buying is good seems to be counter-intuitive to everyone except anthropologists, perhaps working under a “weapons of the weak” assumption.

  None of the local power bosses or their canvassers behind the vote-buying has enough knowledge or foresight to build a canal to bring much needed water to a village only three kilometers away from it (example from shadow finance minister Korn in weekly Bangkok Post column).

  Buy votes, then reap the awards from political power, and share it with your cronies who cooperated, e.g. children of canvassers get to go to special schools (dek fak), or get the lottery scholarships, none of which is written up in a local newspaper (or even education sections of national newspapers with section editors to eager to endear themselves to the MOE) so that villagers can actually understand what is going on. Good point, Matty.

• 20 Ed Norton // Sep 15, 2008 at 2:31 am

  matty: Isn’t vote-buying illegal in Thailand? I don’t follow the point. Taylor was explaining a market model of votebuying, which is not uncommon in the literature, including for countries where vote-buying is illegal (and including Thailand).

  jonfernquest: you cite anthropologists as a problem on vote-buying. Chang Noi must be an anthropologist. Somchai (in JCA special issue) must be an anthropologist.

  I happen to agree with the “anthropologists”, but if you disagree, rather than name-calling (as the term “only anthropologists” is used), wouldn’t it make more sense to call on research about vote buying that is comparative? To help you along on this serious subject, try Schaffer and Schedler (http://www.stanford.edu/~albertod/docs/Bellagio_Schaffer_Schedler.pdf):

  From their abstract: “Many scholars view vote buying as a simple economic transaction: parties and candidates distribute material benefits to individual citizens in exchange for support at the ballot box. Drawing upon a variety of comparative experiences, this paper argues, however, that the commercial aspirations of vote buyers often run into objective as well as intersubjective barriers. On the objective side, seller compliance is uncertain as vote buying does not take place within a “normal” market protected by social and legal norms. On the intersubjective side, electoral practices that outside observers describe as “vote buying” may carry very different meanings in different cultural contexts. To assess empirical claims as well as normative judgments about vote buying, the paper concludes, we need to be aware of the potential gap between our idealized, commercial model of vote buying and the way it actually works in the world.”

  Also: Nichter, Simeon. 2008. Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot, American Political Science Review 102 (February): 19-31 and Hasen, Vote Buying, California Law Review, Vol. 88, October 2000.

  On Africa see http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/abstracts/161.htm

  On Argentina: Brusco, Nazareno and Stokes, Vote Buying in Argentina, Latin American Research Review – Volume 39, Number 2, 2004, pp. 66-88.

  This literature can, of course, be sifted for conclusions that support any number of current political positions, but it is a literature (dominated by political scientists) that considers the market model seriously. There’s also a bunch of game-theoretic stuff on vote-buying, if you want a truly mind-numbing experience.

• 21 Jim Taylor // Sep 15, 2008 at 9:51 am

  New Government line-up. BTW, Jonferquest and Matty may be happy …. and especially as they learn this is my last contribution! The ignorance around me is too much. These guys seem to be on the back feet in a losing position of moral justification! And the reality is that vote buying will go on for a long time until consumers realise it is useless. That is a gradual process of democratisation. There are after all lots of things happening in Thailand that are “illegal” right now?? (just look around). So, now for readers here is the line up of the new Government that will be announced mid-week (no need for elections folk; pro-PAD intellectuals including academics who still support them know-best):
  1. Abhisit (PM/Fuehrer – though his popularity even among the urban faithful is declining as he slips and slides around)
  2. Sondhi, Minister of Mass Propaganda (formerly Mass Communications)
  3. Suriyasai, Minister of Education to eduacte the rural voters in “democracy” new Thai-style
  4. Phra Photirak, Minister of Religious Affairs (and newly proposed Sangkharat)
  5. Chamlong, Minister of Defence (back with the boys where he always wanted to be)
  6. Prem (Chief Government Advisor and supreme Puppet Master of the “Amaat” conservatives)
  7. Panlop, Head of Gestapo (to keep the masses in line from ever thinking their voice actually counts anymore)
  8. Jaran, Head of Justice & the new portfolio: “Keep Trying to Find Hard Evidence Against Thaksin” (it must be there somewhere right?)
  Duncan, who I do admire, got it nearly right: However “Network Monarchy” in fact does not start and end with the king but in fact the real power broker: Prem. We need to talk with those who really know. That’s been a problem with a number of Thai political economists in that much comes from a selective intelligentsia. Incidentally guys, what did the Democrat Party actually do that had any real outcomes even in their heartland -the south? They were even prepared last month to informally give a wink to the destruction of national economy and local businesses in their electorate with the illegal airport blockades: Motives? We know they have never done anything useful for people in the south as all useful projects were initiated or completed during the governments run by other parties such as Chat Thai, Chatichai and Banhan, and more recently TRT, Thaksin. But you all may be intereested to know that there is still some hope as the new ABAC Bangkok Poll found that 58% (even in the metropolis) want PPP with Sompong to be next PM; less than 20% want PAD. In summary I’d say that there is no need for a coup (as one or two bloggers note) because the military already established a route to power & control since 2006 thanks to the flower-givers by emplacing mates in the judiciary with a set agenda using Sondhi’s imaginative fiction; the appointment of 73 hand-picked unelected Senators, also with the same criteria, and a compliant Democrat Party and Brown Shirts (wearing yellow) in the streets. Then the military don’t listen to the parliament (the state of emergency was ineffective anyway) and they just get the Democrats to create dissension among PPP and its minor party constituents; even pay them if necessary. Neat: No need for a coup eh??

Leave a Comment