New Mandala

15 responses so far ↓

• 1 Sidh S. // Nov 1, 2008 at 5:17 pm

  This event looks like an American-style stadium political rally to ‘activate the base’ – the main line from the Master, with his back to the wall (hence at his most dangerours), will most likely be “my people, I have been bullied by the ‘elites’ and I am innocent of all accusations”…

  And it is very dangerous times indeed with seemingly coordinated bombing of PAD guards and a Constitution Court judges house the past Wednesday (hope to get reports from the ground from Nick Nostitz soon – is it PPP/DAAD? Or another ’self-inflicted’ attack (the judge, PAD bombing themselves) as the police once hypothesized on the 7th Oct? Or a “Third Hand”…) … Thairath political commentators, who usually has the pulse of Thai socio-politics, seem to be pointing to inevitable street civil war between the Reds and Yellows.

  This will bring the security forces on to the street to prevent clashes – or to provoke clashes (assuming the “Third Hand” theory also active here). Inevitably this could force the hands of the military to intervene – but, if that is the case, I suspect another evolution of the Thai military coup, which is already rather unique (for some commentators a “soft coup” was already performed on TV). The short term solution would be house dissolution or “government of national unity” engineered by the military.

  But the long term will not bode well, as Chang Noi has written, this is mainly about PMThaksin (wanting the frozen assets back – or also formal power?) Vs PAD/those who hate/distrust him to the bone, a conflict that will define Thai politics for many years to come. I suspect they’ll be no winners here – while Thaksin’s actions, whether direct or through his multiple-proxies, is only cementing him as the most divisive figure in Thai history (and hence decreasing his chance of a return to the country in any capacity) while the PAD, distorted/consumed/poisoned by extreme hate/distrust, may take more actions that do more harm than good. This is not about ‘democracy’ or ideology.

  And here, the PAD are fighting a losing war against PMThaksin and what he represents ‘politics as business’. At the end of the day, PMThaksin is synonymous with Big Business that has invested heavily in Thai politics and feels entitled to profits, regardless of its impacts on society (or the environment). Democracy, the rule of law, accountability etc. are all twisted, through highly sophisticate media manipulation/control (international-local), to serve that ’single bottom-line’ end.

  In this civil war, PMThaksin’s local proxies, PPP/DAAD, and Democrats/PAD may end up burning the house (Thailand) down. They forget that PMThaksin is no longer in it… He IS a ‘global elite’ that complains that the ‘local elite’ has bullied him as he would complain that his Rolls-Royce’s window is smashed by some vandals…

• 2 mungo Gubbins // Nov 2, 2008 at 2:01 am

  It was reassuring to hear from Thaksin that he’d made enough money from the sale of Man City FC to support his family. We wouldn’t want the poor little darlings to go hungry would we?

• 3 Amata // Nov 2, 2008 at 1:03 pm

  I’m not sure if the policy about high-quality posting still stands. The previous contributor (mungo Gubbins) should expand a bit further what is the relevance between a sarcastic remark on Thaksin’s wealth and the implications of his speech at this rally.

  I think Thaksin did a good job in presenting himself in a rational and sympathetic manner, especially when compared to the language and reasoning used by the PAD leaders. It is understandable also that he couldn’t say much as many groups, including the judges and the military, were breathing down his neck. The threat of another of jail time if he spoke badly of the justice system (as reported by the BKK Post) was very telling. I didn’t get the opportunity to listen to the whole speech but as much as I heard, I agree with him in many points, particularly the much needed attention to prepare ourselves against the looming global financial crisis, the ruin of Thai democracy, and the double standards being applied in today’s politics. I am glad that the rally was carried out and ended peacefully. I would say that it has served its purpose well, particularly by giving the opportunity for people who were frustrated of the PAD’s political discourse to show their numbers and for Thaksin to show his oppositions that he is still very much in the picture.

• 4 David Brown // Nov 2, 2008 at 1:24 pm

  I have just arrived home from a very peaceful but inspiring rally at
  Rajamangala Stadium

  I did a careful estimate of the number of people that attended…

  in the stands there were between 60,000 to 70,000 people
  (I understand the total seating in the stands is supposed to be 80,000,
  the sections at te northern end were not much populated because they
  were behind the stage area and the audio was too echoing there)… I
  will go with 60,000

  plus, the track and sports field area was pretty much covered with
  sitting people, the front third of the ground was densely populated with
  people on chairs, the rear third less so with people seated on plastic
  and boards… more difficult to count, but its a big area

  I believe the ground area contained at least the same number as the
  stands… therefore between 120,000 to 140,000 people

  a massive crowd of happy enthusiastic people, lots of conversations
  between strangers, clapping, standing and happy smiles to each other
  during the speeches

  its obvious democracy and the policies of the Thaksin led government are
  very popular

  the crowd responded enthusiastically to calls to confront the tanks if
  the military try to stage a coup!

  by the way… I saw a report somewhere that people were nearly tearful in sympathy for Thaksin… but my observation is they just want him back here to help them save Thailsnd from the PAD and the tanks

• 5 Mungo Gubbins // Nov 3, 2008 at 5:48 pm

  I’m sorry if my initial post was below the standard Amata expects from contributors to NM. Perhaps a fawning post concerned largely with how well Dr Shinawatra has been coached by his PR team would be more to his liking? Sorry to disappoint.

  Evidently the point I was trying to make with my prior sarcastic comment wasn’t clear so I will try to explain further. Thaksin will, in all likelihood remain a billionaire even if his assets within Thailand are permanently confiscated. A majority of his constituents are plagued by poverty, yet he appeared unabashed in making plea for sympathy for his personal financial plight. I’m sure the irony wasn’t lost on all of his 20+ million detractors. Additionally raising the issue of ‘injustice’ in relation to his treatment in open court must have rankled many, bearing in mind the thousands of extra-judicial killings and other human rights abuses “of the worst kind” in which he was complicit during his time in office.

  Amata raises the issue of ‘double standards being applied in today’s politics’. Well I’m sorry but the ‘everyone else was doing it’ excuse never got me very far in the school playground as a child, and I have little patience for those who attempt to use it in defence of Thaksin today. If there is hard evidence that a Democrat MP/PAD Leader/Senator/Privy Councillor is guilty of corruption they can be given accommodation in the cell next to Thaksin’s as far as I’m concerned, and I am certainly not alone in holding that opinion.

  I’m not sure how useful the comparison between Thaksin’s rhetoric and that of the PAD leadership is. I live and work in suburban Bangkok, many of my family, friends, work colleagues etc. have been down to government house at some point to wave a hand-clapper and register their opposition to Thaksin/PPP (or more essentially to what they perceive as their brazen corruption). I have yet to meet anyone who believes in “New Politics” in fact many people find the idea embarrassing and would be far happier if the protests were restricted to a more fundamental anti-corruption message. I’m not convinced that the opinions of the PAD leaders themselves are of much interest to anyone other than a few thousand die-hard activists, and those seeking to justify their own emotional subscription to the Thaksin personality cult by using them as bogeymen.

  The vehement opposition to Thaksin does not stem from policy issues. The swathe of ordinary Thais who despise him do not do so because they didn’t like implementation of the 30B/ health scheme, or because they question the efficacy of the 1 million cow project. Neither was the anger born from an inherent Bangkokian dislike for democracy. The opposition to Thaksin stems from the heart-felt conviction that he is, greedy, power-crazed, and fundamentally corrupt. His handling of the sale of Shin Corp will never be forgotten or forgiven. His involvement in Thai politics will never be anything other than dangerously divisive as was Saturday’s self-serving intervention in the current crisis. If Thaksin is genuinely concerned for his constituents he will tell the PPP to clean up its act once and for all, and he will retire to write his memoirs in the Bahamas.

• 6 Sidh S. // Nov 3, 2008 at 9:06 pm

  Well put Mungo.
  I am not sure if this is posted elsewhere on NM yet, but here’s a link to PMThaksin’s open letter to the media after his 2 year jail conviction and also Democrat MP, Korn Chatikavanij’s open letter response to it:

  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/10/26/politics/politics_30086842.php

  As you have implied, the fundamental problem here is PMThaksin refusing to acknowledge to his darkest side (greed, corruption, conflicts of interests, human rights abuses, unaccountability etc.) and somehow believing his shiniest side (policies that benefit the poor, effective government etc.) and, hence, his popularity entitles him to be above the law…

  There are obvious reasons to love (shiny side) and hate (dark side) PMThaksin – or both, but he is not helping things by claiming/lying to the world that those Thais who oppose him because he “represent the principle of liberal democracy”.

  Well meaning and true liberal democratic societies can help Thailand along the path to democracy by encouraging PMThaksin and KYPotjaman to return to Thailand and fight their cases in the Thai courts (as was also his original intention post-2007 PPP election victory until his attempts at influencing/bribing the courts failed). In the process this will export to and reinforce in Thailand the best practices of Western democracy in regulating/minimizing conflicts of interests/corruption amongst office holders.

  Many Thais in the PAD are sadly willing to give up on democracy just to stop PMThaksin – but not because they are against democracy. It is because PMThaksin’s reduction of democracy/democratic space to the ballot box, while dismantling legislative/judiciary checks and balances, accountability, the rule of law to serve personal business interests. If the ‘world’ cares, please don’t let one man hold Thailand and Thai Democracy to ransom.

  PMThaksin has essentially admitted in his letter the crime of conflict of interests. It is a crime according to the 1997 Constitution before PMThaksin took office – as it is a crime in Australia, the UK and US etc. Please at least say it straight to his face – if he listens and repent, that could be a start to reconcilliation… But the price tag of 73 billion baht may be to much to admit to any guilt (and, really, who would?)…

• 7 David Brown // Nov 4, 2008 at 12:35 am

  hi Sidh S and Mungo

  if you look at the Bangkok Post Forum, Local politics, Law is law

  you will discover that the FIDF is not a government agence and that Section 100 specifies that a conflict of interest occurs where a public official or spouse enters into a contract with a government agency

• 8 Thaksin and the Brahmins // Nov 4, 2008 at 10:24 am

  [...] colleague in Thailand has provided me with a fascinating footnote to the Truth Today rally staged last Saturday by the pro-government and pro-Thaksin� red-shirts. According to one [...]

• 9 Sidh S. // Nov 4, 2008 at 6:32 pm

  Thanks David Brown. However, a much more accurate source would be the Bank of Thailand’s website where FIDF’s site is also located:

  http://www.bot.or.th/English/FinancialInstitutionsDevelopmentFund/About_FIDF/Pages/History.aspx

  “Juristic Status

  FIDF is a separated juristic entity from the Bank of Thailand. The Fund Management Department of Bank of Thailand carry on the operations of FIDF and provide administrative staffs. FIDF keep its own accounting records and budget. The Auditing General Office audit FIDF and report the audit result to the Minister of Finance and inform BOT.”

  Obviously from your post you are a big fan of PMThaksin – but for the sake of reconcilliation, please acknowledge his flaws too. Remember even the man himself admitted that “I am not perfect” and rather prone to “honest mistakes”. You can read my posts and see that I acknowledged his positive side and accomplishments. White-washing him is not the path to peace.

  Frankly, and I am only speaking for myself, I would be happy if he and KYPotjaman comes back and serve a year jail term and then seeks pardon (pending other possible convictions in court ofcourse – it may have to be more). Then he can come out, repented it is assumed, and reenter politics if he wishes. Who knows, we might get a truly “liberal democrat” leader who values robust checks-and-balances at the other end…

• 10 Amata // Nov 5, 2008 at 9:13 am

  Thank you Mungo for elaborating upon your sarcasm. I find your new posting more constructive. I do not disagree with you about the rampant corruption in Thai politics (or Thai society to be more accurate). But the so-called anti-corruption campaigns pursued by some state and societal actors against the TRT/PPP rather confirm my belief in double standards. It is not about ‘everyone is doing it’ but ‘why being lenient on certain groups or individuals’. I have yet to see a popular movement against corruption in the military and civilian bureaucracy.

  My idea of ‘double standards’ also extends to the value judgment exercised by influential groups, such as the media (particularly print media) and anti-Thaksin political leaders and activists. For example, why are they so slow in condemning the PAD for their use of violence and disruptive actions? Why the PAD leaders, after being set free on bail, were allowed to continue their subversive activities, including laying siege to the Government House?

  Briefly on to the FIDF case. Despite Sidh’s attempts to clarify on the FIDF regulations and the concept of conflict of interest, I continue to see it as part of the stretching of the judicary’s mandate to serve political purposes. The conviction of Thaksin on technical (only because he was the PM at the time) and ethical grounds (and funnily letting his wife go free) resembles the petty ruling on Samak, where the punishment was designed to fit a political objective rather than fitting the crime.

  I’d like to add something on the rally and Thaksin’s speech ( by the way thank you David Brown for your personal accounts). I see both as part of the recent political and ideological struggles, which I think amidst the multiple meanings to be read, two fundamental issues are at play, namely distributive justice, and political empowerment. Broadly speaking, ideas about distributive justice cuts along the rural-urban divide of the PAD’s and UDD/pro-Thaksin’s constituencies. While the debates on ‘new politics’ and the future of Thai democracy, which deal with the question of who has the power to choose political leaders, touch upon the important issue of political empowerment.

• 11 Sidh S. // Nov 7, 2008 at 6:06 pm

  Amata, may I also add another fundamental issue of ‘conflict of interests’ between business and government. This is probably a more significant issue in the context of the popular opposition (at least amongst urban-based Thais) to PMThaksin led by PAD – which occured after ShinCorp’s sale to Singapore’s Temasek. I would like to hear your views on that and also the associated alleged fraud, money laundering, false disclosure and stock manipulation related to the Winmark/SC Asset case that is currently being kept from the judiciary process (at all costs it seem).

  Interestingly the Constitution Court just striked down more stringent laws on ‘conflicts of interests’ on technicalities (lack of CNS parliamentary quorum when the law was passed):

  “Kudep glad conflict of interest law nixed”
  in
  http://www.bangkokpost.net/071108_News/07Nov2008_news07.php

  Sadly good laws such as these and also the Community Forest Bill (and to a lesser extent, the lottery bill), although far from perfect admittedly, gets shot down. Maybe the court is more consistent than you perceive.

• 12 Sidh S. // Nov 10, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  PMThaksin’s and wife’s UK visa cancellation totally missed by NM!? I expected a full blog on the subject and heated and passionate debate by now.

  Anyway, it seems that this is a hot topic in many Thai blogs and the Nation is one of them:

  “Painting Himself Into the Corner”
  in
  http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong/2008/11/08/entry-1

  The blog has interesting observations such as “Lesson of (EXILED) Thai leaders’ code of conduct”

  or for those with sympathy for PMThaksin ‘comment 221′ from ‘anthonyford’:

  “… The British, like the Kiwis and Aussies have a bureaucratic heartless process that is carried out by dry legal technicians and if the case does not stand up legally it will be thrown out as in this case…”

  Couldn’t agree more. It seems apparent that “mature democracies” don’t tolerate PMThaksin’s “honest mistakes”. PMThaksin may have made one too many technically illegal moves – not to mention morally/ethically questionable legal actions many suspect/accuse him of…

  Where will he be based next? Rumours has it that it’ll be China, Hong Kong, Bahamas (unlikely in my view – it would mean that he has chosen to really retire from politics, which his 5 year ban required anyway). I think Cambodia is also likely – but could lead to all-out war between the two countries and not border skirmishes.

  Why not Australia? It would be great to witness the Thai government being run from here from a posh Sydney or Melbourne suburb with direct flight connection to Bangkok. NM fans would definitely love it…

• 13 Amata // Nov 11, 2008 at 6:10 am

  We would probably never know exactly why Thaksin’s visa was revoked unless the UK government decides to explain its action. Even that, I doubt that a real explanation would be given.

  It is definitely a setback for Thaksin as the revocation affects his credibility in the international community and added to the confidence of the PAD supporters of his wrongdoing. But I can see that he could gain somewhat from the increasing difficulties on the part of the Thai authorities to seek extradition, as it is not clear where he now resides.

  I see this turn of event as more than just a reflection of how ‘mature democracies’ would not tolerate Thaksin’s illegal actions, whatever they may be. National interest, e.g. relieving itself from extradition pressure and keeping a distance from Thaksin’s political struggle, could be one of the factors at play. Thaksin should know better that he cannot expect the UK government to stand up for him.

  Brifely on Sidh’s earlier post (#11). I don’t have all the info on how the quorum matter got to the Constitutional Court. My hypothetical response to you would be that it is even more important now for the Court to keep its consistency. Plus, it is probably difficult to argue against a clear-cut issue like quorum requirement.

• 14 Sidh S. // Nov 11, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Amata, here’s something from The Times:

  “A Whitehall source confirmed yesterday that the Home Office had revoked the couple’s visas under rules banning entry to those convicted of offences that can carry a jail sentence under British law…”

  in

  “Home Office bars Thaksin Shinawatra from returning to Britain”

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5117925.ece

  However, I agree with you in that the real reasons are not clear cut as the UK has let many other shady foriegn figures reside in her shores. I would say had PMThaksin just stayed on in peaceful exile, investing his money into the British economy and really kept away from Thai politics – or just carry on in a more covert manner, he might be tolerated. A live phone-in to 80,000-100,000 die-hard fans was probably not a smart move in that context…

• 15 Sidh S. // Nov 13, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  GovernorApirak resigns after NCCC decides that he is guilty in the alleged irregularities in the fire truck case. The case hasn’t even gone to court yet. Whether Governor Apirak is found guilty or not, that is truly setting new political accountability standard that is to be highly commended (Thairath’s ‘politcal team’ seemed to imply that the standard is way too high). And here, the NCCC, as with the courts, seem to be functioning without fear or favour (we have to remember that they also let PMSomchai off the hook last month for a case in 1999 when PMSomchai was permanent secretary of the justice ministry).

  The international community, in this case the British government, seem to have come to senses to help aid in Thailand’s democratic growth. “You have been convicted by your courts. Go home to serve your jail term, PMThaksin” they seem to say. This is possibly the only way he can truly redeem himself, heal the societal divide, contribute to the Thai rule of law and political accountability. He might even become a “hero of Thai Democracy” coming out of his 2-3 years term. At least history will judge him in a slightly better light.

  Instead he wants “his people” to vote for his innocence by planning a travelling ‘Reds’ rally nationwide (even possibly causing a division in the Buddhist clergy by wanting to stage the next rally at WatSuanKaew, a famous Nonthaburi temple). It is this PMThaksin’s and TRT/PPP extreme narrow definition of democracy that fires the anti-democratic demons in the PAD’s middle-class supporters’ distrust of the rural electorate…

  Meanwhile let’s cast an eye for how other young democracies in the region are faring. Taiwan’s ex-president Chen Shui-bian is now in custody for corruption:

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7723686.stm

  What did Mr.Chen say?

  “Mr Chen, who stepped down in May, denies all the graft charges and claims they are politically motivated.” (of course, to be fair to PresidentChen, we’ll have to let the case speak for itself)

Leave a Comment