Thailand: The Cockroaches take over
Giles Ji Ungpakorn
Turn Left Thailand
The appointment of “Democrat” Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as the new Thai Prime Minister is the final stage of the second coup against an elected government. After the deliberate chaos created by the PAD’s seizure of the airports, the courts stepped in to dissolve the hugely popular governing party for the second time. The Army chief then called a meeting of Democrat Party parliamentarians along with some of the most corrupt elements of the governing coalition parties. It is widely believed that the Army chief and others threatened and bribed MPs to change sides. Chief among them is “Newin Chitchorp”, who was named by his father after the infamous Burmese dictator.
The Democrat Party is known among the cyber community as the “Cockroach Party”. This is because cockroaches live in filthy places and can survive even nuclear holocausts. The party has survived for many years, forming governments after various crises. These so-called Democrats have systematically backed anti-democratic measures. They supported the 2006 coup, the military constitution and the PAD. One Democrat Party MP was the leader of the mob that took over the international airport. Over the last 30 years, the Democrat party has never won an overall majority in parliament. It does not represent the people. During the Thaksin years it spent the whole time criticising the universal health care scheme and other pro-poor policies. After the 1997 economic crisis it used state money to prop up the banks and guarantee the savings of the rich, while telling the poor to fend for themselves and depend on their families. Even Abhisit’s name in Thai means “privilege”. He is an Oxford graduate from a wealthy family.
The first coup, on 19th September 2006, was a straight forward military coup, using tanks and soldiers wearing Royal yellow ribbons. The military junta tore-up the democratic constitution and replaced it with an authoritarian one. Half the Senate was appointed by the military and many so-called independent bodies were staffed by junta supporters. The military appointed themselves to lucrative state enterprise positions. Then they got the courts to dissolve the Thai Rak Thai Party despite the fact that it had won repeated elections.
Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai party was and remains hugely popular among the majority of Thais. This party introduced the first universal healthcare scheme and projects to stimulate village economies. The aim was to develop Thailand as a whole, increasing the education and health status of the general population, thus turning them into “stake-holders”. This was a winning formula, an alliance between a pro-poor capitalist party and the poor, both urban and rural.
But Thaksin’s modernisation plans, which also included major infrastructure development such as public transport projects for Bangkok, upset the Old Order. This “Old Order” is not headed by the King, as many commentators think. The Old Order is made up of local political mafias, the army, conservative judges and the Democrat Party. They were joined by businessmen like Sondhi Limthongkul, who initially supported Thaksin, but fell out over personal interests. The PAD mobilised a fascist-style middle class mob to cause chaos. They seized the Government House, destroyed offices, stole weapons and then tried to close parliament. Their final act was the take-over of the two international airports with the open support of the military. The PAD and the Old Order want to reduce democracy further. They want to reduce the number of elected members of parliament, stiffen Lese Majesty laws and destroy the alliance between the poor and Thaksin. They are angry that the poor have become politicised. They hate the fact that state budgets were spent on healthcare, rural development and education. Instead they want to cling to their old privileges, espouse strict “Monetarism” (except for elite and military spending) and advocate that the poor should be “Sufficient” in their poverty. These people use neo-liberal free-market ideas in association with the King’s “Sufficiency Economy” ideology. Their excuse for opposing democracy is their belief that the poor are too stupid to deserve the right to vote.
The Thai King has always been weak. His status has been systematically promoted by military juntas and the elite in general. We are all socialised to think that the King is an “ancient Absolute Monarchy”, while at the same time being within the Constitution. This picture of power creates a shell to protect the entire ruling class and the status quo under a climate of fear. The army especially needs such a legitimising shell because it is no longer OK for the military to hold political power, unless it can claim to protect the Monarchy.
In previous political crises, such as in 1973 and 1992, the King only intervened late in the day after it was clear who had won. In the present crisis the King has remained silent and has not made any attempts to resolve the crisis. He missed his annual birthday speech on 4th December this year, claiming a sore throat.
The Royal dimension to this crisis is that it is a struggle between two elite groups. One side have been much more successful in claiming Royal legitimacy. But ironically this claim by the anti-Thaksin lot is causing a crisis for the Monarchy because it associates PAD violence and law-breaking with the Monarchy and the actions by the military have created an image that the Monarchy is against the majority of the population. The support shown by the Queen for the PAD has also angered or disappointed many Thais.
The new government will be made up of a coalition of some of the most corrupt and unprincipled politicians. This shows that the elites’ opposition to Thaksin was never really about preventing corruption or vote buying, despite the fact that many ordinary middle-class people might have felt that it was. Even the Democrat Party has a history of vote buying and corruption. The Democrat governor of Bangkok had to resign recently under a corruption cloud. Yet the party was not dissolved by the courts. So far, Thaksin and his fellow politicians have only been found guilty of technicalities. No serious corruption charges have been proven. No evidence of real election fraud has ever been unearthed. In fact, Thaksin’s party was reducing the importance of vote-buying through pro-poor policies. This is what angered the Old Order. It meant that they could only overthrow his government buy promising more to the poor or by using various means to organise coups.
There are a number of questions which need to be put to the new government:
1. Will the government punish PAD leaders for breaking the law, including the Democrat MP who took over the airport? Will the PAD be made to answer for the damage at Government House? Will the Democrats expel their MP who lead the airport occupation?
2. Will the military chiefs be sacked for breaking the law and intervening in politics. Will they be sacked for giving the green-light to the take-over of the airports and thus compromising airport security?
3. Will the government defend the undemocratic constitution or will it amend the constitution to increase democracy?
4. Will elections be held as soon as possible to allow the Thai population to have a say?
5. What serious measures will the government take in order to protect the poor from the economic crisis. What job creating policies do they have? How can they stop workers being sacked from factories. Will they increase wages and cut VAT in order to stimulate the economy? Will they increase taxation on the rich in order to help the poor?
6. Will the government punish state officials who murdered unarmed demonstrators in the South at Takbai during the Thaksin government? Will they withdraw troops and police so that a peaceful political solution can be achieved?
7. Will the government ensure a balanced media by allowing significant space for Red Shirt anti-government critics? Or will the government increase censorship and media bias? Will they repeal the Lese Majesty law and allow public scrutiny and criticism of the courts?
Many of us can guess what the answers will be….
41 responses so far ↓
1 Angelo Michel // Dec 15, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Typical fascist discourse, the “beloved great leader”, “the red hero” is out for good, he will probably never return, his “people” are furious !
TRT/PPP/PT are all the same thing : a tool to put, keep or bring back THE LEADER to power, they failed, hence the furor …
NB: What’s the german translation for LEADER ?
2 crocodilexp // Dec 15, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Well written.
It takes cojones of steel for a Thai citizen to write and sign this. For the time being, I’m afraid it will be in vain, but without people like Ji there would be no hope for change.
3 Joost // Dec 15, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“The Democrat governor of Bangkok had to resign recently under a corruption cloud”
Wasn’t it PPP’s Samak who set the price and signed the contract for the purchase of the fire trucks? I believe Apirak, when starting his term as governor, paid the price in that contract, which was the cause of the corruption charges.
I agree with most of this article and it raises some very important questions. But maybe it’s not very useful to discuss corruption when comparing Thai political parties. Corruption is a part of Thai society and happens at all levels, I don’t think many people believe that there is a party/side that is completely clean.
Corruption accusations are being made by all sides, and however valid, don’t really make much of a difference in choosing sides.
4 Nigel Woodward // Dec 15, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Sorry, but I fail to see why figures of the political left such as Giles Ungpakorn get so excited by Thaksin Shinawatra and his motley assortment of crony capitalist buddies. Lest we forget, Thaksin Shinawatr entered politics with a view to becoming a Thai version of Lee Kwan Yew, the Singaporean strongman who ruled the city state of Singapore for decades unchallenged. With this in mind, he set about constructing a political party that would control the rural heartland of northern and northeastern Thailand. To do this, he turned to the very same figures that were anathema to modern democracy in Thailand, the regional power brokers and godfathers who had used money politics and patronage networks to take control of political power and dine on the state budget. Although it is true that Thaksin’s TTT party had on board some figures from the political left who undoubtedly influenced policy, the core of the party were the same local godfathers and overlords who had been feasting on state budgets in preceding years. Thaksin’s main innovation, if you can call it that, was to use his financial clout to bring this raft of local feudal lords under the ticket of a single party, thus ensuring its electoral success with a hefty majority. He was still, however, beholden to the regional power brokers who put him in power.
It is hardly surprising, then, that the Thaksin government, rather than being a pillar of modern democratic values focused on narrowing the enormous gap between rich and poor, instead turned out to be deeply corrupt and, in many fundamental ways, little different to preceding regimes. Thaksin systematically undermined and took control of the checks and balances laid down within the 1997 constitution, gagged the free press through the use of either financial means (withdrawing advertising revenue from dissenting press voices) or legal threats (prosecution using Thailand’s arcane libel laws), and allegedly backed a wave of extra-judicial killings during the so-called “war on drugs.” The main difference between the Thaksin regime and others that had gone before was that he had secured a significant electoral majority by cozying up or buying off such a large number of regional power brokers and thus had a free reign to run Thailand and change the rules to consolidate his stranglehold on power. If the strength of multi-party democracy is in the assurance of accountability, something had clearly gone wrong.
It would be disingenuous to demonize Thaksin and his regime in comparison, say, to the opposition Democrat Party. All party politics in Thailand is deeply mired in the same cesspool of money politics and patronage. Arguably, the roots of this run deep within Thai culture and belief systems. In Thailand, the animistic belief system in which the environment is inhabited by a host of amoral spirits which must be placated through offerings left at spirit houses has its counterpart in the way Thais react to influential figures within their own communities. Such figures are potentially dangerous and, likewise, must also be placated not challenged. The morality of political leaders may not be part of the equation when people are making their mark on a ballot paper. Neither will considerations of how the corrupt practices of locally elected leaders may impact on the state and its ultimate ability to develop sectors such as education in the medium to long term. People are more likely to look for short to medium term benefits to themselves and their community, which local leaders may deliver once elected. The millions of baht stolen by the said leaders once they are in power are unlikely to concern most of the electorate.
The current political quagmire in which Thailand finds itself cannot be understood within the framework of left and right wing politics typical of Western political discourse and the elevation of Thaksin by certain political writers to the moral high ground of the political left is misplaced. The most convincing interpretation of the current situation is that of various groupings of powerful and wealthy figures jockeying for position in the twilight of King Bumiphol Adulyadej’s reign. This is largely a battle between wealthy elite groupings for the spoils of the state; it is not a fight between a rich elite on the one hand and a poor rural population on the other.
5 Bert // Dec 15, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Abhisit was described on SBS News this evening as being associated with “clean politics”. Is this at all true, or total garbage ?
6 Thorn // Dec 15, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Khun Joost (comment 3)
While it was Samak who initiated the deal, Apirak had a chance to review and reject it.
Apirak, despite the warning from Banyat and other Democrats members to avoid corruption charge by stalling the deal, decided to give a green light to the deal. It is this act that costs him the Governor seat.
If you can read Thai, then go to the news link here:
http://www.matichon.co.th/matichon/view_news.php?newsid=01pol05201151§ionid=0133&day=2008-11-20
7 Roger // Dec 15, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Nigel, after reading your comment I re-read Ji’s editorial/comment. I don’t see any place in there where he said Thaksin was a man of the left, nor that TRT was a party of the left. I also didn’t see anyplace in there where he said Thaksin or his party were not corrupt. In one place he did say that no real vote-buying had been proven, which I happen to agree with, and that Thaksin, Samak, and the PPP were convicted on technicalities, which I also agree with. Especially Samak. Although Ji is a Marxist, I don’t see that he is using a Marxist framework in this analysis. I believe your analysis is exactly right, that Thaksin’s aim was to become another Lee Kwan Yew. Whether he would have succeeded or not is moot now. The point I think Ji was making was simply that to finally win an election the Cockroach Party will probably have to adopt some of Thaksin’s techniques.
As for Angelo, you need to get out more and stop watching so much ASTV.
8 redandwhitestripes // Dec 15, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Despite the fact I disagree with so much of his work, I admire and place great value on Ji Unpakorn. He often brings a logic and viewpoint that many Thais seem to lack the faculty to reach. However, Ji’s views of Thaksin and the TRT often seem one sided. For example, he quite rightly opposes the Lese Majeste law yet always fails to mention Thaksin’s often ruthless opposition or – more often – subtle suppression of the media in Thailand.
9 Dorm // Dec 16, 2008 at 2:45 am
In case Ji hadn’t noticed, Thai politics had always been the domain of cockroaches. Some of us don’t forget. Some of us will never forgive the mainstream of thai politics. Have some principles and stick to them! Raise your own leaders instead of accepting the first rich idiot that comes along.
10 Mariner // Dec 16, 2008 at 3:07 am
For heaven’s sake Nigel, read Giles’s post again and try and understand it this time.
11 Frank Lombard // Dec 16, 2008 at 12:11 pm
All this having been said, the Democratic Party is the only party in Thailand with an institutional basis. The other are lead by personallities.
Political organizations must mature beyond the godfather level for a democracy to flourish.
Frank Lombard
BKK
12 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Dec 17, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“The Cockroach Party”? Are we talking พรรคแมลงสาบ or พรรคแมงดา? Considering the colloquial meaning of แมงดา, I think the later is much more appropriate.
13 Amata // Dec 17, 2008 at 1:22 pm
K. Frank, being a political party with an institutional basis does not make the Democrat Party more legitimate to rule than the others, nor is it necessarily a contribution to democratization. In this most recent case, the Democrats’ legitimacy and popular mandate are rather questionable. Who could blame the weak party system, when it has not been allowed to institutionalize. Doesn’t it say something to you that the Democrat Party always emerges unscathed from a political struggle between the military and politicians? Isn’t it the party’s royalist, elitist, pro-establishment stand one of the main reasons it has survived this long? I would be happy to see Thai political parties mature beyond personalistic contest too. But how do you expect we get there if extra-parliamentary forces keep interfering with politics?
Kudos to Ajarn Ji.
14 markle // Dec 18, 2008 at 4:27 am
Along with Nigel I am often alarmed by the left/democracy purists’ support for Thaksin. To believe that his party was popularly elected in the same sense that Barack Obama was, is blinkered beyond belief. The undemocratic way in which he was deposed and his ‘party’ consequently obstructed is no measure of his democratic legitimacy.
The hope I see with Aphisit is that like his mentor Leekpai, his political style is more ‘consensual’ than most other leaders and potentially lead Thailand through this mess. His might not be the most ‘democratic’ or ‘popular’ ascension to power, but it may prove to be the least divisive and ultimately stable.
15 David Brown // Dec 19, 2008 at 6:50 pm
markle…
actually I think after infamous predecesors such as Phibun and Sarit, Khun Thaksin headed the most “stable” period of government in Thai history
As far as I know the Democrats have not managed any extended “stability” in office
it will be interesting to see if Abhisit can head a “stable” “consensual” government … perhaps he will be consensual because his lack of political and business experience means he will be led around by the team of Democrat executives that according to the Bangkok Post will be making all the real decisions
actually the hallmark of democracy is not stability, its tensions between opposing views resolved by voting
of course setting up a reputable and reliable legal system is the stabilising factor that is needed no matter what political system a country has…
we await reform of Thailands legal system so that rich (PAD, etc) and poor (red shirts, etc) are not treated differently!
16 HC lau // Dec 19, 2008 at 9:13 pm
The divisiveness is cused by the Democratic party and its backers who refuse to accept election results. With control of the militry and the police, it is easy to cause divisiveness. – Simply refuse to take orders from the elected govt – then blame the govt for ineffectiveness. other than the Democratic / Military /PAD triad of endless protest and blockades, please tell me, how else have the PPP govt failed???
Ultimately, always needing to upturn the country to get to be the govt, does not reflect well on the democratic party in the eyes of outsiders who have no vested interest. If it is institutionalised then I say, please dismantle the institution. Warlords and roving gangs of maurauders were institutionalised in early civilisations – we did not really want to keep them!
having said that, I guess is a form of political system, however if you subscribe to that, then please do not insult the rest of us by calling it “democratic”
17 markle // Dec 21, 2008 at 2:48 am
Interesting points raised,
David,
I was not equating ’stability’ with ‘oppression’. And I kind of welcome his apparent lack of political and business ‘experience’ in the Thai context. We will have to wait and see.
“actually the hallmark of democracy is not stability, its tensions between opposing views resolved by voting” Which opens up the debate (to be followed elsewhere) whether the type ‘democracy’ the West so stridently seeks to impose is appropriate to cultures such as Thailand which value consensus, conformity and community much more than confrontation and competition. I am not against democracy in Thailand, quite the opposite, but I am prepared to allow it to take forms and functions that don’t conform to the pure democratic idea.
18 De Oppressor Liber // Dec 22, 2008 at 8:20 am
In my opinion, Ji represents two important symbols. First, he is a Marxist scholar who analyzes Thai politics with depth of knowledge and integrity. Second, he is Dr. Puey’s son, one of the most important Statesmen in our country and the world. This aspect of Ji, is more crucial because it relates to Thailand’s national security and the Asia Pacific stability.
Ji heavy weight’s credibility as a scholar and his reputation as an integrity person, have made the enemy of Thailand frighten. Ji has an in-depth knowledge about Thailand, the enemy of Thailand knows that they can not fool Ji. More important than anything else which Ji himself might not aware of it, Ji has the capability to disrupt the enemy of Thailand’s objectives. As a result, they have to attack Ji’s reputation. We must distinguish the reason why and which aspects, the enemy of Thailand attacks Ji.
Ji, you are born with the responsibility to protect the Asia Pacific’s security. Please continue to be the lighthouse of the region.
19 Ralph Kramden // Dec 22, 2008 at 9:36 pm
De Oppressor Liber seems to be entranced by Ji. I do agree that (along with Jon) the Ungpakorn name carries weight. However, Ji’s Marxism is narrow and does not enjoy much support in Thailand. His tendency to attack even his friends for their alleged theoretical failures causes some angst among those who do recognise the role he plays.
At the same time, there is a small Marxist literature that comes out of the defunct CPT (that Ji rejects out of hand as Stalinist and the root cause of all of Thailand’s problems) that is worth considering. Thong Chaemsri, for secretary-general recently came out with a piece on the 66th anniversary of the founding of the CPT. This is found at Prachathai. Also, Surachai Sae Dan has recently spoken with some reporters. I haven’t found a paper or lengthy article by him yet, but if anyone see anything, please post to NM.
Of course, others associated with the last days of the CPT have been on the PAD stage too (e.g. Chonthira and Pirun). Interesting times!
20 Frank G Anderson // Dec 24, 2008 at 7:55 pm
1. Will the government punish PAD leaders for breaking the law, including the Democrat MP who took over the airport? Will the PAD be made to answer for the damage at Government House? Will the Democrats expel their MP who lead the airport occupation?
Answer: Abhisit has publicly said that wrongdoing PAD members would have to face the music. This is more than Thaksin ever did.
2. Will the military chiefs be sacked for breaking the law and intervening in politics. Will they be sacked for giving the green-light to the take-over of the airports and thus compromising airport security?
Answer: Did they give the green light? Proof, Ji? Proof.
3. Will the government defend the undemocratic constitution or will it amend the constitution to increase democracy?
Answer: I personally witnessed rural drafting and comments for the new constitution and can attest that it was put together more honestly than many before it.
4. Will elections be held as soon as possible to allow the Thai population to have a say?
Answer: Unfortunately, much of the population does have, as many Thais themselves have said, a water buffalo mentality – IE, “Love Thaksin.”
5. What serious measures will the government take in order to protect the poor from the economic crisis. What job creating policies do they have? How can they stop workers being sacked from factories. Will they increase wages and cut VAT in order to stimulate the economy? Will they increase taxation on the rich in order to help the poor?
Answer: Have you asked what the lasat three inept administrations did in this regard, other than make a bunch of useless promises?
6. Will the government punish state officials who murdered unarmed demonstrators in the South at Takbai during the Thaksin government? Will they withdraw troops and police so that a peaceful political solution can be achieved?
Answer: Democrats have begun setting up a separate agency for the south, and as we all know, Democrats enjoy southern sympathies for good reason, primarily lack of corruption.
7. Will the government ensure a balanced media by allowing significant space for Red Shirt anti-government critics? Or will the government increase censorship and media bias? Will they repeal the Lese Majesty law and allow public scrutiny and criticism of the courts?
Answer: The lese majeste law will not be repealed unless Thais and/or foreigners litigate against it. So, Ji, let’s join as plaintiffs in this if you please…
21 Moe Aung // Dec 25, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Nigel’s probably right that this is largely a battle between wealthy elite groupings for the spoils of the state and you are left with the devil you know or the lesser of two evils which unfortunately is often the case everywhere else in the world. Democracy is also a term so widely abused and something often violated if it doesn’t go the way you want.
22 Nantida // Dec 27, 2008 at 10:23 am
Democracy means government by the people, rule of the majority. A government in which the supreme power is vested in the common people and exercised by them through a system of representation. It is a system with an absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
The reason the democrat party is being called the Cockroaches Party is because the Thai military and the Palace had unfairly intervened in the democratic process. The military coerced and bribed the small coalition parties by locking them up in the motel without any cell phones. They were not allowed to communicate with the outside world. The military put them in a small van, brought them to the parliament and forced them to vote for the Cockroaches Party. This is not democracy.
Abhisit Vejjajiva is illegitimate because he knows so well that he cheated on the process but he has no ethical standard to admit the fact. Every Thai male goes through a period of military training. However, Abhisit Vejjajiva has no shame to be a draft dodger. No country would want a leader one is shame of, wouldn’t you?
23 Ralph Kramden // Dec 27, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Nantida is a little too red on this. Draft-dodging has a respectable history in some parts of the world at certain times – think of all the Americans who fled to Canada and elsewhere during the Vietnam War.
Actually the comparison with Abhisit is with George W. Bush. He did other service and it seems that Abhisit did as well. George didn’t show up much… Maybe Mark wandered off as well. The elite avoid these things easily.
There are many better things to criticise Abhisit for! Get him on substantive current issues – his lies, his compromised position, his elite position, etc. etc.
24 Nick Nostitz // Dec 28, 2008 at 4:23 pm
“Frank G Anderson”:
A few comments on your post.
Abhisit may have publicly stated that wrongdoings of PAD are to be prosecuted. Yet, so far no arrest warrant is out against PAD members, even not against the members that were filmed shooting at Reds at Vibhavadi Soi 3, with their faces exposed. Very much to the dismay of police. It took though only a day to issue arrest warrants against Red Shirts that have thrown stones at vehicles of Democrat MPs, a comparatively minor offense than the attempted murder and serious bodily harm charges these PAD guards have been filmed at.
Where is the questions of the Thai media regardless this fact, and the answers of Abhisit?
And as we all know, a high profile PAD member was appointed Foreign Minister. As if Thailand has not other experienced, yet untainted diplomats available for the job.
Also Abhisit’s personal support for PAD, in action, despite his words, are still not much topic – where, for example he personally interfered in the court ordered dispersal attempt by police on 29/8/2008.
“Water buffalo mentality”?
A slight simplification – these people voted for Thaksin, because under his government they have experienced a higher standard of living than under any other government, as a direct result of “populist” policies. There simply is no talking away this fact. This is democracy, and so far i have not seen the Democrat Party ever campaigning under a policy platform, and the little declarations of intent they have issued, they have never followed up upon.
Two Democrat governments without much improvement in the North and Northeast i have witnessed here in Thailand are ample proof.
If you believe that the Southern Democrats are less corrupt than the rest of the country – than you are mistaken. They are as much part of the patronage network system as anybody else, and this is the most corroding influence of a democratic and egalitarian society that there is. Worse than mere pecuniary corruption, which is one of the side effects of patronage.
The South is in a financially more secure position, mostly due better land, better rain, closer proximity to the oceans. Such a better economical position obviously helps. But corruption is striving there as it does everwhere in Thailand (ever observed the business community in the southern provinces, it’s famous underworld?).
Has the military government under Surayudh punished any official, police and military, that has killed unarmed protesters? No. So far the only punishment on these has been inflicted by the Thaksin government – a whooping transferal to inactive posts.
Don’t expect the Democrats doing any heaver punishments, or investigations.
In the three southern provinces the Democrats do not enjoy any more support than TRT/PPP/Puah Thai. Politics there is strictly local, and no government in Thailand will be able to restore confidence with the Majority Muslims, because their demands will not be met by anybody. Just see what happened with the under the Thaksin administration installed NPC – its demands were shot down straight away, and not just by Thaksin, but more powerful sectors of society were strictly opposed. Democrats are very much in debt to those sectors.
The lese majeste laws? I might be mistaken, but i slightly remember that during the Samal adminsitration the democrats issued a statement in which they demanded increased prison terms for lese majeste.
This law is not going away, under no administration, and no civil action, as you seem to propose, will make any difference.
I expect the same from the Democrats they have always delivered – No Action Talk Only. And i have not been disappointed in this core Democrat quality during this short period of their not so publicly elected government, so far.
25 soi watcher // Dec 28, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Respectable history ? Michael Moore in his film Fahreinheit pointed out that sons of US senators also did draft dodging. So the authorities approached poor black families to be recruited as soldiers and sent to Iraq to die ! Certainly the sons of Thai rich families like the Vejajivas are scared of the rigors of the military life and prefer to enjoy life at Eton and Oxford. Abhisit’s priveleged life can be clearly seen at the way he held the broom during a recent clean-up of the Govt House after the PAD goons left.
Abhisit’s draft dodging is a bad example for Thai youths and in view of the coming Children’s Day in January, Abhisit should be ashamed to give the annual slogan to Thai children in his capacity as PM. One caller to the taxi radio station cynically suggested that the 2009 slogan for Children’s Day should be “nee taharn wan nee, pen nayok wan na” (If you can dodge military service now, you will become a prime minister in the future) !
26 Nantida // Dec 29, 2008 at 3:52 am
Dishonest people are comfortable when they lie. The word honesty has no meaning to this type of person. Integrity is a universal norm regardless of the perspective one holds. It distinguishes right from wrong.
Ralph Kramden has intentionally misled the issue by comparing different contexts. The United States has a law allowing those who have conscientious objection to war to avoid serving in the military. In the case of George W Bush, his father was the CIA director at the time, so he was not allowed to be outside the U.S. Instead, George W had to serve in the National Guard military unit as a pilot.
In Thailand, Thai males go through a military training. If one does not want to be in the military, the reserve option is available by training only during weekends. Thailand was not in any war scenario during the time Abhisit Vejjajiva avoided military training. In Thailand, only female can avoid military training, Abhisit Vejjajiva chose this option instead, in short, a draft dodger Abhisit Vejjajiva.
In the new dawn of mainland Southeast Asia, the majority of people strive to bring progress, equality and liberty to better ourselves. We reject cockroaches!
27 Frank G Anderson // Dec 29, 2008 at 8:39 am
Where’s all the proof about Abhisit’s draft dodging?
There is another way to avoid the draft as well – live abroad until past the age. Sort of like the Canada thing without intent to specifically escape the draft.
28 Frank G Anderson // Dec 29, 2008 at 8:47 am
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1631&Itemid=159
29 Titima // Dec 29, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Frank G Anderson copied the title from Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History”. They both have the same objective. Listen, the World War II was over, Germany and Japan lost the war, move on, would you?
After reading his article, I must say his dirty trick is obsolete, he is too old for the new generation. It is pathetic to see someone writes about Thailand when he does not even know the current news about Abhisit Vejjajiva’s draft dodging.
30 Ralph Kramden // Dec 29, 2008 at 6:36 pm
For Frank: I am wondering why Gen Anupong was reported in the press a few days ago saying that the statute of limitations (or whatever it is) has passed on the case so it is no longer a legal worry for Abhisit.
Both Nantida and soi watcher miss the points of my post. As I said, Draft-dodging has a respectable history in some parts of the world at certain times. There was no defense of Abhisit by me. Comparing him with GW Bush was to show how the elite avoid the requirements and laws that are applied to the lower classes. My main point is that this issue will not go far and there are better issues to attack Abhisit on.
31 Nick Nostitz // Dec 29, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“Frank G Anderson”:
Another article of sophisms, halftruths, and exageration to support the elitist notion that Democracy may not be such a good idea for Thailand (and other countries, as you suggested in this article).
Thank you, yes, we foreign correspondents do not ignore the shortcomings of the Thaksin period, we have actually spent all these years criticizing his rule (with less intimidation than is suggested in your article – i can’t remember having had to dodge bullets and grudgingly obey armed guards while reporting under Thaksin, as i have had with PAD). Yet harping on past events and glories, to excuse the maybe even more undemocratic actions such as a military coup is a fruitless exercise.
First of all, vote buying does not have the effects anymore it had in the eighties, there is ample academic evidence for this available. Even Korn had to admit in the FCCT that PPP had spend less in the North than the other big parties. Every party engages in vote buying, so do the Democrats. Which should be clear to everyone that has observed rural elections over the last decades.
And the maybe more serious, but more difficult buying of MPs is also now evidently done by the Democrats. Or do you believe that Newin and his friends had now a miraculous transformation from Saulus to Paulus?
Thaksin’s promises were not “impossible-to-fill”. Even with the problems of implementation, they have still meant a considerable rise of standard of living for the main upcountry population.
This was a marked difference from previous governments, where little was promised, and nothing delivered. As i have observed for the last nearly two decades, and very much during the after crises Democrat administration, which can be seen as the catalyst of the rise of TRT.
Thaksin’s promises were in the eyes of his voters fulfilled, and that is why TRT/PPP was elected again, and again. Accusations that only vote buying and intimidation achieved that impressive result is pure exaggeration, as if the Northeast and the North is actually consisting mostly of secret Thaksin opponents that would prefer to vote for Democrats if they were not bought and intimidated.
Was Thaksin a representative of pure Democracy? Clearly not. But Democrats are neither. The difference though is, that TRT/PPP/Puah Thai is based on popular support, the basics of democracy, while the Democrat rise to power, especially the engineered parliamentary election of Abhisit is more than murky.
Instead of glancing over and supporting such machinations, it would be better to suggest the Democrats to actually campaign on a policy based platform, for a change, and gather popular support, which then may result in not having to rely on extra-constitutional powers and some of the most corrupt elements of Thai politics, as they always did.
Comparing TRT/PPP/Puah Thai to Algeria’s islamic fundamentalists is fishing for arguments, and hardly comparable to Thailand, only to serve articles of support for PAD. TRT is not a religious based cult of fanatics.
His vocal opposition though, the PAD, does resemble that characterization more (do you remember the episode of Sonthi, his trance, and the resulting implementation of women’s hygienic napkins in expelling evil Cambodian spirits that were accused to have been evoked by the man that now made Abhisit’s rise to power possible?).
And the now ruling Democrats are far too closely aligned with that PAD, several of its MPs being PAD members, and the appointed foreign minister being a very high profile PAD member.
Instead of going on about what Thaksin has done wrong (well known already), such an article about the current situation should also contain some of the current problems.
32 Frank G Anderson // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Where’s the beef?
Abhisit’s so-called draft dodging seems to have found an explanation, as well as not having been properly charged in the first place.
As to hearing about rumors and pretending to know they are true, I would rather remain silent. If that means, to you, that I don’t know about them and it makes you happy, fine. But all these years in my dirty old life I have made it a habit of refraining from repeating unfounded or difficult to support allegations. Rumors are nice, and details sometimes juicy, but proof is proof.
33 Frank G Anderson // Dec 29, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Thaksin’s promises were not “impossible-to-fill”. Even with the problems of implementation, they have still meant a considerable rise of standard of living for the main upcountry population.
Can you provide any evidence of this considerable rise in the standard of living for the main upcountry population? I have yet to see it.
34 Frank G Anderson // Dec 29, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Nick:
I am not sure I said or meant democracy would not be good for Thailand. I believe the thrust was that the way people are going about it is not good. The Algerian comparison was intended to only underline the fact that good intentions can go awry quickly, especially through the voting process.
35 soi watcher // Dec 31, 2008 at 1:30 am
Abhisit’s draft dodging is not rumours but a well known fact to the extent that Army chief Anupong himself had to admit it but conveniently asserted that the legal stature has expired (more than 20 years) and Mark cannot be punished but the STIGMA will follow him for the rest of his life. Of course Anupong is protecting him but the defense seems to be futile because Thais will judge Mark from the ethical, not the legal point. Sons of many rich Thai families are dodging military service by offering bribes but these boys do not intend to become PM. As for proof of Mark’s inaction, it is his responsibility to provide proof by showing to the whole world that he has “Saw Daw 49″ document which shows that he did indeed take part in the “ken taharn” program.
A few years ago, when my son turned 16, his school asked him to join the “Raw Daw” program, which is a modified and simplified version of the real 2-year military service. He would put on his military uniform on Saturdays and go to an army camp to listen to “boring lectures on national defense and patriotism” for 3 years. At the end of the third year, the instructors would take him and others to a real army camp to stay for a week without taking showers where they were supposed to run up and down the hills with a wooden rifle. He was of course very tired but now a proud owner of a certificate issued by the Territorial Defense Dept. This is something that Mark should have done years ago.
36 Nick Nostitz // Dec 31, 2008 at 4:09 am
“Frank G Anderson”:
Without the voting process you don’t have democracy. Modern democracy is based upon the idea of equal voting rights for all. Everything else, especially the strange ideas of representation by associations and appointed (by whom?) representatives as suggested by PAD is pure hogwash.
Can things go wrong? Yes. Democracy does not promise to give a “good” government – only a system of peaceful settling of political differences through parliament and as a basic function – the electoral process.
It is well known that the TRT rule had significant problems, especially in the checks and balances systems. These problems are still there. As we can see with the so called “independent” organizations siding with PAD, where organizations such as the National Human Rights commission, Poll Watch, and the National Counter Corruption Commission are still, against all proof and evidence, call the PAD protests “non-violent”.
It also is rather transparent when arrest warrants against PAD offenders, even though names and identities are known (such as the driver of the blue pick up truck on 7/10, or the shooters at Vibhavadi Soi 3) are not issued by the supposedly independent courts.
The 30 Baht system, with all its faults, was a clear improvement over the previous systems for the poor. Especially significant was the inclusion of ARV’s for HIV infection, which has changed almost overnight the death rate in villages, such as in my wife’s village. Problems of implementation? Yes, many. Underfunded, partially? Yes.
But it was a start.
Initially i was very critical about some of the revolving loan systems. But i have been convinced otherwise. For many people this became a clear improvement. Necessary funds needed for planting and harvest were now available for acceptable interest rates, and not anymore for completely outrageous rates from underground money lenders.
Of course this increased the statistical average household debt. But were the debts with money lenders of the underground economy ever counted in the statistics?
As bad (and unnecessary) as the drug war killings were, overall the drug war has resulted in a significant decrease of the spread of drugs (which have made a huge return in especially the last months of political turmoil). Drugs were, and are again, a massive threat to society here, especially the poor sectors. Many urban and rual communities did, especially in the period of ‘97 to ‘02 run on drug economy.
These are the reasons why people voted for Thaksin/TRT/PPP. These policies have improved people’s lives. These are simple policies that should have been introduced already in the early 90s, but weren’t.
If the Democrat Party cannot manage to campaign based on a policy platform, and draw a popular vote, then they should stop complaining about TRT/PPP/Puah Thai, and start becoming a modern political party which offers something to the rural electorate.
People will vote in every democracy for the government that improves their life. And the Democrat’s track record, especially in the Chuan 2 administration, is not impressive in this aspect.
It obviously does not help gaining the trust of the upcountry population to appoint a high profile PAD member as foreign minister.
37 Frank G Anderson // Dec 31, 2008 at 11:13 am
I am not sure whether any comment on these weak presentations in the name of argument will prove of any benefit.
Farmers are worse off, not better; people in general have to work harder to get by, not less; drugs are again rampant and the idea that the thousands of killings were somehow “bad.”
Your entire argument sounds like Thaksin wrote it for you.
That a so-called PAD member should become foreign minister, the more power to him.
Recall who it was that drew first blood in the PAD/UDD-DAAD standoff? And did the government step in? No.
Thailand is replete with missing activists, dead bodies on the streets, silenced voices and a near-Mussolini-type worship of certain individuals and institutions. These are danger signals.
Thaksin is rumored to have benefitted the country this way and that, usually without comparable statistics and reference against what the situation is now and what part Thaksin had in it.
The 30 Baht health scheme, as beneficial as it was and is, cost the country dearly because it was populist and not properly planned or budgeted for.
38 Nick Nostitz // Dec 31, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“Frank G Anderson”:
You begin confusing some issues here.
And thank you, the sublime argument here, that my “entire argument sounds like Thaksin wrote it for” me i vehemently reject. I have been already accused to have accepted bribes by Thaksin, nothing new there, just because i have not followed PAD ideology. For the record – i haven’t, none were ever offered. I am broke as i ever was, work with the cheapest photo equipment that a professional can use, and drive to events with a cheap Thai made motorcycle, and not a hired limousine and driver. I would ask you here not to continue in this tone.
I do try my best to report objectively, and base my arguments on what i see in the field, and not what ideologues churn out from stages.
Farmers have been worse off since the beginning of the political turmoil, and not because of Thaksin. I have been building up a farm here during the Thaksin years, and after at first rejecting to take advantage of the revolving loans, my family has in the end greatly benefited from them. We have taken loans for very modest rates of interest to finance crops, and repaid them in full. We have taken a loan to buy a “Lot Thailand” – one of the cheap all purpose lorries, and only through renting its services out besides our own farm work we can pay back the loan and interest.
The family has now motorcycles, TVs, fridges, without being in unmanageable debt, where previously they had nothing. And after having traveled in and reported from many provinces, i have seen that my wife’s family was not an exception.
And i clearly recall the first “blood” that was drawn. That was already three odd years ago on Royal Plaza, when lone Thaksin supporters held up pro-Thaksin signs at the first Sondhi L. event there. I was there.
Violence in political conflict in Thailand is ever present. Nothing new about this, both sides have inflicted violence on the other. The first person that was murdered though was a Red Shirt, who was beaten to death during the clash of Sept. 2nd. I was there, less than 40 meters away.
Please don’t pretend that the PAD only defended itself. PAD has inflicted heavy violence – the last seriously injured was in Vibhavadi Soi 3 on Dec. 6th (after the retreat from the airports), shot through his arm with a 11mm bullet during a PAD attack on the radio station there.
Missing activists etc, yes, but that just did not only happen under Thaksin, it happened under every government, and unfortunately will continue to happen. Make Thaksin responsible for what he has actually done wrong (and there is plenty), but please do not follow the PAD line of exaggeration, so that it appears that Thaksin is responsible for all of Thailand’s evils, including those that happened before he was born.
The drug war was highly necessary, because the situation was very bad. The major deterioration happened under the Democrat led administration after the ‘97 crises, when the Chuan government has done almost nothing about the rise of drugs. What in the drug war was not necessary, were the killings.
I might misunderstand you, but you imply that the drug war was responsible for the rise of drugs. That is a clear distortion of facts.
Drugs have risen again, since the political turmoil initiated by PAD has bound so much of the police force that day to day operations were not able to have been kept up.
I would suggest researching the drug situation in the field, from both sides – police and drug scene – before making any statement on this subject. Interview both police officers in drug supression units, and pushers/addicts, go in the field, and then let us know of what you found out.
People have to work harder to get by. Oh well.
There is a world crises going on, and people all over the globe have to work harder. Here in Thailand, the effects of this crises have only been accelerated tremendously by the massive street protests (initiated by PAD), and the occupation of the airports (by PAD).
Appointing a PAD member as foreign minister, and one who even made publicly distasteful remarks about the Suvarnabhumi occupation will hardly restore investor confidence and “unity”, somewhat countering Abhist’s statements.
I really have to wonder about the rationality of your statement of “more power” to this PAD foreign minister.
The 30 Baht health scheme has not “cost the country” a lot. On the opposite. Many lives were saved and kept productive by including ARV’s. The first after coup statement on the country’s finances, and the numbers presented, especially regarding debt, were in the international standard. Even today, after the PPP government was ousted, the financial situation, foreign exchange reserves, and banking, is in order.
Where, please, is the evidence that the policies have “cost the country a lot”? Not PAD exagerration, but evidence that the country is financially in dire straights as the result of Thaksin’s policies.
39 David Brown // Dec 31, 2008 at 6:42 pm
hi Frank…
just a minor point….
in your reference to the PAD-UDD/DAAD standoff, were you referring to the (foolish) march by some UDD people from Sanam Luang to the PAD-occupied Government House area?
if so, perhaps you missed it, the first media report said that a PAD supporter was killed, a day or two later this was amended because it was a UDD supporter that was killed, and about a week after that another UDD supporter died from the injuries he sustained during the encounter
just thought it better that you not get caught out with this specific statement again
40 NM fan // Jan 1, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Narongsak is the name of the UDD/DAAD man who was killed in that first clash with PAD. Of course every one knows there was no royally sponsored cremation for him.
See this link to read more:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=30082618&keyword=Narongsak+DAAD
Below is what Narongsak’s sister said:
“My brother died because PAD protesters fatally attacked him. I want police to bring the culprits to justice,” she said. “I don’t want my brother to have died for nothing. I want everyone to know who is responsible for his death. I want the PAD to stop what they’re doing,” she added.
41 jay // May 2, 2009 at 1:57 am
poor giles, an original and lonely voice in a country unwilling to face the facts of its existence. the deterioration of thailand’s politics and public political discourse, not to mention incredibly low standards of media representation and reporting are astounding even by thai standards. nationalism and conservative politics have taken a front seat while people have been swept under the rug, again. blatent interference in public politics by military and civil police have gotten to the point where mass public security is at stake, no longer just fringe elements of extremists type actors with right wing agendas. given the nature of the power structure of and various puppet politiancs that are prancing around the kingdom as stalwart members of a government backed by populist legitimacy and mandate it should be quite some time indeed until thai’s are given the right to choose for themselves again who will rule for them. undoubtedly this will happen only after conservative elements have once again entrenched themselves until they feel certain that they can swindle an election (which they couldn’t do even after a concerted effort by the military and right wing elites last time).
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.