New Mandala

75 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jim Taylor // Dec 31, 2008 at 1:28 pm

  In the hasty mailing just a couple of corrections: Thaksin’s reform policies mentioned above were in gestation during the formation of the TRT in the late 1990s – but of course were not put into action until some years later, post-2001. Decentralisation started some years back even in the preceeding Chuan Government time (when I was working with CDD) but the Government at the time did not have the wherewithal to carry these out and were strongly resisted by vested interests. Only Thaksin was able to do this.

• 2 Sunflower // Dec 31, 2008 at 1:55 pm

  We ask the world to give us a hand. We are fighting against injustice.
  We believe all men are born equal.
  We all are endowed with the rights to liberty and freedom.
  With that desire, we participate in democratic process.

  However, democracy has been robbed from us with dirty tricks.
  What we end up having is fake democracy.
  The dark forces that manipulative the events are beyond our ability to cope. Our political history has always been ended with good people destroyed. Our national hero Dr. Pridi Banomyong was exiled on November 8th, 1947.

  Our ancestors fought for our democracy since June 24, 1932
  66 years later, in 2008 the dark forces still can manipulate the events to destroy our hope for equality, human decency and justice.
  The mix of domestic politics and international affairs is beyond our grass roots ability. We ask the world to help us.

• 3 Another David // Dec 31, 2008 at 3:12 pm

  Gee, I wish I had been alive to know that this “messiah” called Thaksin had been amongst us……………
  Get real, Jim Taylor

• 4 Markus // Dec 31, 2008 at 5:19 pm

  Now the “reds” are emulating the “yellows”, they should at least get someone to proof-read their English banners.

• 5 Srithanonchai // Dec 31, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  I am confused — is UDD pro-democracy or pro-Thaksin, or both, and how can that be? Or is this about different concepts of democracy? Could UDD eliminate Thaksin from its strategy and still remain a pro-democracy movement, or perhaps even increase their democraticness by leaving out Thaksin?

  Thaksin started a “democratization process?” Hmmm….. What does the village fund has to do with democratization (empowerment, perhaps, as Nick Nostitz has repeatedly pointed out)? And how is both related to decentralization?

  Increased decentralization was mandated by the 1997 constitution. Accordingly, the Chuan government passed the decentralization act in 1999 (although it had to bow to the resistance of the Council of State in important respects). Thaksin had no clue about this issue whatsoever (an academic pro-decentralization co-founder of TRT told me how he had tried to explain the issue to Thaksin, who, however, responded with total incomprehension).

  Rather, Thaksin did not implement the 35% budget share mandated by the act, but instead introduced the CEO governor scheme, widely seen at that time as contradicting decentralization. There was even serious talk about abolishing the PAO altogether. This, however, did not materialize, probably because it would have made Thaksin rather unpopular with many provincial politicians, including most of TRT’s MPs.

• 6 Stuart // Dec 31, 2008 at 6:24 pm

  Whoever is pumping out the banners (for both PAD and UDD) could do with a decent editor.

• 7 Thobphon // Dec 31, 2008 at 7:13 pm

  …This was against the law- as this should have been declared in Parliament – but then the law as we have seen over the past few years can be made on the run to suit particular interests.

  This statement cannot get any truer, especially when the current court of law is extremely unjust.

• 8 David Brown // Dec 31, 2008 at 8:49 pm

  thanks Jim,

  good firsthand account, great pics

• 9 jintana // Dec 31, 2008 at 9:02 pm

  Bon Courage!!!!

• 10 Glenn // Jan 1, 2009 at 11:01 am

  Does it really matter if these policy statements are read in Parliament or elsewhere? Why not just post them on the internet? If that is the worst thing they ever do Thailand will be in good shape.

• 11 Jim Taylor // Jan 1, 2009 at 3:06 pm

  Glenn: Breaking the Law? According to Article 176 of the current [Khor-Mor-Chor] 2007 Constitution the Cabinet has to declare (within fifteen days after the king’s endorsement) its Policy to the Parliament prior to governing the country. The definition of “Parliament” according to this Constitution Article 88 states that it consists of members of the House of Reps (Sor-Sor) and Senate. All these folk and the skewed and biased Constitutional Court and Tribunal have to give a clear definition of these articles as these are related to the action of the current govt in breaking with tradition in declaring its policy statement. The previous govt you may recall interpreted this to mean that they had to declare inside Parliament as had govts in the past. Essentially, the current Constitution works on the principle of ambiguity so that it can be interpreted by vested interests as it wishes. Normally a meeting of all parliamentarians has to be called first and the policy has to be declared in front of them. This must be done inside Parliament in accordance with the principles of debate. This cannot be declared anywhere (including cyberspace Glenn) without MPs. Dodgey, all very dodgey: this epitimises the current status quo and direction toward state fascism. Incidentally, PAD knew that Somchai had 7 October deadline when it had to declare its policy last year- so they intended to block this process. According to its leaders the Reds did not want to stop this process this week (that is the difference with PAD) only to show that Abhisit was supporting the PAD and that he should show support to all sectors through symbolically walking through the pathway of the Reds into Govt House as he had with PAD. As well, police interviewed this week at Parliament were not concered as they had been with PAD. One police officer stated that he was scared because PAD brought in weapons supplied by the military and yaa-baa (speed). Aside from the legitimacy of the appointment, Abhisit is clearly not suitable to be PM or able to reconcile the deep divide brought about by PAD in Thai society.

• 12 Another David // Jan 1, 2009 at 6:11 pm

  The way I read Jim Taylor’s jottings on what is going on in Thailand, is that, “ground zero” started in 2006 and continues to this day – with a brief interlude during the some of the PPP period.
  I get the impression, he believes what happened before the coup of 2006, has little, or nothing to do with where we are now- except to say, the “elites”, royalists, PAD and fellow travelers, are the cause of all the problems.
  I certainly believe, many on “that side”, are far from perfect.
  If they (if you believe “they” is a monlithic grouping) had taken the welfare of the “common man” a little more seriously, and helped democracy take a more solid footing, it would have been much harder for a Thaksin like figure, to emerge.
  They didn’t. If they had, history could have been quite different.
  Jim makes almost no mention, of what Thaksin/TRT/PPP did to circumvent parliament, during their time(s) in power.
  I do accept, this does not justify in a legal sense, some of the things being done by the current government – such as, the policy speech reading in another place. Is it illegal ? Let the courts decide.
  How much leglislation during Thaksin’s time, was scruitinzed by more than a small coatary of policitans, to avoid the public spotlight ?
  The courts of the day were not prone to investigating such matters, too closely.
  How many times was the “Letter of the Law” abused by the TRT/PPP, and aided and abetted, by the judiciary of the day(admittedly, during TRT times and perhaps the reverse, during the PPP reign), to serve a certain someone?
  The courts might have “changed sides” during the PPP time, but what about little matters such as, the dimplomatic passport and other items beyond the control of the courts?
  How many times was the media put under pressure?
  I don’t mean Sondhi’s empire, or the Nation?
  How many Human Rights abuses were there ?
  And, before you say to me, “prove it”…..I can’t – of course.
  But, please stop writing as if the “non-elites” and anti-PAD people, such as your beloved Red Shirts/UDD, are the true saviours of Thailand; whereas, the other lot (if there are such people) are incarnates, of the devil himself.
  There are many, many wrongs – on both sides – take off your rose (red) coloured glasses.

• 13 Jim Taylor // Jan 2, 2009 at 1:11 am

  I think I prefer the informed views of the “other” David; but to “Another David” here is more information: Veteran politician Sanoh Thianthong (Head of Pracharaj Party) said that this was the worst behaviour he ever knew of a government trying to get its policy declared…Prior to this it was clear that this declaration had to held in Parliament. Participants were sent text message to notify of changing forum for the parliamentary meeting one hour beforehand…many considered not important including opposition who wanted to attend did not receive this and turned up at Parliament on the 30 December. Sanoh did not receive this SMS text message. A minibus was arranged to pick up a select group of Democrat devotees and members from the House of Representatives to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This incidence of declaring the Government policy is 100% null and void said Sanoh. The blames also lies with double standard in Newin’s father, the Parliamentary Chairperson, Chai Chid-chob who said the last Somchai government had to hold the declaration in Parliament only. Anyone, seemingly, can do anything without informing anyone if it is in their interests. This is too much. Sanoh also said “how are we going to be seen by the public?” The Democrats have a number of legal experts (including Chuan) and these people should know that this is against formal legal procedures. Behaving like this the law is worthless. The courts have to interpret these rules- but the courts as we know (since “ground zero” [thanks david] 19 September 2006) are for the Democrats. Sanoh further noted that even though we know who are the “thieves” – the courts still take their side and robbery is justified. There is no need to use the law any more.

• 14 Glenn // Jan 2, 2009 at 4:48 am

  I will admit I don’t know the inner workings of Thailand’s Parliament.

  But I was under the impression that these policy statements were just that, statements. Are they up for Parliamentary debate? If a quorum of the Paliamentarians were present for the reading of the statements then isn’t that what matters, not the physical location? Isn’t that common sense? You could create all sorts of scenarios under which the Parliament House itself was inaccessible (like, maybe it was blocked by protesters) so the policy statements couldn’t be read. Then what? If they must be done within 15 days what happens after 15 days expire?

  Perhaps the previous government didn’t think creatively enough or were too bound by tradition.

  I am just a farang tourist, but I do have friends in Thailand. They are all tired of PAD and UDD. They just want to get back to normal life.

  Both mobs are just two sides of the same coin. Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country. Why does UDD not want to see if that actually occurs? Are they (and their sponsor) afraid he will actually do it?

• 15 nganadeeleg // Jan 2, 2009 at 10:45 am

  Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country. Why does UDD not want to see if that actually occurs? Are they (and their sponsor) afraid he will actually do it?

  Jim T & David B can add that question to the other questions they have failed to answer.

• 16 soi watcher // Jan 2, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  It is encouraging to see the Red Shirts beginning to write their banners in English. And many thanks to NM for publishing them. This is important because foreign correspondents can spread UDD message visually across the world. As for incorrect grammar/spelling, I don’t see any problem as we all remember that native speakers like former US vice president Dan Quayle also made mistakes in English. I am not a native speaker so I don’t worry much if people criticize my English.

  For the upcoming ASEAN summit in February, the Red Shirts should write something in their banners like: “OUR FOREIGN MINISTER IS A TERRORIST WHO TAKES PART IN THE SEIZURE OF OUR OWN AIRPORT” and let the ASEAN guests and visitors understand the real situation. The Red Shirts can certainly adapt creative and peaceful ways to express their views unlike the PAD thugs who broke laws without fear or shame due to their invisible backers.

• 17 Another David // Jan 2, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  Jim, regarding Sanoh’s comments, “he would say that, wouldn’t he”(?) – as the saying goes.
  Here’s a guy, who changes like the wind. This time, he changed in the wrong direction. So, he’s bound to be a bit angry. Just recall his dinner party a few weks back, where the spread looked delicious, but nobody came. He’s just not been able to take a trick, in this game
  As for the other old stagers, as I indicated in my previous comments, both sides have a lot to answer for.
  I also accepted, that how the policy speech was delivered, might not be legal. But, I also suggested, the best way to deal with this, was through the courts.
  However, as you point out, there seems no longer to be any respect for these judgements. Which brings us to ask, “why is it so” ?
  For this, I would go back to the years between 2000-2006, when the laws were conveniently changed to suit and the “people’s constitution” of 1997, was abused and circumvented, also to suit.
  You should acknowledge these things and not be so selective with your criticism about abuses of the laws of the land.
  If you want me to admit both sides are “guilty” – I will.
  Will you ?

• 18 J. K'Wanarat // Jan 2, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  Glenn & nganadeeleg

  “Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country. Why does UDD not want to see if that actually occurs? Are they (and their sponsor) afraid he will actually do it?”

  I do want Abhisit to continue the programs for the poors, but the real issue here is that I don’t trust nor believe he can do so.

  Democratic Party has been in Thai politic for so long, longer than any party. The only people they have helped are the riches. Look at the record.

  Beside, Abhisit claimed that Thaksin’s populist policies were bad, then pledged that he is going to deliver the same policies Thaksin did, don’t you think that is everything but honorable? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

• 19 Jim Taylor // Jan 3, 2009 at 1:10 am

  Nganadeeleg: “Abhisit has pledged to continue the programs for the poorer parts of the country…” The Nor Por Chor are not against seeing these implemented but rightly annoyed that they are by and large lifted straight from Thaksin’s policies. Now, I for one will be the the first to pat Abhisit on the back if he acknowledges where these rural reform practices actually came from, such as the decentralisation of funds for sub-districts and the like, criticised as with everything that came out of Thaksin by the Democrats at the time…Ironic is it not?

• 20 nganadeeleg // Jan 3, 2009 at 10:14 am

  Jim: You should know that what a party does in opposition is oppose, and that does not count against them when they are in government. (Judge them by what they do in government, not in oposition)

  As someone who appears to be close to the ‘reds’, here is some free advice (extracted from a reply I just made to Joy on my ‘nganadeeleg’ blog):

  Thailand needs more people who can think and can consider the issues from all sides, rather than put the blinkers on to anything that challenges the old ways of thinking.

  I’ve always wanted to see the ‘network’ broken and Thailand become a fairer society, but I doubt unwavering allegiance to a new white knight (Thaksin) is the way to achieve it.

  IMO, the ‘reds’ are still too much for Thaksin. By clinging to the coat tails of Thaksin, they give life to the PAD/yellows.

  If the ‘reds’ can recognise Thaksin’s good points, but also take him off the pedestal (by admitting his faults make him unsuitable to lead the country), that would be a great start in moving Thailand forward.
  Only the extreme ‘yellows’ would remain, and the old royalist military networks will eventually be forced to change, or take the country backwards (risking a backlash from the rest of the world).

  At present, I would prefer Abhisit to lead for a while, rather than jump back onto the pro/anti Thaksin election merry-go-round which will just lead nowhere.

  For the sake of a better Thailand, I think the ‘reds’ should drop Thaksin, and give the Democrats enough rope to hang themselves (which they will surely do unless they are prepared to change and govern for all the country).

• 21 Wichai // Jan 3, 2009 at 11:01 am

  nganadeeleg, you say that you want to see the ‘network’ broken and think that Thaksin can’t break it, but now you prefer a person directly from that ‘network’ to be the prime minister?

  It’s funny when you say “Thailand needs more people who can think and can consider the issues from all sides,” but you clearly not consider from “all” sides.

• 22 Wichai // Jan 3, 2009 at 11:36 am

  Another David, as you said “How many times was the ‘Letter of the Law’ abused by the TRT/PPP, and aided and abetted, by the judiciary of the day(admittedly, during TRT times and perhaps the reverse, during the PPP reign), to serve a certain someone?”

  So, you think the courts might have changed sides during the PPP time? Have you ever thought why the courts were swayed so easily? Were they swayed by Thaksin’s money? Then Thaksin’s money ran out, so they changed side? Other ideas?

  The fact is that the courts are always at the elite side. (Sorry for using the word “elite,” but it is the truth. Only those who can’t accept it try to say that there is no such thing.) Even in the most infamous case, Thaksin’s assets case in 2001, he was helped by some elites in the palace. Duncan McCargo explained this so well in his article, “Network monarchy and legimacy crises in Thailand” in the section “Prem and the Constitutional Court Crisis of 2001.”

  And if you have heard the recording of a phone call between two Supreme Court judges that the Economist mentioned about, it is a very strong evidence that courts have taken orders from the palace through Prem since the TRT time.

  Not to mention the Samak’s cookery show case in 2008… Do you still believe that the courts are the true saviours of Thailand?

• 23 nganadeeleg // Jan 3, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  Wichai: Do you really think Thaksin is about democracy or a fairer society?

  What’s the point of breaking one network by replacing it with another?

  Is hero worship of another ‘white knight’ the way for Thailand to move forward?

  Will elections now be anything different than the old pro/anti Thaksin merry-go-round? (we know where that leads!)

  Thaksin has proven he is not suitable to be PM, let’s give Abhisit his turn to do the same (or otherwise).

  I’ve got no problem with ‘reds’, or anyone, pointing out deficiencies in actual government performance, but what good does it do the country by harping on about how great Thaksin was,without also condemning his obvious deficiencies?
  (same goes for harping on about so called draft dodging, unfair switching of alliances etc)

  I don’t like the Democrats much, have lost all hope that the PAD can be a force for positive change, and see the ‘reds’ as the last great hope – they could do good things for the country, but only if they are prepared to play with a straight bat, and criticize bad/corrupt policy no matter who perpetrates it.

  Please re-read my above post – it was about trying to move forward – what is your alternative proposal?

• 24 Jim Taylor // Jan 3, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  nganadeeleg says: “Do you really think Thaksin is about democracy or a fairer society?”; My response: yes, that is exactly what Thaksin was about in government, judging by his short achievements in office and the nature of the current reactionary forces against him (extreme right wing alliance who saw him moving towards democracy too fast and leaving vested/corrupt interests by the wayside). As for Abhisit, he is no liberal and certainly no “old boy” gentleman whatever his education that seems to impress the Brits. To see the real guy note the following from “Thai Intelligent News” (unedited):

  QUOTE “I am engaged to help the E-Sarn people,” Mark Says

  An important ring for Mark is an engagement ring giving for Mark to engage him in taking care of the E-Sarn people. Mark told that story, in his American style speech when he became the PM, and it was the high-light of dreams for many that Thai can be united. The problem is that Mark normally does not wear a ring other than his marriage ring, and so that engagement ring was worn for that speech only. Then it was gone back into the box with other rings for other speech.

  “I came to do it for the country,” Mark says

  Within the first week in office, Mark protected his Foreign Minister for saying the occupation of the airports was fun, then stole Thaksin’s populus policies saying it is normal for countries to use it at this time-when in fact not too many country is doing it this way-then saying the best thing for Thaksin is to come back and face a just Thai judiciary system-when even the likes of Moody’s and Washington Post have question the Thai courts.

  “I will develop democratic principles,” Mark Says

  Within a few weeks of his government, Asia’s largest journalist organizations have come out to protest Mark’s use of the ICT Ministry to crack-down on on over 2,000 foreign websites for things like minor lese majesties activities, forgetting that free speech is the cornerstone of any Democracy. More importantly, media outlets close to the the previous governments are being closed or shut-down by the hundreds.

  “I am the PM for all Thais, rich and poor, anywhere in Thailand,” Mark says

  Only weeks after announcing it will use Thaksin’s populus policies, Mark imposes regulations such as the one on real estate purchase that benefits the wealthy Thais. Also immediately it came out with policies to shore up rubber prices and cool off calls for palm oil prices to fall according to falling costs, saying that operators are still left with stock purchased at high prices. Mark government is seen close to real estate and the democrat party stronghold in Southern Thailand.

  “The Cabinet will be selected based on capability,” Mark Says

  Cabinet ends up being called a disappointment by many Thais who points that it is the same as always being a government by quota of how the government came about. Worse, it lack the back-bone to demand capable people from its coalition parties and thus we now see a former massage parlor manager now in control of the Commerce Ministry at a crucial time when export is contracting.

  “The Military and PAD has nothing to do with this government,” Mark Says

  In fact, it is Anupong that called in Nevin to pressure Nevin to turn and support Mark and in fact, the PAD and the Democrats have been supporting each other for a long time, to the point that the democrat got Kasit, a PAD key figure, to sit as the Foreign Minister. In fact, the Thai press calls the Mark cabinet’s “The Green Cabinet.” And the price paid by Mark for PAD support is that Mark now reverse all previously stated position to amend the [fascist 2007] constitution.
  UNQUOTE

• 25 Dickie Simpkins // Jan 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm

  Nga:

  You stated to see both sides of the coin, but would it be fair then to complete your statement with something like this:

  Essentially the choice for the country right now is to ‘move forward’ to an era wherein the military/privileged/elites reduce their political roles and influence for greater popular participation and equality. However, you feel, that the ‘Reds’ have put too much emphasis on ‘Thaksin’ as their protector and the symbol of the anti-network, and to whom toppling the network will be given to. However we can also then say that if the network is toppled, and it doesn’t matter by who, regardless of the cultivated image of Thaksin, he too can be toppled.

  The question thus is, if the network is no longer regarded as the highest authority (and is replaced by Thaksin – who has a bad record with his own cronies and corruption), will it be easier in the future to control and reign in Thaksin? Will he take the steps of Chavez or Tony Blair? Respect democracy like Mugabe or Mandela?

  Is the country really ready to make that decision?

• 26 Wichai // Jan 3, 2009 at 3:20 pm

  nganadeeleg:

  No. I don’t think that Thaksin is about democracy. And I don’t think that Abhisit is about democracy either. But I think that anyone who comes from election is about democracy. If Abhisit comes from election, he is about democracy and I’ll have no problem with him. But If Thaksin comes from coup or hijacking airports, he is not about democracy.

  You said, “Thaksin has proven he is not suitable to be PM.” I respect your right to think like that. But do people agree with you? I mean, do most Thai people agree with you? How about people who benefited from his health care policy and think that he is suitable to be PM? I don’t think we can decide who is suitable to be PM by using our own judgment or columnists’ or academics’ judgment. The only way to decide is to use people because they are directly affected by the government. If someone is really not suitable to be PM, people won’t vote for him. But if they vote for him, let they suffer from that. It’s their decisions. And they will learn. And if his opposition offers better policy than his, people will vote for his opposition in the next election.

  Therefore, I don’t have any problem that the ‘reds’ never comdemn deficiencies of Thaksin, the same as the ‘yellows’ never condemn deficiencies of Prem or Chuan. They are political campaigns. I don’t think that people who don’t talk about their deficiencies will be a problem as long as their opponents have right to criticize them. But I think that people who don’t respect elections are real problems in Thai democracy. And this is a real “merry-go-round”: people elect someone whom the ‘network’ dislikes; the network stages a coup and says that if you want to “move forward,” you have to give the new PM a chance; people elect …..

  So, do you think how to get off this merry-go-round? People have to give the new PM a chance or the network should respect the election?

• 27 Nick Nostitz // Jan 3, 2009 at 3:36 pm

  “nganadeeleg”:

  You posted:

  “If the ‘reds’ can recognise Thaksin’s good points, but also take him off the pedestal (by admitting his faults make him unsuitable to lead the country), that would be a great start in moving Thailand forward.
  Only the extreme ‘yellows’ would remain, and the old royalist military networks will eventually be forced to change, or take the country backwards (risking a backlash from the rest of the world).”

  In some way part of this has already begun a long time ago, but was not recognized by the independent medias. From the beginning, after the military coup, the Reds had elements incorporated that were always opposed to Thaksin. People that long before the PAD leaders decided to dislike Thaksin were part of the UDD, some even who initially were part of PAD, but left PAD in disillusionment after they realized the narrow political aims of the main PAD force, such as the pressure to evoke of Article 7.

  The PAD though, as you could see from the dramatically decreasing numbers of attendants after the coup, went through a process of radicalization and fanatisation, also reflected in the far more violent forms of protest compared to pre-coup days.

  Obviously Thaksin opponents within the Red Shirts were, and still are a minority. Their mass base is pro Thaksin. It is important, in my view, to see this in the right context. A political movement needs a mass base, and here in Thailand the context is to be seen in the beginning of a democratic consciousness for most people.
  And, important – people who like Thaksin have a right to like him, as have people who oppose Thaksin. This is part of democracy. What though is difficult to combine with democracy, is supporting a military takeover. Political differences in a democracy, even in a imperfect democracy as Thailand, have to be solved with the venues that democracy offers.

  The importance though is that the Red Shirts are open to differing views, and are not an exclusive club in which only one view is allowed membership, while opposing views are demonized (as we have seen with PAD, especially in the PAD during the Samak and Somchai administration).
  Of course not all is perfect with the Red Shirts, we have seen ample evidence of this. The Red Shirts are also just a reflection of Thai society, with all it’s shades and limitations.
  We have to look at trends, developments and intentions. And from what i see, both from observing the protests, and interviewing the leadership and simple protesters, there is a strong will to transform this movement into a broader democracy platform.

  Thaksin will for the foreseeable future play a strong role in speeches. There are many people in Thailand who still see Thaksin as a strong symbol for democracy because of the populist policies, and may ignore the darker shades of his rule. Thaksin was not “wrong for the country” – he rose because of a feeling of disappointment with the lack of action of the previous government(s), and was reelected because he delivered what he promised. And that again was the fault of the Democrats mainly, who have never managed to build a popular appeal to many people in this country because of a lack of policies for those.

  The difference though is that one does not need to be a Thaksin supporter to be part of the Red Shirts. I have seen increasing amounts of ordinary Red Shirt supporters who even were before the coup supporters of PAD.

  As a observer i find the Red Shirts a very interesting movement in a constant state of change and transformation, a reflection of the state of change Thai society finds itself. I am fascinated by the question if they can manage to morph into a broad based democracy movement. There are clear signs that they intend to do that, and they actually might over time achieve this aim.
  But recognize that this is a difficult thing to do, and a long process, in contemporary Thailand. Rome hasn’t been built in a day either.

• 28 nganadeeleg // Jan 4, 2009 at 10:52 am

  Dickie: Thanks for those great questions.

  IMO, nothing really will have been toppled if it is just replaced.

  Therefore, I think it does matter who does the toppling – it is much more preferable for it to be the people, not a new master manipulator.

  Another alternative scenario I can see is that the current powers see the writing on the wall, and make some changes themselves so that Thailand ends up like most western democracies where the people are allowed to think they have the power.
  (I expect a Thaksin would do the same if he were to reign again)

  IMO Thaksin is more like Blair than Chavez, and more like Mugabe than Mandela – if he were ever to reign again, then I would probably prefer it be the other way around (in both comparisons).

  Your last question is the big one – until I see condemnation of Thaksin’s wrongs from the majority of the masses, then my answer is: NO

• 29 Jim Taylor // Jan 4, 2009 at 3:04 pm

  Nganadeeleg’s remarks deserve a retort and the best I can add is a quote from Jatuporn from Thai Intelligence News: “Thaksin symbolizes elected government from the popular people’s charter, who is greatly loved by the grassroots and was deposed by the coup of the rich and Royalist. How do we not fight for Thaksin, when fighting for Democracy. The two are practically the same thing in Thai politics”.

• 30 nganadeeleg // Jan 4, 2009 at 4:33 pm

  Nick: I basically agree with you, but although I am a ‘reds’ sympathiser, I will not become a supporter until the mass of the movement first acknowledges and then condemns the bad side of Thaksin.

  Jim: If you really believe that Jatuporn quote is all that needs to be said about Thaksin, then all I can say I have not been following Thai politics long enough to be that jaded.

• 31 nganadeeleg // Jan 4, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  So, do you think how to get off this merry-go-round? People have to give the new PM a chance or the network should respect the election?

  I’m a ‘johnny come lately’ to Thai politics compared to the obvious long term heavyweights here, but knowing what I know, I would say the answer is: BOTH.

  Give the new PM a chance (say 6 months, preferably a year), then have an election which the network should respect.
  (I live in hope that the masses will eventually become more discerning, and demand better than an Abhisit or a Thaksin)

• 32 Srithanonchai // Jan 4, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  “The two are practically the same thing in Thai politics.” Quoting nonsense is not a retort, but silly. If Thaksin had used his electoral mandate in a democratic way, he would still be in power and considered the greatest political leader Thailand has ever had, and not as an intellectually challenged stubborn fugitive from justice.

  It is precisely the extent of Thaksin’s failure of his very own doing that is the most astonishing element in this whole affair. The earlier die UDD gives up their identification of Thaksin and democracy, the better for its cause. Some of the UDD leaders, as I hear it, do indeed see this problem. However, they cannot escape the simple fact that the sole reliance of democracy will not give them the numbers in their protests that would make them effective.

• 33 Another David // Jan 4, 2009 at 5:51 pm

  Like Nga, I will admit to a limited knowledge (just over 15 years, from being married and the insights and associations that brings with it – but no academic credentials) of Thai politics.
  But I think I know enough, to agree with Nga’s “retort” to Jim Taylor, about Jatuporn’s statement on Thaksin.
  Moreover, yesterday he also quoted Sanoh and held him up as a legitimate “commentator” on Thai democracy.
  To me, both are hardly what could be regarded as “reliable witnesses”.

• 34 Roger // Jan 4, 2009 at 6:33 pm

  Nick, a small quibble: Thaksin did not “reign”. The King reigns. Thaksin ruled, as the head of the government. In my opinion he intended to move to a position where he would rule indefinitely (I don’t think there’s a provision in either the 1997 or the 2007 constitutions which limits the number of times a person may be appointed Prime Minister, even consecutively). At least some of the ways he corrupted policy to benefit his friends was well documented. I don’t think it’s a bad thing if he’s gone, but I agree with you that it’s unacceptable that he be removed by a military putsch. And I don’t really want to return to the days when the King reigned and the military ruled.

  Nganadeeleg, don’t hold to much hope for a “backlash from foreign powers.” The United States, at least, is quite happy to support some very odious tyrants in the name of “stability.” Other foreign powers are the same.

• 35 Nick Nostitz // Jan 4, 2009 at 7:44 pm

  “nganadeeleg”:

  As a journalist i cannot be a supporter of any political movement, i have to observe, and analyze. I will not wear any color of any political movement, regardless of my my personal sympathies. Only once i had a red bandanna in my hand, and that was only to safely get through the barriers at Vibhavadi Soi 3 straight after the second attack, so that i will not be mistaken as another attacker. I took the bandanna away as soon as i was recognized as a journalist, and was able to work.
  When i walked through the PAD barriers at Government house shortly after a grenade attack, i was threateningly warned by PAD guards not to take photos anywhere close to the barricades, and that was after i have shown my press card.
  In other incidents at night journalists were not even allowed to get anywhere close by PAD guards.

  The majority of the Red Shirts do in fact give Abhisit a chance. They have not taken over Government House, or any other important Government facility.
  This recent Bangkok protest is their right to protest within the confines of the law, exactly as the PAD protests before the occupation of Mahkawan and especially Government House mostly was (even though they had serving military officers on stage in uniform, and repeatedly called for military intervention).

  Upcountry is a different matter. Groups there, such as the Chiangmai Lovers 51, resist with harder, and maybe more questionable methods. Lets not forget though the larger social set up of upcountry Thailand – there violence in any conflict – be it political, economical or social – is far more prevalent.
  Would Red Shirt groups in the Southern provinces not be attacked by the there dominating yellow networks? Most definitely they would meet with equal violence.
  I have not yet heard of any Red Shirt gathering in the South, and as i do know that also in the South there are also Red Shirt sympathizers and supporters (two of the main leaders of the Quam Ching Wan Nee group – Veera Musikapong and Nattawut Saikua are Southerners), it can’t be the reason that there are no red Shirts in the South.

  When then Prime Minister Somchai went South, PAD there attempted to block airports, and attacked his motorcade.
  Today i read in the papers that Chiangmai Lovers 51 and Chaingmai based PAD nearly had a fight when Somkiat Pongpaiboon (Democrat party list MP and PAD core leader) tried to visit Chiangmai based PAD).
  The question here is clear – is Somkiet now more Member of Parliament of the ruling party, or leader of a group with numerous fresh legal cases, up to murder and attempted murder cases, against them. Somkiet is not just an ordinary PAD member – he is a core leader.
  Isn’t that a huge conflict of interest? Should he not step down first until these legal cases are sorted?

  Even here in Bangkok – the latest independently confirmed attack by PAD supporters on Vibhavadi Soi 3’s community radio Station was on Dec. 6th – days after PAD officially ceased their protests.
  One man was shot through his arm, he was refused treatment by the first hospital, a private hospital closed to the scene, which told him that they do not treat Red Shirts. The next hospital did not treat him because his Gold Card was not valid there, and only Ramathibodi Hospital treated him in the end.
  This man had a journey through three hospitals with a bullet wound, and a shattered bone in his injured arm before he could get treatment.

  I don’t remember, but was this incident reported by Bangkok Post or the Nation?

• 36 HC lau // Jan 5, 2009 at 1:45 am

  Nick,

  The bangkok Post did report hospitals and doctors, taking political (PAD) sides and refusing to treat patiences injured by the PAD. This is worst than the courts /Police etc refusing to take action against the PAD. It is a given that the courts / police are corrupt and have vested interest in the PAD success, but doctors refusing to do their social duties is simply unforgivable.

  That alone is enough for me to be anti-PAD. It simply shows the kind of people that PAD, their backers and supporters are – people with no sense of human decency. – And no apologies to any PAD sympathisers in this forum.

• 37 ModThai // Jan 7, 2009 at 4:21 am

  Nick ,

  As I have recalled, There was a small Red gathering at a hotel in Phuket.
  They were attached badly by the Yellow. It was a very small local new
  the end of November 08, if i remember correctly.

• 38 Nick Nostitz // Jan 7, 2009 at 12:34 pm

  “ModThai”:

  Thank you very much for that information. I would appreciate it if you, or anyone, could find a news report on this incident, so i can add it to my collection of background information.

• 39 Rodent // Jan 7, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  I’ve read the comment here between Jim, nga, Wichain, and others and I think I have to make a bit of a comment here.
  First of, I think this conversation is very suitable “IF” we are talking in the democratic environment. However, as Thailand is today, we dont even have that basic right like those in any other democratic countries. People still got charge with lese marjeste and poor people still dont have the basic right like the rich.

  Now the first thing the Thais have to do is taken back the power that they have lost from the coup of 1951.

• 40 ModThai // Jan 7, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  I did a seach in Thai “เสื้อแดง ภูเก็ต” and quite a few news came up.
  There was also a guy from Prachatai who has been to one of their meetings.

• 41 ModThai // Jan 7, 2009 at 6:16 pm

  Nga

  People will still love Thaksin and it’s not just because they have benefit from his policy. How can you condemn a person if his faults have not been clearly proven. 3 years on the movement to legally charge Thaksin has been very weak. If Thak truly did something
  spectacularly bad like he has been accused of, and as bias as we can see the court is, how come they have not been able to charge him more than signing a paper for his wife to buy a land??

• 42 Jim Taylor // Jan 8, 2009 at 12:13 am

  Modthai, yes, and in regard to that land belonging to his ex-wife, he had this cleared through the Bank of Thailand at the time who in turn referred it to their own legal team first…So we can all see now what a sham the case against Thaksin is and how effective mass propaganda has been for the past three years, and consequently why the country’s coffers were hit heavily since Kor Mor Chor due to the propaganda machine emplaced its Prem-linked cronies at all levels. These are dark times indeed.

• 43 nganadeeleg // Jan 8, 2009 at 10:12 am

  I never get a direct answer whenever I ask Jim, David B. and others direct questions about the bad side of Thaksin, and whether that is desirable behaviour of a PM.

  We obviously see things differently, so I think it’s time I gave up.

  I will leave you with a quote from MK Connors:

  “Any legitimacy he may have had as a consequence of being selected prime minister by elected representatives was negated by his actions in that position.”

  Here is the link to the full article from which the above quote was taken:
  http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2007/09/standing-in-neither-camp-coup-year-on.html

  I would recommend Jim & David read the full article – it is generally in accordance with the way I see things.

• 44 David Brown // Jan 8, 2009 at 1:40 pm

  hi Nga…

  I dont give you much in the way of a direct response about Thaksins bad side…

  I suppose:

  a. because I think most of his “bad side” is not true, its just wild ravings from our mate Sondhi and other paid lackeys of the sewnior military and the rich families… all of the specific cases I have checked have yielded manipulation of the law, or no evidence found (despite heroic efforts by all those against him)

  b. if Thailand stuck with a one-person one-vote democratic system all these things would be sorted out by the system where the people get the chance to choose whether their representatives stay in power or not… so whether he is corrupt or not is not relevant in the bigger scheme of things

  c. corrupt behaviour is important when governments are not accountable to the people, like now when all the deals are being done… who cares because the military and rich families will decide whether the government will stay in power not the ordinary people of Thailand

  by the way, my posts are held waiting on moderation I suppose because NM is worried they will get blocked in Thailand….

  lets get rid of the lese majeste laws so we can speak freely!

• 45 nganadeeleg // Jan 8, 2009 at 2:31 pm

  David:

  Did you read the article in the link I gave above?
  Not a Sondhi rant, but it does refer to the not so shiny side of Thaksin, and where many think he was taking democracy.

  (a) “all of the specific cases I have checked have yielded manipulation of the law”
  Thaksin wouldn’t do that would he

  (b) In a perfect world, such a miracle might happen – until you (educated) guys are prepared to see both sides of Thaksin, I don’t hold out much hope that one form of manipulation was not (will not) merely being (be) replaced with another.

  (c) Possibly we agree on this point, as I’m all for exposing corruption, across the board, irrespective of who perpetrates it

• 46 Markus // Jan 8, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  “How can you condemn a person if his faults have not been clearly proven?”

  To prove that a person ordered a three month ‘war on drugs’ and is therefore ultimately reponsible for the deaths of over two thousand people would be difficult.

  If the person believes the judiciary in his own country are unfairly biased, that person could receive a fair trial abroad.

  However, this would require such a country to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and for that person to be tried in the Netherlands.

  http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

  This course of action would however, put such a country’s military at risk of prosecution for its conduct in restive provinces, and is therefore extremely unlikely.

• 47 ModThai // Jan 8, 2009 at 4:19 pm

  Jim, Thanks for clearling the land case up for other readers. You are right, these are dark times indeed. (not just for Thailand but for all over the world, are these rich people the roots of all evils or what?) (Did you know that a PAD comment poser at Prachatai.com speculated that you are a lobbyist hired by Thaksin, well they seem to think BBC CNN etc. are hired by Thaksin as well, which is quite hilarious to how see how PAD think)

  David B. You have said my thoughts exactly, thanks for that.
  I wonder if saying “get rid of the lese majeste laws” is against the lese majeste laws?.

  Nga, I hope you have judged Thaksin by the truths and evidents, not just your own prejudictions and other’s speculations.

• 48 Tarrin // Jan 8, 2009 at 4:41 pm

  Nga
  I’ve read many of your comment and you seems to be concentrating on Thaksin corruption for the most part,
  (a) I just want to ask you couple questions, why dont you direct your accusation of corruption to other people like Sorayud (the junta PM), who has a house right by the national wild life conservative park (which some estimate to worth about 50mil) or that he actaully own a train that worth about 14 millions baht, which is almost 10 times the salary he got from being a retired general. Worst even, the general of secretary audit, khun ying Jaruwan who suppose to be the one who check the government for any unusual transaction, own a house worth more than 80 million baht with a payroll of about 500,000 a year.
  (b)Secound point, you’ve been accusing Thaksin for corruption, can you gives us even one charge (and not accusation) that point out that Thaksin is actually made any wrong doing.

  Oh and btw I’ve read your article, the point that the author made regarding Thaksin abuse of power actually came from those accused by Sondhi so your article actually defeat the porpose to prove your point.

• 49 ModThai // Jan 8, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  “To prove that a person ordered a three month ‘war on drugs’ and is therefore ultimately reponsible for the deaths of over two thousand people”

  If the coup cannot find Thaksin guilty who else can???
  qoute from wikipedia:; “After the coup, the military investigated the campaign but found that Thaksin had not been directly involved with any of these killings.”

  We can’t also prove that the killings weren’t druglord bosses doing, you know..killed the smalltime dealers so themselved can’t be linked.

• 50 nganadeeleg // Jan 8, 2009 at 7:48 pm

  Tarrin & Mod Thai: I do not know enough about the issues to comment, however would not be surprised if many prominent Thai establishment figures had engaged in corruption.

  If there is evidence, by all means press for investigation & prosecution of Surayud, Jaruvan and anyone else reasonably suspected of corruption – I commend your efforts.

  However, that is not why I choose to devote time to this hobby of commenting on these blogs.

  Whether enough evidence is available to prosecute Thaksin, and whether or not he is not the only suspect character in Thai politics is rather besides the point of my arguments – I focus my attention on Thaksin because he is the person that commands significant electoral support, and also has many ardent supporters on these blogs.

  Irrespective of whether he can be convicted on any more substantial charges, it is my opinion that there is enough evidence that (an unchanged) Thaksin is not suitable to be PM.
  His authoritarian, heavy handed tactics, manipulation and intimidation, tax havens for tax avoidance (if not strictly evasion), mixing government and family business, his various comments when facing valid criticisms, and worse of all the conduct of the drug war and general lack of remorse are the reasons why I consider he is not suitable PM material – he had his time and has done some good along with the bad, but it is my opinion that his days of leading the country should be consigned to history.

  If Abhisit, or any of his fellow politicians do similar things, and are ardently supported by the majority of posters here, then rest assured, I will switch the focus of my forays onto this and other Thai blogs – As far as I can see, that time has not yet come.

  Democracy lovers, including pro-Thaksinites here, might think that I am just a PAD stooge, but in reality I have never had much time for Sondhi
  Hopefully long term readers can recognise that my thoughts have also evolved slightly over the last 2 years, even though I maintain my anti-Thaksin slant, and the hope that the electoral masses will eventually become more discerning.

  btw, I think you are selling Dr Connors short by claiming he is merely restating Sondhi’s accusations.

• 51 Markus // Jan 8, 2009 at 8:34 pm

  Thanks ModThai

  1. It’s easy for PAD supporters, or any one else for that matter, to dismiss pro-Thaksin commentary as a lobbyist’s spin. Look at BGR Holdings Client list:

  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BGR_Holdings

  2. Might I suggest you use more than just wikipedia for your sources? Maybe you need this to refresh your memory:

  http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA39/001/2003/en/dom-ASA390012003en.html

  3. There is one thing you said that I can’t argue with, “are these rich people the roots of all evils or what?”

  Not just Modthai but quite a few posts on this site appear unable to acknowledge the faults of the side they somewhat blindly follow.

  I’ll not post back to this site again. Although I would like to leave you with the following quote:

  “There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.”
  Demosthenes

• 52 Jim Taylor // Jan 9, 2009 at 2:22 am

  Markus: not very credible sources cited through the likes of “sourcewatch” which regurgitates the same spin we have heard incessantly over the past few years and which relies mainly on English language published materials that have been shown to be biased. If you want to get to the truth you will need to access some of the Thai language web sites (start with Thai E-News and the many links) where Thai journalists, many who have been working at the front line, can talk freely in cyberspace without editorial influence.

• 53 Markus // Jan 9, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  Jim: you just provided an answer which explains I’ll no longer submit to these pages (after this – honestly!)

  You select only a small part of people’s argument and reject it out of hand.

  “the likes of “sourcewatch” which regurgitates the same spin we have heard incessantly”

  Did you bother to read the link? Sourcewatch’s information comes from BGR Holdings themselves. Are you suggesting that BGR Holdings are regurgitating the same spin? I wouldn’t argue with that.

  “English language published materials that have been shown to be biased”

  I remember the PAD using the same argument when it suits them.

  You can surely understand why politicians would hire PR firms to represent their images around the world. If you throw enough around, some of it will stick. After all,

  “Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.”
  Noam Chomsky
  regurgitated spin?

• 54 Tarrin // Jan 9, 2009 at 4:08 pm

  to nga

  I respect your thought on the part about supporting corruption screening , but what I disagree with you is the that accusations that you have point out against Thaksin are mostly came from Sondhi camp, although you claimed you are not associate them the PADm but the accusation that you made against Thaksin is actually generate directly by the PAD.

  Now, I want you to look at your logic is what is actually happening here, you claimed that there are enough evidence to convict Thaksin of his wrong doing. After 2 years of investigation (From the Junta governemnt and the renow Khun Ying Jaruwan) they couldnt find a single legitimate claim against his wrong doing, only the Ratchada land plot, which any bankers and athorny at law out there would find this cas rediculous at best. Not only they didnt find any wrong doing from Khun Ying Podjaman (hince she didnt get any jail time) but Thaksin got jail time from signing the acknowledgement form for his wofe *(under Thailand’s law, spout has to acknowledge that their partner is going to purchase a land). So if Thaksin got a jail time for signing the acknowledgment, I think thousand more people would have to get charge as well, according to the rules of law. If there is really any solid evidence, dont you think finding Thaksin guilty would be much easier and wouldn’t take 2 full years?.

  On the tax charge, did you know that Thaksin pay almost 300 million in tax in 2005? I think you have to understand the meaning of “Tax planning” and “Tax evasion” a bit in detial. You see, any high net worth individual has some sort of tax planning scheme, so that one has to pay few tax within the frame work that permit by law. If charging Thaksin on tax evasion case then the judge should press charge all of the high net worth individual in Thailand as well, because everyone is doing it.

  And on the drug wars, this is as controversial as it get, if you ask the parents of the addictes whoes live got save by Thaksin then you might find some valid point to like him. However if you ask the parents of the drug dealers whoes lost their life because of the gun fight with police and inter-gang killing to disassocated their cells from the main network or those that got killed from police brutality then you might find a reason to hate him, the choice is yours on this one.

  If you think Thaksin doesnt have the PM material then I respect your decision, but you also has to respect those that think he does have PM material and elect him to lead the country. If we dont respect each other vote, then democracy is meaningless

• 55 ModThai // Jan 9, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  To answer Markus’s post.
  1. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BGR_Holdings
  Thaksin was the company’s client for 2006-2007, he said he only hired the company to set the record straight in the internatinal world about the coup. There was a Thaksis’s short interview about this matter in Thairat newspaper earlier this week…
  This is just another propagonda’s trick to paint Thaksin as a bad guy!….
  2. Killing is wrong….. It’s an eternal question
  “would you kill to save more people?”
  you might question his methods, but I salute his intentions and results.
  3. somehow the more money you have the more greedy, you’ll get…

  ofcourse I can see the fault sides… but as I live in the real world..
  Noone’s perfect, are you?… well can anyone give me aname of a perfect leader in the past 100 years??? Thaksin may not be perfect
  but he was the best Thai PM I’ve ever had.
  Give me a PM who’s willing to play dirty to fight the dirties anyday.
  http://www.prachataiwebboard.com/webboard/wbtopic.php?id=769141

  I think we all have to agree to disagree.. We will not be able to change each other minds about Thaksin. We still have freedom to believe what we want to believe, right???(just dont say a certain things out loud haha)

  At this moment Thaksin, in my opinion is merely a decoy the greedy elites use to distract Thai people away from the real issues. The problems Thailand is having right now is not about Thaksin but the ways the elites have been treating Thailand and its people.

  The top of this page is about the “Red Army” so I’d rather talk about them! don’t you?

• 56 Nganadeeleg // Jan 9, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  “If we dont respect each other vote, then democracy is meaningless”

  Tarrin: I concede that you have the high ground with that statement, but I already feel that democracy is meaningless (and not only in Thailand).

  Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to respect something that keeps throwing up people like Thaksin/Bush/Howard as acceptable leaders.

  I do also think you missed the point of my above post – to me, it’s not all about legal convictions – use of tax havens & nominees alone is enough to disqualify a PM in my eyes, let alone the other manipulations, intimidations etc

  As for the war on drugs, I agree it was a noble cause, but why condone the way he promoted extra-judicial killings?

  Anyway, I’ve been over all this before, so lets just leave it at:
  - You still think Thaksin is good PM material, and I don’t.
  (at least we are not throwing eggs, or bashing or shooting each other)

• 57 Jim Taylor // Jan 10, 2009 at 12:55 am

  Marcus- best check the link about Thaksin from your sourcewatch link on BGR and you will see what I mean…

• 58 David Brown // Jan 10, 2009 at 11:12 am

  thanks ModThai… great post

• 59 Susie Wong // Jan 11, 2009 at 1:23 pm

  I am a new comer to the New Mandala debate. So I read all the comments to understand what are the arguments.

  I realize that everyone is unable to recognize Nganadeeleg’s motives. Here is my explanation. The three quotes below are his comments.

  1. “I find it very difficult to respect something that keeps throwing up people like Thaksin/Bush/Howard as acceptable leaders”

  2. “Whether or not he is not the only suspect character in Thai politics is rather besides the point of my arguments – I focus my attention on Thaksin because he is the person that commands significant electoral support”

  3. “a quote from MK Connors:
  http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2007/09/standing-in-neither-camp-coup-year-on.html”

  Thaksin made foreign policy alliance with President of the United States and Prime Minister Howard of Australia. Nganadeeleg and Michael Conners are against the U.S. so they against Thaksin. You all have to realize Nganadeeleg’s real intention so that you don’t play into his hand arguing at individual and national level issues when in fact the issue is at the international level.

  BTW, The “no to the two camps” (สองไม่เอา) is originated by Jai Ungpakorn. Michael Conners should acknowledge this fact.

• 60 nganadeeleg // Jan 12, 2009 at 2:28 pm

  Susie Wong has missed my point entirely.

  I’ll try again:
  Once his bad side was shown, and in the absence of any remorse or change, then in my eyes Thaksin became unsuitable for PM.
  (irrespective of legal convictions, or whether his good side outweighs his bad side).

  ditto re Bush & Howard.

  I recognize in a democracy I only have one vote, and ultimately if more voters think differently than me, then I am on the losing side.
  It is when those differences are more than mere political differences, but go against my *acceptable conduct code, then I have difficulty respecting democracy.

  * I’ve had this discussion on here before, and I think I once used the term morals, but that opens up a whole other can of worms, so I now refer to it as acceptable conduct.

  I cannot speak for Dr Connors and have no idea of his feelings towards USA, however I doubt he would care who is acknowledged with being the originator of the term “no to the two camps”.
  (I also suspect he would cringe at being linked with a mere hobbyist like me).

  Not that it is even relevant to this blog, but I am unsure how you came to the conclusion that I am against the US – I admit I don’t agree with all US foreign policy initiatives, does that make me against the US? – I suppose if I was a US citizen american, you would consider me un-american?
  (or if I was Thai, would you consider I no longer understand ‘thainess’ because I seek alternative sources of information which make my mind become ‘degenerate, in decline, abnormal/unhinged’)

• 61 Michael Connors // Jan 12, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  For the record:

  the no to two camps position is a political position that some people took, often for different reasons. They, like me, probably got there by their own logic and in conversation. As for the term “สองไม่เอา” I do not know who originated the term, but to patent it would be like patenting “no to Thaksin” or “no to the CNS”.

• 62 David Brown // Jan 12, 2009 at 5:27 pm

  thank you for your insightful look into Ngas raison d’etre…

  like Nga I also have cause to wonder about the process when we end up with leaders such as Bush and Howard

  I have previously commented about presidential systems where the president tends to accumulate power to his office to the detriment of the elected members of parliament… especially this is an issue where the president is not elected by direct vote as in the USA

  whereas the UK, Australia, Canada operate an elected parliament and use an almost powerless figurehead royalty for signing off decisions of the parliament

  in all of these “democracies” the influence of the industrial complex is strong, mostly through the media, and in the USA the military is also strong, through their (mis)use of their huge budget in employment and contracts management to influence voting

  recognising all this it still seems that one-person one-vote democracy is the best way because it ensures all citizens have a right (in Australia, Canada, UK the requirement) to choose their government

  and we seem to move between flavours of right wing rich/industrial oriented and centre left more humanitarian governments

  I guess the military/rich families in Thailand still think they can achieve more straightforward control of the country and the majority of their slaves by weakening democracy rather than working with it…

  the other significant feature in Thailand is the manipulation of the judiciary… all these other countries use juries to make significant criminal court decisions, I think this protects the judiciary as well as the community from this insidious old mans penchant for behind the scenes manipulation of judgements

  I am hoping the Thai military/rich will learn from the example of these other countries and stop fiddling with the basic processes, especially the judiciary and just concentrate on making money by building the capability of Thailand overall rather than stifling most of its potential
  (treating them as buffaloes and grassroots to be trodden on!)

  by the ay I think Thaksin is in a different far better class than Bush/Howard, Thailand was fortunate for his leadership… and all the carry on about his “badness” is just that!

  he wasnt bad, he just achieved moderate paradigm change, which the fat comfortable military/rich hate

• 63 Tarrin // Jan 12, 2009 at 5:43 pm

  To nga

  If not democracy then what form of governing system do you want? communist? facist?
  Anyhow, neither you nor me have the right to say what is a “acceptable conduct” or “acceptable moral” code since people have different perception to set those bar, that is why we need democracy in the first place, to set the bar that is acceptable by majority.

  And in regard to your statement
  ” Once his bad side was shown, and in the absence of any remorse or change, then in my eyes Thaksin became unsuitable for PM.
  (irrespective of legal convictions, or whether his good side outweighs his bad side). ”
  I still dont get what is this bad side is all about? you’ve made your point about tax evasion/nominee which I think any all of rich people is doing anyway. I dont see why it is such a sin to do tax planning since if you said that is enough to disqualify Thaksin as a PM, then no one is qualify, not even Obama or Brown.

• 64 nganadeeleg // Jan 13, 2009 at 9:25 am

  Tarrin: Let’s just put our different opinions down to my ethnocentrism!

  As for my preferred system of government:
  Philosopher kings

• 65 Susie Wong // Jan 13, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  The word “สองไม่เอา” is Jai Ungpakorn’s word. It’s uniquely his because Thais will use “ไม่เอาทั้งสองฝ่าย”. His English root makes him sometimes use the Thai language in an English way. Jai Ungpakorn is very respectable and trusted among Thai intellectuals, so Thais just follow him even it sounds strange. Furthermore, Jai’s thinking is normally in the frontier. Thais usually choose side. To choose neither side is uniquely Jai thinking. We can see his “สองไม่เอา” on his YouTube post titled “Peoples Alliance for Fascism.”

  Michael Connors, it’s not too late for you to acknowledge the fact. It’s serious in academic culture.

• 66 Tarrin // Jan 13, 2009 at 2:32 pm

  Ethnocentrism eh… if that’s the case then I dont have much to say to you.

  Anyway I hope when you say you preferred Philosopher kings, I hope you really mean what you said.

• 67 nganadeeleg // Jan 13, 2009 at 7:31 pm

  Tarrin: I assumed our different outlooks must be down to my ethnocentric viewpoint because, after reading your opinion about ‘tax planning’, I could see that we were never likely to agree.
  I would be surprised (and disappointed) if Obama or Brown used offshore tax havens and nominees in their tax planning, as I would be if they promote, condone or justify extra-judicial killing.

  As for Philosopher kings, yes, I like Plato’s idea.

• 68 Roger // Jan 13, 2009 at 9:24 pm

  nga, I’ve really been interested in reading your viewpoint. I just have a couple of my own ethnocentric points to make.

  1. In the U.S. all business administration students learn about the difference between “tax evasion” (evil) and “tax avoidance” (good). There was a case that reached the Supreme Court back in the 1930’s, when the income tax was still fairly new. The Internal Revenue Service sued a taxpayer, because he had arranged his investments in such a way that he (legally) had to pay only a very small tax. The supreme court ruled that a taxpayer is not required to arrange his affairs so that he pays more than the smallest tax he can while still following the law (which includes the IRS regulations). As I understand it, the Chuan government (the cockroach party) was the one that created the law that transactions carried out through the Thai stock market would be exempt from tax. You can’t blame Thaksin for that, like you can blame him for manipulating the Foreign Business Act to allow a larger foreign investment in a telecommunication company. I agree his failure to pay tax on such a huge profit was a terrible public relations disaster, but it wasn’t illegal or even unethical! What should he have done, taken 20% of his profit and donated it to the government? Or maybe to charity?

  2. I hope that someday you find one or more philosopher king to rule, but as I recall Plato expected they would be especially bred for the role and raised in isolation so they wouldn’t be contaminated by human emotions or feelings. How are you going to recognize one when he comes along? It’s kind of like having an appointed parliament — who’s going to do the appointing?

• 69 nganadeeleg // Jan 14, 2009 at 4:17 am

  Roger: Thanks for your interest.

  I am aware of the difference between tax ‘evasion’ and ‘avoidance’, however the dividing line is not exactly clear cut especially when nominees and tax havens are introduced into the picture.

  In relation to the Shin sale, I am getting tired of saying that I agree the ultimate sale looks to be legitimately tax free, but the transaction that should have been taxed was the Ample Rich deal – When he was in power, the Thaksin family appears to have received favorable treatment on this matter from the revenue department.

  That aside, it is my ethnocentric opinion that most tax revenue authorities and law makers are trying to stop or reduce the impact of various schemes that the wealthy use to avoid tax. It’s a never ending battle as new loopholes are found & exploited and then closed by the authorities.
  Politicians should be setting a positive example, and I retain my opinion that their use of tax havens, nominees and other such manipulations is unethical.

  It’s too late (or too early if you believe in total collapse) for Plato’s philosopher kings system to be introduced, so I don’t intend wasting much time on it, other than to say I like the idea as a concept, and don’t think it would have turned out any worse than the other systems of government that have been tried.

  Your question about who does the appointing reminds me of the republican debate here in Australia – I much prefer for the the head of state to be appointed by the parliament (elected politicians), than directly by the people, otherwise it just becomes another election.

• 70 Michael Connors // Jan 14, 2009 at 9:07 pm

  For the record:

  Again, I repeat various people came to the “no to two camps position” (in 2006-2007) by different routes. Again, I do not know who used the term “song mai ow” in this context first – in doing so they characterised a position that was in existence. It became a convenient label. My suspicision is that Somsak J. originated the term, in his effort to explore (expose?) the implications of the position, but I don’t know. My explanation of the position is mine, informed by my own politics and in conversation with people. If the origin of the term is located I would be more than happy to acknowledge who coined the term. The term reminds me of my teenage shouting years “Neither Washington Nor Moscow”.

• 71 Michael Connors // Jan 14, 2009 at 10:16 pm

  As I suspected Somsak J. was among the first to use the term “song mai ow” in print (cyberspace). He used the phrase, critically, in early April 2006 much earlier than I would have thought.

  See:

  See http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?act=Print&client=wordr&f=2&t=9139.

  My own piece was actually a response to Somsak’s comments on the position. I inserted the Thai phrase next to my terminology ““no to the two camps”.

  In the link provided above, Somsak comments

  “Since, during the past two and a half years, I’ve spent quite ‘large amount’ of my time and energy on these political writtings on line without getting any pay, I sometimes entertain the idea of ‘patent’ the phrase!”

  So it seems the phrase is patented afterall.

• 72 Susie Wong // Jan 19, 2009 at 5:47 pm

  Michael Conners, let’s talk straight.

  After reading your article, I feel your writing lacks integrity. The essence of academic profession is truth. Scholars state their ideas openly either as liberal or conservative. You are twisting the facts to serve Japan’s post-Cold War objectives in the Asia-Pacific.

  1. As an academic, one would expect you to go through a literature review. You did not because you want to use Ji Ungpakorn’s honest reputation to your benefit. You know who Ji is. You reviewed one of his books. Ji supports Thaksin and the red shirts, but you twisted the fact to be the contrary. Francis Fukuyama can create documents with his camera at home (see C-Span video) so please do not bull me with your manufactured information about Somsak J, would you?
  2.Your article published on Sept 24th, 2007 and here is what I quoted from your article:

  “Other channels were available to restrain or fell Thaksin: further popular protest, the weakening of his parliamentary dominance, the use of legal measures.”

  “the game moved to the elite sphere. Social forces on the ground were not sufficiently organized to determine the political outcome.”

  You can write about the events in advance because you are part of the operation to set Thaksin up. Everything moves according to the set up game plan. Nothing happened by accident. Everything developed according to the game theory plan. Your article was published in 2007, the events occurred in 2008.

  “further popular protest” means 6 months of PAD protest (May–December 2008)

  “the weakening of his parliamentary dominance” means divide and rule, split Thaksin’s group by taking Newin Chidchob and Sanan Kajornprasart. (17thDec 2008)

  “the use of legal measures” means using the bias Thai Supreme Court, with 5 members found Thaksin guilty and 4 found him not guilty. (21st Oct 2008).

  There is no way that an individual Thaksin can fight with Japan’s finance and intelligence operation.

• 73 Dickie Simpkins // Jan 20, 2009 at 1:20 am

  A-hem….

  When I read Susie’s post…. I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry

  either way tears are coming out of my eyes….

• 74 nganadeeleg // Jan 20, 2009 at 8:59 am

  ‘I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry’

  I couldn’t put it any better.

  Dr Connors, and Japan, please accept my apologies and for (inadvertently) starting this nonsense.

• 75 James Mitchell // Jan 20, 2009 at 9:37 pm

  Hi to Jim Taylor and thanks for the coverage of a protest almost ignored by the mainstream Thai media. I am a PhD student living in Thailand and am presently researching the use of music by the PAD and UDD. If anyone has knowledge or copies of lyrics that have been adapted to well known luuk tung songs by the UDD could they either post them here (Thai is fine) or email to james.mitchell@students.mq.edu.au.
  Thanks in advance
  James Mitchell

Leave a Comment