New Mandala

49 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jeffrey // Mar 20, 2009 at 9:30 pm

  It is going to be very difficult for those who are in Thailand to honestly give any appraisal of these developments, considering the Government intensity in monitoring the internet while using Lese Majeste and other ‘computor crime’ laws.

• 2 John Francis Lee // Mar 21, 2009 at 10:30 am

  Do you agree with Giles that the UDD is fast becoming a broad-based mass movement with possibly ‘revolutionary potential’? If yes, why? If no, why not?

  I think the Giles is talking up the possibilities, trying to give his hopes reality by their assertion. He’s run it up the flag pole in hopes that someone salutes. I haven’t seen anyone saluting.

  The reds will not be effective unless they develop real, popular leadership. The leadership on offer is the same old collection of political opportunists.

  Real popular leadership is not only what’s wanting in Thailand but around the world, as we watch governments of all sorts work in the interest of the status quo and against the interests of their own people.

• 3 Sidh S. // Mar 21, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  Good point John Francis Lee #2.
  I will be more blunt. WHERE IS THE MONEY???
  AjarnGiles really need to:
  1) Get down from his “ivory Marxist tower” take one of the now out-dated MBA courses and put together a business plan and funding model.
  2) Stage a coup against his master, PMThaksin, take over all Thaksin’s offshore assets and fund the Red movement from there as ChairmanGiles (a repeat of Communist history of sorts).
  3) Start a Bernie Madoff-like Ponzi scheme synthesized with Dhammakaya fund-raising practices (already associated with the Reds anyway it seem). Instead of buying merit to progress up the many levels of heaven, you pay to get into deeper levels of Marxist Heaven. AjarnGiles will also need to take courses on marketing/advertising here to really make the Marxist Heaven very attractive with 15% ’social profits’ on investment/annum…

• 4 Portman // Mar 21, 2009 at 7:02 pm

  I agree with John Francis Lee that it is wishful thinking by Giles that the red shirt movement could move beyond its simplistic aim of restoring Thaksin to power and reuniting him with his frozen assets to become some kind of revolutionary force for radical social and political change. A complete overhaul of the status quo would require a movement that was capable of attracting widespread support from intellectuals, workers, peasants, students and the military. In other cases financial and military help from overseas has often been a critical factor and finally some sort of catalyst in the form of a cataclysmic event forced people to choose sides has often been a deciding factor.

  The red shirts so far have some measure of support from peasants but this seems to be still based largely on the perception that Thaksin was the first politician who reached out to them and that they were far better off under the Thaksin government, when the various populist measures still had fresh novelty appeal. Undoubtedly there is some support from Thai intellectuals and academics but they seem in the minority, as most of this group is repelled by the red shirts’ association with Thaksin and Phuea Thai politicians with unsavory reputations. Students, in as much as they have a unified voice, have a fairly middle class outlook on life these days and are much more likely to side with the PAD than UDD. The fact that political science enrollments remain fairly strong reflects more the perception that it is an easy option requiring no special linguistic or numerate skills than a widespread interest in politics.

  Workers are not organized in any meaningful way outside state enterprises and the state enterprise unions seem firmly with the PAD. The military remains a club for people who manage to build large mansions, send their children to study overseas and own fleets of luxury cars on tiny civil service stipends. There are certainly still Thaksinites in the senior ranks of the military, as well as in the police, but these are people who hope for a better position at the trough under a restored Thaksin regime, rather than budding revolutionaries. As for help from overseas, Thaksin’s own remittances apart, he certainly enjoyed a measure of support from Western governments when he was ousted in the coup, just as the recently ousted president of Madagascar is receiving now. However, since the 2007 elections restored elected government to Thailand of a sort and Thaksin became a convicted felon, Western governments want nothing more to do with him or his red shirt movement and they retain support overseas only from the tiny minority of Western intellectuals that follows the Thai political scene from a distance.

  As for a cataclysmic event that might act as a catalyst, some may hope that the global debt deflation crisis may do the job in the way the Great Depression was a catalyst for revolutionary change in the early 30s. So far the signs are not at all encouraging for those who harbour such a hope. In the early 30s Thailand doggedly stuck to the gold standard after the US and Britain, owners of the two reserve currencies of the time, had suddenly abandoned it. This led to a total collapse in prices of local agricultural product prices and land values, far more deleterious even than Thailand’s 1997 Tom Yam Gung crisis, which made the inequitable system of taxation unsustainable. Things do look gloomy economically at present, particularly in the export sector which has anyway been steadily losing competitiveness since the late 90s, but there is no sign of a complete economic breakdown and agricultural product prices remain firm, albeit through government subsidies.

  I think the revolution remains a pipedream and personally I hope that Thailand’s parliamentary system under constitutional monarchy continues for a long time. The alternative, a Marcos like president, gouging away at the country’s resources and suppressing all freedom of opinion is unthinkable.

• 5 Phil Robertson // Mar 21, 2009 at 7:21 pm

  I think that the comment about real political leadership for the Reds is right on. The problem is that what unifies the reds is what they are against — the PAD, the Abhisit Government, elements of the highest institution. If the Red Shirts are going to move forward, they need to develop a more clear political program that states what exactly they are for, and what reform/changes they will bring if they are given the chance. Giles’ Red Siam manifesto is not that program — because what he proposes does not have popular support in Thailand. That is not a statement of my opinion about the manifesto, it is simply a statement of fact that the positions he lays out are too radical to be accepted by the average Thai.

  Giles is not the right messenger for the Red Shirts. He is a marginal player in Thai politics at best and primarily served as a gad-fly. Even in the Thai labour movement, his support was marginal and limited at best.

• 6 Bennett Haynes // Mar 22, 2009 at 4:15 pm

  From what I saw and heard in Yasothon Province last week (passing by a UDD rally), it doesn’t seem like UDD politics in northeastern provinces are changing a whole lot. If there is a group moving towards a civil society alliance, I imagine that right now it’s limited to Bangkok.

  What seems most interesting to me right now is the quiet expansion of Bhumjai Thai billboards and campaign posters in Isaan – more populism for the poor, anyone?

• 7 Ralph Kramden // Mar 23, 2009 at 2:05 am

  In response to a number of points above, including those by Phil Robertson, let’s be a bit more critical. Phil Robertson was often dressed in yellow over the past few years and has been supportive of state unions for many years, so is hardly likely that he will think that Giles has anything to say to Thais.

  But his claim of marginalism and Giles as “gadfly” seem rather odd in the context of current events. We don’t know how many people have seen the Manifesto and we are not likely to know what people think about republicanism and mild socialism expressed there. However, it is interesting that websites for newspapers that show most reads had stories on Giles at the top for some time.

  The government and the military seems to worry a lot about Giles and the reds. Are they wrong to be worried? Is Prem wrong to worry that the NE has become a “problem”?

  PAD showed how to build a political programme based on being negative. Agreed, they did say what they wanted – love for the king and get rid of popular voting – but their campaign was essentially negative. This doesn’t excuse the reds from having to come up with a statement of the way forward, but with all of the undermining of TRT/PPP/PT, lese majeste charges, military suppression and so on, the reds lack a parliamentary focus. The palace has shown time and again that it fears the mobilisation of the masses, so they need to be careful.

  On supporting Thaksin: it is clear that this is something that has resonance with a large number of people, so I doubt this shibboleth is going to be put away.

  I have no way of answering David’s good question, but I wonder who could provide an answer? Are there any academics who are researching this issue or getting a feeling for red support in the countryside?

• 8 amberwaves // Mar 23, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  While I wouldn’t want to inflate the importance of Ji or the prospects for his movement, I would suggest that to dismiss his idea as “wishful thinking” is ahistorical, no matter how accurate the analysis.

  Revolutions are born of “wishful thinking,” and revolutionaries are routinely derided and belittled.Even when they fail, some of their ideas that might once have been seen as radical can become part of the mainstream political agenda.

• 9 David Brown // Mar 23, 2009 at 4:50 pm

  seems to me that the Redshirts do have a solid underpinning:

  Based on rule by freely and universally elected government rather than by military supported politicians

  I have found many arguments about current political affairs are
  dismissed by those that are for the military side, as foreigners not understanding “thainess”.

  My understanding now is that Thailand is “different” because, like
  Burma, the military has strengthened their hold on business and politics in Thailand unlike most other societies (worth comparing) where the military are subjugated to civilian political control.

  In Thailand, unlike Burma, the military have achieved this by using the Monarchy and its popular appeal as cover. Why the Thai Monarchy has seen fit to support the military is a real question, probably bound up with strong military personalities and their ability to convince the Monarch that His reign is in danger, from democrats, communists and now republicans.

  How in Europe and other developed societies did the civilian politicians manage to subjugate the military? How did they enforce rules such as no public servants, including the military, can engage in private business while serving? How did they enforce rules that the military are not permitted to engage in actions against their own people?

  While I think Giles has gone too far and too fast in calling directly for the abolition of the monarchy I think Giles has raised serious questions about the history and current performance of the monarchy that have to be resolved. Why, in Thailand, has the Monarch appointed “retired” military officers to his Privy Council and implicitly given them power over the Thai people? Why does the Monarch permit a continuation of the exercise of Lese Majeste when He has no control over who is charged and for what?

  On this last point, I would support (the Netherlands?) Les Majeste where:
  - charges can be brought only by a senior member of the Royal Family who claims to be affected,
  - all facts of the case and proceedings are published and,
  - like ordinary defamation, truth is a defence,
  - trial by jury of Thai citizens is required,
  - punishments fit the crime and are proportionate.

  I think these questions and their resolution are all steps on the path of the redshirt movement.

• 10 Srithanonchai // Mar 23, 2009 at 5:14 pm

  “Giles is not the right messenger for the Red Shirts. He is a marginal player in Thai politics at best and primarily served as a gad-fly. Even in the Thai labour movement, his support was marginal and limited at best.” > The refreshing voice of a realist…

• 11 David // Mar 23, 2009 at 6:43 pm

  Many thanks indeed for your insightful comments so far!

  I would definetly agree that Giles ‘analysis’ is above all wishful thinking… if this can count as anecdotal evidence, I passed by the UDD ’sit in’ near Wat Phra Singh, Chiang Mai on Saturday; a middle age lady giving a half-hearted speech to eight rows of largely empty chairs (there was perhaps a total of 15 people gathered) did not look too inspiring…

  As regards the UDD’s need for “real political leadeship” (#2 and #5)… some see Jakrapob Penkair as someone who should step up (it seems Giles shares this view)… I know he is not exactly a ‘fresh face’… but he does represent a younger generation and seems to be genuinely committed and an honest guy. Could he be someone to bring a “real political program” and thus a different style of leadership in the medium-long term, or is he just another smooth-talker (perhaps a ‘red’ Abhisit)? What do you think of him?

  Portman (#4), I believe that a potentially ‘cataclysmic’ event might not be too far off, and I dont mean the economic crisis… interesting as it would be to talk about this, I absolutely agree with Jeffrey (#1), discussion of certain things is not a completely undangerous thing in Thailand these days…

• 12 David // Mar 23, 2009 at 6:51 pm

  to amberwves (#8)… yes, revolutions are born of wishful thinking, but they need a lot more than that to grow up… but point taken, maybe I should have said that Giles ‘analysis is’ “for the time being at least”, above all wishful thinking…

• 13 Hedda // Mar 24, 2009 at 1:20 am

  Some interesting analysis about who might lead a genuine democratic movement in Thailand, which largely ignores the question of whether Thaksin, regardless of his tarnished democratic credentials, may be the only living Thai politician who has the smarts, guts and self-interest to get the Thai army under civilian control and out of catering coups for the Bangkok elite.

  Unless and until the boys in tanks are brought to heel, the cycle of coups “defending the monarchy” will continue, leaving the revolution of 1932 an aborted dream. Thaksin may be the only politician with a national reputation and motive to break that vicious cycle and establish civilian control over the army once and for all.

• 14 Portman // Mar 24, 2009 at 2:04 am

  David, I am not sure I can agree with Giles’ view of Jakropob Penkair’s leadership potential and ability to broaden out the red shirts’ aims to encompass real political development. I do agree he has performed fairly well recently in helping to keep the red shirts relatively well behaved to avoid the same type of excesses as the yellow shirts. However, when I think back to his performance as Thaksin’s government spokesman he appeared more than willing to spout the usual vacuous nonsense that is the hallmark of Thai ganster politicians, military and police who believe they are above the law and don’t need to even take the trouble to think up convincing lies.

  I don’t agree with Giles that Thailand needs a Marxist style revolution or to get rid of the monarchy. But I do think it is high time that Thailand had a political movement based on democratic principles, social justice and zero tolerance for corruption. Key to this is persuading the middle classes that they are actually disadvantaged by corruption which drains national resources away from economic and social development . As it is, it is a face thing for the middle class to believe that corruption benefits them and every one knows of secretaries who are proud of knowing a policeman or customs officer that gives them some miniscule advantages. Why bother with old fashioned class war dialectics when the middle class is so much larger and more powerful than in the 70s when the class war failed anyway? It would make much more sense to bring the new bourgeoisie on board with interests aligned with rural people and workers to uproot corruption and make the police, military, police and other civil servants accountable. The red shirts are too steeped in gansterism and corruption to be this movement.

  On the other hand, Giles absolutely hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Thaksin is a capitalist politician for whom populist policies were only a cynical means to achieve social peace at the lowest possible price. As Giles said, Thaksin had no interest in ensuring that his policies were properly funded, so that they would be of substantive benefit to the poor, because that would have meant raising taxation of the wealthy to levels comparable to developed countries that have sustainable social welfare programmes.

  Personally I don’t see anything good coming out a movement centred on Thaksin. Perhaps a non-economic cataclysmic event is, indeed, on the way, David. Otherwise social and political reform will be more evolutionary over the next couple of generations when Thaksin, Jakrophob, Sondhi et al are mere blots in sanitised Thai history books.

• 15 David Brown // Mar 24, 2009 at 10:16 am

  Hedda #13…. agreed…..

  regarding “Thaksin, regardless of his tarnished democratic credentials”

  despite my efforts to discover fire where there is smoke I still find that Thaksin is quite unfairly smeared by his enemies, Sondhi Lim et al…. much less if at all corrupt than any of his accusers

  and thankfully, many people retain their faith in him

  I think THaksin should be allowed to throw his hat into a new free election and, if elected, as you say he has the best chance to subjugate the military!

  then Thailand can move forward with more equal opportunity for all… and the rich, even with their power trimmed will not be treated badly, just have to compete more fairly with their current servants and economic slaves .

• 16 David // Mar 24, 2009 at 1:47 pm

  First a quick note about the limitations of anecdotal evidence: the very next day after my passing by the largely deserted UDD ’sit in’ at Wat Phra Singh(#11), I hear that over 10 000 redshirts gathered at 700 year stadium just outside Chiang Mai… I was not there, but I am certain that that would have looked a whole lot more inspiring

  Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go for the UDD… and I don’t think Thaksin can be the man to move them forward (Hedda, #13). My reasons:

  Firstly, he is just too polarizing a figure these days; Thaksin carries too much ‘baggage’. Indeed, I believe that only a full scale and probably bloody revolution which totally redraws the power-political map in Thailand could bring him back to power. I think that that is neither a likely nor desirable scenario.

  Secondly, I have some uneasiness about his long-term commitment to democratic values – it is after all easy to be a champion of democracy so long as people vote for you, but true democratic values are shown in accepting electoral defeat (lets keep in mind that Robert Mugabe too started out as a ‘committed democrat’). Basically, I am not (yet) totally convinced that Thaksin views democracy as an end in itself. Thus, if the UDD is to become a true force for democratic change in Thailand, I believe that they would be well advised to move beyond Thaksin.

  Don’t get me wrong, Thaksin did much good for Thailand. I certainly appreciate the invaluable contribution he made in ‘awakening’ and empowering the rural and urban poor. This is undoubtedly his lasting and greatest contribution to the democratization of Thailand, for which he will and should be remembered – regardless of any concerns about whether he did this out of genuine commitment to democracy or clever political calculation, because in the end it is the result that matters. But now it should be up to new leaders, civil society groups and the people themselves to utilize the potential he unleashed.

• 17 Susie Wong // Mar 24, 2009 at 1:59 pm

  Today, Giles Ji Ungpakorn’s cousin, the Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij explains the steeper-than-expected economic deterioration that Thailand’s economy will shrink by a sharp 3% this year, worse than previously forecast.

  Korn says, “The 3% shrinkage forecast has already taken into account figures that are the expected outcomes of the government’s finance policies that will be implemented this year. Without economic stimulus measures from the government, Thailand’s economy could contract by 8% or 9% this year, which could cause almost 2 million workers nationwide to lose their jobs. The government would also issue a royal decree to authorize the government to spend the existing 17 billion baht in revenues gained from the digit lottery program launched in 2003 during the Thaksin Shinawatra administration.”

  Being Giles’s cousin, Korn practices the family’s tradition of being honest. I appreciate this fact. I would like to see able people with integrity lead the country. The country is deeply divided with serious economic deterioration, I hope to see Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Jakrapob Penkair, Thaksin Shinawatra, Korn Chatikavanij, Boonsrang Niempradit come together.

  Giles is one of the best son Thailand ever produced. Thailand can trust Giles on the matters of national security, economy, and politics. I look forward to his leadership.

• 18 R. N. England // Mar 24, 2009 at 2:01 pm

  Is Hedda right about Thaksin? A contrary argument could go something like this:-

  The real reason for the coup is that in corruptly doling out opportunities for rich profits, Thaksin got the balance wrong: too many for his civilian cronies and not enough for key generals. This is what those generals mean by “disloyal”. Thaksin was too much part of the old, essentially lawless system to lead his country out of captivity. If he had got the balance right and stayed prime minister, behind the scenes Thailand would have remained, as it does now, very much in the hands of the armed robbers in uniform.

• 19 WLH // Mar 24, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  It’s easy to dismiss the UDD as being scattered, unfocused, and lacking real leadership. But a year ago, when the PAD started making noise again, many of us (certainly I) dismissed them as has-beens whose peak had been the 2006 coup. With Thaksin gone, surely the PAD lacked the Bangkok middle-class support needed for any real impact? We all know what happened next.

  Granted the UDD is unlikely to get the same white knight protection as the PAD, but it’s unwise to dismiss them based on current appearances.

  I think Thaksin’s best move would be to come to Thailand, go to jail, and demand a public trial. He’s got the resources to mount a massive defense that implicates just about every one of his enemies for crimes that he’s been charged with. Being here would make a rallying point for his followers, especially as a jailed martyr. Showing some guts would also win over much of the center, though not all of course. Sure, he’d have only a 50% chance of living another year, but reward is always proportional to risk.

• 20 Portman // Mar 24, 2009 at 8:22 pm

  WLD #19, I agree that Thaksin’s best chance now would be to come back to Thailand and go to trial from jail on the charges that are still pending against him. I think the cases in the Supreme Court’s division for political office holders are already public. It is up to the discretion of the court but I can’t remember any recent trials there (e.g. Thaksin, Wattana) being held in camera. At Pojaman’s trial the Criminal Court allowed TV coverage. Thaksin was allowed permission to travel presumably to allow him to go into exile, as the idea of him becoming a jailed martyr was not viewed in certain quarters as being in the nation’s interests. If Thaksin develops his latest phone in references to “901″ much further he will risk adding LM charges to the ones he is already facing. That would guarantee him a trial in camera on a criminal charge that could not be dismissed under an amnesty or constitutional amendment revoking the legality of acts under the authority of the junta.

• 21 Sidh S. // Mar 24, 2009 at 9:05 pm

  Brilliant analysis Portman #4 and #14 and David #16. Thanks for the reports from Chiang Mai too David.

  From Portman #14, statements like these just baffles me why AjarnGiles choose to associate with the Reds, when a ‘SongMaiAo’ position is much more valid. It reeks of hypocritical, slick opportunism to me:

  “…On the other hand, Giles absolutely hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that Thaksin is a capitalist politician for whom populist policies were only a cynical means to achieve social peace at the lowest possible price. As Giles said, Thaksin had no interest in ensuring that his policies were properly funded, so that they would be of substantive benefit to the poor, because that would have meant raising taxation of the wealthy to levels comparable to developed countries that have sustainable social welfare programmes.

  And David, thanks for the very rare moments of ‘objectivity’ in NM in my point of view. For me, it is his only positive very significant contribution, albeit unintentional (read with AjarnGile’s above which I also agree with). Arguably, today, Thailand’s political power has never been more dispersed among the politicians, big businesses, bureaucrats, urban middleclass, urban and rural poor etc. Contrary to Hedda#13 and David Brown#15, I hold him personally responsible for repoliticizing the military and bringing them back into the power equation with a vengeance – which somewhat almost cancels the “awakening” of the poor. However, being an optimist, I still maintain Thailand has come out potentially stronger democratically (especially if the country can move to a post-Thaksin era) and I hope elected politicians and civil society can effectively harness and balance this broader power base for the greater good:

  “Don’t get me wrong, Thaksin did much good for Thailand. I certainly appreciate the invaluable contribution he made in ‘awakening’ and empowering the rural and urban poor. This is undoubtedly his lasting and greatest contribution to the democratization of Thailand, for which he will and should be remembered – regardless of any concerns about whether he did this out of genuine commitment to democracy or clever political calculation, because in the end it is the result that matters.”

• 22 David Brown // Mar 24, 2009 at 10:32 pm

  Sidh S #21

  “hold him personally responsible for repoliticizing the military and bringing them back into the power equation with a vengeance”

  hmmm… it seemed to me that the military were a little bit involved in politics before Thaksin, I suppose maybe we should not count governments led by Generals Chavalit, Prem, Sarit, Pibul, etc, etc, etc as military or perhaps not political? And perhaps the 18(?) coups by the military were not political?

  Anyway, my humble opinion is that the military struck in 2006 because Thaksin was imposing political control over them.

  As you can see from my questions in #9 the Thai military are extremely out of control compared to any of the many reasonably democratic countries around the world…

  Thai generals:
  are involved in business while supposedly in active service,
  they attack their own people: bomb, torture, kill with impunity,
  they support armed insurgents, Red Gaurs, Village Scouts, BPP, PAD,
  advise the King,
  manipulate the courts.

  Even the over-funded US military is under civilian political control. Why not in Thailand?

  Is it the King or the military that benefits from military “protection of the Monarch”?

• 23 Portman // Mar 24, 2009 at 11:28 pm

  A good point Sidh S #21 re Thaksin’s repoliticising of the military. Thaksin certainly provided the military with the opportunity to jump back into politics proclaiming its traditional role of protector of monarchy, state and religion. Given the sour memories of the previous coup and its tragic aftermath in 1992, it took some doing to catapult the military back into this role. Despite having so much power as PM, Thaksin made no attempt to professionalise the military or diminish corruption there. His energies in that respect were focused entirely on promoting family members and other close political allies to key military positions for which they were not particularly well qualified. These positions were, of course, specially attractive due to the corruption opportunities and it would have seemed pointless to Thaksin to have reduced these opportunities, while he was trying to ensure the loyalty of the incumbents. So perhaps he could be said to have reaped the harvest that he sowed in this sense. His handling of the police was a much worse lost opportunity to introduce desparately needed reform. What better way for a powerful PM to garner widespread popular support than to crack down on police corruption, involvement in organised crime and abuse of human rights in the way that Singapore did in the 60s? Instead the police were encouraged to run out of control by Thaksin who made his contempt for rule of law more than obvious. This makes it difficult to shed too many tears at his complaints about unfair legal processes. At least he is still alive and able to enjoy his liberty and wealth in the countries that will still have him.

• 24 Ralph Kramden // Mar 25, 2009 at 7:27 am

  When was the military depoliticised?
  Might look at military budgets in the period 1992-2008 and see what happened to them.

• 25 Sidh S. // Mar 25, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  David Brown #22, Portman #23 has answered your questions. As recent as 1992, the military massacred the protesting urban based middleclasses. In 2006 the military was allied (and still is) with the urban based middleclasses against one Thaksin Shinawatra!!! Let us hear your response to this and Portman’s comments in #23 (with an additional accusation against PMThaksin of messing up the police force as well).

• 26 hclau // Mar 25, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  For Sidh, Portman and others,

  You guys have an incredible ability to have amnesia of Thai military – political history pre-Thaksin. perhaps we should start a new calender with AT (Anno Thaksin) calling this year 9 AT or whatever. The rest years BT is simply ancient history and not to be remembered.

  The Military has never been out of politics and have never been under the control of the political parties. Furthermore to suggest that Thaksin come back to Thailand to stand trial is a joke – kangaroo court – to paraphrase the Oz. He has less chance than snowball in hell!

  In case you don’t remember, the judges and court officials were hand picked by the military and have a penchant to interprete “laws” according to its master’s desires.

• 27 Portman // Mar 25, 2009 at 5:25 pm

  Hclau #26. “In case you don’t remember, the judges and court officials were hand picked by the military and have a penchant to interprete “laws” according to its master’s desires.” If this is the case, then Thaksin must appreciate the irony of it in the light of how he became PM in the first place through his highly suspect Constitutional Court victory in the “honest mistake” assets concealment case.

  I would say that the military, while certainly not out of the picture althogether, was very much on the back foot in politics after the disastrous 1992 massacres put an end to their hopes of restoring the hybrid democracy of the 80s under Prem. Thaksin had the power reduce their influence even further but, instead, played into their hands due to his own greed. If he had just made a voluntary donation of tax on Shin Corp deal, he would probably still be PM today.

• 28 Ralph Kramden // Mar 25, 2009 at 10:16 pm

  Saying the military was on the back foot and saying they were depoliticised is entirely different. Some analysts such as Ukrist spend considerable time trying to understand the military’s political position and roles. His work on the 2006 coup and the royalist military is worth considering again.

  At the same time, it is also worth considering Prem’s role in maintaining the military’s political position.

• 29 Phil Robertson // Mar 26, 2009 at 12:34 am

  I have no idea who Ralph Kramden is, or how he purports to know me or however he justifies his outlandish claim that I am somehow “yellow” in this dispute. I am friends with Somsak Kosaisook, and worked with the SERC to get their union rights back after the NPKC stripped the state enterprise workers of their rights to form unions — but I am also a good friend with Jakrapob Penkair, who I have been close with as the coordinator of the Johns Hopkins SAIS group in Thailand. If Ralph, or whoever, wished to ask either of them about me, they would probably both assume I was sympathetic to them — when in fact, I have been pretty much neutral. The fact that I remain good friends with them, and other Thais on both sides of the dispute, indicates this. What I am clear on — having dealt plenty with Ji Giles when he was trying to organize his study groups of wannabe Marxist-Leninist students — was that he was never able to generate a crowd of more than 100 people. And also that he regularly used over the top language that was designed to offend rather than persuade. If that is not the definition of a gad-fly, then I am not sure what is. Ralph, before you start characterizing the views of other people that you don’t know personally, why don’t you tell the rest of us what you actually think on the divide.

• 30 hclau // Mar 26, 2009 at 1:01 am

  Hello Portman,

  Are we back on the tax thing again? There is no tax on equity capital gains in Thailand or Malaysia. Plenty of literature on that subject. If you are a brokerage, the tax is a business profit tax, not a tax on capital gains. Please list any one in the Democratic or PAD or maybe any of your friend who paid any tax on stock trade or share sales?? or have I miss some seriously big hearted rich guy in Thailand who had volunteered to pay tax on non-taxable income. – Incidently there isn’t even a mechanism for that!

• 31 David Brown // Mar 26, 2009 at 9:36 am

  Portman #27

  of course Thaksins success in the “highly suspect Constitutional Court victory in the “honest mistake” assets concealment case. ” was just another case of Prem manipulating the courts (cant keep his sticky fingers off)

  it seems that Prem thought Thaksin would be useful but in the event its just another case of “blowback”

  like the Americans supporting Saddam and Osama… Prem and the CIA are similar, probably one trained the other

• 32 Sidh S. // Mar 26, 2009 at 3:09 pm

  Hclau #26 – not “AT” or “BT” – just from Black May 1992 and aftermaths, then 1997 Constitution, then PMChuan as first civilian Minister of Defense and the breaking of the sacred seniority tradition in the Army Commander post of appointing GenSurayud ,who was 6 years from retirement age, before many much more senior generals (with the objective of reform and continuity). The last issue alone could have been enough for a coup in the years of military dominance in politics (remember even PMPrem wasn’t safe from coups) – and reflected the military’s significantly reduced power and political clout. If only PMThaksin worked to the roadmap and spirit of the 1997 Constitution, we will not be in the mess we are in now. Thankfully, we’ll know in these next few days, what PMThaksin and the Reds have left in their tanks. The faster the conclusion of Thaksin/Red, the faster the rise of the talented Mr.Newin…

• 33 Portman // Mar 26, 2009 at 11:33 pm

  hclau # 30 I am fully aware of the tax laws on equity investments in Thailand (Malaysia seems irrelevant here), having been actively involved with the SET for over 20 years. Actually your account is incomplete as you didn’t mention that capital gains on equities are taxable (as personal or corporate income) in the case of unlisted equities or on listed equities not transacted through the market and that capital gains on all equity transactions made by all juristic persons, not just brokers, are taxable as corporate income, except mutual funds and unless subject to a double tax treaty in the case of a foreign juristic person.

  However, what I suggested was that, if Thaksin had made a voluntary donation of tax on the Shin Corp deal, he would probably be PM today and might not be reduced to the status of an incoherent “phone-in” whinger. It was the unseemly tax free profit made while in office that created most of the impetus of public opinion that facilitated Thaksin’s ouster and it is the “tax issue” that is still most often cited today, even though there was indeed legally no tax due. Curiously, the the nationalism issue of selling out to the Singaporeans was quickly forgotten and nobody cares anymore that the Singaporean and Norwegian governments effectively own the Thai mobile phone sector between them through structures that are clearly illegal under both the Foreign Business Act and the Telecoms Act.

  In fact there probably was a taxable event when the block of shares owned by Ample Rich was transferred to Thaksin’s children after Temasek disappointed Thaksin who had not bothered to tidy up the offshore structure because he had been poorly advised that a buyer would agree to buy Ample Rich with the Shin Corp shares in it, despite obvious money laundering concerns when the only interested buyers were foreign state enterprises. The sale of Ample Rich’s shares to the Thaksin children was done off market, in which case the tax exemption didn’t apply, and the beneficiary was a juristic person domiciled in the BVI which has no tax treaty with Thailand meaning that its capital gains on Thai equities, even on listed equities transacted through the market, are fully taxable. The irony is that public opinion didn’t object to this trade done by Thaksin at a fake price to evade tax (because it was not obvious to many), while he effectively got the boot for not paying tax that was not due on the onshore trades (because the moral injustice was so obvious). Even though there is indeed no mechanism for voluntary payment of tax that is not due, Thaksin is a clever chap and could no doubt have found a way to set up a fund that would have been beneficial to needy segments of Thai society, unlike the fund for the promotion of democracy he has set up abroad. Many “seriously big hearted rich guys in Thailand” have set up charitable foundations and Thaksin could easily have consulted some of them for advice. As it happened, he resented the call to share some of the booty largely earned while he was PM and in a position to benefit Shin Corp. He made his own judgment call and managed to avoid the “tax”. Now he is where he is and the proceeds from the sale are where they are.

  David Brown #31, is there any evidence to suggest that Thaksin himself didn’t place any pressure on the Constitutional Court judges in his asset concealment trial?

• 34 hclau // Mar 27, 2009 at 1:03 am

  Just a small note;

  No military man in Thailand actually “retires”. That’s the reason they are still refered to as General “so & so”, Colonel “so & so” etc.

  In other countries, they are refered to as General (rtd) so&so. RTD being retired. never see that in Thailand.

• 35 David // Mar 27, 2009 at 1:47 pm

  It is interesting to see how quickly this discussion has moved away from being about the future of the UDD and morphed into the (same old) debate about the past of Thaksin.

  On the one hand, this is a pity. On the other hand, it does say a lot about where the UDD is stuck…

• 36 Sidh S. // Mar 27, 2009 at 3:02 pm

  David Brown #31 – that is truly a deep Red statement to say PMPrem got PMThaksin off his “honest mistake”. It is highly likely that the more than capable PMThaksin (or his then partner in every crime, KYPotjaman) manipulated the courts himself…

  hclau#30 – you intentionally keep missing the point. If you go strictly by the law he does even not ‘own’ the companies as it is all held under nominees’ names. What led to urban middleclasses mass anger and protests was the issue of perception of ‘fairness’. ShinCorp is perceived to have disproportionally benefited from PMThaksin’s political position. In this case, the middleclasses expected that he should compensate the government, that he leads, with some of the money from the sale – if not by taxes (as it would be illegal as you say), then in the form of donations (as MajGenChamlong, then his ally also advised). It is a very reasonable expectation, as the middleclass see that PMThaksin used their taxes for his populist policies that benefits the poor, PMThaksin should also contribute to the same coffers. So Portman is probably right there and PMThaksin’s stingyness and greed fuelled urban middleclass anger led to his downfall.

  We are now much clearer why PMThaksin refused to come clean and chose to dissolve parliament rather than simply answers questions on the ShinCorp sale. The ShinCorp deal involved abuse of state power (questionable law changes), concealment of assets, fraud, the utilization of offshore nominees etc. (similar to the unethical tricks that the Wall Street Gods of the Universe used to bring the world economy to its knees). Let’s not equate the law with ethics hclau, you surely know better than that…

• 37 nganadeeleg // Mar 28, 2009 at 10:40 am

  Portman: Do you know what proportion of the Shincorp shares were owned in Ample Rich (the BVI tax haven company)?

• 38 Ralph Kramden // Mar 28, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  I have nothing to add to what I already said regarding Phil Robertson’s dismissal of Ji Ungpakorn. My observation that someone on the other side of politics as defined by current divisions in Thailand is hardly likely to consider that that Ji has anything much to offer. I am sure that Ji would reject the kind of unionism sponsored by SILS and by the U.S. government and its agencies.

  BTW, membership of the Johns Hopkins alumni hardly seems like a measure of anything about political sides. Isn’t Prem the president of it? That is unlikely to make him a buddy of Jakraphob.

  It would be interesting to know more about the role of state unions and Somchai in PAD. Phil Robertson is probably better placed than most to comment.

• 39 John Francis Lee // Mar 28, 2009 at 8:31 pm

  I have been very impressed with the number of Thais in the streets in Bangkok the past few days. The house organs in the media have been saying 20 or 30 thousand, but it looks many more than that and people on the scene corroborate that there are many, many people out in opposition to the PAD/Democrat combine.

  The reds have dwarfed anything the PAD was ever able to do, and at this time it is actually the government that is paying for participation with their 2000B checks. I have read that some of the reds are turning over their checks to the red leadership. I hope not too many. They surely need the cash more than the “leadership” does.

  And the reds have been very much more “civilized” in their behavior than the PAD ever was. The Bangkok Post had an article in which they calmly detailed four concrete proposals by Thaksin himself that made a lot of sense to me, calling for elections and pledging that he would not run, for instance. He pointed out too that it was the PAD/Democrat side whose actions had “politicized” the monarchy more than any others.

  Regardless the leadership I was very gratified to see so many Thais taking to the streets in support of democracy. I hope that people begin to organize among themselves and to develop the real, grass roots leadership they require to regain and retain the reins of government in this wonderful country of Thailand.

• 40 hclau // Mar 28, 2009 at 8:59 pm

  My dear Sidh,

  Nice of you to mention the military – so upright and honest and incorruptible. Wonder why the “urban middleclasses mass anger and protests” never apply to them.

  I never miss the point – simply insist that if you accuse someone, please apply some honesty – harping on the “tax” issue is misleading and dis-honest. Then “of course” honesty is not a pre-requisite to PAD membership.

• 41 nganadeeleg // Mar 29, 2009 at 10:55 am

  “And the reds have been very much more “civilized” in their behavior than the PAD ever was“.

  This piece by a generally unbiased reporter/journalist puts things into perspective :
  http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=1069

• 42 Portman // Mar 29, 2009 at 8:27 pm

  nganadeeleg # 36
  “Portman: Do you know what proportion of the Shincorp shares were owned in Ample Rich (the BVI tax haven company)?”

  Thaksin held 11% or 329.2 million shares in of Shin Corp in Ample Rich lodged with UBS Singapore. He sold that block to Temasek’s nominees for approx US$465 million after transferring it back onshore to his children a day or two beforehand.

  Temasek gave up the opportunity to take it offshore as foreign registered stock as they were worried about being accused of conspiracy to launder money. Instead they chose to buy it onshore as local stock through a fake Thai company using well connected Thai puyai as nominees who they believed no one would dare question. Neither the buyer nor the seller won any awards for transparency, corporate governance or respect for rule of law.

• 43 Ralph Kramden // Mar 30, 2009 at 3:20 am

  nganadeeleg, I don’t see that the Pravit piece necessarily supports your assessment. Since PAD’s campaigns, nastiness has become more commonplace and of course the military and police have long been nasty.

  And while there have been a couple of significant incidents – the Chiangmai death, the anti-gay stuff and clashes with PAD, the nastiness coming from the red shirts seems rather mild compared to the constant nastiness from the PAD stage, which also had a much wider audience through ASTV and the Manager publications.

  Offensive books and posters being commonplace hardly amounts to being uncivilized. You can get similar pictures and magazines at local book stalls.

  The reds may well go off the deep end at some time, but don’t seem imminently dangerous or remarkably uncivilized.

  Pravit’s earlier piece (www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=1065) warns that there is a chance that the progressives in the movement might be losing out and that this may weaken the UDD’s claims to be promoting democracy. Pravit is usually pretty astute, so this observation and warning deserves serious consideration.

• 44 nganadeeleg // Mar 30, 2009 at 9:05 am

  Thanks Portman.

  “Neither the buyer nor the seller won any awards for transparency, corporate governance or respect for rule of law”.

  However, both seem to have gotten their just deserts

• 45 nganadeeleg // Mar 31, 2009 at 8:56 am

  Ralph Kramden said:
  “nganadeeleg, I don’t see that the Pravit piece necessarily supports your assessment”

  What assessment?

• 46 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Apr 1, 2009 at 1:51 am

  For anyone who can read Thai and might be interested: I’ve drawn an overall sketch of the evolution of the UDD movements since mid-December to the present. I divide it into two phases: the Radical Reds (mid-December to mid-March) and the ‘Attacking the so-called ‘a-mat-ta-ya-thip-pa-tai’, Profesting Loyalty to the Monarchy phase. Each has distinct themes of its own.

  See : http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?showtopic=27720

• 47 Srithanonchai // Apr 4, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  For some people, the UDD actions have really serious problems.
  ASTV Phuchatkan (March 31) reports on the PAD supporters in Sungai Kolok, on the Narathiwat/Malaysian border. The reporters interviewed four Chinese-Thai women at the local market. One of them complained:

  “We are Chinese-Thai. We always like to dress in red. However, at the recent Chinese New Year, our families and we did not at all wear red. Instead, we dressed in pink. We could not stand the [UDD] slogan ‘The entire country is red.’ Until today, we do not buy any red cloths. All that we have already, we keep in the wardrobe. We do not use them any longer at all.”

• 48 khamala // Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 pm

  what do you think of Thailand’s ’socialist’ party as the way out of the current ‘bad or worse’ situation?

• 49 Portman // Apr 5, 2009 at 6:20 pm

  Khamala #48. Where can we find details of the new Thai socialist party? I saw it announced as a tiny paragraph in the press.

Leave a Comment