New Mandala

22 responses so far ↓

• 1 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // May 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  Chang Noi:
  (readers please notice my emphases with bold types font)

  Of course, in the background is Thaksin’s money and ambition on one side, and military power and meddling on the other.

  But this should not be allowed to obscure what these movements stand for.

  Thai politics is often criticised for being dominated by small, self-serving cliques of businessmen and generals. Both these movements want to move beyond.

  Their main enemy is not each other, but the old, old politics desperate to resist this challenge.

  I really, really, really wish that Chang Noi be honest with himself and his readers.

  Chang Noi knows very well that “in the background…on the other hand” (in fact, not even so much “in the background” these past few years) is definitely not just “military power and meddling”.

  The result of this deliberately, and dishonestly “Missing Factor” in his portrait is: Chang Noi himself “obscure[s] what these movements stand for”

  Thus when he write: that the PAD (one side of his portrait) “challenge[s]” “old, old politics” and “want[s] to move beyond” it, I seriously ask:

  Did Chang Noi fall asleep the whole 3 years that PAD called for, and indeed achieved the maintainance and enhancement of the POWER OF THE MONARCHY, the one most important CENTRAL PILLAR of the “old, old politics”? When does the PAD show even the slightest sign of wanting to “move beyond” THIS power?

  Or Chang Noi simply is dishonest?

  Let’s me re-iterate this in the strongest terms: I think when academic like Chang Noi writes such a piece, knowing full well what’s missing, it’s intellectual dishonesty that should be condemned.

• 2 nganadeeleg // May 4, 2009 at 2:53 pm

  Might you be just a little harsh on an opinion piece published in THE NATION?
  I thought is was quite a good summary piece, but would also be very interested to hear more about your ‘central pillar’ theory, and especially how it applies to the type of politicians and local lords prevalent in Thailand.

• 3 Les Abbey // May 4, 2009 at 3:34 pm

  A far better analysis on the situation than many recent posts.

• 4 Srithanonchai // May 4, 2009 at 5:01 pm

  Indeed, it is not that easy to see that PAD wants to “move beyond.” Anyway, this might be a matter of linguistics. Starting with a radical (and radically simplistic as well as moralistic) condemnation of conventional politics and politicians, and then trying to overcome this (partly realistic, partly self-created) image by reference to a thick soup of Buddhism and Monarchism, might seem reactionary (or, as Chang Noi had previously stated, “anti-democratic”), but, in English, this might still pass for “move beyond.” Anyway, I would have preferred “move back” for the PAD. However, I am not sure whether the UDD could be seen as “moving forward,” given its close connection with the “old politics” so viciously attacked by the PAD. Finally, ASTV might have been novel at one time. These days, however, it is just a propaganda tool. Anyone who has once read Nazi and communist propaganda material will have a good deja vu reading ASTV Phuchatkan newspaper.

• 5 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // May 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm

  re: ngangadeelek

  Chang Noi says: “in the background” of UDD is Thaksin, “in the background of PAD is “military power and meddling”

  I ask: Can anyone seriously maintain that, on the PAD side, that is ALL ??

  What are they? or what do they belong to?
  How about the judges, the so-called “Tulakan Phiwat”? Who or what is responsible for bringing forth such phenomenon?

  A summary that deliberately avoids such important “background” is a “good piece”?

  In fact, as I alreadly point out above, it’s not only bad and dishonest, it’s also factually and analytically wrong.

  That the PAD called for, indeed achieved, the maintanance and enhancement of the Royal Power, cannot, factually and analytically, be said to express desire to “move beyond old politics”. A piece that sums up thus cannot be said to be a “good” one.

  Regarding what you call my ‘theory’, notice that Chian Noi himself speaks of the military power. Presumably everyone would agree that this is indeed one important facet of old politics? Now, didn’t Prem himself spoke of “jockey” and “owner”? Or should I change my metaphor from “pillar” to “owner”?

  (As to the politicians, my advice: please just count how many years of the last 70 plus years the politicians really had been in power, compare with other groups.)

  Finally, the issue of The Nation should not be an excuse, in the context of an article that aims to provide an “overall” summary of recent politics. If one cannot write honestly what ‘actors’ or ‘factors’ are centrally involved in the current crises, then DON’T WRITE AT ALL.

  To ’sum up’ that ‘in the background’ of the PAD is ‘the military’ (and nothing more, not even the ‘judges’ and the ‘privy councilers’), and that the PAD “want to move beyond old politics’ while it’s more than obvious to everyone that it ’stands for” the monarchy, is just that : DISHONESTY.

• 6 nganadeeleg // May 4, 2009 at 9:14 pm

  I’m not sure of exactly what Chang Noi had in mind by ‘in the background’, but I would be interested in your proof that those other players were ‘in cahoots’ with the PAD, and it was not merely a case of them having loosely similar objectives, being to be rid of Thaksin although IMO probably for differing reasons?

  I don’t know the real answer one way or the other, but you sound like you do, so I would be interested to see the proof, but I understand the difficulties.

  Where’s ‘Republican’ when you need him?
  (although I seem to recall you two might not be on the same page anyway regarding some of these matters)

  I still think you are being overly critical of an opinion piece in a Thai newspaper, and it was only me who said it was summary piece – that may not have been Chang Noi’s intention, particularly with the reference to ’shades of grey’.

  This is from the original piece in The Nation:
  “Sondhi swathed the movement in yellow, portrayed Thaksin as a threat to the monarchy and called for royal intervention to remove him. This provoked a crisis behind the PAD stage. Several civil activists objected to this strategy. Some peeled away, while others remained but with less influence over the movement. PAD started a debate on why Thai politics was dominated by a minority of not-so-honest businessmen, and how to move beyond this system so Thailand could progress”

  btw, nice deflection of my question about the types of politicians & local lords prevalent in Thailand and it’s politics.

  One other thing: Have you seen todays news about the situation in Nepal?

• 7 Portman // May 4, 2009 at 10:06 pm

  A very good summary of the situation by Chiang Noi and appropriate for a newspaper article.

  Ajarn Somsak, why not publish your own summary in The Nation or Bangkok Post, if you believe you can do a much better job than Chiang Noi? If you have information about royal involvement in politics unavailable to Chiang Noi, why are you sitting on it?

• 8 Sidh S // May 4, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  “That the PAD called for, indeed achieved, the maintanance and enhancement of the Royal Power”

  AjarnSomsak, I am not sure how that was achieved? On the contrary, in the this Thai Civil War, royal power seem to be more clearly defined and limited – and many other players have clearly been much more prominent and powerful (the monarchy are arguably as divided as Thai society itself – yes, HMQ may sided with the PAD, but her close aide, TPYViriya Javakul clearly sides with PMThaksin). Those who clearly gained is the military as an institution, who often have their own agendas and attitude to power independent of other institutions, and the rural masses (ironically via their very manipulation by PMThaksin and their disdain by the PAD).

  The judiciary also gained in power (encouraged by HMK, you may say), but with the Thai parliament totally circumvented by PMThaksin to resolve the political conflicts in 2006, they had to step up (if the legislative branch can’t check on the executive, the judiciary would be expected to do something. Remember that they were traditionally timid). The urban-based middleclasses have gained a powerful mouthpiece in the PAD (also expressing their biases against ‘bought’ rural voters) – and they’ll remain the biggest barrier to any ‘deal’ with PMThaksin.

  The police have been the big losers as a political institution, rising with PMThaksin and assuming important roles in various independent bodies and boards – only to be displaced after the coup. Their handling of PMAbhisit’s security is merely payback it seem.

  People often forget that there was a violent crackdown (that lasted for most of Oct 7) on the PAD blocking PMSomchai’s inauguration in parliament, by the POLICE – while the recent crackdown on the Reds (holding Bangkok hostage) was by the ARMY. This is another underlying layer of INSTITUTIONAL conflict in Thai politics.

  Let’s not be naive and also see the military as a homogeneous body – they never were (PMPrem with strong royal backing also survived a few coups). PMThaksin knew very well that there was risk of a coup in 2006 and was prepared – he had the Supreme Command under his control and seem to mistakenly thought he had the loyalty of the the then 1st Army Commander responsible for Bangkok, GenAnupong Paojinda his own classmate. GenAnupong has done the very rare thing of putting other priorities (the country’s? his own? The latter according to PAD who don’t trust and have been attacking him – and still is!) over those of his classmates (on the other hand, during the coup, his hands may have been tied as GenSonthi overlooked the reshuffle of commanders in and around Bangkok before the coup).

  The talented Mr.Newin – who fled to Supreme Command during the coup, then when caught, stripped and jailed for many days and when released actively coordinated PMThaksin’s resistance – seems to have now formed a clear alliance with certain elements in the military for the next election (with the army now seemingly campaigning in north and northeast for PhumjaiThai??).

  Interestingly, it may turn out that elements in the military are behind or have colluded to assassinate TycoonSondhi.

  And I have not mentioned the Thai closeted republicans elements opportunistically embedded within the Reds – some of whom only revealed themselves (AjarnGiles) to complicate the mix! (I understand your sympathies lie somewhere here)

  I would argue that ‘political power’ has never been more widely disseminated – increasing the chance of a broader based democracy IF the various group could negotiate their differences POST-Thaksin (the unknown variable. On the other hand, if Jakrapob is as good as his promise for an armed resistance – backed by Thaksin’s money, the military can only further benefit).

• 9 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // May 4, 2009 at 10:56 pm

  nganadeelek:

  I’m not sure of exactly what Chang Noi had in mind by ‘in the background’, but I would be interested in your proof that those other players were ‘in cahoots’ with the PAD, and it was not merely a case of them having loosely similar objectives, being to be rid of Thaksin although IMO probably for differing reasons?

  Logically, what ‘different reasons’, if any, have anything to do with people being judged in the same side, either in the ‘fore-ground’ or ‘back-ground’? Suppose I defend Red Shirt rally for a different reason to that of Thaksin, are we both not in the same side? Of course we are.

  Regarding you being ‘unsure what Chang Noi had in mind by ‘in the back ground’”, let me ask this: when you said his is a good piece, were you already unsure what he had in mind by ‘military power is in the background’ of the PAD? Or you just pretend dumb only when it comes to the monarchy?

  Is giving money (and gift) to the rally qualified as ‘in the background’, especially if that money (though relatively small) comes from so powerful a figure? Is having your chief adviser phone to ‘encourage /express support’ a movement that was attempting to topple a government qualified? How about arranging for and going to the funeral of the deads, giving aids to the injured? What about unleashing a ‘Judiaciary Revolution’ that swept governments of ‘one side’ away? All these are still not ‘in the background’ enough?

  Do you really not understand when Chang Noi writes that ‘Thaksin money and abition’ is ‘in the background’ of the UDD, while ‘military power and meddling’ ‘in the background’ of the PAD? If you do, why not the monarchy? Isn’t ‘Royal Power’ the central demand of the PAD? That’s not ‘in the background’ enough, in the same way as ‘Thaksin ambition’ or ‘military power’? BE HONEST please, don’t pretend dumb.

• 10 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // May 4, 2009 at 11:11 pm

  Sidh S.
  I am not sure how that was achieved?….

  The elimination of potential threat / rival to one’s own power, and appointment of one’s own people (the first time in some 30 years) to top adminstrative position – these are not achievement in the ‘enhancement’ of one’s power?

• 11 Colum Graham // May 4, 2009 at 11:38 pm

  Ajarn Somsak, Srithanonchai, maybe the PAD wish to ‘move beyond’ *wink-wink* old politics(?) so that the new(?) politics can’t be so obviously associated with old power!

  Apart from mentioning the unmentionable, that was a really good summary.

  Also, I’m not too sure about the ending. To me, Chang Noi suggests that politics usually isn’t about survival? I thought it’s always about survival, and survival can hardly be grey. It’s filled with crimson bloody gashes and yellow pus oozing from wounds opened up in competitors to remain the last one standing. With my thinking, grey politics would mean that the competitors were already dead… Maybe Chang Noi can foretell the ending! Please tell us more!

• 12 Colum Graham // May 4, 2009 at 11:43 pm

  (*…not mentioning the unmentionable..)

• 13 nganadeeleg // May 5, 2009 at 1:24 pm

  Isn’t ‘Royal Power’ the central demand of the PAD? That’s not ‘in the background’ enough, in the same way as ‘Thaksin ambition’ or ‘military power’? BE HONEST please, don’t pretend dumb.

  On these matters I AM dumb – I rely on people like you to enlighten me, but so far I must be too dumb to be completely convinced that royal power IS the CENTRAL demand, and not just a tool or a means to an end – the end being to be rid of Thaksin, and like I said different groups wanted that for different reasons.

  I sometimes attack Thaksin because I dislike aspects of his rule – does that make me on the same side as the PAD?

  I sometimes defend Thaksin/TRT for their pro-poor policies – does that make me a red shirt or on the same side as them?

  I sometimes attack Abhisit, Kasit, Sondhi L & Chamlong – does that make me a red shirt or on the same side as them?

  I sometimes defend Abhisit – does that make me a yellow shirt or on the same side as them?

  The iconic leader of the red side is a self confessed loyal monarchist – does that make him on the same side as the PAD?

• 14 nganadeeleg // May 5, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  On the specifis things you mentioned:
  - About attending funerals, giving gifts – Whilst I dont think it was necessarily wise given the political situation, and does not look good for balance, I just dont think it is conclusive proof because I am not prepared to pass judgement how individuals show or feel compassion for some people, and not others. That is an individual matter -we each can hear a story and some people will be moved by it and others not, and the individual who was moved by that story might not be similarly moved by other stories.

  - About asking judges to sort out a political mess/stalemate – I dont really have any problem with that, but I would if there was clear, provable, interference in the process – the closest I have seen to some sort of proof was a tape that seemed inconclusive to me, and sounded more like people wanting to be seen to be doing something to help resolve the stalemate – I am open to further explanations on this matter.

  - About Cheif adviser phoning to express support…I am not sure exactly who/what you are referring to, so cannot comment.

  All that said, I do think there is something ‘fishy’ in Thailand, but I am still not sure of exactly who/what is behind it because there are so many major players involved, most of whom I think have dangerous character flaws, and I dont know whether other equally or more powerful characters (also with character flaws) are acting to save the country from certain characters or to preserve their own positions.

  Looking around the region does not give me much confidence that things would ever fit with a western view of ‘liberal democracy’ – and that is something which this westerner has trouble holding up as an ideal goal anyway, although thats easy for me to say from my comfortable position which I concede is only made possible because of freedoms given to me by that same western liberal democracy.

• 15 Sidh S // May 5, 2009 at 10:54 pm

  AjarnSomsak, your analysis is clearly framed by where your sympathies lie – which is consistent with many in NM and you will always blame the monarchy for all the country’s, and in particular Thai democracy’s ills. My own analysis is as stated in #8 and also in agreement with Ngandeeleg’s #14 and the ‘evidences’ (as is publicly available), through the years, can easily point in many directions and possibilities in terms of what exactly happened.

  I am also of the view that Thai society is already ‘mature’ enough so that a broad-based, diverse groupings of ’stakeholders’ – the politicians, the military, the bureaucrats, the monarchy, the urban middleclasses, the businessmen, the rural voters, the astrologers, religious leaders, unions, NGOs etc…etc… can be ALL ACCOUNTABLE for what the country is today socio-economically and politically (and environmentally too).

  It’s too easy to reduce any society’s complexities to a few factors – it gets attention, it is ‘controversial’, it sells magazines and books. But reality is, overwhelmingly more often than now, anything but. It also often gives a wrong impression of a society (particularly internationally where Thailand gets minuscule coverage).

  This reminds me of the time before I came to Australia over ten years ago and my ex-Australian student friends were telling me Australia is a racist country. The prominence of Pauline Hanson and One Nation in Asia then did not help. Coming here, many fellow international students were able to recall specific ‘racist’ experiences – locals in drive-bys shouting racist taunts, eggs thrown, cars vandalized, people in shopping malls shouting “go home”, the dominant white cast in Neighbours and Home and Away. Then you hear (as you very rarely see them) about the conditions of the indigenous population and statistics that their life expectancy is decades lower than the general population – all of which can easily reinforce one conclusion.

  From my 10+ years here, I will clearly and confidently state that that is not true and an extremely inaccurate picture of the Australia. Yes, racism exists, but amongst a very, very small minority. A much more accurate picture would be a maturing, highly cosmopolitan society increasingly and wonderfully expressed in everyday life spaces – street life, food, popular culture, media (at least SBS and ABC, the best TV stations in the world)…

  Having said that, I will not demand that NM give Thailand a fairer, more accurate treatment that it deserves. Australia and Thailand (save for one very minor law which does not apply for the overwhelming majority of Thais, expats and visiting foreigners) are free countries and we are perfectly entitled to our biases…

• 16 Chang Noi // May 7, 2009 at 12:56 am

  Ajan Somsak, it’s all a bit puzzling. Is there anyone who thinks that PAD is not royalist? Was it necessary to introduce this blinding news to the world? Would it have changed the argument of this piece (about movement politics vs. intrigue politics) one bit?

  Still, it’s been an interesting thread. Thanks.

• 17 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // May 7, 2009 at 10:59 am

  Chang Noi:
  Is there anyone who thinks that PAD is not royalist? Was it necessary to introduce this blinding news to the world?

  Perhaps, you mean:

  Is there anyone who thinks that UDD is not pro-Thaksin? (Or, “is there anyone who thinks that Thaksin is not behind the UDD?) Was it necessary to introduce this blinding news to the world?

  Is it not much more ‘puzzling’ that you choose to introduce only the ‘blinding news’ of Thaksin and the UDD ? What is more ‘blinding news’, really?

  Now, be honest please! You choose to introduce only ‘ news’ of Thaksin and the UDD because the other side isn’t ‘news’? Really?

  As to how it would change the arguement of the article, I thought I made it quite clear: the suggestion that PAD wants to “go beyond old politics” is dead wrong by its call for the Royal Power, by the fact that the monarchy is “in its background”.

  By ‘omitting’ the monarchy-PAD connection, one could of course formally made such rediculous suggestion.

• 18 Joy // May 7, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  I’ve been following this thread closely with great interest. All you guys’ commenting are very thought-provoking to a novice like me.Look forward for more comments and arguments.

• 19 Sidh S // May 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  AjarnSomsak#17 – on the other hand if Chang Noi turns this into a repressive Monarchy Vs a liberal Democrat Thaksin would also be extremely ridiculous, pandering to a very narrow audience’s fetishes (many in NM).

  I thought Chang Noi has struck the right balance on the proportionate action of each group based on available evidences. As my views in #8 and #15 suggests, I prefer to analyze based on the reported actions of each societal players. Many people here seem to take the Economist’s Orientalist gaze and are thus just not giving the highly diverse Thai Democracy stakeholders enough credit. Beyond those actions can only be guesswork…

• 20 amberwaves // May 7, 2009 at 4:41 pm

  Sidh S: Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t there a vociferous but small ANTI-racist movement in Australia? Is it not likely that had it not been highlighting the issue, the general drift of the silent majority might have been to accommodate racism? The same dynamic held for the US antiwar movement (and civil rights movement) in the 196os.

  My point is that it is more than a little dismissive and patronizing to say that “I will not demand that NM give Thailand a fairer, more accurate treatment that it deserves” and that it’s simply a matter of people being free to express their biases.

• 21 Sidh S // May 7, 2009 at 6:07 pm

  Thanks amberwaves #20 on the very interesting point on racism, the antiwar and civil rights movement. I hope someone could enlighten us further whether it was/is a racist-minority or racist majority or just uncaring – or it is a matter of time and changing attitudes. (or it may come down to whether you have a generally optimistic or pessimistic outlook to life?)

  Maybe a “little dismissive and patronizing” – just a little. If you read the whole last paragraph I wrote, we are in agreement.

• 22 Somsak Jeamteearasakul // May 8, 2009 at 5:42 pm

  The spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Ministry has just provided a perfect compliment to Chang Noi’s artile. See the new post here
  http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2009/05/08/the-thai-monarchy-is-not-involved/

  He might as well cite ‘respected academic-journalist’ Chang Noi:

  ‘See! The recent conflicts are all about ambition and money of politicians, power and meddling by some military officers, as well as movements by supporters of each side. That’s all… The monarhcy is not involved.’

Leave a Comment