Yesterday at the ANU, scholars, students, guests and embassy officials enjoyed another of Medhi Krongkaew’s discussions on the state of Thai politics. Medhi, whose day-job is with the National Counter Corruption Commission, gave a day-by-day summary of the red-shirt protests that took place in Bangkok between 8 and 14 April. According to Medhi, Abhisit’s handling of the crisis was both “lucky and good”: Abhisit insisted that the security forces strictly follow the rules of engagment and by peacfully resolving the crisis was able to regain much of the stature he had lost after the ASEAN debacle in Pattaya.
Medhia attributed the ongoing political conflict largely to a personal struggle between current Prime Minister Abhisit and former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (who, by the way, can be compared with Hitler who was also elected). This will be a difficult conflict to resolve, partly because calls for amnesty or constitutional reform are likely to be vigorously opposed by the yellow shirts.
Nevertheless, Medhi ended on a relatively positive note arguing that political peace can come to Thailand if the law is followed strictly and judges are permitted to do their jobs independantly.
In response to several questions which raised the issue of the monarchy in the political crisis, Medhi vigorously asserted that the king had no role in politics and made a plea that we all just “leave him alone.”
But what about “her” and “him junior”?
If any of the other attendees have additional, or alternative, thoughts on the presentation please post them here.
11 responses so far ↓
1 tum|bler // May 6, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Does “him junior” have anything to do with the political crisis?
2 Fred Nerk // May 6, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Tumbler: I would say that his continued animated existence in this earthly vale of tears is a major enabling factor for a good deal of the present unpleasantness.
There are, of course, many other issues involved too.
If your question was not tongue-in-cheek, then you need to go have an off-the-record chat with people who have some understanding of the Thai situation. Most of what is really going on is not even all that indirectly alluded to here or in other forums.
3 Srithanonchai // May 6, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Coincidentally, the following post is about Thanong Khanthong. Medhi is about as credible an interpreter of Thai politics as Thanong.
“Hitler was also elected” is a truly crazy reduction of post 1918 German politics (I say this as a German).
4 maverick263 // May 7, 2009 at 1:05 am
@ Srithanonchai, c.3:
i’m not sure i understand your reasoning to post your comment in this very thread:
““Hitler was also elected” is a truly crazy reduction of post 1918 German politics (I say this as a German).”
ok, from my personal perspective, that is shaped by being brought up in germany & having lived there. though i won’t say, “i’m a german”.
i’d say “no” to your post. i’d suggest there’s evidence to go by that actually hitler, mussolini, franco capitalized on what today is called “weak state”.
they came to power “legally” — with intent to destroy “corrupt” “regimes”: sounds familiar?
well, weak democracies, na?
5 Srithanonchai // May 7, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Maverick,
I am not sure whether I can understand your response without a translation into ordinary language (German or English).
Did you see that Hitler was mentioned in the post about Medhi’s presentation?
Note that my remark about Hitler refers to an element in the Thai discourse critical of Thaksin that tries in an instrumental (not an evidence-based analytical) way to equate him with Hitler. Remember that German-graduated law lecturer Banjerd had said something to the effect that Hitler had been more beneficial to Germany than Thaksin had been to Thailand, because, after all, Hitler built the Autobahn, etc., etc. (though Thaksin was also portrayed as a mixture of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Bin Laden)? Banjerd even seemed to have overlooked that Hitler, from 1933 onwards, had been a totalitarian dictator, and not the leder of an elected parliamentary majority. What about the Machtergreifung, by the way?
I do not appreciate “Hitler” being used as a label to attack Thaksin as one’s political enemies. Hitler is a historical phenomenon, and thus there are plenty of data available for a substantial analysis. However, any such analysis would undermine the intended effect of using “Hitler” as a label, because it would show how ridiculous such a comparison is, and how little those who use the label know about the historical Hitler, including the German political system of that time.
Maybe, you could volunteer to provide the audience at New Mandala with such a substantial comparison, even cross-national, since you seem to be well-familiar with the contexts in which people such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco rose to power…
6 Nigel Woodward // May 7, 2009 at 10:15 pm
In July 1932, Hitler and the Nazi party won a democratic election by almost 100 seats. Subsequent to this election, in 1933, Hitler passed the Enabling Law, which gave him absolute power, and never bothered with elections again. I assume when people mention Hitler and Thaksin in the same breath they are drawing attention to the fact that Thaksin, like Hitler, was elected and then proceded to undermine the foundations of democracy in order to consolidate his power. Similarly, while Thaksin did not commit genocide on the horrific scale of Hitler, he is widely believed to have been behind the extra-judicial killings of several thousand “drug dealers” and a number of suspicious deaths linked to the unrest in the South. The point of drawing comparison between Hitler and Thaksin is quite obvious. Democracy is the best system for selecting governments we have but garnering popular support does not automatically make a politician Nelson Mandela.
7 maverick263 // May 8, 2009 at 3:56 am
@ Srithanonchai, c.5
maybe it’s ok i was allowed to release some tense & tight emotional clusters na
imho, nigel woodward in c.6, gives a fair reading/interpretation.
*…
actually, i think, it’s funny you get so excited about hitler/thaksin. it’s ridiculous to draw that kind of comparison. hitler indulged in some really sick “para-ideology”. whereas thaksin does _not_ indulge in _any_ ideology; esp not “democracy” na.
hitler was underdog off-spring of european 19th century. thaksin is off-spring of elite sino-thai 20th/21st century.
i tried to point at the “weaknesses” of systemic structures of civil society.
i don’t want to blame bad & evil people. it’s up to “commons” to contain & reform abuse of power.
8 Srithanonchai // May 8, 2009 at 4:35 pm
On using the label “Hitler” as a political tool (merely to make the point that not every elected leader is a saint, we hardly need any reference to Hitler), see Christian Schafferer’s piece on Taiwan and PAD/Thailand at
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/10/20/pad-consumed-democracy-and-self-dramatization-a-comparative-view-from-taiwan/
9 sunshineonjesse // May 10, 2009 at 1:42 pm
There are many problems relating to the current political crisis in Thailand. However this blog seems to attack the members of the Royal family, which is unfair and judgmental.
When Democracy itself is corrupted, it is only sensible for people to intervene. We are not prepared to go down and let the country be destroyed for the sake of democracy.
10 nganadeeleg // May 10, 2009 at 8:40 pm
It’s the old chicken & egg thing – what came first, intervention or corrupt politics?
The end result is still corrupt politics, and IMO there is only one group who can stop it.
That group is very very large, but unfortunately is still gullible and susceptible to propaganda.
btw, Who is ‘we’?
& which members of the royal family?
11 Alistair // May 20, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Mehdi could be criticised for overstating the role of “key personalities” in the events of Songkran, and understating the social movements uunderlying the political tensions evident in Thailand.
And yes, he could also be legitimately criticised for not assessing the role and place of the monarchy in the crisis. But he was at least partly right in assessing that many observers all too readily leap to conspiracy theories about the role of royal family.
If a couple of the questioners had left their egos at the front door and actually engaged in an intelligent conversation rather than seeking to embarass the speaker in personal attacks and indulging in self-aggrandisement, that might have contributed to a healthier Q&A session.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.