New Mandala

70 responses so far ↓

• 1 Les Abbey // Aug 17, 2009 at 12:46 pm

  I feel the Thai judiciary comes in for some unfair criticism in recent constitutional rulings, and Montesano has produced more with I suspect not a lot thought being put into it. The independence it has shown in recent years must be a plus compared to say 2001 when money flooded into the court to allow a ruling in Thaksin’s favour over hiding assets in his family, driver and maid’s names. We now see a judiciary that bases its rulings far more on the law rather than political influence. Who can forget Thaksin’s lawyers being locked up for the lunchbox full of money passed across the bench?

  It can possibly be argued that judges are far too influenced by other centres of power, but overall seeing the courts ignore the wishes of politicians must be a good thing. We also see they are quite prepared to rule against the present government party. Of course some of their rulings might be based on a constitution that not all are happy with, but compared to how the judiciary has behaved in the past there are positives.

  About twenty years ago in conversation with a youngish lawyer I was told that many of then younger lawyers around the Justice Ministry were far from happy with corruption in the Thai courts. They were described as the young Turks of that ministry. I wonder if these are now the judges making the rulings.

  (The judiciary by its very nature will always be part of the ruling elite in almost every country of the world and Thailand is no different, but independence of the judiciary from government must always be a good thing.)

• 2 Ralph Kramden // Aug 17, 2009 at 6:41 pm

  Saying that the judiciary is independent is one thing. Proving it is quite another. Les Abbey needs to provide evidence for assertions of both previous corruption and present so-called independence of the judiciary in Thailand.

• 3 Les Abbey // Aug 18, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  Ralph, what colour glasses do you wear? You aren’t going to give me past corruption in the courts? Next you will tell me that money doesn’t help in dealing with the Thai police.

  Signs of the present independence of judiciary from the politicians are the courts going against both the Samak and Somchai governments and even the ruling against Democrat MPs holding shares in media companies. And of course judges not accepting the lunchbox full of money and Thaksin’s lawyers going in the pokey.

  The argument you could make is how independent they are of the palace, after all judges do consider themselves representatives of the crown. This in a way is how many countries try to keep the judiciary and government separate, by the judiciary representing a different power, be it an idea of statehood or a written constitution. In the UK and I guess Australia it is as representatives of the crown also. This independence just hasn’t happened that much in Thailand in the post-war years before.

• 4 R. N. England // Aug 18, 2009 at 3:35 pm

  Formerly the judges tended to be the stooges of anyone who paid them enough. Since being hauled over the coals by the King in his famous speech, they have become the stooges of the intensely political “Network Monarchy”. To represent the present situation as judicial independence is absurd. Judicial independence requires a tradition of the rule of law, which is at best embryonic in Thailand.

• 5 Les Abbey // Aug 18, 2009 at 8:18 pm

  So Ralph needs proof of corruption while RN England say judges were and are still corrupt. RN feels that an independent judiciary needs a “tradition of the rule of law”, but because Thailand hasn’t had this the judiciary will never be independent. Looks like a no-win situation then.

  I guess RN would agree that at least cases aren’t being settled by the highest bidder as much as before, even if the judges aren’t independent of the “network monarchy”. Not really sure what that is, sounds like crown property investment in telecoms.

  The funny thing is the judiciary is enforcing laws, admittedly some from the most recent constitution, that they just would have turned a blind eye to in the past. Thaksin’s charges of unfairness in that laws on corruption are being enforced whereas in the past they weren’t rings true. It seems there is still a lot of the old style Chinese tax farmer in many of the politicians up in front of the courts.

  Mind you the courts finding against so many Democrat MPs over the share ownership issue tends to support the argument of greater independence as I can’t see what the “network monarchy” stands to gain in this.

• 6 Ralph Kramden // Aug 19, 2009 at 10:38 am

  Les Abbey

  The frames are sort of a black colour and the lenses clear. Any other details you’d like?

  My comment is essentially that it is easy to assert and harder to prove without providing evidence for such assertions of both previous “corruption” and present “independence” of the judiciary or without even suggesting what these terms mean for you.

  It is relatively simple to suggest individual cases, but those cases may not add up to a case for whether the judiciary is independent, bought or something else. One needs also to be careful about which elements of the judiciary one is referring to.

  Let me take one issue up. Several respected and informed legal authorities have taken up a process of judicialization in Thailand that began with the 1997 Constitution. So this is pre-Thaksin. They also argue that this process has accelerated from April 2006 (Ginsburg, 2008; Leyland, 2009. Is this judicialization the same as independence? Here I am meaning the works of:

  Michael W. Dowdle, “On the regulatory dynamics of judicialization. The problems and perils of exploring ‘judicialization’ in East and Southeast Asia,” in Tom Ginsburg and Albert Y.H. Chen (eds), Administrative Law and Governance in Asia: Comparative Perspectives, London: Routledge, 2009, pp. 23-37.

  Tom Ginsburg, Constitutional Afterlife: The Continuing Impact of Thailand’s Post-Political Constitution, Chicago: The Law School, The University of Chicago, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 252, November 2008, https://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/pl252.pdf, accessed 22 January 2009.

  Peter Leyland, “The Emergence of Administrative Justice under the 1997 Thai Constitution,” in Tom Ginsburg and Albert Y.H. Chen (eds), Administrative Law and Governance in Asia: Comparative Perspectives, London: Routledge, 2009, pp. 230-56.

  Now a more assertive judiciary can be seen as a positive development. However, there are extreme risks that a highly interventionist judiciary, especially during periods of political conflict, means political bias. It can also set very awkward precedents and, as we have seen in Thailand, this can amount to “politics by other means.” In other words, judicialization can amount to politicization. And the politicization of the judiciary almost means that there is bias that can be construed as “corruption,” even if money is not involved.

  For example, if one looks at the initial efforts to overturn the results of the 2007 election following the surprising result that saw PPP emerge as the largest party, is the judicial route demonstrating independence or the “corruption” of the judiciary through political bias?

  Some examples of the time line and decisions:

  Within days of the election, a series of judicial measures to weaken and defeat the PPP began. Just prior to the election, junta leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin and the PAD leadership predicted a swathe of PPP election disqualifications (The Nation, 1 January 2008). Indeed, three PPP candidates were the first to be yellow-carded.

  Within days of the election, the EC was investigating 83 cases, with 65 being PPP winning candidates (IHT, 3 January 2008). Meanwhile, the first suggestions that the PPP could be dissolved for election fraud were raised (Irrawaddy, 27 and 28 December 2007). Indeed, the EC head predicted that electoral fraud charges against deputy PPP leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat would result in the party’s dissolution (Bangkok Post, 10 January 2008). Within a month, the EC found Yongyuth guilty of vote-buying as dissident EC commissioners claimed that the decision had been rushed, without hearing Yongyuth’s witnesses (Bangkok Post, 15, 17 and 27 February 2008). And so on.

  In other words, money is not the only form of “corruption” and suggesting that money is the source of corruption does not mean that not taking money equals independence. It can mean bias.

• 7 Les Abbey // Aug 19, 2009 at 2:38 pm

  My apologies Ralph as I thought you were taking a “Thaksin was not corrupt” position. Of course I am not in a position to supply evidence of corruption. Even if I had personal experience of it I would probably not want to publicize that. Proving corruption is almost impossible unless one of the parties wishes to talk about it.

  Also I don’t have the ability to give you an academic explanation along with references because that is not the business I am in. So for that please forgive me. As to whether up until recently, even as you say until pre-1997, the courts were corrupted by money and political influence, you seem to hint that you also feel this. I could speak about common knowledge, but again that isn’t proof. The closest we have come to proof was the lunchbox full of money which is far more recent.

  Now the hard bit. In any other country we would be happy to see the judiciary ruling against the government and politicians and see it as a sign of independence. We can look at Pakistan as an example. Here we start looking for palace involvement straight away. The present constitution may well be unfair to politicians and political parties but the surprise wasn’t so much in the anti-corruption rules, but in that they were enforced.

  Is there a split between the old Bangkok elite and some of the provincial influential families? Of course, and many judges would come from those Bangkok families. Does this equal corruption? I’m not sure as we would have to then say then that the UK has a corrupt judiciary as most of its members come from the upper middle class or aristocratic families. Now many people I know might say that is true, but the other option would be electing judges at a time we are struggling to get elected MPs to follow the rules.

• 8 Les Abbey // Aug 19, 2009 at 2:49 pm

  I must also give my apologies to Michael Montesano for hijacking this thread. The paper is well worth reading and my main disagreement was over the judiciary.

• 9 R. N. England // Aug 19, 2009 at 3:17 pm

  “Network Monarchy” is essentially the courtiers, who exercise power in the name of the King. They are thus unaccountable for their power in Thailand because they are protected by the lèse majesté laws. They are not all bad, but it is in the nature of unaccountability (absolutism) that the good is eventually displaced by the bad. Outside Thailand, the King has become accountable for their abuses, and his reputation is diminished every day. Being an exhausted old man he no longer has (nor could he be expected to have) the power to keep his courtiers from dragging his name through the mud. It can be argued that he has always been near the centre of abuses because of the numerous compacts with the devil (the men with guns) that have allowed him to keep his throne. Ordering judges in no uncertain terms to annul the people’s judgement in 2005 was certainly an abuse against democracy, and the reputation of Thai justice in the outside world has since gone down from an already low level. The deep involvement of the Thai Constitutional Court in the armed aggression against Cambodia over Preah Vihear, and the clearly implied contempt of that court for the Preah Vihear judgement of International Court of Justice possibly made the King wince. It can be argued that the Thai courts have moved from a position of venal independence (giving judgements in favour of the highest bidder) to being an agency of absolutism/militarism/fascism in its struggle against democracy. Harassment of members of parliament, even including some of the stooges of absolutism there, is consistent with this.

• 10 Les Abbey // Aug 19, 2009 at 6:40 pm

  RN you may have an argument although I guess I am just more optimistic about the judiciary than you. Those I met just a couple of years ago gave me much hope.

  I think your last sentence defies logic though.

  “…even including some of the stooges of absolutism there, is consistent with this.”

  Why is it consistent with this? Why would the “networked monarchy’s” judiciary find against their own stooges.

• 11 jonfernquest // Aug 19, 2009 at 9:17 pm

  Three cheers to Les Abbey for having enough guts to dare to challenge the unhealthy and rarely questioned academic consensus in Southeast Asian studies.

  And as for you, the anonymous academic Ralph Kramden, why do you put links to academic papers that no one outside academia can read ?!

  You are just a symptom of people who study Southeast Asia and do very little in return to help the very people you style yourself the champion of: poor people without access to western universities.

• 12 Bangkok Pundit // Aug 19, 2009 at 10:01 pm

  The independence it has shown in recent years must be a plus compared to say 2001 when money flooded into the court to allow a ruling in Thaksin’s favour over hiding assets in his family, driver and maid’s names.

  This is Prasong and more recently Sondhi’s theory. McCargo suggests it was Prem – see excerpt here.

  Who can forget Thaksin’s lawyers being locked up for the lunchbox full of money passed across the bench?

  This is not the best example to cite for confidence in the judicial system and the judges not accepting money. They were jailed for contempt where one has no rights and can present no defence. The judges rule in secret and one has no right to appeal, but the criminal charges have been dropped. Didn’t even make it to trial. See here and here.

  It was also given to court officials. The money is too small to buy a verdict and was more likely for information (ie which judges would be hearing the case).

  Signs of the present independence of judiciary from the politicians are the courts going against both the Samak and Somchai governments and even the ruling against Democrat MPs holding shares in media companies.

  It was the EC who ruled against the Democrat MPs holding shares. The case hasn’t been to court yet.

• 13 Les Abbey // Aug 19, 2009 at 11:26 pm

  Pundit, I know we are all in many ways reliant on rumours but we can take it too far.

  First you give us it was Prem who pressured the EC to find Thaksin innocent of hiding his assets. Possible as the wasn’t much of a division between the Bangkok elite and Thaksin at the time, but not the most likely of explanations and certainly one that doesn’t disprove my pointing to this as a sign of corruption in the judiciary. Also even if your rumour was true we would have to consider it most likely that Thaksin was involved in the pressure. At the time most people, both pro and anti-Thaksin, and the press suspected he was making financial arrangements with some judges.

  Next we have you saying that 2 million Baht ($60,000+) was too small to influence the judges and was just to bribe a court clerk to give the names of the judges. Excuse me but you obviously know these circles better than me that this amount is just to get a favour from the clerk. OK it doesn’t stack up against the Bangkok bus contract but it’s a bit more than most of us seen in one lump. I see you are calling it a snack box on your blog, but it must have been one big snack. Also I didn’t hear that many cries of innocence from Thaksin’s lawyers which tends to suggest that an out of court deal has been reached. Also, and I’m saying this without any legal knowledge, I suspect in most Western countries the judges reaction would be charge the lawyers with contempt. I’m sure Judge John Deed of TV fame would.

  Now lastly the status of the EC. I have lumped it in with the judiciary. I’m sure RN England would say it’s part of his “network monarchy”. Certainly like the judiciary it is meant to be independent from the people it’s ruling on. I really don’t know the background of the members but I think most people would class it as such.

  Overall I’m afraid I’m left feeling that you are clutching at straws to promote a political point. I again apologise to Michael Montesanto for starting a thread on what was only a small part of his study. I was trying to link what I had heard a number of years ago about people in the Justice Ministry to what we are seeing today as they have moved up the ladder.

• 14 Ralph Kramden // Aug 19, 2009 at 11:46 pm

  My, my jonfernquest, you do get obstreperous and contradict yourself endlessly. I can’t resist replying and putting it in the same personalized terms you have decided to use.

  On contradicting yourself: On the one hand you have written for academic journals. If this is you (http://www.readbangkokpost.com/articles/biojonfernquest.html), you even refer people to your blog which proudly displays your academic articles. You even proudly announce all the universities where you have worked and all the big-name companies. Double standards?

  On the other hand, you denigrate others for even referring to academic works. Presumably it is good when you write academic articles because you are giving back so much more to the people you claim to support. Is that the elite who do get all the chances to go to universities? Or the poor provincials you rabbit on about?

  But seriously, why can’t you read the cited papers? if you can read a blog (as opposed to twittering) you could read these papers. If you can write for an academic journal, as you have, then you can read these papers, unless the lobotomy had a seriously negative impact. They are available via the internet at the site mentioned and snippets through Google Books. Just too lazy or just assuming they can’t be understood by your good self?

  And, if you cared to look at what I wrote, there were also references to newspapers. Whoa! Maybe that’s even too much for you?

  And why would there be links to academic papers in the first place? Well, as most sensible and reasonable people would know, and maybe you don’t fit that category, it is in those kinds of venues where debate is often carried out on legal and judicial issues. You may prefer bar room discussions, but why not listen to what professional and academic lawyers say about law, corruption and the judiciary? It may make your brain hurt, but worth a try some day.

  Where on earth do you get the idea that I style myself as “the champion of: poor people without access to western universities”? Actually, I thought it was you who was the self-styled representative of these people when you taught in provincial university in Thailand and felt hard done by for having done so and were never given the recognition you think you deserve?

  Now I don’t for a minute believe that you have even looked at these cited papers, because you just want to engage in name-calling.

  My, that was fun.

• 15 tettyan // Aug 20, 2009 at 1:25 am

  jonfernquest says –

  And as for you, the anonymous academic Ralph Kramden, why do you put links to academic papers that no one outside academia can read ?!

  Ummm, the Ginsburg paper is available on SSRN, where it can be downloaded for free. You can try to find the Ginsburg & Chen book at a library. Or just browse through a copy at Kinokuniya. Of course, referring to serious scholarship and asking little people to read it is just too much to ask of them. It’s much easier to sway your audience by sticking to ad hominem attacks.

• 16 JustWannaKnow // Aug 20, 2009 at 6:15 am

  How can a judiciary that was appointed by coup leaders and persons with vested interests be fair?

  It is obvious that the color of your shirt has more influence in the outcome of a high profile cases than precedence and facts.

• 17 R. N. England // Aug 20, 2009 at 2:19 pm

  Les Abbey, my last sentence in (9) was too brief, as I thought my post was getting too long. It referred to the fact that elected members of parliament in Thailand are oppressed by laws and judgements concocted in the barracks and in the palace. The fact that some parliamentarians who are agents of absolutism also suffer could be regarded by the palace/barracks alliance as collateral damage that is unavoidable in their struggle for power with the parliament.
  Montesano is right to criticise the judges, because they have swung behind the absolutists, and I think that unfortunately, this was a consequence of the King’s 2005 speech to them.
  In a democratic government, the laws are made by elected representatives in parliament/congress, not by these other people. If the morality of elected representatives offends the electorate, then it votes them out. The behaviour of Thai parliamentarians may offend the absolutists, but people corrupted by their own unaccountability are in no position to judge.
  Countries that are more democratic, free, and open than Thailand have all been through the same power struggle, and in them, the parliaments have won. Many of the best of them retain their monarchs, who have surrendered their power to the people’s representatives in stable constitutions. Monarchs have disappeared from countries where the struggle for democracy was too bitterly fought.

• 18 jonfernquest // Aug 20, 2009 at 3:38 pm

  JustWannaKnow: “How can a judiciary that was appointed by coup leaders and persons with vested interests be fair?”

  How can a government headed by a ex-police colonel turned patron saint of an untransparent and uncontrollable police force be fair?

  http://bit.ly/QuTRW

  You have a very selective memory.

  Anonymous pompous and intellectually autocratic Thai Studies academics never subject to adequate scrutiny or debate will eventually bring about the demise of their field!

• 19 Les Abbey // Aug 20, 2009 at 3:39 pm

  RN I think you too are suffering from Bangkok Pundit’s problem of trying to make facts fit your answer. Again the logic of it just being collateral damage that many of the MPs who could be considered friendly to the Bangkok elite may lose their seats and put the Abhisit government in danger doesn’t really fit.

  So just to make my thoughts clear. The judiciary should follow the rule of law. These laws are made by governments, which in Thailand change from elected to military and back again with frightening regularity. The judiciary has allegiance to the crown but it still has to follow the rule of law.

  In most democratic countries the judiciary is independent of the law-makers. It’s allegiance is to something else, be it the state as in the US or the crown as it is in constitutional monarchies. It doesn’t make the laws as that is law-makers job.

  So if we look at what’s going on in Thailand we see the judiciary is enforcing laws like it hasn’t done in recent history. We can say some of the laws included in the most recent constitution were not made by elected representatives so shouldn’t be enforced. The opposing argument would be that the constitution was accepted by a referendum. Against that some will say that the referendum for various reasons was unfair and undemocratic.

  For me, as a foreigner looking on, the laws attempting to stop political corruption were long overdue. To see some of the old faces like Newin and Banharm squirming under these new laws is fun. To see Thai courts enforcing both new laws and old as they should be is a good thing. Will the politicians eventually write a new constitution and get through amnesty laws? Probably. Will that be a positive for democracy in Thailand? I doubt it.

• 20 nobody // Aug 20, 2009 at 5:10 pm

  It is positive to see some non-academic posters on this site. Interesting debate. Thank you.

  Just a few comments:

  C16. Thailand has a (roman) code based legal system and as such each case is decided on its merits regardless of other decisions. ie there is no precedent which tends to be a feature of English common law.

  Quite how a group of judges or the EC for that matter are selected or by whom doesnt necessarily mean they will always find the way those who appointed them or selected them wanted. The next few upcoming cases will be interesting to watch for this reason.

  The unfolding drama of Thailand is not yet over and it only with hindsight that what happened is going to be fully understood. All analysis right now leaves too many questions that will only be answered after the event. imho. Still the desire to be a barroom or lecture hall analyst is still in all of us I guess.

• 21 R. N. England // Aug 20, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  Thai elected MPs are almost certainly no more corrupt than English ones 300 years ago, when that country was emerging from absolutism towards democracy, and party politics were polarised into absolutist and protodemocratic camps. I doubt that Thaksin is any more corrupt than Sir Robert Walpole was. The classic royalist judge at a slightly earlier time was Lord Justice Jeffreys, zealously loyal to the Crown, up to his ears in party politics, and whose behaviour was far worse than that of the present Thai judges (with the possible exception of the bloody Preah Vihear affair). Do you stand for absolutism in that struggle too, Les Abbey?
  I was impressed with the Montesano’s attention to the campaign of hatred against Thaksin, and suggest that this campaign is also directed against other elected members of parliament, out of the same absolutist self interest. The hate rhetoric is meant to persuade people that the elected politicians are somehow worse than the men with guns and the filthy-rich courtiers.

• 22 Bangkok Pundit // Aug 20, 2009 at 7:01 pm

  LA says At the time most people, both pro and anti-Thaksin, and the press suspected he was making financial arrangements with some judges

  Well the press certainly speculated, but you seem to dismiss McCargo’s theory and the newspaper quotes from the judges.

  Also I didn’t hear that many cries of innocence from Thaksin’s lawyers which tends to suggest that an out of court deal has been reached. Also, and I’m saying this without any legal knowledge, I suspect in most Western countries the judges reaction would be charge the lawyers with contempt. I’m sure Judge John Deed of TV fame would.

  They are charged with contempt so how can they complain about what happened? They will get another contempt charge thrown at them. Contempt of court where the judge(s) just make a decision on a matter without a trial is usually related to minor matters which occur in the court. You don’t seem perturbed by hearings held where you can’t defend yourself and which sentence you to jail. This particular court has a conflict of interest as it was judicial staff at this court which who were allegedly offered a bribe.

  Interesting how your definition of judiciary is expanded to include the independent agencies.

• 23 Ralph Kramden // Aug 20, 2009 at 11:21 pm

  Well, gee jonfernquest, thanks for this: “Anonymous pompous and intellectually autocratic Thai Studies academics never subject to adequate scrutiny or debate will eventually bring about the demise of their field!”

  Isn’t trying to publish in journals and books where academics are subject to scrutiny. And when they apply for jobs, apply for grants, get assessed by hundreds of students each year, apply for promotion, etc. Don’t they debate in conferences and workshops? That might not be “adequate” in your terms, but it is considerable scrutiny. And don’t confuse blogs for academic work.

  Hopefully you will be able to keep saving us from all those “intellectually autocratic Thai Studies academics” through your perpetual oversight.

• 24 Ralph Kramden // Aug 20, 2009 at 11:29 pm

  nobody: can you tell us more about this: “Thailand has a (roman) code based legal system and as such each case is decided on its merits regardless of other decisions. ie there is no precedent which tends to be a feature of English common law.”

  I know little about the history of law, but had thought that it wasn’t as simple as you have it above in terms of **no precedent**. I had thought tha many civil law jurisdictions rejected binding notions of precedent in the more formalistic manner of, say, the US system. However, I had thought that precedent was applied (in a sense) through consideration of settled cases-as-law. If not this, then I had thought that precendent was limited to, say, a supreme or high court.

  Any comments or views, especially related to the Thai system would be appreciated.

• 25 tettyan // Aug 21, 2009 at 12:08 am

  RK says -

  I know little about the history of law, but had thought that it wasn’t as simple as you have it above in terms of **no precedent**. I had thought tha many civil law jurisdictions rejected binding notions of precedent in the more formalistic manner of, say, the US system. However, I had thought that precedent was applied (in a sense) through consideration of settled cases-as-law.

  You’re roughly correct. The distinction b/w Civil and Common law systems is far more subtle than the caricatured distinction where civil law just follows codes and common law follows precedent. It’s more muddled than that.

• 26 Les Abbey // Aug 21, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  Pundit I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You are probably correct in saying I shouldn’t lump the EC in with the judiciary, but it does seem to fit in that segment rather easily. It certainly is more independent of the politicians than say the police force. It does in a way date back to a constitution taking power of election administration out of the hands of the politicians via their control of the Interior Ministry.

• 27 Les Abbey // Aug 21, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  RN I will have to say what I said to Bangkok Pundit, we will have to agree to disagree. I have no idea how corrupt MPs were in the UK 300 years ago but it doesn’t sound good if they compare with some of the recent Thai ones.

  Am I an absolutist? Which I take is a believer in absolute monarchy? No, my sympathies are republican. Even in my own country, the UK, that puts me in a, although growing, minority. Even in Australia there is large minority who are anti-republican. At the moment in Thailand I suspect those with republican views are a very small minority.

  I think those who believe in an absolute monarchy would be found only on the most extreme fringes of the PAD. The monarchists in Thailand and especially the Privy Council obviously have some big decisions coming up which may well decide the fate of the present constitutional monarchy.

  What scares me right now is people like Chalerm, is he really the leader of the opposition?, and a Thaksin comeback which will drive Thailand back to a fascist Pibul-like 1938 rather than an absolute monarchy of pre-1932. This I think is where I disagree with all the pro-Thaksin and pro-red shirt supporters on this blog. It isn’t some proto-revolutionary movement of progressive ideas, it’s a movement to turn the clock back.

• 28 R. N. England // Aug 21, 2009 at 9:54 pm

  The military coup, the xenophobia (including aggression against a neighbouring country in contempt of the International Court of Justice), the campaigns of hatred, the increasing use of a tyrannical law, the promulgation of laws as specially honed political weapons by people that have no right to be making laws in the first place. And Les Abbey is afraid that fascism might return if Thaksin came back?

• 29 Les Abbey // Aug 22, 2009 at 1:30 am

  RN now we are getting silly. Do I have start of list of Thaksin’s actions to compete with your list? Do we want to go over Samak or Chalerm’s past? It’s all a bit pointless as I feel like I’m arguing against a party line with you. We will see what happens and as someone said, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

• 30 tettyan // Aug 22, 2009 at 2:21 am

  Les Abbey says –

  What scares me right now is people like Chalerm, is he really the leader of the opposition?, and a Thaksin comeback which will drive Thailand back to a fascist Pibul-like 1938 rather than an absolute monarchy of pre-1932.

  What makes you think the the pro-Thaksin types have a monopoly on fascism in Thailand? The PAD, as documented on this site and others, also has leaders with fascist tendencies (as well as pro-absolute monarchy tendencies, even though you claim it’s only at the extreme fringes of the PAD against the weight of the evidence that many PAD leaders have called on the monarchy to increase the role it plays in nat’l affairs).

  You paint a very rosy picture of pre-1932 absolute monarchy as compared to Phibul’s regime post-1938. For a more informed and nuanced view of this topic, may I suggest the book Kings, Country & Constitutions: Thailand’s Political Development 1932-2000 by Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian.

• 31 Les Abbey // Aug 22, 2009 at 11:54 am

  “You paint a very rosy picture of pre-1932 absolute monarchy…”

  Tettyan I have painted no picture of pre-1932 absolute monarchy, so maybe you could show me where it’s rosy, otherwise an apology is in order.

  So let’s look at the more nasty options coming up in the near future.

  1/ A return to absolute monarchy – very unlikely as the monarchist have some real problems with the succession coming up.

  2/ A PAD fascist takeover – as they would be unlikely to gain power through elections it would have to be in conjunction with another army coup, which at the moment the military leadership seems disinclined to do, although always a possibility.

  3/ Thaksin returns and again attempts to put his own family and friends in the most powerful places in the military, police and civil service, but this time makes sure all the army is under his control.

  Having giving the nasty options, what would be the better ones?

  1/ Thailand muddles along with attempts to be a Western style democracy.

  2/ Thaksin comes back and he is no longer a corrupt autocrat, but a believer in true democracy.

  3/ The Marxist-Leninists who were against Thaksin pre-2006, ride in on his coat-tails, take over and build a wonderful Maoist peasant state just like Cambodia was. (I’m not sure if that is Giles and the Workers Democracy Party’s dream. Maybe they could post here and tell us what their aims are.)

• 32 tettyan // Aug 23, 2009 at 2:34 pm

  Les Abbey says -

  Tettyan I have painted no picture of pre-1932 absolute monarchy, so maybe you could show me where it’s rosy, otherwise an apology is in order.

  Well, let me parse the relevant statement that you made -

  What scares me right now is people like Chalerm, is he really the leader of the opposition?, and a Thaksin comeback which will drive Thailand back to a fascist Pibul-like 1938 rather than an absolute monarchy of pre-1932.

  Looks to me that you compare the pre-1932 situation favorably, at least compared to Phibul’s 1938-44 (and 1946-57) regime. Both are fairly complicated eras in Thai history, and I wouldn’t try to rush to conclusions about either era, at least w/o appreciation of the nuances of the two eras. It’s you who’s rushing to conclusions w/ your comparison (and yes, implying a rosy picture of the pre-1932 era in the process), not me.

  Les Abbey also says –

  So let’s look at the more nasty options coming up in the near future.

  [snip]

  2/ A PAD fascist takeover – as they would be unlikely to gain power through elections it would have to be in conjunction with another army coup, which at the moment the military leadership seems disinclined to do, although always a possibility.

  3/ Thaksin returns and again attempts to put his own family and friends in the most powerful places in the military, police and civil service, but this time makes sure all the army is under his control.

  I dislike both of these nasty options equally. I fear the PAD’s agenda (and shared by certain factions of the Democrat party aligned w/ them) just as much as I fear Thaksin’s agenda and the hardcore pro-Thaksin factions w/in the Red Shirt movement. There may be people on this board sympathetic w/ some elements of the red shirt movement, but that is different from being sympathetic with Thaksin and his personal agenda. Which brings me to your next quote -

  This I think is where I disagree with all the pro-Thaksin and pro-red shirt supporters on this blog. It isn’t some proto-revolutionary movement of progressive ideas, it’s a movement to turn the clock back.

  The red shirt movement is made up of various factions of group, some with a genuine progressive agenda, and many more w/ self-serving agendas (and not all necessarily just Thaksin’s agenda). In a sense, their relative disunity and disorganization relative to that of the Yellow Shirts is what makes them in my view slightly less dangers than the PAD at the moment.
  I agree

• 33 Les Abbey // Aug 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  Tettyan says -

  “Well, let me parse the relevant statement that you made -”

  I’m sorry no matter how you parse I didn’t paint a rosy picture of absolute monarchy and you still owe me an apology. If you are not big enough to give it so be it.

  That I feel it’s more likely a Thaksin return and slipping towards a Pibul-like fascist government is more likely than a return to absolute monarchy, I suspect I’m not alone in. That I hope Thailand can avoid either is understandable.

• 34 tettyan // Aug 24, 2009 at 9:12 am

  Les Abbey says –

  I’m sorry no matter how you parse I didn’t paint a rosy picture of absolute monarchy and you still owe me an apology. If you are not big enough to give it so be it.

  Let’s not get personal here. I’m simply responding to your statements, I’m not attacking your character (hence there’s also no need to question my character). If you’re offended by what you perceive to be my misinterpretations of your comments, then I am sorry. However, based on my above explanation (to which you have chosen not to respond substantively), I believe I had a reasonable basis to argue that your portrayal of the era in question was inaccurately “rosy.”

  I don’t wish to hijack this thread either. But if you do wish to respond to me on the open forum, I’ll let you have the last word.

• 35 R. N. England // Aug 24, 2009 at 2:35 pm

  Tettyan, I had the impression, and perhaps this is too broad a generalisation, that Phibun was allied with the absolutists in their struggle with Pridi and others working to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Thailand.

• 36 Les Abbey // Aug 24, 2009 at 4:26 pm

  Oh dear, RN I do hope you aren’t going to start likening Thaksin to Pridi.

  I’m not sure my stomach could handle that;-)

• 37 Les Abbey // Aug 24, 2009 at 4:37 pm

  tettyan says -

  “The red shirt movement is made up of various factions of group, some with a genuine progressive agenda, and many more w/ self-serving agendas (and not all necessarily just Thaksin’s agenda). “

  The problem is the groups that are not following Thaksin’s agenda are on the fringes. When Nick Nostitz, who is probably the journalist that knows the red shirts best, was asked at his book launch if he could see any parting of the red shirt movement from Thaksin, both he and Chris Baker said they couldn’t. I think in the future some of these fringe groups will look back on allying themselves with Thaksin as one of their biggest mistakes.

• 38 R. N. England // Aug 24, 2009 at 6:52 pm

  Les Abbey, a scoundrel and a much better man can have the same enemies. And a scoundrel can be constrained to do some good by the system in which he operates. History is more complicated than the logic of the victims of propaganda, be they Thai Red Shirts or Englishmen.

• 39 tettyan // Aug 25, 2009 at 12:33 am

  Tettyan, I had the impression, and perhaps this is too broad a generalisation, that Phibun was allied with the absolutists in their struggle with Pridi and others working to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Thailand.

  Vis a vis Pridi and his crowd, Phibul was aligned w/ the royalists in the 1940s. Things were a little different in 1932 and the subsequent power struggles of the 1930s. Remember that there are no permanent allies or enemies in Thai politics, or in most parts of the world for that matter. For more details, check out the Kobkua book I mentioned above.

• 40 tettyan // Aug 25, 2009 at 12:40 am

  Les Abbey -

  The problem is the groups that are not following Thaksin’s agenda are on the fringes. When Nick Nostitz, who is probably the journalist that knows the red shirts best, was asked at his book launch if he could see any parting of the red shirt movement from Thaksin, both he and Chris Baker said they couldn’t. I think in the future some of these fringe groups will look back on allying themselves with Thaksin as one of their biggest mistakes.

  I’m very familiar w/ Nick’s views. Yes, the inability of the Reds to “decouple” from Thaksin is a problem, but (and I think Nick would agree w/ me on this) that’s really beside the point. The larger point is that there are much bigger underlying grievances that drive many of these people to support Thaksin. It’s more than just mindless worship of the man (whom I also consider to be a crook), its also a sense of political, economic and social disenfranchisement. If the powers that be quit wasting their time on demonizing Thaksin (and their laughable propaganda campaigns that really put the Thaksin government’s propaganda campaigns to shame) and actually addressed these grievances, I believe support for Thaksin will evaporate over time. Thaksin is merely a symptom of Thailand’s problems – attacking him will do nothing to address the root cause of Thailand’s problems.

• 41 Ralph Kramden // Aug 25, 2009 at 8:38 am

  Les Abbey: on red shirts and Thaksin, I think the point is that the former are not about to walk away from a political symbol like Thaksin. That isn’t the same as saying that all red shirts are Thaksin supporters. Likewise, as an example, the Democrat Party is unlikely to to ditch the symbolism of the monarchy. At the same time, a few DP members are republicans.

• 42 Les Abbey // Aug 25, 2009 at 6:04 pm

  The problem with the red shirt movement is not only can it not “decouple” from Thaksin, it also finds it very difficult to “decouple” from the same old political families that have ruled in the provinces for so long. They almost had the full set of crooks until Newin left.

  The affiliation to this movement by left-wing groups smells of opportunism and adventurism to me. A more principled approach in 2006 would be with “a curse on both your houses” when splitting from the anti-Thaksin movement. Thaksin isn’t another Peron, and certainly not a Chavez. Another Berlusconi possibly, but I wouldn’t expect to see the Italian left fighting on that man’s behalf.

• 43 nobody // Aug 25, 2009 at 7:40 pm

  C42. Of course it is opportunism by the left who joined the reds. Bolsheviks did something similar.

  Its always interesting to pose the drug war conundrum to those on the left who took this route. That is squirm time for them. Without the hideous human rights record of Thaksin the alliance or coattailing to his movement makes more sense.

  It would be great to see the left and true democracy advocates split from Thaksin but it wont happen. Ideals always come second to politcal expedience and short cuts to power.

• 44 Nganadeeleg // Aug 25, 2009 at 7:56 pm

  Les Abbey: We can all get caught up in things (obsession/hatred) to such an extent that we cannot see the wood for the trees.

  You concentrated on what Tettyan said about the reds decoupling from Thaksin, but you seemed to have missed the more important part of his comment:

  “The larger point is that there are much bigger underlying grievances that drive many of these people to support Thaksin. It’s more than just mindless worship of the man (whom I also consider to be a crook), its also a sense of political, economic and social disenfranchisement. If the powers that be quit wasting their time on demonizing Thaksin (and their laughable propaganda campaigns that really put the Thaksin government’s propaganda campaigns to shame) and actually addressed these grievances, I believe support for Thaksin will evaporate over time. Thaksin is merely a symptom of Thailand’s problems – attacking him will do nothing to address the root cause of Thailand’s problems”.

  Thanks, Tettyan for putting things into proper perspective.

  Les, to use a football term:
  You are playing the man, not the ball!
  (that’s an Aussie Rules football term, but I presume you have a similar saying for the round ball game:)

• 45 Ralph Kramden // Aug 25, 2009 at 7:57 pm

  Les Abbey says: “The problem with the red shirt movement is not only can it not “decouple” from Thaksin, it also finds it very difficult to “decouple” from the same old political families that have ruled in the provinces for so long. They almost had the full set of crooks until Newin left.”

  That’s not entirely true. They are decoupled (for now) from the Silpa-Archa family, from the families that rule for the Democrats in Rayong, and from the Democrat Party clans that run much of the south.

  LA also says: “The affiliation to this movement by left-wing groups smells of opportunism and adventurism to me.” It may be, but which left-wing groups? It seems like there are as many (self-identified) leftists in the yellow camp as on the red side.

  On so-called opportunism, recall that it was Ji Ungpakorn who opposed Thaksin and was considered to be rejecting both sides. He was criticized for this. His political options narrowed considerably. For him, opportunism and adventurism are probably not the motivations.

• 46 Les Abbey // Aug 26, 2009 at 2:08 am

  Ralph, of course you are correct about the Democrat sinecures. I was going to say crooks north of Bangkok, but that would have complicated the point I was making. Certainly the previous Democrat government had a bad smell about it towards its end. Anyway the very best of the most corrupt are still there in Pheu Thai including their charming leader and his sons. And yes, again you are correct, the Democrat Party hasn’t always been a favourite of the palace.

  Of course there are major issues in the north-east. The exploitation of the farmers is extreme by both local middle-men, provincial bosses and the giant agri-industrial companies. And yes there is ethnic discrimination against Esarn people by both the old aristocracy and the businessmen and descendents of the Chinese tax farmers. On Giles and his party, the options might have narrowed, but going into the pro-Thaksin camp couldn’t have been the only answer. So Nganadeeleg and Tettyan was it really a principled jump to the red-shirts? There was nothing to stop Giles and his party going up to the north-east and putting forward their policies in opposition to the local political dinosaurs.

  It’s always interesting to see how Bangkok’s population reacts as it is the one place where the political machines are at their weakest. We have seen it swing in all directions in the past having had both Chamlong and Samak elected governor. With so much of the population being migrants from other parts of the country you get a fair mix of regions and classes. So far the red-shirt movement has found little support there except for the taxi drivers.

• 47 Nganadeeleg // Aug 26, 2009 at 1:50 pm

  “So Nganadeeleg and Tettyan was it really a principled jump to the red-shirts? There was nothing to stop Giles and his party going up to the north-east and putting forward their policies in opposition to the local political dinosaurs”

  I’ll let Tettyan & Giles speak for themselves – for myself I am still ’song mai ow’, but I can understand why Thaksin looks attractive compared to what has been dealt up to the masses by others -and I dont support taking away peoples votes.

  “With so much of the population being migrants from other parts of the country you get a fair mix of regions and classes. So far the red-shirt movement has found little support there except for the taxi drivers”

  Vested interest plays a part, but I still think you might be surpised at the support they have in Bangkok, especially if they ever field a proper candidate.

  Overall I share your distaste for Thaksin, but why denigrate a whole movement because of one man?
  Do you do the same to the yellows?
  (who IMO could also do with some ‘decoupling’)

• 48 tettyan // Aug 27, 2009 at 3:40 am

  On Giles and his party, the options might have narrowed, but going into the pro-Thaksin camp couldn’t have been the only answer. So Nganadeeleg and Tettyan was it really a principled jump to the red-shirts? There was nothing to stop Giles and his party going up to the north-east and putting forward their policies in opposition to the local political dinosaurs.

  Nothing Giles has said indicates his views on Thaksin as a person has changed. But at least at this moment, their constituency is the same. The same dispossessed northeasterners you talk about whom Giles wants to organize are also among the most devoted followers of Thaksin, because they feel (and they have a legitimate basis for this) that Thaksin was the only modern-day Thai politician to have levelled with them and who actually appeared to have a genuine committment to improving their lives. He may had been motivated by ulterior motives in this, but which politicians aren’t? Nick’s reporting and Giles’s writings also indicate they believe Thaksin supporters aren’t blind to his faults, but their support of him is pragmatic b/c the rural poor honestly feel they have no alternatives (remember also that in many areas of the country TRT ran AGAINST the long-dominant regional godfathers). For the moment, it appears the more principled on the Thai left believe that the Reds are receptive to their progressive message (certainly more open than any other political movement in the country). I have no way of knowing this for sure, as I’m not in contact with any Reds on the ground. But I try to keep an open mind on the issue, and will be interested to see how this pans out.

• 49 Les Abbey // Aug 27, 2009 at 12:38 pm

  Pre-1933 the German Communists were the largest communist party outside of Russia. They saw the biggest danger as being the socialists and others on the left. When Hitler came to power they were of course banned and their leader, Ernst Thaelmann, imprisoned. He was eventually executed in 1944 at Buchenwald. I can’t verify the quote, but he was supposed to have said, ‘First Hitler, then us’.

  Now Gile’s party is obviously not large, but I do hope some on the left aren’t saying, ‘First Thaksin, then us’. It was unprincipled in 1933 and it’s unprincipled now.

  I realize that the Nazi analogy can be used in many ways, both for and against, but do remember the Nazis also needed populist policies in order to gain power.

• 50 tettyan // Aug 27, 2009 at 3:33 pm

  Les Abbey –

  Now Gile’s party is obviously not large, but I do hope some on the left aren’t saying, ‘First Thaksin, then us’. It was unprincipled in 1933 and it’s unprincipled now.

  Nazi and Hitler comparisons aren’t really effective ways of winning arguments. As you readily admit, Thaksin isn’t even a Chavez. I think he’s probably somewhere b/w a Peron and Berlusconi (so my thinking on this rly isn’t that far off from yours). Moreover, he’s unlikely to regain the political power he had from 2001-2006 anytime in the foreseeable future (though his proxies are another story). I’m sure the unliklehood of Thaksin becoming PM again probably was a factor the left of Giles’s ilk considered before throwing their support to the Reds.

  Academics can afford to only be principled, whereas politicians have to strike a balance b/w principles and pragmatism. I’m not going to defend Giles at length here (he’s capable of defending himself, and he has his own site too). But for all intents and purposes now, he’s a politician, and he needs to build and expand his coalition beyond its core group of 1970s student leaders who didn’t sell out to the PAD. Which brings me to my next point. Thaksin may have been an authoritarian, but I wouldn’t call him a fascist (he’s far too pragmatic and unprincipled to fit into any ideological box, even fascism). The PAD, on the other hand, does have a strong ideology, and that ideology, as documented here and elsewhere, does exhibit many fascist tendencies. So who’s really unprincipled? The old leftists who threw their lot with the quasi-fascist PAD and their demagogic leaders (e.g. Sondhi L)? Or Giles and his pals, who support a movement that has as its symbolic leader a populist authoritarian?

• 51 Les Abbey // Aug 27, 2009 at 5:30 pm

  Tettyan you speak of the ‘unlikelihood of a Thaksin return’. Myself, if I were an odds-maker, would put it in the 3 to 1 against region whereas a PAD takeover of the government by whatever means I would place way out beyond 20 to 1. Of course my three favourites would be muddling on with democracy with either a Democrat government, with a pro-Thaksin government or another coup.

  My problem with the 3 to 1 shot is that if he does return you will see him finish the job he started, the complete control of the government with friends and family in all the high places. A revised constitution with the anti-politician laws removed, amnesty for past transgressions by politicians and the subjectation of the judiciary. From that point he can be what he wants to be and I suspect it won’t be very liberal. If Giles is backing the red shirts because he doesn’t think Thaksin will ever regain power, then he may as well be playing Russian roulette.

• 52 Les Abbey // Aug 27, 2009 at 5:40 pm

  Sorry Tettyan

  Just to finish my point. What I’m saying above is that supporting Thaksin is neither principled or smart. Again I would say if Thaksin did return as prime minister I am scared we would get a new Pibul. Couldn’t we say Pibul was “far too pragmatic and unprincipled” also?

• 53 nganadeeleg // Aug 27, 2009 at 7:29 pm

  Comparasins with Hitler & Nazi’s are nonsense, but I’m wondering why does Les see Thaksin as the only danger?
  Were his years of rule any worse than others, including the current mob?

  I’m not normally an optimist, but I have a feeling that Thaksin let a genie out of the bottle which will not be easy for anyone to put back in, including Thaksin, should he ever make a return to power.

  That’s the one big positive I see about this sorry saga that has been going on in Thailand for the last 3 years (or decades)

• 54 David // Aug 27, 2009 at 8:04 pm

  King of Thailand: Bhumibol Adulyadej, 80 yrs ($35 bn)

  Bhumibol Adulyadej

  The world’s longest-reigning monarch is revered as a deity. His Crown Property Bureau, through which he holds wealth, granted unprecedented access this year, revealing vast landholdings, including 3,493 acres in Bangkok. He also owns stakes in the publicly listed Siam Cement and Siam Commercial Bank. He recently increased investment in Deves Insurance in order to take it private. While the crown remains technically separate from state, the king exerts enormous influence and is thought to have given his implicit blessing to the 2006 coup that overthrew former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra
  extract from FORBES MAGAZINE

• 55 Les Abbey // Aug 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm

  Nganadeeleg you are correct that Thaksin let a genie out of the bottle, the populist policies on social welfare, and it will be very hard for other politicians to put it back. This is a good thing.

  Now let’s see why I’m more scared of Thaksin than any of the others. I have lived in Thailand for more years than any other country, including the one I was born in. I have seen the various governments from Prem’s ones onwards. Very few Thai politicians (and generals) have impressed me, but even fewer have scared me. Suchinda of course was one and Thaksin was another.

  Just a reminder on the first TRT election. Many, including myself thought it would be good thing as Thaksin was being promoted as an anti-corruption candidate. The previous Chuan government had been undermined by corruption among some of the southern Democrats. There was a general feeling that Thaksin was too rich to be corrupt. His previous affiliation with Phalang Dharma and Chamlong didn’t hurt either. The whole CEO Thailand thing might not be bad, maybe a Lee Kuan Yew Thai style with more of a live and let live attitude. Even when he bought off the provincial godfather politicians and sucked them into the TRT, many still thought it was OK. Thaksin had enough money and if the politicians got it before they were elected, maybe they would keep their hands out of the till afterwards. Even the fuss over the hidden assets still allowed many I knew to say, just give him a chance.

  Initially it seemed that Thailand had found the right man. I remember the army standing on the Chonburi motorway gates counting cars after a scandal broke about senior staff stealing money. Gradually the true face was shown. The CEO Thailand became an authoritarian who was out to become even richer. Not a Lee Kuan Yew but a Ferdinand Marcos. His family and friends were promoted in the services. Contracts were divvied out. Worse of all, he looked at GW Bush and Blair and figured he could be like them.

  From a not very active Islamic southern insurgency Thaksin decided to have his Iraq without leaving the country. The gloves came off and as with the anti-drug war legality went out of the window. How many people have died because of Thaksin’s two wars? The worse was how cynical it was. In the war on drugs, middle and low level dealers along with users were targeted. The higher levels which crossed into provincial mafias and politicians were left untouched. In Chiang Mai where rumours of involvement among high level civil servants, military and politicians have always abounded, no action at this level was forthcoming.

  Why am I scared of Thaksin? Well because he is capable of destroying the country if there was a profit in it. If an end to elections was what he needed to keep the money rolling in, then that’s what he would do. So Nganadeeleg, not the only danger, but just the most likely one facing Thailand, and one that doesn’t need a party calling itself Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyist to be backing.

• 56 nganadeeleg // Aug 27, 2009 at 11:40 pm

  Just noticed the typo in my post above – must be a freudian slip

• 57 tettyan // Aug 28, 2009 at 2:58 am

  Les Abbey -

  What’s scary about the PAD is not what happens if they seize power. I agree that the PAD seizing power is a much more remote possibility than Thaksin’s return. The problem with the PAD is that much of the current elite sympathizes with their views and ideology, and that they are very effective at putting pressure on soldiers, democrat politicians, and other elite actors to further their agenda. They also provide cover to the elite to push a highly anti-democratic agenda (e.g. aggressive enforcement of lese majeste laws).

  If you’re going to use the Nazi example, I’m going to bring up Japan in the 1930s. Fascism and fanatical emperor-worship in Japan didn’t come overnight. It came about through backroom factional struggles, pressure from fringe ultra-nationalist groups that expanded into the mainstream (w/ the help of certain factions among the ruling elite), and generational change w/in the ruling elite that created an unstable power vacuum. This is a far closer analogy to the situation in Thailand than Nazi Germany (Thaksin as explained above is a very poor analogy to Hitler).

  For true fascism, you need an ideology. Thaksin, though he may be a demagogue, isn’t an ideologue. The real ultra-nationalist ideologues in Thailand are Sondhi L, the PAD, and their quiet (and not so quite) supporters in the army and the ultra-royalist elite. For these people, there’s no room for anyone who disagrees with them one bit, except the gallows. I think fascism is more likely to come to Thailand through the machinations of the PAD working with factions of the current elite, and not through Thaksin’s return. Some may argue this is even happening already.

• 58 David // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:44 am

  Well done Les you have hit the nail on the head with the Japanese analogy. Very insightful. If those boys get a grip Thailand will be sent back to feudal times and god help the poor.

• 59 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Aug 28, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  Les Abbey writes:
  (boldface emphases are mine. sorry for the long quote, it’s necessary)

  Am I an absolutist? Which I take is a believer in absolute monarchy? No, my sympathies are republican. Even in my own country, the UK, that puts me in a, although growing, minority. Even in Australia there is large minority who are anti-republican. At the moment in Thailand I suspect those with republican views are a very small minority.

  I think those who believe in an absolute monarchy would be found only on the most extreme fringes of the PAD. The monarchists in Thailand and especially the Privy Council obviously have some big decisions coming up which may well decide the fate of the present constitutional monarchy.

  What scares me right now is people like Chalerm, is he really the leader of the opposition?, and a Thaksin comeback which will drive Thailand back to a fascist Pibul-like 1938 rather than an absolute monarchy of pre-1932.

  I’m tired of LB who, despite claiming to have lived many years in this country, shows with such writing that he’s never seriously studied its history, both recent or more remote period.

  Take some of the above points as example.

  In Thai accademic community today, only a monarchist (yes, monarychist) scholar would describe 1938 Pibul regime in European Fascist terms. Were there mass arrest, murder, execution of opposition carried out by Pibul as there were in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany? Was Pibul’s Yuwachon Thahan (Young Soldiers) anywhere near Fascist Black Shirts or Nazi Storm Troopers? Absolutely not.

  Only a real paranoid would “scare of” Chalerm! He is regarded even among the pro-Taksin politicians and Red Shirts at best as a “second or third tier” politician. Can you even cite an instance when any of the pro-Taksin or Red Shirts show sign of really consider him as potential PM?

  “those who believe in an absolute monarchy would be found only on the most extreme fringes of the PAD”

  Actually I can go even further and say categorically that NO ONE IN THE PAD “believe[s] in an absolute monarchy”, if by “absolute monarchy” you mean the form of gov where the monarch himself was head of the abminstration (pre-1932 like). No one in the PAD or no one among those who count themselves as royalist or monarchist in Thailand today believe that! (And by bringing this up, this shows how little LB understand the country.) For they all know that “absolute monarchy” in this sense would instantly destroy the monarchy!

  But if by “absolute monarchy” one means the system whereby the monarch and all his apparatus (Privy Councils, his family and so on) are absolutly unaccountable while able not only to interfere in politics but take part in social and political activities (the Royal Projects and so on) without accountability whatsoever even though all these activities are publicly-funded, if by “absolute monarchy” one means the systematic indoctrination 24-7 of the monarchy’s merit and all its present unaccountable, anti-democratic status, then the whole PAD as a movement IS an “absolute monarchy” movement.

  Finally, what makes me sick most is LB’s claim to be a “republican sympathizer”. This really gives republicanism a bad name. Any “republican sympathizer” who saw the monarchy able to overthrow a popularly elected government then installed governments of its own choosing – for this’s what IN ESSENCE happened the past few years – and still goes on an on in such paranoid manners about elected politicians – such “republican sympathizer” should be sent immediately to psychiatric hospital for a brian check.

• 60 Les Abbey // Aug 28, 2009 at 1:08 pm

  David, The Japanese analogy belongs to tettyan not me;-)

  The monarchy has in many ways become a straw man in arguments. It faces such a large problem with the future succession that its likelihood of going back to pre-1932 days is slim. Any reversion to feudalism must also be taken with a pinch of salt.

  What has been missed is the fight for control of the Privy Council which controls the succession. The recent attacks by Thaksin on Prem could be connected?

• 61 Les Abbey // Aug 28, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  Well Somsak I better go make a booking at the hospital, although as someone accused me of being an absolutist, it’s good to know none exist.

  Shall we go together as I could say that someone who sees something progressive in a Thaksin return or the Pibul dictatorship should also get a ‘brian check’, which is something out of Monty Python I guess?

  Somsak I would suggest keeping it polite otherwise I won’t be bothered replying and you can call me Les as LB doesn’t refer to anyone I know.

• 62 R. N. England // Aug 28, 2009 at 6:22 pm

  Poor Somsak is incoherent with rage at the tiresome Les Abbey. Relief may be in sight. Les Abbey appears to have promised to stop flooding New Madala with verbiage if people are less than polite to him.

• 63 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:24 pm

  Les Abbey:
  “Pibul dictatorship”

  Please get hold of some current researches on modern Thai history and study them (preferably in Thai since in this area English language studies lacked far, far behind). The 1930s period which you are so scared of, are now generally considered by scholars to be under the People Party’s regime. There were deformities to be sure, but anyone who think of it in European Fascist terms shows total ignorance and arrogance of a fool.

  R.N. England:
  Which part of my post is incoherent? Or are you only capable of stupidly throwining cliche around? Are you sure you really know anything about modern Thai history, at least enough to argue with me?

  P.S. Please note that Neither R.N. or LB is answering the issue I raise in my post above.

  Apology to WM. But really sick of people who know little of the history of the country they’re talking about but continue to talke big as if they do.

• 64 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:37 pm

  LA:
  The monarchy has in many ways become a straw man in arguments. It faces such a large problem with the future succession that its likelihood of going back to pre-1932 days is slim. Any reversion to feudalism must also be taken with a pinch of salt.
  

  This is the arrogance and ignorace of a fool I talk about above. Anyone who have any serious knowledge of recent Thai history wouldn’t be stupid enough to even write like this. NO ONE, NOT LEAST THE REYALSTS THEMSELVES even think in terms of “going back to pre-1932″ any more (and have not been for some 60-70 years already!) Anyone who even thinks that current situations and conflicts have anything to do with “going back to pre-1932″ really need medical attention for being too lazy or too stupid to pay attention of what’s going on.

• 65 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:58 pm

  LA:
  although as someone accused me of being an absolutist

  Read what I wrote:

  In Thai accademic community today, only a monarchist ..

  Are you “in Thai academic community”? I honestly don’t think you’re even qualified!

  And notice the word I use “monarchist” NOT “absolutist”, this is not trivial matter, if only you can pay attention. Didn’t I just argue in that post that “abolutist monarchy” in your pre-1932 sense is never an issue?

• 66 Les Abbey // Aug 28, 2009 at 9:36 pm

  Dear RN, funny I guess, but as so many, including yourself, seemed to want to debate the point I opened the thread with, I was happy to oblige, even though being in an obvious minority on New Mandala. Not a lot of point if it’s just going to being insults so if you find it so tiresome you can have a debate among just those that agree with your view.

  Here’s a little test of Thai recent history with rumours which I have to admit I can’t give the answers to. Maybe you or some of the academics can confirm or deny their truth.

  1/ In the late eighties, maybe early nineties, there were rumours that the two boys caught defacing Chalerm’s election poster in Thonburi were delivered to his house by the police. Were the rumours true and if so what did happen then?

  2/ Probably even earlier, maybe mid-seventies, there was an assassination of village teacher while leading a protest march of villagers against an attempted land-grab by a prominent Chiang Mai family. The assassin was on the back of a motorbike and shot the teacher in front of the marching villagers. Is this rumour true and which Chiang Mai family was it?

• 67 tettyan // Aug 29, 2009 at 5:48 am

  
  Poor Somsak is incoherent with rage at the tiresome Les Abbey. Relief may be in sight. Les Abbey appears to have promised to stop flooding New Madala with verbiage if people are less than polite to him.

  That would be most unfortunate. While I am in general political agreement with most who post here (and with Nich and Andrew), I do think the blog benefits from posters who disagree with the general tenor here, so long as they remain civil in their disagreement and refrain from personal or ad hominum attacks (I won’t name names, but you know who you are). Our discussions may have been a bit heated, but I have mostly enjoyed my debate with Les Abbey so far. It would be a shame if he stopped posting b/c he feels his views are unwelcome here.

• 68 R. N. England // Aug 29, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  Somsak, I actually agree and sympathise with you almost everywhere, but your posts (and mine, I admit) are showing obvious signs of frustration as the debate degenerates.
  What I am missing is a better quality argument for absolutism.

• 69 Les Abbey // Aug 29, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  Somsak -

  Read what I wrote:

  Such good advice, so it’s a shame that you can’t follow it yourself. If you had bothered reading through the thread you would have found my “someone accused me of being an absolutist” referred to a comment by RN, not yourself.

  Also of course, if you had bothered reading what others wrote you would have found out I was probably not an academic. I left school at 16 which was 3 years more than my father. My children have gone much further which makes me happy. Believe me I have nothing against academics and I’m jealous of their opportunities to bury themselves in books. There are some that I respect, but I respect them as people not for what they are as many Thai people tend to do.

  So you and other academics are able deconstruct the Pibul regimes and say they were not fascist. Good for you, I’m sure there are scholars in Europe who can do the same with the Franco governments. And yes it’s probably true I come from a generation that threw the word fascist around too much. But one thing I have learned over the many years I’ve been around is “don’t believe everything you are told” even if it is by an academic and the more that someone shouts to get their point across the less likely they have a good argument.

  So Somsak carry on doing what you do, even possibly as an expert on recent Thai history, confirming or denying those rumours I heard many years ago. Me, I would rather be a fool than become you. And when Thai kids with just a basic upcountry education start to get killed in the streets, their leaders in the academic world can be sitting at their desks in Chula or Thammasat, writing modern Thai history.

• 70 R. N. England // Aug 29, 2009 at 1:40 pm

  Somsak,
  Outsiders are specially interested in Thailand, because of the parallels between Thai current affairs and the last 400 years of European history. Whereas the struggle between absolutism and democracy is largely over in Europe, it is very much alive in Thailand. Present developments in Thailand throw light on what is really the biggest story of European modern history, and more importantly for Thais, vice-versa.

Leave a Comment