We have an opinion piece on Inside Story about the challenges facing Abhisit’s government. Here are the closing paragraphs:
One of Abhisit’s most important political assets is the perception that he is one of the “good men” in Thai politics. Abhisit is young, urbane, well-educated and untainted by business dealings. He has sufficient credibility and charisma to represent the ideal of a loyal official, dedicated to serving his country and guiding it through difficult times. There is a common mantra in Thai politics, particularly among the more conservative elite, that good men alone are required to manage national affairs. Abhisit himself has mobilised several committees of such good men (and a few women) to work through the process of national reconciliation which, he insists, must follow the violent confrontation with the red shirts. National unity must be restored by seeking wise and ethical counsel.
But this preoccupation with good men is naive at best and deeply cynical at worst. Thailand’s recent political history demonstrates that it has to learn to deal with the full spectrum of political behaviour. The long reign of the widely respected king has helped create a perception that goodness is essential for national unity and prosperity. This perception will be hard to maintain if Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn takes the throne or if palace divisions spill out into the public arena. It will be a hard message to sell if an increasingly assertive army flexes its muscles against opposition groups. Appeals to goodness may start to be drowned out if the yellow shirts keep muddying national virtue with aggressive xenophobia. Ethical virtue may be of little interest to a new generation of red-shirt leaders, hardened by the bloody events in Bangkok. And talk of goodness may evaporate completely if Thaksin Shinawatra finds a way to return to Thailand and resurrect his political career. Thaksin is more electorally popular than any good man ever was.
Thai politics would be simple if it only involved good men. Abhisit’s key challenge is not to mobilise even more of them, but to help Thailand develop strong democratic institutions that can cope with the machinations of the good, the bad and the ugly.
60 responses so far ↓
1 Dom // Aug 27, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Interesting perspective – thanks for sharing it.
There’s a great play by Bertolt Brecht called “The Good Person of Szechwan.” It’s an interesting study into what really makes somebody a “good man..” For example, when the play’s protagonist gives out charity, the poor people just taking advantage of her. When she becomes strict and forces them to work for food, she’s harsh but gives them jobs. The play leaves viewers asking which ego is really “good.”
In a different way, I suspect there’s a similar ambiguity about what it means to be a “good person” in Thai politics. Saintliness and righteousness might not be as “good” as an effective but morally compromised leader. Red Shirts seem to prefer the latter, while Yellow shirts can’t forgive such a leader for his transgressions. Abhisit might have clean hands, but is this “good” better than the “good” of a Thaksin government that manages the economy well?
(This is of course somewhat hypothetical: Thaksin had other policies that disqualify him from being labeled “good,” such as those extrajudicial killings. Still, many poor Thais would argue he paid them more attention than other Thai leaders).
Quality comment or not?
8 
2
2 Arthurson // Aug 27, 2010 at 2:55 pm
I for one do not share the fantasy that Abhisit is a good man. Isn’t he and his party in eminent peril of being banned from politics for 5 years for accepting hundreds of millions in illegal campaign contributions? Hasn’t he been lying to us about getting to the bottom of human rights violations committed by the Thai military since the Rohingya boat people at the start of his administration (and perhaps earlier, I have neglected to keep a tally of all the times he has made empty promises and failed to get them)? Doesn’t he soil his hands on a daily basis with dirty politics and backroom deals with the likes of Newin Chidchob? Isn’t the current “reconciliation process” just his idea of a cruel joke? I think the Democrats are just as corrupt and ruthless as the TRT ever was; you don’t get to the top of that system by being a nice guy.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
67 
4
3 John // Aug 27, 2010 at 4:39 pm
There are no ethics and morals in the Thai political system only power and greed alongside the maintaining of a class system which has created the enequity the country.
As long as the elite control the economy, Thai democracy will run in circles as the establishment will never relinquish their power and influence.They see themselves as the lords of the kingdom with all others below them only their to serve their false egos.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
42 
3
4 Suzie Wong // Aug 27, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I cannot consider the person who applied massive violent tools such as the Army snipers, paramilitary police forces against political opponents be “good” person. Aphisit does not believe in civil liberty and democracy. His behavior reflects a fascist characteristics.
Aphisit has neither leadership characteristics nor effective policy options to offer. Aphisit allows the spread of corruption to every Ministry so that he could stay on to power. Aphisit has decentralized the corruption.
Aphisit also practices nepotism. He appointed Chuan’s son to become the deputy spoke person for Ministry of Culture.
How is it possible to consider fascist violent behaviors, decentralized corruption, and nepotism be considered “good.”
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
56 
5
5 Charles // Aug 27, 2010 at 5:35 pm
The startling disconnect here is Abhisit is clearly not a good man. Pliable and naive are characteristics we can ignore from 7-Eleven counter staff, but for the highest office?
A leader unable to square off with military brass time and again starting with Rohingya?
From the man who assented to the pioneering use of snipers for crowd control? The Russians didn’t do that in Chechnya.
I don’t think I’m alone in this assessment.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
48 
5
6 ThaiSides // Aug 27, 2010 at 8:06 pm
He is the first Thai PM that import from British.Thai people prefer a man who gradudated from abroad especially Oxford university.He is a proud of elites to pretrend to the world how Thailand is civilized country.Sorry for most thai people are very poor english but we have PM speak English fluently.
Quality comment or not?
16 
11
7 Charles // Aug 27, 2010 at 9:17 pm
My own observation is that his eloquence is inconsistent with a PPE from Oxford. I’ve never heard him refer to Keynesian or Austrian economics, quote a philosopher or even refer to ideology.
I’d say he’s a great rote learner. Not that there aren’t fine intellects kicking around the kingdom. They’re just not appreciated.
Quality comment or not?
19 
1
8 Tarrin // Aug 27, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Thaisides – 8
Actually Seni Pramoj was the first imported Thai PM from UK and his brother Kukrit was the 2nd. Like Abhisit, Seni was responsible for the 70 deaths for the Thamasart massacre. The UK imported PM had made quite a record in butchery throughout Thailand’s history ain’t they?
Quality comment or not?
20 
3
9 chris beale // Aug 27, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Congratulations to you both for the excellent Forum piece.
It’s the best analysis I’ve seen on the most-up-to-date situation
by non-Thai writers.
Why has n’t this appeared in Australia’s print media ?
Quality comment or not?
6 
5
10 Thomas Hoy // Aug 27, 2010 at 9:48 pm
This good man/bad man dichotomy is something that I’ve noticed over the years as a dominant discourse in Thailand.
I recently saw a conference keynote speech at NIDA by Duncan McCargo who pointed out exactly the same thing as Andrew and Nich have. And also that the same good men keep getting appointed to sort out the problems. I can’t remember exactly what they were called on to sort out (perhaps the South) but McCargo pointed out that, like Abshisit with his reform committees, Thaksin had also called on Anand and Prawase . And they’d been appointed to similar roles in the 90s. The same old good men.
As archetypal good men, they came to the staggering conclusion that most people were good and that the the problem in the South was caused by a few bad men.
Eliminate the bad men and you’ve fixed the problem. The sort of thinking that led to the war on drugs. And the sort of thinking that encourages people to believe that the stupid uneducated yokels are essentially good-hearted in a simple way but misled by the baddest of the bad men in Thaksin.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote that the “line between good and evil runs straight through the human heart”. Meaning that under the right circumstances anyone can be a little bit corrupt or worse a little bit murderous or sadistic.
The “good men” theory prevents good institutions developing and that is the real problem.
Also very questionable is the thinking that goodness is somehow conferred on people by education and position.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
42 
1
11 Emilio // Aug 27, 2010 at 11:39 pm
There’s nothing “good” about Abhisit Vejjajiva. The puppet PM only pretends to be a modern politician, but no sooner have his worthless proposals been rejected, he reverts to the hardline politician that he has always been.
Proof? Abhisit Vejjajiva never has a plan B. It’s either plan A or violence.
Quality comment or not?
22 
3
12 Wentworth // Aug 28, 2010 at 3:43 am
I was hopeful for about a minute but was sadly disappointed by this charlatan. He has blood on his hands no doubt. Absolutely perfect front man for the regime though. Even completed his military service LOL.
Quality comment or not?
18 
4
13 Nobody // Aug 28, 2010 at 1:03 pm
People need to step back from the Abhisit this and Abhisit that analysis. He is not a leader in terms of having people listen to him and do things. He is more of a balancer, trying to balance different factions, groups, power cliques and players while trying to keep another set of the same off balance. That he has survived so long shows he is quite adept at that job. However, most decisions being made are not his although no doubt he has slipped his own few through at times and even stood up to powers occasionally (police chief)
However, Abhisit is and remains a sacrifical lamb if need be for one side and a bete noir hate figure for the other as that is the nature of politics in this country, but to analyse in such terms misses what is really happening.
The good man/men thing works in Thailand as a figurehead to hide the reality underneath although most people know the reality. The idea of a good man struggling but ultimately failing to control the usual eviol behind the scenes is common in Thai poltics too -think of Chuan in particulalry but also Chavalit in army and just after days. And Thaksin was seenm as the archetypal good new man when he entered the scene which is often forgotten. Remember his early cabinets of technocrats and good men, and it has to be said he actually mostly placed the right person in the right job back then, who later were gradually repalced by the same old scheming provincial power brokers totally unsuited for any cabinet position. At least these days we dont await the knight on a white horse as in the past.
One interesting thing now is not just the loss of faith in polticians which os widespread but the palpable loss of faith in elders and a turn by many to see hope in the children and coming generations rather than blindly following what older people dictate. This will be positive for the future whatever way it goes and is soemthing that cant be rolled back now. Too many myths have been broken and exposed. Right now though all poltical movments remain rooted at elast to some extent in traditonal way and belief but this isnt going to remian that way for ever.
Quality comment or not?
26 
2
14 Srithanonchai // Aug 29, 2010 at 1:13 am
Should one not read the Federalists to get cured from the fantasy that a political system can only work if the individual actors are “good”? And what do we need a constitution for when the “goodness” of participants already secures a well-functioning political system?
Quality comment or not?
6 
2
15 chris beale // Aug 29, 2010 at 2:34 am
The real weakness in Abhisit is when he says – repeatedly – that a general election throughout Thailand can ONLY take place when
there is peace and stability in the country (however he deigns to define that).
In fact, the purpose of elections has often been to resolve violent conflict, and thwart revolutionary overthrow – eg. South Africa’s transition to Mandela.
It was either Bismarck – or Disraeli, or both – wh0 once said about elections : they are the greatest conservative device available.
Abhisit – despite PPE@Oxford – seems never to have learned this lesson.
Quality comment or not?
10 
2
16 Cool Hand // Aug 29, 2010 at 3:20 am
Nobody – 13
Interesting post, but it really begs the question as to why many of those same good and capable people started jumping off the Thaksin band wagon soon enough.
However, re the good man/ bad man question, I agree that most people seem to be ignoring or forgetting a basic philosophical axiom i.e that ‘everything is relative – nothing is absolute’. Case in point: If one assumes that Abhisit is better than the next best alternative as leader of the ruling coalition, the question more properly becomes to what degree this assumption is valid or invalid.
Of course, one could also pursue a similar line of enquiry re the current status of Thaksin’s leadership of the Red Shirt/Peua Thai Party nexus, but I think it’s fair to say that this is an issue the leadership itself does not want discussed publicly.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
17 Non-ngong Na Malai // Aug 29, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Apisit is a living proof that Oxford could be mediocre. If someone like him could shine at Oxford, it shows that the university is not so good as it appears to be. Appearance can deceive. In fact, the university may be just a cow-track (place of fording for oxen) institution.
Quality comment or not?
13 
4
18 Suzie Wong // Aug 29, 2010 at 4:29 pm
This isn’t philosophical issue, in fact it is a political issue. Apisit knows that he can never win an election, he is aware of the fact that the road to power is to defend the interests of those groups that have more wealth and social resources. That group, in turn, considers him as being “good” because Apisit uses State as an instrument to ride on top of other groups. The Thai monarchy and the Thai military consider Apisit good because he was willing to use massive violent tools against the red shirts with whom the monarchy and the military perceived as threats to their interests. However, Apisit fails to understand that repressive measures such as the army, police, courts, and prisons would lead to more discontent and instability.
Quality comment or not?
18 
2
19 chris beale // Aug 29, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Non-ngong Na Malai #17 :
did Abhisit “shine” @Oxford ?
I define “shine as gaining something like that rarity :
a double First Honours – like Lee Kwan Yew got, in a difficult subject, such as Law.
Or the demonstrated linguistic ability in Etemology, to spell your name bakcwards, in Thai !!!!!!!!
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
20 sam deedes // Aug 29, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Duncan McCargo traces out this concept of virtuous legitimacy in the introduction to “Tearing Apart the Land”. He says that the idea that politicians and other leaders can be divided into “good” and “bad” people is a pervasive one in Thailand and has been framed by the moralistic tutelary discourse that characterizes speeches by a certain eminent person and his network.
He goes on to point out that Michael K Connors has theorized the implications of this stand in Journal of Contemporary Asia 38, 1 (2008), 150.
Quality comment or not?
4 
2
21 Cliff Sloane // Aug 29, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Sorry to make references without links, but I got inspired to send this out before I could find the relevant articles.
Saichol Sattayanurak of Chiang Mai University has written about the “goodness” issue as a constituent of the ideology of Thainess. A translation of his magisterial analysis of Kukrit’s role in this propagada campaign was posted on New Mandala maybe 18 months ago.
I have been reading a lot lately about the 1932 group, wondering why there was nobody advocating pure republicanism at the time. I found reference to another article by Saichol about another “useful idiot” in the cementing of dictatorial power via the concepts of Thainess and goodness, Luang Wichit Wathakan.
In sum, he indicates that doctrines of “goodness” are assertions free of criticism or analysis that serve to keep the powers behind the ideology (Sarit with Kukrit, Phibun with Wichit) unencumbered by accountability. So, is Abhisit doing this for a retired general?
If Saichol is online, would you care to post?
Quality comment or not?
6 
2
22 leeyiankun // Aug 29, 2010 at 8:22 pm
There is only one good man that everybody MUST agree on. I think that this is the problem for Thailand. Debate on it if you must, but only if you are not on this land’s soil.
Quality comment or not?
12 
3
23 Sebastian // Aug 29, 2010 at 8:35 pm
@ comment 14
You hit it. Because the elite says that there is nothing else needed as good men to rule the land, constitutions had been changed and destroyed so often.
Also the king mentioned in 1991, that it is not necessary to stick to the law or theoretical ideas, more important is the will to do “the good for the people”. He mentioned that in order to backup the constitution without knowing details of it, while the activists were fighting for certain rules.
So what the elite claims is that Constitution, law and rules are less important. More important is that “good people” rule the country.
Quality comment or not?
4 
3
24 wenthworth // Aug 30, 2010 at 5:51 pm
@ #22
And behind every good man there is ……………well sometimes.
Quality comment or not?
7 
2
25 Polyphemus // Aug 31, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Some excellent overviews and concise analyses here that aren’t visible elsewhere. Congrats on contributions to all involved.
Quality comment or not?
2 
2
26 JJ // Sep 1, 2010 at 3:30 am
Is he a good man or a bad man?
???????????????????????????
He is a politician. Thailand proclaims to be a democracy.
I say let the electorate judge him and his actions in a fair election.
Quality comment or not?
6 
2
27 Woolloomooloo // Sep 4, 2010 at 11:59 pm
เว็บนี้ไม่รู้เป็นอะไร ด่าประเทศไทยคนไทยกันจมหูเลย คนเรามันดีไม่หมดทุดเรื่อง แล้วมันก็ไม่เลวเสียทุกเรื่อง ใจกว้างกันหน่อยพรรคพวก
Quality comment or not?
2 
11
28 Tarrin // Sep 5, 2010 at 5:04 am
Woolloomooloo – 27
การวิภาควิจารณ์คือจุดเรื่อมต้นของการปรับปรุงเเละพัฒนาเพื่อสิ่งที่ดีกว่าเรื่องที่ดีก็ดีอยู่แล้ว แต่เรื่องไม่ดีก็ต้องมาคุยกัน จริงที่ไม่มีไครดีไปหมด เเต่ถ้าไม่เอาเรื่องไม่ดีมาปรับปรุงเเล้วประเทศจะพัทฒาได้ยังไงละครับ?
Quality comment or not?
5 
1
29 ex-Banker // Sep 5, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Woolloomooloo – 27
เพราะมีคนอย่างพวกคุณ ประเทศไทยถึงไม่เจริญสักที ไม่เคยยอมรับข้อผิดพลาดของตัวเอง แล้วเมื่อไหร่จะปรับปรุงแก้ไขให้มันดีขึ้น
กะอีแค่คำวิพากษ์วิจารย์เชิงสร้างสรรค์ยังรับไม่ได้ ก็เชิญอยู่ในกะลาต่อไปเถอะ พวกบัวใต้น้ำ
Quality comment or not?
6 
1
30 Simon // Sep 5, 2010 at 11:49 pm
To quote Phil Zimmerman
…in a democracy, it is possible for bad people to occasionally get
elected– sometimes very bad people. Normally, a well-functioning democracy has ways to remove these people from power…
Thailand isn’t a well functioning democracy. It’s governance isn’t strong enough to cope with the bad people. Hence the mess.
Quality comment or not?
4 
3
31 superanonymous // Sep 6, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Simon’s citation in #30 – not a particularly insightful one, especially ripped from context as it is – is pretty ironic considering he is a defender of Abhisit’s government. Zimmermann of course is a free speech advocate — what would he think of Thailand’s Computer Crime Act and its enthusiastic enforcement by Abhisit’s regime? FYI for less geeky NM readers, Zimmermann created PGP encryption software.
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
32 MattB // Sep 7, 2010 at 12:32 pm
“Normally, a well-functioning democracy has ways to remove these (bad) people from power…”
In the Philippines, Thailand and maybe Indonesia, the bad people (and their sons and daughters) gets repeatedly elected and just impossible to weed out from power . . .
Well-functioning democracy remains a dream . . . and flawed democracy will have to do until the next coup.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
33 Nganadeeleg // Sep 7, 2010 at 11:58 pm
MattB: Have you ever wondered why that is so?
In the Thailand ‘system’, what has been the constant power over several decades, and who have been their friends?
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
34 MattB // Sep 8, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Nganadeeleg I could see what your are suggesting with your ‘constant power’ mention pertaining to Thailand, but I disagree.
What ‘constant powers’ would you attribute the dismally flawed democracies of Philippines, Indonesia and lots of other similarly politically out-of-sorts nations ? Like Thailand, these other very flawed democracies carry the characteristics of well-informed and adequately educated population plus healthy percentage of middle-class demographics. Yet . . .
I maintain that Thailand’s HMK Bhumibhol’s decades of benign reign/influence provided some counter-force to runaway corruption/abuses by past military or elected Thai leaders.
Perhaps there is NO WAY to prevent the rise of rogue monster-self-seeking leaders like Marcos, Suharto and/or Thaksin. And perhaps ‘well-functioning democracy’ in these nations would only come after some unknown political earthquake-like event that would shake those nations their people’s complacency.
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
35 Nganadeeleg // Sep 8, 2010 at 4:16 pm
MattB: You chose to mention only one of the ‘friends’ I may have been referring to.
Surely you can find some other constants?
(perhaps even some crossover into those other countries?)
Here’s a nice story & picture
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083001936.html
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
36 MattB // Sep 9, 2010 at 1:23 am
Nganadeeleg (#33 and #35) is getting tediously coy with indirect allusions to invisible ‘constant powers’ . . . and now CIA (#35) too?
CIA responsible for the rise and fall of rogue leaders in the globe?
Rogue leaders rise because of their deviousness and disregard for democratic rules-of-conduct. Rogue leaders fall because of their deviousness and disregard for democratic rules-of-conduct . . . with or without the so called invisible unnamed ‘constant powers’.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
37 R. N. England // Sep 11, 2010 at 3:35 pm
MattB (34). What makes you think that Bhumibhol’s long reign is fundamentally different from those of Marcos or Suharto? It seems to me that the differences are superficial, mainly that Bhumibol has ruled through an absolutist cabal, and that constitutional processes have been a sham manipulated by it. If this is the main difference then it would seem, if anything, to be more corrupt than those other régimes. The Thai Parliament is so used to being dictated to by an outside cabal, that when large numbers of its members are disqualified (in processes organised by the royal cabal), it carries on as if nothing happened. It very much suits the royal cabal for the Parliament to operate as a means of corruptly distributing tax-payers’ money to members and their bosses, rather than a respected and genuinely powerful body that makes the laws. The stink of it keeps the status of the democratic institution low in the eyes of the Thai people.
Quality comment or not?
7 
2
38 Nganadeeleg // Sep 11, 2010 at 8:05 pm
This article puts the king in that company:
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/09/09/lessons-for-indonesia-from-thailand-strengthen-institutions-before-the-crisis/
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
39 MattB // Sep 12, 2010 at 1:44 am
Had Indonesia and the Philippines been blessed with a King like Thailand’s, these countries would have prospered immensely more definitely . . . you can take my word for it.
But if not, just compare how Thailand had zoomed up in prosperity, past Philippines, Indonesa, Burma which are countries possessing same potentials as Thailand at the end of WWII . . . but had lagged terribly behind.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
40 MattB // Sep 12, 2010 at 1:44 am
Had Indonesia and the Philippines been blessed with a King like Thailand’s, these countries would have prospered immensely more definitely . . . you can take my word for it.
But if not, just compare how Thailand had zoomed up in prosperity, past Philippines, Indonesia, Burma which are countries possessing same potentials as Thailand at the end of WWII . . . but had lagged terribly behind.
Quality comment or not?
1 
3
41 Cliff Sloane // Sep 12, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Mattb @39:
You choose to ignore the billions of dollars of American aid, expenditures and protection during the worst periods of mismanagement and dictatorship in Thailand’s history. Had there been no US involvement, we would be comparing Thailand to Cambodia, not Philippines.
But I slightly agree with you that comparing the King to Suharto is off the mark. Suharto was directly and intimately involved in the kleptocratic system. In Thailand, it is the widening circles AROUND the monarchy as per McCargo’s analysis.
Quality comment or not?
2 
2
42 R. N. England // Sep 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm
It’s a very interesting question, MattB (39). Why did Thailand get ahead of the Philippines, Indonesia, and Burma? There are undoubtedly many reasons. One is help from the US (but the Philippines had that too). Another is that Thailand has got on top of its population problem earlier. Fewer children, with greater investment per head from their parents and from the State, has meant that Thais are now a more productive people. The reasons why this has happened seem to be mainly connected with religion. Buddhism is not so obsessed with out-populating its rivals as are Islam and Rome-based Christianity. Why then is Burma so poor? Here I would answer, partly a combination of militarism, and hindrance from the US. Thailand is also severely afflicted with militarism. Why its advantage? Kings, laws of succession, and all the associated ceremonial mumbo-jumbo tend to ameliorate the misery of a militaristic state. They do so by providing a focus of loyalty and stability that lessens the probability of leadership being decided by civil war. There is no greater tyranny than that of a general in fear of imminent death at the hands of his own people.
I apologise for over-simplifying, but I’m not as guilty of this as MattB. Putting Thailand’s comparative good fortune down to the efforts of one man is less a flash of historical brilliance than a sign of devotion to a cult of personality.
Quality comment or not?
7 
1
43 Ralph Kramden // Sep 12, 2010 at 10:55 pm
MattB says: “Had Indonesia and the Philippines been blessed with a King like Thailand’s, these countries would have prospered immensely more definitely . . . you can take my word for it.”
There seems no reason to take such a value judgment as fact.
He goes on: “But if not, just compare how Thailand had zoomed up in prosperity, past Philippines, Indonesia, Burma which are countries possessing same potentials as Thailand at the end of WWII . . . but had lagged terribly behind.”
So let’s look at available data…. That’s a challenge, as the data is a bit difficult to read in the earlier periods. But try this as the recognized standard: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical…/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls
What does it show? No per capita GDP for 1945, but we do have it for 1950. Thailand and Indonesia are about the same then. Burma already lags by 1950 (political instability, ethnic separatism perhaps contributing) and that would seem to have little to do with Thailand having a particular monarch. Malaysia and Singapore are already ahead. Thailand does not surpass Philippines until 1977 but had passed Indonesia in 1960. Thailand really doesn’t begin to pull away from the Philippines until the early 1980s, as the Philippines struggles to recover from the Marcos plunder. Singapore streaks ahead and Malaysia stays in front of Thailand, although the gap is closed somewhat in the early 1990s.
Not sure there is any evidence at all in this to suggest that having a particular king makes any difference. Population matters, plunder matters – kleptocracies vs. “good corruption”. World Bank economists argue that policies matter (but that ends up making a case for East Asian developmentalist states, not monarchs). And so on….
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
44 MattB // Sep 13, 2010 at 1:31 am
Am not sure whether or not Ralph Kramden understands or ‘reads’ his own poster (#43) . . .
All four countries Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Burma were blessed with abundant natural resources and nearly the same population (Indonesia had twice the number of people). If I recall right, Philippines and Burma were the two countries thought to possess the most potential after WWII to grew economically the fastest in the region.
All these countries were facing nearly the same development challenges and handicaps. But I maintain that Thailand had the advantage of their HMK Bhumibhol providing the ‘guiding light’ that tempered runaway corruption/authoritarian abuses by both elected or military leaders.
Take my word for it. Thailand is a blessed country. And HMK Bhumibhol is a blessing to Thailand period.
Quality comment or not?
1 
12
45 Ralph Kramden // Sep 13, 2010 at 7:23 am
Well done MattB, stick with ideological nonsense.
Quality comment or not?
7 
1
46 MattB // Sep 13, 2010 at 12:49 pm
I just noticed R.N. England’s poster (#42) and he says: “Kings, laws of succession, and all the associated ceremonial mumbo-jumbo tend to ameliorate the misery of a militaristic state. They do so by providing a focus of loyalty and stability that lessens the probability of leadership being decided by civil war. ”
R.N. England and Ralph Kramden apparently suffer from similar attention-deficit-disorder . . . they do not ‘get’ their own posters. Jeez R.N. England . . any King who could prevent a civil war deserves to be King, don’t you think so?
Quality comment or not?
1 
7
47 Charles // Sep 13, 2010 at 1:02 pm
MattB That’s the sort of linear and nuance free message I’d expect on a propaganda poster or in between coup d’etat Military Waltzes playing on the radio.
By any metric, the elephant in the room that can’t be discussed is indeed the elephant in the room.
Quality comment or not?
7 
1
48 R. N. England // Sep 13, 2010 at 5:31 pm
MattB (46). Kings, and laws of succession tend, and the rhetoric of personal loyalty tend to prevent generals from seizing such absolute power as they have in Burma, and from fighting violently with one another over what they can steal from the people. In Thailand they have shared power with Bhumibhol in a barely stable system in which the King has had little choice over which generals he must share it with. It’s better than Burma, but that isn’t saying much. Between them, the generals and Bhumibol have ensured that elected representatives of the Thai people have no real say in running the country.
This is a barbaric system, and Thailand deserves something more civilised. To quote from a very famous, palace-born conservative:
“Civilisation means a society based upon the opinion of civilians. It means that violence, the rule of warriors and despotic chiefs, the condition of camps and warfare, of riot and tyranny, give place to parliaments where laws are made, and independent courts of justice in which over long periods those laws are maintained.”
— Winston Churchill
This is the dream that Pridi had for his country, and it is one that Thailand’s more civilised friends share with him.
Quality comment or not?
7 
1
49 MattB // Sep 14, 2010 at 1:19 am
“Between them, the generals and Bhumibol have ensured that elected representatives of the Thai people have no real say in running the country.” (#48)
Your opinion, R.N.England, is yours alone which I don’t certainly share.
But many at New Mandala do share your opinion . . . including NM founders Walker & Farrelly. And that opinion I suggest was a result of disgraceful ouster of one Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire with exceptional talents to corrrupt, while he espouse his nonsense that corrupting his fellow Thais is undiluted democracy in action . . . ha ha ha.
I suggest to you all and my Thai friends as well: Beware of Thaksin-like politicians who believe they have the license to corrupt and the impunity to be exempt from Thai taxes.
To all you NM readers, it is a fact that democracy could fail. Not only in countries like The Philippines, Zimbabwe or Venezuela. But also in a country like Greece (where modern civilization and democracy itself is popularly believed to have been invented) . . . yes Greece!
Recommended reading: ‘Beware of Greeks Bearing Bonds’
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/10/greeks-bearing-bonds-201010
Tax evasion and rampant corruption (qualities of the Thaksin version of democracy that NM readers thought as no more than misdemeanors and forgivable because the Red voters says so) had completely undone Greece to the point of economic and moral bankruptcy.
Quality comment or not?
1 
5
50 Ralph Kramden // Sep 14, 2010 at 10:38 am
MattB is another of the variety of commenter at NM who seem to claim huge insight, not least into the beliefs and mindset of others, but who is essentially and simply saying Thaksin was a bad guy. Well ho hum. We’ve heard that since before 2001, and heard it endlessly here at NM. So what is the point of ad hominem attacks?
Thaksin might have been good at it, but he can hardly be accused of inventing corruption and tax evasion in Thailand. I recommend a look at: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/09/13/business/Tax-restructure-needed-to-boost-govt-revenue-30137848.html
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
51 Tarrin // Sep 14, 2010 at 11:20 am
MattB – 49
I was thinking about not to write any response to you but you post is getting more and more ridiculous. First I suspect that you actually don’t know much about Thailand politic and it history and that your knowledge of Thailand is limited to just during Thaksin era (2001 untill 2006) and you have absolutely no clue of what happened before or after that. You talk as if corruption is exclusive to Thaksin, pardon me, but the leaking observatory balloon, GT200, the rotten canned fish, rotten milk, Sor Por Gor 4-01, sufficient village project, and other have proven that other governments can be as corrupt if not more than Thaksin. At least Thaksin corruption case is not the “in your face” type of corruption, its rather grey and controversial. I can certain defense Thaksin about the tax evasion case since he actually did everything within the border that the law allows him, moreover, if you want to go technical its not him that do the tax evasion, its his children. However, if you talk about GT200 case then there’s no way the defense this government, its in your face, the corruption is there.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
52 MattB // Sep 14, 2010 at 12:48 pm
That’s just what I said . . . all these NM blah blah about democracy being good for Thailand are nothing more than . . . and all comes down to NM blah blah that Thaksin was good for Thailand (says who?)
Nothing about Ralph Kramden nor Tarrin’s posters (#50 and #51) are new . . . save to repeat that Thaksin’s abuses of authority during his corrupt reign (which included a megalomaniac extra-judicial bloody murderous run btw that was certainly unconstitutional and undemocratic) were “grey” areas . . hah! Our Thai constitution disagrees and so too our independent judiciary and a recent Supreme Court decision . . . with recent convictions of Thaksin & company.
To Tarrin – what does it matter if ‘the Thaksin corruption case is not the “in your face” type of corruption’? You yourself admit to the reality of the Thaksin corruption. And every corruption committed by people in authority, however subtle or blatant, are offensive in ‘your or my faces’. When tax evasion or tax finagling are seen to be committed by the people right at the very top, that certainly destroys any remaining people’s faith in their government and/or leaders. In this vein, the intensity of the Thai people’s anger directed at Thaksin/family for their blatant tax finagling, and, the intensity by which Thaksin was hounded out of office and criminally prosecuted in the aftermath was fitting, and, certainly justice served.
Tarrin: Do you really believe the preposterousness of your last sentence: “if you want to go technical its not him (Thaksin) that did the tax evasion, its his children.”? Reflect on the inanity of your faith in the tax finagling, extrajudicially murderous, not-even-subtly corrupt Thaksin . . . Why Tarrin, you would be defending Mugabe himself I believe if you were a ‘Red’ Zimbabweian, right?
Conclusion: The ouster of Thaksin was a certain godsend . . . and had saved Thailand from falling into a hell hole . . . like Greece, amen.
Quality comment or not?
1 
6
53 Andre // Sep 14, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Fancy looking at Abhisit recently telling the students that he wants to serve another term. Perhaps he can now see how nice and comfortable to be a PM if the military (plus the invisible hand) is backing him .
The truth is that he is not supported by the majority of Thai people, who in theory must elect him through an election in which his party wins more than 50 percent of the seats. He came to power in December 2008 through the military’s intervention and Newin’s treachery.
He must remember he will face 5-year ban in politics if the democrats are dissolved soon — or perhaps he is confident his backers can influence the court’s verdict.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
54 chris beale // Sep 15, 2010 at 2:35 am
“Abhisit and Thailand’s Bad Men” ???
Interestingly, it is Newin Chidchob now making more of an effort at reconciliation than Abhisit :
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/196227/bjt-proposes-amnesty-plan
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
55 michael // Sep 15, 2010 at 6:35 am
Matt B, I think everyone’s agreed that Thaksin was corrupt – even the Reddest of Shirts agree. Just as Abhisit’s government is corrupt. There is evidence coming out every week. But the fact is that Thaksin was an extraordinarily good administrator, much better than Mark. Thailand was far from falling into the sort of situation that Greece is now in, although it’s clear that it did, and still does, share a somewhat similar widespread avoidance of tax. (Do you have evidence that all the people at the top are paying their tax now?) So I can’t see where your rather ridiculous “Conclusion” in #53 comes from.
Not that I support corruption, but my major reason for not liking Thaksin is the exra-judicial killings & other human rights abuses. Clearly, the current government is not doing too well on that score either.
In #36 you say, “CIA responsible for the rise and fall of rogue leaders in the globe? Rogue leaders rise because of their deviousness and disregard for democratic rules-of-conduct. Rogue leaders fall because of their deviousness and disregard for democratic rules-of-conduct . . . with or without the so called invisible unnamed ‘constant powers’.”
Good god, Matt B! Where have you been hiding? Disregarding all the urban myths & conspiracy theories, there is ample evidence from Senate hearings, whistle-blowers, leaked & declassified documents, etc., that the CIA has spent billions, has trained guerrilla forces, has illegally supplied vast quantities of armaments, has engineered elaborate & devious character assassination schemes & manipulations of economies, has set up corporations, including banks, for laundering money & concealing payments, has even been a major player in the drug trade, to ensure the rise and fall of the rogues who have most suited US government & corporations, for over 50 years. Your statement is appallingly naive!
Quality comment or not?
13 
0
56 Tarrin // Sep 15, 2010 at 12:31 pm
MattB – 52
Pardon me, we (me and Ralph Kremden) never initiate any discussion about Thaksin, you are the one who always brought up subject about the man as if you have no other knowledge about topic to talk about. The reason why I mention Thaksin’s corruption being grey was because there’s a very blur line whether we can considered those action as corruption. If Thaksin was to be found guilty of tax evasion on Shin case, then hell Korn has to be arrest the same manner when he sold his company to JPMorgan (you didn’t know about that right? yeah) and possibly thousand other business people that did exactly the same thing.
Moreover, if the Thai Court is really independent they would have found our Abhisit best friend, Newin, guilty of rubber sapling case since the evidences are there. On the other hand, they send Thaksin lawyers to jail for 6 months for bribery, with no trail or investigation, what kind of justice system is that?. If you think the past court’s ruling is fair in your opinion then fortunately for you because you will be able to live with it with not a single guilty conscious, but I can’t live with that.
Note that since the demised of Thaksin (and the end of extra-judicial killing for some) the necrotic related crime rate has increase to about 63% since 2006 to 2008 and possibly even higher in 2009. Now, I’m not saying I support extra-judicial killing, I’m just telling you that since your sum-of-all evil Thaksin left it seems that the Thai society once again got sunk into the hole of narcotic abuse like those in 1999.
Lastly about defending Mugabe, sorry to say this but it is easier for me to defend the Thaksin than Abhisit, I’m being honest here.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
57 MattB // Sep 15, 2010 at 12:51 pm
And your point Michael (#54) on the matter CIA relative to Thaksin, his downfall and Thailand’s difficulty to embrace a democracy based on rule-of-law and not rule-of-men?
You are not NOW blaming the CIA, the monarchy, the whole city of Bangkok not so enamored with the Thaksin ‘it-is-ok-to-be-corrupt’ charisma, every known and unknown so-called Thai elite, the invisible hands and ‘constant powers’, every professor of Chulalongkorn University, every Thai newspaper and their editors. . . the list could go on and on.
The short of it is: that elusive democracy for the Thai people could neither be painted in colors of red or yellow or colors. No constant or invisible powers in the world could impose their will on the Thai people to embrace Thaksin’s Red brand of ‘yes-we-can-corrupt’ democracy nor to embrace Abhisit’s semi-yellow brand of ‘generals-and-monarchy-behind-me’ democracy’.
For democracy to take deep roots in Thailand or in any of the many countries with similar wish for that form of government that is truly ‘of the people, for the people and by the people’ require inspirational, honest and determined leaders TO LEAD THEM TO THAT WAY . .
A ‘corrupt-is-ok’, tax finagling, extra-judicially murderous Thaksin or Thaksin-wannabes definitely fail that leadership test. Abhisit?? Maybe . . .maybe not.
Quality comment or not?
1 
4
58 michael // Sep 15, 2010 at 2:34 pm
MattB #56: You are right. I am “not NOW blaming the CIA… ” I don’t know yet. I was responding to your comment in which you downplayed the role of the CIA in the rise & fall of “rogue leaders.” I was pointing you in the direction of discovering that over the last 50 years or so they have had a major hand in the rise & fall of almost every rogue leader in the world.
If you think the coup was about corruption or extra-judicial killing etc., you haven’t canvassed the alternatives, & apparently haven’t really looked into the history of Thailand, in which almost every PM has been massively corrupt & abused human rights – with very little protest. It was about much more compelling issues, from the point of view of those who engineered it. Corruption was a useful cover story, & provided a useful environment for whipping up support – but it was not the reason.
Yes, leadership is a problem. But in the apparently unlikely event that ethical, articulate & relatively altruistic leaders do emerge, they will still have the problem of dealing with forces inside the country that have enormous power & ability to control, and outside the country that have their own economic agenda & vast resources to support whichever side suits them.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
59 Cool Hand // Sep 16, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Once again, this time based on removal of my recent posts, a reasonable person would be inclined to adjudge this forum as showing blatant professional/ academic bias and lacking in transparency and accountability. Evidently these remain chronic problems with your forum, and I was recently advised to attempt to counter your gross imbalance by a widely respected and well-known sydicated NYT writer on East Asia and Thailand.
Shame on you.
Quality comment or not?
0 
4
60 Nicholas Farrelly // Sep 16, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Thanks Cool Hand,
We delete a fair few comments, for a range of different reasons. And there is no secret about it; we have even spent a fair bit of time over the years discussing why it happens.
With respect to this present comment, I am delighted to learn that you have a commission (from somebody you won’t name, I’m sure) to counter the “gross imbalance” you find here. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions in the days and weeks ahead.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
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.