Speaking of which, most Bangkok people I know are moderates who have lost any sympathy they may have had for extremists – whether they be yellow or red – because they are both seen as cynical opportunists representing different sides of the same elitist coin.

Why would they be willing to tolerate Thaksin Inc. a second time when, not only did he blow a historic opportunity to begin fundamental reforms and instead institute a rather virulent strain of “ugly crony capitalism” which included a brazen and sustained attempt to monopolize state power by any and all means , but he appears to have not learned a thing. The again, people who insist on doing all the talking and never listen to others never do. As for political reconciliation, that would have to start with saying sorry.

Alas, pigs might fly and dogs may stare at airplanes high in the sky.

Frank Lee / Bangers

this Iker Izquierdo, spanish historian. I came to Thailand for a couple of weeks and bought your book “Red vs. Yellow”. Congratulations you made a great job. Photographs are outstanding and the text is compelling, just cannot put it down. I’m trying to set up an online magazine in spanish about southeast and east asian affairs. One of the first works is a long article about Thailand’s last three years. Your book is of great value. I was wondering if we can have your permission to reproduce some of your photos.

Thanks for your passion and dilligence in giving us these fantastic reports.

Kind Regards,

Iker Izquierdo.

http://liberalthai.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/thaksin-shinawatra-threatened-with-extradition-from-cambodia/

The only surprise for me is the surprise that some have expressed on here regarding Mr. Penkair’s ‘revelations’.

The network of patronage that enables the country to be ‘managed’ by a second, more powerful, state is hardly invinsible, or operating behind the scenes as some would suggest. The arrogant impunity with which it operates is evident at all levels within the public arena.

My connections with a diverse group of Thai professionals have, for me at least, revealed some interesting disclosures. The local rural amphurs that fraudulently claim debt relief intended for non existent poor farmers, local kamnans whose children are awarded education scholarships, despite their less than average abilties and local bank branch managers who are willing to give loans in return for under the table payments.

Of course, in these cases, the very public result of clandestine wheelings and dealing is there for all to see, but not to comment on, at least in public.

Anecdotal and unsubstantiated as they may appear, these sad stories seem real enough to me, reported as they were by people with a genuine concern for the people they work for. And I don’t mean their bosses.

Elsewhere on here, some have commented on the ‘generally low standard of public morality’ in Thailand. I would also suggest that for many, a sense of personal morality and public responsibilty is pushed aside by fear. The fear of being left behind and disadvantaged if one does not play the same game, or the fear of being beaten or killed if one protests against the unfairness of the system.

The network of patronage does start from the top and has spread its all pervasive tentacles throughout the many layers of Thai society.
And it is never going to go away. There is simply too much at stake for some people to lose.

In fact, domestic problems are Malaysia’s biggest pre-occupation followed of course by regional issues such as terrorism, Southern Thailand, Indonesia – Malaysia relations, illegal immigrants in Sabah, Moro Liberation Front in Southern Philippines.

Frankly, Southeast Asia is a tinderbox – ASEAN can be credited for keeping this problems within borders – but the problems are increasingly becoming transnational.

Hence Malaysia welcomes support from Australia but it will try to keep the big powers (US, China, India, etc) out.

Foreign policy is always a critical factor in determining who gets elected. We know the U.S. ability to depose democratically elected governments or install dubious leaders as long as they “support” U.S. views.

In Malaysia, despite the anti-Western rhetoric that come from the ruling party – best exemplified by Mahathir – Malaysia had always tacitly been a supporter of the U.S. Most developing countries do not have an option but to support the U.S. To Malaysia’s credit – it has managed to maintain a semblance of neutrality. The current opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, in fact is much loved by the West for his “more liberal” stance than the current ruling elite.

Therefore, Anwar Ibrahim has all the credential to be Malaysia’s new leader – if only Malaysia was as democratic as Japan or Australia.

A more detailed account of Malaysia’s foreign policy is available at
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=14954 .

Sorry for posting this late. But you can watch the video of the discussion with Duncan McCargo at the Asia Society, in its entirety, here. It was a really enlightening discussion, so I hope you can take the time to view it. Thanks!

And thanks Andrew for posting about the webcast!

“State within a state” sounds so much more sinister than ‘the old boy network’, but essentially they connote the same concept – certainly not a meritocracy. As the saying goes,

“It ain’t what you know, it’s who you know.”

“Ah! There lies the rub!” WS

So who wants to support a pointless (?) radical reform party, or do you consider that Abhisit is doing pretty much all a reasonable person could expect him to – given his circumstances?

Personally, I think he’s ok – except for his liking for Barry Manilow (I mean, really! ) – but, I digress.

Frank Lee / Bangers.