One of the legacies of the Thaksin era is what some regard as an unprecedented level of division among academic commentators on the Thai political scene. Email exchanges and web-board posts reflect both an increase in the level of academic vitriol and some anxiety about the danger of vigorous academic exchange spilling over into more fundamental misunderstanding and conflict. There is nothing wrong, of course, with vigorous exchange. Some would argue that the Thai academic scene has been populated by altogether too many sacred cows. A necessary part of the opening up of new lines of discussion and enquiry is that some heat, as well as light, will be generated along the way.
But there is some risk that productive discussion will become obscured by personalities, institutional rivalries and unhelpful distinctions between insider and outsider perspectives. As one contribution to avoiding this, I want to attempt an initial mapping of some of the key academic positions associated with Thaksin and the coup. Let me say in advance that this is a most rudimentary mapping of a complex and subtle debate. I am putting it forward as an initial framework for ongoing elaboration and discussion. It may well be a framework that can be quickly discarded.
As a start, I will set out a simple matrix of four possible positions based on attitudes towards both Thaksin and the coup.
1. Pro-Thaksin and Pro-Coup. On the face of it this appears to be a contradictory position. But perhaps it is not as strange as it seems. In fact, this is the position that is attributed by many in the local and international press to much of the Thai electorate who (we are told on the basis of possibly dubious polling) endorsed the coup despite their strong electoral support for Thaksin. I have detected some elements of this sentiment among Thaksin supporters in rural northern Thailand. Soon after the coup there was some sentiment that it was a desirable development because it appeared to bring an end to a period of turmoil and political disruption. Support for the coup was not motivated by anti-Thaksin sentiment but by a desire to avoid ongoing political turmoil. Are there any key public advocates of this pro-Thaksin/pro-coup position?
2. Pro-Thaksin and Anti-Coup. This is a rather obvious position that has received considerable coverage on New Mandala, however the pro-Thaksin label is not one that is worn proudly by too many academic commentators. “Pro-Thaksin” is, of course, a rather crude label that embraces those who are personally supportive of Thaksin and/or his government’s policies and those who (whatever their personal feelings) would prefer to emphasise the legitimacy of Thaksin’s electoral mandate. This pro-Thaksin/anti-coup position seems, at present, to be the public face of the anti-regime demonstrations and for some commentators a pro-Thaksin (or pro-Thai Rak Thai) standpoint seems to be a key tactical move in promoting an anti-royalist position.
3. Anti-Thaksin and Pro-Coup. This is the mirror image of position 2. While few academics holding this position would be enthusiastic in their support for the coup they are inclined to paint it as the “lesser of two evils” given what they claim is the Thaksin’s government’s appalling electoral record. Those in this position often describe the coup as “resetting” a failed democratic system. This often seems to be combined with a good dose of royalist sentiment.
4. Anti-Thaksin and Anti Coup. This is a position taken up by a number of key academic commentators in Thailand and abroad. Whatever the merits of this position, it does seem to be the least intellectually comfortable one to hold given that it involves reconciling a democratic anti-coup sentiment with a seemingly less democratic rejection of Thaksin’s electoral mandate. (I am not suggesting that this reconciliation is impossible, just a little uncomfortable!) This discomfort has been heightened by the strong pro-Thaksin element in recent anti-coup protests.
As I said above, this is a very preliminary and crude mapping of positions. The picture would become rather more complex if other variables, such as attitudes towards the monarchy, were bought more fully into the picture. As a number of people have commented on New Mandala, there is no simple relationship between a pro-Thaksin and an anti-royal (or anti-sufficiency economy) position.
Further reflection on these positions (and their various permutations) would be very welcome!
45 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Jun 21, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I am not sure about the label “academic positions.” That a genuinly political position is voiced by an academic does not make his or her position academic; it remains political.
2 Oberver // Jun 21, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Looks like Suthichai Yoon is a 4. I’m as surprised as you are!
Take Thaksin and generals out of political equation
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/06/21/opinion/opinion_30037409.php
3 Srithanonchai // Jun 21, 2007 at 10:13 pm
It seems that Suthichai is more like “anti-Thaksin” and “anti-military” rather than “anti-coup.” He needed to be “pro-coup” to realize his “anti-Thaksin” position. But that doesn’t mean that he wants to see the military as a permanent player in politics.
4 jonfernquest // Jun 21, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I would like to know how South Korea got to the point that the military is no longer actively involved in politics like the military is in Thailand, i.e. South Korea has a “professional” not political or politicized army, but I think it is a rather artificial stance to assume that someone has to have one consistent stance about coups before and after they occur. History and people’s opinion about what goes next are path dependent and in the Thai case with HMK legitimizing it after it happened, this has led to political stability. There is still no bloodshed. No opportunitic factions have even tried to use this as a political catalyst it seems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependency
One can be against coups in general, but once they’ve happened is rewind really an option? The Thai military seems to have become less politicized and the public seems to be successfully checking most attempts to repoliticize it.
No coup, no Thaksin wasn’t on the menu. One could weave counterfactual histories of what such a scenario might have been like. Counterfactual coup history might be rather interesting. I’m surprised no one has looked at this angle.
5 Oberver // Jun 21, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Srithanochai,
Yes, you are right. Suthichai loves the coup, but hates the coup-makers.
It is getting harder to obsess about Thaksin. Even the Nation is starting to realizing that the issue now is whether the new boss is any better than the old boss.
6 patiwat // Jun 22, 2007 at 3:18 am
Andrew, could you please clarify one point: what do the numbers in the matrix represent?
Are they just labels? Or are they the actual number of academics that you’ve identified in each segment based on email exchanges and web-board posts? Or are they your gut feel of the relative number of academics in each segment?
In 2000, Suchart Sriyaranya authored a very good piece of research for the Universität Bielefeld that identified and ranked the 98 most influential public intellectuals in Thailand. The work is a bit outdate, but it would be interesting to evaluate where the most influential Thai intellectuals/academics stand with respect to your matrix. You might also want to add one additional axis of data: an estimate for how loudly they have made their views known to the public. My initial thinking for what Suchart identified as the top 9 most influential intellectuals (Sippanont Ketuthat, one of the top 10, past away last year):
- Anti-Thaksin, Pro-Coup: Chai-anand Samutwanit (very loud), Thirayuth Boonmee (very loud), Prawes Wasi (very loud), Anand Panyarachun (loud)
- Anti-Thaksin, Anti-Coup:Sulak Siwarak (very loud), Nithi Eawsriwong (loud)
- Pro-Thaksin, Anti-Coup: Likit Thirawekin (quiet)
- Unknown: Saneh Jammarik, Pra Thammapidok (Prayut Payutto)
7 Andrew Walker // Jun 22, 2007 at 9:25 am
The numbers in the table are just labels.
8 confused // Jun 22, 2007 at 9:32 am
Re 4 Anti-Thaksin and Anti Coup. Isn’t this being critical of his policies and actions and wanting to reject him at an election but not by coup? It is acknowledging his electorate mandate- not rejecting it.
9 A THAI DUDE // Jun 22, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Likhit has become ‘antic’ for years…due to his interview, one of his suggestion is that political leader should have accountability, which means when a leader cannot properly manage the turmoils / troubles, he / she should resign, as the japanese or korean politicians do. This, according to him, is a just choice.
10 jonfernquest // Jun 22, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I wonder whether the pro-coup people are also pro military-intervention-as-a-solution-to-Thai-poltical-problems-forever also, or whether this is a once-off justifiable exception, and if so how do they justify it?
11 Tosakan // Jun 24, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I think you forgot one important category, the category that I belong to:
1997 Constitution, rule of law and elections Faction.
Under the 1997 Constitution, coups were outlawed, so that makes me anti-coup, and if people wanted to get rid of Thaksin because he broke the law, he could have been investigated by the various constitutional bodies and impeached by the Senate.
Also, there was an election scheduled in October.
Thaksin could have been voted out.
12 Srithanonchai // Jun 24, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Thaksin could have been voted out. > Yes, theoretically…
13 jeru // Jun 25, 2007 at 2:43 am
There is another position that Andrew conveniently omitted. The Thaksin-is-My-God position because he pays my paycheck. A few forum contributors in New Mandala, BangkokPundit and similar fall right in this slot.
People like Tosakan who says he loves the 1997 Thai Constitution and all that rule of law b.s., but disregarding Thaksin’s blatant abuses thereof including Thaksin’s extrajudicial killings, must be something more definable as nonsense.
14 A THAI DUDE // Jun 26, 2007 at 4:01 pm
There still has been very controversial on the house dissolution by Thaksin in March 2006. According to his speech, likely, the election is a kind of ‘personal approval’, which likely means that he would be free from any review if he wins.
Some critics argue that even according to the Constitution of 1997, this kind of ‘approval ‘is unconstitutional. The house dissolution should be the premier’s right when parliamentary trouble occurs…it’s all about parliamentary affair. Some said this could be seen as the abuse of democratic spirit of the Constitution, the first time in recent history of Thai parliamentary history.
But, according to Thaksin, election or voting was the resolution for all he had got from demonstrations.
What did he really mean? Did he mean that when he won, all opposition or demonstration should stop?
15 Srithanonchai // Jun 26, 2007 at 6:53 pm
The constitution of 1997 does not specify any conditions based on which the House might be dissolved. In fact, it is the King who has the sole right to dissolve it.
16 Taxi Driver // Jun 26, 2007 at 7:07 pm
ThaiDude #14: of course getting re-elected does not mean that Thaksin’s alleged crimes are free from investigation. I don’t think anyone in Thailand seriously thought that to be the case. The issue was rather that it was difficult to have an independent investigation into Thaksin’s alleged wrongdoings, because Thaksin manipulated the system as far as he could to protect his own skin.
The yellowshirts, and many on this blogsite such as Jeru/Vichai, Ngarn, etc. supported the coup because they saw no other way of getting rid of Thaksin (not electorally, and not via the judicial process). I share their concern that Thaksin was corrupt, but I disagree with the method of his removal.
By enthusiastically inviting the military back in, the yellowshirts have not only replaced one corrupt regime for another, but in fact replaced a regime that could have been voted out electorally, or could have been impeached after an investigation, with another regime that cold not be voted out, or impeached, and one which has a much worse track record for corruption, human rights abuses, and an undemocratic tradition.
It is absurd to believe that a coup d’etat can promote democracy. One only has to look at the CNS’s efforts with the new draft constitution to see the evidence that the ‘restarted’ democracy we’re about to be given is a clayton’s democracy. It is equally short-sighted to cheer the coup because the coup leaders were ‘khon dee’. Khon dee are not necessarily competent leaders, nor do we have a say in who succeeds these nice people when they retire. And I challenge anyone to justifywhy Thailand deserves a quasi democracy rather than a full-fledged one.
The yellowshirts should have fought for the rule of law (in fact this is what HMK argued for as well initially), but instead they supported an illegal coup that took away their only source of power. It showed once again that the Thai constitution is not worth the paper its written on, because even the people for whom it was supposedly written for don’t treasure it (or, to use adopt an elitist viewpoint, the yellowshirts were too ignorant to understand the implications what they were cheering on!).
17 A THAI DUDE // Jun 26, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Taxi Driver
In fact, and you may understand, the right of the King on House dissolution is not true…He acts / MUST approve it after the premier suggests.
Of course we cannot deny that the coup is unlawful.
It’s OK for denouncing and opposing it. There are so many ways too to show opinion.
But if we cannot turn back, we should have other choice.
IF we could turn back really, i mean, if we can make a wish…
Thaksin was still there, and also the demonstration.
I’d like to see what would happen eventually….
But sorry, it’s just a dream…however you could make this kind of ‘alternative history’.
18 Taxi Driver // Jun 27, 2007 at 2:03 am
ThaiDude, we can’t turn back the clock, but we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past. The next test for us is the referendum. Will a ‘yes’ vote or a ‘no’ vote deliver a better long-term outcome for the development democracy & sanctity of the law and constitution in Thailand? We have all indeed collectively arrived at a difficult crossroads.
19 Tosakan // Jun 27, 2007 at 4:52 am
Taxi Driver-
I agree with you, of course.
All the yellow shirts were screaming “Thaksin, get out!”
But how many were screaming “Senate, Impeach!”
How many were organizing for a recall?
How many were reporting Thaksin’s crimes to the corruption commission or the ombudsman or the numerous other bodies that were available to us under the 97 Constitution?
And what about the worthless news media? How many investigative reports did they do to educate the masses?
If Thai history has taught us anything it is that dictators will keep coming, regardless if they are from the military or the political pool, but if the constitutional institutions and the free press that keep potential dictators in check are not utilized, then constitutions and coups will continue to come and go.
20 nganadeeleg // Jun 27, 2007 at 9:27 am
Taxi Driver said: “…of course getting re-elected does not mean that Thaksin’s alleged crimes are free from investigation. I don’t think anyone in Thailand seriously thought that to be the case.”
It that is what Thaksin thought, then what was the point in him dissolving the parliament ?
Bangkok Pundit wrote at the time that he had 3 choices:
1. Dissolve Parliament
2. Carry On
3. Resign
This current mess could have been avoided if he chose Option 3, but it looks like his plan was to keep having elections to avoid proper investigations.
21 jeru // Jun 27, 2007 at 11:43 am
Tosakan you are morre naive than you realize. Constitutions per se would NOT by itself prevent a determined disgused or undisguised dictator from usurping powers. The world is awash with democratic constitutions quickly ended as scrap papers by a Marcos, or a Fujimori or a Thaksin in countries with fierce free presses but lots of hungry venal masses.
22 Srithanonchai // Jun 27, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Suriyasai, asked about the issue of using constitutional/legal means to act against Thaksin, simply said that those means were all blocked by Thaksin. Thammasat University students, though, indeed started a campaign to collect 50,000 signatures. Sonthi, Suriyasai & Co. just did not want to bother with the available formal channels.
23 A THAI DUDE // Jun 27, 2007 at 9:27 pm
TAXI DRIVER:
for your reply;
+ we can’t turn back the clock, but we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past. : No problem with this. really agree. I, too, want to add that the way we can do in the future is to guard the system against ANYONE who abuses the democracy; practically and ideologically. This can be real when we have found the real fact / causes of ‘evil’ event of september 19.
I don’t beleive in sole / single factor indeed.
+The next test for us is the referendum. Will a ‘yes’ vote or a ‘no’ vote deliver a better long-term outcome for the development democracy & sanctity of the law and constitution in Thailand? : It’s all about the details/draft. But for sure my choice is YES,
I’d like to see if the new MPs would do sth when they found it ‘unaccepetable’ / ‘undemocracy’. It should be the elected-Mps ’s job, rite? same as other things we always wish / expect they should do as a barometer of democracy; power of the people (’s people).
-We have all indeed collectively arrived at a difficult crossroads.
Sure!
24 AN IRISH DUDE // Jun 28, 2007 at 12:58 am
… for those in Thailand at the moment; do you think that the masses are receptive to a democratic constitution or are the people I see in photos simply reactionaries and rebellious?
Really we all need to get real and realize that the next most major issue for Thai politics is whether or not wearing a Manchester City shirt is now a sign of dissent!
25 Taxi Driver // Jun 28, 2007 at 1:53 am
ThaiDude, I see that you have already made up your mind about which way you’ll vote. I would be interested to learn the reasons why you’ve decided to vote YES. Is it to get this whole mess over and done with, or is it because you think the new constitution is good enough, or some other reason(s)?
26 Taxi Driver // Jun 28, 2007 at 2:02 am
Hey Irish Dude, did you know that Thaksin’s assets are being frozen by the junta, and after the generals get their hands on Man C, the Blue’s uniform will be changed by decree to a new colour - Royal Yellow!
27 AN IRISH DUDE // Jun 28, 2007 at 12:02 pm
http://www.evertonfc.com/assets/_files/images/sep_06/efc__1159630919_gallery3_sinclairvalente.jpg
I believe it was already written for here is a yellow Man City top from a couple of years ago!
28 Srithanonchai // Jun 28, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Yellow on Mondays — Manchester on Tuesdays.
29 A THAI DUDE // Jun 29, 2007 at 1:36 am
Taxi Driver
Simply, I did read the first draft, my rational is if it’s 50 % at least acceptable in terms of democracy…i mean you should know the basic concept of democracy.
and as i’ve followed the drafting process nowadays, nothing much has been changed from the first draft. in fact i do understand that the interpretation of democracy can be various but the basic ideology is the most important; we still and will have election, right of the people guaranteed, basic freedom of expression and of coz, political one.
I can tell you that I don’t know it’s better that the old one but in fact, overall, I have never agree that we should not over-empower the government, of coz i was not quite happy with the old cons. on this aspect. This is my serious concern.
Taxi Driver, so I do beleive we still have future. As someone said, why dont you let the next gen. MPs do their job? To prove themselves they really beleive in democracy…
sept 19 cannot be kind of apocalypse. rigid induction of the coup should be softened…
30 Taxi Driver // Jul 1, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Thanks THAIDUDE for your explanation. For me, the content of the draft constitution is, beyond a point, not the issue. Whether a senate should be elected or appointed, or whether ISOC should be given more or less power, etc., are points of debate that do not go to the heart of the issue.
What is at issue is the nature & direction of the ’social contract’ between Thais in the country. The constitution is just a piece of paper that reflects that contract.
Right now (and it may have been so under Thaksin as well), you are I are second class citizens, and the passage of the referendum, whether won by the yes or no vote, says much more about our acceptance of our condition than it does of the finer points of debate about the content of the paper. We are effectively saying to the ruling class: “give us back our voting rights, but we acknowledge that you have final right of veto”.
We are indeed at an interesting crossroads. I’m voting no to help force the issue. Let the junta bring out another piece of paper. The social contract in Thailand can only learn from its trials, and what does not kill us can only make us stronger.
31 nganadeeleg // Jul 2, 2007 at 10:59 am
“I’m voting no to help force the issue. Let the junta bring out another piece of paper.”
Taxi Driver, it’s your choice how you vote, but I’m wondering are you also in favor of the elections being delayed and CNS staying in power longer?
I think they could save time if they announced what the amendments to the 1997 constitution will be, and then the yes/no vote becomes a clear choice between the two.
- That’s assuming they stick to their word and it is the 1997 constitution they use as the backup (with amendments).
32 nganadeeleg // Jul 2, 2007 at 11:05 am
Or, as a Taxi Driver, do you fit the stereotype and faithfully support Thaksin, no matter what?
Presumably then you will accept nothing less than the return of Thaksin as PM, and restoration of the 1997 constitution?
33 Srithanonchai // Jul 2, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Don’t look down on taxi drivers too much. I talked to some whose level of information and sophistication of reflecion equals or surpasses what we have been hearing from Thai political scientists.
34 Taxi Driver // Jul 2, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Ngarn, let me categorically assure you that I am not a supporter of Thaksin. I am not calling for Thaksin’s return as PM, as much as I am not calling for the CNS generals to be prosecuted for staging the coup.
If the referendum outcome is a ‘no’, it means the people are awake.
Ngarn, I recall you posting here some months ago that you’ll change your mind about the coup & coup makers if they broke their promise to hold elections before the end of 2007. Now that this seems likely, will you now change your mind about these people?
35 nganadeeleg // Jul 3, 2007 at 9:51 am
Srithanonchai: It was a reference to the stereotype, and I’m sure you know that the stereotype rarely matches the reality.
Taxi Driver: Yes, I will change my mind if the elections are not held before the end of January 2008 at the >b>very latest.
To me this is just an interim government with one purpose, being to prepare the country for the next election (without Thaksin).
I really think they have tried to do too much instead of concentrating on the main game. IMO the change of tack on the south, especially the apology, was the right thing to do, and should be backed up with justice & security, however the government lacks the legitimacy to take things any further.
I also think this interim government should really only fix obvious wrongdoings but otherwise keep things in a holding pattern, and a lot of the other reforms they are attempting should really be left to the new government.
As you are aware, Thai politics is very complex, and there are a lot of competing interests - Surayud and Sonthi have a difficult job, and the longer they stay there the more they will end up like the the old politicians I already despise.
36 Srithanonchai // Jul 3, 2007 at 7:34 pm
nganadeeleg: If the stereotype doesn’t match reality, why repeat the stereotype instead of abandoning it?
37 Taxi Driver // Jul 3, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Ngarn, I distinctly recall you saying before that end-of-2007 was your deadline. Now its end of Jan-08? Its a slippery slope you’re on.
The military wants you to think they are acting as an interim government, taking power to ‘prepare the country for the next election (without Thaksin)’. In reality they took power to protect their own & their allies’ interests. They have taken very concrete steps to entrench their power and interests. Evidence include the propsed senate structure, the increased power of ISOC, the appointment of military reps in every changwat adminitration, the increase in the military budget, and the proposed council to resolve future crises (whatever its officially called) stacked with generals and ex-generals.
Why is it that generals deserve to be in these positions in our society, Ngarn? They are like the goddamn mafia, can’t you see that? We need to be rid of them from politics, not have more of them.
38 nganadeeleg // Jul 4, 2007 at 10:14 am
Taxi Driver: Let’s not get worked up about 1 month - I just allowed a bit of extra time to allow for those idiotic (or worse?) monks calling for a state religion.
Of course I want the military to get out of politics, and it’s a bum deal that the generals or a Thaksin puppet seems to be the only choice.
I’m not saying your choice to reject the draft constitution is wrong, but it does carry some risk - Do you want to bring on the final confrontation now, or would it be best to leave that battle for another day?
The last thing I want to see is Thaksin riding back into town as the white knight, which I think is a possibility if everything blows up now. (IMO, Thaksin , or one of his puppets, being the hero would be worse in the long run than to let things slide for a while).
My reasons are: The CDA does seem to be making some sensible choices, the poor are now firmly on the agenda, peoples eyes are being opened (including inside Thailand), and hopefully the electorate will become more discerning over time so there is the possibility that final battle may not even be necessary.
(and, if I’m wrong, the final battle will only be delayed in any case)
It would also be helpful if academics and the media could pressure the junta into releasing the alternative revised 1997 constitution so the people can have a clear choice.
39 nganadeeleg // Jul 4, 2007 at 10:17 am
Srithanonchai: My apologies to Taxi Drivers, but not to people who blindly support Thaksin no matter what he does wrong.
40 Srithanonchai // Jul 4, 2007 at 1:36 pm
nganadeeleg: Taxi drivers will be glad to have been upgraded.
In fact, blindly following anybody (Thaksin, PAD, CNS…) or any perspective is never an advisable approach.
41 Taxi Driver // Jul 5, 2007 at 12:34 am
Ngarn, Sonthi himself originally pledged that elections will be held by October 2007. Now that its going to be delayed by at least three months and possibly six, what does this say about the man and his words? Certainly not the ‘my word is my bond’ type of soldier is he?
I can’t understand why you do not apply the same standards to the junta as you apply to Thaksin. These standards are good, and all Thais should have them and they should be applied to ALL who are in power. Only then will we have accountable, honest politicians to represent us in parliament.
The final confrontation, as you call it, must happen sooner rather than later. [I'm referring to the confrontation between the people and the junta...not between Thaksin & the junta...I couldn't give a rats about Thaksin]. Delaying it just puts the country at a disadvantage economically, sociallly, and politically. As I said before, what does not kill us will make us stronger, so lets bring it on.
42 jeru // Jul 5, 2007 at 1:43 am
Taxi Drivers must be losing a lot fares . . . and blaming the junta for revenue declines (since Thaksin) to be so angry at the junta. Would one more Taxi Driver ram his cab against a tank soon?
But I tend to agree with Taxi Driver that the Thai people should start to put pressure on the generals to abide by their promise of an election within this year!
More excuses and more delay may just prompt me as well to ram my motorcyle against a tank. I am disappointed that the remaining political parties and their leaders have not been so vocal and insistent on this every issue against the junta.
43 nganadeeleg // Jul 5, 2007 at 9:27 am
“I’m referring to the confrontation between the people and the junta…not between Thaksin & the junta…I couldn’t give a rats about Thaksin”
Taxi Driver, it all depends on whether you think it will be easier for the people to defeat the generals or Thaksin.
Personally, I think it’s only a matter of time before the people will defeat the generals, but I don’t have much faith that they would ever be able to defeat Thaksin & his voodoo.
Therefore, I prefer it if the junta take out Thaksin first, rather than the people have to take on the junta and then Thaksin.
44 nganadeeleg // Jul 5, 2007 at 9:28 am
BTW, I’m not advocating rolling over to the junta, but rather I’m saying don’t play into Thaksin’s hands because you will regret it later.
45 Sawarin // Jul 5, 2007 at 11:32 am
If you want to test out the false logic of academics (and of yourself?), return to Andrew’s chart and substitute the name ‘Thaksin’ with ‘Bhumibol’.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate but we reserve the right to reject or edit comments that contain material that is offensive, irrelevant, overly repetitious or involves personal attack rather than a discussion of the issues. And please avoid long quotes from other online sources - just provide the link!