Here is the text of an opinion piece I wrote for today’s Canberra Times:
Let the electorate judge the Thai Government’s fate
ANDREW WALKER
15/07/2008 11:32:00 AM
Only six months after the last election, Thai politics has, once again, descended into chaos. The Government is under attack in the courts, in Parliament and in the media. A determined and vocal group of protesters, who call themselves the People’s Alliance for Democracy, is waging a high-profile campaign against the Government on the streets of Bangkok. A few weeks ago they broke through police barricades and surrounded Government House.
Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej must dread reading the newspaper each morning. Each day seems to bring a new crisis or an escalation in one of his many existing problems.
On Tuesday last week, his deputy party leader and former speaker was found guilty of vote buying. On Wednesday, the health minister was disqualified for not declaring his wife’s assets, and on Thursday the foreign minister resigned after a nationalist backlash against the Government’s decision to support a Cambodian bid for World Heritage listing for an ancient Hindu temple. The Preah Vihear temple is located on a disputed section of the Thai-Cambodian border. Even though the International Court of Justice ruled in 1962 that the temple belonged to Cambodia, opposition forces have accused the foreign minster of being a traitor who betrayed Thai national sovereignty by supporting the Cambodian submission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
The constitutional court even weighed into the fray by ruling the Government should not have endorsed the Cambodian World Heritage bid without taking the matter to Parliament. It may seem like a rather arcane legal argument, but Preah Vihear is a lightening rod for ultra-nationalist sentiment and it poses a real risk to Samak’s Government. Nevertheless, the Government may be more resilient than recent chaotic events suggest.
The bottom line is Samak holds a commanding majority in the House of Representatives. His People Power Party, in which deposed prime-minister Thaksin Shinawatra has considerable influence, fell just short of an absolute majority in the election of December 2007. In the weeks following the election Samak was able to stitch together a coalition with all the minor parties, leaving the Democrat Party alone on the opposition benches.
Samak’s parliamentary numbers meant he could easily see off the no-confidence motion staged by the reinvigorated Democrats in late June. There may be nervousness among coalition partners, but Samak’s commanding majority means he could live with some minor party defections. Samak has also been able to cultivate a positive relationship with the military. You should never say never when it comes to coups in Thailand, but the signals from the top military brass suggest that they will not be resorting to a coup.
With the military indicating it will stay out of the fight, Prime Minister Samak holds another important card up his sleeve. He could dissolve parliament and call an election. Talk of an election is enough to send opposition forces in Thailand running for cover.
The opposition Democrats know that Samak’s People Power Party would perform much better in an election than they would. There is still strong voter affection for Thaksin and for his policies and the electorate would, in all probability, express this support by voting for People Power.
A new election would be the fourth election loss for the Democrats since 2001. They only avoided a loss in the 2006 election by boycotting it. Samak knows his party holds the electoral upper hand and he will use the threat of a new election to shore up the Government’s position. The protesters on the street also know that Samak has a strong electoral advantage. Their protests have attracted some support but it is hardly the mass mobilisation the People’s Alliance for Democracy hoped for. The protest leadership is now proposing a ”new politics” for Thailand.
The central plank in their ”reform” agenda is to have 70 per cent of parliamentarians appointed rather than elected. That is the only way they can think of can get rid of Samak and the enduring influence of Thaksin in Thai politics.
If you can’t win an election then why not change the rules? The People’s Alliance for Democracy don’t trust the electorate. They think that most voters, especially rural voters, are naive and gullible. They don’t want these voters to be able to determine who forms a government. Samak is a rough and tumble politician with a highly-dubious political history. His government has been ham-fisted, arrogant and ill-informed on a number of issues. Street protests, no-confidence motions, court cases and media condemnation are all legitimate in a democratic system. Attacks on the Government have produced some high profile casualties and caused some significant backdowns. But Samak’s Government is less than six months old. Opposition forces calling for Samak to hand over power (presumably to the Democrats) are overplaying their hand.
The December 2007 election result was clear and the Government should be allowed to govern. Thai politics is very messy but some of democracy’s main checks and balances seem to be working.
Once the Government has served its term, the electorate can judge.
52 responses so far ↓
1 Sidh S. // Jul 15, 2008 at 7:00 pm
An opinion piece PMSamak would dream for!!! (but is not getting in the Thai press as Andrew acknowledged - a foriegn Thai specialist academic must know better and be more objective??? I think Canberra Times readers should be informed of NM to be able to put this opinion piece in clearer context)
Except, ofcourse, for that one line towards the end:
“Thai politics is very messy but some of democracy’s main checks and balances seem to be working.”
PMSamak says that its time to change the constitution to curb the courts’ checks and balances power. It’s just hard to change “TRT/PPP-Election-Win-Equals-To-License-To-Freely-Rob-Thailand” habit… I do empathize with Andrew here, it is a difficult, if not an impossible task to summarize the current state of Thai politics in an evenhanded manner in so many words. But at least, he could avoid such misrepresentations through selected truths. It is PMThaksin through PPP who wants to, and has the actual power to, “change the rules” not PAD.
And another critical one:
“The bottom line is Samak holds a commanding majority in the House of Representatives. His People Power Party, in which deposed prime-minister Thaksin Shinawatra has considerable influence…”
PMSamak is a self-confessed “nominee” of PMThaksin (but, in actual fact, an ingenious opportunist) and PPP is clearly not “his”. And in this arrangement/relationship lies the root of all current problems - which Andrew interestingly omits from Canberran readership. The Thai cabinet was not of PMSamak’s choosing, the first PPP push to amend the constitution to white-wash PMThaksin’s court cases which fired up PAD protests (another critical omission by Andrew) actually did not receive PMSamak’s full blessing. In this context, Andrew, if he chose to, could have done much better such as:
“Let the Thai courts decide Thaksin’s fate, let the Thai electorate decide PPP’s”
Most of us in NM are aware of Andrew’s soft-spot for PMThaksin. This is fine for a blog - but to misrepresent Thai politics (by telling selected truths) in an opinion piece to a mainly foriegn readership (not to mention the influential ones) is rather disappointing…
2 Observer // Jul 15, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I think Canberra Times readers should be informed of NM to be able to put this opinion piece in clearer context)
You mean beyond this statement at the bottom of the editorial?
He co-founded New Mandala, a website that provides ongoing commentary on South-East Asian affairs.
Take a deep breathe Sidh, outside of the biased hordes of the PAD and ranting editorial board at The Nation, Andrew’s viewpoint makes a lot of sense
3 Sidh S. // Jul 15, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Thanks Observer. I only read the opinion piece here in NM - and credit to Andrew there (and my apologies ofcourse).
I maintain my critique of the opinion piece that it is only half the story without mentioning the highly interrelated PMThaksin’s ongoing court cases as well as PPP’s attempt at contitutional amendment. I will admit to ‘losing it’ because he is talking about my country here. I don’t care what the Economist or other big global media company say as Thailand is the least of their concern. Andrew Walker is a highly respected academic and does top quality research on Thailand and his words and views carries weight and responsibility - especially when he is writing for the Canberra Times audience that doesn’t follow Thai events day to day. I believe he knows full well here that he was selective of recent Thai political events. That I find unfortunate and, hence, my expressed disappointment.
4 jonfernquest // Jul 16, 2008 at 4:50 am
There were significant decisions by courts last week.
Why can’t the foreign media can’t bring themselves to report these facts?
I suppose there is some cultural relativist anthropological explanation or paternalistic explanation.
The criteria of good reporting in one’s own country does not apply to other poorer countries?
Both former Prime Minister Thaksin and current Prime Minister Samak have made explicit statements in the past that they believe that corruption was part of Thai society. The Thai judicial system apparently disagrees. In the west this is called checks and balances. The courts have found Chaiya guilty of concealing assets, something he apparently thought he could get away with, perhaps because he has a lot of money. Yutthapong was found guilty of vote buying. Prime Minister Samak was already sentenced to serve jail time when he was elected. …etc…etc…apparently no one took laws seriously until last week….
Did the writer of this opinion piece actually read the newspaper last week?
Furthermore, what do you expect when the elected party sees it as their mandate to undermine the judicial system. There was even talk of adding justices to the court. Rewrite the constitution to diminish their role.
Where were the courts after Tak Bai or the mass 3,000 extrajudicial killings of the drug war? A reassertion of the judicial system and rule of law is a welcome sign. Again, the court cases should have been mentioned and discussed.
Many western readers apparently have their minds already made up about every possible future event and don’t need to read the news anymore.
5 Andrew Walker // Jul 16, 2008 at 8:19 am
Hi Jon: you wrote:
And I wrote:
I know you are not a fan of brevity, but I think I did cover the key decisions last week.
6 dukdeek yoakyeg // Jul 16, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Well, folks, don’t put too much trust in the judiciary, either. All members of the judiciary are human, aren’t they? And as such they are also subjected to greed, wrath, and illusion. Isn’t it rather unrealistic to expect unblemished superThais amid Thai commonfolks? It happens only in tall tales.
7 R. N. England // Jul 16, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I think Jon Fernquest confuses the rule of law with the rule of judges. What, for example, did Lord Justice Jeffreys, corrupt courtier notorious for his unjust exercise of judicial power, do for the rule of law? The answer is: he undermined it.
I believe that we in the West have been through the same kind political crisis that Thailand is going through now, and that Thailand is like England in the 17th century, but so far less violent. The threat of violence, however is the major determinant in Thai politics.
Thaksin has chosen the right-wing demagogue Samak, because Samak has the best chance of winning the Army over. Once this has happened the judges will come into line. Their Honours are, how shall we say it, not risk-takers, and happy to be agents for the risk-takers who acquire real power. Though Thaksin winning the Army over sounds far from a triumph of good over evil, in the long term it might get the Army used to taking orders from the elected government. The danger is that he will win over only half the Army. Then the threat of violence will turn into reality.
8 Glenn // Jul 16, 2008 at 2:16 pm
And don’t forget Thaksin’s lawyers trying to bribe the court with a pastry box full of cash! From everything I have read it appears that the courts are the only thing saving Thailand at the moment. The corruption cases against Thaksin are all on their way to court. It will be interesting to see what he and his supporters stir up when/if he is convicted and sent to jail.
I am just finishing Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit’s “A History of Thailand” and it is interesting to see how history there keeps on repeating itself.
Of course there is plenty of corruption in almost every government in the world.
9 jonfernquest // Jul 16, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“Let the electorate judge the Thai Government’s fate…[not the courts]”
Yes, let the rural masses decide everything. Raise your hand, extrajudicial executions, everyone? The ayes have it. Shoot away. That’s basically what Sarit did when he hauled arsonists out and had them shot in public. Also what Thaksin with his very popular 3,000-dead-without-trial drug war. Also, what keeps the so-called “corruption,” which Thaksin and Samak called part of Thai society, going. Elect them and receive your handouts, and who cares what they do afterwards.
“The Government is under attack in the courts, in Parliament and in the media.”
Isn’t the job of the media is to be critical, and it was made even more critical by attempts by Thaksin flunkies to control it and put those critical elements out of business, parliament is basically an adversarial system, and the law courts? They enforce the law (not attack people) and they are doing this now with with great speed because the great saviour of the rural electorate has his constitutional modifying sights firmly planted on the courts. Bye, bye, objective court system, just like bye, bye critical media.
Right, you break the law, are found guilty, and the courts are “attacking” you. Why do I find something wrong with this logic?
Critically investigating the processes at work in the judicial system, as Chang Noi did in a recent article, is an entirely different thing:
http://www.geocities.com/changnoi2/trampled.htm
“I know you are not a fan of brevity, but I think I did cover the key decisions last week.”
Try “mention in passing,” to support the larger contention that everything should be decided by the rural electorate.
Chaiya, is a good example of what slips by the rural electorate, his sole purpose as Public Health Ministry (he was a rich businessman with absolutely no background in this area) seemed to be to serve as flunky for western pharmaceutical companies who want compulsory licensing withdrawn.
Instead of a career civil servant in the foreign ministry, Thaksin’s personal lawyer Noppadon is made foreign minister, and then fails in what is apparently standard operating practice in the foreign ministry, at least according to the courts (and this is independent of whether you agree with the Preah Vihaar dispute (which I think is a rather silly issue personally).
“There were significant decisions by courts last week. Why can’t the foreign media can’t bring themselves to report these facts?”
The foreign media always seems to report in a way that makes the courts seem to be anti-Thaksin flunkies, like this statement in the New York Times, which I would really like to see elaborated:
“In addition, the various constitutional bodies created to monitor corruption, elections and the law are now mostly led by people who supported his ouster. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/world/asia/11thai.html?ref=todayspaper
The Economist is better:
“Thaksinites see the cases as part of a plot by their foes—Bangkok’s conservative, royalist elite—to destroy them.”
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11707239
I don’t believe the BBC or Washington Post even covered it. A person who reads widely in the media, told me the court cases were largely not covered.
10 Bangkok Pundit // Jul 16, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Jon wrote “The courts have found Chaiya guilty of concealing assets, something he apparently thought he could get away with, perhaps because he has a lot of money. ”
So how did it come to the attention of the authorities? Didn’t he bring it to the attention of the NCCC himself? He has said he looked at the NCCC handbook which hadn’t been updated and he didn’t have to declare his wife’s shareholdings.
There is another 60 people who are in the same boat.
11 Sidh S. // Jul 16, 2008 at 10:46 pm
“… He has said he looked at the NCCC handbook which hadn’t been updated and he didn’t have to declare his wife’s shareholdings.”
Interesting if that is the case, I always understood that cabinet ministers (from BP comment, it seems that this covers all MPs) have to declare all assets held under their, their partners’ and dependent children’s names. I understand that was why PMThaksin shifted a lot of his ShinCorp shares to his children over 18 (or is it 20, I’m not sure myself). These rules, with all the ways to circumvent it, seem to keep causing problems!
12 BangkokDan // Jul 16, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I’m still amazed how one can mix up Thailand’s democracy with democracy.
That state of Thailand’ state calls for more drastic measures than elections once a while.
13 karmablues // Jul 17, 2008 at 4:45 am
Re #7
Very interesting to mention Lord Justice Jeffreys. So I assume you have already read the recent Thai court cases which jonfernquest was referring to at #4.
It has been said that LJ Jeffrey’s decisions handed down for treason were “in utter disregard for the demands of justice”. Recent major court rulings which have been handed down in Thailand include the one concerning the Foreign Minister and the other one with the Health Minister. So could you please point out what you have read in those rulings (please also refer to specific paragraph numbers so I can find them easily, thanks) which would lead you to conclude that the rulings were “in utter disregard for the demands of justice”?
As for me, I have read them and I think they rest on sound legal reasoning.
Re #10
He has said he looked at the NCCC handbook which hadn’t been updated and he didn’t have to declare his wife’s shareholdings
Yes, and Thaksin (with tears in eyes) has said that billions of baht that happened to be listed in the names of his housemaid, driver, cook, and gardener was done so due to honest mistake.
It’s quite clear that if there was any real substance to Chaiya’s assertion about the manual he would have mentioned it as his defence in court, but he did not.
He did try for a Thaksin-style honest mistake defence, but the court wasn’t having any of it since the NCCC Secretary-General Sarawut Menasawet had attended a cabinet meeting on 8 Feb 2008 and spelled out the details of Article 269 (i.e. that the requirements also applied to spouses and children) to the then newly-appointed ministers (see paragraph 3.5 and page 14 of the ruling).
14 nganadeeleg // Jul 17, 2008 at 8:43 am
For some reason Chaiya still thinks he’s entitled to a cabinet ministry portfolio.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/07/17/headlines/headlines_30078312.php
15 Reg Varney // Jul 17, 2008 at 3:39 pm
jonfernquest // Jul 16, 2008 at 4:50 am
“There were significant decisions by courts last week. Why can’t the foreign media can’t bring themselves to report these facts?” Rather than making such ill-informed comments, why not get a google subscription that send you reports of the international news on Thailand? Of course, these decisions have been reported in a number of international venues.
16 Sidh S. // Jul 17, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Here’s a more even-handed commentary piece from Bangkok Post’s Sanitsuda Ekachai:
“Lacking in real outrage” in:
http://www.bangkokpost.net/170708_News/17Jul2008_news22.php
(although this is a global phenomenon, where development takes precedence over ecological and cultural landscape conservation - time for a Thai Green Party?)
17 R. N. England // Jul 19, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I gave Lord Justice Jeffreys as an example of someone who participated enthusiastically in a simmering civil conflict FROM THE BENCH. His judgements reflected this fact, as do the judgements of the Thai Constitutional Court, for example. Why else would 7 of the 8 judges of that Court involve themselves in an affront to the Unitied Nations and threats of aggression against Cambodia?
18 karmablues // Jul 20, 2008 at 4:54 am
Re #17
Again I would invite you to quote the parts of the rulings which you find to be absurd legal reasoning or not based on any of the known methods of constitutional interpretation. As far as I can tell, the rulings have shown the court to be applying the law as they are supposed to.
Why else would 7 of the 8 judges of that Court involve themselves in an affront to the Unitied Nations and threats of aggression against Cambodia?
First of all the Court got involved with the Prear Vihear issue because a petition was submitted to it by the President of the Senate and the President of the House of Representatives in accordance with sections 154(1) and 190(6) of the Constitution, requesting the Court to decide whether the Foreign Minister was required to seek parliamentary approval before concluding the treaty with Cambodia. Thereby the Court is under a duty to be involved, ie. to decide upon the case presented before it in accordance with the Constitution. So it had no choice about whether to get involved or not.
Also, I can’t understand how a court ruling which basically says that the Constitution required the FM to seek parliamentary approval before signing the treaty could be viewed as being made intentionally to cause “threats of aggression against Cambodia” or “an affront to the UN”? Remember, this is a ruling which is about domestic constitutional requirements . ie. the Court is basically saying the FM was required by Section 190 to seek Parliamentary approval before signing the treaty. So the fact that he deliberately (or negligently - another honest mistake?) had chosen not to put the matter before Parliament (presumably because he did not want to risk the deal not going through if the public were to know about it) was the Court’s fault? So the Court should have just said, ok, Mr. Ex Thaksin Lawyer turned Foreign Minister, you are cordially invited to ignore the provisions of the Constitution so that Big Boss can get his business concessions in Cambodia? Whatever the case, the Court can’t just let a Minister ignore the provisions of the Constitution (the highest law in the land don’t forget) for whatever reason, including to promote friendly relations with neighbours. The Court itself would be breaking the law if it did that.
Anyways, as a last note since you had mentioned about affronts to the UN, that just reminds me of the infamous, “the UN is not my father” comment by Big Boss himself. Yeah, biggest affront to the UN in Thai history I would say especially since it was made in relation to gross violations of human rights committed against thousands of fellow Thai citizens.
19 R. N. England // Jul 20, 2008 at 5:21 pm
The present Thai Consititution was forced on the electorate at gun-point. It is the instrument of the militarist-royalist faction in the struggle for control of the country, and is designed to paralyse the elected government. Only members of the militarist-royalist faction would wish to serve on the Court upholding it.
If Thaksin were run over by a bus tomorrow, the factional struggle would continue because, for all his faults, he has demonstrated that governments need to do a few things for ordinary people to win their votes consistently. The cat is out of the bag in Thailand. Now the carrot faction will generally beat the stick faction in a free election. There are exceptions. Unless carrots are managed well, the government can very easily run out of them. The stick faction can become popular by provoking conflict with neighbouring countries. This tactic, a favourite of stick factions the world over, and the cause of most wars, has been used in the last couple of weeks in Thailand with the aid of stick-faction agents on the Constitutional Court.
The stick faction does have its token carrots. Every now and then it puts on lavish ceremonies with actors dressed in gold etc.. Though almost everyone is happy to go to the circus, this will change if the circus allows itself to remain the captive of the stick faction.
Though Thais are amongst the world’s most charming and generous people, they show less taste for living and doing business by mutually agreed abstract rules than wealthier and more egalitarian societies. The rule of law is an import that has not flourished in Thailand. Thai Judges are regarded with suspicion, and lawyers with contempt both at home and abroad. Great benefit comes when people compete according to well thought-out rules rather than by the exercise of naked power, or the silly laws which are its by-product. With luck Thai culture can change for the better in this resect without losing its charm.
20 karmablues // Jul 20, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Re: R.N. England (RNE) #19
Hmmm, I will try to make a few points by this story:
PM Samak has endorsed a second war on drugs (this is actually a fact, with Chalerm having boasted that this time there could be a 3000 - 4000 body count).
So let’s say the government implements this second war on drugs. Like the first war against its own people (of course, for RNE, this is probably a much more preferable situation than threats of aggession against a foreign country which hasn’t resulted in any deaths yet), the second war resulted in thousands of extra-judicial killings of Thais (including, like in the first war, deaths of children and a pregnant woman).
Human rights NGO representing the thousands of victim’s families petitions the Court that the government’s second phase of war on drugs has violated several of the victim’s rights which are guaranteed and protected by provisions in Chapter III (Rights and Liberties of Thai People) of the 2007 Constitution.
Having considered the overwhelming evidence of extrajudicial killings produced by independent commissions, the Court rules in favour of the victims’ families that the government had indeed violated the Constitution.
Here is an abridged version of the Court room drama:
Court: There is much evidence that the government’s war on drugs has violated the provisions of Chapter III of the Constitution.
What does the defendant have to say?
RNE (representing the TRT/PPP mafia): “The present Thai Consititution was forced on the electorate at gun-point. It is the instrument of the militarist-royalist faction in the struggle for control of the country, and is designed to paralyse the elected government. Only members of the militarist-royalist faction would wish to serve on the Court upholding it”
Court: Please calm down Mr. RNE. I would advise that for the best interests of the defendant you please provide some other arguments in favour of the defendant’s innocence.
RNE: “Though Thais are amongst the world’s most charming and generous people, they show less taste for living and doing business by mutually agreed abstract rules than wealthier and more egalitarian societies. The rule of law [and human rights] is an import that has not flourished in Thailand. Thai Judges are regarded with suspicion, and lawyers with contempt both at home and abroad. Great benefit comes when people compete according to well thought-out rules rather than by the exercise of naked power, or the silly laws which are its by-product.”
Court: We have considered the arguments of the defendant and have not been persuaded. Exercising our duty to uphold the integrity of Constitution, we therefore, rule that the government’s war on drugs is in violation of the Constitution. The victims families, accordingly, are also entitled to appropriate compensation by the government.
RNE: My clients will never accept the legitimacy of this judgement handed down by “stick-faction agents on the Constitutional Court”!!!
Court: Guards, please escort this gentlemen to the exit.
End of story.
21 Reg Varney // Jul 21, 2008 at 1:16 pm
karmablues is caught in the PAD trap. It is all about Thaksin and if you are not for the proto-fascist, elite-mongering, royal arse-polishers then you must be supporting Thaksin, the war on drugs, murder and so on. What a lot of poppycock. Frankly, I can hear all this stuff by simply viewing the potty mouths on ASTV.
BTW, a nice play on the Nation (Suthichai Yoon I think it was) in your style in post #20. I found the Nation’s contrived democracy dialogues similarly unconvincing and trite.
22 nganadeeleg // Jul 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm
It’s maybe not all about Thaksin, but 95% of it is about that one man (and fears about a new dynasty being created).
23 Sidh S. // Jul 21, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Reg, if it is not all about Thaksin, do you agree with nganadeeleg’s number that current Thai politics is 95% about Thaksin?
My number is lower - at 75% about PMThaksin as I do agree with R.N.England’s statement:
“If Thaksin were run over by a bus tomorrow, the factional struggle would continue…”
But ofcourse, not the R.N.England’s far from accurate, simplistic/reductivist “militarist-royalist” Vs “capitalist gangsters” factions (for there are capitalist gangsters that are militarist-royalists and vice-versa). That is an invention here in NM like classic “poppycocks” such as the notion of “networked monarchists”.
“Thais are amongst the world’s most charming and generous people” foriegners like Mr.England like to say, except many of these charming and generous people are also “royal arse-polishers” according to Reg, which ‘we foriegners’ dislike and prescribe that Thai society should be rid off (then what? We are perfect?). This, ofcourse, is an extremely superficial, unempathic understanding of Thai society. Many articulate Thais and foriegners have been attempting to explain this from a local’s mindset (with Andrew trying to “interpret” for the absent rural dwellers) - but this would never get through. Hence, their opinions on Thai affairs (such as Andrew’s unfortunate piece here) are often skewed misrepresentations.
But you see, many of us “charming and generous, royal arse-polishers” are empathic of your inability to understand and, knowing full well what you think about an institution many of us deeply respect, we’ll continue to welcome you with open arms and count you as friends… Such is life.
24 Reg Varney // Jul 21, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Sidh: You remain confused and confusing. My comments here promise to be similarly confused.
On the point of the post, I was simply trying to say, in strong terms, that there are not just two positions on this stuff.
But please do give me a break on this all-knowing Thais vs. dumb foreigners stuff. Scratch a cultural relativist and they become “charming and generous” nationalists? You could go back to Pattana Kitiarsa’s paper on this stuff right after the coup and rehash all of that (it was on NM somewhere back then), but we know that there are dumb Thais, smart Thais, polite Thais, dumb “foreigners”, smart “foreigners”, polite “foreigners”, etc. etc. We can choose to find Thais “charming and generous” or the nicest people money can buy (was that Kissinger?) or something else again.
While on this culturalist thread, as someone interested in this stuff, why do you think Sondhi Lim is putting so much emphasis on his Chinese roots at present, including his “Luk chin rak chat” t-shirt?
25 Sidh S. // Jul 22, 2008 at 12:25 am
Reg, you chose to use those strong terms. You can’t expect a break for that from a Thai critical monarchist. The most I suspect of you until you address Kuson’s question is a ‘Thaksinite’. I would be quite careful not to use ‘Thaksin arse-polisher’…
Sondhi L. - not too sure. Ajarn Ji Ungpakorn said something along the lines of “I’m not Thai, I’m half Chinese-English and I am proud to be Chinese and English”. I actually think this is a good trend - as the Thai-Laos , Thai-Khmers, Thai-Malays should be proud of their cultural roots. But I’m not sure about your question. I have to think about it further.
26 karmablues // Jul 22, 2008 at 4:29 am
Re #21
It is all about Thaksin and if you are not for the proto-fascist, elite-mongering, royal arse-polishers then you must be supporting Thaksin, the war on drugs, murder and so on
I’m not sure what provoked your rather defensive comment, with all the name-calling and stuff. If you care to look at the history of my conversation with RNE, you will realise that I had politely invited him to have a meaningful discussion of the issue which he had avoided and then finally came out with a rather surprisingly emotional #19 for which I felt my response to that at #20 was put in restrained terms.
And so you claim that I am believer that RNE is a supporter of the war on drugs? In fact, if he was a real supporter of the war on drugs, my #20 would have been futile in provoking some thoughts in him which I hoped it would do. Get it? perhaps not.
anyways, one of the main points of the story is you’ve got to look at a court’s ruling to determine whether it was fair or not. Let’s say some white judges decides the case of a black man and sentences him for a crime. Now, anyone can easily point the finger at the white judges and say they were racist elitists who wants to put all poor blacks that live off their tax money in jail. But the point is, if we look at a court ruling and it shows that the court was applying the law as they are supposed to in accordance with the known methods of legal reasoning/ interpretation, then the question of what race the judges were is mute one, ie. if a black man really did commit a crime, then he should be sentenced for it, and whether the judges were white, mexican, latino or whatever doesn’t make a difference.
Another point I was also trying to make through that story is, well, do we really want to revert back to the old days when the Constitutional Court was not doing its job? So would one prefer the ending to be this: “We find the defendant’s arguments convincing. The rule of law and human rights is an import that has not flourished in Thailand. Thais also show less taste for mutually abstract rules. The Court therefore decides that the government’s war on drugs was constitutional and the victims’ families are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. We are also looking forward to the third phase of war on drugs.”
27 nganadeeleg // Jul 22, 2008 at 9:36 am
Sidh: I still reckon 95% of the fuss is about Thaksin and the fear that a new dynasty is being created.
(another untouchable one, that might eventually overtake or at the very least, infiltrate, the old one)
Rule of law is the preferred way to overcome the problem (although compromise could have been been a possibility), but now outright destruction is seen as the only viable alternative.
28 Reg Varney // Jul 22, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Sidh: I wasn’t asking for a break. And, I do not propose to act as a Thaksin arse polisher or to think up ways of responding for such persons.
kuson: I responded to your continual divisions of the Thai world and NM bloggers into two groups - PAD and Pro-Thaksin. This is simply wrong.
29 Kuson // Jul 22, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Ref #28, Reg, My clarification: I agree, it wouldn’t be correct and I don’t remember where I explicitly stated that, so I think we’re ok
30 R. N. England // Jul 22, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I am very relieved about the new blood in this thread, and have learned something from it. I still think that it is useful to see the present social conflict in Thailand as beeing quite similar to that which Europe went through in the past. We in the West are just a bit further down the road from feudalism (the various systems of patronage) to the rule of law. At present Thailand is bogged down in patronage. A new, more thoroughly capitalist-based patronage system has emerged to challenge the old royalist-militarist-capitalist one. It was clear in Thaksin’s time that the new system he headed was corrupt. It is clear now that his enemies are equally corrupt, and what is worse, violent. It is sad to see a culture which has so much going for it in such deep trouble. History shows that there is no guarantee that all militarists will always support the monarchy. A split is possible and it would be a disaster. The more the militarists bungle their relations with their own people, with their neighbours, and even, would you believe, with the UN, the greater the chance of some new group of generals forming, and attempting to shoot their way into power.
The rule of law offers a long-term way out, but it is something that is inculcated in the people from childhood, not imposed by decree or threat of punishment. The laws are strongest when people are happy to live by them. With luck, the transition from patronage/feudalism to the rule of law can be relatively painless. The Scandinavian constitutional monarchies are good examples. In some future Thai constitutional monarchy, the king could be the doyen of a reformed Thai culture, rather than the head of a system of patronage. The arts in Thailand are amongst the world’s treasures, and the job is an important one.
31 Sidh S. // Jul 23, 2008 at 11:55 pm
And a couple more evenhanded commentaries:
CHANGNOI’s ofcourse:
“Pad: bulldog on a leash or another nail in democracy’s coffin” in:
http://nationmultimedia.com/2008/07/21/opinion/opinion_30078561.php
SETH MYDANS “Thai-Cambodian Temple Standoff Continues ” in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/world/asia/21cambodia.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Changnoi and R.N.England above points out the dangerous militarist tendencies in the PAD which can go out of hand. Although I have my fingers crossed, I actually doubt that would happen, as the ‘ideologues’ are a handful minority (so it is a “bulldog on a leash” scenario). If Kuson’s observations is more right than wrong, the biggest reason (for many, the only) they are all out there is to get rid of one of the most corrupt regimes in Thai history (no R.N. England, PMThaksin’s enemies are not “as corrupt” - but maybe it’s just because they haven’t had their chances to the buffet yet, whether it’s power and/or money). Frankly, in my two decades+ of following Thai politics closely, I’ve never seen so many angry Thais (in person and in the medias). I find that so un-Thai!
It’s all down to the court cases. If they are carried out transparently with all evidences publicly revealed and widely disseminated - with conviction(s) and/or innocence based on sound evidences, then peace will return. Many indicators say that this will happen sooner, rather than later. Refusing PMThaksin and wife to travel abroad is a tell-tale sign. The refusal of the military commanders to be drawn in is another very positive sign. Khao Pra Vihear may provide a potential flashpoint - but the likelihood is that some sort of ’stalemate’ will prevail, awaiting future less nationalistic and more secure Thai and Khmer societies and governments to resolve the issue in a mutually beneficial way…
32 karmablues // Jul 24, 2008 at 4:34 am
A split is possible and it would be a disaster
R. N. England, I can understand your concerns about things turning ugly due to a split given that it is true that there are pro-Thaksin forces in the military. But if such a confrontation was to happen (and I think it to be rather unlikely), I’d say it would be in a situation where Thaksin is certain he is to go to jail and taking that last ditch all or nothing move to hang onto power.
The rule of law offers a long-term way out, but it is something that is inculcated in the people from childhood, not imposed by decree or threat of punishment. The laws are strongest when people are happy to live by them
I do believe that certain basic moral values are incalculated into people since childhood, and I would certainly list, “Don’t Steal” to be one amongst them. I think it’s mainly a small group of people, which includes the TRT/PPP mafia, who have a problem with this but the rest of us 60 million or so Thais are happy to live with laws such as “Don’t Steal” or “Don’t kill”. Criminals will never be happy to live with laws, and for this small group of people, I say, it is necessary to subject them to the threat of punishment. Against those who lack the most basic of moral values, the strength of the law can be found no where else but in the threat of punishment.
You seem to be worried with the Preah Vihear troubles. Though things look to be very heated, let’s wait and see what develops after the elections in Cambodia on 27 July. Once Hun Sen wins, then hopefully the situation will ease somewhat, and the road to a compromise might open up.
33 Reg Varney // Jul 24, 2008 at 12:57 pm
karmablues: Just a small point - “You seem to be worried with the Preah Vihear troubles. Though things look to be very heated, let’s wait and see what develops after the elections in Cambodia on 27 July. Once Hun Sen wins, then hopefully the situation will ease somewhat, and the road to a compromise might open up.” Is this saying that it is all the fault of the Cambodians? Surely we need to critically examine domestic Thai politics very closely on this issue. And, as it is a “rule of law” thread, maybe also critically consider the ways in which Thai law and its interpretation has impacted.
34 Sidh S. // Jul 24, 2008 at 6:49 pm
#27 Nganadeeleg, I was never aware of this fear of a new dynasty and have viewed it as extreme propoganda. I don’t see how this could happen. On the other hand, I agree that the infiltration of the current dynasty is plausible.
For me the main issue is the “rule of law” - and finally the once passive courts, a critical democratic checks-and-balances are finally “doing their job”.
We know they had a critical hand in the situation we are currently in. If they convicted PMThaksin in 2001 for the assets concealment case - where evidences were so obvious (domestic staff holding hundreds of millions in shares!) - I believe thing would have panned out very differently. The highest courts, in effect, created a prime minister who felt invincible and, since then, showed scant respect for the rule of law. Fortunately, we have come full-circle and the courts will have their chance for closure - hopefully for the benefit of broader Thai society in the present and in the long term.
For that reason I gave PMThaksin 75%, maybe even less - 60% and the other 40% Kuson’s “educated gullibles” (or was it mine) including the 8 constitutional court judges who, in 2001, gave PMThaksin a slap on the hand for what PMThaksin admitted himself as an “honest mistake”…
35 nganadeeleg // Jul 24, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Sidh: I don’t see how this could happen
Have you read Handley’s TKNS ?
36 Sidh S. // Jul 24, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Nganadeeleg, I have and have made my views known in the old blogs. A Shinawatra dynasty is only possible with a return to absolute monarchy after years of a very bloody civil war - with the partition of the country as a probably result. No, come to think of it again, it is impossible (especially even army commanders loyal to PMThaksin refused to fire a shot in the 2006 coup)… I also doubt that that is PMThaksin’s aspirations. 5 years premiership, even 20, cannot compare with 200+ years lineage. But he can easily infiltrate, yes, and if he was more patient and contained his greed - strategically spread out his power and money monopolization process over a much longer period, he could have become Thailand’s version of N.Korea’s Great Leader. We all remembered his first year in office - quality cabinet ministers + quality policies. It turned out too good to be true…
37 nganadeeleg // Jul 25, 2008 at 9:19 am
Sidh: I basically agree with you, and on reflection, I could have worded it better.
Saying new dynasty or overtake the old dynasty, was too simplistic.
On the one hand there is the fear of another network morphing, with it’s leaders adopting many of the techniques that made the old one so successful, as well as bringing in some new tricks.
There is also a possibility that the Thaksin phenomenon is just being used as a means to an end and he will have to be put in is place at a later date.
(in some ways it’s a real twist to think of Thaksin himself as just a pawn in a bigger game)
38 nganadeeleg // Jul 25, 2008 at 9:27 am
On the subject of adopting old techniques and some new tricks - what can be read into recent events at Udon Thani?
39 Sidh S. // Jul 25, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Nganadeeleg, I don’t know. I am just deeply saddened, depressed and numb by the violence committed by TRT/PPP supporters (it was MURDER if the Nation’s report is true)… We had a bloodless coup - but we can’ t have peaceful protests under a democratic regime. I hope the police handle this case appropriately - otherwise it can easily precipitate into another coup. The perpetrators of violence and crime must be bought to justice ASAP…
40 karmablues // Jul 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I hope the police handle this case appropriately
well, from what i’ve seen the police didn’t seem keen on keeping the peace that day of the incident. The clip that I mention that was aired on PBS Thursday night showing an unarmed PAD being ganged up by 5 - 6 Reds beating him with flagpoles repeatly, well, the police officer that finally came by almost looked as if he was strolling in, not as if he was rushing to help the victim at all (so either the Police are complicit - remember the group of Reds was led by brother of powerful local PPP politician, or the other possibility is that this particular policeman was just afraid that he might get a few whacks himself, which isn’t an excuse either). Clips showing the burning of PAD private property by the Reds also show the police kinda just watching it all happen, standing around like idiots.
The perpetrators of violence and crime must be bought to justice ASAP
I hope so too, but one of the leaders of the Reds seems to think otherwise, by saying this for a televised interview: “Yes, I did it and I am not afraid of legal action because I will be charged only public brawl charges.”
41 karmablues // Jul 25, 2008 at 9:40 pm
from Bangkokpost:
UDON THANI : A PAD supporter was killed and 17 others injured yesterday when a large mob armed with knives and clubs attacked a People’s Alliance for Democracy rally. The clash occurred at Nong Prachak Silapakhom public park in the municipal area, where around 150 PAD supporters were gathering.
About 700 anti-PAD demonstrators armed with machetes, axes, iron bars and wooden sticks stormed the rally site in the afternoon, attacking the PAD supporters and pulling down the stage.
The anti-PAD group was led by Uthai Saenkaew, brother of Deputy Agriculture Minister Theerachai Saenkaew, and Kwanchai Praipana. Mr Uthai allegedly urged his men to kill the PAD guards.
The attackers, in a group calling themselves Khon Rak Udon (We Love Udon), gathered at Thung Sri Muang before marching to Nong Prachak Silapakhom.
Following the attack on the PAD, they paraded around the town and walked back to Thung Sri Muang to celebrate.
The injured were sent to Udon Thani Hospital. The man who died was a PAD security guard. He had suffered an axe blow to the head, according to Veera Somkwamkid, a PAD ally.
Thaikorn Polsuwan, also a PAD ally, lashed out at police yesterday for failing to stop the Khon Rak Udon demonstrators from mounting their attack.
”Police allowed the Khon Rak Udon group in and simply watched them attack us. Khon Rak Udon also stopped ambulances from taking the injured to hospital,” said Mr Thaikorn.
The clash took place despite extra security measures deployed by the combined 450 forces of provincial police and border patrol police volunteers.
Mr Veera said Mr Kwanchai and police must be held liable for the bloodshed.
But Pol Maj-Gen Permsak Paradasak, chief of Udon Thani police, said officers did their best to prevent violence.
Governor Supoj Laowansiri instructed police to investigate the matter and take appropriate action.
The clash came less than 24 hours after a skirmish between PAD supporters and opponents in Maha Sarakham’s Muang district on Wednesday night.
The incident on Wednesday night left dozens injured, including former senator for Buri Ram Karun Saingam, who suffered a mild head injury after being hit by a missile from a slingshot.
In Buri Ram, a PAD rally was scrapped yesterday when anti-PAD demonstrators stormed the rally site and demolished the stage set up in front of a railway station in Muang district.
PAD coordinator Suriyasai Katasila demanded the government and the Interior Ministry accept responsibility for failing to stop the violence.
He had asked PAD allies nationwide to join the rally in Bangkok if they believed it was unsafe to demonstrate in their own areas.
Air force commander ACM Chalit Phukpasuk called on both sides to refrain from violence
42 karmablues // Aug 1, 2008 at 3:34 am
Since the Thaksinites are probably still busy with pro-Thaksin propoganda on the tax case, thought I’d just post the article from the Telegraph in this thread for you all, while the Thaksinites are still labouring away at it:
CHRIS BAKER SAYS “LEGAL MILESTONE” FOR THAI COURT (my own title)
Pojaman Shinawatra, 51, was sentenced to three years imprisonment by a court in Bangkok. She was bailed and has 30 days to appeal.
Mr Thaksin is on trial in three other cases and at least a dozen more are under investigation.
“Thaksin is not disheartened,” said his spokesman, Pongthep Thepkanjana, after the verdict. “They respect the court ruling but it is not the end. We will fight until the end.”
Mrs Pojaman’s conviction is the first verdict in a criminal case against the Shinawatra family. It centred on the tax-free transfer of £1.1m worth of shares in the family business, but analysts said it has a wider significance.
Hundreds of Thaksin supporters gathered with red roses at the court and the verdict was read live on national television. Thaksin’s many supporters say the legal cases against the family are part of a politically motivated attempt to block his return to power.
Chris Baker, who co-wrote a biography of Mr Thaksin, said: “This is obviously a very black day for the whole family.”
The billionaire entrepreneur became Thailand’s most electorally successful prime minister before being overthrown by a military coup in 2006. The army launched a raft of corruption investigations against him.
After returning from exile earlier this year, Mr Thaksin is locked in a struggle for the political future of the country, pitting his widespread support among the poor against a politically conservative establishment. The battle is being fought in parliament, in street protests and in the courts.
Mr Baker said it was a legal “milestone” for a Thai court to convict such a wealthy and powerful defendant as the former first lady. It is a precedent that Mr Thaksin will find deeply unsettling.
The first of his many criminal trials, in which he is accused of using his office as prime minister to help his wife buy cheap land from the central bank, may produce a verdict as early as September. Because the trial is in the supreme court Mr Thaksin will have no opportunity to appeal against the verdict.
“It’s one shot and you are dead,” said Mr Baker. “That makes it really quite a tense situation for him.” Mr Baker said that case is more complicated and the verdict is difficult to predict.
This week the supreme court agreed to hear a further two cases against Mr Thaksin. In one he is accused of giving soft loans of Thai public money to the Burmese junta with the condition that they spend the money on telecommunications services from his private business.
He denies all the allegations.
43 karmablues // Aug 1, 2008 at 11:13 am
Just a few comments to gets things going (strange the “neutral” bloggers here don’t seem to think the tax case is big news… hmmm, anyways…)
1. Thaksin family illegally evaded tax by abuse of power, ALTHOUGH IT WAS BASICALLY POCKET CHANGE FOR THEM. This shows absolutely high level of greed, and that was why there was absolutely high level of corruption.
2. This legal “milestone” (in Baker’s words) for Thai courts was achieved in large part due to pressure by the PAD protesters (who were legitimately exercising their right to freedom of assembly, as Human Rights Watch stated). So let’s hope PAD continues to help rule of law ( essential element of democracy and essential element for human rights to be protected) exist for Thailand.
3. “They respect the court ruling but it is not the end. We will fight until the end.” says Thaksin spokesman
Fight to the end = Thaksin nominee government will devote EVERYTHING (ie. let’s forget about the citizens who voted us in and who are in trouble during these hard economic times, but let’s just concentrate on Big Boss, make sure he is above the law AT ALL COSTS - including let’s provoke violence - the Udon incident - so that PAD will get angry, do revenge attack on Reds, we and our paid academics will then make PAD scapegoats, in the ensuing violence and chaos which prompts military intervention, we then use it as opportunity to stop the court cases going forward.)
4. “It’s one shot and you are dead,” said Mr Baker. “That makes it really quite a tense situation for him.”
Very accurate comment by Baker. Very worry
for the people who care about Thailand. Thaksin has already shown that he can gleefully and willingly sacrifice 2500 lives just to boost his popularity , now when the stakes are so so much higher, many people are wondering, how many lives will he be willing to sacrifice this time?
The Udon incident is a tell-tale sign of Thaksin’s strategy, but hopefully, the “other side” will ensure peacefully that such brutal and inhumane tactics cannot be carried out on wider scale by Thaksin.
44 Srithanonchai // Aug 1, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“This legal “milestone” (in Baker’s words) for Thai courts was achieved in large part due to pressure by the PAD protesters.” >> What? Are you serious?
45 nganadeeleg // Aug 1, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Srithanonchai: He has a point - without the PAD protests in 2006, Thaksin would still be in power, and very likely those court cases would never have got anywhere.
Hopefully this is just a start, and in future no one will be above the law, whichever side of politics or connections they have.
btw, They should also be going after the tax revenue officials who rubber stamped all the shady deals.
46 Sidh S. // Aug 1, 2008 at 8:30 pm
karma blues #42, the telegraph got the sums wrong. It’s not “£1.1m worth of shares”, it’s £11 million.
47 Srithanonchai // Aug 2, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Nganadeeleg: Oh, sorry, I thought his reference was more short-term.
48 karmablues // Aug 2, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Thanks nganadeeleg.
Srithanonchai, in the shorter term, i think the PAD do a good job of helping to keep public and media attention focused on the cases. I think they are also needed to help keep attention focussed on the government’s attempts to amend the constitution.
49 nganadeeleg // Aug 2, 2008 at 7:10 pm
..i think the PAD do a good job of helping to keep public and media attention focused on the cases. I think they are also needed to help keep attention focussed on the government’s attempts to amend the constitution.
They should stick to that, instead of stirring up things with Cambodia and such nonsense.
From today’s Bangkok Post:
PAD demonstrators led by another core leader, Sondhi Limthongkul, on Friday held a ritual ceremony and sought a ‘blessing from the sun’ during Friday’s eclipse, with the purpose of driving away evil and that Thailand could get back Preah Vihear temple.
50 karmablues // Aug 3, 2008 at 1:58 pm
They should stick to that, instead of stirring up things with Cambodia and such nonsense.
Yes, I think it is unfortunate that the PAD does not have moderate leaders. Acts such as stoking unreasonable nationalism and the 70/30 thing has alienated a lot of potential allies. But my guess is that many of the anti-Thaksins who criticize the more extreme views of the PAD are nevertheless quietly hoping to free-ride the PAD as a vehicle to help get rid of the Thaksin Empire. But if these people are in a position of being able to influence public thinking, then I think it is right that they free-ride PAD and come out with the criticisims since these people also have an important duty to try and shape public opinion to stay with the fundamentals of a democratic society.
51 Srithanonchai // Aug 3, 2008 at 4:42 pm
“Yes, I think it is unfortunate that the PAD does not have moderate leaders.” >> If it had, there would not have been any PAD!!
52 nganadeeleg // Aug 3, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I’ve often said that the TRT members should have stood up to Thaksin and moderated his worst excesses.
It’s time for PAD to do that to Sondhi L - IMO, he’s the worst thing about PAD, and his nationalistic ranting is dangerous.
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.