It’s better to have a “savior” than to not have one, so in that respect Thailand has been, and still is lucky.
For the system to be the “savior”, better quality politicians need to be elected – otherwise instead of systemic stability, all that will remain is systemic corruption.
As long as the nation relies on ANY “savior”, there will always be key man risk. The only way to get rid of key man risk is to create systemic stability, which is characterized by peaceful transitions of power. Whether its the Chinese Communist Party or the US Constitution, both provide a stable, widely accepted system of governance & controls regardless of who specifically is in power. The public needs to believe that the system – not any specific person – will correct problems. When this faith is gone, chaos ensues.
Thailand has had 60 years to develop systemic stability and has thoroughly failed. Trying to create one on the fly during a major power transition is a serious challenge, and I have little confidence that the Thais will pull it off. I’m expecting years for chaos, we’ve only just begun.
[…] The New Mandala links to a story from from the Boston Phoenix about the conflict in Lao between the US backed Lao Army forces and North Vietnamese backed Phathet Lao. The story was first published in 1972 and features a Lao Army officer talking about the lack of morale in the army to fight fellow Laotians. Preetam Rai […]
Short-sighted? We will soon learn by the end of this year whether my instincts was wrong and Taxi Driver’s fears was well placed.
But already PM Surayud says election could be held by Sept-07 and that tells me the interim government and the junta expect to be on schedule with the new constitution and the election.
But Thaksin we all knew had refused to step down while Thailand was on boil! With the lessons of the Philippines brought down by Marcos . . the military had and should step in. Democracy could be ‘reset’ but a severely fractured nation (deliberately Thaksin created) was a dangerous risk no Thai would accept.
Besides small errors – which may be judged by more knowledgable people than me – the main points of the book remain valid:
a.) The first and most important interest of the king and his network is the protection of the institution.
b.) The king has a certain affinity to military dictators and has no real trust in democracy.
c.) His dhammaraja-image is mostly constructed and while he might be a person of high morality he is not the source of everything good that happens in Thailand.
The good thing is that in the eyes of the international community this biography will remain while everything biographical under the Lèse majesté will be considered as hagiographic.
Of course Anon is right but could anyone explain to me what this “activists” are talking about? I watched and read the interview several times but I saw nothing that could be constructed as a “vengeful vendetta”
Vichai, my view concerning democracy might be simplistic – although I cannot see it this way – but yours is either naive or elitist. People don’t vote primarily for the good of the nation they vote for their own good (and if they vote for the former, they do it because they are in a situation where the national good affects to such a great extend their own well-being that they have to vote this way). Through my life I never voted with my pocket but I can surely say that I always had my own interest in mind when I went to the ballot box and you can’t tell me that you have only noble thoughts of nation and unity in mind when you are voting.
What you seem to think is either that everyone should eliminate personal interests (maybe through meditation) before voting or you want to give voting-rights only to people who pass a “voting exam” (and probably you are in line with the powers that be)
It took the italians 12 years to vote Berlusconi out of office but they finally did and I am sure the Thais would have done that one day with Thaksin without the need of a white (black?) knight.
But why don’t you respond to the argument that the coup was obviously only carried out to protect the interests of the old elite and that the moral justifications were only pretended. I think the possible events discussed in the “Chang-Noi-threat” are the most important reasons for the coup – it’s all about succession and not about some “unforgiveable real crimes” which you like to repeat like a broken record (although these crimes should be punished if there was a direct involvement of Thaksin and proof of it in a fair trial – but where was the outcry of the Thai public when the killings happened and when there would have been more evidence one way or another).
I think you are a little premature in writing off the current ‘reform’ process, Taxi Driver – you may ultimately be proven correct, but that judgement cannot be made until the end of the year.
Worst case scenario – The generals hold on to power by whatever means necessary (I think this is possible, but unlikely).
Best Case scenario – A better constitution (based on the 1997 constition) and new elections with a better informed electorate (I also think this is possible, but unlikely).
Most likely result is somewhere in between – New elections with either royalist generals or Thaksin loyalists holding the power, and the losing side continuing to create instability.
In #9 I said: “There does not need to be an automatic extension from being anti-coup/pro-democracy to being pro-TRT. In fact I reckon that this is “lightbulb” has not gone off in many/most Bangkokians (and a few on this blogsite). People who criticise the CNS are viewed as pro-TRT (and the junta is exploiting this failure to distinguish to its maximum).
Vichai, you need to switch that lightbulb on in your head.
Nganadeeleg: I do not claim Thaksin was good for the country. The difference between what you had before Sept 19 and after, is your freedom. Freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, freedom to vote for/against your leader. You don’t have that now, and you can only “hope” that the generals will give it back to you. Sure it was difficult to get rid of Thaksin before Sept 19, but to allow the generals, who have a much worse track record than Thaksin in every area, to re-take control is simply short sighted.
Actually, HMK makes much more than 3,000,000,000 baht a year tax-free.
By law (specifically, the Royal Assets Structuring Act of 1936 – р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Ър╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤ р╕Ир╕▒р╕Фр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Ър╕╡р╕вр╕Ър╕Чр╕гр╕▒р╕Юр╕вр╣Мр╕кр╕┤р╕Щ р╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕в), all income of the Crown Property Bureau is exempt from taxes.
There are no current public estimates of his wealth available, but foreign estimates from around 1999 put his wealth at up to 320,000,000,000 baht. A risk free 5% government bond on that would already earn over 15 billion baht a year. CPB-owned equities in the stock market earn on average much more than that.
Nonthaburi is a very large province and covers both the east and west banks of the Chao Phraya River. Some districts (Pakkred) are on the east bank – some districts (Bang Bua Thong, Bang Kruai) are on the west bank.
Given the lack of well-known 19th century landmarks on the upper east bank of the Chao Phraya river, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the Princess Mother was born both in Nonthaburi province and opposite the Grand Palace.
Very simplistic your democracy version is ’21Jan’ and very flawed. And I did say your ‘puke’ threshold for condoning seriously flawed leaders would touch stratosphere ’21Jan’ and that to me is strange coming from somebody who quotes Plato.
By the standards of American or British democracy, can you really sincerely tell me ’21Jan’ that Thaksin Shinawatra would not have been promptly ‘booted’ out of office on his questionable ethics alone – – not to mention Thaksin’s unforgiveable real crimes of extra-judicial killings and self-enrichment while in public office?
Vichai, your ideal of the benevolent tyrant is – how to say it – quite strange, even considering that it was Plato’s idea. The general idea behind democracy is that most people vote for their interests (through elections, through demonstrations, through petitions etc.) and then the majority got their interests served (Of course this is a bit simplistic, we need protection of minorities and institutions to check the elected during their term etc). We all should know by now that the coup was not because of moral reasons or to punish immoral leaders: Given the fact that most of the Thai coups had the justification of the immorality of the politicians Thailand should have the highest morality among politicians in the world, because they know that they will be overthrown after the slightest misdeed, but as we both know the Thai politicians are – at maximum – quite average cocerning their morality, so we can conclude that this coup – and a lot of the ones before – was a power struggle between the elites with the old powers / the network as (maybe only temporarily) winners and I think that we will see in the new constitution that the protection of their assets and influence was their main goal.
Also I think that there will be never a succesful trial against Thaksin because this would uncover the involvement of the old elites.
[…] For the full series of New Mandala posts on Mekong River traders, go to Golden Boat update 1, update 2, update 3, update 4, update 5, update 6, update 7, update 8┬ and update 9. […]
[…] For the full series of New Mandala posts on Mekong River traders, go to Golden Boat update 1, update 2, update 3, update 4, update 5, update 6, update 7, update 8┬ and update 9. […]
Thaksin had violated the rule of law and had been a most unethical leader – – repeated reelection will NOT legitimize his errant record nor absolve him of his constitutional crimes.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
It’s better to have a “savior” than to not have one, so in that respect Thailand has been, and still is lucky.
For the system to be the “savior”, better quality politicians need to be elected – otherwise instead of systemic stability, all that will remain is systemic corruption.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
As long as the nation relies on ANY “savior”, there will always be key man risk. The only way to get rid of key man risk is to create systemic stability, which is characterized by peaceful transitions of power. Whether its the Chinese Communist Party or the US Constitution, both provide a stable, widely accepted system of governance & controls regardless of who specifically is in power. The public needs to believe that the system – not any specific person – will correct problems. When this faith is gone, chaos ensues.
Thailand has had 60 years to develop systemic stability and has thoroughly failed. Trying to create one on the fly during a major power transition is a serious challenge, and I have little confidence that the Thais will pull it off. I’m expecting years for chaos, we’ve only just begun.
More debate on The King Never Smiles
So why did they have to sacrifice the Siam Inter-Continental Hotel for Paragon. Or wasn’t that an act of the CPB? Just curious.
An artifact from Laos’ bloody history
[…] The New Mandala links to a story from from the Boston Phoenix about the conflict in Lao between the US backed Lao Army forces and North Vietnamese backed Phathet Lao. The story was first published in 1972 and features a Lao Army officer talking about the lack of morale in the army to fight fellow Laotians. Preetam Rai […]
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Short-sighted? We will soon learn by the end of this year whether my instincts was wrong and Taxi Driver’s fears was well placed.
But already PM Surayud says election could be held by Sept-07 and that tells me the interim government and the junta expect to be on schedule with the new constitution and the election.
But Thaksin we all knew had refused to step down while Thailand was on boil! With the lessons of the Philippines brought down by Marcos . . the military had and should step in. Democracy could be ‘reset’ but a severely fractured nation (deliberately Thaksin created) was a dangerous risk no Thai would accept.
More debate on The King Never Smiles
Besides small errors – which may be judged by more knowledgable people than me – the main points of the book remain valid:
a.) The first and most important interest of the king and his network is the protection of the institution.
b.) The king has a certain affinity to military dictators and has no real trust in democracy.
c.) His dhammaraja-image is mostly constructed and while he might be a person of high morality he is not the source of everything good that happens in Thailand.
The good thing is that in the eyes of the international community this biography will remain while everything biographical under the Lèse majesté will be considered as hagiographic.
“Vengeful vendetta aimed at the King”
Of course Anon is right but could anyone explain to me what this “activists” are talking about? I watched and read the interview several times but I saw nothing that could be constructed as a “vengeful vendetta”
One vote, one value
Vichai, my view concerning democracy might be simplistic – although I cannot see it this way – but yours is either naive or elitist. People don’t vote primarily for the good of the nation they vote for their own good (and if they vote for the former, they do it because they are in a situation where the national good affects to such a great extend their own well-being that they have to vote this way). Through my life I never voted with my pocket but I can surely say that I always had my own interest in mind when I went to the ballot box and you can’t tell me that you have only noble thoughts of nation and unity in mind when you are voting.
What you seem to think is either that everyone should eliminate personal interests (maybe through meditation) before voting or you want to give voting-rights only to people who pass a “voting exam” (and probably you are in line with the powers that be)
It took the italians 12 years to vote Berlusconi out of office but they finally did and I am sure the Thais would have done that one day with Thaksin without the need of a white (black?) knight.
But why don’t you respond to the argument that the coup was obviously only carried out to protect the interests of the old elite and that the moral justifications were only pretended. I think the possible events discussed in the “Chang-Noi-threat” are the most important reasons for the coup – it’s all about succession and not about some “unforgiveable real crimes” which you like to repeat like a broken record (although these crimes should be punished if there was a direct involvement of Thaksin and proof of it in a fair trial – but where was the outcry of the Thai public when the killings happened and when there would have been more evidence one way or another).
The King Never Smiles?
Kasumo wrote:
“Well should I say any more….. =)”
If you do Kasumo, please point out any errors on important facts, rather than trivial details.
That would actually be interesting.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
I think you are a little premature in writing off the current ‘reform’ process, Taxi Driver – you may ultimately be proven correct, but that judgement cannot be made until the end of the year.
Worst case scenario – The generals hold on to power by whatever means necessary (I think this is possible, but unlikely).
Best Case scenario – A better constitution (based on the 1997 constition) and new elections with a better informed electorate (I also think this is possible, but unlikely).
Most likely result is somewhere in between – New elections with either royalist generals or Thaksin loyalists holding the power, and the losing side continuing to create instability.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
In #9 I said: “There does not need to be an automatic extension from being anti-coup/pro-democracy to being pro-TRT. In fact I reckon that this is “lightbulb” has not gone off in many/most Bangkokians (and a few on this blogsite). People who criticise the CNS are viewed as pro-TRT (and the junta is exploiting this failure to distinguish to its maximum).
Vichai, you need to switch that lightbulb on in your head.
Nganadeeleg: I do not claim Thaksin was good for the country. The difference between what you had before Sept 19 and after, is your freedom. Freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, freedom to vote for/against your leader. You don’t have that now, and you can only “hope” that the generals will give it back to you. Sure it was difficult to get rid of Thaksin before Sept 19, but to allow the generals, who have a much worse track record than Thaksin in every area, to re-take control is simply short sighted.
More debate on The King Never Smiles
Actually, HMK makes much more than 3,000,000,000 baht a year tax-free.
By law (specifically, the Royal Assets Structuring Act of 1936 – р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Ър╕▒р╕Нр╕Нр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤ р╕Ир╕▒р╕Фр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Ър╕╡р╕вр╕Ър╕Чр╕гр╕▒р╕Юр╕вр╣Мр╕кр╕┤р╕Щ р╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕в), all income of the Crown Property Bureau is exempt from taxes.
There are no current public estimates of his wealth available, but foreign estimates from around 1999 put his wealth at up to 320,000,000,000 baht. A risk free 5% government bond on that would already earn over 15 billion baht a year. CPB-owned equities in the stock market earn on average much more than that.
More debate on The King Never Smiles
Nonthaburi is a very large province and covers both the east and west banks of the Chao Phraya River. Some districts (Pakkred) are on the east bank – some districts (Bang Bua Thong, Bang Kruai) are on the west bank.
Given the lack of well-known 19th century landmarks on the upper east bank of the Chao Phraya river, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the Princess Mother was born both in Nonthaburi province and opposite the Grand Palace.
“Vengeful vendetta aimed at the King”
By allowing rascals like these to use his name in vain, the Kking is cheapening his throne.
One vote, one value
Very simplistic your democracy version is ’21Jan’ and very flawed. And I did say your ‘puke’ threshold for condoning seriously flawed leaders would touch stratosphere ’21Jan’ and that to me is strange coming from somebody who quotes Plato.
By the standards of American or British democracy, can you really sincerely tell me ’21Jan’ that Thaksin Shinawatra would not have been promptly ‘booted’ out of office on his questionable ethics alone – – not to mention Thaksin’s unforgiveable real crimes of extra-judicial killings and self-enrichment while in public office?
One vote, one value
Vichai, your ideal of the benevolent tyrant is – how to say it – quite strange, even considering that it was Plato’s idea. The general idea behind democracy is that most people vote for their interests (through elections, through demonstrations, through petitions etc.) and then the majority got their interests served (Of course this is a bit simplistic, we need protection of minorities and institutions to check the elected during their term etc). We all should know by now that the coup was not because of moral reasons or to punish immoral leaders: Given the fact that most of the Thai coups had the justification of the immorality of the politicians Thailand should have the highest morality among politicians in the world, because they know that they will be overthrown after the slightest misdeed, but as we both know the Thai politicians are – at maximum – quite average cocerning their morality, so we can conclude that this coup – and a lot of the ones before – was a power struggle between the elites with the old powers / the network as (maybe only temporarily) winners and I think that we will see in the new constitution that the protection of their assets and influence was their main goal.
Also I think that there will be never a succesful trial against Thaksin because this would uncover the involvement of the old elites.
The Golden Boat update 6: mobile lifestyles
[…] For the full series of New Mandala posts on Mekong River traders, go to Golden Boat update 1, update 2, update 3, update 4, update 5, update 6, update 7, update 8┬ and update 9. […]
The Golden Boat update 5: shopkeeping on the borderline
[…] For the full series of New Mandala posts on Mekong River traders, go to Golden Boat update 1, update 2, update 3, update 4, update 5, update 6, update 7, update 8┬ and update 9. […]
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Taxi Driver said: ‘Now we can only “hope” that the generals will act not in self-interest but in the national interest.’
Unfortunately that same “hope” was also placed in Thaksin, and it seems many still cannot see that he has already failed the self-interest test.
One vote, one value
Thaksin had violated the rule of law and had been a most unethical leader – – repeated reelection will NOT legitimize his errant record nor absolve him of his constitutional crimes.
(a CORRECTION on my recent previous post above)