I have not read adequately on the subject to comment. But offhand, if your statement below is true:
“Expressed in various elitist, royalist and activist forms these approaches have argued that the rights of rural people should only be fully respected provided they are willing to pursue livelihoods that make modest claims on natural resources and government budgets.”
then the ‘Sufficiency Democracy’ is ethically wrong, economically unsound and absurdly divisive.
That is why I disbelieve Mr. Andrew Walker on his stated thesis about Thailand’s ‘Sufficiency Democracy’.
YKMasada you said – “There has not been a single coup in modern Thai history that was not followed or preceded by bloodshed.” Because you spoke with such authority on the subject, I checked and discovered you were bullshitting YKMasada.
According to Gulfnews.com:
“In principle, any military coup against a democratically-elected government must be condemned. The experience of Third World countries suggests that coups have never helped establish better systems or put nations on the course of reforms and stability. On the contrary, they have always accompanied by bloodshed and caused additional problems, divisions and backwardness.
In Thailand, however, military coups looked different. Since 1932, the year in which Thailand became a constitutional monarchy, the country has witnessed 17 successful coups, all of which were bloodless with their leaders remaining loyal to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, retaining the monarchic system, and avoiding the prosecution of their predecessors. In several cases, coups took place as a way out of the mess created by elected civilian governments or as a prelude to introducing a better democratic system. This, according to many Thais, is applied to the recent military coup led by army commander General Sonthi Boonyaratklin that ousted caretaker prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra last week.”
Can you remind me again YKMasada why you got so much kick out of Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage in Y2003 that resulted in 2,500 or so defenseless unarmed villagers killed merely because some poorly paid undertrained hicks of policemen included these suspects in a police blacklist?
Too bad Thaksin did not heed history’s lesson YKMasada. And he had lots of recent historical lessons that would have given him warning not to abuse his powers: Suharto, Marcos, Estrada.
It was Thaksin who brought the tanks to the streets of Bangkok YKMasada.
I do not believe your doomsday forecast for Thailand. You make sweeping statements about people and generals you do not know and you are only carried by your blind affection for that corrupt person Thaksin Shinawatra. Good riddance to him.
Vichai N, history is my guide. There has not been a single coup in modern Thai history that was not followed or preceded by bloodshed. The Army is like some evil sword in a Hong Kong kung fu movie – once the weapon comes out of its scabbard, it must taste blood. It’s a byproduct of the way of the their thinking. Violence is the raison d’etre of the military.
The Ror Sor Chor coup 1991 resulted in massive bloodshed in 1992. Both Young Turk I and II failed, but resulted in armed fighting in Bangkok and many dead and injured. The military seized power in the evening of 6 October 1976 right after it massacred students at Thammasat. Thanom’s self-coup in 1971 resulted in many deaths in 14 October 1973.
Maybe you can say that Sonthi is different, that he’s a career soldier, he wants no power – he just wants to serve the King, blah blah blah… But Sonthi is Surayud’s boy, and Surayud is Prem’s boy, etc. There is a continuous ideological link between all of Thailand’s military dictators: they all believed that electoral democracy was unsuited for Thailand, that stupid villagers – even 60 million of them! – could not be wiser than one man, and that anything that threatened the ultimate power of that one man deserved to be utterly destroyed. This latest coup has made this ideology clear to yet another generation of Thais, and it is a lesson they will not forget.
Sooner or later YKMasada? And why should it go INEVITABLY wrong? From what wisdon or prescience do you make your doomsday forecast for the Thai Kingdom?
Already the transition into a civilian interim government is 2 days ahead of schedule. And those Thaksin children are likely to face Baht 5.0 billion tax fine on that AwfulRich-Temasek-Shitty deal. I would call that very quick progress YKMasada! And before Thaksin can even complete unpacking his 100 or so luggages in London, there is already stampede to be delisted from Thai Rak Thai party roster. Maybe those TRT members have finally seen the light . . but I doubt that. These TRT crooks will just run when their dark deeds are about to be uncovered and without Thaksin to shield them . . all they can do is run.
The monarchy has been an institution in Thailand for much longer than you were employed by the Shinawatra YKMasada. If the King openly endorsed the military coup, and the majority of the Thai citizenry also approved by the way, it must be because Thaksin was seriously endangering the peace and harmony of the Kingdom.
I remember you YKMasada in the Nation Forum. You were so openly in favor of Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage in that Y2003 anti-drugs campaign (deplored by the King by the way). So I know where you stand on the ‘rule of law’ issue.
I just thought it was sweet justice that Thaksin should be extrajudicially deposed from office, and, maybe later on his illgottens seized by the extrajudicial junta. That won’t even be enough justice still for the 2,000 or so defenseless souls Thaksin murdered in his Y2003 ya ba extrajudicial rampage.
Great stuff. The first article I’ve read that’s called a spade a spade: a “royalist” coup.
I’ve just seen a draft of the new Constitution from The Nation, 2 October 2006. Surprise, surprise, Article 8 of the 1997 Constitution (“the person of the king is sacred and inviolable”) has been shifted to Article 1!
It’s not just you – lots of young people that I know are asking for the first time in their lives what the King’s role in the whole situation was/is. Of course, most of them have been indoctrinated to believing that “If the King endorses it, it must be good.” But at least it’s better than “The King is not involved in politics” myth that has been built over the last 50 years.
Sooner or later, the situation for the junta/Surayud government will turn ugly (as inevitably happens after a coup) and people will start asking what went wrong – did the King endorse the wrong people, or was the King’s endorsement flawed in the first place?
The palace has been drawn out. If the situation is managed incorrectly (or correctly, depending on who’s perspective you’re taking), this whole mess could be a set up for the greatest blow against the monarchy since 1932.
Hello Andrew, First time here and not quite sure of my way around, but saw a familiar name and thought I’d drop by for a chat.
It’s very, very depressing. All of the major international TV networks and print news agencies that I have been able to look at this morning are talking about Surayudh as a “former army commander”, “professional soldier”, “miltary reformer”. As far as I can see there is NO MENTION that he is a privy councillor and one of the king’s close advisors!! It’s pathetic! It is not Surayudh’s military background, but the fact that he is a close advisor to the king that is the key to his appointment as PM. In McCargo’s words, he is part of “network monarchy”.
The coup group are producing a theatre, where the main actor is the military – and everyone believes it! They can not control the media and political discourse outside the Thailand so they must engage in these theatrics to convince the international community that it was a military, not a royalist coup. Because if a powerful critique implicating the monarchy in the coup began circulating in the international media it would be extremely dangerous not only for the coup group but for the monarchy itself. So the military in fact is the fall guy for the royalists. We MUST tell people WHO is producing the play.
Witness the extraordinary manipulation of the coup group’s name: in Thailand it is the “khana patirup rabop prachathipatai an mi phra maha kasat song pen pramuk” (thus ensuring Thais know the coup has the support of the monarchy, and thereby shielding it from criticism courtesy of the lese majeste law) whereas in the English version it is the “Council for Democratic Reform” – no mention of the monarchy. All of this is designed to hide the monarchy’s involvement in the coup from the international community.
We must therefore condemn in the strongest possible terms the fact that a privy councillor has been appointed by a royalist military junta which has just carried out a military coup, arrested elected politicians at gun-point, seized control of the media, shut down critical websites, purged miltary and police officers appointed by the former elected civilian government, and banned political activity.
Why can’t intelligent people put two and two together and condemn what has happened, a coup d’etat NOT by the military but by the royalists, who are protected from any criticism because of the strict bans on any critical reference to the monarchy in political discourse?
Rather than cheering on a royalist puppet apppointed by a military junta spouting the king’s inane self-sufficiency nonsense (which the royal family itself has never practised) we must unequivocally condemn the appointment. It must never be forgotten that the Thai electorate has just been disenfranchised at the barrel of a gun.
[…] This documentary – which reportedly follows the “Free Burma Rangers” around the country’s periphery – will be screened on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom at 8 pm on Monday, 2 October 2006. Based on the exploits of Australian journalist Evan Williams who films illegally inside Burma, “Burma’s Secret War” has the potential to be the best television about that country’s woes since Williams’ 2001 effort – “Burma Drugs”. […]
This coup is showing the Thai public which of Thailand’s “intellectuals” really has the conviction to think on their own. Those that do are compiled in a “white list” at
[…] That the announcement was made at 9:29 am is, again, probably not a coincidence. The report continues: Among other things, the interim charter absolves the CDR for staging the coup. […]
[…] A spate of stories from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation late last week drew on comments from an Australian refugee lawyer and an official from the Organisation for International Migration. They both said that the Rohingya men will all make strong claims for refugee status. The Australian government is silent on the issue. For more context see the original New Mandala posts on this evolving story. […]
[…] A spate of stories from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation late last week drew on comments from an Australian refugee lawyer and an official from the Organisation for International Migration. They both said that the Rohingya men will all make strong claims for refugee status. The Australian government is silent on the issue. For more context see the original New Mandala posts on this evolving story. […]
Japanese-donated Buddha feet!?!? That has to go over well with the local Kachin population. U Nu would be glad though. Finally somebody got a Buddha image up there.
Speaking of Surakiart, the criticism that he has received has been quite stunning, since most of it seems to be from the Jayanama family. The Jayanama family is Thailand’s most respected family of diplomats, Direk Jayanama having begun the tradition during WWII.
Asda Jayanama, former ambassador to the UN seems to hate him particularly badly. Addressing the PAD crowd, it was hard to imagine that this person had ever been a diplomat. “Because we have a weak foreign minister who responded to Thaksin as if he was his servant, we have been unable to solve any problems.” Asda also claimed that Surakiart Sathirathai parked his car outside the official residence of UN secretary-general at night so he could have a look. “It’s very embarrassing,” Asda told the crowd. He called Surakiart’s candidacy as a lost cause and an embarrassment for Thailand’s international standing, claiming that it was “silly”. He has also publicly called Surakiart “a third rate politician”, “clumsy”, “bungling”, and “lacking a brand name”.
Why such hatred? I have my own theory (which I will not discuss here – it involves personal issues of Surakiart), but for Surakiart to have such a loud and influential thorn on his side has been quite a handicap.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Sufficiency democracy
I have not read adequately on the subject to comment. But offhand, if your statement below is true:
“Expressed in various elitist, royalist and activist forms these approaches have argued that the rights of rural people should only be fully respected provided they are willing to pursue livelihoods that make modest claims on natural resources and government budgets.”
then the ‘Sufficiency Democracy’ is ethically wrong, economically unsound and absurdly divisive.
That is why I disbelieve Mr. Andrew Walker on his stated thesis about Thailand’s ‘Sufficiency Democracy’.
SOAS and the coup
Yup – – no need to attend such a one-sided seminar. I would not.
But Dr. Jory I wonder if as a visiting Fellow you are allowed to criticize Singapore’s one-party one-family rule?
Self-sufficient junta
YKMasada you said – “There has not been a single coup in modern Thai history that was not followed or preceded by bloodshed.” Because you spoke with such authority on the subject, I checked and discovered you were bullshitting YKMasada.
According to Gulfnews.com:
“In principle, any military coup against a democratically-elected government must be condemned. The experience of Third World countries suggests that coups have never helped establish better systems or put nations on the course of reforms and stability. On the contrary, they have always accompanied by bloodshed and caused additional problems, divisions and backwardness.
In Thailand, however, military coups looked different. Since 1932, the year in which Thailand became a constitutional monarchy, the country has witnessed 17 successful coups, all of which were bloodless with their leaders remaining loyal to King Bhumibol Adulyadej, retaining the monarchic system, and avoiding the prosecution of their predecessors. In several cases, coups took place as a way out of the mess created by elected civilian governments or as a prelude to introducing a better democratic system. This, according to many Thais, is applied to the recent military coup led by army commander General Sonthi Boonyaratklin that ousted caretaker prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra last week.”
Can you remind me again YKMasada why you got so much kick out of Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage in Y2003 that resulted in 2,500 or so defenseless unarmed villagers killed merely because some poorly paid undertrained hicks of policemen included these suspects in a police blacklist?
Self-sufficient junta
Too bad Thaksin did not heed history’s lesson YKMasada. And he had lots of recent historical lessons that would have given him warning not to abuse his powers: Suharto, Marcos, Estrada.
It was Thaksin who brought the tanks to the streets of Bangkok YKMasada.
I do not believe your doomsday forecast for Thailand. You make sweeping statements about people and generals you do not know and you are only carried by your blind affection for that corrupt person Thaksin Shinawatra. Good riddance to him.
Self-sufficient junta
Vichai N, history is my guide. There has not been a single coup in modern Thai history that was not followed or preceded by bloodshed. The Army is like some evil sword in a Hong Kong kung fu movie – once the weapon comes out of its scabbard, it must taste blood. It’s a byproduct of the way of the their thinking. Violence is the raison d’etre of the military.
The Ror Sor Chor coup 1991 resulted in massive bloodshed in 1992. Both Young Turk I and II failed, but resulted in armed fighting in Bangkok and many dead and injured. The military seized power in the evening of 6 October 1976 right after it massacred students at Thammasat. Thanom’s self-coup in 1971 resulted in many deaths in 14 October 1973.
Maybe you can say that Sonthi is different, that he’s a career soldier, he wants no power – he just wants to serve the King, blah blah blah… But Sonthi is Surayud’s boy, and Surayud is Prem’s boy, etc. There is a continuous ideological link between all of Thailand’s military dictators: they all believed that electoral democracy was unsuited for Thailand, that stupid villagers – even 60 million of them! – could not be wiser than one man, and that anything that threatened the ultimate power of that one man deserved to be utterly destroyed. This latest coup has made this ideology clear to yet another generation of Thais, and it is a lesson they will not forget.
Self-sufficient junta
Sooner or later YKMasada? And why should it go INEVITABLY wrong? From what wisdon or prescience do you make your doomsday forecast for the Thai Kingdom?
Already the transition into a civilian interim government is 2 days ahead of schedule. And those Thaksin children are likely to face Baht 5.0 billion tax fine on that AwfulRich-Temasek-Shitty deal. I would call that very quick progress YKMasada! And before Thaksin can even complete unpacking his 100 or so luggages in London, there is already stampede to be delisted from Thai Rak Thai party roster. Maybe those TRT members have finally seen the light . . but I doubt that. These TRT crooks will just run when their dark deeds are about to be uncovered and without Thaksin to shield them . . all they can do is run.
The monarchy has been an institution in Thailand for much longer than you were employed by the Shinawatra YKMasada. If the King openly endorsed the military coup, and the majority of the Thai citizenry also approved by the way, it must be because Thaksin was seriously endangering the peace and harmony of the Kingdom.
I remember you YKMasada in the Nation Forum. You were so openly in favor of Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage in that Y2003 anti-drugs campaign (deplored by the King by the way). So I know where you stand on the ‘rule of law’ issue.
I just thought it was sweet justice that Thaksin should be extrajudicially deposed from office, and, maybe later on his illgottens seized by the extrajudicial junta. That won’t even be enough justice still for the 2,000 or so defenseless souls Thaksin murdered in his Y2003 ya ba extrajudicial rampage.
The king’s man
Great stuff. The first article I’ve read that’s called a spade a spade: a “royalist” coup.
I’ve just seen a draft of the new Constitution from The Nation, 2 October 2006. Surprise, surprise, Article 8 of the 1997 Constitution (“the person of the king is sacred and inviolable”) has been shifted to Article 1!
Self-sufficient junta
It’s not just you – lots of young people that I know are asking for the first time in their lives what the King’s role in the whole situation was/is. Of course, most of them have been indoctrinated to believing that “If the King endorses it, it must be good.” But at least it’s better than “The King is not involved in politics” myth that has been built over the last 50 years.
Sooner or later, the situation for the junta/Surayud government will turn ugly (as inevitably happens after a coup) and people will start asking what went wrong – did the King endorse the wrong people, or was the King’s endorsement flawed in the first place?
The palace has been drawn out. If the situation is managed incorrectly (or correctly, depending on who’s perspective you’re taking), this whole mess could be a set up for the greatest blow against the monarchy since 1932.
Self-sufficient junta
Hello Andrew, First time here and not quite sure of my way around, but saw a familiar name and thought I’d drop by for a chat.
It’s very, very depressing. All of the major international TV networks and print news agencies that I have been able to look at this morning are talking about Surayudh as a “former army commander”, “professional soldier”, “miltary reformer”. As far as I can see there is NO MENTION that he is a privy councillor and one of the king’s close advisors!! It’s pathetic! It is not Surayudh’s military background, but the fact that he is a close advisor to the king that is the key to his appointment as PM. In McCargo’s words, he is part of “network monarchy”.
The coup group are producing a theatre, where the main actor is the military – and everyone believes it! They can not control the media and political discourse outside the Thailand so they must engage in these theatrics to convince the international community that it was a military, not a royalist coup. Because if a powerful critique implicating the monarchy in the coup began circulating in the international media it would be extremely dangerous not only for the coup group but for the monarchy itself. So the military in fact is the fall guy for the royalists. We MUST tell people WHO is producing the play.
Witness the extraordinary manipulation of the coup group’s name: in Thailand it is the “khana patirup rabop prachathipatai an mi phra maha kasat song pen pramuk” (thus ensuring Thais know the coup has the support of the monarchy, and thereby shielding it from criticism courtesy of the lese majeste law) whereas in the English version it is the “Council for Democratic Reform” – no mention of the monarchy. All of this is designed to hide the monarchy’s involvement in the coup from the international community.
We must therefore condemn in the strongest possible terms the fact that a privy councillor has been appointed by a royalist military junta which has just carried out a military coup, arrested elected politicians at gun-point, seized control of the media, shut down critical websites, purged miltary and police officers appointed by the former elected civilian government, and banned political activity.
Why can’t intelligent people put two and two together and condemn what has happened, a coup d’etat NOT by the military but by the royalists, who are protected from any criticism because of the strict bans on any critical reference to the monarchy in political discourse?
Rather than cheering on a royalist puppet apppointed by a military junta spouting the king’s inane self-sufficiency nonsense (which the royal family itself has never practised) we must unequivocally condemn the appointment. It must never be forgotten that the Thai electorate has just been disenfranchised at the barrel of a gun.
Ahh, “full of loopholes”
Actually…
Priority 3: Make sure you appoint a pliable backer as Prime Minister
Inside Burma – In London
[…] This documentary – which reportedly follows the “Free Burma Rangers” around the country’s periphery – will be screened on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom at 8 pm on Monday, 2 October 2006. Based on the exploits of Australian journalist Evan Williams who films illegally inside Burma, “Burma’s Secret War” has the potential to be the best television about that country’s woes since Williams’ 2001 effort – “Burma Drugs”. […]
Ahh, “full of loopholes”
Nick
I have we will see more from you and Andrew on self-sufficiency economy.
The coup leader’s hierachy of priorities.
Priority No 1 Stage the coup
Priority No 2 Absolve yourselves from the illegal act of staging the coup
Priority No 3 Everything else.
This is why military governments rarely achieve much.
Slowly but surely…
This coup is showing the Thai public which of Thailand’s “intellectuals” really has the conviction to think on their own. Those that do are compiled in a “white list” at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academics_and_intellectuals_against_the_2006_Thailand_coup
Ahh, “full of loopholes”
The headline of The Independent states it in a way that no Thai newspaper would have the balls to: ” Royalty and revolution: The absolute monarch” (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1747157.ece)
19/9, a Tuesday
[…] That the announcement was made at 9:29 am is, again, probably not a coincidence. The report continues: Among other things, the interim charter absolves the CDR for staging the coup. […]
Rohingyas on Nauru, part II
[…] A spate of stories from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation late last week drew on comments from an Australian refugee lawyer and an official from the Organisation for International Migration. They both said that the Rohingya men will all make strong claims for refugee status. The Australian government is silent on the issue. For more context see the original New Mandala posts on this evolving story. […]
Rohingya on Nauru…
[…] A spate of stories from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation late last week drew on comments from an Australian refugee lawyer and an official from the Organisation for International Migration. They both said that the Rohingya men will all make strong claims for refugee status. The Australian government is silent on the issue. For more context see the original New Mandala posts on this evolving story. […]
These feet are made for gawking
Japanese-donated Buddha feet!?!? That has to go over well with the local Kachin population. U Nu would be glad though. Finally somebody got a Buddha image up there.
Surin for Sec-Gen?
I don’t think we will need to worry too much about any Thai candidate as the South Koreans seem to have it in the bag.
Surin for Sec-Gen?
Speaking of Surakiart, the criticism that he has received has been quite stunning, since most of it seems to be from the Jayanama family. The Jayanama family is Thailand’s most respected family of diplomats, Direk Jayanama having begun the tradition during WWII.
Asda Jayanama, former ambassador to the UN seems to hate him particularly badly. Addressing the PAD crowd, it was hard to imagine that this person had ever been a diplomat. “Because we have a weak foreign minister who responded to Thaksin as if he was his servant, we have been unable to solve any problems.” Asda also claimed that Surakiart Sathirathai parked his car outside the official residence of UN secretary-general at night so he could have a look. “It’s very embarrassing,” Asda told the crowd. He called Surakiart’s candidacy as a lost cause and an embarrassment for Thailand’s international standing, claiming that it was “silly”. He has also publicly called Surakiart “a third rate politician”, “clumsy”, “bungling”, and “lacking a brand name”.
Why such hatred? I have my own theory (which I will not discuss here – it involves personal issues of Surakiart), but for Surakiart to have such a loud and influential thorn on his side has been quite a handicap.