Of Fascism, Wannabe-Thais & I Must Love Thaksin

19 Responses to “Of Fascism, Wannabe-Thais & I Must Love Thaksin”

1. stefan on July 15th, 2009 2.21 pm

   We know the troll you are referring to.

   The funniest aspect of all this is that this type of self-appointed “useful idiot” isn’t desired or found to be useful by anyone, least of all by the natives, who are mostly quite open to constructive criticscism. Lots of noise emanating from an empty box. It’s a lonely box. If there is no-one to listen to the noisy box, does the box make a noise? As they say, some people are cruisin’ for a bruisin’ …

2. Steve on July 15th, 2009 2.33 pm

   Points eloquently and elegantly made – and I agree. No better example of the “more Catholic than the Pope” factor than Thaivisa.com (expats’ forum) where the syndrome has its own acronym: “MTTT” – More Thai Than the Thai.

   Of course, there’s no reason to expect the forum’s population to be any more enlightened or level-headed than those you’d expect to find in any bar – yet somehow it’s more depressing to witness there the irrational jostling with the obsessive. The rabid anti-Thaksin fraternity have painted themselves into a logical corner from which they MUST condone the actions of any and all who are opposed to Thaksin and all his works. The bizarre contortions of these apologists must be making even the most accomplished Chinese acrobats green with envy. Nothing new – it’s all to be found in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and “1984″ …

   Little sign that any of them realize that Thai politics is what it is and has always been – a murky business with just some occasional cosmetic surgery. For them, the Democrats are true altruists led by a knight in shining armour on a white horse – and never mind the devil’s brew hook-up in the Frankenstein coalition … that bit’s “mai bpen rai.”

3. Hobby on July 15th, 2009 3.14 pm

   I’m against both Kasit & Thaksin.

   I still think the terrorism charges are over the top – they may be correct legally, but if they are terrorists, then I wish all terrorists were like that.

4. Andy on July 15th, 2009 3.24 pm

   I agree with many points here, but would love to point out, that your own often rather hard choice of words sometimes (see my point made below) doesn’t help you to receive less such harsh critics. Think about it. Maybe you are just receiving also partially back what you are sending out yourself?

   Why not also try to find more positive stories and then you will get also a more positive audience!

   So you have to life with this, if you call people “dead meat,” or the “dog eat dog” etc. etc. Even if people react on “other” let’s say for us, the majority, correctly written stories and their causes; people still maybe have your own “uncool, unprofessional, aggressive etc. moods” in mind, and just strike back on other issues maybe?

   Please understand this, it’s a give and take based on a whole “own vibe” you create here on AB.

   Even we most of us also don’t agree with people calling you such names, which you don’t deserve, you will never be able to avoid it, as you attract such sharks yourself here. With your own low punches sometimes.

   Be cool, relaxed, and you will attract less sharks who just want to see blood, or hand out some.

   Of course you will not “fully” agree. I think honestly you are already turning in circles here for 1 year.

5. BangkokDan on July 15th, 2009 3.42 pm

   Who doesn’t love critics. Most of them are wise enough to read other stuff. Others engage constructively. One was not. For plain bullshitting he can use his own toilet. That’s why I had to play it North Korean style.

   But I’d rather watch Fashion TV 24/7 than getting unemotional about Thai politics.

   BangkokDan

6. Jaded on July 15th, 2009 4.26 pm

   I have been following your blog for some time as you know. After more than a year it seems to me that you are quite even handed in your treatment of what is happening and don’t show a bias towards any particular faction… That said, although I have never met you, I would hazard a guess from the blog’s content that your personal political views are not particularly left wing. But then who can afford to be tarred with that brush and continue to live unmolested in Thailand… Your reader called you a fascist. That’s an accusation that I have had in another country and in a business based context. In that context I was working within a legal framework and there were many remedies available to those who leveled the accusation. But in a Thai context the meaning of “fascism” blurs because most of the recent holders of power in Thailand have been to a greater or lesser extent, fascist in their outlook. In your blog you have made a number of positive references to the Democratic Party and its leader. I suggest that apparent endorsement is at the core of the accusation made against you by your reader. I would like to argue the case against the Democrat Party and its leadership …

   Let me assume for the sake of argument that we are of a similar mindset. I have a conservative sensibility but my conservatism is a product of a political environment where there is free speech and the rule of law. In Thailand there is no right to assemble, protest or comment … If you see groups being allowed to do these things on a significant scale it is because they have powerful interests backing and protecting them. Without those powerful backers there can be no significant display of open dissent. The Sakinda system demands obsequiousness in politics as much as in every other aspect of daily life here … And in a country where the police and the military are known to torture and murder with impunity, what sane person would ever allow themselves to be co-opted into an “unprotected” political position … Some local expatriates reason that the best hope of any reform will be through the ethical behavior of the western educated leadership. Watching the prime minister denying the Isoc organized mass murder of Burmese refugees on CNN should have been be enough evidence that this was a forlorn hope, but obviously if your local Thai family and their associates have a different view it’s going to be hard to remain objective. The display of naked power and oppression put on for the benefit of Abhisit’s vist to Newin’s heartland last weekend should serve as a reminder to anyone who seriously believes in the Democratic leadership. Note that his visit was enlisted to suggest support and approval of the establishment of an organization like the blue shirts … We know what other government backed paramilitary organizations have been capable of. Recent Thai history contains numerous examples of government backed paramilitary organizations engaging in the mass murder of liberal or “left wing” movements or in the murderous repression of minorities.

   Since I moved to Thailand I have begun revising my political position in a Thai context … As an outsider my views may be of no consequence to the locals, but from my perspective as an outsider I can see that many of the locals are not being allowed to express their true views. I at least have the ability to comment. It seems to me that the entire political system was hijacked long ago by big business and bureaucratic interests to serve their own purposes. Some commentators suggest that this is the Asian way. This is a supremely condescending attitude based on a hierarchial view of social relationships. Although less obvious examples of this phenomenon are to be seen in western societies the argument seems to be that this world view is thoroughly embedded in many asian languages and cultures. In the Thailand context this is terribly sad because it’s obviously not true. Attempts to inculcate these attitudes in Thailand have only really succeeded within the society of the middle classes. They benefit from the ideology of inequality. It’s perfectly obvious that supporting this system has corrupted the better educated and well off by privileging their existence. This has created a large, highly vocal, prosperous group of people who believe that the economic enslavement of the lower, mostly rural, classes is the only way to protect their own interests. And here is the great irony. Democracy had a revival in Thailand under Thaksin ( or square face, if you prefer). He was given his opportunity at a moment when political and economic competence was considered desirable and the elite acquiesced on the understanding that his fundamental motivation was to promote his own interest. His backers assumed that their interests would also benefit but, over time, Thaksin made popular gestures that, in purely democratic terms, temporarily eliminated his need to ally with some of the powerful interest groups who had originally supported him. He distracted the army, suborned the police and attempted to ingratiate himself with the highest level of the Sakinda system. All the time he was relying on his democratic mandate. Early fascist leaders in Europe adopted similar tactics to gain power. But, surprisingly, there was little attempt to create a cult of Thaksin … He was dictatorial in style and enjoyed displaying arbitrary power for intimidation purposes, but, as the Shin Corp deal revealed, his main interest was enriching himself and his family. This lack of interest in becoming yet another Thai strongman made his vulnerability obvious to the elite groups that control the levers of power here. His vision was not the vision of Thailand’s previous strong men and once they realized that he was timid about taking the power that was his to take, Thaksin’s fate was decided by men who had never had any such qualms.

   Was there a conspiracy between the Democrats and the army command? Does it matter? When the major political party of the elite boycotted the elections, the military saw a green light for a takeover. Any conversations that may have been had would almost have been redundant. The democratic process was not serving the purpose of the interests that normally controlled it. The system had to be modified and by now it has been.

   Watching this happen, I am forced to conclude that in the case of the Democratic Party, it should be judged by its actions. The boycott of the election led to a coup, a military/royalist constitution then rolled back the hard won reforms of the previous constitution and a judicial culling of elected officials eventually handed them power.

   Do I think the Democratic party is fascist in its views? By the standards of the movements of the interwar period in Europe it is absolutely fascist in its approach to gaining political power. Its actions have been in support of authoritarian principles, and its allies and their associated secret special forces and paramilitary organizations allow for a plausible level of deniability when the next big massacre inevitably happens. That doesn’t actually mean that they will take on the trappings of a fascist state with a leadership cult, authoritarian laws, rampant nationalism, the systemic repression of scapegoat minorities and an addiction to coloured shirts, symbols and uniforms. In fact the evidence of the last 7 months suggests that the Democratic party leadership (with some exceptions) are moving away from this. That sort of thing is being left to the PAD who seem oblivious to its historical context.

   Do I think any good can come of the current Democratic led government? Well it’s a return to business as usual in Thailand. If you are a paid up member of the middle classes then you can certainly hope for special treatment. Inevitably some good things will flow from those situations that attract the interest and support of powerful people. Do I think they represent any kind of progressive change or positive influence on the development of this county? I have to say that on the evidence so far Thailand has regressed at least 20 years …

   Is a person who supports the Democratic led government currently in place a fascist? Not unless you call a Bush republican a fascist. But there can be no denying that the people who came to power in this manner have no qualms about using fascist tactics… And if they were willing to do these things in order to acquire power, those of us who continue to live in Thailand must ponder the question of what tactics will they be willing to countenance in order to retain power. In this regard I think that, economic slump aside, it is no coincidence that many expats are voting with their feet and leaving … You recently highlighted a Bloomberg article which claimed that Marc Faber continues to like Thailand as an investment prospect. I am a great fan of Mr. Faber’s work but he doesn’t seem to have many qualms about investing in countries that are ruled by regimes that really do deserve the title “fascist.” I am not sure that his recommendation of Thailand is really such a positive endorsement of the current state of local politics.

   Does a negative assessment of the Democrat government imply a positive assessment of Thaksin?

   Thaksin’s laterday populism stuck at the core values of Sakinda and implied that even the economically enslaved have certain basic rights. This gave those formerly excluded from power the sense that perhaps they could influence political events through their vote. Thaksin was riding on the back of a tiger here as his reforms were minor and inadequate for their stated purpose. However one optimistic view would suggest that Thaksin, in order to maintain popular support, might have been forced to make further and more sweeping changes. There were alternative strategies available to him though if he wanted to risk losing his popular l support. “What if” history doesn’t make much sense but by Thailand’s usual standards Thaksin was a paper tiger. Having failed to ingratiate himself with the other alternative sources of support to the popular mandate he had little choice but to continue to at least talk reform. If the democrats had contested the election his mandate for a further four years would have been copperfastened by the defeat of the opposition. And having alienated the traditional sources of power he could only appease his critics by finding new ways to generate support through the disbursement of public funds. He was a creep in the way that many other successful politicians are creeps. His character, and the reputations of his successors stand in stark contrast to that of the current prime minister. But these things are a matter of media spin and public relations. The only real way to make a political judgement is to observe their actions and the effect on society … On this measure, the leaders who followed in his wake have not impressed me at all. Particularly if we apply the same criteria to the current prime minister.

   Is Abhisit in control?

   The occasional favorable comments about the current prime minister (who I admire for insisting on the use of blank cartridges during the most violent red shirt disturbances) may reflect your hope that things will gradually improve. Yet by almost any standard the situation here continues to deteriorate and another coup remains possible. As events underway in Phuket now demonstrate the only way that the government can exercise its control and maintain order requires either direct military and paramilitary intervention, or a “constitutional” state of emergency which hands power to the Isoc. If they have to resort to this in Phuket then it’s fair to assume that their hold on power is tenuous … Perhaps, like the Beatle’s song, he will get by with a little help from their friends. But, aside from his fellow Oxford classmate the finance minister, can you find a redeeming figure in the cabinet? The commerce minister perhaps? Perhaps the Transport portfolio? Defence? And the allocation of government expenditure? Is there anything positive that you can say about this? No matter how many times the prime minister appears on TV making intelligent noises and looking the definition of a well mannered hi-so Thai I can’t see how you can justify his involvement in this wholesale misappropriation of public money… But wait, it’s back to business as usual and this is the way that things have always been done in Thailand … Thai approval for corruption is at an all time high isn’t it?

   If you believe that Abhisit is as he seems then the only possible way to describe his premiership is that he is a “figurehead.” Capable of some small modifications to the agenda of the powerful interest groups now in control but incapable of governing either his erstwhile supporters or his country. Not a fascist, probably not even a “bad” man, the current prime minister rides a different tiger to Thaksin. It’s not the popular vote that he has to consider. It’s the powerful and unaccountable interest groups that put him into power in the first place … If that isn’t fascism then neither is it anything a believer in democracy would be likely to support. And it’s a very dirty business …

7. bosunj on July 15th, 2009 5.29 pm

   I am amused at the contention that those who have the experience of living in countries other than their own for more than 25 years (11 in Thailand) are trying to be more local than the locals. Rather, it’s a question of self preservation. Simple self interest. It’s advisable not say or do anything that can make one a target on any level with the locals. Its also in one’s interest to suggest to those farang who insist in involving themselves in the locals’ affairs are putting other farang at risk with their ill advised involvement. I’ve seen foreigners get badly hurt interfering in local affairs. I’ve seen foreigners get deported. I’ve seen stricter harsher visa rules enforced selectively against certain nationalities. I love living here. I want to continue living here until I die. Can you understand that I don’t want someone who looks and sounds like me making my life harder?

8. Hobby on July 15th, 2009 7.14 pm

   This is turning into a very interesting thread.

   Jaded: Thanks for putting in the effort of such a long comment which I suspect might be slightly misdirected at Dan, and more likely “preaching to the choir” for him.

   A couple of points: The Democrats exercised their right not to contest the election – they played their best political hand – something that all politicians try to do IMO.

   That said, I do not like the way they came to power (if they are actually in power , and IMO their biggest political mistake was to get into bed with Newin like they did, when they could have had a longer term view and kept the moral high ground while PPP/PT (or whatever the nest incarnation of the Thaksin Party is) kept showing that they have a one track “clear Thaksin” mind.

   I would be interested to hear about the redeeming figures you see in the PPP/PT party?

   bosunJ:

   First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out -
   because I was not a communist;
   Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out -
   because I was not a socialist;
   Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out -
   because I was not a trade unionist;
   Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
   because I was not a Jew;
   Then they came for me -
   and there was no one left to speak out for me.

9. Jaded on July 16th, 2009 1.48 am

   I said something about “Redeeming figures”? Then I must have been more carried away than I thought. I actually fall into BosunJ’s camp most of the time in Thailand. He’s quite right to be wary of involvement. I share his perspective. I left my home country at the tender age of 16 and haven’t been back for longer than a month since. That’s 27 years of expat life in many different countries … Sometimes it’s good to let off steam though and, with my departure from Thailand imminent, I find the prospect of an immigration sword of Damocles less intimidating than normal.

   I just returned from the FCCT where braver men than I attempted to discus the Yellow/Red situation while ignoring the elephant in the room. Chris Baker displayed a kind of daring by directly referring to the subject before, for all sorts of reasons I guess, he moved the conversation on. Nick Nostitz began by saying that his book did not break the law. He then explained to an unfazed audience that the first four printers that the publisher approached would not print the book anyway … I could paraphrase the reason that the 4th publisher gave him but if you were there you already know. The new Beeb guy showed humility as he asked obvious catch up questions. Why is he catching up? Well bosunj’s point is clearly demonstrated with this example for us all to learn from.

   Were you there Hobby? The Q and A was enthusiastic but lackluster … The self-censorship involved made public discussion of the general issues practically futile. Questions that focused on specifics got decent answers though. I was glad to see that not every commentator in Thailand has been intimidated into silence. And I will now be hunting for Chris Baker’s suggested reading from a time where censorship was obviously less all encompassing. I was looking at his antique paperback collection and positively salivating.

   But back to the redeeming figures … All politics is local and in Thailand almost all local politics has criminal connections … (Actually there was a veiled reference to this from Nick Notitz when he pointed out the connections between the guards in the Yellow and Red shirt camps. With his past in rescue I guess he’s in as good a position to see those connections.) This goes back to the core of my rant earlier. The media and public relations people will manufacture a public persona that may not have much to do with the reality. Even if I was well informed on the subject, and I’m not, I would not begin to suggest that any grubby little politician is likely to achieve greatness in the kind of corrupt democratic vacuum that currently exists.

   You sometimes see “pure” figures being feted by foreign business people. Let’s say it gives us hope. They may be invited to address the same club that I attended this evening … For instance until his recent public withdrawl from politics the former PM, Anand Panyarachun was to be seen wandering around various functions making intelligent incisive comments in fluent English. He has the look of a gentlemen, sounds sensible and projects decency in public. But, until his appointment as PM, he had never really been active in politics. He therefore represents a very different kind of person to those leaders who currently hold power on either side. You can’t come up the greasy pole of Thai politics without being soiled by it I think. Interestingly one of the key points emphasized this evening was that many of the redshirt supporters had a sophisticated understanding of the limitations of their leaders. They are voting for their interest and not for some cardboard cut out figure. The great fear of their yellowshirt opponents has always been that Thaksin was such an effective demagogue that his supporters couldn’t see his deeply flawed character. Both speakers rejected that idea and pointed out how patronizing it is.

   The other point you made comes naturally out of this discussion of the corrupt and criminal nature of the Thai political classes. Did the democrats achieve what they wanted by not particpating in the elections? Did they win? At what point in the last few years would you say that they won? Are we still seeing the result of their winning strategy?

   Sorry but when I first heard of the democrat refusal to participate I understood immediately that they were appealing for a military intervention. They couldn’t get rid of Thaksin democratically. He controlled the police so there was little possibility of a successful investigation into corruption. He controlled parliament so he could, like Berlusconi in Italy, pass laws that gave him legal protection for flagrantly greedy tax avoidence schems. Even the judiciary in Thailand seemed afraid to move against him until the famous intervention …

   What other options were there for the democrats? How about some popular policies? Why didn’t they try competing for votes on the basis of the electorate’s issues? The answer to this is simple. They are just as corrupt and venial as the rest of them and we are all seeing that now of course. The Democrat party is run for the benefit of a relatively small number of people. If the spoils of power have to be divided in a more equitable way then they would have an internal revolt from the rank and file I think. The current leadership understands which interests are worth pandering to and which are not … And the supporters of the redshirts, depite the government’s rhetoric of reconciliation, know that they are not a section of Thai society that the Democratic government consider worthy.

   The refusal to participate in the democratic process was a calculated act which presumably involved most of the present leadership. They continue to justify their choice by stating that Thaksin had bought his popularity. If by buying his popularity they meant that he had instituted popular policies then I suppose they were right. However the actual justification for their refusal to participate was pathetic. The reopolitic of the moment was that they invited a coup … They got their wish and we are all living with the aftermath. I wonder if the Italian opposition would consider refusing to participate in an election?

10. Fonzi on July 16th, 2009 2.26 am

    Jaded -

    I really enjoyed that analysis.

    Even though it is long for a blog post, personally I think it accurately sums things up in a nutshell.

    Just to reiterate one of your points: there seems to be an obsession of making Thaksin’s “corruption and authoritarianism” or Abhisit’s “purity and goodness” the focal points of analyzing Thai politics. What is the saying of that famous poem, “No man is an island unto himself.”

    Things are really not that clear cut.

    Thaksin’s detractors just want to focus on his evil and delegitimize everything he did while Abhisit’s allies point out his purity and good intentions while ignoring how he came to power, his allies in government, and his lack of effectiveness since he has become PM. Further, Abhist has demonstrated a dark side that rivals Thaksin, such as using public money for party propaganda, trumping up right-wing nationalism and irredentism (Preah Vihear), relying on the military for legitimacy and power (Isoc sufficiency propaganda), and using billions of baht for pork barrel projects and direct bribery (2,000 baht handouts and raises for wealthy state industry employees) that surpass Thaksin’s use of the public purse for political means in every way.

11. Hobby on July 16th, 2009 8.45 am

    Were you there Hobby?

    I was the guy in the yellow shirt taking down people’s names.

12. BangkokDan on July 16th, 2009 10.02 am

    Appreciate your in-depth takes Jaded, many thanks.

    Gosh could slap myself for not having been in town for that FCCT meet.

    When I last met Nick at some European ambassador’s reception he again stood out as Mr. Fears Nothing.

    Not that he’s naive. He’s at the center of it all, also due to his shooting style.

    I think Nick is still shooting film, not digital, and despises zooms. With wider lenses he has to be in the midst of it all where he picks up the details the “zoomers” and “observers” never see.

    It was quite a sight to hear Nick arguing with an understandably diplomatic, if not apologetic ambassador that evening.

    Back to the topic. And who’s the demagogue today with the arch-demagogue in exiled hiding, ready to pounce?

    The whole ruling apparatus has turned into one grand, inconspicuous demagogy.

    Fonzi’s comment sums up this neo-demagogy nicely.

    With Kasit serving a dedicated purpose. The masterminds were clever enough (no, this was hardly an Abhisit-move), the masterminds were clever enough to get Kasit for a job, very well aware that the crisis will reach a point when the government needs a Kasit to “absorb” the brunt of the criticism.

    A troublesome Kasit strengthening the government. Shrewd demagogy.

    BangkokDan

13. Steve on July 16th, 2009 12.57 pm

    A belated sidebar to something Jaded mentioned towards the end of his first comment: “the current prime minister (who I admire for insisting on the use of blank cartridges during the most violent red shirt disturbances)” …

    Matichon reported an interview which Army Chief Gen Anupong Paojinda had with 100.5 FM radio station on May 9. Prachatai English produced an English translation of the Matichon report [http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1205] – from which the following excerpt is significant:

    “The road blockades in Bangkok had many impacts, causing chaos in the country. It was not a peaceful demonstration, and it had to be dealt with. Just a few companies of soldiers were deployed, and they were insufficiently equipped. So they had to use blank ammunition. Although the use of blank ammunition was not really standard practice, there was no other choice. Nothing else could have been done, said Anupong.”

    So (as so often), we are left wondering which is the “real” truth? Abhisit took control and ordered the use of blank ammunition – or the Thai Army (despite its bloated budget) simply couldn’t even manage to deploy troops with live ammunition (as Anupong clearly indicates would have been standard/preferable)? Face-saving version for Anupong – reported by some to have been sidelined by Abhisit during the crack-down?

    P.S. … I found both of Jaded’s comments provide excellent analysis/insight. One minor point: “sakinda” should be “sakdina” (IMO, hugely important for any outsiders trying to understand the forces and factors that make Thai society – and thus Thai politics – what it is).

14. Jaded on July 16th, 2009 2.01 pm

    Oops … It’s probably not the only spelling mistake. I’m not a professional commentator or academic. My conscious motivation for writing about this is that I would like to arrive at some degree of clarity. I think it’s very important to follow what is happening because, to someone who once read a lot about the English revolution, what is happening now seems to approximate a pre-revolutionary situation. I read in English about Thailand and I’d be the first to acknowledge that my knowledge of Thailand is quite shallow. I also find it immensely difficult to understand the way that educated Thai’s conceptualize political events. Last night at the FCCT there was a lot of cognitive reinforcement taking place amongst the foreigners. Chris Baker I think actually stated that are still only a relatively small group of foreign observers interested in what is happening here. Their analytical approach is modern and informative but doesn’t really bridge the chasm between what they may think is happening and what educated Thai people conceive to be taking place. I’ve seen explanations for the reactionary nature of Thai NGO’s and academics that focus on their narrow sectional interests but I don’t see much about the huge amount of “Buddhist” traditional analysis which is what most decent Thais seem take seriously. Up until now this crucial segment of Thai society has put most of its weight firmly behind the forces of reaction. That’s a complete break with past progressive social movements that advocated reform.

    Sakdina society, Buddhist mentality, traditional world view … It’s obvious to me that the broad mass of the urban population here are highly aware of what is happening and defining their own positions on the basis of some factors that are outside of the framework of analysis that is currently being applied by foreign commentators. There’s a book about 1992 and its aftermath called “The Funeral Casino.” I have never been able to get through it. The going was to heavy for me and the prose too dry but it’s that kind of analysis that probably carries with it the key to understanding what’s happening here now.

    Btw I have just been reading Red vs. Yellow at lunch. I agree with Chris Baker. It deserves to be ranked with the other book as an iconoclastic breakthrough in describing what is really happening in Thailand. White Orchid Press deserves high praise for publishing it too. On a visit to the National Museum recently I stumbled across White Orchid’s second volume of Mulder’s 70’s memoirs. It’s probably fortunate that Police Colonel Watanasak Mungkijakarndee has not been informed of the contents of this volume. If Harry Nicolaides could go down for his novel then some of the comments in this book are fanning those flames.

15. oneditorial on July 18th, 2009 4.36 am

    Whatever that person tried to label you, I still like you; I mean your blog, even though you deleted my comment once!

16. Krid on July 18th, 2009 5.27 am

    I want to take the “foreigners and Thais can’t understand each other in the matters since 2006″ a step further: Thanong’s latest editorial made me think of another way to explain the series of events. Maybe things are much simpler. Thanong is a prominent journalist and clearly a member of the “elite,” yet he talks about astrologers’ predictions as if they were facts. Could this be the key to understanding the decisions that led to the coup? Thanong famously espounded the “pre-emptive coup” theory several times and hasn’t strayed from it yet: Thaksin was planning coup for the 19th or 20th of September 2006 and the military had to move to prevent him. This theory could be based simply on astrology: If the date of the 19th day of the 9th month of the year 2549 is auspicious for one to grab power, it must be for the other one. If it was for Gen. Sonthi, it must have been for Thaksin because they had the same astrological sources. This is all Thanong needs to come up with his theory and hold on to it even under scrutiny from an international readership.

    And this stubborn superstition may extend to others, “at the very top of the sakdina hierarchy,” some of whom might have decided that the coup was necessary. So it was not about the Shin deal, Thaksin’s corruption or abuse of power, it might have been that Thaksin was simply seen as a source of evil black magic, of foreign (Khmer) evil detrimental to other “white,” pure and positive spirits protecting Thailand. The destruction of the Erawan Shrine on March 21, 2006 might have played a role as well. The important monument was destroyed by a madman, but arguably “under Thaksin’s watch”. And Sondhi L. openly blamed Thaksin for having plotted to destroy the statue to maintain power through “black magic”. This might have been picked up by the sakdina leadership and the removal of Thaksin was planned.

    So the Democrat’s refusal to take part in elections becomes irrelevant to the coup: They simply didn’t want to lose another election and obstinately refused to give in to Thaksin’s shrewd (and politically astute) ploy to call for another mandate. In this view the Dems are just doing the handiwork of the sakdina leadership, shielding their “white magic” from Thaksin’s “black magic,” without much of a political mandate from the so-called elites. This is evidenced by their ineffectual government in recent months. If it’s true that superstition was the motivation behind the coup, “Western style,” “political” analysis of events just might go in the wrong direction. And coming elections and their evaluation will be influenced by the sakdina leaderships desire to keep the “shield” intact. This might (again) trump any political mandate for one side of the other.

17. Jaded on July 18th, 2009 12.27 pm

    Does Thanong know something? Is he disguising his information and his sources by making reference to supernatural matters? He was very definite about those “green uniforms” …

    And why are we so shocked that Thai leaders dabble in the supernatural? I don’t believe that you can take the involvement of educated and otherwise rational people in magical thinking at face value. Even if it is true that the leaders of the various factions in Thai politics have been known to take part in some magical rituals and consult astrologers this does not mean that they involve themselves in these rituals in a credulous way. Surely their attraction to the interpreters of the supernatural and holders black/white magic powers lies in the influence of these charlatans over the minds/loyalties of their followers. To ignore these supernatural opinion makers would be to leave open the opportunity of being undermined by them later. By acquiring a supernatural imprimatur the leader is establishing that one important section of the Thai opinion making community is supporting the cause … When commentators sneer at this kind of behavior they are operating with the luxury of not being a player in the game to acquire power. Once you are involved in this game however, any advantage, no matter how marginal, becomes something to seize upon.

    If we are looking for propitious moments then the 9th second of the 9th hour of the 9th day of the 9th month of 2009 must be seriously powerful … I know its not the Thai calendar but if the Chinese could go 8 crazy for the Olympics then I don’t see why the Thais wouldn’t find something special to do this year … (Maybe they already have and I am just not aware of it. I understand its great moment for a marriage vow for instance …)

18. Krid on July 18th, 2009 5.00 pm

    Surely I’m just theorizing in rather thin air. But how can a (formerly?!) respected journalist compromise his reputation in this way? It’s baffling and for him it can’t be a joke or a facetious game.

    Some will utilize the astrological imprimatur to bolster their position in the power game. Thaksin might have belonged to this group. Gen. Sonthi and Sondhi L. might have been on middle ground.

    Others might have actually based their decisions on the signs and portents such as the Erawan shrine demolition. This latter group might include certain people at the very top of the hierarchy in Thailand. The bundle of motives for the coup may actually be sparser than most of us think.

19. Thailand Beyond The Fringe on July 29th, 2009 1.44 pm

    [...] far would you go to become Thai? We recently had a bitter-sweet take on those wannabe-Thais who become more Catholic than the Pope. Here’s a more scientific [...]

Leave a Reply