Pasuk, Baker & Thaksin

Full house at the FCCT. To speak with the club’s announcer: “A book launch and a panel: Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker have revised their 2004 book on Thaksin. The new edition retains all the old chapters on his background, business, rise to power and rule, and adds four new chapters, conclusion and epilogue on his long downfall, ending with the Songkran uprising. The book traces not only Thaksin’s odyssey from failed businessman to tycoon-premier to international fugitive, but also the extraordinary transformation of Thai politics over a tumultuous decade.”

absolutely was there and I noted down some of the key excerpts and bits and pieces below. But before I go on: Have a look at the book’s cover. Remember that shot? In August 2008 we dedicated an own post to that Father’s Daughters photo, capturing an outstanding moment of “papee” (how one daughter calls daddy Thaksin on Twitter) with his pride and joy of a female offspring. Back to the topic:

The crème de la crème of Thailand’s mainly foreign writers guild got furthermore Pitch Pongsawat of the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, in the panel, a prolific and popular commentator on Thai politics in print and television media, and Ukrist Pathmanand of Chulalongkorn’s Institute of Asian Studies, co-author of The Thaksinization of Thailand. Much was said by explicitly not saying it – and they are by no means Thaksin lovers. Here we go:

All quotes chronologically and to be understood in the wider context of Thaksin. The further down the crisper:

Pitch: In Thailand you need politics to enhance your business chance (…) Thaksin is not gone, he’s just out of the country (…) facing the consequence of the business of politics.

Pitch: It’s a very Thai book. King and monarchy are left out of the book. Not like foreigners usually write about it (mentions the Economist).

Pitch: And what about media politics? Not just Manager, but also The Nation, the media alliance of the anti-Thaksin movement and self-censorship. Sondhi alone would not be able to bring down Thaksin.

Pitch: Do we really have middle class politics? It’s a very loose, very non-center anti-Thaksin alliance. Everything is aimed at keeping Thaksin at bay and at the same time bringing him back.

Ukrist: Mass politics lead to mad mob – with very complicated mass politics in Thailand.

Baker: Sondhi claims it is a middle class movement. That doesn’t mean it is a middle class movement.

Baker: In 2001 Thaksin turns nationalist, 2004 anti-nationalist and liberal – and then he turned absolutely against everything he was before. He became the enemy of the establishment, if not a revolutionary.

Baker: The man was totally beneath principles. He became what people wanted him to become.

Baker: Thailand moves away towards a more conservative regime. Thaksin will remain a player. First he asked the spirits and ghosts to save him. Then the king. Who next?

Baker: Thaksin = reds = the masses? It’s gone beyond that. There is a new feeling of resentment in the country, and many of these people won’t put on a red shirt.

Pasuk: We’re moving towards mass politics, away from what elites can manage, because little people now realize their rights. Thaksin showed them it could happen. People are moving away from unity. The governments counters with mo-so, the moderation campaign, and the I love Thailand campaign. But these campaigns are not going to work. Love Thailand and so what? What do we get from being moderate?

Ukrist: New Power … what New Power? Parliamentary collapse? The government is very unstable inside.

Baker: What happens when there is an election? There is no way that the current government will pass that election.

Pasuk: Why Thailand does not become a new Taiwan, but rather another Philippines? There is no growing income distribution. No movement fighting for social equality or against institutions that create inequality. Some academics even ask: Is it possible that Thailand can have a welfare state? Let’s have a welfare state which does not upset the power structure.

Pasuk: Thaksin was a great opportunist in exploiting the situation to get into power. He’s not different from any other populist. He got into trouble because of so many demands he could not satisfy. So he becomes authoritarian and creates an oligarchy until he’s toppled.

Pasuk: Thailand is not a developing society. It is a developed society (if not entrenched or even retreating if I may add?).

Pasuk: Thaksin they could touch, but the current leader is a little bit distant, not so warm.