The Thaksin Cancer & Boycott

21 Responses to “The Thaksin Cancer & Boycott”

1. Tweets that mention The Thaksin Cancer & Boycott -- Topsy.com on May 24th, 2010 7:51 am

   [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BKKDan and James, Hobby Nganadeeleg. Hobby Nganadeeleg said: Food for thought to start your day, contrast http://bit.ly/d7Z5Sm with http://bit.ly/8Xx5D6 IMO, let electorate decide, w/o interference [...]

   Quality comment? 0  0

2. David Brown on May 24th, 2010 8:17 am

   Disagreed.

   You seem to be blind to the changes occurring around you.

   Duncan McCargo’s network monarchy seems a good model when looking at the traditional royalist power structures but I think we all need to update our ideas to recognise radically new attitudes of mind and relationships that have emerged.

   Not only in rural and regional but also worming its way into Bangkok society.

   Look at the young school and career people in Bangkok, how many of those are fully convinced that the traditional temple, seniors and royals circumscribe their world?

   Do they follow the military generals and Abhisit because they can make money for them?

   Do they follow Thaksin because he can make money for them?

   The Isaan people look at you and wonder why you are fixated on money, they know more about life and love than the “old” Bangkok.

   Hot debate. What do you think? 8  4

3. Colin on May 24th, 2010 10:03 am

   Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

   Please publish the list of Shinawatra businesses to boycott. I want to participate in this action, like many others.

   Poorly rated comment. You agree? 2  7

4. Wes G on May 24th, 2010 10:05 am

   In attacking Thaksin, you all have unintentionally revealed the iron law of professional Thai business, political and social practice:
   

   “During X’s time in office, X enriched himself, his relatives and his political allies by practicing corruption in the policy level, such as granting business privileges, reducing taxes and concession fees for his associates while getting rid of business rivals as well as trading national interest with their groups’ business interest.”

   Yada yada. When exactly in Thai history has any business person, politician, cop or military man with a modicum of authority ~not~ followed these practices?

   This complaint comes across as comedy and looks to be a classic case of projection.

   Honestly, the Thais and farangs who came up with it should remove the mote from their own eyes before casting aspersions at others.

   Quality comment. You agree? 13  2

5. max on May 24th, 2010 10:37 am

   And the muckraking descends further into the heart of demagoguery. I hope your “advertising” income isn’t affected by the “boycott” of other Thai related sites around the web.

   Hot debate. What do you think? 4  7

6. Jaded on May 24th, 2010 12:12 pm

   “Society today is not as broken as the red radicals who have gone underground suggest. Much of the “division” is indoctrinated.”

   Indoctrinating division is a normal part of a revolutionary process. It’s at the heart of most successful modern revolutions. The vanguard elite led by class traitors that indoctrinates the masses is part of the standard theory in Marxist-Leninism for instance. It’s surely true that the divisions in Thai society and the collective consciousness of difference based on relative access to power and privilege (not speaking of PM here) have a very long history. The absence of an ideological divide in modern Thai politics means that there has always been a potential constituency ready to support the politics of division. Previous attempts to do so in the 70s were ruthlessly suppressed. Many of the leaders of the reds had experiences at that time and received revolutionary training in places like Hanoi. They know the theory and tactics well. The problem with your boycott suggestion is that it serves their purpose better than it serves your own.

   If the struggle for power is between one group of wealthy people who oppose change and another group of wealthy people who desire change for their own financial benefit attacking the sources of wealth might work. In a way economic conflict is what has already happened with the burning of buildings on one side and the confiscation of Thaksin’s wealth and freezing of sympathizers assets on the other. I am curious to know why you would think a boycott, rather than a government sanctioned attack on the finances of the opposing side, can achieve anything but a further deepening of the existing conflict. Even if you manage to do serious economic damage to these people the process would be slow and it’s likely to encourage them to redouble their own efforts at destabilization surely? The government’s freezing of assets is far more effective and if well targeted would bring about the same result with a lot less potential for further disturbances.

   The problem with suggestions like this is that it provides a focus for anger for supporters of the “winning” side without really impacting on the minds of the people who have been under the influence of the leaders of the losing side. In my view that means you are actually encouraging further conflict and even if you succeed in damaging the business of a Thaksin or Redshirt sympathizer over the long term, the cost is further division and hatred in society.

   It’s true that boycotts are effective tool against dominant elites because they can be used to demonstrate the process of repression through provocation. I could understand the reds in Chang Mai or Isaan suggesting this as it would serve their purpose well. These kind of tactics actually encourage destabilization and push the population further down the road to civil war and revolution all over again. But what is served by such a tactic here in Bangkok? Much better to leave economic warfare to the authorities.

   The true purpose of suggesting a boycott in this context might come to be seen as similar to the political function of the yellow shirts. In that sense it is a very effective tactic. If you are against reasoned and deliberate measures to resolve this situation and reform Thailand’s political system then talk loudly about boycotts.

   (Actually a friend of mine is writing a heavily researched novel about the original Boycott on Achill Island a few years ago. His family have owned a cottage on the island for years and at one stage I wandered around Achill with him as he explained the history of the island. The 19th century Irish experience is probably not particularly relevant to Thailand but it’s a fascinating story. It’s worth remembering that the Irish origin of the term also demonstrates that boycotts can be successful tools for revolutionaries and the word entered the language in that context.)

   Quality comment. You agree? 9  0

7. Mithran on May 24th, 2010 12:35 pm

   “Some have already switched sides …”

   That says it all, really. What ideology there is in this conflict (on both the red and yellow sides) exists at the level of the foot soldiers. For those at the top, it has only ever been about the fact that you can never have enough money or enough influence.

   Quality comment? 4  0

8. Chunkton on May 24th, 2010 7:08 pm

   Dan, if Abhisit is so righteous in his cause, why has he instigated the Ministry of Truth, censorship is everywhere, people are jailed for most of their life under sometimes frivolous lèse majestée, alternate broadcasters are shut, the media is told to tow the government line. This is rampant fascism. Pure and simple.

   OK, maybe the reds were all all paid by Thaksin and are scum pure and simple, but if so why the censorship? Truth eventually outs, if so noble in ideals why the paranoia?

   As I see it the reds were a mixed bunch of true believers and paid sycophants, then why is the government so scared? Why has Abhisit now said that an election is no longer on the table?

   As a foreigner wanting a return to the past I wound like to believe him to, but can’t as he is full of it.

   Hot debate. What do you think? 5  6

9. BangkokDan on May 24th, 2010 9:14 pm

   LM cases are worrying indeed. It’s not a brainchild of Abhisit though, his hands are bound, but agree, he promised betterment and there is none.

   Regarding censorship, tons of unsubstantiated “facts” and invented “truths” are circulating, stirring hatred. Sure you can say Abhisit is today’s Pol Pot and Hitler. But you got a problem when people repeat it blindly. A blanket censorship is indeed deplorable and the Talibanesque guardians of public morals should be put on a leash. But then again, and I repeat, media were less free under Thaksin. If this age of Twitter and YouTube and Facebook were back then, rest assured you’d be even more upset. I’m not whitewashing the present, but times back then were very very difficult. Try criticizing Thaksin back then. Try criticizing Abhisit today.

   BangkokDan

   Quality comment? 5  1

10. Jaded on May 24th, 2010 10:29 pm

    This is the official policy now. The anti money laundering authority has ordered financial institutions to stop all business with a list of Thaksin and red sympathizers and businesses. Investigations of past business with the same entities since late last year have also been authorized. Information is being collected and there is a deadline for financial institutions to furnish further information. That information will undoubtedly be used …

    On the subject of censorship I would normally be against it but in certain circumstances, when society is in danger of being seriously destabilized I think it is justifiable. The problem is of course that the unaccountable people who censor will inevitably abuse their power.

    I would not agree with you on the subject of censorship under Thaksin though. It was an unpleasant environment but Thailand, except for a few brief periods has always been heavily censored. Those who knew Thailand of Thaksin assumed that his populism would mean a break from the past but his policies really mirrored those of previous regimes that have now been consigned to history. The actual figures for lesse majeste cases for any year of Thaksin’s regime compared with the last year available (under the current regime) would bear me out. As there are a number of other newly enacted laws like the computer crimes act to deal with now I don’t think you can argue that the situation has improved since Thaksin left. I would concede that Thaksin’s scandalous interference with the press was much more personal though. Where his agenda was being affected he was absolutely ruthless. If your measure is the difference between the actions of prime ministers then Thaksin is certainly by far the worst of the 21st century PMs. However if your measure is prosecutions for lèse majesté then he’s a long way behind the current dispensation. No idea what the prosecution rate is for offenders against the computer crimes act but as this is new legislation it’s bound to boost numbers in prison for their views. There are also a few older statutes that might be being invoked. Bangkok Pundit’s account of a raid on a history professor today is an interesting example of this. You should also consider the promulgated powers under emergency rule which give CRES the prerogative to decide not only what information to censor but also whether that information is correct or not. The transmission of incorrect information is a crime under emergency rule. You will have to concede that this is a much more encompassing concept than the targeted approach of other legislation that is already in place.

    A couple of other points worth considering:

    1. Amnesty International, an organization that I have strongly supported elsewhere, has from its founding defined a prisoner of conscience as someone who is jailed for the expression of an opinion. Why is Amnesty in Thailand so totally cowed?

    2. Not that you would know from reports in the Thai media this evening but Apichatpong Weerasethakul used the winners platform at the Cannes film festival to strongly criticize the Thai governments censorship of opinion and ideas that it does not agree with. He ought to know as his film Syndromes and the Century cannot be seen here except with four full scenes deleted. He has the integrity to insist that cinemas show black screens where the deleted scenes were. What integrity is there in pretending that what is happening IS not happening?

    And thanks for the link to that fascinating interview with Cannes winner in the NYT, BTW.

    “At his Cannes news conference, where journalists posed questions about the recent clashes between the government and the red-shirt protestors in Bangkok, Mr. Apichatpong did not mince words. “Thailand is a violent country,” he said. “It’s controlled by a group of mafia.””

    Whew. There are more good quotes out there as everyone wants a few words with the man. Can the powers that be censor all of them?
    He’s a bit vague about releasing the film in Thailand so if I want to see a catfish engage in a sexual act I guess I’ll have to go to puritanical Singapore!

    Quality comment. You agree? 7  0

11. Surie on May 25th, 2010 1:01 am

    Talking about times back then, Chris Baker, a keen observer of Thai politics, noted that during Thaksin’s era, freedom of the press could be compared to that of “Moscow before the fall of the Berlin Wall.” And Baker was not talking about LM censorship, which has existed a long time untouched by various successive governments, but he was referring to Thaksin’s restriction of government criticism. I doubt the same comparison could be made in respect of Abhisit’s actions taken to restrict criticism of his government. Especially in the Thai newspapers, you will find plenty of criticism about the government with space given to columnists who regularly do so. Yes, there is no criticism of the monarchy but that has always been the case in Thailand no matter what government.

    Quality comment? 4  2

12. Vichai N on May 25th, 2010 9:31 am

    A monument should be built right in the center of Ratchaprasong district of Bangkok to remind the Thai people of Black May 2010.

    I have no idea how that monument will look like but I am very convinced this monument still be built is urgently needed to help quiet the lingering unease in the Thai peoples hearts and to inspire the Thai people to search a common ground towards achieving reconciliation and normalcy.

    Quality comment? 3  4

13. Jaded on May 25th, 2010 10:20 am

    Fair enough Surie but can you infer that all LM cases are pursued on the basis of an actual offence involving the monarchy or is it possible that sometimes the agenda of the individuals behind the big increase in accusations (that can be made by anyone of course) something else?

    Quality comment? 3  0

14. yokkie on May 25th, 2010 10:27 am

    The higher amount of LM censorship during recent times i think reflects the increasing number of instances of criticism of the monarchy, especially on the internet. If this phenomena had happened during Thaksin’s time, I reckon he would have cracked down on it at least just as much as this government since at that time (and even until now) he’s always tried to maintain an image of being a sincere royalist at least in the eyes of his constituency. Not surprising since his main constituency is in the north and northeast where the vast majority are staunch royalists. From my observation they revere the king more than the Bangkok people on the whole.

    Quality comment. You agree? 5  0

15. Mithran on May 25th, 2010 11:11 am

    Vichai: a monument to whose dead? You’d have to be careful it wasn’t politically co-opted by either side, or it could just as easily reduce the chances of reconciliation.

    The best way to be politically neutral would be to make it a monument to shopping, some kind of huge, oh, hang on…

    Quality comment? 3  0

16. Jaded on May 25th, 2010 12:04 pm

    Yep, yokkie. BBC correspondents have a vested interest in undermining the monarchy. Now I understand …

    Sorry that just slipped out! Quite bad tempered of me. I know the government version of events stinks but if the truth is destabiliizing then to hell with the truth. Let’s live in the kingdom of make believe. But the official story is paper thin.

    For example, as this email referred to by Dan and other official documents in circulation clearly indicate there is a substantial amount of non-Thaksin money behind the red shirts. If it’s all about him getting his cash back why are they risking their own asserts and future opportunities? I thought this was all about one guy and his henchmen stirring up the uneducated? Names being circulated are, as Dan rightly suggests, very serious. So why do those “big people” care if a political has been gets his money back? What’s it all really about?

    I wonder what role the very serious lèse majesté law is having here?

    Quality comment? 3  0

17. yokkie on May 25th, 2010 3:42 pm

    Jaded, I’m quite confused about the reaction my comment got from you and also not sure why you mentioned the BBC. Anyhow, in my post, I was referring to LM censorship in Thailand and what I was thinking about is the thousands of Thai websites censored by the current government. I think almost 99% of the LM censorship going on is Thai language media rather than foreign language ones. BTW, a lot of these websites are plainly insulting in nature with hardly any constructive academic value in terms of discussing the role of the monarchy. But of course, under free speech theory they should be allowed nonetheless.

    As for whether this is all about one guy or not, perhaps it’s more about Thaksin’s entire network. Thaksin himself has his own network just like the “network monarchy.” So all the people in Thaksin’s network surely has interest to subvert and undermining the power of the opposing network.

    From McCargo’s famous work on network monarchy he had also said this about Thaksin’s own network:

    “Thaksin set about systematically to dismantle the political networks loyal to Prem in a wide range of sectors, aiming to replace them with his own supporters, associates and relatives. Thaksin was seeking to subvert network monarchy, and to replace it with a political economy network of the kind described by Cartier Bresson (1997): a network based on insider dealing and structural corruption. … demonstrating his determination to create a new super-network, centered entirely on himself, and characterized by a more hierarchical structure.”

    And I think it’s worth mentioning.

    Quality comment? 5  1

18. Jaded on May 25th, 2010 4:55 pm

    BBC? GOOGLE Jonathan Head lèse majesté …

    Or if you want to see the intimidation effect perhaps pose the question of why the ABC had to shut their bureau in Bangkok recently …

    Obviously I have to agree about the Thai language focus of the censorship. It probably goes some way towards explaining the “popular” campaigns against the foreign media coverage that it is frustratingly difficult to treat them the same way.

    Thaksin’s network? Well the whole network concept is based on patronage. So if you believe that Thaksin’s patronage is motivating some of these very serious names to support him in his alleged terrorism you would have to assume that these very serious people have been offered some very big inducements as the opportunity cost of furnishing their support is surely quite high. Thaksin’s network is supporting terrorism, right?

    You know it’s not my intention to challenge the official version of events. It’s too late for reasonable analysis of the obvious distortions and lacunae evident in the way different sides to this conflict have presented themselves and justified their actions. If you do that then you are suggesting that by listening to the opposition you can arrive at some sort of agreement or compromise and by definition most governments don’t publicly advocate compromise when faced with what they claim to be terrorism.

    It is certainly helpful if you can confine the terrorist label to Thaksin and his network. Identify his network and resolve the problem right? No need to compromise and certainly no need to reflect on any other issues until you have dealt with these trouble making subversives. In the process, at least for the duration, you can dismiss statements from the red shirts as spurious and designed simply to incite hatred …

    It’s very clear to me that so long as people continue to believe that the Thaksin network are a force to reckoned with, Thailand isn’t going to be very pleasant for anyone. Root this element out, destroy their ability to create further problems and the situation may be come a little clearer. Censor the truth, intimidate the media, encourage the self appointed vigilantes of thought crime … Its a war, right?

    The truth isn’t relevant now. What matters is getting control of the situation before it gets out of hand. I accept censorship is necessary but I can’t switch off my brain and parrot the propaganda.

    I think what Donald Rumsfeld said at the start of another conflict that still rages is quite apposite:

    “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.”

    This is the position of the Thai population living under censorship. It’s arguable that very many people, not even the uncensored foreign media, are fully informed of the reality of Thailand’s political situation. In fact, given so much is decided behind closed doors, it’s fair to ask, is anyone fully informed?

    Quality comment? 3  0

19. Vichai N on May 25th, 2010 7:03 pm

    I just don’t think the Thais can just rebuild their shattered Ratchaprasong district with new huge malls (as Mithram shallowly suggested) and shops … and pretend nothing happened in Black May 2010.

    I don’t care if the monument is politically incorrect either … but it is important to erect a monument, a memorial, to the death of Thai common good sense (if you like) that allowed the recent tragedy to befall the Thai kingdom.

    If I suggest a huge figure of Beloved Leader in a red suit holding a really big eternal torch (striking a pose like NY’s Statue of Liberty), that kind of monument would be a stopper, eh?

    Like I said … let the city open up a contest to suggest a “politically correct” plan for such a monument.

    Quality comment? 0  4

20. Surie on May 25th, 2010 11:02 pm

    Jaded, many people in Thaksin’s network have been sidelined since he and his allies fell from power. Some have therefore decided to switch sides. For those who haven’t, the game is not over for them yet and that’s how they see it. If Thaksin or his allies ever return to power, everyone still in the network would benefit greatly so of course they would be willing to lend their support. Otherwise they would’ve changed sides by now.

    As for LM allegations made, I do believe that they are mostly being thrown around as a way to discredit opponents. LM laws are in need of dire reform but which government will dare touch them? It would be political suicide in a nation that loves their king as much as the Thais do.

    Quality comment? 2  0

21. neptunian on June 1st, 2010 3:19 pm

    How convenient to have Thaksin to blame! The writer seems to have forgotten the endless coups that the “military/Democrats” has pepetrated through the years. Perhaps the writer and others can explain the immensely smart investments that military leaders, past and present, made to enable them to amass great fortunes on what I know is paltry salaries and allowances.

    Until you have explained that, please do not talk about how the “military/Democrats” have to get rid of Thaksin to “clean” up the govt! More like clean out Thailand.

    (BD: Yeah yeah and Thaksin promised a solution. Did you try fishing?)

    Quality comment? 0  3

Leave a Reply