JohnBanPrang

Fight for democracy

The opinions of non-Thais range from disbelief to disdain and disgust at what is going on with Thai democracy. Here is help for our foreign critics to understand how we got into this mess.

By Voranai Vanijaka

In recent times, "democracy" is a word that has been thrown around more often than a ping pong ball in Patpong - and suffers about the same level of degradation.

From words in the pubs to letters in Postbag, to the reports by foreign correspondents and commentaries by the esteemed editors of various prestigious western media, everyone has an opinion on what democracy is, and that it either does not exist in Thailand, or has been battered and abused into something quite undemocratic.

From the observations of many non-Thais, opinions have ranged anywhere from disbelief to disdain and downright disgust at what is going on with the democracy of this Kingdom. With harsh words and brutal assaults, slamming and insulting the Kingdom, and with it, my fellow countrymen.

Well, allow me to address our foreign critics and help form an understanding of how we got into this mess. Though by all means, this observation is one man's humble opinion offered up to be considered, discussed and debated; nothing less, nothing more.

In the West, democracy is a tradition of over 2,000 years old, although it had taken a nap for centuries before it was rediscovered. One may trace the origin of modern democracy to the French Revolution (1782), the American Revolution (1776), or even the signing of the Magna Carta (1215). But no matter which event one would like to attribute modern democracy to, it is unarguable that Western democracy has been several centuries in the making and written by numerous conflicts and much bloodshed.

So if the West has gone through centuries of mistakes, of trials and tribulations, to arrive at a healthy, though imperfect system of modern democracy, why can't Thailand embrace the finished product, packaged with a beautiful ribbon? Well, it's not that we don't want to.

To understand where we are now, one must look at the historical evolution of Thailand since the conversion to constitutional monarchy in 1932.

From our first prime minister, Praya Manopakorn Nititada, to our latest, Somchai Wongsawat, in the 76 years since there have been 36 prime ministers, most of whom were "appointees", by the military or otherwise.

There were many reasons behind these "appointees", military or otherwise, not least of which was the influence of the superpowers and their Cold War chess match. Like the majority of the Third World, we were but a pawn served up on a platter with a side order of freedom fries by our leaders, to be exploited in the name of democracy against the rising tides of communism. Never mind the fact that we ourselves were ruled by military dictators for much of that time.

It wasn't until 1988 when we sustained a succession of "elected" leaders, starting with the government of General Chartchai Chunhawan.

Only for 20 years had the electoral process been able to sustain breathing room in this Kingdom, minus the hiccups in Black May 1992 and the 2006 coup. Is the Thai democracy young and fragile? It's a sickly, crying toddler in an incubator. So why, I ask you, would anyone look at an infant in an incubator with disdain and disgust?

Through much of our history in the 20th century, the overwhelming majority of the Thai population were peasant farmers, the backbone of the Kingdom, who wouldn't know a democracy from a tamagochi. How could they? With little to no education, their primary concerns were simply feeding and clothing their children? Democratic ideals are the luxury of the "haves", the "have nots" hold graver concerns. Is that so unbelievable? So disdainful? So disgusting?

It was only the economic boom of the late 1980s and 1990s, the advances in communication technology and globalisation, that saw the burgeoning middle class. Western education, or education period, was no longer the privilege of the elites.

Be that as it may, not unlike the period of Industrial Revolution in the West, the people were much more infatuated with the newfound riches than the ideals of democracy. Human nature: a pile of cash on the table versus some lofty ideal, which would the average Somchai and Somying one generation removed from the rice field (or the villages of Communist China) choose? Is that so disdainful, so disgusting, so unbelievable?

The infant may be wearing Gucci and the incubator may be the latest Mercedes model, but the fact is, in the 1990s Thailand's democracy was still just an infant in the incubator. As such, we were easily exploited by corrupt leaders, thrifty merchants (local and foreign) and, of course, our own greed. That is disdainful and disgusting, but which country has never gone through such a period? Like puberty, it isn't pretty, but it's a natural process of evolution.

With the Asian financial crisis of 1997, we woke up and realised that we simply exchanged "appointees", military or otherwise, for opportunistic thugs and gangsters, who knew about running a country and economy as much as we Thais know how to queue up in orderly fashion to board/deboard the Sky Train. They simply sneaked into office while the educated middle class were too busy having a bubble bath.

Then it happened. Clouds parted, Beethoven's Symphony No 3 echoed out of nowhere, the birds and the bees chanted, "hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah"! For the messiah had arrived! He was not a general, nor a gangster. He was a businessman who built a telecommunication empire with his own hands.

For a society that had embraced capitalism for only a little over a decade, we were googoo and gaagaa over him like he was some K-pop heartthrob. For the first time in the history of Thailand, the rich, the poor and those in between agreed on one thing: Thaksin Shinawatra was our man.

Chuan Leekpai was solid, but he was a plain housewife. This new guy was Paris Hilton on steroids. Is it so unbelievable, so disdainful, so disgusting? Infant in an incubator, we were lost lambs, confused and desperate, then came our shepherd, our saviour, all glittery in golden lights.

And well, you know the rest of the story.

Here we are in 2008. Duped and deceived, scarred and full of scorn. Conflict in all levels of society. Flocking to the banner of the PAD are simply people who have had enough. Sure, the leaders of the PAD are questionable. Sure, many of the PAD's tactics are unsavoury. But allow me to speak for the average Thai person - rich, middle and poor - we marched simply because we have had enough.

Similar to Black May 1992. Then we marched because we wanted no more military dictatorship, but now we march because we want no more greedy money merchants and their thuggish cronies.

Is this undermining democracy? There is no democracy to undermine. We never had it. Democracy isn't just about going to the poll and voting. Democracy isn't about smiling as you are getting screwed over once again. That may be fine for countries with healthy, but imperfect democracy. But here, in this corner of the Third World, we are tired of taking it lying down and are simply saying enough is enough.

They don't hand out democracy at the local mom and pop store, and it isn't on sale at Central or Paragon. One must fight for it.

It's an ugly fight. But is there such a thing as a pretty fight? Definitely, there isn't anything democratic about a fight, just ask the Coalition of the Willing. At least we avoid bloodshed as best we can. Granted, a lot of us aren't even sure what we're fighting for, a lot of us are simply venting frustrations and anger, but at least we're conscious and alive enough to stand up and fight.

Certainly there are and will be mistakes to overcome, trials and tribulations to triumph over in the road ahead. As I wrote in my first commentary on Sept 14, we Thais also have to look at ourselves and start the change with ourselves, not just point fingers at our corrupt leaders.

Is it so unbelievable, disdainful, disgusting? For those who are understanding, we thank you. For those who are not, please take no offence. You don't have to help us, or support us, constructive criticisms are welcomed and appreciated. But beg your pardon, please do not insult us. Especially if you are a guest in our country.

I'm still in shock!!!!

Sabaijai, why you can't tell us where you got this info from???

Did you grow up in a Soi?

Well, then get street smart!

One lesson, don't read TV advises!!!!

good advice. I grew up in a few sois.. haha

and this is going to blow your mind (the mafia own the police) tripping isn't it…

Well educated people all know you should deal with mafia,

not police

mayby army

But tell me???

Who owns the mafia???

Blows my mind,

No big trip, I live with those facts every day.

Good thinking!!

But don't tell me, you will ever lift a stone???

For the name of a free Thailand!!

ONE FLAG, ONE NATION!!

My son take care of that for you!!!

Cause he Thai!!!!!!

I farang!!!

Did you grow up in a Soi?

Well, then get street smart!

One lesson, don't read TV advises!!!!

Hey anyone else notice the google ad words at the top of this thread?

* Do Facial Exercise Right

Winner of Grazia Magazine's 'Best Anti-Ageing Gadget of 2008' Award!

* Lose Neck Fat Fast

How to lose neck fat in hours. No pain. Lose neck fat no surgery.

* Face Exercise System -

Features exclusive Vertical Lifting of eyebrows, lips, cheeks & chin.

Afraid of loosing face or what???

JJ cool it!!

Thank you for your free propaganda.

"bangkok post on steroids !!!! "

What about Voranai Vanijaka.

His hands are clean.

Not paid, independent point of view.

555555555

Bangkok post is the real deal???

Wake up.

hmmmmmm............

i never noticed bages. just that their blouses are too tight! is the bDGE worn on the left boob or right?

besides visa info this is very good to know

What is too tight for you?

Me or my loose underwear...???

Lost my face at the swimming pool.

Forgot my trunks.

At the tender age of 33.

I came to marry one of them University level educated Hi-So types that crave older balding beer bellied farang. I'm not married yet but everyone else here found one. Jokes aside a fly to OZ tonight for 8 days. That's 6 days too long (minus flight time) already missing LOS

Many ex-pats are here because they saw Thailand as their Utopia, sold up lock, stock and barrel in their home countries, so here they are.

For some the novelty wore off after a few years, but than it was too late, past the point of return to their own countries because they could no longer afford to get re-established back home as all their assets were now in Thailand.

So for those considering making the big move, better be 100% sure first.

I am one of those who brought everything with me, but these days couldn't imagine or want to live anywhere else.

About those students: my daughter told me that some of the girls are unable to finance their tuition fees, so make money by selling themselves. My daughter said, one can tell because these girls wear their badges upside down. Pssst, don't tell anyone that I told you

You sound like Garry Glitter with a daughter on the side.

She told you what is upside down???

YAK!!

I

Sorry some cockup.

I came here for the sun, the sea and to be a

gigolo in disguise.

Will be willing to help any female friend out there with a sence of humour!!!!

I

good to see you go with small wallet size thai guy!

do you work? small wallet guys get old real fast. i agree with yr family though, u must be bonkers!

i once saw an attractive white girl w thai bf on public bus. i bet she was thinking to herself what am i doing on a public bus

I'm not certain she is with a thai guy.

Oh,forgot.......where you on that public bus to?

How did you end up there?

To quote my old dad "There is always a girl waiting at a bus station"

Great place to flirt.

I guess SIZE can mean many things.

Sounds like you really love him.

My best luck to you.

It is true that Thailand de facto was never colonialized, however already with the arrival of the Dutch in the 1600s there was severe political influence and pressure, they were at that time regulars at the Thai court.

Both France (from the sides of Laos and Cambodia) and Britain (from the side of Malaysia) annexed large parts of the country in return for being officially independent. Phuket and its tin mining concessions was strictly controlled by British traders from neighboring Penang, later than Chinese merchant clans.

Not being colonialized is normally attributed to Thai cleverness by locals, but I would think that being a buffer state between the two super powers of late colonial times simply served their interests better; something not well received uttered aloud in a circle of Thai listeners.

How much influence there was in reality on a political level can only be guessed, but have a look how American policy controls a lot of the decisions made since the Vietnam War (eg drug laws, special trade rights, military presence).

Quickly you might get the idea that Thailand suffered all the drawbacks of colonialization, eg being kept back in an agricultural stage and no independent military history to form a proud national identity (the main moment in history is the sacking of Ayutthaya by the Burmese and their subsequent defeat -- heretics would say they got what they wanted and were not much interested later on -- owing much to the general xenophobia even in today's Thailand).

All those drawbacks came without having reaped many of the benefits, eg an ordered education system, knowledge transfer in the early industrial age, a standardized romanization of the alphabet, a high percentage of people fluent in a language other than Thai, etc.

Please do not forget that even if many of your historical facts are right,

Your conclusition is your personal understanding of Thai history.

Not a fact.

That certainly is correct. However, with the facts right, the chance that my conclusions are right is high.

Which particular conclusion of the above do you believe to be incorrect? Might be the base for a good discussion.

I belive we could have a very good dicussion.

Still belive the "facts" you are presenting are a "mishmash" of historical facts.

I'm not betting on a loosing horse, even if the chances are high.

Sorry mate.

Still not sure where you disagree. But then maybe you actually have no real opinion and are just talking for talks sake. That sounds like a loosing horse to me.

Hope you will read my answer.

Still belive we could have a good discussion.

Just not fast enought with the keybord.

Hope you understand.

Please not the size of his wallet?

Hope I'm not naive?

Are there really girls on TV???

Thank god for that!!!

Only small "black holes"

As said before.!!!!!!!!

Modern witchcraft???

Who said the world was round?

"Maemot?"

Is my spelling wrong?

Many see progress as unuptainable,yet we all benifit from it every day.

Personaly I think the "collider" will bring more good than bad.

"Man can make black holes ?????

"Com'on"

Another old post.

Mouth to mouth.

Help us.

Sorry, died.............................

It is true that Thailand de facto was never colonialized, however already with the arrival of the Dutch in the 1600s there was severe political influence and pressure, they were at that time regulars at the Thai court.

Both France (from the sides of Laos and Cambodia) and Britain (from the side of Malaysia) annexed large parts of the country in return for being officially independent. Phuket and its tin mining concessions was strictly controlled by British traders from neighboring Penang, later than Chinese merchant clans.

Not being colonialized is normally attributed to Thai cleverness by locals, but I would think that being a buffer state between the two super powers of late colonial times simply served their interests better; something not well received uttered aloud in a circle of Thai listeners.

How much influence there was in reality on a political level can only be guessed, but have a look how American policy controls a lot of the decisions made since the Vietnam War (eg drug laws, special trade rights, military presence).

Quickly you might get the idea that Thailand suffered all the drawbacks of colonialization, eg being kept back in an agricultural stage and no independent military history to form a proud national identity (the main moment in history is the sacking of Ayutthaya by the Burmese and their subsequent defeat -- heretics would say they got what they wanted and were not much interested later on -- owing much to the general xenophobia even in today's Thailand).

All those drawbacks came without having reaped many of the benefits, eg an ordered education system, knowledge transfer in the early industrial age, a standardized romanization of the alphabet, a high percentage of people fluent in a language other than Thai, etc.

Please do not forget that even if many of your historical facts are right,

Your conclusition is your personal understanding of Thai history.

Not a fact.

That certainly is correct. However, with the facts right, the chance that my conclusions are right is high.

Which particular conclusion of the above do you believe to be incorrect? Might be the base for a good discussion.

I belive we could have a very good dicussion.

Still belive the "facts" you are presenting are a "mishmash" of historical facts.

I'm not betting on a loosing horse, even if the chances are high.

Sorry mate.

East or west Thai women are best.

Thai women(or any other women) many times loves a person for here own personal reasons.

Not big wallet.

Not big dick.

But treating here with respect and admiration will help you.

Western man or Asian/Thai. Nothing different.

It is true that Thailand de facto was never colonialized, however already with the arrival of the Dutch in the 1600s there was severe political influence and pressure, they were at that time regulars at the Thai court.

Both France (from the sides of Laos and Cambodia) and Britain (from the side of Malaysia) annexed large parts of the country in return for being officially independent. Phuket and its tin mining concessions was strictly controlled by British traders from neighboring Penang, later than Chinese merchant clans.

Not being colonialized is normally attributed to Thai cleverness by locals, but I would think that being a buffer state between the two super powers of late colonial times simply served their interests better; something not well received uttered aloud in a circle of Thai listeners.

How much influence there was in reality on a political level can only be guessed, but have a look how American policy controls a lot of the decisions made since the Vietnam War (eg drug laws, special trade rights, military presence).

Quickly you might get the idea that Thailand suffered all the drawbacks of colonialization, eg being kept back in an agricultural stage and no independent military history to form a proud national identity (the main moment in history is the sacking of Ayutthaya by the Burmese and their subsequent defeat -- heretics would say they got what they wanted and were not much interested later on -- owing much to the general xenophobia even in today's Thailand).

All those drawbacks came without having reaped many of the benefits, eg an ordered education system, knowledge transfer in the early industrial age, a standardized romanization of the alphabet, a high percentage of people fluent in a language other than Thai, etc.

Please do not forget that even if many of your historical facts are right,

Your conclusition is your personal understanding of Thai history.

Not a fact.

This topic started in 2005.

How come I mised it?

Thank you sleir.

Bonobo has some very good arguments.

But this thread was about why Thais know so little about geography.

I'm not trying to emply that most Thais are not curious or are not interested in other countries or cultures.

But I personaly think that most Thais don't put the same emphasis in it as most westerners.

And a lot of people around the world don't know where this or that country is.

But in my personal opinion a lot of people think that's what makes you smarter.

That was the point I was trying to make before. Refering to countries many don't know.

Part of beeing knowledgable is to be humble.

I hope that this is a better answer than just nonsense.

Did you all forget Bhutan?

The most Buddhist country in the world.

Who knows?

Get the best of what you got, and so do most Thai.

Beat me to the post. So contrary to your orignal post, I guess you do care about Bhutan?

I care about Bhutan.

But where it is,will that make diference.

But don't tell me Thai people think about that.

They love their own coutry.So do I.

I hesitated in posting back as I really am not 100% sure on what you are trying to say. But I do have a couple points on this and a previous post of yours.

Why is it important that I travel to Bhutan with Thais? Am I unable to enjoy the country and understand their take on Buddhism without a Thai to guide me?

I am going with my Thai friends as the wife is very into the spiritual aspects of Buddhism. I would rather travel tihe friends, and yes, her expertise will be welcomed, but I may have broader understanding of the variances in Buddhism than her husband (who is also a Thai).

I don't understand your point about not caring where Bhutan is located. If you care about a country or are interested in a country, isn't the location a valid piece of information? People in a mountainous country will develop differently than people on the coast, than people in the desert, than people in the rainforest. People in an Asian country will be influenced different in their development than people in a South American country.

All aspects of the country should be of interest. Location, population, food, weather, politics, relations with neighboring states, ecology, history--all of thse are valid points of interest and curiousity. I don't see how you can dismiss any of them, such as location, as unimportant. And I think it is a broad statment to make that " ...Thai people (don't) think about that."

As far as your last line, if you are inferring that Thai people don't care about other counties because they love Thailand, well, that is pretty unbelievable. Why would loving one own's country preclude an interest an learning about any other country?

What about Suriname.

Love it too.

Paramaribo is a great city.

Will it change your life if you know where it is? or don't know where it is?

Regardless of where anyone met their wife - I think it the height of foolishness to introduce her here on TV.

Why would anyone want to introduce their wife to this den of spite, envy and bitterness?

My advice, if you've met the right woman for you, be content with your choice and keep her to yourself.

Guesthouse, you say it best. Totally agree.

Why should I treat my personal life as an opened book for everyone to read, you don't do that to any stranger you just met, let alone to someone on this TV who hide behind the avatars.

So soft.

Open book?

Have you read the last page?

Why be shy about your love?

Something to hide?

Page 12?

If you love,what is there to hide'?

Loosing your own face?

I love my wife,she bar girl many years.

If you can not look at this as normal up to you.

Many farang on TV look down on BG.

I, personaly have nothing to hide.

My name John.

Come from city "Ban Prang"