Interview: Media Tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul

[LaoPo]

Page 1 of 3

ASIA HAND

Recollections, revelations of a protest leader

By Shawn W Crispin

BANGKOK - Media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul [1] and the massive anti-government street protests he orchestrated set the stage for last year's military ouster of Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Six months later, the outspoken Sondhi finds himself in the news again.

Last month he was sentenced by a Bangkok court to two years in prison on criminal defamation charges related to critical remarks he made on his popular television talk show before last year's coup about a high-ranking Thai Rak Thai party official. Sondhi has appealed the decision and is currently on bail.

Meanwhile, the Thai Rak Thai-linked new satellite television station PTV is threatening to file libel charges against Sondhi for comments he made suggesting the new station's leader was involved with a petition aimed at ousting Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda, King Bhumibol Adulyadej's chief adviser. PTV organizers have recently tried to take a page from Sondhi's own rally playbook, but so far have been able to muster no more than 5,000 anti-government protesters.

Sondhi said during the interview that he has no immediate plans to return to the streets - neither to challenge PTV's Thai Rak Thai party representatives, nor to censure the interim government's sagging performance. Contrary to many pundits' predictions, Sondhi was not offered a position in the military-appointed administration after last year's coup. In an exclusive interview with Asia Times Online before his recent defamation conviction, he claims that as a "media man" he has no political ambitions.

He has recently locked horns with the country's new military leaders through programs aired over his satellite ASTV television station - similar, though not yet as fiery, to the programs that exposed and exploited Thaksin's political soft spots. In a wide-ranging 90-minute interview with ATol's Southeast Asia editor Shawn W Crispin, Sondhi reflected on his year of living dangerously and the country's perilous political road ahead.

Explain the situation behind last year's September 19 coup.

There are two theories. One is that they really wanted to get rid of Thaksin. They saw Thaksin was very detrimental to Thailand, particularly to the monarchy.

Who precisely? .....

Continue here:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ID27Ae01.html

LaoPo

Edited April 26, 2007 by LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Having read the whole article I have to say that -in my own humble opinion- this is one of the most remarkable and shocking insight interviews I've read about the backgrounds of Thai politics, pre- and post-coup....and quite brave too...

some excerpts:

*.....And as time went by, they began to see their political base waning.

Whom are we talking about precisely?

I would call them the old feudalists. The feudal elite, people like the [Kasikorn Bank founders] Lamsam family, those types. They were beginning to see their power base decline slowly. When they saw Thaksin start intervening in areas that no politician [before] dared to intervene in, which included military reshuffles, they got even more scared.

*.... I fought Thaksin and I was able to pull up the mass, and they were excited because [the elites] never thought in their minds - and later on they admitted it - that so many people would come out. So they were both shocked and ecstatic. So, all the elites were pulling all their forces behind me.

Who exactly? Are we talking about the likes of the Lamsam family?

I would never know, I would never know. I was never contacted personally and never carried money like 10 million baht, no. But it always came in: 100,000 [about US$3,000] here, 50,000 there, 100,000 here. There were so many one hundred thousands coming in.

* What are the recommendations?

.....The public and the mass have to be educated by giving them the proper information through broadcasting. Remember, I'm a media man. I believe that rather than satellite television we should have a television station or we should be able to go on Channel 7 or Channel 5 on a daily basis and explain things, what went wrong with Thailand, etc.

Tell the people to stand up and fight for their rights. Naively, I didn't know that the word the "people" is the scariest word for both Thaksin and the feudalists.

* How do you feel in retrospect that your protests were effectively co-opted for the political purposes of the feudal elite?

I'm a threat to them now. They're very scared of me now.

* Why's that?

Well, because I can command the people. You see I have a different way of looking at things. Politically, I always believe that if I can get the middle classes all across the country to be on my side, the middle classes are the ones who suffer most, whose rights have been infringed upon, who have been taxed to the hilt, who haven't been given a chance or opportunity to get what they deserve.

Then here I came and they all came out because I represent them. Ninety percent of the middle class have Chinese blood. They look up at me and say, he is my man who dares to speak on my behalf. And I sincerely believe and still do that if we can organize this middle class well, arouse their political rights, telling them that they have rights as much as the elite have, it's time to get up and protect our rights, that is a threat.

* So there was an ethnic-Chinese component to your anti-government rallies?

Of course. Their biggest mistake after kicking Thaksin out, instead of allying with me and agreeing with me that there is a need to reform the whole country, they look at me as a threat. So they cut me off.

Who exactly cut you off? The CNS [the ruling Council for National Security]?

The whole thing: the CNS, including Surayud....

* ............So they were pissed. Surayud himself called me up and said: "Khun Sondhi, we'll have to pull you off the air."

* .....I fought because I believe in this country. And all of a sudden I see a new group of people and they're coming and sucking everything again, and that pisses me off.

They are not being as greedy as Thaksin, but they are greedy....

* .....Why not clean all the mess on the table and set new tableware and make the table clean? Make a better, cleaner, more transparent society. Give us a good constitution, give us freedom of speech, get rid of all the wrongdoings. Now it looks like they are collaborating with Thaksin's people.

*...To sum up the whole thing: you still have the old system where the elites rule the country and they are letting the politicians be the ones who run the country and they take money from the politicians. You can call it what you like, concession fee, whatever. I am letting you run the country, now this is what I want, give it to me.

* It's not much different in many developing countries, is it?

Right, and things were running smoothly until a guy named Thaksin came in. Originally this elite group thought Thaksin would be no different and play by their rules. But Thaksin, being a smartass, had great personal ambition. And he was able to gather enough support and was looking forward more than normal, and the 1997 constitution allowed him to because it was drafted with the purpose of giving the PM a strong hand. He cut off this bridge between the elite and himself. That's why people were pissed off.

* So you're saying that former politicians in Thaksin's camp are such political opportunists that they're probably willing to play by the CNS's rules?

As long as you have a place for professional politicians who get into politics to become a minister and skim off commissions on government projects, they will be happy to work with you. Even if the Democrats become the main government, the Democrats would never take away this bridge because they know the game. The risk lies in what direction I take. That's the reason they are looking at me with a dubious eye.

* Where is Thailand heading politically?

If you look at what's going on over the last couple of weeks, [the CNS] cannot find the proper solution for [General] Sonthi to continue his reign.

Do you think he has long-term political ambitions?

He wants to protect his ass, that's for sure.

* Did Thaksin ever try to reach out to you from behind the scenes to try to do some kind of a deal?

Yeah, he was trying to offer me some money. A cabinet minister was talking in the vicinity of 500 million to 1 billion baht.

Notes

1. Sondhi Limthongkul is the founder of the Manager Group, which through its holdings owns Asia Times Online.

2. Pre-cadet Class 10 refers to soldiers who studied with Thaksin at the elite military academy and represent his support base in the armed forces

All quotes are from:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ID27Ae01.html

LaoPo

[lannarebirth]

It was a good read Lao Po. Thanks for posting it.

[blaze]

Thank you Lao Po- essentially what many have suspected-

Lenin talked about 'useful idiots' -those whose narrow vision would inspire them to support revolutions they were incapable of understanding. Sonthi as much as admits his role was "naively' to muster them to the cause.

And rent-a-mob? this was rent-a-coup.

Edited April 26, 2007 by blaze

[larvidchr]

Thankyou Lao Po interesting and a bit frigthning´.

This man is a real piece of work, google him and you will find at least 20 billion good reasons why nobody should ever have belived one word from that mans mouth.

"I can command the People" Uhuu " major Tong to ground control"

Indsight in domestic corruption and political scamming, but no knowlegde of the concept of democracy, and no recognition of the damage his actions has caused to a whole nation.

A dangerus seducer of people.

[kmart]

Never liked that guy. He's Thaksin with an even bigger gob.

[Johpa]

Thankyou Lao Po interesting and a bit frigthning´.

This man is a real piece of work, google him and you will find at least 20 billion good reasons why nobody should ever have belived one word from that mans mouth.

I had the opportunity to hear Sondhi give a speech in the US last winter. The man is indeed a real work of art. It is funny to now hear him rant about the "old feudal elite" after having previously listened to him disparage the rural poor as uneducated masses who must be led by, of course, Khun Sondhi, as "democracy" was beyond their understanding. At least in the Crispin interview Sondhi finally honestly describes his support base as the Bangkok Sino-Thai upper and middle classes. When he gave the lecture in the US, apart from the handful of interested Farangs and a few academics, the lecture hall was filled by that identical support base that live as ex-pats in the US. I had never imagined seeing so many Thai restaurant owners in the US under a single roof outside the lcoal Wat.

[ColPyat]

This interview neither shows a good light on both Sondhi L. and Shawn Crispin.

Sondhi L. at least has shown some of his true colors as a demagogue of the worst order, a rabble rouser, and a megalomaniac.

And some of the most important questions expected to be asked by a competent journalist were not touched upon, such as why Sondhi L. has supported Thaksin massively during the first years (the years where most accusations reg. Human Rights violations, corruption, mistakes in the South stem from).

The for me personally most aggravating statement by Sondhi L. during the interview was:

"...the middle classes are the ones who suffer most, whose rights have been infringed upon, who have been taxed to the hilt, who haven't been given a chance or opportunity to get what they deserve."

This is at best a very myopic view of Thailand's problems, and at worst a complete disregard for the suffering of the millions of upcountry poor.

[larvidchr]

The for me personally most aggravating statement by Sondhi L. during the interview was:

"...the middle classes are the ones who suffer most, whose rights have been infringed upon, who have been taxed to the hilt, who haven't been given a chance or opportunity to get what they deserve."

This is at best a very myopic view of Thailand's problems, and at worst a complete disregard for the suffering of the millions of upcountry poor.

Spot on. he makes you want to

[Jimjim]

This interview neither shows a good light on both Sondhi L. and Shawn Crispin.

And some of the most important questions expected to be asked by a competent journalist were not touched upon, such as why Sondhi L. has supported Thaksin massively during the first years (the years where most accusations reg. Human Rights violations, corruption, mistakes in the South stem from).

Are you kidding? Sondhi owns Crispin's employer. He would never ask those kind of questions and they would never be answered. He's the big boss.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Jimjim

[slimdog]

Just in case anyone didn't look through the Asia Times website, the Author, Shawn W Crispin did 2 Thai related articles for the 27th April, the one on Sondhi Limthongkul, and another article about Ptv which can be found at:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/ID27Ae04.html

[blaze]

Not only does it speak poorly of Sondhi L- but it's not very flattering to the elites either- that they would encourage SL to contrive for some bloodshed (not bloody noses either)- middle class blood- the same people who thought they were fighting a just cause. Shades of 92. Fine people.

Nor does it speak well of the PAD followers- never does SL suggest that Thaksin's alleged corruption was a motivator- rather middle classes resentement at being 'overtaxed' and ignored by the TRT. Almost as if the howls of rage over the Shin Sale was nothing more than an attempt to cloak base selfishness in self righteous indignation.

In fact it's odd that in the interview he never really attacks T for being corrupt- only greedy.

Disappointing that Crispin didn't grill SL a bit more about his relationship with Thaksin- and his relationship with Saprang.

I seriously hope that after reading this interview, nobody ever again refers to the Thaksin cliques as 'the old elite'. As Sonthi makes very clear- there is an old elite at play- and it sure doesn't include Thaksin. Yet in a masterstroke of Orwellian doublespeak- that term manages to suggest that by getting rid of Thaksin, the 'old elites' are disempowered. What a joke.

[ColPyat]

Not only does it speak poorly of Sondhi L- but it's not very flattering to the elites either- that they would encourage SL to contrive for some bloodshed (not bloody noses either)- middle class blood- the same people who thought they were fighting a just cause. Shades of 92. Fine people.

And there Sondhi also does clearly lie when he said he refused to, or was even asked by the elites to procoke bloodshed - he himself and Chamlong have at one incident attempted to provoke the authorities into blood shed. I was there, and it was a very tense moment that was mostly saved by the police not using any violence, and the other PAD leaders not following while most demonstrators have not seen this incident:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/pag...amp;id=20002137

Quote:

"The action of Dharma Army chief Chamlong Srimuang and media tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul in leading about 100 protesters to try to break the police blockage late on Sunday night sent a message that there is a rift among the leaders of the PAD.

Somsak Kosaisuk, one of the five members of the PAD council, admitted he was shocked by the action of Chamlong and Sondhi, since they went ahead without consulting the other leaders. According to Somsak, the PAD agreed earlier they would peacefully negotiate with the police to open the way for the crowd to walk to Government House."

I honestly hope that Sondhi L. will get into further trouble for some of the very dubious statements and allegations he has made during that "interview".

[chevykanteve]

This interview neither shows a good light on both Sondhi L. and Shawn Crispin.

Sondhi L. at least has shown some of his true colors as a demagogue of the worst order, a rabble rouser, and a megalomaniac.

And some of the most important questions expected to be asked by a competent journalist were not touched upon, such as why Sondhi L. has supported Thaksin massively during the first years (the years where most accusations reg. Human Rights violations, corruption, mistakes in the South stem from).

The for me personally most aggravating statement by Sondhi L. during the interview was:

"...the middle classes are the ones who suffer most, whose rights have been infringed upon, who have been taxed to the hilt, who haven't been given a chance or opportunity to get what they deserve."

This is at best a very myopic view of Thailand's problems, and at worst a complete disregard for the suffering of the millions of upcountry poor.

I agree that they should most definitely be "given a chance... to get what they deserve." After all, the middle classes ARE important and know what is best.

[Johpa]

This interview neither shows a good light on both Sondhi L. and Shawn Crispin.

Sondhi L. at least has shown some of his true colors as a demagogue of the worst order, a rabble rouser, and a megalomaniac.

Some people simply can not be presented in a good light, and I think that perhaps Crispin sees that the best way to expose Sondhi is to tread lightly and just give Sondhi some rope to hang himself with by jabbing lighty so that he does not raise up his defenses.

[LaoPo]

Some of the previous comments about Sondhi L. are fair enough. He is at least a controversial man and the fact he owns Asia Times through his holding makes the interview a one-way story and the interviewer Shawn Crispin not independent, since he's on his payroll, indirectly, but still.

However, the fact that he's born from Chinese (Hainan) parents and standing up for the Thai middle class (90 % of them have Chinese roots) makes it interesting.

But, the old Thai feudalistic elite has, for the major part, Chinese roots also and that's what makes the interview, and what he says about the backgrounds of Thai politics, so fascinating.

If I read between the lines of said article it looks like if he is disappointed (using his words: pissed off) that the present power-people in 'charge', ALL belonging to the old elite and thus also Thai/Cinese, didn't invite/accept him to be part of the new rulers.

But, all in all, that doesn't mean he is WRONG, saying that Thailand is still ruled by the old feudalistic elite (including military...) and in fact THEY rule and steer Thai politics, behind the scenes....

In my humble opinion he's also right suggesting, that Thaksin did NOT belong to said elite (maybe his wife is/was) and made a very wrong mistake by trying to set them aside and/or tried to overrule them.

Most readers here didn't like Thaksin and some don't like Sondhi L. .....*

So: what's the alternative ?

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

* I would be most interested to learn where the (thin?) line lies IF/WHEN someone (or a family) belongs to the 'elite' or is 'allowed' to join them....

After all, an elite-member, ever, wasn't one in the first place; he/she became one at a certain stage in the past....but not overnight, right?

LaoPo

[chevykanteve]

Not only does it speak poorly of Sondhi L- but it's not very flattering to the elites either- that they would encourage SL to contrive for some bloodshed (not bloody noses either)- middle class blood- the same people who thought they were fighting a just cause. Shades of 92. Fine people.

Nor does it speak well of the PAD followers- never does SL suggest that Thaksin's alleged corruption was a motivator- rather middle classes resentement at being 'overtaxed' and ignored by the TRT. Almost as if the howls of rage over the Shin Sale was nothing more than an attempt to cloak base selfishness in self righteous indignation.

In fact it's odd that in the interview he never really attacks T for being corrupt- only greedy.

Disappointing that Crispin didn't grill SL a bit more about his relationship with Thaksin- and his relationship with Saprang.

I seriously hope that after reading this interview, nobody ever again refers to the Thaksin cliques as 'the old elite'. As Sonthi makes very clear- there is an old elite at play- and it sure doesn't include Thaksin. Yet in a masterstroke of Orwellian doublespeak- that term manages to suggest that by getting rid of Thaksin, the 'old elites' are disempowered. What a joke.

In my opinion, not "almost", but FOR SURE. Jealousy. He made a tremendous profit and more than they could ever have hoped to make by any means. Additionally, being a T.CH., he "sold out" the clan, so so speak, by helping ethnic-Thai poor people. Wowwwww!! Two sins.

[blaze]

Some of the previous comments about Sondhi L. are fair enough. He is at least a controversial man and the fact he owns Asia Times through his holding makes the interview a one-way story and the interviewer Shawn Crispin not independent, since he's on his payroll, indirectly, but still.

However, the fact that he's born from Chinese (Hainan) parents and standing up for the Thai middle class (90 % of them have Chinese roots) makes it interesting.

But, the old Thai feudalistic elite has, for the major part, Chinese roots also and that's what makes the interview, and what he says about the backgrounds of Thai politics, so fascinating.

If I read between the lines of said article it looks like if he is disappointed (using his words: pissed off) that the present power-people in 'charge', ALL belonging to the old elite and thus also Thai/Cinese, didn't invite/accept him to be part of the new rulers.

But, all in all, that doesn't mean he is WRONG, saying that Thailand is still ruled by the old feudalistic elite (including military...) and in fact THEY rule and steer Thai politics, behind the scenes....

In my humble opinion he's also right suggesting, that Thaksin did NOT belong to said elite (maybe his wife is/was) and made a very wrong mistake by trying to set them aside and/or tried to overrule them.

Most readers here didn't like Thaksin and some don't like Sondhi L. .....*

So: what's the alternative ?

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

* I would be most interested to learn where the (thin?) line lies IF/WHEN someone (or a family) belongs to the 'elite' or is 'allowed' to join them....

After all, an elite-member, ever, wasn't one in the first place; he/she became one at a certain stage in the past....but not overnight, right?

LaoPo

He had to feel used. He did the dirty work- paved the way for the coup- provided (invented?) the moral justification- drummed up the indignation- and at some risk to himself. He was the darling of the elite, and a hero to the middle class. And buddybuddy with the major coup plotter- Saprang. Yet- when dinner was served- just like Thaksin- he was sent to eat with the coachmen.

I envision him and Thaksin sipping tea in China Heaven, and Sondhi ruefully admitting- "if it's any consolation Takky old chum, they never let me in either'.

Ironically- the title of Giles U's book- 'a coup for the rich'- is a phrase which could have been coined by SL himself. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Now as far as 'what's the alternative'- if I had voting rights- I'd lean to MiG16

Edited April 27, 2007 by blaze

[hammered]

Some of the previous comments about Sondhi L. are fair enough. He is at least a controversial man and the fact he owns Asia Times through his holding makes the interview a one-way story and the interviewer Shawn Crispin not independent, since he's on his payroll, indirectly, but still.

However, the fact that he's born from Chinese (Hainan) parents and standing up for the Thai middle class (90 % of them have Chinese roots) makes it interesting.

But, the old Thai feudalistic elite has, for the major part, Chinese roots also and that's what makes the interview, and what he says about the backgrounds of Thai politics, so fascinating.

If I read between the lines of said article it looks like if he is disappointed (using his words: pissed off) that the present power-people in 'charge', ALL belonging to the old elite and thus also Thai/Cinese, didn't invite/accept him to be part of the new rulers.

But, all in all, that doesn't mean he is WRONG, saying that Thailand is still ruled by the old feudalistic elite (including military...) and in fact THEY rule and steer Thai politics, behind the scenes....

In my humble opinion he's also right suggesting, that Thaksin did NOT belong to said elite (maybe his wife is/was) and made a very wrong mistake by trying to set them aside and/or tried to overrule them.

Most readers here didn't like Thaksin and some don't like Sondhi L. .....*

So: what's the alternative ?

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

* I would be most interested to learn where the (thin?) line lies IF/WHEN someone (or a family) belongs to the 'elite' or is 'allowed' to join them....

After all, an elite-member, ever, wasn't one in the first place; he/she became one at a certain stage in the past....but not overnight, right?

LaoPo

If you have good enough Thai friends, you will find it more informative talking to them to get an answer to the question you pose. A follow up on marrying into the elite is also worth asking.

[hammered]

My wife had a read of this. She supported all the PAD rallies although she is a CPD supporter not a Sondhi person. She was disappointed that the myth of the PAD being just middle class was perpetuated by Sondhi although maybe that is where his support lay. She actually spent her time with groups of factory workers from the East, vendors from Saraburi, state workers and southerners. They were all CPD supporters and not one of them was middle class. Maybe Sondhi doesnt want to credit the others involved in the movement so much.

Edited April 28, 2007 by hammered

[PeaceBlondie]

How often in political history does the elite, or the group firmly entrenched in power, give up the power without a violent struggle? The answer is - occasionally, but seldom. The American White men ceded much power to darker-skinned minorities, and to women. The British Empire, to India. Ferdinand Marcos, to people power.

Why is it that so far, Thailand has no equivalent to Gandhi or to Martin Luther King, Jr.?

[dumspero]

Because there's a pressure release built into the system, for better or worse, that works effectively to reduce the need for such a figure to rise up. (hope this isn't over that line?)

[ColPyat]

My wife had a read of this. She supported all the PAD rallies although she is a CPD supporter not a Sondhi person. She was disappointed that the myth of the PAD being just middle class was perpetuated by Sondhi although maybe that is where his support lay. She actually spent her time with groups of factory workers from the East, vendors from Saraburi, state workers and southerners. They were all CPD supporters and not one of them was middle class. Maybe Sondhi doesnt want to credit the others involved in the movement so much.

This is one of the problem with the PAD rallies - the honest labor organizations and other groups of the people's movement were used by Sondhi to give him wider credibility in the Thai democracy movement, where he never played any significant role whatsoever.

The numbers though were clearly not from factory workers, but from the mostly middle classes. And the power, through numbers and money, within the PAD were clearly Sondhi L. and Chamlong, not the other leaders.

Sondhi never was, is not, and never will be a proponent for democracy and social justice, only for his niche interest. That was clearly to see in this interview.

[kmart]

How often in political history does the elite, or the group firmly entrenched in power, give up the power without a violent struggle? The answer is - occasionally, but seldom. The American White men ceded much power to darker-skinned minorities, and to women. The British Empire, to India. Ferdinand Marcos, to people power.

Why is it that so far, Thailand has no equivalent to Gandhi or to Martin Luther King, Jr.?

I think anytime Thailand is in danger of producing a budding Ghandi or MLK they would kill the whole village.

Globalisation is backing the current elite of Thailand into a corner, if they cede knowledge (education) to the masses here, they will be overthrown. The current censorship and culture crusading here is a pathetic attempt to stem the tide.

[younghusband]

How often in political history does the elite, or the group firmly entrenched in power, give up the power without a violent struggle? The answer is - occasionally, but seldom. The American White men ceded much power to darker-skinned minorities, and to women. The British Empire, to India. Ferdinand Marcos, to people power.

Why is it that so far, Thailand has no equivalent to Gandhi or to Martin Luther King, Jr.?

The question you pose is interesting although the Marcos example doesn't really fit (because he didn't have too many options) whereas up to a point the British did in India.In the instance of India what would have been the position if Gandhi and the independence movement had been up against the brutalities of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia instead of the fundamentally fairminded though too often hypocritical and smug British? I doubt whether non-violence would have had the victory it enjoyed if facing ruthless murderers -which despite all their faults in India the British were not (notwithstanding Amritsar).Even Kipling the poet of the British Empire knew how tranistory and vainglorious the whole imperial apparatus was.

As to America it took a bloody civil war to end slavery, and I'm afraid I don't fully understand your reference to ceding power to women.But the point is that power elites in the Anglo-American culture were never monolithic and there were always strong morally compelling voices on both sides of the Atlantic who would stand up to the power elite and demand a reckoning.

In Thailand those who stand up to the power elite are generally marginalised and sometimes crushed and you are right there is no leader of real quality.In my view the late Dr Pridi came closest.The current set of leaders from the corrupt tycoon offshore to the self serving dinosaurs onshore are a deeply unattractive and morally dispiriting collection.A curse on both their houses, and lets hope there are those in the wings who will serve the Thai people better, though sadly there is no sign of them.

[chevykanteve]

How often in political history does the elite, or the group firmly entrenched in power, give up the power without a violent struggle? The answer is - occasionally, but seldom. The American White men ceded much power to darker-skinned minorities, and to women. The British Empire, to India. Ferdinand Marcos, to people power.

Why is it that so far, Thailand has no equivalent to Gandhi or to Martin Luther King, Jr.?

The question you pose is interesting although the Marcos example doesn't really fit (because he didn't have too many options) whereas up to a point the British did in India.In the instance of India what would have been the position if Gandhi and the independence movement had been up against the brutalities of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia instead of the fundamentally fairminded though too often hypocritical and smug British? I doubt whether non-violence would have had the victory it enjoyed if facing ruthless murderers -which despite all their faults in India the British were not (notwithstanding Amritsar).Even Kipling the poet of the British Empire knew how tranistory and vainglorious the whole imperial apparatus was.

As to America it took a bloody civil war to end slavery, and I'm afraid I don't fully understand your reference to ceding power to women.But the point is that power elites in the Anglo-American culture were never monolithic and there were always strong morally compelling voices on both sides of the Atlantic who would stand up to the power elite and demand a reckoning.

In Thailand those who stand up to the power elite are generally marginalised and sometimes crushed and you are right there is no leader of real quality.In my view the late Dr Pridi came closest.The current set of leaders from the corrupt tycoon offshore to the self serving dinosaurs onshore are a deeply unattractive and morally dispiriting collection.A curse on both their houses, and lets hope there are those in the wings who will serve the Thai people better, though sadly there is no sign of them.

If my memory serves me right, this is from Kipling's Departmental Ditties:

The 'eathen, in his blindness

Bows down to wood & stone

'E don't obey no orders,

Unless they is 'is own

'E keeps 'is side-arms awful,

'E lays them all about

'An then comes in the Regiment

'An pokes the 'eathen out

I always kind of liked Kipling. He was an honest fellow.

[solo siam]

If my memory serves me right, this is from Kipling's Departmental Ditties:

The 'eathen, in his blindness

Bows down to wood & stone

'E don't obey no orders,

Unless they is 'is own

'E keeps 'is side-arms awful,

'E lays them all about

'An then comes in the Regiment

'An pokes the 'eathen out

I always kind of liked Kipling. He was an honest fellow.

He also made exceedingly good cakes.

[kenk3z]

This will all be solved when the foreigners gain sufficient influence to come in and straighten things out, George Bush style. Quite the model of democratic reform for the people.

So, the image you can find of American troops lounging around in Saddam Hussein's Grand Palaces will be mirrored with the same images in the Grand Palace near the CP river.

Then of course, the problem will be solved. No more visa issues either. My personal goal here is to become the Provisional Governor of Klong Tuey and drain the resources therein. Along with this all the Thai people shall be driven out into Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia.

I think that must be what the Thais fear, anyway, looking at their foreigner rules system.

kenk3z

[chevykanteve]

This will all be solved when the foreigners gain sufficient influence to come in and straighten things out, George Bush style. Quite the model of democratic reform for the people.

So, the image you can find of American troops lounging around in Saddam Hussein's Grand Palaces will be mirrored with the same images in the Grand Palace near the CP river.

Then of course, the problem will be solved. No more visa issues either. My personal goal here is to become the Provisional Governor of Klong Tuey and drain the resources therein. Along with this all the Thai people shall be driven out into Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia.

I think that must be what the Thais fear, anyway, looking at their foreigner rules system.

kenk3z

What are you talking about?? Can you summarize your main point(s) in a sentence or two?

[Jimjim]

This will all be solved when the foreigners gain sufficient influence to come in and straighten things out, George Bush style. Quite the model of democratic reform for the people.

So, the image you can find of American troops lounging around in Saddam Hussein's Grand Palaces will be mirrored with the same images in the Grand Palace near the CP river.

Then of course, the problem will be solved. No more visa issues either. My personal goal here is to become the Provisional Governor of Klong Tuey and drain the resources therein. Along with this all the Thai people shall be driven out into Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia.

I think that must be what the Thais fear, anyway, looking at their foreigner rules system.

kenk3z

What are you talking about?? Can you summarize your main point(s) in a sentence or two?

He's obviously being sarcastic by the use of satire. It's more a comment on U.S. foreign policy than anything to do with Thailand.