The Long March Back To The Barracks

[bingobongo]

well done boys in green, well done.......the boys in green are not going anywhere, welcome to your police state.......

The long march back to the barracks

The danger is now that the charter will succeed too well and Thailand will be back to weak governments.

This would suit the military-royalist elite. They could go back to running the country from behind the scenes. But there is a risk of stagnation. Thailand's economy is already growing slower than its neighbours' in part because of the continuing political uncertainty. A fractious coalition government, or one run by bumbling generals, might make things worse.

The army may have doomed Thailand to further cycles of constitution, crisis and coup. The next flashpoint may not be far off.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...tory_id=9687376

[ColPyat]

Another solid article by the economist.

[LaoPo]

I second that and I think it's a must read article, so I post it here completely:

Thailand's referendum

The long march back to the barracks

Aug 23rd 2007

From The Economist.

There may be such a thing as a good coup; Thailand's was certainly not one

FROM Pakistan to Fiji, from Bangladesh to Thailand, the men in green are finding what they should have known all along: that it is far easier for soldiers to topple an elected government than to manage their own exit from the front of the political stage. Many generals, however, never learn that lesson. What is surprising in Thailand, which on August 19th held a referendum designed to smooth their exit (see article), is that so many of the country's elite cheered them on when they staged their coup a year ago. Critics of the coup—such as this newspaper—were denounced for misunderstanding both the depth of the evil of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister they deposed, and the wonders of Thailand itself.

We had no fondness for Mr Thaksin: the human-rights abuses perpetrated by the security forces on his watch were deplorable and some of his nationalist economic policies were loopy. But he had a mandate. His Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party won 375 of the 500 lower-house seats in the last valid election, in 2005. Democracy produces some nasty leaders. But that is no reason for ditching it. Even the best-intentioned coups leave an ugly mess, such as that now facing Thailand.

((edit))

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...tory_id=9687376

LaoPo

[canadiangirl]

Another solid article by the economist.

I love the Economist! I find them well-balanced, and they try to state their biases when they have them.

[Ricardo]

Another solid article by the economist.

I love the Economist! I find them well-balanced, and they try to state their biases when they have them.

Agreed - they are good journalists - and I personally find that the F.T. also tends to present the facts, for you to base your own opinions on, and keep the editorialising to the Editorials only.

But they make the common mistake of taking the start of the crisis as having been the coup itself.

I myself see Thaksin's decision to call an un-necessary election, rather than step down himself as PM & TRT-leader, as being the act which precipitated the string of events which led eventually to the coup.

He put his own interests ahead of the party/government/country's.

[kmart]

Any financial news outlet, Economist; Wall St Journal; Financial Times is ten times more reliable than the vested interest rest of the pack. Plainly speaking, economics and figures do not (usually) lie.

I was surprised to learn that this new & improved "Constitution" is Thailand's 18th since absolute monarchy was abolished.... Another one written in sand...?

[Johpa]

Any financial news outlet, Economist; Wall St Journal; Financial Times is ten times more reliable than the vested interest rest of the pack. Plainly speaking, economics and figures do not (usually) lie.

I was surprised to learn that this new & improved "Constitution" is Thailand's 18th since absolute monarchy was abolished.... Another one written in sand...?

Constitution's written in the sand perhaps are fitting for those with their heads buried in same. The Economist. Wall St Journal, and Financial Times like to take economic data and statistics and explicate them in a manner to promote their own rather conservative vested interests, exactly like the rest of the pack.

[quiksilva]

I agree they are usually pretty good but pure speculation like this amounts to little more than scaremongering:

the generals may have another go at pushing through a draconian security law, giving the army sweeping new powers to override the elected government and make arrests, search homes without warrants and impose curfews and censorship. All this in the name of combating threats to “internal security”, defined so broadly that the army could treat pretty well any dissent as such.

They sound so certain that this will happen, okay fine but based on what? If they are going to make statements such as that, they should be responsible enough to qualify themselves. Granted it is just an opinion but I expect better from them.

Kmart you say that figures do not usually lie, have you ever heard of Benjamin Disraeli's three kinds of lies? "...Lies, D*mned Lies and Statistics"

Edited August 24, 2007 by quiksilva

[jumnien]

It doesn't take a Chiang Mai astrologer to figure out what the generals are up to!

[LongThaimer]

well done boys in green, well done.......the boys in green are not going anywhere, welcome to your police state.......

The long march back to the barracks

The danger is now that the charter will succeed too well and Thailand will be back to weak governments.

This would suit the military-royalist elite. They could go back to running the country from behind the scenes. But there is a risk of stagnation. Thailand's economy is already growing slower than its neighbours' in part because of the continuing political uncertainty. A fractious coalition government, or one run by bumbling generals, might make things worse.

The army may have doomed Thailand to further cycles of constitution, crisis and coup. The next flashpoint may not be far off.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...tory_id=9687376

People didn't took to the streets in protest when Thaksin was committing extra judicial killings during the war on drugs, or killing muslims in the south. For most people, for a long time, whatever Thaksin was doing was "the ends justy the means" until people realized that he was in the politics for the MONEY as well !!!!!!! popular notion among Thais was that this guy was RICH, so he wouldn't steal from the people, RIGHT???? WRONG.... they finally figured out that his policies were geared for corruption, to get RICHER. How many corruption scandals did Thai public had to endure durign his term, (or unfinished term) ????? How about that sensational tax-free sales of their telecom shares ??? Airport construction concessions ???? Working class people have grown tired of the politicians ripping the country off even if they had the mandate to rule the country, whatever. Systematic, blatant abuse of loopholes in the legal system by him and his cronies to enrich themselves finally triggered his removal.

To add a bit more perspective to the Economist's story.....

Mention North Korea, Burma, THE perfectionists of ruthless military dictatorships; regimes capable of and inflicting horrendous abuses on their own citizens. To the psssimists, keep in mind, rich countries have invested billions in this country, Thailand is ruled by a revered monarch........and above all, Thai generals are puppies compared to those real baddies in Northe Korea and Burma, believe me they wouldn't know how to turn Thailand into REAL police state even if they were asked to. That is a reassuring thought, indeed !!!!

[lazeeboy]

well done boys in green, well done.......the boys in green are not going anywhere, welcome to your police state.......

The long march back to the barracks

The danger is now that the charter will succeed too well and Thailand will be back to weak governments.

This would suit the military-royalist elite. They could go back to running the country from behind the scenes. But there is a risk of stagnation. Thailand's economy is already growing slower than its neighbours' in part because of the continuing political uncertainty. A fractious coalition government, or one run by bumbling generals, might make things worse.

The army may have doomed Thailand to further cycles of constitution, crisis and coup. The next flashpoint may not be far off.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...tory_id=9687376

People didn't took to the streets in protest when Thaksin was committing extra judicial killings during the war on drugs, or killing muslims in the south. For most people, for a long time, whatever Thaksin was doing was "the ends justy the means" until people realized that he was in the politics for the MONEY as well !!!!!!! popular notion among Thais was that this guy was RICH, so he wouldn't steal from the people, RIGHT???? WRONG.... they finally figured out that his policies were geared for corruption, to get RICHER. How many corruption scandals did Thai public had to endure durign his term, (or unfinished term) ????? How about that sensational tax-free sales of their telecom shares ??? Airport construction concessions ???? Working class people have grown tired of the politicians ripping the country off even if they had the mandate to rule the country, whatever. Systematic, blatant abuse of loopholes in the legal system by him and his cronies to enrich themselves finally triggered his removal.

To add a bit more perspective to the Economist's story.....

Mention North Korea, Burma, THE perfectionists of ruthless military dictatorships; regimes capable of and inflicting horrendous abuses on their own citizens. To the psssimists, keep in mind, rich countries have invested billions in this country, Thailand is ruled by a revered monarch........and above all, Thai generals are puppies compared to those real baddies in Northe Korea and Burma, believe me they wouldn't know how to turn Thailand into REAL police state even if they were asked to. That is a reassuring thought, indeed !!!!

could'nt agree more.....

[SiamSquare123]

"This would suit the military-royalist elite."

Are we know allowed to talk badly of the Royalists? This is illegal in Thailand and I am surprised the TV mods are allowing it.

[ColPyat]

"This would suit the military-royalist elite."

Are we know allowed to talk badly of the Royalists? This is illegal in Thailand and I am surprised the TV mods are allowing it.

Wrong - criticizing royalists is not illegal. Criticizing the Royal family, or the institution is. There is a difference.

[samran]

"This would suit the military-royalist elite."

Are we know allowed to talk badly of the Royalists? This is illegal in Thailand and I am surprised the TV mods are allowing it.

Wrong - criticizing royalists is not illegal. Criticizing the Royal family, or the institution is. There is a difference.

nevertheless I would warn people to chose their words EXTREMELY carefully when replying to this thread.

[mrtoad]

As always, another good article from The Economist. I also think some of the opinions expressed in that article are quite well founded when matched with history.

No wonder it isn't a popular read for certain governments around the world.

[thedude]

Also appearing in the Economist print edition.......

Not a vote for the generals

Aug 23rd 2007 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

What will Thailand's generals do if Thaksin Shinawatra's supporters look like winning the coming election?

THAILAND'S army chiefs seem to have overestimated their popularity, as military dictators often do. They staged a massive propaganda effort to get people to turn out and vote in August 19th's referendum—the country's first ever—and to say yes to a new constitution written by a military-appointed panel. Yet the turnout was a tepid 58%. And though the constitution was approved, the yes vote was just 57%. Some of those voting yes will have done so only because the passing of the constitution paves the way for elections, promised for December. They were voting to hasten the end of the military dictatorship, not to express support for it.

The referendum showed that Thailand remains deeply divided: in the poor and populous north-east, a stronghold of Thaksin Shinawatra, the elected prime minister deposed in last September's coup, 62% voted to reject the charter. In the south, a stronghold of the Democrats, the main opposition in the last elected parliament, the yes vote was 88%. In recent months, graft-busting panels appointed by the military have begun to bring corruption cases against Mr Thaksin, who is exiled in Britain. In the week leading up to the referendum, the Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for him, for failing to appear at a hearing for alleged corruption over his wife's purchase of a chunk of prime state-owned land in Bangkok. But the high rejection rate for the generals' constitution in Mr Thaksin's heartlands suggests that his popularity has largely survived the efforts to discredit him.

After the referendum on August 19th, General Surayud Chulanont, the prime minister, insisted that elections would "definitely" be held in late December. But three days later General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the army chief, felt obliged to deny rumours, which had caused a stockmarket slump, that some sort of further coup was in the works.

Mr Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party was dissolved in May by a Constitutional Tribunal set up by the junta, for misdeeds in a general election held in 2006 and subsequently annulled. He and over 100 of his cronies were barred from politics for five years. However, more than 200 former TRT parliamentarians subsequently joined the obscure People's Power Party (PPP). Their numbers comfortably exceed the 96 seats that the Democrats won in the last valid election, in 2005 (compared with TRT's 375). So the PPP may enter the coming election campaign as frontrunner.

The prospect of a reborn Thaksinite party leading the next government is surely not one the generals would relish. The plan, it is assumed, was that after TRT's demise Thailand would return to the weak and short-lived coalition governments that had preceded its rise to power in 2001. Several changes in the new constitution—such as the merging of single-seat constituencies into larger ones in which the second- and third-placed candidates would also win seats—seem designed to give lesser parties more of a chance and thus increase the likelihood of unstable multi-party coalitions.

If so, the royalist-military elite who staged the coup would be able to return to exerting influence behind the scenes, as they did in pre-Thaksin times. General Sonthi has even been flirting with the idea of standing for parliament himself, hoping to be invited, in the absence of an alternative leader, to be prime minister at the head of such a coalition government.

However, if the PPP won hundreds of seats and emerged as the mainstay of the next government, these hopes would be dashed. Even more alarming for the generals, the PPP has been courting Samak Sundaravej, a fiery right-winger and former governor of Bangkok, to be its leader. Mr Samak is a fierce critic of General Prem Tinsulanonda, a former prime minister who is chief adviser to King Bhumibol and, it is widely assumed, was the driving force behind the coup. By a convenient coincidence, this week the auditor-general's office suddenly announced plans to bring charges against Mr Samak over four-year-old corruption allegations.

In the generals' worst nightmares, the Thaksinites win control of the government and use their power to fix things so that Mr Thaksin gets off his corruption charges and his ban from politics is lifted. Then they amend the just-approved constitution to remove the amnesty that it grants to the coup-makers. It seems unlikely that the army will let this happen.

A compromise is still imaginable, for instance if a PPP-led coalition chooses a more emollient prime minister. One name being mentioned a lot in Bangkok is that of Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, an elderly former general who is said to have reasonably good relations with both Mr Thaksin and General Prem, and a strong desire to return to politics. Mr Chavalit, however, had a disastrous stint as prime minister ten years ago. His government badly mishandled Thailand's financial crisis, which soon spread to much of the rest of Asia.

Several more months, at least, of uncertainty lie ahead. By the time the election is held—assuming it goes ahead on schedule—Thailand's political agony will have dragged on for two years. This has taken a toll on the economy, which is expected to grow by only 4% this year, much less than the rest of South-East Asia. Even in this respect, the generals cannot boast that they have done better than the politicians.

[Felt 35]

Thai generals are puppies compared to those real baddies in Northe Korea and Burma, believe me they wouldn't know how to turn Thailand into REAL police state even if they were asked to.

http://www.phuketgazette.com/news/index.asp?id=5906

said that it would be hard to stage the concert by night as Burmese are not allowed to go out after 8 pm unless accompanied by their employer.

The regulation is just one of many imposed on Burmese workers in Phuket and other provinces with large numbers of migrant workers. Other rules forbid Burmese workers riding motorcycles and using mobile phones.

[LaoPo]

Thai generals are puppies compared to those real baddies in Northe Korea and Burma, believe me they wouldn't know how to turn Thailand into REAL police state even if they were asked to.

http://www.phuketgazette.com/news/index.asp?id=5906

said that it would be hard to stage the concert by night as Burmese are not allowed to go out after 8 pm unless accompanied by their employer.

The regulation is just one of many imposed on Burmese workers in Phuket and other provinces with large numbers of migrant workers. Other rules forbid Burmese workers riding motorcycles and using mobile phones.

That's sick....Thai discrimination at it's finest.

Where would Phuket be without these 30.000 Burmese workers...?

LaoPo

[MiG16]

the economist journalist put into much more eloquent words what I have been talking to friends about for some months now.....in particular the in-built mechanism to ensure no big party has dominance or popularity. government can only be formed with coalition of 3 or even more parties. a lot more room to manuveur with the various players, as opposed to trying to deal with one person, one party who doesnt need the seats from other parties to form government.

to put simply:

in the past prior TRT, the cake was 3 pounds..but split maybe 5 shares

TRT era: cake still 3 pounds, shared with none

many were missing out...so obviously not happy.

[Ulysses G.]

the economist journalist put into much more eloquent words what I have been talking to friends about for some months now.....in particular the in-built mechanism to ensure no big party has dominance or popularity. government can only be formed with coalition of 3 or even more parties. a lot more room to manuveur with the various players, as opposed to trying to deal with one person, one party who doesnt need the seats from other parties to form government.

to put simply:

in the past prior TRT, the cake was 3 pounds..but split maybe 5 shares

TRT era: cake still 3 pounds, shared with none

many were missing out...so obviously not happy.

Actually:

TRT era: cake still 3 pounds, 2 pounds shared with POOR PEOPLE

That is why they love him and everyone else is so frightened of him.

[Johpa]

the economist journalist put into much more eloquent words what I have been talking to friends about for some months now.....in particular the in-built mechanism to ensure no big party has dominance or popularity. government can only be formed with coalition of 3 or even more parties. a lot more room to manuveur with the various players, as opposed to trying to deal with one person, one party who doesnt need the seats from other parties to form government.

to put simply:

in the past prior TRT, the cake was 3 pounds..but split maybe 5 shares

TRT era: cake still 3 pounds, shared with none

many were missing out...so obviously not happy.

The Economist journalist does not have a clue.

The "in-built mechanism" simply insures that the long-standing ruling elite composed of the old high Sakdina families, many now intermarried with their partners in the Bangkok Sino-Thai business community (banks , etc) , and their hired protectors in the military and police (neo-Samurai) will not be excluded again from obtaining what they perceive as their fare share of the pie (or cake) as politics is still perceived in Thailand as the art of kin muang.

Their real fear is not another greedy Thaksin who refused to share the pie sufficiently (the real sufficiency economy), as they are all probably secretly envious of the Shinawats, but the fear that a future political candidate with charisma, perhaps one with good intentions, could use "populist" democratic sentiment to take away their pie altogether. What they really fear is a Thai version of Hugo Chavez.

[LongThaimer]

Thai generals are puppies compared to those real baddies in Northe Korea and Burma, believe me they wouldn't know how to turn Thailand into REAL police state even if they were asked to.

http://www.phuketgazette.com/news/index.asp?id=5906

said that it would be hard to stage the concert by night as Burmese are not allowed to go out after 8 pm unless accompanied by their employer.

The regulation is just one of many imposed on Burmese workers in Phuket and other provinces with large numbers of migrant workers. Other rules forbid Burmese workers riding motorcycles and using mobile phones.

That's sick....Thai discrimination at it's finest.

Where would Phuket be without these 30.000 Burmese workers...?

LaoPo

Do I already see a sinister experiment by Thai police on these helpless immigrant workers before moving on to their own citizens???

A sad as it is, I do not see any justice for these epeople even when the Thais are still at each other's throats !!!!.

[bingobongo]

the economist journalist put into much more eloquent words what I have been talking to friends about for some months now.....in particular the in-built mechanism to ensure no big party has dominance or popularity. government can only be formed with coalition of 3 or even more parties. a lot more room to manuveur with the various players, as opposed to trying to deal with one person, one party who doesnt need the seats from other parties to form government.

to put simply:

in the past prior TRT, the cake was 3 pounds..but split maybe 5 shares

TRT era: cake still 3 pounds, shared with none

many were missing out...so obviously not happy.

The Economist journalist does not have a clue.

The "in-built mechanism" simply insures that the long-standing ruling elite composed of the old high Sakdina families, many now intermarried with their partners in the Bangkok Sino-Thai business community (banks , etc) , and their hired protectors in the military and police (neo-Samurai) will not be excluded again from obtaining what they perceive as their fare share of the pie (or cake) as politics is still perceived in Thailand as the art of kin muang.

Their real fear is not another greedy Thaksin who refused to share the pie sufficiently (the real sufficiency economy), as they are all probably secretly envious of the Shinawats, but the fear that a future political candidate with charisma, perhaps one with good intentions, could use "populist" democratic sentiment to take away their pie altogether. What they really fear is a Thai version of Hugo Chavez.

Economist has no clue, but a guy who has an alcohol bottle as an avatar is an expert......right

[track61]

The little I know about Thai politics + what I do know about the opinions of the farmers around my house makes me tend to agree with Ulysses G. My neighbors all miss Thaksin and have what seems to be pretty sound reasons for doing so. Dumb lil' ole me only knows anytime the military throws out a duly elected government it is nothing but bad, and wrong.

I'm new here but how did we get to Burmese workers? Isn't that pretty far off the subject?

[LongThaimer]

The little I know about Thai politics + what I do know about the opinions of the farmers around my house makes me tend to agree with Ulysses G. My neighbors all miss Thaksin and have what seems to be pretty sound reasons for doing so. Dumb lil' ole me only knows anytime the military throws out a duly elected government it is nothing but bad, and wrong.

I'm new here but how did we get to Burmese workers? Isn't that pretty far off the subject?

Let's put it this way..... no prejudice....

That clever git Thaksin manipulated those farmers with his populist policies using public funds and kept the Thai population polarized . Unfortunately, those gullible farmers did not realized that his ulterior motive was to fleece the country with his biased policies and corruption......... until the midddle class rose up and kicked him out.

Till today, for millions of poor farmers and provincial heads who received free handouts and have benefitted from his rule, understandbly, still remained disgruntled .

[kmart]

the economist journalist put into much more eloquent words what I have been talking to friends about for some months now.....in particular the in-built mechanism to ensure no big party has dominance or popularity. government can only be formed with coalition of 3 or even more parties. a lot more room to manuveur with the various players, as opposed to trying to deal with one person, one party who doesnt need the seats from other parties to form government.

to put simply:

in the past prior TRT, the cake was 3 pounds..but split maybe 5 shares

TRT era: cake still 3 pounds, shared with none

many were missing out...so obviously not happy.

The Economist journalist does not have a clue.

The "in-built mechanism" simply insures that the long-standing ruling elite composed of the old high Sakdina families, many now intermarried with their partners in the Bangkok Sino-Thai business community (banks , etc) , and their hired protectors in the military and police (neo-Samurai) will not be excluded again from obtaining what they perceive as their fare share of the pie (or cake) as politics is still perceived in Thailand as the art of kin muang.

Their real fear is not another greedy Thaksin who refused to share the pie sufficiently (the real sufficiency economy), as they are all probably secretly envious of the Shinawats, but the fear that a future political candidate with charisma, perhaps one with good intentions, could use "populist" democratic sentiment to take away their pie altogether. What they really fear is a Thai version of Hugo Chavez.

Whatever. The Thai people will get the government they deserve, same as anyone else.

[canuckamuck]

Let's put it this way..... no prejudice....

That clever git Thaksin manipulated those farmers with his populist policies using public funds and kept the Thai population polarized . Unfortunately, those gullible farmers did not realized that his ulterior motive was to fleece the country with his biased policies and corruption......... until the midddle class rose up and kicked him out.

Till today, for millions of poor farmers and provincial heads who received free handouts and have benefitted from his rule, understandbly, still remained disgruntled .

There are always those who are so biased that they can no longer identify nuetral ground.

These are the ones that find a greedy junta to be superior to a greedy elected official. I prefer the one that doesn't require armed rebellion to remove it

[Johpa]

Economist has no clue, but a guy who has an alcohol bottle as an avatar is an expert......right

If there is one thing I frown upon more than ad hominem arguments it is attacks based upon one's chosen avatar.

[MiG16]

the economist journalist put into much more eloquent words what I have been talking to friends about for some months now.....in particular the in-built mechanism to ensure no big party has dominance or popularity. government can only be formed with coalition of 3 or even more parties. a lot more room to manuveur with the various players, as opposed to trying to deal with one person, one party who doesnt need the seats from other parties to form government.

to put simply:

in the past prior TRT, the cake was 3 pounds..but split maybe 5 shares

TRT era: cake still 3 pounds, shared with none

many were missing out...so obviously not happy.

Actually:

TRT era: cake still 3 pounds, 2 pounds shared with POOR PEOPLE

That is why they love him and everyone else is so frightened of him.

certainly theres that too. but what i meant was the part thats skimmed off the growth of the economy by politicians. previously it was always split in different directions, with certainly pay-offs also to military. but now (TRT era) they dont need to share it with other parties, cos they dont need the support of these parties.

in fact if looking at the whole economy, I have to say the pie got bigger, and yes some of the increase finally was going to the poor.

[Ulysses G.]

I know what you meant, however, I always like to point out that Thaksin did some good things for Thailand that he gets little recognition for. After all he was a successful businessman and he helped the people who helped him.

Many Thai people say that the other Thai polititions would always steal ALL the eggs in the basket and never think of the future, where Thaksin would leave a few eggs to hatch into chickens, get pregnant and start the cycle all over again, but at least he left something to grow into more.

In this part of the world, you have to learn to be thankful for small favors!