National Divide Mystifies An Old Friend Of Thailand

[marshbags]

National divide mystifies an old friend of Thailand

Published on September 9, 2009

Ref url:- http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/09/09/opi...on_30111781.php

In an exclusive interview with Nation editor-in-chief Suthichai Yoon, Professor Stephen Young - credited among those who discovered the bronze-age site of Ban Chiang in northeastern Thailand in 1966 (now a Unesco world-heritage site) - deplores the "ridiculous" national division he insists has resulted from Thaksin Shinawatra's "imperial" ambition.

This is the first of a two-part series. See the full version of the interview on the Nation Channel at 2pm this Friday.

Suthichai Yoon: Professor Young, you've been watching Thai politics closely, the red shirts, the yellow shirts, and of course you are part of Thailand as well. You grew up here, you went to the international school here. Looking from afar now, what do you think of Thailand; does it still have a future?

Professor Young: Well, I think that's the right question to ask. If you look at Thailand from afar, most foreigners don't know much about what's going on. The Western idea, the Western press coverage is very superficial.

SY: Even the New York Times?

PY: Yes, the New York Times especially. The Washington Post. The Economist. Foreigners don't know the way the Thais think. I'm more worried now about Thailand than ever before. When I first came here in 1961, that was 48 years ago, and my father was the American ambassador, we had a wonderful family relationship with Thailand. Maybe different from many foreigners. I don't speak Thai so well anymore, but I have a feeling that there's something special to us, to our family, my father, my mother, or myself, my brother, my sister about Thailand. We care about Thailand. My dad was close to His Majesty, close to [ex-PM Field Marshal] Sarit [Thanarat], and in 1961 there was this [big] gap between the Bangkok elite and the rural poor, a real gap. So, today, 2009, when I hear the red shirts say there's a gap between Bangkok and ban nok [upcountry], I think it's ridiculous. Today, there's a gap, but in 1961 it was much bigger.

I just went back to Ban Chiang. When I went there 43 years ago, there was no electricity, no flush toilet, and if you needed hot water, you had to boil it. Chicken was too expensive. You had to eat little fish from the pond. Today there's electricity, flush toilets, hot water and ATM machines. Most of the houses have Internet.

SY: At that time, there wasn't even a telephone.

PY: No telephone. Radios. I remember we had radios with batteries. The strongest station was communist Chinese, broadcasting Chinese propaganda, so I remembered sitting in Ban Chiang listening to Chinese communist propaganda, and in Thai.

SY: From Beijing?

PY: From Beijing. Radio Beijing. Today it's television, international television. The people are watching soccer games in Europe. The people have cell phones. A lady who was with me was calling another lady to tell the car to pick me up at the airport. This is modern Thailand. So many changes. In 1961 it was my dad, with the passion of His Majesty and Field Marshal Sarit. He was a dictator, a military dictator, he was a tough guy, but he cared about the people, especially Isaan [the Northeast], and His Majesty also cared about Isaan. So the government began all these programmes. The roads in Ban Chiang are all cement. Before, it was dirt road. Thailand has done so much and I think in particular, the people in Bangkok, the Bangkok elite. In particular His Majesty deserves appreciation for what he's done for Thailand. So when I hear all these strange things about Thailand not having this and that, the need to change, some intellectuals want to run a revolution or something, I think this is crazy. It makes no sense to me.

SY: Why do you think they have this rumbling about change?

PY: My feeling, quite frankly, is that this goes back to the ambition of one man.

SY: Thaksin?

PY: Thaksin. And I ask myself why is he such a threat to Thailand?

SY: You knew him before?

PY: No. Only by reputation. When I first heard of him, when he started the Shin Corporation, what I heard was: he's a police major who got a contract from the government for telephones after one of the coups. Now I ask myself, back then, 1993, something like that, how do you get a contract from the government? What do you have to do to get a contract? And I noticed Khun Thaksin made more money, became more wealthy, all because he has a government licence.

SY: A monopoly.

PY: A monopoly, not because he was out there working like other people. He had a monopoly that the government gave him. The Thai people represented by the government gave him an exclusive, elitist, monopolistic special privilege. This is aristocracy. This is elitism. This is not a man who started poor in a village and worked his way up. He has special connections and I've seen him use many special connections. But I've never seen Thai society so divided. Even the divisions over the West during the time of King Rama 4 and 5 were not this serious, neither was the division over the communists. The communists failed in Thailand. They could not divide the Thai people.

Thaksin has divided the Thai people and this is sad. The Thai people should not be so divided and angry. Even my family friends, the family is divided. Some of the brothers and sisters are yellow, and some are red. And around the dinner table, they argue and get angry. So I think ... sabai ... where did it go?

SY: But Thaksin claimed that he changed the face of Thai politics. He made the masses, the rural people, speak up for the first time. It's the first time they benefited from politics. They can touch, consume and eat politics.

PY: I think that's ridiculous. Rural people in their communities have always had their patrons. They can always have some influence in this group and that group. I have my view, my patron. I look up to you, you take care of me. You are at the provincial level and you reach the Bangkok level, so I can get it to the Bangkok level only through you. This has been true for a long time.

Thaksin is in exile. He wants a pardon, he wants his money back, he doesn't want the conviction. Other Thai political leaders have not acted like that, if you look back.

SY: All the way back to Pridi Panomyong?

PY: Before that. We had the coup of 1932 and Prince Nakornsawan, the powerful Chakri prince, was asked to leave. He did, and he died in exile and never came back. His Majesty King Prachatipok felt there was a new situation and he abdicated. He went to England. He died in England. At his cremation, in 1941 I think, there were his queen and several relatives. No complaints. Pridi: He felt the situation changed. He left. General Pao, the powerful police general, left when Sarit took over and did not come back. Sarit, after he died, there was an argument how much money he made and the government took the money back. The family did not argue. Khun Thanom lost his money and went into exile. So I ask myself why is Thaksin different? Why doesn't he think like a Thai?

SY: Why?

PY: I think it's because he's not really a Thai Thai. He has other ideas in his head. He does not say kreng jai. He does not think about merit and sin. He thinks about how he can be a powerful man. He wants to be the leader of everybody, the big boss of everybody. This kind of thinking to me reflects not Thai Buddhism, but Chinese imperial thinking. The imperial thinking of the Chinese emperor. The Chinese theory. If you read about this, and I've studied a lot about it, we see this thinking.

So everything that Thaksin does, how he ran his government, how he put his money here and there, it's just like 2,000 years ago. Same thinking. This idea was that, above the earth is heaven, or tian, and there's one man- and underneath is everybody else. And when Thaksin wants to control the government, police, army, judges, businesses, TV, newspapers - that's bringing everything under him. No Thai leader in history has ever tried to do this. King Naresuen never tried to do this. King Rama I didn't try to do this. This is something new and different. Therefore, the Thai people are divided over this. Something new was added by Thaksin.

Professor Stephen B Young is the global executive director of the Caux Round Table and an editorial commentator for Twin Cities Daily Planet newswire. He was educated at the International School Bangkok, Harvard College (graduating Magna Cum Laude) and Harvard Law School (graduating Cum Laude). He was a former assistant dean at Harvard Law School and former dean of Hamline University School of Law. He is widely recognised for his knowledge of Asian history and politics, and has taught at various prestigious institutes. His articles have been published in well-known newspapers including the New York Times.

-- The Nation 09-09-09

Edited September 9, 2009 by marshbags

[LawnGnome]

Tough to argue, although I bet some will give it a try.

[Jingthing]

Fantastic interview. Why is this one man threatening the peace and stability of this great nation? It is just wrong.

The other thing that continually amazes me are the numerous intelligent foreigners that support Thaksin. They should know better! Under the rationalization that Thaksin was "democratically" elected they buy into the lie that the red shirt movement is a pro democracy movement. Clearly, it is not. It is a pro Thaksin as total dictator movement.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Jingthing

[DP25]

Wonderful article and spot on

Edited September 9, 2009 by DP25

[cmsally]

Briefly, I find the article incredibly condescending on 2 points.

One that the provincial people should be incredibly grateful for what they have received, and it implies know their place.

Also those that challenge power and have to leave the country should go away and simply die - never comeback.

He sounds like a bit of a bad TAT advert and was presumably requested to do this interview.

Surely he must realise how much development has shifted people's expectations and how this in turn means there is a need for a government that is seen to work for the people as well as having a mandate from the people.

[citizen33]

Wonderful article and spot on

One must afford respect to Professor Young's background and experience, but I for one do not see much plausibility in the 'one man' explanation of Thailand's contemporary situation. I'd say that the impact of global economic and institutional forces on a traditional society counts for more. Young's dismissal of claims regarding the inequality 'gap' as ridiculous also struck me as wide of the mark. Clearly he comes from a certain social background and grew up at a time when his father had close connections with the traditional Thai elite of the day, which may not be the best starting point for understanding the present-day perspectives of rural Thais. Young is a leading academic lawyer and has put forward very interesting ideas on the moral foundations of capitalism, but I don't think his credentials in the political science field are such that his views cannot be questioned.

Edited September 9, 2009 by citizen33

[britmaveric]

Nice propaganda piece...

[tso310]

I just went back to Ban Chiang. When I went there 43 years ago, there was no electricity, no flush toilet, and if you needed hot water, you had to boil it. Chicken was too expensive. You had to eat little fish from the pond. Today there's electricity, flush toilets, hot water and ATM machines. Most of the houses have Internet.

He should try going to a real rural Isaan village.

[hearditallbefore]

"What I heard was"??????????????????????????? what the hel_l is that a way to start a moronic tale about Khun Thaksin. Is that the best you can do ?????????

Thanks but no thanks, and you can stay in America where you belong!!!

[Briggsy]

Professor Young completely glosses over the following:-

the massive inequalities, particularly in terms of wealth and privilege, within Thai society.

the strong regional identities

and the associated political affiliations

and the associated power struggles between the regions

'old money' versus 'new money'

the history of Thailand which has had massive internal conflict numerous times over its recent history.

He seems to be buying into the fairly recent propaganda line that Thailand has always been one harmonious nation under the control of a Bangkok-based constitutional monarchy. He should know better (and probably does).

[Johpa]

Tough to argue, although I bet some will give it a try.

Not hard to so as Young clearly associates with the old elite, even noting his father's closeness to the military dictator Sarit. The basic fallacy of his argument is that it you can't have a division in society by blaming only one side, in this case Thaksin. The old elite that Young's family socialized with is as much to blame in the current division as Thaksin, as they organize and propagandize to protect their own turf. Young is naive to compare the older patron client relationships of yesteryear with Thaksin using political promises of the State to provide some services to the rural poor as a vote getter. Thaksin understood that using democratic principles, that the majority of the voters are rural poor, that he could win their votes and get elected. Future, and perhaps more noble politicians, could do the same. Of course Thaksin, like every other Thai politician, went ahead and used his position for personal gain.

There are a few other errors. The Shinawat family is not some piss poor rural family and had some minor connections up in Chiang Mai that allowed them to get the funding for the "silk village" a development scheme concocted by development folks including folks from the US AID, people who would have been known by Young's father. Giving out monopolies to families is nothing new in Thailand, going back to Rama IV and Rama V. Whether Thaksin was smart or just lucky obtaining the telecommunications monopoly is open to question.

Young has clearly taken sides on this issue and is blaming Thaksin and is in effect backing his pals within the old guard.

[Travel2003]

I just went back to Ban Chiang. When I went there 43 years ago, there was no electricity, no flush toilet, and if you needed hot water, you had to boil it. Chicken was too expensive. You had to eat little fish from the pond. Today there's electricity, flush toilets, hot water and ATM machines. Most of the houses have Internet.

He should try going to a real rural Isaan village.

Agree.

Strange to see such cheap argument used by such intelligent and skilled man.

My wife's home willage:

Prox 3000 people I guess. No ATM, not much internet, hardly any flush toilets (by choice I believe).

Electricity yes.

The only biggie is mobile phones.

Seems to me that Prof. Y think the people in the countryside is supposed to be greatful or something like that, because they do not live in the 19th century anymore.

[LaoPo]

Wonderful article and spot on

One must afford respect to Professor Young's background and experience, but I for one do not see much plausibility in the 'one man' explanation of Thailand's contemporary situation. I'd say that the impact of global economic and institutional forces on a traditional society counts for more. Young's dismissal of claims regarding the inequality 'gap' as ridiculous also struck me as wide of the mark. Clearly he comes from a certain social background and grew up at a time when his father had close connections with the traditional Thai elite of the day, which may not be the best starting point for understanding the present-day perspectives of rural Thais. Young is a leading academic lawyer and has put forward very interesting ideas on the moral foundations of capitalism, but I don't think his credentials in the political science field are such that his views cannot be questioned.

I second your views.

A man with Professor Young's reputation is to be respected of course but his memories of the '60's are drifting away from reality, between back than and now.

In the years his father was the American Ambassador (they arrived in 1961) Thailand had a little over 26 million people*; there was hardly any television coverage about politics and if there was coverage it was probably controlled; just radio; no internet and maybe a few telex machines.

Nobody had a car, only the elite; nobody but few had a motorbike. Tourists? maybe a few.

We shouldn't forget that Thailand was even more dead poor than it is now; after all it was just some 15 years after WWII ended and the Japanese left Thailand after they first invaded the country in December 1941, transferring it into a softy ally.... ...and sucking it empty for it's own benefit.

He's talking about an era when Jim Thompson was still sipping his whisky on the terrace of the Oriental Hotel and probably knew Young's father as there were just a few Americans in Thailand, before he disappeared in the Cameron Highlands in Malaysia in 1967.

As long as everyone had some food and a job, everybody was happy.

Now we're talking about a Thailand with 65 million people. That's 39 million more people than his memories! and 39 million more than the number of 26 million in his days in the sixties when he was a young boy and visited some rural villages.

To blame the divided population of Thailand on just one man, Thaksin, is far from reality and to blame his (supposedly) Chinese way of thinking** as the cause for all this is absurd since I don't know where he would find evidence for that since he doesn't know the man personally.

It is even more strange to say so since it's odd to blame someone for Chinese thinking a la a Chinese Emperor since his great-great-grandfather (and that's a long time ago) arrived in -than- Siam some 150 years ago, in 1860.

I think Mr. Young, with the utmost respect, thinks a little bit with an influenced American propaganda fed brain about the "Chinese" way of thinking. But, that's not surprising as the American press is feeding their readers with an anti China sentiment since decades.

And, it might be correct that Thaksin was granted a monopoly for his mobile phone adventure which made him so wealthy but the ultimate 1-MILLION-DOLLAR-QUESTION is:

WHO granted him that monopoly ?

Were that the powers (behind the velvet curtains) not to be named ?

But if not...who were they? Did they benefit ? If not, why not? If they did...how much ? I could go on.

SO, concluding: Thaksin might have been (or still is) a financial crook, but to blame the dividing of Thailand's population on just one man is a bit, shall we say.... naive?

* * http://web.nso.go.th/eng/en/pop2000/prelim_e.htm

** This kind of thinking to me reflects not Thai Buddhism, but Chinese imperial thinking. The imperial thinking of the Chinese emperor. The Chinese theory. If you read about this, and I've studied a lot about it, we see this thinking.....<snip>....it's just like 2,000 years ago. Same thinking.

I think it would be better for Mr. Young to stay away from politics.

LaoPo

[Orac]

I just went back to Ban Chiang. When I went there 43 years ago, there was no electricity, no flush toilet, and if you needed hot water, you had to boil it. Chicken was too expensive. You had to eat little fish from the pond. Today there's electricity, flush toilets, hot water and ATM machines. Most of the houses have Internet.

He should try going to a real rural Isaan village.

Agree.

Strange to see such cheap argument used by such intelligent and skilled man.

My wife's home willage:

Prox 3000 people I guess. No ATM, not much internet, hardly any flush toilets (by choice I believe).

Electricity yes.

The only biggie is mobile phones.

Seems to me that Prof. Y think the people in the countryside is supposed to be greatful or something like that, because they do not live in the 19th century anymore.

Surely it is a dubious argument to say that peoples standards of living have improved so much but then not at least acknowledge that the Thaksin govenment was in power when a lot of this happened, whether they were directly responsible or not.

[Travel2003]

I just went back to Ban Chiang. When I went there 43 years ago, there was no electricity, no flush toilet, and if you needed hot water, you had to boil it. Chicken was too expensive. You had to eat little fish from the pond. Today there's electricity, flush toilets, hot water and ATM machines. Most of the houses have Internet.

He should try going to a real rural Isaan village.

Agree.

Strange to see such cheap argument used by such intelligent and skilled man.

My wife's home willage:

Prox 3000 people I guess. No ATM, not much internet, hardly any flush toilets (by choice I believe).

Electricity yes.

The only biggie is mobile phones.

Seems to me that Prof. Y think the people in the countryside is supposed to be greatful or something like that, because they do not live in the 19th century anymore.

Surely it is a dubious argument to say that peoples standards of living have improved so much but then not at least acknowledge that the Thaksin govenment was in power when a lot of this happened, whether they were directly responsible or not.

Hi

I partly agree with you.

But sometimes it is just a coincidence who is in power when something happen.

Example:

Im pretty sure that the economy have improved vastly by the time present president in USA is finished with his 4 years.

No doubt that he and his administration will try to say it was because of their policies.

Back to Thailand.

Sometimes too easy to just blame the present boss when the shit hit the fan. Very often the present boss keep on going with more or less the same system as before, just modified it the the day and age we are in.

When changes are coming, they normally come very slowly, and few notice the warning signals (if bad changes are coming).

When they come, and thing goes wrong, who is to blaim? The present administration.

Im not going to start arguing if Mr. Thaksin is a crook or not. Or how big/small crook he is.

As other members also have stated, I dont think he did it too different from his predecessors.

I think Its more that modern political times finally have arrived here in Thailand.

And when they do, we can see from history that countries normally are going into a period with poltical turmoil.

[Rumfoord]

PING!

sorry for the fat PING, but at The Nation website is now also a longer version of that interview online.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/09/10...on_30111886.php

[Jingthing]

Thanks for the ping. Everyone should read this interview. It think it is strong enough to change minds. It also explains why the coup happened, basically the abuses of Thaksin, without celebrating the coup.

I have been comparing Thaksin to Chavez and Peron, Latin American dicators "democratically" elected for a long time now. It is gratifying to read this opinion from someone with a much longer experience of Thailand than I have.

SY: In democracy, he says he believes in elections, so every time you challenge him, he will say let's go to the people and have an election. That will prove everything and that's democracy.

PY: It proves nothing. The communists have elections. Stalin had elections. Hitler had elections. An example of where Thailand could go wrong is provided by Juan Peron in Argentina. And Thaksin is closer to the dictators of Latin America than to anybody in Thai history. We see it now with Chavez. They hold elections. They go to the poor people. They blame the rich. They say, poor people, vote for me, I'll punish the rich. We'll take money from the rich and give it to you. So they mobilise 50 per cent of the poor people to attack 30 per cent. Argentina in the 1930s, before Juan Peron, was a very wealthy country.

Also another poster mocked this and mentioned American anti-Chinese bias, but I am sorry, it is the truth, Mr. Thaksin does not act in a Thai manner. He has rocked the boat in disturbing ways. You don't have to Thai to see the obvious. I realize some people actually believe this is part of a sincere poor people's revolution. How can a corrupt man like Thaksin have the moral authority to lead such a thing? Answer, its impossible.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Jingthing

[LaoPo]

Also another poster mocked this and mentioned American anti-Chinese bias, but I am sorry, it is the truth, Mr. Thaksin does not act in a Thai manner. He has rocked the boat in disturbing ways. You don't have to Thai to see the obvious.

What is the Thai way of acting Jingthing ? Doing business less corrupt than he was and is ? The good professor is mentioning a few times that Thaksin was acting like a Chinese, like a Chinese Emperor. How does he know...how do you know ? Ever met an Emperor?

I asked genuine questions about WHO granted Thaksin his monopoly but so far nobody answered; still curious because if HE was/is corrupt, WHO are the other corrupt elite members who granted him the monopoly ? As you know, a high number of the elite have Chinese roots, including an unmentionable family.

Are they as corrupt as Thaksin, or less? Are they also acting as Chinese or as Thai-Chinese or Thai-Thai?

That's why I objected to his vision since Thaksin's family is here since 150 years and there's nothing Chinese anymore on them except their roots.

How many American families have roots that go back 100-150 years ?

What about 225 million people (and more), Jingthing.... because 76 million was the number a mere 109 years ago, in the USA; back in 1900!

And, I don't think that many people still consider most of them still as German Americans, Brazilian Americans, Russian, Irish, Italian, Dutch Americans...I could go on.

Maybe you know, maybe not, but THIS week there's a large delegation from Holland in New York, including the Crown Prince Willem-Alexander and his spouse Princess Maxima who were welcomed by Mr. Bloomberg, Mayor, and Hillary Clinton, your Secretary of State, to celebrate the 400th year of cooperation between Holland and New York -Manhattan was called Nieuw Amsterdam back then- ..........bought for 60 Dutch Guilders and sold by native Indians.

Do the Americans still act as Indians...Germans...Dutch...Italians? ..or are they considered by your government as Americans if they have an American ID and passport, serve in the military, pay taxes or are corrupt for $ 65 Billion as Mr. Madoff was ?

or is the latter just a Jewish American...?

See? that's why I objected.

LaoPo

[p_brownstone]

I asked genuine questions about WHO granted Thaksin his monopoly but so far nobody answered; still curious because if HE was/is corrupt, WHO are the other corrupt elite members who granted him the monopoly ?

LaoPo

The Monopoly was granted by the Government under General Sunthorn Kongsompong who, on his death in 1999, had an Estate valued at over US $ 150 million including a Villa and Wine Estate in France.

Pretty good going on a Generals Salary.

Patrick

[BFD]

Snip...

A lady who was with me was calling another lady to tell the car to pick me up at the airport. This is modern Thailand.

...snip.

Scandalous! I wouldn't even be surprised if one (or both) of the ladies were wearing trousers!!!

While I applaud this guy's condemnation of Thaksin, I still find many of his views outdated and 'quaint'. Thailand simply can't function on a global level if they continue to utilize the Patron systems, for Christ's sake. Similarly, while kreng jai is a wonderful and beautiful concept, it simply bogs down the government in bureaucratic red tape. Returning to the 'old ways' is no longer an option, so let's focus on what is possible.

BFD!

[Xangsamhua]

I asked genuine questions about WHO granted Thaksin his monopoly but so far nobody answered; still curious because if HE was/is corrupt, WHO are the other corrupt elite members who granted him the monopoly ?

LaoPo

The Monopoly was granted by the Government under General Sunthorn Kongsompong who, on his death in 1999, had an Estate valued at over US $ 150 million including a Villa and Wine Estate in France.

Pretty good going on a Generals Salary.

Patrick

Sunthorn and Thaksin were very close. I guess S was T's patron though T regarded Major-General Chamlong as his "mentor" at the time - an odd coupling of elders for the younger T to emulate, but though his business and political ethics may follow Sunthorn's, his domestic ethos seems closer to Chamlong's, despite the politically induced divorce. Sunthorn left his USD150 million to his mia noi, much to his wife's chagrin. (I believe the wife and the mia noi worked things out.) I have seen no evidence that Thaksin is not a loving father and husband, regardless of the divorce (the scuttlebutt about Lydia doesn't seem to have much substance).

[marshbags]

A couple of posts touch on who may or may not have been responsible for the living standards re the village situation.

As an example here is what I have witnessed over the last 8 years or so in my Moo Ban in N.E.Thailand.

In particular this applicable to the years when the TRT and it,s CEO supposedly took care of their needs and alledgedly improved their basic standards of living.

This is not so and while these self same villages similar to my example still believe ( falsely in my opinion ) and are misguided and blinded by pathetic incentives that TRT and in particular the CEO is their saviour who took care of their well being while obscenely and unscrupulously, enriching themselves and their families beyond the term of excessive and avericiuosly greedy, and their Moo Ban elders to a lesser degree to do their dirty work.

The well known traits of village life being that the majority, shall follow the wishes of the Moo Ban Puyai and his little band of cronies.

While the majority outside this little band may not in monetary terms have been considered well off and in fact lots were not so well off.

Many owned their home and had land to farm, make a living and utilise it for self sufficiency and could have been considered, but in my experience were, independent, when times got difficult.

They are now left without a home as the bank or unscrupulous money lenders ( read PUYAI as above. ) owns it.

Most of their farm land belongs to a very limited number of high ranking individuals and groups, in percentage terms that is re local population, who have craftily taken advantage of their lack of funds and most importantly their belief that they are acting in their best interest, so blindly follow what they are fed, information wise and think it is best for them, so sign everything over to them.

They were encouraged to live way beyond their means and buy all and everything the modern world can offer, most of it on get now, pay later schemes with the outcome being that they did in fact believe they were now well off and as a consequence carried on, encouraged by the TRT and it,s CEO that should anything happen, they would take care of them, pay off their debts and not to worry.

Well looking around at all the desperation in my village and the hopelessness this massive and irresponsible debt has given them

the have no hope of providing a future, nor the stability the young desperately need as their much prized land ect. has gone to enrich those who already have an assured future.

Sadly the ones who have put them in this position really do not give a monkies about the present scenario and are using them again to try and regain power and the renewed pillaging, this time of the countries assets and what may be left of theirs.

I could go on but my rant is longer than I expected it to be, so for now I,ll put it on hold.

marshbags

P.S.

My Moo Ban is T Banliem in Udonthani, should anyone who doubts my observations of the TRT years and what is their real effect on this local village has been.

As the contributor, Professor Stephen Young noted when referring to a certain telecom company and it,s very questionable and unethically allowed inception, it all actually started way back and before as far as his long term plans where concerned.

So spend a little time there all you Thaksin believers and see for yourselves the hidden, out of the main stream struggle for survival, human tragedy and desperation in the aftermath of their exiled ones leadership and years in office,along with it,s true implications.

The weaker members sadly, do not get a look in and do not count in his world, once their votes are bought and paid for, come election times.

Edited September 10, 2009 by marshbags

[geriatrickid]

How can anyone take the comments from this product of a life of luxury and privelige seriously? C'mon now. He takes great pride in the fact that his ambassador father was close to the Thai military dictator of the time? Talk about gumption.

I find it odd that the people singing his praises are also the ones that regurgitate their allegations of Thaksin murdering thousands Hello? Earth to zombies. The early 1960's in Thailand was distinguished by a ruthless anti communist campaign, in part pushed and promoted by the US diplomats and administration of that era. Thousands of people were killed during this campaign and yet, this is considered ok? This fellow longs for the return of an era where people disappeared, where torture was commonplace and where the military ruled with an iron fist. Yea, right. great views. He reminds me more of the stodgy Bostonians that were quite distressed by the desegregation efforts that allowed the "negros" into the neighbourhood schools. An incredibly condescending and patronizing, report,but I would expect nothing less from an interview with a member of a group that promotes "moral" capitalism. Yea, right.

If the Nation wants to trash Thaksin, they should at least get someone more current with actual current boots on the ground experience. Mr. Young speaks from the perspective of one that enjoyed the wealth of Bangkok. I doubt he ever did any manual activity while he was in Thailand and most likely had one of those Issan servants to do the menial labour.

[jasreeve17]

Nice propaganda piece...

Agree 100%.

Awful article, outragously biased "My daddy was friends with..."

[Samuian]

Thanks for the ping. Everyone should read this interview. It think it is strong enough to change minds. It also explains why the coup happened, basically the abuses of Thaksin, without celebrating the coup.

I have been comparing Thaksin to Chavez and Peron, Latin American dicators "democratically" elected for a long time now. It is gratifying to read this opinion from someone with a much longer experience of Thailand than I have.

SY: In democracy, he says he believes in elections, so every time you challenge him, he will say let's go to the people and have an election. That will prove everything and that's democracy.

PY: It proves nothing. The communists have elections. Stalin had elections. Hitler had elections. An example of where Thailand could go wrong is provided by Juan Peron in Argentina. And Thaksin is closer to the dictators of Latin America than to anybody in Thai history. We see it now with Chavez. They hold elections. They go to the poor people. They blame the rich. They say, poor people, vote for me, I'll punish the rich. We'll take money from the rich and give it to you. So they mobilise 50 per cent of the poor people to attack 30 per cent. Argentina in the 1930s, before Juan Peron, was a very wealthy country.

Also another poster mocked this and mentioned American anti-Chinese bias, but I am sorry, it is the truth, Mr. Thaksin does not act in a Thai manner. He has rocked the boat in disturbing ways. You don't have to Thai to see the obvious. I realize some people actually believe this is part of a sincere poor people's revolution. How can a corrupt man like Thaksin have the moral authority to lead such a thing? Answer, its impossible.

Absolutely correct!

And so is Young, people attacking his stance in the

Interview and trying to downgrade his point to "biased" simply

push Thaksins and the red shirt's agenda!

Which of course is similiar to people like Peron, Chavin, Marcos, Suharto,

Estrada and the likes, none else -

he as many in his line is using "the people" as his shield -

as it has been said "ask the people through elections" yeah, rigged elections

and an electorate which has been smoothed over by "little handouts"

The "One Tambon one 1 million" campaign speaks volumes, sure do the people like "him" for this -

but it wasn't him - it's the people of the country paying this - yes and the "Elite" as well - wasn't it

his Company, his shares which went "TAX FREE"....

This mans real goals are the opposite of real democracy, yes imperialism,

imperialistic rule - "I am the CEO of this country, I will rule this country like a company"!

expresses just this and underlines his true ambitions!

To argue Young's replies with "he is Elitist himself" is nonsense and doesn't hold the

water and reflects very well the point of it's source!

Because of Young's connections and the long time frame he has connections to Thailand

and was witness of all the changes prior to "Thaksinomics" he is able to have a good look into the situation!

[Ricardo]

How can anyone take the comments from this product of a life of luxury and privilege seriously?

Fair point, which surely applies equally to Thaksin, for all his claims to be a man of the people ?

[mca]

Tough to argue, although I bet some will give it a try.

Well knocking Thaksin for attempting to control the media and then putting Sarit Thanarat (for God's sake) up as an example of a good old boy is a start. His suppression of the media makes Thaksin look like a rank amateur.

It's a bit like saying Adolf Hitler was a mass murderer and then go on to say how your old pal Pol Pot was round for dinner just the other day.

[Meridian007]

I agree that proffesor Young shows his own "elite" bias in this interview (which I find sadly condescending as well, and a stumbling block to an otherwise powerful interview), but he does make a salient point about why it has to focus on Thaksin. The cult of personality phenomenon is nothing new to Thailand, but Thaksin has tenaciously hung on where others would realize that their actions were dividing the country to a point beyond reconciliation, and back off. I think this speaks both to his mental state, and possibly his understanding of the situation he has created by proxy.

As much as I hate to fan the flame of his ego, much of the current conflict must focus on Thaksin. He was given the chance to be too powerful, and his personality is the worst type to hold that power. His tight connections throughout the Thai power structure (both state and corporate) preclude his involvement here even though he is not physically here. From what he has shown us already of his reaction to power, can you imagine what would happen if he was given a chance to lead here again? I think imperial describes it nicely.

If Thailand could extricate itself from his influence, I think the conflict would lessen, and his "followers" would have a greater chance of seeing the real change they profess to want, instead of forwarding the true platform that lies behind it and is focused on Thaksin's personal fight for money and baramee. I don't see how it can happen though, he was raised too high to now be removed from sight, and I think many of those who allowed him to get to that point are ruing their mistake.

[hammered]

As soon as I read this I thought mmmm the Thai studies brigade are going to go ape over it. I bet NM will front page it just for attack.

Personally disagree with quite a lot of the article but hey ho it is at least an academic opinion that doesnt just follow the usual boringly repetetive line. Kudos to the dude for that even if I dont agree with it. Now over to NM to see if the gang over there have blown a fuse over this.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Nice, just what we need, some Farang Yellow-shirt thumper, pushing all of us in that corner.