National Divide Mystifies An Old Friend Of Thailand

[ThNiner]

Great read. Professor Young sums up the "problem" Thailand is facing and "its" root cause really well. I strongly believe in karma. And I do believe that given the amount of social damage, injuries and deaths the squarehead's inflicted on the country, there's no way in hel_l that he will ever come back to rule Thailand again. Karma is gonna get back at him really hard and soon. Everyone will get what they deserve sooner or later.

[Jingthing]

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

Hardly. That actually is a red shirt spin specialty. Labeling anyone who sees Thaksin for what he clearly is as a yellow shirt supporter.

[samran]

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.

Good post.

I hate Thaksin as much as the next guy, but this bloke is revisiting Thailand through rose coloured glasses of a very priveleged childhood. Marshbags brings up some very good points. I eneded up doing a survey for the government and the world bank around 2002 up in the boondocks outside of Khon Khaen. Very clear then that people were slipping into debt, living a life beyond their means, where the average monetary income was 20,000 baht, per year.

[Felt 35]

Great story.

When have lived here before, under and after Thaksin It feels good to see a man of the calibre to Professor Stephen Young set the words straight on what kind of person Thaksin was and why his delusive politic have divided the Thai people.

[jasreeve17]

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.

Good post.

I hate Thaksin as much as the next guy, but this bloke is revisiting Thailand through rose coloured glasses of a very priveleged childhood. Marshbags brings up some very good points. I eneded up doing a survey for the government and the world bank around 2002 up in the boondocks outside of Khon Khaen. Very clear then that people were slipping into debt, living a life beyond their means, where the average monetary income was 20,000 baht, per year.

Once again Geriatrickid is spot on with his comments, Samran too.

[justanothercybertosser]

Great story.

When have lived here before, under and after Thaksin It feels good to see a man of the calibre to Professor Stephen Young set the words straight on what kind of person Thaksin was and why his delusive politic have divided the Thai people.

The "calibre" of Stephen Young is being a major ultraconservative lobbyist, from Ivy League US "aristocracy" who is deeply connected to one side here in Thailand. I would suggest googling a bit about him and his organisation. FM Kasit has been head of the Thailand chapter of the same conservative think tank/lobby group young is senior staff until he became Foreign Minsiter, Anand is part of the World Advisory Council, still.

This "interview" is beyond ridiculous, a mistaken view on Thailand, a mistaken view on ethnicy, semi-religious babble, full of hyperbole and other rubbish, a defense of an oppressive patronage system.

Unfortunately such man wields more than a bit of power. This is also a sign that Thailand's trouble now begin to take on international attention of the sort that has pushed other countries over the edge in the past. Thais have to sort out their own issues.

Foreign involvement of the kind that hides under the mantle of morality the ugly reality of strategical interests and protection of economical interests usually leads to desaster. Young's personal history on this aspect over the last decades does speak volumes - a remnant of the Vietnam war era that should stay buried very deep.

[Jingthing]

Great story.

When have lived here before, under and after Thaksin It feels good to see a man of the calibre to Professor Stephen Young set the words straight on what kind of person Thaksin was and why his delusive politic have divided the Thai people.

The "calibre" of Stephen Young is being a major ultraconservative lobbyist, from Ivy League US "aristocracy" who is deeply connected to one side here in Thailand. I would suggest googling a bit about him and his organisation. FM Kasit has been head of the Thailand chapter of the same conservative think tank/lobby group young is senior staff until he became Foreign Minsiter, Anand is part of the World Advisory Council, still.

This "interview" is beyond ridiculous, a mistaken view on Thailand, a mistaken view on ethnicy, semi-religious babble, full of hyperbole and other rubbish, a defense of an oppressive patronage system.

Unfortunately such man wields more than a bit of power. This is also a sign that Thailand's trouble now begin to take on international attention of the sort that has pushed other countries over the edge in the past. Thais have to sort out their own issues.

Foreign involvement of the kind that hides under the mantle of morality the ugly reality of strategical interests and protection of economical interests usually leads to desaster. Young's personal history on this aspect over the last decades does speak volumes - a remnant of the Vietnam war era that should stay buried very deep.

You don't like this man's powerful effective message so instead of rebutting any specific points, you attempt to smear the man personally. Being an educated elite does not make a man ultra conservative. Obama is also an educated elite, also from Harvard University. Please provide specific links that prove your assertion that there is something dark about his personal history. I don't think a book about moral capitalism is such a dark mark, rather one wishes the designers of toxic asset vehicles had read it ...

Foreign involvement? Give me a break. He is an old friend of Thailand expressing his strong opinion, which btw, many or most foreigners happen to agree with, especially on the subject of the dangers of the dictatorial intent of Thaksin.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Jingthing

[ThNiner]

A Cyber Tosser attacking Professor Young's character and credibility! I think I can sense irony somewhere here!

[dutchguest]

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.

-- The Nation 09-09-09

Thaksin has not created a division in Thai society. The division of rural/poor and city/richer existed already and still exists.

Thaksin has used this division for his own purposes. And by doing so he has made it more visible and also contributed to a growing polical awareness of the farmers and given them a face and a voice.

I think it is about time now to forget the persons and focus on polical programs. And then it seems logical to me if there were two big parties, a more liberal and a more rural/socialist to represent the situation. And then of course free elections without corruption.

[jayboy]

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.

Come on Hammered, you can do better than this.I don't worry about the little yellow blow flies (or red ones for that matter) who don't really understand what they're on about. My view is that this kind of reactionary rubbish doesn't stand by whether it's boring or not.Is it twaddle or not? What do you think?

Incidentally neither the man or the article is "academic" in the sense of providing rigorous analysis.

[mca]

where the average monetary income was 20,000 baht, per year.

That's around 50 baht a day samran. Even for the poor out in the sticks around KK that sounds pretty low. Where were those figures taken? Genuine question.

Edited September 10, 2009 by mca

[topben]

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. a brilliant perspective by S>Y> on thaksin's chinese imperialistic attributes. surely thailand will change like the chinese government is trying to do so arduously these days.

[samran]

where the average monetary income was 20,000 baht, per year.

That's around 50 baht a day samran. Even for the poor out in the sticks around KK that sounds pretty low. Where were those figures taken? Genuine question.

Khaen Nua Village.

I forgot to add though, that their kids were sending monies to them too..... People were basically sitting around, not doing very much.

[mca]

Cheers. As I thought.

[geriatrickid]

A Cyber Tosser attacking Professor Young's character and credibility! I think I can sense irony somewhere here!

Please look at the round table that he belongs to. Then look at the where the financial support for that round table is drawn.

I have not attacked the character of Mr Young, and I am sure he is a fine gentleman. However, he is from what is known as the Beacon Hill crowd. If you know Boston, you will understand what I mean. They have a different perspective on things. Let me put it this way, no one of the demographics associated with an impoverished Thai ever went through the front door on Beacon Hill. The rear entrance was for them. Even lace curtain Irish had their problems on Beacon Hill.

I do not doubt that Mr. Young is a friend of Thailand. The question though is which Thailand? Mr. Young is indeed a credible voice in respect for those that grew up wealthy in Thailand. As a credible voice for those that suffered during the CIA backed commie hunts or that grew up poor in Thailand, I think not. US foreign policy of that era has since been shown to have been flawed and predicated on false assumptions, but it was a product of the fears and concerns of that era. Mr. Young reminds me of the character Charles Emerson Winchester on the old MASH TV series. He wasn't bad, or evil, just in his own world.

There is no argument that Mr. Thaksin had and still has his faults. However, the continuing use of him as the scapegoat for all of Thailand's current problems is ridiculous. The problems we see today were a long time in the making. There is blame for everyone.

This also provides an opportunity for me to clarify a term that I had used in my original post. A moderator was kind enough to amend it to read "servant". I apologize and regret any offense that may have been given to some as it was not my intent to use the term in a racist manner or disparage the people of Issan. (The penalty for that would be a smack across my head from one of my friends, so, no, I definitely was not trying to do that.)

[topben]

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.

my first memory of thailand was at bangkok when she hosted her first asian games. a little baby , no more than one year old was sleeping on the silom road pedestrian walkway next to a charcoal firestove with her mother furiously cooking away and serving walk-by clients for a pitiful less than one baht pack of thai cookies. of course i spoke no thai then .

today, the sprawling metropolis speaks volumes and the vendors are still there ekeing their livelihoods but in more less dangerous fashions .

yes, thailand has come a long way. if anything, the emancipation of the thais with the advent of thaksin on the scene may perhaps be attributed to the omnipresent mobile phones and of course the internet .

it is easy to provide "instant" observations of a society with a stroke of a brush - but such analysis lacks depth. why????? consider the scholarly western traveller to 5000 years old china in times past. in one journey or few, they return out west and write volumes on the chinese like they know china too well .

to give so much "credit" to thaksin alone for the present thai dilemna is to say one knows thailand better than the thais. that's quite erroneous thinking.most societies are more complex than that. the average citizen of thailand , espcecially if they have access to the computers, are more savvy than presumed - thais are not mucht different then their country cousins in the suburban corners of their western counter parts.

if any simplistic explanation is to be used, all the credits should go to bill gates and his internet, the most instrumental icon of the century if not the millenium.

thais may appear non-sophisticated to others, but explore deeper, they are a very profound people like their western counterparts .

to expect them to be forever subservient to anyone, that's history. the sooner the thai authorities - or for that matter any other authorities out there in the world who think they will always be one-up on their neighbors - think again what was once well-said:

you can bluff all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time.

america, in voting in obama, is one very good example, just like when no one believe an irsh would become an american president in times past. the power is in the education of her people - in any nation.

to blame thaksin for all the follies of thailand today, well, not quite right, one must say ......thaksin does not deserve the credit for the emancipation of the average thai. at best , he can only be attributed with the cataclytic "charisma" of sort towards the next level of emancipation. thaksin's "management" style of thailand as ex-pm is still very highly suspect as his modus operandi fringes on those of a chinese despot of times past as well noted QUITE ACCURATELY by SY......a past the chinese government themselves today are trying to distant themselves from.....

Edited September 10, 2009 by topben

[WhiteShrek]

The way I see it. Thaksin initially gained power largely in the way others have done in Thai history - thru people that had power. In his case, certain elite, government officials, police contacts, etc. Thru AIS and his monopoly, corruption, cronyism and so on, he gained financial wealth, power and influence - not much new there.

It's the factors that came into play next, which are where we are today though, and the key differences to the previous repeating circles throughout Thai history:

1) In an insatiable thirst for ever greater power in the political arena, he then started appealing to the mass poor and the plebs to back him personally. This was in addition to the people who already had power. He wasn't content with just control, via the backing of influential powers so he had "majority control", he wanted "absolute control" in his greed and lust for power. He held himself up personally to millions of plebs. Instead of simply controlling powerful people, who in turn each controlled many plebs, he held himself up as THE person who was THE heart of everything, with an answer for everything. No compromise. No power sharing. Just Thaksin or not Thaksin. Black or White. (Later to become Yellow or Red). With me you get cash. Without me you get nothing.

2) In his many hand-outs to the plebs to get their support though, he inadvertently raised the expectations of millions. Something very few people had ever done before "en masse". Sure people had raised other's expectations in the past, but only to individuals or small groups. Let's face it he has always been out for number 1. The money and the offers to the poor were so he himself could gain absolute power, not out of the goodness of his heart. An added bonus would be the hand outs, loans etc would find their way back to him in many cases thru such things as mobile phone purchases via his AIS monopoly. He must have loved how "clever" that was.

3) Information revolution. 40-50 years ago very few people saw alternative perspectives on life. They saw mainly from their own social circle's view, with A) few reasons to question it and B ) few information means to do so. The author probably included. Contrast that with the massive information outlets very widely available in the last 10 years. This meant it i) it was actually feasible for one man to reach millions personally and very quickly to be able to raise their expectations ii) many poor people actually being able to see/hear events outside their own social circle, via internet, television, mobile phones etc, and iii) see first hand what they were missing out on in an ever increasing consumer society.

The result: Millions of "have nots" had their expectations raised inadvertently and their faith in a single man to do realise these expectations them, for all the country to see. Sadly this was an inadvertent by-product of Thaksin's own greed and lust for absolute power.

Ironically in the long run this could be one of the best things that could ever have happened to Thailand, which has to be honest lacked any real social revolution in its history. Don't get me wrong I despise and dislike Thaksin, but in his own lust for ever more power, tens of millions of plebs now are quite rightly asking for more - albeit not always in the best of ways - and asking for their own little share of empowerment, which they probably never dreamed or thought of aspiring to before.

Millions of plebs have now become self aware. The infomartion is there for all to see. They now see and realise what a raw deal they have, and that actually the status quo can be challenged. On the other hand those that benefited from the old sakdina style principles see the risk of it all being taken away from them. Add in the fact Thailand has such a relatively small middle ground (middle class), and it's no wonder there's such a massive divide....

Edited September 10, 2009 by WhiteShrek

[Johpa]

Foreign involvement? Give me a break. He is an old friend of Thailand expressing his strong opinion, which btw, many or most foreigners happen to agree with, especially on the subject of the dangers of the dictatorial intent of Thaksin.

Young was instrumental in getting the ball rolling in the Baan Chiang studies, but apart from his youthful days at the International School, he has not been a regular visitor and is no more a old friend of Thailand than any other kid from the ex-pat elite of yore who studied at the International School in Bangkok. (Note: there were also missionary kids at that school whose families are not part of the elite) He is not considered a major academic and certainly not a noted Thai scholar as in his era it was Cornell and not Harvard that was the center of Thai studies in the US.

Young is better known for promoting a politically conservative global pro-business agenda and as such should have embraced Thaksin. But Thaksin made only one key mistake and it had little to do with being more Chinese than Thai (note the articles by the truly noted Thai scholar Prof. Keyes on the subject of Thaksin using traditional Thai imagery), Thaksin was relatively new to the table and did not sufficiently share in the fruits of his administration with the older more established Bangkok players. If you want old school dictatorial intent then perhaps Young should spend more time musing on his family's friendship with Sarit.

[sabaijai]

Discussion continued in Thailand News Clippings:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Suthichai-Yo...-Y-t296941.html