Thai Middle Way offers exit

[webfact]

Thai Middle Way offers exit
Jeffrey Race
RSIS


Then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra greets a supporter in 2005.

This is the second and concluding part of an article examining the cultural and social roots of our current political crisis

BANGKOK: -- Some view Thailand's entrenched conflict as no more than two business coalitions competing to plunder the nation. In fact, they operate by very different rule sets. These differences make the present situation intractable but they are seldom captured in press analysis.

The forces now in opposition to the Shinawatra family machine have been generally content over the years to go through democratic forms, to liberalise the economy, to maintain the openness of the press, public life and public debate, and slowly to improve the reliability of the judicial system. Culturally, they follow the Middle Way, including its corollary - taking only so much while leaving something for others, and when it's time to go, going gracefully. In practice, they are indifferent to the cause of rural uplift.

Thaksin's "My Way"

In addition to its opening to those lower in the social scale, the Shinawatra family machine has introduced a new rule set to Thailand, not the Middle Way but "My Way", in which they have shown they do not know when enough is enough - something most Thais sense is important and have no difficulty accepting.

During the 2001-2006 period of solid electoral power, the Thai Rak Thai machine began a programme of dominating every sector of the economy and state on behalf of Thaksin's family and friends: banking, communications, media, foreign affairs, the courts, the police. At the end they were moving on the military and the last bastion of resistance - the royal palace. While they did not reach the depths of present-day Argentina, the direction was clear.

No "people's council" or agreement on "democratic procedures" is going to end or even mitigate the present turbulence in Bangkok. The legitimators of today's protests, indeed of the opposition to Thaksin since the start of the civil unrest leading to his overthrow, have lived with rebalancing of economic interests between classes in the Kingdom and could again. They can do deals with red shirt leaders, as they have in the past.

The legitimators of the current protest movement have one minimum obsession. For them, the idea that a fugitive criminal, and indeed a perceived enemy of the King, should by remote control run Thailand for himself and his family is not just unacceptable, but inconceivable. Thaksin's approach to rule is so alien to Thai cultural values. It has little to do with economic interests or the division of political power. Ideas of "sharing power" or "a clear reform plan" or "democratic processes" are irrelevant to the core of the present conflict.

But for Thaksin it is arguably all about money and control. His corruption conviction in 2008 was actually quite even-handed: the court seized the equivalent of US$1.5 billion of his funds as ill-gotten gains (the legal basis for the judgement is factually unassailable) but left him almost another billion as not clearly the result of abuse of power. It was a typically Thai-style invitation to move abroad, where he maintains substantial financial assets.

Therein lies the rub of today's struggle in Bangkok: Stable politics assumes some fit between public political behaviour and strongly-held cultural expectations. Thaksin's behaviour does not conform. One can see anger on his face in his TV appearances - a no-no in Thai culture; he wants power back personally; he wants his billion dollars back; and he does not want to go to prison, even though the court ruled he earned much of his money from abuse of power.

Thaksin argues that the legal cases against him were politically motivated, certainly correct in the sense that he had squeezed so many people and institutions (the press, banks, military and the palace) that he had lots of political enemies. And it is certainly true that judicial proceedings against him resulted directly from the 2006 coup d'etat ending his prime ministership.

But that hardly delegitimises the prosecutions: while in power, Thaksin and his family were above the law, and the convictions themselves were immaculate. This writer has reviewed the full Thai texts of the judgements against him and his Thai Rak Thai Party which show they are not just beyond reasonable doubt but beyond any conceivable doubt.

It is Thaksin's refusal to follow the cultural pattern of sharing and moving on - which accounts for the relatively gentle nature of power transfers in Thailand over many decades - that makes him intolerable to those in the streets today. For them, Thaksin is a "foreign" object, to be rejected, and if that requires a temporary breach with democratic formalisms, that is a regrettable necessity to preserve the special agreeableness of Thai community life and the relative lack of viciousness of Thai politics which so distinguish the country.

Conditions for a solution

The legitimators hope to preserve the Thailand they know from Thaksin's import of alien values. And for them this matter is supremely urgent, because coming changes at the apex of Thai society may make their goal impossible. Thus a condition for ending the present turmoil is that Thaksin agree to remain permanently in exile, that his family agree to abjure power, and that his coalition abandons its innovative "winner takes all" political rule set.

But that's only one of two conditions to enable Thailand to resume a safe and healthy path to national development. Watch for this first key development, however unlikely it might seem at present.

Serious conflicts over ideology, power and money have occurred in Thailand regularly over much of the past century. But because of its Buddhist norms, Thailand has never experienced the horrendous violence of its neighbours or of many other countries in the world faced with similar conflicts. Instead of fights to the death in the streets of Bangkok, those whose moment has begun to pass have often left the country - starting in 1935 when King Prajadhipok abdicated and moved to the United Kingdom to die in exile.

In turn, Pridi Banomyong, the famous leader of the political movement that led to Prajadhipok's exile, thrice exiled himself, in 1934, 1947, and definitively in 1949. He later died in Paris in 1983. Pridi's nemesis, Police General Phao Sriyanond, lost out in a power struggle in 1957 and moved with his fortune to Geneva, finally dying there without seeing his homeland again.

In 1973, Field Marshals Thanom Kittikachorn and Prapat Charusathien went into temporary exile in Taiwan and the United States, eventually returning to quiet lives in Bangkok. In 1976, respected economist Dr Puey Ungphakorn, on the wrong side of political currents of the day, moved to exile in London.

Thaksin's opponents also have some very practical reasons to wish him away, starting with his poor judgement.

For example, any person in Thailand of normal judgement knows one thing before all else: one cannot advance in the Kingdom acting, or even thinking, against the King. But Thaksin is widely perceived as flouting this rule, with inevitable bad consequences for himself and for the country. The same poor judgement was apparent in many economic policy choices.

A second element is Thaksin's aversion to the substance of democracy, despite his party's appeals to this ideal in its conflicts with those now in the streets. Ironically, Thaksin himself was the beneficiary of the gradual strengthening of democratic institutions in the decades since the first flowering in the mid-1970s, being the first elected prime minister to complete his full term of office.

But Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party, even as such a beneficiary, was dismantling democracy's supporting elements as fast as it could through threats and strong-arming of the press, use of bank credit for commercial blackmail, prejudicial use of the police, and intimidation and bribery of the courts. For the Shinawatra family, ruling the state is a business, similar to running a telecom firm. Elections, blackmail and bribes are all tactics their affiliated political parties use to keep the money coming in. The opening to the lower classes is just another tactic that will be abandoned as soon as it is safe, and plenty of red shirt leaders are worried about just this.

Understanding the possibilities for the future may be clearer with this explanation of the real motives of the participants. Most Thais are exquisitely sensitive to the feelings of others and respond appropriately. But they have a charming expression for what must be done to social deviants: aw may tii hua, or "you have to hit them on the head with a club". That's what the people in the streets of Bangkok are now trying to do.

The immediate turmoil in the streets will stop when Thaksin and his family figure out that they can make no lesser sacrifice than did their predecessors, everyone from royalty on down. But even with this sacrifice, the social stresses that the Shinawatra family so cynically exploit will continue until some as yet unidentified fragment of the elite develops a competing - but honest, practical and durable - programme for rural uplift.

This actually happened during a preceding period of great domestic conflict in Thailand, in 1973 with the collapse of the amiable but out-of-touch military dictatorship. A group of bankers and aristocrats joined to found the Social Action Party, which went on to implement a series of policy innovations, dramatically changing the rural-urban terms of trade through alterations in rice taxation policy and import duties on agricultural inputs.

The remarkable puzzle today is why no group of political entrepreneurs has emerged to compete against Thaksin in this great empty space in the Thai political marketplace. That is (as it was in the 1970s) the second condition for genuine stability. If and when that happens, outsiders might begin to feel confident again about the future of Thailand.

Jeffrey Race is a Harvard-trained political analyst and Bangkok-based business consultant. The first section of this two-part article was published in yesterday's Nation.

The full article is at Asia Times Online: www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-01-130114.html.


-- The Nation 2014-01-29

[Briggsy]

Just to balance things up.

No mention of the rule of law.

No mention of atrocities commited by Thai forces against Thais.

Strong personal attack on Shinawatras without substantiating evidence.

No mention of elections.

Come on Jeffrey, if you want to write a biased article, you need to me more subtle than this.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Briggsy

[noitom]

More nonsensical tripe from Race?

This author focused on Mr. Thaksin as the fundamental root cause of Thai conflict and extends the reach of his "criminal empire" far beyond anything that would have been possible without the collaboration of most Thais in the elite establishment. Mr. Race's opinion piece also characterizes Thais as some sort of unique "pathological" culture that sets out from the age of reason to defraud and plunder the country as long as they pass the joint around.

The author also fails to introduce the element of a required shift in the application of law, order and justice for all to apply to everyone fairly and equally. This would seem to be a prerequisite and huge mountain for Thais to overcome since their basic approach to law and order is based on money and friends among the elite. It is also surprising that someone with as much Thailand experience as Mr. Race would fail to look back at Thailand's history of conflict beyond his focus on the Shinawatra family and a random mentioning of 1973 conflict. For example, his opinion omits the astonishing wealth accumulation in the Thai military and business class elite complex as the direct result of US and foreign backed investment in military and direct funding aid. Monies that were siphoned off in the elite pecking order and passed around.

Mr. Race's article is thoughtful but clearly seeks to curry favor with the establishment, shade and excuse away the self serving motives of his view and pandering to his club member board while he is jogging around the club track feeling intimidated by the lower echelons of Thai society and social structure who are protesting and encroaching on the fence of his high class club with "exclusive" membership. This encroachment by the poor in establishment space was made all right by Mr. Race's awareness that he needn't be concerned since the club fat cats "had made a deal" with the protesters.

The fair, just, and impartial application of law and order at all levels of Thai society, government, politics and business would seem to be the essential way forward toward change. Without rule of law as it applies to all regardless of status or wealth, Thailand is doomed to become a failed state. That happens when the government, military, police, politics, and life in general gets corrupted as a "way of life" it is impossible to repair and citizens are not secure.

Mr. Race thrashes around looking for a two step solution by suggesting that a claw back of money and a willing disappearance of the Thaksin clan would be the first condition. He follows that up with a vague suggestion that someone from the elite class who has a vision of rural uplift and who is "honest" among other qualities and would be the savior of the nation so to speak. This view is not in touch with reality about Thailand. Mr Race and his other club members "making deals" with the lower class to avoid encroachment should consider a revision of the concept of law and order in Thailand.

[BKKBrit]

This sort of one-sided, error-filled spiel is surely not from the pen of a Harvard graduate?

Edited January 29, 2014 by BKKBrit

[englishoak]

Well he obviously wants a promotion,

[Briggsy]

Mr Race likes to tout his links to Harvard but it is not clear how tenuous they are. It is a very Asian thing, the simplistic structuring of society into intelligence and status bands according to what educational qualifications one holds. Nobody here likes to contradict a phD.

[mca]

In 1973, Field Marshals Thanom Kittikachorn............ eventually returning to quiet lives in Bangkok

And live to a ripe old age unlike some Thammasat students.

[pipkins]

Rubbish as it was, he wrote about he skated over one the main problems. In the third Para from the end.

There is no political party emerging that can win at the ballot box as they would suffer the same attacks as Yingluck if they did not follow the yellow agenda word for word.

There is no middle way here.

democracy - or fascist impose Poodles Council and rule top down from Sutheps mouth.

The is already dictating what will happen when he is in power, think how bad he would become if he got his hands on it.

Nice to see the Air Force distance themselves from the Army today... In print.

[pipkins]

Rubbish as it was, he wrote about he skated over one the main problems. In the third Para from the end.

There is no political party emerging that can win at the ballot box as they would suffer the same attacks as Yingluck if they did not follow the yellow agenda word for word.

There is no middle way here.

democracy - or fascist impose Poodles Council and rule top down from Sutheps mouth.

The is already dictating what will happen when he is in power, think how bad he would become if he got his hands on it.

Nice to see the Air Force distance themselves from the Army today... In print.

[Emptyset]

In turn, Pridi Banomyong, the famous leader of the political movement that led to Prajadhipok's exile, thrice exiled himself, in 1934, 1947, and definitively in 1949. He later died in Paris in 1983. Pridi's nemesis, Police General Phao Sriyanond, lost out in a power struggle in 1957 and moved with his fortune to Geneva, finally dying there without seeing his homeland again.

Why does he keep saying this? Pridi didn't exile himself by choice, he exiled himself because he would've been killed or jailed had he stayed. He tried to come back, hence the two pro-Pridi coup attempts. It's a myth that he stayed exiled voluntarily - throughout his life he called for the overthrow of the military dictatorship and reactionary regime and rightly so. He died in exile because the powers that be wouldn't allow him back, not because he wanted to stay in exile. Puey left because he would've been jailed or killed had he stayed. It wasn't because he wanted to be a 'gentleman' (though by all accounts he was). Thanom exiled himself because, again, the powers that be requested it and it took a massacre to achieve that. When those same powers invited him back it provoked another massacre at Thammasat University on October 6th 1976.

I can only conclude Race has a pretty naive view of Thai history. Typical "old hand" stuff really - very concious of the way the Thai elite see things, and he has obviously absorbed much of that, at least by osmosis through constant proximity to them. This may have been the way things went down in the imaginary of the Thai elite - but I think it glosses & elides the real social struggles and societal conflicts that have taken place.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Emptyset

[virtualtraveller]

It's one point of view, with a new look at the the 'Thai Thinking' (well in Bangkok anyway) towards hegemony of power. That, really, is the crux of the anti-Thaksin obsession. Those who love and support Thaksin wholeheartedly are unable, unwilling, or unqualified, to see the danger of the Shinawatra Juggernaut in dominating everything about society, until you all become slaves to one family. They seem him for his chequebook. That is good, but the undercurrent of evil is overlooked.

Ultimately, if this is about democracy it's about a country not an individual, and if it's about power, it's about a careful balance between 'mandated' and the 'other' (opposition or the 52% that didn't vote for you). Thaksin (and his apologists) just don't seem to get this crucial point. All other arguments are just 'noise'. In that respect I completely agree with Race (the author).

[Macrohistory]

In turn, Pridi Banomyong, the famous leader of the political movement that led to Prajadhipok's exile, thrice exiled himself, in 1934, 1947, and definitively in 1949. He later died in Paris in 1983. Pridi's nemesis, Police General Phao Sriyanond, lost out in a power struggle in 1957 and moved with his fortune to Geneva, finally dying there without seeing his homeland again.

Why does he keep saying this? Pridi didn't exile himself by choice, he exiled himself because he would've been killed or jailed had he stayed. He tried to come back, hence the two pro-Pridi coup attempts. It's a myth that he stayed exiled voluntarily - throughout his life he called for the overthrow of the military dictatorship and reactionary regime and rightly so. He died in exile because the powers that be wouldn't allow him back, not because he wanted to stay in exile. Puey left because he would've been jailed or killed had he stayed. It wasn't because he wanted to be a 'gentleman' (though by all accounts he was). Thanom exiled himself because, again, the powers that be requested it and it took a massacre to achieve that. When those same powers invited him back it provoked another massacre at Thammasat University on October 6th 1976.

I can only conclude Race has a pretty naive view of Thai history. Typical "old hand" stuff really - very concious of the way the Thai elite see things, and he has obviously absorbed much of that, at least by osmosis through constant proximity to them. This may have been the way things went down in the imaginary of the Thai elite - but I think it glosses & elides the real social struggles and societal conflicts that have taken place.

The point is, these earlier Thai exiles -- losers in political struggles -- accepted their fate and thereby played by the rules of the game. They surely didn't want to depart, but once they lost their struggle, they also accepted exile patiently until the situation back in Bangkok changed. Thaksin, as a megalomaniac, violated this norm -- along with one VERY BIG other norm -- and that's the root of the problem today.

[ubonjoe]

A inflammatory off topic post removed.

[Emptyset]

In turn, Pridi Banomyong, the famous leader of the political movement that led to Prajadhipok's exile, thrice exiled himself, in 1934, 1947, and definitively in 1949. He later died in Paris in 1983. Pridi's nemesis, Police General Phao Sriyanond, lost out in a power struggle in 1957 and moved with his fortune to Geneva, finally dying there without seeing his homeland again.

Why does he keep saying this? Pridi didn't exile himself by choice, he exiled himself because he would've been killed or jailed had he stayed. He tried to come back, hence the two pro-Pridi coup attempts. It's a myth that he stayed exiled voluntarily - throughout his life he called for the overthrow of the military dictatorship and reactionary regime and rightly so. He died in exile because the powers that be wouldn't allow him back, not because he wanted to stay in exile. Puey left because he would've been jailed or killed had he stayed. It wasn't because he wanted to be a 'gentleman' (though by all accounts he was). Thanom exiled himself because, again, the powers that be requested it and it took a massacre to achieve that. When those same powers invited him back it provoked another massacre at Thammasat University on October 6th 1976.

I can only conclude Race has a pretty naive view of Thai history. Typical "old hand" stuff really - very concious of the way the Thai elite see things, and he has obviously absorbed much of that, at least by osmosis through constant proximity to them. This may have been the way things went down in the imaginary of the Thai elite - but I think it glosses & elides the real social struggles and societal conflicts that have taken place.

The point is, these earlier Thai exiles -- losers in political struggles -- accepted their fate and thereby played by the rules of the game. They surely didn't want to depart, but once they lost their struggle, they also accepted exile patiently until the situation back in Bangkok changed. Thaksin, as a megalomaniac, violated this norm -- along with one VERY BIG other norm -- and that's the root of the problem today.

As I wrote, Pridi didn't accept exile (and why should he have? he was fitted up for a crime he was nothing to do with), hence the two pro-Pridi coup attempts. And he would've no doubt attempted a come back after that had he commanded the support of similar social forces to Thaksin. This is no defense of Thaksin, but I don't find these comparisons worthwhile at all. Thanom had neither elite backing nor popular support when he was exiled - he had no choice. Actually he and his son Narong were willing to keep on killing to cling on to power, but as you probably know, the King intervened.

There is no norm here. The Thai elite might like to believe that in the past people have behaved as gentleman etc and that Thaksin is an exception (another quasi-"old hand" Steven B. Young also espouses this view) but in reality it's just fantasy. The people mentioned 'accepted' exile in that they had no other choice once the elite had abandoned them, given - bar Pridi (who did have popular support but not support that was capable of a mass uprising) - they commanded no popular support they could mobilize to oppose elite will.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Emptyset

[Siripon]

The problem is the red shirt leaders and Pheua Thai can't exist without Thaksin. They need the dictator to stay together.

There's no love lost between several of the red leaders, and between Pheua Thai factions, once there's no big boss they will fragment.

It's in the interest of all Thais to promote local leaders of integrity with strict restrictions on money politics to prevent scenes such as those the other day of Yaowapa handing out wads of money to the Pheua Thai MPs.

Democrat MPs, by the way, have to donate a portion of their salary to the party.

[tilac2]

This is conservative wishful thinking from Mr Race, filled with the usual demonization of Thaksin. For another perspective on why and how Thaksin was forced from office, see Channil's letter, post 342 in the thread "To Barack Obama: Mr President, some facts you should know about the Thai political crisis". By the way, as Emptyset states above, Pridi was exiled and did not leave Thailand by choice. He was kicked out in all probability because he tried to defeat the quasi-feudal system; and the real reason Thaksin was forced to leave (it is said) is because he nearly succeeded. I very much doubt that the clocks will get put back to the old Thailand of "middle way" (read grovelling acquiescence), as Mr Race wishes. We're in the modern world now, where people have rights and votes, and some of them even believe that "all men were created equal". This change in attitude is largely due to the Thaksin government, imperfect though it might have been.

Edited January 29, 2014 by tilac2

[geriatrickid]

For the sake of transparency, the writer should declare his vested interests, i.e. which business entities he transacts with. It is relevant when ome provides a politically related opinion. Legitimate guest writers voicing their opinion will provide such a disclosure in reputable business journals and newspapers. The gentleman is entitled to his view, but he should also be honest as to the conflict of interest that he may have when offering his opinion.

Edited January 29, 2014 by geriatrickid

[h90]

Rubbish as it was, he wrote about he skated over one the main problems. In the third Para from the end.

There is no political party emerging that can win at the ballot box as they would suffer the same attacks as Yingluck if they did not follow the yellow agenda word for word.

There is no middle way here.

democracy - or fascist impose Poodles Council and rule top down from Sutheps mouth.

The is already dictating what will happen when he is in power, think how bad he would become if he got his hands on it.

Nice to see the Air Force distance themselves from the Army today... In print.

if their agenda is corruption and use the money for vote buying than surely you are right.

Else no one yet tried to have a party with any kind of ideology / agenda beside enriching themself.

Even when you listen to the communists, they don't have any idea about their ideology....

[noitom]

Rubbish as it was, he wrote about he skated over one the main problems. In the third Para from the end.

There is no political party emerging that can win at the ballot box as they would suffer the same attacks as Yingluck if they did not follow the yellow agenda word for word.

There is no middle way here.

democracy - or fascist impose Poodles Council and rule top down from Sutheps mouth.

The is already dictating what will happen when he is in power, think how bad he would become if he got his hands on it.

Nice to see the Air Force distance themselves from the Army today... In print.

Yes, the air force break was noteworthy.

[Macrohistory]

In turn, Pridi Banomyong, the famous leader of the political movement that led to Prajadhipok's exile, thrice exiled himself, in 1934, 1947, and definitively in 1949. He later died in Paris in 1983. Pridi's nemesis, Police General Phao Sriyanond, lost out in a power struggle in 1957 and moved with his fortune to Geneva, finally dying there without seeing his homeland again.

Why does he keep saying this? Pridi didn't exile himself by choice, he exiled himself because he would've been killed or jailed had he stayed. He tried to come back, hence the two pro-Pridi coup attempts. It's a myth that he stayed exiled voluntarily - throughout his life he called for the overthrow of the military dictatorship and reactionary regime and rightly so. He died in exile because the powers that be wouldn't allow him back, not because he wanted to stay in exile. Puey left because he would've been jailed or killed had he stayed. It wasn't because he wanted to be a 'gentleman' (though by all accounts he was). Thanom exiled himself because, again, the powers that be requested it and it took a massacre to achieve that. When those same powers invited him back it provoked another massacre at Thammasat University on October 6th 1976.

I can only conclude Race has a pretty naive view of Thai history. Typical "old hand" stuff really - very concious of the way the Thai elite see things, and he has obviously absorbed much of that, at least by osmosis through constant proximity to them. This may have been the way things went down in the imaginary of the Thai elite - but I think it glosses & elides the real social struggles and societal conflicts that have taken place.

The point is, these earlier Thai exiles -- losers in political struggles -- accepted their fate and thereby played by the rules of the game. They surely didn't want to depart, but once they lost their struggle, they also accepted exile patiently until the situation back in Bangkok changed. Thaksin, as a megalomaniac, violated this norm -- along with one VERY BIG other norm -- and that's the root of the problem today.

As I wrote, Pridi didn't accept exile (and why should he have? he was fitted up for a crime he was nothing to do with), hence the two pro-Pridi coup attempts. And he would've no doubt attempted a come back after that had he commanded the support of similar social forces to Thaksin. This is no defense of Thaksin, but I don't find these comparisons worthwhile at all. Thanom had neither elite backing nor popular support when he was exiled - he had no choice. Actually he and his son Narong were willing to keep on killing to cling on to power, but as you probably know, the King intervened.

There is no norm here. The Thai elite might like to believe that in the past people have behaved as gentleman etc and that Thaksin is an exception (another quasi-"old hand" Steven B. Young also espouses this view) but in reality it's just fantasy. The people mentioned 'accepted' exile in that they had no other choice once the elite had abandoned them, given - bar Pridi (who did have popular support but not support that was capable of a mass uprising) - they commanded no popular support they could mobilize to oppose elite will.

If there is no norm, then why do the Thai "elite" these days (as well as many, many members of the Bangkok middle class) believe there is such a norm and that Thaksin is violating it? When it comes to norms, in any case, beliefs are more important than whatever the "objective" historical record might reveal to people with the time and training to study it closely. And there is no doubt that Thaksin was widely perceived from c. 2002 to 2006 as not playing the role of a Thai prime minister as that role was expected to be played, according to norms, and then from 2006 to the present, not playing the role of an ousted prime minster (eventually, an exiled ousted prime minister) in ways consistent with the norm. He is also suspected of scheming to violate the Ultimate Norm, when the opportunity presents itself. I don't say that he is, I only say that people suspect him of it. If you think this elite and middle-class perception of Thaksin and his attitudes/behavior doesn't explain their animus, then what exactly DOES explain it?

[Frank James]

Interesting article by Mr. Race, and brilliant followups and counter views by TV respondents. Such a relief from all the shouting and raving from both sides, here and in the streets.

[noitom]

This is conservative wishful thinking from Mr Race, filled with the usual demonization of Thaksin. For another perspective on why and how Thaksin was forced from office, see Channil's letter, post 342 in the thread "To Barack Obama: Mr President, some facts you should know about the Thai political crisis". By the way, as Emptyset states above, Pridi was exiled and did not leave Thailand by choice. He was kicked out in all probability because he tried to defeat the quasi-feudal system; and the real reason Thaksin was forced to leave (it is said) is because he nearly succeeded. I very much doubt that the clocks will get put back to the old Thailand of "middle way" (read grovelling acquiescence), as Mr Race wishes. We're in the modern world now, where people have rights and votes, and some of them even believe that "all men were created equal". This change in attitude is largely due to the Thaksin government, imperfect though it might have been.

Well done.

[cup-O-coffee]

I reckon that any changes to the "Thai Middle Way" would constitute illegalities according to the "Thai Middle Way" sort of thinking.

As a supporting thought, I look around and see how Thais everywhere (generally speaking) take everything good and turn it into an undesirable heap of cannibalistic remains. From the bottom to the top of politics, every good thing that this country was ever blessed with seems to have about as much chance of reaching its true potential or fruition as an apple orchard, full of sapling trees, being invaded by a pack of hungry elephants.

The one thing most prevailant out of all of this is that thing called "opportunity".

The "Thai Middle Way" is anathema to "Opportunity".

Thais and the author are pretty good at bitching about a situation that has never ever seen any good come from any good. The one thing Thailand will never know is what it feels like to experience the fruits of opportunity that has seen its day of maturity. The Thais never allow opportunity to grow in its good way and reach its potential. They do not ever seem to consider that opportunity which reaches its fullest, best results requires hard work, patience, truthfulness, self-restraint, self-discipline, WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON GOOD, and all those other traits which separates a human from a pack of soi dogs that scrabbles around a corner and encounters another pack of soi dogs.

Cheating, lying, hating, being jealous or greedy, bitterness, resentment, holding grudges, ...murdering, poisoning, throwing acid or kicking someone's head in at a drop of a hat, ...allowing one's emotions to control ever turn in an argument, etc. etc. ad nauseum; ...THIS... is the Thai Middle Way".

So don't blame Thaksin wholesale. Yes. There is blame there, but don't blame him wholesale. Looking at this heap, I see that nothing has changed, and any good change is merely one insulted or one offended or one greedy Thai away from being derailed or pummeled into non-existence.

So, I reckon that any good changes to the "Thai Middle Way" would constitute illegalities according to the "Thai Middle Way" sort of thinking.

And we'll never know, will we, as long as the "Thai Middle Way" clouds their path to true human self-actualization.

"Thai Middle Way offers exit avoidance, deceit, control, manipulation, lies, and so on and so on...

Edited January 29, 2014 by cup-O-coffee

[BlueNoseCodger]

The problem is the red shirt leaders and Pheua Thai can't exist without Thaksin. They need the dictator to stay together.

There's no love lost between several of the red leaders, and between Pheua Thai factions, once there's no big boss they will fragment.

It's in the interest of all Thais to promote local leaders of integrity with strict restrictions on money politics to prevent scenes such as those the other day of Yaowapa handing out wads of money to the Pheua Thai MPs.

Democrat MPs, by the way, have to donate a portion of their salary to the party.

I think the opposite, you don't hear about Thaksin from the reds. The Thaksin-this and Thaksin-that comes from Yellows.

I think they've defined themselves as 'anti-Thaksin' and so now they need to pretend Thaksin is everywhere in everything.

If Thaksin fades away from people's memories then so do they. Which is why they do articles like this, a full on psycho rant like this Nation piece.

Edited January 29, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[Time Traveller]

We are seeing that famous Thai "middle way" on the streets.

[inutil]

More drivel masquerading as 'the middle ground'. Some people here genuinely need a course in critical reading of media reporting. I was rather hopeful at the title there might have been a development in negotiations, but instead its yet another ludicrous op-ed by a paper who thinks people are too stupid to understand that introducing the words unbiased, neutral, middle ground etc, wont necessarily guarantee that the article itself is free from bias. In fact, in politically charged moments with clearly partisan lines and everyone ready to back team edward or jacob, it all but GUARANTEEs that its going to be dishonest propaganda pretending to be above the fray. I dont mind bias. Well, i dont mind when its honest (as most posters here are every day). I dont mind polemic either. In fact ive always loved a bit of rhetoric. What i cant abide though is insincere neutrality. Its absolutely disgraceful and makes me sick. Again, from individuals its fine. People can slip, and walking the middle ground is incredibly hard because we do in fact carry bias despite ourselves. But when a journalist lays it on as thick as this and still argues that its all some kind of middle way... nonsense. absolute nonsense.

Edited January 29, 2014 by inutil

[Tycoon]

Please, just look at the team Thaksin finacial gains. End of story, change the law one afternoon to sell your telco to Singapore and change it back next day all without having to pay a satang of tax. Next PM please that was the rock you wrecked on my greedy friend.

[inutil]

Blah blah blah! Thaksin! thaksin! Them Bad! Us good!

I thought this was about A MIDDLE WAY??? Or was i just imagining that people would suddenly grow a brain.

[Tycoon]

Would you like a list of actions that would fill this page that are do's and do nots of being a counties leader?

Maybe you grow a brain and call corruption for wheat it is.

Starting with the sale of Dtac to singtel, defend that one first please.

Blah blah blah! Thaksin! thaksin! Them Bad! Us good!

I thought this was about A MIDDLE WAY??? Or was i just imagining that people would suddenly grow a brain.

[inutil]

yes, because corruption started with thaksin and will end with thaksins removal. Youre absolutely right! and thats the solution everyone is waiting for.