Thailand's Economy

[Martin]

'younghusband' in post #21 is quite right.

Re-reading my post#17, I see that my wording gave the impression of the Conservative Governments being only representative of aristocratic landowners and professionals. No, those were just its leaders. Its great electoral support came from members of the working class who felt that socialism might be attractive in theory, but that it wouldn't work in practice.

(In fact, I can remember that, in Bradford, I used to pass a Conservative Working Mens' Club.

Later, I was to become a member of The Idle Working Mens' Club---but Idle is a place, not an adjective indicating political apathy!).

I keep away from the word 'feudal'. It brings wrong ideas along with it.

As I understand it, Thailand's rural history is very different from Europe's. Thais never had to pull their forelock on meeting the Lord of the Manor, or the Squire. They held their right to hold their land, as long as they worked it, direct from the monarch, in return for corvee labour (later, changed to taxes of cash or produce).

'hammered' ended post #27 with:

"That is all just from the perspective of the urban worker. When we consider overhauling the bureaucracy, we are talking of radical change which will take more political courage than any decision by any government before. However, I hope that am wrong because I believe failing to deal with the aspirations and needs of this rapidly expanding urban group will have negative social repurcussions on a large scale, and having said that of course it is not too late to do something now."

I agree, and when I look at how little realisation there is of Thailand's soon-coming need to have a preactive government, and a bureacracy that is swiftly adaptable, I can easily become very pessimistic.

Recently, I did an on-line Future Studies course alongside the undergraduates of the University Of Hawai'i. The pre-requisite essay, from which 'fitness to be enrolled' was judged, was 300 words on "A day in my life in 2037". And one assignment in Module One was 500 words on "My community in 2037".

When I pondered a world that was only able, economically, to pump 70% of the oil that it uses now, and what that meant for geopolitics, and so for Thailand, and so for its villages, it made me realise how different will be the steps we have to take, as we descend from the production of the present oil consumption, from the steps we have been accustomed to on the way up to it.

The next generation have had the Chinaman' curse: "May you live in interesting times".

Physically, Thailand is far better placed than many countries to live with the concomitant effects, but politically (i.e in systems of making decisions about what to do, and organising that the decisions are carried out) it seems very weak and disjointed.

And if it starts with a disaffected urban working class, it will be living very dangerously.

I hope that the Bangkok intellectuals act in enlightened self-interest. Because it is they who have most to lose.

[ColPyat]

And if it starts with a disaffected urban working class, it will be living very dangerously.

That already has begun.

The lower class suburbs and slums in the industrial belt are already violent urban nightmares. Very little what is going on there you will get to hear or read especially in the local English language media. The daily Thai news such as 'Hot News' on ITV, or docu shows such as 'Luang Ching Pan Jor' let you get a glimpse what is going on there.

Fights involving dozens, at times even more than 100 hooligans are a regular occurance not worth reporting about unless there is actual footage available. Mostly these fights are involving weapons such as machetes. Drive by shootings are in many areas so regular that police does mostly not even investigate them anymore.

[Plus]

You forget that you are looking at Thailand through the prism of outdated social theories of the 19th centiry. Peasants, disenfranchised urban working class, Thai feudal system - it smells of marxism and socialism.

You take it for granted, in your vision of future there's no place left for God and all people have equal rights. THAT is a utopia.

Thai cosmology is totally different, all they are trying to do now is to preserve the system they believe in, system that served them for centuries.

There are Gods, there's Thai (Siam) guardian angel, the King is his representative, and it's hierarchy from top to bottom and back. Prosperity comes from satisfying Gods, i.e. from bottom up service, so any disruption in social order will lead to gods abandoning the land.

Self sufficiency fits in this model perfectly but is out of place in a secular, materialistic society.

Thailand is not the only culture under threat from consumerism or whatever you want to call it. Muslims react rather violently to threats like this. Interestingly, in the South they blame Thais for spreading it.

[lannarebirth]

You forget that you are looking at Thailand through the prism of outdated social theories of the 19th centiry. Peasants, disenfranchised urban working class, Thai feudal system - it smells of marxism and socialism.

You take it for granted, in your vision of future there's no place left for God and all people have equal rights. THAT is a utopia.

Thai cosmology is totally different, all they are trying to do now is to preserve the system they believe in, system that served them for centuries.

There are Gods, there's Thai (Siam) guardian angel, the King is his representative, and it's hierarchy from top to bottom and back. Prosperity comes from satisfying Gods, i.e. from bottom up service, so any disruption in social order will lead to gods abandoning the land.

Self sufficiency fits in this model perfectly but is out of place in a secular, materialistic society.

Thailand is not the only culture under threat from consumerism or whatever you want to call it. Muslims react rather violently to threats like this. Interestingly, in the South they blame Thais for spreading it.

Well, I can't say you haven't defined system / situation correctly. I will say that the current regime seems to be going to great lengths to be as inclusive of viewpoints and input from the universities, where most of the political reformers reside. They do however, face incredible obstacles to any meaningful reform anytime soon. There are so many seriously entrenched special interest groups. It's fascinating.

[Martin]

"Self sufficiency fits in this model perfectly but is out of place in a secular, materialistic society. "

It is the 'vice versa' of that which is important.

Goodbye , Mr Secular Materialistic Society, when the windfall of materials has been consumed.

The graph below shows the exosomatic-energy curve of history. The dates on the boottom are AD, not Buddhist calendar.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Martin

[Martin]

"You forget that you are looking at Thailand through the prism of outdated social theories of the 19th centiry. Peasants, disenfranchised urban working class, Thai feudal system - it smells of marxism and socialism. "

I am not sure who is supposed to be "You" in the above quote, as I can only find discussion of political history, not social theories, earlier in this thread.

I have never studied political science in any depth, as I was an engineering student, but I thought that marxism and socialism were at the other end of the Authoritarian-Liberal scale from what we are discussing.

The term "sufficiency economy" was introduced in a speech in the context of the individual looking at his/her own individual economy and was directed to the audience who were listening to the speech. And that audience appears to me to have been primarily Bangkokian.

I can find nothing in the speech that indicates it was the speaker's hope or intention to get any person in that audience to go away and swell the ranks of what is, affectionately, known as "the knit-your-own-yogourt brigade".

There is the usual problem that phrases, which were said to be heard, lose something in being written down, and lose more in translation, but I get the impression that the speaker was aware that those who were averse to the message were 'deliberately making the waters muddy' by using the fact that the word 'sufficiency' also occurs in the phrase 'self-sufficiency' to suggest that the message was only applicable in 'ban nork' and not to them.

Having a specialist job, and doing nothing else, and being utterly dependant on other specialists to provide you with all your needs in return for cash, is never satisfactory.

And it leaves you very badly-situated should the job become redundant to your employer's requirements. The person who is partially-sufficient can cope better.

And, on average, the person who is partially-sufficient will have a better battery of transferable skills and beat the previous-specialist to any new sort of job that is going.

[Martin]

"There are so many seriously entrenched special interest groups. It's fascinating."

That is well put, 'lannarebirth'. Neither exaggeration nor understatement.

What lies behind your 'user name' and avatar, I have often wondered?

Throughout my working days, 'seriously entranched special interest groups' were the bane of my life. So often, in engineering and in academia, those in the highest levels of leadership and those at the bottom of the hierarchy could see that change was necessary, and in what direction it should occur. But both were frustrated by those in the middle who just wanted 'to keep turning the same old handle' even though the results of doing that were no longer appropriate.

Well, when the bubble burst in the UK at the end of the 1980s, many of them suffered from the error of their ways. I learnt of one middle-level position that was advertised in 1993 and had 660 applicants. Fifteen years before, it would have been struggling to pull in enough competent applicants to make a short-list.

I fear that, in 2006, the Thailand economy is a bubble just waiting for the pin that will prick it.

But Thailand's basic fundamentals are good for the provision of 'just sufficient for all', if it can get its act together.

But that is a big 'if'.

[younghusband]

You forget that you are looking at Thailand through the prism of outdated social theories of the 19th centiry. Peasants, disenfranchised urban working class, Thai feudal system - it smells of marxism and socialism.

You take it for granted, in your vision of future there's no place left for God and all people have equal rights. THAT is a utopia.

Thai cosmology is totally different, all they are trying to do now is to preserve the system they believe in, system that served them for centuries.

There are Gods, there's Thai (Siam) guardian angel, the King is his representative, and it's hierarchy from top to bottom and back. Prosperity comes from satisfying Gods, i.e. from bottom up service, so any disruption in social order will lead to gods abandoning the land.

Self sufficiency fits in this model perfectly but is out of place in a secular, materialistic society.

Thailand is not the only culture under threat from consumerism or whatever you want to call it. Muslims react rather violently to threats like this. Interestingly, in the South they blame Thais for spreading it.

You seem very concerned to blur the distinctions between the social classes in Thailand, and with respect it is your view of "Thai cosmology" that seems old fashioned.The Bangkok elite and middle class which was accustomed to the rural majority being silenced has been rattled at the recent extension of political power to the group they patronise and hold in disdain.Their challenge is to properly incorporate the rural majority, and I believe the astute among them realise this.You appear to be reverting to an idea of status that would have been familiar to a sixteenth century Englishman, "take but degree away and hark what discord follows", but frankly this view of society is irrelevant now.

An elite under pressure will always look to hide differences between the different classes through appeals to "patriotism", foreign threats, cultural similarities or as in this case a hazy sense of sometimes artificially manafactured "Thainess".Like it or not Thailand is already part of a globalised economy.The Marxist economic and political formula is discredited but many historians feel Marx's tools of analysis are very useful, even those who hold no truck with socialism.

I don't deny there are distinct Thai characteristics that can be seen across the board, but it is nonsense in my view to suggest that most feel that a challenge to the social order will lead as you put it, to the gods abandoning the land.One day the reckoning will come and it will be up to the enlightened self interest of the elite to determine whether it is a peaceful transition..To borrow from Chesterton,

"Smile at us, pay us, pass us;but do not quite forget

We are the people of Thailand, that have never spoken yet."

My suggestion is that you start reading some Thai history.

[hammered]

You forget that you are looking at Thailand through the prism of outdated social theories of the 19th centiry. Peasants, disenfranchised urban working class, Thai feudal system - it smells of marxism and socialism.

You take it for granted, in your vision of future there's no place left for God and all people have equal rights. THAT is a utopia.

Thai cosmology is totally different, all they are trying to do now is to preserve the system they believe in, system that served them for centuries.

There are Gods, there's Thai (Siam) guardian angel, the King is his representative, and it's hierarchy from top to bottom and back. Prosperity comes from satisfying Gods, i.e. from bottom up service, so any disruption in social order will lead to gods abandoning the land.

Self sufficiency fits in this model perfectly but is out of place in a secular, materialistic society.

Thailand is not the only culture under threat from consumerism or whatever you want to call it. Muslims react rather violently to threats like this. Interestingly, in the South they blame Thais for spreading it.

To be honest I dont think anyone is advocating total equality. I thought, but could be wrong, that the discussion was about potential future economic changes local (and to some degree international) and how these may play out. My reading is that the general concensus on here was that it would be a good idea for some mildish government schemes to take in the needs and aspirations of the poorer elements of society whether they be the rural or urban poor. This I guess could be seen as a government intervention with tax money along the lines of a social democratic system, but I dont see it as proposing uniform equality. I have no real feeling on how the role of God fits in with all this. That will really depend on the emerging generations.

By the way, stage theories of history are not confined to Marxist thinkers. They can also be found embedded in the works of historical (and to some degree current) conservative and liberal thinkers. As to whether stage theories are relevant today or relevant in this particular case, that is probably worth another thread.

[ColPyat]

You appear to be reverting to an idea of status that would have been familiar to a sixteenth century Englishman, "take but degree away and hark what discord follows", but frankly this view of society is irrelevant now.

An elite under pressure will always look to hide differences between the different classes through appeals to "patriotism", foreign threats, cultural similarities or as in this case a hazy sense of sometimes artificially manafactured "Thainess".Like it or not Thailand is already part of a globalised economy.The Marxist economic and political formula is discredited but many historians feel Marx's tools of analysis are very useful, even those who hold no truck with socialism.

Thank you.

Yes, many political problems of Thailand today are somewhat similar to the end of feudalism in Europe, when the traditional religious based established powers were challenged, starting with the reformation, and the birth of the new liberation theories. Chit Phumisak is important to mention here in this context, and his book 'Chomnaa sakdinaa Thai (The Face of Thai Feudalism)'.

Important as well is what you mentioned, the conflict between the from the top ordered "Thainess", a very recent nationalist construct whose rules seem to be changed according to who holds the power, and a ethnic "Thainess", that has often very little in common with the former.

I haven't read yet a proper study on this subject (anyone can point me to one, please?), but i do feel that both are somewhat opposing in many ways, and are partly responsible for the huge gap of experiencing their own country between the mainly urban based upper and middle classes, and the rural poor.

My wife is from an Thai ethnic minority that is in many ways untouched by Bangkok ideology. It is very interesting to observe that in many ways their way of dealing with political matters within their society is very different from how the Bangok elite deals with them on a national base.

Decision making processes in the village are far more base democratic than hirarchal, by dicussion and consens. They are not exclusive, so, even though a foreigner, i am able to exercise my right to vote in village meetings. This right has never been disputed by any member of the clan, only by very recent arrivals in the village, not members of the clan or the minority. When i have asked the Puyaiban about this he said that i am a member of the family, and therefore have earned the right to vote. Bangkok, he said, is far away, and in the village we deal with matters our way.

In their religion, Buddhism and ancester cults are very much incorporated, often the ancestor cults take preference in daily life over Buddhim. In difficult situations and in personal problems the clan oracle is asked for help, to go into a trance, to be posessed by one of the ancestor spirits, to find a solution.

This all is very different from the propagated view of Thai history and society by the present powers in Bangkok.

Thailand is still somewhat stuck in the process of nation building. You have large sectors that are either still living basically a tribal life, or left the tribal life only very recently behind, and have very little idea about the concept of "the nation". Though they are confronted daily with the problems of rapid globalisation, resulting migration, and collapse of the clan based life.

The somewhat globalised middle classes have no comprehension about the life of those secotors of Thai society, try to apply very modern models of thought and logic as a solution to those people's problems.

The elites i feel are somewhat at a loss what to do, caught between equally archaic rituals and the traps of power, and revert to empty formulas that have only led to the '32 revolution by the upcoming middle classes.

Basically, there is no Thai people - there only are many sectors of society that have very little in common with each other in almost all aspects of life, be it culturally, religious, or economic. Yet, they are still somewhat connected by an intrinsic and increasingly disfunctional network, dominated by semi-feudal patron/client relationships.

What to do? Is there a chance that the transition here can be performed without the violence we had in the west?

[Martin]

"Basically, there is no Thai people - there only are many sectors of society that have very little in common with each other in almost all aspects of life, be it culturally, religious, or economic. Yet, they are still somewhat connected by an intrinsic and increasingly disfunctional network, dominated by semi-feudal patron/client relationships.

What to do? Is there a chance that the transition here can be performed without the violence we had in the west?"

That seems, to me, to sum up the societal situation pretty well, and I see reasons for optimism for a non-violent development of a Thailand that could well be much envied by many, many other countries.

The T'ai character, and the character of descendants of Chinese immigrants who have accepted a transitioning into being Thai-chinese seem to have a basically non-violent tendency. Though it also seems to be beyond all humans not to 'go violent' if driven past their personal point of frustrated anger. I take heed of the fact that Siam never went to war. Attacked, it would push out invaders, but that was all.

But Thailand now has linked itself very much with the outside world---it hasn't 'done a Bhutan'---and it will have to avoid economic problems of the outside world from 'slopping in'. That puts a premium on willingness to act preactively, which is not a feature of the character of Thais of past generations.

So much will depend on those who have recently come through the Universities and those coming through in forthcoming years to have the confidence to act, rather than waiting till situations push them along.

That was OK in the era of growing industrialisation, but better is needed to manage de-industrialisation.

[ColPyat]

The T'ai character, and the character of descendants of Chinese immigrants who have accepted a transitioning into being Thai-chinese seem to have a basically non-violent tendency.

So much will depend on those who have recently come through the Universities and those coming through in forthcoming years to have the confidence to act, rather than waiting till situations push them along.

That was OK in the era of growing industrialisation, but better is needed to manage de-industrialisation.

I am not so sure though about the alleged non-violent characer of the T'ai in general. In my wife's village very violent solutions to often comparatively small problems are normal and accepted. Even in the village next to Bangkok i have lived for over two years i was offered a gun by the locals and encouraged to shoot a person that made my life (and theirs) difficult. No, i didn't shoot him.

The beginning of the Thai communist insurgency were people from mainly Isaarn who went through University trying to initiate changes in their provinces, but were hindered by Bangkok burocracy and dominance.

The present political situation is indeed dangerous. Many of the problems of those days are still existing, and recent ouster of Thaksin, who had his support in those rural areas makes things very unstable. Very much depends now if the present, and the next elected government can find a way to build bridges.

[Plus]

You seem very concerned to blur the distinctions between the social classes in Thailand,

On the contrary, I stress hierarchical society where everyone knows his place. Classless future is a part of Marx' theory, isn't it?

and with respect it is your view of "Thai cosmology" that seems old fashioned.

Is it my view or the cosmology? The gods - king - people connection is indeed an ancient one. There are plenty of other, modern views, but I think that King-people relationship is what holds this nation together.

The Bangkok elite and middle class which was accustomed to the rural majority being silenced has been rattled at the recent extension of political power to the group they patronise and hold in disdain.Their challenge is to properly incorporate the rural majority, and I believe the astute among them realise this.

I don't believe that "elites" hold rural majority in disdain(where can you find any disdain in "elite" speeches?), I don't believe that the rural majority is silenced, and I don't believe that the rural majority strives for political power. It's somehow presumed that everyone wants power, everyone wants to be "elite". Nonsense. People should not be denied power if they want it but to force them make decisions on matters they know nothing about is nonsense. That's how Thaksin "empowered" them - pretend that people have a say in national politics while at the same time deny them any decision making on their own level.

An elite under pressure will always look to hide differences between the different classes through appeals to "patriotism", foreign threats, cultural similarities or as in this case a hazy sense of sometimes artificially manafactured "Thainess".

Again, it's presumed that the elites have been oppressing and abusing the workers and amassed unjustifiable wealth that needs to be redistributed, that the revolution is needed or inevitable. I totally against this 19 century based approach to Thailand. They are doing rather well with their "feudal" system and I hope I won't see any revolution myself. In fact if there IS a problem with elites, then it's elites that should be given more attention. It doesn't mean that if you replace technocrats with peasants you'll get a better government. If farmers don't perform well we don't propose getting rid of them and importing Burmese to til the land, why propose dislodging the elite?

Like it or not Thailand is already part of a globalised economy.The Marxist economic and political formula is discredited but many historians feel Marx's tools of analysis are very useful, even those who hold no truck with socialism.

You don't need farmers telling bankers how to run their business to live in globalised world, you need cohesive society where everyone performs well according to his function. Challenging, and changing the social order is a recipe for disaster. Preserving the status quo is, paradoxically, what is most important. Thailand need adjustments, not revolutions, not going through Marxist stages.

I don't deny there are distinct Thai characteristics that can be seen across the board, but it is nonsense in my view to suggest that most feel that a challenge to the social order will lead as you put it, to the gods abandoning the land.One day the reckoning will come and it will be up to the enlightened self interest of the elite to determine whether it is a peaceful transition.

I'm not saying people wake up every day thinking about how to keep gods happy. They take it for granted. But, if you take the monarchy away, it will suddenly become a very urgent matter and there will be endless debates about the future of the country. Maybe another social model will prevail, maybe there will be struggle for power to fill the vacuum, maybe there will be bloodshed. If that link between gods and people, which is the monarchy, is broked, Thailand will be forced to change, and I'm cerain it won't be for the better.

I just saw this wonderful quote on self-sufficiency:

"Por piang means knowing what is enough. If we are moderate in our wants, if we have little greed, which means we will exploit others less. If every country has this idea - that is, moderation, not driven to the extremes, and no greed - than people can live in peace..."

Basically less greed means more religion, there's no other way to argue against greed. In consumer based economies greed is worshipped and whipped up.

[lannarebirth]

"There are so many seriously entrenched special interest groups. It's fascinating."

That is well put, 'lannarebirth'. Neither exaggeration nor understatement.

What lies behind your 'user name' and avatar, I have often wondered?

Hi Martin,

Well, my avatar is a picture of my English Pointer "Sonny Boy". As for the username, well I live in the northern Lanna region and compared to my previously complacent existence before I came to LOS, I feel reborn in every moment here (even the bad ones). I can't believe how lucky I am.

[lannarebirth]

Returning to democracy

Oct 5th 2006 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

Some time, in some form

http://economist.com/world/asia/displaysto...tory_id=8001670

[ColPyat]

Returning to democracy

Oct 5th 2006 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

Some time, in some form

http://economist.com/world/asia/displaysto...tory_id=8001670

One thing the article has not brought in its otherwise good summary is, that there is a protest movement beginning to form right now.

After a brief time of not much happening i believe that we could see a rather turbulent time soon.

[Plus]

There will be no democracy in a sense Economist sees it and the generals will not relinquish power.

It will be "guided" democracy where the government makes only pre-approved choices, it will have free hand only in trivial matters.

Democracy, like a rebellios teenager, has been grounded. It is not necessarily a bad thing if the generals can see their "project" through. They want a country unified around certain principles that would never be compromised. Once that understanding is reached among all stakeholders, "democracy" will be let free again.

Protests will be noted. Parties capable of creating chaos have been neutralised, there will be no violence as long as the generals are on top.

[hammered]

Returning to democracy

Oct 5th 2006 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

Some time, in some form

http://economist.com/world/asia/displaysto...tory_id=8001670

We should remember that the economist was one of the wests biggest supporters of the Thaksin regime, and even went so far as to say street protests were not democratic, so maybe not the best place to start for neutral analysis of the situation.

[younghusband]

Returning to democracy

Oct 5th 2006 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

Some time, in some form

http://economist.com/world/asia/displaysto...tory_id=8001670

We should remember that the economist was one of the wests biggest supporters of the Thaksin regime, and even went so far as to say street protests were not democratic, so maybe not the best place to start for neutral analysis of the situation.

You clearly have not read the Economist articles or otherwise you would not claim it was one of the West's biggest supporters of the Thaksin regime.Nor did it say street protests were undemocratic.

[younghusband]

There will be no democracy in a sense Economist sees it and the generals will not relinquish power.

It will be "guided" democracy where the government makes only pre-approved choices, it will have free hand only in trivial matters.

Democracy, like a rebellios teenager, has been grounded. It is not necessarily a bad thing if the generals can see their "project" through. They want a country unified around certain principles that would never be compromised. Once that understanding is reached among all stakeholders, "democracy" will be let free again.

Protests will be noted. Parties capable of creating chaos have been neutralised, there will be no violence as long as the generals are on top.

Sorry could you clarify whether you are referring to Thailand or Burma.

On the assumption your opinions are about Thailand, I don't think your reactionary line is shared by General Surayud.Why don't you let us know what the "certain principles" are.

[hammered]

Returning to democracy

Oct 5th 2006 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

Some time, in some form

http://economist.com/world/asia/displaysto...tory_id=8001670

We should remember that the economist was one of the wests biggest supporters of the Thaksin regime, and even went so far as to say street protests were not democratic, so maybe not the best place to start for neutral analysis of the situation.

You clearly have not read the Economist articles or otherwise you would not claim it was one of the West's biggest supporters of the Thaksin regime.Nor did it say street protests were undemocratic.

Go back a little and read what they were saying about Mr. Thaksin when he was in power and having trouble with street demonstrations and demands for his ouster. In various editions they praised his sale of Shin as politically and economically astute. Well informed they were there. They described peaceful demonstrators as a mob on several occaisions. Not much spirit of ZDemocracy at the economist. They even managed a simplistic editorial in February (?) that basically was more or less what Thaksin was saying. Propoganda supporting who has been described as the third biggest lover of Bush.

Personally I do not want to waste much more time discussing anything from this usually ill informed overrated often neo-conservative supporting organ, but I hope the above explains why even those who may respect the economist should regard its writings on anything Thaksin with care.

[ColPyat]

Returning to democracy

Oct 5th 2006 | BANGKOK

From The Economist print edition

Some time, in some form

http://economist.com/world/asia/displaysto...tory_id=8001670

We should remember that the economist was one of the wests biggest supporters of the Thaksin regime, and even went so far as to say street protests were not democratic, so maybe not the best place to start for neutral analysis of the situation.

It is maybe not a good idea to go back into that subject, but calling the street protest "not democratic" does not equal supporting Thaksin. Not only The Economist was of this opinion, but also very harsh Thaksin critics as well, such as Prof. Giles Ungpakorn and Prof. Thongchai Winitchakul.

Protests are of course clearly within a democratic right, but not when they bring the country to a standstill.

This opinion is/was a sign of neutrality of the media, which many other papers have given up completely, especially during that time.

I don't know how i can formulate the following without breaking boardrules, but i'll give it a try.

Personally, i still have huge difficulties understanding how people who have screamed democracy do now completely agree with an action that no constitution in a democratic society provides for. And even worse, are now able to reason that worse media censorship than Thaksin has ever done and no foreseeable point of return of basic civil rights are perfectly alright.

Democracy is a social contract in which ALL sectors of society agree upon some basic principles, and NOT a form of government that is dictated and given by the elites, and at will taken away by those elites when certain sectors chose someone those elites do not agree with. This does defeat the purpose of democracy somewhat.

However Thaksin and TRT stretched the rules of democracy - they still worked within the larger framework of democracy and the constitution. They did not replace it with something ese completely, at no point of time.

[ColPyat]

In various editions they praised his sale of Shin as politically and economically astute. Well informed they were there.

Presently i see the different commissions having huge difficulties actually making a case against the ShinCorp sale. Different than in the previous coup, the leaders of this one have not even managed to freeze Thaksin's assets. From my amateur's view, i do see huge difficulties in making a legally sound case against the ShinCorp sale. Right now i have read that the only hope they are having is bringing in some fuzzy case about "national security".

Like it or not, Thaksin's corruption was not the easy old game of getting a percentage of whatever state contract was given, in this aspect he was almost cleaner than clean. He used loopholes of the law, and at times changed laws before making certain moves.

Difficult, whatever the polemics, the ShinCorp sale was maybe the cleanest action Thaksin has ever done in the history of ShinCorp, unlike than the rise of his company. But i doubt that present powers will go there, as many of them were complicit in that rise, and have profitted tremendously. And it would change the business environment here in a way that they themselves would have huge difficulties making money themselves in the future.

Personally though, i would not mind if they would go there...

[hammered]

In various editions they praised his sale of Shin as politically and economically astute. Well informed they were there.

Presently i see the different commissions having huge difficulties actually making a case against the ShinCorp sale. Different than in the previous coup, the leaders of this one have not even managed to freeze Thaksin's assets. From my amateur's view, i do see huge difficulties in making a legally sound case against the ShinCorp sale. Right now i have read that the only hope they are having is bringing in some fuzzy case about "national security".

Like it or not, Thaksin's corruption was not the easy old game of getting a percentage of whatever state contract was given, in this aspect he was almost cleaner than clean. He used loopholes of the law, and at times changed laws before making certain moves.

Difficult, whatever the polemics, the ShinCorp sale was maybe the cleanest action Thaksin has ever done in the history of ShinCorp, unlike than the rise of his company. But i doubt that present powers will go there, as many of them were complicit in that rise, and have profitted tremendously. And it would change the business environment here in a way that they themselves would have huge difficulties making money themselves in the future.

Personally though, i would not mind if they would go there...

I think that the leaders of this coup have learned from the 1992 coup that you cannot just come in freeze assets and then take money. This was overturned by courts after the Chatchai asset seizures. It seems one possibility is that the present leaders are actually trying to insure any asset freeze or asset seizure is only done after some form of due process. This will inevitably mean no dramatic events initially but could result in seizures that hold up in higher courts at a later date. Time will tell.

We should also remember that though many talk about the Shin deal it amy be the investigations into other deals that actually yield results in terms of action. As you and many have pointed out there are many problems involved in trying to take any action against the Shin deal. Indeed it would be ironic if the trigger event that led to the demos and then on to the eventual fall of Mr. Thaksin were just left to stand as was.

[ColPyat]

Indeed it would be ironic if the trigger event that led to the demos and then on to the eventual fall of Mr. Thaksin were just left to stand as was.

Ironic, indeed.

But as we have already agreed upon, i believe, we can definately classify the demonstrations and the coup as a conservative, and not a progressive revolution.

Thaskin in some ways, objectively viewed, is an enigma in many ways. He has propagated a social conservative stand, though had in his party many extremely progressive fractions from the oktober generation. He is/was from a very Thai specific business background, but has had his main popular support in the rural poor.

His populist schemes were definately gathered to catch votes, and many of them did fail. But, he did bring the rural poor (and to some extend the urban poor as well) into politics, which no politician has ever done before in Thailand. And many of his schemes did improve the life of those rural poor substantially.

Many of his human rights abuses were clearly performed in collaboration with his later opponents, and with agreement of the established powers as well.

At the same time, social conservative forces, businessmen, both previously on Thaksin's side (important to note - during his most controversial actions, such as drgwar, Tak Bai, populist scemes etc.) and progressive forces have joined hands in the leadership of the anti Thaksin demonstartions, only though most of their popular support came from urban based middle classes.

Which has led to a fundamentally social conservative coup.

Many people try to simplify this to a fight between bad evil corruption, and good wise forces of stability. But just the complex make up of the different forces set against each other, and switching sides, shows a far more complex picture of what really might be going on right now here.

The last word has not been spoken yet. I am convinced that we are still only at the beginning of tremendous changes and powerstruggles in Thailand, changes which roots are not to be found in the Thaksin aera, but reach far back into the events of more than 70 years ago.

[hammered]

Indeed it would be ironic if the trigger event that led to the demos and then on to the eventual fall of Mr. Thaksin were just left to stand as was.

Ironic, indeed.

But as we have already agreed upon, i believe, we can definately classify the demonstrations and the coup as a conservative, and not a progressive revolution.

Thaskin in some ways, objectively viewed, is an enigma in many ways. He has propagated a social conservative stand, though had in his party many extremely progressive fractions from the oktober generation. He is/was from a very Thai specific business background, but has had his main popular support in the rural poor.

His populist schemes were definately gathered to catch votes, and many of them did fail. But, he did bring the rural poor (and to some extend the urban poor as well) into politics, which no politician has ever done before in Thailand. And many of his schemes did improve the life of those rural poor substantially.

Many of his human rights abuses were clearly performed in collaboration with his later opponents, and with agreement of the established powers as well.

At the same time, social conservative forces, businessmen, both previously on Thaksin's side (important to note - during his most controversial actions, such as drgwar, Tak Bai, populist scemes etc.) and progressive forces have joined hands in the leadership of the anti Thaksin demonstartions, only though most of their popular support came from urban based middle classes.

Which has led to a fundamentally social conservative coup.

Many people try to simplify this to a fight between bad evil corruption, and good wise forces of stability. But just the complex make up of the different forces set against each other, and switching sides, shows a far more complex picture of what really might be going on right now here.

The last word has not been spoken yet. I am convinced that we are still only at the beginning of tremendous changes and powerstruggles in Thailand, changes which roots are not to be found in the Thaksin aera, but reach far back into the events of more than 70 years ago.

I would agree the coup is conservative. However, the demonstrations were made up of groups too divers to characterise as "conservative". Certainly they included conservative groups, but then they also included the most radical groups that wanted very democratic change as you point out. The support for the demonstrations certainly and not surprisingly also included large numbers of urban working class (whose parents supported Thasin) and farmers and fishermen (from the south), and we should not forget the no vote even with the highly disputed EC numbers was far higher than the composition of the middle class. It has always been the media that has mistakenly tried to label the anti-Thaksin movement as urban based and the pro-Thaksin as rural based. That is a generalization at best. We should also remember that the pro-Thaksin alliance included ultra conservatives like Samak, and rural communities tend to also be conservative in the traditions and practices they hold dear. The pro-Thakisn alliance also included elements of the October people on the opposite end of the political scale. Maybe it is beter to characterize the pro and anti-Thakisn alliances as alliances of convenience that were maybe uneasy at times, but more characterized by groups linked by where the group saw its best interests served.

We certainly havent seen the end of change and all political players over time are part of that. How this all pans out remains to be seen but the rapidly expanding urban working class, wherever they initially came from, will certainly become a political force with different wants and needs from both their rural grandparents and from the more settled urban middle classes.

It also just ocurred to me that we probably need to define what we mean by urban working class in this debate as I bring up urban middle classes. Things are quite complicated.

[ColPyat]

I would agree the coup is conservative. However, the demonstrations were made up of groups too divers to characterise as "conservative". Certainly they included conservative groups, but then they also included the most radical groups that wanted very democratic change as you point out. The support for the demonstrations certainly and not surprisingly also included large numbers of urban working class (whose parents supported Thasin) and farmers and fishermen (from the south), and we should not forget the no vote even with the highly disputed EC numbers was far higher than the composition of the middle class. It has always been the media that has mistakenly tried to label the anti-Thaksin movement as urban based and the pro-Thaksin as rural based. That is a generalization at best. We should also remember that the pro-Thaksin alliance included ultra conservatives like Samak, and rural communities tend to also be conservative in the traditions and practices they hold dear. The pro-Thakisn alliance also included elements of the October people on the opposite end of the political scale. Maybe it is beter to characterize the pro and anti-Thakisn alliances as alliances of convenience that were maybe uneasy at times, but more characterized by groups linked by where the group saw its best interests served.

We certainly havent seen the end of change and all political players over time are part of that. How this all pans out remains to be seen but the rapidly expanding urban working class, wherever they initially came from, will certainly become a political force with different wants and needs from both their rural grandparents and from the more settled urban middle classes.

It also just ocurred to me that we probably need to define what we mean by urban working class in this debate as I bring up urban middle classes. Things are quite complicated.

Complicated as hel_l.

The urban working classes that worry me are the new lower middle classes and the low classes. Above that they have made the successful transition mostly.

It definately is somewhat a generalisation that Thaksin's support was mainly rural based, and anti Thaksin mainly urban. But, it is somewhat true. When i mean rural i don't mean the South. Other than the three changwats, the desperate poverty so often seen in the North and Isaarn is generally not found in the South.

In Isaarn and the North though the clear majority of the rural voters are/have been pro Thaksin. Most outspoken opponents there have been by groups taken care of by NGOs, and AIDS activists (there are many!) who feared that the FTA with the US would endanger their lifes (quiet rightly so).

The "No" votes i would definately not just classify as support for the PAD. Some may have been, but my my guess is, based on purely empirical research under friends and family, that traditional voters of the other parties such as the Democrats had no other choice than using that option, but often did not even agree with the boycott of the opposition parties.

And of course Thaksin still had many supporters in the urban lower and middle classes as well.

Some of the extremely progressive groups that joined the PAD demonstration might have done that with a very own agenda that had very little to do with neither the aims of either Sondhi/Chamlong & Co, nor with Thaksin. There always is a lot more happening than is obvious...

Nevertheless, I have a huge problem with the argument that those rural, or lower class supporters only voted for Thaksin because he paid/bribed them. This is again a simplification that neglects the context of vote buying here. The 500 baht does not buy a vote. Upcountry it persuades people that the candidate is rich/powerful enough to go up against Bangkok, and can do something for them. Point is, that the candidate still has to do something for them. If not, no 500 baht will get you votes. Regardless the detrimental effects on the economy of Thaksin's policies, he was the first PM who in the eyes of those rural supporters has delivered what he promised them.

I had many conversations with Thaksin supporters, including members of the Caravan of the Poor. None of them denied that there were corruption issues. Their argument was: "Yes, he is corrupt. Everybody is. But this time at least we also get things done for us. Nobody before has managed that."

It is highly patronising to accuse those people of being only greedy and uneducated. They do know very well about certain issues, especially that before Thaksin no government has done anything for them. Is that not in every democracy that people generally vote for the party that does the most for them?

Why then should they vote for parties that never did anything for them, that maybe talk about great economical issues, but forget about the dire needs of their sectors of society? The first time in Thai history those sectors of the rural poor have actually spoken out, instead of staying complacent as they did before. Don't they have a right to do that? Is that not what democracy is about?

If Thaksin would not have been able to deliver anymore - he would have been out. Well, unless you believe in the idiotic conspiracy theories such as the Finland Declaration. There you would grant Thaksin far more political conviction than would be due.

What we begin to see very soon is interesting indeed. Many pro Thaksin groups have already accepted that Thaksin is gone. Their issues though are not gone, and presently alliances and networks are established across the lines pro/anti Thaksin, that could have a chance to force down real changes one day, and not just the traditional change of which elitist group is holding power, though relatively inconsequential to the average citicen.

Things are still happening here, even though presenty we don't really get much to read about. That will most definately change though soon.

[Martin]

My guess is that Thai politics is going to be very volatile up to 'that-which-we-do not-mention' and for many years thereafter.

There will be the special-interest groups trying to hang on to as much as they can of their 'good old days' in the period of industrialisation, and new-interest groups who want the post-modern economy run at least equitably for them.

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the formative years of the passing-out, thrusting-in and next-to-come generations of active politicians, but each generation, in industrial societies as they have grown, has always seen things in a different light from the previous one.

There is no reason to think that that won't continue to happen as we move into the decline of industrialism.

So political flux will be the order of the first, and maybe more, decades of this century.

And politicians who are seen to be weak on the economy can expect to be dispatched to political oblivion as soon as the voters get a chance, no matter how good they are at constitution-writing.

[Plus]

Sorry could you clarify whether you are referring to Thailand or Burma.

On the assumption your opinions are about Thailand, I don't think your reactionary line is shared by General Surayud.Why don't you let us know what the "certain principles" are.

In case you haven't noticed yet, Thailand is a Kingdom. There's a King who sets principles for the nation to follow. If King's power is challenged or the principles are undermined, Thailand undergoes a "correction", performed by the military.

Serving the King is their main mission. If democracy comes in a way, they don't really care.

Things are still happening here, even though presenty we don't really get much to read about. That will most definately change though soon.

Don't hold your breath. Let's see if they can get Midnight University site up again.

it persuades people that the candidate is rich/powerful enough to go up against Bangkok

Are they really sharpening their forks to march on Bangkok? The divide has always been there, but there was never any anymosity. Struggle of the classes predicted by Marx has never really taken ground here, if you discount brief communist insurgency back in the seventies. There have never been civil wars. Thais are unified by their monarchy, and as long as it's there, they'll live with each other peacefully.

idiotic conspiracy theories such as the Finland Declaration

The declaration does not exist, I believe, but it describes Thaksin's actions better than any other theory. Challenging the unchallegable was his ultimate fault. He really thought if he had enough votes, he could do that.

Is that not in every democracy that people generally vote for the party that does the most for them?

Well, yes and no. In this case they were expected to vote for what is best for the country. Thaksin made them choose - it's me or "them". Who really cares about you? What did "they" ever do for you? That was a revolution, nobody can challenge "them" and get away with it.

[samran]

The problem with the Shin Deal investigation, is that it will go nowhere. Too many people on the other side of the political fence who have done exactly the same thing, using the law of the land as it stood at the time.