Thread: Thaksin: Let's put unity before justice

Originally Posted by Calgary

Characterizing an elitist power grab, overthrowing electoral realities, manipulating constitutional and judicial norms, and then kill defending these actions a Civil society coup, is intellectual hogwash if I ever saw it.

A quick run through google using "civil society coup thailand" comes up with precisely ONE academic article which uses such a misnomer. All the rest refer to a military coup and talk about civil society organizations supporting it etc....

The hogwash here, as usual, is all goo.

The term, variously defined, hardly fits what happened here in 2006. It is used most often in relation to the farce that had Chavez on his back foot for a few minutes in 2002. There are few other countries mentioned, Georgia and Kenya for example, and in most cases US interference is clearly behind the so-called "civil society" (CIA by another name?) groups involved in the coups.

In the one paper that clearly includes the 2006 military coup in Thailand under the category, probably a draft of a paper in a grad class at a Philippine university, a rather broad definition of "civil society coup" is stretched to fit the Thai situation. It's well-written if not exactly rigorously argued so might get the dreaded B+/A- that usually has MA candidates up in arms for weeks because of unfair marking.

So, no fear, if there is such a movement among academics to label the 2006 coup in such a fashion, it isn't extending beyond Thai language journals set up for yellow-tinged academics at august institutions in Bangkok.

Maybe goo could provide a few cites for examples that would justify his claim.

There was no 'civil society' coup- of course it is hogwash. The government with the record democratic majority in Thai history was thrown out by a treasonous military Coup, some few weeks before another election was due- of which the results were already basically known, and that is why the coup was instigated. Absolutely nothing 'civil' about that at all- just a minority trampling the rights of the majority, and illegally seizing political power with the military jackboot. Election results since that dark day have further proved that Coup instigators and sympathizers were and are a distinct minority.

Originally Posted by Calgary

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Fuck! And I did without ever having read your signature.

Performing puppy me.....

BC, you are a sneaky little devil all over again.

Of course you read my signature.

How could you not.....Compelling stuff, that siggy.

I have all signatures turned off, you ain't special

Originally Posted by BobR

What's the difference, most so called democracies have deteriorated into a chance to pick your dictator from 2 totally unacceptable candidates, while knowing in the back of your mind both they and their political parties are both bought and paid for by the same special interests. Where does real democracy exist, where does the government really fear and respect the people and not control them and manage public opinion? Certainly not in any of our home countries.

Real democracy doesn't exist anywhere. It's an abstraction and a process. But as long as you are free to engage in democratic action and to speak your mind freely and to propose some other party or person as a potential leader, then something approaching democracy exists. And that is far better than nothing.

^ With a corporate controlled media that portrays anyone that voices dissent as a wacko or a lunatic, even the right to speak your mind freely and propose some other party or person is actually meaningless. Look at the Occupy Wall Street people, the media shows up, finds the few nuts in the crowd and films them thereby giving the impression they are all nuts.
Of course the American Bill of Rights said nothing about needing a "permit" to stage a protest, but somehow that fact has been forgotten or ignored as the police forcibly break up these protests even though they are not blocking traffic using ridiculous excuses like the lack of toilets.

Sorry, I'm not endorsing this I'm simply stating the reality.

Originally Posted by sabang

It is quite obvious the Yingluck government is pursuing a reconciliation and amnesty agenda, rather than taking a strictly impartial or 'tit for tat' view of justice and accountability- but the fact is, major crimes committed by the yellows such as occupying Thailands international airport, and occupying and ransacking it's seat of government were committed before any UDD offences. So the Yellows should not only be in jail, but should have been there for longer than the Reds. Too late to change it now I suppose, but it is a pity that several of their high profile leaders and provocateurs are not currently in jail, to remind them both that Justice applies to all equally, and that in this case amnesty does also.

you must have missed the part where the reds were burning the city and went apeshit when they didn't get what they wanted

I understand you were relaxing with your usual beer Leo then, and couldn't make sense of any of it

Originally Posted by Butterfly

couldn't make sense of any of it

That seems to apply to you in a nutshell- I stated that yellow offences were committed some time before any red offences, and this is the simple truth. As such, under a fair and impartial legal system they would have been arraigned and tried for these offences first also, and those found guilty thus jailed first. What is there that you fail to understand about this?

As it stands, there are many red shirts in jail but no yellow shirts. Very few dead and maimed yellow shirts too, indeed. They are the ones getting off lightly here, although their childish whinging is still a given, seeing they have somehow been herded into the blinkered assumption that the law of the land in now way applies to them. So more's the pity some are not languishing in jail, to show them otherwise.

Originally Posted by sabang

The fact that it was a minority Coup, overturning an overwhelming democratic and legal majority vote by unConstitutional and hence treasonous means. 'Civil society' does not refer to a small minority within society, even less so to a belligerent minority that believe they are entitled to trample the majority's Right of Suffrage with impunity. Tbh, Thaksin's 'legal problems' are paltry in comparison- so it is funny that those that should be most relieved about amnesty are the ones complaining about it loudest. What that says about their shared perception of Thailand's legal 'system' is quite obvious.

Read the model. It will be a revelation. You are jumping to conclusions based on your limited understanding of the lexicon...

Originally Posted by goostewart

That is why the whole episode has been classed as a civil society coup by academics.

So it should be easy to link to academics who have done so. Spare us the usual handwaving. Just justify this statement, goo.

Originally Posted by goostewart

You are jumping to conclusions based on your limited understanding of the lexicon...

Whereas you are simply demonstrating a limited familiarity with the dictionary. Since when is academic jargon part of "the lexicon"?

Originally Posted by sabang

That seems to apply to you in a nutshell- I stated that yellow offences were committed some time before any red offences, and this is the simple truth.

again, you missed the point in your Leo, so I will repeat again, just in case you couldn't read it the first time. The YELLOW didn't commit acts of destruction and serious violence on a large scale that needed interventions by the military. The timing of their offenses is irrelevant, you sound like a retarded kid with "they started it first" argument, that's not the issue. What they did at the airport was very annoying, and borderline, but in Thai mentality it is "acceptable" because there were no direct violent and destruction of properties.

Originally Posted by sabang

What is there that you fail to understand about this?

you fail, once again, to understand the distinction between act of extreme violence and destruction, with an act of protest that took people hostage. The Reds deserved their time in jail, period, anything else would be a double standard.

[/quote] I have all signatures turned off, you ain't special[/quote]

That depends upon your definition of 'special'!

Originally Posted by goostewart

You are jumping to conclusions based on your limited understanding of the lexicon...

I am far from impressed by shallow, utterly mediocre yellow leaning 'academics' attempting to somehow legitimise the events that took place up to and after the coup's by subsuming and bastardising the term 'civil society'. The coups various were ultimately a failure, and now Thailand has an elected government again that is quite obviously pursuing an amnesty/ reconciliation rather than equal 'sword of justice' approach. There are common sense reasons for that, which I am sure you are quite aware of. May as well get used to it, because these trumped up, small protests are going nowhere, and neither will there be another Coup.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The YELLOW didn't commit acts of destruction

Occupying and ransacking Thailand's seat of Government?
Occupying and shutting down Thailand's two largest international airports?

The Military didn't act because it was part of the plot (d'uhh). You are seriously deluded if you think these are not acts of destruction- how important are exports and tourism to Thailand's economy? how important is Thailand's status as a western friendly electoral democracy to it's trade, security, and diplomatic relations? Under any impartial judiciary, they would have been tried before the red shirts.

Why argue such an inane position, when you know full well that I am right?

Originally Posted by sabang

I am far from impressed by shallow, utterly mediocre yellow leaning 'academics' attempting to somehow legitimise

As far as I am aware my friend, there have been no Thai academics (yellow or otherwise) who have hypothesized civil society coups - and no foreigners who have done the hypothesis have had any connection with Thailand or the politics. Do you have any information that I have not seen on who is modeling the civil society coup scenarios? That would be strange, because you appear not to know, nor understand, what a civil society coup is.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Since when is academic jargon part of "the lexicon"?

Sabang was not using the term 'civil society coup' in any academic way, he was interpreting it literally - the lexicon. That is why it has upset him so much.

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by goostewart

That is why the whole episode has been classed as a civil society coup by academics.

So it should be easy to link to academics who have done so. Spare us the usual handwaving. Just justify this statement, goo.

How about this:


"Thai civil society organizations and international NGOs were complacent when not openly supportive. "


Guess you said that MSD?


Your hero, Robert Amsterdam.
Statement: Threats of Military Coup in Thailand Are Unacceptable | Robert Amsterdam Thailand

There are many acadmeic papers that decribe the coup in ways that fit the "civil society coup model" almost exactly. I'm amazed that you are, at this point, disputing that. I'm not sure what your reason for doing so would be.

That a large portion of the population, though against military coups in principle, was relieved it has occurred is widely agreed. Virtually all of them expressed disapproval of having to resort to a coup, but understood why the military did so and expected the military to return to an elected government very soon (which they did).

I think former Prime Minister Anand, one of the 1997 constituion writers, and a long time standing member of Thailand’s “civil society” expressed that position very well in an interview with FAR the next day

Far Eastern Economic Review | The Vault
What happened last night, I think in a way its a democratic setback, but in another way as in many countries like Taiwan, Hungary and several other places, when people felt that there was no democratic way of changing the government what happened last night was, in the views of many, a last resort

Here's another analyis from ASIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS VOL. 3 NO. 1

It makes a very good case that the military did not lead the coup for their own reasons, but were persuaded to do so by civil society.

The urban elite and the monarchy: Mobilizing the military
A profile of the opposition
To see how the military was gradually persuaded to lead a coup, it is important to understand the main groups making up the opposition. Pathmanand (2008, 130) provides an extensive list: “academics, social activists, politicians, business figures, aristocrats, the middle-class, the media, Buddhist monks, Privy Council members and military leaders”. Oliver Pye and Wolfram Schaffer (2008, 39) define the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) as a “coalition between heterogeneous powers; elite factions; grassroots organisations; social movements and NGOs”. Such groups included Thailand’s largest grassroots network, the Assembly of the Poor; the Business Network for Society and the Environment; the Network of Artists for Democracy; the Centre for Popular Media Reform; and the Student Federation of Thailand. (Ghosh 2006a) These organisations were united mainly by their dislike for the Prime Minister and opposed him for a variety of reasons. The Business Network, for instance, took issue specifically with Thaksin’s sale of Shin Corp. The Assembly of the Poor had been in a longstanding dispute with state agencies over compensation yet to be paid to rural populations displaced by government infrastructure projects. (The Nation 2005).

TH

Originally Posted by goostewart

That is why the whole episode has been classed as a civil society coup by academics.

We've had the handwaving. Now back this up.

Originally Posted by Thaihome

There are many acadmeic papers that decribe the coup in ways that fit the "civil society coup model" almost exactly. I'm amazed that you are, at this point, disputing that. I'm not sure what your reason for doing so would be.

Yes, and I am sure there are many, many military coups throughout history of which the same could be said. Raises the question of the relevance of introducing the notion at all, although the Venezuelan instance is obviously unique.

I just want goo to back up his statement that "academics" have classified the Thai coup as such. I see one paper by a student in the Philippines.

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Your hero, Robert Amsterdam. Statement: Threats of Military Coup in Thailand Are Unacceptable | Robert Amsterdam Thailand

A careful reading will undoubtedly detect that it is referred to here as a "Military Coup", not a "Civil Society Coup".

^I love it when you make a tit of yourself and get all pompous, only to fall flat on your face...

Let google scholar be your friend...that and the Journal of Contemporary Asia, Journal of Democracy et al.

You really are a prat. You really are. You pick fights about things you have no knowledge of just because you think they go against your position. You have a predetermined position on all things red in Thailand, that is your downfall. You need to have some objectivity, the subjectivity is clouding your judgment.

Just put up the links goo.

MSD, were you even in Thailand prior to the coup ? do you even remember how it was like before the 2006 coup ?