Thread: Jatuporn: "I dare you to stage a coup"

^^ how is it a terrible point ? don't you believe that the mass should be politically active to make the right choice ? or should they rely on institutions that will fail to work eventually ?

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

he seems to think I'm trying to insult him by calling him a fascist or ultra conservative.

honesty Robs, honesty, it all start with intellectual honesty, and again you failed

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Is Butterfly trolling? Playing devils advocate? Senile? A Fascist? Or just dumb?

Originally Posted by Mid

“Given the circumstances, if another putsch is to be carried out, it could be the first one in history with the intent of getting rid of the opposition rather than to overthrow the government.
Tanks in the night spark coup talk

Just wanted to requote this as it's something I've been saying on this forum for the last couple of months

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Even you must be aware of the political chaos of much of the 60s, 70s, and 90s.

they were marginal though, I think 1997 was far more traumatic, it was a bit hard to mask or hide with military intervention

I don't agree those events were marginal but I do agree that '97 was more traumatic on a societal and economic level. There were huge changes in Thai society in and after '97 that, I think, were a major catalyst for some of what we're seeing today. Particularly in the ways people viewed some of their leaders.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I don't agree those events were marginal

don't want to discount the gravity of those events, but they were marginal in terms of impact to the global population, only a minority were persecuted, not the whole population. As an example, take Cambodia in the 70s, where the whole population was the target of persecution, and were beaten systematically on a grand scale.

^^^^ A point well made.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I don't agree those events were marginal

don't want to discount the gravity of those events, but they were marginal in terms of impact to the global population, only a minority were persecuted, not the whole population. As an example, take Cambodia in the 70s, where the whole population was the target of persecution, and were beaten systematically on a grand scale.

I should be more clear. I don't see the importance of those events lying in the way they effected the population. I see their importance lying in the way the leadership of the time classified the protestors as non-Thai and justified killing them by using religious and nationalist arguments. This broke the official image of Thailand as a unified nation and Thais being one people. From that time on being Thai meant, officially, conforming to the state ideology. That's why you quite often hear some Thai people ebing described as "not real Thai" in newspapers and speeches.

In effect this meant that anybody who protested against the status-quo was an enemy of the state and not a real Thai. A situation that continues to this day. Creating this division and this concept of Thai and non-Thai, dismissing the concerns of all those who disagree with the elite, is the real legacy of 73 and 76 and is still very noticeable in the political and social divisions today.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Creating this division and this concept of Thai and non-Thai, dismissing the concerns of all those who disagree with the elite, is the real legacy of 73 and 76 and is still very noticeable in the political and social divisions today.

got you, clarification much needed. However, I don't see that "Thai" and "non-Thai" things being played that much today, more like non-elite vs elite, which is a total different issue. I think the "non-Thai" angle was more present after 1997, basically blaming the IMF and the farangs for their problems. Thaksin and TRT alone was elected on that platform, bringing back "Thai pride" whatever it meant to the Thai people. In some sense, it fits exactly what you said about the nationalistic fervor, and incidentally the same argument I hear by some strong Thaksin supporters in the red movement who think "being Thai" means something special. Reds are all about "Thai pride" in that regard and "Thai Rak Thai" speaks for itself. So at the end, they are both fighting on the same platform.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

This broke the official image of Thailand as a unified nation and Thais being one people. From that time on being Thai meant, officially, conforming to the state ideology. That's why you quite often hear some Thai people ebing described as "not real Thai" in newspapers and speeches.

In effect this meant that anybody who protested against the status-quo was an enemy of the state and not a real Thai. A situation that continues to this day. Creating this division and this concept of Thai and non-Thai, dismissing the concerns of all those who disagree with the elite, is the real legacy of 73 and 76 and is still very noticeable in the political and social divisions today.

My knowledge of Thai history is far from complete, but I think that in this case "this division and this concept of Thai and non-Thai" is being re-created, although ironically this time around by fanatical royalists (some of whom are frighteningly sincere, while others are clearly opportunists) rather than the people who in the 1930's attempted to marginalize the king. But of course a fascist is fascist, whether his shirt be black, brown or yellow. (Were Phibun and his followers associated with a particular color? I've read they had a thing for hats.)

Originally Posted by robuzo

Originally Posted by DrB0b

This broke the official image of Thailand as a unified nation and Thais being one people. From that time on being Thai meant, officially, conforming to the state ideology. That's why you quite often hear some Thai people ebing described as "not real Thai" in newspapers and speeches.

In effect this meant that anybody who protested against the status-quo was an enemy of the state and not a real Thai. A situation that continues to this day. Creating this division and this concept of Thai and non-Thai, dismissing the concerns of all those who disagree with the elite, is the real legacy of 73 and 76 and is still very noticeable in the political and social divisions today.

My knowledge of Thai history is far from complete, but I think that in this case "this division and this concept of Thai and non-Thai" is being re-created, although ironically this time around by fanatical royalists (some of whom are frighteningly sincere, while others are clearly opportunists) rather than the people who in the 1930's attempted to marginalize the king. But of course a fascist is fascist, whether his shirt be black, brown or yellow. (Were Phibun and his followers associated with a particular color? I've read they had a thing for hats.)

Hmm, I replied to this post but my response has disappeared. I guess we're not allowed to talk about dead PMs

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by robuzo

Originally Posted by DrB0b

This broke the official image of Thailand as a unified nation and Thais being one people. From that time on being Thai meant, officially, conforming to the state ideology. That's why you quite often hear some Thai people ebing described as "not real Thai" in newspapers and speeches.

In effect this meant that anybody who protested against the status-quo was an enemy of the state and not a real Thai. A situation that continues to this day. Creating this division and this concept of Thai and non-Thai, dismissing the concerns of all those who disagree with the elite, is the real legacy of 73 and 76 and is still very noticeable in the political and social divisions today.

My knowledge of Thai history is far from complete, but I think that in this case "this division and this concept of Thai and non-Thai" is being re-created, although ironically this time around by fanatical royalists (some of whom are frighteningly sincere, while others are clearly opportunists) rather than the people who in the 1930's attempted to marginalize the king. But of course a fascist is fascist, whether his shirt be black, brown or yellow. (Were Phibun and his followers associated with a particular color? I've read they had a thing for hats.)

Hmm, I replied to this post but my response has disappeared. I guess we're not allowed to talk about dead PMs

I more or less expected my post to be deleted, too, for some reason. I do appreciate that you made the effort. Posting the sections dealing with Rama VII (who for my part I think is treated a little bit unfairly) in history books openly sold in Thailand would probably result in deletion under the, shall we say, standards applied on TD. Going overboard for the sake of caution, I suppose; can't say I don't understand, even if I don't necessarily agree.

Seriously, thanks for trying, Doc.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Remember when they used to (constantly) warn the Samit Government and his successor (PPP etc) and the police against using "violence" against the protestors (yellow PADs) when they occupied Govt House and the Airport?

Notice how now that word has been replaced by suggestions that the Abhisit govt has said it will not use "force"..

how long have the reds staging protests and how many already ? don't think the PAD did so many, I guess they were more effective. The reds want to test the government patience and they have been stirring shit with no clear agenda for almost 2 years, so that their beloved leader, officially or not officially, can return.

Once Thaksin is condemned by the courts, and face possible jail terms then maybe the process can start to be normal. The best solution would be for Thaksin to have an "accident" and let's see how long the red movement will last on its "noble" ideas and existing leaders.

Originally Posted by robuzo

I am referring to the injustice inherent in the use of violence to overturn a democratically elected government, which is what the 2006 coup d'etat accomplished, monsieur. In other words, the injustice of the negation of votes by force. No need to drag the judiciary into it, although that's my fault for using the expression "equality before the law." I was referring more to the idea that some are more equal than others, in this case the color-coded discrepancy in the treatment of protesters, in regard to which again the judiciary is more or less irrelevant. This sort of inequality, along with other forms such as that expressed in the patronage (I'm so grateful that we seem to have the green light to criticize the patronage system, at least for now) seems to be a concept that the ruling elite expect Thais (and every other stakeholder in the country) to meekly accept. Sorry for the confusion.

sorry to say, but are you trying to speak English ? none of your arguments above is clear or trying to make any sense. Would you like to explain yourself a little bit better or else you seem extremely confused with all those big words like equality, justice, and democracy

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Here's my take on it, for what it's worth. I've left out quite a bit of what I think but these are some of the main points.

The current government is a coalition. To maintain it's legitimacy the Democrats need the support of other parties. Initially they got that support by promising amendments to the new constitution. Abhisit has now reneged on part of that agreement and the Bhum Jai Thai and (Nevin) and Chart Thai Pattana (Banharn) parties are threatening to withdraw their support.

If that happens (it might not, depends on what pressure is brought to bear on the coalition parties) the government has two options, call an election or remain as a minority government. They will not call an election, they'll lose. So the remaining option is a minority government. This won't work either, not without the full support of the Military. A minority government will likely need some kind of coup to support it, the risks here are that the army is currently divided against itself (chaotic might be a better description) and a coup may lead to something far worse.

Don't confuse "elite" with the army, the army, or at least the army leadership, is only another tool in the hands of the "elite", albeit a vital tool. These "elite", by which I principally mean the Privy Council, are also a coalition but of a different stripe, and they call many of the shots. If they've decided that the current government is no longer strong enough for their purposes they may well try to replace it with something more suitable to their needs.

Nicely summarised Dr.B. So if the coalition doesn't hold, it's coup time in your considered opinion. What are the chances of the coalition holding? It's been fairly flexible so far. How long can it hold on anyway as elections are due within 18 mos., no? Looks like a coup is almost inevitable given the current state of the electorate and it's refusal to back the Dems. Sooner or later this all must come to a head whithin the next year and a half, methinks. (No doubt sooner than later)

gee, robuzo didn't take you for the ultra sensitive type, I was asking you honestly to elaborate and this is how you answer ?

Jatuporn: "I dare you... 31-01-2010 09:39 AM robuzo Right, have a green. Back on ignore with you, idiot.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

he is indeed pro totalitarianism, (crypto fascist) which is why I asked what his viewpoint is,

now this is funny, must have missed that pearl the first time. I am a leftist and my viewpoint are pretty much at par with those of the political God, Chomsky, maybe a bit further to the left actually

incidentally, Chomsky has also been accused of being a fascist, a totalitarian, a communist, a Bolshevist, and even an right-wing apologist for holding his views, and that from all the different sides of the political span

The right definition is "left libertarianism", and it advocates a certain engagement of political activism by the mass, while not relying on democratic institutions to make the call for them, as institutions tend to fail in their objectives since institutions can be governed by unscrupulous men.

It's a mix between anarchism and Leninism

Hope that answer your question,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

he is indeed pro totalitarianism, (crypto fascist) which is why I asked what his viewpoint is,

now this is funny, must have missed that pearl the first time. I am a leftist and my viewpoint are pretty much at par with those of the political God, Chomsky, maybe a bit further to the left actually

incidentally, Chomsky has also been accused of being a fascist, a totalitarian, a communist, a Bolshevist, and even an right-wing apologist for holding his views, and that from all the different sides of the political span

The right definition is "left libertarianism", and it advocates a certain engagement of political activism by the mass, while not relying on democratic institutions to make the call for them, as institutions tend to fail in their objectives since institutions can be governed by unscrupulous men.

It's a mix between anarchism and Leninism

Hope that answer your question,

BULLSHIT

We unconsciously proceed with lucid analysis', theories, punditry, and suggestions pertaining to Thailand's past, present, and future - but only through a very narrow conduit of cultural interpretation. Regardless of one's political core and respective perceptions towards Siam and how it should be or shouldn't be, we insist on forcing a 'natural' procession of Western political philosophy as an end all. The perfect match {or not}. Perhaps Thailand really doesn't care to borrow and embrace such Western political/governmental concepts. Contemporary history has shown us that political fusion systems don't always work in Asia, be they born of Wahington, Moscow, London, Berlin, or Paris. It's been attempted in a number of cases. Successful for some, failures for others. But we, as collective Euro-types, will always gather and justify a rhyme or reason that the best avenue for Asia {in our case, Thailand} might be to attach a superior Western political system that ensures more chaos than not. We actually need to step back {off our high horses} and take a different tact in regards to our usually irreverent Occidental manner and find a path that suites and pacifies, not as we see it....but how 'they' might. Present day theories and analysis is almost mirrored by how we treat history or world history. Such is linearly interpreted......

well the west is quite advanced in terms of ideology and political ideals, and Asia is far behind culturally and intellectually, regressive I could add. But you raise a valid point that our western system are far from perfect and they can't be simply exported just because we want to, no matter how universal our principles and political ideals might be.

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

Yes, it's just "Thai culture" therefore we should just butt out, as how could we possibly ever hope to understand the complexity and subtle nuances involved...we are outsiders after all.

RS, I've heard this kind of opinion you've presented countless times, from countless sources. It's highly flawed.

Is western democracy superior? Superior to decades of coups, violence, unrest, instability, enormous abuses of power, endemic corruption and laughable accountability and responsibility? I'd say yes, but western democracy is also highly flawed as we all know....

One can be most interested and involved, surely. Just don't convince yourself that's it's Western {and references thereof}, because it's not.