Thread: Divided Thailand seeks elusive 'normalcy'

^For more on Kamnan Poh, see this thread

https://teakdoor.com/thailand-and-asi...ghlight=kamnan (Murder verdict. Court seizes Kamnan Poh's B15m bail bond)

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

One may draw similarities to the case of Thaksin Shinawatra. However, some may argue that his conviction was unfair and is a result of a military coup

Indeed, and the Coupist PAD yellow nutter perpitrators, and their patrons, walk free

You can't argue with that

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

The US is behind all political turmoil in Thailand | Prachatai English

The US is behind all political turmoil in Thailand

Mon, 06/02/2012 - 22:44 | by prachatai

The US has been behind all the political turmoil in Thailand, including violence in the south, coups, the burning of the country, etc., to create instability so that it can install its military bases to block China’s influence, said Dr Thianchai Wongchaisuwan, a self-styled analyst of global trends and a staunch supporter of the People’s Alliance for Democracy.

<snipped a bit>

Thianchai himself graduated from Binghamton University in the US.


Source:
Politics - Manager Online -

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the only reason a well-respected web-publication like Prachatai would RE-PUBLISH SOMETHING FROM MANAGER (Yellow) is to point out the lunacy of their supporters - but of course that was your intention wasn't it SD?

^ Troll, troll, troll...

The ego has landed | Bangkok Post: opinion

COMMENTARY

The ego has landed

• Published: 14/10/2012 at 03:22 AM
• Newspaper section: News

The government's 2.75 trillion baht infrastructure development plan unveiled on Oct 5 will, at best, have a mediocre effect on the development of Thailand. This is not a knock against the Pheu Thai regime. It would be mediocre with any of the previous governments in charge as well. We're not even factoring in corruption; instead we're factoring in an unyielding mindset.

Likewise, the marriage between tablet computers and the Thai educational system will be a rocky one, with a laundry list of irreconcilable differences, for the same reason that Thai educational reform is much talked about, but always falls to pieces even before the reforming "groom" gets to place a wedding ring on the bride's hand.

This is because the feudalistic cultural mentality is not conducive to national advancement. If we want to marry development with feudalism and beget the prodigal son or daughter of advancement, the mindset of Thai culture has to change.

Last month, I was interviewed by a group of 10 students from a local university. They were writing research papers, and as their professor had used my articles as teaching material (something all schools should do, if I may immodestly propose), it was suggested that they interview me. The result was as education should be: I learned from them as they learned from me.

Some of these students were previously in exchange programmes where they had the opportunity to study abroad. One interesting comment made by some was that their parents and schools arranged to send them to a Western country so that they could benefit from a Western education, but when they returned home and exhibited Western thinking and attitudes, their parents and schools reprimanded them for it.

They insisted instead on putting the students back inside that little box called "Thainess", with emphasis on what is appropriate and proper, such as not questioning your elders, including your parents and teachers.

One complained, "What's the point of sending us abroad if they don't like what we've learned?"

No doubt, there are both good and bad things one can learn from living in the West. The bad things are better left behind before you board the plane home, but be thankful that you've experienced and learned from them. The good things you check in with your luggage and take to Thailand to help develop the country.

The irony is that those who sent you over to learn are the ones who will try to prevent you from using the knowledge.

The problem is with the mindset of parents and schools. This says students should go to learn the wonderful subjects of business and finance, art and design, management, law and whatever else, but flush cultural values such as individualism, rationalism, free thought and others down the toilet before the plane lands at Suvarnabhumi.

Little do we realise that the Western education that leads to superior technology and industrial development, among other goodies, stems from the cultural values that we hold in disdain for the simple reason that they question authority and doubt faith.

Little do we realise that the West would not be the most developed part of the world today (economic crises notwithstanding), if it had not gone through the ages of Reason and Enlightenment, in which feudalistic cultural traditions were questioned and turned upside down.

So in Thailand we have international curriculums taught in English, and maybe even a few Western professors, but everything is run by the Thai bureaucracy, adhering to the strict and unyielding values of form over substance, ceremony over creativity, authority over individuality and rote learning over curiosity.

The issue is much the same in the workplace, where the office culture adheres to a bureaucratic feudal mentality.

Now take the mentality at place in the family, the school and the workplace and magnify it to the national level.

We talk of building a creative economy and encouraging the arts, of taking Thai media and entertainment to the world stage, and taking Thai industries to the global level. But at the same time Big Brother is looking over our shoulders, saying no, banning and censoring left, right and centre.

We live in a world of Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, where knowledge and experiences from across the globe are available at our fingertips, but again with Big Brother looking over our shoulders.

Since it was introduced in 1932, Thai democracy has been slow to develop because the feudalistic mindset is so unyielding. It expects us to learn from the world without adapting to the world. It expects us to memorise a Western textbook, but warns us against absorbing the culture and thinking that went into the textbook. It expects us to modernise with objects and tools, rather than with minds and souls.

This is not to say that Western culture is inherently superior to our own, but that the fusing of cultures is indeed superior to a singular culture, boxed up and sealed tight. Western civilisation has dominated the world for the past 500 years for many reasons, one of which is its willingness and capacity to absorb knowledge from other cultures.

We Thais are the ones who have kept the country from advancement, due to our refusal to open our minds to what the world has to offer, even if we so readily open our purses to superficial products and material culture.

Thailand has benefited from relative stability over the past 60 years, unlike our neighbours. Yet today we are still on the far fringe of advancement, in danger of our neighbours passing us by, due to our unofficially, yet entrenched stance against absorbing the values of other cultures.

Suvarnabhumi airport is but a huge material object. The skytrain and the underground are also but objects. The 3G spectrum is but a tool. Having those things doesn't mean the country will advance. It's like showing a painting to a blind person or playing music for the deaf. No offence to either, but in such a case it matters little how beautiful the painting or melodic the music.

For Thailand to truly develop and advance, to create something that takes the world by storm, rather than make cheap copies, there needs to be a cultural enlightenment. This will only come through nurturing an environment of individualism, rationalism and free thought, as opposed to group-think, superstition and censored thought.

Once such values are accepted, the doors are opened to many opportunities, not the least of which is true democratic development, as these values pertain to the concepts of freedom and human rights.

This new environment will, of course, also encourage the young to question their elders, even talk back and argue, to perhaps become rebellious and even commit acts of foolishness as they search to find their own identities, as opposed to living up to the image their parents, schools and society expect of them.

The consequences we so fear are the very things that will stimulate minds and open up the world, laying down the path for development, advancement and enlightenment _ those much ballyhooed goals that will never be achieved as long as we only allow pieces of paper conferring university degrees through airport customs, but refuse to admit the cultural learning, thinking and attitudes that go along with the paper.

It doesn't take 2.75 trillion baht to bring change. We don't even need to give one single child a tablet computer. All we have to do is open our minds. It doesn't cost a satang, but it does require our cultural ego to be set aside.

In theoretical terms this can be done easily enough. At the family level, parents have only to encourage the young to find their own paths. At the school level, teachers have only to accept questions, even ones that test their authority. At the national level, the guardians of traditions in the various agencies, bureaucracies and ministries have only to take a pill and chill, and let the world evolve.

But, of course, in practical terms, none of this is easy because standing in the way is not tradition nor good sense, but good old, simple ego.

As that one student asked, "What's the point of sending us abroad if they don't like what we've learned?"

The answer is that they don't mind your learning, they just don't want you to think you know more than they do _ it undermines their authority. And how can they control you if they don't have authority?

Voranai Vanijaka

Road to reconciliation: Listening, being tolerant | Bangkok Post: news

Road to reconciliation: Listening, being tolerant

• Published: 27/10/2012 at 03:07 PM
• Online news: Politics

Supporters of efforts to end a decade of political polarisation are seeing grounds for hope following discussions held around the country.

Guarded optimism marked the opening of a two-day seminar on Saturday in Bangkok, where participants are discussing how to create a more tolerant citizenry willing to listen and move toward reconciliation.

The event is the work of the Platform for Peaceful and Democratic Thailand, organised by Mahidol University's Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies and sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Its members have been summarising discussions on social and political issues held with red- and yellow-shirt supporters in regions across the country.

The regional dialogues have resulted in some common goals for Thailand's future democratic path. Participants have identified core issues including a participatory constitutional amendment process, promotion of equality and dignity of the people, education for human security, and decentralisation.

To some extent the seminar organisers are making a leap of faith. They are presuming that supporters of the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and the yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) are willing to listen to each other and work toward national reconciliation.

The event began in a spirit of goodwill, with artists Wasant Sitthiket and Visa Khanthap chanting verses before regional representatives shared the summaries of their discussions.

Gothom Araya, a Mahidol University lecturer and mastermind of the project, said the dialogue had focused on both participatory processes and content outcomes, in the hope that a way forward could be seen.

Pongthep Thepkanjana, tipped to be education minister in the next cabinet reshuffle, said the forum was facilitating efforts to defuse conflicts, forge education for a more just society, and pursue the desired constitution.

"It seems the way forward is a participatory approach to whatever issues arise, including the charter amendment," he said.

"Perhaps the so-called people's assembly on the constitution could emerge and this should be considered complementary to the ongoing parliament undertakings."

In legal terms, he said, parliament was in no rush to make a final decision on the pending charter amendment.

"[Speeding up] this issue would largely depend on the people's sentiments," said the Pheu Thai Party deputy leader.

Mirror Foundation president Sombat Boonngamanong said political polarisation had been easing, but the mode of waging war was not yet over.

It would take time, said Mr Sombat, but right now those who pushed violence were moving into the background. The way forward is to support sensible and non-violent promoters from within the two camps to emerge and shape the future of engagement.

Gen Vaipot Srinual, senior adviser to the National Strategy Development Centre, said nationwide networking (like the one mobilised through the Platform for Peaceful and Democratic Thailand) was beneficial to the people's movement but there was still no single workable system to integrate all ideas.

"It's a good process, like what has been undertaken in the past few years by the Anand and Prawase panels, yet the efforts could not bring about strategic solutions to the national problem since any government and any political party has been interested only in mobilising and maintaining its power base, not coming up with structural solutions," said the retired general.

Perapong Pairin, a senior specialist with the Election Commission, said the forum was good preparation for networking but a synchronised strategy for structural solutions had yet to emerge.

"Various agencies such as the EC or local administrative organisations and civil society are entitled or designed to embark on democratisation, but we lack a national strategy and mechanism on how to go about it," said Mr Perapong.

Thewin Akkharasilachai, director of the Association for Community and Ecology Development, said grassroots people now wanted decentralisation from the national administration.

"The issue of Red-Yellow polarisation is somewhat a product of centralised politics," said the Chiang Mai native. "But the people, particularly from the North, have moved to their own issues like natural resources management and localised administration."

I suppose, if someone votes for or supports a different political party than me, then by definition we disagree. But that doesn't make him (or me) a nazi, commie, idiot, groupie, stooge etc.

There will always be political disagreement between people, and there will always be people trying to manipulate these divisions for their own perceived benefit. I would suggest, in a political context, a simple definition of tolerance would be respect for the system as defined under the Constitution, which of course means respect for peoples right to vote for whom they choose, and that vote to be recognised.

It is just the free speech maxim rephrased- I may not respect who or what you vote for, but I respect your right to vote for them. Had that maxim been respected Thailand would not be looking back at a lost decade now, and political parties and centres of influence would be working to influence hearts and minds (ie votes) rather than constantly scheming to unseat governments by any means possible.

Describe it in any political terms you wish, with any moral code. What it is all about, in the end is the few with most of the power and money sharing with the many, or ignore it until the many come hunting the few. There is plenty of money to go around, after the needs of the many for good schooling, employment, and health are met. The pathetic part of the greed of the few is, only a society with a strong middle class produces strong prosperity. Give a billionaire a $500,000 tax cut, and he will probably invest it, since he already has houses, cars, etc. Put that money in the hands of 100 families, and they will buy houses, cars, electronics, etc., times 100, thereby enriching their lives and the lives of the manufacturers. It simply allows money to circulate, making a healthy economy. I am no economist, feel free to criticize. I may have stated it wrong, but I hope the general idea gets across.

Rise of the planet of the merchants | Bangkok Post: opinion

COMMENTARY

Rise of the planet of the merchants

• Published: 28/10/2012 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

When the merchant elites buy up the provincial lords, what do the traditional elites have left in their hands? The answer requires a bit of background.

When General Prem Tinsulanonda stepped down in favour of a democratic general election in 1988, the decade that follows, the 1990s, could be dubbed "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". With the power vacuum, provincial lords, mafia godfathers and gangsters in uniform ran amok in parliament and in the capital. It was a period when governments came and went, brought down by corruption scandals. The newly rich borrowed frivolously and invested unwisely, while the banks were only too happy to join the party.

This was the time when the so-called "kingmakers" rivalled the actual leaders of the country in fame and power. Sanoh Thientong, Newin Chidchob and Suwat Liptapanlop were provincial lords who shaped the nation. The 1990s was also a time when there were very few rules in Bangkok. Law-trumping and power-flaunting individuals got away with anything you can imagine. There was no legal order, social order or any kind of order. It was a time when anything went, a time of cowboys and yahoos. When the 1997 economic crisis hit, everyone knew it was time for a change.

The traditional elites had high hopes that the Democrats would be able to wrest the torch from the military strongmen. They weren't cowboys and yahoos, but learned gentlemen who never could win a general election or sustain a government because they never could bring the provincial lords to heel.

The merchant elites traditionally stayed out of politics (not counting behind-the-scenes manoeuvres), but with cowboys and yahoos running amok and the future uncertain, they kept a close watch. Finally they felt that the traditional elites' time was up and the yahoos and cowboys needed to be put on a leash in the new globalised, capitalistic world - in short, the "real world".

So with the backing of the merchant elites, Thaksin Shinawatra in 2001 brought with him political stability, social order and populism. Extrajudicial killings, human rights abuses and infringement on freedoms became systematic government policies. Yes, he even brought order to these things.

He fought corruption by rewriting the laws to make his investments legal. Whereas the traditional elites are above the rules and the provincial lords break the rules, the merchant elites change the rules.

Thaksin did what no other post-Prem government could: he got things done.

During the Democrat-led coalition government (2009-2011), a major obstacle for Abhisit Vejjajiva was that the squabbling and power-grabbing of the provincial lords undermined the effectiveness of his government. Thaksin did what Mr Abhisit couldn't - he brought the provincial lords to heel. These relics of the 1990s are still relevant, mind you, and have some teeth left, but they are not prominent. Here we must take an aside and salute Chalerm Yubamrung as the one relic still standing tall. The man is good at what he does.

Returning to history, the downfall of Thaksin was twofold.

First, the traditional elites were alarmed by his haughty arrogance, moves to reel the military into the fold and a threatening cult of personality. Second, dissension rose among the ranks of the merchant elites due to broken promises and deals reneged on. (Corruption wasn't to blame, merely a convenient excuse to rally the anti-Thaksin opposition.)

With the 2006 military coup, the traditional elites employed the military, an old strategy in a new game, and it worked at the time. But time also proved that the old strategy was no match for a savvy and sustained marketing campaign, and so the Thaksin political machine came roaring back.

To the question posed at the top of this column - when the merchant elites buy up the provincial lords, what do the traditional elites have left in their hands? - the answer is the military.

However, as Bangkok Post military analyst Wassana Nanuam wrote on Oct 18, Thaksin is employing "the right tactics" through his sister, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who uses her female charms when dealing with the armed forces.

Adding to that, with key positions in the Royal Thai Police and the Defence Ministry staffed by Thaksin loyalists, it is merely a matter of time before big brother himself is back.

If a hardline right-wing royalist like the late Khattiya "Seh Daeng" Sawatdiphol can be turned into at Thaksinista and martyr of the red shirt movement, and if 2006 coup leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin now works for the Pheu Thai government and sponsored a reconciliation bill critics have said is a vehicle to grant amnesty to Thaksin, then really, what chance do the others have? For the time being, however, the strategy is to simply keep the soldiers in the barracks. Thus, the instrument of Thaksin's downfall is being addressed with "the right tactics".

As for the ranks of the merchant elites, of course not everyone was or will be Thaksin's ally. But for most of the merchant elites, business is business, it's nothing personal. In Thailand's political divide, they are the most unbiased group.

Some liquidated when the wind was sweeping against Thaksin, simply because one doesn't invest in a falling stock. Some stuck by him through thick and thin due to personal loyalty or simply because they were hedging their bets or speculating on a future market.

To identify who the latter are, simply look at the names of companies blacklisted by the Abhisit government after the political chaos in 2010 for funding the uprising. But they are perhaps only a fraction of Thaksin's backers.

If we want to look into the future and predict who will win this battle for Thailand, it is best to look at who the merchant elites are betting on, and perhaps it's a bit early to tell. Perhaps they are still surveying the market and conducting focus groups. But if a picture is worth 1,000 words, then dig up the front page of last Wednesday's Bangkok Post, and look at the photo of members of Forbes magazine's first and second richest families in Thailand posing with Thaksin (his family is number 24) at an event in Dubai.

In a feudal world, kings and lords are in charge. In a warring world, military strongmen are in charge. In a capitalistic world, where the world order is measured by GDP indexes and where nations form alliances based on economic cooperation - as in Asean Economic Community (AEC) - guess who the people in charge are.

Someone once told me that even the president of the United States - whether Democrat or Republican - takes his cue from the Wall Street bankers, the oil merchants and the arms dealers. They decide the course of the nation, while the president and the people are kept busy wrestling over domestic issues such as abortion, gay rights and immigration.

Winston Churchill once said that "that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried". Half a century later, democracy and capitalism go together like Batman and Robin.

Think of the plot of those Hollywood sci-fi movies where nations and the world are run by corporations, while the mass are but labourers/consumers content to survive through populist handouts, occupied by games and pacified by over-the-counter drugs.

The rise of the merchants is simply the next stage in the saga of man; a stage dictated less by the might of arms and more by economic supply and demand.

There's little money left to be made in the US and Europe, but still plenty to be made in Asia. What of the AEC? Who's busy making deals in Myanmar and Cambodia? Who's consolidating power domestically and striking deals internationally? Who's ready for this brave new world?

The merchant elites understand how the modern world works and are buying it up, while the rest of us are kept busy arguing over the rice pledging scheme and arguing over who loves the King more.

If one group of people prays to the past and gets bogged down by the petty squabbles of the present, while another group buys up the future, who's going to win?

Look for a hostile takeover in two to five years.

The question for the future then is: Will Thailand's merchant elites make up the the worst government ever, except for all the ones that have been tried before in this Kingdom?

Voranai Vanijaka

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

what do the traditional elites have left in their hands?

the fact that they are merchants, too.

look into the future and predict who will win this battle for Thailand

democracy.