Best thing I've seen written about the situation in Thailand

Two important statements about Thailand were released overnight.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn released his 'Red Siam' manifesto. Here's an extract:

It is not for one person to determine the common platform, which must of necessity be a collective decision. But as a staring point I offer the following ideas, the ideas of one red-shirted citizen.

1. We must have freedom of expression and the freedom to choose our own government without repression and fear.

2. We must have equality. We have to abolish the mentality of "big people-little people". We must abolish the practice of crawling to the royal family. Politicians must be accountable to the electorate, not to shadowy conniving figures beyond popular control. We need to build a culture where citizens respect each other. We must have freedom and equality of the sexes and among different ethnicities. We must respect women, gays and lesbians. We must respect Burmese, Laotians, Cambodians and the Muslim Malay people in the south. Women must have the right to choose safe abortions. Refugees should be treated with friendship and dignity as any civilised society would do.

3. Our country must be a welfare state. Taxes must be levied on the rich. The poor are not a burden, but are partners in developing the country. People should have dignity. The present exploitative society stifles individuals and destroys personal creativity.

4. In our country the king should honour his constitutional role and stop intervening in politics. But the ruling class in Thailand gain much from using the monarchy and they will not easily stop doing this. Therefore the best way to solve this problem is to build a republic where all public positions are elected and accountable.

5. For too long Thai society has been under the iron heel of the generals. We must cut the military budget and abolish the influence of the army in society ensuring that it can no long be an obstacle to democracy.

6. We must have justice. The judges should not claim power from the crown in order to stop people criticising their decisions. We must change the way that "contempt of court" laws are used to prevent accountability. We need to reform the justice system root and branch. We need a jury system. The police must serve the population, not extract bribes from the poor.

7. Citizens in towns and communities must take part in the management of all public institutions such as state enterprises, the media, schools and hospitals.

8. Our country must modernise. We need to develop the education system, transport and housing. We should create energy from wind and solar power to protect the environment.

9. Our country must be peace loving, not start disputes with neighbouring countries or support wars.

I fully support all but the last sentence of point #4 - instead I would seek the abolishment of the Privy Council, and an amendment to the lese majeste laws such that only the palace can make the charge.

I'm sure there will be much discussion of Ji's manifesto (even in Thailand), and kudos to him for sticking to his principles (unlike the current PM!)

Now, on to the BEST thing I have seen written about the Thai situation: it's here

Hat's off to the writer - I wish I could have written something like that.

Red Shirts make four demands

(photo courtesy of 2bangkok.com)

The four demands are:
1. The government to take legal action against the People's Alliance for Democracy
2. To purge Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya
3. To re-enforce the 1997 constitution
4. To dissolve the House (after the readopting the 1997 charter).

What, if anything, should the Abhisit led government do in relation to these demands?

When the PAD started making demands of the PPP government, these are some of the things I said:
September 7, 2008
'The government should not give in to the PAD, but they also have a responsibility to try to move the country forward'.
August 31, 2008
'Even if PAD do not moderate their demands, Samak and the PPP need to act in a competent and reasonable manner, which I think means they should do the following:
- Address all of the PAD concerns in a reasonable manner.
- Dismiss (with proper explanation) those demands that are unreasonable and outlandish.
- Agree that the constitutional amendment process be a consultative process with parliamentary debate, followed by a public referendum.
- Undertake a public education program outlining how they have addressed the legitimate concerns of the PAD, and also outline how the unreasonable demands are bad for democracy.
- Once the above has been done, the PPP should set a deadline for the PAD protesters to disperse, and if the PAD protesters still fail to disperse then the deadline should be enforced with appropriate/reasonable force (such as tear gas & water cannons).
Simply dismissing the PAD as an unlawful mob and falling back on its own electoral legitimacy is not good enough and in my opinion is poor governance.
It is up to the government to act in a competent and reasonable manner, even if the PAD leadership wont! '


For some reason, the PPP failed to take my advice on those occasions - I wonder why?


The rest is history!

Again, in the interests of moving the country forward, here are my suggestions to this latest set of demands by protesters:

1. PAD prosecution:
Abhisit to give clear instructions to whichever departments are in charge of the PAD prosecutions, that the charges must be laid withing 14 days, or the department heads will be removed from their positions.

2. Kasit removal:
This should be done at the same time as other cabinet reshuffles, also within 14 days
(No need to concede anything, just do it as a goodwill gesture in the interests of reconciliation)

3. Constitution:
Even if it could be done, bringing back the 1997 constitution will not resolve the problems - Regarding, the constitution, I make the same suggestion to this Democrat led government as I gave the PPP led government (see above quotes & links)

4. Dissolve the house: (Update: If only I knew more about Chumpol's 'irresistible force' at the time of the original post:)
There is no need for Abhisit to do anything on this, other than to explain that the government came to power within the rules, and that a future dissolution and elections will also be held within the rules.
He could also explain that the same people that the UDD are now complaining about were once members of the PPP led coalition, so the UDD complaints are disingenuous anyway.



As for dealing with the protests generally, my advice to the Democrat government is the same as it was to the PPP led government.

Lets see if the outcome this time is any different.

Abhisit the Monster - a creation of whom, or what?

.
khikwai has an excellent blog on The Abhisit Tragedy
Bangkok Pundit is also taking the opportunity to run strongly on similar themes.

I agree Abhisit's handing of the Rohingyan refugee treatment issue has been very disappointing (to put it mildly).

From where I sit, the way Abhisit has handled Rohingya matter looks very much like how a certain popular predecessor would have acted, so I wonder can Abhisit's action all be put down to him being a captive of his military masters, or are other factors also at play?

I doubt Abhisit's Eton/Oxford education is one such factor, nor is the Democrat Party ideology such a factor, but could Abhisit (in a misguided way) be giving the thai people what he thinks they want?

Has Abhisit, the politician, 'learned' something from the way Thaksin retained immense popularity after brushing aside many human rights abuse controversies (which were mainly raised and championed by foreign media and organisations)?

Whatever Abhisit does, he will be criticized.
Some will criticize because they are on the opposing side of the fence politically/ideologically - that's to be expected, and should be taken in his stride as it's just what oppositions do to try to remain relevant.
Others will never be able to accept how he came to power, as it does not fit within their notion of 'democracy' - that too is understandable, but is easily deflected in the context of thai political practices.
Many criticize him for failing to punish the PAD leaders - IMO, it's not up to him to do such things as politicians should not interfere with the legal processes - all Abhisit can reasonably be expected to do is request that the legal authorities pursue the cases expediently, without fear or favour.


My biggest criticism of Abhisit is that he is taking away hope.

Kasit as Foreign Minister, the website crackdown, and the Rohingya refugee issues are glaring examples that Thailand has another leader who puts vested interests before simply doing the right thing.

Shame on you Abhisit for taking away hope that a Thaksin, Samak, Somchai is not as good as it gets.

Signs that the red shirts (pro-democracy?) activists have lost the plot

.
Exhibit A:

The Nation Red-shirted people raid Santi Asoke branch in Chiang Mai

Chiang Mai - Some 150 red-shirted supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra raided the Chiang Mai branch of Santi Asoke Buddhist sect to hunt for Chamlong Srimuang.
They raided the Phupha Nam Fah Monastery at 1 pm.
They stormed through a police barricade, which was formed 20 metre before the monastery's entrance.
Some 100 elderly people, women, children and Santi Asoke monks gathered at a pavilion and remained in silence during the raid by the angry protesters.
Some monks were standing still and the lay flowers were sitting in meditation without responding the shouts and aggressive acts of the protesters.
Some protesters hit some monks at their shoulders with "feet clappers".
The protesters raided the place following rumours that Chamlong Srimuang, a co-leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy, visited the monastery Thursday night.
They dispersed nearly an hour later after searching through the place and did not find Chamlong.


A low blow attacking monks.


Exhibit B:

The Nation Red shirt protesters call for Singapore and Burma to boycott Asean Summit

Red shirt protesters who are loyal to ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra called for leaders of Singapore and Burma to boycott the upcoming Asean Summit in Thailand.
They rallied in front of both embassies on Friday and submitted petitions to the leaders through representatives of the embassies.
The protesters waved banners and posters, written in English, criticising Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, his government and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya.
Thailand will host Asean Summit in Hua Hin next month. It had rescheduled the summit several times due to street protests.
Veera Musikapong, Jakrapob Penkair and Nuttavudh Saikue, who were hosts of controversial Truth Today TV programme, a pro-Thaksin Shinawatra media outlet, were among leaders of the protesters.
Reading the petition, Jakrapob said that Abhisit Government was not real representatives of Thai people. Moreover the appointment of Kasit had against the public's views as he joined the protesters after they seized the airports.
"We support Asean, but could not support the (Thai) government that had no legitimacy to administer the country," he said.
A Burmese diplomat received the petition from Jakrapob.
Later the red shirt protesters marched to Singapore Embassy on Sathorn Road and submitted the petition to the embassy's first secretary, who said that Singapore could not get involved in the matter because it was internal issue.
However he will forward the petition to Singapore government.


Just great - demanding those two bastions of democracy to boycott the Asean summit.


Caution: Both stories came from The Nation, so make of them what you will!

Ethical Travel

There has long been a debate about the ethics of travel to Burma - does it help the dictators, or do the benefits trickle down to the people?

I wonder, why does there not seem to be such a debate for travel to Thailand?

Here is a quick list of things that most tourists choose to turn a blind eye to when travelling to Thailand:
- Ill treatment of Rohingya refugees & other minorities
- Nonsensical lese majeste charges against journalists, academics, writers, students etc
- Sexual exploitation including of minors
- Rampant corruption by government officials, military & police
- Military & elites continued disrespect of democracy & general repression of the poor masses
- Lack of freedom of speech (blocking websites etc)
- Environmental/pollution neglect & cover ups

That's just a quick list off the top of my head - I'm sure there are many other things of concern.

I'm not advocating stopping travelling to Thailand - that would hurt too many people who rely on tourism - but I do think tourists need to be more aware of the issues, instead of turning a blind eye just so they can continue enjoying the cheap travel, goods, food, accommodation, sex etc on offer.

My major concern is that tourists, by voting with their feet and turning a blind eye to obvious wrongs, are contributing to allowing those wrongs to continue to be perpetrated.

Of course, it's not only the many tourists who turn a blind eye - most mainstream media are compliant accomplices, and the Australian government performance in the Harry Nicolaides matter also seems to have been very disappointing (from where I sit).

PS. No, Dr T has not paid me to write this - I still think he's a part of the problem, not the solution.

UPDATE:
I've been thinking more about this issue, and wanted to clarify that I definitely don't think stopping travelling to Thailand will help make things better, and could risk making things worse.
We need to remember, if it wasn't for the tourists to the Similan Islands who blew the whistle on refugee treatment, then that issue would have remained buried and would have been much easier to cover up.
Kudos to those tourists for raising the issue, and also to the select media outlets that investigated and pushed the story.

Revisiting a touchy subject

.
Here is my original review of Paul Handley's 'The King Never Smiles':

"Overall it is a great read, particularly if one is aware of the spin.
The book is clearly well researched, and with my limited knowledge of Thai history I am in no position to dispute any historical facts.
There are enough side comments in the book that lead me to doubt Handley’s declaration in the preface:
“I have never had any purpose but to satisfy my own curiosity and then to tell a more complete story of Bhumibol’s life and tenure on the throne”
Just the title of the book gives some indication of where Handley is coming from.
In his defence, I suppose from a commercial viewpoint it was necessary to have a more controversial theme, because merely regurgitating the 60th anniversary commemoration literature was unlikely to be a best seller even in Thailand, let alone outside.

No pictures are very unusual for a biography of this type – was copyright a factor ? I am sure Handley could have chosen some interesting photo’s of the various players if he had wanted to - has Handley offered any explanation for the lack of pictures in the book?

Handley wants us to accept that the King never smiles as part of the overall grand scheme, but with constant political bickering and people still suffering, why would the monarch want to be seen smiling – It would actually be offensive if the king went about his public duties smiling away, while his countries problems had yet to be alleviated.
We must also remember that the king lost both his father and his brother early in his life, and those events together with having to become monarch would surely have an influence - I imagine being a monarch would be quite a burden.

Another theme in the book is that the image of the king has been carefully cultivated during his reign via an orchestrated propaganda campaign to increase popularity of the monarchy. There may be some truth in that assertion, however in my opinion Handley has overplayed this matter.
He contends that the royal rituals and ceremonies are all part of this grand plan, but rituals are what royals do everywhere around the world (that’s just what they do – always have, probably always will).
For example Handley makes note of the various ceremonies after the death of Ananda as though they were also part of the grand plan, and in doing so he discounts or ignores the possibility that the family & the people felt a genuine sense of loss – in particular it would have been very hard for Bhumibol losing his brother and closest companion/friend.

It is also clear that the royals still had widespread popularity even before Bhumibol’s ascension to the throne - Handley even documents the large street gatherings to greet the young Mahidol’s during their first visit to Thailand, and the large gatherings for Ananda’s funeral ceremonies.

So rather than some grand plan, I think it can more properly be characterized as giving the people what they want – they expect rituals, they want the king to be considered a great man, a musician, sportsman, scientist, inventor, composer – it makes them feel good.

The royal charity works are also characterized as being part of the grand plan, but an alternative view is that the King genuinely wants to improve the situation in the country (the book documents the constant theme in the kings speeches and his preoccupation with droughts, floods, cooperative farming and sufficiency - rather than being a sinister way of advancing himself, I think it is clear that Bhumibol is trying to improve things)

Handley does a good job documenting the political events since 1932 together with the shortcomings of the leading politicians over that time.
Given the various flaws in most of the politicians, it is my opinion Handley has not made a strong case that things would have been any better without having Bhumibol on the scene, and it is fairly obvious that things could have been much worse.

The book also seems to imply that Western style democracy/capitalism is the best system for Thailand, without really making the case as to how things would be any better under that system and whether it would successfully translate to the Thai situation.
In my opinion Handley has failed to negate the King’s vision of unity being better than conflict, and communal work & moderation being better than capitalistic individual desires.

Handley offers some positive suggestions (in the last chapter) regarding the need for the monarchy to adapt and remake itself to ensure its survival.
It is obvious that the succession situation needs to be resolved and preferably before Bhumibol passes.
Here’s my suggestion: - Having acquired wisdom with maturity, the prince recognizes that his past actions make him unsuitable to be king and he withdraws in favor of his sister. Brother and sister work together to groom the prince’s children for the role after the princess’s reign ends.

OK that solves the succession issue, now let’s write a new constitution".

The above review was done in April 2007 and was originally posted at comment #33 of this very long thread over at New Mandala.

I generally still stand by my review, however events since the 2006 coup have strengthened Handley's argument.

Some of the recent comments to that New Mandala thread provide some fine examples of why a vision of unity and harmony should not mean conformity.

The Democrat led government would be wise to reconsider it's current blitz on websites etc as that combined with the spate of lese majeste cases risks doing more harm than good for the monarchy.