Striking similarity

An audience of Abhisit, a new Thai PM, with the King reminds me of Thailand some fifty years ago. 

There is a criticism towards Abhisit that he should not sit on the same level as the King. However, it is believed that the position has been arranged beforehand. 

Which means something? 

Back in the late 1950s, Sarit used to sit at the same level as the King. I believe that some might have seen the picture. 

These two images, one from the 1950s and another from present, poses a striking similarity: After Sarit staged a coup in 1957, the power was brought back to the monarchy after it was challaenged by Phibun. 

At present, the power was brought back to the monarchy by "an invisible coup" led by the army leaders (e.g. Three "P"s and Big Bung) after it is believed that Thaksin regime brought it away  in the last 5-10 years. Abhisit is someone who will stablize the monarchy once again. 

However, as we all have known, today the development of democracy in Thailand has come to the point that political conflict cannot be solved in the same way as it used to fifty years ago. Take Lese Majeste law for example, the world desperately wants to know why Thailand still tighten such law when this is a crucial time to discuss about the role of the monarchy in the constitutional system. Ultimately, this law has been used as a tool to discredit, criticize, and attack political oppositions, rather than to stabilize the monarchy itself.  

What happend proves that while the stream of democray is moving forward, Thai authorities choose to halt the process of change. The mass would still have nothing in hand and cannot think for themselves, but to look upon the role model in order to rely their lives on. I think this is an unhealthy way of rasing your "children".     

It shows that Thailand seeks sudden change, rather than a smooth, non-violent one. 

 

 

Historical Document (again)

The simple phrase to decribe the conflict that has been going on is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". 

I've got another historical document which I think makes my collection better. The earlier post is from the PAD's perspective. This one is from UDD. 

Do doubt that these documents will be so valuable in the next couple of decades.

 

Thai-Cambodian Conflict: another test for ASEAN

A situation at the border between Thailand and Cambodia deteriorates in the past 24 hours. The conflict extends from the previous dispute over the Prae Vihear Temple a couple of months ago. 

So far there are injuries and death from both side. Diplomatic methods are in order to stop this conflict at its early stage.

This is a test; not only for Thailand and Cambodia, but for all the ASEAN members. 

Thailand will host the ASEAN meeting later this year. This conflict might create an end to that occasion. It is very important that ASEAN countries must come together to weather the world's economic bust which will be inevitable for Southeast Asia. 

If the conflict is not solved any time soon. It will prove another failure of ASEAN as a regional organization. 

Let's prioritize the problem. 

P.S.  Detailsaresketchy might give you some updates 

Parallel politics

I think Thai and Malay politics today have something in common. 

Situations show the struggle of power between two groups; those who tried to secure interests (because they feel threatened) and those who ask for a share, if not a replacement, of power. 

The problem is a classic: Resources are limited, so everybody must fight for it. 

Events in Thailand illustrate that the fundamental power is still strong (some scholars call it "bureaucratic polity", which I think quite problematic in the current context). The former PM - who now bases in London - is a good example. The consevative force support those who align themselves closely with it. However, it seems that the conservative force changed its appearance in many ways. (bluntly, it knows how to spend the money and spend it well!) 

This situation is reflected from Thai history when power could not be easily decentralized.

In Malaysia, the UMNO seem to have quite a problem because it does not hold as strong power as it used to. The development of parliamentary system is working in Malay politics this time.  UMNO does not have too many methods to secure popularity like the fundamental power in Thailand does. It is interesting to see how Anwar's parliamentary means will work this time. 

 Malaysia will experience a change in politics way sooner than Thailand.

Ps. Those who are interested in Southeast Asian literature and living in Thailand, go to see the introduction of Southeast Asian writers at the Thai National Library, Fri 26 Sept, 2pm 

  

Thailand's S.E.A Write Awards 2008

Congratulations to Watchara Satchasarasin's (วัชระ สัจจะสารสิน) short stories "เราหลงลืมอะไรบางอย่าง" [We have forgotten something] on winning Thailand's S.E.A. Write Awards 2008

Ps. A review from Laughable Love's blog might give you some idea. Unfortunately, it's in Thai.

The vicious cycle of politics

To be honest, I don't want to talk about the current political situation that much. As a historian, it is too early to analyze. Let this be an exception.

The PAD has come out to the streets again. Nothing new. Somehow I agree with those people who condemn the media for making this matter too salient.

I cannot understand why the PAD's supporters do not see what is the most urgent matter for the country. Prices are roaring, don't expect that the new government can make everything better overnight.

I tell you; whether you guys win or loose, you will be suffered, not your leaders. Those people are getting even richer from this situation.

You are being used!

Ps. However, I don't think they will succeed. No support from above.

"Morality" and Thai politics

There are many disscussions about 'morality' and Thai politics today. I have watched Chu-Pitch TV in Prachatai.com the other day, Ajarn Pitch talked about the role of morality and Thai politics.

Ajarn Pitch focused on morality(Sin-la-tham) in democracy. He says that democracy is the system to manage 'selfishness' of the people(I agree with this Hobbsian approache) and to tell whether there is any morality in domocracy, we have to see how much can the elected represent the need of the people. He concluded that, in this regard, it is possible only to see morality 'inside' or 'outside' politics.

Morality in Buddhist notion will not be discussed in this context.

Just like Ajarn Somsak's article on the lastest Matichon Weekly about Pridi's project to legalize and set up casinos at Thai's border in 1938. Because the state had demolished some kind of tax, which would cost a big loss. Therefore, Pridi decided to build casinos to generate income for the state.

Ajarn Somsak also argue that talking about morality in Buddhist notion in present context is not pragmatic.

Nowadays, so many people are talking about morality(Buddhist notion) in politics. Which is a very subjective topic to find the ground.

Let's stick to something touchable.

Thai Studies

1st point

It is interesting reading Ajarn Kasien's Article (I'm sorry, it's in Thai) about "democracy". It has been many decades since scholars, both Southeast Asians and non-Southeast Asians, are trying to answer the question: Are Southeast Asian countries suitable for democracy?

I think there are several questions we need to ask in order to answer such a question;

- What is democracy?

- Is there anything called 'relativism of democracy'?

- What does it take to be a democratic country?

- etc. etc.

2nd point

New Mandala has posted a summary from the International Conference on Thai Studies on Handley panel. Very interesting.

But, what is 'network monarchy'?

Is it a contemporary phenomenon or kings set up this kind of network before?

Ajarn McCargo's phrase got so famous!

I think it's the 2oth-21st century phenomenon. If you don't count King Chula's family network against the Bunnags.