The fight goes on.....

Anti-coup activist Natthawut Saikua on Tuesday claimed that the Abhisit Vejjajiva government lacked the legitimacy to administer the country. Natthawut vowed to dislodge the government without granting a grace period to allow it to do its job and evaluate its performance.

He said his opposition to the government will be based on three issues. One of three issues is the military intervention to push for the Democrat-led coalition, seen as an undemocrative move. Another issue is the lingering doubts that Abhisit might be a draft dodger.

The final issue is the involvement of the People's Alliance for Democracy in assisting the Democrats to grab power.

The Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD) announced plans Tuesday for three days of protests against the Democracy Party victory.

In related development, the PAD organised a rally in Phetchaburi to thank its yellow-shirt supporters. It vowed to keep a close tap on the performance of the Abhisit government and threatened to revive the street protests upon suspecting of political foul play.

The red-shirt crowds in Nakhon Ratchasima and Phitsanulok rallied to oppose the Democrat-led coalition. They also attacked the Friends of Newin faction and MPs who broke ranks with the Pheu Thai Party.

-- reprinted with permission of The Nation

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/16/politics/politics_30091106.php

The man who is now PM

Thailand is following in the footsteps of the US; their parliament has just elected an untested young, Oxford-educated politician as the country's new leader. 44-year-old Abhisit Vejjajiva won the vote by a margin of 235 - 198, to become the country's third leader in four months. He inherits a country whose economy lies in tatters after three years of off-and-on political turmoil, and he told reporters he will focus on the need to revive the economy and unite the country's political divisions. (Sound familiar?) But Thai political analysts are already decrying his lack of experience, and they point out that he doesn't seem to have any plan for how to solve the problems. His selection has already triggered a new round of violence, this time by pro-Thaksin forces, and, as the results of three elections proved, they vastly outnumber Thaksin's opponents. They've vowed to return to Parliament in two weeks, when Khun Abhisit gives his first speech.

And the anti-Thaksin forces aren't through yet either. Now that they've finally gotten a prime minister they like, they want to make sure they're able to hold on to that power -- they're proposing to restructure the government so that 70% of the Parliamentary delegates will be appointed. In other words, the coaliation led by the People's Alliance for Democracy has decided that the people can no longer be trusted with the responsibility of democracy. When given the choice, voters overwhelmingly elected a man accused of severe human rights violations, corruption, authoritarianism, demagogery, acting non-diplomatically and hostility towards a free press, and they did it twice. Wait a minute.......that also sounds familiar. Hmmm, maybe we should rethink this idea of democracy in the US, as well.

-- photo courtesy of www.abhisit.org

The Economist -- better than FOX News

Let's hear it for The Economist! In one stroke, they've offended Thais, Chinese, monarchists, everyone of mixed heritage and immigrants around the world. Only a magazine with a such long tradition and huge international reach could achieve so much in so few sentences. Fabulous work!

Who else could get away with calling Thailand's king "the American-born son of a half-Chinese immigrant?" In one sentence, they implied that there's something wrong with being born in the US, being Chinese, being of mixed parentage and being an immigrant; that covers, what, a billion-and-a-half people. Most people considered it romantic when Prince Charles married Diana Spencer, and most considered it romantic when Thai Prince Mahidol, the son of Thai King Chulalongkorn, married a commoner, but The Economist wasn't fooled. They knew that having a royal father couldn't outweigh the stigma of being birthed by a commoner, who no doubt instilled unsavoury ideas into her children. Brilliant!

Their only named source for their allegations is Paul Handley, author of the book, The King Never Smiles. I talked to Paul when the book came out and learned that he lived in Thailand for less than a year. He told me that the information in the book came from sources in the palace. Now, I lived in Thailand much longer, married into a well-connected Thai family, worked for a man whose wife is close to the queen, and never had anyone share confidences like that with me, but Paul managed to waltz right in and cozy up to these Asian strangers. Amazing!

The Economist does add this disclaimer: "Mr Handley says that....nobody has disputed the main facts in his book." Even though they themselves had doubts about his information, they bravely forged ahead and reported it as fact anyway. Bravo!

Most of the allegations in the article have no named sources, but that didn't stop the magazine from reporting them as fact either. This in international psyops of the highest order. The insulting characterizations, unsourced allegations and use of the dubious Mr. Handley is a brilliant way to rally support for the king and the anti-Thaksin forces without appearing to do so. The CIA itself would be proud of the subtlety of their misinformation campaign. If they keep this up, Thailand's monarchy will become stronger than ever, and the country will soon be led by the Democracy party, which has never, in its 60-year history managed to form a stable government. That means many more years to come of this exciting turmoil, providing opportunities for savvy investors everywhere to come in and pick up properties at bargain basement prices. Bravo Economist! Onward!

Prologue to a larger battle?

"I think it's true." That's what one Thai told me after reading The Economist report accusing King Bhumipol, Queen Sirikit and high-level royal advisors of decades-long meddling in politics, despite constitutional restrictions. That was a stunning admission, and its the most vivid sign yet that the 9th king in the Chakri dynasty may be its last. The Economist article reported on this, attributing it to a Thai prophesy that could sway the country's superstitious people.

This sounds disturbingly like the travel books I when I first went to Thailand, written by Westerners, which spoke condescendingly of the "happy, childlike people," totally ignoring the fact that Thailand has had an independent and cohesive empire since the 13th century, successfully defending their territory against the Khmer, the Burmese, the Malay, China, and, most importantly, Western powers. They didn't do this by being "happy" and "childlike," but rather by being savvy, and brutal when necessary.

The fact is that Thais simply have different ways of expressing opinions and coming to conclusions, ways that are just as valid as those used in Europe and the US. Yesterday, I should have pointed out that Thais don't criticize the royal family, but neither do they criticize anyone openly. That would be insulting. What they do is agree, and then find an excuse not to do something they disagree with.

Since I never heard this prophesy when I was in Thailand, I wouldn't be surprised if this is simply a safe way of suggesting that it may be time to end the monarchy. The fact that is it now being repeated widely means that many people agree, an amazing shift in Thai society, and a sign that the current troubles have unleashed a much larger problem than anyone had realized. Many powerful people outside the royal family have a vested interest in continuing the monarchy; they're not likely to give up their power & perks without a fight that will make the current battle look like a minor skirmish. International diplomats need to step in now to mediate, or Thailand could end up looking like another Congo.

(Photo on King Bhumipol courtesy of Images History' Header photo courtesy of Sailing: real to reel)

A Royal Stir in Thailand

I know I promised you a profile of the man behind the PAD today, but events have gotten in the way. I simply can't ignore the reaction to the cover story in this week's Economist. Not since The National Enquirer published photos of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards visiting his love child has a story provoked such a storm of reaction and accusations.


The story that started it all is titled, "The King and them: the untold story of the palace's role in the collapse of Thailand's democracy," a massive two-parter that accuses King Bhumipol, Queen Sirikit and their advisers of supporting Thaksin's opponents. At first, the Economist and Thailand's magazine distributors said the closure of the airport kept them from getting the magazine into the country. But on Tuesday, Britain's The Guardian newspaper quoted

unnamed sources at The Economist and Asia Books as admitting that the real reason the magazine wasn't available was because they were afraid of being arrested, as the article "risks insulting the monarchy." No kidding! The article flat out accuses the king of supporting the politicians who toppled the Thaksin government and then nudging judges to convict Thaksin and his allies on a variety of charges. Not being content with that, it provides a list of other times the king has meddled in politics, including support of right-wing vigilante groups that killed student protesters in the 1970's, and then tops it all off by describing the king as "the American-born son of a half-Chinese commoner."

To understand how explosive this is, you need to know a few things: 1) Thais have long revered King Bhumipol as a near-deity and would quickly condemn anyone who criticized the King; 2) that adoration does NOT extend to other members of the royal family, such as the Crown Prince or Queen Sirikit; 3) Thailand has strict lese-majeste laws that make it a crime, punishable by 15-years in jail, to speak badly of any member of the royal family, thus preventing anyone who does want to be uncomplimentary from doing so.

Even implied criticism is off-limits -- in the 1990's a politician caught up in the heat of campaigning said that he had not been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, like the king. He escaped jail by abjectly apologizing and dropping out of the campaign. An Australian professor has been in jail since August because three sentences in his novel have been interpreted by some as suggesting that the crown prince mistreated one of his mistresses. You get the idea.

Quietly, however, Thais have long voiced their unhappiness with the Crown Prince, because of his so-called, "minor wives," fast lifestyle and sometimes unsavory companions. In more recent years, they've also begun to express disapproval of Queen Sirikit as well. The Economist piece has now brought that unhappiness out into the open; now that the discussion has begun, no one knows how much pent-up dissatisfaction could be released.

And Thais are discussing it. At last check, 180 people had posted comments to the pieces on The Economist website, Bangkok's bloggers are furiously typing away, and mainstream journalists are writing op-ed pieces. The comments range from complaints that the Economist has long had a pro-Thaksin bias as evidenced by the fact that a former Economist staffer now works for the embattled politician, to assertions that the piece simplifies and overstates the influence of the royals.

More importantly, the magazine also brought out into the open the whispers passing through the country that the current king may be the last.

(Photo courtesy of Troshy)

What's going on in Thailand?

Poor Thailand! It has so much going for it -- natural beauty, a parliamentary system of government, infrastructure, and a homogeneous and tolerant culture. It should be the economic engine of Southeast Asia; instead, it seems to have a coup every other week. What's wrong with these people? That's the attitude most Westerners seem to have. But the fact is, the ongoing unrest is in large part the result of a power struggle between the establishment and the reformers, led by two former business partners who had a falling out. It's an Asian version of the epic battle between Achilles and Agamemnon, and one that seems destined to drag on as long as its mythical Greek predecessor.

The first man is well-known -- former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Handsome, personable, and born into one of the richest families in northern Thailand, Thaksin was destined to succeed. He earned a PhD in Criminal Justice from a small university in Texas and then rose to the rank of Lt. Colonel in the Thai Police Department before retiring to go into business. Many of his early ventures had problems, but in 1986, he launched AIS, which grew into a communications giant, operating mobile phones, communications satellites and a television station.

Along with his success in business, Thaksin became involved in politics. After serving as Deputy Prime Minister in two governments that were quickly turned out of office, he turned populist and helped found the Thai Rak Thai party, which promised universal access to health care, a debt moratorium for farmers and a huge influx of money into local villages, among other things. The programs worked -- the country's GDP nearly doubled, it repaid its IMF loans ahead of schedule, the budget was balanced, and local villages were prosperous.

While his government was accused by human rights advocates of more than 2,000 extrajudicial killings in a crackdown on drug activity, most Thais supported the effort. Enemies accused him of corruption, but Transparency International's corruption perception index put Thailand in 60th place in 2000, the year before Thaksin took office, and in 59th place in 2005, the last full year Thaksin was in control.

The real problem with Thaksin is that his populist policies, appointment of political outsiders to important positions, and reorganization of the government left the country's powerful elite feeling marginalized. This created a powerful group of enemies in search of a leader. In 2005, they found him, and the movement began that eventually brought down a series of governments.

And it all began with a personnel change at a state-owned bank.......

--- tomorrow, The Man Behind the PAD