Readers' opinion: 'The current political situation in Thailand is not an aberration, but the norm'
With a turnout of 58%, 61% of Thais voted in favor of the new constitution in which democracy is given only a limited role and the military retains power through the unelected senate. Thailand is almost certain to face a period that will be marked by further bloodshed. The bombings of the last few days are a sinister harbinger of what lies ahead in Thailand.
There is still a serious political divide in Thailand. The current situation will plunge Thailand into crisis again. Thailand is referred to in tourist guides as “the land of smiles”. But as long as the country comforts itself with this "Thai smile", it is a pure fabrication to believe that the country is a bastion of happiness and unity.
Thailand formed from Buddhist kingdoms and the southern Islamic sultanate of Pattani, has been formed by the successive monarchs of the current Chakri dynasty. The Rama kings, beginning in the 18th century, did not shy away from violence to bring various subjects under the rule of crown, language and religion. Despite the succession of generations since the arrival of Siam and the centralization of power in Bangkok, regional and cultural differences continue to divide contemporary Thailand.
The ongoing war of attrition in the Deep South, where Islamist insurgents are fighting a bloody hand-to-hand battle with Buddhist security forces, is the strongest illustration of the simmering of historical grievances, but it is far from unique. Every few decades, there is some sort of backlash against Bangkok.
The Isaan region of northeastern Thailand, the stronghold of Shinawatra's “Phue Thai” has long been a hotbed of animosity towards the capital. Who thinks that Taksin's role has been played out? Forget it. Thailand is on the verge of a political “Taksinization
Discontent will spread to other regions. There will be peasant revolts due to crippling debt and overbearing regulations from, again, Bangkok. Students will protest. Situations such as those that took place in 1976 and 2008 cannot be ruled out. By sticking to this very rigid centralized power structure, where there is not much give and take, it will be difficult to keep the Thai people in check. Any compromise is doomed to failure. Violence will continue to escalate. Tourist guides will have to find another quote for the ever comforting "Thai smile".
Submitted by Ronald van Veen
Nobody has a crystal ball to look into the future, not even me, but you do paint a very bleak picture of Thailand. I think Thaksin's role is over for the time being, at least as long as the current military regime remains in power. There is also a good chance that the current PM Prayut will remain in power after next year's elections.
Well, that's what the writer says in the column until the millions of poor peasant families start to revolt. And then we mean no Dutch, let's complain a little on Facebook rebellion, and then the ball can suddenly start rolling strangely in Thailand I think.
It's a screenplay, but not the screenplay. I don't see it that bad myself. Eventually, the power elite will also realize that dissension is not the solution to the current problems. As soon as economic decline comes, people will choose eggs for their money and compromises will be made. If the money bag doesn't ring along, the power elite will also want change.
I wonder what you are basing this writing on. I suspect only your own opinion. And I don't agree with that at all. What you postulate here could just as well apply in all countries of Europe.
I'm afraid this blog is not the forum for a discussion like this. Not much can (read should) be said here. Let me put it this way: I find little advantage in a military dictatorship, and that is what Thailand is now becoming. I'm not talking about right or wrong. Rather about good and evil, rich and poor, ……
But as said before, we better keep our mouths shut here (that is also what a military dictatorship wants…).
Thaksin's role as a person has been played out. But that does not mean that the world of ideas behind it (more say, autonomy, freedom of speech, equality before the law) as expressed by the red shirts and in the various regions will cease to exist.
The economy is still growing slightly, but only due to tourism, all other sectors are negative. If the economy continues to deteriorate, the elite will not feel it and will instead try to strengthen their power against the rising opposition.
I therefore fully endorse Ronald's analysis. All signs point to the fact that the elite will not want to relinquish its power and grip on society. An uprising like in 1973, 1992 and 2010 seems inevitable to me. When and how exactly I don't know.
Most Thais are knowledgeable and aware of the political situation. They are waiting to see what the paint elections will bring next year.
Disagree with your description of Thaksin. It was not at all aimed at improving the poorer Isaan region. That was (and still is for the political successors) just electoral cattle. He, and his family, have enriched themselves on these people's backs by expanding his telecom business. Handing out free mobile phones and then milking them through the subscriptions. And later, against his own rules, to sell abroad (Singapore) at a huge profit. Thaksin is not the savior of the fatherland here. Just an elitist money grabber. But sneaky.
It seems to me that Thaksin's ideas have very little to do with improving the living conditions of the poor.
The contrary.
Thaksin is and remains out for personal gain, personal power and using democratic means for his own benefit.
No more and no less.
The great example of the Suhartoclan in Indonesia and the Marcos/Aquinoclan in the Philippines was his direction
They also use democracy to maintain their power goal.
The use of populist sweeteners is one of the means.
I hear from acquaintances in both Indonesia and the Philippines that the army and the police have a full ten fingers in the pot of power, and they show that very clearly.
There, too, democracy is used as a tool to keep power.
Personally, I think things are not too bad in Thailand.
So I can't agree with the article.
I understand your (fear of you) very tight screenplay but like previous writers, I see it a little less gloomy. Thailand's political and military elites have absolutely no interest in driving the country further into economic crisis. Rather, I foresee - and that also seems more appropriate to the nature of most Thai people - a very gradual improvement, which unfortunately sometimes requires some (excusez le mot) 'shock waves' in order not to stand still in the necessary development towards a real democracy. I'm afraid there is currently no single governance model that can work seamlessly across the many opposing interests. We'll see what action and reaction look like in the near future; I hope and expect a little more wisdom and a little less polarization.
It may turn out completely different than described above.
I believe more that the current PM is doing a good job, but he is surrounded by lesser gods who make statements at random.
They would have caught those bombers and expect them to follow Duterte's politics to suppress crime and drugs.
The farmers in the words are the biggest problem because there is an increase in scale
and need a cooperative to work more profitably
I also think this piece is much too gloomy and although the near future does not look too rosy, in my opinion there will not be a sea of bloodshed. In addition, I think that the role of Thaksin has been played out. I also don't see many disadvantages of this regime. As an expat it doesn't bother me at all and I can always do whatever I want. That one should perhaps be a little more careful with what one says or writes is perhaps true. But we must let the Thai people solve their own problems. The continuous comparison with Western democracy does not help one bit and offers no solution whatsoever.
Almost all coup attempts occur in relatively poor countries with a mixed form of governance, ie partly democratic and partly autocratic. When politicians in such a country are highly polarized, this increases the chance of coups even more. In general it can be said that once there has been a coup in the recent past, the chance that another one will be committed increases.
Coop Thailand
When these conditions are applied to Thailand, it can be seen that Thailand meets a number of conditions. Thailand has a mixed form of government with highly polarized politicians. In terms of prosperity, Thailand is average: it is neither among the rich countries nor among the poor countries. Because Thailand has seen several coups in the past century, this increases the likelihood of another military coup. Yet a coup remains an exceptionally rare event, even when a country meets all risk factors.
Since 1932, there have been eleven successful military coups in Thailand and seven attempts. History repeats itself and it will now.
I don't believe in ink black senario. It can get out of hand after the first 5 years as the full “democracy”
returned with pocket-filled politicians, Taksin being one of them.
In that case you can expect another coup after a few years.
Negotiations in the south are not progressing. This is partly due to the lax attitude of Malaysia
In my opinion, Thailand cannot be governed in a democratic manner at the moment. Recent history has proven that the Thai land rulers are incapable of governing properly. Prayut is the leader this country needs right now. A tight leadership and no room for discussion. Painful for people who would like a little more democracy, freedom of speech, free press, etc. But that will come naturally when the country enters calmer waters. Prayut would do well not to lose sight of the interests of farmers in particular. I also think it would be sensible if he does not let the finances go too emphatically to the army. So, for example, don't buy submarines. I could not name a country in the world where there is a real democracy. Not even in Europe. All sham democracies. So let's not measure Thailand against our western democracy.
Thailand currently has the leader Thailand needs right now.
I agree, but I hope that Prayut avoids violence (violence begets violence) and still listens to what is going on in this beautiful and above all rich country!
Even if you were absolutely right, it is still a matter of shrugging your shoulders and going on with the order of the day. With a smile.
Power, like a hard drug, is super addictive. Those who have experienced power are rarely willing or able to relinquish it. Opposition is rarely tolerated and democracy, in any form, is hard to find. There are countless examples of this worldwide and when a country's economy is in decline, the ruler will only want to strengthen his grip on society, as Tino Kruis already noted. The farming population in Thailand is getting deeper and deeper into debt and unskilled workers are finding it increasingly difficult to find a job due to the competition from even poorer “immigrants” from neighboring countries. If international investments in Thailand decrease due to current policies, the Thai population will unfortunately suffer the consequences and the pressure on the kettle will only increase. From a tourist point of view, I still think Thailand is top, but the surrounding countries are developing very quickly and are increasingly becoming a formidable competitor of Thailand.
Thaksin's role is over. People are now draining their supporters financially. His paladins in the power structures have been removed and are facing corruption charges. The one who hated the same figures at the center of real power with him has been neutralized.
And what few Westerners seem to want to understand is that the average Thai from North to South, including Isaan, does not care about democracy. They want a strong figure who takes care of his private interests. The fact that this is at the expense of the general interest or other regions does not interest him at all. That was the basis of Thaksin's success. Who very openly stated that those who did not vote for him should not expect anything from him. The major political problem in Thailand is that outside the Liberal Phadiphat party, there are no structured national parties, not even regional parties. But only local rulers who have their own political party, such as Newin in Buriram. The recently deceased Banharn in Suphan Buri. These local pottery houses sell themselves to the highest bidder. That's how Thaksin came to power, and that buying up of political support also resulted in an unprecedented wave of corruption, even by Thai standards.
Prayuth and those in the real center of power (former military government leaders) who support him have learned their lessons from the coups of 2006 and 2010. That is, with the new constitution they have ensured that there will never be shady figures like Thaksin again. can come to power. And that's a good thing. Not only for the country, but also for the population, including those in Isaan.
Besides, in the last two years the junta has done more for the development of Isaan and its small rice farmers than all the Thaksin governments combined. That is also a lesson they learned from the coups of 2 and 2006.
So I look to the Thai future with confidence. That one is the current PM Lung Prayuth is also indicative of his popularity
Contrary to the above posting by “henry”, I keep in mind that the moment can/will come when I / wj have to look for safer places for a while, this may take a while, but no one can last forever …. .”
Oppresses a people and it expands “….. GDR best example of total control 1 in 4 was a Stasi agent, and yet completely imploded without violence even….. they simply marched to the wall and demanded opening, just chanted “we since das people” repeatedly…..the rulers then realized that they could not shoot their entire population/majority….and opened the wall!
.
A majority, no matter how illiterate and despised… can never be swept under the rug forever… the Thai army consists largely of… yes those who were poor enough not to buy their freedom or high education ..... so "grassroots"
This was once a tacit guarantee against dictatorship in Europe …… general conscription .. which conscript soldier is going to shoot at his own group now .
Of course I understand everyone's point of view and especially if you move in well-to-do Thai circles ... then the view is different ...
One of the few things I remember from my childhood history lessons is this. Our teacher said: the best way to rule a country is a dictatorship, BUT… it has to be a good one. I don't think the junta in Thailand is doing too badly at the moment. In any case, better than the endless discussions between yellow and red. The country is manageable, decisions can be made quickly. In Belgium you no longer even know who should decide what or how something should be decided.
Both the Democratic Party and the political parties affiliated with Thaksin and Yingluck all espouse the neo-liberal, capitalist model, based on some form of democracy. In general, two things are important:
1. The neo-liberal model is on the back foot because it is unable to match a gradual economy with a responsible use of natural resources. One of the main problems in this country is not the economy but the environmental degradation and the consequences of climate change. (drought, flooding, environmental problems, health problems);
2. The time-honored model of democracy prevailing in the West is showing significant cracks. The rich are actually getting richer everywhere at the expense of the middle class and the weak and not democratically controlled institutions (IMF, World Bank, European Commission, the banking world) call the shots. There is a real crisis of democracy in the world, which is clearly visible in America, which is facing presidential elections that are already debatable. (voting machine fraud, incomplete and incorrect voter registrations)
Thailand and the Thai economy are too small to operate independently. It is important for the future of Thailand to see under which sphere of influence Thailand is and may be placed. 'Strangely enough' the political arch-enemies hardly differ in opinion. Thailand is moving at high speed towards China. Until 10-15 years ago, Thailand was mainly oriented towards the west, especially the USA. Now look at the comments of major politicians and business people in this country and America and Europe cannot do much good in their eyes. Yes, 'whining' about freedom of speech, stressing free elections (see their own problems in choosing presidential candidates), about the safety of planes, slavery in the fisheries, refugees who are not helped, etc. etc. The Chinese keep the molars neatly together.
And see how the Chinese are expanding their influence over the past 10 years in Southeast Asia (money, a new world bank, aid, buying food, the HSL, sending masses of tourists, building islands in the sea, etc.) and you don't have to be a prophet to see that China will play a much bigger role in Thailand in the coming years.
The Chinese have no interest in unrest in Thailand and will ensure that a form of guided 'economy and democracy' is created, the seeds of which can now be found in the new constitution. And even after the 2017 elections, I do not expect a real open battle, but more an internal battle between interest groups. About 10 years ago, Prime Minister Thaksin already showed Chinese people around Isan with the idea of leasing many square kilometers of land and buildings to the Chinese, whereby thousands of farmers would simply become employees in the rice cultivation of a Chinese farm for a monthly salary. (And then probably lose their jobs if the Chinese rationalized rice farming). The Chinese are better at corruption than the Thais. That's one thing for sure.
Let's stay focused on China: according to Worldbank, Bank of Thailand and others, exports to China amounted to only 2015% in 11. If you look at the countries and regions that Thailand exports to, it appears that other countries are more important. The Western countries, Japan and other countries in the Thailand region are especially important for Thailand.
For a detailed overview, look for example at the Bank of Thailand for exports per country.
Given the disappointing growth in China and the saturation of the economy there, one can expect that China will not really become of greater economic importance to China.
Now to say that Thailand is moving up; no. Only the current government may have more contacts with China politically, but that can have the opposite effect with subsequent governments. From an economic point of view, Thailand now and in the future depends on other countries.
And don't forget the sentiment either. Many countries and populations in the region of Thailand are not very fond of China. A greater influence could turn out badly in Thailand.
China is Thailand's most important trading partner, Japan is second. Trade with Asian countries represents about 2% of its trade balance, trade with the entire EU barely 40%, most of which is with Germany.
Thailand is the largest economy in SE Asia after Singapore. It is the only country in the region that does not have a conflict with China regarding claims in the South China Sea.
Political and economic ties with China have always been very strong.
The fact that the Thai economy is in the hands of ethnic Chinese (Sino/Thai) is not surprising. After Japan, Thailand is one of the largest investors in China. Companies like CP in particular invest billions there. For example, they have the franchise rights of 7Eleven for China.
So, from these economic reasons, it is normal that Thailand is more and more tying its future to Asia.
Even in tourism, the importance of Western tourism is becoming less.
In short, Thailand's future lies in the East, not the West. And no one realizes this better than the Thai themselves.
By the way, in Asia there is a tradition in foreign policy that people do not interfere in other people's affairs. The constant comments from both the US and EUZ are not well received by the average Thai, who is a fervent Nationalist.
Thailand will change, and look completely different within 25 years, but it will not have become a democracy according to the Western model. They will have a democracy the Thai way. Just like they adapt everything to Thai way, even Buddhism they have 100% verThai.
That is why there is also the expression TIT, This Is Thailand.
If Hans has different figures than the official bodies, we can discuss for a long time.
Some real figures from the Bank of Thailand: export to the EU 11 percent, import 9 percent
just to point out a falsehood in your piece.
Largest investors in 2015 in China: Hong Kong 73 percent, Hong Kong 5,5 percent, Taiwan 3,5 percent Japan 2,5 percent etc. . Thailand is not even mentioned as an investor. In short, your story about CP and the billions in investments is nonsense.
And Indonesia is the largest economy in South East Asia.
And the fact that it has no conflict with China over the South China Sea is because this sea does not border Thailand. If this was the case, Thailand also had a conflict with China, because China wrongly claims something to which it is not entitled.
Instead of a thorough analysis with a conclusion attached to it, it is better not to say anything… If you want to clarify something in terms of figures, you must first delve into it.
minor adjustments: investor No. 2 in China is Singapore with 5,5 percent
The reactions show that the "farrang" who respond to this piece take extremely opposite positions when it comes to the administrative (Flemish say political) future of Thailand.
That shouldn't be surprising. Looking into the future is already difficult in itself and the Thai system is not easy for Westerners either.
In my experience, the image of the “farrang” is clouded by his own frame of reference for administrative/political thinking: the quasi-holy threefold division “Freedom, equality, fraternity”.
Regardless of whether a Western European politically tends towards liberal, Christian Democrat, social democrat or even nationalist, this basic frame of reference remains underlying. Even though that farrang is hardly aware of it. Or does he want to distance himself from it? And this applies equally, perhaps even more, to (new) North Americans, regardless of whether they lean Republican or Democrat. There, too, this tripartite division is the frame of reference (cfr. De la democracy en Amerique by Alexis de Tocqueville).
Thai have a completely different administrative/political frame of reference. One that is difficult for Westerners to fathom.
On the surface it seems to have Western democratic manifestations, even to have the democratic structures and procedures that are obvious to us Westerners. We see a head of state, a government, a parliament and courts. And we think it's all like home. Until we enter an administration and that official apparently arbitrarily imposes all kinds of “fantasies”. Completely normal and legal. Well tired, then it's a bit scary. And it goes much further when you leave the tourist areas and go deep inland and a “pujabaan”, or one of his satraps, comes to dictate to your wife that the swimming pool must be half empty because more water is needed for the farmers.
There it resembles administratively/politically the most feudal conditions from times long past. You can also see this in the relations between the central Bangkokian authorities and the provincial rulers. You can see that in the relations between the provincial bigwigs and the heavyweights in the municipalities, etc… In this we Westerners perceive all kinds of positions, relations and transactions that we “as uninitiated ignorant” quickly label as “corruption” for the sake of convenience. But is that really so? Isn't this service in return? Are these not forms of “non-monetized economy”? They won't come and tell us farrang...
In order to understand Thailand administratively/politically (Classical Greek: the governance of the Polis), we must be able to detach ourselves more from our own frame of reference. Very difficult … but maybe Thai Buddhism can help us to pave a path for that 🙂
It is already clear to me that none of the future images outlined here have much chance of becoming reality in the future.
If you want to stay in Thailand or move there (like my wife and I) then you have to learn to deal with that uncertainty ... and take a few measures in your own personal household. A matter of being able to overcome the uncertainty about the Thai state economy at the appropriate time 🙂
Dear Mark,
You make an extremely sharp distinction between the Western frame of reference (Freedom, Equality, Fraternity) and the Thai frame of reference (feudal, hierarchical structures).
First of all, it is of course true that feudal structures still exist in the West and that those structures were still dominant in many countries in Europe in the not so long past. I'm sure some people long for those days.
As far as Thailand is concerned, there is a battle going on between these two frames of reference, as was previously the case in Europe. Thailand is on its way to becoming a modern society with better educated people and a broader view of the outside world. They want to break free from those old, constricting ties.
The feudal ideology is almost exclusively confined to the rulers, the upper class, the elite. It is preached in the schools (obedience and gratitude) and enforced with a strong hand. That will manifest itself, as you already describe, in many other places. One accepts one's fate, what else can one do? But they don't do that out of conviction.
The majority of the population wants to choose freedom, equality and fraternity. The idea of an eternally fixed and 'natural' hierarchy is rejected by most Thais. This applies to a greater extent to some regions. How else can you explain the uprisings of 1973, 1992 and 2010? The main slogan of the red shirts in 2010 was: 'Down with the elite!'
The political struggle in Thailand is a reflection of the struggle between those two frames of reference, between old and new, between rulers and subordinates… fill it in. That's how I see it.
Ideas are like birds and clouds: they know no borders and nationalities.
You make a correct analysis that I can only endorse. People who, from their European frame of reference, continue to refer to left-right or Poor-Rich contradictions that will lead the country to chaos, have little insight into how Thai society works.
The regional and ethnic contrasts are much greater than the left/right or rich/poor story. It would take me too far afield to fully explain this.
And isn't it strange that it is precisely the regions with the highest education and training that have voted convincingly YES with the referendum, and that it is they who also want to give power to the army. It is precisely the well-educated who want strong management.
And the unrest in 2010 was about the new rich (elite) wanting to put aside the old rich (elite). And the red shirts were created to achieve this. But once defeat was certain, they were abandoned by their leaders.
I can recommend the following to anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of Thai society. https://historyplanet.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/the-last-orientals-the-thai-sakdina-system/