Political Situation in Thailand

Thailand have their King and Strong unified Armed Forces, which can stop the Politicians divided the country like The Ukraine Politicians did. For one thing an unified armed forces (at least for many of the nation in SEA) whatever the 'so called' human rights and democracy activist says, is the guarantor for Nation stability.

Look on Indonesia, in 1998 after Soeharto fall, every western analyst put their bet, and sure the country will be balkanised within 2-3 years. In did not happen for one thing due to unified Armed Forces. Same thing with Thailand.

No matter how much politicians 'murky' the domestic conditions, The Armed Forces will see that the Nation will not going further apart. Just like in Indonesia after Soeharto fall, the Armed Forces will stabilise the conditions, before they let the Politicians 'screew-up' again. It's the price for Democracy.

Still have to wander though, will this always be 4-5 years cycle for Thailand ? But then again looking at the market, seems they already see and expect this, and so does the Thailand businesses. So perhaps everybody already see this as normal for Thailand. You can say in some way, Thailand military is behave like an invisible hand in the market. Always corrected the conditions, before everything goes out of hand.
 
am not an expert, but I'm not sure how powerful the Thai Monarchy really is. They have lasted as long (???) as the military but what powers does it the King/Monarchy really have?
[Mod Edit: Enough with the trolling for a response.

This is your third and final warning. It is issued for trolling. The Mod Team notes that you have not observed the Forum Rules and have been warned twice before. Now you have the audacity to engage in counter-factual trolling. Our patience with you and your pattern of behaviour is wearing thin. ]

2014 will really test not just the whole of Thailand but the surrounding region as well. ASEAN we kno can't and wont do much.
[Mod Edit: The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established by Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines in 1967, not only to keep mutual distrust in check, but also in response to the threat of communism. With the impending power vacuum caused by the withdrawal of British forces in Southeast Asia and doubts about the staying power of the United States in Vietnam, it became paramount for the founding members to band together for strength in solidarity. As Lee Kuan Yew put it in his memoir:

“While ASEAN’s declared objectives were economic, social and cultural, all knew that progress in economic cooperation would be slow. We were banding together more for political objectives, stability and security.”​

Currently, the ten members of the ASEAN, combined are the third largest economy in Asia. Placed between the giants of China and India, ASEAN countries have to combine their markets to compete and be relevant as a region. There is no other choice. ASEAN is also playing a major role in shaping a wider architecture of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific. ASEAN sits astride some of the world’s most important trading routes and sea lines of communication, including the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. Since its founding in 1967, ASEAN has adopted two major approaches to relations with external powers.

First, ASEAN member states promoted the concept of regional autonomy to prevent any one power from exercising hegemony over Southeast Asia. ASEAN’s assertion of regional autonomy took two firms. It involved the expansion of membership from its initial core of five to ten of Southeast Asia’s eleven states. ASEAN’s assertion of regional autonomy also took the form of political declarations and treaties covering Southeast Asia as a whole such as the Declaration of a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (1971), the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (1976) and the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapons Free Zone Treaty (1995). In recent years ASEAN has advanced the concept of regional autonomy by ratifying the ASEAN Charter and setting the goal of creating an ASEAN Community by 2015. Further, there are three pillars to ASEAN and each pillar has a community council. The ASEAN Community Councils comprise Council of all the three pillars of ASEAN. Under their purview is the relevant ASEAN Sectoral Ministerial Bodies and these include:

(i) the ASEAN Political-Security Community Council;

(ii) the ASEAN Economic Community Council; and

(iii) the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Council.​

Second ASEAN's approach in relations with external powers has been to assert its centrality in the region’s security architecture. For example, when the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was established in 1994 ASEAN insisted that it be in “the driver’s seat” as the sole chair. ASEAN has grown from a modest forum for regional cooperation to an institutionalized organization responsible for a broad range of practical cooperation, and the driver for broader regional economic, political, and security integration. The ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM) is the meeting of the 10 Defence Ministers from ASEAN, plus 8 other powers. ADMM was inaugurated on 9 May 2006 in Kuala Lumpur and the 8 other powers are namely, the US, China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. In May 2011, ASEAN approved the establishment of Expert Working Groups (EWGs) comprising of an ASEAN member with an ADMM Plus member as co-chairs on various topics. These EWGs (with the each co-chair serving a term of a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 3 years) include:-

(i) maritime security (1st cycle: Australia and Malaysia; and 2nd cycle: Brunei and New Zealand);

(ii) humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (1st cycle: China and Vietnam; and 2nd cycle: Laos and Japan);

(iii) counter-terrorism (1st cycle: US and Indonesia; and 2nd cycle: Singapore and Australia);

(iv) military medicine (1st cycle: Japan and Singapore; and 2nd cycle: Thailand and Russia);

(v) peacekeeping operations (1st cycle: Philippines and New Zealand; and 2nd cycle: Cambodia and Republic of Korea); and

(vi) humanitarian mine action (Initial cycle for new EWG: Vietnam and India).​

The EWG could be dissolved when the ADMM-Plus assesses that the task of that particular EWG is completed. New EWGs shall be formed with the approval of ADMM-Plus (whose meetings is now held every 2 years) or the ASEAN Defence Senior Officials’ Meeting-Plus (ASOM-Plus), for the intervening years. At the 8th ADMM, ASEAN Defence Ministers discussed regional security issues of mutual interest, including measures to ease tensions in the South China Sea (SCS). They called on all parties to adhere to the articles in the Implementation Guidelines of the DOC which China and ASEAN have agreed, including "exercising self-restraint and avoiding actions that could escalate tensions", and stressed the need to work expeditiously towards an early conclusion of a Code of Conduct (COC) in the SCS. ASEAN Defence Ministers also agreed to Brunei’s proposal to establish a Direct Communications Link (DCL) or Hotline to keep the channels of communications open in the event of a crisis or emergency.

None of the posters responding to your posts are pretending that ASEAN is a homogenous group. If you look at distribution, the demography, the capita per GDP, the profiles, I think suffice to say, ASEAN members are happier that ASEAN is together than 10 separate nations. It is still work in progress.

The diversity motivates ASEAN members to have a common umbrella. Let me just cite one example. For example, piracy was a problem in the Straits of Malacca. It got to a point where it was classified by Llyod's as a war zone risk. Basically, shippers had to pay premium insurance premiums as a war risk zone. It was really the littoral states - Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, talking at that something should be done. It wasn't some glorified statement. It was two or three very simple principles.

One, was that the littoral states should be primarily involved in tackling piracy.

Two, that the user states could contribute.

Three, that the sovereignty of the littoral states, in all its efforts should never be contravened in these efforts against piracy.​

Three useful principles articulated in Shangri-La Dialogue, together with the other stakeholders. As a result, members of ASEAN evolved a common maritime patrol. Then, "eyes in the sky" patrols. It was a very interesting configuration where if an Indonesian plane flies, it had Singapore and Malaysian observers in the same plane and vice versa. Piracy came down; Llyod's took off the Straits of Malacca as a piracy risk zone. It is a very instructive lesson on what cooperation can do. Consensus and dialogue, while things are good, need to be there, before certain issues can be tackled.

The fact is, ASEAN is dynamic regional organisation that is occasionally envied for its ability to punch above its weight in international matters.

ASEAN has and will remain impartial because since its founding in 1967 non-interference in the domestic affairs of its members has been a fundamental principle of the grouping. However, there is unspoken concern in regional capitals of the other 9 ASEAN states. ]

US Pacific rebalance?
[Mod Edit: When the US talks about a 'pivot' or rebalance to Asia, there are distinct phases, where the US had in the past pivoted away from Asia, and this happened more than once in modern history.

The first US pivot away from Asia occurred in mid-1970s, with the Paris Peace Accords, which resulted the US withdrawal of ground troops from South Vietnam (i.e. the US pivot away from mainland South East Asia). While South Vietnam, was an official US ALLY, and it was allowed to fail, as a state. I see the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975, as the date on which the US pivoted away from mainland SE Asia. For Thailand, this was a pivotal moment, when they understood that they were an US ally, and if they lost against the communists, they would also be allowed to fail. This turning point and the failure of the Republic of Vietnam (aka South Vietnam), showed Thailand that it must build relations with China to manage the threat presented by Vietnam, back then.

The second US pivot away from Asia occurred in the early-1990s, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union on 26 December 1991. It is at this moment that the Philippines decided that they no longer needed the US and refused to renew the leases to the American bases in the 1991/2 period. For all of maritime South East Asia (i.e. Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore), this was a pivotal moment - in which Singapore understood to be an event not in ASEAN's interest (which is why Singapore, at that moment offered to host a logistics presence for US forces).​

As US Secretary of State John Kerry said at the US-ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on 1 July 2013:-

'And with regard to the South China Sea, I will say this: As a Pacific nation, and the resident power, the United States has a national interest in the maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law, unimpeded lawful commerce, and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. As we have said many times before, while we do not take a position on a competing territorial claim over land features, we have a strong interest in the manner in which the disputes of the South China Sea are addressed and in the conduct of the parties. We very much hope to see progress soon on a substantive code of conduct in order to help ensure stability in this vital region.'​

Economically, ASEAN has transformed itself since the 1997 financial crisis. Singapore has joined New York and London as a top-tier financial centre; Indonesia has become one of the world’s leading emerging markets and is a member of the G-20; and Vietnam has achieved growth rates rivalling those of China. ASEAN's population of closed to 500 million has a GDP of US$ 1.5 trillion dollars and together constitute a vital market for US exports. Maritime Southeast Asia also hosts considerable US foreign direct investment (FDI). Indeed, its stock of US FDI is more than twice China’s and almost six times that of India. Over the past two decades, a booming China has economically permeated the region, surpassing the US, Japan, and Europe to become its largest trading partner. At the same time, maritime Southeast Asia’s defining body of water, the South China Sea, has become a regional flashpoint. Beijing asserts sovereignty over most of the South China Sea while a number of littoral states advance more modest territorial claims (watch the video of the remarks by John Kerry and K. Shanmugam on 12 May 2014 and read the full transcript on US and Singapore concerns with regard to the May 2014 naval standoff between China and Vietnam in the South China Sea over China's oil rig, HD 981).

Your unfounded whining about ASEAN reflects on your inability to understand regional matters (see these comments on ASEAN by Tim Huxley).]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking on some Thai's forum, the present King is still highly regarded by most of the Thai's. However he's old and ailing, it's open to question though whether the same close to universal adoration to the King can still be taken over to the Crown Prince.

In short, he's the constitutional monarch, but traditionally followed as the unifies figures. Hope some Thai members can add.
 
Ananda said:
Looking on some Thai's forum, the present King is still highly regarded by most of the Thai's. However he's old and ailing, it's open to question though whether the same close to universal adoration to the King can still be taken over to the Crown Prince.

In short, he's the constitutional monarch, but traditionally followed as the unifies figures. Hope some Thai members can add.
Click to expand...

Well yes the Thai Monarchy may wanted to be involved...
[Mod Edit: As usual you have an opinion but you are unable to get the facts right. The Moderators intervene in threads to encourage discussion at an informed level, or to encourage basic research.

Your conduct indicates that you are not here to learn, or understand beyond the fortress of your own mistaken assumptions. As STURM has pointed out below, you are so clueless, you are even asking the wrong questions.
alexsa said:
Seriously, you have been reminded about one liners on a number of occasions and now we get multiple 2 line posts about changing political and economic impacts. Not a shock, they are always an issue ......... but you are adding very little to the discussion.

The you follow with another one liner ............... you are really a slow learner.
Click to expand...

aussienscale said:
You just don't get it do you, wish I could say your presence has been entertaining, don't think it will last much longer, maybe you are better suited to the types of forums that don't have actual input and are obviously not monitored by Mods.

We have an active Mod team on here especially for this very reason so we don't have to put up with this crap, your a troll, and not a very good one at that
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you and as a number of other forum members have pointed out, you are clearly not suited to be a member of this forum.]

But once prince is just taking refuge...Crown Prince of Thailand takes refuge in 5-star Hampshire hotel - Telegraph

I generally think Thailand is a tussle between the military and political parties.
[Mod Edit: Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple. The United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) whose supporters are commonly called Red Shirts, is a political pressure group opposed to the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) whose supporters are commonly called Yellow Shirts.

The recently disposed Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, is the sister of Thaksin Shinawatra (probably the most corrupt man in Thai politics). Thaksin Shinawatra's policies, in general, is populist in orientation. However, beneath this false veneer, it is really a means for him to use his wealth to gain greater control over the levers of power in Thailand - which includes vote buying to win every electoral contest. Beyond regionalism, this is also both a class dimension and an ethnic dimension to the struggle that few outsiders can comprehend in the present dysfunctional Thai political system that is patronage-dominated.

See also this video on Driving Ferraris with the Thai Royalists: http://youtu.be/e2hICl3PPrk

The Red Shirts comprise a coalition of actors within the UDD, and provide most of the support for the Pheu Thai Party (PTP). The PTP has many links with the old Thaksin Shinawatra government that fell in 2006-7. Many of the PTP’s older members hail from the exiled Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, which was disbanded for corruption among its governing body. For the Red Shirts, “Thaksinism” denotes a common populist political agenda of crime, drug and poverty reduction, universal healthcare and education, and microcredit economic policies. For the Yellow Shirts, “Thaksinism” has become a byword for corruption among the PTP and the political class. The Shinawatras are seen by the Yellow Shirts as an existential threat (given that the king’s reign is drawing to a close, due to health reasons). It is also well known in Thai circles that Thaksin is close to Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn (and heir to the throne).

The Thai Amy while not supporting the Red Shirts, do not necessarily support the leaders of the Yellow Shirts, all the time (Yellow Shirt Leaders include Suthep Thaugsuban and Abhisit Vejajiva). General Prayuth’s actions reflect an attempt to deal with a cancer at the heart of Thai society. The middle class residents of Bangkok recognise that what’s at stake in the changing power dynamics is money, power and self-interest. Middle class Bangkok, timidly supported the “Thaksinism” or his early social policies to benefit the rural regions. However, this middle class group have turned against him, and now expresses itself through noisy support for the Yellow Shirts. Thailand’s competing groups – the royalist elites in Bangkok, the poor and emerging middle classes from the rural northern provinces and the military – are all unprepared to compromise. An added complication this time is the poor health of the revered Thai Monarch, King Bhumibol, who traditionally would have mediated between the competing groups.

In the days leading up to the coup, the courts had first ruled as invalid an election in February called by Ms Yingluck and then ordered her to step down for abusing her power. The Pheu Thai caretaker government that survived her refused to resign and the political impasse continued. Coup leader Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha says that the Thai Army had to intervene to restore order, and needs time to change its "attitudes, values and several other things" before it is ready for a democracy that meets international standards. General Prayuth has since disbanded the Senate, a curfew has been imposed, and he locked all the political protagonists inside the Army Club to knock heads together (in an attempt to forge a compromise between the competing groups - the talks degenerated into a heated exchange where no one was prepared to give ground and all possible solutions involved abrogating the laws of the land in one way or another).

Before you wag your fingers at the Thai Army for this coup, we should keep this in mind - there’s little to be gained from taking sides in this domestic Thai matter between competing groups. Politics is about choices but right now, the leaders of the Red and the Yellow Shirts are choosing not to compromise; and this 12th coup on 22 May 2014, is the Thai Army imposing it's will on the two political coalitions with differing interests, who are refusing to compromise. The Thai Army is trying to force the two sides to sit together and negotiate; and get on with the day-to-day grind of governing the country that has deep flaws and divisions within its body politic. Among many ordinary Thais in Bangkok the coup is popular - as residents were fed up with the political bickering that paralysed the capital - the Thai Army stepped in only after six months of political deadlock at least 28 people were killed and several hundred injured over the course of confrontations between the Yellow and the Red Shirts. In fact, prior to the coup, the Thai Army had kept the peace between the Yellow and the Red Shirts by getting their leaders to come to a gentlemen's agreement to keep clear of each other's political activities in the province of Phayao (or the so called "Phayao Model"). Phayao by the way is a bastion of red-shirt support for the now ousted PTP-led government.

In his first public address since the coup, General Prayuth said: "The (ruling military regime) have a timeframe of one year and three months to move towards elections, "Enough time has been wasted on conflict." General Prayuth said a first phase of about three months would focus on "reconciliation" with a cabinet and new draft constitution put in place. For General Prayuth to avoid a surge in further bloodshed, he needs to act, and be seen to act, as neutrally as possible. He needs to put mechanisms in place for some reform measures to be implemented, without caving in to all of Suthep’s demands, and then ensure that these reforms are implemented in a speedy manner, because time is not on his side (as the Red Shirts/PTP are not likely to long-tolerate the current status quo). Time will tell, if the good general succeeds or fails to bridge the difference between the competing groups in a manner that does not allow the same gridlock to take place again and again.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmmm this article may help

Five reasons a coup was staged in Thailand, again
Thailand's king is Bhumibol Adulyadej, 86, and it's hard to overstate his importance in Thailand. He's the world's longest-serving monarch, and perhaps the most revered. His portrait hangs on government buildings, in taxicabs, in living rooms. Politicians often seem in a competition to claim their love for him. It's sort of creepy, at times. Stiff lese majeste laws prevent Thais from speaking about the king in any way that's critical.
The king has long been a behind-the-scenes mediator in Thailand's disputes, but this time around, he appears too ill to play that role. Instead, it's the question about his succession that is driving instability. It's not yet clear who will succeed the king — it could be his far-less-beloved son — but either way, when King Bhumibol passes away, Thailand's constitutional monarchy will be shaken to the core. And Thailand will have at least a partial power vacuum.
Click to expand...

But as my other post says, the Prince (not sure which son but still Royalty) is in hiding,

Who will take over?
 
Jeneral2885 said:
am not an expert, but I'm not sure how powerful the Thai Monarchy really is.
Click to expand...

You're asking the wrong question. The question you really should be asking is not how powerful the monarchy is but how revered it is amongst the Thai population.

Jeneral2885 said:
ASEAN we kno can't and wont do much.
Click to expand...

Can do much about what? There have been some areas where ASEAN has done a lot to seek a common consencus.
 
Jeneral2885 said:
Well put it this way, what has ASEAN ever done in the previous multiple Thai political scandals and millitary coups?

And similarly, the monarchy?
Click to expand...

??? I think you misunderstand what ASEAN is supposed to be. It is not some sort of superbody that gets to meddle in a member country's internal political affair. It's a vehicle where members can talk with each other in order to achieve a regional common goal. So Southeast Asian free trade zone? Yes. South China Sea issue, yes. No war in the region? Yes. A coup d'état? Hang on, does it affect the neighbouring countries? If not, then ASEAN does not consider it their problem.

If Thailand starts shooting at Cambodia or the other way around, ASEAN will try to pressure both to negotiate. It will offer itself as mediator. But if Thailand gridlocks itself into a political standstill, ASEAN will shrug and goes, "oh, those Thais" and continue business as usual.

Until the situation in Thailand starts impacting regional stability, ASEAN does not see it as their problem.
 
I do find a canned reply of the State Department and Sec State (to hold elections and revert power back to the democratic process) on the situation in Thailand somewhat amusing. I presume State actually know better but have to resort to standard statements without being seen as directly meddling.

The situation in Thailand is different from Indonesia post-Soeharto. It's more akin to a class struggle because the society is highly stratified with elites in and around the capital keen to run the country the way they like.

My view is the thai military, while deeply conservative, are not exactly beholden to these elites entirely. They probably see themselves are the ultimate guarantor on social stability through the King and hence they act believing stability is the overwriting concern.
 
Jeneral2885 said:
I understand what ASEAN is. This continuously marks the organisation/group's inability to act at all. And its not like ASEAN hasn't had political agreements or sounded out any political concerns towards its member states either...
Click to expand...

Well please educate me on what your understanding of what ASEAN is ? I will be most intrigued as to how it was set up, purpose, members, well I could go on, but you can fill the gaps I am sure.

I would appreciate it if you could make the reply as detailed as possible, I really don't mind reading through it, interested in your opinion ?

Cheers
 
Jeneral2885 said:
I understand what ASEAN is. This continuously marks the organisation/group's inability to act at all. And its not like ASEAN hasn't had political agreements or sounded out any political concerns towards its member states either...
Click to expand...

You do? Well, then, perhaps you can explain to me just how the ASEAN charter applies toward the internal politics of Thailand?

In fact, why did you even bother bringing ASEAN in the first place?
 
Jeneral2885 said:
Well put it this way, what has ASEAN ever done in the previous multiple Thai political scandals and millitary coups?
Click to expand...

You'll probably find this interesting.

ASEAN and the Principle of Non-Interference

To me at least; one major reason ASEAN has lasted as long as it has it because of this policy. ASEAN however has played the role as mediator in the past [e.g the Thai/Cambodian border dispute] and has engaged in back door diplomacy to help resolve disputes and avert conflict.

In the early 1990's, ASEAN - working with the UN and other countries - was successful in getting Vietnam to withdraw from Cambodia and for elections to be held there. ASEAN countries like Malaysia [also deployed a helicoter detachment], Indonesia and Thailand later deployed troops and observers to serve with United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia [UNTAC].
 
Jeneral2885 said:
So does that mean if regional organisations have non-interference, this will last longer? And that the member states progress well in that manner?[Mod Edit: Good bye and good riddance to the little troll. See additional warning issued here, across multiple threads. ]
Click to expand...

From the very start it was intended to be an economic and cultural bloc. ASEAN is far from perfect but it has lasted this long and more importantly has served its purpose and continues to be relevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeneral2885 said:
So does that mean if regional organisations have non-interference, this will last longer? And that the member states progress well in that manner?
Click to expand...

At this point you are just being contrary.

But anyway, the answers are: depends, depends. There is no single thing that will guarantee an organization will last and that its members will progress.

Regardless of whether you like that answer or think that it's being evasive, the fact is that ASEAN is the way it is because it is specifically built that way. Its non-interference in Thailand political situation is not a failure. It is working as intended. The ASEAN member states prefer it that way.
 
Jeneral2885 said:
So does that mean if regional organisations have non-interference, this will last longer? And that the member states progress well in that manner?
Click to expand...

You could always just admit you were wrong about ASEAN rather than changing tack so as not to look as embarrassed...
 
koxinga said:
The situation in Thailand is different from Indonesia post-Soeharto. It's more akin to a class struggle because the society is highly stratified with elites in and around the capital keen to run the country the way they like.

My view is the thai military, while deeply conservative, are not exactly beholden to these elites entirely. They probably see themselves are the ultimate guarantor on social stability through the King and hence they act believing stability is the overwriting concern.
Click to expand...

Yes it's different than Indonesia's post soeharto...however for me it's not just simply class strugle. From the outside, it's kind of Urban vs Rural..if considering Yinluck/Thaksin supporters mostly coming from rural north area..while their opposition mostly coming from urban Bangkok and other big cities and surounding..

Other can be seen between the Industrial vs Agricultural. .However I also read from Thai's forum show the conflict also related from the fed-up of the other region with the Bangkok population which seems see themselves as the decisions makers.
The more agricultural north, being fed up with the more industrial Bangkok areas, which they considered arrogance and look at them as just stupid farmers being able to be bought by Thaksin camps.

For me, the last one can be potentially more disturbing than just class conflict. This can turn into inner regional conflicts. That can potential lead on secession issue. I believe that's what concerning the Armed Forces more, which lead on this series of coup within the 4-5 years cycle.

This kind of attitude in fact also show in Indonesia post Soeharto era, where some political elements considered the elections can be bought and thus considered it not valid. This elements decided on series of protest, to tople the elected government, and replaced them with a people committee which basically their chosing. Fortunately for Indonesia, this political arrogance view only supported by a very view 'political loosers' and very miniscule population segment.

This view reflected in my oppinion not just class arrogance, but also impatience view on political process. Some view that usually can come out with developing democracy process nation.
 
Ananda said:
Yes it's different than Indonesia's post soeharto...however for me it's not just simply class strugle. From the outside, it's kind of Urban vs Rural..if considering Yinluck/Thaksin supporters mostly coming from rural north area..while their opposition mostly coming from urban Bangkok and other big cities and surrounding..

Other can be seen between the Industrial vs Agricultural. .However I also read from Thai's forum show the conflict also related from the fed-up of the other region with the Bangkok population which seems see themselves as the decisions makers.
Click to expand...
In one of my more pessimistic moments, I feel that this coup is not going to solve the problem posed by the Yellow Shirts or the Red Shirts, whose leaders are all competing for personal advantage in a patronage-dominated system (see Dr. Vikram Nehru explain on 1 June 2014, the different factions in the coup and the regional differences of support for the Red and Yellow Shirts in Thailand: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XMbpHL3BJg"]Understanding Thailand's Coup - YouTube[/nomedia] ).

The best possible outcome is that these coloured factions will just pretend to agree to a transition plan to get the Thai Army back in the barracks, at which point the same old game just continues. And I don't even want to think about poorer outcomes than that - which is entirely possible in the current combustive political mix that has an ethnic, a regional, a class and a political dimension (see here for details in my earlier post and this insight by Benedict Anderson, "Outsider view of Thai politics", which is a left of centre perspective on things).
 
Last edited:
What kind of worries me also, that throughout this cycle of coup and political stand off in Thailand recent history, the king usually can come out as neutral unified figure where everybody in the end turn too.

However due to his health, that condition seems increasingly lessen as time goes by. Moreover, seems the crown prince not hold same respect from Thai public, which raised question on whose on the monarchy family that Thai's can turn too in the crisis, if present King has past away.

Question on willingness to go back to ballots box, rather than streets as political solutions, seems for outsiders view like me increasingly distance. Military solutions increasingly come out as middle ground that not popular, but show more on more necessity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top