[p2p-research] Fwd: online coverage of thai political crisis

[Michel Bauwens]

very interesting Andy,

I'll agree to disagree on the singapore/zimbabwe contrast ...

one more thing about our thailand discussion, which may have been two way
and private?, anyway, about the nature of the PAD: whatever it's social
critique may have been at the beginning, it's record is clear: 1)
fomenting/causing the military coup against a democratically elected
government  2) fomenting/causing a 2nd legal coup against idem; 3) proposing
to limit the electoral force of the mass of the voters 4) pushing for
harsher application of the Lese Majeste laws which have become the most
potent threat against free speech in thailand, a mere whisper of a threat of
accusation being enough to discredit any politician ... In my opinion, it is
the PAD which destroyed democracy and free speech in the country, or at very
least, they have been instrumentalized to achieve that aim.

Michel

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's my impression too, that Singapore was a particularly rich little bit
> of the Malayan colony which went its own way at independence, with the
> result that it had a distinct advantage and didn't have to redistribute to
> the poorer parts - similar to if Santa Cruz actually managed to break from
> Bolivia like they keep trying to.  So it relates to Malaysia or Thailand a
> bit the way Monaco relates to Italy or Portugal for instance.  Being a
> financial centre gives big advantages, in Singapore this was reinforced by
> the outsourcing of multinational manufacturing.  I'd guess that economic
> wealth and a small population without a rural hinterland would make buying
> off the poorer sections off society rather easier than for more typical
> nation-states.
>
> I suggested Mugabe as a comparison to Thaksin because of his rural
> support-base linked to land reform and redistribution.  That's also what I
> meant mainly by redeeming features - the regime has mobilised certain
> popular demands, and done so in a way which actively mobilises its support
> base - even standing up to the IMF.  On the other hand it's viciously
> repressive of public opposition and has carried out some sweeping crackdowns
> and historically, massacres.  I'd guess however that everyday life is less
> regulated than in Singapore (it has some of the same laws but less ability
> to enforce them), that aside from the crackdowns (which are exceptions) the
> regime has limited impact in everyday life, and that people who aren't
> critics of the government are as free ideas-wise at least (Bakunin is in the
> University of Zimbabwe library).  I also see a lot of public dissent and
> rebellion there.  But then, there's the really horrible periodic crackdowns,
> and the violent suppression of any kind of public protest.  So Singapore vs
> Zimbabwe are two different kinds of evil really, hard to compare.  The
> suppression of any and all public protests also seems to happen in Singapore
> and Malaysia, but not necessarily in Thailand (or Korea, Cambodia,
> Indonesia, Taiwan, Pakistan, etc).  Sharif came to mind because he was
> extremely popular in certain quarters (still has a huge support-base and
> might win an election if they let him stand), but corrupt, repressive, with
> neoliberal tendencies, and ultimately kicked out in a coup for upsetting the
> elite.  The social composition might be quite different though, with the
> especially extreme social power of the army in Pakistan.
>
> The Chavez phenomenon seems to me genuinely emancipatory in many ways, not
> just the usual authoritarian nonsense - there has been a real increase in
> self-organisation encouraged by the government.  Admittedly this is almost
> unique (a couple of local imitators aside), but there are a lot of regimes
> where there's more "people power" than either Singapore or Zimbabwe.  India
> for instance seems to have gone further than most in South and Southeast
> Asia in avoiding duplicating colonial authoritarianism as well - there's
> active social movements, some degree of social tolerance, a lot of informal
> "encroaching", effective multi-party systems which have to deliver to their
> constituencies, protests are usually permitted and very common - though
> there's all the usual problems recurring in kernels here and there, local
> bigwigs trying to silence dissent, police misbehaving, suspicious killings,
> developmentalist land-grabs and so on; and extreme persecution around the
> margins (Kashmir, the Northeast, and in some cases against Muslims and
> Maoist sympathisers) - but all of this stuff gets protested and opposed a
> lot.  There's periodically really big victories for dissent - the Tata Nano
> case and the Gujjar unrest last year for example.  Similarly Korea seems
> rather vibrant, the governments are always right-wing but the protest scene
> is reminiscent of Greece, numerous, very militant, easily aroused and
> generally a force to be reckoned with.  I'd view these as more attractive
> options in terms of empowerment.
>
> bw
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090416/e7586790/attachment.html>