It looks like another Abhisit committee appointment is running into criticism for bias. His pick of NIDA Rector, Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, to head a committee on proposed constitutional changes is getting a hostile reception from critics who claim that "Sombat is one of the most compromised of academics, having been harshly critical of red shirts, supportive of all post-coup governments and supportive of yellow shirts."
"A more staunch opponent of Thaksin Shinawatra, all of his related parties and the red shirts than Sombat Thamrongthanyawong would be harder to find. Yet he is still regularly cited in the Thai media as if he is independent. He was one of the academics appointed by the military junta to the National Legislative Assembly in 2006. He earlier approved of another petition to get rid of Thaksin."
https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.co...llow-academics/
0
Abhisit committee chairman on constitution reform criticized as biased
Started by Gene, Jun 16 2010 04:13 PM
4 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
-
- 3,744 posts
Veteran
Posted 22 June 2010 - 03:06 PM
The poster known as The Bangkok Pundit has done an analysis of the so-called "independent" group of 19 academics appointed to take charge of constitutional reform. Contrary to all assurances that the committee will be independent, it appears that "the prime minister will chair the meeting and provide the committee with guidelines."
In addition, it appears that a substantial number of these academics already have track records opposing the Thaksin government, supporting the coup, joining the junta' s rump parliament, drafting the current army-dictated constitution, acting as adviser to the Democrat Party, and/or on record supporting PAD and opposing early elections. According to the analysis, they could not find a single academic among the 19 selected who might be said to have shown any past support or even empathy for any red shirt objectives. In other words, the committee is stacked with establishment academics.
So much for Abhisit's promise of an independent, unbiased panel to support constitutional reform. Like everything else this prime minister does, it's all a ruse designed to consolidate the old elite's power at the cost of this country's dying democracy.
http://www.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pundit-blog
In addition, it appears that a substantial number of these academics already have track records opposing the Thaksin government, supporting the coup, joining the junta' s rump parliament, drafting the current army-dictated constitution, acting as adviser to the Democrat Party, and/or on record supporting PAD and opposing early elections. According to the analysis, they could not find a single academic among the 19 selected who might be said to have shown any past support or even empathy for any red shirt objectives. In other words, the committee is stacked with establishment academics.
So much for Abhisit's promise of an independent, unbiased panel to support constitutional reform. Like everything else this prime minister does, it's all a ruse designed to consolidate the old elite's power at the cost of this country's dying democracy.
http://www.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-pundit-blog
#3
-
- Members
-
- 695 posts
Veteran
Posted 23 June 2010 - 01:08 PM
I thought that many of the anti-government posters on this board were rushing to judgment in their skepticism about this prime minister. It reminded me of the PAD people who were so anti-Thaksin before the man had spent one day in the job as prime minister. I am sorry to say that all the skepticism about Abhisit appears to have been well placed. I can't decide if he's just so weak that he can't control the Boys in Bangkok or if he is so unprincipled that he'll say and do anything to keep his position as prime minister. Either way, he's nothing like the man his speeches promised him to be. In fact, he may be worse then the usual Thai politician, given his education and training. His government's assault on civil liberties is frightening.
#4
-
- Members
-
- 1,274 posts
Veteran
Posted 23 June 2010 - 11:36 PM
In spite of my dislike for Abhisit (actually, those who assisted his elevation to Prime Minister), I actually don't see him as a scheming or evil guy. To me, he's simply a figurehead that is personally cautious, timid, and lacking any leadership skills (and/or is as afraid of his minders as he is of his own shawdow).
Regardless, I've seen no evidence of any original thoughts or leadership on his part. Then again, I haven't seen any of that either from the grand protector of the Thai people.
Regardless, I've seen no evidence of any original thoughts or leadership on his part. Then again, I haven't seen any of that either from the grand protector of the Thai people.
#5
-
- Members
-
- 1,385 posts
Veteran
Posted 24 June 2010 - 10:29 AM
There's an interesting anaylsis of Abhisit by a blogger named James Stent, who has written an extensive article about "Thailand's Turmoil" that's worth reading at the link below. His comments about Abhisit:
http://poppyfieldjournal.blogspot.com/p/th...l-by-james.html
QUOTE
Why has a well-educated, well spoken, honest and hard-working man like Abhisit failed to understand what the times demanded? Why has he been so intransigent in dealing with the red shirts, and why has he now turned up the heat rather than lowering it, failing to show tolerance and reach out to the other side? Why has he been unable to communicate effectively with the mass of Thai voters? A few possibilities suggest themselves.
1. He is temperamentally unable to empathize with people who do not share his ordered and rational way of looking at the world. Many Thai voters of the lower economic echelons instinctively sense this, and do not identify with him, even if what he is saying makes sense.
A foreign journalist who was given a private interview with Abhisit told me that when she asked Abhisit what was his favorite book, he responded with the title of his favorite economics text. This anecdote gives a clue to the psychological make-up of the man.
2. He is an intensely private and self-controlled man, whose only soul-mate has been his wife.
3. He has never been exposed to people with different backgrounds from his own “Sukhumvit-Oxford” background. I wonder how many Thai villagers he has ever spent time with, or how often he has had real conversations with ordinary working folk, listened to what they said, and pondered on what he could learn from them? He appears to have massive self-confidence in his own rectitude.
4. The attempt on his life during the Songkran riots of 2009, and the smearing of blood on the gate of his house may have deeply embittered him, rendering him inflexible.
He is an enigma—so smart and attractive, so effective in parliamentary debate, so cool in the midst of crisis, yet seeming unable to show emotion about the tragedy he has dealt with, unable to reach out to the victims in a personal way, and temperamentally averse to patiently finding compromise and negotiated solutions.
To compound the problem, he has surrounded himself with advisors and aides who do not compensate for his weaknesses in these areas, and are unable to fill in for him in communicating with the other side. One has the feeling that the Abhisit government has in fact attempted to put forward some useful, progressive policies, such as the property tax that Korn is advocating, but they have been poorly packaged and presented.
Whether for or against Thaksin, one could always immediately name the initiatives that Thaksin was undertaking when he was Prime Minister, conveying a sense of energy being applied to resolve national problems.
It has been apparent that Abhisit has always been more comfortable rubbing shoulders with international political and business leaders than he has been chatting with his fellow-countrymen in the provinces, and he certainly undertook a large number of trips abroad to wave the Thai flag in his first eighteen months in office.
A small but revealing news item appeared in the 4 June Bangkok Post. The paper reported that Prime Minister Abhisit would fly to Vietnam on 6 June “to attend a two-day World Economic Forum on East Asia” and went on to say that the Prime Minister “said the priority for government was to restore confidence among the international community since political problems impede economic development.”
The blood is barely dry on the streets of Rachaprasong, but Abhisit’s priority is speaking with international investors? The priority should be 100% on reconciling domestic divisions and restoring harmony to the country. If progress on this is made, the international business community and tourists will regain faith in Thailand without Abhisit attending international conferences.
Unfortunately for Thailand, Abhisit lacks the skills and personality to lead a genuine reconciliation, or to project a bold vision for the future development of the country that would have a chance of uniting most of the country behind him. He, almost as much as Thaksin, has made himself a divisive rather than harmonizing leader.
1. He is temperamentally unable to empathize with people who do not share his ordered and rational way of looking at the world. Many Thai voters of the lower economic echelons instinctively sense this, and do not identify with him, even if what he is saying makes sense.
A foreign journalist who was given a private interview with Abhisit told me that when she asked Abhisit what was his favorite book, he responded with the title of his favorite economics text. This anecdote gives a clue to the psychological make-up of the man.
2. He is an intensely private and self-controlled man, whose only soul-mate has been his wife.
3. He has never been exposed to people with different backgrounds from his own “Sukhumvit-Oxford” background. I wonder how many Thai villagers he has ever spent time with, or how often he has had real conversations with ordinary working folk, listened to what they said, and pondered on what he could learn from them? He appears to have massive self-confidence in his own rectitude.
4. The attempt on his life during the Songkran riots of 2009, and the smearing of blood on the gate of his house may have deeply embittered him, rendering him inflexible.
He is an enigma—so smart and attractive, so effective in parliamentary debate, so cool in the midst of crisis, yet seeming unable to show emotion about the tragedy he has dealt with, unable to reach out to the victims in a personal way, and temperamentally averse to patiently finding compromise and negotiated solutions.
To compound the problem, he has surrounded himself with advisors and aides who do not compensate for his weaknesses in these areas, and are unable to fill in for him in communicating with the other side. One has the feeling that the Abhisit government has in fact attempted to put forward some useful, progressive policies, such as the property tax that Korn is advocating, but they have been poorly packaged and presented.
Whether for or against Thaksin, one could always immediately name the initiatives that Thaksin was undertaking when he was Prime Minister, conveying a sense of energy being applied to resolve national problems.
It has been apparent that Abhisit has always been more comfortable rubbing shoulders with international political and business leaders than he has been chatting with his fellow-countrymen in the provinces, and he certainly undertook a large number of trips abroad to wave the Thai flag in his first eighteen months in office.
A small but revealing news item appeared in the 4 June Bangkok Post. The paper reported that Prime Minister Abhisit would fly to Vietnam on 6 June “to attend a two-day World Economic Forum on East Asia” and went on to say that the Prime Minister “said the priority for government was to restore confidence among the international community since political problems impede economic development.”
The blood is barely dry on the streets of Rachaprasong, but Abhisit’s priority is speaking with international investors? The priority should be 100% on reconciling domestic divisions and restoring harmony to the country. If progress on this is made, the international business community and tourists will regain faith in Thailand without Abhisit attending international conferences.
Unfortunately for Thailand, Abhisit lacks the skills and personality to lead a genuine reconciliation, or to project a bold vision for the future development of the country that would have a chance of uniting most of the country behind him. He, almost as much as Thaksin, has made himself a divisive rather than harmonizing leader.
http://poppyfieldjournal.blogspot.com/p/th...l-by-james.html
