Whereof We Can and Cannot Speak


The main reason why the aristocracy-establishment so hates Thaksin and his government cannot be mentioned – by the establishment because they refuse to admit that it exists.* Instead, refuge was taken in the Treason of the Intellectuals. In Thai Democracy in Crisis: 27 Truths, Chaturon Chaisang cites Kaewsan Atibodhi’s description of the so-called ‘Thaksin Regime,’ which supposedly had these characteristics (p.8):

“1) Hijack the constitution, amend or change it so that it works for the businesses you are interested in or provides hidden benefits for your own group. 2) Seduce people with a new capitalism so that they forget the nation and build a capitalist mainstream so that they forget the roots of their Thainess. 3) Defraud the nation through many uncorrected corruption problems and conducting secret businesses. 4) Put an end to peace in the country and instigate divisions in the nation.”

Although the slant of attacks is different, the methodology is roughly the same for the ways in which the extreme right is slandering President Barack Obama: he is accused of being a ‘Communist,’ a ‘socialist’ and a ‘Marxist’ (also simultaneously he is a ‘Nazi’) who has a secret plan to sell out the country and the soul of the country for the benefit of a shadowy and ill-intentioned conspiracy. He is also accused of failing to protect the American people by his foreign policy and, therefore, ending the ‘peace’ enjoyed under the previous administration. He is further accused of recklessly spending money with a view to causing long-term problems for the USA and of squandering the nation’s resources for his own aims. The similarity is marked.

Related tactics have been used in the effort to justify the military coup against Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, with its talk of ‘criminal’ acts, ‘tyranny of the majority’ undermining democracy and the constitution and so forth.

* Of that whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must pass over in silence, or something like that. Good old Wittgenstein, eh?