Will do – give me a little time to provide a more comprehensive take on the role of institutions and entrepreneurs in Malaysia.
But here is the basic argument. I am of the view that governments have an important role in coordinating markets. Therefore creating institutions (the right type) is important in creating and encouraging the right type of entrepreneurship. The Government of Malaysia has been successful to a certain extent in driving certain industries but now have to find a new role (and restructure its current institutions) to allow the private sector to drive the economy. However, simply allowing the markets to do this may not always be the correct choice as there are many formal and informal institutions in Malaysia that provide an unfair advantage to certain groups of people.
Murray notes in #1 that a market orientation towards agriculture would solve the challenges faced by Malaysia’s agriculture sector (investment, technology, institutional reform, state-society relation).
What is understood when the term markets (or market orientation) is used (Leah & Murray, and others – please correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is little or no government intervention. The assumption is that rational individuals would maximise their utility based on perfect information. Institutions are taken as a given, and entry and exit are costless. All of these combines to create an efficient market.
This, everyone knows, not to be true.
Murray in #3 then clarified that he meant entrepreneurs and creating opportunities.
This I find interesting and contradicting for two reason:
(1) anyone is familiar with Malaysia, will know that there are many types of “entrepreneurs” in Malaysia and the larger question of the many types/varieties of capitalism in Malaysia. Murray’s examples of Ford, Rockefeller and Edison are interesting and can be interpreted in many ways including Rockefeller being called a robber baron and Edison accused of stealing the ideas of other inventors. The current turmoil in US (who gets bailed out, what type of tax breaks, what type of regulation, etc) demonstrates the power of certain types of entrepreneurs/capitalists. The same challenges exists in Malaysia.
(2) On developing new supply chains and opportunities. This has largely been driven by government support in the highly successful economies of East Asia (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore) and to a certain extent Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, and are now being emulated by China and Vietnam.
When Porter helped develope the Industrial Master Plan II for the Malaysian government, it was based on the assumption that government’s can change the competitiveness of a nation.
I find this not to be correct as it is firms that are competitive, and not nations. However, going back to my first point, government’s – especially of developing countries – have a critical role in facilitating the right type of entrepreneurs to develop competitive firms.
And this is the central question that Malaysia needs to answer – what kind of institutions should Malaysia have to facilitate “genuine entrepreneurship.”
I see contradiction in what Murray says but I believe this maybe more a case of our different understanding of the terminologies used.
Thailand created itself for the burning Thai embassy because Thai people included the Thai actress were taught by their leader Phibun the father of Thai people teaching Thai people that Thailand lost lands and temples to Cambodia.
The Cambodia’s market was burned and destroyed by the Thai military after UNESCO listing Preah Vihear Temple as world heritage and got nothing to do with the nationalist of both sides.
It got to do with the Thai military who overtrew Thaksin.
How do I feel about Phimai (Korat Province), Phanom Rung (Buriram Province), Prasat Meumg Singh (kanchanaburi Privince) or Wat Chao Chan (Sukhothai Province)?….. Or indeed Wat Phu in Champassak Province in Laos…. All of these are Khmer temples?
I feel proud to be born as Khmer because my Khmer ancestors left the mark of my Khmer heritage everywhere in Southeast Asia telling Khmer children that Khmer was an Empire building many beautiful temples in Southeast Asia and Khmer Empire was a home welcome all ethnics included Tai, Lao, Viet and others who escaped from the Mongols invading China that these people have to use Khmer culture today.
Thailand with Yingluck is continuing to protest against the ICJ verdict, so for you Thailand against the ICJ verdict will have peace with Cambodia? Just a few days ago there was an exchange fire again at the Cambodia-Thai border because a Thai soldier blew up himself losing his leg on landmines, so other Thai soldiers fired on Cambodian soldiers because they thought the sound of landmines was Cambodian soldiers firing at them.
Thailand already removed thousand of websites so why not Thailand can just remove the Thai actress interview?
Anyone can join Wikipedia for free and they can write anything what they wanted.
Don’t you know that schools & universities recommend students not to use Wikipedia as the real source?
Kambuja is in Sanskrit and Cambodia and Kampuchea are derived from Sanskrit Kambuja. Kampuchea is a home of Khmer people speaking Khmer. United States of America is a home of American people speaking English. Australia is a home of Australian people speaking English. Do you think Deutschland and Germany or Switzerland and Schweiz never be used for the German and for the Suisse again?
OK, you are right about Benito Mussolini, he was shot, but you only said he was shot not hung, you only said shot and hung after I gave you source.
If Thai actress did not say Angkor Wat belonging to Thailand, why did Khmer go burning the Thai embassy? If Siam King did not steal stone pieces of Angkor why did Khmer people go killing the Siam armies? Whatever she said was in the times that Thaksin in trouble with the lese-majeste law and Thaksin was overthrew by the military coup a few years later.
Like Tony it makes me wonder why the author has not simply asked state officials what the iconography means.
The leaves in question, forget laurel and olive quite alien to us, are probably thabyay that symbolises success/victory (the common usage is aung thabyay, aung meaning victorious), and you will see Burmese using sprigs to splash blessed water on all and sundry like new premises, shops, vehicles etc. all over the land. Soldiers on parade get garlanded with the thabyay on Tatmadaw Day. The bar on Tatmadaw officers’ epaulettes are the same sprigs (thabyay gek). And you see them also among floral offerings at shrines and pagodas everywhere.
The Dobama flag was the original tricolour, the same colours as the new flag but with the hammer and sickle in the centre. During WWII the peacock was in the centre. Bizarrely the new flag turned out to be identical to the one that had been in use by the NCGUB since 1992!
The Burmese (‘Bandoola’) helmet crossed by a spear and dah (sword) insignia goes back to newly independent Burma, not a creation of the SPDC.
@JG45
“The king does not make or rescind legislation. The politicians do. All he can do is speak out against it, which he did, and pardon those convicted.”
Sorry, this is very incorrect. The process of legislation in countries with Monarchy are as followed:
1) Parliament enacts the law
2) Parliament sends the law to the Monarch (in Thailand’s case, it is the King)
3) The Monarch reads the law, and they can either:
A: refuse to sign (in this case, the law will not become a law)
B: tell the Parliament to amend some provisions which the Monarch does not agree, then sign it (then it becomes the law, minus those ‘deleted’ or ‘amended’ provisions)
C: sign immediately (then it becomes the law immediately)
So in this case, if the King disagrees with the law, what he could have done is choose option 3A (refuse to sign), or choose option 3B (tell the Parliament that he will sign it, if they eradicate section 112: lese majeste out of the provision).
Surprisingly, he chose option C (sign immediately).
And you do not need any proof that he has chosen option C. The fact that the law is currently in force is the proof that he has signed it.
So the person who got the facts wrong is you, not me, unfortunately. And as you said yourself that the person who got the facts wrong is childish, so it seems that your words are now getting back to bite yourself.
Intriguing name! Blocking of my blog is patchy and varies depending on the ISP. I get most feedback from Facebook, and a very large number of Thais told me today the whole blog was blocked by ICT throughout today. Yesterday it generally wasn’t blocked. Tomorrow – who knows.
Most Thais have cottoned on that it is easy to get around ISP or ICT blocks just by using Google Translate. And I put most of my stuff on Facebook now because blocking Facebook would be a huge and risky step for the authorities.
I don’t think the authorities are monitoring who reads my blog, and indeed it is not a crime to read it. It is potentially a crime to share material from it, share links, or comment positively on it.
As you say, you don’t speak for the family and don’t represent their views. But I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it, and it is certainly valid to debate whether publishing the SMS messages was the right thing to do. One thing I would ask however is that you try to avoid insinuations that I have behaved somehow dishonestly unless you have evidence to back that up.
I don’t agree with you that the timing is inappropriate or that it causes unacceptable risks for the family. The ultra-royalists who think Ampon got what he deserved already bitterly hate him and despise his family, and my publication of the SMS messages won’t change that. My story made clear that there is no proof the messages were sent by Ampon, and indeed the most common reaction I’ve heard from those who have now seen the SMS details is that they are now even more inclined to believe he was innocent – the SMS messages were long and complex and Ampon convincingly insisted he didn’t know how to send SMS messages at all.
Overall I believe that following Ampon’s death, it was important and useful for the full details of the case to be put in the public domain. It would no longer prejudice efforts to win his release (the key reason not to publish the SMS messages while he was alive), and it could potentially help others affected by this unjust law, now and in the future, by discouraging the authorities from ever again allowing such an egregious injustice to happen. That might at least bring something good from this heartbreaking episode.
I can’t tell you who gave me the document, but I can tell you how I got it. I just asked somebody, politely and with no pressure, on Tuesday evening. I explained that I thought making the SMS messages public would do some good, and said that I would like to publish them on my blog, but only of course if the source was comfortable with this. The source considered it carefully, consulted others, and decided to give me the information. The source is very happy with how the information was used. And while I truly admire the very admirable work you and your wife did for Ampon’s family, I believe the source is in an even better position than you to weigh up the ethical issues and risks involved.
I believe publishing the SMS messages was the right thing to do. The source thinks it was the right thing to do. I’m very glad I was able to do it, and I have been really moved and inspired by the reaction of many Thais to what I wrote. Journalism often involves ethical dilemmas, and there are no easy answers, but I genuinely did what I thought was best, and I stand by my decision.
Finally, I know the news of Ampon’s death would have been felt particularly deeply by you and your wife, given the support you’ve given to his family and the time you spent with Ampon himself. I’m sorry we disagree about my decision, it was not my intention to rile you at this time. And in spite of our differences, there is no doubting your commitment to and passion for Ampon’s cause. Full respect to you for that. I look forward to reading what you write about Ampon: given all the work you did on this case, you have unique knowledge and insights and I am sure it will be a great piece of journalism. Best wishes.
Michael Nelson – You seem to misrepresent or simplify the book’s argument. The author wouldn’t deny the newspaper report and your commentary. His main argument, which he states repeatedly, is that Banharn’s provision of schools, hospitals, roads and so forth has helped foster provincial pride over the decades. This social psychological aspect of his authority is absent in the newspaper report and your comment that attribute Banharn’s authority to an instrumental exchange of public goods for votes. Also, the author provides a range of empirical details about how Banharn has provided those goods – e.g., how much money he used, where/how he got the money, how he mobilized local civil servants. So, it is not true that the book only confirms what we already knew, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting.
The person who (what they say) is being most moral in Thailand got smashed on his face by Ah Kong’s case.
Pretty sure Joe Gordon will be released in this few days, they can not hold the case that long as Minister of justice of Thailand said the case has been sent to the Bureau of the Royal Household.
I would like to see Greg Lopez explain that one a bit. At first, I figured the comment came from one of the random nuts that frequently comment here (or maybe that Land Destroyer), but Greg typically seems like a serious commenter.
Obviously nothing in the article related to the EMH, so maybe Greg could try again using terms he understands.
If someone did not like a law that was designed to protect them, couldn’t they withhold assent to that law?
(and give appropriate explanations & reasoning)
I don’t believe this information should be “suppressed” and have never even come close to suggesting that. In fact a few days ago on my Facebook page I wrote that it should’ve been aired and examined fully in court.
On this forum I have simple questioned the timing and ethics of the release of the SMSs.
I should state myself and my partner have been in close and regular contact with the family for quite some time. We make no claim to speak on their behalf or to represent their views or any campaign to free Ah Kong. What I can say is at no time did the family suggest to us that the SMS content be translated, published and distributed online.
We’ve also spoken to family members since the death. They are, in our opinion, in no shape and no position to make an informed and consensual decision about publishing the documents and I find it hard to believe that such consent was given or sought.
A balance has to be made between public interest and the safety/well-being of the family. The latter, for me, outweighs the former at this point.
In my view, as I stated earlier, combining the release of the SMSs with a more thorough examination of the evidence, which should include, in my opinion, speaking to a mobile phone expert in order to examine the claim that Ah Kong was a source of the messages, would be a more effective strategy.
We can’t evade our responsibilities if we publish information. Yes, openness is important but the effects of that also needs to be measured and taken into account when doing so.
Well no, I don’t support the suppression of knowledge or information. Without transparency there can’t be justice. This information concerning the contents of these SMSs should have been placed in the public arena before the trial. The contents of the SMSs are trivial stupid junk. They should have been plastered all over the internet. In this way the whole world gets to see how precious the royal family is. It is unbelievable that an honest journalist would collaborate with the establishment to keep the population in a state of ignorance. I can well understand why a journalist working Thailand might think it healthier to suppress this information but that doesn’t make it right and there is so many other ways it could have been released. The contents of the SMSs don’t seem to be contested (I don’t know why) just their origins.
#61 Andrew – “Since the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology is now blocking my blog”
It’s not blocked. I have accessed it from three different places across Bangkok in the last couple of days….. Astonishing that they haven’t blocked it….. This means either they are woefully incompetent or they have a reason for leaving it unblocked….. A reason that could only be sinister and worrying…. Can they log visitors from the provider to IP addresses?….
Sorry, but it is you who are childish if you still believe the BS that the King was blabbering on his 2005 Birthday. And I will tell you why you are so childish and ignorant right now.
Do you have any idea how the legislation process in Thailand works? At first, the Parliament enacts the law, then they present to the king, and then the King signs it. In other words, if the King does not sign any law, it will never become law.
Hence, if the King really believes in the BS he was babbling in 2005, what he would have done is he would have never signed to assent for lese majeste to have a place in the Thai provisions in the first place. But he did. He gave his assent to it. And he has witnessed people being jailed for lese majeste one by one, without doing anything to stop this calamity.
If he really believes in the BS he said in 2005, what he would do is he would order the prison officials to release all LM prisoners immediately. But no, he didn’t do that. All he did was procrastinating up there on the 16th Floor at Siriraj Hospital, watching LM prisoners rot in jail as if it was nothing. If you are a person who has even an ounce of morality left in you, would you do the same thing the King is doing?
Please save your childish defence of your sinful King at home. Don’t come and show your ignorance over here. I am sick of you Royal fanatics enough that I don’t visit your manager.co.th hangout. Don’t come and babble your childish drivel over here. Thank you very much!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
Phala:
Mussolini was not ‘hung’ in any normal sense of the word. His corpse was hung upside down by a meat hook.
> “why did Khmer go burning the Thai embassy?”
Ignorance. Sheer stupid ignorance.
> “Thailand already removed thousand of websites”
Incorrect. And the fact that those webpages that they attempt to ‘remove’ can still be accessed just illustrates the absurdity of your hypothesis.
> “Anyone can join Wikipedia for free and they can write anything what they wanted”
Get on with it then. I challenge you. It’s a damn sight more difficult than endless top-of-the-head irrelevances in the comments section of a blog.
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
Hi Leah,
Will do – give me a little time to provide a more comprehensive take on the role of institutions and entrepreneurs in Malaysia.
But here is the basic argument. I am of the view that governments have an important role in coordinating markets. Therefore creating institutions (the right type) is important in creating and encouraging the right type of entrepreneurship. The Government of Malaysia has been successful to a certain extent in driving certain industries but now have to find a new role (and restructure its current institutions) to allow the private sector to drive the economy. However, simply allowing the markets to do this may not always be the correct choice as there are many formal and informal institutions in Malaysia that provide an unfair advantage to certain groups of people.
Murray notes in #1 that a market orientation towards agriculture would solve the challenges faced by Malaysia’s agriculture sector (investment, technology, institutional reform, state-society relation).
What is understood when the term markets (or market orientation) is used (Leah & Murray, and others – please correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is little or no government intervention. The assumption is that rational individuals would maximise their utility based on perfect information. Institutions are taken as a given, and entry and exit are costless. All of these combines to create an efficient market.
This, everyone knows, not to be true.
Murray in #3 then clarified that he meant entrepreneurs and creating opportunities.
This I find interesting and contradicting for two reason:
(1) anyone is familiar with Malaysia, will know that there are many types of “entrepreneurs” in Malaysia and the larger question of the many types/varieties of capitalism in Malaysia. Murray’s examples of Ford, Rockefeller and Edison are interesting and can be interpreted in many ways including Rockefeller being called a robber baron and Edison accused of stealing the ideas of other inventors. The current turmoil in US (who gets bailed out, what type of tax breaks, what type of regulation, etc) demonstrates the power of certain types of entrepreneurs/capitalists. The same challenges exists in Malaysia.
(2) On developing new supply chains and opportunities. This has largely been driven by government support in the highly successful economies of East Asia (Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore) and to a certain extent Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, and are now being emulated by China and Vietnam.
When Porter helped develope the Industrial Master Plan II for the Malaysian government, it was based on the assumption that government’s can change the competitiveness of a nation.
I find this not to be correct as it is firms that are competitive, and not nations. However, going back to my first point, government’s – especially of developing countries – have a critical role in facilitating the right type of entrepreneurs to develop competitive firms.
And this is the central question that Malaysia needs to answer – what kind of institutions should Malaysia have to facilitate “genuine entrepreneurship.”
I see contradiction in what Murray says but I believe this maybe more a case of our different understanding of the terminologies used.
ps: Have a read of the type of entrepreneurs that Malaysia currently encourages.
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
@Dan #144
Thailand created itself for the burning Thai embassy because Thai people included the Thai actress were taught by their leader Phibun the father of Thai people teaching Thai people that Thailand lost lands and temples to Cambodia.
The Cambodia’s market was burned and destroyed by the Thai military after UNESCO listing Preah Vihear Temple as world heritage and got nothing to do with the nationalist of both sides.
It got to do with the Thai military who overtrew Thaksin.
How do I feel about Phimai (Korat Province), Phanom Rung (Buriram Province), Prasat Meumg Singh (kanchanaburi Privince) or Wat Chao Chan (Sukhothai Province)?….. Or indeed Wat Phu in Champassak Province in Laos…. All of these are Khmer temples?
I feel proud to be born as Khmer because my Khmer ancestors left the mark of my Khmer heritage everywhere in Southeast Asia telling Khmer children that Khmer was an Empire building many beautiful temples in Southeast Asia and Khmer Empire was a home welcome all ethnics included Tai, Lao, Viet and others who escaped from the Mongols invading China that these people have to use Khmer culture today.
Sorry, I don’t tell which province I am from 🙂
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
@Jon Wright #143
Thailand with Yingluck is continuing to protest against the ICJ verdict, so for you Thailand against the ICJ verdict will have peace with Cambodia? Just a few days ago there was an exchange fire again at the Cambodia-Thai border because a Thai soldier blew up himself losing his leg on landmines, so other Thai soldiers fired on Cambodian soldiers because they thought the sound of landmines was Cambodian soldiers firing at them.
Thailand already removed thousand of websites so why not Thailand can just remove the Thai actress interview?
Anyone can join Wikipedia for free and they can write anything what they wanted.
Don’t you know that schools & universities recommend students not to use Wikipedia as the real source?
Kambuja is in Sanskrit and Cambodia and Kampuchea are derived from Sanskrit Kambuja. Kampuchea is a home of Khmer people speaking Khmer. United States of America is a home of American people speaking English. Australia is a home of Australian people speaking English. Do you think Deutschland and Germany or Switzerland and Schweiz never be used for the German and for the Suisse again?
Songkran in Cambodia: Red Shirts meet Thaksin
@Jon Wright #140
OK, you are right about Benito Mussolini, he was shot, but you only said he was shot not hung, you only said shot and hung after I gave you source.
If Thai actress did not say Angkor Wat belonging to Thailand, why did Khmer go burning the Thai embassy? If Siam King did not steal stone pieces of Angkor why did Khmer people go killing the Siam armies? Whatever she said was in the times that Thaksin in trouble with the lese-majeste law and Thaksin was overthrew by the military coup a few years later.
A statue in Naypyidaw: Exploring motifs and meanings
Like Tony it makes me wonder why the author has not simply asked state officials what the iconography means.
The leaves in question, forget laurel and olive quite alien to us, are probably thabyay that symbolises success/victory (the common usage is aung thabyay, aung meaning victorious), and you will see Burmese using sprigs to splash blessed water on all and sundry like new premises, shops, vehicles etc. all over the land. Soldiers on parade get garlanded with the thabyay on Tatmadaw Day. The bar on Tatmadaw officers’ epaulettes are the same sprigs (thabyay gek). And you see them also among floral offerings at shrines and pagodas everywhere.
The Dobama flag was the original tricolour, the same colours as the new flag but with the hammer and sickle in the centre. During WWII the peacock was in the centre. Bizarrely the new flag turned out to be identical to the one that had been in use by the NCGUB since 1992!
The Burmese (‘Bandoola’) helmet crossed by a spear and dah (sword) insignia goes back to newly independent Burma, not a creation of the SPDC.
Ar Kong dead
@JG45
“The king does not make or rescind legislation. The politicians do. All he can do is speak out against it, which he did, and pardon those convicted.”
Sorry, this is very incorrect. The process of legislation in countries with Monarchy are as followed:
1) Parliament enacts the law
2) Parliament sends the law to the Monarch (in Thailand’s case, it is the King)
3) The Monarch reads the law, and they can either:
A: refuse to sign (in this case, the law will not become a law)
B: tell the Parliament to amend some provisions which the Monarch does not agree, then sign it (then it becomes the law, minus those ‘deleted’ or ‘amended’ provisions)
C: sign immediately (then it becomes the law immediately)
So in this case, if the King disagrees with the law, what he could have done is choose option 3A (refuse to sign), or choose option 3B (tell the Parliament that he will sign it, if they eradicate section 112: lese majeste out of the provision).
Surprisingly, he chose option C (sign immediately).
And you do not need any proof that he has chosen option C. The fact that the law is currently in force is the proof that he has signed it.
So the person who got the facts wrong is you, not me, unfortunately. And as you said yourself that the person who got the facts wrong is childish, so it seems that your words are now getting back to bite yourself.
Regards,
Ar Kong dead
Orinoco Woof Woof Blanco #65
Intriguing name! Blocking of my blog is patchy and varies depending on the ISP. I get most feedback from Facebook, and a very large number of Thais told me today the whole blog was blocked by ICT throughout today. Yesterday it generally wasn’t blocked. Tomorrow – who knows.
Most Thais have cottoned on that it is easy to get around ISP or ICT blocks just by using Google Translate. And I put most of my stuff on Facebook now because blocking Facebook would be a huge and risky step for the authorities.
I don’t think the authorities are monitoring who reads my blog, and indeed it is not a crime to read it. It is potentially a crime to share material from it, share links, or comment positively on it.
Ar Kong dead
Andrew Spooner #67
As you say, you don’t speak for the family and don’t represent their views. But I respect your opinion, even though I disagree with it, and it is certainly valid to debate whether publishing the SMS messages was the right thing to do. One thing I would ask however is that you try to avoid insinuations that I have behaved somehow dishonestly unless you have evidence to back that up.
I don’t agree with you that the timing is inappropriate or that it causes unacceptable risks for the family. The ultra-royalists who think Ampon got what he deserved already bitterly hate him and despise his family, and my publication of the SMS messages won’t change that. My story made clear that there is no proof the messages were sent by Ampon, and indeed the most common reaction I’ve heard from those who have now seen the SMS details is that they are now even more inclined to believe he was innocent – the SMS messages were long and complex and Ampon convincingly insisted he didn’t know how to send SMS messages at all.
Overall I believe that following Ampon’s death, it was important and useful for the full details of the case to be put in the public domain. It would no longer prejudice efforts to win his release (the key reason not to publish the SMS messages while he was alive), and it could potentially help others affected by this unjust law, now and in the future, by discouraging the authorities from ever again allowing such an egregious injustice to happen. That might at least bring something good from this heartbreaking episode.
I can’t tell you who gave me the document, but I can tell you how I got it. I just asked somebody, politely and with no pressure, on Tuesday evening. I explained that I thought making the SMS messages public would do some good, and said that I would like to publish them on my blog, but only of course if the source was comfortable with this. The source considered it carefully, consulted others, and decided to give me the information. The source is very happy with how the information was used. And while I truly admire the very admirable work you and your wife did for Ampon’s family, I believe the source is in an even better position than you to weigh up the ethical issues and risks involved.
I believe publishing the SMS messages was the right thing to do. The source thinks it was the right thing to do. I’m very glad I was able to do it, and I have been really moved and inspired by the reaction of many Thais to what I wrote. Journalism often involves ethical dilemmas, and there are no easy answers, but I genuinely did what I thought was best, and I stand by my decision.
Finally, I know the news of Ampon’s death would have been felt particularly deeply by you and your wife, given the support you’ve given to his family and the time you spent with Ampon himself. I’m sorry we disagree about my decision, it was not my intention to rile you at this time. And in spite of our differences, there is no doubting your commitment to and passion for Ampon’s cause. Full respect to you for that. I look forward to reading what you write about Ampon: given all the work you did on this case, you have unique knowledge and insights and I am sure it will be a great piece of journalism. Best wishes.
Bersih 3.0 – UMNO needs a game change
Bridget Welsh has an excellent analysis of the significance of the Bersih 3.0 rally.
http://bridgetwelsh.com/v2/2012/05/road-to-malaysias-day-of-destiny/
Review of Political Authority and Provincial Identity in Thailand
Michael Nelson – You seem to misrepresent or simplify the book’s argument. The author wouldn’t deny the newspaper report and your commentary. His main argument, which he states repeatedly, is that Banharn’s provision of schools, hospitals, roads and so forth has helped foster provincial pride over the decades. This social psychological aspect of his authority is absent in the newspaper report and your comment that attribute Banharn’s authority to an instrumental exchange of public goods for votes. Also, the author provides a range of empirical details about how Banharn has provided those goods – e.g., how much money he used, where/how he got the money, how he mobilized local civil servants. So, it is not true that the book only confirms what we already knew, contrary to what you seem to be suggesting.
Ar Kong dead
The person who (what they say) is being most moral in Thailand got smashed on his face by Ah Kong’s case.
Pretty sure Joe Gordon will be released in this few days, they can not hold the case that long as Minister of justice of Thailand said the case has been sent to the Bureau of the Royal Household.
Agriculture in Malaysia’s economic and social transformation
I would like to see Greg Lopez explain that one a bit. At first, I figured the comment came from one of the random nuts that frequently comment here (or maybe that Land Destroyer), but Greg typically seems like a serious commenter.
Obviously nothing in the article related to the EMH, so maybe Greg could try again using terms he understands.
Ar Kong dead
If someone did not like a law that was designed to protect them, couldn’t they withhold assent to that law?
(and give appropriate explanations & reasoning)
Ar Kong dead
That Pheu Thai doctor, who is also an MP, should be questioning a lot more besides the medical care that Ah Kong received.
Ar Kong dead
A Pheu Thai MP, who is also a doctor, Prof Dr Cherdchai, is questioning the medical care that Ah Kong received in his final hours.
It seems that not only was palliative care completely absent but that no real attempts were made to resuscitate or prolong his life.
This is a complete and total disgrace.
http://www.khaosod.co.th/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRNek5qVTFPVGMzTUE9PQ==&subcatid=
Ar Kong dead
AMM
I don’t believe this information should be “suppressed” and have never even come close to suggesting that. In fact a few days ago on my Facebook page I wrote that it should’ve been aired and examined fully in court.
On this forum I have simple questioned the timing and ethics of the release of the SMSs.
I should state myself and my partner have been in close and regular contact with the family for quite some time. We make no claim to speak on their behalf or to represent their views or any campaign to free Ah Kong. What I can say is at no time did the family suggest to us that the SMS content be translated, published and distributed online.
We’ve also spoken to family members since the death. They are, in our opinion, in no shape and no position to make an informed and consensual decision about publishing the documents and I find it hard to believe that such consent was given or sought.
A balance has to be made between public interest and the safety/well-being of the family. The latter, for me, outweighs the former at this point.
In my view, as I stated earlier, combining the release of the SMSs with a more thorough examination of the evidence, which should include, in my opinion, speaking to a mobile phone expert in order to examine the claim that Ah Kong was a source of the messages, would be a more effective strategy.
We can’t evade our responsibilities if we publish information. Yes, openness is important but the effects of that also needs to be measured and taken into account when doing so.
Ar Kong dead
Well no, I don’t support the suppression of knowledge or information. Without transparency there can’t be justice. This information concerning the contents of these SMSs should have been placed in the public arena before the trial. The contents of the SMSs are trivial stupid junk. They should have been plastered all over the internet. In this way the whole world gets to see how precious the royal family is. It is unbelievable that an honest journalist would collaborate with the establishment to keep the population in a state of ignorance. I can well understand why a journalist working Thailand might think it healthier to suppress this information but that doesn’t make it right and there is so many other ways it could have been released. The contents of the SMSs don’t seem to be contested (I don’t know why) just their origins.
Ar Kong dead
#61 Andrew – “Since the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology is now blocking my blog”
It’s not blocked. I have accessed it from three different places across Bangkok in the last couple of days….. Astonishing that they haven’t blocked it….. This means either they are woefully incompetent or they have a reason for leaving it unblocked….. A reason that could only be sinister and worrying…. Can they log visitors from the provider to IP addresses?….
Ar Kong dead
@JG45 (#55-56)
Sorry, but it is you who are childish if you still believe the BS that the King was blabbering on his 2005 Birthday. And I will tell you why you are so childish and ignorant right now.
Do you have any idea how the legislation process in Thailand works? At first, the Parliament enacts the law, then they present to the king, and then the King signs it. In other words, if the King does not sign any law, it will never become law.
Hence, if the King really believes in the BS he was babbling in 2005, what he would have done is he would have never signed to assent for lese majeste to have a place in the Thai provisions in the first place. But he did. He gave his assent to it. And he has witnessed people being jailed for lese majeste one by one, without doing anything to stop this calamity.
If he really believes in the BS he said in 2005, what he would do is he would order the prison officials to release all LM prisoners immediately. But no, he didn’t do that. All he did was procrastinating up there on the 16th Floor at Siriraj Hospital, watching LM prisoners rot in jail as if it was nothing. If you are a person who has even an ounce of morality left in you, would you do the same thing the King is doing?
Please save your childish defence of your sinful King at home. Don’t come and show your ignorance over here. I am sick of you Royal fanatics enough that I don’t visit your manager.co.th hangout. Don’t come and babble your childish drivel over here. Thank you very much!