A very perceptive analysis and good article. The “advance votes” and- -let’s not mince the words- the fraud in the 2010 elections, in my view, was even more endemic than the author infers.
As for the “real risk of a coup” I do not know whether the risk is real or not but of course it can by no means be dismissed. The 2008 Constitution (in so many or so few words) virtually and in advance allows a ‘constitutional coup’ – one of very few Constitutions in the world that allows such actions (and different from declarations of emergency). I suppose that apart from the 25% military appointees Aung San Suuu Kyi and NLD wants to change that provision: good luck to them.
The previous two open coups in 1962 and 1988 were extra constitutional in that they were in violations of the Charters during those years: even with the ‘constituional coup” which is allowed or empowered in the 2008 Constitution an ‘extra-constitutional coup’ (not formally authorized by the National Defence and Security Council) can also take place though one suppose and hope that this is not that likely. So there is a ‘risk’ of constiutional or extra constituional coup though -again- one hopes that the risk though not minimal is not that solid.
Another concern or possible issue is that the government could ‘revert back’ to its 2010 (almost fraudulemt) election mode in 2015 (supposing there would not be a coup, constiutional or other wise in the interim) rather than the 2012 by-election ‘mode’ (of conducting it). Since the government ‘craves’ international legitimacy the by-elections of April 2012 (unlike 2010) were non-fraudulent .
And true to or pehaps even more than their expectations international and also domestic legitimacy and in very large dollops indeed! The government also wanted to co-opt Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. This, to a certain perhaps large extent, they have succeded.
These comments are not to take the wind out of the sails of the NLD’s victory but the ‘clean’ by-elections of April 2012 perhaps at least slightly benefits the government more rather than the NLD and the other ‘opposition parties ‘ notwithstanding the fact that President Thein Sein apparently said there are no ‘opposition’ parties!
I was expecting a deeper conspiracy as I thought the author was on the verge of discovering Myanmar president H.E. U Thein Sein’s master stroke in killing three proverbial birds with one stone; 1) orchestrating a landslide victory of NLD thus securing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s trust that consequently resulted in various sanctions being either suspended or lifted 2) securing the complete trust of Snr. General Than Shwe who is still widely believed to be in control of the state affairs 3) securing his place in the new era as a respectable leader. Unsurprisingly at the end comes an anticlimax when the author bluntly stated that “There is a real risk of a coup”(sic). I found it strangely amusing as there are active-duty high ranking military officers in the Myanmar parliament because of the “25%” clause in the current constitution and the majority USDP is mainly comprised of ex-military commanders. There may be some political maneuvering among the chairman of the parliament, Thura U Shwe Mann, the president and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi but it is highly unlikely to affect the view of the majority of the voters either now or in 2015. Thura U Shwe Mann is rumoured to be a middleman between the president and Snr. general Than Shwe. It seems to be that he will play the same role for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should the occasion arises.
In a nut shell I found the article slightly passed its used-by date but at any rate a good read. It’s so much better than some dramatic monologues that I find totally unfounded.
Whilst he can be a bit shrill at times, Jakrapob’s commentary isn’t usually seen a “childish, obscene, and offensive ” in the ordinary sense of those words.
Re: Andrew Spooner’s comment: “On the sidelines stand the USA and their servants in Human Rights Watch – both heavily implicated as supporters of the 2006 coup and fearful of the present government shifting Thailand to face north and eastwards towards China – the Dems and the military. Jiew being jailed would aid them all massively in damaging the reputation of the present government.”
My oh my. Do you think before you write? HRW *denounced* the coup. But I suppose there is a way of spinning this as “support” — somehow. I suppose one could argue that there is a grand conspiracy whereby one pretends to denounce, but supports. . . Fine. Go ahead. Pretend black is white.
And the idea that Jiew being jailed would help the US is, um, creative. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence that the US wants this result. You are a journalist? Why not practice . . . journalism, then, and find some empirical support for your claims.
jonfernquest: “how concentrated power is among those responsible for funding science research”
From Supachai’s CV: “Advisory Board Member, M.Sc. and Ph.D. Programme on Technopreneur and Innovation Management, Chulalongkorn University”; “Former Managing Director, ScienceAsia* – Journal of the Science Society of Thailand”
Something to note on that CV – he got a MSc from Chula but no mention of a BSc. He got the MSc when he was 25 (he was born ~1959).
Astrid: “Yes, it is very curious as to what “leverage” Supachi holds … ”
I think it’s a matter of collateral damage. Check out the NIA website and brochures – they’re all plastered with images of asparagus. It’s almost their logo:
Note that nothing new has appeared on the NIA website since 2010. The above CV was last updated in Nov 2010. Erica Fry ‘escaped’ from Thailand in July 2010. In the intervening period the courts have decided against him. Could it be that our Supachai is in some kind of frozen torpor? NIA might have to be disbanded and Supachai packed off. Too young for the Privy Council yet?
Oh, last thing: for the period 2006-2010 (Supachai got his PhD in 2008) NIA ‘support’ was to the tune of Bt492.9 million, spread over 520 projects.
Mr. Smith:
You seem to be giving the onus to the accused by order of the nature of the beast. In fact, being a martyr was not her choice. Recognizing that anyone can always fold and play the game is one thing; advocating it in favor of fighting for rights is quite another.
Ascribing ensuing hardship and shell shock to a victim seems a bit mean.
Before commenting on Chiranuch and this case, i would suggest to familiarize yourself with this case.
First of all – she is not just a webmaster of a webboard, she is the director of Prachatai, an independent news website founded by people such as former senator and Magsyasay award winner Jon Ungpakorn, and supported by several international foundations. Prachatai has a stellar reputation for its critical reporting, also internationally.
Secondly – there is a clear and proven history of persecution of Prachatai, with strong infringements against freedom of the media. This has been recognized by all relevant international organizations, such as Reporter without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc.
Thridly – why on earth should Chranuch declare herself guilty, and engage in any sort of “deal”, when she believes that she is not guilty?!
This case is not making a martyr out of Chiranuch (an idea which she personally completely rejects), but about freedom of media and justice.
I have personal knowledge of a case exactly like this. Running a web board (actually he was not even the webmaster for it) that had a posting made that lasted about 2 days. It was a very nasty, offensive game about the King. Think about penguins and excrement.
Just like Chiranuch he was arrested at the airport in an arranged meeting and taken to a police station where he was granted bail. After some time, a trial was held and he plead guilty, was fined and that was it.
Two things I would like to know about this case. What were the comments and was deal to plead guilty and be fined ever offered. This case just seems to be about making a martyr out of Chiranuch, which is of course her choice. But I do think it needs to be made clear it was her choice to have the case go this way.
The laws needs to be changed, but I’m just not sure this is the way to go about it.
I believe one can apply to have a PhD in any discipline from any university in the world for a small fee – Build Bright University in Phnom Penh might be a start!!!!!!)
Yes, it is very curious as to what “leverage” Supachi holds in his “back pocket” to prevent Chula from rescinding his fraudulent plagiarised Ph.D.
Perhaps he has knowledge of other fraudulent Ph.D’s granted/issued by Chula. Surely his is not the sole fraudulent degree from Chula. But how many are there? Two? Ten? One hundred? More? One percent? Five percent? Ten percent?
And how does this case impact all those who hold Chula graduate degrees who actually did the work and earned their degrees?
How is a potential employer to judge whether the degree they were awarded from Chula is “real” or “pretend”?
Jon Wright: “I found a bio of Supachai Lorlowhakarn in The Nation. Basic info summarized here… ”
Great background info, like the Brooker guide to Thai business groups or Pasuk & Baker’s Thai Capital, gives you a glimpse under the hood at the social network dimension (patron-client chains) that people rarely talk about.
The obvious next question is how concentrated power is among those responsible for funding science research and the possible negative consequences. For example, are personal relationships and social obligations rather than merit guiding funding decisions? Which in turn raises the question of how it all works in countries with effective science research funding mechanisms. You’ve peaked my interest. Thanks 🙂
Can you tolerate another day an incumbent Gov’t BN/UMNO whose gratitude to you for electing them is: Manipulating, gerrymandering, hoodwinking, deceiving, controlling media and freedom, brutality, promoting racism, appointing & feeding cronies, massive purchases & projects with mulit-million kickbacks; plundering and mis-managed losses estimated to surpass US$100billion. US$100 billion is 100,000 million US$. All these for 55 years? No contest! Not another thought or word! Not another hour! Resign en mass or face prosecution! Or get voted out!
Ouch! Thanks for the unnecessary elaboration, Aung.
You seem to imply vulgar language is strictly for foreigners. Burmese linguistic culture does not find itself wanting in robustness where necessary. No waffling or beating about the bush.
Chauvinists belittle themselves, and don’t you get a nationalist who can also be a good internationalist confused with one of them.
“Let me say, before Andrew S. starts calling me neo fascist, that I do not agree with Article 112 or the Computer Crime Act in its present form and especially with the way it is enforced. There needs to be a way to separate true rational political discussions of the monarchy from the childish, obscene, and offensive comments about the monarchy that proliferate on the internet today”
Really? Why?
Which one is more a threat to “national security”? Tnat would be the former, right? (Hint: which argument is presumably more powerful?)
In 1934 Germany was still struggling to overcome economic recession and political restrictions by its Allied neighbours and no major political player at that time. 5 years later it would have been a different story
At that time, Hitler was just one of many autocratic leaders in Europe. It’s a nice shot from a stopover and just formal greetings by his host on a state visit, nothing more.
Bad Homburg is not located in Bavaria, it’s close to Frankfurt. Rama V spent some months there somehow recovering from a long illness and presented that pavillion as a gift.
The real reason he went overseas was not medical treatment, but to begin a re-negotiation with the People’s Party gov for a new power arrangement. Prajadhipok thought that he had, as he once told James Baxter, a British adviser, a “most dangerous weapon” in this negotiation, namely, threat to abdicate, which he said to Baxter, he had “used quite effectively for a number times already”. He further told Baxter that in order for this weapon to be more effective, he had to be “able to find some safe place to live”, certainly not in Siamese capital.
I understand that his choice of overseas “base” for this planned re-negotiation had been England all along. The fact that he also took opportunity to visit some European countries was neither interesting nor consequential.
I actually don’t think the comments have much to do with this case as there is not even any question that Jiew made them. The persons who did make those comments are not on trial and the said comments were taken down as quickly as possible.
The focus of this case should the absurdity of 112 and the CCA, not what some anonymous person said online 3years and whose comments appeared for a blink of an eye.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Chiranuch Premchaiporn verdict (not) today
John Smith (JC)
Very interesting story about a person being fined for LM and the first I’ve ever heard of that.
As it was in the web era do you have a link to any details of this case and the outcome?
Your suggestion that Jiew should just admit her guilt (even if she isn’t guilty) is just completely bizarre.
You don’t work for Kristie Kenney do you?
Analysis of Myanmar’s NLD landslide
A very perceptive analysis and good article. The “advance votes” and- -let’s not mince the words- the fraud in the 2010 elections, in my view, was even more endemic than the author infers.
As for the “real risk of a coup” I do not know whether the risk is real or not but of course it can by no means be dismissed. The 2008 Constitution (in so many or so few words) virtually and in advance allows a ‘constitutional coup’ – one of very few Constitutions in the world that allows such actions (and different from declarations of emergency). I suppose that apart from the 25% military appointees Aung San Suuu Kyi and NLD wants to change that provision: good luck to them.
The previous two open coups in 1962 and 1988 were extra constitutional in that they were in violations of the Charters during those years: even with the ‘constituional coup” which is allowed or empowered in the 2008 Constitution an ‘extra-constitutional coup’ (not formally authorized by the National Defence and Security Council) can also take place though one suppose and hope that this is not that likely. So there is a ‘risk’ of constiutional or extra constituional coup though -again- one hopes that the risk though not minimal is not that solid.
Another concern or possible issue is that the government could ‘revert back’ to its 2010 (almost fraudulemt) election mode in 2015 (supposing there would not be a coup, constiutional or other wise in the interim) rather than the 2012 by-election ‘mode’ (of conducting it). Since the government ‘craves’ international legitimacy the by-elections of April 2012 (unlike 2010) were non-fraudulent .
And true to or pehaps even more than their expectations international and also domestic legitimacy and in very large dollops indeed! The government also wanted to co-opt Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. This, to a certain perhaps large extent, they have succeded.
These comments are not to take the wind out of the sails of the NLD’s victory but the ‘clean’ by-elections of April 2012 perhaps at least slightly benefits the government more rather than the NLD and the other ‘opposition parties ‘ notwithstanding the fact that President Thein Sein apparently said there are no ‘opposition’ parties!
Analysis of Myanmar’s NLD landslide
I was expecting a deeper conspiracy as I thought the author was on the verge of discovering Myanmar president H.E. U Thein Sein’s master stroke in killing three proverbial birds with one stone; 1) orchestrating a landslide victory of NLD thus securing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s trust that consequently resulted in various sanctions being either suspended or lifted 2) securing the complete trust of Snr. General Than Shwe who is still widely believed to be in control of the state affairs 3) securing his place in the new era as a respectable leader. Unsurprisingly at the end comes an anticlimax when the author bluntly stated that “There is a real risk of a coup”(sic). I found it strangely amusing as there are active-duty high ranking military officers in the Myanmar parliament because of the “25%” clause in the current constitution and the majority USDP is mainly comprised of ex-military commanders. There may be some political maneuvering among the chairman of the parliament, Thura U Shwe Mann, the president and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi but it is highly unlikely to affect the view of the majority of the voters either now or in 2015. Thura U Shwe Mann is rumoured to be a middleman between the president and Snr. general Than Shwe. It seems to be that he will play the same role for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi should the occasion arises.
In a nut shell I found the article slightly passed its used-by date but at any rate a good read. It’s so much better than some dramatic monologues that I find totally unfounded.
Chiranuch Premchaiporn verdict (not) today
John Smith: Regarding the nature of the various alleged LM comments, the Somyot trail has heard that the author of the ‘offensive’ articles in that case was Jakrapob http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Jakrapob-wrote-the-articles-lese-majeste-trial-tol-30181119.html
Whilst he can be a bit shrill at times, Jakrapob’s commentary isn’t usually seen a “childish, obscene, and offensive ” in the ordinary sense of those words.
Interestingly, the direct charge of LM that Jakrapob faced seems to have now been dropped: http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/3136
Chiranuch Premchaiporn verdict (not) today
Re: Andrew Spooner’s comment: “On the sidelines stand the USA and their servants in Human Rights Watch – both heavily implicated as supporters of the 2006 coup and fearful of the present government shifting Thailand to face north and eastwards towards China – the Dems and the military. Jiew being jailed would aid them all massively in damaging the reputation of the present government.”
My oh my. Do you think before you write? HRW *denounced* the coup. But I suppose there is a way of spinning this as “support” — somehow. I suppose one could argue that there is a grand conspiracy whereby one pretends to denounce, but supports. . . Fine. Go ahead. Pretend black is white.
And the idea that Jiew being jailed would help the US is, um, creative. Of course, there is not a shred of evidence that the US wants this result. You are a journalist? Why not practice . . . journalism, then, and find some empirical support for your claims.
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
jonfernquest: “how concentrated power is among those responsible for funding science research”
From Supachai’s CV: “Advisory Board Member, M.Sc. and Ph.D. Programme on Technopreneur and Innovation Management, Chulalongkorn University”; “Former Managing Director, ScienceAsia* – Journal of the Science Society of Thailand”
CV is here:
http://www.nia.or.th/2009/download/aboutus/CV_NIA_Director_Eng.pdf
* The journal was renamed ScienceAsia in 1999
Something to note on that CV – he got a MSc from Chula but no mention of a BSc. He got the MSc when he was 25 (he was born ~1959).
Astrid: “Yes, it is very curious as to what “leverage” Supachi holds … ”
I think it’s a matter of collateral damage. Check out the NIA website and brochures – they’re all plastered with images of asparagus. It’s almost their logo:
http://www.nia.or.th/en/index.php?page=program_organic
http://www.nia.or.th/organic/supported.php
check all the reports here:
http://www.nia.or.th/en/index.php?page=aboutus_report
Note that nothing new has appeared on the NIA website since 2010. The above CV was last updated in Nov 2010. Erica Fry ‘escaped’ from Thailand in July 2010. In the intervening period the courts have decided against him. Could it be that our Supachai is in some kind of frozen torpor? NIA might have to be disbanded and Supachai packed off. Too young for the Privy Council yet?
Oh, last thing: for the period 2006-2010 (Supachai got his PhD in 2008) NIA ‘support’ was to the tune of Bt492.9 million, spread over 520 projects.
Chiranuch Premchaiporn verdict (not) today
Mr. Smith:
You seem to be giving the onus to the accused by order of the nature of the beast. In fact, being a martyr was not her choice. Recognizing that anyone can always fold and play the game is one thing; advocating it in favor of fighting for rights is quite another.
Ascribing ensuing hardship and shell shock to a victim seems a bit mean.
Chiranuch Premchaiporn verdict (not) today
“John Smith”:
Before commenting on Chiranuch and this case, i would suggest to familiarize yourself with this case.
First of all – she is not just a webmaster of a webboard, she is the director of Prachatai, an independent news website founded by people such as former senator and Magsyasay award winner Jon Ungpakorn, and supported by several international foundations. Prachatai has a stellar reputation for its critical reporting, also internationally.
Secondly – there is a clear and proven history of persecution of Prachatai, with strong infringements against freedom of the media. This has been recognized by all relevant international organizations, such as Reporter without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc.
Thridly – why on earth should Chranuch declare herself guilty, and engage in any sort of “deal”, when she believes that she is not guilty?!
This case is not making a martyr out of Chiranuch (an idea which she personally completely rejects), but about freedom of media and justice.
Chiranuch Premchaiporn verdict (not) today
I have personal knowledge of a case exactly like this. Running a web board (actually he was not even the webmaster for it) that had a posting made that lasted about 2 days. It was a very nasty, offensive game about the King. Think about penguins and excrement.
Just like Chiranuch he was arrested at the airport in an arranged meeting and taken to a police station where he was granted bail. After some time, a trial was held and he plead guilty, was fined and that was it.
Two things I would like to know about this case. What were the comments and was deal to plead guilty and be fined ever offered. This case just seems to be about making a martyr out of Chiranuch, which is of course her choice. But I do think it needs to be made clear it was her choice to have the case go this way.
The laws needs to be changed, but I’m just not sure this is the way to go about it.
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
Ah how about the University of Khao San Road?????
I believe one can apply to have a PhD in any discipline from any university in the world for a small fee – Build Bright University in Phnom Penh might be a start!!!!!!)
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
Yes, it is very curious as to what “leverage” Supachi holds in his “back pocket” to prevent Chula from rescinding his fraudulent plagiarised Ph.D.
Perhaps he has knowledge of other fraudulent Ph.D’s granted/issued by Chula. Surely his is not the sole fraudulent degree from Chula. But how many are there? Two? Ten? One hundred? More? One percent? Five percent? Ten percent?
And how does this case impact all those who hold Chula graduate degrees who actually did the work and earned their degrees?
How is a potential employer to judge whether the degree they were awarded from Chula is “real” or “pretend”?
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
Jon Wright: “I found a bio of Supachai Lorlowhakarn in The Nation. Basic info summarized here… ”
Great background info, like the Brooker guide to Thai business groups or Pasuk & Baker’s Thai Capital, gives you a glimpse under the hood at the social network dimension (patron-client chains) that people rarely talk about.
The obvious next question is how concentrated power is among those responsible for funding science research and the possible negative consequences. For example, are personal relationships and social obligations rather than merit guiding funding decisions? Which in turn raises the question of how it all works in countries with effective science research funding mechanisms. You’ve peaked my interest. Thanks 🙂
Bersih 3.0 – What next Mr. Najib Razak?
Can you tolerate another day an incumbent Gov’t BN/UMNO whose gratitude to you for electing them is: Manipulating, gerrymandering, hoodwinking, deceiving, controlling media and freedom, brutality, promoting racism, appointing & feeding cronies, massive purchases & projects with mulit-million kickbacks; plundering and mis-managed losses estimated to surpass US$100billion. US$100 billion is 100,000 million US$. All these for 55 years? No contest! Not another thought or word! Not another hour! Resign en mass or face prosecution! Or get voted out!
The elephant and Myanmar politics
Ouch! Thanks for the unnecessary elaboration, Aung.
You seem to imply vulgar language is strictly for foreigners. Burmese linguistic culture does not find itself wanting in robustness where necessary. No waffling or beating about the bush.
Chauvinists belittle themselves, and don’t you get a nationalist who can also be a good internationalist confused with one of them.
Chiranuch Premchaiporn verdict (not) today
“Let me say, before Andrew S. starts calling me neo fascist, that I do not agree with Article 112 or the Computer Crime Act in its present form and especially with the way it is enforced. There needs to be a way to separate true rational political discussions of the monarchy from the childish, obscene, and offensive comments about the monarchy that proliferate on the internet today”
Really? Why?
Which one is more a threat to “national security”? Tnat would be the former, right? (Hint: which argument is presumably more powerful?)
Rama VII and Hitler
ST
Yub, it is in Hesse–my mistake for relying on the booklet alone.
Pavin
Rama VII and Hitler
In 1934 Germany was still struggling to overcome economic recession and political restrictions by its Allied neighbours and no major political player at that time. 5 years later it would have been a different story
At that time, Hitler was just one of many autocratic leaders in Europe. It’s a nice shot from a stopover and just formal greetings by his host on a state visit, nothing more.
Bad Homburg is not located in Bavaria, it’s close to Frankfurt. Rama V spent some months there somehow recovering from a long illness and presented that pavillion as a gift.
Rama VII and Hitler
The real reason he went overseas was not medical treatment, but to begin a re-negotiation with the People’s Party gov for a new power arrangement. Prajadhipok thought that he had, as he once told James Baxter, a British adviser, a “most dangerous weapon” in this negotiation, namely, threat to abdicate, which he said to Baxter, he had “used quite effectively for a number times already”. He further told Baxter that in order for this weapon to be more effective, he had to be “able to find some safe place to live”, certainly not in Siamese capital.
I understand that his choice of overseas “base” for this planned re-negotiation had been England all along. The fact that he also took opportunity to visit some European countries was neither interesting nor consequential.
Chiranuch Premchaiporn verdict (not) today
John Smith
I actually don’t think the comments have much to do with this case as there is not even any question that Jiew made them. The persons who did make those comments are not on trial and the said comments were taken down as quickly as possible.
The focus of this case should the absurdity of 112 and the CCA, not what some anonymous person said online 3years and whose comments appeared for a blink of an eye.
Rama VII and Hitler
Bad Homburg is in “Hesse” not “Bavaria”!