She is coming out to be more and more of Thein Sein’s enforcer with acceptable face. If there has been any policy difference with Thein Sein who is simply of functionary arm of Than Shwe government, it is not apparent.
Some of The important issues in Burma today are
1. Continued building of the Myit Sone Dam which will destroy Irrawaddy along with livelihood of millions down stream.
2. Continued building of pipes and rails and roads, even if they are so wonderful like Than Myint-U says, being planned and done by the Chinese as if they already own the country.
3. More importantly killing, torturings and destruction of livelihood that goes with it.
4. Similar planned environmental destruction of immense and horrible scale in Tavoy now the spoils split with armed Karen group.
5. Most insane so-called investment law which is waiting for her signature so that the international money people will feel secure, effectively giving away the country for any foreigner to do any thing they want to make money.
6. Moral erosion in all layers of the society which will accelerate with likely drug and violence issues to multiply.
Not a single word has been said on these issues in the whole of last year so it is simple guess work that Aung San Suu Kyi might not agree with the military. But equally possible she might agree.
Funny thing still is that the military voted by themselves the constitution and the “Members of Parliament”. Public do not have a clue what is it that was voted.
Now the public in hordes voted willingly for NLD which is not saying what their policies are, and public do not have a clue what is it that was voted.
Even funnier, most people in NLD would have no clue what their policies are apart from these high school essays of live peacefully, don’t talk back to the elderly ( here read the militarymen), etc.
nothing new so far after reading this short article. resembles a news compilation rather than academic analysis. We discussed the ‘public servants patronize prostitute’ already in a previous threat anyway..
I wonder why Mr Ong and his articles are pushed so much in this block during the last months
Investigative reporter Andrew Drummond has just published a scathing piece on Chula’s refusal to void the Chula Ph.D. awarded to Supachai Lorlowhakarn, now Director of the Thailand’s National Innovation Agency.
Apparently Supachi plagiarised 80% of “his” thesis from a Ph.D. thesis previously published by a Dr Lorlowhakarn.
While Chula has been aware of this problem for several years and has in fact confirmed that Supachi indeed did plagiarise 80% of the Ph.D. thesis, Chula has inexplicably refused to void Supachi’s Ph.D. degree as fraudulent and unethical, etc.
Needless to say, Supachi has also not been fired from his high level position at the National Innovation Agency. Such is the sorry state of Chula and Thailand academic credentials.
“The entire thread, starting with Nicks post #3, followed by your post #8 have been nothing about the film or what the banning of it portends for the future.
It as been nothong more then attacks on the creators and saying they do not deserve any support because they do not share the same perspective as you and Nick on the current political strife going in Thailand.
Nick’s post was as usual a very mild rebuke hidden behind carefully worded neutrally, while yours was, well, yours was what it was.”
After you have only issued a personal attack against my comment (which has discussed the issue of banning this particular film and directly related issues), and failed to respond to my questions, i have decided to leave this rather futile discussion, especially in which you seem to just try to vent your anger.
I am though quite annoyed by these snide remarks, and would ask you to leave me out your diatribes as i am not willing to engage in such an infantile argument.
I especially ask you not to operate with this strawman of a for you apparent conspiracy here on new mandala – i have already said that i work independently, and there were many occasions where Andrew Spooner and me have not agreed on several fundamental issues.
Again – if this film contains hate speech or calls for violence, then i would agree with a ban, if not than i do not agree with a ban. I have not enough information to voice an opinion either way.
But as long as the two film makers only fight against the ban of their own movie, yet remain silent about cases of much worse official infractions against freedom of speech – in which people were actually jailed for long prison sentences, i am not convinced of their sincerity regarding their position against censorship in general. If this is just part of a trench war against this government, with the side effect of increased PR for their movie in foreign movie festivals, while ignoring infractions against freedom of speech by opposing governments – which the two film makers have always been silent about – i cannot support their campaign as i refuse to be a tool of either side in this political conflict.
This issue of censorship and freedom of speech is not as you try to distort it here in your argumentation – just an issue of the PTP government, but in the context of longstanding and systematical problems of the Thai state with opposing views. But again – we have not enough information regarding this particular movie.
Ing K in the interview with the BP has stated that she would support amendments to the 112 laws, yet has qualified her statement by saying that “The problem is it [the movement to amend the lese majeste law] is being used as a tool, most of all to damage the King and to make Thaksin look like a champion of democracy”, and completely evaded the issue of hundreds of people being accused, jailed, or in exile. She has not even mentioned the Chiranuch case. Prachatai, of which Chiranuch is director, was founded as an alternative new source against pro-Thaksin dominated media is definitely not a tool of either side and would need support by high profile Thai artists who to the most part unfortunately decided though to remain silent during the past years.
If she decides to extend her campaign to those, and their freedom of speech, she will have my moral support. Until then i have doubts over the two film makers motivations, especially because of their close association with the Democrat Party, and in particular with Kraisak Choonhavan, who was one of the first members of the Democrat Party that has publicly expressed support for the 2006 coup, yet with all his supposed democratic credentials has never come out in support of Prachatai, for example. Not all Democrat Party politicians have shown so little moral backbone though – Bangkok Governor Sukhumband, for example, has spoken at a Prachatai fundraiser on December 8, 2009 – at a time when Chiranuch has been already charged under the cyber crime act over comments on the prachatai forum deemed lese majeste.
Freedom of speech allows me to express those reservations without being personally attacked by you.
The prophesying Buddha on Mandalay Hill is pointing south. Perhaps you mean China and N Korea to stoke up Western anxieties.
And the middle way here is the lesser of two evils, a good compromise deal and depends how you play it from here on in. Don’t expect a level playing field. If the opposition wants one, it’s down to them to make it so. Shall I leave the specifics to plodders and one club golfers like you?
Ok – I’ve just found two films (according to Wikipedia – sorry that is the only source, hardly academic, I know) that were completely banned during the Democrat Party period of government from 2008-2011.
They were –
1) a romcom directed/written by Kevin Smith – the creator of Clerks and Dogma among other films – called Zack and Miri Make a Porno. It was banned in 2009. It was described by the Guardian as a “Very middling smutty-sentimental sex comedy from the one-time king of slacker movies.”
2) A 2007 remake (by Haneke himself) of Michael Haneke’s 1997 film Funny Games. It was banned in 2010. The original 1997 was nominated for the Palme d’Or at the Cannes film festival. I’ve not seen the 2007 remake but the 1997 version is art house slasher/psychological thriller.
I’ve tried to find outraged comments in the international media about the censorship of these films in Thailand but can find none. Strangely Ing K seems also to have been silent on this.
I’m now also interested to find out what Thai-made films were banned during Abhisit’s period in government and the corresponding international press reaction to that. We do know that internet censorship exploded during Dem Party rule, as did the use of lese majeste and the shutting down of Red Shirt radio stations.
So is it right to ask if censorship is a prevailing issue for the makers of Shakespeare Must Die – particularly when set against the context of the regimes of censorship that exist in Thailand – or if they are only concerned about it only when it affects their world view or cultural output?
I still think Shakespeare Must Die should be immediately unbanned, released and distributed and hope, one day, it is.
“There does seem to be a direct correlation between the number of thumbs up you get and how many times you use the word neo-nazi.”
Where have I used the word neo-nazi? Exactly. I’ve looked and can’t find it.
Thanks.
Another general point – I’d be very interested to see how many films were censored during Abhisit’s period in government and a) how much media coverage that got when it occurred b) how often Ing K publicly took a stand against that censorship?
We already know she and the Bangkok-based international media said nothing at all when the Red Shirt radio stations were being shut-down and the lives of some radio station DJs were being threatened. One might even suggest that she is using the censorship purely as a vehicle to promote herself, her film and gain sympathy for her PAD-inspired, elitist, anti-democratic take on things.
Andrew S. #29
My comment in post #11 was not about the PTP electoral mandate.
Really Andrew? 95%? As some 51% of the people in the 2011 election did not choose Thaksin’s party on their ballot, you are saying that over half the people that voted in that election prefer less democracy?
My comment was a question which you still have not answered. It was about your statement that 95% of the Thaksin’s opponents prefer less democracy. Based on election results of voters picking Thaksin’s proxy parties and those that did not, you are accusing a significant portion of the Thai electorate of preferring less democracy.
You could have said “Among Thaksin’s opponents is a vocal minority that would prefer less democracy…”. I would have not had a problem with that at all. But you chose not to say that. Instead, you engaged in a gross exaggeration as part of your virulent attack on the film’s director.
Making a film that appears to draw parallels between a classic Shakespearean play and the Shinawatra family and their role in Thai politics would not seem to automatically qualify you as a “PAD-inflected anti-Thaksin propagandist willing to get into bed with violent neo-fascists and the killers in the military”.
It does qualify you as person that may not like the impact that the Shinawatra and the other chao pho families have on Thai politics, regardless of which national party they may support at any particular time. Is that being a neo-nazi?
As far as your comment in #33 about the ratings of my posts, the political leanings of the readership of this site is well known, and I know many, including yourself, would prefer those that do not agree with you would just go away. I have little concern for the ratings. At first glance, there does seem to be a direct correlation between the number of thumbs up you get and how many times you use the word neo-nazi. That pretty much says it all for me.
The entire thread, starting with Nicks post #3, followed by your post #8 have been nothing about the film or what the banning of it portends for the future.
It as been nothong more then attacks on the creators and saying they do not deserve any support because they do not share the same perspective as you and Nick on the current political strife going in Thailand.
Nick’s post was as usual a very mild rebuke hidden behind carefully worded neutrally, while yours was, well, yours was what it was.
So, Andrew, what is your opinion on what this says about the future under a PTP government ?
‘Kachin state must always be a part of Myanmar???’ another tone of a Bamar imperialist!
It is sorry thing that the majority Burmans themselves do not realize they are Myanmar or Bamar colony occupying our land by force.
We Kachin joined the Union voluntarily, why can’t we leave when we want???
The cause of War is not just over resources, but also religious rights, very basic human rights to preserve our own culture, traditions and identity.
No Kachin is so stupid to sacrifice his or her live just over resources!!
It is not a fluke that Rangoon is being reverted to it original Yangon.
Historically NO known record of permanently successful armed conflicts b/t the Bamar and any ethnic groups that chose to challenge, the former dominance has ever been recorded, since the dawn 1st Bamar dynasty.
Chauvinistic and unbearably obnoxious?
Probably, especially to those who ignorant THE Myanmar History.
The same group that choose to ignore preponderance of other successful means.
Neither as a Kachin just lamenting this present egregious misfortune of Kachin over the equally egregious misfortune of the whole Myanmar Citizenry nor self deprecating as a Bamar help to change anything positive within ongoing dynamics.
Doing so however will be playing into the hands of the West that has forged this dynamic with the useless careless policy and the beneficiary, this present military government.
Thanks very much for this informative review. One of my students has been working on the role of local governments in land conflicts in Aceh. I am not quite familiar with this field. So, I think that she will greatly benefit from reading this book.
Of course, I could not help smiling when I reached the sentence that starts with, “While some Marxist and neo-anarchist writers working in Southeast Asia continue to understand all forms of state-recognized property as ideology, as steeped in blood and founded on histories of organized violence…”
If the contemporary world would only be in “a mess,” if it was only “madness” that we observe, everything “waere halb so schlimm.” Yet, we are in fact talking about the structures of modern world society. One can confront these structures with idealism (and the concomitant political activism). Alternatively, one could start with trying to build an analytical understanding.
As for the latter, since you are German, you might well start with Niklas Luhmann. 1989. Ecological Communication. Translated by J. Bednarz. Cambridge: Polity Press. (German original ├Цkologische Kommunikation: Kann die moderne Gesellschaft sich auf ökologische Gef├дhrdungen einstellen? Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1986.)
As for the case of Myanmar, this country might well follow the path Cambodia had taken. Some time ago, a group of authors working in the context of sociological neo-institutionalism suggested that the various areas of social structures in any newly discovered territory would be re-organized according to the existing set of models existing at the world-society level. I always thought that Cambodia was a striking real life example of that prediction. Myanmar might be next. Experts of all sorts (not merely investors!) have already started to descend on this country to offer their models in order to bring Myanmar “up to the world standard.” The authors mentioned are Meyer, J.W., J. Boli, G. M. Thomas, and F. O. Ramirez. 1997. “World Society and the Nation-State.” American Journal of Sociology 103 (1):144-181.
You might be interested to know that the Prince of Songkhla University in Hat Yai has invited Abhisit to give a key note address at their 4th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences. Abhisit will speak about “Humanities and Social Sciences: Research Trends on ASEAN Community and Beyond.”
So, it seems that even to many social science academics in Thailand, Abhisit remains a person sufficiently respectible to invite him for a keynote address (would they have also invited Thanom or Suchinda, one wonders). To them, he is not at all the “Butcher of Bangkok,” who would need to be subjected to social sanction. Maybe, this is a Thai case of р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕кр╕Щр╣Гр╕Ир╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╕Юр╕нр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╣Бр╕Фр╕Бр╕Фр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕гр╣Мр╕Др╕лр╕гр╕нр╕Бр╕Др╣Ир╕░.
An observer said, Thaksin will never feel beholden to anyone fo4r favors other than himself. There are instances when he will be forced to accommodate people and “arrangements,” but deep down he personally feels no obligation to anyone for anything, yet feels that everyone owes him. Whether these observations are accurate will remain under conjecture.
From the review, it appears that the book’s foremost quality is that its author is honest and straight forward, and the author is one to know, given his position. That alone makes it Oscar worthy. But I suspect that Craig was reading as part of his endless search to find roots and reasons behind the security state–Dr. Wisanu was at the heart of things as a very different constitution comes into being, the rise of the Assembly of the Poor (and NGOs), the rise of Thaksin, the War on Drugs, Tak Bai, not to mention the passing of controversial laws such as the Emergency law. And of course, the initial rise in lese majeste cases. Perhaps I’m asking tooo much of a reviewer to go into more detail of the book on my own areas of interest, but I would have liked to hear more about why he doesn’t like military governments or his explanation of just how he (or Dr. Borwornsak?) were not involved with providing the legal paperwork to legalize the coup. Or maybe the book lacked this sort of breadth that places the work within the period? Briefly said, am I going to find any of these goodies in this book?
“We appreciate a man who surrender and feel guilty for what he has done”
That seems contradictory to the avoidance of loss of face (at all costs) mentality which is usually so prevalent.
Also, how does that fit with the ‘we don’t care’ comments about A. M. Marshall’s thai tragedy?
btw, Thaksin is the only Thai politician (or puu yai) I can recall who has been big enough to admit that he might have made some mistakes
(he’s still an asshole though 🙂
Shall we settle for the middle way between Trevor Wilson’s gushing endorsement cheered on by plan B and the rather rambling rant by Ohn?
For one thing, we haven’t actually witnessedthe significant and genuine process of “national reconciliation” that TW appeared to have convinced himself readily except the ceasefires which do not seem to hold in any consistent manner casting doubt as to whether the ‘democratically elected’ president is really in control of the military which presumably takes its orders only from the NDSC (National Defense and Security Council) and does not honour the remit of the parliamentary committee set up to implement ‘national reconciliation’ . Such highly publicised peace parleys have in Burma an unfortunate track record of merely being the military regime’s tactical retreats in order to buy time and wriggle out of a crisis. Grasshopper TS (Than Shwe/Thein Sein) has been a very good student of the great Sensei Ne Win.
Thein Sein can indulge in plenty of platitudes and lip service (no change there really) in hitherto taboo subjects too for now and will go through the motions while this new found permissiveness needs to soldier on a bit until they achieve their objectives. Seems like it was Kyaw Hsan who first uttered the word reconciliation instead of reconsolidation at a press conference last summer.
We all know it wasn’t Moses who created the relatively recent phenomenon of the Burmese diaspora, and most of these wayward and willful erstwhile citizens of Burma will return home like a shot at the first promising opportunity. There is no doubt they can and will contribute to the greater good of the country and help in its take off phase through to catching up with the rest of the world and not just Singapore which seems to be the favourite model. And yes, those sweatshop and sex workers in Thailand may find gainful employment back home in the boom expected by all and sundry instead of doing the same kind of work as second class citizens.
Whatever the real agenda is behind the current state of affairs in Burma, it has qualitatively changed the setting aimed at creating an economic climate and framework conducive to international capital through unavoidable political reforms albeit fundamentally ensuring continued military domination of the nation’s political and economic life.
It is therefore incumbent upon all of us both domestic and international players to make sure the regime stays locked into the reform process until it finds a U turn not only impossible to make but detrimental to their own selfish interests.
What keeps me up at night?
certainly not mainland southeast-asia.
I am a university student in Germany.
And I totally agree with “jonfernquest”.
I see this in my classes all the time.
People talking about democracy, struggle and hardship, without making any connection to reality.
What keeps me up at night at the moment is firstly the neo-nazis who will march through my town on the first of may, and whom I will not tolerate, then my bachelor thesis, and then capitalism, global politics and how the big shots of the world now found the next country to exploit (Myanmar).
Asia is far away from me. And although I try to keep up with the news, its too much.
Someone said, if the madness is big enough, people won’t recognize it as madness anymore.
The madness, in my opinion is called capitalism and global politics.
What keeps me up at night is the idea, that my country is selling guns, and that the wealth I live in is paid hunderdfold by people all around the globe. That politicians dare to talk about freedom and democracy and use this terms for their despicable goals.
I’m still young. I have to lead my life in this mess. I hope I will never forget, that I have the duty to fight for a better world. Like everyone.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Internationalising the Kachin war
Well Egress,
It is the very issue with Aung San Suu Kyi.
She is coming out to be more and more of Thein Sein’s enforcer with acceptable face. If there has been any policy difference with Thein Sein who is simply of functionary arm of Than Shwe government, it is not apparent.
Some of The important issues in Burma today are
1. Continued building of the Myit Sone Dam which will destroy Irrawaddy along with livelihood of millions down stream.
2. Continued building of pipes and rails and roads, even if they are so wonderful like Than Myint-U says, being planned and done by the Chinese as if they already own the country.
3. More importantly killing, torturings and destruction of livelihood that goes with it.
4. Similar planned environmental destruction of immense and horrible scale in Tavoy now the spoils split with armed Karen group.
5. Most insane so-called investment law which is waiting for her signature so that the international money people will feel secure, effectively giving away the country for any foreigner to do any thing they want to make money.
6. Moral erosion in all layers of the society which will accelerate with likely drug and violence issues to multiply.
Not a single word has been said on these issues in the whole of last year so it is simple guess work that Aung San Suu Kyi might not agree with the military. But equally possible she might agree.
Funny thing still is that the military voted by themselves the constitution and the “Members of Parliament”. Public do not have a clue what is it that was voted.
Now the public in hordes voted willingly for NLD which is not saying what their policies are, and public do not have a clue what is it that was voted.
Even funnier, most people in NLD would have no clue what their policies are apart from these high school essays of live peacefully, don’t talk back to the elderly ( here read the militarymen), etc.
Three issues for Singapore
nothing new so far after reading this short article. resembles a news compilation rather than academic analysis. We discussed the ‘public servants patronize prostitute’ already in a previous threat anyway..
I wonder why Mr Ong and his articles are pushed so much in this block during the last months
Double, double toil and trouble…
Nick Nostitz
Thanks for your comment and I am in complete agreement with almost all of it despite our disagreeing at times on other issues.
The filmmakers’ links to Kraisak Choonhavan also raises a lot of questions and I’ve tried to dig a bit more into this.
That still doesn’t mean the film should be banned though…
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
Investigative reporter Andrew Drummond has just published a scathing piece on Chula’s refusal to void the Chula Ph.D. awarded to Supachai Lorlowhakarn, now Director of the Thailand’s National Innovation Agency.
Apparently Supachi plagiarised 80% of “his” thesis from a Ph.D. thesis previously published by a Dr Lorlowhakarn.
While Chula has been aware of this problem for several years and has in fact confirmed that Supachi indeed did plagiarise 80% of the Ph.D. thesis, Chula has inexplicably refused to void Supachi’s Ph.D. degree as fraudulent and unethical, etc.
Needless to say, Supachi has also not been fired from his high level position at the National Innovation Agency. Such is the sorry state of Chula and Thailand academic credentials.
http://www.andrew-drummond.com/view-story.php?sid=537
Double, double toil and trouble…
“John Smith”:
“The entire thread, starting with Nicks post #3, followed by your post #8 have been nothing about the film or what the banning of it portends for the future.
It as been nothong more then attacks on the creators and saying they do not deserve any support because they do not share the same perspective as you and Nick on the current political strife going in Thailand.
Nick’s post was as usual a very mild rebuke hidden behind carefully worded neutrally, while yours was, well, yours was what it was.”
After you have only issued a personal attack against my comment (which has discussed the issue of banning this particular film and directly related issues), and failed to respond to my questions, i have decided to leave this rather futile discussion, especially in which you seem to just try to vent your anger.
I am though quite annoyed by these snide remarks, and would ask you to leave me out your diatribes as i am not willing to engage in such an infantile argument.
I especially ask you not to operate with this strawman of a for you apparent conspiracy here on new mandala – i have already said that i work independently, and there were many occasions where Andrew Spooner and me have not agreed on several fundamental issues.
Again – if this film contains hate speech or calls for violence, then i would agree with a ban, if not than i do not agree with a ban. I have not enough information to voice an opinion either way.
But as long as the two film makers only fight against the ban of their own movie, yet remain silent about cases of much worse official infractions against freedom of speech – in which people were actually jailed for long prison sentences, i am not convinced of their sincerity regarding their position against censorship in general. If this is just part of a trench war against this government, with the side effect of increased PR for their movie in foreign movie festivals, while ignoring infractions against freedom of speech by opposing governments – which the two film makers have always been silent about – i cannot support their campaign as i refuse to be a tool of either side in this political conflict.
This issue of censorship and freedom of speech is not as you try to distort it here in your argumentation – just an issue of the PTP government, but in the context of longstanding and systematical problems of the Thai state with opposing views. But again – we have not enough information regarding this particular movie.
Ing K in the interview with the BP has stated that she would support amendments to the 112 laws, yet has qualified her statement by saying that “The problem is it [the movement to amend the lese majeste law] is being used as a tool, most of all to damage the King and to make Thaksin look like a champion of democracy”, and completely evaded the issue of hundreds of people being accused, jailed, or in exile. She has not even mentioned the Chiranuch case. Prachatai, of which Chiranuch is director, was founded as an alternative new source against pro-Thaksin dominated media is definitely not a tool of either side and would need support by high profile Thai artists who to the most part unfortunately decided though to remain silent during the past years.
If she decides to extend her campaign to those, and their freedom of speech, she will have my moral support. Until then i have doubts over the two film makers motivations, especially because of their close association with the Democrat Party, and in particular with Kraisak Choonhavan, who was one of the first members of the Democrat Party that has publicly expressed support for the 2006 coup, yet with all his supposed democratic credentials has never come out in support of Prachatai, for example. Not all Democrat Party politicians have shown so little moral backbone though – Bangkok Governor Sukhumband, for example, has spoken at a Prachatai fundraiser on December 8, 2009 – at a time when Chiranuch has been already charged under the cyber crime act over comments on the prachatai forum deemed lese majeste.
Freedom of speech allows me to express those reservations without being personally attacked by you.
Seeking practical benefits from national reconciliation in Myanmar
plan B,
The prophesying Buddha on Mandalay Hill is pointing south. Perhaps you mean China and N Korea to stoke up Western anxieties.
And the middle way here is the lesser of two evils, a good compromise deal and depends how you play it from here on in. Don’t expect a level playing field. If the opposition wants one, it’s down to them to make it so. Shall I leave the specifics to plodders and one club golfers like you?
Double, double toil and trouble…
Ok – I’ve just found two films (according to Wikipedia – sorry that is the only source, hardly academic, I know) that were completely banned during the Democrat Party period of government from 2008-2011.
They were –
1) a romcom directed/written by Kevin Smith – the creator of Clerks and Dogma among other films – called Zack and Miri Make a Porno. It was banned in 2009. It was described by the Guardian as a “Very middling smutty-sentimental sex comedy from the one-time king of slacker movies.”
2) A 2007 remake (by Haneke himself) of Michael Haneke’s 1997 film Funny Games. It was banned in 2010. The original 1997 was nominated for the Palme d’Or at the Cannes film festival. I’ve not seen the 2007 remake but the 1997 version is art house slasher/psychological thriller.
I’ve tried to find outraged comments in the international media about the censorship of these films in Thailand but can find none. Strangely Ing K seems also to have been silent on this.
I’m now also interested to find out what Thai-made films were banned during Abhisit’s period in government and the corresponding international press reaction to that. We do know that internet censorship exploded during Dem Party rule, as did the use of lese majeste and the shutting down of Red Shirt radio stations.
So is it right to ask if censorship is a prevailing issue for the makers of Shakespeare Must Die – particularly when set against the context of the regimes of censorship that exist in Thailand – or if they are only concerned about it only when it affects their world view or cultural output?
I still think Shakespeare Must Die should be immediately unbanned, released and distributed and hope, one day, it is.
Double, double toil and trouble…
John Smith.
“There does seem to be a direct correlation between the number of thumbs up you get and how many times you use the word neo-nazi.”
Where have I used the word neo-nazi? Exactly. I’ve looked and can’t find it.
Thanks.
Another general point – I’d be very interested to see how many films were censored during Abhisit’s period in government and a) how much media coverage that got when it occurred b) how often Ing K publicly took a stand against that censorship?
We already know she and the Bangkok-based international media said nothing at all when the Red Shirt radio stations were being shut-down and the lives of some radio station DJs were being threatened. One might even suggest that she is using the censorship purely as a vehicle to promote herself, her film and gain sympathy for her PAD-inspired, elitist, anti-democratic take on things.
Double, double toil and trouble…
Andrew S. #29
My comment in post #11 was not about the PTP electoral mandate.
Really Andrew? 95%? As some 51% of the people in the 2011 election did not choose Thaksin’s party on their ballot, you are saying that over half the people that voted in that election prefer less democracy?
My comment was a question which you still have not answered. It was about your statement that 95% of the Thaksin’s opponents prefer less democracy. Based on election results of voters picking Thaksin’s proxy parties and those that did not, you are accusing a significant portion of the Thai electorate of preferring less democracy.
You could have said “Among Thaksin’s opponents is a vocal minority that would prefer less democracy…”. I would have not had a problem with that at all. But you chose not to say that. Instead, you engaged in a gross exaggeration as part of your virulent attack on the film’s director.
Making a film that appears to draw parallels between a classic Shakespearean play and the Shinawatra family and their role in Thai politics would not seem to automatically qualify you as a “PAD-inflected anti-Thaksin propagandist willing to get into bed with violent neo-fascists and the killers in the military”.
It does qualify you as person that may not like the impact that the Shinawatra and the other chao pho families have on Thai politics, regardless of which national party they may support at any particular time. Is that being a neo-nazi?
As far as your comment in #33 about the ratings of my posts, the political leanings of the readership of this site is well known, and I know many, including yourself, would prefer those that do not agree with you would just go away. I have little concern for the ratings. At first glance, there does seem to be a direct correlation between the number of thumbs up you get and how many times you use the word neo-nazi. That pretty much says it all for me.
The entire thread, starting with Nicks post #3, followed by your post #8 have been nothing about the film or what the banning of it portends for the future.
It as been nothong more then attacks on the creators and saying they do not deserve any support because they do not share the same perspective as you and Nick on the current political strife going in Thailand.
Nick’s post was as usual a very mild rebuke hidden behind carefully worded neutrally, while yours was, well, yours was what it was.
So, Andrew, what is your opinion on what this says about the future under a PTP government ?
Kachin State: Don’t mention the war
plan B,
‘Kachin state must always be a part of Myanmar???’ another tone of a Bamar imperialist!
It is sorry thing that the majority Burmans themselves do not realize they are Myanmar or Bamar colony occupying our land by force.
We Kachin joined the Union voluntarily, why can’t we leave when we want???
The cause of War is not just over resources, but also religious rights, very basic human rights to preserve our own culture, traditions and identity.
No Kachin is so stupid to sacrifice his or her live just over resources!!
Internationalising the Kachin war
It is not a fluke that Rangoon is being reverted to it original Yangon.
Historically NO known record of permanently successful armed conflicts b/t the Bamar and any ethnic groups that chose to challenge, the former dominance has ever been recorded, since the dawn 1st Bamar dynasty.
Chauvinistic and unbearably obnoxious?
Probably, especially to those who ignorant THE Myanmar History.
The same group that choose to ignore preponderance of other successful means.
Neither as a Kachin just lamenting this present egregious misfortune of Kachin over the equally egregious misfortune of the whole Myanmar Citizenry nor self deprecating as a Bamar help to change anything positive within ongoing dynamics.
Doing so however will be playing into the hands of the West that has forged this dynamic with the useless careless policy and the beneficiary, this present military government.
Seeking practical benefits from national reconciliation in Myanmar
Ko Moe Aung
How about follow up with some specifics to your endorsement for the middle ground?
Does the Buddha pointing East need to be explained?
Review of Powers of Exclusion
Thanks very much for this informative review. One of my students has been working on the role of local governments in land conflicts in Aceh. I am not quite familiar with this field. So, I think that she will greatly benefit from reading this book.
Of course, I could not help smiling when I reached the sentence that starts with, “While some Marxist and neo-anarchist writers working in Southeast Asia continue to understand all forms of state-recognized property as ideology, as steeped in blood and founded on histories of organized violence…”
What keeps you up at night?
Esther:
If the contemporary world would only be in “a mess,” if it was only “madness” that we observe, everything “waere halb so schlimm.” Yet, we are in fact talking about the structures of modern world society. One can confront these structures with idealism (and the concomitant political activism). Alternatively, one could start with trying to build an analytical understanding.
As for the latter, since you are German, you might well start with Niklas Luhmann. 1989. Ecological Communication. Translated by J. Bednarz. Cambridge: Polity Press. (German original ├Цkologische Kommunikation: Kann die moderne Gesellschaft sich auf ökologische Gef├дhrdungen einstellen? Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1986.)
As for the case of Myanmar, this country might well follow the path Cambodia had taken. Some time ago, a group of authors working in the context of sociological neo-institutionalism suggested that the various areas of social structures in any newly discovered territory would be re-organized according to the existing set of models existing at the world-society level. I always thought that Cambodia was a striking real life example of that prediction. Myanmar might be next. Experts of all sorts (not merely investors!) have already started to descend on this country to offer their models in order to bring Myanmar “up to the world standard.” The authors mentioned are Meyer, J.W., J. Boli, G. M. Thomas, and F. O. Ramirez. 1997. “World Society and the Nation-State.” American Journal of Sociology 103 (1):144-181.
Questions for Abhisit Vejjajiva
#56
You might be interested to know that the Prince of Songkhla University in Hat Yai has invited Abhisit to give a key note address at their 4th International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences. Abhisit will speak about “Humanities and Social Sciences: Research Trends on ASEAN Community and Beyond.”
So, it seems that even to many social science academics in Thailand, Abhisit remains a person sufficiently respectible to invite him for a keynote address (would they have also invited Thanom or Suchinda, one wonders). To them, he is not at all the “Butcher of Bangkok,” who would need to be subjected to social sanction. Maybe, this is a Thai case of р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕кр╕Щр╣Гр╕Ир╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╕Юр╕нр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╣Бр╕Фр╕Бр╕Фр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕гр╣Мр╕Др╕лр╕гр╕нр╕Бр╕Др╣Ир╕░.
Royal pardon for Thaksin? Or coup for the king?
An observer said, Thaksin will never feel beholden to anyone fo4r favors other than himself. There are instances when he will be forced to accommodate people and “arrangements,” but deep down he personally feels no obligation to anyone for anything, yet feels that everyone owes him. Whether these observations are accurate will remain under conjecture.
Review of This World’s a Stage
From the review, it appears that the book’s foremost quality is that its author is honest and straight forward, and the author is one to know, given his position. That alone makes it Oscar worthy. But I suspect that Craig was reading as part of his endless search to find roots and reasons behind the security state–Dr. Wisanu was at the heart of things as a very different constitution comes into being, the rise of the Assembly of the Poor (and NGOs), the rise of Thaksin, the War on Drugs, Tak Bai, not to mention the passing of controversial laws such as the Emergency law. And of course, the initial rise in lese majeste cases. Perhaps I’m asking tooo much of a reviewer to go into more detail of the book on my own areas of interest, but I would have liked to hear more about why he doesn’t like military governments or his explanation of just how he (or Dr. Borwornsak?) were not involved with providing the legal paperwork to legalize the coup. Or maybe the book lacked this sort of breadth that places the work within the period? Briefly said, am I going to find any of these goodies in this book?
Royal pardon for Thaksin? Or coup for the king?
“We appreciate a man who surrender and feel guilty for what he has done”
That seems contradictory to the avoidance of loss of face (at all costs) mentality which is usually so prevalent.
Also, how does that fit with the ‘we don’t care’ comments about A. M. Marshall’s thai tragedy?
btw, Thaksin is the only Thai politician (or puu yai) I can recall who has been big enough to admit that he might have made some mistakes
(he’s still an asshole though 🙂
Seeking practical benefits from national reconciliation in Myanmar
Shall we settle for the middle way between Trevor Wilson’s gushing endorsement cheered on by plan B and the rather rambling rant by Ohn?
For one thing, we haven’t actually witnessedthe significant and genuine process of “national reconciliation” that TW appeared to have convinced himself readily except the ceasefires which do not seem to hold in any consistent manner casting doubt as to whether the ‘democratically elected’ president is really in control of the military which presumably takes its orders only from the NDSC (National Defense and Security Council) and does not honour the remit of the parliamentary committee set up to implement ‘national reconciliation’ . Such highly publicised peace parleys have in Burma an unfortunate track record of merely being the military regime’s tactical retreats in order to buy time and wriggle out of a crisis. Grasshopper TS (Than Shwe/Thein Sein) has been a very good student of the great Sensei Ne Win.
Thein Sein can indulge in plenty of platitudes and lip service (no change there really) in hitherto taboo subjects too for now and will go through the motions while this new found permissiveness needs to soldier on a bit until they achieve their objectives. Seems like it was Kyaw Hsan who first uttered the word reconciliation instead of reconsolidation at a press conference last summer.
We all know it wasn’t Moses who created the relatively recent phenomenon of the Burmese diaspora, and most of these wayward and willful erstwhile citizens of Burma will return home like a shot at the first promising opportunity. There is no doubt they can and will contribute to the greater good of the country and help in its take off phase through to catching up with the rest of the world and not just Singapore which seems to be the favourite model. And yes, those sweatshop and sex workers in Thailand may find gainful employment back home in the boom expected by all and sundry instead of doing the same kind of work as second class citizens.
Whatever the real agenda is behind the current state of affairs in Burma, it has qualitatively changed the setting aimed at creating an economic climate and framework conducive to international capital through unavoidable political reforms albeit fundamentally ensuring continued military domination of the nation’s political and economic life.
It is therefore incumbent upon all of us both domestic and international players to make sure the regime stays locked into the reform process until it finds a U turn not only impossible to make but detrimental to their own selfish interests.
What keeps you up at night?
What keeps me up at night?
certainly not mainland southeast-asia.
I am a university student in Germany.
And I totally agree with “jonfernquest”.
I see this in my classes all the time.
People talking about democracy, struggle and hardship, without making any connection to reality.
What keeps me up at night at the moment is firstly the neo-nazis who will march through my town on the first of may, and whom I will not tolerate, then my bachelor thesis, and then capitalism, global politics and how the big shots of the world now found the next country to exploit (Myanmar).
Asia is far away from me. And although I try to keep up with the news, its too much.
Someone said, if the madness is big enough, people won’t recognize it as madness anymore.
The madness, in my opinion is called capitalism and global politics.
What keeps me up at night is the idea, that my country is selling guns, and that the wealth I live in is paid hunderdfold by people all around the globe. That politicians dare to talk about freedom and democracy and use this terms for their despicable goals.
I’m still young. I have to lead my life in this mess. I hope I will never forget, that I have the duty to fight for a better world. Like everyone.