Of course you can be against Thaksin and not be a fascist.
But the creators of this film, like 95% of the opposition to Thaksin, prefer less democracy than more as the solution to what they see as the problem. They don’t want to go out and beat Thaksin at the ballot box but to “take over” in a coup or via support for the fascistic PAD (oh go on, make my day and tell me the PAD are not fascist).
They believe that their fellow citizens are “vicious morons” who deserve to be shot down like dogs in the street. Uneducated, easily bought buffaloes who barely deserve the right to vote
They believe that only their version of ultra-royalism, with its fascistic overtones, is the way to run to Thailand.
As for the censorship of the film – its addressed elsewhere, over and over and over again. The politics of the film’s creators are not. I oppose the censorship – not sure what else I can add to that.
Like all political parties and platforms Thaksin should be opposed. But by democratic, rational means and from the left or a more social democrat/democratic socialist position. That hasn’t emerged yet as too much of the opposition are still caught in up their own “we deserve to rule/we are better people” bullshit. They have no ideas except coups, guns, snipers and the PAD. No policies, no connection to the electorate.
All they have are ultra-royalists who seem to believe a constitutional monarchy is a cult, Democrats who don’t believe in democracy or other “alliances for democracy” that are actually neo-fascists.
But, in the final analysis I’ve seen one of Ing K’s previous films and you know what? It was shit. Complete and utter garbage. No wonder she had to go to the unelected extreme royalist Democrat Party govt to fund her unmitigated rubbish as no-one would pay to see it.
We tend to look at history as a series of stories with heroes to praise and villains to blame. For example, the Burmese Junta gets the blame for the violent cultural conflict there, instead of being seen as a product of it. Rather than holding those individuals responsible, it may be more effective to work to change the warring cultures in ways that lessen the conflict.
Democracy is compatible with cultural diversity only where members of each culture tolerate being governed by members of any other. There is a tendency for the citizens of countries that are culturally homogeneous enough to permit democracy to blame the leaders of less lucky countries for the lack of it there. It is this puerile view of history that has led the Americans and British to totally bungle the last 20 years of their foreign policy.
Andrew S. # 8 So, in short, the makers of this film as absolutely part of Thailand’s version of neo-fascism and are explicit supporters of that neo-fascism
Andy,
One can be against both Thaksin and his cynically created and funded UDD and not be a neo fascist. It’s a shame you cannot see that.
Amazingly, in a 170 word, 7 sentence ad hominem attack on the creators of the film, you managed to use the term 5 times.
You did that without once addressing the of the censorship of the film or the implications of that in current political climate dominated by a self proclaimed liberal democracy loving political party.
Watching the funeral ritual on Thai tv, the large number of government officials as well as connected royals in attendance, I got the feeling that the whole event was not so much about the barely known princess who, after all, lived a fairly non-descript life, as it was a “rehearsal” for the Big Event to come.
Your claim that all witch hunts are tools used by monarchies to regulate their people, while actually helping my argument above, is, unfortunately, not the whole picture.
My article above was inspired by a few different things, which happened around the same time…..
Firstly, I was reading about the Malleus Maleficarum – written 1487 by an inquisitor of the Catholic Church. Its main purpose was ‘was to attempt to systematically refute arguments claiming that witchcraft does not exist’ and to ‘discredit those who expressed skepticism about its reality’, while ‘…anyone who did not fit within the contemporary view of pious Christians were suspect, and easily branded “Witch”. Usually to devastating effect’. Moreover, rumour was enough to bring somebody to trial, usually resulting in the accused being found guilty. A guilty plea could lessen the penalty, but still the punishment was grave….There’s more, if you’re interested, here – http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/
It seems apparent then that the ‘anti-witch’ laws – at least in this era- served the purpose of regulating societal behavior by punishing the ‘abnormal’ and enforcing conformity through fear. The purpose of the last paragraph of my article was to give some sort of historical narrative of epochs that, with hindsight, are rightly looked back upon as unnecessarily cruel and, thankfully, anachronistic. These eras saw ordinary people punished by the powerful for having alternative views. A question worth considering is how this period in Thai history will come to be looked back upon for its treatment of those who choose to see their society differently from those with control over the tanks and the education system. Is twenty years in a Thai prison for an old man with cancer for the crime of sending text messages so much different from how the government of the USSR would have treated dissent?
Secondly, during recent conversations with Thais in a few different parts of the country, I have heard a similar story repeating itself – not speaking about these issues is the way to stay out of trouble. If you get added to a pro-yellow facebook group, stay in it – don’t arouse the suspicions of your peers. If somebody gives you an image of the monarch, place it somewhere prominent, hiding it away implies disloyalty, and certainly don’t express any negative views in public or in Facebook, no matter how much you may believe them, as the long arm of the law and citizen cyber watchdogs are all around. I probably don’t need to mention the parallels to Orwell’s 1984, it’s called dystopian for a reason.
Finally, I was in the office of a large Bangkok firm recently and was surprised that there weren’t many images of the big guy on display on most desks, with two notable demographic differences. High ranking managers had images displayed on a more regular basis, this may indicate age and social background – a leaning towards conservative views and yellow shirt ideals. The other group were the lowest ranked in the organization, people in the lower paid administrative jobs, mail room, stationery etc. This observation aroused the question in the article about the purpose of displaying these images. Could it be protection against allegations of ‘redness’ due to their lower socio-economic position, or could it be a way to get through a tough life?
You said, “Muslims have all the right to claim ownership and copyright of the word Allah”.
Perhaps, you should make the effort to copyright the word officially, locally and internationally. Only then, people would refrain from using the word. Otherwise, sorry, those who have been using the word will continue to use the word. The only thing I could do on your behalf, is to appeal to those using the word, to use it with reverence and not with any disrespect. I assure you that the Malay-speaking Christians have been using Allah with the utmost respect.
And a rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet. What is in a word? It is up to the individual to put a meaning to it and to what it represents. God, Father, Tuhan, Yehweh, Allah, Jehovah, Elohim, Adonai, etc, etc are names used to refer to God. If people worship God in any Name with reverence and respect, I do not think that He would be angry and burn our posterior as you say.
And I would prefer a discussion to a debate. To me, the Trinity is just another word given to the perceived 3 distinct entities of God. We have God, the Father; God, the Word through Jesus and God, the Holy Spirit. I believe the Koran also refers to Isa (Jesus) as the Word and Spirit of God and that He will be coming back to judge us as Christians also believe He will. Perhaps, Joshua who is studying Theology, would be able to throw more light on this matter of the Trinity. Over to you Joshua.
Pak Yeh, it is commendable that you have taken your time to write your personal opinion about Christianity. As in matters of faith, it is appropriate to be strong in one’s faith first before questioning others unless one is still searching. I must admit that I am not a ‘strong’ Christian but I believe you are a devout Muslim with your strong views.
As such, I would like your opnion about the challenge for a debate on Islam by an ex-Muslim by the name of Ali Sina under his website faithfreedom.org. I have read this site quite sometime ago before it was banned in Malaysia and what I have read was quite shocking and damaging to Islam. It would be interesting if you could be able to join in that debate to clarfy the accusations made and clear the name of Islam. Over to you, Pak Yeh.
I entered a few more countries into Ngram viewer, and Vietnam rates far higher than North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan and all other countries previously selected except for India, China and Japan (and continues to do so after the Vietnam War, too). My prediction is that with all the drama and stresses about to occur in the Mekong Delta and the former Indochinese states as a result of hydropower development and economic transformation, there will continue to be a great deal of research interest in Vietnam.
Interesting how India has dropped since around 1990, while China has stayed more or less flat – despite both nation’s achieving “economic superpower” status since that time. Anecdotally I would have guessed both of these would have gone through the roof during this period, just as Japan has indeed dropped. Perhaps it’s because they come from already very high bases? Or perhaps the period from 1990 to the present time isn’t a large enough statistical sample given the 200-year scale of your chart? The scale of the chart renders the movements of the bottom-dwellers in SE Asia so imperceptible as to be relatively meaningless, other than to illustrate the enormous gulf between the “large” nations and the “small”, as you said.
In my opinion, which comes from talking with several Thais, the vast majority have no idea who this now-cremated princess was. She was overseas for decades after 1932, suffered unfortunate disabilities, and is only celebrated in death by the current royal household because, as PPT pointed out, she is the last royal of the pre-1932 generation.
ASEAN approach to Myanmar has ALWAYS been self interest at best.
Therefore cushioning the West useless careless”moral high horse” approach.
@ #1 True:
“As norms of democracy, human rights and good governance solidify within ASEAN, Burma may also become increasingly forced to accept these norms as non-negotiable.”
Nick N. has covered lot of ground I would’ve in any comment.
For a start the ban seems absurd and should be immediately revoked.
But for me this comes back to the hoary old chestnut of a correct analysis of the political context.
The PAD, the elites allied with them, large elements in the Democrat Party and the Army are all part of Thailand’s version of neo-fascism. Calling them “hyper-royalists” or something else evades the actual political context and I still can’t understand why so many are afraid to just call it as it is.
So, in short, the makers of this film as absolutely part of Thailand’s version of neo-fascism and are explicit supporters of that neo-fascism.
Any reporting of that banning of this film has to include this line. It was made by supporters of a virulent strain of anti-democratic neo-fascism.
But in Thailand much of the international media are personal supporters of Thai neo-fascism or gain such benefit from it that they don’t want to challenge it.
I think it would be interesting to know whether the members of the Film Censorship Board that voted to ban the film (I understand only 4 actually voted, with abstentions from the other 3?) are recent appointees or people who have been on the board for a while. Do we know for certain that the decision was influenced by the present administration?
It seems that, while it is clear that the film is anti-Thaksin, there may very well have been other considerations in the decision to ban. Unlike Manit, who comes across as aggressively promoting the film’s anti-Thaksin stance, Ing K appears to suggest the possibility that there is more to the film, and to the banning, than just a swing at Thaksin.
For a bit of rural reality – Since early Feb northern Thailand has had the most appalling and record breaking levels of Smoke-Haze pollution. So high that the levels in Chiang Rai were such that if the government rules were to have been invoked the province would have been evacuated. With all this one response has been http://www.facebook.com/BreatheCampaign & http://www.breathecampaign.net/ the only observed government reaction has been huge STOP BURNING posters in key urban places – not in the hills where the fires are of course. The vain governer of Chiang Mai has even managed to insinuate his photo into smaller posters around town and claims “severe” action is been taken.
Well yesterday just how severe the government response was could easily be seen. Along the road from Nan to Phrae corn field fires were raging a-plenty and not one police vehicle or army uniform was to be seen. Government offices were closed for the 4th day in succession as the most boring gold and red spectacle of chanting in a language we do not speak occupied officials attention.
Farmers had better (or worse considering the effects) things to do and the NM academics who have formerly shown some interest in how the land is mis-managed, like the officials, pretend nothing is happening beyond Sanam Luang.
I now find myself agreeing with Nick’s thoughts (c4) at every level.
Based on the same limited evidence available to him, I suspect the film’s creators likely set out to craft a message that’s at least antagonistic towards Thaksin and the redshirts. That’s their privilege (no irony intended). Plainly, it wouldn’t be the first message/allegory film and that’s a respectable genre. If the antagonism goes so far as to – at least implicitly – call for violence against them, then I too see that as stepping over the line….. just as hate speech does. I’ll go further: editing/massaging referenced events seems to be par for the course in such exercises and unless it claims “documentary” status, I tend to think the makers have licence. Against that, one does have to wonder whether the whole regicide theme in an overtly Thai context effectively borders on hate speech any way you look at it.
That aside, my initial reaction to the banning was that it seemed more of the same that we saw when this government took the reins of the state-run NBT TV station. Existing programming with political content was dropped – in the name of fostering national unity and harmony. Even allowing that some of the content featured during the Dems’ control of NBT was about as “fair and balanced” as what one typically finds on Fox Noise, it still seems a seriously misguided decision – treating the admittedly small NBT audience as if they’re all Stepford innocents to be protected from anything too demanding or, perish the thought, controversial.
So much of the Thai media being so polarised, it’s sad that somebody with sufficient clout couldn’t manage to see the value of NBT becoming at least a part-time oasis of genuine, fairly-moderated debate. That they didn’t – and maybe also the film’s banning – seems symptomatic of a concerted (even if doomed to fail) effort to move inconvenient issues out of sight.
After succession there’s going to be one hell of a battle for the soul of the Thai nation. A very big fight to define what exactly is Thai, who is Thai. And this is going to be something to watch. History repeats itself and Thailand is no different. There will be a passing of the old order just like there was during Chula’s early years and just like there was in 1932.
My sense now is that many of the Bangkok middle class and many of red shirts from the north are actually closer in beliefs. Still far apart many ways regarding culture and education, but similar in that they are wanting a more open system. That’s the good news.
The bad news is there are ultra royalists, and I’ve spoken to a few, who are back in the 18th century. And my prediction is that if this group digs in, Thailand is in for some serious problems in the not so distant future.
I 99% subscribe your post, Nick! And thank you very much for mentioning about the false claim re April 28 sniper killing. Didn’t know about that story. The 1% that leaves me a bit hesitant is: with a ban on the movie none of us would be able to actually watch it and judge for ourselves. Of course I will not put my name on the list, though. Not yet.
Good point. I believe Obama’s dual approach took it on board, achieving the current outcome, firm but neither aggressive nor over-preachy, negative traits the Asian states with a colonial past do not take kindly to, and who can blame them? On top of that there is Burmese bloody-mindedness which defies Western logic. In the end states deal with states, and unless a regime change is the real goal diplomacy wins hands down. It’s woolly-mindedness that gets you neither here nor there.
You could almost hear the ASEAN states asserting it’s Asian values had the notion not had a controversial past, even if they all acted from self interest at the same time stealing a march on the West in market share now up for grabs to a wider spectrum of international big business. The Burmese regime is on a roll but expect little more than a trickle down for the long suffering peoples of Burma.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
10 April 2010
John Smith
More likely she went to the ballot box in July 2011 and voted out the unelected criminals who had instigated the massacre.
Democracy sucks, huh?
Double, double toil and trouble…
John Smith
Of course you can be against Thaksin and not be a fascist.
But the creators of this film, like 95% of the opposition to Thaksin, prefer less democracy than more as the solution to what they see as the problem. They don’t want to go out and beat Thaksin at the ballot box but to “take over” in a coup or via support for the fascistic PAD (oh go on, make my day and tell me the PAD are not fascist).
They believe that their fellow citizens are “vicious morons” who deserve to be shot down like dogs in the street. Uneducated, easily bought buffaloes who barely deserve the right to vote
They believe that only their version of ultra-royalism, with its fascistic overtones, is the way to run to Thailand.
As for the censorship of the film – its addressed elsewhere, over and over and over again. The politics of the film’s creators are not. I oppose the censorship – not sure what else I can add to that.
Like all political parties and platforms Thaksin should be opposed. But by democratic, rational means and from the left or a more social democrat/democratic socialist position. That hasn’t emerged yet as too much of the opposition are still caught in up their own “we deserve to rule/we are better people” bullshit. They have no ideas except coups, guns, snipers and the PAD. No policies, no connection to the electorate.
All they have are ultra-royalists who seem to believe a constitutional monarchy is a cult, Democrats who don’t believe in democracy or other “alliances for democracy” that are actually neo-fascists.
But, in the final analysis I’ve seen one of Ing K’s previous films and you know what? It was shit. Complete and utter garbage. No wonder she had to go to the unelected extreme royalist Democrat Party govt to fund her unmitigated rubbish as no-one would pay to see it.
Apichatpong Weerasethakul she ain’t.
3,000 dead Burmese soldiers?
We tend to look at history as a series of stories with heroes to praise and villains to blame. For example, the Burmese Junta gets the blame for the violent cultural conflict there, instead of being seen as a product of it. Rather than holding those individuals responsible, it may be more effective to work to change the warring cultures in ways that lessen the conflict.
Democracy is compatible with cultural diversity only where members of each culture tolerate being governed by members of any other. There is a tendency for the citizens of countries that are culturally homogeneous enough to permit democracy to blame the leaders of less lucky countries for the lack of it there. It is this puerile view of history that has led the Americans and British to totally bungle the last 20 years of their foreign policy.
10 April 2010
Did she replace them on her wall with this one
http://www.reportageonline.com/2010/06/thailand-a-land-of-smiles-no-more/sehdaeng_shinawatra_dubai/
Double, double toil and trouble…
Andrew S. # 8
So, in short, the makers of this film as absolutely part of Thailand’s version of neo-fascism and are explicit supporters of that neo-fascism
Andy,
One can be against both Thaksin and his cynically created and funded UDD and not be a neo fascist. It’s a shame you cannot see that.
Amazingly, in a 170 word, 7 sentence ad hominem attack on the creators of the film, you managed to use the term 5 times.
You did that without once addressing the of the censorship of the film or the implications of that in current political climate dominated by a self proclaimed liberal democracy loving political party.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Re: Ralph
Watching the funeral ritual on Thai tv, the large number of government officials as well as connected royals in attendance, I got the feeling that the whole event was not so much about the barely known princess who, after all, lived a fairly non-descript life, as it was a “rehearsal” for the Big Event to come.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Isn’t it possible to just abandon false collectivist references such as “soul of the Thai nation?” Thank you!
Don’t stand out in Thailand
@Khong
Your claim that all witch hunts are tools used by monarchies to regulate their people, while actually helping my argument above, is, unfortunately, not the whole picture.
My article above was inspired by a few different things, which happened around the same time…..
Firstly, I was reading about the Malleus Maleficarum – written 1487 by an inquisitor of the Catholic Church. Its main purpose was ‘was to attempt to systematically refute arguments claiming that witchcraft does not exist’ and to ‘discredit those who expressed skepticism about its reality’, while ‘…anyone who did not fit within the contemporary view of pious Christians were suspect, and easily branded “Witch”. Usually to devastating effect’. Moreover, rumour was enough to bring somebody to trial, usually resulting in the accused being found guilty. A guilty plea could lessen the penalty, but still the punishment was grave….There’s more, if you’re interested, here – http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/mm/
It seems apparent then that the ‘anti-witch’ laws – at least in this era- served the purpose of regulating societal behavior by punishing the ‘abnormal’ and enforcing conformity through fear. The purpose of the last paragraph of my article was to give some sort of historical narrative of epochs that, with hindsight, are rightly looked back upon as unnecessarily cruel and, thankfully, anachronistic. These eras saw ordinary people punished by the powerful for having alternative views. A question worth considering is how this period in Thai history will come to be looked back upon for its treatment of those who choose to see their society differently from those with control over the tanks and the education system. Is twenty years in a Thai prison for an old man with cancer for the crime of sending text messages so much different from how the government of the USSR would have treated dissent?
Secondly, during recent conversations with Thais in a few different parts of the country, I have heard a similar story repeating itself – not speaking about these issues is the way to stay out of trouble. If you get added to a pro-yellow facebook group, stay in it – don’t arouse the suspicions of your peers. If somebody gives you an image of the monarch, place it somewhere prominent, hiding it away implies disloyalty, and certainly don’t express any negative views in public or in Facebook, no matter how much you may believe them, as the long arm of the law and citizen cyber watchdogs are all around. I probably don’t need to mention the parallels to Orwell’s 1984, it’s called dystopian for a reason.
Finally, I was in the office of a large Bangkok firm recently and was surprised that there weren’t many images of the big guy on display on most desks, with two notable demographic differences. High ranking managers had images displayed on a more regular basis, this may indicate age and social background – a leaning towards conservative views and yellow shirt ideals. The other group were the lowest ranked in the organization, people in the lower paid administrative jobs, mail room, stationery etc. This observation aroused the question in the article about the purpose of displaying these images. Could it be protection against allegations of ‘redness’ due to their lower socio-economic position, or could it be a way to get through a tough life?
Islamic fundamentalists, Christian threats, Freudian slips
My dear Pak Yeh # 6,
You said, “Muslims have all the right to claim ownership and copyright of the word Allah”.
Perhaps, you should make the effort to copyright the word officially, locally and internationally. Only then, people would refrain from using the word. Otherwise, sorry, those who have been using the word will continue to use the word. The only thing I could do on your behalf, is to appeal to those using the word, to use it with reverence and not with any disrespect. I assure you that the Malay-speaking Christians have been using Allah with the utmost respect.
And a rose, by any other name, smells just as sweet. What is in a word? It is up to the individual to put a meaning to it and to what it represents. God, Father, Tuhan, Yehweh, Allah, Jehovah, Elohim, Adonai, etc, etc are names used to refer to God. If people worship God in any Name with reverence and respect, I do not think that He would be angry and burn our posterior as you say.
And I would prefer a discussion to a debate. To me, the Trinity is just another word given to the perceived 3 distinct entities of God. We have God, the Father; God, the Word through Jesus and God, the Holy Spirit. I believe the Koran also refers to Isa (Jesus) as the Word and Spirit of God and that He will be coming back to judge us as Christians also believe He will. Perhaps, Joshua who is studying Theology, would be able to throw more light on this matter of the Trinity. Over to you Joshua.
Pak Yeh, it is commendable that you have taken your time to write your personal opinion about Christianity. As in matters of faith, it is appropriate to be strong in one’s faith first before questioning others unless one is still searching. I must admit that I am not a ‘strong’ Christian but I believe you are a devout Muslim with your strong views.
As such, I would like your opnion about the challenge for a debate on Islam by an ex-Muslim by the name of Ali Sina under his website faithfreedom.org. I have read this site quite sometime ago before it was banned in Malaysia and what I have read was quite shocking and damaging to Islam. It would be interesting if you could be able to join in that debate to clarfy the accusations made and clear the name of Islam. Over to you, Pak Yeh.
Salam/Peace.
Analysing Asia books
I entered a few more countries into Ngram viewer, and Vietnam rates far higher than North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan and all other countries previously selected except for India, China and Japan (and continues to do so after the Vietnam War, too). My prediction is that with all the drama and stresses about to occur in the Mekong Delta and the former Indochinese states as a result of hydropower development and economic transformation, there will continue to be a great deal of research interest in Vietnam.
Analysing Asia books
Interesting how India has dropped since around 1990, while China has stayed more or less flat – despite both nation’s achieving “economic superpower” status since that time. Anecdotally I would have guessed both of these would have gone through the roof during this period, just as Japan has indeed dropped. Perhaps it’s because they come from already very high bases? Or perhaps the period from 1990 to the present time isn’t a large enough statistical sample given the 200-year scale of your chart? The scale of the chart renders the movements of the bottom-dwellers in SE Asia so imperceptible as to be relatively meaningless, other than to illustrate the enormous gulf between the “large” nations and the “small”, as you said.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
In my opinion, which comes from talking with several Thais, the vast majority have no idea who this now-cremated princess was. She was overseas for decades after 1932, suffered unfortunate disabilities, and is only celebrated in death by the current royal household because, as PPT pointed out, she is the last royal of the pre-1932 generation.
Burma and ASEAN non-intervention
ASEAN approach to Myanmar has ALWAYS been self interest at best.
Therefore cushioning the West useless careless”moral high horse” approach.
@ #1 True:
“As norms of democracy, human rights and good governance solidify within ASEAN, Burma may also become increasingly forced to accept these norms as non-negotiable.”
http://www.mizzima.com/gallery/mizzima-tv.html?task=videodirectlink&id=134
However this continuing idiocy of using of ‘ethnic conflicts/sufferings as a precondition expose the very HYPOCRISY of:
Ethnic conflicts is the very microcosm of the suffering of the whole Humanity within that the West policy has cause.
@ #2
Obama deserve no credit for appointing Mitchell.
The above link illustrate again the West neither care to learn from ASEAN, history nor willing get off the now “AMORAL high horse”.
Double, double toil and trouble…
Nick N. has covered lot of ground I would’ve in any comment.
For a start the ban seems absurd and should be immediately revoked.
But for me this comes back to the hoary old chestnut of a correct analysis of the political context.
The PAD, the elites allied with them, large elements in the Democrat Party and the Army are all part of Thailand’s version of neo-fascism. Calling them “hyper-royalists” or something else evades the actual political context and I still can’t understand why so many are afraid to just call it as it is.
So, in short, the makers of this film as absolutely part of Thailand’s version of neo-fascism and are explicit supporters of that neo-fascism.
Any reporting of that banning of this film has to include this line. It was made by supporters of a virulent strain of anti-democratic neo-fascism.
But in Thailand much of the international media are personal supporters of Thai neo-fascism or gain such benefit from it that they don’t want to challenge it.
Double, double toil and trouble…
I think it would be interesting to know whether the members of the Film Censorship Board that voted to ban the film (I understand only 4 actually voted, with abstentions from the other 3?) are recent appointees or people who have been on the board for a while. Do we know for certain that the decision was influenced by the present administration?
It seems that, while it is clear that the film is anti-Thaksin, there may very well have been other considerations in the decision to ban. Unlike Manit, who comes across as aggressively promoting the film’s anti-Thaksin stance, Ing K appears to suggest the possibility that there is more to the film, and to the banning, than just a swing at Thaksin.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
For a bit of rural reality – Since early Feb northern Thailand has had the most appalling and record breaking levels of Smoke-Haze pollution. So high that the levels in Chiang Rai were such that if the government rules were to have been invoked the province would have been evacuated. With all this one response has been http://www.facebook.com/BreatheCampaign & http://www.breathecampaign.net/ the only observed government reaction has been huge STOP BURNING posters in key urban places – not in the hills where the fires are of course. The vain governer of Chiang Mai has even managed to insinuate his photo into smaller posters around town and claims “severe” action is been taken.
Well yesterday just how severe the government response was could easily be seen. Along the road from Nan to Phrae corn field fires were raging a-plenty and not one police vehicle or army uniform was to be seen. Government offices were closed for the 4th day in succession as the most boring gold and red spectacle of chanting in a language we do not speak occupied officials attention.
Farmers had better (or worse considering the effects) things to do and the NM academics who have formerly shown some interest in how the land is mis-managed, like the officials, pretend nothing is happening beyond Sanam Luang.
Double, double toil and trouble…
I now find myself agreeing with Nick’s thoughts (c4) at every level.
Based on the same limited evidence available to him, I suspect the film’s creators likely set out to craft a message that’s at least antagonistic towards Thaksin and the redshirts. That’s their privilege (no irony intended). Plainly, it wouldn’t be the first message/allegory film and that’s a respectable genre. If the antagonism goes so far as to – at least implicitly – call for violence against them, then I too see that as stepping over the line….. just as hate speech does. I’ll go further: editing/massaging referenced events seems to be par for the course in such exercises and unless it claims “documentary” status, I tend to think the makers have licence. Against that, one does have to wonder whether the whole regicide theme in an overtly Thai context effectively borders on hate speech any way you look at it.
That aside, my initial reaction to the banning was that it seemed more of the same that we saw when this government took the reins of the state-run NBT TV station. Existing programming with political content was dropped – in the name of fostering national unity and harmony. Even allowing that some of the content featured during the Dems’ control of NBT was about as “fair and balanced” as what one typically finds on Fox Noise, it still seems a seriously misguided decision – treating the admittedly small NBT audience as if they’re all Stepford innocents to be protected from anything too demanding or, perish the thought, controversial.
So much of the Thai media being so polarised, it’s sad that somebody with sufficient clout couldn’t manage to see the value of NBT becoming at least a part-time oasis of genuine, fairly-moderated debate. That they didn’t – and maybe also the film’s banning – seems symptomatic of a concerted (even if doomed to fail) effort to move inconvenient issues out of sight.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Nick,
After succession there’s going to be one hell of a battle for the soul of the Thai nation. A very big fight to define what exactly is Thai, who is Thai. And this is going to be something to watch. History repeats itself and Thailand is no different. There will be a passing of the old order just like there was during Chula’s early years and just like there was in 1932.
My sense now is that many of the Bangkok middle class and many of red shirts from the north are actually closer in beliefs. Still far apart many ways regarding culture and education, but similar in that they are wanting a more open system. That’s the good news.
The bad news is there are ultra royalists, and I’ve spoken to a few, who are back in the 18th century. And my prediction is that if this group digs in, Thailand is in for some serious problems in the not so distant future.
Talk about interesting.
Double, double toil and trouble…
I 99% subscribe your post, Nick! And thank you very much for mentioning about the false claim re April 28 sniper killing. Didn’t know about that story. The 1% that leaves me a bit hesitant is: with a ban on the movie none of us would be able to actually watch it and judge for ourselves. Of course I will not put my name on the list, though. Not yet.
Burma and ASEAN non-intervention
Good point. I believe Obama’s dual approach took it on board, achieving the current outcome, firm but neither aggressive nor over-preachy, negative traits the Asian states with a colonial past do not take kindly to, and who can blame them? On top of that there is Burmese bloody-mindedness which defies Western logic. In the end states deal with states, and unless a regime change is the real goal diplomacy wins hands down. It’s woolly-mindedness that gets you neither here nor there.
You could almost hear the ASEAN states asserting it’s Asian values had the notion not had a controversial past, even if they all acted from self interest at the same time stealing a march on the West in market share now up for grabs to a wider spectrum of international big business. The Burmese regime is on a roll but expect little more than a trickle down for the long suffering peoples of Burma.