Keep up the good work Andrew.They will keep coming for you and criticising your work no matter what,because you are out of their reach and they can’t lock you up,.The best your distractors can do is try to insult you.Stick two fingers up at them,and carry on.
Neither term describes the multi-ethnic state that is struggling to be born. As with most births, the naming will suggest itself at that time. And I suspect it will be neither the B-word or the M-word.
I can’t think of one respected or reputable journalist who spends as much time and effort as AMM spewing his bile on webboards at those who disagree or express criticisms or reservations concerning his published/posted work. It does even more to discredit his work then the obvious flaws within the work itself.
The work itself would qualify AMM as the Andrew Breitbart of Thai political commentary. But the relentless need to respond to every critic with an aplty described “sneering” and insult-laden comeback puts him in the same class as Rush Limbaugh.
The chant which I have loosely translated as “the bastard ordered the killing” has since been modified to include a second element, which can be loosely translated as “The bitch ordered the shooting”. I don’t think there is any serious doubt about which two individuals are being referred to here. You can find extensive discussion of the issue at this New Mandala post: http://www.newmandala.org/2011/07/05/who-ordered-the-killing/
“It was an extraordinary moment, utterly unthinkable until it suddenly happened. In the most public of places, right in the centre of the capital, hundreds of Thais were openly calling their king a murderous bastard.”
How did you know they were referring to the king? I was there that evening with a bunch of red-shirt friends and I thought we were referring to Abhisit and “you know who”, but definitely not the king.
I’m so sorry to offend you by my arrogance in having the temerity to resign from Reuters because I wanted to write in an honest way about Thailand. And sincere apologies too for going to the disgraceful lengths of quoting from King Lear. How outrageous of me.
It never crossed my mind that writing #thaistory and “The Tragedy of King Bhumibol” would bring about some sudden revolution in Thailand, and I have never claimed that it would. I just did it because I thought it was the right thing to do, and because I hope it will do some good. You may disagree with me, and that’s fine, but there are plenty of people who disagree with you and who find my work useful. And that’s enough for me.
I am happy to listen to advice and I have no problem with criticism: if I was afraid of criticism I obviously would not have embarked on the path I have chosen. But I don’t see anything worth listening to in the advice you have so graciously offered me so far, and I don’t think your criticisms are credible or valid: on the contrary, I consider them ignorant and hypocritical. And if people want to offer criticism, they should be prepared to be criticised in turn.
I’m glad that you have at least acknowledged that the Thai royalists have never believed in democracy, and that the royal family is responsible for several atrocities. You may not give a “sh*t” about that. But I do. And I know for a fact that many Thais are concerned about such things too.
I believe in doing my best to report the truth. I don’t believe in taking refuge in fairy tales. When I think something is a pile of shit, I say so, without the ridiculous asterisk. That’s my choice. People can choose to read what I write, or they can choose to ignore it. When people like you react with theatrical outrage, I take that as evidence that I must be doing something right.
I love your expertise in this area. I have always wondered, are there any memorials to Souphanouvong besides the statue in Luang Phrabang? Would you say Souphanouvong, among the population, is remembered more fondly than Kaysone? I have always wondered if there are “conflicting” affections for the two men.
There is nothing wrong with such titles. Muslims can call Christians liars and blasphemers of Allah. It is in the Quran.
The lie…Christians say there are three gods. But their Bible itself says there is only one god. So are not Christians telling a lie.???
The fact that Christians mistranslated the word god as Allah is also proof that the are proselytizing Muslims.
Thg mistranslating of the word god(illah in Arabic) to Allah is a lie concocted by the devil himself.
Muslims are all rightly guided. Christians because their priests have mistranslated and misintepreted the Bible.
You can debate on …
1) http://warongpakyeh.blogspot.com/2009/06/muhammad-predicted-in-bibble.html
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqfR1pDGnCA&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLE0450B1BA992B0B4
“This is what I feel most Thais would feel about this.”
I don’t claim to be the voice of all Thais. I am simply giving my opinion, my perspective, and admitting as much.
Nganadeeleg:
AMM’s accusing the king of killing his brother and then adopting a narrative style assuming this this is a foregone conclusion is irresponsible and disrespectful. The simple fact is that no one knows. Does evidence point in a certain direction? Fine, if this is your argument, but the case remains unsolved. AMM accuses to be controversial, to get noticed. To shock. He’s trying to be the story instead of being a proper journalist.
I said as much about Handley’s book with going to the gutter with personal issues regarding the royal family. It diminished an otherwise excellent and much needed book.
The problem is that AMM is so incredibly arrogant that he won’t heed any advice, because with his two years in Thailand and no standing as a scholar of Thai studies or related field, he has all the answers and is above criticism.
Tom Hoy: His page being blocked notwithstanding, most Thais (in my opinion) simply dismiss his more outrageous comments, at best, thoughts of a farang who doesn’t understand Thai culture, at worst, some farang keenok looking for notoriety.
AMM, I know you may think I’m just picking on you, but you are the one who elevated yourself quoting Lear, quitting your job at Reuters, and announcing to the world that you were going to liberate all of us with the keys to the Kingdom with top secret cables from wikileaks. We all waited to be transformed, waited to hear about that secret cable about Rama VIII’s misfortune or any other piece of information that would cause the sky to drop.
Is there anything new that you have brought to us of any significance that would warrant such claims of self importance?
Your comment #11 was a work of comic genius, albeit unintentionally so.
First you shared with us your nuanced and insightful understanding of what Thais think: “Thais look at this king as a father figure. This relationship is primarily a familial one; an emotional one. Like any family with the very, very deep bond of love, family atrocities or nasty mistakes and sins are forgiven and either forgotten or simply kept under the rug. Such is life and get on with it and stop dwelling on it. We are all sinners, we are a family, we love him. Move on.”
Then you criticize my audacity for thinking I can “lecture to the world and more importantly to Thai people about such a complex culture”.
Then you end with the punchline: “What arrogance. I would never do such a thing.”
Thank you for brightening my Sunday morning with your surrealist humour. Have a nice day.
The word witch-hunt is defined as: an investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.
In the history of the early modern European witch-hunt, there were two events contributing to the definition of the word witch-hunt, the Knight Templars and the Elizabethan witch hunt. Both of these events were a product of a political power of the monarchies. The first being King Philip of France who had much to gain from eradicating the Knight Templars and confiscating their properties. The second was a group of powerful men within the royal court of Queen Elizabeth who were paranoid about the safety of their queen from the Catholic assassins. Of course during this time magical spells were also tools used to kill people. It was these men of the royal court who formed a Commission to seek out and eradicate any conjuror within the 60 miles radius of London. These political events were responsible for the hysteria and the fear of witches. Because monies can be made from hunting witches, many men dedicated their life as witch hunters and wherever there are neighbors dislike one another witchcraft was the suspect.
It was especially clear during the time of Elizabeth that being witches in itself were not persecuted. Rather it was the crime that cause damage to people or belongings that were persecute. It is not surprise than to see people during this time calling themselves witches. Only when there is an accusation of using witchcraft to hurt or damages properties was there any form of prosecution. It was not until the time of King James when any form of witchcraft, black or white, were prosecuted.
Nowhere in the history of witches can you find a proof that the Catholic Church went out and accused unwedded women as witches. Witch hunts in early modern Europe were the result of powerful political organizations decided to take on their weaker rival. These events gave the definition of witch-hunt for what it is. There were witch prosecutions before these two events but these were rival between individuals for political positions especially within the royal courts.
Probably all of those people who keep trying to get some form of it embedded and find themselves repeatedly shot at and repressed and see their colleagues murdered.
I don’t think one who lectures others about “what Thais believe” should be accusing others of arrogance.
“And it’s difficult to discuss the King of Thailand fairly, we have blind obedience on one hand, idiots writing absolute sh*t on web boards just being disrespectful on the other hand.”
AMM’s work doesn’t fit into to either category (but Thai state propaganda definintely does)
“No one is perfect”
and some are a very long way from perfect.
#1 What is taking place can rather be best described as ‘adaptive changes’.
This military government has prove this skill well.
At his point any changes WILL benefit the citizenry more.
Yet overall motive will be to preserve or even advance the dictatorship.
Overtime (at least a few decades). with continued improved economic condition the generals will see the merits of leaving the changes permanent or even be persuaded to return to the barracks.
#2 Myanmar has always a significant judicial frame work that has never been applied accordingly except to advantages of the military and its cronies.
Historically Myanmar Citizenry has always embrace common sense Buddhist compassion/justice, especially in times of abundance.
Providing assist to solicitors and judges through CBO’s ASAP within Myanmar with ‘interpreting abundant existing laws’, that involve property and ownership as well as much of civil disputes whether between individuals or groups and yes definitely ethnic groups.
Used of existing laws and seeing the results will dignify,strengthen and promote ‘the rule of law’ as 1st choice to any dispute within.
Especially now that there is a Hluttaw that will protest if not outright oppose unjust military behavior.
#3 The West useless careless vilification and threat is the primary inducer of this military government paranoia and thus the resulting 400,000 Tamadaw.
Once this threat is removed there will be an exodus of present enlistee/conscripts. 1/4 of present, if not more engage in outside business to make ends meet. Once civilian life become more attractive these will be the first to leave.
This government with ‘adaptive change’ can be convinced to the profitability of not maintaining a large Tamadaw. Especially it now can use relation with N. Korea as an Ace.
These all will hinge on the West reversing the useless careless policy
There is the official version and then there is what Thai people believe and more often than naught they do not meet. Give Thai people more credit than this everyone. Thais look at this king as a father figure. This relationship is primarily a familial one; an emotional one. Like any family with the very, very deep bond of love, family atrocities or nasty mistakes and sins are forgiven and either forgotten or simply kept under the rug. Such is life and get on with it and stop dwelling on it. We are all sinners, we are a family, we love him. Move on.
And yes, part of it is simply blocking it all out. Thailand is a big family and he is the Father. And if he did indeed do such a thing he was a child and it was a mistake so he had to bear this and we should forgive him anyway.
He’s been a very good King, all we could ever hope for and we are proud of him and love him like our own father. It’s over and don’t bring it up.
This is what I feel most Thais would feel about this. This is why I say “who gives a sh*t.”
If indeed it is true, yes, it’s an atrocity that three people were basically murdered for this. But we don’t know do we? We speculate. AMM speculates and then accuses.
Da Torpedo: She was a thankless, big mouth, ignorant daughter with a bull horn broadcasting either a family secret or a nasty accusation about Father. Not a good idea in this family we call Thailand.
As I have mentioned before, it has been a tragedy what has happened to Pridi. He was scapegoated and he was a good man. Discussing the monarchy in Thailand is such a sensitive thing. And it’s difficult to discuss the King of Thailand fairly, we have blind obedience on one hand, idiots writing absolute sh*t on web boards just being disrespectful on the other hand. I do feel he is a good man and over the long shadow of history he has been a positive influence on Thailand. Having said that I would say that one of his greatest mistakes was not pardoning Pridi and allowing him to return to Thailand. No one is perfect.
Democracy: who cares?: Royalists have never believed in democracy, I know, I’ve heard many admit as much to me. No news here.
AMM: There are a few things I like more than someone who has spent a mere two years in Thailand and then has the audacity to think he can lecture to the world and more importantly to Thai people about such a complex culture, and not be open to criticism.
What arrogance. I would never do such a thing.
You are bringing up the facts of of Rama VIII’s death and dragging the current king into the gutter to make a name for yourself, to be controversial, to seek profit at his expense; it’s exploitive and mean.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Keep up the good work Andrew.They will keep coming for you and criticising your work no matter what,because you are out of their reach and they can’t lock you up,.The best your distractors can do is try to insult you.Stick two fingers up at them,and carry on.
The end for “Burma”
Neither term describes the multi-ethnic state that is struggling to be born. As with most births, the naming will suggest itself at that time. And I suspect it will be neither the B-word or the M-word.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
I can’t think of one respected or reputable journalist who spends as much time and effort as AMM spewing his bile on webboards at those who disagree or express criticisms or reservations concerning his published/posted work. It does even more to discredit his work then the obvious flaws within the work itself.
The work itself would qualify AMM as the Andrew Breitbart of Thai political commentary. But the relentless need to respond to every critic with an aplty described “sneering” and insult-laden comeback puts him in the same class as Rush Limbaugh.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
AMM: Enough said between us. I’ve said my piece and you’ve said yours.
This is becoming a petty cat fight which serves no one.
Until we meet again…
M
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Observer #21:
The chant which I have loosely translated as “the bastard ordered the killing” has since been modified to include a second element, which can be loosely translated as “The bitch ordered the shooting”. I don’t think there is any serious doubt about which two individuals are being referred to here. You can find extensive discussion of the issue at this New Mandala post: http://www.newmandala.org/2011/07/05/who-ordered-the-killing/
Best wishes
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
@Andrew:
“It was an extraordinary moment, utterly unthinkable until it suddenly happened. In the most public of places, right in the centre of the capital, hundreds of Thais were openly calling their king a murderous bastard.”
How did you know they were referring to the king? I was there that evening with a bunch of red-shirt friends and I thought we were referring to Abhisit and “you know who”, but definitely not the king.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
This really is getting boring.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Dear “Maratjp”
I’m so sorry to offend you by my arrogance in having the temerity to resign from Reuters because I wanted to write in an honest way about Thailand. And sincere apologies too for going to the disgraceful lengths of quoting from King Lear. How outrageous of me.
It never crossed my mind that writing #thaistory and “The Tragedy of King Bhumibol” would bring about some sudden revolution in Thailand, and I have never claimed that it would. I just did it because I thought it was the right thing to do, and because I hope it will do some good. You may disagree with me, and that’s fine, but there are plenty of people who disagree with you and who find my work useful. And that’s enough for me.
I am happy to listen to advice and I have no problem with criticism: if I was afraid of criticism I obviously would not have embarked on the path I have chosen. But I don’t see anything worth listening to in the advice you have so graciously offered me so far, and I don’t think your criticisms are credible or valid: on the contrary, I consider them ignorant and hypocritical. And if people want to offer criticism, they should be prepared to be criticised in turn.
I’m glad that you have at least acknowledged that the Thai royalists have never believed in democracy, and that the royal family is responsible for several atrocities. You may not give a “sh*t” about that. But I do. And I know for a fact that many Thais are concerned about such things too.
I believe in doing my best to report the truth. I don’t believe in taking refuge in fairy tales. When I think something is a pile of shit, I say so, without the ridiculous asterisk. That’s my choice. People can choose to read what I write, or they can choose to ignore it. When people like you react with theatrical outrage, I take that as evidence that I must be doing something right.
Best wishes
Andrew
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
@Tom Hoy: I’m based in Thailand and have no problem accessing AMM’s website.
Revolutionary remains
Martin,
I love your expertise in this area. I have always wondered, are there any memorials to Souphanouvong besides the statue in Luang Phrabang? Would you say Souphanouvong, among the population, is remembered more fondly than Kaysone? I have always wondered if there are “conflicting” affections for the two men.
Islamic fundamentalists, Christian threats, Freudian slips
There is nothing wrong with such titles. Muslims can call Christians liars and blasphemers of Allah. It is in the Quran.
The lie…Christians say there are three gods. But their Bible itself says there is only one god. So are not Christians telling a lie.???
The fact that Christians mistranslated the word god as Allah is also proof that the are proselytizing Muslims.
Thg mistranslating of the word god(illah in Arabic) to Allah is a lie concocted by the devil himself.
Muslims are all rightly guided. Christians because their priests have mistranslated and misintepreted the Bible.
You can debate on …
1) http://warongpakyeh.blogspot.com/2009/06/muhammad-predicted-in-bibble.html
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqfR1pDGnCA&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLE0450B1BA992B0B4
Salam/Peace.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Ralph K,
I qualified what I said:
“This is what I feel most Thais would feel about this.”
I don’t claim to be the voice of all Thais. I am simply giving my opinion, my perspective, and admitting as much.
Nganadeeleg:
AMM’s accusing the king of killing his brother and then adopting a narrative style assuming this this is a foregone conclusion is irresponsible and disrespectful. The simple fact is that no one knows. Does evidence point in a certain direction? Fine, if this is your argument, but the case remains unsolved. AMM accuses to be controversial, to get noticed. To shock. He’s trying to be the story instead of being a proper journalist.
I said as much about Handley’s book with going to the gutter with personal issues regarding the royal family. It diminished an otherwise excellent and much needed book.
The problem is that AMM is so incredibly arrogant that he won’t heed any advice, because with his two years in Thailand and no standing as a scholar of Thai studies or related field, he has all the answers and is above criticism.
Tom Hoy: His page being blocked notwithstanding, most Thais (in my opinion) simply dismiss his more outrageous comments, at best, thoughts of a farang who doesn’t understand Thai culture, at worst, some farang keenok looking for notoriety.
AMM, I know you may think I’m just picking on you, but you are the one who elevated yourself quoting Lear, quitting your job at Reuters, and announcing to the world that you were going to liberate all of us with the keys to the Kingdom with top secret cables from wikileaks. We all waited to be transformed, waited to hear about that secret cable about Rama VIII’s misfortune or any other piece of information that would cause the sky to drop.
Is there anything new that you have brought to us of any significance that would warrant such claims of self importance?
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
I’m wondering why those administrating New Mandala haven’t posted about the banning of Shakespeare Must Die.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Dear “Maratjp”.
Your comment #11 was a work of comic genius, albeit unintentionally so.
First you shared with us your nuanced and insightful understanding of what Thais think: “Thais look at this king as a father figure. This relationship is primarily a familial one; an emotional one. Like any family with the very, very deep bond of love, family atrocities or nasty mistakes and sins are forgiven and either forgotten or simply kept under the rug. Such is life and get on with it and stop dwelling on it. We are all sinners, we are a family, we love him. Move on.”
Then you criticize my audacity for thinking I can “lecture to the world and more importantly to Thai people about such a complex culture”.
Then you end with the punchline: “What arrogance. I would never do such a thing.”
Thank you for brightening my Sunday morning with your surrealist humour. Have a nice day.
Don’t stand out in Thailand
The word witch-hunt is defined as: an investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.
In the history of the early modern European witch-hunt, there were two events contributing to the definition of the word witch-hunt, the Knight Templars and the Elizabethan witch hunt. Both of these events were a product of a political power of the monarchies. The first being King Philip of France who had much to gain from eradicating the Knight Templars and confiscating their properties. The second was a group of powerful men within the royal court of Queen Elizabeth who were paranoid about the safety of their queen from the Catholic assassins. Of course during this time magical spells were also tools used to kill people. It was these men of the royal court who formed a Commission to seek out and eradicate any conjuror within the 60 miles radius of London. These political events were responsible for the hysteria and the fear of witches. Because monies can be made from hunting witches, many men dedicated their life as witch hunters and wherever there are neighbors dislike one another witchcraft was the suspect.
It was especially clear during the time of Elizabeth that being witches in itself were not persecuted. Rather it was the crime that cause damage to people or belongings that were persecute. It is not surprise than to see people during this time calling themselves witches. Only when there is an accusation of using witchcraft to hurt or damages properties was there any form of prosecution. It was not until the time of King James when any form of witchcraft, black or white, were prosecuted.
Nowhere in the history of witches can you find a proof that the Catholic Church went out and accused unwedded women as witches. Witch hunts in early modern Europe were the result of powerful political organizations decided to take on their weaker rival. These events gave the definition of witch-hunt for what it is. There were witch prosecutions before these two events but these were rival between individuals for political positions especially within the royal courts.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Maratjp: Democracy: who cares?
Probably all of those people who keep trying to get some form of it embedded and find themselves repeatedly shot at and repressed and see their colleagues murdered.
I don’t think one who lectures others about “what Thais believe” should be accusing others of arrogance.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
“And it’s difficult to discuss the King of Thailand fairly, we have blind obedience on one hand, idiots writing absolute sh*t on web boards just being disrespectful on the other hand.”
AMM’s work doesn’t fit into to either category (but Thai state propaganda definintely does)
“No one is perfect”
and some are a very long way from perfect.
Burma’s changing equations
Nich
#1 What is taking place can rather be best described as ‘adaptive changes’.
This military government has prove this skill well.
At his point any changes WILL benefit the citizenry more.
Yet overall motive will be to preserve or even advance the dictatorship.
Overtime (at least a few decades). with continued improved economic condition the generals will see the merits of leaving the changes permanent or even be persuaded to return to the barracks.
#2 Myanmar has always a significant judicial frame work that has never been applied accordingly except to advantages of the military and its cronies.
Historically Myanmar Citizenry has always embrace common sense Buddhist compassion/justice, especially in times of abundance.
Providing assist to solicitors and judges through CBO’s ASAP within Myanmar with ‘interpreting abundant existing laws’, that involve property and ownership as well as much of civil disputes whether between individuals or groups and yes definitely ethnic groups.
Used of existing laws and seeing the results will dignify,strengthen and promote ‘the rule of law’ as 1st choice to any dispute within.
Especially now that there is a Hluttaw that will protest if not outright oppose unjust military behavior.
#3 The West useless careless vilification and threat is the primary inducer of this military government paranoia and thus the resulting 400,000 Tamadaw.
Once this threat is removed there will be an exodus of present enlistee/conscripts. 1/4 of present, if not more engage in outside business to make ends meet. Once civilian life become more attractive these will be the first to leave.
This government with ‘adaptive change’ can be convinced to the profitability of not maintaining a large Tamadaw. Especially it now can use relation with N. Korea as an Ace.
These all will hinge on the West reversing the useless careless policy
Stated well by Derek Tonkin here:
http://www.mizzima.com/edop/commentary/6908-lift-sanctions-that-infringe-on-human-rights.html
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
Well, all I know is that clicking on the link to Andrew MacGregor Marshall’s page leads to this
Sorry for any inconvenience.
The page you are trying to visit has been blocked by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology
So somebody gives a shit about something, i guess.
Critical review of King Bhumibol’s life
RK,
There is the official version and then there is what Thai people believe and more often than naught they do not meet. Give Thai people more credit than this everyone. Thais look at this king as a father figure. This relationship is primarily a familial one; an emotional one. Like any family with the very, very deep bond of love, family atrocities or nasty mistakes and sins are forgiven and either forgotten or simply kept under the rug. Such is life and get on with it and stop dwelling on it. We are all sinners, we are a family, we love him. Move on.
And yes, part of it is simply blocking it all out. Thailand is a big family and he is the Father. And if he did indeed do such a thing he was a child and it was a mistake so he had to bear this and we should forgive him anyway.
He’s been a very good King, all we could ever hope for and we are proud of him and love him like our own father. It’s over and don’t bring it up.
This is what I feel most Thais would feel about this. This is why I say “who gives a sh*t.”
If indeed it is true, yes, it’s an atrocity that three people were basically murdered for this. But we don’t know do we? We speculate. AMM speculates and then accuses.
Da Torpedo: She was a thankless, big mouth, ignorant daughter with a bull horn broadcasting either a family secret or a nasty accusation about Father. Not a good idea in this family we call Thailand.
As I have mentioned before, it has been a tragedy what has happened to Pridi. He was scapegoated and he was a good man. Discussing the monarchy in Thailand is such a sensitive thing. And it’s difficult to discuss the King of Thailand fairly, we have blind obedience on one hand, idiots writing absolute sh*t on web boards just being disrespectful on the other hand. I do feel he is a good man and over the long shadow of history he has been a positive influence on Thailand. Having said that I would say that one of his greatest mistakes was not pardoning Pridi and allowing him to return to Thailand. No one is perfect.
Democracy: who cares?: Royalists have never believed in democracy, I know, I’ve heard many admit as much to me. No news here.
AMM: There are a few things I like more than someone who has spent a mere two years in Thailand and then has the audacity to think he can lecture to the world and more importantly to Thai people about such a complex culture, and not be open to criticism.
What arrogance. I would never do such a thing.
You are bringing up the facts of of Rama VIII’s death and dragging the current king into the gutter to make a name for yourself, to be controversial, to seek profit at his expense; it’s exploitive and mean.