Thanks for the comment. I’m glad so you wrote it because you sound like my boss (who never leave online comments, unfortunately). For your sake, though, I better not stretch the analogy too far because she does admit to being over-emotional and it wouldn’t be accurate to taint you with this, would it?
Zizek’s position on traversing the act politically speaking is, as you’ve explained, open to the charge of being impractical – thanks for highlighting that.
Nevertheless, paradoxically, given the nature of this ‘theory/doctrine’, it would NOT be ‘traversing the fantasy’ **if we could discuss practical options**. This is because traversing the fantasy involves changing/revolutionising(?) what even COUNTS as ‘practical’. Not surprisingly, Zizek has himself chided suggestions to keep things practical, workable and so on because these usually take for granted the continuing operationg of the present system/order, etc.
One example is the Cross of Jesus Christ which all Christians hold to be among the most important acts of God in time, yet **practically** speaking is preposterous. Furthermore, usually it’s this precise event which cause people to be ‘turned off’ by the Christian faith – “What? Worship a naked political rebel nailed to a tree?”
Which brings me to a dimension of the Act that i left out in the article. This is the dimension of subjective engagement i.e. an event is perceived as an Act **only retroactively and from the viewpoint** of someone who’s committed to the ideals resonating in the Act.
Basically, we are NOT talking here about ‘strategizing options’, brain-storming the best way forward, having a mission-plan and so on. I’m not even sure ‘planning’ makes much sense in this viewpoint.
Here one could legitimately raise the question of whether Zizek has thus precluded any possibility of ‘future action’ – which is why the concept of exploding a FANTASY remains critical. If we can’t plan, we can’t discuss options, we can’t strategise, what can we do? One answer Zizek gives, as per the article, is to identity a fantasy and fully identify with it in the hope (never the certainty) that the system can be broken as a result.
One may even argue here that Jesus Christ was doing precisely that on the Cross – he was **taking the fantasy of ethno-centric and power-loving Jews to the extreme**, ‘allowing’ them to crucify God (so to speak).
I know I haven’t quite addressed your specific questions, but I hope you can appreciate how I’m trying to focus on explicating/elaborating Zizek’s views first and maybe raise some questions to think about.
(Note: Your comment also gives the impression of someone easily frustrated with any article which doesn’t fit your 100% criteria for ‘good writing’ and, more importantly, it portrays a kind of impatience / stress / angst about political thinking which, I dunno, could be a part of the problem itself? If nothing else, I pity your “?” and “!” keys…)
As for my meandering around topics and the use of movies, sigh, my Secondary School English teacher is to be blame (but I forgive her). Alternatively, you could think of it as giving expression to Zizek’s dictum that “the truth only appears in the form of fiction” i.e. we can only grasp truths **when they come to us** in less than straight-fwd/linear (or even ‘false’) forms.
To wax Zizekian, maybe it helps to consider a stronger connection between political truth and sexual fantasy – in sexual fantasy, how many “get to the point” immediately? Don’t they “fool around” first?
Gaik Cheng, one could view Mahathirism as the introduction (or consolidation?) of a new ‘Law of the Father’ esp given the drives towards modernisation initiated by Dr M. Malaysians, it could be argued, were introduced to a new kind of society, the Malay upper- and middle-classes had their eyes open to the real possibility of economic dominance, all(most) Malaysians began dreaming of unrestrained growth yet, paradoxically, subjected themselves to new masters (and their rules), e.g. the riches-for-justice, growth-for-power trade-off a’la Francis Loh’s views on developmentalism.
Within this paradigm, one could argue that **actual** racial riots would no longer be feasible as even the ruling regime would have more to lose than previously. Recall, though, the more-than-credible thesis that Razak ‘master-minded’ the ’69 riots as a way of usurping power from Tunku: the new class taking over from the old guard (which, justice-wise, is no different from one warlord defeating another).
But with Dr M, we were dealing with a different warlord entirely, one who would reign by coopting the greed of the people (which is not to say they didn’t **exclude** certain parties, cf HINDRAF’s concerns). Yet the proliferation of greed requires a specific kind of system and of all of Capitalism’s many manifestations, the ONE modality in which it cannot sustain itself appears to be internal turmoil. Civil in-fighting is just bad for (global) business.
So, Dr M could represent a new system, a new ‘symbolic order’, thus entail a new Father. This is not to say that the **threat** of racial riots can’t be used; we could think of it like seduction – we don’t need to view a fully nude body to be aroused and often a mere glimpse or suggestion is enough to raise body heat. In fact, oftentimes a 100% nude body (just like full-blown rioting) is a turn-off, if the objective is to keep a partner salivating (always desiring, never beinf satisfied – sounds like Capitalism, no?).
Patience is a virtue, but has SteveCM received his Baht 5,000 flood compensation yet?
AND what really will the Yingluck government be doing in Year 2012 (other than giving us Valentine’s kisses) to protect us from another deluge . . . ahem?
Two words would sum up the sorry state of affairs in Malaysia today. Power and money. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the love of money (read greed) is the root of all evil.
Governments should be the servants of the people and should look after the welfare and well-being of all citizens. But once this noble aim is deviated to be self-serving, the whole system of government would be compromised. This was what has happened to Malaysia. During Tunku’s time, we could be considered as a true democracy with peaceful co-existence among all segments of society. After Tunku, the situation went from bad to worse.
Our pillars of democracy were all compromised. The Judiciary was made subservient to the executive and the election commission became a party to the gerrymandering of the electorate. Controversial laws and amendments were made to favor a certain section of society. All such dubious actions were all done to maintain and retain power and control.
And when power and money are concerned, there are no holds barred, even to the extent of murder. To the victims, real or accidental, may they all rest in peace. And may the truth somehow be revealed.
“What Thailand can do is to focus on promoting community activities whereby people can work together towards common goals.”
Maybe I’m reading the summary wrong, but it appears an author in the Manager is supporting the Red Shirt Village concept . . .
Your post really does not really jive with the title “┼╜i┼╛ek and social change in Malaysia”. I do recognize that this is Part 1 but too much time was spent explaining traversing (or disturbing) the fantasy via the three movies.
1. It would have been more helpful if you correlated Zizek’s philosophy clearly with the type of social action/change needed in Malaysia.
For instance, you cited quoted his reference to political action as “acts that bring about massive systemic crisis and a drastic subversion of the socio-political framework itself.”
2. Now, how would what Zizek’s perception of ‘massive systemic crisis” be seen in Malaysia? You just left that hanging in the air!
3. How would the existing socio-political framework be challenged?
You have not addressed that.
4. You discussed how the virtual no-show of voters dealt a severe systemic blow to the whole system. Good. Now, how does this translate into practical action for Malaysia?
5. In a diversion from the title of this post, you discussed the whole aspect of Malaysian education in a stereotyped manner without relating it to social change.
In fact, the way you discussed it, it would appear that you are implying how things are likely to remain stagnant because of how some parents have caved in to the pressure to conform to the existing system.
It surprises me to know that you are lecturing in Sociology because I would have expected a broader and more mature perspective to the rat race for paper qualifications.
This statement of yours needs to be refuted because you have really OVERGENERALIZED:
“…parents still continue to push their students to score as high as they can in every school examination.
Sadly, you have stated this as a fact as though it applies to 100% of parents. Sorry. It does not! At least not to the enlightened ones! Get your facts right and do not overgeneralize and assume that your stereotype is the gospel truth.
The very same parents who say they “no longer believe in the education system” will chasten their children for not performing well within that system.
Parenting styles are now more dynamic and progressive – a far cry from the stale regimented approach used in the 20th century. Educated ones know that an A in the Malaysian examination is worthless compared to international examination boards! It is a fallacy to think that straight A students who come out of the Malaysian school system can excel in other examinations. A very good example would be the IB and A level exams. You are in education and should know this.
6. Your usage of ‘WILL’ is most disappointing and reflects how shallow is your thinking of Malaysian parents!!!
How sure are you that every single parent WILL do that which you have postulated so fallaciously? I beg to differ!
Following your diversion, you went on to discuss how parents can challenge the system of A-accumulation and then to say ‘Crazy and disastrous?’ with such a high-handed and judgemental tone when your base of analysis is so highly flawed!
7. And then you went on to say “But back to politics.” – A clear indication that you knew you were off-course in your discussion. Surely you can stick to the topic and not lead readers round a mulberry bush and end up feeling frustrated!
Honestly, I am shocked that such an article can be written by a doctoral candidate.
It appears that this is a cut and paste job and I really do not know what is the point you are driving at in your writing.
You made so little reference to MALAYSIA that I am surprised the owner of this blog even featured this article! What a bummer!
In your conclusion, you gave examples of NON-MALAYSIAN historical milestones. Wouldn’t it be better if you gave local examples that can support your thesis statement (if any!!!) and the topic in questions? Sadly, you asked….
In the Malaysian context then, what could a political act of the Real look like?
Tell us!!! Tell us what YOU think!
What fantasy-belief sustains the political system (which almost every Malaysian condemns)?
Are you sure EVERY Malaysian condemns the system????? Have you done a survey that provides you such data? Again -you have exhibited your tendency to overgeneralize.
What is it that every Malaysian will never say they believe yet inadvertently determines our behaviour?
Your last question is also flawed!!!
How sure are you that EVERY MALAYSIAN WILL NEVER SAY THEY BELIEVE??????
Gross overgeneralization of the highest degree!!!!
“People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?”
Rodney King
😉
I do not really get involved in the monarchy debates, mostly because i am out of my depth when it comes to this subject matter. I am open to all (intelligent) views by all (!) sides. I am constantly astonished though how emotionally and personal this subject matter is discussed.
In defense of Andrew Marshall here – much of his analyses is based on Wikipedia and similar material. As long as the palace does not open it’s own archives to academic study or journalistic scrutiny, these cables are the closest to prime source material we have been presented so far, mostly because the Americans have been closer to the palace than any other outsider (including the majority of Thais). Therefore Andrew’s work, and his source material cannot be dismissed. It has to be discussed, and criticized, when and where necessary, of course, and preferably by factual evidence, and not by personal attacks that ultimately derail the discussion.
I reserve my judgement on “A life’s work” as i haven’t had the time yet to read my copy. But from the start i do not expect it to be critical, but a less hagiographical biography than previous work published and sold in Thailand. Which doesn’t mean that it won’t have merit.
For me, the value of the different view points on the monarchy published lies in their contribution to an ongoing discussion, which hopefully will lead one day to more transparency and ultimately – to progress.
I used to think the Real was Mahathirism and sustaining/maintaining the idea of another violent race riots a la May 13 should Malaysians speak up against the system, back in the days of Reformasi. But cracks have appeared and it is much more gradual and perhaps has a more long term impact than a radical revolution as we have seen with the Arab Spring — shortlived as it may be in Syria or Bahrain — as envisioned by (romantic?) leftist intellectuals like Zizek. Witness how after the 2008 politial tsunami there were no violent reactions on the streets. Witness how time and time again in the post-Mahathir years religious sentiments were provoked by thuggish behaviour: cow-head, church arson, pig’s head, etc. etc., yet did not trigger so-called ‘race’ riots. I think the rules of the game have changed and this calls for re-imagining what politics can look like in Malaysia on all sides: BN clearly shows a total lack of imagination even while it is clear that the usual tricks of the trade, i.e. race politics, no longer work. At the same time one wonders how effective PKR can be to overcome its own internal issues since it has its share of ex-Umno members, etc..
So to answer your question, “In the Malaysian context then, what could a political act of the Real look like?” I don’t think the answer of not-voting in the next GE for example, is going to be subversive if it means that BN continues to stay in power. Voting isn’t compulsory in Malaysia so the ruling regime isn’t going to worry that the low voter turnout for instance is a reflection of a loss of faith in electoral democracy. It’s not like the PAP in Singapore which would be quite troubled by things like that.
“Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but . . .” yet many languished in jail or worse because of false testimonies. But does it make (#5) wonder?
What was that about re-writing histories? And there were hundreds, perhaps thousands of eyewitnesses with their downloaded video clips of the violence and mayhem during Red riots of Y2010. But who cares? Every Thai it seems already made up their minds who are guilty and who are not.
And I do fear the babble is about to into a bobble, then transmute into a bubble…..Before everyone gets entirely bored with it…. WARNING!: Huge amounts of (pointless) hot air on the horizon!
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has pledged to apologise for airing paid-for programmes that were favourable to some countries including Malaysia. This is in reference to the FBC made “documentaries”.
FBC has been exposed to have also doubled up as a publicity firm for the Najib Razak administration and was paid millions of pounds to conduct a “Global Strategic Communications Campaign”.
and while “communities are actively working together towards common goals on something basic and close to their daily problems”, we will need to identify a someone else to take care of the national weal.
The someone else must be freed from the time-consuming work of … actively working towards common goals on something basic and close to the peoples’ daily problems.
all these hyper-royalists and relentless right-wings come up with different theories and paradigms of thai state… as a matter of fact, they are saying the same thing: Thais, kiss the dust at the feet of the dhammaraja for his gracious gift — democracy!
May I please have Part 4 of ‘Thaistory’ and Part IV of your review of the book please? It’s starting to feel a bit like the 20-year gap between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace 🙂
For anyone who may be interested, there is an interesting discussion on Facebook over my plans to publicly ask the authors of this book whether they are willing to stand by the claims it makes.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
┼╜i┼╛ek and social change in Malaysia – Part 1
Keith,
Thanks for the comment. I’m glad so you wrote it because you sound like my boss (who never leave online comments, unfortunately). For your sake, though, I better not stretch the analogy too far because she does admit to being over-emotional and it wouldn’t be accurate to taint you with this, would it?
Zizek’s position on traversing the act politically speaking is, as you’ve explained, open to the charge of being impractical – thanks for highlighting that.
Nevertheless, paradoxically, given the nature of this ‘theory/doctrine’, it would NOT be ‘traversing the fantasy’ **if we could discuss practical options**. This is because traversing the fantasy involves changing/revolutionising(?) what even COUNTS as ‘practical’. Not surprisingly, Zizek has himself chided suggestions to keep things practical, workable and so on because these usually take for granted the continuing operationg of the present system/order, etc.
One example is the Cross of Jesus Christ which all Christians hold to be among the most important acts of God in time, yet **practically** speaking is preposterous. Furthermore, usually it’s this precise event which cause people to be ‘turned off’ by the Christian faith – “What? Worship a naked political rebel nailed to a tree?”
Which brings me to a dimension of the Act that i left out in the article. This is the dimension of subjective engagement i.e. an event is perceived as an Act **only retroactively and from the viewpoint** of someone who’s committed to the ideals resonating in the Act.
Basically, we are NOT talking here about ‘strategizing options’, brain-storming the best way forward, having a mission-plan and so on. I’m not even sure ‘planning’ makes much sense in this viewpoint.
Here one could legitimately raise the question of whether Zizek has thus precluded any possibility of ‘future action’ – which is why the concept of exploding a FANTASY remains critical. If we can’t plan, we can’t discuss options, we can’t strategise, what can we do? One answer Zizek gives, as per the article, is to identity a fantasy and fully identify with it in the hope (never the certainty) that the system can be broken as a result.
One may even argue here that Jesus Christ was doing precisely that on the Cross – he was **taking the fantasy of ethno-centric and power-loving Jews to the extreme**, ‘allowing’ them to crucify God (so to speak).
I know I haven’t quite addressed your specific questions, but I hope you can appreciate how I’m trying to focus on explicating/elaborating Zizek’s views first and maybe raise some questions to think about.
(Note: Your comment also gives the impression of someone easily frustrated with any article which doesn’t fit your 100% criteria for ‘good writing’ and, more importantly, it portrays a kind of impatience / stress / angst about political thinking which, I dunno, could be a part of the problem itself? If nothing else, I pity your “?” and “!” keys…)
As for my meandering around topics and the use of movies, sigh, my Secondary School English teacher is to be blame (but I forgive her). Alternatively, you could think of it as giving expression to Zizek’s dictum that “the truth only appears in the form of fiction” i.e. we can only grasp truths **when they come to us** in less than straight-fwd/linear (or even ‘false’) forms.
To wax Zizekian, maybe it helps to consider a stronger connection between political truth and sexual fantasy – in sexual fantasy, how many “get to the point” immediately? Don’t they “fool around” first?
┼╜i┼╛ek and social change in Malaysia – Part 1
Gaik Cheng, one could view Mahathirism as the introduction (or consolidation?) of a new ‘Law of the Father’ esp given the drives towards modernisation initiated by Dr M. Malaysians, it could be argued, were introduced to a new kind of society, the Malay upper- and middle-classes had their eyes open to the real possibility of economic dominance, all(most) Malaysians began dreaming of unrestrained growth yet, paradoxically, subjected themselves to new masters (and their rules), e.g. the riches-for-justice, growth-for-power trade-off a’la Francis Loh’s views on developmentalism.
Within this paradigm, one could argue that **actual** racial riots would no longer be feasible as even the ruling regime would have more to lose than previously. Recall, though, the more-than-credible thesis that Razak ‘master-minded’ the ’69 riots as a way of usurping power from Tunku: the new class taking over from the old guard (which, justice-wise, is no different from one warlord defeating another).
But with Dr M, we were dealing with a different warlord entirely, one who would reign by coopting the greed of the people (which is not to say they didn’t **exclude** certain parties, cf HINDRAF’s concerns). Yet the proliferation of greed requires a specific kind of system and of all of Capitalism’s many manifestations, the ONE modality in which it cannot sustain itself appears to be internal turmoil. Civil in-fighting is just bad for (global) business.
So, Dr M could represent a new system, a new ‘symbolic order’, thus entail a new Father. This is not to say that the **threat** of racial riots can’t be used; we could think of it like seduction – we don’t need to view a fully nude body to be aroused and often a mere glimpse or suggestion is enough to raise body heat. In fact, oftentimes a 100% nude body (just like full-blown rioting) is a turn-off, if the objective is to keep a partner salivating (always desiring, never beinf satisfied – sounds like Capitalism, no?).
The toll of flooding on lives and politics
Patience is a virtue, but has SteveCM received his Baht 5,000 flood compensation yet?
AND what really will the Yingluck government be doing in Year 2012 (other than giving us Valentine’s kisses) to protect us from another deluge . . . ahem?
Murder most foul in Malaysia!
Two words would sum up the sorry state of affairs in Malaysia today. Power and money. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the love of money (read greed) is the root of all evil.
Governments should be the servants of the people and should look after the welfare and well-being of all citizens. But once this noble aim is deviated to be self-serving, the whole system of government would be compromised. This was what has happened to Malaysia. During Tunku’s time, we could be considered as a true democracy with peaceful co-existence among all segments of society. After Tunku, the situation went from bad to worse.
Our pillars of democracy were all compromised. The Judiciary was made subservient to the executive and the election commission became a party to the gerrymandering of the electorate. Controversial laws and amendments were made to favor a certain section of society. All such dubious actions were all done to maintain and retain power and control.
And when power and money are concerned, there are no holds barred, even to the extent of murder. To the victims, real or accidental, may they all rest in peace. And may the truth somehow be revealed.
Chai-anan’s sufficiency democracy
“What Thailand can do is to focus on promoting community activities whereby people can work together towards common goals.”
Maybe I’m reading the summary wrong, but it appears an author in the Manager is supporting the Red Shirt Village concept . . .
┼╜i┼╛ek and social change in Malaysia – Part 1
Your post really does not really jive with the title “┼╜i┼╛ek and social change in Malaysia”. I do recognize that this is Part 1 but too much time was spent explaining traversing (or disturbing) the fantasy via the three movies.
1. It would have been more helpful if you correlated Zizek’s philosophy clearly with the type of social action/change needed in Malaysia.
For instance, you cited quoted his reference to political action as “acts that bring about massive systemic crisis and a drastic subversion of the socio-political framework itself.”
2. Now, how would what Zizek’s perception of ‘massive systemic crisis” be seen in Malaysia? You just left that hanging in the air!
3. How would the existing socio-political framework be challenged?
You have not addressed that.
4. You discussed how the virtual no-show of voters dealt a severe systemic blow to the whole system. Good. Now, how does this translate into practical action for Malaysia?
5. In a diversion from the title of this post, you discussed the whole aspect of Malaysian education in a stereotyped manner without relating it to social change.
In fact, the way you discussed it, it would appear that you are implying how things are likely to remain stagnant because of how some parents have caved in to the pressure to conform to the existing system.
It surprises me to know that you are lecturing in Sociology because I would have expected a broader and more mature perspective to the rat race for paper qualifications.
This statement of yours needs to be refuted because you have really OVERGENERALIZED:
“…parents still continue to push their students to score as high as they can in every school examination.
Sadly, you have stated this as a fact as though it applies to 100% of parents. Sorry. It does not! At least not to the enlightened ones! Get your facts right and do not overgeneralize and assume that your stereotype is the gospel truth.
The very same parents who say they “no longer believe in the education system” will chasten their children for not performing well within that system.
Parenting styles are now more dynamic and progressive – a far cry from the stale regimented approach used in the 20th century. Educated ones know that an A in the Malaysian examination is worthless compared to international examination boards! It is a fallacy to think that straight A students who come out of the Malaysian school system can excel in other examinations. A very good example would be the IB and A level exams. You are in education and should know this.
6. Your usage of ‘WILL’ is most disappointing and reflects how shallow is your thinking of Malaysian parents!!!
How sure are you that every single parent WILL do that which you have postulated so fallaciously? I beg to differ!
Following your diversion, you went on to discuss how parents can challenge the system of A-accumulation and then to say ‘Crazy and disastrous?’ with such a high-handed and judgemental tone when your base of analysis is so highly flawed!
7. And then you went on to say “But back to politics.” – A clear indication that you knew you were off-course in your discussion. Surely you can stick to the topic and not lead readers round a mulberry bush and end up feeling frustrated!
Honestly, I am shocked that such an article can be written by a doctoral candidate.
It appears that this is a cut and paste job and I really do not know what is the point you are driving at in your writing.
You made so little reference to MALAYSIA that I am surprised the owner of this blog even featured this article! What a bummer!
In your conclusion, you gave examples of NON-MALAYSIAN historical milestones. Wouldn’t it be better if you gave local examples that can support your thesis statement (if any!!!) and the topic in questions? Sadly, you asked….
In the Malaysian context then, what could a political act of the Real look like?
Tell us!!! Tell us what YOU think!
What fantasy-belief sustains the political system (which almost every Malaysian condemns)?
Are you sure EVERY Malaysian condemns the system????? Have you done a survey that provides you such data? Again -you have exhibited your tendency to overgeneralize.
What is it that every Malaysian will never say they believe yet inadvertently determines our behaviour?
Your last question is also flawed!!!
How sure are you that EVERY MALAYSIAN WILL NEVER SAY THEY BELIEVE??????
Gross overgeneralization of the highest degree!!!!
“yet inadvertently determines OUR behaviour????”
Please check before posting.
Malaysians are not as stupid as you think, OK?
We do think!
Review of A Life’s Work
“People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along?”
Rodney King
😉
I do not really get involved in the monarchy debates, mostly because i am out of my depth when it comes to this subject matter. I am open to all (intelligent) views by all (!) sides. I am constantly astonished though how emotionally and personal this subject matter is discussed.
In defense of Andrew Marshall here – much of his analyses is based on Wikipedia and similar material. As long as the palace does not open it’s own archives to academic study or journalistic scrutiny, these cables are the closest to prime source material we have been presented so far, mostly because the Americans have been closer to the palace than any other outsider (including the majority of Thais). Therefore Andrew’s work, and his source material cannot be dismissed. It has to be discussed, and criticized, when and where necessary, of course, and preferably by factual evidence, and not by personal attacks that ultimately derail the discussion.
I reserve my judgement on “A life’s work” as i haven’t had the time yet to read my copy. But from the start i do not expect it to be critical, but a less hagiographical biography than previous work published and sold in Thailand. Which doesn’t mean that it won’t have merit.
For me, the value of the different view points on the monarchy published lies in their contribution to an ongoing discussion, which hopefully will lead one day to more transparency and ultimately – to progress.
┼╜i┼╛ek and social change in Malaysia – Part 1
I used to think the Real was Mahathirism and sustaining/maintaining the idea of another violent race riots a la May 13 should Malaysians speak up against the system, back in the days of Reformasi. But cracks have appeared and it is much more gradual and perhaps has a more long term impact than a radical revolution as we have seen with the Arab Spring — shortlived as it may be in Syria or Bahrain — as envisioned by (romantic?) leftist intellectuals like Zizek. Witness how after the 2008 politial tsunami there were no violent reactions on the streets. Witness how time and time again in the post-Mahathir years religious sentiments were provoked by thuggish behaviour: cow-head, church arson, pig’s head, etc. etc., yet did not trigger so-called ‘race’ riots. I think the rules of the game have changed and this calls for re-imagining what politics can look like in Malaysia on all sides: BN clearly shows a total lack of imagination even while it is clear that the usual tricks of the trade, i.e. race politics, no longer work. At the same time one wonders how effective PKR can be to overcome its own internal issues since it has its share of ex-Umno members, etc..
So to answer your question, “In the Malaysian context then, what could a political act of the Real look like?” I don’t think the answer of not-voting in the next GE for example, is going to be subversive if it means that BN continues to stay in power. Voting isn’t compulsory in Malaysia so the ruling regime isn’t going to worry that the low voter turnout for instance is a reflection of a loss of faith in electoral democracy. It’s not like the PAP in Singapore which would be quite troubled by things like that.
Jory on Thai monarchy
“Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but . . .” yet many languished in jail or worse because of false testimonies. But does it make (#5) wonder?
What was that about re-writing histories? And there were hundreds, perhaps thousands of eyewitnesses with their downloaded video clips of the violence and mayhem during Red riots of Y2010. But who cares? Every Thai it seems already made up their minds who are guilty and who are not.
┼╜i┼╛ek and social change in Malaysia – Part 1
Hitler was being funded by the US banks. Let’s have a little rigour here if we’re going to throw the Nazis around.
Review of A Life’s Work
If I add Andrew MacGregor Marshall to my Facebook does that open me up to a lese majeste charge?
Review of A Life’s Work
And I do fear the babble is about to into a bobble, then transmute into a bubble…..Before everyone gets entirely bored with it…. WARNING!: Huge amounts of (pointless) hot air on the horizon!
Najib still an asset?
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has pledged to apologise for airing paid-for programmes that were favourable to some countries including Malaysia. This is in reference to the FBC made “documentaries”.
FBC has been exposed to have also doubled up as a publicity firm for the Najib Razak administration and was paid millions of pounds to conduct a “Global Strategic Communications Campaign”.
What do we do with UMNO?
Chai-anan’s sufficiency democracy
Great …
and while “communities are actively working together towards common goals on something basic and close to their daily problems”, we will need to identify a someone else to take care of the national weal.
The someone else must be freed from the time-consuming work of … actively working towards common goals on something basic and close to the peoples’ daily problems.
Chai-anan’s sufficiency democracy
all these hyper-royalists and relentless right-wings come up with different theories and paradigms of thai state… as a matter of fact, they are saying the same thing: Thais, kiss the dust at the feet of the dhammaraja for his gracious gift — democracy!
Review of A Life’s Work
#112
“Interesting discussion?” You must surely be joking. It’s rather more like self-centered babble.
Chai-anan’s sufficiency democracy
Forget “Sufficiency Democracy”, how about “Sufficiency Monarchism” per this latest news on the CP’s antics in Germany:
http://www.zenjournalist.com/2012/02/german-newspaper-accidentally-exposes-thai-crown-prince/
Chai-anan’s sufficiency democracy
Srithanonchai – yes : I remember Chai-Anan’s brilliance decades ago.
He was one of the brightest analysising May ’92. Not much there now.
Review of A Life’s Work
Andrew
May I please have Part 4 of ‘Thaistory’ and Part IV of your review of the book please? It’s starting to feel a bit like the 20-year gap between Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace 🙂
Review of A Life’s Work
For anyone who may be interested, there is an interesting discussion on Facebook over my plans to publicly ask the authors of this book whether they are willing to stand by the claims it makes.
The discussion can be viewed here: http://www.facebook.com/djinn.nine/posts/10150660433166154
Best wishes