Going against the grain and I’m sure some people will judge me harshly on this (or maybe, more likely, they don’t care) I was asked to sign the letter and refused to do so on point of principle.
I simply couldn’t sign a letter that backed a reform that would likely keep people in prison and which would keep a pretty lengthy prison sentence for this on the books.
I have also been disappointed that while plenty involved in the CCAA112 campaign have been happy to use the imagery of the prisoners, their immediate release from prison has not been a central campaign aim.
However, I would like to state that I support without question the principle that Nitirat should be allowed to put forward reforms, that a discussion is opened up and that, obviously, Nitirat’s proposals are a step in the right direction.
I think the reforms offer the same kind of compromise and deal Pheu Thai are being roundly condemned for agreeing to.
I also don’t have any problem with letters like this and find some of the comments above that it might draw unnecessary flak, disingenuous. You guys should be criticising the crazies getting ready to burn new effigies and make more threats not the targets of those actions. It’s the rapist and the short skirt argument “I was so provoked, I simply couldn’t help myself.” While I don’t agree with all of Nitirat the space they are opening up needs to be defended.
a wonderful article depicting the plight of certain activist groups in Thailand. I think this article tells the true story of other third world country’s gross neglect on people’s basic human rights. People who are less fortunate and speak the truth and live in poverty get suppressed by certain juducial laws that are not fair and equitable to the international world. Somebody or something needs to be done about these injustices.
I didn’t suggest at all that Thai society is inherently violent because of Sam’s link. I said Thai society is inherently violent, with Sam’s link an example of it. There are many other examples that would help undermine your more benign view of the Land of Smiles.
The WHO statistics are as good as any available, however they are inaccurate. For example, you will note that South Africa (to cite my own inherently violent homeland) is the second-highest with 2000-3000 per 100,000. During my time with Johannesburg’s major daily newspaper we recorded an average 47 murders every day in Jo’burg metro alone. However, as shocking as this figure is, even the police were quick to admit the figure included only reported murders – with estimates of actual murders higher by a factor of as much as three! The murder figures are only one part of the data feeding the WHO report, but it serves to illustrate that the statistics are accurate only insofar as each country’s level of transparency. I would suggest Thailand’s transparency levels are relatively low. The figure for the U.S is likely far more accurate.
There’s another interesting aspect to the WHO data. The figures only include violence that, as you said, leads to actual deaths. While it’s understandable to assume that this is an accurate indication of general levels of violence as a whole, it probably isn’t. To use the same example of South Africa (and this is more than 15 years ago now so you’ll have to bear with my vague recollections of a report), we found the levels of domestic violence – to cite just one type of violence – differed markedly between geographies, ethnic groups, affluence and education levels and a number of other common demographic measures. Surprisingly, the correlation between the various forms of violence across the various demographic measurements was lower than we thought. For example, there were parts of South African society that recorded extremely high levels of domestic, sexual and vice-related violence, with relatively fewer murders! It might not be such a long bow, therefore, to suggest that WHO’s measurement of violence resulting in death is not as accurate a gauge of general levels of violence as we might assume.
While the sum total of media stories is also not a particularly accurate gauge of violence in a society either, given the restrictions and agendas of the respective media organisations (and Andrew Drummond certainly feeds his own unique audience), we can probably draw some general conclusions from the myriad anecdotal evidence available. For example, I strongly suspect most expats and visitors from Western democracies would agree that Thailand is generally a more violent society than their own. In fact, most might even agree that there is a relatively high correlation between more democratic societies and lower levels of violence (although the adage that “two democracies have never gone to war’ is simply not true). I would take this a step further and argue that violence is both a symptom and a cause of less democratic societies, and I don’t hesitate to include Thailand as one example.
Even allowing for hyperbole (and I can’t vouch for Andrew Drummond’s journalistic qualities because I simply don’t know him or his publication very well) most of the many hundreds of Thais, expats and visitors whom I know well would describe incidents such as these as commonplace in Thailand, and probably more commonplace than in the vast majority of Western democracies. I have lived and worked in extreme societies – South Africa being at one end of the violence spectrum, Australia at the other, with Thailand much closer to the former than the latter in my opinion.
To see racists jumping in the shadows is a bad habit that has long worn thin as an effective retort (much like Godwin’s law on this same website). To get back to Sam’s link, the only offensive part about it is your off-handed dismissal of Paul and Justine’s ordeal.
I agree with Brett. Violence against Farang in Thailand exists – often perhaps because of the way the latter behave – but that link provided by Sam proves very little sociologically. I think if we looked at violence against Thai when abroad (e.g. New Zealand where I once lived over 40 years ago has seen considerable male violence – typically by White or Pakeha New Zealanders – against Thai women: indeed any women some women would argue) or in a neighboring country such as Cambodia, Thailand stacks up pretty well.
Surely serious critiques of vilence in any society are preferable to anecdotal and sensational accounts of British builders being bashed by “mafia” in Hua Hin or Farangs being pushed out or jumped out of windows in Pattaya!
Bunny has a point. The show of solidarity is impressive, but the inclusion of names like Chachavalpongpun, Handley, Marshall and Ungpakorn might simply reinforce the establishment’s conviction that the Khana Nitirat should be shut out of whatever counts for national debate in Thailand.
What I find surprising is that people like Marshall and Ungpakorn (not to mention Chompsky) would express support for a Khana Nitirat proposal that upholds the need for specific legal protections against defamation of the royal institution above and beyond those that apply to regular citizens. I wonder how many of the signatories gave the content of the Khana Nitirat proposal careful consideration.
Let’s wait and see if the 224 persons can challenge the Thai ideology. In my opinion, Thais do not consider the foreigners’ points of view on the criminal code 112; they think that the criminal code 112 is their own internal affairs.
When they look at foreigners’ opinions, Thais have two sorts of perception: if the foreigners’ points of view are not involved with their ideology, they will accept those, and vice versa.
If Thais do not pay attention to the 224 persons they may think the names are rubbish; if they are concerned Thai nationalism (anti-westernisation) will be mobilized. Let’s wait and see.
I’m sorry but not only is the link irrelevant, it’s offensive. Acts of violence occur in *every* society and to suggest that, because some poor unfortunate sod in Hua Hin was the victim of a brutal assault, Thai society as a whole is somehow inherently prone to physical violence or that the entire Thai population is, by “nature”, incapable of peaceful democratic consensus-building is an inductive fallacy of the most simplistic and, frankly, racist kind.
Any number of so-called mature liberal democracies have histories of barbaric collective violence in their recent past, while many others today suffer appallingly high statistical rates of inter-personal violent crime. Indeed, according to statistics compiled by the WHO, the rate of physical violence resulting in death in Thailand is actually lower than that of the USA (2oo/100,000 as compared to 242/100,000). I know we all share a deep concern about Thailand and hope it will achieve a peaceful path through its current transformative struggles but trading in hasty, sensationalist generalizations doesn’t help anybody IMHO.
Is Noam Chomsky in there? What has Noam Chomsky written about Thailand or Lese Majeste recently?
Why did they strangely merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs? After I read “There are many known cases in which charges
have been filed and prosecutions carried out over the last five years, as well as an unknown number which have not been made public but which court statistics indicate have taken place.“, I was expecting to read figures, statistics … but they just launch into how easy it is for any interested party in Thailand to initiate a Lese Majeste case … yawn, yawn.
In the early days of the anti-Thaksin rallies (raygarn sapda. or whatever it was called) I used to attend their meetings in the main hall at Thammasat’s Tha Prajant campus. Curiously enough, the reason given by the then Rector for opening the hall to the yellow shirts (avant le lettre) was that Thammasat was a public university. Exactly the reason that the present rector has given for not allowing criticism of 112. Strange.
Currently, the reconciliation process is doomed for several reasons.
The first reason being that the Thai Royal Police, who are closer in intent and practice to a gendarmerie than “police” as the word is understood in the Anglosphere, act as a force unto themselves. The executive branch of the Thai government currently doesn’t possess the proper control over the police, and as such, there is no civilian oversight to their actions.
Secondly, two Thai cultural values work together to inhibit progress in reconciliation. The Thai management of the ego (р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓ ), views criticism as inherently negative terms. Combined with the high value Thai culture places on social harmony (р╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕▒р╕Др╕Др╕╡), and it produces an atmosphere that is not conducive to confronting the hard truths that are necessary for true reconciliation.
The fact is that these young men and women have been sacrificed upon the altar of р╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕▒р╕Др╕Др╕╡. Like all human sacrifice, the demons who demand the blood of the innocent will not be appeased for long.
Somkhit is not a “pragmatist,” but a typical technocratic opportunist.
As far as Nittirat’s proposals to rewrite the constitution of 2007 are concerned, he has also a conflict of interest, because he was the secretary of the Constitution Drafting Committee. This is another reason why he has bad feelings towards Nittirat, especially Worajet.
It’s wonderful that this was done to show these brave seven scholars that they indeed are not alone. They need to stand firm and know the international community backs them.
Tarrin, CT and SteveCM should be delighted to hear that their champion PM YIngluck made a big impression with her very recent attendance at that very elite World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland. In one particularly momentous Davos session, Thai PM Yingluck extemporaneously and eloquently articulated her sympathies and concerns for the (sexually) exploited and abused Thai women.
Yingluck announced that she will put up a foundation to provide financial and educational access to these Thai women in deprivation. I think she said she completely understands their situation, and using herself as an example – ‘money and education’ allowed her not to be what those Thai women had to endure. Or something like that, Yingluck was so overcome with honesty and concern I think that was what she said. At any rate I was deeply moved and so were her elite audience. (I believe they will invite Yingluck again next year at Davos!).
What is the role of actual government, elected with so much of popular support, on this issue? What is their proposal on the article 112? do they want to change constitution just for their own agenda or for freedom speech agenda too? maybe the words of Chuan Leekpai should be taken:
“Democrat Party chief adviser Mr Chuan said the Nitirat group had every right to air its opinions but he personally believed any attempt to rewrite Section 8 of the constitution and Article 112 of the Criminal Code would not be successful.
The Democrats have a clear stance against any movement to amend Section 8 of the charter, which prohibits any individual from insulting the King, and Section 112 of the Criminal Code, better known as the lese majeste law, he said.” http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/277287/political-heavyweights-join-fight-against-nitirat
Maybe the shirts are turning orange now?
> “Thammasat’s decision to draw a red line on what political activity is permitted on campus is setting precedents for other educational institutions.”
Setting precedents for other institutions, and more importantly, their own. Thammasat is regarded favorably by genuine democrats (note, small “d”) – now when any group attempts to be proactive about anything at Thammasat – from LM to democracy to free speech all the way down to G&L – the dean will hear a clamour for it to be shut down. To all intents the campaign will be a witch hunt – it will be a campaign focused at one person with perceived weaknesses – and the target will not display the fortitude that Karnthoop displayed.
While some may see your link as irrelevant, I don’t. I think this incident, and the many others like it, underscores the violence inherent in every level of Thai society. This is a country where “might is right” takes on a whole new dimension, with many Thais intuitively inclined to pay immediate and unquestioning deference (р╕Бр╕гр╕▓р╕Ъ) to the “biggest” man in the room. Abhisit knew this when he openly and unabashedly murdered some 90 of his own citizens quite openly in May 2010. These are not a people whose natures are given to free and unfettered personal expressions of peaceful libertarianism. Democracy is not their natural bent.
While there is some hope that Thais – for selfish reasons – will find a peaceful resolution rather than hurl themselves into a violent civil war, but I don’t believe Thais are close to embracing (or even understanding) the concept of democracy as a largely peaceful means of conflict resolution.
Thanks Greg for the nice introduction about me. In addition, I was also a law and political science lecturer at the International Islamic University Malaysia before joining the office of the Deputy Prime Minister as Special Officer (not Special Advisor as Greg mistakenly mentioned in his post). Before that, I spent 4 years at ANU researching on intersections between law and politics in Malaysia for my PhD thesis. I’m not saying that I am a legal expert, but the issue in Nizar’s case is neither complicated nor new. There were persuasive legal precedents which form the basis of the Federal Court decision. Yes, everybody can give opposing opinions, including a former judge (as far as I know) but we too can form our own opinion based on the facts of the case, and more important, sound legal knowledge. Alas, it is normal even for serving judges to give dissenting opinions. We can’t say that one is more competent than the other.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
International solidarity for the Amendment of Article 112
Going against the grain and I’m sure some people will judge me harshly on this (or maybe, more likely, they don’t care) I was asked to sign the letter and refused to do so on point of principle.
I simply couldn’t sign a letter that backed a reform that would likely keep people in prison and which would keep a pretty lengthy prison sentence for this on the books.
I have also been disappointed that while plenty involved in the CCAA112 campaign have been happy to use the imagery of the prisoners, their immediate release from prison has not been a central campaign aim.
However, I would like to state that I support without question the principle that Nitirat should be allowed to put forward reforms, that a discussion is opened up and that, obviously, Nitirat’s proposals are a step in the right direction.
I think the reforms offer the same kind of compromise and deal Pheu Thai are being roundly condemned for agreeing to.
I also don’t have any problem with letters like this and find some of the comments above that it might draw unnecessary flak, disingenuous. You guys should be criticising the crazies getting ready to burn new effigies and make more threats not the targets of those actions. It’s the rapist and the short skirt argument “I was so provoked, I simply couldn’t help myself.” While I don’t agree with all of Nitirat the space they are opening up needs to be defended.
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
It’s a time like this that tells us who is fit to be university president.
Left out of reconciliation?
a wonderful article depicting the plight of certain activist groups in Thailand. I think this article tells the true story of other third world country’s gross neglect on people’s basic human rights. People who are less fortunate and speak the truth and live in poverty get suppressed by certain juducial laws that are not fair and equitable to the international world. Somebody or something needs to be done about these injustices.
A catalogue of threats against the Khana Nitirat
Brett
Why is Sam’s link offensive?
I didn’t suggest at all that Thai society is inherently violent because of Sam’s link. I said Thai society is inherently violent, with Sam’s link an example of it. There are many other examples that would help undermine your more benign view of the Land of Smiles.
The WHO statistics are as good as any available, however they are inaccurate. For example, you will note that South Africa (to cite my own inherently violent homeland) is the second-highest with 2000-3000 per 100,000. During my time with Johannesburg’s major daily newspaper we recorded an average 47 murders every day in Jo’burg metro alone. However, as shocking as this figure is, even the police were quick to admit the figure included only reported murders – with estimates of actual murders higher by a factor of as much as three! The murder figures are only one part of the data feeding the WHO report, but it serves to illustrate that the statistics are accurate only insofar as each country’s level of transparency. I would suggest Thailand’s transparency levels are relatively low. The figure for the U.S is likely far more accurate.
There’s another interesting aspect to the WHO data. The figures only include violence that, as you said, leads to actual deaths. While it’s understandable to assume that this is an accurate indication of general levels of violence as a whole, it probably isn’t. To use the same example of South Africa (and this is more than 15 years ago now so you’ll have to bear with my vague recollections of a report), we found the levels of domestic violence – to cite just one type of violence – differed markedly between geographies, ethnic groups, affluence and education levels and a number of other common demographic measures. Surprisingly, the correlation between the various forms of violence across the various demographic measurements was lower than we thought. For example, there were parts of South African society that recorded extremely high levels of domestic, sexual and vice-related violence, with relatively fewer murders! It might not be such a long bow, therefore, to suggest that WHO’s measurement of violence resulting in death is not as accurate a gauge of general levels of violence as we might assume.
While the sum total of media stories is also not a particularly accurate gauge of violence in a society either, given the restrictions and agendas of the respective media organisations (and Andrew Drummond certainly feeds his own unique audience), we can probably draw some general conclusions from the myriad anecdotal evidence available. For example, I strongly suspect most expats and visitors from Western democracies would agree that Thailand is generally a more violent society than their own. In fact, most might even agree that there is a relatively high correlation between more democratic societies and lower levels of violence (although the adage that “two democracies have never gone to war’ is simply not true). I would take this a step further and argue that violence is both a symptom and a cause of less democratic societies, and I don’t hesitate to include Thailand as one example.
Even allowing for hyperbole (and I can’t vouch for Andrew Drummond’s journalistic qualities because I simply don’t know him or his publication very well) most of the many hundreds of Thais, expats and visitors whom I know well would describe incidents such as these as commonplace in Thailand, and probably more commonplace than in the vast majority of Western democracies. I have lived and worked in extreme societies – South Africa being at one end of the violence spectrum, Australia at the other, with Thailand much closer to the former than the latter in my opinion.
To see racists jumping in the shadows is a bad habit that has long worn thin as an effective retort (much like Godwin’s law on this same website). To get back to Sam’s link, the only offensive part about it is your off-handed dismissal of Paul and Justine’s ordeal.
A catalogue of threats against the Khana Nitirat
I agree with Brett. Violence against Farang in Thailand exists – often perhaps because of the way the latter behave – but that link provided by Sam proves very little sociologically. I think if we looked at violence against Thai when abroad (e.g. New Zealand where I once lived over 40 years ago has seen considerable male violence – typically by White or Pakeha New Zealanders – against Thai women: indeed any women some women would argue) or in a neighboring country such as Cambodia, Thailand stacks up pretty well.
Surely serious critiques of vilence in any society are preferable to anecdotal and sensational accounts of British builders being bashed by “mafia” in Hua Hin or Farangs being pushed out or jumped out of windows in Pattaya!
International solidarity for the Amendment of Article 112
Bunny has a point. The show of solidarity is impressive, but the inclusion of names like Chachavalpongpun, Handley, Marshall and Ungpakorn might simply reinforce the establishment’s conviction that the Khana Nitirat should be shut out of whatever counts for national debate in Thailand.
What I find surprising is that people like Marshall and Ungpakorn (not to mention Chompsky) would express support for a Khana Nitirat proposal that upholds the need for specific legal protections against defamation of the royal institution above and beyond those that apply to regular citizens. I wonder how many of the signatories gave the content of the Khana Nitirat proposal careful consideration.
International solidarity for the Amendment of Article 112
Let’s wait and see if the 224 persons can challenge the Thai ideology. In my opinion, Thais do not consider the foreigners’ points of view on the criminal code 112; they think that the criminal code 112 is their own internal affairs.
When they look at foreigners’ opinions, Thais have two sorts of perception: if the foreigners’ points of view are not involved with their ideology, they will accept those, and vice versa.
If Thais do not pay attention to the 224 persons they may think the names are rubbish; if they are concerned Thai nationalism (anti-westernisation) will be mobilized. Let’s wait and see.
A catalogue of threats against the Khana Nitirat
@ Comment #39
I’m sorry but not only is the link irrelevant, it’s offensive. Acts of violence occur in *every* society and to suggest that, because some poor unfortunate sod in Hua Hin was the victim of a brutal assault, Thai society as a whole is somehow inherently prone to physical violence or that the entire Thai population is, by “nature”, incapable of peaceful democratic consensus-building is an inductive fallacy of the most simplistic and, frankly, racist kind.
Any number of so-called mature liberal democracies have histories of barbaric collective violence in their recent past, while many others today suffer appallingly high statistical rates of inter-personal violent crime. Indeed, according to statistics compiled by the WHO, the rate of physical violence resulting in death in Thailand is actually lower than that of the USA (2oo/100,000 as compared to 242/100,000). I know we all share a deep concern about Thailand and hope it will achieve a peaceful path through its current transformative struggles but trading in hasty, sensationalist generalizations doesn’t help anybody IMHO.
International solidarity for the Amendment of Article 112
And really this is gonna help the nitirat to survive or make it a more urgent target to be taken down by the hyper royalists?
International solidarity for the Amendment of Article 112
Is Noam Chomsky in there? What has Noam Chomsky written about Thailand or Lese Majeste recently?
Why did they strangely merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs? After I read “There are many known cases in which charges
have been filed and prosecutions carried out over the last five years, as well as an unknown number which have not been made public but which court statistics indicate have taken place.“, I was expecting to read figures, statistics … but they just launch into how easy it is for any interested party in Thailand to initiate a Lese Majeste case … yawn, yawn.
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
Dr. Somkit’s follow-up interview at TU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV9v0p0G0oc&sns=fb
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
In the early days of the anti-Thaksin rallies (raygarn sapda. or whatever it was called) I used to attend their meetings in the main hall at Thammasat’s Tha Prajant campus. Curiously enough, the reason given by the then Rector for opening the hall to the yellow shirts (avant le lettre) was that Thammasat was a public university. Exactly the reason that the present rector has given for not allowing criticism of 112. Strange.
Left out of reconciliation?
Currently, the reconciliation process is doomed for several reasons.
The first reason being that the Thai Royal Police, who are closer in intent and practice to a gendarmerie than “police” as the word is understood in the Anglosphere, act as a force unto themselves. The executive branch of the Thai government currently doesn’t possess the proper control over the police, and as such, there is no civilian oversight to their actions.
Secondly, two Thai cultural values work together to inhibit progress in reconciliation. The Thai management of the ego (р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓ ), views criticism as inherently negative terms. Combined with the high value Thai culture places on social harmony (р╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕▒р╕Др╕Др╕╡), and it produces an atmosphere that is not conducive to confronting the hard truths that are necessary for true reconciliation.
The fact is that these young men and women have been sacrificed upon the altar of р╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕▒р╕Др╕Др╕╡. Like all human sacrifice, the demons who demand the blood of the innocent will not be appeased for long.
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
#3
Somkhit is not a “pragmatist,” but a typical technocratic opportunist.
As far as Nittirat’s proposals to rewrite the constitution of 2007 are concerned, he has also a conflict of interest, because he was the secretary of the Constitution Drafting Committee. This is another reason why he has bad feelings towards Nittirat, especially Worajet.
International solidarity for the Amendment of Article 112
Noam Chomsky and Cornell West—wow.
It’s wonderful that this was done to show these brave seven scholars that they indeed are not alone. They need to stand firm and know the international community backs them.
Pheua Thai but for lese majeste
Tarrin, CT and SteveCM should be delighted to hear that their champion PM YIngluck made a big impression with her very recent attendance at that very elite World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland. In one particularly momentous Davos session, Thai PM Yingluck extemporaneously and eloquently articulated her sympathies and concerns for the (sexually) exploited and abused Thai women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ2ktL77vnA
Yingluck announced that she will put up a foundation to provide financial and educational access to these Thai women in deprivation. I think she said she completely understands their situation, and using herself as an example – ‘money and education’ allowed her not to be what those Thai women had to endure. Or something like that, Yingluck was so overcome with honesty and concern I think that was what she said. At any rate I was deeply moved and so were her elite audience. (I believe they will invite Yingluck again next year at Davos!).
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
What is the role of actual government, elected with so much of popular support, on this issue? What is their proposal on the article 112? do they want to change constitution just for their own agenda or for freedom speech agenda too? maybe the words of Chuan Leekpai should be taken:
“Democrat Party chief adviser Mr Chuan said the Nitirat group had every right to air its opinions but he personally believed any attempt to rewrite Section 8 of the constitution and Article 112 of the Criminal Code would not be successful.
The Democrats have a clear stance against any movement to amend Section 8 of the charter, which prohibits any individual from insulting the King, and Section 112 of the Criminal Code, better known as the lese majeste law, he said.” http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/277287/political-heavyweights-join-fight-against-nitirat
Maybe the shirts are turning orange now?
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
> “Thammasat’s decision to draw a red line on what political activity is permitted on campus is setting precedents for other educational institutions.”
Setting precedents for other institutions, and more importantly, their own. Thammasat is regarded favorably by genuine democrats (note, small “d”) – now when any group attempts to be proactive about anything at Thammasat – from LM to democracy to free speech all the way down to G&L – the dean will hear a clamour for it to be shut down. To all intents the campaign will be a witch hunt – it will be a campaign focused at one person with perceived weaknesses – and the target will not display the fortitude that Karnthoop displayed.
A catalogue of threats against the Khana Nitirat
Sam
While some may see your link as irrelevant, I don’t. I think this incident, and the many others like it, underscores the violence inherent in every level of Thai society. This is a country where “might is right” takes on a whole new dimension, with many Thais intuitively inclined to pay immediate and unquestioning deference (р╕Бр╕гр╕▓р╕Ъ) to the “biggest” man in the room. Abhisit knew this when he openly and unabashedly murdered some 90 of his own citizens quite openly in May 2010. These are not a people whose natures are given to free and unfettered personal expressions of peaceful libertarianism. Democracy is not their natural bent.
While there is some hope that Thais – for selfish reasons – will find a peaceful resolution rather than hurl themselves into a violent civil war, but I don’t believe Thais are close to embracing (or even understanding) the concept of democracy as a largely peaceful means of conflict resolution.
Will UMNO give up power?
Thanks Greg for the nice introduction about me. In addition, I was also a law and political science lecturer at the International Islamic University Malaysia before joining the office of the Deputy Prime Minister as Special Officer (not Special Advisor as Greg mistakenly mentioned in his post). Before that, I spent 4 years at ANU researching on intersections between law and politics in Malaysia for my PhD thesis. I’m not saying that I am a legal expert, but the issue in Nizar’s case is neither complicated nor new. There were persuasive legal precedents which form the basis of the Federal Court decision. Yes, everybody can give opposing opinions, including a former judge (as far as I know) but we too can form our own opinion based on the facts of the case, and more important, sound legal knowledge. Alas, it is normal even for serving judges to give dissenting opinions. We can’t say that one is more competent than the other.