It is nothing (much) to do with the faculty Dean, reactionary law faculty colleagues of Nittirat, or the Rector, but in fact the amaat who pressured Somkit Lertpaithoon. At the same time Thammasat University Alumni (Chuan Lekpai has been told by higher authority to start agitating here) tightening the screws. Somkit was actually called in by Sumet Tantivejkul, a ever powerful figure (confidant of the monarch, as well as sitting on numerous royal committees and enterprise boards) to put the screws on Nittirat and forbid them from holding discussions on 112 on campus. In this scenario we can only expect greater conflict ahead as Nittirat is now seen as a real threat and generates a large following; a group to be taken more seriously. The amaat see it as time to restrict Nittirat before it gets too influential. Thammasat, as part of the amaat crackdown, are also proposing to ban any celebrations to Pridi and Puey…
Stephen: โAnother issue which has not received much attention is that something like the enclosure movement that took place in England just prior to the Industrial Revolution is taking place in the Myanmar countryside. Every village has what are called the village commons, such as forests where village people can fetch firewood, meadows where their cattle can graze, and streams, lakes and ponds where they can catch fish. Now these are being fenced off by some local authorities to generate revenue for themselves and the common rights are no longer available to the village folk.โ
Very similar to the land seizures by rich business people that have been happening in Cambodia in recent years or the more high-profile land seizure incidents in China. Both countries have powerful local elites and how to secure the rights of local poor against them is a good question (how were those rights protected in the past? has there really been some discontinuous change recently? or has this actually been a problem for a long time?). Land tenure is a tricky area involving legal traditions and laws, whether the laws are even enforced, whether people just ignore the laws and have a common accepted practices (in Thailand people often occupy land nominally owned by the central government with very little title to the land at all, sometimes the central government takes it back (like recent “land encrochment” incidents in national parks, sometimes they respect those rights (like Tai Lue next to the river in Mae Sai who were going to have their land seized for a riverside park but the government backed off).
I just find invoking blanket terms such as “neo-liberalism” (“libertarianism” too) to not be very productive since it is individual problems that must be solved, not mass replacements of a whole economic system and I think changes have been a lot more continous and gradual than you would suspect. Local economies in Burma vary widely. For example, some places for example, only have a market a couple of times a week at a certain time of day, still use horse carts and hardly have electricity. When I lived in Burma (circa 2001-2, if you went to public hospital in downtown Yangon for a wide variety of life threatening problems you would probably simply die, e.g. acute kidney failure due to a downstream blockage in the ureter, the actual case I experienced firsthand with my mother-in-law). Education, at least when schools were actually open, was then affordable (the research assistant I hired when universities were closed was able to afford Yangon University tuition and was the son of a Upper Burma Mon Ywa farmer). As for the future, I am sure Burma will probably encounter the full spectrum of problems that their neighbours in Asia (Thailand, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, etc) have experienced. The important thing is that they are starting to head down that path, instead of remaining isolated and cut off from the world for decade after decade with a population getting more and more poor by the year. I am sure it is this 49 years of isolation that has made Burma so poor not “economic liberalization” (the meaning of which I find unclear given Burma’s tortuous recent history) ๐
“This could create major rifts and possibly incite violent conflict within the university itself.”
rephrased . . .
“Making controversial proposals to change the constitution will result in you getting violently attacked. It is safer that we suppress your speech. Plus, it’s easier to suppress what you say than present a reasoned counter-argument.”
Somkid actually has a good point, although in his pragmatism he’s acknowledging his own cowardice.
He criticizes Nitirat -> he gets criticized by Nitirat.
He gives in to Nitirat -> he gets critized even more by the royalists.
So he decides to make a pragmatic decision and give in to the louder voices of the royalists, regardless of “righteous or appropriate”. He’s figured that it’s just too darn hard to make a principled stand, and is basing his decision on whichever dog barks loudest.
This cowardice doesn’t exactly make him a role model to the student body, but then again that’s why he’s an administrator rather than an instructor. Hopefully, he’ll get a promotion through to the Royal Institute rather than shape the next generation of Thammasat graduates.
‘ Already, Nitiratโs activity has been marginalized by much of the mainstream media (particularly TV), with a notable exception of Matichon, Bangkok Post and Thai PBS ‘
So… they’re out in the streets… with the people burning them in effigy.
They know that. They’re setting them up for execution…. hanging and burning… 6 October all over again.
Speaking as a staff member at Thammasat, I’m very disappointed by this decision.
Nithirat have not issued death threats or burnt people in effigy. They have not even called for disobedience to the current law. They have legitimately as citizens and academics advocated changes in the law. They have committed no crimes. Yet it is they who are being forbidden from speaking.
Dr Somkid has referred elsewhere to previous events in Thammasat’s history as a justification for this suppression of academic freedom. The rationale seems to be that free speech and enquiry – which is all that Nithirat can be accused of – may provoke violent reactions from those who are against free speech and enquiry and in favour of violent suppression of it when they don’t agree with it.
I understand his fears but his remedy gets it all wrong.
It is not right to sign up to a protection racket. Some critics of Nithirat are threatening violence if Nithirat is not shut up. Caving in to these threats is not the right thing to do.
What should be suppressed is not Nithirat’s discussion of Article 112 but the violent threats that are made against them. These are criminal actions that should be prosecuted. Dr Somkid should be insisting that this happens and ensuring the protection of his staff.
This brings back memories of the case of Salman Rushdie. Rushdie was condemned in some quarters for having inspired the death threats (and actual murders of people who were associated with the publication of The Satanic Verses). He was apparently to blame for having upset violent fanatics. And therefore these critics said, he should apologize and shut up. These were often liberal critics who claimed that they supported freedom of speech but their logic was that freedom of speech could only be retained by not actually exercising it.
A couple of weeks ago I learnt that Dr Somkid had resisted pressure from similar fanatics and had allowed the student Karn Thoop to study at Thammasat. It was clear that he didn’t agree with her political opinions but he rightly saw her enrolment as having nothing to do with his personal opinions. This was the right thing to do.
I’m sure it’s difficult being Rector of Thammasat. But being “righteous and appropriate” is part of the job description and it is what he is paid for. I hope Rector Somkid who I’m sure has the best interests of the university and its members at heart will reverse this shocking decision.
I am 64 years old and married to a fantastic Thai woman from a great family. It is the best relationship I have had in my life so I do not want people to generalise from what I say here.
Nonetheless I think more people should be aware of what can happen when things go wrong in Thailand. Incidents like these remind me to be very careful in my daily dealings with Thais.
I just read this interesting argument from Marzuki.
I think there is a need for full disclosure. Marzuki is the Special Advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister. I also understand that the current UMNO Chief Minister in Perak – who benefited from this decision, Dr. Zambry, is a former colleague of Marzuki at the International Islamic University.
[This is an interesting university. It has just censured an academic that gave an expert view that displeased the status quo.]
Citing a case that supports a view cannot be the only basis for making such an important decision. It has to be more than that.
For a more competent, broader and considered view, New Mandala readers should also consult retired Court of Appeals judge, NH Chan’s interpretations in the two articles cited below. Judge NH Chan retired with his credibility and integrity intact – unlike most of the other senior judges in Malaysia.
In this ARTICLE, he discusses the tussle between the Sultan of Perak and the Menteri Besar/Chief Minister and puts it in a proper context.
In this ARTICLE, he discusses the limits of the monarch in Malaysia’s Federal Constitution.
A more competent and considered view from various perspectives on this event is also put forward by several of Malaysia’s most prominent members of the legal fraternity in this book , Perak: A State of Crisis
The consensus view remains that this was extra-constitutional because the fact remains that the Sultan/Supreme Head of State cannot remove the Chief Minister or a Prime Minister. Otherwise the whole concept of Constitutional monarchy – where the Monarchs reign and not rule is undermined and the will of the people are negated.
Jon, my concern is that neoliberalism is often associated with a rejection of equitable public provisions of education, health care and other social services, increased inequality, restrictions on organised labour, and increased power for corporations and financial elite to set political and economic agendas.
To clarify my earlier point, the choices facing the people of Myanmar regarding their politico-economic concerns cannot be reduced to a false dichotomy of authoritarian state socialism vs. an absolute form of neoliberalism.
Consider the important and thoughtful speech delivered by economist U Myint at last yearโs poverty reduction conference in Naypyidaw. Amongst other things, U Myint stated that:
โ… unless these issues of inequality are tackled, it will be difficult to raise living standards of the poor.โ
โ… every person must have access to basic education, primary health care, and other essential services. Without these, the poor and their children will have little opportunity to improve their economic status or even to participate fully in society.โ
โAnother issue which has not received much attention is that something like the enclosure movement that took place in England just prior to the Industrial Revolution is taking place in the Myanmar countryside. Every village has what are called the village commons, such as forests where village people can fetch firewood, meadows where their cattle can graze, and streams, lakes and ponds where they can catch fish. Now these are being fenced off by some local authorities to generate revenue for themselves and the common rights are no longer available to the village folk.โ
In response, โlibertarianโ pundit David Shellenberger from the US who seems to have absolutely no connection with or knowledge of contemporary Myanmar put out an ill-informed critique of U Myintโs speech, suggesting instead that for the sake of โprosperityโ in Myanmar there should be no public health or education provisions and that the issue of inequality should be not be taken into account.
Thankfully U Myint is the more respected voice in Myanmar. And Iโll add that the October 2011 legalisation of labour union formation in Myanmar is a positive step for the country.
Why comparing Thailand with other counties in the SEA in terms of one being “more democratic”? For one, democracy doesn’t have a “degree” you either have or have not. You can have it in one form or another but you can’t have more or less of it.
Furthermore, why ask “Ever wonder why there were no coups between 1992 and 2006?”‘??? really, I think the bigger question is “Ever wonder why we have 18 coups and other countless coup attempted in the past 60 years?” Coup is so common in Thailand’s history that it has become part of our political system, is our history start from 1992?
Maybe before calling someone else “stupid” (sorry but buffalos doesn’t really translated to stupid in english so I assumed you meant stupid). You might want to reread your question a bit and think about it.
In a time where connectivity is ubiquitous and the movement of people and ideas are (relatively) unimpeded, it should be the case that we would do better to look beyond a common birthplace as a foundation of identity. Shaw was certainly making a whole lot of sense with “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it”
A sentiment of “we own the country and it is up to us to do [something] about it” seems rather difficult to swallow considering the widening gap between the Nation and the State.
So …I’ll reiterate that this was a very poor show from Pavin Chachavalpongpun. Ordinarily you’d expect to see this kind of material on a third-rate blog but here we are five days later, only one article published on New Mandala since. Was it just intended to be a filler? Or is it actually some kind of test? Perhaps the commenter with the most red thumbs will be declared the winner? Is the real Pavin Chachavalpongpun going to jump out, Baron Munchausen style, and declare that he’s not interested in princesses, that he just wanted to rouse the oppressed anti-royalists?
In addition to sounding generally spiteful, it seems this former diplomat (according to New Mandala) doesn’t know what “ัโะงัโโฃัโะตัโะัโะณัโโัโะปัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะฑ” means, or is very very reluctant to explain the meaning to New Mandala’s readers. In addition I expect he’s not much of a film-goer. A Thai actress would surely feel elated to be ranked alongside Madonna … but this anti-rolaist seems to want to rank the royals so much higher. In addition it seems like with his “she has continued to appear in many films”, that Pavin is being slipshod with the truth, almost certainly with his own research.
It is not correct to compare the reform in China with what has happened in Burma,in China,the reform was genuine and initiated by leader Deng whose power was never under any threat,it was totally different from Burma when basically military government response to hold on to political power.
So far it was all claims but the last winner of 1990 elections Ms Su Kyi has said she trusted the President,so the ball in now in his court.
Ms Su Kyi has asked for constitution amendments to exclude provisions that give the military wide-ranging powers, including the power to occupy a quarter of the seats in Parliament, appoint key cabinet members and seize total control of the government in a state of emergency.
It is prudent to watch the generals’ response carefully.
“Perhaps it is time for a Thai charged with Lese Majeste to walk into the American Embassy and Request Political Asylum to bring this issue to a head.”
Exactly. or they could do it in the USA. All they need is a Faccebook ‘like’. If they do it en masse, the amount of uncomfort they would bring to the US government would be a think of beauty.
Longway@36. You are right. In 2001, following the election of the TRT, and with the 1997 constitution in place, Thailand was arguably the most democratic country in the region.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
It is nothing (much) to do with the faculty Dean, reactionary law faculty colleagues of Nittirat, or the Rector, but in fact the amaat who pressured Somkit Lertpaithoon. At the same time Thammasat University Alumni (Chuan Lekpai has been told by higher authority to start agitating here) tightening the screws. Somkit was actually called in by Sumet Tantivejkul, a ever powerful figure (confidant of the monarch, as well as sitting on numerous royal committees and enterprise boards) to put the screws on Nittirat and forbid them from holding discussions on 112 on campus. In this scenario we can only expect greater conflict ahead as Nittirat is now seen as a real threat and generates a large following; a group to be taken more seriously. The amaat see it as time to restrict Nittirat before it gets too influential. Thammasat, as part of the amaat crackdown, are also proposing to ban any celebrations to Pridi and Puey…
Burma and the debates to come
Stephen: โAnother issue which has not received much attention is that something like the enclosure movement that took place in England just prior to the Industrial Revolution is taking place in the Myanmar countryside. Every village has what are called the village commons, such as forests where village people can fetch firewood, meadows where their cattle can graze, and streams, lakes and ponds where they can catch fish. Now these are being fenced off by some local authorities to generate revenue for themselves and the common rights are no longer available to the village folk.โ
Very similar to the land seizures by rich business people that have been happening in Cambodia in recent years or the more high-profile land seizure incidents in China. Both countries have powerful local elites and how to secure the rights of local poor against them is a good question (how were those rights protected in the past? has there really been some discontinuous change recently? or has this actually been a problem for a long time?). Land tenure is a tricky area involving legal traditions and laws, whether the laws are even enforced, whether people just ignore the laws and have a common accepted practices (in Thailand people often occupy land nominally owned by the central government with very little title to the land at all, sometimes the central government takes it back (like recent “land encrochment” incidents in national parks, sometimes they respect those rights (like Tai Lue next to the river in Mae Sai who were going to have their land seized for a riverside park but the government backed off).
I just find invoking blanket terms such as “neo-liberalism” (“libertarianism” too) to not be very productive since it is individual problems that must be solved, not mass replacements of a whole economic system and I think changes have been a lot more continous and gradual than you would suspect. Local economies in Burma vary widely. For example, some places for example, only have a market a couple of times a week at a certain time of day, still use horse carts and hardly have electricity. When I lived in Burma (circa 2001-2, if you went to public hospital in downtown Yangon for a wide variety of life threatening problems you would probably simply die, e.g. acute kidney failure due to a downstream blockage in the ureter, the actual case I experienced firsthand with my mother-in-law). Education, at least when schools were actually open, was then affordable (the research assistant I hired when universities were closed was able to afford Yangon University tuition and was the son of a Upper Burma Mon Ywa farmer). As for the future, I am sure Burma will probably encounter the full spectrum of problems that their neighbours in Asia (Thailand, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, etc) have experienced. The important thing is that they are starting to head down that path, instead of remaining isolated and cut off from the world for decade after decade with a population getting more and more poor by the year. I am sure it is this 49 years of isolation that has made Burma so poor not “economic liberalization” (the meaning of which I find unclear given Burma’s tortuous recent history) ๐
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
“This could create major rifts and possibly incite violent conflict within the university itself.”
rephrased . . .
“Making controversial proposals to change the constitution will result in you getting violently attacked. It is safer that we suppress your speech. Plus, it’s easier to suppress what you say than present a reasoned counter-argument.”
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
Somkid actually has a good point, although in his pragmatism he’s acknowledging his own cowardice.
He criticizes Nitirat -> he gets criticized by Nitirat.
He gives in to Nitirat -> he gets critized even more by the royalists.
So he decides to make a pragmatic decision and give in to the louder voices of the royalists, regardless of “righteous or appropriate”. He’s figured that it’s just too darn hard to make a principled stand, and is basing his decision on whichever dog barks loudest.
This cowardice doesn’t exactly make him a role model to the student body, but then again that’s why he’s an administrator rather than an instructor. Hopefully, he’ll get a promotion through to the Royal Institute rather than shape the next generation of Thammasat graduates.
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
‘ Already, Nitiratโs activity has been marginalized by much of the mainstream media (particularly TV), with a notable exception of Matichon, Bangkok Post and Thai PBS ‘
So… they’re out in the streets… with the people burning them in effigy.
They know that. They’re setting them up for execution…. hanging and burning… 6 October all over again.
Pushing Nitirat to the edge
Speaking as a staff member at Thammasat, I’m very disappointed by this decision.
Nithirat have not issued death threats or burnt people in effigy. They have not even called for disobedience to the current law. They have legitimately as citizens and academics advocated changes in the law. They have committed no crimes. Yet it is they who are being forbidden from speaking.
Dr Somkid has referred elsewhere to previous events in Thammasat’s history as a justification for this suppression of academic freedom. The rationale seems to be that free speech and enquiry – which is all that Nithirat can be accused of – may provoke violent reactions from those who are against free speech and enquiry and in favour of violent suppression of it when they don’t agree with it.
I understand his fears but his remedy gets it all wrong.
It is not right to sign up to a protection racket. Some critics of Nithirat are threatening violence if Nithirat is not shut up. Caving in to these threats is not the right thing to do.
What should be suppressed is not Nithirat’s discussion of Article 112 but the violent threats that are made against them. These are criminal actions that should be prosecuted. Dr Somkid should be insisting that this happens and ensuring the protection of his staff.
This brings back memories of the case of Salman Rushdie. Rushdie was condemned in some quarters for having inspired the death threats (and actual murders of people who were associated with the publication of The Satanic Verses). He was apparently to blame for having upset violent fanatics. And therefore these critics said, he should apologize and shut up. These were often liberal critics who claimed that they supported freedom of speech but their logic was that freedom of speech could only be retained by not actually exercising it.
A couple of weeks ago I learnt that Dr Somkid had resisted pressure from similar fanatics and had allowed the student Karn Thoop to study at Thammasat. It was clear that he didn’t agree with her political opinions but he rightly saw her enrolment as having nothing to do with his personal opinions. This was the right thing to do.
I’m sure it’s difficult being Rector of Thammasat. But being “righteous and appropriate” is part of the job description and it is what he is paid for. I hope Rector Somkid who I’m sure has the best interests of the university and its members at heart will reverse this shocking decision.
A catalogue of threats against the Khana Nitirat
Ref my comment #34
I am 64 years old and married to a fantastic Thai woman from a great family. It is the best relationship I have had in my life so I do not want people to generalise from what I say here.
Nonetheless I think more people should be aware of what can happen when things go wrong in Thailand. Incidents like these remind me to be very careful in my daily dealings with Thais.
http://www.andrew-drummond.com/view-story.php?sid=503
Left out of reconciliation?
Fantastic article, thank you.
A catalogue of threats against the Khana Nitirat
ัโะธัโโคัโะนัโะฒัโฃะัโฃะัโะัโฃะัโโ ัโฃะัโะตัโโัโะธัโโคัโะนัโะฒัโฃะัโะซัโโัโะัโะัโโัโะชัโโัโะฉ ัโะัโะฃัโโัโะทัโโัโะณัโะบัโโัโะณัโะธัโโัโะบัโะฅัโะณัโฃะ ัโะฑ.ัโะจัโะณัโะณัโะฑัโะธัโโัโะบัโะฅัโะณัโฃะ ัโะฉัโโัโะคัโะณัโะทัโะฑัโะฎัโะต 2 ัโะ.ัโะฎ. ัโฃะัโะัโะตัโโัโฃะัโะฝัโะฉัโฃะัโะปัโะทัโะฅัโฃะัโโัโะฉัโะฉัโโคัโะฅัโโคัโะณัโโัโะนัโะัโะณัโฃะ ัโะฎัโะณัโฃะัโะฝัโะฑัโฃะัโะณัโโกัโะฒัโะัโะณัโฃะัโะฝัโะัโฃะัโะปัโฃะ ัโะฑัโะปัโโัโะทัโโคัโะงัโะฒัโโัโะตัโโัโะฒ ัโะบัโะฝัโะชัโะบัโะทัโะฉัโะคัโโัโฃะัโะฉัโโคัโะฉัโะัโะคัโโกัโะงัโโัโะัโะฝัโโัโะัโโัโะัโโัโะชัโะัโะตัโโัโฃะัโะฑัโะฉัโโคัโะฅัโโคัโะณัโโัโะนัโะัโะณัโฃะ
ัโะัโะตัโโัโฃะัโะฑัโะธัโโคัโะนัโะฒัโฃะัโฃะัโะัโฃะัโโัโฃะัโะตัโโัโะธัโโคัโะนัโะฒัโฃะัโะซัโโัโะัโะัโโัโะชัโโัโะฉ ัโะัโะฃัโโัโะทัโโัโะณัโะบัโโัโะณัโะธัโโัโะบัโะฅัโะณัโฃะัโฃะัโะตัโโัโะบัโโัโฃะัโะฝัโะบัโโัโะณัโะฑัโะทัโะตัโะัโะฉ ัโะฑัโะปัโโัโะทัโโคัโะงัโะฒัโโัโะตัโโัโะฒัโะจัโะณัโะณัโะฑัโะธัโโัโะบัโะฅัโะณัโฃะ ัโฃะัโะตัโโัโฃะัโะฉัโะทัโะณัโฃะัโะทัโะฑัโะณัโะทัโะฑัโะฎัโะตัโโัโะัโะซัโะัโะซัโฃะัโะฝัโะัโะบัโะฆัโโัโะชัโโัโะฉ ัโะฎัโะณัโโัโะฑัโะปัโโัโะัโะนัโโัโะฅัโะณัโโคัโะฒัโฃะัโฃะัโะตัโโัโะซัโะัโะซัโฃะัโะฝัโะัโะบัโะฆัโโัโะชัโโัโะฉ ัโะฑัโะปัโโัโะทัโโคัโะงัโะฒัโโัโะตัโโัโะฒัโะจัโะณัโะณัโะฑัโะธัโโัโะบัโะฅัโะณัโฃะ ัโฃะัโะคัโฃะัโฃะัโะฌัโะฒัโฃะัโะฎัโะณัโฃะัโฃะัโะฝัโะัโะบัโโัโะณัโะัโฃะัโะฝัโะฑัโโฃัโะตัโะฌัโฃะัโโัโะฉัโฃะัโะทัโฃะัโะชัโฃะัโะัโะฅัโฃะัโฃะัโะฏัโะัโะชัโโัโฃะัโะ ัโะซัโะณัโโัโะัโโัโะธัโฃะัโะัโะฅัโะฉัโโัโะณัโะฑัโะฃัโฃะ ัโะฅัโฃะัโะฝัโะฅัโฃะัโโัโะฉัโะัโโัโะณัโะัโะณัโโัโะงัโโัโะัโะฝัโะัโะัโะฃัโโัโะฉัโโคัโะฅัโโคัโะณัโโัโะนัโะัโะณัโฃะ ัโะงัโโกัโฃะัโฃะัโะัโฃะัโะัโโัโฃะัโะฝัโะฑัโะปัโโัโะทัโโคัโะงัโะฒัโโัโะตัโโัโะฒ ัโะบัโะณัโฃะัโโัโะัโะัโะทัโโัโะฑัโะัโะฝัโะชัโะจัโะณัโะณัโะฑัโฃะัโะฉัโะัโโัโะณัโฃะัโะัโะตัโโัโฃะัโะฝัโะฉัโฃะัโะปัโะทัโฃะัโะัโฃะัโฃะัโะัโะัโะัโะปัโะฑัโโัโะฒัโะฝัโโัโะัโโ ัโะฑัโโัโะฅัโะณัโโ 112
ัโะณัโะทัโะฑัโะงัโโัโฃะัโะัโฃะัโะณัโโกัโะฒัโะัโะณัโฃะัโะฝัโะัโฃะัโะปัโฃะัโะฝัโะจัโโคัโะัโโัโะณัโะชัโะคัโโก ัโฃะัโะปัโฃะัโะฑัโโกัโะัโโัโะณัโะบัโะฝัโะชัโะบัโะทัโะฉัโฃะัโะฝัโโัโะฌัโโคัโะคัโะงัโโัโะัโะทัโโคัโะฉัโโัโะฒัโฃะัโะตัโโัโะงัโโัโะัโะัโะัโะปัโะฑัโโัโะฒัโะฝัโโัโะัโโัโะัโโัโะชัโะัโะฃัโโัโะฉัโโคัโะฅัโโคัโะณัโโัโะนัโะัโะณัโฃะ ัโฃะัโะคัโะฒัโะัโะตัโโัโฃะัโะฑัโะคัโโัโะัโะัโะตัโฃะัโโัโะทัโฃะัโะคัโฃะัโะฉัโโัโะคัโะณัโะทัโะฑัโะฎัโะตัโะปัโะฉัโฃะัโโ ัโะัโะฃัโโัโะทัโโัโะณัโะบัโโัโะณัโะธัโโัโะบัโะฅัโะณัโฃะ ัโฃะัโะฉัโะทัโโัโะฉัโะฎัโะดัโะปัโโัโะบัโะชัโะคัโโกัโะงัโโกัโฃะ 2 ัโะ.ัโะฎ.ัโะฉัโโกัโฃะ ัโฃะัโะทัโะตัโโ 14.00 ัโะฉ. ัโฃะัโะคัโะฒัโะฑัโโกัโะัโโคัโะัโะัโะณัโะณัโะฑัโฃะัโะคัโโคัโะฉัโะัโะชัโะทัโะฉัโฃะัโะบัโะคัโะัโะฎัโะตัโโัโะัโะซัโะณัโโัโะัโโัโะธัโฃะัโะัโะฅัโะฉัโโัโะณัโะฑัโะฃัโฃะ ัโะงัโโกัโฃะ ัโะตัโโัโะฉัโะซัโะณัโโกัโะคัโโก ัโะฅัโโัโะทัโฃะัโะงัโะฉัโะธัโโคัโะนัโะฒัโฃะัโฃะัโะัโฃะัโโ ัโะฒัโโัโฃะัโะฉัโะปัโะฉัโโัโะัโะบัโโัโะฝัโะฅัโฃะัโะฝัโะฝัโะจัโโคัโะัโโัโะณัโะชัโะคัโโก ัโะงัโโกัโฃะัโะฅัโโขัโะัโฃะัโะคัโะฑ ัโะซัโโคัโะคัโะงัโฃะัโโัโะฒัโะคัโฃะัโะทัโะฒัโะัโโคัโะัโะัโะณัโะณัโะฑัโะัโโัโะณัโะณัโฃะัโะฝัโะัโฃะัโะฎัโะตัโะัโะฆัโะทัโโัโะฒัโะฎัโะณัโโัโะฎัโะณ ัโะปัโโัโะฉัโะปัโะฉัโฃะัโโัโฃะัโะซัโะฒัโโัโะัโฃะัโะณัโะัโะฎัโะฒัโโัโะชัโโัโะตัโะธัโโคัโะณัโโคัโะณัโโัโะ
Will UMNO give up power?
I just read this interesting argument from Marzuki.
I think there is a need for full disclosure. Marzuki is the Special Advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister. I also understand that the current UMNO Chief Minister in Perak – who benefited from this decision, Dr. Zambry, is a former colleague of Marzuki at the International Islamic University.
[This is an interesting university. It has just censured an academic that gave an expert view that displeased the status quo.]
Citing a case that supports a view cannot be the only basis for making such an important decision. It has to be more than that.
For a more competent, broader and considered view, New Mandala readers should also consult retired Court of Appeals judge, NH Chan’s interpretations in the two articles cited below. Judge NH Chan retired with his credibility and integrity intact – unlike most of the other senior judges in Malaysia.
In this ARTICLE, he discusses the tussle between the Sultan of Perak and the Menteri Besar/Chief Minister and puts it in a proper context.
In this ARTICLE, he discusses the limits of the monarch in Malaysia’s Federal Constitution.
A more competent and considered view from various perspectives on this event is also put forward by several of Malaysia’s most prominent members of the legal fraternity in this book , Perak: A State of Crisis
The consensus view remains that this was extra-constitutional because the fact remains that the Sultan/Supreme Head of State cannot remove the Chief Minister or a Prime Minister. Otherwise the whole concept of Constitutional monarchy – where the Monarchs reign and not rule is undermined and the will of the people are negated.
Burma and the debates to come
Jon, my concern is that neoliberalism is often associated with a rejection of equitable public provisions of education, health care and other social services, increased inequality, restrictions on organised labour, and increased power for corporations and financial elite to set political and economic agendas.
To clarify my earlier point, the choices facing the people of Myanmar regarding their politico-economic concerns cannot be reduced to a false dichotomy of authoritarian state socialism vs. an absolute form of neoliberalism.
Consider the important and thoughtful speech delivered by economist U Myint at last yearโs poverty reduction conference in Naypyidaw. Amongst other things, U Myint stated that:
In response, โlibertarianโ pundit David Shellenberger from the US who seems to have absolutely no connection with or knowledge of contemporary Myanmar put out an ill-informed critique of U Myintโs speech, suggesting instead that for the sake of โprosperityโ in Myanmar there should be no public health or education provisions and that the issue of inequality should be not be taken into account.
Thankfully U Myint is the more respected voice in Myanmar. And Iโll add that the October 2011 legalisation of labour union formation in Myanmar is a positive step for the country.
Pheua Thai but for lese majeste
Longway – 36
What’s the point of the questions?
Why comparing Thailand with other counties in the SEA in terms of one being “more democratic”? For one, democracy doesn’t have a “degree” you either have or have not. You can have it in one form or another but you can’t have more or less of it.
Furthermore, why ask “Ever wonder why there were no coups between 1992 and 2006?”‘??? really, I think the bigger question is “Ever wonder why we have 18 coups and other countless coup attempted in the past 60 years?” Coup is so common in Thailand’s history that it has become part of our political system, is our history start from 1992?
Maybe before calling someone else “stupid” (sorry but buffalos doesn’t really translated to stupid in english so I assumed you meant stupid). You might want to reread your question a bit and think about it.
Everyday lives of the Malaysian diaspora
In a time where connectivity is ubiquitous and the movement of people and ideas are (relatively) unimpeded, it should be the case that we would do better to look beyond a common birthplace as a foundation of identity. Shaw was certainly making a whole lot of sense with “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it”
A sentiment of “we own the country and it is up to us to do [something] about it” seems rather difficult to swallow considering the widening gap between the Nation and the State.
Corruption in Malaysia and Singapore
Edelmanโs 2012 Trust Barometer finds that 52% of Malaysians trust the Barisan Nasional government.
Not bad – a simple majority.
A catalogue of threats against the Khana Nitirat
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2012/01/24/a-catalogue-of-threats-against-the-khana-nitirat… […]
Princess Ubolratana in Queen Jamadevi
So …I’ll reiterate that this was a very poor show from Pavin Chachavalpongpun. Ordinarily you’d expect to see this kind of material on a third-rate blog but here we are five days later, only one article published on New Mandala since. Was it just intended to be a filler? Or is it actually some kind of test? Perhaps the commenter with the most red thumbs will be declared the winner? Is the real Pavin Chachavalpongpun going to jump out, Baron Munchausen style, and declare that he’s not interested in princesses, that he just wanted to rouse the oppressed anti-royalists?
In addition to sounding generally spiteful, it seems this former diplomat (according to New Mandala) doesn’t know what “ัโะงัโโฃัโะตัโะัโะณัโโัโะปัโะฑัโฃะัโะฝัโะฑ” means, or is very very reluctant to explain the meaning to New Mandala’s readers. In addition I expect he’s not much of a film-goer. A Thai actress would surely feel elated to be ranked alongside Madonna … but this anti-rolaist seems to want to rank the royals so much higher. In addition it seems like with his “she has continued to appear in many films”, that Pavin is being slipshod with the truth, almost certainly with his own research.
Burma and the debates to come
It is not correct to compare the reform in China with what has happened in Burma,in China,the reform was genuine and initiated by leader Deng whose power was never under any threat,it was totally different from Burma when basically military government response to hold on to political power.
So far it was all claims but the last winner of 1990 elections Ms Su Kyi has said she trusted the President,so the ball in now in his court.
Ms Su Kyi has asked for constitution amendments to exclude provisions that give the military wide-ranging powers, including the power to occupy a quarter of the seats in Parliament, appoint key cabinet members and seize total control of the government in a state of emergency.
It is prudent to watch the generals’ response carefully.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
“Perhaps it is time for a Thai charged with Lese Majeste to walk into the American Embassy and Request Political Asylum to bring this issue to a head.”
Exactly. or they could do it in the USA. All they need is a Faccebook ‘like’. If they do it en masse, the amount of uncomfort they would bring to the US government would be a think of beauty.
On Thailand’s submarine ambitions
Longway@36. You are right. In 2001, following the election of the TRT, and with the 1997 constitution in place, Thailand was arguably the most democratic country in the region.
On Thailand’s submarine ambitions
Shouldn’t the navy make their own submarines as part of their on-going program of sufficiency economy ships?