Thailand is an exceptional and unique country, culture with a unique and exceptional people and a King whose wife, son and daughters are also unique and exceptional without any faults at all. There is no need, no cause and no reason for any criticism, verbal or written, or for that mater any critical thought when it comes to the King of Thailand and his family.
This is the reason why 100% of all Thais revere and love their King, his wife and their superior children. Any foreign person who does not agree with this Thai way of thinking should mind their own business and keep their mouth shut.
Otherwise, if the foreign person lives in Thailand or visits Thailand, we will arrest them, throw them in a prison cell with 20 other criminals, feed them rice gruel once a day and let them use a hole in the floor for their toilet. End of story.
verse (2: 256), Allah says “Let there be no coercion in religion.”
I really like this verse. If Allah said that, then all you practitioners of Islam are going against Allah’s words by forcing death upon those who choose not to believe anymore.
It is a simple statement. There is no need for further interpretation. DO NOT twist Allah’s words.
The problem here is that much of the topic matter is moving in the purely speculative realm. When you refer to Crispin’s theories of a so called “Brunai agreement” there is no hard evidence of this ever having taken place other than “anonymous sources”. Was there “a deal” made, or are there just ongoing talks? I am very reluctant to believe anything unless i get reliable corroboration.
As to LM – again, very difficult. What i do know for certain is that investigating police has very little leverage. Above a certain level things are very murky, and in some cases i am aware off police officers have very clear directives that the result of their investigations are to be forwarded to the prosecutor.
In other cases i know police was nominally in charge of investigations, while in reality the investigation units have been (are?) headed by army/ISOC.
But again – nobody will go on record, and there is no paper trail.
In case of LM how much power does the elected government really have? Could the government afford not to toe the line openly? The next anti-government/protect the monarchy opposition is already forming up – Siam Sammakki. While this group seems to still be seen by many as the little radical brother of the PAD, it is generally ignored which groups in fact have formed an alliance there, and which power networks their leading figures are allied to.
There is enough precedence that the army decides when it will follow orders of the government, and when it will not – such as in 2008 under the Samak and the Somchai governments when the army did not follow orders of the government, both when Samak declared the emergency decree and during the airport occupation. In the much more sensitive issue of LM would the army tolerate any attempt of amendments of the 112 laws by the elected government? I wonder. Even under the Abhisit government, General Prayudh filed a case against Prof. Somsak which went quite against stated policy of Abhisit, who in an interview just before the elections with a few other journalists and me answered on this issue which was quite clear that he was not exactly comfortable with these charges.
Lets not forget the army’s highest loyalty (Prem’s jockey speech in 2006 was a clear reminder), and that the army is in this aspect a completely independent entity only under its own control.
The question here remains, can any elected government in Thailand afford to propose any amendments to soften the 112 laws?
What do we really know about the position of the palace? Is there a position of the palace? Many cite the king’s comments regarding criticism, but were these comments really that clear and supportive, or have there been subtleties lost in translation? This speech was several years in the past, when Thailand did not face the situation it faces now. What is the position now? We have no public comments from that side yet. The only public comment we have that has touched the issue somehow is the Woody interview, and in that interview the thoughts expressed were quite opposite of what many people here wish.
What do we really know? I think far too little.
I think the only thing we can possibly do right now is closely observing what will occur on street level over the coming months, as then we may be able to have more educated guesses on how the elite level position regarding this issue may be, and/or how elite level positions may shift/adapt/ form in reaction to street level positions.
One thing we know – the conflict remains to be in a flux.
Wah Limpeh, u not scare ISD jio u lim kopi when u come back to Sillypore ar? Ur England sipeh powderful leh.
GIC lose billions still can become president. Temasek lose billions still can find kangtao as CEO. I also stay near Tampini, one day if I not lucky my flat will sure kana en-bloc. Heng ah.
Limpeh u should write more lah. Dat bridge sibeh important one mah. U dun talk cock at all. Talkingcock actually seemed banned in Indonesia so cannot check. Wat I doing in Indonesia? Learning from Indos on democracy. They very passionate liddat. Maybe dey take democratic decision to ban cock I dunno lah. Can u imagine, we fall behind Indo on sthn?! Sibeh shameful one.
Seems that the thinking of Maratjp on the none hand and Advocate & Ralph on the other are going in opposite directions.
After the absence of any outcry at the way Obama, Clinton & co watched a live transmission of the assassination that they had clearly ordered of the untried Osama bin Laden, and the failure of any state to lay charges against the USA for the illegal imprisonment of their nationals at Guantanamo it is hard not to be as pessimistic as Maratjp.
While it is understandable that US citizens in Thailand are furious a the weak support given Joe Gordon by the State Dapartment, it is hard to see how they could have done more without their hypocrisy being exposed.
John Francis Lee #30, your recommendation is a good process. The problem is the Salims won’t do it. It does take some big hit for a Thai to lose faith in the Royals and start asking questions and view things objectively. Many of Thaksin supporters had been ‘hit’ by the coup, the Palace’s blatant act of side taking, as well as massacre. This is why they have lost faith in the Royals and start asking questions and analyse everything objectively.
As the Salims have yet to be ‘hit’ by something big which affects them, they would not lose faith in their beloved Royals yet. The day where they would open their eyes and start asking what is the reality is yet to come.
Technology is changing the world we live and ultimately it’s going to change laws, especially international law. Gordon wrote/linked to a book that is obviously considered a tactical nuclear bomb aimed at the King of Thailand, and thus a threat not only to him, but the state, the nation of Thailand. In the eyes of the Thai government this book is a threat to national security and so laws can be thrown out the window because of self defense. So it doesn’t matter where someone has written anything or linked to anything because it was read in Thailand. Anwar al-Awlaki was eliminated regardless of the laws where he was living because of what he was saying on the internet and in person against the US. Bin Laden was eliminated regardless of the laws of national sovereignty in killing him. Although I don’t think we can equate Joe Gordon with Bin Laden and al-Awlaki, the Thai government will look at anyone, especially Thais, or dual citizens, who dare to criticize this high institution regardless of where it was done, in this light.
I wonder where international law is going with all of this. Where is the line between criticism and free speech and acts of terrorism?
And for all of you PAD/ultra royalists/Democrats/government censors out there reading this: You deserve all of this bathroom graffiti ugliness written on web boards on the internet because you are so arrogant not to allow the Thai people to openly and respectfully discuss the most political institution in their lives. Your arrogance is destroying the very institution you say you love.
The Thai people will not be silenced. Thailand belongs to its people, not to a clique.
I have read and re-read the article but am still unable to arrive at a definitive answer.
In a land where everyone is Muslim and one who is not Muslim could be viewed as an enemy, I can understand the need for execution as an appropriate remedy, even if I don’t accept it.
But in a plural society such as Malaysia, where Muslims have not just non-Muslim friends but also non-Muslim family members, how does one countenance a non-Muslim being an enemy? And why would one who chooses to leave Islam become an enemy?
If the person is not an enemy, how is the Ummah threatened that they should seek to execute him?
If a person has decided that he no longer wishes to submit to the will of Allah, is that not a matter between him and Allah? Why should man interfere?
If a person decides that the manner in which Islam is being practiced by the Ummah is contrary to what he understands of Qur’an and therefore he chooses to leave that community and follow his own path, who is to say that he is wrong? Is it not proper to let Allah, who knows all, decide what to do with that person?
1) What is to be made of a religion that forbids a man to think and choose for himself? In effect, Islam is a type of religious slavery. “Leave Islam, and you die”.
2) How does this mental bondage affect society, and its ability to provide for its people?
3) Leaving Islam doesn’t necessarily mean a person is now at war with his people. Isn’t it possible for a person who is born a Muslim to serve his country, and do no harm to its people?
I would like to inquire if there is a typo in this sentence of yours: “The difference of opinion amongst the Muslim jurists should not be the reason of baseless allegation on the compatibility of Islamic law with human rights particularly freedom of religion.”
Do you mean “incompatibility” instead of “compatibility” in the above sentence?
Since Mr Gordon was in Colorado at the time of the acts which ultimately caused him to be incarcerated in Thailand, acts which everyone in America would agree are free and leagal based on the First Amendment of the US Constitution, I wonder if an action can be brought against the Thai Government for false imprisonment in US civil court located in that jurisdiction?
It could be an interesting civil case. Damages imense. A US jury, seeing pictures of him shakled, denied bail, etc. What would the jury think as just compensation?
So, is Yingluck a redshirt or not? Am I alone in thinking there is some doubt about this? As far as I can see she has no appetite at all for a social agenda which would address the inequalities and injustices which plague the poor.
As for 112 her deafening silence on possible reform speaks volumes.
Jim Tayor (#19) – it’s simply not correct to say that the government has no power – quite the opposite.
Thaksin and his various political parties have demonstrated that they cannot be destroyed as a political force. Yes, they can be overthrown in a coup, military or judicial, but only by invoking the support of the monarchy. But the royalists’ use of the monarchy since 2005 to try to attack Thaksin and to overthrow governments with mass support has politicized the monarchy to an extent that is EXTREMELY dangerous to its future survival.
Right now the monarchy is a hostage to Thaksin.
The PT government will go through the motions of cracking down on LM and declare its loyalty to the monarchy in order to maintain a working relationship with the Palace, keep the more moderate royalists happy, and “maintain the peace” in a very polarized society. But if the Palace and the royalists start to seriously destabilize the government all Thaksin has to do is to threaten to carry through with his reform of the LM law. I think that is why shortly after PT formed government Thaksin (through Yinglak) publicly declared that the govt. would consider reforming the way the LM law was being used. In other words, a veiled threat.
People should not underestimate what reforming LM really means. Reforming the LM law would immediately end the monarchy’s political influence. It could no longer intervene behind the scenes without a huge public outcry. But more than that, without a much broader reform of the monarchy (of the kind that Somsak has argued for) reforming or abolishing LM could lead to the end of the monarchy itself. How could the monarchy survive if 60 million Thais were allowed to talk freely about the 1946 regicide, 6 October, and all the other skeletons in its closet? Its legitimacy would be destroyed overnight.
In fact, the ultra-royalists’ “overkill” in their use of and support for the LM law also benefits Thaksin. The opposition among liberals in Thailand about LM, and the increasing publicity about LM in the “international community”, puts pressure on the monarchy and its supporters. It isolates them more and more by showing the monarchy to be a medieval and oppressive institution that has no place in a modern democracy. Thaksin wins both ways.
That’s why it’s the royalists who have come out expressing their concern about the way the LM law is being used. Each sentence that a judge hands down is destroying the monarchy’s reputation.
So all in all I think the govt. is currently in a very powerful position.
I hope Malaysia loses all its “faith capital” as defined by the writer, then Malaysia can proceed to a system where “fairness”, justice etc is not dependent on one’s religion!
Vichai N #6. I would have thought it was pretty obvious why Chalerm has suddenly reassigned the men-in-black from the army to the police. Thaksin is desperate to form a pact with the top brass which he needs to co-opt in order to feel safer when comes home on his brand new Thai passport. The current top brass needs to be offered substantial incentives in order to get them to roll over and let PT amend the Defence Ministry Act. In addition to the usual financial incentives both on and offshore, the top brass needs convincing assurances that they will not be prosecuted for the 91 deaths. One good way to do that is to transfer the blame for the men-in-black and the murder of Seh Daeng on to the police and no doubt kill two birds with one stone by attacking the “epilectic” police commander, whoever he may be, at the same time. PT seems to have already cut a deal with the 2006 coup leaders, as evidenced by the fact that Gen Sonthi has been put in charge of a committee for the amnesty to bring back Thaksin which is unnecessary as Chalerm, who sports an ersatz law doctrate, had some one else draft the amnesty bill. The plan is obviously designed to amnesty all military leaders from all crimes and focus prosecutions on Abhisit and Suthep alone.
Re Section 112, what did you all expect? It was extremely obvious that PT would waste no time before initiating a crack down on LM, computer crime the media and generally doing whatever it can to suppress all forms of freedom of expression. That is the nature of the man…..whoops sorry, the party. The multi colours and greens protesting against freedom of expression outside the US embassy may well be from the lunatic right wing fringe but PT is very far from being a socialist movement representing ordinary farmers and workers, despite wishful thing from Jim Walker, Ralf Cramden, Ji Ungkaporn and others who veer towards the lunatic left wing fringe. It represents a revolutionary movement of a kind but the real objectives of that revolution are to replace the old guard amatiya with a new breed of parvenu amatiya who are more corrupt and greedy than the traditional bunch. As such, the mechanisms for repressing freedom of expression, such as 112 and the Computer Crimes Act are regarded as vital tools of the trade to be beefed up, rather than abolished.
1. People suffer because they are attached to illusions and impermanent materiality — their minds are filled with fears of loss.
2. Mass media are in the business of supplying illusions and feeding fears for the profit of the owners and sponsors of that media.
3. We have it in our power to question our indoctrination, to seek independent sources of information, to educate ourselves about political reality, and to stop consuming degrading, insulting and purely exploitative programming — we can make up our own minds.
4. There is a way of disciplined thought and ethical action that allows us to realize a personally meaningful life. The key is to be aware of what is manipulative propaganda, and what is factual. It is essential to develop critical thinking, and character — both of these require a continuing personal effort. This is possible if one is motivated. The reward is a life without fear, and with a bulletproof self-respect.
Your last point highlights the problem with concepts like “faith capital” and “social capital” more generally: we are led to construct our dialogue around these terms regardless of whether or not they mean anything.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s high calibre Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Thailand is an exceptional and unique country, culture with a unique and exceptional people and a King whose wife, son and daughters are also unique and exceptional without any faults at all. There is no need, no cause and no reason for any criticism, verbal or written, or for that mater any critical thought when it comes to the King of Thailand and his family.
This is the reason why 100% of all Thais revere and love their King, his wife and their superior children. Any foreign person who does not agree with this Thai way of thinking should mind their own business and keep their mouth shut.
Otherwise, if the foreign person lives in Thailand or visits Thailand, we will arrest them, throw them in a prison cell with 20 other criminals, feed them rice gruel once a day and let them use a hole in the floor for their toilet. End of story.
Refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam
verse (2: 256), Allah says “Let there be no coercion in religion.”
I really like this verse. If Allah said that, then all you practitioners of Islam are going against Allah’s words by forcing death upon those who choose not to believe anymore.
It is a simple statement. There is no need for further interpretation. DO NOT twist Allah’s words.
Another academic victim of 112
“Patrick Jory”:
The problem here is that much of the topic matter is moving in the purely speculative realm. When you refer to Crispin’s theories of a so called “Brunai agreement” there is no hard evidence of this ever having taken place other than “anonymous sources”. Was there “a deal” made, or are there just ongoing talks? I am very reluctant to believe anything unless i get reliable corroboration.
As to LM – again, very difficult. What i do know for certain is that investigating police has very little leverage. Above a certain level things are very murky, and in some cases i am aware off police officers have very clear directives that the result of their investigations are to be forwarded to the prosecutor.
In other cases i know police was nominally in charge of investigations, while in reality the investigation units have been (are?) headed by army/ISOC.
But again – nobody will go on record, and there is no paper trail.
In case of LM how much power does the elected government really have? Could the government afford not to toe the line openly? The next anti-government/protect the monarchy opposition is already forming up – Siam Sammakki. While this group seems to still be seen by many as the little radical brother of the PAD, it is generally ignored which groups in fact have formed an alliance there, and which power networks their leading figures are allied to.
There is enough precedence that the army decides when it will follow orders of the government, and when it will not – such as in 2008 under the Samak and the Somchai governments when the army did not follow orders of the government, both when Samak declared the emergency decree and during the airport occupation. In the much more sensitive issue of LM would the army tolerate any attempt of amendments of the 112 laws by the elected government? I wonder. Even under the Abhisit government, General Prayudh filed a case against Prof. Somsak which went quite against stated policy of Abhisit, who in an interview just before the elections with a few other journalists and me answered on this issue which was quite clear that he was not exactly comfortable with these charges.
Lets not forget the army’s highest loyalty (Prem’s jockey speech in 2006 was a clear reminder), and that the army is in this aspect a completely independent entity only under its own control.
The question here remains, can any elected government in Thailand afford to propose any amendments to soften the 112 laws?
What do we really know about the position of the palace? Is there a position of the palace? Many cite the king’s comments regarding criticism, but were these comments really that clear and supportive, or have there been subtleties lost in translation? This speech was several years in the past, when Thailand did not face the situation it faces now. What is the position now? We have no public comments from that side yet. The only public comment we have that has touched the issue somehow is the Woody interview, and in that interview the thoughts expressed were quite opposite of what many people here wish.
What do we really know? I think far too little.
I think the only thing we can possibly do right now is closely observing what will occur on street level over the coming months, as then we may be able to have more educated guesses on how the elite level position regarding this issue may be, and/or how elite level positions may shift/adapt/ form in reaction to street level positions.
One thing we know – the conflict remains to be in a flux.
Why Singapore government become like that?
Wah Limpeh, u not scare ISD jio u lim kopi when u come back to Sillypore ar? Ur England sipeh powderful leh.
GIC lose billions still can become president. Temasek lose billions still can find kangtao as CEO. I also stay near Tampini, one day if I not lucky my flat will sure kana en-bloc. Heng ah.
Why Singapore government become like that?
Limpeh u should write more lah. Dat bridge sibeh important one mah. U dun talk cock at all. Talkingcock actually seemed banned in Indonesia so cannot check. Wat I doing in Indonesia? Learning from Indos on democracy. They very passionate liddat. Maybe dey take democratic decision to ban cock I dunno lah. Can u imagine, we fall behind Indo on sthn?! Sibeh shameful one.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Seems that the thinking of Maratjp on the none hand and Advocate & Ralph on the other are going in opposite directions.
After the absence of any outcry at the way Obama, Clinton & co watched a live transmission of the assassination that they had clearly ordered of the untried Osama bin Laden, and the failure of any state to lay charges against the USA for the illegal imprisonment of their nationals at Guantanamo it is hard not to be as pessimistic as Maratjp.
While it is understandable that US citizens in Thailand are furious a the weak support given Joe Gordon by the State Dapartment, it is hard to see how they could have done more without their hypocrisy being exposed.
New Mandala: cowardly, stupid and lacking in wisdom
John Francis Lee #30, your recommendation is a good process. The problem is the Salims won’t do it. It does take some big hit for a Thai to lose faith in the Royals and start asking questions and view things objectively. Many of Thaksin supporters had been ‘hit’ by the coup, the Palace’s blatant act of side taking, as well as massacre. This is why they have lost faith in the Royals and start asking questions and analyse everything objectively.
As the Salims have yet to be ‘hit’ by something big which affects them, they would not lose faith in their beloved Royals yet. The day where they would open their eyes and start asking what is the reality is yet to come.
Refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam
Dr Hasan, in his roundabout way, has succeeded in reminding us that his religion is a prison.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Great idea Advocate, but could it be done? Are there precedents?
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Technology is changing the world we live and ultimately it’s going to change laws, especially international law. Gordon wrote/linked to a book that is obviously considered a tactical nuclear bomb aimed at the King of Thailand, and thus a threat not only to him, but the state, the nation of Thailand. In the eyes of the Thai government this book is a threat to national security and so laws can be thrown out the window because of self defense. So it doesn’t matter where someone has written anything or linked to anything because it was read in Thailand. Anwar al-Awlaki was eliminated regardless of the laws where he was living because of what he was saying on the internet and in person against the US. Bin Laden was eliminated regardless of the laws of national sovereignty in killing him. Although I don’t think we can equate Joe Gordon with Bin Laden and al-Awlaki, the Thai government will look at anyone, especially Thais, or dual citizens, who dare to criticize this high institution regardless of where it was done, in this light.
I wonder where international law is going with all of this. Where is the line between criticism and free speech and acts of terrorism?
And for all of you PAD/ultra royalists/Democrats/government censors out there reading this: You deserve all of this bathroom graffiti ugliness written on web boards on the internet because you are so arrogant not to allow the Thai people to openly and respectfully discuss the most political institution in their lives. Your arrogance is destroying the very institution you say you love.
The Thai people will not be silenced. Thailand belongs to its people, not to a clique.
Refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam
I have read and re-read the article but am still unable to arrive at a definitive answer.
In a land where everyone is Muslim and one who is not Muslim could be viewed as an enemy, I can understand the need for execution as an appropriate remedy, even if I don’t accept it.
But in a plural society such as Malaysia, where Muslims have not just non-Muslim friends but also non-Muslim family members, how does one countenance a non-Muslim being an enemy? And why would one who chooses to leave Islam become an enemy?
If the person is not an enemy, how is the Ummah threatened that they should seek to execute him?
If a person has decided that he no longer wishes to submit to the will of Allah, is that not a matter between him and Allah? Why should man interfere?
If a person decides that the manner in which Islam is being practiced by the Ummah is contrary to what he understands of Qur’an and therefore he chooses to leave that community and follow his own path, who is to say that he is wrong? Is it not proper to let Allah, who knows all, decide what to do with that person?
Refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam
QUESTIONS TO ZULKIFLI:
1) What is to be made of a religion that forbids a man to think and choose for himself? In effect, Islam is a type of religious slavery. “Leave Islam, and you die”.
2) How does this mental bondage affect society, and its ability to provide for its people?
3) Leaving Islam doesn’t necessarily mean a person is now at war with his people. Isn’t it possible for a person who is born a Muslim to serve his country, and do no harm to its people?
Refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam
Thank you for sharing your insight, Zulkifli.
I would like to inquire if there is a typo in this sentence of yours: “The difference of opinion amongst the Muslim jurists should not be the reason of baseless allegation on the compatibility of Islamic law with human rights particularly freedom of religion.”
Do you mean “incompatibility” instead of “compatibility” in the above sentence?
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Since Mr Gordon was in Colorado at the time of the acts which ultimately caused him to be incarcerated in Thailand, acts which everyone in America would agree are free and leagal based on the First Amendment of the US Constitution, I wonder if an action can be brought against the Thai Government for false imprisonment in US civil court located in that jurisdiction?
It could be an interesting civil case. Damages imense. A US jury, seeing pictures of him shakled, denied bail, etc. What would the jury think as just compensation?
Another academic victim of 112
So, is Yingluck a redshirt or not? Am I alone in thinking there is some doubt about this? As far as I can see she has no appetite at all for a social agenda which would address the inequalities and injustices which plague the poor.
As for 112 her deafening silence on possible reform speaks volumes.
Another academic victim of 112
Jim Tayor (#19) – it’s simply not correct to say that the government has no power – quite the opposite.
Thaksin and his various political parties have demonstrated that they cannot be destroyed as a political force. Yes, they can be overthrown in a coup, military or judicial, but only by invoking the support of the monarchy. But the royalists’ use of the monarchy since 2005 to try to attack Thaksin and to overthrow governments with mass support has politicized the monarchy to an extent that is EXTREMELY dangerous to its future survival.
Right now the monarchy is a hostage to Thaksin.
The PT government will go through the motions of cracking down on LM and declare its loyalty to the monarchy in order to maintain a working relationship with the Palace, keep the more moderate royalists happy, and “maintain the peace” in a very polarized society. But if the Palace and the royalists start to seriously destabilize the government all Thaksin has to do is to threaten to carry through with his reform of the LM law. I think that is why shortly after PT formed government Thaksin (through Yinglak) publicly declared that the govt. would consider reforming the way the LM law was being used. In other words, a veiled threat.
People should not underestimate what reforming LM really means. Reforming the LM law would immediately end the monarchy’s political influence. It could no longer intervene behind the scenes without a huge public outcry. But more than that, without a much broader reform of the monarchy (of the kind that Somsak has argued for) reforming or abolishing LM could lead to the end of the monarchy itself. How could the monarchy survive if 60 million Thais were allowed to talk freely about the 1946 regicide, 6 October, and all the other skeletons in its closet? Its legitimacy would be destroyed overnight.
In fact, the ultra-royalists’ “overkill” in their use of and support for the LM law also benefits Thaksin. The opposition among liberals in Thailand about LM, and the increasing publicity about LM in the “international community”, puts pressure on the monarchy and its supporters. It isolates them more and more by showing the monarchy to be a medieval and oppressive institution that has no place in a modern democracy. Thaksin wins both ways.
That’s why it’s the royalists who have come out expressing their concern about the way the LM law is being used. Each sentence that a judge hands down is destroying the monarchy’s reputation.
So all in all I think the govt. is currently in a very powerful position.
Malaysia losing “faith capital values”
I hope Malaysia loses all its “faith capital” as defined by the writer, then Malaysia can proceed to a system where “fairness”, justice etc is not dependent on one’s religion!
Another academic victim of 112
Vichai N #6. I would have thought it was pretty obvious why Chalerm has suddenly reassigned the men-in-black from the army to the police. Thaksin is desperate to form a pact with the top brass which he needs to co-opt in order to feel safer when comes home on his brand new Thai passport. The current top brass needs to be offered substantial incentives in order to get them to roll over and let PT amend the Defence Ministry Act. In addition to the usual financial incentives both on and offshore, the top brass needs convincing assurances that they will not be prosecuted for the 91 deaths. One good way to do that is to transfer the blame for the men-in-black and the murder of Seh Daeng on to the police and no doubt kill two birds with one stone by attacking the “epilectic” police commander, whoever he may be, at the same time. PT seems to have already cut a deal with the 2006 coup leaders, as evidenced by the fact that Gen Sonthi has been put in charge of a committee for the amnesty to bring back Thaksin which is unnecessary as Chalerm, who sports an ersatz law doctrate, had some one else draft the amnesty bill. The plan is obviously designed to amnesty all military leaders from all crimes and focus prosecutions on Abhisit and Suthep alone.
Re Section 112, what did you all expect? It was extremely obvious that PT would waste no time before initiating a crack down on LM, computer crime the media and generally doing whatever it can to suppress all forms of freedom of expression. That is the nature of the man…..whoops sorry, the party. The multi colours and greens protesting against freedom of expression outside the US embassy may well be from the lunatic right wing fringe but PT is very far from being a socialist movement representing ordinary farmers and workers, despite wishful thing from Jim Walker, Ralf Cramden, Ji Ungkaporn and others who veer towards the lunatic left wing fringe. It represents a revolutionary movement of a kind but the real objectives of that revolution are to replace the old guard amatiya with a new breed of parvenu amatiya who are more corrupt and greedy than the traditional bunch. As such, the mechanisms for repressing freedom of expression, such as 112 and the Computer Crimes Act are regarded as vital tools of the trade to be beefed up, rather than abolished.
New Mandala: cowardly, stupid and lacking in wisdom
I read an interesting restatement of the Four Noble Truths just now:
Malaysia losing “faith capital values”
@SRossi:
Your last point highlights the problem with concepts like “faith capital” and “social capital” more generally: we are led to construct our dialogue around these terms regardless of whether or not they mean anything.