David Cohen advises that the interview with Tang Qifang has been delayed. As such they will be taking questions until Friday. They can still be sent to [email protected].
The Latest Dictatorial Proclamation by the Unitary Executive of the USA making Hilary Clinton the gatekeeper of the US is just another power grab. Both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton would be denied entry to the US under Section 1, if they were recognized as the profound ‘aliens’ and war criminals they really are rather than as upstanding citizens of the USA.
And you can bet that Hil won’t apply Section 1 to Netanyahu or other egregious human rights abusers ‘on her side’. Judging by the USA’s shameful, complicitous, human rights abusing inaction at the imprisonment of US citizen Joe Gordon for ‘thought crimes’ committed in the USA you can be that the DSI detail sent to LA to terrorize Anthony Chai and, oh by the way, attempt to extort ‘some iPods’ in so doing will remain welcome in Barry and Hil’s Brown Shirt Republic in the future. And will be welcome to terrorize Americans and aliens alike on American soil during their stay.
If you don’t want scholars like Khun Pavin to dismiss your assertion immediately, perhaps the first thing you should do is get your facts right. I have told you in the other discussion that you are entitled to your assertion as long as you got your facts right and you can support your opinion with solid reasoning (or academic theory/principles).
Your argument in this thread, for example, shows that you have not done much study about Thai succession. What you said about “past successions have mostly been smooth” is just one example of an unresearched assertion which can be easily rebutted (as many people have done so, pointing out to those rough successions in Thai history).
Some scholars like Andrew Walker are more well-mannered Even if someone posts something which are factually incorrect/unfounded/unacademic to criticise his work, he would still be polite. But there can be many scholars such as Khun Pavin, who would not tolerate such assertions, and he can make a harsh comment back to those assertions.
Finally, I must respond to what you said here:
-Uganda and Libya do not have Lese Majese law and I don’t see the country any more advance or richer than Thailand.
It is quite unreasonable for you to cite Uganda and Libya that they don’t have LM, because those countries do not have the Monarchy to start with. Why don’t you look at countries which have the Monarchy for a change? Look at countries where LM is strictly enforced (Morocco for example), that the Royals can intervene in politics, can dissolve the Parliament if they don’t like who is in power, and look at how developed (ie. underdeveloped) the country is. Then compare it to countries where the Royals stay above the politics and they can be criticised without fear of imprisonment (such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Canada, NZ, Australia etc)
Now tell me please, which group of countries are MORE developed between countries with strict LM where Royals like to intervene in politics (Morocco and Thailand are excellent examples), and countries where the Royals are merely symbolic figure (such as Holland, Japan, Sweden etc)?
PS. Although there is no LM in Libya, but it has the law which is similar. If you criticise Gaddafi’s regime, you are regarded as a threat to national security. So I guess Libya is not really a good example to cite in my not-humble-whatsoever opinion.
Finally, you said:
-Also many western tourists in Thailand that I spoke to never had problem with Lese Majeste at all. The public is not obsessed about the topic like some people on this board !
How can you ever prove that those people who talk to are really sincere about what they are saying, if there is a hefty jail term awaiting them? It’s like you telling people that if you don’t love the K, you will be jailed for fifteen years. Then you ask those people, “do you love the K”? How are you going to know that people who tell you that “they love the K” say it sincerely, or they merely say it because they don’t want to go to jail.
I would like to remind you that IP’s can be obtained through a bit of sophisticated hacking without your university even realizing it. No need to ask permission to get the addresses. But you can find easy on the Internet ways to hide your origins.
Besides that, there is a forum in the US which is quite safer than Manusay, it’s http://www.norporchorusa.com/ on which you can obtain means to transmit to your thai-correspondent via e-mail the address of a famous “pirate-site” (also used worldwide to download films etc. used all over Thailand and therefore impossible to block because it would provoke a large uprise ), and through which you can enable residents of Thailand to access to the online talks about Thai problems. Norporchorusa is blocked in Thailand, but they found out that the royal palace is actively listening to it and blogging, even with somewhat clumsy arguments. It was no problem for them to locate precisely the IP of the computer logging in!
Obama signed a few days ago a
“Presidential Proclamation–Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses” which is also a message to the king to get on with the abolishment of the LM law and which can prohibit the king himself to enter the USA. Its text is here below:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 04, 2011
Presidential Proclamation–Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses
SUSPENSION OF ENTRY AS IMMIGRANTS AND NONIMMIGRANTS OF PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN LAW VIOLATIONS AND OTHER ABUSES
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
The United States enduring commitment to respect for human rights and humanitarian law requires that its Government be able to ensure that the United States does not become a safe haven for serious violators of human rights and humanitarian law and those who engage in other related abuses. Universal respect for human rights and humanitarian law and the prevention of atrocities internationally promotes U.S. values and fundamental U.S. interests in helping secure peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises around the globe. I therefore have determined that it is in the interests of the United States to take action to restrict the international travel and to suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of certain persons who have engaged in the acts outlined in section 1 of this proclamation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore hereby proclaim that:
Section 1. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of the following persons is hereby suspended:
(a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so.
(b) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of human rights, or who attempted or conspired to do so.
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply with respect to any person otherwise covered by section 1 where the entry of such person would not harm the foreign relations interests of the United States.
Sec. 3. The Secretary of State, or the Secretary’s designee, in his or her sole discretion, shall identify persons covered by section 1 of this proclamation, pursuant to such standards and procedures as the Secretary may establish.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of State shall have responsibility for implementing this proclamation pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish.
Sec. 5. For any person whose entry is otherwise suspended under this proclamation entry will be denied, unless the Secretary of State determines that the particular entry of such person would be in the interests of the United States. In exercising such authority, the Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 6. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to derogate from United States Government obligations under applicable international agreements, or to suspend entry based solely on an alien’s ideology, opinions, or beliefs, or based solely on expression that would be considered protected under U.S. interpretations of international agreements to which the United States is a party. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the authority of the United States to admit or to suspend entry of particular individuals into the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) or under any other provision of U.S. law.
Sec. 7. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 8. This proclamation is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary of State determines that it is no longer necessary and should be terminated, either in whole or in part. Any such termination shall become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.
BARACK OBAMA
Another evidence of “The Ambulance Chasers Anonymous” of the western democracies trying hard to expand their turf aka profitability.
“The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the World Organization for Human Rights USA and the Law Office of Snell & Wilmer”
… I anonymously apologise to Mathieson and South. I bow before them and kiss their feet! I am that chai latte drinker in Chiang Mai! I want an iPad… I want the prisoners to be free… Sunda, sunda, sunda….
At the Melbourne conference I recall Andrew Walker posed the question whether there have been any precendents of such seditious narratives. It made me think of the anti-royalist cartoons that flourished in the Thai press during the 1920’s. And on re-reading Scot Barme’s fascinating “Woman, Man, Bangkok” he mentions the cartoonist Sem who “wrote at length about six different varieties of hia found in Siam and produced a related series of cartoons. In these Sem identified a number of the highest placed men in the land as hia” [p117]
Perhaps Sem provides a very early precedent for Hi s Tales. Of course 90 years later Thais can only marvel, often with complete disbelief, at how free their press once was. The Palace also no doubt have long memories and remember how that period of freedom helped to destroy the credibility of the highest institution and create the conditions for the 1932 coup. I’m sure they will do all they can to prevent history repeating itself.
I said – Explain the registration requirements – The need to register is obvious, that goes for doing business with all corps, public and private. It is the qualification criteria I am talking about.
If you do not know, then perhaps “Killer” can elaborate. Better still, just get a set of forms from Petronas or the govt to register as a supplier. It will be all clear to you – I am out on a limb here to assume that you do not know!
BTW, for “killer” Non govt companies are commercial enterprise, out to make a profit. They hire anyone who can work efficiently for the company. That is just commerce, not racial!
Anyway, a govt is suppose to be for the citizens – If the citizenry is made up of multiple races, so be it. A govt cannot be racist, otherwise aparteid is fine. Not for me, is it for you?
As for Greg’ debate – please refer to the flat earthers
My understanding is that discussions between the University and the Thai embassy have already taken place, and that even though the decision not to reveal locations of posters was made, the university wavered in light of the potential award of research funds.
This means that Australian National University discussed the University’s handing over the IP addresses of Thais posting on, for instance, the New Mandela site?
And that, although the University declined to give the Thai Embassy the locations of the IP addresses it did/does give the IP addresses?
Please clarify this in excruciating detail.
Why on earth would the University give anyone the IP addresses of people posting on its websites… let alone those likely to be imprisoned for exercising their free speech on what I and I’m sure everyone else here had formerly considered to be a straight up operation?
Yes history is littered with draconian human rights abusing regimes that respond to “polite requests”.
And Thailand’s a great example of that.
Maybe try speaking to the families of the dead medical workers, Red Shirts etc and ask them how they feel about making “polite requests”?
Sarcasm aside I can’t think of one regime in history with a back story like Thailand’s that has changed due to “polite requests”. In fact similar regimes just view such insipid comment as reason to extend any oppression they engage in as they know they won’t be properly opposed. I think it is called “appeasement”. Thailand, if we look at recent history, is no different.
As someone who returns to Thailand regularly, spending considerable time there (3months so far in 2011), yet still feels the need to speak out on such issues as LM, I make my own carefully nuanced choices about what I say and how.
You make an assertion that Harry would’ve spent less time in jail based on an unverifiable and unaccountable process of which even somebody who claims to be a part of it (yourself) won’t put their real name to.
It’s mildly ironic that “puppet government” is used by anyone here in government, as all civil servants that I have run into – other than those who quit out of principle – are attached to strings.
Pavin – You don’t even have to begin. I just do not agree with what you said, period. Ever since I posted on the blog, I never call anyone ignorant for what they believe in.
Reading Seh Fah’s comment:
“No-one, and certainly not the Thai government, likes to be told what to do. They’re rather more receptive to polite requests.”
I wonder if he would be suggesting a polite letter writing campaign, perhaps to the new Prime Minister?
If readers agree with this please leave Thumb Up otherwise down.
And if anybody has a suggeested form of words please post them.
“How about explaining the registration requirements for “kewangan” license for govt supplies and contracts.”
I may shed some light on this requirement. The main reason why contractors must register as a contractor under the Ministry of Finance(M0F) is because they need to check whether your company meets the minimum requirement, has any serious financial problem in public records or any prior malpractise or outstanding issues in record.
We don’t want any contractors with troubles been awarded government contracts don’t we?
Please pray tell us how would the government know if you have any shady dealings before doing business with the government?
I also think that Petronas follows the same procedure because of the same reason I’ve said.
I am neither pro BN or pro PR. So please enlighten me what is so wrong with having companies registering in order to do business? Or it could be I missed the point of what you’re trying to imply here. Please pray tell and I really appreciate good comments and insights of why I’m wrong. Thanks.
With the strong prospect of being jailed for 15 years (short of a pardon), I would imagine he should be able to sue them for quite a lot of money. How much could offset 15 years in a Thai jail, I would think even a lot of zeros could never compensate that hell. A hefty settlement should put other ISPs on notice.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Questions for a Chinese analyst
David Cohen advises that the interview with Tang Qifang has been delayed. As such they will be taking questions until Friday. They can still be sent to [email protected].
Best wishes to all,
Nich
US legal action on lese majeste
The Latest Dictatorial Proclamation by the Unitary Executive of the USA making Hilary Clinton the gatekeeper of the US is just another power grab. Both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton would be denied entry to the US under Section 1, if they were recognized as the profound ‘aliens’ and war criminals they really are rather than as upstanding citizens of the USA.
And you can bet that Hil won’t apply Section 1 to Netanyahu or other egregious human rights abusers ‘on her side’. Judging by the USA’s shameful, complicitous, human rights abusing inaction at the imprisonment of US citizen Joe Gordon for ‘thought crimes’ committed in the USA you can be that the DSI detail sent to LA to terrorize Anthony Chai and, oh by the way, attempt to extort ‘some iPods’ in so doing will remain welcome in Barry and Hil’s Brown Shirt Republic in the future. And will be welcome to terrorize Americans and aliens alike on American soil during their stay.
Thailand’s succession planning
@Jesse,
If you don’t want scholars like Khun Pavin to dismiss your assertion immediately, perhaps the first thing you should do is get your facts right. I have told you in the other discussion that you are entitled to your assertion as long as you got your facts right and you can support your opinion with solid reasoning (or academic theory/principles).
Your argument in this thread, for example, shows that you have not done much study about Thai succession. What you said about “past successions have mostly been smooth” is just one example of an unresearched assertion which can be easily rebutted (as many people have done so, pointing out to those rough successions in Thai history).
Some scholars like Andrew Walker are more well-mannered Even if someone posts something which are factually incorrect/unfounded/unacademic to criticise his work, he would still be polite. But there can be many scholars such as Khun Pavin, who would not tolerate such assertions, and he can make a harsh comment back to those assertions.
Finally, I must respond to what you said here:
-Uganda and Libya do not have Lese Majese law and I don’t see the country any more advance or richer than Thailand.
It is quite unreasonable for you to cite Uganda and Libya that they don’t have LM, because those countries do not have the Monarchy to start with. Why don’t you look at countries which have the Monarchy for a change? Look at countries where LM is strictly enforced (Morocco for example), that the Royals can intervene in politics, can dissolve the Parliament if they don’t like who is in power, and look at how developed (ie. underdeveloped) the country is. Then compare it to countries where the Royals stay above the politics and they can be criticised without fear of imprisonment (such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Canada, NZ, Australia etc)
Now tell me please, which group of countries are MORE developed between countries with strict LM where Royals like to intervene in politics (Morocco and Thailand are excellent examples), and countries where the Royals are merely symbolic figure (such as Holland, Japan, Sweden etc)?
PS. Although there is no LM in Libya, but it has the law which is similar. If you criticise Gaddafi’s regime, you are regarded as a threat to national security. So I guess Libya is not really a good example to cite in my not-humble-whatsoever opinion.
Finally, you said:
-Also many western tourists in Thailand that I spoke to never had problem with Lese Majeste at all. The public is not obsessed about the topic like some people on this board !
How can you ever prove that those people who talk to are really sincere about what they are saying, if there is a hefty jail term awaiting them? It’s like you telling people that if you don’t love the K, you will be jailed for fifteen years. Then you ask those people, “do you love the K”? How are you going to know that people who tell you that “they love the K” say it sincerely, or they merely say it because they don’t want to go to jail.
US legal action on lese majeste
I would like to remind you that IP’s can be obtained through a bit of sophisticated hacking without your university even realizing it. No need to ask permission to get the addresses. But you can find easy on the Internet ways to hide your origins.
Besides that, there is a forum in the US which is quite safer than Manusay, it’s http://www.norporchorusa.com/ on which you can obtain means to transmit to your thai-correspondent via e-mail the address of a famous “pirate-site” (also used worldwide to download films etc. used all over Thailand and therefore impossible to block because it would provoke a large uprise ), and through which you can enable residents of Thailand to access to the online talks about Thai problems. Norporchorusa is blocked in Thailand, but they found out that the royal palace is actively listening to it and blogging, even with somewhat clumsy arguments. It was no problem for them to locate precisely the IP of the computer logging in!
Obama signed a few days ago a
“Presidential Proclamation–Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses” which is also a message to the king to get on with the abolishment of the LM law and which can prohibit the king himself to enter the USA. Its text is here below:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 04, 2011
Presidential Proclamation–Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons Who Participate in Serious Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations and Other Abuses
SUSPENSION OF ENTRY AS IMMIGRANTS AND NONIMMIGRANTS OF PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATE IN SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN LAW VIOLATIONS AND OTHER ABUSES
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
The United States enduring commitment to respect for human rights and humanitarian law requires that its Government be able to ensure that the United States does not become a safe haven for serious violators of human rights and humanitarian law and those who engage in other related abuses. Universal respect for human rights and humanitarian law and the prevention of atrocities internationally promotes U.S. values and fundamental U.S. interests in helping secure peace, deter aggression, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, strengthen democracies, and prevent humanitarian crises around the globe. I therefore have determined that it is in the interests of the United States to take action to restrict the international travel and to suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of certain persons who have engaged in the acts outlined in section 1 of this proclamation.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. I therefore hereby proclaim that:
Section 1. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of the following persons is hereby suspended:
(a) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, widespread or systematic violence against any civilian population based in whole or in part on race; color; descent; sex; disability; membership in an indigenous group; language; religion; political opinion; national origin; ethnicity; membership in a particular social group; birth; or sexual orientation or gender identity, or who attempted or conspired to do so.
(b) Any alien who planned, ordered, assisted, aided and abetted, committed or otherwise participated in, including through command responsibility, war crimes, crimes against humanity or other serious violations of human rights, or who attempted or conspired to do so.
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this proclamation shall not apply with respect to any person otherwise covered by section 1 where the entry of such person would not harm the foreign relations interests of the United States.
Sec. 3. The Secretary of State, or the Secretary’s designee, in his or her sole discretion, shall identify persons covered by section 1 of this proclamation, pursuant to such standards and procedures as the Secretary may establish.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of State shall have responsibility for implementing this proclamation pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish.
Sec. 5. For any person whose entry is otherwise suspended under this proclamation entry will be denied, unless the Secretary of State determines that the particular entry of such person would be in the interests of the United States. In exercising such authority, the Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 6. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to derogate from United States Government obligations under applicable international agreements, or to suspend entry based solely on an alien’s ideology, opinions, or beliefs, or based solely on expression that would be considered protected under U.S. interpretations of international agreements to which the United States is a party. Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to limit the authority of the United States to admit or to suspend entry of particular individuals into the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) or under any other provision of U.S. law.
Sec. 7. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 8. This proclamation is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until such time as the Secretary of State determines that it is no longer necessary and should be terminated, either in whole or in part. Any such termination shall become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.
BARACK OBAMA
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
Seh Fah #6
The army never got held to account before, so your ‘blank check’ is invalid. They’re thugs, they don’t need checks. They just take.
Threats to academic freedom
The failing orthodoxies or rather Hypocrisies of present prevailing voices:
1) Any ideas put forth, suggested or even whispered that IS NOT supportive of “Sanction does not hurt the most vulnerable within Myanmar most”.
2) Acceptance of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi IS NOT the only answer to present quagmire.
3) N. Korean_ization of Myanmar IS NOT happening.
Violation of any above falsehood and any associating Corollaries will bring about the vile retaliation.
Being in UK and not being pro DASSK aside
Mr Ashley and the like of Dr Steinberg should be proud to help contribute to the end of those falsehood.
US legal action on lese majeste
Another evidence of “The Ambulance Chasers Anonymous” of the western democracies trying hard to expand their turf aka profitability.
“The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the World Organization for Human Rights USA and the Law Office of Snell & Wilmer”
http://www.humanrightsusa.org/
http://www.humanrightsusa.org/images/stories/chai_complaint.pdf
The frequency of “lése Majeté” alone clearly show what WHRO_USA intent is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell_%26_Wilmer
2 birds with 1 stone approach.
1)WHRO USA get to expose Lése Malesté.
2)S&W get to make $$ off Netfirm.com INC.
Debate on IP address = Privacy aside
“Mr. Chai was then interrogated by Thai officials over the course of two days on U.S. soil at a hotel in Hollywood, California.”
Consent to interview without any precondition = Stupidity.
Nothing more than another “Ugly American Phenomena” to make $$$ disguised as as HR/FS/Privacy issue indeed.
Nothing new, ERI and AI ongoing effort to sue oil company and evoking Hague in Myanmar seem more legitimate than this lame law suit.
Hmm
May be Thailand should file a suit in the same court for allowing “Child Molesters” to travel to Thailand unregistered.
US legal action on lese majeste
Very interesting case. Please continue to post updates as the lawsuit moves forward.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
[…] New Mandala’s blog, Robert Amsterdam offers an interesting article about what he calls “Thailand’s dual state”: “The Normative State is a […]
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
[…] Amsterdam propose un article interessant sur ce qu’il appelle “le double gouvernement Thailandais” […]
Threats to academic freedom
… I anonymously apologise to Mathieson and South. I bow before them and kiss their feet! I am that chai latte drinker in Chiang Mai! I want an iPad… I want the prisoners to be free… Sunda, sunda, sunda….
best,
Martino
Narrative sedition and democratic consolidation
At the Melbourne conference I recall Andrew Walker posed the question whether there have been any precendents of such seditious narratives. It made me think of the anti-royalist cartoons that flourished in the Thai press during the 1920’s. And on re-reading Scot Barme’s fascinating “Woman, Man, Bangkok” he mentions the cartoonist Sem who “wrote at length about six different varieties of hia found in Siam and produced a related series of cartoons. In these Sem identified a number of the highest placed men in the land as hia” [p117]
Perhaps Sem provides a very early precedent for Hi s Tales. Of course 90 years later Thais can only marvel, often with complete disbelief, at how free their press once was. The Palace also no doubt have long memories and remember how that period of freedom helped to destroy the credibility of the highest institution and create the conditions for the 1932 coup. I’m sure they will do all they can to prevent history repeating itself.
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
Hai Fadhli,
I said – Explain the registration requirements – The need to register is obvious, that goes for doing business with all corps, public and private. It is the qualification criteria I am talking about.
If you do not know, then perhaps “Killer” can elaborate. Better still, just get a set of forms from Petronas or the govt to register as a supplier. It will be all clear to you – I am out on a limb here to assume that you do not know!
BTW, for “killer” Non govt companies are commercial enterprise, out to make a profit. They hire anyone who can work efficiently for the company. That is just commerce, not racial!
Anyway, a govt is suppose to be for the citizens – If the citizenry is made up of multiple races, so be it. A govt cannot be racist, otherwise aparteid is fine. Not for me, is it for you?
As for Greg’ debate – please refer to the flat earthers
US legal action on lese majeste
This means that Australian National University discussed the University’s handing over the IP addresses of Thais posting on, for instance, the New Mandela site?
And that, although the University declined to give the Thai Embassy the locations of the IP addresses it did/does give the IP addresses?
Please clarify this in excruciating detail.
Why on earth would the University give anyone the IP addresses of people posting on its websites… let alone those likely to be imprisoned for exercising their free speech on what I and I’m sure everyone else here had formerly considered to be a straight up operation?
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Seh Fah
Yes history is littered with draconian human rights abusing regimes that respond to “polite requests”.
And Thailand’s a great example of that.
Maybe try speaking to the families of the dead medical workers, Red Shirts etc and ask them how they feel about making “polite requests”?
Sarcasm aside I can’t think of one regime in history with a back story like Thailand’s that has changed due to “polite requests”. In fact similar regimes just view such insipid comment as reason to extend any oppression they engage in as they know they won’t be properly opposed. I think it is called “appeasement”. Thailand, if we look at recent history, is no different.
As someone who returns to Thailand regularly, spending considerable time there (3months so far in 2011), yet still feels the need to speak out on such issues as LM, I make my own carefully nuanced choices about what I say and how.
You make an assertion that Harry would’ve spent less time in jail based on an unverifiable and unaccountable process of which even somebody who claims to be a part of it (yourself) won’t put their real name to.
Extraordinary.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
It’s mildly ironic that “puppet government” is used by anyone here in government, as all civil servants that I have run into – other than those who quit out of principle – are attached to strings.
Thailand’s succession planning
Pavin – You don’t even have to begin. I just do not agree with what you said, period. Ever since I posted on the blog, I never call anyone ignorant for what they believe in.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Reading Seh Fah’s comment:
“No-one, and certainly not the Thai government, likes to be told what to do. They’re rather more receptive to polite requests.”
I wonder if he would be suggesting a polite letter writing campaign, perhaps to the new Prime Minister?
If readers agree with this please leave Thumb Up otherwise down.
And if anybody has a suggeested form of words please post them.
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
US legal action on lese majeste
With the strong prospect of being jailed for 15 years (short of a pardon), I would imagine he should be able to sue them for quite a lot of money. How much could offset 15 years in a Thai jail, I would think even a lot of zeros could never compensate that hell. A hefty settlement should put other ISPs on notice.