I am glad this happened. It will alert all the internet providers not to ever give IP and email addresses to the Thai authorities where the topic of discussion is about the Thai Monarchy.
I hope newmandala would not give our email addresses to the Thai authorities, so that we can discuss all the issues here freely 🙂
Serious flaws in the arguements of Killer and Fadhli. A simple statement like “the govt is not pro malays” exposes those flaws despite all the political sloganing (albeit well writen, but without real substance)
When pointed out, it is always a fall back to “actually it is only affirmative action – which we admit can be better implemented”
If one wants to be specific,;
1. How about explaining the APs for cars etc.
2. How about explaining the registration requirements for “kewangan” license for govt supplies and contracts.
3. How about registration requirements to be a supplier of goods and services to Petronas (Oh, so many “chinese” companies are supplying Petronas – Ali Baba lah, as Malaysians will say. Just check the registration papers)
I can fill up several pages with examples of “pro malays”, but it would be redundant. There is simply no point in trying to convince anyone who can ignore such blatant practices and say “oh nothing wrong”
As for Greg “not debating”? There are many “flat earthers” around who would love to argue that the Earth is flat. I am quite sure Greg would not debate them either.
PR is hardly an honest trade. Amsterdam is a big-bucks PR man in a world where PR men have become (rightly) notorious for looking after the entrenched interests of the already rich – in order to manipulate, describe and limit democracy for their own ends. There is nothing new about pretending to be a democrat for the sake of subverting those who have rather more honest and open democratic leanings. The moment darling Robert stops playing PR chess for a living, he might actually begin to make sense.
This debate gains nothing new from the views of celebrities and academics anyway. A satisfactory democracy can never be created by the instant brainwaves of a supposedly enlightened elite of celebs – which is why local pols are still stuck in the same old rut of long-term failure. And to take that notion even further, I would also suggest that just about all of Thailand’s revered institutions are laboring under the same old illusions about the usefulness of their supposed enlightment to the average citizen. I would trust the grounded comments of long-term non-celeb residents over Amsterdam’s obvious power-career moves any day of the week.
There may be quite a few elements of truth in the words of both Amsterdam and his current client, but after decades of the same old completely worn-out faux democracy of the chosen (& supposedly popular) few, it should be very obvious that the likes of CEO politics have completely failed in their pathetic wrong-headed reactionary attempts to run this country in a more-or-less equitable manner.
If our two heroes wish to return to their winning ways, they should both return to their small-minded commercial roots and make room for the numerous ordinary people who actually have some belief in developing democracy – and who don’t necessarily feel that it is their god-given right to always benefit financially from trying to create a more equitable society.
The issue is not just of anonymity, but of internationally wrongful acts employing state jurisdiction over free speech beyond legitimate borders.
So far this wider issue seems to have been by passed.
Pavin #11. I disagree. HM Chulalongkorn appointed his favoured son Vajirunhis as Crown Prince in 1886, a title invented explicity to remove uncertainty in a potentially complicated succession. When Vajirunhis died unexpectedly in 1895 the title was then conferred on Vajiravudh, who held the title without contest for 15 years until his father’s death and his succession in 1910.
Its a full 14 years later that the Palace Succession Law was decreed. By then the pressing issue was undoubtedly how to proceed if King Vajiravudh were to die with no direct male heir. Vajiravudh was hopeful until nearly the last moment that he would produce a male heir which perhaps explains why he did not want to follow his father’s precedent of naming a Crown Prince from the available candidates. The alternative was to frame a succession law that would make any son of his the heir apparant, or else provide a systematic way to select the heir from the possible candidates.
Nice work it was a good read. Doubt those that criticize it even read the report.
Ignore the Nation, remember they reported Thaksin was dead. Needless to say, those reports were greatly exaggerated. It should go back to its old mission and just report the commings and goings of ships at port. Oh wait, internet communication made that obsolete so now they they just invent and print news that the advertisers would want to read if they could communicate in English.
Unlike Greg is saying, Malaysia is far from poorly governed banana state. We are no First World country but we are not hopeless, failed state either.
I am optimistic that Najib is given the opportunity, will take Malaysia to the next level.
I am unconvinced that PR can do better, based on their track record and dynamics of their relationships. They are only held together by their hatred for BN and a desire for power, They are dysfunctional.
They like to subscribe for idealistic policies and First World democratic principles at the national level (where they don’t have the power). But at the state level, these policies are missing. Just look at Kelantan. Where the policies that PAS is touting like welfare state? Look at Penang. Where is meritocracy and full democratic rights that DAP is fighting for? DAP still insists for a Chinese CM and rules in a dictatorial fashion.
I see you are not responding to my challenge to debate, which is a clear indication that you are unable to defend your own unacademic and politically biased article.
Your response to Fadhli is also flawed. Opinion surveys locally and by TI are showing that public now have better confidence in agencies such as MACC. The sheer number of people charged, the major changes in the law to empower MACC, the seniority of people charged (Ling, Khir,etc) are indication that fight against corruption is being given much more serious thought. This is something that can’t be denied unless you are completely blinkered by politics.
Tajuddin : Please expand your reading to materials beyond MI, Mkini. Tajuddin’s case is not a case of corruption but mismanagement. FYI he’s suing these portals for portraying his as such. As an academic one expects you to be more familiar with his case before commenting and not taking easy way out by throwing silly accusations.
GTP/ETP is not addressing issues in piecemeal basis. This clearly shows that your understanding of these reforms comes not from research but political web sites like MI, Mkini,etc. Please tell me which key areas / reforms are not covered by ETP/GTP ? Don’t just be generic, please be specific. In my view GTP/ETP one of the most ambitious transformation plan I have seen in last few decades anywhere in the world.
After the army led massacre in the 1990s I did support the Democrat Party. Thailands other parties were syndicates of mobsters cum politicians who used their provincial gangster syndicate bases to increase their own wealth.
When Thaksin came to power, he did so on the coat-tails of the most debilitation financial crisis to hit Thailand since the Depression. He was overly opressive and forced the society that Thailand had become to change dramatically quickly. Instead of imprisoning and disabling the gangster mob politicians, he instead incorporated them into the TRT. The Democrat party to a lesser degree had the same problem in its base areas in the south (Phuket and Surat Thani come to mind).
Anyway, I was skeptical. However the mobster bosses were forced to close some of their lucrative rackets and conform (like the morality campaigns that shuttered much of Patpong and similar red light districts. Their constitution companies like the one in Chomburi still got lucrative government contracts but they actually had to build the roads, bridges, and sewers that they were contracted to. It was not perfect but the mobsters who didn’t were sometimes convicted in court even if they then were able to escape across the porous border of Cambodia destined to live out there lives outside their native Thailand.
But what impressed me with Thaksin was that when he saw a problem, he acted in a CEO fashion to solve it. Traffic in Bangkok improved, huge infrastructure projects were approved and built including the BTS, The Ring Roads, a new Airport, a Metro. And most importantly he was able to bring health care to the masses especially the rural inhabitants of farming communities. He ran the country like he ran AIS. He was the boss and when he said jump he expected people to do it.
But he lacked a certain amount of Tact, was abrasive, and alienated those who disagreed.
Still Thailand moved ahead.
He did make a number of drastic mistakes, like changing laws in Parliament on Friday and suddenly AIS would reap a 4 billion baht sale on Monday because of the New Law. This kind of behavior alienated the upper middle class of which Thaksin had been a member and a beneficiary.
There were improvement in anti-corruption efforts. The skimming was somewhat limited (nothing like the level that occurred in the pre-crisis era nor subsequently in the Democrat/coup era. This is why Phua Thai, with its third string team did so well, that and of course the senseless massacre of civilians on the streets in 2009 and last year.
Now that his team is back in the seat of government (although by my account not actually being allowed to rule) I hope that for the sake of Democracy the Democrat Party and the non-state actors actually step back and allow it to rule. Contest in the ballot box not the back rooms of coup-appointed courts.
Instead of attacking the legally elected government they need to help democracy by doing their job and keep the ruling accountable.
But more importantly the corruption of the State needs to be penalized. The guilty need to go to jail when they commit larceny of public funds. Courts need to try and convict on evidence not forced confessions. Trials need to open and fair, no matter who is in power.
The LM law needs to be modified if not completely scrapped and the penalties greatly reduced. Ditto with the criminal defamation laws. And in the interests of all, the amount of political space for free speech needs to expand.
The non-liberal elements of the TRT/PPP/PT need to respect differences (for example the rabid attack of the Gay Pride Parade in Chang Mai by the Rak 51 group).
Now that PT is back, I hope it is allowed to rule and hopefully its leader has learned a few things in his time away like how to respect differences and use consensus rather than always commanding. and micro managing.
After the coup and the judicial coups, the only road back to democracy for Thailand was through Thaksin. That is still true in my opinion. If this government is not allowed to rule, then the consequences will be catastrophic and I fear the result will be on the order of a civil war rather than a couple of days of police action.
The red shirts need to remain committed to reform just like the liberal wing of America’s Democratic Party.
For me a person who just wants the best for the nation, we need to support those who are elected and demand that they do the best to lead in ways that they run on. If not, then we need to vote them out. And our votes need to be respected.
Ashley,
Given that you have previously insulted aid workers as only being interested in seeking a prize for career advancement, it seems hypocritical for you now to complain that criticism of your work is a threat to academic freedom! What goes around, comes around, so I hope you will follow your own advice and stick to the issues in future.
That means addressing the criticism that your analysis lacks proportionality with regards to the causes of (and hence solutions for) ongoing conflict and impoverishment.
regards,
duncan
I disagree that “anonymous posters on comments forums don’t really count”. Like most other posters living in Thailand, I am constrained by the fact that I do not wish to spend time in a Thai gaol, but as a long-term resident I believe I can offer useful comment. I take it you do not live in Thailand.
Ralph Kramden #78
I understand the embassy concentrated on pointing out the damage being done to Thailand’s international reputation to justify Harry’s early relase. Pounding the table would have been counter-productive. Despite Kevin Rudd’s use of that ridiculous cliche about Australia “punching above its weight” in international relations, the fact of the matter is that we cannot simply demand a desired outcome. Perhaps some of our braver posters who are prepared to put their names to their comments could have done a better job. Why not join DFAT and show us how it should be done?
U. Chemp #73.
Thank you for your constructive comment about my “extremely poor understanding of history”. From now on I shall confine my remarks to matters on which I am better informed. And now, could you please give me your views on Mr. Robert Fisk, and his article in Sunday’s Bangkok Post?
The Royal Place Law of Succession was enacted because of the controversies in the Chulalongkorn period as I argued in my short article above. But it also helped smoothen the succession process at the end of the Vajiravudh reign, too, as we know that the King had no male heir.
Why the controversies? King Chulalongkorn had four Queens; Saovabha Bongsri, Savang Vadhana, Sukumala and Sunandha (Sunandha died in a tragic accident–her boat capsized while on the way to Ayudhaya). To my knowledge, there was no clear indication which Queen was the number-one Queen; and this complicated the succession especially since there was no Law of Succession at the time.
The King and his three Queens produced seven (surviving) sons with the princely rank of Chao Fah: 5 of them by Queen Saovabha (including Prince Vajiravudh who later became King Rama VI, Prince Chakrabongse Bhuvanath, Prince Asdang Dejavudh, Prince Chudadhut Dharadilok and Prince Prajadhipok or King Rama VII); one by Queen Savang Vadhana (Prince Mahidol Adujyadej who is father of King Ananda Mahidol or King Rama VIII and the present King Bhumibol Adulyadej or King Rama IX); and one by Queen Sukumala (Paribatra Sukhumbhand). Altogether, King Chulalongkorn had 97 children (76 sons and 21 daughters).
To Ajarn Somsak (4)
We spoke in other forum. I agree with your elaboration. As I told you, the reason for posting this article is to provoke further thought on the issue. And your opinion indeed fulfilled such objective.
To Jesse (5)
What can I say? Just “plain ignorance” on your part.
Agreed with many comments above and hope Mr.Ashly could accepted these critism as complementary contributions. However, I have to admit that Naw Htoo Paw went a bit overboard while Methieson’s views came from a different angle which could not be easily dismissed as personal attack.
In the same time, I’m tired of people like ‘Zaw’ who insulated themselve from real facts to deny the existance of atrocities that happening in Burma. People like him would never accept the reality unless they have a position at the wrong end of a gun.
RA: [i]The establishment mouthpieces in the mass media, including but not limited to the two main English-language daily newspapers, have begun a campaign to discredit the government as a “puppet” cabinet, obsessing over Thaksin Shinawatra’s every move while fear-mongering about conspiracies supposedly putting Thailand in “imminent danger of falling prey to crafty foreigners.” [/i]
I hope the irony of this being written by a lobbist paid for by Thaksin is not lost by some.
The public’s confidence in the ethnic relations in Malaysia has shown a decline, with fewer Malaysians viewing the current ties as “good”, according to a survey by the Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research.
The findings of the survey…showed the number of Malaysians who felt ethnic relations in the country was “good” fell by 12% from 78% in February 2006 to 66% in May 2011.
The same survey also found that the number of Malaysians who believed that ethnic unity (perpaduan kaum) as “sincere and friendly” declined markedly from 54% in 2006 to 35% in 2011, a drop of 19%.
On the contrary, the number of people who felt ethnic unity was “superficial” rose from 29% to 44%.
I’d like to contribute a letter to BKK Post from Guy Baker today for discussion…..
Now the shoe is on the other foot for the US concerning Viktor Bout and Joe Gordon.
Viktor Bout violated no Thai law while in Thailand, no US law while in the US and no Colombian law while in Colombia; yet, he has been imprisoned for years for proposing something in Thailand that might have impacted Colombia, thus possibly violating US law _ and he was imprisoned as a result of unprecedented political pressure from the US government.
That has left the US government defenceless with regard to Joe Gordon: he is accused of violating Thai lese majeste laws while in the US and is being held in Thailand.
If Viktor Bout can be tried in the US, courtesy of Thailand, for allegedly violating US law in some non-specific place, then Joe Gordon can be tried for violating Thai lese majeste laws while he was in the US.
Thai lese majeste laws must be respected as much as US anti-terrorism laws, as they are a matter of Thai national security.
Didn’t Bill Clinton say something like, “It depends on how you define ‘state?'” They say, do they not, that if they say it isn’t about sex it’s about sex.
The reason I criticise Mathieson is that he does precisely what he identifies as hypocrisy in his opening line. Mathieson writes “It’s a standard academic sleight of hand to win an argument by misrepresenting your opponents position.”
And then, for instance, proceeds to write:
Steinberg grudgingly concedes that “major human-rights violations [in Myanmar] … are apparent.” He then portrays the calls for their cessation and the push for an investigation as a “Western policy orthodoxy”. He argues that calls for enhanced sanctions measures and a UN formed Commission of Inquiry are “confrontational approaches” that seek to further isolate the new government.
When what Steinberg actually said was:
“Major human-rights violations and imprisonment of over two thousand prisoners for political reasons (even if titularly they were for “crimes”) are apparent. Without in any sense excusing the past or present governments, will this orthodox policy improve the conditions of the diverse Burmese peoples in that benighted country?”
How is this, in any way, a grudging concession?
Indeed, nobody’s suppressing anyone’s views. The orthodox have unsurprisingly reacted with orthodoxy! And South seems like he’s been thrown off the ox’s back, and is unflatteringly surprised despite being surrounded by human rights wasps lurking to sting anything that moves.
And, moving is precisely what I feel Steinberg and South are advocating for. Mathieson seems to be pro moving to utopia. To refer to Dom’s comment (thanks by the way), I think it takes someone to has worked in government, or at least some sense of utility (like Steinberg), to realize, that what’s best for Burma’s overall population is not to cling rigidly to an ideological righteousness over what happened in 1988, 1990 and 2007 – as though somehow reason will shine down and part the otherwise murky and ugly sea. Those clinging rigidly to righteousness do make themselves useful because they allows eminent figures like Steinberg, who I feel would have much more influence in policy circles, to argue with more pragmatic and rational weight.
And admittedly, I didn’t know the research backgrounds of South and Mathieson before you mentioned CV’s, Eisel. Perhaps they should write a book together. Even Aung San Suu Kyi is open to talks! http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21932
This is a consistent problem that has been going on for a long time. Many of the exile groups think you are “against them” if you don’t fall in line with their solutions. Reasonable people can, and should, disagree about solutions and it is unfortunate that there are so many who wish to stifle debate. The issues in Burma are so incredibly complex that someone who thinks they know all the answers seems quite foolish.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
US legal action on lese majeste
I am glad this happened. It will alert all the internet providers not to ever give IP and email addresses to the Thai authorities where the topic of discussion is about the Thai Monarchy.
I hope newmandala would not give our email addresses to the Thai authorities, so that we can discuss all the issues here freely 🙂
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
Serious flaws in the arguements of Killer and Fadhli. A simple statement like “the govt is not pro malays” exposes those flaws despite all the political sloganing (albeit well writen, but without real substance)
When pointed out, it is always a fall back to “actually it is only affirmative action – which we admit can be better implemented”
If one wants to be specific,;
1. How about explaining the APs for cars etc.
2. How about explaining the registration requirements for “kewangan” license for govt supplies and contracts.
3. How about registration requirements to be a supplier of goods and services to Petronas (Oh, so many “chinese” companies are supplying Petronas – Ali Baba lah, as Malaysians will say. Just check the registration papers)
I can fill up several pages with examples of “pro malays”, but it would be redundant. There is simply no point in trying to convince anyone who can ignore such blatant practices and say “oh nothing wrong”
As for Greg “not debating”? There are many “flat earthers” around who would love to argue that the Earth is flat. I am quite sure Greg would not debate them either.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
PR is hardly an honest trade. Amsterdam is a big-bucks PR man in a world where PR men have become (rightly) notorious for looking after the entrenched interests of the already rich – in order to manipulate, describe and limit democracy for their own ends. There is nothing new about pretending to be a democrat for the sake of subverting those who have rather more honest and open democratic leanings. The moment darling Robert stops playing PR chess for a living, he might actually begin to make sense.
This debate gains nothing new from the views of celebrities and academics anyway. A satisfactory democracy can never be created by the instant brainwaves of a supposedly enlightened elite of celebs – which is why local pols are still stuck in the same old rut of long-term failure. And to take that notion even further, I would also suggest that just about all of Thailand’s revered institutions are laboring under the same old illusions about the usefulness of their supposed enlightment to the average citizen. I would trust the grounded comments of long-term non-celeb residents over Amsterdam’s obvious power-career moves any day of the week.
There may be quite a few elements of truth in the words of both Amsterdam and his current client, but after decades of the same old completely worn-out faux democracy of the chosen (& supposedly popular) few, it should be very obvious that the likes of CEO politics have completely failed in their pathetic wrong-headed reactionary attempts to run this country in a more-or-less equitable manner.
If our two heroes wish to return to their winning ways, they should both return to their small-minded commercial roots and make room for the numerous ordinary people who actually have some belief in developing democracy – and who don’t necessarily feel that it is their god-given right to always benefit financially from trying to create a more equitable society.
US legal action on lese majeste
The issue is not just of anonymity, but of internationally wrongful acts employing state jurisdiction over free speech beyond legitimate borders.
So far this wider issue seems to have been by passed.
Thailand’s succession planning
Pavin #11. I disagree. HM Chulalongkorn appointed his favoured son Vajirunhis as Crown Prince in 1886, a title invented explicity to remove uncertainty in a potentially complicated succession. When Vajirunhis died unexpectedly in 1895 the title was then conferred on Vajiravudh, who held the title without contest for 15 years until his father’s death and his succession in 1910.
Its a full 14 years later that the Palace Succession Law was decreed. By then the pressing issue was undoubtedly how to proceed if King Vajiravudh were to die with no direct male heir. Vajiravudh was hopeful until nearly the last moment that he would produce a male heir which perhaps explains why he did not want to follow his father’s precedent of naming a Crown Prince from the available candidates. The alternative was to frame a succession law that would make any son of his the heir apparant, or else provide a systematic way to select the heir from the possible candidates.
Threats to academic freedom
Nice work it was a good read. Doubt those that criticize it even read the report.
Ignore the Nation, remember they reported Thaksin was dead. Needless to say, those reports were greatly exaggerated. It should go back to its old mission and just report the commings and goings of ships at port. Oh wait, internet communication made that obsolete so now they they just invent and print news that the advertisers would want to read if they could communicate in English.
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
Fadhli
I am in broad agreement with you.
Unlike Greg is saying, Malaysia is far from poorly governed banana state. We are no First World country but we are not hopeless, failed state either.
I am optimistic that Najib is given the opportunity, will take Malaysia to the next level.
I am unconvinced that PR can do better, based on their track record and dynamics of their relationships. They are only held together by their hatred for BN and a desire for power, They are dysfunctional.
They like to subscribe for idealistic policies and First World democratic principles at the national level (where they don’t have the power). But at the state level, these policies are missing. Just look at Kelantan. Where the policies that PAS is touting like welfare state? Look at Penang. Where is meritocracy and full democratic rights that DAP is fighting for? DAP still insists for a Chinese CM and rules in a dictatorial fashion.
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
Greg
I see you are not responding to my challenge to debate, which is a clear indication that you are unable to defend your own unacademic and politically biased article.
Your response to Fadhli is also flawed. Opinion surveys locally and by TI are showing that public now have better confidence in agencies such as MACC. The sheer number of people charged, the major changes in the law to empower MACC, the seniority of people charged (Ling, Khir,etc) are indication that fight against corruption is being given much more serious thought. This is something that can’t be denied unless you are completely blinkered by politics.
Tajuddin : Please expand your reading to materials beyond MI, Mkini. Tajuddin’s case is not a case of corruption but mismanagement. FYI he’s suing these portals for portraying his as such. As an academic one expects you to be more familiar with his case before commenting and not taking easy way out by throwing silly accusations.
GTP/ETP is not addressing issues in piecemeal basis. This clearly shows that your understanding of these reforms comes not from research but political web sites like MI, Mkini,etc. Please tell me which key areas / reforms are not covered by ETP/GTP ? Don’t just be generic, please be specific. In my view GTP/ETP one of the most ambitious transformation plan I have seen in last few decades anywhere in the world.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
After the army led massacre in the 1990s I did support the Democrat Party. Thailands other parties were syndicates of mobsters cum politicians who used their provincial gangster syndicate bases to increase their own wealth.
When Thaksin came to power, he did so on the coat-tails of the most debilitation financial crisis to hit Thailand since the Depression. He was overly opressive and forced the society that Thailand had become to change dramatically quickly. Instead of imprisoning and disabling the gangster mob politicians, he instead incorporated them into the TRT. The Democrat party to a lesser degree had the same problem in its base areas in the south (Phuket and Surat Thani come to mind).
Anyway, I was skeptical. However the mobster bosses were forced to close some of their lucrative rackets and conform (like the morality campaigns that shuttered much of Patpong and similar red light districts. Their constitution companies like the one in Chomburi still got lucrative government contracts but they actually had to build the roads, bridges, and sewers that they were contracted to. It was not perfect but the mobsters who didn’t were sometimes convicted in court even if they then were able to escape across the porous border of Cambodia destined to live out there lives outside their native Thailand.
But what impressed me with Thaksin was that when he saw a problem, he acted in a CEO fashion to solve it. Traffic in Bangkok improved, huge infrastructure projects were approved and built including the BTS, The Ring Roads, a new Airport, a Metro. And most importantly he was able to bring health care to the masses especially the rural inhabitants of farming communities. He ran the country like he ran AIS. He was the boss and when he said jump he expected people to do it.
But he lacked a certain amount of Tact, was abrasive, and alienated those who disagreed.
Still Thailand moved ahead.
He did make a number of drastic mistakes, like changing laws in Parliament on Friday and suddenly AIS would reap a 4 billion baht sale on Monday because of the New Law. This kind of behavior alienated the upper middle class of which Thaksin had been a member and a beneficiary.
There were improvement in anti-corruption efforts. The skimming was somewhat limited (nothing like the level that occurred in the pre-crisis era nor subsequently in the Democrat/coup era. This is why Phua Thai, with its third string team did so well, that and of course the senseless massacre of civilians on the streets in 2009 and last year.
Now that his team is back in the seat of government (although by my account not actually being allowed to rule) I hope that for the sake of Democracy the Democrat Party and the non-state actors actually step back and allow it to rule. Contest in the ballot box not the back rooms of coup-appointed courts.
Instead of attacking the legally elected government they need to help democracy by doing their job and keep the ruling accountable.
But more importantly the corruption of the State needs to be penalized. The guilty need to go to jail when they commit larceny of public funds. Courts need to try and convict on evidence not forced confessions. Trials need to open and fair, no matter who is in power.
The LM law needs to be modified if not completely scrapped and the penalties greatly reduced. Ditto with the criminal defamation laws. And in the interests of all, the amount of political space for free speech needs to expand.
The non-liberal elements of the TRT/PPP/PT need to respect differences (for example the rabid attack of the Gay Pride Parade in Chang Mai by the Rak 51 group).
Now that PT is back, I hope it is allowed to rule and hopefully its leader has learned a few things in his time away like how to respect differences and use consensus rather than always commanding. and micro managing.
After the coup and the judicial coups, the only road back to democracy for Thailand was through Thaksin. That is still true in my opinion. If this government is not allowed to rule, then the consequences will be catastrophic and I fear the result will be on the order of a civil war rather than a couple of days of police action.
The red shirts need to remain committed to reform just like the liberal wing of America’s Democratic Party.
For me a person who just wants the best for the nation, we need to support those who are elected and demand that they do the best to lead in ways that they run on. If not, then we need to vote them out. And our votes need to be respected.
Threats to academic freedom
Ashley,
Given that you have previously insulted aid workers as only being interested in seeking a prize for career advancement, it seems hypocritical for you now to complain that criticism of your work is a threat to academic freedom! What goes around, comes around, so I hope you will follow your own advice and stick to the issues in future.
That means addressing the criticism that your analysis lacks proportionality with regards to the causes of (and hence solutions for) ongoing conflict and impoverishment.
regards,
duncan
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Andrew Spooner #77
I disagree that “anonymous posters on comments forums don’t really count”. Like most other posters living in Thailand, I am constrained by the fact that I do not wish to spend time in a Thai gaol, but as a long-term resident I believe I can offer useful comment. I take it you do not live in Thailand.
Ralph Kramden #78
I understand the embassy concentrated on pointing out the damage being done to Thailand’s international reputation to justify Harry’s early relase. Pounding the table would have been counter-productive. Despite Kevin Rudd’s use of that ridiculous cliche about Australia “punching above its weight” in international relations, the fact of the matter is that we cannot simply demand a desired outcome. Perhaps some of our braver posters who are prepared to put their names to their comments could have done a better job. Why not join DFAT and show us how it should be done?
U. Chemp #73.
Thank you for your constructive comment about my “extremely poor understanding of history”. From now on I shall confine my remarks to matters on which I am better informed. And now, could you please give me your views on Mr. Robert Fisk, and his article in Sunday’s Bangkok Post?
Thailand’s succession planning
To Pete S (8)
The Royal Place Law of Succession was enacted because of the controversies in the Chulalongkorn period as I argued in my short article above. But it also helped smoothen the succession process at the end of the Vajiravudh reign, too, as we know that the King had no male heir.
Why the controversies? King Chulalongkorn had four Queens; Saovabha Bongsri, Savang Vadhana, Sukumala and Sunandha (Sunandha died in a tragic accident–her boat capsized while on the way to Ayudhaya). To my knowledge, there was no clear indication which Queen was the number-one Queen; and this complicated the succession especially since there was no Law of Succession at the time.
The King and his three Queens produced seven (surviving) sons with the princely rank of Chao Fah: 5 of them by Queen Saovabha (including Prince Vajiravudh who later became King Rama VI, Prince Chakrabongse Bhuvanath, Prince Asdang Dejavudh, Prince Chudadhut Dharadilok and Prince Prajadhipok or King Rama VII); one by Queen Savang Vadhana (Prince Mahidol Adujyadej who is father of King Ananda Mahidol or King Rama VIII and the present King Bhumibol Adulyadej or King Rama IX); and one by Queen Sukumala (Paribatra Sukhumbhand). Altogether, King Chulalongkorn had 97 children (76 sons and 21 daughters).
To Ajarn Somsak (4)
We spoke in other forum. I agree with your elaboration. As I told you, the reason for posting this article is to provoke further thought on the issue. And your opinion indeed fulfilled such objective.
To Jesse (5)
What can I say? Just “plain ignorance” on your part.
Threats to academic freedom
Agreed with many comments above and hope Mr.Ashly could accepted these critism as complementary contributions. However, I have to admit that Naw Htoo Paw went a bit overboard while Methieson’s views came from a different angle which could not be easily dismissed as personal attack.
In the same time, I’m tired of people like ‘Zaw’ who insulated themselve from real facts to deny the existance of atrocities that happening in Burma. People like him would never accept the reality unless they have a position at the wrong end of a gun.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
RA: [i]The establishment mouthpieces in the mass media, including but not limited to the two main English-language daily newspapers, have begun a campaign to discredit the government as a “puppet” cabinet, obsessing over Thaksin Shinawatra’s every move while fear-mongering about conspiracies supposedly putting Thailand in “imminent danger of falling prey to crafty foreigners.” [/i]
I hope the irony of this being written by a lobbist paid for by Thaksin is not lost by some.
Overcoming Malaysia’s racial divisions
– Extracted from “Malaysia’s ethnic relations taking a turn for the worse?“, Joseph Chin, The Edge, 12 August 2011.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
I’d like to contribute a letter to BKK Post from Guy Baker today for discussion…..
Now the shoe is on the other foot for the US concerning Viktor Bout and Joe Gordon.
Viktor Bout violated no Thai law while in Thailand, no US law while in the US and no Colombian law while in Colombia; yet, he has been imprisoned for years for proposing something in Thailand that might have impacted Colombia, thus possibly violating US law _ and he was imprisoned as a result of unprecedented political pressure from the US government.
That has left the US government defenceless with regard to Joe Gordon: he is accused of violating Thai lese majeste laws while in the US and is being held in Thailand.
If Viktor Bout can be tried in the US, courtesy of Thailand, for allegedly violating US law in some non-specific place, then Joe Gordon can be tried for violating Thai lese majeste laws while he was in the US.
Thai lese majeste laws must be respected as much as US anti-terrorism laws, as they are a matter of Thai national security.
GUY BAKER
Threats to academic freedom
After reading the articles, I don’t see an attack on academic freedom. Rather I see a vigorous debate. Take it up.
Amsterdam on Thailand’s dual state
Didn’t Bill Clinton say something like, “It depends on how you define ‘state?'” They say, do they not, that if they say it isn’t about sex it’s about sex.
Threats to academic freedom
Eisel Mazard,
The reason I criticise Mathieson is that he does precisely what he identifies as hypocrisy in his opening line. Mathieson writes “It’s a standard academic sleight of hand to win an argument by misrepresenting your opponents position.”
And then, for instance, proceeds to write:
Steinberg grudgingly concedes that “major human-rights violations [in Myanmar] … are apparent.” He then portrays the calls for their cessation and the push for an investigation as a “Western policy orthodoxy”. He argues that calls for enhanced sanctions measures and a UN formed Commission of Inquiry are “confrontational approaches” that seek to further isolate the new government.
When what Steinberg actually said was:
“Major human-rights violations and imprisonment of over two thousand prisoners for political reasons (even if titularly they were for “crimes”) are apparent. Without in any sense excusing the past or present governments, will this orthodox policy improve the conditions of the diverse Burmese peoples in that benighted country?”
How is this, in any way, a grudging concession?
Indeed, nobody’s suppressing anyone’s views. The orthodox have unsurprisingly reacted with orthodoxy! And South seems like he’s been thrown off the ox’s back, and is unflatteringly surprised despite being surrounded by human rights wasps lurking to sting anything that moves.
And, moving is precisely what I feel Steinberg and South are advocating for. Mathieson seems to be pro moving to utopia. To refer to Dom’s comment (thanks by the way), I think it takes someone to has worked in government, or at least some sense of utility (like Steinberg), to realize, that what’s best for Burma’s overall population is not to cling rigidly to an ideological righteousness over what happened in 1988, 1990 and 2007 – as though somehow reason will shine down and part the otherwise murky and ugly sea. Those clinging rigidly to righteousness do make themselves useful because they allows eminent figures like Steinberg, who I feel would have much more influence in policy circles, to argue with more pragmatic and rational weight.
And admittedly, I didn’t know the research backgrounds of South and Mathieson before you mentioned CV’s, Eisel. Perhaps they should write a book together. Even Aung San Suu Kyi is open to talks! http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21932
Threats to academic freedom
This is a consistent problem that has been going on for a long time. Many of the exile groups think you are “against them” if you don’t fall in line with their solutions. Reasonable people can, and should, disagree about solutions and it is unfortunate that there are so many who wish to stifle debate. The issues in Burma are so incredibly complex that someone who thinks they know all the answers seems quite foolish.