Perhaps, I should say that some people actually think (or initially thought) that I am the author of this “Fiction” (or one of its authors). But I am most definitely not. I, like everyone else, would love to know who the author(s) is (are), though, as I said, I reject the “second daughter” theory. The reason why I was “implicated” in some people’s mind is either (a) I was probably the best-known name associated with the FDK webboard when the “Fiction” first appeared there; or (b) the name “Somchai” or “sadet pho somchai” (Your Highness Father Somchai) had been invented by some users of the webbaord as a sort of “nickname” for me (without my “permission”!) and for some really seditious (and really hilarious) postings by those people themselves (which I was not involved either). Thus the name “Somchai” that is now the main charactor’s name in the “Fiction” (instead of XXX – which has some history of its own too, but I wouldn’t recount here) has backgrounds in such environment of “seditious” activities of that webbaord too.
P.S. I asked people who run the webbaord, they didn’t know why “Hi s” is/are either. I once even sent a personal message to this “Hi s” (anyone who has a log-in could send message to anyone there) asking who he/she/they is (are), but got no reply at all.
First of all, the “s” in “Hi S Tales” should be in small letter (as can be seen even in the facebook page that Khun Andrew provides link). There’s probably some rationale for this, and it’s quite possibly not that the “Hi” and “s” together would read “his” as Khun Andrew speculates.
“Hi s” is the log-in name of the person (or, as many believe, persons) who posts this work at the Fa Diew Kan webboard, now renamed Khon Muan Kan webboard, the original home of this work (still is).
I understand (and many regular posters of that webboard like myself would say this too) that this log-in name was a play on the name of the most-popular social network websites among Thais at the time, the “Hi’5”. (This was before facebook took over).
The title “Hi’s Tales” that Khun Andrew refers to throughout the article, is actually a kind of late invention, by somebody who created the facebook page. The reason why this work later appeared there is partly the Fa Diew Kan webbaord had been heavily blocked (still is), but also because most users of political webboard (including Fa Diew Kan) have turned to facebook as the main form of communication.
Among the Thais, the work (even before it appeared on facebook) had been commonly referred to as “ni yai Yai Hi” or, literally, “Grandma Hi Fiction”. Another name, which was later used to referred to it, is “Canned Fish Factory Fiction”, but this name is not as popular.
…………
Khun Andrew writes:
From what I have read, Uncle Somchai, the head of the family, is dealt with relatively sympathetically.
and
Although many in the factory think the second daughter is rather passive, the Tales suggest that she is, in fact, involved in a plan with senior management to construct the next management structure in a way that is beneficial to her position.
I don’t think these are quite correct, especially the first quote. The issue of who, among the characters in the “Fiction”, are the principal targets of its attacks, has given rise to a quite wide-spread belief among the pro-Thaksin Red Shirts that the work is penned by the “second daughter” herself and/or her coteries. Those people think seriously that the principle target, apart from the “Uncle” himself, is the “Sergeant” (the name the son is referred to in the “Fiction”). Associated with such belief is an even more widely held one that the work came from members or “insiders” of the “Uncle’s Family” itself (which would have raised a more complicated issue of how, or in what way, the work is seditious, than what Khun Andrew argues here, had it been true). I personally do not share this belief, but (as everyone would appreciate) am not at liberty to elaborate further.
David Brown 59′
I think you ll find a majority of punters on this site believe the Shinawatra clan represent regime change rather than political reform. I personally believe it is dynastic regime change they aim for in the long run. Whether this involves any social democratic progress for the masses as a by product remains to be seen – I doubt it.
No party has anything to gain by repealing the les majeste law which serves to protect whoever wields political power. The mobilization of nationalist sentiment and self righteousness goes to the core of political control of the masses.
And sorry Mr Godwin but I quite like the Hitler/Stalin analogy. Inflated, crude and blunt but an effective satirical comparison – not without merit IMO!
The NEP complexity is created by UMNO (ala Mahathir) and is corrupted beyond recognition. The NEP seeks to redress the balance of economy amongst the races of Malaysia. To this end, Bumiputrs are given preferential treatment in govt “projects” and other public activities. However, the NEP does no dictates the creation of a “handout” bumiputra economy. In the last 20 odd years, this is exactly the case. Eg: APs for car imports, “pink forms” for Bumis without any sale restrictions, monopoly supply contracts to govt agencies, without a need for performance measurements. etc etc
The NEP need not be remove, but the “handout” parts must be removed. BN (UMNO) is not capable of doing this as, most of the beneficiary are from that camp. PR especially PAS and DAP are not handicapped by this. They can maintain the NEP in a clearer more defined way.
Issue # 2
ETP etc transformation and centralised policy implementation?
The concept of GTP, ETP etc are fundamentally good ideas, however the political will and the sincerity of the programs are suspect. Any informed reader will realise that everything with a big budget is now under the Prime Minister’s dept. Divisions in the Prime Minister’s dept has usurp the roles of Ministries, as programs etc cut the entire spectrum of development in Malaysia.
The various Ministries are now reduced to facilitators for programs initiated by the PM’s DEPT. Ministries endorses and legitimise the programs and offer their resources… that is all.
We can only guess at the reason behind this “change”. It is Najib’s way of taking control away from Mahathir’s cronies, who still populate many Ministries. Since Najib is beholden to many people, he neither can fire nor have the political will to fire a whole bunch of people in case he has a rebellion on his hand.
As for “transformation success and transparency? How about rejection of a recent land deal by UDA due the the purchaser “Not Bumi enough”? Well, I guess that’s transparent. The reason is now clear.
Issue # 3,
Your claims of major changes and independence of Police, Macc and judiciary almost made me choke. (sorry for the personal reaction, but jeezz, please pull the other leg!)
All one has to do is to catalog all the so call cases involving people associated with PR or BN, and it would be very obvious that the three “institution” has become another tool of the BN govt. The list is too long to publish here, perhaps “killer” can cmpile his own.
Issue # 4
Crony capitalism – In the past 20 years, this practise by BN has led to massive losses that repeats itself. I can’t see how it can be defended. To quote TBH case is an insult to his memory and show a callousness in the class of Mahathir.
For the uninformed, TBH case only involve a claim of RM$5000/- or something like that. YET “killer” wants to use this as an example to compare with millions, if not billions, in cases invlving BN’s politicians and cronies. This simple fact (the need to use a small case like TBH) shows that PR can’t hold a torch against BN, when it comes to crony capitalism.
issue # 5,6,7.
Someone please take over, I am so tire with the spin and charade of BN cyber troopers.
As a devoted admirer of the lovely Princess Srirasmi, perhaps you could confirm or deny a few rumours for me:
Apparently Srirassmi was “in the crown prince’s service” for several years before the marriage.
(1) Is Srirasmi related to Sujarini?
(2) Did Sujarini arrange for Srirasmi’s job “in the crown prince’s service” ?
(3) Were Sujarini and Srirasmi in the same line of work before joining the crown price’s household?
What we saw on 3rd July was a change in elites, from one headed by Murderous Mark to one headed by Monstrous Maew. Neither of them anywhere near as evil as Hitler or Stalin, of course, but just as Hitler and Stalin were similar in many ways, so too are Murderous Mark and Monstrous Maew. For example, both of them have little liking for a free press. Murderous Mark showed how to use the lese majeste laws to good effect, and I’m sure that Monstrous Maew will follow suit. And like Churchill, anyone can choose to describe one as a hated enemy and the other as a gallant ally, depending on the benefits or disadvantages resulting from their policies.
Now that Murderous Maew has won office, his first priority is to emasculate the UDD/Red Shirts. They may have won the election for him, but how many of their core leaders were rewarded with ministerial portfolios?
According to the Thai embassy in Australia there are close to 600 Thai restaurants in Australia. Or was it just NSW; I forget. A great number of these are in fact run by ethnic Chinese.
Some of these Chinese oweners have admitted to me that they used to run Chinese takeaways but were forced to change to Thai in the 1980s because of 1) the increasing popularity of Thai food amid the tourism boom, and 2) the overblown anti-MSG campaign which killed off many Chinese takeaways by 2000. Remember the large “No MSG here” signs in the old days? Most of these typical suburban Chinese-run “Thai” restaurants are pretty bad, in my opinion.
Of the remainder – those run by ethnic Thais – only about half a dozen or so can truly be considered authentic (some are found in “Thaitown” in Campbell and Pitt Streets in Sydney). The rest cater unashamedly to local Australian tastes, and many readily admit it isn’t what they would serve up at home.
Ironically, some of the high-end farang-run Thai restaurants in Sydney are much more authentic than the Thai-run restaurants – mainly because they cater to a more discerning crowd who aren’t fooled by the unimaginitive faux slop served up by the rest.
As is the case with Thai affairs and politics, well-versed farang often know a great deal more about Thai history and culture than most Thais. Ever try explaining the critical role that the invention of jasmine rice played in, not only Thai food, but the entire direction of “Tai” culture and civilisation?? A blank stare is the likely result!
One lovely old dear simply refused to accept that the panaeng and the mussaman – or even noodles – were not Thai in origin. It’s the same pig-ignorant jingoistic nonsense that informs their entire world view.
Again, your analysis reinforces what I had been saying all along. You don’t analyse economics issues and offer economic solutions but merely look for issues that offer your an avenue to attack the present Malaysian government.
Your analysis is completely wrong that I am wondering if this can even be called as an academic work. Perhaps it is more appropriate to publish such article in Malaysia Today or Sarawak Report for it is 100% politics.
Issue # 1:
That Malaysia needs reforms is not an issue that I would argue with, since it is self evident. But your fatal mistake is providing a political solution to this economic problem (ie, replacing UMNO).
You seems to automatically assume that merely replacing UMNO will bring forth the policy changes. Things are not as simple as you would like your readers (at least the naive and uninformed ones) to believe.
There is no political party in Malaysia supports the removal of NEP, not even the Chinese based DAP would dare to declare it openly. As such your analysis is basically dead on water and a non starter.
The problem is the same. The bumis (not Malays as you has wongly stated here) have been weaned on the NEP and now have because attached to it and reluctant to let it go. This is no different from the Western nations where the public still adamantly opposes the hefty welfare subsidies despite the grave effect on the govt finances and the macro economic health.
Issue # 2
Excessive centralisation: Your argument here is fallacious. At one end you complaint there is too much centralisation (ETP,etc) and at the other point you accuse the govt for not carrying out reforms. ETP & GTP are some of the most ambitious reform programs in the world today. The scale, scope and the depth of these programs are just breathtaking and far reaching. Yet you did not even attempt to examine them. An uninformed reader would have been completely misled by your analysis thinking Najib had done nothing. No Malaysia PM has gone this far and this fast, not even Mahatir.
As for reforms, there is no other way that being driven by the govt and your accusations of centralisation is certainly and completely wrong.
And there is nothing wrong in governments driving the economic programs except in the confused minds of the discredited free market evangelists. The success of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, Ireland and to certain extent Malaysia and China all can be attributed to top-down, centralised approach than the traditional free market method.
Issue # 3
The other issues that you had cited, for example institutional degradation is also off the mark. As you are aware (but unwilling to disclose here), there has been a significant changes in the way Malaysian institutions being run. This started with Badawi and Najib has kicked these reforms a notch higher. The MACC and the judiciary are far more independent and stronger. The police and the civil service, the universities, etc has gone through much changes and the improvement can be seen and felt by most neutrals. ETP/GTP have specific targets and programs. These improvements are also reflected in most neutral surveys and international rankings.
Issue # 4
Crony capitalism
You fail to highlight specific issues in which such practices are rife. Such practices, present in bad old days, have been reduced and eliminated with more transparent tendering processes. The way GLCs are managed has seen a huge change as well. Again, you fail to acknowledge these changes.
BTW, perhaps you would have noted the RCI Report on TBH had highlighted shaddy dealings involving DAP, member of Anwar’s PR coalition. This is, as we Malaysians know, just a tip of the ice berg. PKR, DAP and even PAS are involved in crony capitalism and corruptions.
Issue # 5
Various commentators have highlighted issues that stopping Malaysia from achieving the same growth as in the 90s. But none had quoted the political reasons or offered the political solutions as you do here.
The reason why Malaysia can’t achieve the same growth rates are well known but you did not even attempt to examine any of these but instead trying to focus on politics even though you are an economist.
I wonder why…
Issue # 6
It is common sense that no country can keep up the high growth rate once it reaches a certain stage of development. That’s not due to its weaknesses but only shows that different strategies are needed to propel to the next level.
For example China has far acute level of corruption and ills but still growing super hot.
Issue # 7
The real reason why Najib can’t go full speed on all reforms is not very difficult but pro-Anwar commentators like you conveniently ignore it.
Due to the race politics tactics by Pakatan, BN lost much of the non bumi support. The current BN govt’s base now rests on the bumi support. This includes the more right wing elements like Perkasa. Najib can’t reign in these elements as he needs the full support of the bumi community as the Chinese support is still low due to DAP’s racist tactics. However if he enjoys the Chinese support, he can afford to lose the more extreme elements of the bumis.
So in a nut-shell, it is the lack of support of the non bumi community due to the extreme racist strategies adopted by PR parties like DAP is causing Najib from moving faster and further.
You have raised a very fundamental question about human nature – one that has plagued humankind since the beginning of time. Are human beings by nature “good” or “bad”. I do not know
However, the emotions/characteristics you noted – greed, pride, laziness, selfishness, etc – can be regulated by institutions.
Institutions provide the right incentives so that humans behave “good” rather than “bad” . When everyone obeys traffic laws, cost to the individual and society is reduced. If an individual decides to break the law out of self-interest, he/she is penalised.
However, to build these institutions require individuals who are “good” as the foundation of institutions are still the individuals.
Therefore, first and foremost, the “reality” of the individual needs to be altered. This of course involves a cognitive process.
And this is where Pakatan Rakyat (PR) plays a role (no doubt they do it not for altruistic but political purpose).
The language that PR uses – Ketuanan Rakyat (Supremacy of the People), Welfare State and PAS for all (by PAS), Middle Malaysia (by DAP) , rule of law, human rights, environmental rights, a Malaysia for all Malaysians – challenges the current ideology of Malay/Islamic Supremacy or power sharing concept that is promoted by the ruling regime.
Civil society actors are utilising PR to embed “good” values into Malaysia’s system of government because the ruling regime cannot reform.
Individuals are autonomous and have the right to determine their behaviour but society can develop institutions that reward universally accepted “good” behaviour.
What is this good behaviour. Well, I have ideas of what it is but its best decided collectively through a democratic process.
That is the crux of my argument – that institutions in Malaysia be restructured away from rewarding bad behaviour towards good.
yes, Nickolaides was an example to stifle free speech around the world
Thai elites trying to impose their repressive, anti-democratic controls over anyone interested in the country
no country can claim to be democratic while there are any people and institutions, such as royalty and military generals that are not under control of and accountable to the people of the country though their elected representative government
I wonder how you can be confident that these things will not change in the term of the Yingluck government, is it because you think the Royals and Generals will manage to keep their control for this much longer?
I have talked to FIVE Thai restaurant owners who received this certificate. And they all told me the same thing.
But it is possible that they probably have applied for them beforehand (I can check with them again to make sure).
Nevertheless, I can assure you that the part where I said “official who comes in to taste the food will not reveal themselves as to who they are” is 100% truth.
Guys, my support for Princess Srirasmi being the next Queen is genuine. I was not being sarcastic. I REALLY want her to be the next Queen. She is beautiful, arguably the most beautiful Queen-to-be of this era. I also have other reasons, but I abstain from saying them.
I have attended both the 2008 and 2011 conferences and would like to make a short comment.
In my memory the 2008 conference was much more interesting. However, I am not convinced that this was entirely due to the ‘passion of the academics’.
1. Much of the potential of the 2011 conference was not utilized. Interesting papers that would have been relevant for each other and could have resulted in vibrant discussions seemed to have been deliberately put into different panels. Nearly all political panels have been in the same time slot so that people had to decide to which one of them to go. Panels likely to attract high numbers of people have been put into the smallest room.
2. Academic conferences have the purpose to give people the opportunity to get their thoughts out there no matter what the topic or the stage of the project. This naturally results in many not so good or for you irrelevant presentations. But isn’t it part of academic freedom to pursue project you deem as unimportant?
3. Some irrelevant papers could have been avoided by more selection. At least the really brilliant presentation about Kenya could have been redirected to an African Studies conference.
Finally, personally I understand that censorship and political violence are important topics and I am thankful to those who work on these issues. But you cannot expect that ever scholar working on Thailand and even Thai politics has to cover these issues in their academic work. That does not make them less passionate. They simply have a passion you don’t share.
Wow, the usual PAD-analogy would be Thaksin Hitler, but in your comment Mark is Hitler and Thaksin would be Stalin … was it really your intent to make such a comparison (and of course you broke Godwins law)
CT#45 I’m not sure where your rather romantic accounts of Thai Select certification come from. The reality is rather more prosaic. The application forms for Thai Select are available at http://thaiselect.com.au/thaiselectarticle.html
And I am quite sure that Thai in Aus #17 is correct when saying “the selection based on whoever that applied for it”
You remind me of World War Two, when Hitler with his 6 million concentration camp victims was the hated enemy, while Stalin with his 12 million conecntration camp victim was the gallant ally.
If 91 dead makes Abhisit “murderous Mark”, does the much greater combined total for Tak Bai/Krueseh Mosque/the War on Drugs make Thaksin “monstrous Maew”?
Whatever we call him, he’s NOT the Thai version of Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi.
Seems like Thailand is facing the same problems that Malaysia is facing – the Middle Income Trap.
Malaysia’s problem is that the political leadership cannot define the national interest.
Hope that Thailand has leaders like that of Hawke/Keating that can define the national interest and sell the idea of painful but beneficial structural reforms and implement them wisely.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Narrative sedition and democratic consolidation
Perhaps, I should say that some people actually think (or initially thought) that I am the author of this “Fiction” (or one of its authors). But I am most definitely not. I, like everyone else, would love to know who the author(s) is (are), though, as I said, I reject the “second daughter” theory. The reason why I was “implicated” in some people’s mind is either (a) I was probably the best-known name associated with the FDK webboard when the “Fiction” first appeared there; or (b) the name “Somchai” or “sadet pho somchai” (Your Highness Father Somchai) had been invented by some users of the webbaord as a sort of “nickname” for me (without my “permission”!) and for some really seditious (and really hilarious) postings by those people themselves (which I was not involved either). Thus the name “Somchai” that is now the main charactor’s name in the “Fiction” (instead of XXX – which has some history of its own too, but I wouldn’t recount here) has backgrounds in such environment of “seditious” activities of that webbaord too.
P.S. I asked people who run the webbaord, they didn’t know why “Hi s” is/are either. I once even sent a personal message to this “Hi s” (anyone who has a log-in could send message to anyone there) asking who he/she/they is (are), but got no reply at all.
Narrative sedition and democratic consolidation
Just some quick comments, maybe more later.
About the title of the work.
First of all, the “s” in “Hi S Tales” should be in small letter (as can be seen even in the facebook page that Khun Andrew provides link). There’s probably some rationale for this, and it’s quite possibly not that the “Hi” and “s” together would read “his” as Khun Andrew speculates.
“Hi s” is the log-in name of the person (or, as many believe, persons) who posts this work at the Fa Diew Kan webboard, now renamed Khon Muan Kan webboard, the original home of this work (still is).
I understand (and many regular posters of that webboard like myself would say this too) that this log-in name was a play on the name of the most-popular social network websites among Thais at the time, the “Hi’5”. (This was before facebook took over).
The title “Hi’s Tales” that Khun Andrew refers to throughout the article, is actually a kind of late invention, by somebody who created the facebook page. The reason why this work later appeared there is partly the Fa Diew Kan webbaord had been heavily blocked (still is), but also because most users of political webboard (including Fa Diew Kan) have turned to facebook as the main form of communication.
Among the Thais, the work (even before it appeared on facebook) had been commonly referred to as “ni yai Yai Hi” or, literally, “Grandma Hi Fiction”. Another name, which was later used to referred to it, is “Canned Fish Factory Fiction”, but this name is not as popular.
…………
Khun Andrew writes:
From what I have read, Uncle Somchai, the head of the family, is dealt with relatively sympathetically.
and
Although many in the factory think the second daughter is rather passive, the Tales suggest that she is, in fact, involved in a plan with senior management to construct the next management structure in a way that is beneficial to her position.
I don’t think these are quite correct, especially the first quote. The issue of who, among the characters in the “Fiction”, are the principal targets of its attacks, has given rise to a quite wide-spread belief among the pro-Thaksin Red Shirts that the work is penned by the “second daughter” herself and/or her coteries. Those people think seriously that the principle target, apart from the “Uncle” himself, is the “Sergeant” (the name the son is referred to in the “Fiction”). Associated with such belief is an even more widely held one that the work came from members or “insiders” of the “Uncle’s Family” itself (which would have raised a more complicated issue of how, or in what way, the work is seditious, than what Khun Andrew argues here, had it been true). I personally do not share this belief, but (as everyone would appreciate) am not at liberty to elaborate further.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
David Brown 59′
I think you ll find a majority of punters on this site believe the Shinawatra clan represent regime change rather than political reform. I personally believe it is dynastic regime change they aim for in the long run. Whether this involves any social democratic progress for the masses as a by product remains to be seen – I doubt it.
No party has anything to gain by repealing the les majeste law which serves to protect whoever wields political power. The mobilization of nationalist sentiment and self righteousness goes to the core of political control of the masses.
And sorry Mr Godwin but I quite like the Hitler/Stalin analogy. Inflated, crude and blunt but an effective satirical comparison – not without merit IMO!
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
Killer # 4,
Let’s look at the issues you have highlighted and examine them in the context of Malaysia and the BN (UMNO) govt.
Issue # 1. Replacing BN (UMNO) govt with PR (PAS /DAP /PKR).
The NEP complexity is created by UMNO (ala Mahathir) and is corrupted beyond recognition. The NEP seeks to redress the balance of economy amongst the races of Malaysia. To this end, Bumiputrs are given preferential treatment in govt “projects” and other public activities. However, the NEP does no dictates the creation of a “handout” bumiputra economy. In the last 20 odd years, this is exactly the case. Eg: APs for car imports, “pink forms” for Bumis without any sale restrictions, monopoly supply contracts to govt agencies, without a need for performance measurements. etc etc
The NEP need not be remove, but the “handout” parts must be removed. BN (UMNO) is not capable of doing this as, most of the beneficiary are from that camp. PR especially PAS and DAP are not handicapped by this. They can maintain the NEP in a clearer more defined way.
Issue # 2
ETP etc transformation and centralised policy implementation?
The concept of GTP, ETP etc are fundamentally good ideas, however the political will and the sincerity of the programs are suspect. Any informed reader will realise that everything with a big budget is now under the Prime Minister’s dept. Divisions in the Prime Minister’s dept has usurp the roles of Ministries, as programs etc cut the entire spectrum of development in Malaysia.
The various Ministries are now reduced to facilitators for programs initiated by the PM’s DEPT. Ministries endorses and legitimise the programs and offer their resources… that is all.
We can only guess at the reason behind this “change”. It is Najib’s way of taking control away from Mahathir’s cronies, who still populate many Ministries. Since Najib is beholden to many people, he neither can fire nor have the political will to fire a whole bunch of people in case he has a rebellion on his hand.
As for “transformation success and transparency? How about rejection of a recent land deal by UDA due the the purchaser “Not Bumi enough”? Well, I guess that’s transparent. The reason is now clear.
Issue # 3,
Your claims of major changes and independence of Police, Macc and judiciary almost made me choke. (sorry for the personal reaction, but jeezz, please pull the other leg!)
All one has to do is to catalog all the so call cases involving people associated with PR or BN, and it would be very obvious that the three “institution” has become another tool of the BN govt. The list is too long to publish here, perhaps “killer” can cmpile his own.
Issue # 4
Crony capitalism – In the past 20 years, this practise by BN has led to massive losses that repeats itself. I can’t see how it can be defended. To quote TBH case is an insult to his memory and show a callousness in the class of Mahathir.
For the uninformed, TBH case only involve a claim of RM$5000/- or something like that. YET “killer” wants to use this as an example to compare with millions, if not billions, in cases invlving BN’s politicians and cronies. This simple fact (the need to use a small case like TBH) shows that PR can’t hold a torch against BN, when it comes to crony capitalism.
issue # 5,6,7.
Someone please take over, I am so tire with the spin and charade of BN cyber troopers.
Crown Prince’s family update?
CT #67
As a devoted admirer of the lovely Princess Srirasmi, perhaps you could confirm or deny a few rumours for me:
Apparently Srirassmi was “in the crown prince’s service” for several years before the marriage.
(1) Is Srirasmi related to Sujarini?
(2) Did Sujarini arrange for Srirasmi’s job “in the crown prince’s service” ?
(3) Were Sujarini and Srirasmi in the same line of work before joining the crown price’s household?
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
David Brown #59
What we saw on 3rd July was a change in elites, from one headed by Murderous Mark to one headed by Monstrous Maew. Neither of them anywhere near as evil as Hitler or Stalin, of course, but just as Hitler and Stalin were similar in many ways, so too are Murderous Mark and Monstrous Maew. For example, both of them have little liking for a free press. Murderous Mark showed how to use the lese majeste laws to good effect, and I’m sure that Monstrous Maew will follow suit. And like Churchill, anyone can choose to describe one as a hated enemy and the other as a gallant ally, depending on the benefits or disadvantages resulting from their policies.
Now that Murderous Maew has won office, his first priority is to emasculate the UDD/Red Shirts. They may have won the election for him, but how many of their core leaders were rewarded with ministerial portfolios?
Thai food: Universally delicious?
According to the Thai embassy in Australia there are close to 600 Thai restaurants in Australia. Or was it just NSW; I forget. A great number of these are in fact run by ethnic Chinese.
Some of these Chinese oweners have admitted to me that they used to run Chinese takeaways but were forced to change to Thai in the 1980s because of 1) the increasing popularity of Thai food amid the tourism boom, and 2) the overblown anti-MSG campaign which killed off many Chinese takeaways by 2000. Remember the large “No MSG here” signs in the old days? Most of these typical suburban Chinese-run “Thai” restaurants are pretty bad, in my opinion.
Of the remainder – those run by ethnic Thais – only about half a dozen or so can truly be considered authentic (some are found in “Thaitown” in Campbell and Pitt Streets in Sydney). The rest cater unashamedly to local Australian tastes, and many readily admit it isn’t what they would serve up at home.
Ironically, some of the high-end farang-run Thai restaurants in Sydney are much more authentic than the Thai-run restaurants – mainly because they cater to a more discerning crowd who aren’t fooled by the unimaginitive faux slop served up by the rest.
As is the case with Thai affairs and politics, well-versed farang often know a great deal more about Thai history and culture than most Thais. Ever try explaining the critical role that the invention of jasmine rice played in, not only Thai food, but the entire direction of “Tai” culture and civilisation?? A blank stare is the likely result!
One lovely old dear simply refused to accept that the panaeng and the mussaman – or even noodles – were not Thai in origin. It’s the same pig-ignorant jingoistic nonsense that informs their entire world view.
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
Greg
Again, your analysis reinforces what I had been saying all along. You don’t analyse economics issues and offer economic solutions but merely look for issues that offer your an avenue to attack the present Malaysian government.
Your analysis is completely wrong that I am wondering if this can even be called as an academic work. Perhaps it is more appropriate to publish such article in Malaysia Today or Sarawak Report for it is 100% politics.
Issue # 1:
That Malaysia needs reforms is not an issue that I would argue with, since it is self evident. But your fatal mistake is providing a political solution to this economic problem (ie, replacing UMNO).
You seems to automatically assume that merely replacing UMNO will bring forth the policy changes. Things are not as simple as you would like your readers (at least the naive and uninformed ones) to believe.
There is no political party in Malaysia supports the removal of NEP, not even the Chinese based DAP would dare to declare it openly. As such your analysis is basically dead on water and a non starter.
The problem is the same. The bumis (not Malays as you has wongly stated here) have been weaned on the NEP and now have because attached to it and reluctant to let it go. This is no different from the Western nations where the public still adamantly opposes the hefty welfare subsidies despite the grave effect on the govt finances and the macro economic health.
Issue # 2
Excessive centralisation: Your argument here is fallacious. At one end you complaint there is too much centralisation (ETP,etc) and at the other point you accuse the govt for not carrying out reforms. ETP & GTP are some of the most ambitious reform programs in the world today. The scale, scope and the depth of these programs are just breathtaking and far reaching. Yet you did not even attempt to examine them. An uninformed reader would have been completely misled by your analysis thinking Najib had done nothing. No Malaysia PM has gone this far and this fast, not even Mahatir.
As for reforms, there is no other way that being driven by the govt and your accusations of centralisation is certainly and completely wrong.
And there is nothing wrong in governments driving the economic programs except in the confused minds of the discredited free market evangelists. The success of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, Ireland and to certain extent Malaysia and China all can be attributed to top-down, centralised approach than the traditional free market method.
Issue # 3
The other issues that you had cited, for example institutional degradation is also off the mark. As you are aware (but unwilling to disclose here), there has been a significant changes in the way Malaysian institutions being run. This started with Badawi and Najib has kicked these reforms a notch higher. The MACC and the judiciary are far more independent and stronger. The police and the civil service, the universities, etc has gone through much changes and the improvement can be seen and felt by most neutrals. ETP/GTP have specific targets and programs. These improvements are also reflected in most neutral surveys and international rankings.
Issue # 4
Crony capitalism
You fail to highlight specific issues in which such practices are rife. Such practices, present in bad old days, have been reduced and eliminated with more transparent tendering processes. The way GLCs are managed has seen a huge change as well. Again, you fail to acknowledge these changes.
BTW, perhaps you would have noted the RCI Report on TBH had highlighted shaddy dealings involving DAP, member of Anwar’s PR coalition. This is, as we Malaysians know, just a tip of the ice berg. PKR, DAP and even PAS are involved in crony capitalism and corruptions.
Issue # 5
Various commentators have highlighted issues that stopping Malaysia from achieving the same growth as in the 90s. But none had quoted the political reasons or offered the political solutions as you do here.
The reason why Malaysia can’t achieve the same growth rates are well known but you did not even attempt to examine any of these but instead trying to focus on politics even though you are an economist.
I wonder why…
Issue # 6
It is common sense that no country can keep up the high growth rate once it reaches a certain stage of development. That’s not due to its weaknesses but only shows that different strategies are needed to propel to the next level.
For example China has far acute level of corruption and ills but still growing super hot.
Issue # 7
The real reason why Najib can’t go full speed on all reforms is not very difficult but pro-Anwar commentators like you conveniently ignore it.
Due to the race politics tactics by Pakatan, BN lost much of the non bumi support. The current BN govt’s base now rests on the bumi support. This includes the more right wing elements like Perkasa. Najib can’t reign in these elements as he needs the full support of the bumi community as the Chinese support is still low due to DAP’s racist tactics. However if he enjoys the Chinese support, he can afford to lose the more extreme elements of the bumis.
So in a nut-shell, it is the lack of support of the non bumi community due to the extreme racist strategies adopted by PR parties like DAP is causing Najib from moving faster and further.
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
aborium #2
You have raised a very fundamental question about human nature – one that has plagued humankind since the beginning of time. Are human beings by nature “good” or “bad”. I do not know
However, the emotions/characteristics you noted – greed, pride, laziness, selfishness, etc – can be regulated by institutions.
Institutions provide the right incentives so that humans behave “good” rather than “bad” . When everyone obeys traffic laws, cost to the individual and society is reduced. If an individual decides to break the law out of self-interest, he/she is penalised.
However, to build these institutions require individuals who are “good” as the foundation of institutions are still the individuals.
Douglass North has this schema:
“Reality” — Beliefs — Institutions — Specific policies — Outcomes (and thus altered reality)
Therefore, first and foremost, the “reality” of the individual needs to be altered. This of course involves a cognitive process.
And this is where Pakatan Rakyat (PR) plays a role (no doubt they do it not for altruistic but political purpose).
The language that PR uses – Ketuanan Rakyat (Supremacy of the People), Welfare State and PAS for all (by PAS), Middle Malaysia (by DAP) , rule of law, human rights, environmental rights, a Malaysia for all Malaysians – challenges the current ideology of Malay/Islamic Supremacy or power sharing concept that is promoted by the ruling regime.
Civil society actors are utilising PR to embed “good” values into Malaysia’s system of government because the ruling regime cannot reform.
Individuals are autonomous and have the right to determine their behaviour but society can develop institutions that reward universally accepted “good” behaviour.
What is this good behaviour. Well, I have ideas of what it is but its best decided collectively through a democratic process.
That is the crux of my argument – that institutions in Malaysia be restructured away from rewarding bad behaviour towards good.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Seh Fah // Aug 23, 2011 at 1:11 pm #56
yes, Nickolaides was an example to stifle free speech around the world
Thai elites trying to impose their repressive, anti-democratic controls over anyone interested in the country
no country can claim to be democratic while there are any people and institutions, such as royalty and military generals that are not under control of and accountable to the people of the country though their elected representative government
I wonder how you can be confident that these things will not change in the term of the Yingluck government, is it because you think the Royals and Generals will manage to keep their control for this much longer?
Thai food: Universally delicious?
@Pete #46,
I have talked to FIVE Thai restaurant owners who received this certificate. And they all told me the same thing.
But it is possible that they probably have applied for them beforehand (I can check with them again to make sure).
Nevertheless, I can assure you that the part where I said “official who comes in to taste the food will not reveal themselves as to who they are” is 100% truth.
Crown Prince’s family update?
Guys, my support for Princess Srirasmi being the next Queen is genuine. I was not being sarcastic. I REALLY want her to be the next Queen. She is beautiful, arguably the most beautiful Queen-to-be of this era. I also have other reasons, but I abstain from saying them.
No passion at ICTS11
I have attended both the 2008 and 2011 conferences and would like to make a short comment.
In my memory the 2008 conference was much more interesting. However, I am not convinced that this was entirely due to the ‘passion of the academics’.
1. Much of the potential of the 2011 conference was not utilized. Interesting papers that would have been relevant for each other and could have resulted in vibrant discussions seemed to have been deliberately put into different panels. Nearly all political panels have been in the same time slot so that people had to decide to which one of them to go. Panels likely to attract high numbers of people have been put into the smallest room.
2. Academic conferences have the purpose to give people the opportunity to get their thoughts out there no matter what the topic or the stage of the project. This naturally results in many not so good or for you irrelevant presentations. But isn’t it part of academic freedom to pursue project you deem as unimportant?
3. Some irrelevant papers could have been avoided by more selection. At least the really brilliant presentation about Kenya could have been redirected to an African Studies conference.
Finally, personally I understand that censorship and political violence are important topics and I am thankful to those who work on these issues. But you cannot expect that ever scholar working on Thailand and even Thai politics has to cover these issues in their academic work. That does not make them less passionate. They simply have a passion you don’t share.
Crown Prince’s family update?
Dan – 63
Surprised that you didn’t get the sarcasm there.
Anyway, if the King is really as decent as you said Thailand should be a much better place.
Thai food: Universally delicious?
Constant Petit 42
I for one don’t think Prawns on the barbie is the best in the world !
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Seh Fah #57
Wow, the usual PAD-analogy would be Thaksin Hitler, but in your comment Mark is Hitler and Thaksin would be Stalin … was it really your intent to make such a comparison (and of course you broke Godwins law)
Thai food: Universally delicious?
CT#45 I’m not sure where your rather romantic accounts of Thai Select certification come from. The reality is rather more prosaic. The application forms for Thai Select are available at http://thaiselect.com.au/thaiselectarticle.html
And I am quite sure that Thai in Aus #17 is correct when saying “the selection based on whoever that applied for it”
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Ricky #49
You remind me of World War Two, when Hitler with his 6 million concentration camp victims was the hated enemy, while Stalin with his 12 million conecntration camp victim was the gallant ally.
If 91 dead makes Abhisit “murderous Mark”, does the much greater combined total for Tak Bai/Krueseh Mosque/the War on Drugs make Thaksin “monstrous Maew”?
Whatever we call him, he’s NOT the Thai version of Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi.
Crown Prince’s family update?
Dan #64
Please note: New Mandala has space for humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. I suspect CT stands for “cheeky Thai”.
Thailand’s economic success
Seems like Thailand is facing the same problems that Malaysia is facing – the Middle Income Trap.
Malaysia’s problem is that the political leadership cannot define the national interest.
Hope that Thailand has leaders like that of Hawke/Keating that can define the national interest and sell the idea of painful but beneficial structural reforms and implement them wisely.