Oh dear, I didn’t realize Ahbisit supporters voted for Ahbisit because he is their puppet. No wonder their current campaign platform is in a mess – one has to respect their leader, not treat him like a cutey little puppet to be hidden away at the first sight of trouble.
Thanks Kate, for explaining this little point. Now I understand why all a number of my ‘tai-tai’ (rich housewives) friends and their daughters just went nuts and screams when ‘good looking’ Ahbisit comes near, and understand how Ahbisit ended up in the Militiary barracks. Puppet! Who could have thought!
But please, for the sake of Thailand’s future. Vote for a Prime Minister, huh!
Abhisit is my puppet becuz I voted for him. 🙂 He’s also a puppet of 235 members of parliament who voted for him on Dec 15, 2008. I was watching the voting process live and I didn’t see any soldiers pointing guns at those 235 voters and forced them to vote. Did soldiers hold their kids hostage outside to make them vote for Abhisit ? I don’t know, you show me an evidence. As long as you don’t have one, it’s your own speculation. As for Yingluck, the lady has been traveling around the country asking voters “do you miss my brother ?” (clap) “do you want him back home ?” (clap) “if you miss him, vote for me” (clap) Now that’s an evidence to me and that’s probably the only PT policy that she can talk about without script. 🙂
I have also just read your article “In memory of Hiro Muramoto”, which i found shocking/disturbing/enlightening, and incredibly important.
This article somehow seems to go under a bit in the Wikileaks discussion, and has to be highlighted here as well. I am blown away by this article, and the politics involved.
What is it with Thailand? Why does Thailand invoke such emotions even under us journalists, and why is Thailand treated differently than any other country when it comes down to reporting facts, or why is it permissible/excusable to omit so much of what we should report about? Why are we so scared?
Why do even global news agencies like Reuters behave this way?
Why is it seen so problematic even by many of us foreign journalists in Thailand to be uncomfortable? Isn’t that what we are supposed to be in the first place, regardless where we work? Why should this not be so in Thailand as well? What is it that makes Thailand so special?
I have been working/living here 18 years now, and i still don’t get it.
I should add also that I have incredible admiration for Andrew Walker and Nich Farrelly for the work they do – and not least for hosting this site on which we are all able to comment on these issues. Many people have made sacrifices to help improve our understanding of Thailand, and Andrew and Nich’s contribution is clearly not as self-hyped as mine but should not be underestimated. I am sure they will comment when they are ready to do so, and whether their views on my story are positive, negative or mixed, I have no doubt they will contribute to the debate in a useful way.
Very fair comments from many posters here and I am particularly grateful for Ajarn Somsak’s informed analysis. It is humbling and educative to have such respected experts commenting on my journalism. I would also like to put on record that I consider Nick Nostitz’s work to be a superb contribution to our knowledge of modern Thailand. Unlike all the armchair pundits (and I fall into that category, alas) he has been totally immersed in what he writes about and that makes his insights exceptionally valuable.
I welcome all informed debate and criticism of my story, other than the abuse from people who have not bothered to read it. Debate is exactly what Thailand needs right now. I will join the debate more fully in coming days but first I need to finish parts 3 and 4. I have added a few more interesting cables on http://www.zenjournalist.com – the top post is sticky but please look below and I will find them. Best wishes.
I thought I would wait until the whole article is made public to write any critical comment. But since PPT has already started, I think I might as well register certain reservations of Khun Andrew M Marshall’s analysis in the first two parts. (What I’m saying here is to some extent similar to PPT’s, though I also have some, perhaps not large, disagreement with their assessment, especially concerning the rather theoretical/philosophical issue of the legitimacy of presenting the “elite” vs “mass” levels of politics.)
There are two related issues that I disagree with Khun Andrew. First, the role, resposibility, and thus the distribution of criticism, of the King relative to the other members of the royal family and all their ‘entourages’ or ‘networks’ of royalists (from privy councilors to the PAD, etc). Second, the relative significance of the monarchy (the king especially) and the military, in terms of promoting/hindering the road to democracy past and present. The latter issue is argued quite strongly in the second part of the article (PPT’s comment only covers the first part), hence my quite strong disagreement with it.
But here’s my problem (which I think Khun Andrew would fully understand) – if I were to argue against his analysis, I would inevitably have to provide counter-examples of facts and arguments, which I or anyone else under Thai law, would not be able to.
Take the well-known and often-cited incident of the King’s 2005 birthday speech, which a lot of people take as his reluctance or even disapproval of the use of LM in recent years (or, similarly, a cable report of his telling Abhisit in a private audience). Suppose I were to say that there is a much more plausible (in terms of both factual and historical context) explanation of the speech that is quite the opposite of what people are saying? How am I to say anything more than just such assertion? In fact simply making assertion like this already runs the risks of violating LM.
Khun Andrew has done a great service to Thailand’s future by making public all the WikiLeaks cables relating to the monarchy. But I think he — I would say the majority of observers –would need to think more thoroughly the issue of the monarchy, the relative roles of the individuals within the institution, and the relative roles of them vis-a-vis the military and other political actors. Even something that seems so “obvious” as the supposed “genuine love, affection, etc. of the Thai people towards their king” that most observers are fond of repeating, is – I would love to argue, but I couldn’t! – actually much more complex a phenomenon, much least legitimate or “genuine”.
Needless to say, what I just wrote is quite risky already.
Yinglak heads the Phuea Thai (For Thailand) Party.
Her political opponents – presumably the Democrats – have been circulating a mock election pamphlet referring to the Phao Thai (Burn Thailand) Party.
And don’t forget that Jatuphorn stood on stage at Ratchaprasong Intersection in May last year and urged the Red Shirts to burn down Bangkok if the troops moved in.
And remember that the brave lads of the Royal Thai Army, obviously very fearful of all those dangerously unarmed demonstrators, actually put up signs on the approaches to the Red Shirt barricades reading “Keep Out! Free Fire Zone!”
At least in May 1992 they were honest enought to call the violent dispersal of the demonstrators in front of the Royal Hotel Operation Phairi Phinat (Destroy the Enemy), and to admit to killing around 40 of them.
Andrew and Nich thanks for your replies. Now I’m sure my day job takes up many more hours than yours, but I do recognize the importance on what’s being released. This is the inside look at many of the subjects both you and to a far lesser extent of course, myself, have posted about. It’s a chance to modify some viewpoints now a few facts have been unearthed to support or disprove previous conjecture.
I will take your word and look forward to plenty of comment from you on these cables. How about some of the others out there? You are very noticeable by your absence.
We do all this under our own names and make no effort to shield ourselves from debate.
Now now Nich, if that’s a dig at me the circumstances are very different between us, and I don’t actually see any attempt to shield myself from debate. It is a fact you know full well my real name and that I trust New Mandala to honour my wishes on anonymity. If I didn’t I would obviously not be posting or commenting here. Of course if I end up as refugee down where you are because of a new government’s actions, I would hope for your support, and maybe a settee to sleep on for a few days 😉
As well as being mean spirited towards NM, Les probably hasn’t read the PPT guest contributor article or read it with his blinkers on. It seems to me that the article makes a case for a subaltern historical view. That is not earth-shattering. Nor is the statement that cables are elite-centric views.
Plenty of historians have been making a similar point about the need for a view from below for decades (not least at ANU).
The article says that relying on cables like these doesn’t do that. It also makes the point, as was made above, that these cables are a partial story. Who could disagree with that?
There’s no attempt to say that the whole thing is ideologically unsound as far as I can see.
Meanwhile, I am reading the cables and finding them of considerable interest. I’m grateful to Andrew M. for his efforts.
“It’s very noticeable the experts on New Mandala who are making no comments on probably the best glimpse behind curtains for many years. You should be ashamed of yourselves. About time you spoke out guys. ”
Seriously?
Andrew Walker and I talk to every journalist (or student, colleague, member of the public, etc, etc) who asks about the Wikileaks cables and the wider Thai political conflict. For what it’s worth, I just did a long interview on the topic this morning, broadcast all over the Asia-Pacific. We do all this under our own names and make no effort to shield ourselves from debate.
We have a longstanding commitment to open debate — why else would we continue to run New Mandala? Our University hosts the most prominent website for discussing all of the most important and sensitive issues, with a 5-year-old policy of welcoming voices from all points-of-view.
I am sitting at my desk, right now, writing an analysis of the unfolding Wikileaks saga. These things take time. You suggest we should be ashamed of ourselves? Are you serious?
No party in Thailand last year has ‘burned the city’. Burned Central World, yes. But who did it? There is still no conclusive answer. What I certainly know is there has been a clear attempt from the Thai officials to hide information. The leaked 74 photos, leaked last December from DSI files, is one example of the evidence which the officials withheld. I can guess who ordered the arson, but without clear evidence, I would not say the name of the party who ordered the CTS arson outloud. I am not like most typical Thais who lack ability to analyse information, and who are credulous enough to believe anything the elites spoonfeed them on TV.
But “burning the city” is another matter, so if one says I will not support people who burn the city, we will have to figure out who these people are. So let’s talk about history, shall we?
In Thai History of Rattanakosin era, burning the city occurred only a few times. The first was the burning of ‘Pattani’, during the reign of King Rama III. The whole town was burned beyond repair to silence dissent. The other time was the burning of Vientiane, Laos. I am not whether the whole city had been burned or not, but the Emerald Buddha was taken from Vientiane into Wat Phra Kaew in Bangkok nowadays.
Both burnings appear to be the order of the King who reigned at that time.
So Kate, if you will not support people who burn the city, that means you do not support the House of Chakri, I presume?
Will Andrew Marshall join the middle class revolutionaries enemies list along with Amnesty International and Human Rights watch? It seems you can’t be just a little bit pro. You have to go the whole hog and stick with the propaganda line.
The Wikileaks cables are unacceptable to these people as they don’t fit their present line. That they were not meant to be in public domain gives them their own strength and truth. It’s very noticeable the experts on New Mandala who are making no comments on probably the best glimpse behind curtains for many years. You should be ashamed of yourselves. About time you spoke out guys.
Cannot agree more with Jay Jackson. The Democrats this time are very, very poorly led by the man named Apisit. All this man can do is to blame others, especially former Prime Minister Thaksin. Just this morning, I heard Apisit on TV blaming former Minister of Foreign Affairs Noppadol for having given Cambodia the upper hand. The only one Apisit has left free of blame is himself. It’s time he has his head examined. Is Apisit fit to lead at all? The voters should ask this question seriously. One should not be misled by the man’s acting. Perhaps one role really suited to him is that of professor of drama. Chula should be glad to put him on its fine arts faculty.
Ha Ha! I think it can be ten in a roll. It can be seen clearly that the Democrat can never win any election even with a help from “the invincible hand.” The reason is because this party never have any policy, for them policy is just a kind of propaganda to win election. They took policy as granted. That is the reason why they are so afraid of Thaksin.
It doesn’t change the fact that the lady is merely a puppet who doesn’t have her own political standing point. She can’t go on a single public speech without a script.
Wow, I thought you were mentioning Abhisit for a second there.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
เรารัก-ยิ่งลักษณ์
Oh dear, I didn’t realize Ahbisit supporters voted for Ahbisit because he is their puppet. No wonder their current campaign platform is in a mess – one has to respect their leader, not treat him like a cutey little puppet to be hidden away at the first sight of trouble.
Thanks Kate, for explaining this little point. Now I understand why all a number of my ‘tai-tai’ (rich housewives) friends and their daughters just went nuts and screams when ‘good looking’ Ahbisit comes near, and understand how Ahbisit ended up in the Militiary barracks. Puppet! Who could have thought!
But please, for the sake of Thailand’s future. Vote for a Prime Minister, huh!
เรารัก-ยิ่งลักษณ์
@Tarrin
Abhisit is my puppet becuz I voted for him. 🙂 He’s also a puppet of 235 members of parliament who voted for him on Dec 15, 2008. I was watching the voting process live and I didn’t see any soldiers pointing guns at those 235 voters and forced them to vote. Did soldiers hold their kids hostage outside to make them vote for Abhisit ? I don’t know, you show me an evidence. As long as you don’t have one, it’s your own speculation. As for Yingluck, the lady has been traveling around the country asking voters “do you miss my brother ?” (clap) “do you want him back home ?” (clap) “if you miss him, vote for me” (clap) Now that’s an evidence to me and that’s probably the only PT policy that she can talk about without script. 🙂
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
“Andrew Marshall”:
Thank you very much 🙂
I have also just read your article “In memory of Hiro Muramoto”, which i found shocking/disturbing/enlightening, and incredibly important.
This article somehow seems to go under a bit in the Wikileaks discussion, and has to be highlighted here as well. I am blown away by this article, and the politics involved.
What is it with Thailand? Why does Thailand invoke such emotions even under us journalists, and why is Thailand treated differently than any other country when it comes down to reporting facts, or why is it permissible/excusable to omit so much of what we should report about? Why are we so scared?
Why do even global news agencies like Reuters behave this way?
Why is it seen so problematic even by many of us foreign journalists in Thailand to be uncomfortable? Isn’t that what we are supposed to be in the first place, regardless where we work? Why should this not be so in Thailand as well? What is it that makes Thailand so special?
I have been working/living here 18 years now, and i still don’t get it.
Anyhow – thank you for being uncomfortable 😉
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Correction: I have taken the cables off my front page. You can find the new ones, and soon ALL cables, here: http://www.zenjournalist.com/category/cables/
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
I should add also that I have incredible admiration for Andrew Walker and Nich Farrelly for the work they do – and not least for hosting this site on which we are all able to comment on these issues. Many people have made sacrifices to help improve our understanding of Thailand, and Andrew and Nich’s contribution is clearly not as self-hyped as mine but should not be underestimated. I am sure they will comment when they are ready to do so, and whether their views on my story are positive, negative or mixed, I have no doubt they will contribute to the debate in a useful way.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Very fair comments from many posters here and I am particularly grateful for Ajarn Somsak’s informed analysis. It is humbling and educative to have such respected experts commenting on my journalism. I would also like to put on record that I consider Nick Nostitz’s work to be a superb contribution to our knowledge of modern Thailand. Unlike all the armchair pundits (and I fall into that category, alas) he has been totally immersed in what he writes about and that makes his insights exceptionally valuable.
I welcome all informed debate and criticism of my story, other than the abuse from people who have not bothered to read it. Debate is exactly what Thailand needs right now. I will join the debate more fully in coming days but first I need to finish parts 3 and 4. I have added a few more interesting cables on http://www.zenjournalist.com – the top post is sticky but please look below and I will find them. Best wishes.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
I thought I would wait until the whole article is made public to write any critical comment. But since PPT has already started, I think I might as well register certain reservations of Khun Andrew M Marshall’s analysis in the first two parts. (What I’m saying here is to some extent similar to PPT’s, though I also have some, perhaps not large, disagreement with their assessment, especially concerning the rather theoretical/philosophical issue of the legitimacy of presenting the “elite” vs “mass” levels of politics.)
There are two related issues that I disagree with Khun Andrew. First, the role, resposibility, and thus the distribution of criticism, of the King relative to the other members of the royal family and all their ‘entourages’ or ‘networks’ of royalists (from privy councilors to the PAD, etc). Second, the relative significance of the monarchy (the king especially) and the military, in terms of promoting/hindering the road to democracy past and present. The latter issue is argued quite strongly in the second part of the article (PPT’s comment only covers the first part), hence my quite strong disagreement with it.
But here’s my problem (which I think Khun Andrew would fully understand) – if I were to argue against his analysis, I would inevitably have to provide counter-examples of facts and arguments, which I or anyone else under Thai law, would not be able to.
Take the well-known and often-cited incident of the King’s 2005 birthday speech, which a lot of people take as his reluctance or even disapproval of the use of LM in recent years (or, similarly, a cable report of his telling Abhisit in a private audience). Suppose I were to say that there is a much more plausible (in terms of both factual and historical context) explanation of the speech that is quite the opposite of what people are saying? How am I to say anything more than just such assertion? In fact simply making assertion like this already runs the risks of violating LM.
Khun Andrew has done a great service to Thailand’s future by making public all the WikiLeaks cables relating to the monarchy. But I think he — I would say the majority of observers –would need to think more thoroughly the issue of the monarchy, the relative roles of the individuals within the institution, and the relative roles of them vis-a-vis the military and other political actors. Even something that seems so “obvious” as the supposed “genuine love, affection, etc. of the Thai people towards their king” that most observers are fond of repeating, is – I would love to argue, but I couldn’t! – actually much more complex a phenomenon, much least legitimate or “genuine”.
Needless to say, what I just wrote is quite risky already.
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
The Democrat Party won by only two seats in 1992.
Election advice
Yinglak heads the Phuea Thai (For Thailand) Party.
Her political opponents – presumably the Democrats – have been circulating a mock election pamphlet referring to the Phao Thai (Burn Thailand) Party.
And don’t forget that Jatuphorn stood on stage at Ratchaprasong Intersection in May last year and urged the Red Shirts to burn down Bangkok if the troops moved in.
And remember that the brave lads of the Royal Thai Army, obviously very fearful of all those dangerously unarmed demonstrators, actually put up signs on the approaches to the Red Shirt barricades reading “Keep Out! Free Fire Zone!”
At least in May 1992 they were honest enought to call the violent dispersal of the demonstrators in front of the Royal Hotel Operation Phairi Phinat (Destroy the Enemy), and to admit to killing around 40 of them.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Andrew and Nich thanks for your replies. Now I’m sure my day job takes up many more hours than yours, but I do recognize the importance on what’s being released. This is the inside look at many of the subjects both you and to a far lesser extent of course, myself, have posted about. It’s a chance to modify some viewpoints now a few facts have been unearthed to support or disprove previous conjecture.
I will take your word and look forward to plenty of comment from you on these cables. How about some of the others out there? You are very noticeable by your absence.
We do all this under our own names and make no effort to shield ourselves from debate.
Now now Nich, if that’s a dig at me the circumstances are very different between us, and I don’t actually see any attempt to shield myself from debate. It is a fact you know full well my real name and that I trust New Mandala to honour my wishes on anonymity. If I didn’t I would obviously not be posting or commenting here. Of course if I end up as refugee down where you are because of a new government’s actions, I would hope for your support, and maybe a settee to sleep on for a few days 😉
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
As well as being mean spirited towards NM, Les probably hasn’t read the PPT guest contributor article or read it with his blinkers on. It seems to me that the article makes a case for a subaltern historical view. That is not earth-shattering. Nor is the statement that cables are elite-centric views.
Plenty of historians have been making a similar point about the need for a view from below for decades (not least at ANU).
The article says that relying on cables like these doesn’t do that. It also makes the point, as was made above, that these cables are a partial story. Who could disagree with that?
There’s no attempt to say that the whole thing is ideologically unsound as far as I can see.
Meanwhile, I am reading the cables and finding them of considerable interest. I’m grateful to Andrew M. for his efforts.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
And we do have day jobs as well! AW
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
LesAbbey,
“It’s very noticeable the experts on New Mandala who are making no comments on probably the best glimpse behind curtains for many years. You should be ashamed of yourselves. About time you spoke out guys. ”
Seriously?
Andrew Walker and I talk to every journalist (or student, colleague, member of the public, etc, etc) who asks about the Wikileaks cables and the wider Thai political conflict. For what it’s worth, I just did a long interview on the topic this morning, broadcast all over the Asia-Pacific. We do all this under our own names and make no effort to shield ourselves from debate.
We have a longstanding commitment to open debate — why else would we continue to run New Mandala? Our University hosts the most prominent website for discussing all of the most important and sensitive issues, with a 5-year-old policy of welcoming voices from all points-of-view.
I am sitting at my desk, right now, writing an analysis of the unfolding Wikileaks saga. These things take time. You suggest we should be ashamed of ourselves? Are you serious?
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Election advice
No party in Thailand last year has ‘burned the city’. Burned Central World, yes. But who did it? There is still no conclusive answer. What I certainly know is there has been a clear attempt from the Thai officials to hide information. The leaked 74 photos, leaked last December from DSI files, is one example of the evidence which the officials withheld. I can guess who ordered the arson, but without clear evidence, I would not say the name of the party who ordered the CTS arson outloud. I am not like most typical Thais who lack ability to analyse information, and who are credulous enough to believe anything the elites spoonfeed them on TV.
But “burning the city” is another matter, so if one says I will not support people who burn the city, we will have to figure out who these people are. So let’s talk about history, shall we?
In Thai History of Rattanakosin era, burning the city occurred only a few times. The first was the burning of ‘Pattani’, during the reign of King Rama III. The whole town was burned beyond repair to silence dissent. The other time was the burning of Vientiane, Laos. I am not whether the whole city had been burned or not, but the Emerald Buddha was taken from Vientiane into Wat Phra Kaew in Bangkok nowadays.
Both burnings appear to be the order of the King who reigned at that time.
So Kate, if you will not support people who burn the city, that means you do not support the House of Chakri, I presume?
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Darren Nelson – 85
http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/wikileaks-cables-truth-and-thailand/ and I share the concerns raised.
Will Andrew Marshall join the middle class revolutionaries enemies list along with Amnesty International and Human Rights watch? It seems you can’t be just a little bit pro. You have to go the whole hog and stick with the propaganda line.
The Wikileaks cables are unacceptable to these people as they don’t fit their present line. That they were not meant to be in public domain gives them their own strength and truth. It’s very noticeable the experts on New Mandala who are making no comments on probably the best glimpse behind curtains for many years. You should be ashamed of yourselves. About time you spoke out guys.
From the archives: Thailand and Australia
It should be good for Australia and Thailand to be kin, as they are both primitive.
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
Cannot agree more with Jay Jackson. The Democrats this time are very, very poorly led by the man named Apisit. All this man can do is to blame others, especially former Prime Minister Thaksin. Just this morning, I heard Apisit on TV blaming former Minister of Foreign Affairs Noppadol for having given Cambodia the upper hand. The only one Apisit has left free of blame is himself. It’s time he has his head examined. Is Apisit fit to lead at all? The voters should ask this question seriously. One should not be misled by the man’s acting. Perhaps one role really suited to him is that of professor of drama. Chula should be glad to put him on its fine arts faculty.
Can the Democrats make it six in a row?
Ha Ha! I think it can be ten in a roll. It can be seen clearly that the Democrat can never win any election even with a help from “the invincible hand.” The reason is because this party never have any policy, for them policy is just a kind of propaganda to win election. They took policy as granted. That is the reason why they are so afraid of Thaksin.
เรารัก-ยิ่งลักษณ์
Kate – 7
It doesn’t change the fact that the lady is merely a puppet who doesn’t have her own political standing point. She can’t go on a single public speech without a script.
Wow, I thought you were mentioning Abhisit for a second there.
Election advice
Kate – 5
Cool billboard !!! I’m not voting for those who burned my hometown.
If that’s the case I wouldn’t vote for those that kill their fellow countrymen.