Language is fluid, definitions are created/defined and become symbols. The term “Amart” may be ridiculous for you, but it isn’t for large sectors of society that are Thai as well. Dismissing these social dynamics as you do here is potentially fatal for Thailand – a mistake the military, the Democrat Party, and the PAD (who slowly begin to wake up to reality) have done since before the 2006 coup.
What bad happened under Thaksin’s government does not justify the bad that happens now – this argument of “but Thaksin did…” is a fallacy. Also blaming the horrific drug war killings solely on Thaksin, while at the same time ignoring that ALL sectors of power were active part of these killings is a dangerous misinterpretation of these events as well.
From being a member of the media myself – i felt under pressure under Thaksin, and i feel under more pressure now. And the way things are going – the pressure may get worse.
I have been not just in Thailand then and now – i have taken photos of dead during the drug war, and i have taken photos of dead and injured during the 2010 protests (and most other violent events in between). I can’t smile about all of that.
From my ground level perspective i have to smile though every time the term “the law” is mentioned in connection with all the topics mentioned by you. Beginning from the drug war killings, the more than selective so called “independent” investigations during the coup era, the coup itself, and the more than selective and lopsided investigations into almost all the incidents of violence since the coup. All sides have committed horrific things, but some sides are not investigated at all.
As an example i would just like to cite the completely missing investigations into the “Blue Shirts”, their attacks against the Red Shirts, the known instigators and their complete impunity.
And we will see about the 2010 events, but i won’t put my hopes up, given what i have seen so far.
You stated:
“You love your god as much as we love our king.”
Very true (for westerners that are religious).
Nevertheless, our societies went through an era of horrific religious wars after the reformation set things in motion. We have had extremes on all sides, from the Munsteran Anabaptists to the inquisition, the 30 Year’s war, and whatever else. We became (to the most part) secular societies with emphasis on religious freedom (and at timed struggle to keep it that way, especially now). In terms of Religion Thailand is about as secular as can be hoped for, but you mentioned a very important issue here – that many Thais view their king no differently than a god.
If Thai society wants to progress and avoid future bloodshed along these semi-religious lines, it has to find a way to also accommodate critics of the monarchy as well (they are Thai as much as you are), to give them a legal space where they can voice and discuss their views, instead of being silenced, exiled or imprisoned. Anything else will fuel polarization, which will result in further conflict and more bloodshed.
I cannot find a solution for Thai society, you have to do that yourselves. I can only report what is going on, and having to be very careful that by doing so i neither break existing laws, nor further aggravate the already more than fragile situation.
If the mainstream decides that critics of the monarchy will get no space in society, then there is nothing else i can do than taking photos of the dead on all sides that decision will most definitely result in. And that is a thing i would not enjoy doing.
I hope that conferences such as this, and the presentation of researches and papers may lead to possible solutions, as i still try to be optimistic.
Who does Dr Peter Warr mean when he says “the Thai’s will decide who the government is” ???
It seems abundantly clear that the Thai people (via the electorate) have decided several times over the last decade who they want their government to be, but that gets overidden by a select few military/legal elites, with cover from you know who.
Also, whose rights does Dr Peter Warr mean when he says “we will respect the rights of Thai’s …. respect their rights to determine their future” ???
Hopefully the ‘inducements of the Thai government & Thai embassy‘ are not at work in any of the presentations.
Luckily I am not one of you but I was in Thailand during the chaotic event and I insist you all attend the conference to improve the so quoted ” poor understanding of Thai state and society ” I thought this would be beneficial for those seeking for investment opportunities but how come it headed for political aspects?
If you need political aspects , I can give you one. I noticed a guy who used such words like Amaat , brutal killing so and so . This is an excellent evidence that you must have read most articles from the group they called themselves red shirt and an excellent evidence you only spotted a single black dot on the wide white robe.
I have been living in Thailand all my life ( and I traveled abroad a lot in case you may assume that I only take news from domestic sources ). The fancy words like Amaat is ridiculous for me . It’s like they are creating powerful enermy against themselves and that meaned they are calling for more alliance from those tho thought this was UNFAIR.
The AMAAT word lies something behind , you need to study intensive Thai language in order to interpret this but I can tell you now that this is to create something against our highest institution . You love your god as much as we love our king. Until now I still don’t understand why heads of redshirt group still fled the hand of law when they are calling for justice? You might want to disagree me with all the proofs you have in hands( but by whom?) but I can only smile back and know what the redshirt really did when they were government before the present one . They blocked press’s freedom and they also did the ” brutal killing ” and I thought this might be a topic that is not open for discussion !
Like what lord Buddha says … It happened ..stays…and will end . Just take a good look and enjoy the conference ! Anyone wish to see me there ? Lol
I agree it’s important for people to submit papers. Then, as you say, we’ll see. However, I hope nobody chooses to self-censor their papers as a result of the Thai embassy’s involvement. That would be just as insidious a result as banning the paper outright.
I think Burma is still a work in progress. Let’s wait and see. Also, they are supported economically by China, as is North Korea, and hardly rely on the West. No such joy for South Africa or the Rhodesians, which relied utterly on what the West thought of them. I would argue that Thailand is somewhere inbetween, and cares (or at least ought to) very much what the free nations think of them.
“But what do Farrelly/Andrew Walker think of the HRW report? Or Nick Nostitz for that matter.
NM silence about the HRW report sickens me.”
First of all – i may be a regular contributor here on New Mandala, but i am not one of the owners.
My relative silence on the HRW report right now is because i work on my own book on these events, and i do not want to compromise what i am working on before it is finished and published. I have read the report partly, found some parts good, and others not so. I wonder why my account on the gas station even has been completely left out, especially because this is one of the best documented events with video footage available from 3 sides, some of these videos show clearly that it was army who have shot unarmed protesters. I also wonder why the clash which resulted in a dead soldier through friendly fire (in front of me and a few other photographers) at the national memorial has been left out completely as well.
As to the militants, i will presently not comment any more than i have done on numerous occasions – that they existed indeed, and that i have seen in person a group of them operating on the night of the 14th.
For more than that you will have to wait until i publish my book. And before anyone asks when – it will be finished when it is finished, when i feel comfortable that my research is as complete as it can get.
In the likely event of no overall victor, meaning a party with an overall majority, it will get very very nasty in coalition formation with both carrots and sticks wielded. And already to win the election all sides are making promises to offer people things without any consideration of how the tax base and debt will cover them, but that is an irrelevance when it comes to power games.
One intriguing school of thought is that the establishment wouldnt mind a PTP government that relied on a large amount of support from small coalition parties. That scenario would keep the reds off the streets while leaving Thaksin’s plans to return himself unachievable.
Of course none of the above is true if a settlement has been made at upper levels. That though seems unlikely.
And there are more modern examples where calls for boycotts had no use whatsoever, or made things even worse. May i cite Burma as an example that is closer and in many ways more relevant to Thailand than Africa?
As to your suspicions about the Thai embassy being involved in the acceptance or rejection of papers – lets wait and see. If papers are rejected on grounds of topic matter then this is a point to protest. But if academics would not submit papers, then we will never find out, won’t we?
The roles of journalists and academics can be in many instances overlapping. Both though run the danger of losing objectivity when personal views begin to turn more important than facts.
“Nganadeeleg”:
“btw, I’m not supporting a boycott of the conference, but to me it looks like the academic argument on Thailand has already been won.”
Really? Has it? Exactly the example of Ajarn Somsak shows that the academic argument has not “been won” by the state. Many academics have come out in support of Somsak’s academic freedom. And the lack of some not to engage him in debate shows their weakness, and not their strength of argument.
Thank you so much for your positive support to the conference and our hard work to make this event a positive forum for those who are interested in Thailand.
To Stuart,
I respect people’s views and expect the same ideology in the academic arena.
So many times in your responses to my point that confirm the fallacy of your argument (or just views). and yes this is what I also belive, freedom of thinking. We have the right to think differently and to express what we believe or not believe. I think the discourse of ‘personal attacks’ ‘western norm’ or even ‘jingoistic melodrama’ that you posted in your threat do not add into anything in terms of the value of our argument regarding the forthcoming Thai conference. But no need to explain because I really understand why you posted such ideas and of course I listen to you. ok?
Now for those who want to participate in the conference please feel free to send it to me and I will try my best to look for the best track for each paper.
I really wish to see Thai studies become another broad stream that goes beyond political sciences but include various views from health, science and management. The conference might be a good place to ignite this idea.
In this instance, I suspect the Thai embassy will not endorse papers that, for example, portray the monarchy in a negative light. They have form. That’s the problem with state sponsorship of events such as this one. The Thai government is on a roadshow ahead of the election to beef up their “free and fair” credentials, and it’s likely that the Thai embassy’s support of this event is part of it. Whether that’s a big enough concern to justify a boycott it is a matter for individuals.
While I’m sure nattavud pimpa is pumped with good intentions, he has to fight the track record of the overwhelming majority of his Thai academic colleagues for being part of the problem. And good luck to him. If nattavud pimpa wants his event to be taken more seriously (and I’m speaking for myself here) then he should should create a forum that is independent of the Thai embassy.
On another point, I think you’ll find the magic word “boycott” has been one of the more effective tools for enforcing change in modern times. I cite South Africa and Rhodesia among my own personal experience. There are others. In both cases, isolating them as pariah states exacted an immense toll on their will and ability to continue the fight.
I take your point about journalists, whose job is to seek information wherever they might find it, without fear or favour. I did so as a reporter for many years in South Africa, ignoring ANC calls for boycotts. I think they understood the difference.
The role of academics is much more interesting – torn between their need for engagement and their critical role as influencers. I’m sure there are many thousands of examples of academics who have exacted telling blows through their refusal to legitimise certain state-sponsored events. A tough call.
I’ve not been interviewed but I offer my first hand account when the truth and reconciliation committee is convened, because the only selectivity worth adumbrating is the psychopathy and asymmetric use of force to crush the citizens of Siam.
It’s not neuroscience. On the one side is the Royal Thai Army, privy to the wants and needs of a small self selecting and incestuous group of elites clinging to the rapidly dissolving past. It’s a known and repeat offender of killing its citizens, though it is entitled to defend itself against those accusations when it has the courage to face it’s victims.
On the other, a group of catapult-wielding-dissidents with everything the state can hurl at them from propaganda, disinformation, false flag manipulation, violence, money, power and an army never tested in a battle worthy of statues, but quick with its fists when up against a weaker opponent.
It’s only a matter of time before wrong is righted.
I think this thread is getting a bit unproductive. The organiser has given an assurance that all topics are open for discussion at the conference. I welcome that. I will certainly be proposing a paper and I encourage others to do so. This looks like a great opportunity for students and scholars in Australia (and from overseas too, I hope) to get together in a great city and discuss Thai studies. Let’s get to work on our proposals! AW
You have miscontrued my point. Nowhere, in any of my comments, have I called for a boycott of this conference. I have, however, raised the question of a free and open debate given the Thai embassy’s track record of suppressing contrarian views. I have cited evidence for this.
My reference to a boycott was in response to a comment by Jim Taylor. You will note that I said a boycott is an extreme resort that would have to be justified. Hence my questions to you about whether contrarian views will be embraced. You have since provided a response of sorts.
There is no need to be so defensive and resort to personal attacks. Jingoistic melodrama has little place in a mature exchange of views. Our comments here are all part of the rough and tumble of free speech – a western norm for a couple of hundred years now.
This is the second time that you have either misconstrued one of my comments or failed to place it in its appropriate context. Please refrain from doing so. As a first step, I suggest stripping the layers of emotion from your responses.
“(battle of wits, let the better thought process win, etc…)”
It’s one thing to win an academic argument outside the country (or even inside), but how does that change things on the ground?
Especially when faced with an ideology (quasi religion), wilful ignorance and ‘legal’/brute force?
btw, I’m not supporting a boycott of the conference, but to me it looks like the academic argument on Thailand has already been won.
Inside Thailand, Somsak Jeamtheerasakul has a standing offer to debate issues but gets no takers.
Has there even been any effective negation of Handley’s TKNS apart from odd nitpicking about birthplace descriptions etc?
I’d like to see someone present a paper on the relative merits & chances of success of working within the ‘system’ to bring about change, compared to trying to bring the ‘system’ down from outside it.
your argument on men in uniform is a fallacy, at least to me.
Not only Thai that fancy men in Uniform. All culture, since the ancient time, relate men in uniform with sexual desire or drive. This is simple human psychology…nothing to do with Thai politics.
Your exampleр╕л from р╕зр╕Щр╕┤р╕Фр╕▓ р╣Ар╕Кр╕ер╕вр╕ир╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕┤р╣М are not valid in this sense. Major roles in both stories do not represent to power of state. On the other hand, they are pure romance. Men, masculinity, strength in sexual fantasy of women….that is what they represent.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Anyone who is interested in my thoughts on HRW’s report can read them on Asian Correspondent here http://bit.ly/iyZqNT
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
“Natt Prathanadi”
Language is fluid, definitions are created/defined and become symbols. The term “Amart” may be ridiculous for you, but it isn’t for large sectors of society that are Thai as well. Dismissing these social dynamics as you do here is potentially fatal for Thailand – a mistake the military, the Democrat Party, and the PAD (who slowly begin to wake up to reality) have done since before the 2006 coup.
What bad happened under Thaksin’s government does not justify the bad that happens now – this argument of “but Thaksin did…” is a fallacy. Also blaming the horrific drug war killings solely on Thaksin, while at the same time ignoring that ALL sectors of power were active part of these killings is a dangerous misinterpretation of these events as well.
From being a member of the media myself – i felt under pressure under Thaksin, and i feel under more pressure now. And the way things are going – the pressure may get worse.
I have been not just in Thailand then and now – i have taken photos of dead during the drug war, and i have taken photos of dead and injured during the 2010 protests (and most other violent events in between). I can’t smile about all of that.
From my ground level perspective i have to smile though every time the term “the law” is mentioned in connection with all the topics mentioned by you. Beginning from the drug war killings, the more than selective so called “independent” investigations during the coup era, the coup itself, and the more than selective and lopsided investigations into almost all the incidents of violence since the coup. All sides have committed horrific things, but some sides are not investigated at all.
As an example i would just like to cite the completely missing investigations into the “Blue Shirts”, their attacks against the Red Shirts, the known instigators and their complete impunity.
And we will see about the 2010 events, but i won’t put my hopes up, given what i have seen so far.
You stated:
“You love your god as much as we love our king.”
Very true (for westerners that are religious).
Nevertheless, our societies went through an era of horrific religious wars after the reformation set things in motion. We have had extremes on all sides, from the Munsteran Anabaptists to the inquisition, the 30 Year’s war, and whatever else. We became (to the most part) secular societies with emphasis on religious freedom (and at timed struggle to keep it that way, especially now). In terms of Religion Thailand is about as secular as can be hoped for, but you mentioned a very important issue here – that many Thais view their king no differently than a god.
If Thai society wants to progress and avoid future bloodshed along these semi-religious lines, it has to find a way to also accommodate critics of the monarchy as well (they are Thai as much as you are), to give them a legal space where they can voice and discuss their views, instead of being silenced, exiled or imprisoned. Anything else will fuel polarization, which will result in further conflict and more bloodshed.
I cannot find a solution for Thai society, you have to do that yourselves. I can only report what is going on, and having to be very careful that by doing so i neither break existing laws, nor further aggravate the already more than fragile situation.
If the mainstream decides that critics of the monarchy will get no space in society, then there is nothing else i can do than taking photos of the dead on all sides that decision will most definitely result in. And that is a thing i would not enjoy doing.
I hope that conferences such as this, and the presentation of researches and papers may lead to possible solutions, as i still try to be optimistic.
Thailand at the Limit
Who does Dr Peter Warr mean when he says “the Thai’s will decide who the government is” ???
It seems abundantly clear that the Thai people (via the electorate) have decided several times over the last decade who they want their government to be, but that gets overidden by a select few military/legal elites, with cover from you know who.
Also, whose rights does Dr Peter Warr mean when he says “we will respect the rights of Thai’s …. respect their rights to determine their future” ???
Hopefully the ‘inducements of the Thai government & Thai embassy‘ are not at work in any of the presentations.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Dear academic guys ,
Luckily I am not one of you but I was in Thailand during the chaotic event and I insist you all attend the conference to improve the so quoted ” poor understanding of Thai state and society ” I thought this would be beneficial for those seeking for investment opportunities but how come it headed for political aspects?
If you need political aspects , I can give you one. I noticed a guy who used such words like Amaat , brutal killing so and so . This is an excellent evidence that you must have read most articles from the group they called themselves red shirt and an excellent evidence you only spotted a single black dot on the wide white robe.
I have been living in Thailand all my life ( and I traveled abroad a lot in case you may assume that I only take news from domestic sources ). The fancy words like Amaat is ridiculous for me . It’s like they are creating powerful enermy against themselves and that meaned they are calling for more alliance from those tho thought this was UNFAIR.
The AMAAT word lies something behind , you need to study intensive Thai language in order to interpret this but I can tell you now that this is to create something against our highest institution . You love your god as much as we love our king. Until now I still don’t understand why heads of redshirt group still fled the hand of law when they are calling for justice? You might want to disagree me with all the proofs you have in hands( but by whom?) but I can only smile back and know what the redshirt really did when they were government before the present one . They blocked press’s freedom and they also did the ” brutal killing ” and I thought this might be a topic that is not open for discussion !
Like what lord Buddha says … It happened ..stays…and will end . Just take a good look and enjoy the conference ! Anyone wish to see me there ? Lol
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Nick Nostitz: “the lack of some not to engage him in debate shows their weakness, and not their strength of argument”
Exactly!
(yet on the ground, who holds the power?)
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Nick
I agree it’s important for people to submit papers. Then, as you say, we’ll see. However, I hope nobody chooses to self-censor their papers as a result of the Thai embassy’s involvement. That would be just as insidious a result as banning the paper outright.
I think Burma is still a work in progress. Let’s wait and see. Also, they are supported economically by China, as is North Korea, and hardly rely on the West. No such joy for South Africa or the Rhodesians, which relied utterly on what the West thought of them. I would argue that Thailand is somewhere inbetween, and cares (or at least ought to) very much what the free nations think of them.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
“Vichai N”:
“But what do Farrelly/Andrew Walker think of the HRW report? Or Nick Nostitz for that matter.
NM silence about the HRW report sickens me.”
First of all – i may be a regular contributor here on New Mandala, but i am not one of the owners.
My relative silence on the HRW report right now is because i work on my own book on these events, and i do not want to compromise what i am working on before it is finished and published. I have read the report partly, found some parts good, and others not so. I wonder why my account on the gas station even has been completely left out, especially because this is one of the best documented events with video footage available from 3 sides, some of these videos show clearly that it was army who have shot unarmed protesters. I also wonder why the clash which resulted in a dead soldier through friendly fire (in front of me and a few other photographers) at the national memorial has been left out completely as well.
As to the militants, i will presently not comment any more than i have done on numerous occasions – that they existed indeed, and that i have seen in person a group of them operating on the night of the 14th.
For more than that you will have to wait until i publish my book. And before anyone asks when – it will be finished when it is finished, when i feel comfortable that my research is as complete as it can get.
Speculation on Thai election outcomes
The election will resolve nothing.
In the likely event of no overall victor, meaning a party with an overall majority, it will get very very nasty in coalition formation with both carrots and sticks wielded. And already to win the election all sides are making promises to offer people things without any consideration of how the tax base and debt will cover them, but that is an irrelevance when it comes to power games.
One intriguing school of thought is that the establishment wouldnt mind a PTP government that relied on a large amount of support from small coalition parties. That scenario would keep the reds off the streets while leaving Thaksin’s plans to return himself unachievable.
Of course none of the above is true if a settlement has been made at upper levels. That though seems unlikely.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
nattavud pimpa
You said that I have threatened you. I did not. You should withdraw that statement.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
“stuart”:
And there are more modern examples where calls for boycotts had no use whatsoever, or made things even worse. May i cite Burma as an example that is closer and in many ways more relevant to Thailand than Africa?
As to your suspicions about the Thai embassy being involved in the acceptance or rejection of papers – lets wait and see. If papers are rejected on grounds of topic matter then this is a point to protest. But if academics would not submit papers, then we will never find out, won’t we?
The roles of journalists and academics can be in many instances overlapping. Both though run the danger of losing objectivity when personal views begin to turn more important than facts.
“Nganadeeleg”:
“btw, I’m not supporting a boycott of the conference, but to me it looks like the academic argument on Thailand has already been won.”
Really? Has it? Exactly the example of Ajarn Somsak shows that the academic argument has not “been won” by the state. Many academics have come out in support of Somsak’s academic freedom. And the lack of some not to engage him in debate shows their weakness, and not their strength of argument.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Andrew,
Thank you so much for your positive support to the conference and our hard work to make this event a positive forum for those who are interested in Thailand.
To Stuart,
I respect people’s views and expect the same ideology in the academic arena.
So many times in your responses to my point that confirm the fallacy of your argument (or just views). and yes this is what I also belive, freedom of thinking. We have the right to think differently and to express what we believe or not believe. I think the discourse of ‘personal attacks’ ‘western norm’ or even ‘jingoistic melodrama’ that you posted in your threat do not add into anything in terms of the value of our argument regarding the forthcoming Thai conference. But no need to explain because I really understand why you posted such ideas and of course I listen to you. ok?
Now for those who want to participate in the conference please feel free to send it to me and I will try my best to look for the best track for each paper.
I really wish to see Thai studies become another broad stream that goes beyond political sciences but include various views from health, science and management. The conference might be a good place to ignite this idea.
The king never campaigns
@ Bkk Lawyer: Great, thanks!
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Nick
In this instance, I suspect the Thai embassy will not endorse papers that, for example, portray the monarchy in a negative light. They have form. That’s the problem with state sponsorship of events such as this one. The Thai government is on a roadshow ahead of the election to beef up their “free and fair” credentials, and it’s likely that the Thai embassy’s support of this event is part of it. Whether that’s a big enough concern to justify a boycott it is a matter for individuals.
While I’m sure nattavud pimpa is pumped with good intentions, he has to fight the track record of the overwhelming majority of his Thai academic colleagues for being part of the problem. And good luck to him. If nattavud pimpa wants his event to be taken more seriously (and I’m speaking for myself here) then he should should create a forum that is independent of the Thai embassy.
On another point, I think you’ll find the magic word “boycott” has been one of the more effective tools for enforcing change in modern times. I cite South Africa and Rhodesia among my own personal experience. There are others. In both cases, isolating them as pariah states exacted an immense toll on their will and ability to continue the fight.
I take your point about journalists, whose job is to seek information wherever they might find it, without fear or favour. I did so as a reporter for many years in South Africa, ignoring ANC calls for boycotts. I think they understood the difference.
The role of academics is much more interesting – torn between their need for engagement and their critical role as influencers. I’m sure there are many thousands of examples of academics who have exacted telling blows through their refusal to legitimise certain state-sponsored events. A tough call.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Vichsi.
I’ve not been interviewed but I offer my first hand account when the truth and reconciliation committee is convened, because the only selectivity worth adumbrating is the psychopathy and asymmetric use of force to crush the citizens of Siam.
It’s not neuroscience. On the one side is the Royal Thai Army, privy to the wants and needs of a small self selecting and incestuous group of elites clinging to the rapidly dissolving past. It’s a known and repeat offender of killing its citizens, though it is entitled to defend itself against those accusations when it has the courage to face it’s victims.
On the other, a group of catapult-wielding-dissidents with everything the state can hurl at them from propaganda, disinformation, false flag manipulation, violence, money, power and an army never tested in a battle worthy of statues, but quick with its fists when up against a weaker opponent.
It’s only a matter of time before wrong is righted.
One can feel it.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
I think this thread is getting a bit unproductive. The organiser has given an assurance that all topics are open for discussion at the conference. I welcome that. I will certainly be proposing a paper and I encourage others to do so. This looks like a great opportunity for students and scholars in Australia (and from overseas too, I hope) to get together in a great city and discuss Thai studies. Let’s get to work on our proposals! AW
Thailand at the Limit
Sorry I have been slow on this. The podcast is available here:
http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/__data/assets/mp3_file/0013/5152/20110505-Thailand.mp3
The video is coming soon!
AW
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
nattavud pimpa
You have miscontrued my point. Nowhere, in any of my comments, have I called for a boycott of this conference. I have, however, raised the question of a free and open debate given the Thai embassy’s track record of suppressing contrarian views. I have cited evidence for this.
My reference to a boycott was in response to a comment by Jim Taylor. You will note that I said a boycott is an extreme resort that would have to be justified. Hence my questions to you about whether contrarian views will be embraced. You have since provided a response of sorts.
There is no need to be so defensive and resort to personal attacks. Jingoistic melodrama has little place in a mature exchange of views. Our comments here are all part of the rough and tumble of free speech – a western norm for a couple of hundred years now.
This is the second time that you have either misconstrued one of my comments or failed to place it in its appropriate context. Please refrain from doing so. As a first step, I suggest stripping the layers of emotion from your responses.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
“(battle of wits, let the better thought process win, etc…)”
It’s one thing to win an academic argument outside the country (or even inside), but how does that change things on the ground?
Especially when faced with an ideology (quasi religion), wilful ignorance and ‘legal’/brute force?
btw, I’m not supporting a boycott of the conference, but to me it looks like the academic argument on Thailand has already been won.
Inside Thailand, Somsak Jeamtheerasakul has a standing offer to debate issues but gets no takers.
Has there even been any effective negation of Handley’s TKNS apart from odd nitpicking about birthplace descriptions etc?
I’d like to see someone present a paper on the relative merits & chances of success of working within the ‘system’ to bring about change, compared to trying to bring the ‘system’ down from outside it.
Thailand at the Limit
I strongly suggest you to put the podcast uponline too so that people who cant attend will be able to listen to your views.
Thailand’s benevolent army
To Aim Sinpeng (the author),
your argument on men in uniform is a fallacy, at least to me.
Not only Thai that fancy men in Uniform. All culture, since the ancient time, relate men in uniform with sexual desire or drive. This is simple human psychology…nothing to do with Thai politics.
Your exampleр╕л from р╕зр╕Щр╕┤р╕Фр╕▓ р╣Ар╕Кр╕ер╕вр╕ир╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕┤р╣М are not valid in this sense. Major roles in both stories do not represent to power of state. On the other hand, they are pure romance. Men, masculinity, strength in sexual fantasy of women….that is what they represent.
ok?