“I was told it was an AI rule that people of a particular country were always assigned to work on issues in other countries because of perceived conflict of interest
so, why is Zawacki charged with handling Thai issues while living in Bangkok?”
Err, because he’s Amnesty’s Thailand researcher. Why would you employ an expert on a country to NOT work on those issues? By that logic, I must stop reporting on Thailand and start writing on Mexico.
Serves me right for reading this thread all the way to the end.
It could be great fun. A clumsy attempt by the Thai régime to establish an anti-democratic propaganda centre at an Australian university. The academic hornets’ nest. The stink spread far and wide in the Australian media. Satirical sketches on TV. Barry Humphries in spectacular drag, hamming up the part of a certain Thai Royal personage with excruciating vulgarity.
“Jeff Savage. Look up the name in the internet (many had already forgotten). Jeff Savage was the hardcore Red Shirt fanatic living in Thailand who was caught on YouTube urging people to join him to loot and burn Central World to the ground.”
Well. yes, that is what some would have us believe, but there’s another version: “Jeff Savage was the loud-mouthed, drunk and not-very-bright ex-football hooligan who was caught on YouTube, trying to give Thais a reason to love him”.
I think that’s closer to the truth.
Does anyone with a brain think that the Red-shirts would recruit someone like Jeff Savage? Please…
Les: I can’t load the article. I think the British aristocracy has blocked the site.
Don’t give up on it Ralph. There doesn’t seem to be any block on it. Will Self is an interesting character. He was caught many years ago taking heroin in the toilet of Maggie Thatcher’s election campaign aircraft, if I remember the story correctly. He is very much in the mold of his friends Martin Amis and Christopher Hitchens, so doesn’t follow any party line. To be admired as a truly independent thinker, even when you disagree with a lot of what he says. Shame a few more journalists don’t have this asset.
Apparently 45% of Britons said they weren’t going to watch the royal marriage.
In my lifetime growth of republican, or indifference to the monarchy, feelings have grown considerably although still by no means a majority. The danger for any monarchy including the British one comes at the point of succession when public support can obviously swing wildly.
More strange than the British reaction though, is the Australian one, where the pro-republican viewpoint probably has the majority. Historically there are many reasons why this should be so with so many British and Irish people being sent there at the monarch’s pleasure, and yet no Australian politician seems to be able to bring this change about. I wonder what percentage of Australians were watching it on TV. Andrew, Nich, did you watch it?
Actually she’s still innocent since the court (not sure which one anymore) just ruled that her 18 months jail time was invalid due to technicality but she’s still remain in jail for what reason is still puzzled me.
It sounds like the current Thai government seeks a compliant partner institution. Maybe it has learned from the experience of the mouthpieces of Chinese government authoritarianism called Confucius Institutes.
Moving outside Canberra and to Melbourne is reminiscent of the debates in the early 60s that saw ANU deny an honorary degree for the king and get it instead from a more compliant Melbourne.
That may seem that I am suggesting long memories. I am. The current regime continues to work against the legacies of 1932, trying to extinguish its meanings and innovations. Remember how long Pridi was exiled. Enemies of the monarchy remain so for a very long time.
Les: I can’t load the article. I think the British aristocracy has blocked the site.
Some of the interesting bits and pieces I noted in watching the generally gushing media coverage:
1) Apparently 45% of Britons said they weren’t going to watch the royal marriage.
2) A comedian on the BBC referred to Camilla as a horse, twice.
3) Commander of the Metropolitan Police refused to rule out preventing republican demonstrators from being heard and seen. Her explanation was that “most people” wanted to celebrate the event. It seems she wants to be a Dame.
4) Bangkok Post reported that Thais were head over heels for the royal wedding and then quoted only foreigners and one “Thai national” in support of this claim….
5) There was considerable agitation about the guest list including a bunch of human rights abusers. It seems that the royals do indeed stick together globally.
Re your comment at #40. Yes, what I wrote initially in that comment was not particularly articulate. And I am sorry to be so judgemental. Yes I very much understand why you cannot comment, and was not really expecting you to do so. I have the impression that Ben Zawacki has angered many people, and that this has been an issue for some time.
You say you “believe that AI Malaysia is both overestimating AI’s influence, and misanalysed the situation here.” I think that it’s not so much about what’s achievable immediately for Da Torpedo, but our collective desire to see greater protest to end the draconian use of LM?
Despite Thailand’s status as the fifth most popular country for Australian tourists, academic interest in Thai affairs will remain limited for as long as Thais are among the worst speakers of English in the world. This is exactly what the ruling elites want.
It’s a bit rich of Thailand’s ruling elite to bemoan the quality of research expertise among international academics and journalists when they themselves have such a poor attitude to educating their own people.
As long as Thailand’s ruling elites maintain a highly defensive posture to criticism, they will never achieve the respect they crave internationally. Suppressive lese majeste laws and the like are hardly supportive of academic transparency and robustness. The ruling elites need to fix up their own house.
Thailand’s corrupt ruling elites do everything possible to create their own bad press. A lot of the coverage is far from “under appreciated” or “misunderstood”, as the Royal Thai Embassy alleges. What they really mean is that the coverage isn’t in line with their prefered view. Tough.
First off, I think there may be an error in her husband’s name. She was the wife of Mr. Ngo, Dinh Nhu -not Ngo, Dinh Dam – as stated in the first paragraph.
Secondly, I think Madame Nhu deserves a closer examination; a more unbiased and rational analysis, which would require a better understanding of the cultures between the two countries involved and the historical context at the time.
The Family Law she proposed back in 1958, was quite modern and forward thinking, in retrospection. This law banned polygamy; gave women the right to joint property ownership (whereas before, a woman was considered the “property” of the husband and had to depend on the whim and mercy of her husband on where he let her live, eat, etc…); made divorce extremely difficult (because a man then could divorce his wife for whatever reason he chose, not having to support her or the kids, not to mention that the divorced woman is then stigmatized and life considered ruined and over), etc…
Of course, such a proposal in a backward, male dominated society especially that of the far east, would almost be suicidal. But she took on the challenge. More women entered the field of science becoming doctors, lawyers; participated in military services, etc… Life was definitely better for the women and children specifically and for South Viet Nam as a whole.
She was fluent in French and English; educated in the most prestigious school at the time with western thoughts and ideals. Her Father was the first man in Viet Nam to obtain a law degree and practiced law. Her Mother was the descendant of the royal line who was later an observer to the UN. No doubt, she had the western influence but with strict elitist/royal upbringing to embrace also the traditional eastern values. That’s why it was ridiculous for a non-communist VietNamese to see in western (more specifically the American media) newspaper or “hearsays” quoting her “snappy remarks” to the then President/her OLDER brother-in-law Ngo Dinh Diem.
One of her few flaws was her candid, non-politically correct expressions of her opinions and thoughts. Especially regarding the “immolation monks”, which she and the non-communist VietNamese then well knew that the VC’s were behind the whole thing but they just could not clarify to the western media, the very media who was in an anti-war frenzy and so fast to condemn a premature democratic government trying to defend its people from the worst form of terrorism: communists.
Did she kill someone? Did she rape someone? Did she torture someone?
Well, if so, then that’s probably fair. If not, it’s probably not.
Amnesty International, as I understand it, was set up to defend and protect individual prisoners of conscience. They don’t need to take any other position than this. They don’t need to make fine calculations about the global ramifications of what they’re doing or not doing. They need to look after individuals.
I am curious to know why the writers are more concerned with the Malaysian incident than with the alleged interference with AI’s view on the LM case pertaining to Da Torpedo?
For me I’m not really concern with Malaysia incident in particular, this is just another topic that has been discuss here, nothing too special.
I am a member of AI Thailand and so far have written three times asking for an answer on this, to no real avail.
As a member maybe its better for you to give us some answer to why Da was not given POC status?
” I believe that in the case of Da T Ben Zawacki did exactly that and sought no further advice.”
There you are wrong.
“That if AI had already been doing their job in Thailand this would have been a non-issue.”
If you mean with that statement that the 112 issue, or that the Da Torpedo case would be a non-issue, i believe that AI Malaysia is both overestimating AI’s influence, and misanalysed the situation here.
But yes, contact me when you are in Thailand, and lets meet.
So it they get funding from the Thai government, will they reveal my name and ISP to the Thai Goverment if I write a comment that someone in the Thai Government doesn’t like?
I am curious to know why the writers are more concerned with the Malaysian incident than with the alleged interference with AI’s view on the LM case pertaining to Da Torpedo? The first is arguably just the latest stage in the never-ending hostility between Thaksin and the establishment, being played out via AI’s gullibility. The second, if correct is blatant bias and interference in the decision on whether to treat Ms. Torpedo as a POC or not. I am a member of AI Thailand and so far have written three times asking for an answer on this, to no real avail.
I was told it was an AI rule that people of a particular country were always assigned to work on issues in other countries because of perceived conflict of interest
so, why is Zawacki charged with handling Thai issues while living in Bangkok?
like the behaviour of the Thai Red Cross…. it has a bad smell for me
It was amazing to see how open the royal family of Great Britain was during the wedding ceremonies. Open easily visible in a slow-moving vehicle, allow the people who adore them to actually see them.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
@David Brown
“I was told it was an AI rule that people of a particular country were always assigned to work on issues in other countries because of perceived conflict of interest
so, why is Zawacki charged with handling Thai issues while living in Bangkok?”
Err, because he’s Amnesty’s Thailand researcher. Why would you employ an expert on a country to NOT work on those issues? By that logic, I must stop reporting on Thailand and start writing on Mexico.
Serves me right for reading this thread all the way to the end.
Thai studies in Australia
It could be great fun. A clumsy attempt by the Thai régime to establish an anti-democratic propaganda centre at an Australian university. The academic hornets’ nest. The stink spread far and wide in the Australian media. Satirical sketches on TV. Barry Humphries in spectacular drag, hamming up the part of a certain Thai Royal personage with excruciating vulgarity.
Red Shirt leaders at FCCT
@ Vichai N:
“Jeff Savage. Look up the name in the internet (many had already forgotten). Jeff Savage was the hardcore Red Shirt fanatic living in Thailand who was caught on YouTube urging people to join him to loot and burn Central World to the ground.”
Well. yes, that is what some would have us believe, but there’s another version: “Jeff Savage was the loud-mouthed, drunk and not-very-bright ex-football hooligan who was caught on YouTube, trying to give Thais a reason to love him”.
I think that’s closer to the truth.
Does anyone with a brain think that the Red-shirts would recruit someone like Jeff Savage? Please…
Intimidation of Somsak Jeamteerasakul
Ralph Kramden – 26
Les: I can’t load the article. I think the British aristocracy has blocked the site.
Don’t give up on it Ralph. There doesn’t seem to be any block on it. Will Self is an interesting character. He was caught many years ago taking heroin in the toilet of Maggie Thatcher’s election campaign aircraft, if I remember the story correctly. He is very much in the mold of his friends Martin Amis and Christopher Hitchens, so doesn’t follow any party line. To be admired as a truly independent thinker, even when you disagree with a lot of what he says. Shame a few more journalists don’t have this asset.
Apparently 45% of Britons said they weren’t going to watch the royal marriage.
In my lifetime growth of republican, or indifference to the monarchy, feelings have grown considerably although still by no means a majority. The danger for any monarchy including the British one comes at the point of succession when public support can obviously swing wildly.
More strange than the British reaction though, is the Australian one, where the pro-republican viewpoint probably has the majority. Historically there are many reasons why this should be so with so many British and Irish people being sent there at the monarch’s pleasure, and yet no Australian politician seems to be able to bring this change about. I wonder what percentage of Australians were watching it on TV. Andrew, Nich, did you watch it?
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
tom hoy – 49
Actually she’s still innocent since the court (not sure which one anymore) just ruled that her 18 months jail time was invalid due to technicality but she’s still remain in jail for what reason is still puzzled me.
Thai studies in Australia
It sounds like the current Thai government seeks a compliant partner institution. Maybe it has learned from the experience of the mouthpieces of Chinese government authoritarianism called Confucius Institutes.
Moving outside Canberra and to Melbourne is reminiscent of the debates in the early 60s that saw ANU deny an honorary degree for the king and get it instead from a more compliant Melbourne.
That may seem that I am suggesting long memories. I am. The current regime continues to work against the legacies of 1932, trying to extinguish its meanings and innovations. Remember how long Pridi was exiled. Enemies of the monarchy remain so for a very long time.
Intimidation of Somsak Jeamteerasakul
Les: I can’t load the article. I think the British aristocracy has blocked the site.
Some of the interesting bits and pieces I noted in watching the generally gushing media coverage:
1) Apparently 45% of Britons said they weren’t going to watch the royal marriage.
2) A comedian on the BBC referred to Camilla as a horse, twice.
3) Commander of the Metropolitan Police refused to rule out preventing republican demonstrators from being heard and seen. Her explanation was that “most people” wanted to celebrate the event. It seems she wants to be a Dame.
4) Bangkok Post reported that Thais were head over heels for the royal wedding and then quoted only foreigners and one “Thai national” in support of this claim….
5) There was considerable agitation about the guest list including a bunch of human rights abusers. It seems that the royals do indeed stick together globally.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Hi Nick,
Re your comment at #40. Yes, what I wrote initially in that comment was not particularly articulate. And I am sorry to be so judgemental. Yes I very much understand why you cannot comment, and was not really expecting you to do so. I have the impression that Ben Zawacki has angered many people, and that this has been an issue for some time.
You say you “believe that AI Malaysia is both overestimating AI’s influence, and misanalysed the situation here.” I think that it’s not so much about what’s achievable immediately for Da Torpedo, but our collective desire to see greater protest to end the draconian use of LM?
Intimidation of Somsak Jeamteerasakul
Tom Hoy – 24
Probably but I’m a fan of Will Self so bringing him to a wider audience is a good thing;-)
Thai studies in Australia
Despite Thailand’s status as the fifth most popular country for Australian tourists, academic interest in Thai affairs will remain limited for as long as Thais are among the worst speakers of English in the world. This is exactly what the ruling elites want.
It’s a bit rich of Thailand’s ruling elite to bemoan the quality of research expertise among international academics and journalists when they themselves have such a poor attitude to educating their own people.
As long as Thailand’s ruling elites maintain a highly defensive posture to criticism, they will never achieve the respect they crave internationally. Suppressive lese majeste laws and the like are hardly supportive of academic transparency and robustness. The ruling elites need to fix up their own house.
Thailand’s corrupt ruling elites do everything possible to create their own bad press. A lot of the coverage is far from “under appreciated” or “misunderstood”, as the Royal Thai Embassy alleges. What they really mean is that the coverage isn’t in line with their prefered view. Tough.
Madam Nhu: a feminist with extrajudicial leanings
Hi-
Just would like to inject some thoughts here.
First off, I think there may be an error in her husband’s name. She was the wife of Mr. Ngo, Dinh Nhu -not Ngo, Dinh Dam – as stated in the first paragraph.
Secondly, I think Madame Nhu deserves a closer examination; a more unbiased and rational analysis, which would require a better understanding of the cultures between the two countries involved and the historical context at the time.
The Family Law she proposed back in 1958, was quite modern and forward thinking, in retrospection. This law banned polygamy; gave women the right to joint property ownership (whereas before, a woman was considered the “property” of the husband and had to depend on the whim and mercy of her husband on where he let her live, eat, etc…); made divorce extremely difficult (because a man then could divorce his wife for whatever reason he chose, not having to support her or the kids, not to mention that the divorced woman is then stigmatized and life considered ruined and over), etc…
Of course, such a proposal in a backward, male dominated society especially that of the far east, would almost be suicidal. But she took on the challenge. More women entered the field of science becoming doctors, lawyers; participated in military services, etc… Life was definitely better for the women and children specifically and for South Viet Nam as a whole.
She was fluent in French and English; educated in the most prestigious school at the time with western thoughts and ideals. Her Father was the first man in Viet Nam to obtain a law degree and practiced law. Her Mother was the descendant of the royal line who was later an observer to the UN. No doubt, she had the western influence but with strict elitist/royal upbringing to embrace also the traditional eastern values. That’s why it was ridiculous for a non-communist VietNamese to see in western (more specifically the American media) newspaper or “hearsays” quoting her “snappy remarks” to the then President/her OLDER brother-in-law Ngo Dinh Diem.
One of her few flaws was her candid, non-politically correct expressions of her opinions and thoughts. Especially regarding the “immolation monks”, which she and the non-communist VietNamese then well knew that the VC’s were behind the whole thing but they just could not clarify to the western media, the very media who was in an anti-war frenzy and so fast to condemn a premature democratic government trying to defend its people from the worst form of terrorism: communists.
Intimidation of Somsak Jeamteerasakul
Les Abbey,
Technically you are now culpable under Thailand’s lese majeste laws. Foreign heads of states and monarchies are included too.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Da Torpedo is in jail for 18 years.
Did she kill someone? Did she rape someone? Did she torture someone?
Well, if so, then that’s probably fair. If not, it’s probably not.
Amnesty International, as I understand it, was set up to defend and protect individual prisoners of conscience. They don’t need to take any other position than this. They don’t need to make fine calculations about the global ramifications of what they’re doing or not doing. They need to look after individuals.
Open letter: Amnesty International in Thailand
John Goodman – 5
I am curious to know why the writers are more concerned with the Malaysian incident than with the alleged interference with AI’s view on the LM case pertaining to Da Torpedo?
For me I’m not really concern with Malaysia incident in particular, this is just another topic that has been discuss here, nothing too special.
I am a member of AI Thailand and so far have written three times asking for an answer on this, to no real avail.
As a member maybe its better for you to give us some answer to why Da was not given POC status?
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Andrew:
” I believe that in the case of Da T Ben Zawacki did exactly that and sought no further advice.”
There you are wrong.
“That if AI had already been doing their job in Thailand this would have been a non-issue.”
If you mean with that statement that the 112 issue, or that the Da Torpedo case would be a non-issue, i believe that AI Malaysia is both overestimating AI’s influence, and misanalysed the situation here.
But yes, contact me when you are in Thailand, and lets meet.
Thai studies in Australia
So it they get funding from the Thai government, will they reveal my name and ISP to the Thai Goverment if I write a comment that someone in the Thai Government doesn’t like?
Open letter: Amnesty International in Thailand
I am curious to know why the writers are more concerned with the Malaysian incident than with the alleged interference with AI’s view on the LM case pertaining to Da Torpedo? The first is arguably just the latest stage in the never-ending hostility between Thaksin and the establishment, being played out via AI’s gullibility. The second, if correct is blatant bias and interference in the decision on whether to treat Ms. Torpedo as a POC or not. I am a member of AI Thailand and so far have written three times asking for an answer on this, to no real avail.
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
I was told it was an AI rule that people of a particular country were always assigned to work on issues in other countries because of perceived conflict of interest
so, why is Zawacki charged with handling Thai issues while living in Bangkok?
like the behaviour of the Thai Red Cross…. it has a bad smell for me
Commentary on National Assembly elections in Laos
Seems plausible, for the most part.
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
It was amazing to see how open the royal family of Great Britain was during the wedding ceremonies. Open easily visible in a slow-moving vehicle, allow the people who adore them to actually see them.