Comments

Fascinating stuff, especially the blatant double standards and the absurd legal interpretations — “allusions” and “factual accounts” being deemed dangerous.

Delusions are a variant of denial, which is the first stage of mourning. The Thai government, as well as much of the Thai population, has already begun to react to the loss that they can’t prevent, accept, or discuss.

I am cautiously optimistic that the nation, following a funeral that would rival that of any Pope or Ayatollah, will begin to move into the next psychological phases of loss, and eventually emerge out of its 20th-century political adolescence at last.

By then, the army should have secured the transition of power from themselves to themselves.

I guess those of us who have engaged in heated debates or have passionately weighed in on a host of topics at NM can take credit. NM was a great place for me during the protests last spring as I witnessed firsthand political strife here in Bangkok.

#16 – “Now if it can be proved that Newin and his followers were forced into parliament on the end bayonets…..”

#18 – “You may feel that some of the MPs were bought, like….. Newin’s followers…..”

The combination of these can’t help but remind me of an immortal line from Spike Milligan:

“Sorry, guv – he forced his way in by putting money in my hand”.

———-

That Brown, Gillard or Abhisit were within legal bounds to do as they did is not in dispute – though with Abhisit one is having to take a lot on trust to say that. The degree of legitimacy through a popular mandate each can claim certainly is in dispute. Plainly, Gillard scores highest – even taking the Independents into account; then Brown – same party as previous PM but conscience should have dictated a timely election; and Abhisit – self-evidently conscience-free – sits a conspicuously long way behind both.

Incidentally, I (and I suspect many others) do rather more than merely “feel” that Newin and his followers were bought. For myself, I’d put it on a par with popes and catholics, bears in woods…..

Congratulations, New Mandala!

Alex – 8

However, if you live in Bangkok, please pay a visit to a Kinokuniya store and look for Sudham’s latest book (forgot the title, sorry)

Pira’s latest book is Shadowed Country available in hard cover but soon to be a paperback. It’s a trilogy that includes Monsoon Country and The Force of Karma as its first two parts.

Apparently, after years of total silence in criticizing Thaksin, he now jumped on the anti-Thaksin bandwagon, except he did that at a morally wrong – yet very convenient – time.

Pira has had a very consistent view since well before the first Thaksin government, which is something I cannot claim as I was quite willing to give him a chance, (not that I had any say in it.)

John – 2

We are not supposed to have inquiring minds and critical thinking, to be opinionated, forthright and opposing the authorities in any way”

I guess for Alex that also includes opposing the pro-Thaksin concensus.

Why till the 2006 coup specifically?

SteveCM – 17

That compares favourably to Brown’s inaction/delay – but infinitely more favourably to Abhisit’s stance.

Yes, I suspect Gordon Brown now wishes he had done the same as Gillard, but that doesn’t show anyone of the three, Brown, Gillard or Abhisit as having broken the rules of the parliamentary game.

You may not like the game. You may have your own personal preferences, but a parliamentary system allows for what all three have done. You may feel that some of the MPs were bought, like Gillard’s new independent supporters, Cleggs Liberals or Newin’s followers, but that’s a different matter altogether.

Thanks everyone for taking the time to not just read, but to write in your two cents. Without trying to respond to all of the points that have been brought up (most need no follow-up from me), I want to jump back in on a few things.

Eisel is quite right to point out that my answer to the opening question (Is northern Laos turning into Chinese territory?) is, effectively, a resounding no. At least he’s right in one sense – that is my effective answer – but by leaving it *actually* unanswered I also was trying to say, as Miles picked up on, that it’s not that great a question. On the one hand, I think Nyiri and Lyttleton are really onto something in pointing out the uncomfortable mix of foreign humiliation and modernization that coalesces in certain spaces of transnational development, be they Chinese or otherwise. The “demonstration gardens” of northern Laos, for instance, have some stories to offer up for sure.

On the other hand, I think it’s worth the reminder that extraterritoriality is a nineteenth century Western legal term first and foremost, and this effectively puts the question to us of how we want to use it as an analytic concept for the global landscape of today. The territoriality it presumes is of a particular and familiar sort – that of the Westphalian nation state – and is hardly the more flexible notion of territory (as political or state space) that we might want in order to deal with the extra-national and extra-legal dimensions of something like transnational state-backed agribusiness.

Anyway, I’m glad what I wrote could be read one way by Eisel and another by Miles. I guess my main goal was to take a different line from none-too-subtle Sino-phobia that Eisel mentioned, and to try and show that one need not be able to nail down the culprit (a nation, a government, a firm, a tribe, what have you) to be alarmed by what materializes when all of these things come together concretely. Eisel’s last point is in some ways the most challenging, asking in so many words what, if anything, follows my concern. Chinese (and Vietnamese) investment is hyper-visible partly due to its scale and its preference for resource projects (and Justin’s 10-to-1 ratio may be an underestimate). But it’s also the result of a concerted research effort by, among others, “the Germans”. This isn’t a criticism – GTZ has done what many other NGOs have not and made its research available to the public (including circulating it in Lao) – but it does highlight the need to shine the light of critique around a bit more evenly. At least “the Chinese” are putting their money where their mouth is. In this day and age (and I don’t just mean post-2008), that’s saying quite a bit.

Not mentioned yet (and notably absent from Soonuk Dum’s own confusion) is that Brown succeeded Blair as leader of the same party that had won a convincing majority – pointedly different from Abhisit’s situation.

That said, I prefer Gillard’s approach of immediately announcing her intention to seek endorsement through a personal popular mandate. That compares favourably to Brown’s inaction/delay – but infinitely more favourably to Abhisit’s stance.