Why? Well they regard girls from the Northeast as their maids or their prostitutes. They regard men from there as taxi drivers or their gardeners. They wouldn’t blink twice if they heard of a peasant selling his daughter into prostitution.
You see where that leads us? Is there a similarity with the above and by looking the other way or sniggering behind your hand when a peasant sells his vote. If anything good has come out the UDD, it’s that along with the rise in incomes in the Northeast there is a new pride among the younger generation that they are as good as everyone else, and along with that will come the right to be judged the same as those very people who look down their noses at them and infer they have different moral standards up there.
Every so often, far less often than is acceptable, I read a paragraph or two which makes me (foolishly) believe there is – hope – for humanity.
The above two paragraphs are the most recent example of the kind of writing I’m describing.
The genocide against the ethnic minorities will accelerate as soon as the election sham is concluded. In fact, the SPDC is already moving units and equipment into place, to attack the KNLA, KA, and other resistance groups.
And the west’s response: Obama and Clinton will say a few words, wring the hands, gnash their teeth, then go back to whatever they were doing.
These are very interesting comments. Readers following the Burma election story over the weekend will also benefit from this recent essay by Ashley South.
” . . .you are saying that accept money and not voting for the buyer is of “lower sense of morality”? what kind of standard are you holding now really?” -( Tarrin #45)
Complete Les sentence Tarrin . Les said: “lower sense of morality than you”. And by “you”, he meant you Tarrin.
Now do you get it Tarrin? Apparently Les is right . . . considering how morally confused Tarrin is at this very moment.
I was one of the refugees living in Thailand when I was little. I knew nothing about Thailand before escaping to Thailand as a child. When I was in Thailand I faced a lot of racism and discrimination. Despite this racism and discrimination towards Khmer I found that Thai and Khmer were very similar in cultures, religion and architects. Even the writing and language especially the vocabulary were very similar to Khmer. Within one of month schooling in the refugee came I could read Thai. Without knowing any historical facts, I began to make connection that Thailand must be part of Cambodia long time ago based on the evidences I have seen around where I lived . Also people in Surin were ninety percent Khmers. I was twelve years old at the time in 1980. What am saying is that I don’t need any ivy league research to tell me so and I can tell facts from fiction easily based on real life evidence or living history even as a child. Most of Thai history is fiction and based on political propaganda. Now Thai people are really confused for their own good. Based on these fictional history and propaganda Thai politicians were able to rally multi-ethnic Thailand to unite and become racist and ultra nationalists. Most Thais view ther neighboring countries as inferior.
“Thailand would accept the French drawn map as a de facto border”
So if they don’t want to accept the French drawn map its time to give back the Issaan to Laos. But i’m not surprised that they forgot the huge present they received at the expense off their neighbors.
Thaksin’s lawyer Noppadon was quoted in this news: ” . . . Amsterdam was just going to submit a statement about undemocratic incidents and injustice in Thailand at a meeting of political parties from democratic countries around the world. ‘If he (Amsterdam) presents stupid and nonsense statements, he would risk being rejected and ridiculed because those attending the meeting have their own judgement and follow the situation in Thailand,’ Noppadon said.
Remember Thaksin’s lawyer said so: ‘stupid and nonsense statements’ by Amsterdam are a no-no!
I don’t think I said that. I certainly didn’t mean that. Apologies if that is how it came out. What I was trying to get across was the idea that taking money for your vote is wrong whether you vote the way asked or not. It’s not just you saying that this isn’t so; I think Andrew said something similar a few months ago.
Now although Tom Hoy feels differently, I suspect most better off people would be insulted to be offered money to vote for a certain party. We then say that it’s OK for poorer people to take the money, no matter what way they vote at the polling station, as they have no need to feel insulted by the offer. You see what we are doing, we are setting different standards of behaviour according to what class you belong to.
Of course there’s a long history of doing just this, not only in Thailand, but even in the West. Here, where the change from serfdom to peasant farming is so recent, the attitude towards the peasants by the educated people in the towns perpetuates this expectation of different standards. Why? Well they regard girls from the Northeast as their maids or their prostitutes. They regard men from there as taxi drivers or their gardeners. They wouldn’t blink twice if they heard of a peasant selling his daughter into prostitution.
You see where that leads us? Is there a similarity with the above and by looking the other way or sniggering behind your hand when a peasant sells his vote. If anything good has come out the UDD, it’s that along with the rise in incomes in the Northeast there is a new pride among the younger generation that they are as good as everyone else, and along with that will come the right to be judged the same as those very people who look down their noses at them and infer they have different moral standards up there.
(I actually suspect that the self-confidence of younger people in the Northeast came from the rise in living standards rather than from the UDD. Their recruitment by the UDD was a sign of that confidence. Needless to say I think Thaksin didn’t deserve to be the beneficiary of it. Apologies for being less than concise, but maybe I can give you an example of it happening somewhere else which seems quite pertinent. Not much more than two hundred years ago the majority of the population of Australia was made up of convicts from the Britain and Ireland. They were the equivalent of the Thai serfs one hundred years ago. Now we would not expect the descendants of those convicts to have different standards of behaviour to the descendants of those that weren’t convicts.)
” . . . I’ll assume his claim for “Khattiya’s public confession” is derived from the interview published in WSJ on May 5 2010 (cf Vichai’s May 15 comment at http://absolutelybangkok.com/carte-blanche/ . . . That Vichai – and the “admired” Bangkok Dan – choose to construe and extrapolate various elements to shape (fit?) their opinion doesn’t elevate that opinion to fact.” (Steve #42)
We are talking about the notorious but now thankfully dead General Khattiya, right? Am I now to presume from Steve that General Khattiya led the violent radical elements of the Reds movement (with nearly all the Red leaders cheering/inciting Khattiya & his gladiators on and on . . .) out of Khattiya’s democratic scruples and charitably too, without any Thaksin reward of sort. And General Khattiya made several flights to Dubai just before the Mar-May violent Reds protests, presumably to exchange spiritual cleansing and renewal?
I won’t hold my breath. Morten Pedersen’s optimism is rather endearing and his comparison of the broader pictures pertaining to the previous elections in 1990 and today’s is absolutely spot on.
If generational change like the one we’ve seen with Than Shwe coming to power is anything to go by, it does not bode well for the people, notwithstanding the different formative experiences of the new generation of military commanders, in fact more self-centred than ever. Soft liners of which Khin Nyunt was hardly one, though a good example of a tentative shift towards a moderate stance, do not seem to have seen the light of day so far.
I agree that a reforming government inevitably runs the risk of unintended consequences, and institutions..once they are in place…take on a life of their own. Unfortunately even if civil society and opposition politics can be likened to the proverbial camel, the Burmese military is nothing like the Arab. The dichotomy in the military between those out of uniform and those with troops under their command is likely the most important change that has unfolded at this juncture.
The NLD knew the junta not only did not want it to contest the polls, it spared no effort in making that happen. Its strategy of boycotting the elections was therefore driven by the junta which has no intention of engaging with it in any meaningful way. Hence the assumption that the NLD’s assumption was to force the military to return to the negotiating table is fundamentally flawed. Given that the NLD is committed to non-violence, what else could it have done other than trying for dialogue and protesting against relentless repression?
The common perception of twenty years of failure to move things forward by the NLD is also far from the truth. Just think of where we are today. Were it not for the NLD and ASSK, the principal gain of the popular uprising of 1988 and its subsequent electoral victory in 1990 albeit reneged upon, there would have been no incentive for the military to hit upon this plan of a roadmap in a bid for legitimacy.
Yes, we are witnessing a process of cooptation and collaboration both in the Burman majority heartlands and the ethnic homelands in a miltary-managed transition we all know to whose benefit it’s been carefully planned and designed. And we are bound to see the divisions in all groups between those who hope the illusion might turn real and those who will not fall for it.
Morten Pedersen very sensibly hedges his bets over the outcome of Sunday’s elections, and ever the optimist goes for the ‘futures’ casting a longish glance to 2015. Des Ball’s dismal reading of the runes over the minorities question is realistic and balanced by the prospect of a unified armed resistance. http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19971
In the next weeks and months to come we shall see all the contradictions in Burmese society, both within the ruling Prussians and the ruled, ethnic and Burman alike, play out to the bitter end. It won’t be too long before the pangs of labour pains eventually giving birth to a new society begin.
Thanks for the re-launch. It was rather disconcerting, so out of synch before, I could only listen and not watch.
There are some problems though also in the relationship with the Red Shirts. It sounds rather ironic, but they like us too much, and expect from us what we will not, and cannot deliver. Many Red Shirts perceive us as “helping” or “supporting” them.
I think you took that the wrong way, the Red never actually want the foreign media to “supporting” them but rather just to convey the news about them fairly since they don’t get the kind of PR the PAD is receiving from the local media so its pretty understandable for them to be seeking foreign media “help”. A good example of how the local media play out similar news from different side, during the PAD air port closure the Nation and Manager were playing the news as “necessity” while with the RED closing down Ratchaprasong they simply paint it as “nuance” and “violence”.
To use the oft used excuse on New Mandala, or to encourage the taking of money without giving the vote is a put down of the standards of those very same villagers you are meant to be showing support for. It’s like saying they having a lower sense of morality than you.
Since my last post to you got block for whatever reason, I’m writing to you again to clarify this point. I think you overly simplify the word “morality” here. You are saying selling your vote is “moral”??? isn’t that what you have been standing against. Now that I’ve explain why vote buying is not so prominent anymore you are saying that accept money and not voting for the buyer is of “lower sense of morality”? what kind of standard are you holding now really?
john francis lee,
We all have choices in living. Live free and brave or live fool and coward. Free and brave is more popular I think. Throughout history we saw many who bravely fought for freedom and independent so that they could be free. This king bravely made the sacrifice so that his people would be free, and his land would be land of the brave. US national anthem have such phrases ”
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
“
“(In a way taking the money and not voting for that candidate is wrong, isn’t it? The guy is almost morally obliged to vote that way.”
I’m not so sure. It seems to me like the perpetrator of the intended fraud i.e. the vote buyer receives an appropriate punishment. Firstly, he doesn’t get the vote he tried to buy. Secondly, he loses some money (probably corruptly gained in the first place given the loose morality of the vote buyer).
The moral hazard here is on the vote buyer’s side. If somebody offered me money for my vote, I think I’d take a great deal of pleasure in accepting it and then voting for someone else. And I would feel morally squeaky clean.
The moral dilemma would come if someone offered me money to vote for someone I had already intended to vote for. That would be a problem.
I have posted this previously, but it is seemingly opportune to do so at this time once more.
My book, Lady Mo and Heroism at Tung Samrit, is a compendium – a translation of a local Thai historian’s account of that period, together with Thai artist illustrations, multiple cross-references and citations relating to the legend and how Chao Anuvongse was tortured to death after being tricked into capture.
This book is available for direct mail in Thailand for 120 Baht, and from the US inside the US for $11.99.
USA: http://www.amazon.com/Lady-Mo-Heroism-Tung-Samrit/dp/6169043202
Thailand: http://thekoratpost.com/bookreview.html
This book is an original first-time every complete translation of the legend, and for sake of accuracy and research a great deal of information has been researched and footnoted, etc. I have about 200 left out of the 1,000 printed in October 2009.
Anyone can call me at 083-1002277 for information and details.
Simon, thank you for the pictures. This is a fascinating statue.
You’re right to call attention to the sheer size and muscle tone. But the detail is also interesting. The lower cloth is very nicely done with a pretty lower border. The jacket is rather elaborate with a tailored front, and some kind of embroidery at the lower cuff. Does anyone have any idea where this design comes from? The belt, cross-sash, and single ring are quite restrained, not flashy. The long face, flat cheeks, and mustache follow recent Thai conventions for heroic historical statuary — particularly those of Naresuan. The message seems to be that he is kingly, but in a rather modest way, and ultimately more military than royal.
But what about the gesture? Has anyone seen any Lao documents about what it is supposed to represent? Presumably he is pointing his troops the way into Siam. But the gesture seems rather tentative. The arm half raised. The thumb lacking decision.
And what direction? Can someone do a compass bearing on the arm? Towards Khorat? Saraburi? Bangkok? Or none of those?
Come on people . . . stick to common sense as suggested by Steve (#16) which I gladly repost: ” . . .I cling to the view that most people with a grain of common sense and objectivity generally see his (yours truly Vichai) concoction for what it is . . .”
I don’t know if ‘concoction’ is what it is . . . but to me it is just plain high-school-grade sense:
(a) The Reds marched to protest in Bangkok clearly with violence in mind (video clips of Arismun, Nattawut et al with unadulterated venom and violent threats);
(b) For 3 months Abhisit maintained ‘utmost restraint’, while the Reds occupied the central business district of Bangkok, launched incessant M79 grenade attacks indiscriminately, vandalized several buildings including the PM’s residence, and, the nightly ‘incitements’ of the Red leaders at the Rajaprasong podium punctuated by threats and personal insults.
(c) Abhisit agreed to the Red’s demand for an immediate election (November 2010 it was) but because the Reds leadership was just a toady-toady bunch to the wishes of Thaksin (who was intent on an even more violent Red protests to overthrow Abhisit come what may), all the negotiations came to naught (hence Red leader’s Veera’s disgust leading to his quitting from the Reds leadership).
Were any of you guys at Bangkok all that time (the violent Reds protest Mar-May 2010)? But surely you must all have seen all those incriminating video clips that would show, beyond any reasonable doubts, the Reds leadership ‘incitement to violence’?
Be careful that the Reds do NOT get what they wish for. In an international court of law, the Reds movement AND their leadership will be under the judicial microscope by independent-minded men of intelligence and substance. Under those circumstances, the rot and malice of Thaksin and his minions will be impossible to hide nor camouflage.
BUT this particular international tribunal theater would be personally satisfying to me . . . and if a few Thai generals and Abhisit himself should fall under the ‘guillotine’, so to speak, why that would certainly be fine by me too, thank you.
But again . . . it won’t be. Amsterdam/Thaksin are merely bluffing,
and NM easily was conned into the bluff.
c7 “You are wasting your breath Toady. Vichai N is either a hired hand or Thai military personnel himself, and he will mouth such assertions until he is no longer paid, in one coin or another, to do so. None of his assertions are new, they are the same-old talking points adopted by the PAD/military/Democrat putsch since 2006 with updates as their usurpation has progressed. They need no new refutation.”
I disagree. I doubt Vichai N is any of those things – and, even if he were, it’s irrelevant to dealing with what he says. As others have pointed out, the fact that Amsterdam is hired to put the Thaksin (and, at least by extension, the UDD) case is not a reason to dismiss out of hand any well-grounded and evidenced points he makes. The same applies here. Tackle Amsterdam,Vichai and others on their facts – though IMO it’s apparent that Vichai is a serial offender when it comes to conflating fact with opinion.
I cling to the view that most people with a grain of common sense and objectivity generally see his concoction for what it is – but also that we all benefit from an occasional reminder of why some posters get to be seen as less than credible. One also sees that a “version” (however plainly distorted and manipulatively larded with selected facts) repeated often enough gains traction – another reason why assumptions posing as facts or false claims of fact shouldn’t always be ignored. The following was written about the “big lie” – but I think much of it relates just as well to the repeated lie/distortion/”version”:
“….. in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”
c31 –“But for the answer to whether or not the recent violent Red rally was primarily BOUGHT and paid for by Thaksin – why Yes! Nattawut, a hardcore Red leader, was bought for Baht 10 million wasn’t he? And General Khattiya admitted as much too . . . if we recall the Khattiya’s public confession that the Khattiya armed and violent militants were approved by Thaksin”
Well, at least we’re back to 10 million – the “friend of a friend told me” figure put out by Bangkok Dan – so perhaps that’s progress. For myself, I still find Vichai’s 2 + 2 = 5 not much of an improvement on 2 + 2 = 50….. particularly when he goes on to cobble together a pair of his partisan hypotheses and creates a handy new “mega-fact” to propagate.
I’ll assume his claim for “Khattiya’s public confession” is derived from the interview published in WSJ on May 5 2010 (cf Vichai’s May 15 comment at http://absolutelybangkok.com/carte-blanche/ – though he’s fond of promoting it elsewhere). I read the WSJ piece at the time and it simply doesn’t contain what Vichai has repeatedly said it does. That Vichai – and the “admired” Bangkok Dan – choose to construe and extrapolate various elements to shape (fit?) their opinion doesn’t elevate that opinion to fact.
Vichai, that “….. Thaksin buys, suborns and corrupts past, present and future” is hardly a revelation or questioned by many, is it? Pretty standard for Thai politics/business….. but getting from there to where your mindset positions him/UDD is a bridge (however rickety) that you haven’t built yet.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Come the revolution?
Every so often, far less often than is acceptable, I read a paragraph or two which makes me (foolishly) believe there is – hope – for humanity.
The above two paragraphs are the most recent example of the kind of writing I’m describing.
Perfect.
What will happen in Burma after the election?
Nothing will change.
The genocide against the ethnic minorities will accelerate as soon as the election sham is concluded. In fact, the SPDC is already moving units and equipment into place, to attack the KNLA, KA, and other resistance groups.
And the west’s response: Obama and Clinton will say a few words, wring the hands, gnash their teeth, then go back to whatever they were doing.
What will happen in Burma after the election?
Thanks Moe Aung,
These are very interesting comments. Readers following the Burma election story over the weekend will also benefit from this recent essay by Ashley South.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Come the revolution?
” . . .you are saying that accept money and not voting for the buyer is of “lower sense of morality”? what kind of standard are you holding now really?” -( Tarrin #45)
Complete Les sentence Tarrin . Les said: “lower sense of morality than you”. And by “you”, he meant you Tarrin.
Now do you get it Tarrin? Apparently Les is right . . . considering how morally confused Tarrin is at this very moment.
Cambodia is not a province of Thailand
I was one of the refugees living in Thailand when I was little. I knew nothing about Thailand before escaping to Thailand as a child. When I was in Thailand I faced a lot of racism and discrimination. Despite this racism and discrimination towards Khmer I found that Thai and Khmer were very similar in cultures, religion and architects. Even the writing and language especially the vocabulary were very similar to Khmer. Within one of month schooling in the refugee came I could read Thai. Without knowing any historical facts, I began to make connection that Thailand must be part of Cambodia long time ago based on the evidences I have seen around where I lived . Also people in Surin were ninety percent Khmers. I was twelve years old at the time in 1980. What am saying is that I don’t need any ivy league research to tell me so and I can tell facts from fiction easily based on real life evidence or living history even as a child. Most of Thai history is fiction and based on political propaganda. Now Thai people are really confused for their own good. Based on these fictional history and propaganda Thai politicians were able to rally multi-ethnic Thailand to unite and become racist and ultra nationalists. Most Thais view ther neighboring countries as inferior.
Nick Nostitz on the PAD’s third coming
“Thailand would accept the French drawn map as a de facto border”
So if they don’t want to accept the French drawn map its time to give back the Issaan to Laos. But i’m not surprised that they forgot the huge present they received at the expense off their neighbors.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
Whaddya know! Didn’t I just said (#18): “But again . . . it won’t be. Amsterdam/Thaksin are merely bluffing, and NM easily was conned into the bluff.”
Todays news at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/11/07/politics/Sanan-due-to-meet-Thaksin-in-Norway-30141690.html
Thaksin’s lawyer Noppadon was quoted in this news: ” . . . Amsterdam was just going to submit a statement about undemocratic incidents and injustice in Thailand at a meeting of political parties from democratic countries around the world. ‘If he (Amsterdam) presents stupid and nonsense statements, he would risk being rejected and ridiculed because those attending the meeting have their own judgement and follow the situation in Thailand,’ Noppadon said.
Remember Thaksin’s lawyer said so: ‘stupid and nonsense statements’ by Amsterdam are a no-no!
Come the revolution?
Tarrin – 44
You are saying selling your vote is “moral”???
I don’t think I said that. I certainly didn’t mean that. Apologies if that is how it came out. What I was trying to get across was the idea that taking money for your vote is wrong whether you vote the way asked or not. It’s not just you saying that this isn’t so; I think Andrew said something similar a few months ago.
Now although Tom Hoy feels differently, I suspect most better off people would be insulted to be offered money to vote for a certain party. We then say that it’s OK for poorer people to take the money, no matter what way they vote at the polling station, as they have no need to feel insulted by the offer. You see what we are doing, we are setting different standards of behaviour according to what class you belong to.
Of course there’s a long history of doing just this, not only in Thailand, but even in the West. Here, where the change from serfdom to peasant farming is so recent, the attitude towards the peasants by the educated people in the towns perpetuates this expectation of different standards. Why? Well they regard girls from the Northeast as their maids or their prostitutes. They regard men from there as taxi drivers or their gardeners. They wouldn’t blink twice if they heard of a peasant selling his daughter into prostitution.
You see where that leads us? Is there a similarity with the above and by looking the other way or sniggering behind your hand when a peasant sells his vote. If anything good has come out the UDD, it’s that along with the rise in incomes in the Northeast there is a new pride among the younger generation that they are as good as everyone else, and along with that will come the right to be judged the same as those very people who look down their noses at them and infer they have different moral standards up there.
(I actually suspect that the self-confidence of younger people in the Northeast came from the rise in living standards rather than from the UDD. Their recruitment by the UDD was a sign of that confidence. Needless to say I think Thaksin didn’t deserve to be the beneficiary of it. Apologies for being less than concise, but maybe I can give you an example of it happening somewhere else which seems quite pertinent. Not much more than two hundred years ago the majority of the population of Australia was made up of convicts from the Britain and Ireland. They were the equivalent of the Thai serfs one hundred years ago. Now we would not expect the descendants of those convicts to have different standards of behaviour to the descendants of those that weren’t convicts.)
Come the revolution?
” . . . I’ll assume his claim for “Khattiya’s public confession” is derived from the interview published in WSJ on May 5 2010 (cf Vichai’s May 15 comment at http://absolutelybangkok.com/carte-blanche/ . . . That Vichai – and the “admired” Bangkok Dan – choose to construe and extrapolate various elements to shape (fit?) their opinion doesn’t elevate that opinion to fact.” (Steve #42)
We are talking about the notorious but now thankfully dead General Khattiya, right? Am I now to presume from Steve that General Khattiya led the violent radical elements of the Reds movement (with nearly all the Red leaders cheering/inciting Khattiya & his gladiators on and on . . .) out of Khattiya’s democratic scruples and charitably too, without any Thaksin reward of sort. And General Khattiya made several flights to Dubai just before the Mar-May violent Reds protests, presumably to exchange spiritual cleansing and renewal?
What will happen in Burma after the election?
Nich,
I won’t hold my breath. Morten Pedersen’s optimism is rather endearing and his comparison of the broader pictures pertaining to the previous elections in 1990 and today’s is absolutely spot on.
If generational change like the one we’ve seen with Than Shwe coming to power is anything to go by, it does not bode well for the people, notwithstanding the different formative experiences of the new generation of military commanders, in fact more self-centred than ever. Soft liners of which Khin Nyunt was hardly one, though a good example of a tentative shift towards a moderate stance, do not seem to have seen the light of day so far.
I agree that a reforming government inevitably runs the risk of unintended consequences, and institutions..once they are in place…take on a life of their own. Unfortunately even if civil society and opposition politics can be likened to the proverbial camel, the Burmese military is nothing like the Arab. The dichotomy in the military between those out of uniform and those with troops under their command is likely the most important change that has unfolded at this juncture.
The NLD knew the junta not only did not want it to contest the polls, it spared no effort in making that happen. Its strategy of boycotting the elections was therefore driven by the junta which has no intention of engaging with it in any meaningful way. Hence the assumption that the NLD’s assumption was to force the military to return to the negotiating table is fundamentally flawed. Given that the NLD is committed to non-violence, what else could it have done other than trying for dialogue and protesting against relentless repression?
The common perception of twenty years of failure to move things forward by the NLD is also far from the truth. Just think of where we are today. Were it not for the NLD and ASSK, the principal gain of the popular uprising of 1988 and its subsequent electoral victory in 1990 albeit reneged upon, there would have been no incentive for the military to hit upon this plan of a roadmap in a bid for legitimacy.
Yes, we are witnessing a process of cooptation and collaboration both in the Burman majority heartlands and the ethnic homelands in a miltary-managed transition we all know to whose benefit it’s been carefully planned and designed. And we are bound to see the divisions in all groups between those who hope the illusion might turn real and those who will not fall for it.
Morten Pedersen very sensibly hedges his bets over the outcome of Sunday’s elections, and ever the optimist goes for the ‘futures’ casting a longish glance to 2015. Des Ball’s dismal reading of the runes over the minorities question is realistic and balanced by the prospect of a unified armed resistance. http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=19971
In the next weeks and months to come we shall see all the contradictions in Burmese society, both within the ruling Prussians and the ruled, ethnic and Burman alike, play out to the bitter end. It won’t be too long before the pangs of labour pains eventually giving birth to a new society begin.
Thanks for the re-launch. It was rather disconcerting, so out of synch before, I could only listen and not watch.
Nick Nostitz on the PAD’s third coming
Nick- 7
There are some problems though also in the relationship with the Red Shirts. It sounds rather ironic, but they like us too much, and expect from us what we will not, and cannot deliver. Many Red Shirts perceive us as “helping” or “supporting” them.
I think you took that the wrong way, the Red never actually want the foreign media to “supporting” them but rather just to convey the news about them fairly since they don’t get the kind of PR the PAD is receiving from the local media so its pretty understandable for them to be seeking foreign media “help”. A good example of how the local media play out similar news from different side, during the PAD air port closure the Nation and Manager were playing the news as “necessity” while with the RED closing down Ratchaprasong they simply paint it as “nuance” and “violence”.
Come the revolution?
LesAbbey – 37
To use the oft used excuse on New Mandala, or to encourage the taking of money without giving the vote is a put down of the standards of those very same villagers you are meant to be showing support for. It’s like saying they having a lower sense of morality than you.
Since my last post to you got block for whatever reason, I’m writing to you again to clarify this point. I think you overly simplify the word “morality” here. You are saying selling your vote is “moral”??? isn’t that what you have been standing against. Now that I’ve explain why vote buying is not so prominent anymore you are saying that accept money and not voting for the buyer is of “lower sense of morality”? what kind of standard are you holding now really?
Size matters
john francis lee,
We all have choices in living. Live free and brave or live fool and coward. Free and brave is more popular I think. Throughout history we saw many who bravely fought for freedom and independent so that they could be free. This king bravely made the sacrifice so that his people would be free, and his land would be land of the brave. US national anthem have such phrases ”
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
“
Come the revolution?
Les Abbey said
“(In a way taking the money and not voting for that candidate is wrong, isn’t it? The guy is almost morally obliged to vote that way.”
I’m not so sure. It seems to me like the perpetrator of the intended fraud i.e. the vote buyer receives an appropriate punishment. Firstly, he doesn’t get the vote he tried to buy. Secondly, he loses some money (probably corruptly gained in the first place given the loose morality of the vote buyer).
The moral hazard here is on the vote buyer’s side. If somebody offered me money for my vote, I think I’d take a great deal of pleasure in accepting it and then voting for someone else. And I would feel morally squeaky clean.
The moral dilemma would come if someone offered me money to vote for someone I had already intended to vote for. That would be a problem.
Size matters
I have posted this previously, but it is seemingly opportune to do so at this time once more.
My book, Lady Mo and Heroism at Tung Samrit, is a compendium – a translation of a local Thai historian’s account of that period, together with Thai artist illustrations, multiple cross-references and citations relating to the legend and how Chao Anuvongse was tortured to death after being tricked into capture.
This book is available for direct mail in Thailand for 120 Baht, and from the US inside the US for $11.99.
USA: http://www.amazon.com/Lady-Mo-Heroism-Tung-Samrit/dp/6169043202
Thailand: http://thekoratpost.com/bookreview.html
This book is an original first-time every complete translation of the legend, and for sake of accuracy and research a great deal of information has been researched and footnoted, etc. I have about 200 left out of the 1,000 printed in October 2009.
Anyone can call me at 083-1002277 for information and details.
Size matters
Simon, thank you for the pictures. This is a fascinating statue.
You’re right to call attention to the sheer size and muscle tone. But the detail is also interesting. The lower cloth is very nicely done with a pretty lower border. The jacket is rather elaborate with a tailored front, and some kind of embroidery at the lower cuff. Does anyone have any idea where this design comes from? The belt, cross-sash, and single ring are quite restrained, not flashy. The long face, flat cheeks, and mustache follow recent Thai conventions for heroic historical statuary — particularly those of Naresuan. The message seems to be that he is kingly, but in a rather modest way, and ultimately more military than royal.
But what about the gesture? Has anyone seen any Lao documents about what it is supposed to represent? Presumably he is pointing his troops the way into Siam. But the gesture seems rather tentative. The arm half raised. The thumb lacking decision.
And what direction? Can someone do a compass bearing on the arm? Towards Khorat? Saraburi? Bangkok? Or none of those?
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
Come on people . . . stick to common sense as suggested by Steve (#16) which I gladly repost: ” . . .I cling to the view that most people with a grain of common sense and objectivity generally see his (yours truly Vichai) concoction for what it is . . .”
I don’t know if ‘concoction’ is what it is . . . but to me it is just plain high-school-grade sense:
(a) The Reds marched to protest in Bangkok clearly with violence in mind (video clips of Arismun, Nattawut et al with unadulterated venom and violent threats);
(b) For 3 months Abhisit maintained ‘utmost restraint’, while the Reds occupied the central business district of Bangkok, launched incessant M79 grenade attacks indiscriminately, vandalized several buildings including the PM’s residence, and, the nightly ‘incitements’ of the Red leaders at the Rajaprasong podium punctuated by threats and personal insults.
(c) Abhisit agreed to the Red’s demand for an immediate election (November 2010 it was) but because the Reds leadership was just a toady-toady bunch to the wishes of Thaksin (who was intent on an even more violent Red protests to overthrow Abhisit come what may), all the negotiations came to naught (hence Red leader’s Veera’s disgust leading to his quitting from the Reds leadership).
Were any of you guys at Bangkok all that time (the violent Reds protest Mar-May 2010)? But surely you must all have seen all those incriminating video clips that would show, beyond any reasonable doubts, the Reds leadership ‘incitement to violence’?
Be careful that the Reds do NOT get what they wish for. In an international court of law, the Reds movement AND their leadership will be under the judicial microscope by independent-minded men of intelligence and substance. Under those circumstances, the rot and malice of Thaksin and his minions will be impossible to hide nor camouflage.
BUT this particular international tribunal theater would be personally satisfying to me . . . and if a few Thai generals and Abhisit himself should fall under the ‘guillotine’, so to speak, why that would certainly be fine by me too, thank you.
But again . . . it won’t be. Amsterdam/Thaksin are merely bluffing,
and NM easily was conned into the bluff.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
Who perpetrated 1973, 1976, 1992, Tak Bai, other southern atrocities, rohingya and the Bangkok Massacre?
The military.
Whose budget has swollen since the Dems stole power?
The military.
Who have exercised complete impunity throughout?
The military.
What and who have been the closest supporters of the military?
Thaksin, the Dems, the Reds, the PAD are all sideshows.
Smell the coffee.
Robert Amsterdam on Show Trials, Political Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
c7 “You are wasting your breath Toady. Vichai N is either a hired hand or Thai military personnel himself, and he will mouth such assertions until he is no longer paid, in one coin or another, to do so. None of his assertions are new, they are the same-old talking points adopted by the PAD/military/Democrat putsch since 2006 with updates as their usurpation has progressed. They need no new refutation.”
I disagree. I doubt Vichai N is any of those things – and, even if he were, it’s irrelevant to dealing with what he says. As others have pointed out, the fact that Amsterdam is hired to put the Thaksin (and, at least by extension, the UDD) case is not a reason to dismiss out of hand any well-grounded and evidenced points he makes. The same applies here. Tackle Amsterdam,Vichai and others on their facts – though IMO it’s apparent that Vichai is a serial offender when it comes to conflating fact with opinion.
I cling to the view that most people with a grain of common sense and objectivity generally see his concoction for what it is – but also that we all benefit from an occasional reminder of why some posters get to be seen as less than credible. One also sees that a “version” (however plainly distorted and manipulatively larded with selected facts) repeated often enough gains traction – another reason why assumptions posing as facts or false claims of fact shouldn’t always be ignored. The following was written about the “big lie” – but I think much of it relates just as well to the repeated lie/distortion/”version”:
“….. in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
Come the revolution?
c31 –“But for the answer to whether or not the recent violent Red rally was primarily BOUGHT and paid for by Thaksin – why Yes! Nattawut, a hardcore Red leader, was bought for Baht 10 million wasn’t he? And General Khattiya admitted as much too . . . if we recall the Khattiya’s public confession that the Khattiya armed and violent militants were approved by Thaksin”
Well, at least we’re back to 10 million – the “friend of a friend told me” figure put out by Bangkok Dan – so perhaps that’s progress. For myself, I still find Vichai’s 2 + 2 = 5 not much of an improvement on 2 + 2 = 50….. particularly when he goes on to cobble together a pair of his partisan hypotheses and creates a handy new “mega-fact” to propagate.
I’ll assume his claim for “Khattiya’s public confession” is derived from the interview published in WSJ on May 5 2010 (cf Vichai’s May 15 comment at http://absolutelybangkok.com/carte-blanche/ – though he’s fond of promoting it elsewhere). I read the WSJ piece at the time and it simply doesn’t contain what Vichai has repeatedly said it does. That Vichai – and the “admired” Bangkok Dan – choose to construe and extrapolate various elements to shape (fit?) their opinion doesn’t elevate that opinion to fact.
Vichai, that “….. Thaksin buys, suborns and corrupts past, present and future” is hardly a revelation or questioned by many, is it? Pretty standard for Thai politics/business….. but getting from there to where your mindset positions him/UDD is a bridge (however rickety) that you haven’t built yet.