They say two certainties: death and taxes. Death is natural (could be postponed perhaps but unstoppable nevertheless).
But taxes are totally man-created. When we all came to this world, there were all sorts of taxes and tax rates that were mandated before our birth . . . and yet we just calmly, like lambs, accepted the tax system.
What is the logic of taxes? Shouldn’t taxes be voted upon, say every 12 years or so, by referendum? I’ll even agree to every citizen being entitled to vote on taxes, even to include people who are not (by exemption or whatever) paying taxes.
Within Southeast Asia, I would be interested to see a comparison of average taxes paid per capita, or as a percentage of their GDP, and as a percentage of average per capita income . . . and how the tax structure had comparatively benefited or hindered economic/social development in specific countries. Comparing Thailand versus Malaysia versus Indonesia versus South Korea could be helpful.
1. Hun Sen, his family, the inner circle and their exploits.
2. The DPRK’s relations with mainland Southeast Asian states, particularly Cambodia, Thailand and Burma, both politically and culturally, in as much as those can be seperate categories.
3. Religious or quasi-religious cults, old and new. Who can tell me about the OFFICE OF HEAVENLY GRANDFATHERS?
4. Printed media and associated ephemera. Even in the case of Thailand where Thai is seemingly spoken and read fluently by academics who focus on the country, many well-known works cite only the Bangkok Post when press citations are needed. The country has a wealth of fascinating and utterly bizzare periodicals, many of which help to illuminate some of the darker corners of Thai studies.
How about an analysis of the groups which constitute the so called “third force” in Burma, their role in the upcoming election and prospects for democratic influence in Burmese politics?
Let me thank Mr. David Streckfuss for this precious piece of work. I am looking forward to buy a few of them for myself and a few friends. Even if it is banned in Thailand, I will obtain them when I travel oversea.
[…] David Streckfuss Interview Here: David Streckfuss on lese majeste On the topic of lese majeste and many related issues. A bit.. 9) Is lese majeste law […]
I finally accessed this article via a proxy. It is blocked on my local server. I think Dr Streckfuss is being a tad faux if he thinks the book will be published under the state of fear he describes.
I’d like to read it tho that may make me a political undesirable at best a criminal at worst.
The book might not be banned — calls for reform of LM and open discussions of the counter-productivity in forcing love for a monarchy that’s already widely revered have become more common in the Thai and English-language press, whereas in 2000 newspapers refused to even talk about not talking about LM, much less openly editorializing for its reform. Also the Crown Property Bureau’s has become discussable, as has the dynamic role of monarchy in the 20th century to some degree.
None of this excuses the current LM abuses nor lowers the timely relevance of the book, but it does suggest that while the entrenched conservatives are worse than ever, the center is shifting. Unlike in China, the Thai elites simply lack the technical and strategic competence to maintain their Potemkin village. The only string holding LM in the minds of most Thais is the king himself, because they love him and emotion is irrational by nature. Does anyone really see LM being maintained as such under Rama X, dependent on a majority of Thais exercising, what, loveless respect and momentum of tradition?
The current mass support for draconian LM is fueled by the passions of the first stages of grief, a pre-mourning for a king that most Thais adore and will fiercely protect during his hospice months. Once most Thais exit the last stage of grief, say a year after the funeral, support for LM will dwindle to those who believe in it independently of their feelings for Rama 9. I have only met two Thais among hundreds who fit this category. I would be curious if anyone else’s sampling is radically different.
Anyway the Amazon page is accessible. The book’s a hundred bucks. Now that’s an obstacle!
P.S. Wimonphan-Sanchai 1974 book, though never reprinted, has since been a kind of ‘prototype’ book on Ananda’s death for the royalists. Virtually, all books about the case by royalists that have been published subsequently (including several titles these past years) are based on it, usually copying or paraphrasing sentences or paragraphs of Wimonphan-Sanchai’s.
Khun Hinke #114
The book by Wimonphan and Sanchai Saengwichian MD published in 1974 was the one here http://www.toulo.com/product/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=5468
It’s one of the two most important among the numerous books on Ananda’s death that suddenly came out in 1974; the other one was by Suphot Dantrakul, which was a direct response to Wimonphan-Sanchai book: http://www.su-usedbook.com/shop/s/su-usedbook/img-lib/spd_2010062622814_b.jpg
Suphot’s book has since been updated and republished many times, while Wimonphan-Sanchai’s has not, until Wimonphan’s new hot-selling book, which, as I said, recycled her and Sanchai’s 1974 book.
Khun Cliff Sloane #115
The elimination of the third possibility from any serious consideration of the case was done, as I said, from day one, without any need for evidence tampering. It was based on two testimonies, one by Bhumibol himself, the other – and this was crucial – by the two pages who sat in front of Ananda’s bedroom. All three testified that Bhumibol didn’t enter Anada’s bedroom. The two pages were of course themselves later convicted of allowing a gunman to enter the bedroom to kill Ananda. By testifying that Bhumibol didn’t enter the bedroom, the two pages in effect sealed their own fate. For if Ananda was killed by another person, as the physical conditions of the shooting pointed to, and if Bhumibol – “the third possibility” – didn’t enter the bedroom, that left only the possibility (#4) that someone else did, i.e. a gunman from outside.
But later on, the royalists, with the help of some doctors, came up with the issue of “missing gun”. Basically, they argued, with the support of dubious forensic test of Ananda’s gun and its bullet casing found at the scence (cf Teufel’s last sentence in point 6 above #112), that Ananda’s gun was in fact not the one that fired the fatal bullet, nor the bullet casing found the one that entered Ananda’s head. This “missing gun” theory (if it’s true) implied that it must be someone else outside who came to kill Anada with his own gun, not the one found at the scence. Hence Bhumibol was further eliminated as suspected (for had he committed the act, he would have used Ananda’s gun found at the scence).
If you read my last posting you will see that I am not promoting the tourism industry or the garment industry. I was just pointing out that ‘GoodGraciousMe’ had misrepresented the importance of tourism, and had totally failed to mention the garment industry. Whether we like these industries or not, I do think that their importance needs to be acknowledged. I was doing exactly that. Also, I doubt if all the people working in the garment industry would agree that this industry is totally insignificant.
I think I have made it clear that what Laos needs is a mixed economy, one that is sensitive to the needs of rural people, and does not require that they be sold down the river for an export industry that apart from threatening Laos’ food security, could potentially threaten the sovereignty of the country (if the buyers of the electricity ever decide to put pressure on Laos). Up to now I do not believe that the hydropower industry has been sensitive enough to local needs, or has gotten near to providing appropriate mitigation measures or compensation for those being impacted.
I think the question that GoodGraciousMe is asking is a normative one that steers the narrative in a particular direction. I disagree with the fundamental assumptions behind it. I will not be baited into trying to name a single industry that will make Laos rich, because I fundamentally disagree with this approach to development. What is needed is a mixed and sensitive approach to development. So far, the hydropower industry is not doing what is needed to meet what I think are reasonable requirements.
I don’t have time to continue this debate forever, so this may well be my last posting to this thread. I think I have made my views clear. However, I welcome others to chime in. We need a diversity of voices to come up with viable options.
Ian Baird @ 10 – “It is never a good idea for a country to become overly dependent on a single resource or industry.
I disagree with the way that ‘GoodnessGraciousMe’ has represented Laos’ development situation. For one, there are certainly some potential drawbacks of tourism development, but it should be acknowledged that tourism is already Laos’ #1 source of foreign currency, and that the importance of tourism is likely to increase in the future. The garment industry is also more important than has been acknowledged.”
I’m confused. Ian Baird states (quite rightly) that it is not a good idea for a country to become overly dependent on a single resource or industry, but in the same breath seems to be positioning tourism as the primary source of income for Laos.
The garment industry? Spare me! Cheap factories knocked up by flighty foreign investors (primarily Thai, Chinese and Taiwanese), interested in only one thing – lowest cost production. As soon as the cost of production becomes ‘uneconomic’, off those factories go. And what do they bring to Laos? Any technology transfer? No – a bunch of sewing machines and the need to import all of the raw materials. Garment manufacturers produce in Laos only because, as a Least Developed Country, exports benefit from preferential tariffs in many Western markets. Take this away and the garment industry in Laos will be dead in the water. The workforce is also simply too small to support a large scale Cambodian-style garment industry – plus you have the additional costs associated with exporting the finished products through a third country, not to mention importing the raw materials (the fabrics, yarns, zippers, buttons).
Importing. Now there’s a point that I touched on in my original post, but didn’t develop. I challenge Ian Baird – or anyone – to buy the following products in Laos. Soap, shampoo, toothpaste, fish sauce, aspirin, a large plastic bucket, a toothbrush, a battery, a light bulb (fluourescent or other), a car tyre, a pair of shoes. The only catch is that the every item has to be made in Laos. This was the situation when I first went to Laos in 1992; this is still the case today. The simple fact is that Laos still has virtually no manufacturing capacity at even the most basic level. 95% of everyday items have to be imported from Thailand, China or Vietnam.
I repeat: I am no fan of big hydro, and I agree fully that there are extensive social and environmental issues associated with it, but please identify viable alternatives. Difficult, isn’t it?
To understand the extent of the development challenges facing Laos, try –
Simply stating that the royal institution was not always held in high regard and that its current status is the result of political manipulation is surely enough to get the book bannned?
This can replace the temporarily censored comment – I’ve left out questions more appropriate to pose to Dr Walker when he returns.
You will post this. It contains evidence. I was under the impression we had an understanding. You can remove these first two sentences before posting if you wish.
@Nicholas c62: You can’t claim to have “no prescriptions” when you’re filling scripts non-stop on NM. These questions aren’t complex. You didn’t think Thaksin’s HR record was ever going to come up – when you published Amsterdam’s creative fantasy of fiction?
I was a Red Shirt sympathiser. Until they wanted their children to die with them (superanonymous knows what I’m referring to). In April this year. I saw a thousand Red Shirt kids laughing and playing with their parents in the CBD, festive atmosphere, kids in revolutionary fashion, peaceful protest, it was great. All happy for the media. Cute.
When the fighting broke out (provoked by Reds and we all know it – stop ignoring the evidence I submit); the first thing I thought was “If there is even one child left…”
Hundreds remained, right up to the final day of conspiracy. You know exactly what I mean, superanonymous. fake surrender: pretending to cease hostilities to deceive, then continuing the fight after surrendering; pretending to return home but moving to preplanned positions throughout a capital who’d been through a 2 month ordeal already because of those criminals; claiming surrender then stabbing Thailand / Bangkok in the back and setting the city on fire as planned. There is evidence for all of this – why are you ignoring it?
Are you all a single person? I’m struggling to come up with a theory to explain why all of you could have a reason to ignore evidence of criminal action, and continue on with your support. For a bunch of academics, why has only one person answered a single one of my questions? Nicholas has never answered a single one.
You apparently have no interest in evidence and facts, you have no opinions to proffer when confronted with horrific crimes – human shields, people – children!, you ignore evidence of rockets being fired by criminals trying to provoke soldiers, from guys hiding behind a barricade in the middle of the CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT of Bangkok, kids playing near the shells! Whilst Amsterdam tries to spin them as peaceful. What is wrong with you all?
Any country – in the world – It’s ridiculous. Pull up some barb wire on Times Square and start letting it rip at soldiers? How will you make out? Why not hijack a mall on Champs-Elysées? Let the children play whilst you throw firebombs at soldiers staring at you doing nothing, unable to return fire. Back home in Sydney – build a fortified camp in Star City and boat in thousands of litres of fuel to drench it in, before surrendering only to then set it alight.
I have presented evidence. You will respond. That is the academic debate process. You will counter with your own evidence, or you will challenge the veracity of the examples I’ve submitted, you will give your opinions or not, but you WILL DEFEND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE TERRORISTS. Or you will explain why you will not justify supporting them in light of the evidence that they are terrorists.
reports were rife of protesters being paid to attend. But when the government would not bow to their demands, protest leaders began a series of aggressive actions, invading the offices of the election commission and bursting into the parliament as lawmakers climbed over a back wall. On April 10, several hundred Red Shirts provoked the military by attempting to overrun an army base in the capital…as videos and photos emerged of Red Shirts or protest sympathizers firing assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at soldiers, it became clear that the protest had become an armed insurgency.
I was there. I saw all the horrors, all the messed up tragedy the media didn’t cover. Everyone in Bangkok did! Who doesn’t report on human shields that look like this? http://i.imgur.com/04FIC.jpgIn the barricades! These children were there the entire ordeal, bullets flying around, bombs exploding, there’s a boy in this video here with you’re all pretending you haven’t noticed yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
Nicholas, and everyone, you cannot watch that video – and stay silent. What is wrong with you? These are the people you fervently support. I’m showing you irrefutable evidence that most of what is published on your site is grossly disassociated from truth – and your reaction is silence, unprovoked juvenile attacks, and superanonymous can’t read and doesn’t realise I’ve quoted the Red terrorist accurately. (which I didn’t link to because links > censorship; and I was saving that one for later lol) – but you’ve read it now, the parents need to go to prison, you agree (the whole world agrees the parents should hang), and you don’t want to talk about it?
How about a mock trial. I will prosecute the Reds in front of a jury on charges of (the works). Amsterdam or you or both can defend them. Can you see an acquittal happening? How about I prosecute NM in front of a jury. How will your responses so far play out. I think they’re a bit irregular, leading to suspicious concern, warranting further investigation. Don’t you?
Why does evidence disinterest you?
Why do innocuous polite questions make you uncomfortable
Andrew Walker:
No change in the model NongChang. New Mandala has a longstanding open invitation for guest contributions. We would be delighted to run a guest contribution from the PAD, the government or anyone else.
Nicholas Farrelly:
Like almost all of New Mandala‘s “guest contributions” the essay by Robert Amsterdam was unsolicited by us. We are, as Andrew emphasised, always open to new perspectives, responses, critiques, rejoinders, etc.
If anyone from the Thai government or PAD, or wherever, reading this would like to make a contribution to New Mandala debates then they can contact me
Excuse me, but…what debate?
Everyone must address and comment on the evidence I have submitted here, because I got oh so much more coming. And also, it’s not cool to support terrorism. And then say “no comment”. It’s just not…cricket.
Here in the Northeast I am repeatedly meeting Thais, who have relatively huge debts, formal and informal, which they will never be able to repay. How common is this? What is the national level of personal debt? What are the implications (if any) for the national economy?
How about something on food..? Trends in food consumption would be my banal first suggestion – like what are people consuming more of these days? Not like corporate junk food, but massaman curries or lychees. But you anthropologists would probably have already some sort of political symbolism of food madness that’s already been done.
Or what about a “Afternoon Tea in Yangon” series where the forthcoming political musical is discussed cordially.
What about Southeast Asian film? Singaporean film? Why not a monthly ‘Hawker Centre report’ on everything that’s happened on Orchard Rd. Or a “Geylang Gander” series where ruling party members are exposed in their attempts to re-enter the womb for currency… in order to promote multi-party democracy and ultimately use Lee Kuan Yew’s ANU honorary doctorate as diplomatic leverage (as was originally intended?)… Singaporean cosmopolitanism. Surely not everything has to be covered in dust for it to appear on NM?
Speaking of dust, what about more things on illegal trading? Teak. I want to know how to order teak.
… So yes, what about expanding to other countries? You can always offend a whole new crowd of expats. That’d be exciting.
Does anyone discuss what I have heard repeatedly from Thai friends, that there was very serious tampering with evidence so as to make sure that Possibility #3 would be ruled out? Did Simpson and company comment on this?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Topics for future discussion on New Mandala
The role of superstition and witchcraft in everyday Thai life espically
Politics.
Topics for future discussion on New Mandala
They say two certainties: death and taxes. Death is natural (could be postponed perhaps but unstoppable nevertheless).
But taxes are totally man-created. When we all came to this world, there were all sorts of taxes and tax rates that were mandated before our birth . . . and yet we just calmly, like lambs, accepted the tax system.
What is the logic of taxes? Shouldn’t taxes be voted upon, say every 12 years or so, by referendum? I’ll even agree to every citizen being entitled to vote on taxes, even to include people who are not (by exemption or whatever) paying taxes.
Within Southeast Asia, I would be interested to see a comparison of average taxes paid per capita, or as a percentage of their GDP, and as a percentage of average per capita income . . . and how the tax structure had comparatively benefited or hindered economic/social development in specific countries. Comparing Thailand versus Malaysia versus Indonesia versus South Korea could be helpful.
Perhap
Topics for future discussion on New Mandala
1. Hun Sen, his family, the inner circle and their exploits.
2. The DPRK’s relations with mainland Southeast Asian states, particularly Cambodia, Thailand and Burma, both politically and culturally, in as much as those can be seperate categories.
3. Religious or quasi-religious cults, old and new. Who can tell me about the OFFICE OF HEAVENLY GRANDFATHERS?
4. Printed media and associated ephemera. Even in the case of Thailand where Thai is seemingly spoken and read fluently by academics who focus on the country, many well-known works cite only the Bangkok Post when press citations are needed. The country has a wealth of fascinating and utterly bizzare periodicals, many of which help to illuminate some of the darker corners of Thai studies.
5. Lots more book reviews.
Topics for future discussion on New Mandala
How about an analysis of the groups which constitute the so called “third force” in Burma, their role in the upcoming election and prospects for democratic influence in Burmese politics?
David Streckfuss on lese majeste
Let me thank Mr. David Streckfuss for this precious piece of work. I am looking forward to buy a few of them for myself and a few friends. Even if it is banned in Thailand, I will obtain them when I travel oversea.
Critics of Aung San Suu Kyi say…
If one is not a Communist at 20 one is heartless.
If one is still a Communist at 40 one is brainless.
Do not blame it all on Reagan and Thatcher.
Together they brought down the Evil Soviet Empire.
David Streckfuss on lese majeste
[…] David Streckfuss Interview Here: David Streckfuss on lese majeste On the topic of lese majeste and many related issues. A bit.. 9) Is lese majeste law […]
Prachatai manager arrested
[…] […]
The March to Putrajaya
I finally accessed this article via a proxy. It is blocked on my local server. I think Dr Streckfuss is being a tad faux if he thinks the book will be published under the state of fear he describes.
I’d like to read it tho that may make me a political undesirable at best a criminal at worst.
David Streckfuss on lese majeste
The book might not be banned — calls for reform of LM and open discussions of the counter-productivity in forcing love for a monarchy that’s already widely revered have become more common in the Thai and English-language press, whereas in 2000 newspapers refused to even talk about not talking about LM, much less openly editorializing for its reform. Also the Crown Property Bureau’s has become discussable, as has the dynamic role of monarchy in the 20th century to some degree.
None of this excuses the current LM abuses nor lowers the timely relevance of the book, but it does suggest that while the entrenched conservatives are worse than ever, the center is shifting. Unlike in China, the Thai elites simply lack the technical and strategic competence to maintain their Potemkin village. The only string holding LM in the minds of most Thais is the king himself, because they love him and emotion is irrational by nature. Does anyone really see LM being maintained as such under Rama X, dependent on a majority of Thais exercising, what, loveless respect and momentum of tradition?
The current mass support for draconian LM is fueled by the passions of the first stages of grief, a pre-mourning for a king that most Thais adore and will fiercely protect during his hospice months. Once most Thais exit the last stage of grief, say a year after the funeral, support for LM will dwindle to those who believe in it independently of their feelings for Rama 9. I have only met two Thais among hundreds who fit this category. I would be curious if anyone else’s sampling is radically different.
Anyway the Amazon page is accessible. The book’s a hundred bucks. Now that’s an obstacle!
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
P.S. Wimonphan-Sanchai 1974 book, though never reprinted, has since been a kind of ‘prototype’ book on Ananda’s death for the royalists. Virtually, all books about the case by royalists that have been published subsequently (including several titles these past years) are based on it, usually copying or paraphrasing sentences or paragraphs of Wimonphan-Sanchai’s.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
Khun Hinke #114
The book by Wimonphan and Sanchai Saengwichian MD published in 1974 was the one here
http://www.toulo.com/product/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=5468
It’s one of the two most important among the numerous books on Ananda’s death that suddenly came out in 1974; the other one was by Suphot Dantrakul, which was a direct response to Wimonphan-Sanchai book: http://www.su-usedbook.com/shop/s/su-usedbook/img-lib/spd_2010062622814_b.jpg
Suphot’s book has since been updated and republished many times, while Wimonphan-Sanchai’s has not, until Wimonphan’s new hot-selling book, which, as I said, recycled her and Sanchai’s 1974 book.
I discussed these two 1974 book by Suphot and Wimonphan-Sanchai in the article I referred to at #7
http://www.newmandala.org/2008/05/29/the-devils-discus-in-thai/#comment-462331
Khun Cliff Sloane #115
The elimination of the third possibility from any serious consideration of the case was done, as I said, from day one, without any need for evidence tampering. It was based on two testimonies, one by Bhumibol himself, the other – and this was crucial – by the two pages who sat in front of Ananda’s bedroom. All three testified that Bhumibol didn’t enter Anada’s bedroom. The two pages were of course themselves later convicted of allowing a gunman to enter the bedroom to kill Ananda. By testifying that Bhumibol didn’t enter the bedroom, the two pages in effect sealed their own fate. For if Ananda was killed by another person, as the physical conditions of the shooting pointed to, and if Bhumibol – “the third possibility” – didn’t enter the bedroom, that left only the possibility (#4) that someone else did, i.e. a gunman from outside.
But later on, the royalists, with the help of some doctors, came up with the issue of “missing gun”. Basically, they argued, with the support of dubious forensic test of Ananda’s gun and its bullet casing found at the scence (cf Teufel’s last sentence in point 6 above #112), that Ananda’s gun was in fact not the one that fired the fatal bullet, nor the bullet casing found the one that entered Ananda’s head. This “missing gun” theory (if it’s true) implied that it must be someone else outside who came to kill Anada with his own gun, not the one found at the scence. Hence Bhumibol was further eliminated as suspected (for had he committed the act, he would have used Ananda’s gun found at the scence).
“The Amazon of Asia” – Laos and the Mekong on ABC TV
If you read my last posting you will see that I am not promoting the tourism industry or the garment industry. I was just pointing out that ‘GoodGraciousMe’ had misrepresented the importance of tourism, and had totally failed to mention the garment industry. Whether we like these industries or not, I do think that their importance needs to be acknowledged. I was doing exactly that. Also, I doubt if all the people working in the garment industry would agree that this industry is totally insignificant.
I think I have made it clear that what Laos needs is a mixed economy, one that is sensitive to the needs of rural people, and does not require that they be sold down the river for an export industry that apart from threatening Laos’ food security, could potentially threaten the sovereignty of the country (if the buyers of the electricity ever decide to put pressure on Laos). Up to now I do not believe that the hydropower industry has been sensitive enough to local needs, or has gotten near to providing appropriate mitigation measures or compensation for those being impacted.
I think the question that GoodGraciousMe is asking is a normative one that steers the narrative in a particular direction. I disagree with the fundamental assumptions behind it. I will not be baited into trying to name a single industry that will make Laos rich, because I fundamentally disagree with this approach to development. What is needed is a mixed and sensitive approach to development. So far, the hydropower industry is not doing what is needed to meet what I think are reasonable requirements.
I don’t have time to continue this debate forever, so this may well be my last posting to this thread. I think I have made my views clear. However, I welcome others to chime in. We need a diversity of voices to come up with viable options.
“The Amazon of Asia” – Laos and the Mekong on ABC TV
Ian Baird @ 10 – “It is never a good idea for a country to become overly dependent on a single resource or industry.
I disagree with the way that ‘GoodnessGraciousMe’ has represented Laos’ development situation. For one, there are certainly some potential drawbacks of tourism development, but it should be acknowledged that tourism is already Laos’ #1 source of foreign currency, and that the importance of tourism is likely to increase in the future. The garment industry is also more important than has been acknowledged.”
I’m confused. Ian Baird states (quite rightly) that it is not a good idea for a country to become overly dependent on a single resource or industry, but in the same breath seems to be positioning tourism as the primary source of income for Laos.
The garment industry? Spare me! Cheap factories knocked up by flighty foreign investors (primarily Thai, Chinese and Taiwanese), interested in only one thing – lowest cost production. As soon as the cost of production becomes ‘uneconomic’, off those factories go. And what do they bring to Laos? Any technology transfer? No – a bunch of sewing machines and the need to import all of the raw materials. Garment manufacturers produce in Laos only because, as a Least Developed Country, exports benefit from preferential tariffs in many Western markets. Take this away and the garment industry in Laos will be dead in the water. The workforce is also simply too small to support a large scale Cambodian-style garment industry – plus you have the additional costs associated with exporting the finished products through a third country, not to mention importing the raw materials (the fabrics, yarns, zippers, buttons).
Importing. Now there’s a point that I touched on in my original post, but didn’t develop. I challenge Ian Baird – or anyone – to buy the following products in Laos. Soap, shampoo, toothpaste, fish sauce, aspirin, a large plastic bucket, a toothbrush, a battery, a light bulb (fluourescent or other), a car tyre, a pair of shoes. The only catch is that the every item has to be made in Laos. This was the situation when I first went to Laos in 1992; this is still the case today. The simple fact is that Laos still has virtually no manufacturing capacity at even the most basic level. 95% of everyday items have to be imported from Thailand, China or Vietnam.
I repeat: I am no fan of big hydro, and I agree fully that there are extensive social and environmental issues associated with it, but please identify viable alternatives. Difficult, isn’t it?
To understand the extent of the development challenges facing Laos, try –
http://www.undplao.org/newsroom/NHDR.php
http://www.nsc.gov.la/NHDR.htm
David Streckfuss on lese majeste
Simply stating that the royal institution was not always held in high regard and that its current status is the result of political manipulation is surely enough to get the book bannned?
Prachatai manager arrested
Jonny, I have just returned from leave. The threatening emails you have sent me are unacceptable. You are no longer welcome on this forum.
Andrew Walker
Prachatai manager arrested
This can replace the temporarily censored comment – I’ve left out questions more appropriate to pose to Dr Walker when he returns.
You will post this. It contains evidence. I was under the impression we had an understanding. You can remove these first two sentences before posting if you wish.
@Nicholas c62: You can’t claim to have “no prescriptions” when you’re filling scripts non-stop on NM. These questions aren’t complex. You didn’t think Thaksin’s HR record was ever going to come up – when you published Amsterdam’s creative fantasy of fiction?
I was a Red Shirt sympathiser. Until they wanted their children to die with them (superanonymous knows what I’m referring to). In April this year. I saw a thousand Red Shirt kids laughing and playing with their parents in the CBD, festive atmosphere, kids in revolutionary fashion, peaceful protest, it was great. All happy for the media. Cute.
When the fighting broke out (provoked by Reds and we all know it – stop ignoring the evidence I submit); the first thing I thought was “If there is even one child left…”
Hundreds remained, right up to the final day of conspiracy. You know exactly what I mean, superanonymous.
fake surrender: pretending to cease hostilities to deceive, then continuing the fight after surrendering; pretending to return home but moving to preplanned positions throughout a capital who’d been through a 2 month ordeal already because of those criminals; claiming surrender then stabbing Thailand / Bangkok in the back and setting the city on fire as planned. There is evidence for all of this – why are you ignoring it?
Are you all a single person? I’m struggling to come up with a theory to explain why all of you could have a reason to ignore evidence of criminal action, and continue on with your support. For a bunch of academics, why has only one person answered a single one of my questions? Nicholas has never answered a single one.
You apparently have no interest in evidence and facts, you have no opinions to proffer when confronted with horrific crimes – human shields, people – children!, you ignore evidence of rockets being fired by criminals trying to provoke soldiers, from guys hiding behind a barricade in the middle of the CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT of Bangkok, kids playing near the shells! Whilst Amsterdam tries to spin them as peaceful. What is wrong with you all?
Any country – in the world – It’s ridiculous. Pull up some barb wire on Times Square and start letting it rip at soldiers? How will you make out? Why not hijack a mall on Champs-Elysées? Let the children play whilst you throw firebombs at soldiers staring at you doing nothing, unable to return fire. Back home in Sydney – build a fortified camp in Star City and boat in thousands of litres of fuel to drench it in, before surrendering only to then set it alight.
I have presented evidence. You will respond. That is the academic debate process. You will counter with your own evidence, or you will challenge the veracity of the examples I’ve submitted, you will give your opinions or not, but you WILL DEFEND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE TERRORISTS. Or you will explain why you will not justify supporting them in light of the evidence that they are terrorists.
TIME.com: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1987118,00.html
I was there. I saw all the horrors, all the messed up tragedy the media didn’t cover. Everyone in Bangkok did! Who doesn’t report on human shields that look like this? http://i.imgur.com/04FIC.jpg In the barricades! These children were there the entire ordeal, bullets flying around, bombs exploding, there’s a boy in this video here with you’re all pretending you haven’t noticed yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
Nicholas, and everyone, you cannot watch that video – and stay silent. What is wrong with you? These are the people you fervently support. I’m showing you irrefutable evidence that most of what is published on your site is grossly disassociated from truth – and your reaction is silence, unprovoked juvenile attacks, and superanonymous can’t read and doesn’t realise I’ve quoted the Red terrorist accurately. (which I didn’t link to because links > censorship; and I was saving that one for later lol) – but you’ve read it now, the parents need to go to prison, you agree (the whole world agrees the parents should hang), and you don’t want to talk about it?
How about a mock trial. I will prosecute the Reds in front of a jury on charges of (the works). Amsterdam or you or both can defend them. Can you see an acquittal happening? How about I prosecute NM in front of a jury. How will your responses so far play out. I think they’re a bit irregular, leading to suspicious concern, warranting further investigation. Don’t you?
Why does evidence disinterest you?
Why do innocuous polite questions make you uncomfortable
Andrew Walker:
Nicholas Farrelly:
Excuse me, but…what debate?
Everyone must address and comment on the evidence I have submitted here, because I got oh so much more coming. And also, it’s not cool to support terrorism. And then say “no comment”. It’s just not…cricket.
Topics for future discussion on New Mandala
Here in the Northeast I am repeatedly meeting Thais, who have relatively huge debts, formal and informal, which they will never be able to repay. How common is this? What is the national level of personal debt? What are the implications (if any) for the national economy?
Topics for future discussion on New Mandala
How about something on food..? Trends in food consumption would be my banal first suggestion – like what are people consuming more of these days? Not like corporate junk food, but massaman curries or lychees. But you anthropologists would probably have already some sort of political symbolism of food madness that’s already been done.
Or what about a “Afternoon Tea in Yangon” series where the forthcoming political musical is discussed cordially.
What about Southeast Asian film? Singaporean film? Why not a monthly ‘Hawker Centre report’ on everything that’s happened on Orchard Rd. Or a “Geylang Gander” series where ruling party members are exposed in their attempts to re-enter the womb for currency… in order to promote multi-party democracy and ultimately use Lee Kuan Yew’s ANU honorary doctorate as diplomatic leverage (as was originally intended?)… Singaporean cosmopolitanism. Surely not everything has to be covered in dust for it to appear on NM?
Speaking of dust, what about more things on illegal trading? Teak. I want to know how to order teak.
… So yes, what about expanding to other countries? You can always offend a whole new crowd of expats. That’d be exciting.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
@Somsak 113
Does anyone discuss what I have heard repeatedly from Thai friends, that there was very serious tampering with evidence so as to make sure that Possibility #3 would be ruled out? Did Simpson and company comment on this?