I’m trying to response to everyone including you and LesAbbey in the most non-insulting way since I do like NM to be more about exchange of idea and prospective and of cause in and humain way, I do hope everyone here should do that also.
Anyway, I want to response to some of your point.
In any case, even the passive non-violent Reds hijacked Bangkok’s CBD and the economy as hostage to their ransom demands. That’s…never valid political dissent. It’s thuggery, and criminal, and incredibly, incredibly selfish.
I beg you to read and study more about other countries’ democratic (0r even the socialist) movement and how they came about. You inferred that it is wrong for the red to, supposedly, occupied the street in front of the shopping mall (which the maximum penalty would be a Baht 10,000 fine and a month jail term) is an act of hostage taken, then please do condemn the PAD for closing down the airport and the government house because I think closing down the air port is a much more severe act of terrorism and thuggery.
Moreover, if an act of protest in front of a shopping mall is considered as thuggery, criminal, and incredibly selfish then how do you explain Lech Walesa? the prominent anti-communist activist and the leader of Solidarity trade union? Walesa staged many strike at the sea port at Gdansk? later on the strike at Gdansk transpire into a nation wide general strike which hold the economy of Poland a hostage and cost the country an untold amount of damage? is that not an act of thuggery, criminal, and incredibly selfish?
Those who believe that a democratic struggle can always follow the Ghandi method is simply a utopian and that I want to leave a famous quote (which I have done a couple of times here in NM) from JFK”
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 – 1963)
Do you agree with JFK?
Lastly, I disagree that vote buying and corruption are the obstruction to democracy (if that’s what you are trying to say)
Corruption is the by-product of bad governing system and vote buying is just an excuse by the establishment to discredit democracy. Do you know “how” people actually buy a vote? do you know why vote buying is a major concern in the 80s but quite frankly a non-issue in the 2000s?
Thaksin does not hold exclusive right to corruption and I’m darn sure that the Abhisit government is equally, if not, more corrupted than Thaksin, check http://transparency.org/ if you don’t believe me.
However, I do agreed that the MP auctioneer is a bit of concern here so I’m with you on that, but it is not my ultimate concern.
Balanced coverage doesn’t mean a dozen individual usernames on one side can can post 12 x that allowed by a single username on the other. As I would like to respond to every direct question and/or non-juvenile comment, as the only voice ? on the opposing side, I request some generous leeway.
@superanonymous c59: You had actually already addressed my echoing Abhisit explaining Al-Qaeda & Prachatai were comparative (c44). Except you didn’t. You merely opined they were not comparative, which isn’t actually an argument. I’m tempted to counter with “They are too!” – but instead I will explain why they are comparative, with old-fashioned supporting argument.
In any event, the point is irrelevant to the issue at hand, the Thai state’s suppression of free speech through liberal but selective application of law.
Free speech is not suppressed in Thailand. If you live in Thailand, you are lying. If you do not, you are grossly misinformed. Every day, hundreds or thousands of vitriolic attacks are launched at the current government, the monarchy and the military – many on online discussion boards where the owners pay mere lip service to moderation concerns one would expect would be paramount if one makes the mistake of listening to Prachatai spin.
Fascinated with your very correct description of application of the law as “selective” – which it is, in ways that let literally 99% of lese majeste breaches slide – I was determined to solve the puzzle for why Prachatai was being “picked on”.
Solving the ‘puzzle’ did not take long. The first thing to consider is Prachatai’s editorial policy, which is blatant Amsterdam-like spin. That’s not journalism, even FOX News would raise their eyebrows. They only present footage which they believe depicts the UDD in a favourable light (who cares about truth, when one is a purveyor of propaganda rather than news) – the UDD is “peaceful”, singing, happy-go-lucky types. Contrast that with the PAD. If you listened to Prachatai, they’re violent criminals – why, they even have a video of the PAD attacking villagers and police -according to the YouTube title – as it’s on your channel on repeat, I figure I’ll catch it one of the next 200 times it’s posted – but only after they actually post a single UDD video depicting the nature of their ‘peaceful’ protesting – something a bit like the YouTube link I posted twice which you are all ignoring. Let’s see it again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
You cannot just ignore the facts, and hope they’ll go away. If you did, you’d be no better than Prachatai.
Actually, you would. Here is where Prachatai instantly lost my sympathy: They don’t have a problem with censoring. Oh no, they love censorship. They censor routinely, as editorial policy & on their discussion board!
This is fraud. Indisputable, irrefutable, despicable fraud. They cry foul at delayed due process for Jin, whilst she jets around the globe (however could she afford it?), bathing in her new role as ‘courageous’ activist refusing to censor in the name of free speech, and perhaps after she returns from this international conference, who knows – she might one day get picked up. Such courage.
In conclusion, the two examples are inherently comparable. The comparability lies in the similarities between Al-Qaeda and Prachatai:
– Both advocate violence as legitimate political dissent.
– Both advocate terror as valid tactics to achieve political aims.
– Both are extremist (Prachatai arguably less representative than Al-Qaeda – % support for Red Shirt terrorism and / or the republican movement in Thailand are both low single digit numbers)
– Both are fringe organisations which refuse to consider opposing opinion. Only Prachatai practices such blatant duplicity, however – some nerve waxing lyrical about government suppression of free speech, accepting invitations to speak at global forums as a mini-celebrity, whilst they surreptitiously / blatantly censor opposing opinion which does not fit with their spin propaganda campaign. Pls do let me know if you require evidence. I have lots.
Now, either you care about free speech – or you are only pretending to care, as it’s an exploitability you believe you can traction with. If you care, you will furiously criticise Prachatai for their one-sided propaganda & playing the “poor me” card, lamenting the loss of free speech whilst secretly / brazenly censoring dissenting opinion.
Otherwise, that would prove that – like Prachatai – free speech, censorship, ethics, decency…none of these words mean a thing to you. To cry about Jin finally being processed as she returned from yet another international guest speaker offer, 2 years after being charged with very serious (yet selectively enforced) crimes – whilst she has been one of the worst offenders, censoring untold content whilst she sculpts the truth into her desired model – is an indefensible position. You either care about “free speech”, or you’re don’t. If you don’t, your criticism of the Thai government is shameful & you immediately reside in the mud, irrelevant & compromised & despised – by everyone who remained on the moral high ground, & everyone who didn’t dive head first into that mud.
So which is it? Are you for free speech or are you shamelessly slinging mud? Question directed at anyone who has lamented Prachatai’s singling out, who now stands at the crossroads of Truth, forced to choose a path.
Jonny:
Wow, you are tiring. In a previous post Leah Hoyt accused you of being an American, but with your spelling of “whilst” giving you away, I’m afraid we can’t claim you unfortunately.
If there is any reason for editors and censorship your responses are it. Perhaps we have too much free speech.
Jonny, your views are not censored in the wider media. Your views are well established state propaganda that can be found everywhere in Thailand. Your views can be published anywhere you want here in Thailand.
Nothing you have said has brought anything new to the table that I have not already seen or heard time and time again here–the Thaksin-great-evil-man-who-controls-the-universe-and-whose- followers-are-a-paid-mob-who-are-a- bunch-of-idiots theory.
I don’t know how much time you spent at these protests because your description of these protesters is woefully incorrect. You sound like your opinion is based on “reporting” from the BKK Post and The Nation and Youtube (all state controlled).
Your argument is reductionist reducing vast complexities to easy currency. You’ve reduced a very successful protest, the first of its kind in the history of Thailand, to human shields, violence, and ransom. This shows your horrific ignorance of these protests. I was there day after day for the entire protest, unlike, I am sure, you, and I can tell you that human shields, violence, and holding a mall ransom were the least of what happened for these two months. What you don’t understand because you are too busy youtubing, is that tens of thousands of rural people who have been written out of the political process for generations came to Bangkok and shut it down and made their masters listen to them. THAT’S what happened. They were organized and peaceful for the vast majority of the time they protested and they stood up to the military and yes, they spoke, however vulgar they were, on stage all day and all night whether the master class liked it or not. In the end the leadership fell apart; violence erupted by means of a para military group; anarchy and arson reigned at the end because these voiceless people were angry and frustrated.
Was I surprised? No.
And please stop with your “they were purchased” argument. We are all purchased one way or the other and 500 baht-1000 baht is damn well cheap compared to what constituencies are paid in my home country.
And finally, for the record, I think Thaksin has been the best thing to happen to this country in a long, long time. If it took a devil to disrupt the centuries old entrenched status quo in Thailand than so be it.
I also say to Andrew and Nicholas that unless this guy has something new and intelligent to say, CENSOR him! He’s taking up too much space.
Jonny, some facts for you in a response to a previous post:
Jonny:
Thaksin is so hated because he became a threat to the status quo. The Democrats got crushed by Thai Ruk Thai. He was the first Thai Prime Minister to serve a full term getting elected with more seats in parliament than any other party previously and then was reelected with the highest voter turnout in Thai history.The monarchists and the elite threw out Thaksin using the judiciary, the military, and lese majeste because they couldn’t beat him.
Was he corrupt? Of course. The difference he made was that the poor now had their corrupt leader to standup to the corrupt military, the corrupt elite, and the corrupt monarchists.
What he also had, unlike the Democrats, were ideas, and lots of them that were good.
Under Thaksin GDP grew 31% and income in Isan rose 46% through programs like his microcredit program, low-interest agricultural loans, village development funds, and his OTOP program. Under Thaksin poverty was cut in half.
How ironic that Muhammad Yunus won a Nobel for using small loans (with a 98% repayment rate) to help poor families, a model also used in 100 other countries. Thaksin used this idea and it’s a “populist policy pandering to the unprincipled wants and needs of the masses.”
Thaksin’s biggest mistake was his success among the poor. While the King, the wealthiest monarch in the world, preached sufficiency and moderation atop $30 billion, Thaksin set in motion programs for the poor to help themselves. OTOP and microcredit to help farmers and small business people was sound policy and did more to liberate the poor than a thousand photographs of the King’s holy beneficence to submissive subjects unable to do for themselves.
This of course doesn’t take away from the many positive Royal gestures for the poor during Bumiphol’s reign for the past 60 years. As monarchs go he’s has been a hell of a lot better than most.
BTW: Thaksin didn’t become rich over night. Shin Corp was founded in 1983, AIS in 1990, Thaicom in 1991. Between 2001 and 2006 the SET rose 161% while Shin rose 168%. Thaksin became a lot wealthier along with many other people/companies including the Crown Property Bureau.
Massive changes are underway in Thailand that go far beyond Thaksin and this is why 50,000 websites are blocked, why there is a 300 agent task force set up by the DSI to investigate threats to the monarchy, why there was a coup, why political parties and politicians have been banned, why newspapers and radios have been shut down.
But it’s much easier to crucify Thaksin because he is so corrupt, and so anti monarchy. It’s so much easier to simply write off votes and elections because these voters are all bought off (is there a constituency on the planet that isn’t bought off either directly or indirectly?) and illiterate. It’s too frightening to face the idea that those unwashed out there on the street are going to get a place at the table.
I am quite happy Jonny is back on track discussing real issues, but he still should clean up his act a bit.
He writes that the Red Shirts “brought little mobile human shields to the fray (here is a real life example: http://i.imgur.com/04FIC.jpg), hundreds of which remained right up until the moment of fake surrender (when TIME.com asked Nattawut why the leaders refused to clear all children from their barricades, he said “That’s the government’s job” – like, seriously?”
“”Yes, I know it is dangerous, and I know there are children here,” said Nattawut Saikua, one of the leaders of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, the anti-government group more commonly known as the Red Shirts. “We have privately asked their parents to take them and leave, but they insist they want to stay,” he told TIME…
“Nattawut, speaking to TIME, strongly denied accusations that Red Shirt leaders wanted women and children present to deter soldiers from using force against their protest. “I guarantee you we will never use children or women as human shields,” Nattawut insisted. Asked why Red Shirt leaders had not made an announcement from their rally stage telling parents with children to leave because of the danger, he said that was the job of the government.”
There are some other interesting comments from the parents themselves, which probably should be taken into consideration unless one dismisses Red Shirt followers as sheep. But the point here is that Nattawut’s reported position is misrepresented by Jonny. (Anticipating a rejoinder, one should point out that Nattawut’s sincerity is another matter. )
I have no question for Jonny, but want to set the record straight. Well, ok, one question: What do you mean by ‘the moment of fake surrender’? I’m sure I am not the only one puzzled by the phrase.
Firstly, thank you Nicholas and Andrew for publishing both those last two comments. I am actually extremely pragmatic, and I understand positions can be firmly held over a long period of time, so long one’s view of things can be skewed quite understandably. One man’s “freedom fighter” is another man’s “terrorist” and all that…whilst it is a tall order, I intend on – at least – triggering a discussion on what is acceptable and what isn’t (valid tactics for political dissent, and where is the line drawn – you can rest assured children as human shields is over the my line – apparently fine with most of you, which we need to discuss), the fragmented nature of the Red Shirts, their funding, etc.
I am most certainly aware there are very honourable elements in the Red Shirt movement, perhaps even the majority – but when they resort to violence and arson, or hijack megamalls for ransom, it’s simply inappropriate for Dr Walker to say “they’re being vilified due to some extremist elements”.
That’s not really true. They’re vilified because they allowed themselves to be ledby the extremist elements, and brought little mobile human shields to the fray (here is a real life example: http://i.imgur.com/04FIC.jpg), hundreds of which remained right up until the moment of fake surrender (when TIME.com asked Nattawut why the leaders refused to clear all children from their barricades, he said “That’s the government’s job” – like, seriously? When you have leaders like that, I don’t care how moderate you think you are, you are extremist and, quite frankly, a war criminal). In any case, even the passive non-violent Reds hijacked Bangkok’s CBD and the economy as hostage to their ransom demands. That’s…never valid political dissent. It’s thuggery, and criminal, and incredibly, incredibly selfish.
Just quickly to Tarrin, who was the sole person to answer my innocent and valid question – rather than respond with personal attacks in lieu of answers – perhaps because he can defend his answers hmm?
Well of cause as a Thai I am supporting a proper and well functioning democratic system which unfortunately is not present here in Thailand. Why am I supporting democracy? I think every Thai citizen, regardless of poor they are or how little education they’ve got, should be able to decide the direction the country is heading and that a small group of the establishment shouldn’t be the one with the do it.
I don’t particularly support “who” in this case since my only opponent is the out dated and corrupted governing system. Is that a satisfactory answer to your simple question?
Not only is it valid, it’s the perfect answer. Although I’m not Thai, I support literally every single thing you do. And I’m all too aware of the rich v poor gap, which must be brought closer to parity.
I have a few questions which I promise are genuine and not leading in any way.
1. Do you believe democracy is still democracy when it is purchased? Honestly, I’m not really 100% on this myself. The idealist in me says “not a chance”, the realist cynic says “$ makes the world go round, what’s the difference between outright vote-buying, or buying votes with ‘honourable’ welfare programs – one is criminal, the other is applauded”. I’m simplifying it, of course, the difference is one is selfish and exclusive, the other altruistic and inclusive – but I think the sentiment has more validity than I’d like to admit.
2. Do you believe the willingness of Thai’s to embrace corruption, to the point where I often wonder if Abhisit’s reputation for probity is a disadvantage in Thai politics, gives an air of inevitability to a ‘corruption’ of the democratic process? Where politics is just endless auctioneering – MP 437 do I have 110, can I get 110, 108, going once at 108, twice, gone to the lucky billionaire on the right…auctions for loyalties of provincial village heads, auctions for generals in the army and police (3 stars go for xxx, 2 stars for yyy, etc), auctions for judges (those who can afford it have some on retainer, but freelance types can be contracted out on a case-by-case basis), and so on. I really suspect until the entire culture can be changed….I mean, is there anyone who really disputes the fact that Thaksin is probably the most brilliant / corrupt politician in Thai history (bit like having the blondest hair in Sweden)…and yet I freely concede probably half the country is happy for him to come back if it means a return to “the good times” of booming economics (which I have some theories about, but that can wait for another day). The point being, if Thais are willing to be that pragmatic, “Don’t mind if he’s corrupt so long as he doles out loans which will be inevitably forgiven, as long as some of the spoils trickle down to me, I don’t mind him stashing billions overseas…” – I can’t see the long journey to what you (and I) desire – true democracy – happening in our lifetimes.
That’s probably long enough for now, so I’ll leave it there. I probably won’t respond to personal attacks, but anyone wishing to ask me direct questions, on my honour I will respond to every one sooner or later – and defend every position I hold, or if I cannot, I will change my position. And I’m not even an academic, ahem.
On another thread, New Mandala invited suggestions for topics. Here’s one: call it say, “Jonny’s stuff” – and our not-so-friendly neighbourhood paranoiac can vent his obsessive spleen ad nauseam there….. along with more threats of whatever retaliation he has in mind. Maybe it’ll emerge whether that’s legal action, hacking the website, putting out a contract on Messrs Farrelly and Walker – or just to “skweem and skweem and skweem”…..
That way, Jonny gets his gun – sorry, fun – while the rest of us can choose to avoid having to wade through his turgid diatribes to get on to rational discussion of issues, exchange of views etc. You know – normal stuff…..
This is an important book and I’m looking forward to getting a copy if and when it becomes available in Thailand. If its banned, I wonder if they will they also go the extent of blocking access to Amazon and the publisher’s websites as well, as they did with the Handley book?
A further thought on the legal aspect of lese majeste: in Thailand it doesn’t seem to be so much the fact that laws exist, as whether or not authorities choose to invoke them. This applies to almost every area, from traffic offences to sex work and defaulting on bank loans. To me the key question is why in these situations, and for these particular people, the lese majeste law has been used. I think the answers are much the same as David Streckfuss gives in his interview, but it does mean that the solution is not simply (as if it would be easily done) abolition of the lese majeste law or decreasing the penalty.
The incredible irritant going by the name of Jonny drags me back to the fray.
Let’s consider one of Jonny’s early demands (see #28) “1. Publish all ‘pending’ comments. 2. Or kindly email me with the reasons why you prefer not to.” (That’s the one followed up with the ominous comment “There is no 3rd option available. Not any that are…advised.”) Andrew did indeed e-mail him as requested (see #52) so it seems to me that the NM folks have more than met his desires (#28:”It’s mere etiquette that I demand. Nothing more.”) NB: “Nothing more.”
I would be more interested in Jonny’s comments if he would get back on track about the topic he brought up, “due process.” Here’s an easy question: Do you have the same scorn for the endless PAD attempts to avoid due process (from 2008 until this past week) that you have for supporters of Chiranuch? If not, please explain the distinction.
P.S. Frankly, I think Jonny has overlooked some very damning evidence of a Red Shirt conspiracy. Surely you’ve noticed that you can’t spell “Chiranuch” without ‘ANU.’ More proof of Walker-Farrelly perfidy!
the points made in the interview seem essential background for anyone wanting to understand why Thai people seem so passive and accepting of dictatorship controlled by their corrupt and overweight military
even the current protests by the redshirts seem restrained and peaceful when compared with recent politically inspired protests in the Ukraine, Greece and others around the world
the “worship” of royalty seems to be a powerful soporific wielded expertly by the traditoinal rulers of Thailand
Any Police force rendered impotent by politically correct do gooders is insufficiently robust for the serious task of maintaining law and order. If the Canvey Island Knitting Circle led to the demise of a decent British Constabulary then like many areas of expertise and reputation once had. It is no longer.
The British police, like the population they serve are unrecognisable from 50 years ago. There are no institutions unaffected by the oxyacetylene of market capitalism. Ask the Royal family or the Church if you think that’s a good thing.
The really good news is that not all change is bad. One of the UK’s transformational dynamics is massively welcome and deeply appreciated, for being both inspirational and pluralist to society as a whole while cultivating compassion as well as neighbourliness.
Ironically the same qualities the Police were both guardians and practitioners of some 50 years ago.
Yes; immigrants from all over the world are a gift to the UK. From cuisine to commerce, our new extended family is an exciting part of our new identity. It’s a paradox that the most quintessential of British traits. The value and sense of fair play (sporting do-gooders springs to mind) is most alive because waves of immigrants held us accountable for it. Otherwise like all the other things we harp on about as gone forever with only ourselves to blame.
jonny is not what he claims. He asserts the right to academic debate but reserves for himself nothing like that. Instead, he engages in personal attack. In essence he is a fraud, engaging in what is essentially thuggish behaviour (if that is an appropriate description of offensive and threatening posting). I don’t recall anything like this in the past, but maybe my memory is short when it comes to the inappropriate.
Hla Oo’s evident zeal is that of a neo-liberal convert. It reflects his own personal journey from a young ignorant but willing killer/cannon fodder in the Tatmadaw to an expat entrepreneur. Reagan and Thatcher would be nodding their heads and smiling triumphantly over the enduring success of the right wing backlash they had unleashed upon this planet.
Tom #9
Transition will be a bloody one, democratic or no, in Burma, however much we all wish otherwise. The big stick is evidently wielded not by any opposition but by the military. It’s they who are asking for a bloody end, no one else. They’ve made their bed and they’ll lie in it minus their heads. It’s the only exit strategy they are capable of choosing, to Av─лci the deepest of hells.
For the final time – I have no interest in “censoring” you. And now we are funded by Thaksin? And Andrew Walker supports “terrorists”? Amazing that we allow such things to be published, really. But we do.
Can’t say I’m surprised by your allegation of 20/20 hindsight. Truth is when ASSK denied vehemently she was trying to split the army, it struck me as sending the wrong signal to the officers and men some of whom, like the air force personnel, had already marched with the people. Understandably she felt compelled to defend herself against such an allegation from the regime.
Next, the moment I heard on the BBC World Service that ASSK rejected within minutes U Nu’s offer of joining an interim government (that the people and students were clamouring for in a bid to overthrow the regime), my heart sank. It’s over was the first thought that entered my mind.
Whilst comparisons across the decades and the seas may not hold water, you may never see the wood for the trees. Like I said our generals are Burmese. And it’s not the British we are up against, nor Filipinos for that matter.
The point is for ASSK to have learnt the lessons of 1988. And no, it would have been well nigh impossible for her to direct her party or the popular struggle from within the confines of her house arrest. But Mandela, like her father, had no qualms about the people’s right to armed resistance.
Hla Oo #5
that twisted and racist propaganda of army protecting our race, our religion, and the Union of Burma has stuck in Burmese psyche for very long time now..
Speak for yourself. I guess you are extrapolating your apparent catharsis on everyone else as if the rest of us had ever bought it lock, stock and barrel. It may be news to you that many of us are not so gullible even if people like yourself are easily led by demagogues with their racist chauvinist propaganda.
The plight of the union in 1948, when it came to be dubbed the Rangoon government by the international media with the Karen already on the outskirts of the capital, was dire. No one should be surprised that thousands of young Burmese men answered the call to defend the union at the time.
And yes, U Nu with Ne Win formed the Sitwundan and the UMP in anticipation of the Karen rebellion. The real enemy ultimately was not the ethnic groups but the Burmese communists as you well know, since only they could represent the majority Burman and pose a real challenge to the Socialists both in government and in the Tatmadaw.
@michael c58: There is no academic process evident on New Mandala. There is one-sided propaganda for a convicted criminal who is wanted on charges of funding terrorism. Mr Farrelly and Dr Walker are well aware of that – this is why they stifle academic debate by censoring valid / polite questions, or ignore them when they’re published.
But you are 100% correct on one point:
Academics are under no obligation to “support” anything except the emergence of facts & the free discussion of those facts in order to give them meaning.
If the free discussion of facts is allowed from this point, I will have no opportunity to collect (more) evidence that there is nothing academic about the propaganda machine funded by Thaksin, in which New Mandala is a part of (for reasons I have no interest in…yet).
Academics are required to defend their positions when presented with evidence. Farrelly and Walker have taken an extremist position (to support a mass murderer and convicted criminal) – the least they can do is proffer their justifications for why.
And for why they validate Red Shirt violence and arson as “legitimate dissent”, yet bemoan due process when the government charges terrorists with their crimes or arrests the owner of Prachatai (there is nothing journalistic about their published propaganda) two years after she’s been charged with a crime.
These are valid questions. INCREDIBLY VALID. Andrew and Nicholas will answer them when they are politely asked, or they will answer them when they are compelled. The choice is theirs.
Actually, Simpson was ‘right’, in his book, to pinpoint ‘murder’ as the most likely cause of Ananda’s death. But to understand the real reason why Simpson, as well as the great majority of doctors who performed autopsy on the King’s body, opted for this cause, we have to look at the ‘premise’ or the framework on which they made their decision. I’ll explain this in a moment.
But, first, the new book by Wimonphan Pitathawathai (re:Hinke #110) which is now selling like hot cake, despite its very expensive price of 1500 bath (It’s first run of many hundreds copies had been sold out within two or three days, and is now unavaliable – even though it’s only sold at one place, the Chula Bookshop. The author whom I talked to by phone yesterday, told me that the book will come out fully only on the 25th of this month.) It claims to have ‘new evidence’ on the King’s death. But there’s really nothing ‘new’ about its ‘new evidence’, basically one or two telegrams and documents from British archieves that confirm that Pridi was not happy with the doctors’ opinion (of death by ‘murder’) and his government had tried to pressure the British authorities to prevent British doctors to air their opinion. This is noting ‘new’ because it’s been known for decades now that Pridi did try to do that. Wimonphan herself made much of this in a book she co-authored published in 1974. In fact the chapters on Ananda’s death in this new book of hers, are just recycled material (down to sentences, etc) of her 1974 book. That this new book sold fast only proves the power of modern media PR (it’s was lauched by former Bank of Thailand’s Governor, with a large number of high society personalities attending.)
So, let’s consider the reason why the doctors, including Simpson, saw ‘murder’ as the most likely cause.
There were four possibilities how Ananda was killed:
Notice that “accident” enters twice. Now since day one, everybody knew at once what the third possibility meant: only his younger brother (the present King) could possibly have brought a gun so near the King’s head and accidently discharged it. For legal, political and cultural reasons (cultural because no one dared to think thus), this possibility could not be considered at all. Of course, the royalists including Wimonphan, claim that the brother had ‘an iron-clad alibi’ and therfore can be eliminated as suspect. (The word ‘iron-clad alibi’ was used by Prince Dhani, the presnet king’s privy councilor, when he visited Mountbatten in 1948, after the latter raised the issue of Ananda’s death and any possible involvement of the present king.) But this is not true. I won’t explain why here because it would make my already long post even much longer. I just want to point out that the elimination of this third possibility (which in effect implicated the present king) from any consideration was definitely not because the reason of the brother’s alibai.
With the elimination of the third possibility from any consideration, the likely causes of Anada’s death became just three, and usually written this way:
(1) “accident” (which only means “by himself”)
(2) “suicide” (this is of couse also self-inflicted)
(3) “murder”
And this was exactly how the doctors (including Simpon) who performed the autopsy framed their ‘findings’ (see the Simpson book for yourself).
Now with the elimination from consideration of the possibility that Ananda might have been shot by another person accidentally, any finding that pointed to his being shot by another person had only one opiton left to name, i.e. ‘murder’. What this means is that, ‘muder’ really stood for “shot by another person” period. NOTHING MORE.
This is the real explanation of Simpson’s and the majority of doctors’ opinion of ‘murder’
For what they took into consideration were (a) the position of the enter point of the bullet (left forehead over the brown – the king was right-handed); (b) the bullet trajectory (slightly from left to right, and downward, exit at the king’s nect); (c) the positioning of the king’s body (no sign of struggle, he lied down like sleep, his arms besides his body in ordinary manner). There were a few others factors but they were not as important.
These three basic facts together (which I elsewhere call ‘the physical conditions of the shooting’) virtually meant that the king could not possibly have shot himself, but almost certainly was shot by another person. But since the option for “being shot by another person” (or “somebody shot him”) in all the official inquries, including the doctors’ autopsy (and Simpson book), only had one name for it, i.e. “murder”, most of the inquires therefore inevitably concluded that the king was “murdered” – and quite ‘rightly’ so, if one considers the ‘physical conditions of the shooting’ and provided that we understnad the real meaning of the ‘muder’ category in this case as I argue here.
I have written a two-part article in Thai, explaining all these in details, along the way knocking down all the claims by the royalists and others concerning Ananda’s death. Anyone interested can downloaded the pdf file here http://www.enlightened-jurists.com/page/134
Lastly, I must also point out that Kruger who suggested ‘suicide’ as the most likely cause was seriously wrong on one point of his theory. He said that it’s suicide with the King sitting up, and the must be sitting up because the bullet ‘missed the pillow’. But the bullet in fact didn’t ‘miss’ the pillow, it exit the king’s nect and entered and passed through the pillow and lodged inside the mattress below. Thus the king could not possibly be sitting up when the shot was fired. Kruger in fact wrote that had the bullet not ‘missed the pillow’, it would have meant that the king was lying down on his back, which in turn meant that “murder” (i.e. shot by another person) was the most likely cause.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Prachatai manager arrested
jonny – 66
I’m trying to response to everyone including you and LesAbbey in the most non-insulting way since I do like NM to be more about exchange of idea and prospective and of cause in and humain way, I do hope everyone here should do that also.
Anyway, I want to response to some of your point.
In any case, even the passive non-violent Reds hijacked Bangkok’s CBD and the economy as hostage to their ransom demands. That’s…never valid political dissent. It’s thuggery, and criminal, and incredibly, incredibly selfish.
I beg you to read and study more about other countries’ democratic (0r even the socialist) movement and how they came about. You inferred that it is wrong for the red to, supposedly, occupied the street in front of the shopping mall (which the maximum penalty would be a Baht 10,000 fine and a month jail term) is an act of hostage taken, then please do condemn the PAD for closing down the airport and the government house because I think closing down the air port is a much more severe act of terrorism and thuggery.
Moreover, if an act of protest in front of a shopping mall is considered as thuggery, criminal, and incredibly selfish then how do you explain Lech Walesa? the prominent anti-communist activist and the leader of Solidarity trade union? Walesa staged many strike at the sea port at Gdansk? later on the strike at Gdansk transpire into a nation wide general strike which hold the economy of Poland a hostage and cost the country an untold amount of damage? is that not an act of thuggery, criminal, and incredibly selfish?
Those who believe that a democratic struggle can always follow the Ghandi method is simply a utopian and that I want to leave a famous quote (which I have done a couple of times here in NM) from JFK”
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 – 1963)
Do you agree with JFK?
Lastly, I disagree that vote buying and corruption are the obstruction to democracy (if that’s what you are trying to say)
Corruption is the by-product of bad governing system and vote buying is just an excuse by the establishment to discredit democracy. Do you know “how” people actually buy a vote? do you know why vote buying is a major concern in the 80s but quite frankly a non-issue in the 2000s?
Thaksin does not hold exclusive right to corruption and I’m darn sure that the Abhisit government is equally, if not, more corrupted than Thaksin, check http://transparency.org/ if you don’t believe me.
However, I do agreed that the MP auctioneer is a bit of concern here so I’m with you on that, but it is not my ultimate concern.
Prachatai manager arrested
nb. response to superanon take 2
Balanced coverage doesn’t mean a dozen individual usernames on one side can can post 12 x that allowed by a single username on the other. As I would like to respond to every direct question and/or non-juvenile comment, as the only voice ? on the opposing side, I request some generous leeway.
@superanonymous c59: You had actually already addressed my echoing Abhisit explaining Al-Qaeda & Prachatai were comparative (c44). Except you didn’t. You merely opined they were not comparative, which isn’t actually an argument. I’m tempted to counter with “They are too!” – but instead I will explain why they are comparative, with old-fashioned supporting argument.
Free speech is not suppressed in Thailand. If you live in Thailand, you are lying. If you do not, you are grossly misinformed. Every day, hundreds or thousands of vitriolic attacks are launched at the current government, the monarchy and the military – many on online discussion boards where the owners pay mere lip service to moderation concerns one would expect would be paramount if one makes the mistake of listening to Prachatai spin.
Fascinated with your very correct description of application of the law as “selective” – which it is, in ways that let literally 99% of lese majeste breaches slide – I was determined to solve the puzzle for why Prachatai was being “picked on”.
Solving the ‘puzzle’ did not take long. The first thing to consider is Prachatai’s editorial policy, which is blatant Amsterdam-like spin. That’s not journalism, even FOX News would raise their eyebrows. They only present footage which they believe depicts the UDD in a favourable light (who cares about truth, when one is a purveyor of propaganda rather than news) – the UDD is “peaceful”, singing, happy-go-lucky types. Contrast that with the PAD. If you listened to Prachatai, they’re violent criminals – why, they even have a video of the PAD attacking villagers and police -according to the YouTube title – as it’s on your channel on repeat, I figure I’ll catch it one of the next 200 times it’s posted – but only after they actually post a single UDD video depicting the nature of their ‘peaceful’ protesting – something a bit like the YouTube link I posted twice which you are all ignoring. Let’s see it again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
You cannot just ignore the facts, and hope they’ll go away. If you did, you’d be no better than Prachatai.
Actually, you would. Here is where Prachatai instantly lost my sympathy: They don’t have a problem with censoring. Oh no, they love censorship. They censor routinely, as editorial policy & on their discussion board!
This is fraud. Indisputable, irrefutable, despicable fraud. They cry foul at delayed due process for Jin, whilst she jets around the globe (however could she afford it?), bathing in her new role as ‘courageous’ activist refusing to censor in the name of free speech, and perhaps after she returns from this international conference, who knows – she might one day get picked up. Such courage.
In conclusion, the two examples are inherently comparable. The comparability lies in the similarities between Al-Qaeda and Prachatai:
– Both advocate violence as legitimate political dissent.
– Both advocate terror as valid tactics to achieve political aims.
– Both are extremist (Prachatai arguably less representative than Al-Qaeda – % support for Red Shirt terrorism and / or the republican movement in Thailand are both low single digit numbers)
– Both are fringe organisations which refuse to consider opposing opinion. Only Prachatai practices such blatant duplicity, however – some nerve waxing lyrical about government suppression of free speech, accepting invitations to speak at global forums as a mini-celebrity, whilst they surreptitiously / blatantly censor opposing opinion which does not fit with their spin propaganda campaign. Pls do let me know if you require evidence. I have lots.
Now, either you care about free speech – or you are only pretending to care, as it’s an exploitability you believe you can traction with. If you care, you will furiously criticise Prachatai for their one-sided propaganda & playing the “poor me” card, lamenting the loss of free speech whilst secretly / brazenly censoring dissenting opinion.
Otherwise, that would prove that – like Prachatai – free speech, censorship, ethics, decency…none of these words mean a thing to you. To cry about Jin finally being processed as she returned from yet another international guest speaker offer, 2 years after being charged with very serious (yet selectively enforced) crimes – whilst she has been one of the worst offenders, censoring untold content whilst she sculpts the truth into her desired model – is an indefensible position. You either care about “free speech”, or you’re don’t. If you don’t, your criticism of the Thai government is shameful & you immediately reside in the mud, irrelevant & compromised & despised – by everyone who remained on the moral high ground, & everyone who didn’t dive head first into that mud.
So which is it? Are you for free speech or are you shamelessly slinging mud? Question directed at anyone who has lamented Prachatai’s singling out, who now stands at the crossroads of Truth, forced to choose a path.
Prachatai manager arrested
Jonny:
Wow, you are tiring. In a previous post Leah Hoyt accused you of being an American, but with your spelling of “whilst” giving you away, I’m afraid we can’t claim you unfortunately.
If there is any reason for editors and censorship your responses are it. Perhaps we have too much free speech.
Jonny, your views are not censored in the wider media. Your views are well established state propaganda that can be found everywhere in Thailand. Your views can be published anywhere you want here in Thailand.
Nothing you have said has brought anything new to the table that I have not already seen or heard time and time again here–the Thaksin-great-evil-man-who-controls-the-universe-and-whose- followers-are-a-paid-mob-who-are-a- bunch-of-idiots theory.
I don’t know how much time you spent at these protests because your description of these protesters is woefully incorrect. You sound like your opinion is based on “reporting” from the BKK Post and The Nation and Youtube (all state controlled).
Your argument is reductionist reducing vast complexities to easy currency. You’ve reduced a very successful protest, the first of its kind in the history of Thailand, to human shields, violence, and ransom. This shows your horrific ignorance of these protests. I was there day after day for the entire protest, unlike, I am sure, you, and I can tell you that human shields, violence, and holding a mall ransom were the least of what happened for these two months. What you don’t understand because you are too busy youtubing, is that tens of thousands of rural people who have been written out of the political process for generations came to Bangkok and shut it down and made their masters listen to them. THAT’S what happened. They were organized and peaceful for the vast majority of the time they protested and they stood up to the military and yes, they spoke, however vulgar they were, on stage all day and all night whether the master class liked it or not. In the end the leadership fell apart; violence erupted by means of a para military group; anarchy and arson reigned at the end because these voiceless people were angry and frustrated.
Was I surprised? No.
And please stop with your “they were purchased” argument. We are all purchased one way or the other and 500 baht-1000 baht is damn well cheap compared to what constituencies are paid in my home country.
And finally, for the record, I think Thaksin has been the best thing to happen to this country in a long, long time. If it took a devil to disrupt the centuries old entrenched status quo in Thailand than so be it.
I also say to Andrew and Nicholas that unless this guy has something new and intelligent to say, CENSOR him! He’s taking up too much space.
Jonny, some facts for you in a response to a previous post:
Jonny:
Thaksin is so hated because he became a threat to the status quo. The Democrats got crushed by Thai Ruk Thai. He was the first Thai Prime Minister to serve a full term getting elected with more seats in parliament than any other party previously and then was reelected with the highest voter turnout in Thai history.The monarchists and the elite threw out Thaksin using the judiciary, the military, and lese majeste because they couldn’t beat him.
Was he corrupt? Of course. The difference he made was that the poor now had their corrupt leader to standup to the corrupt military, the corrupt elite, and the corrupt monarchists.
What he also had, unlike the Democrats, were ideas, and lots of them that were good.
Under Thaksin GDP grew 31% and income in Isan rose 46% through programs like his microcredit program, low-interest agricultural loans, village development funds, and his OTOP program. Under Thaksin poverty was cut in half.
How ironic that Muhammad Yunus won a Nobel for using small loans (with a 98% repayment rate) to help poor families, a model also used in 100 other countries. Thaksin used this idea and it’s a “populist policy pandering to the unprincipled wants and needs of the masses.”
Thaksin’s biggest mistake was his success among the poor. While the King, the wealthiest monarch in the world, preached sufficiency and moderation atop $30 billion, Thaksin set in motion programs for the poor to help themselves. OTOP and microcredit to help farmers and small business people was sound policy and did more to liberate the poor than a thousand photographs of the King’s holy beneficence to submissive subjects unable to do for themselves.
This of course doesn’t take away from the many positive Royal gestures for the poor during Bumiphol’s reign for the past 60 years. As monarchs go he’s has been a hell of a lot better than most.
BTW: Thaksin didn’t become rich over night. Shin Corp was founded in 1983, AIS in 1990, Thaicom in 1991. Between 2001 and 2006 the SET rose 161% while Shin rose 168%. Thaksin became a lot wealthier along with many other people/companies including the Crown Property Bureau.
Massive changes are underway in Thailand that go far beyond Thaksin and this is why 50,000 websites are blocked, why there is a 300 agent task force set up by the DSI to investigate threats to the monarchy, why there was a coup, why political parties and politicians have been banned, why newspapers and radios have been shut down.
But it’s much easier to crucify Thaksin because he is so corrupt, and so anti monarchy. It’s so much easier to simply write off votes and elections because these voters are all bought off (is there a constituency on the planet that isn’t bought off either directly or indirectly?) and illiterate. It’s too frightening to face the idea that those unwashed out there on the street are going to get a place at the table.
Prachatai manager arrested
I am quite happy Jonny is back on track discussing real issues, but he still should clean up his act a bit.
He writes that the Red Shirts “brought little mobile human shields to the fray (here is a real life example: http://i.imgur.com/04FIC.jpg), hundreds of which remained right up until the moment of fake surrender (when TIME.com asked Nattawut why the leaders refused to clear all children from their barricades, he said “That’s the government’s job” – like, seriously?”
I’m not sure why he doesn’t provide the link to the time.com story, but here it is:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1989543,00.html
And the relevant paragraphs say:
“”Yes, I know it is dangerous, and I know there are children here,” said Nattawut Saikua, one of the leaders of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, the anti-government group more commonly known as the Red Shirts. “We have privately asked their parents to take them and leave, but they insist they want to stay,” he told TIME…
“Nattawut, speaking to TIME, strongly denied accusations that Red Shirt leaders wanted women and children present to deter soldiers from using force against their protest. “I guarantee you we will never use children or women as human shields,” Nattawut insisted. Asked why Red Shirt leaders had not made an announcement from their rally stage telling parents with children to leave because of the danger, he said that was the job of the government.”
There are some other interesting comments from the parents themselves, which probably should be taken into consideration unless one dismisses Red Shirt followers as sheep. But the point here is that Nattawut’s reported position is misrepresented by Jonny. (Anticipating a rejoinder, one should point out that Nattawut’s sincerity is another matter. )
I have no question for Jonny, but want to set the record straight. Well, ok, one question: What do you mean by ‘the moment of fake surrender’? I’m sure I am not the only one puzzled by the phrase.
Topics for future discussion on New Mandala
I’d be interested in the economic development boom in Vietnam and its impact on society, politics and the ruling party.
Prachatai manager arrested
Firstly, thank you Nicholas and Andrew for publishing both those last two comments. I am actually extremely pragmatic, and I understand positions can be firmly held over a long period of time, so long one’s view of things can be skewed quite understandably. One man’s “freedom fighter” is another man’s “terrorist” and all that…whilst it is a tall order, I intend on – at least – triggering a discussion on what is acceptable and what isn’t (valid tactics for political dissent, and where is the line drawn – you can rest assured children as human shields is over the my line – apparently fine with most of you, which we need to discuss), the fragmented nature of the Red Shirts, their funding, etc.
I am most certainly aware there are very honourable elements in the Red Shirt movement, perhaps even the majority – but when they resort to violence and arson, or hijack megamalls for ransom, it’s simply inappropriate for Dr Walker to say “they’re being vilified due to some extremist elements”.
That’s not really true. They’re vilified because they allowed themselves to be ledby the extremist elements, and brought little mobile human shields to the fray (here is a real life example: http://i.imgur.com/04FIC.jpg), hundreds of which remained right up until the moment of fake surrender (when TIME.com asked Nattawut why the leaders refused to clear all children from their barricades, he said “That’s the government’s job” – like, seriously? When you have leaders like that, I don’t care how moderate you think you are, you are extremist and, quite frankly, a war criminal). In any case, even the passive non-violent Reds hijacked Bangkok’s CBD and the economy as hostage to their ransom demands. That’s…never valid political dissent. It’s thuggery, and criminal, and incredibly, incredibly selfish.
Just quickly to Tarrin, who was the sole person to answer my innocent and valid question – rather than respond with personal attacks in lieu of answers – perhaps because he can defend his answers hmm?
Not only is it valid, it’s the perfect answer. Although I’m not Thai, I support literally every single thing you do. And I’m all too aware of the rich v poor gap, which must be brought closer to parity.
I have a few questions which I promise are genuine and not leading in any way.
1. Do you believe democracy is still democracy when it is purchased? Honestly, I’m not really 100% on this myself. The idealist in me says “not a chance”, the realist cynic says “$ makes the world go round, what’s the difference between outright vote-buying, or buying votes with ‘honourable’ welfare programs – one is criminal, the other is applauded”. I’m simplifying it, of course, the difference is one is selfish and exclusive, the other altruistic and inclusive – but I think the sentiment has more validity than I’d like to admit.
2. Do you believe the willingness of Thai’s to embrace corruption, to the point where I often wonder if Abhisit’s reputation for probity is a disadvantage in Thai politics, gives an air of inevitability to a ‘corruption’ of the democratic process? Where politics is just endless auctioneering – MP 437 do I have 110, can I get 110, 108, going once at 108, twice, gone to the lucky billionaire on the right…auctions for loyalties of provincial village heads, auctions for generals in the army and police (3 stars go for xxx, 2 stars for yyy, etc), auctions for judges (those who can afford it have some on retainer, but freelance types can be contracted out on a case-by-case basis), and so on. I really suspect until the entire culture can be changed….I mean, is there anyone who really disputes the fact that Thaksin is probably the most brilliant / corrupt politician in Thai history (bit like having the blondest hair in Sweden)…and yet I freely concede probably half the country is happy for him to come back if it means a return to “the good times” of booming economics (which I have some theories about, but that can wait for another day). The point being, if Thais are willing to be that pragmatic, “Don’t mind if he’s corrupt so long as he doles out loans which will be inevitably forgiven, as long as some of the spoils trickle down to me, I don’t mind him stashing billions overseas…” – I can’t see the long journey to what you (and I) desire – true democracy – happening in our lifetimes.
That’s probably long enough for now, so I’ll leave it there. I probably won’t respond to personal attacks, but anyone wishing to ask me direct questions, on my honour I will respond to every one sooner or later – and defend every position I hold, or if I cannot, I will change my position. And I’m not even an academic, ahem.
Prachatai manager arrested
On another thread, New Mandala invited suggestions for topics. Here’s one: call it say, “Jonny’s stuff” – and our not-so-friendly neighbourhood paranoiac can vent his obsessive spleen ad nauseam there….. along with more threats of whatever retaliation he has in mind. Maybe it’ll emerge whether that’s legal action, hacking the website, putting out a contract on Messrs Farrelly and Walker – or just to “skweem and skweem and skweem”…..
That way, Jonny gets his gun – sorry, fun – while the rest of us can choose to avoid having to wade through his turgid diatribes to get on to rational discussion of issues, exchange of views etc. You know – normal stuff…..
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
Thank you, Ajarn Somsak. Your posts are never too long to satisfy our thirst for your knowledge!
Would you please give us the name and publication details of Wimonphan Pitathawathai’s 1974 book?
David Streckfuss on lese majeste
This is an important book and I’m looking forward to getting a copy if and when it becomes available in Thailand. If its banned, I wonder if they will they also go the extent of blocking access to Amazon and the publisher’s websites as well, as they did with the Handley book?
A further thought on the legal aspect of lese majeste: in Thailand it doesn’t seem to be so much the fact that laws exist, as whether or not authorities choose to invoke them. This applies to almost every area, from traffic offences to sex work and defaulting on bank loans. To me the key question is why in these situations, and for these particular people, the lese majeste law has been used. I think the answers are much the same as David Streckfuss gives in his interview, but it does mean that the solution is not simply (as if it would be easily done) abolition of the lese majeste law or decreasing the penalty.
Prachatai manager arrested
The incredible irritant going by the name of Jonny drags me back to the fray.
Let’s consider one of Jonny’s early demands (see #28) “1. Publish all ‘pending’ comments. 2. Or kindly email me with the reasons why you prefer not to.” (That’s the one followed up with the ominous comment “There is no 3rd option available. Not any that are…advised.”) Andrew did indeed e-mail him as requested (see #52) so it seems to me that the NM folks have more than met his desires (#28:”It’s mere etiquette that I demand. Nothing more.”) NB: “Nothing more.”
I would be more interested in Jonny’s comments if he would get back on track about the topic he brought up, “due process.” Here’s an easy question: Do you have the same scorn for the endless PAD attempts to avoid due process (from 2008 until this past week) that you have for supporters of Chiranuch? If not, please explain the distinction.
P.S. Frankly, I think Jonny has overlooked some very damning evidence of a Red Shirt conspiracy. Surely you’ve noticed that you can’t spell “Chiranuch” without ‘ANU.’ More proof of Walker-Farrelly perfidy!
David Streckfuss on lese majeste
the points made in the interview seem essential background for anyone wanting to understand why Thai people seem so passive and accepting of dictatorship controlled by their corrupt and overweight military
even the current protests by the redshirts seem restrained and peaceful when compared with recent politically inspired protests in the Ukraine, Greece and others around the world
the “worship” of royalty seems to be a powerful soporific wielded expertly by the traditoinal rulers of Thailand
Thai institutions: Police
@Barrybankruad-35
Any Police force rendered impotent by politically correct do gooders is insufficiently robust for the serious task of maintaining law and order. If the Canvey Island Knitting Circle led to the demise of a decent British Constabulary then like many areas of expertise and reputation once had. It is no longer.
The British police, like the population they serve are unrecognisable from 50 years ago. There are no institutions unaffected by the oxyacetylene of market capitalism. Ask the Royal family or the Church if you think that’s a good thing.
The really good news is that not all change is bad. One of the UK’s transformational dynamics is massively welcome and deeply appreciated, for being both inspirational and pluralist to society as a whole while cultivating compassion as well as neighbourliness.
Ironically the same qualities the Police were both guardians and practitioners of some 50 years ago.
Yes; immigrants from all over the world are a gift to the UK. From cuisine to commerce, our new extended family is an exciting part of our new identity. It’s a paradox that the most quintessential of British traits. The value and sense of fair play (sporting do-gooders springs to mind) is most alive because waves of immigrants held us accountable for it. Otherwise like all the other things we harp on about as gone forever with only ourselves to blame.
We’d have lost that too.
Prachatai manager arrested
Jonny is tedious. He reminds of these creationists who think the world is 6000 years old. He uses their techniques to make his “case”. Boooring!
Prachatai manager arrested
jonny is not what he claims. He asserts the right to academic debate but reserves for himself nothing like that. Instead, he engages in personal attack. In essence he is a fraud, engaging in what is essentially thuggish behaviour (if that is an appropriate description of offensive and threatening posting). I don’t recall anything like this in the past, but maybe my memory is short when it comes to the inappropriate.
Topics for future discussion on New Mandala
More on the economics of ASEAN!
Critics of Aung San Suu Kyi say…
john francis lee #8
Hla Oo’s evident zeal is that of a neo-liberal convert. It reflects his own personal journey from a young ignorant but willing killer/cannon fodder in the Tatmadaw to an expat entrepreneur. Reagan and Thatcher would be nodding their heads and smiling triumphantly over the enduring success of the right wing backlash they had unleashed upon this planet.
Tom #9
Transition will be a bloody one, democratic or no, in Burma, however much we all wish otherwise. The big stick is evidently wielded not by any opposition but by the military. It’s they who are asking for a bloody end, no one else. They’ve made their bed and they’ll lie in it minus their heads. It’s the only exit strategy they are capable of choosing, to Av─лci the deepest of hells.
Prachatai manager arrested
Thanks Jonny,
For the final time – I have no interest in “censoring” you. And now we are funded by Thaksin? And Andrew Walker supports “terrorists”? Amazing that we allow such things to be published, really. But we do.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Critics of Aung San Suu Kyi say…
Alfred Openschauer #4
Can’t say I’m surprised by your allegation of 20/20 hindsight. Truth is when ASSK denied vehemently she was trying to split the army, it struck me as sending the wrong signal to the officers and men some of whom, like the air force personnel, had already marched with the people. Understandably she felt compelled to defend herself against such an allegation from the regime.
Next, the moment I heard on the BBC World Service that ASSK rejected within minutes U Nu’s offer of joining an interim government (that the people and students were clamouring for in a bid to overthrow the regime), my heart sank. It’s over was the first thought that entered my mind.
Whilst comparisons across the decades and the seas may not hold water, you may never see the wood for the trees. Like I said our generals are Burmese. And it’s not the British we are up against, nor Filipinos for that matter.
The point is for ASSK to have learnt the lessons of 1988. And no, it would have been well nigh impossible for her to direct her party or the popular struggle from within the confines of her house arrest. But Mandela, like her father, had no qualms about the people’s right to armed resistance.
Hla Oo #5
that twisted and racist propaganda of army protecting our race, our religion, and the Union of Burma has stuck in Burmese psyche for very long time now..
Speak for yourself. I guess you are extrapolating your apparent catharsis on everyone else as if the rest of us had ever bought it lock, stock and barrel. It may be news to you that many of us are not so gullible even if people like yourself are easily led by demagogues with their racist chauvinist propaganda.
The plight of the union in 1948, when it came to be dubbed the Rangoon government by the international media with the Karen already on the outskirts of the capital, was dire. No one should be surprised that thousands of young Burmese men answered the call to defend the union at the time.
And yes, U Nu with Ne Win formed the Sitwundan and the UMP in anticipation of the Karen rebellion. The real enemy ultimately was not the ethnic groups but the Burmese communists as you well know, since only they could represent the majority Burman and pose a real challenge to the Socialists both in government and in the Tatmadaw.
Prachatai manager arrested
@michael c58: There is no academic process evident on New Mandala. There is one-sided propaganda for a convicted criminal who is wanted on charges of funding terrorism. Mr Farrelly and Dr Walker are well aware of that – this is why they stifle academic debate by censoring valid / polite questions, or ignore them when they’re published.
But you are 100% correct on one point:
If the free discussion of facts is allowed from this point, I will have no opportunity to collect (more) evidence that there is nothing academic about the propaganda machine funded by Thaksin, in which New Mandala is a part of (for reasons I have no interest in…yet).
Academics are required to defend their positions when presented with evidence. Farrelly and Walker have taken an extremist position (to support a mass murderer and convicted criminal) – the least they can do is proffer their justifications for why.
And for why they validate Red Shirt violence and arson as “legitimate dissent”, yet bemoan due process when the government charges terrorists with their crimes or arrests the owner of Prachatai (there is nothing journalistic about their published propaganda) two years after she’s been charged with a crime.
These are valid questions. INCREDIBLY VALID. Andrew and Nicholas will answer them when they are politely asked, or they will answer them when they are compelled. The choice is theirs.
And they will publish this censored question immediately.
http://i.imgur.com/zdMbx.jpg
The link to the news footage which was censored is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
STOP CENSORING THE EVIDENCE I SUBMIT. I WILL NOT ASK YOU POLITELY AGAIN.
nb. I will respond to others including to Tarrin’s kind answer (the only one who did so), once the Gestapo stop censoring valid questions.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
Re: Mark Teufel #112
also, Hinke #110
Actually, Simpson was ‘right’, in his book, to pinpoint ‘murder’ as the most likely cause of Ananda’s death. But to understand the real reason why Simpson, as well as the great majority of doctors who performed autopsy on the King’s body, opted for this cause, we have to look at the ‘premise’ or the framework on which they made their decision. I’ll explain this in a moment.
But, first, the new book by Wimonphan Pitathawathai (re:Hinke #110) which is now selling like hot cake, despite its very expensive price of 1500 bath (It’s first run of many hundreds copies had been sold out within two or three days, and is now unavaliable – even though it’s only sold at one place, the Chula Bookshop. The author whom I talked to by phone yesterday, told me that the book will come out fully only on the 25th of this month.) It claims to have ‘new evidence’ on the King’s death. But there’s really nothing ‘new’ about its ‘new evidence’, basically one or two telegrams and documents from British archieves that confirm that Pridi was not happy with the doctors’ opinion (of death by ‘murder’) and his government had tried to pressure the British authorities to prevent British doctors to air their opinion. This is noting ‘new’ because it’s been known for decades now that Pridi did try to do that. Wimonphan herself made much of this in a book she co-authored published in 1974. In fact the chapters on Ananda’s death in this new book of hers, are just recycled material (down to sentences, etc) of her 1974 book. That this new book sold fast only proves the power of modern media PR (it’s was lauched by former Bank of Thailand’s Governor, with a large number of high society personalities attending.)
So, let’s consider the reason why the doctors, including Simpson, saw ‘murder’ as the most likely cause.
There were four possibilities how Ananda was killed:
(1) He shot himself, unintentionally (“accident”)
(2) He shot himself, intentionally (“suicide”)
(3) Someone shot him, unintentionally (“accident”)
(4) Someone shot him, intentionally (“murder”)
Notice that “accident” enters twice. Now since day one, everybody knew at once what the third possibility meant: only his younger brother (the present King) could possibly have brought a gun so near the King’s head and accidently discharged it. For legal, political and cultural reasons (cultural because no one dared to think thus), this possibility could not be considered at all. Of course, the royalists including Wimonphan, claim that the brother had ‘an iron-clad alibi’ and therfore can be eliminated as suspect. (The word ‘iron-clad alibi’ was used by Prince Dhani, the presnet king’s privy councilor, when he visited Mountbatten in 1948, after the latter raised the issue of Ananda’s death and any possible involvement of the present king.) But this is not true. I won’t explain why here because it would make my already long post even much longer. I just want to point out that the elimination of this third possibility (which in effect implicated the present king) from any consideration was definitely not because the reason of the brother’s alibai.
With the elimination of the third possibility from any consideration, the likely causes of Anada’s death became just three, and usually written this way:
(1) “accident” (which only means “by himself”)
(2) “suicide” (this is of couse also self-inflicted)
(3) “murder”
And this was exactly how the doctors (including Simpon) who performed the autopsy framed their ‘findings’ (see the Simpson book for yourself).
Now with the elimination from consideration of the possibility that Ananda might have been shot by another person accidentally, any finding that pointed to his being shot by another person had only one opiton left to name, i.e. ‘murder’. What this means is that, ‘muder’ really stood for “shot by another person” period. NOTHING MORE.
This is the real explanation of Simpson’s and the majority of doctors’ opinion of ‘murder’
For what they took into consideration were (a) the position of the enter point of the bullet (left forehead over the brown – the king was right-handed); (b) the bullet trajectory (slightly from left to right, and downward, exit at the king’s nect); (c) the positioning of the king’s body (no sign of struggle, he lied down like sleep, his arms besides his body in ordinary manner). There were a few others factors but they were not as important.
These three basic facts together (which I elsewhere call ‘the physical conditions of the shooting’) virtually meant that the king could not possibly have shot himself, but almost certainly was shot by another person. But since the option for “being shot by another person” (or “somebody shot him”) in all the official inquries, including the doctors’ autopsy (and Simpson book), only had one name for it, i.e. “murder”, most of the inquires therefore inevitably concluded that the king was “murdered” – and quite ‘rightly’ so, if one considers the ‘physical conditions of the shooting’ and provided that we understnad the real meaning of the ‘muder’ category in this case as I argue here.
I have written a two-part article in Thai, explaining all these in details, along the way knocking down all the claims by the royalists and others concerning Ananda’s death. Anyone interested can downloaded the pdf file here
http://www.enlightened-jurists.com/page/134
Lastly, I must also point out that Kruger who suggested ‘suicide’ as the most likely cause was seriously wrong on one point of his theory. He said that it’s suicide with the King sitting up, and the must be sitting up because the bullet ‘missed the pillow’. But the bullet in fact didn’t ‘miss’ the pillow, it exit the king’s nect and entered and passed through the pillow and lodged inside the mattress below. Thus the king could not possibly be sitting up when the shot was fired. Kruger in fact wrote that had the bullet not ‘missed the pillow’, it would have meant that the king was lying down on his back, which in turn meant that “murder” (i.e. shot by another person) was the most likely cause.