That’s because you are talking rubbish. Of course if you are not Malaysian, you couldn’t really be blamed for not knowing who RPK is, but then of course, your presumption that he’s a polytheist based on his name and an agent of the Zionist clearly deserves a nice big smack down.
Marajtip 10: “Not everyone in Vietnam wanted communism.”
We’ll never know how they would have voted, since the south went back on its previously agreed on promise of elections to unify the country (in ’56). It’s interesting to note that even the likes of Eisenhower thought the country would vote overwhelmingly for communism.
Either way, at the end of WWII Vietnam was effectively independent, given that the French didn’t have the ships or soldiers neccessary to re-take it. However, the major victors of WWII (the US, UK & USSR) decided that Vietnam did indeed belong to the French. In that context, and the guerrilla war by the Viet Minh that followed, “war of independence” is a pretty good description.
I was under the impression that the first four paragraphs were not written by Professor Giles – they constitute the introduction to the article as written by the editor – which is evidenced by the fact that the esteemed Prof. is referred to in the third person. So, at no point does he state or even suggest that Thaskin was ousted for helping the poor as a few readers have commented. The article only mentions Thaskin in passing with regard to the TRT. The focus of the article is the Thai military/royal connection. Am I worng here? How did we get to discussing Thaksin again?
In my very brief assessment “good discussion” (online or anywhere) is often robust, inclined to deal with controversy in fair-minded ways, expansively well-informed, occasionally cheeky, tilting towards the subversive, politically savvy, based on experience and wide reading, improved by good humour, and likely to inspire an even higher level of debate. Such discussion should also provide opportunities for learning, for the changing of minds, and for the refinement of (longstanding or more tentative) positions. It challenges the dogmatic and the nonsensical. That is, very seriously, what New Mandala is about. For the final time we don’t care whether anyone disagrees with (a perception of) what we (Walker, Farrelly, whoever) think. In fact, exploring (and hardly ever resolving) disagreements is one of our goals.
And, lastly, all of these New Mandala comments (over 27,000 of them) are made possible by a server humming away in a dark corner here in Canberra. There is little possibility that under current conditions this site could be freely hosted in Lopburi or Lashio, or wherever. That may change in the future — I sincerely hope so.
As long-time NM readers will know (you’ve been commenting here..under different names…since about May 2007, right?) we rarely engage in long debates with you just for the heck of it. But today I feel that there is a valuable point that requires a final endorsement from my end.
It makes no sense to anonymously attack someone and then cowardly hide behind some notion that putting your name to your comment will generate a lese majeste accusation. Lese majeste is real, we know. But this is exactly the kind of laughable argument that people feel they can make precisely because they think there are no consequences.
As to your final point…now let me check my records…what Farrelly and Walker get protective of is democratic participation and open academic debate.
Nich, is good discussion only when people agree with the poster? Is it Elspeth saying that those that disagree are probably farangs being blackmailed by the government for their sexual practices? I wonder, does it need those who disagree to voice their opinions too?
It does, however, strike me that when anonymous commentators, unprepared to show themselves even on the Internet, start attempting to interrogate the Giles Ji Ungpakorns of this world then we witness a curious turn.
Now I of course do use a pseudonym so I do wonder if that’s a shot at me. Then again you and Andrew know who I am. Of course I live in Thailand which may be the excuse, especially as I think a return of Thaksin is a strong possibility and for some reason I do not believe the claim he made this week that he wasn’t looking for revenge. Then again Nich maybe it looks different from Canberra or Oxford.
Jim Taylor – 14
Surely you are not an apologist for Thaksin’s version on the war on drugs, are you? I wonder if we can not gaze at the “bits” of Thaksin, does that mean we shouldn’t gaze at the “bits” of Berlusconi, or Bush, or Blair, or even Abhisit. Do we ignore the bad “bits” for the bigger picture of the good things they did? What do they say about Mussolini and the trains again?
“. . . anonymous commentators unprepared to show themselves even on the Internet . . .” (#13)
Makes sense to be careful . . . because there’s lese majeste.
But on the other side of coin . . . those pro-Reds could be very violent (as we already know) and Thaksin’s police/army friends & fans with extra-judicial bent are still free to threaten and worse.
But Farrelly and Walker do get very protective of the Giles Ji and the BangkokPundits . . .
We delete a fair few comments, for a range of different reasons. And there is no secret about it; we have even spent a fair bit of time over the years discussing why it happens.
With respect to this present comment, I am delighted to learn that you have a commission (from somebody you won’t name, I’m sure) to counter the “gross imbalance” you find here. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions in the days and weeks ahead.
Maratjp you make a good point concerning ‘Thai culture’ .
As it stands it does’nt seem to be a culture that is progressing or might I say ‘valued’. In many respects it is highly nationalistic , discrimintory, contradictory and xenophobic of not only foreigners but the majority of the population who are suposedly FREE citizens.
As a westerner with a Thai family I am constantly reminded that I could never fathom its meaning or reality.
The cultures’ association to the Buddhist faith in many respects is ‘facile’ as many use the faith in a superstitous way yearning for wealth and power as opposed to ‘freeing the mind’ as real Dharmma teaches.
In my opinion Thai culture at its core is still ‘feudal’ with democracy used as a facade by the Amnat and their families and supporters to maintain economic and social control. The military supports this rule as they benefit enormously. Corruption is thus a by product as the underclasses have restricted acssess to the hoarded resources. It becomes dog eat dog society with little value given to ethics and morals as the national religion teaches.
Democracy is suposed to give power to the people yet in Thailand over its history its obvious that the opposite is happening.
To reform the culture would have me ask, reform it to what..?
It has been manipulated and twisted over the decades to maintain the staus quo that exists today. Speaking the truth is not ‘culturally accepted’ especially by the assumed under educated lower classes.
All Thais know how the ‘patronage system’ works in the kingdom, its culturally ingrained. They also know the power of wealth and influence as it has evolved from the former feudal system to what now exists .
The present system benifits those that have assumed authority over the majority due to their class status, wealth and the power and the influence that goes along with it. The majority are still seen as ‘prai’ or peasant not worthy of any power or real freedom. They are there to serve these self made pseudo lords.
In the end it will be this kind of ‘arrogance’ that will someday come to show the Amnat for what they trully are; sycophants and crooks who hold the country back purely for selfsih reasons. They tarnish the name of ‘puu yai’ and the responsability that once went with this title.
I am dissappointed as a westerner that the west invests so much in Thailand while seemingly turning a blind eye to the injustices that occur purely for the sake of PROFIT and POWER of the few.
It is not a true democracy by any means quite the opposite.
Once again, this time based on removal of my recent posts, a reasonable person would be inclined to adjudge this forum as showing blatant professional/ academic bias and lacking in transparency and accountability. Evidently these remain chronic problems with your forum, and I was recently advised to attempt to counter your gross imbalance by a widely respected and well-known sydicated NYT writer on East Asia and Thailand.
Shame on you.
It beggars belief why LesAbbey & others (on Left & Right) keep harping on about Thaksin and human rights? These are nothing compared with recent abuses over a wider national community post-Thaksin. Can anyone control the military and in relation to events in the south in 2004 & thereafter? Thaksin actually wanted to replace the army in security functions with the police, but was unable to do this because of southerner Prem’s faction and “interests” in the south. And the WOD: As everyone knows, drugs are increasingly problematic in Thailand and have been at least as far as I remember since the late 1980s, while taking the blame for excesses as head of government, we should not forget that Thaksin was also praised by many poor and middleclass families for saving their children under this stringent law enforcement…Again, border police excesses were mis-aimed at marginal easy to catch players; small time local dealers, and hapless ethnic minorities; the big players including amaat and their mafias as usual slipped through the institutional net. But all heads of government should take responsibility for civil and military action against citizens- Abhisit kindly NOTE! Importantly, taking the bigger picture perspective, these events were blown up through Right Wing elements in civil society aligned with opposition political forces and amaat then starting to find any reason to undermine his elected government. Unless we consider the whole picture then we fall into the amaat trap set for us of keeping us gazing at “bits” of Thaksin [the person], so we are blind to bigger events staged since that time by them.
Malaysians are very tolerant people. Wives decides and make major decision while husbands are just a PR Man sweet talking to voters to elect them again and again for the wives to plunder the nations. Good Luck Malaysian
Those who are interested in fighting to continue the NEP is doing it for one purpose and that to help themselves to the spin-offs from the distribution of wealth to the cronies. 53 years of UNMO/Barisan/Alliance rule had shown us that the rakyat is being used as a tool for the perpetuation of the wealth of the UMNOputras and their cronies from BN “components”. Who are those who grace the foreign casinos, throw lavish parties and have drinking/wine splashing binge and secret bank accounts? Who are the 28 years old billionaires?
Where are the origins of their wealth?
It does, however, strike me that when anonymous commentators, unprepared to show themselves even on the Internet, start attempting to interrogate the Giles Ji Ungpakorns of this world then we witness a curious turn. Ajarn Ji is many things, including a gentleman and will probably offer any further response politely. But would anybody blame him for unleashing?
I have long been uncomfortable with the license that anonymous commentators feel they deserve when attacking those who use their real names in public debates. Yes, Thai politics (and Burmese politics, Australian politics, etc, etc) can be wild and unpredictable; there are some risks for anyone making public statements. Under these circumstances some anonymous commentators want to protect themselves, or their families, or their assets, or their access, or their “good names”.
There are often good reasons for that. But, in so many other cases, there are not.
I am not suggesting that New Mandala is contemplating a radical new policy where we edit out every single anonymous comment (indeed many of the best comments come from those multitudes who need to remain anonymous – you know who you are!). But I thought it worth putting my current thoughts on the record. These are directed specifically to those who feel that they have some right to attack without risking one skerrick of their own credibility.
When I sit back to consider the long-term evolution of political discussions on the Internet I sometimes wonder if, in 20 or 30 years, we will look back with simple bafflement on how earlier online debates were conducted. As New Mandala continues to change we will continue to examine how these issues get managed. Any bright ideas on that front from the ether will be taken seriously — anonymous or otherwise!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Raja Petra Kamarudin: UMNO’s public enemy number 1
@Hanoi Paris Hilton
That’s because you are talking rubbish. Of course if you are not Malaysian, you couldn’t really be blamed for not knowing who RPK is, but then of course, your presumption that he’s a polytheist based on his name and an agent of the Zionist clearly deserves a nice big smack down.
Raja Petra Kamarudin: UMNO’s public enemy number 1
In case you do not notice “hanoi Paris..” The “thumbs down” are not for offensiveness, they are for ‘daftness’. It is a daft meter!
Ji Ungpakorn on Thai political change
Marajtip 10: “Not everyone in Vietnam wanted communism.”
We’ll never know how they would have voted, since the south went back on its previously agreed on promise of elections to unify the country (in ’56). It’s interesting to note that even the likes of Eisenhower thought the country would vote overwhelmingly for communism.
Either way, at the end of WWII Vietnam was effectively independent, given that the French didn’t have the ships or soldiers neccessary to re-take it. However, the major victors of WWII (the US, UK & USSR) decided that Vietnam did indeed belong to the French. In that context, and the guerrilla war by the Viet Minh that followed, “war of independence” is a pretty good description.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thai political change
I was under the impression that the first four paragraphs were not written by Professor Giles – they constitute the introduction to the article as written by the editor – which is evidenced by the fact that the esteemed Prof. is referred to in the third person. So, at no point does he state or even suggest that Thaskin was ousted for helping the poor as a few readers have commented. The article only mentions Thaskin in passing with regard to the TRT. The focus of the article is the Thai military/royal connection. Am I worng here? How did we get to discussing Thaksin again?
Thank you for the clarification in advance,
-Ricardo
Ji Ungpakorn on Thai political change
Thanks Les Abbey,
In my very brief assessment “good discussion” (online or anywhere) is often robust, inclined to deal with controversy in fair-minded ways, expansively well-informed, occasionally cheeky, tilting towards the subversive, politically savvy, based on experience and wide reading, improved by good humour, and likely to inspire an even higher level of debate. Such discussion should also provide opportunities for learning, for the changing of minds, and for the refinement of (longstanding or more tentative) positions. It challenges the dogmatic and the nonsensical. That is, very seriously, what New Mandala is about. For the final time we don’t care whether anyone disagrees with (a perception of) what we (Walker, Farrelly, whoever) think. In fact, exploring (and hardly ever resolving) disagreements is one of our goals.
And, lastly, all of these New Mandala comments (over 27,000 of them) are made possible by a server humming away in a dark corner here in Canberra. There is little possibility that under current conditions this site could be freely hosted in Lopburi or Lashio, or wherever. That may change in the future — I sincerely hope so.
In the meantime…
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Raja Petra Kamarudin: UMNO’s public enemy number 1
Wow! Fourteen thumbs down the first hour after posting this. In all seriousness, can somebody explain what they found so deeply offensive here?
Ji Ungpakorn on Thai political change
Thanks MattB,
As long-time NM readers will know (you’ve been commenting here..under different names…since about May 2007, right?) we rarely engage in long debates with you just for the heck of it. But today I feel that there is a valuable point that requires a final endorsement from my end.
It makes no sense to anonymously attack someone and then cowardly hide behind some notion that putting your name to your comment will generate a lese majeste accusation. Lese majeste is real, we know. But this is exactly the kind of laughable argument that people feel they can make precisely because they think there are no consequences.
As to your final point…now let me check my records…what Farrelly and Walker get protective of is democratic participation and open academic debate.
New Mandala: 4 years, 91 days, and counting…
Best wishes to all,
Nich
On the front line of globalisation
I’m so pleased that New Mandala is helping young people to re-establish connections.
On the front line of globalisation
ey lachie boi wat u up to how come u never text me i googled your name and finaly found you talk to me i wanna know for you!! xoxo
Ji Ungpakorn on Thai political change
Nicholas Farrelly – 13
Some good discussion emerging here
Nich, is good discussion only when people agree with the poster? Is it Elspeth saying that those that disagree are probably farangs being blackmailed by the government for their sexual practices? I wonder, does it need those who disagree to voice their opinions too?
It does, however, strike me that when anonymous commentators, unprepared to show themselves even on the Internet, start attempting to interrogate the Giles Ji Ungpakorns of this world then we witness a curious turn.
Now I of course do use a pseudonym so I do wonder if that’s a shot at me. Then again you and Andrew know who I am. Of course I live in Thailand which may be the excuse, especially as I think a return of Thaksin is a strong possibility and for some reason I do not believe the claim he made this week that he wasn’t looking for revenge. Then again Nich maybe it looks different from Canberra or Oxford.
Jim Taylor – 14
Surely you are not an apologist for Thaksin’s version on the war on drugs, are you? I wonder if we can not gaze at the “bits” of Thaksin, does that mean we shouldn’t gaze at the “bits” of Berlusconi, or Bush, or Blair, or even Abhisit. Do we ignore the bad “bits” for the bigger picture of the good things they did? What do they say about Mussolini and the trains again?
On the front line of globalisation
i would like to know where the original picture came from
Ji Ungpakorn on Thai political change
“. . . anonymous commentators unprepared to show themselves even on the Internet . . .” (#13)
Makes sense to be careful . . . because there’s lese majeste.
But on the other side of coin . . . those pro-Reds could be very violent (as we already know) and Thaksin’s police/army friends & fans with extra-judicial bent are still free to threaten and worse.
But Farrelly and Walker do get very protective of the Giles Ji and the BangkokPundits . . .
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
Thanks Cool Hand,
We delete a fair few comments, for a range of different reasons. And there is no secret about it; we have even spent a fair bit of time over the years discussing why it happens.
With respect to this present comment, I am delighted to learn that you have a commission (from somebody you won’t name, I’m sure) to counter the “gross imbalance” you find here. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions in the days and weeks ahead.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Ji Ungpakorn on Thai political change
Maratjp you make a good point concerning ‘Thai culture’ .
As it stands it does’nt seem to be a culture that is progressing or might I say ‘valued’. In many respects it is highly nationalistic , discrimintory, contradictory and xenophobic of not only foreigners but the majority of the population who are suposedly FREE citizens.
As a westerner with a Thai family I am constantly reminded that I could never fathom its meaning or reality.
The cultures’ association to the Buddhist faith in many respects is ‘facile’ as many use the faith in a superstitous way yearning for wealth and power as opposed to ‘freeing the mind’ as real Dharmma teaches.
In my opinion Thai culture at its core is still ‘feudal’ with democracy used as a facade by the Amnat and their families and supporters to maintain economic and social control. The military supports this rule as they benefit enormously. Corruption is thus a by product as the underclasses have restricted acssess to the hoarded resources. It becomes dog eat dog society with little value given to ethics and morals as the national religion teaches.
Democracy is suposed to give power to the people yet in Thailand over its history its obvious that the opposite is happening.
To reform the culture would have me ask, reform it to what..?
It has been manipulated and twisted over the decades to maintain the staus quo that exists today. Speaking the truth is not ‘culturally accepted’ especially by the assumed under educated lower classes.
All Thais know how the ‘patronage system’ works in the kingdom, its culturally ingrained. They also know the power of wealth and influence as it has evolved from the former feudal system to what now exists .
The present system benifits those that have assumed authority over the majority due to their class status, wealth and the power and the influence that goes along with it. The majority are still seen as ‘prai’ or peasant not worthy of any power or real freedom. They are there to serve these self made pseudo lords.
In the end it will be this kind of ‘arrogance’ that will someday come to show the Amnat for what they trully are; sycophants and crooks who hold the country back purely for selfsih reasons. They tarnish the name of ‘puu yai’ and the responsability that once went with this title.
I am dissappointed as a westerner that the west invests so much in Thailand while seemingly turning a blind eye to the injustices that occur purely for the sake of PROFIT and POWER of the few.
It is not a true democracy by any means quite the opposite.
Abhisit and Thailand’s bad men
Once again, this time based on removal of my recent posts, a reasonable person would be inclined to adjudge this forum as showing blatant professional/ academic bias and lacking in transparency and accountability. Evidently these remain chronic problems with your forum, and I was recently advised to attempt to counter your gross imbalance by a widely respected and well-known sydicated NYT writer on East Asia and Thailand.
Shame on you.
Raja Petra Kamarudin: UMNO’s public enemy number 1
Obviously, this character –a polytheist, judging by his name– can only be a cats-paw of the Zionists.
Ji Ungpakorn on Thai political change
It beggars belief why LesAbbey & others (on Left & Right) keep harping on about Thaksin and human rights? These are nothing compared with recent abuses over a wider national community post-Thaksin. Can anyone control the military and in relation to events in the south in 2004 & thereafter? Thaksin actually wanted to replace the army in security functions with the police, but was unable to do this because of southerner Prem’s faction and “interests” in the south. And the WOD: As everyone knows, drugs are increasingly problematic in Thailand and have been at least as far as I remember since the late 1980s, while taking the blame for excesses as head of government, we should not forget that Thaksin was also praised by many poor and middleclass families for saving their children under this stringent law enforcement…Again, border police excesses were mis-aimed at marginal easy to catch players; small time local dealers, and hapless ethnic minorities; the big players including amaat and their mafias as usual slipped through the institutional net. But all heads of government should take responsibility for civil and military action against citizens- Abhisit kindly NOTE! Importantly, taking the bigger picture perspective, these events were blown up through Right Wing elements in civil society aligned with opposition political forces and amaat then starting to find any reason to undermine his elected government. Unless we consider the whole picture then we fall into the amaat trap set for us of keeping us gazing at “bits” of Thaksin [the person], so we are blind to bigger events staged since that time by them.
Malaysia’s First Lady
Malaysians are very tolerant people. Wives decides and make major decision while husbands are just a PR Man sweet talking to voters to elect them again and again for the wives to plunder the nations. Good Luck Malaysian
Raja Petra Kamarudin: UMNO’s public enemy number 1
Those who are interested in fighting to continue the NEP is doing it for one purpose and that to help themselves to the spin-offs from the distribution of wealth to the cronies. 53 years of UNMO/Barisan/Alliance rule had shown us that the rakyat is being used as a tool for the perpetuation of the wealth of the UMNOputras and their cronies from BN “components”. Who are those who grace the foreign casinos, throw lavish parties and have drinking/wine splashing binge and secret bank accounts? Who are the 28 years old billionaires?
Where are the origins of their wealth?
Ji Ungpakorn on Thai political change
Some good discussion emerging here:
It does, however, strike me that when anonymous commentators, unprepared to show themselves even on the Internet, start attempting to interrogate the Giles Ji Ungpakorns of this world then we witness a curious turn. Ajarn Ji is many things, including a gentleman and will probably offer any further response politely. But would anybody blame him for unleashing?
I have long been uncomfortable with the license that anonymous commentators feel they deserve when attacking those who use their real names in public debates. Yes, Thai politics (and Burmese politics, Australian politics, etc, etc) can be wild and unpredictable; there are some risks for anyone making public statements. Under these circumstances some anonymous commentators want to protect themselves, or their families, or their assets, or their access, or their “good names”.
There are often good reasons for that. But, in so many other cases, there are not.
I am not suggesting that New Mandala is contemplating a radical new policy where we edit out every single anonymous comment (indeed many of the best comments come from those multitudes who need to remain anonymous – you know who you are!). But I thought it worth putting my current thoughts on the record. These are directed specifically to those who feel that they have some right to attack without risking one skerrick of their own credibility.
When I sit back to consider the long-term evolution of political discussions on the Internet I sometimes wonder if, in 20 or 30 years, we will look back with simple bafflement on how earlier online debates were conducted. As New Mandala continues to change we will continue to examine how these issues get managed. Any bright ideas on that front from the ether will be taken seriously — anonymous or otherwise!
Best wishes to all,
Nich