Ralph thanks for your feedback, which I always appreciate, though not always agreeing with.
1) “Adding to the pot of grand allegations” – the Queen of England’s approximate wealth is not an allegation. It is well-publicised.
But like all Royals, it is difficult to separate what belongs to the nation from what belongs to the Royal family privately. That’s the nature of Royalty !
2) “England’s Queen Elizabeth owns more land, and so do many other very rich people, not all of them royals” is a claim we cannot verify because we simply don’t know the total holdings of the Thai monarch, family and associated companies, foundations and so on.”
Of course we can not verify it absolutely (duh) – see comment #1 – but it is unlikely to be more than the Queen of England’s for various reasons – not least being that Thailand has never had an overseas empire, eg. members of the British Royal Family have vast land-holdings in Australia, Canada, etc.
The Forbes report – and the Thai academic study on which it was based plus Handley’s comments largely centre on the Thai Royal family’s landholdings principally in Bangkok, but elsewhere in Thailand also. This is land valuation, which goes up and down – hence Forbes re-estimation. Very likely the land-value has dropped significantly due to the Ratchaprasong conflict, etc.
Indeed Handley notes that the Royal family is hamstrung by not being able to charge profitable rent, at true market value, for much of the land they own.
3)’Likewise, we your claim that the “Sultan of Brunei owns large slices of the most expensive real estate in London. By the VALUE of the land he owns, the Sultan of Brunei could be considered to own more land than Bumiphol” also can’t be verified for the same reason.
Well Ralph – put your thinking cap on : is owning rice-land more profitable than owning oil ?
I find it hard to believe the Thai Royals are more wealthy than the Saudi Royals. Forbes itself says it is only estimating – and in Thailand’s case on a single report !!
4) ‘We also have no knowledge (at least I haven’t seen it) of the Thai royals overseas holdings’.
I agree – unfortunately this is the case, and in the modern world the Thai Royals should be as transparent as other Royals.
A lot could have been salted away overseas, over many years, at the previous far lower Forbes valuation without creating the very noticeable blip on financial markets that moving anything like US$35 billion would cause.
There are numerous questions we can ask, with some hope of gaining evidence : eg –
1) The Forbes estimate of a staggering US$35 billion is a huge upward re-valuation from their previous one. How much larger than that is total Thai GDP ?
2)Which raises questions re. Baker and Pongpaichit’s assertion that Thai capital in the modern sectors was largely wiped out by the ’97 crash – except for Thaksin’s capital (therein perhaps lies much of the current conflict) :
how has Royal wealth recovered so much, so quickly – and is it still essentially ersatz, or rentier capitalism (in contrast to Thaksin’s which was hi-tech) ?
I’m saying the purpose of this report is not to establish the truth, not that it doesn’t contain some truth somewhere along the way.
The purpose of writing it was to get Thaksin’s paycheck so it was written in such a way as to present Thaksin with a product that would serve his interests and needs. It was not produced for my consumption, doesn’t address my interests or needs and wasn’t its target in any way, so why should I be interested?
I haven’t read and I’m not going to, I haven’t seen any signs it contains anything new and, GG reminded me, I suspect it contains arguments that 90% of commentators here can recite in their sleep.
I think the report targets undecided and curious international audience with even less knowledge of the country than Amserdam and his team, not as a reading material but as a point of reference that would be mentioned over and over again in each news release.
[…] the blog of Bangkok based journalist Newley Purnell. An interview with Claudio Sopranzetti: The Politics of Motorcycle taxis. Before 2005, every win, i.e. every group of motorcycle taxis, was organized independently, by a […]
Robert Amsterdam did not write the report, it was obviously written by somebody with a deep knowledge of Thailand.
@stang
You keep saying the report does not establish the truth, without pointing to any of the content of the report. Please can you point out the lies contained in the report, which page numbers, paragraphs etc. So we can all be made aware of where these lies are.
Even after big gun apologist Somtow has waded in there’s still no real critique of the substance of Amsterdam’s arguments.
The major criticism so far seems to be that the report was paid for by Thaksin, and that it goes soft on Thaksin – wow, big takedown!
Somtow spent a lot of time talking about ‘half truth’s, but he again showed us he’s the master of half truth (and understatement 🙂
“That military came to its senses and restored an elected government almost immediately and has so far in fact resisted the temptation to have another coup – though it has been at times needlessly meddlesome”
thanks for your comment, agree Thailand is a mess and note your comments about “saviours” and “heroes”, the cult of personality thing.
I suspect that you may be falling into the same when thinking of Robert Amsterdam. I suggest Robert is an advocate rather than a player in his own right, except perhaps incidentally when he comments on twitter on his own account.
In preparing his paper his role is to gather together, clearly explain, publish and pursue the aggregated view of his client. His talent is synthesizer and action as a project for others. If he also forms his own opinion and enthusiasm for a cause this is a bonus rather than primary to the task.
I also think, strange as it may seem, that Thaksin, who definitely has a strong personality and personal attachment to Thailand is also primarily a business man that enjoys bringing projects together.
I believe Thaksin sees changing Thailand from a military controlled to a modern democratic society as a personal challenge. Seems to me he wants Thai distinctive and traditional culture to flourish, hence his espousal of the monarchy, but without the repression of the bulk of the people that has characterised the military dominated cult of the Royal.
Also the evidence is that the redshirts are not so concerned with a cult of Thaksin but rather with the process of democracy, the privilege of voting and being treated equally under the law. Thaksin is important for them because he demonstrated these ideas but I believe they will follow anyone that they see will work with them in good faith.
It is the amart/military that use the cult of (royal) personality and image of heroes because they cant really offer anything else. Most notably they concentrate on the reverse cult by demonising Thaksin. Quite ludicrous when you sit back and look objectively. Seems they dont have anything else to say.
In any society its the processes that are most important. If the processes are stable and reliable then people can come and go but the society proceeds.
I dont think Thailand is any more prone to belief in heroes than any other country, in fact Thailand is not really unique in any politically relevant sense from any other country except its going through the struggles between authoritarian and democratic rule that only places like Burma, the “‘istans” and some others are still experiencing.
Sad that there are not some more visionary personalities amongst the military generals, the privy council and monarchy willing to learn how to live and thrive in a democratic society.
Let me rephrase for those lacking a proper education.
If we read Burmese history objectively,…… we can see a blatant pattern of very specific periods (down to the time of day) in the life of Aung San where there are suddenly no (reliable) witnesses, no journals, no historians who can say without a doubt what really happened.
In each of the instances we ask the same questions; where was Aung San at the time, how involved was he, what were his ‘official’ feelings on the matter, who and how many were killed?
It’s nothing personal. However, it is a little ironic that a blog comment becomes propaganda when it doesn’t fall in line with the bold, beautiful, perfect image of the icon Aung San. Its not a matter of hero-worship, its a matter of needing hero’s.
This same vain concept derives from nothing short of a personality cult and is the same social ill that has allowed Daw Suu to be portrayed as the idea victim in Western media – she is petite, pretty and honorable, and we forget she is a competent and elected politician.
Cock, Andrew (2010). “External actors and the relative autonomy of the ruling elite in post-UNTAC Cambodia.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 41(2): 241–265.
The term ‘neoliberal’ does not even appear in Andrew’s analysis.
NM reader joins the criminal US Secretary of War who defended his invasion of Iraq, speaking of his imaginary WMDs using similar rhetorical trickery in double negative : The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I think that Hla Oo is like his father; so brutalized by his own past that he now lives in a twilit, fantastic world of events which allows him to continue. As we all do to a greater or lessor extent.
This essay is not seriously about Burma, it is about Hla Oo’s construction of Burma as the background of his own personal life. It is a work of fiction.
The only difficulty in placing such fiction in the context of the New Mandala is that NM purports to be a portal of Social Science, and publishing such stuff demonstrates only too clearly how ridiculous is the claim that there is such a thing as social science.
You guys are amazing. Well, perhaps naive is a better description.
You accept that this man who knew almost nothing about Thailand, before he was employed by Thaksin, has the place sussed out.
Are you all in awe of his “credentials”…whatever they might be?
Or just because he happens to say some of what you think ?
I would think, although I disagree with much of what they say, people such as Jim Taylor, David Brown, Ricefield Radio and Suzie Wong are much more qualified than the illustrious Mr. Amsterdam to discuss what’s going on here right now.
Let’s face it, this whole situation is such a mess. I find it impossible to believe, someone who specializes in Russian mafia and African dictators, knows anything at all about the complexities of this situation.
His paper certainly contains a large amount of factual information.
There’s also a lot of things missing – particularly in the “back stories” of all the players. It also contains a lot of crap, which if someone knew what they were commenting on, would never say.
Stop trying so hard to find “saviors”.
That is as much the problem, as anything.
Thai people love heroes – so do so many of the posters here.
The issues will never be solved by going after the next carpetbagger, just because he (we don’t seem to have had a “she”) happens to use words like “junta”, “freedom” and “democracy”.
Let’s find someone who actually believes in them – not his commission at the end of the stick.
The Somtow diatribe actually doesn’t show much evidence that he has read the report beyond the executive summary. He cites almost nothing. My feeling is that StanG’s miraculous intuition is off here. I’m wondering how many of the “commentators” have read it? I began reading it a couple of days ago, but more pressing matters intervened. Hopefully I can get back to it. Then I might have a substantive comment.
No one wants to address the content of this paper because the purpose of writing it was not to establish the truth and the purpose of debating it is not to find the truth either.
People just don’t want to dignify it with a debate.
Please do not credit Saritville University with openess to things Lao
It is a yellow shirt royalist racist institution where on more than one occasion people have been told off for speaking Isarn-Laotion and many ajarns look down on Laos wanting civilize it teach it to be Thai
If commentators for a moment want to interrupt their self-referential proceedings, they might want to read elitist apologist Somtow Sucharitkul’s take on the Amsterdam report, here is the link:
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
Ralph thanks for your feedback, which I always appreciate, though not always agreeing with.
1) “Adding to the pot of grand allegations” – the Queen of England’s approximate wealth is not an allegation. It is well-publicised.
But like all Royals, it is difficult to separate what belongs to the nation from what belongs to the Royal family privately. That’s the nature of Royalty !
2) “England’s Queen Elizabeth owns more land, and so do many other very rich people, not all of them royals” is a claim we cannot verify because we simply don’t know the total holdings of the Thai monarch, family and associated companies, foundations and so on.”
Of course we can not verify it absolutely (duh) – see comment #1 – but it is unlikely to be more than the Queen of England’s for various reasons – not least being that Thailand has never had an overseas empire, eg. members of the British Royal Family have vast land-holdings in Australia, Canada, etc.
The Forbes report – and the Thai academic study on which it was based plus Handley’s comments largely centre on the Thai Royal family’s landholdings principally in Bangkok, but elsewhere in Thailand also. This is land valuation, which goes up and down – hence Forbes re-estimation. Very likely the land-value has dropped significantly due to the Ratchaprasong conflict, etc.
Indeed Handley notes that the Royal family is hamstrung by not being able to charge profitable rent, at true market value, for much of the land they own.
3)’Likewise, we your claim that the “Sultan of Brunei owns large slices of the most expensive real estate in London. By the VALUE of the land he owns, the Sultan of Brunei could be considered to own more land than Bumiphol” also can’t be verified for the same reason.
Well Ralph – put your thinking cap on : is owning rice-land more profitable than owning oil ?
I find it hard to believe the Thai Royals are more wealthy than the Saudi Royals. Forbes itself says it is only estimating – and in Thailand’s case on a single report !!
4) ‘We also have no knowledge (at least I haven’t seen it) of the Thai royals overseas holdings’.
I agree – unfortunately this is the case, and in the modern world the Thai Royals should be as transparent as other Royals.
A lot could have been salted away overseas, over many years, at the previous far lower Forbes valuation without creating the very noticeable blip on financial markets that moving anything like US$35 billion would cause.
There are numerous questions we can ask, with some hope of gaining evidence : eg –
1) The Forbes estimate of a staggering US$35 billion is a huge upward re-valuation from their previous one. How much larger than that is total Thai GDP ?
2)Which raises questions re. Baker and Pongpaichit’s assertion that Thai capital in the modern sectors was largely wiped out by the ’97 crash – except for Thaksin’s capital (therein perhaps lies much of the current conflict) :
how has Royal wealth recovered so much, so quickly – and is it still essentially ersatz, or rentier capitalism (in contrast to Thaksin’s which was hi-tech) ?
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
I’m saying the purpose of this report is not to establish the truth, not that it doesn’t contain some truth somewhere along the way.
The purpose of writing it was to get Thaksin’s paycheck so it was written in such a way as to present Thaksin with a product that would serve his interests and needs. It was not produced for my consumption, doesn’t address my interests or needs and wasn’t its target in any way, so why should I be interested?
I haven’t read and I’m not going to, I haven’t seen any signs it contains anything new and, GG reminded me, I suspect it contains arguments that 90% of commentators here can recite in their sleep.
I think the report targets undecided and curious international audience with even less knowledge of the country than Amserdam and his team, not as a reading material but as a point of reference that would be mentioned over and over again in each news release.
ABC Interview with Jakrapob
TS considers ending the movement? I thought he said he had nothing to do with the movement when they burned down Bangkok.
Interview with Claudio Sopranzetti: The politics of motorcycle taxis
[…] the blog of Bangkok based journalist Newley Purnell. An interview with Claudio Sopranzetti: The Politics of Motorcycle taxis. Before 2005, every win, i.e. every group of motorcycle taxis, was organized independently, by a […]
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
Gegee
Robert Amsterdam did not write the report, it was obviously written by somebody with a deep knowledge of Thailand.
@stang
You keep saying the report does not establish the truth, without pointing to any of the content of the report. Please can you point out the lies contained in the report, which page numbers, paragraphs etc. So we can all be made aware of where these lies are.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
GeGee – 83
Your statement just beg me to ask a question.
How long does it take for one to understand the situation in Thailand?
However, I do agree with you that people should stop trying to find “savior” and make this the movement that really comes from the people.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
Even after big gun apologist Somtow has waded in there’s still no real critique of the substance of Amsterdam’s arguments.
The major criticism so far seems to be that the report was paid for by Thaksin, and that it goes soft on Thaksin – wow, big takedown!
Somtow spent a lot of time talking about ‘half truth’s, but he again showed us he’s the master of half truth (and understatement 🙂
“That military came to its senses and restored an elected government almost immediately and has so far in fact resisted the temptation to have another coup – though it has been at times needlessly meddlesome”
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
GeGee #82
thanks for your comment, agree Thailand is a mess and note your comments about “saviours” and “heroes”, the cult of personality thing.
I suspect that you may be falling into the same when thinking of Robert Amsterdam. I suggest Robert is an advocate rather than a player in his own right, except perhaps incidentally when he comments on twitter on his own account.
In preparing his paper his role is to gather together, clearly explain, publish and pursue the aggregated view of his client. His talent is synthesizer and action as a project for others. If he also forms his own opinion and enthusiasm for a cause this is a bonus rather than primary to the task.
I also think, strange as it may seem, that Thaksin, who definitely has a strong personality and personal attachment to Thailand is also primarily a business man that enjoys bringing projects together.
I believe Thaksin sees changing Thailand from a military controlled to a modern democratic society as a personal challenge. Seems to me he wants Thai distinctive and traditional culture to flourish, hence his espousal of the monarchy, but without the repression of the bulk of the people that has characterised the military dominated cult of the Royal.
Also the evidence is that the redshirts are not so concerned with a cult of Thaksin but rather with the process of democracy, the privilege of voting and being treated equally under the law. Thaksin is important for them because he demonstrated these ideas but I believe they will follow anyone that they see will work with them in good faith.
It is the amart/military that use the cult of (royal) personality and image of heroes because they cant really offer anything else. Most notably they concentrate on the reverse cult by demonising Thaksin. Quite ludicrous when you sit back and look objectively. Seems they dont have anything else to say.
In any society its the processes that are most important. If the processes are stable and reliable then people can come and go but the society proceeds.
I dont think Thailand is any more prone to belief in heroes than any other country, in fact Thailand is not really unique in any politically relevant sense from any other country except its going through the struggles between authoritarian and democratic rule that only places like Burma, the “‘istans” and some others are still experiencing.
Sad that there are not some more visionary personalities amongst the military generals, the privy council and monarchy willing to learn how to live and thrive in a democratic society.
The logic of lese majeste
Hi Andrew,
Isn’t this case is a good example of how the LM law backfires, an argument we made when we campaign about the LM in 2009?
It is unfortunate that an actor, a small fish in the larger pool of mess, is the one who got this trouble instead of somebody with high authority.
Burma in Limbo, Part 1
Let me rephrase for those lacking a proper education.
If we read Burmese history objectively,…… we can see a blatant pattern of very specific periods (down to the time of day) in the life of Aung San where there are suddenly no (reliable) witnesses, no journals, no historians who can say without a doubt what really happened.
In each of the instances we ask the same questions; where was Aung San at the time, how involved was he, what were his ‘official’ feelings on the matter, who and how many were killed?
It’s nothing personal. However, it is a little ironic that a blog comment becomes propaganda when it doesn’t fall in line with the bold, beautiful, perfect image of the icon Aung San. Its not a matter of hero-worship, its a matter of needing hero’s.
This same vain concept derives from nothing short of a personality cult and is the same social ill that has allowed Daw Suu to be portrayed as the idea victim in Western media – she is petite, pretty and honorable, and we forget she is a competent and elected politician.
The neoliberal bogeyman of Cambodia
Hi Maylee:
You may be interested in this paper:
Cock, Andrew (2010). “External actors and the relative autonomy of the ruling elite in post-UNTAC Cambodia.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 41(2): 241–265.
The term ‘neoliberal’ does not even appear in Andrew’s analysis.
The neoliberal bogeyman of Cambodia
my less fortunate friends were forced to take out large student loans to pay for their education… says it all.
Burma in Limbo, Part 1
NM reader joins the criminal US Secretary of War who defended his invasion of Iraq, speaking of his imaginary WMDs using similar rhetorical trickery in double negative : The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I think that Hla Oo is like his father; so brutalized by his own past that he now lives in a twilit, fantastic world of events which allows him to continue. As we all do to a greater or lessor extent.
This essay is not seriously about Burma, it is about Hla Oo’s construction of Burma as the background of his own personal life. It is a work of fiction.
The only difficulty in placing such fiction in the context of the New Mandala is that NM purports to be a portal of Social Science, and publishing such stuff demonstrates only too clearly how ridiculous is the claim that there is such a thing as social science.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
You guys are amazing. Well, perhaps naive is a better description.
You accept that this man who knew almost nothing about Thailand, before he was employed by Thaksin, has the place sussed out.
Are you all in awe of his “credentials”…whatever they might be?
Or just because he happens to say some of what you think ?
I would think, although I disagree with much of what they say, people such as Jim Taylor, David Brown, Ricefield Radio and Suzie Wong are much more qualified than the illustrious Mr. Amsterdam to discuss what’s going on here right now.
Let’s face it, this whole situation is such a mess. I find it impossible to believe, someone who specializes in Russian mafia and African dictators, knows anything at all about the complexities of this situation.
His paper certainly contains a large amount of factual information.
There’s also a lot of things missing – particularly in the “back stories” of all the players. It also contains a lot of crap, which if someone knew what they were commenting on, would never say.
Stop trying so hard to find “saviors”.
That is as much the problem, as anything.
Thai people love heroes – so do so many of the posters here.
The issues will never be solved by going after the next carpetbagger, just because he (we don’t seem to have had a “she”) happens to use words like “junta”, “freedom” and “democracy”.
Let’s find someone who actually believes in them – not his commission at the end of the stick.
The logic of lese majeste
Not the Nation has the latest on speaking the unspeakable here. It sums up the ultimate logic of lese majeste : http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=929
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
The Somtow diatribe actually doesn’t show much evidence that he has read the report beyond the executive summary. He cites almost nothing. My feeling is that StanG’s miraculous intuition is off here. I’m wondering how many of the “commentators” have read it? I began reading it a couple of days ago, but more pressing matters intervened. Hopefully I can get back to it. Then I might have a substantive comment.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
No one wants to address the content of this paper because the purpose of writing it was not to establish the truth and the purpose of debating it is not to find the truth either.
People just don’t want to dignify it with a debate.
Lao studies conference 2010: the fascination of the marginal
Please do not credit Saritville University with openess to things Lao
It is a yellow shirt royalist racist institution where on more than one occasion people have been told off for speaking Isarn-Laotion and many ajarns look down on Laos wanting civilize it teach it to be Thai
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
If commentators for a moment want to interrupt their self-referential proceedings, they might want to read elitist apologist Somtow Sucharitkul’s take on the Amsterdam report, here is the link:
http://www.somtow.org/2010/07/dont-shoot-shyster.html
Somtow and Robert — the dream couple of the pure truth!
P.S.: It took Somtow some time to come up with his response, because he had to conduct Mahler 3…
Press conference on the death of Fabio Polenghi
Here’s a far better account, and very timely, by CPJ and Shawn Crispin
http://cpj.org/reports/2010/07/in-thailand-unrest-journalists-under-fire.php