Indeed, show me a person who cannot see the folly in his own existence, and I will avoid that person like the plague. Hence the distrust of both succession factions.
At a rough guess you are talking about the more celestial beings. I’m talking about the slightly more shopsoiled immortals. Hardly matters anyway. Unfortunately, Pridi hasn’t really had that much impact on anything other than the conscience of a few intellectuals – whereas we all still have to live with the constant amateurishness, cussedness and arrogance of the elevated and not-quite-so-elevated.
Glad you are LOL. Everyone takes the subject matter and themselves far too seriously around here. We are all mere mortals, to put it in a slightly more polite form than I would normally phrase it.
Wasn’t ICG board member, Ken Adelman, a big shot in a PR firm hired by Thaksin in 2007?
Overall logic escapes me – they report that reds can turn to a violent guerrilla war and so recommend that the government should lift the emergency decree and stop calling them terrorists.
Huh?
As if there’d be no emergency without the emergency decree.
So, by this logic, in the name of reducing crime rate, shouldn’t the government abolish criminal law, too? All it does is turns people into criminals.
Interesting that he says both military and monarchy should stay out of politics. What will happen if an undesirable political party get into power; are we going to see no more coups or will the army find alternative means that they presume the Thai populace are too stupid to see through.
Unfortunately on the discussion of monarchy I feel that this is an impossible task, as discussion (even if allowed) at some stage involves criticism and I think I know where that leads ; as even a lot of the ordinary Thais “don’t do” criticism.
Criticism in Thailand is mostly seen as an insult, herein lies a very major crux of the whole social and political system. Until this hurdle is overcome I don’t see a clear way for progression.
“that LM laws answer the needs of ordinary Thais” >> Now we know–the Red-Shirt and many independently thinking Thais are not “ordinary Thais,” but some kind of aliens who got stranded on Thai soil. Kick them all out!
I agree, just look at England and what the media do to their monarchy. I get the idea of freedom of speech and all that, but there needs to be a line in the sand. I am not trying to compare the UK to Thailand which have very different cultures and histories, just the extremes of the power that can be unleashed by the media.
The laws would have to be written up and then actually followed. Think about what happened to Princess Diana for a start. Who is going to then police these laws with the media. Who owns the media? Too many what ifs, keep it simple and it may actually work.
Constructive criticism should not be banned outright, but bias should be. The only problem is who is doing the judging and what constitutes constructive criticism?
There just needs to be some common sense, not just on the image of H.M, but to keep the peace and up hold the law.
The Red-Shirts grassroots movement focuses its agenda on reducing poverty and injustice; promoting democratic values; strengthening human rights; advancing economic and social rights; and advancing human knowledge, creativity and achievement. On the contrary, the Thai Military and the Thai Monarchy focus their energy on being the obstacle of democratic participation. Here’s the example.
“Anti-monarchy movement in DSI’s sights
Nine teams to focus on cases of lese majeste
Bangkok Post 9/07/2010
The Department of Special Investigation has set up nine teams to improve efficiency in its handling of cases involving plots to overthrow the monarchy.
DSI director-general Tharit Pengdit yesterday chaired an initial meeting of investigators who will look into cases involving the anti-monarchy movement to lay the groundwork for their inquiries.
He said the nine teams will be given different tasks to ensure efficiency in their investigations of lese majeste cases.
The CRES claims the network is conspiring in a plot to overthrow the royal institution. It says the network includes key UDD leaders, members of the Puea Thai Party and banned politicians, and hosts of community radio programmes.
Mr Tharit said members of the network have worked systematically with the masterminds to provide financial support and equipment to attack the revered institution.
DSI investigators will meet CRES staff to go through the information regarding the movement before summoning suspects for questioning.”
“Overthrowing a democratically elected – albeit increasingly autocratic – government in a bloodless military coup was a misstep that plunged Thailand into violent conflict and a potentially vicious cycle of confrontation. . . With hindsight, it would have been better for Thai society if opposition to Thaksin’s corrupt administration had adhered to democratic principles and stayed inside the bounds of constitutional rule.”
I am surprised and relieved to read this. Finally some International NGO group in Thailand saying something in the form of logic I can understand.
My one big grip on the above statement is: What the heck do you mean by in hindsight? When was supporting the military to overthrow a legally elected government (no matter how incompetent) a good idea?
“we do not see any pictures of people in red-shirts in front of the Philippines embassy protesting against President Arroyo’s appointment for Chief Justice. Nor do we see the red-shirt leaders defiantly holding pictures of Aung San Suu Kyi in front of the Burmese embassy.”
The reason why you do not see that is in part due to the terrible education system we have in Thailand. To put it bluntly, most of the people, whether red or yellow, do not know who Aung Suu Kyi is. For those reds who are slowly getting the abstract concept of what “democracy” is (at a very simple, yet all compassing level of one man one vote), their first point of contact is really TRT and Thaksin (which is really sad in a way). Its a very simple case: “we voted for Thaksin and they stole our vote from us, they call us stupid – double standards.” It showed the democratic movement is still very very young, and it needed to be back by good education to continue to grow. That is one of the key reasons why UDD (or those truly sincere about democracy) find it very difficult to disassociate with Thaksin, because it is a point UDD can use that can be easily explained to and understood by many people because Thaksin is a known figure to them. As such, any mass movements towards democracy can also easily be hijacked by fear mongers.
First thing to me is education and critical thinking. I’ve been helping where I can, and it is my intention to go back after my kids have grown up to teach, possibly some village up north. Now, I stick to writing letters and sending quality articles to my friends’ children. It is all I can do for now.
“#26 “However, I believe the fair question should be – why just get mad at Taksin and not those who came before?”
Have you got a post long enough for me to list all of the ones I am mad with who who went before?”
Yeah. I wish I can still get mad.
At least I can still get mad at the current “selective” ethics drive. That is, if you disagree with me then you are either “uneducated” or “a terrorist” logic.
I think I consider modern Thai history to start when King Mongkut sent his children to be educated overseas to be basis of er- the country’s civil service. LOL on some of your comments there – have you ever read any of those letters by the princes in those days (you’ve have to find them scattered across Europe)? How about The Two Lives of King Chulalongkorn?
’32 and Pridi is the first giant attempt towards democracy, and a critical point in Thai Modern history
Dear Nick
If I may bother you to email me the clips with translations or a site where I may download it? (I do not know how to download from youtube)
I’d like to sent it to friends in various parts of Thailand. Some of them had no net access so I would be sending either CDs or even a small MP player loaded with the series.
I don’t understand why Thai politicians who swear an oath to the king to serve the country with honesty and integrity then go own to commit ‘treason’ in terms of corruption and bribery are not treated the same way as those who insult the Royal Institution.
I feel political ‘treason’ in terms of corruption should be made part of the LM laws as by breaking ones oath to the king in my eyes is one of the highest forms of disrespect and belittles the all the monarch trully stands for.
As I read through most of the comments I can’t help noticing any mention of Myanmar contribution to Thailand problem.
Myanmar contribution?
Anyone who travel from ChiagRai to Phuket extensively will know from the Taxi divers and Car owners that “the raising of fuel tax “to cover the government growing revenue short fall by Abbishist make them long for the days of Taksin when government has a surplus that can be given freely to make “everyone happy”.
Rampant corruption aside, still ongoing, the cheap supply of fuel by present government of Myanmar will not last for ever.
As Myanmar supply Thailand with essentially everything at an unrealistically cheap price to fuel Thai economy, including refugees labor, sooner or later will have to be readjusted.
Thailand pipe dream of having Myanmar in a perpetual vilified state will come to an end.
As Myanmar draw even closer to N. Korea the defiance will also grow. A defiance unseen before aided by N. Korean absolute expertise in this matter and other well known abilities.
Articles abound on SPDC nuclear ambition.
Truth and practicality aside, the very fact that a Burmese SPDC will sooner or later require a neighboring government to pay more for everything not necessarily in terms of monetary value which SPDC has proven it have plenty in Singapore Banks.
But political concession.
Words to the wise: Pay attention to Myanmar march towards N. Korea’s arms if you care about Thailand or other Asian country politics.
Thailand rise and falls has always been tied to Myanmar in one way or another.
The perpetual reenactment and reminder of victory against it neighbor invasion and atrocities says it all.
[…] ‘Video of Thailand on the Verge,’ ANU’s New Mandala video series, April 2010. This entry was posted in Canada, Thailand and tagged academic debate, monarchy, political struggle, protests, Thailand conflict. Bookmark the permalink. […]
The report is sympathetic to the Red position, and definitely not something the Royal Thai Government would want to hear. The stronger the connection between the International Crisis Group and middle-of-the road international diplomatic opinion, the more significant the report is. It suggests that Thailand’s more influential neighbours are fed up with the Royal Thai Government’s bloody conflict with its own people, with the antics of its Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps in trying to involve the rest of the world in their political vendetta, and would welcome régime change.
I do not, and cannot see, how any discussion on the Monarchy, can in any way, constitute a threat to national security.
Even the very worse scandal or tabloid revelation, even if true, at most would:
1) make the Monarchy unpopular, for which the monarchy could sue for heaps of money
2) or inspire a vote to turn republic – and that in no way would be a threat to national security. Thailand would merely change from constitutional monarchy to democracy, and life goes on as normal.
—
At the end of the day, Ahbisit says alot of “politically correct” things as befits an Oxford graduate. But he meant none of them (that’s even less than one powerless to do what one believes). He is an eloquent talker with no beliefs and no principles and lots of ambitions. He’s worse than Samak – because for all I dislike about Samak, one thing I know is, he is loyal to friends in the non-poltical arena. He is worse than Banharn, for at the very least, I look at what Banharn did for his hometown and saw a well managed place. He is worse than Thaksin, because Thaksin at least got to where he was by his own means and his own brains, and finally his own guts.
But that I suppose makes Ahbisit the most dangerous, because he is the slimiest eel around.
At long last someone in high authority in Thailand is talking sense on the LM laws. He often suffers a bad press on this web-site, but Abhisit should be congratulated for this.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thanong on King Bhumibol
Indeed, show me a person who cannot see the folly in his own existence, and I will avoid that person like the plague. Hence the distrust of both succession factions.
Thanong on King Bhumibol
At a rough guess you are talking about the more celestial beings. I’m talking about the slightly more shopsoiled immortals. Hardly matters anyway. Unfortunately, Pridi hasn’t really had that much impact on anything other than the conscience of a few intellectuals – whereas we all still have to live with the constant amateurishness, cussedness and arrogance of the elevated and not-quite-so-elevated.
Glad you are LOL. Everyone takes the subject matter and themselves far too seriously around here. We are all mere mortals, to put it in a slightly more polite form than I would normally phrase it.
Suwicha Thakor still locked up
Don’t turn it around, Srithanonchai – people who get offended when Thai King is ill spoken of are as ordinary Thais as they come.
International Crisis Group on Thailand’s divide
Wasn’t ICG board member, Ken Adelman, a big shot in a PR firm hired by Thaksin in 2007?
Overall logic escapes me – they report that reds can turn to a violent guerrilla war and so recommend that the government should lift the emergency decree and stop calling them terrorists.
Huh?
As if there’d be no emergency without the emergency decree.
So, by this logic, in the name of reducing crime rate, shouldn’t the government abolish criminal law, too? All it does is turns people into criminals.
Abhisit’s distinction
Interesting that he says both military and monarchy should stay out of politics. What will happen if an undesirable political party get into power; are we going to see no more coups or will the army find alternative means that they presume the Thai populace are too stupid to see through.
Unfortunately on the discussion of monarchy I feel that this is an impossible task, as discussion (even if allowed) at some stage involves criticism and I think I know where that leads ; as even a lot of the ordinary Thais “don’t do” criticism.
Criticism in Thailand is mostly seen as an insult, herein lies a very major crux of the whole social and political system. Until this hurdle is overcome I don’t see a clear way for progression.
Suwicha Thakor still locked up
“that LM laws answer the needs of ordinary Thais” >> Now we know–the Red-Shirt and many independently thinking Thais are not “ordinary Thais,” but some kind of aliens who got stranded on Thai soil. Kick them all out!
Abhisit’s distinction
Chris,
I agree, just look at England and what the media do to their monarchy. I get the idea of freedom of speech and all that, but there needs to be a line in the sand. I am not trying to compare the UK to Thailand which have very different cultures and histories, just the extremes of the power that can be unleashed by the media.
The laws would have to be written up and then actually followed. Think about what happened to Princess Diana for a start. Who is going to then police these laws with the media. Who owns the media? Too many what ifs, keep it simple and it may actually work.
Constructive criticism should not be banned outright, but bias should be. The only problem is who is doing the judging and what constitutes constructive criticism?
There just needs to be some common sense, not just on the image of H.M, but to keep the peace and up hold the law.
Abhisit’s distinction
The Red-Shirts grassroots movement focuses its agenda on reducing poverty and injustice; promoting democratic values; strengthening human rights; advancing economic and social rights; and advancing human knowledge, creativity and achievement. On the contrary, the Thai Military and the Thai Monarchy focus their energy on being the obstacle of democratic participation. Here’s the example.
“Anti-monarchy movement in DSI’s sights
Nine teams to focus on cases of lese majeste
Bangkok Post 9/07/2010
The Department of Special Investigation has set up nine teams to improve efficiency in its handling of cases involving plots to overthrow the monarchy.
DSI director-general Tharit Pengdit yesterday chaired an initial meeting of investigators who will look into cases involving the anti-monarchy movement to lay the groundwork for their inquiries.
He said the nine teams will be given different tasks to ensure efficiency in their investigations of lese majeste cases.
The CRES claims the network is conspiring in a plot to overthrow the royal institution. It says the network includes key UDD leaders, members of the Puea Thai Party and banned politicians, and hosts of community radio programmes.
Mr Tharit said members of the network have worked systematically with the masterminds to provide financial support and equipment to attack the revered institution.
DSI investigators will meet CRES staff to go through the information regarding the movement before summoning suspects for questioning.”
International Crisis Group on Thailand’s divide
“Overthrowing a democratically elected – albeit increasingly autocratic – government in a bloodless military coup was a misstep that plunged Thailand into violent conflict and a potentially vicious cycle of confrontation. . . With hindsight, it would have been better for Thai society if opposition to Thaksin’s corrupt administration had adhered to democratic principles and stayed inside the bounds of constitutional rule.”
I am surprised and relieved to read this. Finally some International NGO group in Thailand saying something in the form of logic I can understand.
My one big grip on the above statement is: What the heck do you mean by in hindsight? When was supporting the military to overthrow a legally elected government (no matter how incompetent) a good idea?
Thai media culture in the eyes of a foreigner
Interesting article.
My thoughts on a few points:
“we do not see any pictures of people in red-shirts in front of the Philippines embassy protesting against President Arroyo’s appointment for Chief Justice. Nor do we see the red-shirt leaders defiantly holding pictures of Aung San Suu Kyi in front of the Burmese embassy.”
The reason why you do not see that is in part due to the terrible education system we have in Thailand. To put it bluntly, most of the people, whether red or yellow, do not know who Aung Suu Kyi is. For those reds who are slowly getting the abstract concept of what “democracy” is (at a very simple, yet all compassing level of one man one vote), their first point of contact is really TRT and Thaksin (which is really sad in a way). Its a very simple case: “we voted for Thaksin and they stole our vote from us, they call us stupid – double standards.” It showed the democratic movement is still very very young, and it needed to be back by good education to continue to grow. That is one of the key reasons why UDD (or those truly sincere about democracy) find it very difficult to disassociate with Thaksin, because it is a point UDD can use that can be easily explained to and understood by many people because Thaksin is a known figure to them. As such, any mass movements towards democracy can also easily be hijacked by fear mongers.
First thing to me is education and critical thinking. I’ve been helping where I can, and it is my intention to go back after my kids have grown up to teach, possibly some village up north. Now, I stick to writing letters and sending quality articles to my friends’ children. It is all I can do for now.
Thanong on King Bhumibol
#31, FredKorat
“#26 “However, I believe the fair question should be – why just get mad at Taksin and not those who came before?”
Have you got a post long enough for me to list all of the ones I am mad with who who went before?”
Yeah. I wish I can still get mad.
At least I can still get mad at the current “selective” ethics drive. That is, if you disagree with me then you are either “uneducated” or “a terrorist” logic.
I think I consider modern Thai history to start when King Mongkut sent his children to be educated overseas to be basis of er- the country’s civil service. LOL on some of your comments there – have you ever read any of those letters by the princes in those days (you’ve have to find them scattered across Europe)? How about The Two Lives of King Chulalongkorn?
’32 and Pridi is the first giant attempt towards democracy, and a critical point in Thai Modern history
Thailand in Crisis: แปลเป็นภาษาไทย
Dear Nick
If I may bother you to email me the clips with translations or a site where I may download it? (I do not know how to download from youtube)
I’d like to sent it to friends in various parts of Thailand. Some of them had no net access so I would be sending either CDs or even a small MP player loaded with the series.
Thanks.
Abhisit’s distinction
I don’t understand why Thai politicians who swear an oath to the king to serve the country with honesty and integrity then go own to commit ‘treason’ in terms of corruption and bribery are not treated the same way as those who insult the Royal Institution.
I feel political ‘treason’ in terms of corruption should be made part of the LM laws as by breaking ones oath to the king in my eyes is one of the highest forms of disrespect and belittles the all the monarch trully stands for.
Thailand in crisis: Episode 4
As I read through most of the comments I can’t help noticing any mention of Myanmar contribution to Thailand problem.
Myanmar contribution?
Anyone who travel from ChiagRai to Phuket extensively will know from the Taxi divers and Car owners that “the raising of fuel tax “to cover the government growing revenue short fall by Abbishist make them long for the days of Taksin when government has a surplus that can be given freely to make “everyone happy”.
Rampant corruption aside, still ongoing, the cheap supply of fuel by present government of Myanmar will not last for ever.
As Myanmar supply Thailand with essentially everything at an unrealistically cheap price to fuel Thai economy, including refugees labor, sooner or later will have to be readjusted.
Thailand pipe dream of having Myanmar in a perpetual vilified state will come to an end.
As Myanmar draw even closer to N. Korea the defiance will also grow. A defiance unseen before aided by N. Korean absolute expertise in this matter and other well known abilities.
Articles abound on SPDC nuclear ambition.
Truth and practicality aside, the very fact that a Burmese SPDC will sooner or later require a neighboring government to pay more for everything not necessarily in terms of monetary value which SPDC has proven it have plenty in Singapore Banks.
But political concession.
Words to the wise: Pay attention to Myanmar march towards N. Korea’s arms if you care about Thailand or other Asian country politics.
Thailand rise and falls has always been tied to Myanmar in one way or another.
The perpetual reenactment and reminder of victory against it neighbor invasion and atrocities says it all.
Thailand in Crisis: แปลเป็นภาษาไทย
Indeed, I’ve circulated the links and got very positive feedback as David already predicted.
Video of Thailand on the Verge
[…] ‘Video of Thailand on the Verge,’ ANU’s New Mandala video series, April 2010. This entry was posted in Canada, Thailand and tagged academic debate, monarchy, political struggle, protests, Thailand conflict. Bookmark the permalink. […]
Thai media culture in the eyes of a foreigner
“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.”
-Albert Einstein
International Crisis Group on Thailand’s divide
The report is sympathetic to the Red position, and definitely not something the Royal Thai Government would want to hear. The stronger the connection between the International Crisis Group and middle-of-the road international diplomatic opinion, the more significant the report is. It suggests that Thailand’s more influential neighbours are fed up with the Royal Thai Government’s bloody conflict with its own people, with the antics of its Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps in trying to involve the rest of the world in their political vendetta, and would welcome régime change.
Abhisit’s distinction
I do not, and cannot see, how any discussion on the Monarchy, can in any way, constitute a threat to national security.
Even the very worse scandal or tabloid revelation, even if true, at most would:
1) make the Monarchy unpopular, for which the monarchy could sue for heaps of money
2) or inspire a vote to turn republic – and that in no way would be a threat to national security. Thailand would merely change from constitutional monarchy to democracy, and life goes on as normal.
—
At the end of the day, Ahbisit says alot of “politically correct” things as befits an Oxford graduate. But he meant none of them (that’s even less than one powerless to do what one believes). He is an eloquent talker with no beliefs and no principles and lots of ambitions. He’s worse than Samak – because for all I dislike about Samak, one thing I know is, he is loyal to friends in the non-poltical arena. He is worse than Banharn, for at the very least, I look at what Banharn did for his hometown and saw a well managed place. He is worse than Thaksin, because Thaksin at least got to where he was by his own means and his own brains, and finally his own guts.
But that I suppose makes Ahbisit the most dangerous, because he is the slimiest eel around.
Abhisit’s distinction
At long last someone in high authority in Thailand is talking sense on the LM laws. He often suffers a bad press on this web-site, but Abhisit should be congratulated for this.