The Occidental Cult of Bhumibolism will end when the octogenarian and nonagenarian high priests in the privy council expire. According to insurance actuarial tables, that will be soon.
An ironic point. When I try to access Freedom against Censorship Thailand http://www.facthai.wordpress.com I cannot connect through TRUE internet. I get the “fern” which does not tell me anything.
But apparently it is accessible through other legal avenues in Thailand.
So is it an illegal website or are some government agencies acting illegally? One of these must be true. If it is illegal, those who do not ban it are acting illegally. If it is not true, those who do ban it are acting illegally.
I keep hoping for a consistent and accountable legal system.
Also, as a general point, I would like to say that the best defence against censorship is real names. Censorship does not like truth. It gets embarrassed.
When it is slow to load, can you read the bottom of the screen. Look for the words http://www.mict. Do you see this?
For several month now, websites that i read have been intercepted in some way by The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. Not necessarily blocked. But tampered with in some way.
No problem accesing NM ever in Thailand
Maybe NM would like to be cut but reality is it never was.
Reality is why would anyone cut NM? It is not exactly controversial or radical and nobody really pays much attention to what a bunch of aussies with little connection to the Thai poor or anybody else for that matter say. No point in cutting service to a non influential site although NM saying it was cut when it wasnt may be useful in kudos terms
I might add that one of the interesting things about the Thai government’s censorship of the internet is its complete lack of transparency. Quite often, you get a “404 not found” or “page timed out” message. Or a picture of a pretty fern. Censorship in the land of smiles.You really don’t know. No reason to get excited. All of these things could happen in the normal course of events. But in this case the nicely named CAPO are telling the truth. That page is banned.
Jim Taylor, for someone who taught (what?) at Chula’s Political Science Faculty, your argumentation is weak and logic flawed. Even if there were “thousands” of pictures of soldiers targeting what you call civilians, what does this prove? It does not prove that thousands of innocents were shot. Pictures don’t actually prove anything. If anything, photos deceive. My biggest problem with righteous photojournalists, of which are many in Bangkok. They just don’t show the relevant context. How can you photograph the intangible power structures that factor in this conflict? I digress …
Your logic is flawed in quoting the US Govt in saying “we are deeply concerned that Red Shirt supporters have engaged in arson targeting the electricity infrastructure and media outlets and have attacked individual journalists,” as if that makes any comment on the notion that soldiers shot at unarmed, innocent civilians. It doesn’t touch upon any accusation aimed at the military, but instead it focuses on the facts that Red Shirts went on a rampage. Does pointing that out say anything about the behaviour of soldiers? No, it does not.
You say, “How can we even assume Red Shirts killed anyone as we now know there were contests between factions in the army[?]” Here you deploy no argument again. One can never assume anything about such a complex conflict, which is why we need to deal in facts, not suggestive rhetoric masquerading as argument. You suggest that because it is possible that the military has rival factions that they must have been responsible for killing each other, not the Reds? What planet are you on?
You also say, “It was never a level playing field so how can both share the same responsibilities?” Not having “equal numbers” does not suddenly make a group innocent. This is pathetic logic, not just flawed. You have a problem with the “fascist” state of Thailand and can’t seem to see how this is not a state-vs-the-people conflict in the way you emotionally portray it to be. The Thaksin that the Reds so love – and you seeming to too – has no interest in their genuine fate. He used them as pawns for his own power and fortune. If you cannot see that – from being blinded by “talking to the people” – then how sad for you.
In any complex set of events there will inevitably be guesses and speculation, misinformation and real information, half-information and disinformation.
How can we sort it all out if we are deprived of so much of it through censorship or if our non-Thainess disqualifies us from being able to even consider it.
My solution to this would be to allow free information, to trust in the marketplace of ideas, to encourage a civilized conversation. It’s not perfect but nothing is perfect. I hope you can agree.
What do we know about the events of 1992? 1973? 1976? 1985? What historian has published an authoritative account of these events? Why not?
In some research I did a few years back on the nature of multiple choice language questions in English language testing, I stumbled on a discussion about a secondary school history textbook that proposed an account of the events of 1973.
The textbook had been rejected at the time I wrote the article. (Maybe it has been subsequently accepted. I don’t know. I haven’t followed the issue)
I quote from my research paper on this topic
‘In a debate about a controversial textbook dealing with the political uprising and violent repression of October 14 1973, the director-general of the Education Ministry’s Department of Curriculum and Instruction Development, Praphatpong Senarith, made the astonishing statement that “A book for students must present only definite truth – there should not be anything debatable in it”. One wonders how Thai students are supposed to develop the critical faculties that most educationalists seem to agree are missing when the material they are presented with is supposedly immune from criticism. But Praphatpong presents a remarkably blunt ideological basis for the selection and, presumably the evaluation, of what will eventually no doubt be established as the solid and unchallengeable facts: “Many people [who read the book] could not agree on certain points such as its remarks about the Constitution. The purpose of school textbooks is to create [social] unity. If instead they cause divisions, our purpose is not met … The book needs some more corrections”. (Cited in Tangwisutijit, 2002)’
I think that an alternative idea needs to be proposed: the purpose of school textbooks should be to give students ways of working out what the truth might be and to understand why others may feel differently. Social unity (and difference) may then emerge on the basis of that free and open discussion.
I hope we see a free and open discussion of what has happened in the last few months and years in Thailand. I hope that everyone can accept that the events are complex and not reducible to simple minded equations of “good guys, bad guys”.
If this were to occur, there might be a reason to hope that some of the problems in Thai society can be worked out.
MangoBoy #21 – no please don’t shut up : you’re providing all the clues we need.
Eg. :
For all his/her ‘accurate information’ (Not the Nation post included), without some hard evidence it seems a little previous to equate conjecture with confirmation. If either s/he or you can provide proof that the sniper who took out Seh Daeng was in the Dusit Thani, and there at the bequest of its proprietor and then by association at the bequest of a significant other then I’ll happily shut up
Abhisit offered the Nov. 14 election to the Thai people, not just to the red shirts. He had no authority to make deals about election dates with a specific group. Having agreed to a Nov. 14 election, he had no basis to rescind his agreement based on whether one group accepted additional terms or not. This is about democracy for the country, not deals with specific groups. Why is Abhisit not willing to stick to his offer of a Nov. 14 election?
As for Abhisit offering an investigation of April 10, do you seriously believe that any military leader would be held accountable even if an investigation concluded they were culpable? Can you point to a single instance in modern Thai history where the military has been held accountable for any violation of a citizen’s rights?
whilst the economic dimension is one of the grievances of the Red Shirts, it is but one of several, and perhaps not even the most important. Just as important, and also commented on by Andrew and Nich, is the issue of meaningful social and political enfranchisement. Their is a significant layer of Red Shirt supporters who are from the provincial middle classes who have either spent time as internal migrant labor in Thailand’s urban centres or who have worked as migrant labor overseas – Dubai, Israel, Taiwan etc come to mind. The point is that these people are no longer the rural villagers of yesteryear. Whilst their identity is still in many ways bound up with the ‘village’, they have had sufficient urban (if not international) exposure to understand the machinations of power and political process. And they know that despite the fact that their income levels may match the urban middle classes, their social and political status lies far behind. That is, whils economically many Red Shirt supporters may be on level terms with their urban brethren, their inclusion in the Thai polity lags far behind. And these people feel it. They know they are looked down upon and that the BKK elites pay little heed to their desires and aspirations. Dignity and respect, for this layer of the movement, is just as significant as economic justice.
Wat Pathum situation needs to be cleared. After the surrender of the red leaders lots of supporters took refuge there (along with some other places in the area).
They were supposed to go farther, to the National stadium, but no one seems to have made it there.
Afaik there were no reports of red shirts being transported back home from the stadium on that day, by contrast the next day repatriation was everywhere on TV.
The journalist who got shot trying to leave says troops, shooting everything that moves, were coming from the West, where they were supposed to wait for the arrival of surrendered reds.
Sloppy reporter as he is, he doesn’t tell exactly when or how far they progressed.
Soldiers on the east side, next door at Rajprasong, didn’t go in until about midnight.
So what happened there? Two groups of soldiers shooting at each other for hours?
There most certainly was another armed group, and it wasn’t in the temple, but we have no idea the army knew that for certain so the soldiers could have shot people trying to leave.
Or the third group shot them just as the third group could have shot half a dozen of people in the head on April 10, far away from the retreating army.
To add to the confusion – CRES has been saying for days that the third hand terrorists and snipers were dressed in army fatigues as well.
“They don’t accept the legitimacy of the way current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was maneuvered into power by his royal, judicial and military backers. But most fundamentally, via the red shirts, rural Thailand is vigorously asserting its right to be represented in decision-making about the country’s future development. ”
I watched the count in Parliament. What brought the Democrats to power, ultimately, was the cynical defection of Newin, once one of Thaksin’s allies. But that’s politics. Frankly, “maneuvered into power by his royal, judicial and military backers” is slanderous. Unless you are privy to the inner workings of the palace, army and the judiciary, and can provide us with solid evidence.
“vigorously asserting” Oh yes. Very vigorous.
One thing about this forum that has me gritting my teeth in frustration is the attitude that Abhisit is a) some kind of ineffectual poodle for the unseen owners of the levers of power and is b) some kind of fascist ogre. Chaps, he can’t be both.
I think he’s tough (you don’t get to be PM of any country without being very tough) but also understands the problems well. He has also bent over backwards to accommodate the views of the Reds. He even offered early elections – bowing, in effect, to the mob. But they gave him the finger.
Sadly in 1996 i set the original royal myanmar casino, it was a loss from day one as we where on the river bank. i lived in the mong la hotel for two years before giving up we got arrested three times by the chinese police and what you might want to know about how we got in and out of burma into china who was involoved etc give me message
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
On Bhumibolists and Royalists
The Occidental Cult of Bhumibolism will end when the octogenarian and nonagenarian high priests in the privy council expire. According to insurance actuarial tables, that will be soon.
New Mandala “temporarily curtailed”?
An ironic point. When I try to access Freedom against Censorship Thailand http://www.facthai.wordpress.com I cannot connect through TRUE internet. I get the “fern” which does not tell me anything.
But apparently it is accessible through other legal avenues in Thailand.
So is it an illegal website or are some government agencies acting illegally? One of these must be true. If it is illegal, those who do not ban it are acting illegally. If it is not true, those who do ban it are acting illegally.
I keep hoping for a consistent and accountable legal system.
New Mandala “temporarily curtailed”?
Also, as a general point, I would like to say that the best defence against censorship is real names. Censorship does not like truth. It gets embarrassed.
New Mandala “temporarily curtailed”?
Roger,
When it is slow to load, can you read the bottom of the screen. Look for the words http://www.mict. Do you see this?
For several month now, websites that i read have been intercepted in some way by The Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. Not necessarily blocked. But tampered with in some way.
New Mandala “temporarily curtailed”?
You can block some of the content for some of the people all of the time but you can’t block all of the content for all of the people all of the time.
Apologies to Abe Lincoln.
New Mandala “temporarily curtailed”?
No problem accesing NM ever in Thailand
Maybe NM would like to be cut but reality is it never was.
Reality is why would anyone cut NM? It is not exactly controversial or radical and nobody really pays much attention to what a bunch of aussies with little connection to the Thai poor or anybody else for that matter say. No point in cutting service to a non influential site although NM saying it was cut when it wasnt may be useful in kudos terms
New Mandala “temporarily curtailed”?
All fine here, on True, Bangkok.
Former Australian Foreign Minister calls for new election in Thailand
I might add that one of the interesting things about the Thai government’s censorship of the internet is its complete lack of transparency. Quite often, you get a “404 not found” or “page timed out” message. Or a picture of a pretty fern. Censorship in the land of smiles.You really don’t know. No reason to get excited. All of these things could happen in the normal course of events. But in this case the nicely named CAPO are telling the truth. That page is banned.
New Mandala “temporarily curtailed”?
This Page Cannot Be Displayed
——————————————————————————–
This is the message I get.; I’m in Bangkok. True/TOT:
“Internal system error when processing the request for the page ( http://www.newmandala.org/2010/04/23/why-king-vajiralongkorn-will-be-good-for-thai-democracy/ ).
Please retry this request.
If this condition persists, please contact your corporate network administrator and provide the code shown below.
——————————————————————————–
Notification codes: (1, INTERNAL_ERROR, http://www.newmandala.org/2010/04/23/why-king-vajiralongkorn-will-be-good-for-thai-democracy/)
“
Former Australian Foreign Minister calls for new election in Thailand
Nich,
I’m using TRUE and that page is blocked.
London discussion of Thailand’s political turmoil
Jim Taylor, for someone who taught (what?) at Chula’s Political Science Faculty, your argumentation is weak and logic flawed. Even if there were “thousands” of pictures of soldiers targeting what you call civilians, what does this prove? It does not prove that thousands of innocents were shot. Pictures don’t actually prove anything. If anything, photos deceive. My biggest problem with righteous photojournalists, of which are many in Bangkok. They just don’t show the relevant context. How can you photograph the intangible power structures that factor in this conflict? I digress …
Your logic is flawed in quoting the US Govt in saying “we are deeply concerned that Red Shirt supporters have engaged in arson targeting the electricity infrastructure and media outlets and have attacked individual journalists,” as if that makes any comment on the notion that soldiers shot at unarmed, innocent civilians. It doesn’t touch upon any accusation aimed at the military, but instead it focuses on the facts that Red Shirts went on a rampage. Does pointing that out say anything about the behaviour of soldiers? No, it does not.
You say, “How can we even assume Red Shirts killed anyone as we now know there were contests between factions in the army[?]” Here you deploy no argument again. One can never assume anything about such a complex conflict, which is why we need to deal in facts, not suggestive rhetoric masquerading as argument. You suggest that because it is possible that the military has rival factions that they must have been responsible for killing each other, not the Reds? What planet are you on?
You also say, “It was never a level playing field so how can both share the same responsibilities?” Not having “equal numbers” does not suddenly make a group innocent. This is pathetic logic, not just flawed. You have a problem with the “fascist” state of Thailand and can’t seem to see how this is not a state-vs-the-people conflict in the way you emotionally portray it to be. The Thaksin that the Reds so love – and you seeming to too – has no interest in their genuine fate. He used them as pawns for his own power and fortune. If you cannot see that – from being blinded by “talking to the people” – then how sad for you.
New Mandala “temporarily curtailed”?
[…] the Abhisit government. Prachatai keeps getting blocked, and it is hardly radical. New Mandala is also blocked by […]
20 May 1992
Rattawit c. 22,
Thank you
You ask the most important questions.
How can you know? How can we know?
In any complex set of events there will inevitably be guesses and speculation, misinformation and real information, half-information and disinformation.
How can we sort it all out if we are deprived of so much of it through censorship or if our non-Thainess disqualifies us from being able to even consider it.
My solution to this would be to allow free information, to trust in the marketplace of ideas, to encourage a civilized conversation. It’s not perfect but nothing is perfect. I hope you can agree.
What do we know about the events of 1992? 1973? 1976? 1985? What historian has published an authoritative account of these events? Why not?
In some research I did a few years back on the nature of multiple choice language questions in English language testing, I stumbled on a discussion about a secondary school history textbook that proposed an account of the events of 1973.
The textbook had been rejected at the time I wrote the article. (Maybe it has been subsequently accepted. I don’t know. I haven’t followed the issue)
I quote from my research paper on this topic
‘In a debate about a controversial textbook dealing with the political uprising and violent repression of October 14 1973, the director-general of the Education Ministry’s Department of Curriculum and Instruction Development, Praphatpong Senarith, made the astonishing statement that “A book for students must present only definite truth – there should not be anything debatable in it”. One wonders how Thai students are supposed to develop the critical faculties that most educationalists seem to agree are missing when the material they are presented with is supposedly immune from criticism. But Praphatpong presents a remarkably blunt ideological basis for the selection and, presumably the evaluation, of what will eventually no doubt be established as the solid and unchallengeable facts: “Many people [who read the book] could not agree on certain points such as its remarks about the Constitution. The purpose of school textbooks is to create [social] unity. If instead they cause divisions, our purpose is not met … The book needs some more corrections”. (Cited in Tangwisutijit, 2002)’
I think that an alternative idea needs to be proposed: the purpose of school textbooks should be to give students ways of working out what the truth might be and to understand why others may feel differently. Social unity (and difference) may then emerge on the basis of that free and open discussion.
I hope we see a free and open discussion of what has happened in the last few months and years in Thailand. I hope that everyone can accept that the events are complex and not reducible to simple minded equations of “good guys, bad guys”.
If this were to occur, there might be a reason to hope that some of the problems in Thai society can be worked out.
London discussion of Thailand’s political turmoil
MangoBoy #21 – no please don’t shut up : you’re providing all the clues we need.
Eg. :
For all his/her ‘accurate information’ (Not the Nation post included), without some hard evidence it seems a little previous to equate conjecture with confirmation. If either s/he or you can provide proof that the sniper who took out Seh Daeng was in the Dusit Thani, and there at the bequest of its proprietor and then by association at the bequest of a significant other then I’ll happily shut up
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
StanG:
Abhisit offered the Nov. 14 election to the Thai people, not just to the red shirts. He had no authority to make deals about election dates with a specific group. Having agreed to a Nov. 14 election, he had no basis to rescind his agreement based on whether one group accepted additional terms or not. This is about democracy for the country, not deals with specific groups. Why is Abhisit not willing to stick to his offer of a Nov. 14 election?
As for Abhisit offering an investigation of April 10, do you seriously believe that any military leader would be held accountable even if an investigation concluded they were culpable? Can you point to a single instance in modern Thai history where the military has been held accountable for any violation of a citizen’s rights?
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
Portman,
whilst the economic dimension is one of the grievances of the Red Shirts, it is but one of several, and perhaps not even the most important. Just as important, and also commented on by Andrew and Nich, is the issue of meaningful social and political enfranchisement. Their is a significant layer of Red Shirt supporters who are from the provincial middle classes who have either spent time as internal migrant labor in Thailand’s urban centres or who have worked as migrant labor overseas – Dubai, Israel, Taiwan etc come to mind. The point is that these people are no longer the rural villagers of yesteryear. Whilst their identity is still in many ways bound up with the ‘village’, they have had sufficient urban (if not international) exposure to understand the machinations of power and political process. And they know that despite the fact that their income levels may match the urban middle classes, their social and political status lies far behind. That is, whils economically many Red Shirt supporters may be on level terms with their urban brethren, their inclusion in the Thai polity lags far behind. And these people feel it. They know they are looked down upon and that the BKK elites pay little heed to their desires and aspirations. Dignity and respect, for this layer of the movement, is just as significant as economic justice.
Burning, curfew
Wat Pathum situation needs to be cleared. After the surrender of the red leaders lots of supporters took refuge there (along with some other places in the area).
They were supposed to go farther, to the National stadium, but no one seems to have made it there.
Afaik there were no reports of red shirts being transported back home from the stadium on that day, by contrast the next day repatriation was everywhere on TV.
The journalist who got shot trying to leave says troops, shooting everything that moves, were coming from the West, where they were supposed to wait for the arrival of surrendered reds.
Sloppy reporter as he is, he doesn’t tell exactly when or how far they progressed.
Soldiers on the east side, next door at Rajprasong, didn’t go in until about midnight.
So what happened there? Two groups of soldiers shooting at each other for hours?
There most certainly was another armed group, and it wasn’t in the temple, but we have no idea the army knew that for certain so the soldiers could have shot people trying to leave.
Or the third group shot them just as the third group could have shot half a dozen of people in the head on April 10, far away from the retreating army.
To add to the confusion – CRES has been saying for days that the third hand terrorists and snipers were dressed in army fatigues as well.
Commentary on roots of the Thai crisis
“They don’t accept the legitimacy of the way current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was maneuvered into power by his royal, judicial and military backers. But most fundamentally, via the red shirts, rural Thailand is vigorously asserting its right to be represented in decision-making about the country’s future development. ”
I watched the count in Parliament. What brought the Democrats to power, ultimately, was the cynical defection of Newin, once one of Thaksin’s allies. But that’s politics. Frankly, “maneuvered into power by his royal, judicial and military backers” is slanderous. Unless you are privy to the inner workings of the palace, army and the judiciary, and can provide us with solid evidence.
“vigorously asserting” Oh yes. Very vigorous.
One thing about this forum that has me gritting my teeth in frustration is the attitude that Abhisit is a) some kind of ineffectual poodle for the unseen owners of the levers of power and is b) some kind of fascist ogre. Chaps, he can’t be both.
I think he’s tough (you don’t get to be PM of any country without being very tough) but also understands the problems well. He has also bent over backwards to accommodate the views of the Reds. He even offered early elections – bowing, in effect, to the mob. But they gave him the finger.
Online Casino Royale on Burmese soil
Sadly in 1996 i set the original royal myanmar casino, it was a loss from day one as we where on the river bank. i lived in the mong la hotel for two years before giving up we got arrested three times by the chinese police and what you might want to know about how we got in and out of burma into china who was involoved etc give me message
New Mandala “temporarily curtailed”?
Can get you no problem (in Phuket using Cat Telecom). That’s good, because I find the pro-Red stuff really very amusing, if naive.