Excellent article Federico and thanks for the balanced response to your detractors – may I add, some people just cant get over themselves, with commenters ruffling their feathers, having “travelled through-out Thailand apparently longer than you, indeed over a longer period than most” sort of entitles them to have more authority on the subject you have brough forth? BTW, cris beale, Mr. Beaumont was never a journalist for the Nation, but a proofreader. That such an honourable and unbiased institution allowed him an occasional solipscistic column not a jornalist makes him. Not sure how he or your visits to FAO are relevant to this article, other than a venue to blow your own trumpet.
FWIW I went to a cinema last Saturday (World Trade) and three people a few rows in front of me — two guys and a girl — remained sitting through the anthem. They were definately Asian, though of course it’s impossible to say if they were Thai or not. Initially the girl stood up and then one of the guys tugged on her sleeve and she sat down again.
The voters were regular IQ audience with quite a few S. Africans -who may have been predisposed to have a positive view of how sanctions worked in S. Africa. We don’t think that the audience was packed with lobbyists from any of the lobby or aid groups, and we didn’t notice many Burmese in the audience. Please bear in mind that London is the home of the pro – sanctions lobby so the amount of votes for lifting sanctions was more than expected.
Voters against lifting sanctions:
I think that a lot of people were very swayed by Ben Rogers detailed accounts of individual cases of brutality amongst the minorities that he works with, and by Brad Adams very likeable presence, arguing that although sanctions don’t work, we must show our disapproval.
Votes FOR lifting sanctions:
On the other hand, interested but un-informed people were hearing arguments against sanctions for the very first time, and as those arguments were powerful and authoritatively made, they won a lot of votes too. (The pretty girls all voted for Thant and Frank by the way!)
In the spirit of “Are you kidding me?” it seems appropriate to mention that the Bangkok movie houses are now showing numerous “welovetheking” website propaganda pieces. In addition to the King’s anthem, there were 3 of these trailers shown in the cinema on Sunday afternoon, Feb. 21, during the 35 minutes prior to the main feature. This occurred prior to the 4:10 p.m. showing of the English language romantic comedy ‘Valentines Day’, so I assume they played in all of the movie theatres, especially the more well attended Thai language films.
The second piece was particularly offensive (to me, although it was slick enough to be a real emotion grabber for others), because it portrays a near apocalyptic scenario with rioting in the streets of Bangkok, the Parliament House on fire with helicopter noises and images of a helicopter hovering nearby, hospital ER staff rushing to attend to young people with bloody wounds and bandages, and foreign tourists cowering in fear and stranded once again because the BKK international airport is once again shut down. The message is blunt and clear: do not protest the status quo and shun those who come to Bangkok to protest, because they will stir up trouble, violence, and economic collapse, and this shame will be the dire consequence for everyone. It said quite clearly, “we are all Thais who love the King.”
This leads to an interesting question. Who is paying for the placement of these trailers? Are they PSA’s being shown for free by the theatre owners? I wonder because some of the special effects looked similar to the advertisements produced to promote the “King of Kings” light shows during the week surrounding HMK’s birthday. I believe it was Newin and BJT who funded that extravaganza.
6. “Is Dr. Frederico inspired by some Noam Chomsky he recently read, the kind of material that a young activist might substitute for analysis?”
I don’t read Chomsky. I have, however, read the work of Pridi Banomyong and Jit Poumisak. I have taught myself Thai over the past three years. I have spent months talking to regular people in Bangkok and Buriram. And I have put a great deal of time into crafting what remains, by all standards, an imperfect analysis.
I’m with John H and Talen. The analogy of “a host at a dinner party or a chairperson at a seminar” doesn’t really apply here, given that it’s a written medium. Stan G’s posts aren’t the equivalent of talking over someone else. They don’t prevent other posts from being read. If he’s not engaging in a personal attack on another poster (and I’ve never seen him do this) then blocking his messages aren’t anything other than censorship.
For the record, I don’t think I’ve agreed with a single thing he’s posted and have disagreed with him here on occassion.
anonymous: a brief response to some your queries and criticisms.
1. “Can Dr. Frederico even understand any Thai?”
Yes, I read Thai. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.
2. “Every Thai I have ever met has long known that Thai democracy is a fraud.”
Perhaps. But most of them didn’t really do much about it until now — especially the rural population, which up until very recently was routinely portrayed as passive and uninterested in politics. I think it is safe to say that this is no longer the case. Besides, there are certain aspects of “Thai-style democracy” one never heard questioned as late as 2006.
3. ““Forced to accept at gunpoint.” Oh yes, the “masses” have always been threatened by violence, and now they have had enough and are standing up because they have finally realized that they are getting the shaft.”
Yes, the threat of violence was always pretty much there whenever any sizable group of Thais were mobilized in a movement for genuine democratization. By “forced to accept at gunpoint,” I was referring to the treatment Sarit reserved to dissidents at around the time this “social contract” was being crafted. A pretty fitting metaphor I would submit, given the latitude that Sarit had to order the execution without trial of those who disagreed with his rule.
4. “Yeah, and I suppose you might believe that separatist insurgents in the south are the vehicle for freeing the Patani people from those colonizing Thais.”
I don’t know what your point is here, but if you are insinuating that I am endorsing any violence you are way off. The state shoulders a great deal of responsibility for what’s going on in the south, but there is no justification for the atrocities that the insurgents have regularly carried out in the last 6-7 years.
5. “Go underdogs!!!”
I will confess that I believe in procedural democracy, freedom of speech, and a measure of economic opportunity. The same things, I might add, that hundreds of millions of people around the world already enjoy; not to mention the same things thousands of people in Thailand and elsewhere gave their lives to achieve. I know; it’s so laughably idealistic on my part to stand up for these things…
I’d rather not say anything critical this time around, only note that I cannot really see any provocative remarks in the text. Also, “anonymous” has pointed to a number of things already.
Regarding the reference with Italy’s past, I would like to point to the Weimar Republic, and what Max Weber had said, in 1917 (when he thought about the future of parliamentarism in post-war Germany, given the strong rejection of this idea and the associated practice by many fellow German intellectuals at that time) about the need for democracies to subdue the “bureaucracy” (both military and civil) with its in-built “enormous superiority.”
Needless to say, the democratization literature has long treated the military as “veto actors,” long before Prem came up with his “jockey” metaphor in 2006 for putting Thaksin in his place. From this perspective, the proposition that the military should get out of Thai politics is rather commonsensical, but not really shockingly innovative, since it has been a staple in the past few decades of political discourse in and about Thailand.
Anonymous1@#13 – that’s not fair comment :
some of the best people I’ve met, in decades of going to Thailand, have been military.
It’s a huge force – 200,000 – don’t GENERALISE too much.
pff123 – thanks for your time, comments and leads. It’s a real shame – hardly words that do any of this any justice at all – that face, as ever, is at the heart of this fiasco.
Frederico – you’ve spoken a most brilliant, spot on analysis.
My father worked for the UN’s FAO, based in Rome, which I visited numerous times, and I especially appreciated your very appropriate analogies with Roman and Italian history.
I’d just like to add a few points – having travelled through-out Thailand apparently longer than you, indeed over a longer period than most (I first visited in 1963).
I was in Thailand when Chamlong and Sondhi seized the airports, Government House. I was on a train to Bangkok, with Nation journalist Roger Beaumont in the bunk next to mine, when he told us his phone contacts were announcing martial law in Bangkok as Songkran rioting swelled : I’d just left Lao PDR, where the border soldiers looked like not even Politburo orders would hold them back from moving across the Mekong into Isaarn, to protect their extended families there.
I also found myself – unasked – witnessing – May ’92 : and am absolutely disgusted with Chamlong (epecially), and Sondhi Limthongkul, who were then posing as champions of democracy : at the cost of a still-unaccounted number of dead, led to their deaths by Chamlong and Sondhi.
Many of these dead came from Isaarn, and the poorer provinces – yet these are the same type of people Chamlong and Sondhi are now trying to dis-enfranchise !!
Suchinda was up country at the time of May’92 – I don’t believe he himself was responsible for igniting the massacre.
But I’ve long harboured suspicions about Chamlong.
Had Federico happened to be in Thailand just a few days earlier, when Thaksin suddenly returned from his leave, resumed the post he publicly resigned from, assembled country’s top bureaucrats, declared a war on powerful person outside of constitution and demanded everyone to take sides, perhaps his take on Prem’s reaction would be seen in a slightly different light.
Not that Prem’s speech would have been any less provocative, but the context is lacking.
Dr. Frederico is obviously a very articulate, intelligent young professor with a bright career ahead of him. But while his insights may resonate in the minds of out-of-touch foreign observers, his idealistic observations clearly show that he does not have much understanding of Thailand or Thais — no doubt an outcome of his lack of experience and his age.
How can be so sure of the following statement?
“though neither Sondhi nor Chamlong are quite as articulate as Mussolini was, this statement is also quite reminiscent of rhetoric routinely employed by the PAD.”
Can Dr. Frederico even understand any Thai?
Or take this quote:
“The rural masses and the urban working class show unmistakable signs of restlessness. For the first time, they have figured out that the idea of “Thai-style democracy,” the foundation of a social contract they were forced to accept at gunpoint in the late 1950s, is a fraud.”
Is Dr. Frederico inspired by some Noam Chomsky he recently read, the king of material that a young activist might substitute for analysis? Every Thai I have ever met has long known that Thai democracy is a fraud.
“Force to accept at gunpoint.”
Oh yes, the “masses” have always been threatened by violence, and now they have had enough and are standing up because they have finally realized that they are getting the shaft.
“The red shirts are rather the vehicle for the anger and frustration of perhaps tens of millions of people living in some of the country’s most populous regions. These people are tired of being second-class citizens. They are tired of being disenfranchised.”
Yeah, and I suppose you might believe that separatist insurgents in the south are the vehicle for freeing the Patani people from those colonizing Thais. The Patani people are refusing their status as second-citizens. And finally, some group is stepping up for them from the oppression of the nasty state.
Who were the voters and what made so many of them change their stances after the first vote? Many undecided seemed to sway to Disagree at the final vote. Thanks.
I have to say that the general on the far left of the picture doesn’t look too happy with things. Looks mortifyingly embarrassed rather than defiant to me. And so should they all.
It’s not a question of being paranoid – although I can understand people being so – it’s a question of a foreign power being allowed to conduct activities which are at best intimidatory and at worst, well, who knows ? Do you think it impossible that they’re going through the tape back at the Embassy right now, trying to attach names to the questionners, particularly Thai citizens. How do you think that information might be used, particularly if someone said something (inadvertantly or deliberately) about HMK, thinking that they were beyond the reach of LM ?
People in the UK have the freedom to express their views without such intimidation. Shame on the organizers for allowing the Thai Embassy to film.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Are you kidding me?
Excellent article Federico and thanks for the balanced response to your detractors – may I add, some people just cant get over themselves, with commenters ruffling their feathers, having “travelled through-out Thailand apparently longer than you, indeed over a longer period than most” sort of entitles them to have more authority on the subject you have brough forth? BTW, cris beale, Mr. Beaumont was never a journalist for the Nation, but a proofreader. That such an honourable and unbiased institution allowed him an occasional solipscistic column not a jornalist makes him. Not sure how he or your visits to FAO are relevant to this article, other than a venue to blow your own trumpet.
Elephants in the room – Part 3
FWIW I went to a cinema last Saturday (World Trade) and three people a few rows in front of me — two guys and a girl — remained sitting through the anthem. They were definately Asian, though of course it’s impossible to say if they were Thai or not. Initially the girl stood up and then one of the guys tugged on her sleeve and she sat down again.
Burma sanctions: limited, Western, symbolic
Dear Hla Oo,
The voters were regular IQ audience with quite a few S. Africans -who may have been predisposed to have a positive view of how sanctions worked in S. Africa. We don’t think that the audience was packed with lobbyists from any of the lobby or aid groups, and we didn’t notice many Burmese in the audience. Please bear in mind that London is the home of the pro – sanctions lobby so the amount of votes for lifting sanctions was more than expected.
Voters against lifting sanctions:
I think that a lot of people were very swayed by Ben Rogers detailed accounts of individual cases of brutality amongst the minorities that he works with, and by Brad Adams very likeable presence, arguing that although sanctions don’t work, we must show our disapproval.
Votes FOR lifting sanctions:
On the other hand, interested but un-informed people were hearing arguments against sanctions for the very first time, and as those arguments were powerful and authoritatively made, they won a lot of votes too. (The pretty girls all voted for Thant and Frank by the way!)
Are you kidding me?
In the spirit of “Are you kidding me?” it seems appropriate to mention that the Bangkok movie houses are now showing numerous “welovetheking” website propaganda pieces. In addition to the King’s anthem, there were 3 of these trailers shown in the cinema on Sunday afternoon, Feb. 21, during the 35 minutes prior to the main feature. This occurred prior to the 4:10 p.m. showing of the English language romantic comedy ‘Valentines Day’, so I assume they played in all of the movie theatres, especially the more well attended Thai language films.
The second piece was particularly offensive (to me, although it was slick enough to be a real emotion grabber for others), because it portrays a near apocalyptic scenario with rioting in the streets of Bangkok, the Parliament House on fire with helicopter noises and images of a helicopter hovering nearby, hospital ER staff rushing to attend to young people with bloody wounds and bandages, and foreign tourists cowering in fear and stranded once again because the BKK international airport is once again shut down. The message is blunt and clear: do not protest the status quo and shun those who come to Bangkok to protest, because they will stir up trouble, violence, and economic collapse, and this shame will be the dire consequence for everyone. It said quite clearly, “we are all Thais who love the King.”
This leads to an interesting question. Who is paying for the placement of these trailers? Are they PSA’s being shown for free by the theatre owners? I wonder because some of the special effects looked similar to the advertisements produced to promote the “King of Kings” light shows during the week surrounding HMK’s birthday. I believe it was Newin and BJT who funded that extravaganza.
Are you kidding me?
One more thing for anonymous:
6. “Is Dr. Frederico inspired by some Noam Chomsky he recently read, the kind of material that a young activist might substitute for analysis?”
I don’t read Chomsky. I have, however, read the work of Pridi Banomyong and Jit Poumisak. I have taught myself Thai over the past three years. I have spent months talking to regular people in Bangkok and Buriram. And I have put a great deal of time into crafting what remains, by all standards, an imperfect analysis.
What you see on New Mandala
I’m with John H and Talen. The analogy of “a host at a dinner party or a chairperson at a seminar” doesn’t really apply here, given that it’s a written medium. Stan G’s posts aren’t the equivalent of talking over someone else. They don’t prevent other posts from being read. If he’s not engaging in a personal attack on another poster (and I’ve never seen him do this) then blocking his messages aren’t anything other than censorship.
For the record, I don’t think I’ve agreed with a single thing he’s posted and have disagreed with him here on occassion.
Are you kidding me?
anonymous: a brief response to some your queries and criticisms.
1. “Can Dr. Frederico even understand any Thai?”
Yes, I read Thai. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.
2. “Every Thai I have ever met has long known that Thai democracy is a fraud.”
Perhaps. But most of them didn’t really do much about it until now — especially the rural population, which up until very recently was routinely portrayed as passive and uninterested in politics. I think it is safe to say that this is no longer the case. Besides, there are certain aspects of “Thai-style democracy” one never heard questioned as late as 2006.
3. ““Forced to accept at gunpoint.” Oh yes, the “masses” have always been threatened by violence, and now they have had enough and are standing up because they have finally realized that they are getting the shaft.”
Yes, the threat of violence was always pretty much there whenever any sizable group of Thais were mobilized in a movement for genuine democratization. By “forced to accept at gunpoint,” I was referring to the treatment Sarit reserved to dissidents at around the time this “social contract” was being crafted. A pretty fitting metaphor I would submit, given the latitude that Sarit had to order the execution without trial of those who disagreed with his rule.
4. “Yeah, and I suppose you might believe that separatist insurgents in the south are the vehicle for freeing the Patani people from those colonizing Thais.”
I don’t know what your point is here, but if you are insinuating that I am endorsing any violence you are way off. The state shoulders a great deal of responsibility for what’s going on in the south, but there is no justification for the atrocities that the insurgents have regularly carried out in the last 6-7 years.
5. “Go underdogs!!!”
I will confess that I believe in procedural democracy, freedom of speech, and a measure of economic opportunity. The same things, I might add, that hundreds of millions of people around the world already enjoy; not to mention the same things thousands of people in Thailand and elsewhere gave their lives to achieve. I know; it’s so laughably idealistic on my part to stand up for these things…
Are you kidding me?
I’d rather not say anything critical this time around, only note that I cannot really see any provocative remarks in the text. Also, “anonymous” has pointed to a number of things already.
Regarding the reference with Italy’s past, I would like to point to the Weimar Republic, and what Max Weber had said, in 1917 (when he thought about the future of parliamentarism in post-war Germany, given the strong rejection of this idea and the associated practice by many fellow German intellectuals at that time) about the need for democracies to subdue the “bureaucracy” (both military and civil) with its in-built “enormous superiority.”
Needless to say, the democratization literature has long treated the military as “veto actors,” long before Prem came up with his “jockey” metaphor in 2006 for putting Thaksin in his place. From this perspective, the proposition that the military should get out of Thai politics is rather commonsensical, but not really shockingly innovative, since it has been a staple in the past few decades of political discourse in and about Thailand.
Are you kidding me?
Anonymous: Are you really disputing whether Thaksin/TRT (irrespective of all his many faults) provided an ‘eye opening’ to those masses?
Also are you saying in your opinion Chamlong & Sondhi are the equal of Mussolini when it comes to fascist rhetoric?
Army defiance
Anonymous1@#13 – that’s not fair comment :
some of the best people I’ve met, in decades of going to Thailand, have been military.
It’s a huge force – 200,000 – don’t GENERALISE too much.
Army defiance
pff123 – thanks for your time, comments and leads. It’s a real shame – hardly words that do any of this any justice at all – that face, as ever, is at the heart of this fiasco.
Are you kidding me?
Frederico – you’ve spoken a most brilliant, spot on analysis.
My father worked for the UN’s FAO, based in Rome, which I visited numerous times, and I especially appreciated your very appropriate analogies with Roman and Italian history.
I’d just like to add a few points – having travelled through-out Thailand apparently longer than you, indeed over a longer period than most (I first visited in 1963).
I was in Thailand when Chamlong and Sondhi seized the airports, Government House. I was on a train to Bangkok, with Nation journalist Roger Beaumont in the bunk next to mine, when he told us his phone contacts were announcing martial law in Bangkok as Songkran rioting swelled : I’d just left Lao PDR, where the border soldiers looked like not even Politburo orders would hold them back from moving across the Mekong into Isaarn, to protect their extended families there.
I also found myself – unasked – witnessing – May ’92 : and am absolutely disgusted with Chamlong (epecially), and Sondhi Limthongkul, who were then posing as champions of democracy : at the cost of a still-unaccounted number of dead, led to their deaths by Chamlong and Sondhi.
Many of these dead came from Isaarn, and the poorer provinces – yet these are the same type of people Chamlong and Sondhi are now trying to dis-enfranchise !!
Suchinda was up country at the time of May’92 – I don’t believe he himself was responsible for igniting the massacre.
But I’ve long harboured suspicions about Chamlong.
Are you kidding me?
Had Federico happened to be in Thailand just a few days earlier, when Thaksin suddenly returned from his leave, resumed the post he publicly resigned from, assembled country’s top bureaucrats, declared a war on powerful person outside of constitution and demanded everyone to take sides, perhaps his take on Prem’s reaction would be seen in a slightly different light.
Not that Prem’s speech would have been any less provocative, but the context is lacking.
What you see on New Mandala
So, what’s Stan G’s thoughts on eating dog meat?
Nyi Nyi Aung: Locked up in Burma
Nyi Nyi Aung was a fool to think that his U.S. passport would protect him in Burma. Those days are long past.
Are you kidding me?
Dr. Frederico is obviously a very articulate, intelligent young professor with a bright career ahead of him. But while his insights may resonate in the minds of out-of-touch foreign observers, his idealistic observations clearly show that he does not have much understanding of Thailand or Thais — no doubt an outcome of his lack of experience and his age.
How can be so sure of the following statement?
“though neither Sondhi nor Chamlong are quite as articulate as Mussolini was, this statement is also quite reminiscent of rhetoric routinely employed by the PAD.”
Can Dr. Frederico even understand any Thai?
Or take this quote:
“The rural masses and the urban working class show unmistakable signs of restlessness. For the first time, they have figured out that the idea of “Thai-style democracy,” the foundation of a social contract they were forced to accept at gunpoint in the late 1950s, is a fraud.”
Is Dr. Frederico inspired by some Noam Chomsky he recently read, the king of material that a young activist might substitute for analysis? Every Thai I have ever met has long known that Thai democracy is a fraud.
“Force to accept at gunpoint.”
Oh yes, the “masses” have always been threatened by violence, and now they have had enough and are standing up because they have finally realized that they are getting the shaft.
“The red shirts are rather the vehicle for the anger and frustration of perhaps tens of millions of people living in some of the country’s most populous regions. These people are tired of being second-class citizens. They are tired of being disenfranchised.”
Yeah, and I suppose you might believe that separatist insurgents in the south are the vehicle for freeing the Patani people from those colonizing Thais. The Patani people are refusing their status as second-citizens. And finally, some group is stepping up for them from the oppression of the nasty state.
Go underdogs!!!
Burma sanctions: limited, Western, symbolic
Dear Ileana,
“First vote: Agree 106, Disagree 98, Undecided 91
Final vote: Agree 120, Disagree 157, Undecided 23
The motion was defeated by 37 votes.”
Who were the voters and what made so many of them change their stances after the first vote? Many undecided seemed to sway to Disagree at the final vote. Thanks.
Army defiance
I have to say that the general on the far left of the picture doesn’t look too happy with things. Looks mortifyingly embarrassed rather than defiant to me. And so should they all.
Are you kidding me?
[…] of the meeting here;Religion, Sex & Politics: Thais are not Smiling This summary is from Are you kidding me? […]
An alternative take on the SOAS event
It’s not a question of being paranoid – although I can understand people being so – it’s a question of a foreign power being allowed to conduct activities which are at best intimidatory and at worst, well, who knows ? Do you think it impossible that they’re going through the tape back at the Embassy right now, trying to attach names to the questionners, particularly Thai citizens. How do you think that information might be used, particularly if someone said something (inadvertantly or deliberately) about HMK, thinking that they were beyond the reach of LM ?
People in the UK have the freedom to express their views without such intimidation. Shame on the organizers for allowing the Thai Embassy to film.