Just hours before the 2006 coup, all the TV stations reverted to looped footage of the young king traveling upcountry and showing his love and concern for the people. Once my wife saw the footage was playing, she said “It’s definitely a coup.”
Thais instinctively associate royal propaganda carpet-bombing the airwaves with massive civil upheaval on the ground. The unifying function of a beloved king (whom I happen to admire despite all the mistakes he may have made) has been so serially abused by the military and self-interested power brokers who have run the kingdom that the face of the king is now a mnemonic for state failure, not moral triumph.
It’s happening again, but in slow-motion. Now they’re trying to separate the power of the king from the king himself, who is possibly dying. There is no limit to their cynicism, fear, and selfishness. Newin promoting his love for His Majesty? Is there a Thai left who’s willing to buy that snake oil?
A departure from a hostile normative prescription towards alternative productive strategies is certainly an encouraging initiative. It reflects the realization of the limitations on what external pressures could possibly accomplish in the resolution of Myanmar.
Once we resolved what the policy objectives are. We need to think and understand the rationale from the perspectives at the regional and global levels.
At Southeast Asia level, Myanmar perception of herself as one of the weak and relative political isolation from the power center of Southeast Asia, compelled Myanmar to seek ways of improving her power and security position through advanced weapons. To gain security, Myanmar decided to find some way to alter the distribution of power so that it could compete more effectively against its more powerful neighbors, most notably Siam. Nuclear weapons offered such a way and so it was taken. It is critical for international community to alter the route Myanmar could possibly be heading by engaging with her instead of isolating her.
At the international level, we need to think of the problem in terms of the impact Myanmar’s nuclear ambition might have on the balance of power between nations; on the polarization of interests among competing nations in the international system; and on impulse among dissatisfied Great Powers to gain power in an anarchic warlike environment of present day International Security. Decision makers must be able to see through the global setting with Iran’s nuclear in the Middle East, North Korea in Northeast Asia, and possibly Myanmar in Southeast Asia. The geo-strategic, alliances, and nuclear capability reflect the challenge at hegemonic level. As such, the urgency of deterrence strategy in Southeast Asia region is hence imperative. Myanmar should understand that deterrence in this context is a convergence of strategic interests for both Myanmar and Southeast Asia as a whole, as the alternative would escalate and lead to an undesirable option.
StanG’s job – no idea if he is self-appointed – is to scramble quite reasonable debates at web sites that he sees are anti-government, anti-monarchy or both. Like the Nation, he comes up with unverifiable claims or engages in daft repeats of government/yellow propaganda (as here) with the intent of derailing debate and seemingly pays little attention to the detailed replies from people who quite naturally disagree with him. The process reminds me of the Monty Python argument sketch. That said, I think commentators here at NM have been remarkably polite, seemingly accepting his interventions as if he is a reasonable commentator open to debate. That is a good sign of the success of a blog like NM.
Aladdin and ajarn Somsak I appreciate the amount of thought
applied to this important topic but I haven’t seen any mention of
the role of the king as defender of religion in Thailand. Or more accurately his intense relationship with the main religion. It would be pertinent to see that an unpicking of this death embrace should be included in your proposals. If I missed references to it on that lengthy discussion you inspired on р╕Яр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ ajarn Somsak then the error is mine and I plead guilty to lazyness.
“The United States Administration concluded that a sanctions-only policy to isolate Burma’s military has not worked and that future US policy would combine engagement, appropriate sanctions and humanitarian assistance. US Secretary of State Clinton said that any debate that pits sanctions against engagement created a false choice, and that the international community would need to employ both of these tools. Australia has welcomed this approach, as has the international community generally.”
Blah, blah, blah, US has since abandoned “Coral Sea” gunboat policy, so we are gonna follow and give Burma a few pennies!
Empires rise and fall. We of all people believe in the Buddhist law of impermanence.
I did learn at school about the Forty Year Mon Burmese War, when the Burmese kings at Ava were actually Shan. The battle for supremacy did continue, and it’s almost 250 years ago that the Burman finally defeated the Mon suddenly reversing the tide going in the other direction. The United Kingdom has existed a similar period of time since the Act of Union with Scotland.
And that’s just it. The battle for supremacy among contending races and tribes in a given region belongs to ancient histroy. The Third Reich, only seven decades ago and meant to be a Thousand Year Reich, was thankfully very short-lived. And although I’m not a betting man, my money is on the Fourth Burmese Empire never seeing the light of day.
I too have heard that a few of us are ostensibly asylum seekers but really economic migrants, making good use of the convenient excuse of facing persecution at home. Nyi Nyi Aung doesn’t seem like one of them but it’s beyond me why he went back in these seriously risky circumstances given his and his family’s political activism. Entering with a Burmese passport only increases the risk.
The Chinese beat the Burmese hands down in materialism where we remain their little cousin. I guess what you said happens up to a point, maybe not the majority. The kind of people who want the sanctions lifted so they can expect a lot more business coming their way, and I won’t be surprised if many of them are Burmese Chinese in the West. Also wealth and power do meet and marry from way back when.
It’s bound to be worse where totalitarianism meets capitalism even if it still calls itself ‘communism’. When our lot called it ‘the Burmese Way to Socialism’, many in their wrongheaded opinion called them communist when they overlooked the fact that ‘oddly and inexplicably’ their bitterest enemy was and remains the Communist Party of Burma.
Was wowed by Hla Oo’s account! Straight out of a hollywood “tropic thunder” set; only this is for real (much like in the movie itself). To be honest I feel all this talk about “Asian century” in this part of the world seems like misplaced enthusiasm. Do you in your opinion feel the Chinese can buldoze through all this strife in Upper Burma. For them as the Chinese saying goes “if you want to get rich, build roads”. Indians are very reluctant to open up through Kachin land. No wonder!
Stan G repeats the meme that “Jakropobh threatened guerilla war against the government”. This has been repeated so often that it never gets challenged. But at the risk of taking this post onto another track, it really needs to be. Has he actually been charged with this yet? Have the charges stuck?
I have seen no report of these charges actually having been laid and I think on the evidence presented in the mainstream English language papers they would be laughed out of any reasonable court.
I wrote the following letter to the Nation in May 2009 where it was not published.
“Today I read in The Nation (“Jakrapob to face action for armed-struggle call : PM”, April 28, 2009) that Prime Minister Abhisit has announced that Jakrapob Penkair will be charged for calling for armed struggle against the government. For all I know, the charges may be well-founded. But I could not establish the truth of the accusation from reading The Nation on this subject. A repeated theme in The Nation since the Songkran riots has been that Jakrapob Penkair is advocating violence. This did not seem to fit what I remembered him saying. I typed the name Jakrapob Penkair into The Nation’s search function. In the first nine articles cited, all of which say that Jakrapob has incited violence, there is no direct quote from the villain himself. It is not until we get to the tenth article, “Red shirts to use new tactics including possible armed attacks : Jakrapob” (April 22, 2009) that we see a single actual direct quotation as recorded by the BBC: “I believe the room for unarmed and non-violent means to resolve Thailand’s problem is getting smaller every day”.
In the next article cited, “Jakrapob busy setting up a base”, (April 21, 2009) there is a longer quotation: “I believe people are now deciding whether peaceful means serve them best. We are not encouraging violence, but we have to admit that people have been repeatedly disappointed,” he said.
“Legal standards have been clearly unfair and unjust. I am not saying there will be violence in the days ahead. But the remaining opportunities for a peaceful solution are decreasing every day.
“We still talk about a peaceful way in which people can get their rights back. But people have the right to defend themselves against aggression,” he explained.
Then there are five articles dealing with the mistakes of the redshirt leaders and the arrest warrants that await them. The last of these articles is dated April 15 after the riots. The next article that mentions Jakraphob is dated April 11 before the riots in Bangkok. In this article, Jakraphob and other redshirt leaders are accused of being “authoritarian’ by a fellow redshirt protester.
This may well be true. He may be an authoritarian. But I have seen nothing in The Nation’s coverage of Jakraphob that can lead to the certain conclusion that he has incited violence. He may well have done so but there is no evidence of it in these reports. What he has said is that the space for non-violent protest is getting smaller. Double standards for different coloured shirts. Radio stations and websites being closed down. A coup short-circuiting the democratic process. People being disappointed about these things. The only unambiguous thing that he has said that might legitimately be taken as an encouragement to violence is this: “people have the right to defend themselves against aggression”. Well, do they or don’t they?
I hold no brief for Jakraphob Penkair. He was a spokesman for a government that sanctioned illegal acts of violence against Thai people – the 2500 “extra-judicial killings” of the war on dugs, Tak Bai, Kru Sae, the disappearance of Somchai. I am disappointed but no longer surprised that The Nation does not pursue these cases with any rigour or consistency. I am sickened to hear them being added to the list of Thaksin’s crimes as a cheap talking point without any serious intent to investigate them.”
The FCCT is not a monolithic institution, its members have widely varying views on the political situation. The FCCT is not “supporting revolutions”, it is a platform of free speech and discussion within the confines of the law, open to any side. The club has extended many invitations to the PAD as well to present their views, and would love to host its representatives. The FCCT is not responsible for the PAD to decline these invitations. The club has also never hindered ASTV or any other news outlet to record any event it wants to (which also includes my book launch). ASTV has been given permission to broadcast live from the two FCCT hosted dinners for Abhisit.
The FCCT has already proven that it held actually more events with the participation of opponents of the Red Shirts than with Red Shirts.
Especially inane are the lese majeste accusations against the FCCT as the club has published, now in several editions, the book “The King of Thailand in World Focus”, which was very well received by the palace, and after which the board of the FCCT has even been granted an audience with the King.
So far, Jakrapop’s lese majeste case has not even been brought to court, the Office of the Attorney General has since months postponed the decision if it wants to bring the case to trial. Since the inquiry against Jakrapop began (which was long before Jakrapop’s controversial statements at the end of the Sonkran riots), the video recording of the event where he held his speech on the patronage system was not sold either. There simply is no case against the FCCT other than political fanatics trying to intimidate the foreign media. Without success, if i may add.
I am just an ordinary member of the FCCT, not a member of the board. I do not speak in the name of the FCCT, but I refuse to accept such distortions of facts as you have stated here. It is simply not true that the FCCT has taken sides in the political trench warfare that goes on in Thailand. Individual journalists will report as they see fit, regularly disagree with each other’s analysis of what they report on, but will not be hindered by anyone that disagrees with their reporting, or who tries to smear their work with the sort of baseless accusations you as well sprout here and elsewhere.
StanG, what? All journalists should support free speech, and if that inadvertently plays a role in causing a revolution – then it inadvertently plays a role in causing a revolution. I think they have plenty of diplomatic sense – they’re still there.
StanG – to clarify: my understanding from the threads on Fa Dio Kan is that Somsak’s proposal (trans. in #21) is for academic debate, not an agenda for Puea Thai to take to the election.
You keep raising hypotheticals. And quite contrary ones.
A dark oppressive one.”Had there been no such law they’d use something else, perhaps even more sinister, to get people to talk.” Comment 2
A fair and reasonable one. “The whole situation could have been easily avoided had they had any diplomatic sense”. Comment 9
Anything could happen in this imaginary world.
Talk about the real world. Free speech should include the right to say “daft” things, to be pro-Red, to be partisan and biased. It can not only include what is deemed by the authorities and you to be “diplomatic” sensible language.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Report on SOAS event, part II
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2010/02/03/report-on-soas-event-part-ii/ […]
Report on SOAS event, part I
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2010/02/01/report-on-soas-event-part-i/ […]
www.weloveking.org and other websites
PPT had an interesting Newin related piece at: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/making-connections-that-count/ Does he have links to the female side of the palace?
www.weloveking.org and other websites
Yes – it looks like there is now a full-blown coup under way.
www.weloveking.org and other websites
Just hours before the 2006 coup, all the TV stations reverted to looped footage of the young king traveling upcountry and showing his love and concern for the people. Once my wife saw the footage was playing, she said “It’s definitely a coup.”
Thais instinctively associate royal propaganda carpet-bombing the airwaves with massive civil upheaval on the ground. The unifying function of a beloved king (whom I happen to admire despite all the mistakes he may have made) has been so serially abused by the military and self-interested power brokers who have run the kingdom that the face of the king is now a mnemonic for state failure, not moral triumph.
It’s happening again, but in slow-motion. Now they’re trying to separate the power of the king from the king himself, who is possibly dying. There is no limit to their cynicism, fear, and selfishness. Newin promoting his love for His Majesty? Is there a Thai left who’s willing to buy that snake oil?
Australian Foreign Minister on Burma policy
A departure from a hostile normative prescription towards alternative productive strategies is certainly an encouraging initiative. It reflects the realization of the limitations on what external pressures could possibly accomplish in the resolution of Myanmar.
Once we resolved what the policy objectives are. We need to think and understand the rationale from the perspectives at the regional and global levels.
At Southeast Asia level, Myanmar perception of herself as one of the weak and relative political isolation from the power center of Southeast Asia, compelled Myanmar to seek ways of improving her power and security position through advanced weapons. To gain security, Myanmar decided to find some way to alter the distribution of power so that it could compete more effectively against its more powerful neighbors, most notably Siam. Nuclear weapons offered such a way and so it was taken. It is critical for international community to alter the route Myanmar could possibly be heading by engaging with her instead of isolating her.
At the international level, we need to think of the problem in terms of the impact Myanmar’s nuclear ambition might have on the balance of power between nations; on the polarization of interests among competing nations in the international system; and on impulse among dissatisfied Great Powers to gain power in an anarchic warlike environment of present day International Security. Decision makers must be able to see through the global setting with Iran’s nuclear in the Middle East, North Korea in Northeast Asia, and possibly Myanmar in Southeast Asia. The geo-strategic, alliances, and nuclear capability reflect the challenge at hegemonic level. As such, the urgency of deterrence strategy in Southeast Asia region is hence imperative. Myanmar should understand that deterrence in this context is a convergence of strategic interests for both Myanmar and Southeast Asia as a whole, as the alternative would escalate and lead to an undesirable option.
Elephants in the room: Part 2
StanG’s job – no idea if he is self-appointed – is to scramble quite reasonable debates at web sites that he sees are anti-government, anti-monarchy or both. Like the Nation, he comes up with unverifiable claims or engages in daft repeats of government/yellow propaganda (as here) with the intent of derailing debate and seemingly pays little attention to the detailed replies from people who quite naturally disagree with him. The process reminds me of the Monty Python argument sketch. That said, I think commentators here at NM have been remarkably polite, seemingly accepting his interventions as if he is a reasonable commentator open to debate. That is a good sign of the success of a blog like NM.
SOAS Thai politics event
Aladdin and ajarn Somsak I appreciate the amount of thought
applied to this important topic but I haven’t seen any mention of
the role of the king as defender of religion in Thailand. Or more accurately his intense relationship with the main religion. It would be pertinent to see that an unpicking of this death embrace should be included in your proposals. If I missed references to it on that lengthy discussion you inspired on р╕Яр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ ajarn Somsak then the error is mine and I plead guilty to lazyness.
www.weloveking.org and other websites
Well, not only Thai private and public sectors in the country are busy doing this business of promoting royal family.
I just come across an another form of it. It is a board game produced in Germany! See more detail here:
http://www.histogame.de/e_siam.html
Australian Foreign Minister on Burma policy
“The United States Administration concluded that a sanctions-only policy to isolate Burma’s military has not worked and that future US policy would combine engagement, appropriate sanctions and humanitarian assistance. US Secretary of State Clinton said that any debate that pits sanctions against engagement created a false choice, and that the international community would need to employ both of these tools. Australia has welcomed this approach, as has the international community generally.”
Blah, blah, blah, US has since abandoned “Coral Sea” gunboat policy, so we are gonna follow and give Burma a few pennies!
China and the Wa
Empires rise and fall. We of all people believe in the Buddhist law of impermanence.
I did learn at school about the Forty Year Mon Burmese War, when the Burmese kings at Ava were actually Shan. The battle for supremacy did continue, and it’s almost 250 years ago that the Burman finally defeated the Mon suddenly reversing the tide going in the other direction. The United Kingdom has existed a similar period of time since the Act of Union with Scotland.
And that’s just it. The battle for supremacy among contending races and tribes in a given region belongs to ancient histroy. The Third Reich, only seven decades ago and meant to be a Thousand Year Reich, was thankfully very short-lived. And although I’m not a betting man, my money is on the Fourth Burmese Empire never seeing the light of day.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s leaking roof
Hla Oo,
I too have heard that a few of us are ostensibly asylum seekers but really economic migrants, making good use of the convenient excuse of facing persecution at home. Nyi Nyi Aung doesn’t seem like one of them but it’s beyond me why he went back in these seriously risky circumstances given his and his family’s political activism. Entering with a Burmese passport only increases the risk.
The Chinese beat the Burmese hands down in materialism where we remain their little cousin. I guess what you said happens up to a point, maybe not the majority. The kind of people who want the sanctions lifted so they can expect a lot more business coming their way, and I won’t be surprised if many of them are Burmese Chinese in the West. Also wealth and power do meet and marry from way back when.
It’s bound to be worse where totalitarianism meets capitalism even if it still calls itself ‘communism’. When our lot called it ‘the Burmese Way to Socialism’, many in their wrongheaded opinion called them communist when they overlooked the fact that ‘oddly and inexplicably’ their bitterest enemy was and remains the Communist Party of Burma.
China and the Wa
Was wowed by Hla Oo’s account! Straight out of a hollywood “tropic thunder” set; only this is for real (much like in the movie itself). To be honest I feel all this talk about “Asian century” in this part of the world seems like misplaced enthusiasm. Do you in your opinion feel the Chinese can buldoze through all this strife in Upper Burma. For them as the Chinese saying goes “if you want to get rich, build roads”. Indians are very reluctant to open up through Kachin land. No wonder!
“It’s the queen herself doing it…”
hmmm… very interesting
Elephants in the room: Part 2
Stan G repeats the meme that “Jakropobh threatened guerilla war against the government”. This has been repeated so often that it never gets challenged. But at the risk of taking this post onto another track, it really needs to be. Has he actually been charged with this yet? Have the charges stuck?
I have seen no report of these charges actually having been laid and I think on the evidence presented in the mainstream English language papers they would be laughed out of any reasonable court.
I wrote the following letter to the Nation in May 2009 where it was not published.
“Today I read in The Nation (“Jakrapob to face action for armed-struggle call : PM”, April 28, 2009) that Prime Minister Abhisit has announced that Jakrapob Penkair will be charged for calling for armed struggle against the government. For all I know, the charges may be well-founded. But I could not establish the truth of the accusation from reading The Nation on this subject. A repeated theme in The Nation since the Songkran riots has been that Jakrapob Penkair is advocating violence. This did not seem to fit what I remembered him saying. I typed the name Jakrapob Penkair into The Nation’s search function. In the first nine articles cited, all of which say that Jakrapob has incited violence, there is no direct quote from the villain himself. It is not until we get to the tenth article, “Red shirts to use new tactics including possible armed attacks : Jakrapob” (April 22, 2009) that we see a single actual direct quotation as recorded by the BBC: “I believe the room for unarmed and non-violent means to resolve Thailand’s problem is getting smaller every day”.
In the next article cited, “Jakrapob busy setting up a base”, (April 21, 2009) there is a longer quotation: “I believe people are now deciding whether peaceful means serve them best. We are not encouraging violence, but we have to admit that people have been repeatedly disappointed,” he said.
“Legal standards have been clearly unfair and unjust. I am not saying there will be violence in the days ahead. But the remaining opportunities for a peaceful solution are decreasing every day.
“We still talk about a peaceful way in which people can get their rights back. But people have the right to defend themselves against aggression,” he explained.
Then there are five articles dealing with the mistakes of the redshirt leaders and the arrest warrants that await them. The last of these articles is dated April 15 after the riots. The next article that mentions Jakraphob is dated April 11 before the riots in Bangkok. In this article, Jakraphob and other redshirt leaders are accused of being “authoritarian’ by a fellow redshirt protester.
This may well be true. He may be an authoritarian. But I have seen nothing in The Nation’s coverage of Jakraphob that can lead to the certain conclusion that he has incited violence. He may well have done so but there is no evidence of it in these reports. What he has said is that the space for non-violent protest is getting smaller. Double standards for different coloured shirts. Radio stations and websites being closed down. A coup short-circuiting the democratic process. People being disappointed about these things. The only unambiguous thing that he has said that might legitimately be taken as an encouragement to violence is this: “people have the right to defend themselves against aggression”. Well, do they or don’t they?
I hold no brief for Jakraphob Penkair. He was a spokesman for a government that sanctioned illegal acts of violence against Thai people – the 2500 “extra-judicial killings” of the war on dugs, Tak Bai, Kru Sae, the disappearance of Somchai. I am disappointed but no longer surprised that The Nation does not pursue these cases with any rigour or consistency. I am sickened to hear them being added to the list of Thaksin’s crimes as a cheap talking point without any serious intent to investigate them.”
Elephants in the room: Part 2
“StanG”:
The FCCT is not a monolithic institution, its members have widely varying views on the political situation. The FCCT is not “supporting revolutions”, it is a platform of free speech and discussion within the confines of the law, open to any side. The club has extended many invitations to the PAD as well to present their views, and would love to host its representatives. The FCCT is not responsible for the PAD to decline these invitations. The club has also never hindered ASTV or any other news outlet to record any event it wants to (which also includes my book launch). ASTV has been given permission to broadcast live from the two FCCT hosted dinners for Abhisit.
The FCCT has already proven that it held actually more events with the participation of opponents of the Red Shirts than with Red Shirts.
Especially inane are the lese majeste accusations against the FCCT as the club has published, now in several editions, the book “The King of Thailand in World Focus”, which was very well received by the palace, and after which the board of the FCCT has even been granted an audience with the King.
So far, Jakrapop’s lese majeste case has not even been brought to court, the Office of the Attorney General has since months postponed the decision if it wants to bring the case to trial. Since the inquiry against Jakrapop began (which was long before Jakrapop’s controversial statements at the end of the Sonkran riots), the video recording of the event where he held his speech on the patronage system was not sold either. There simply is no case against the FCCT other than political fanatics trying to intimidate the foreign media. Without success, if i may add.
I am just an ordinary member of the FCCT, not a member of the board. I do not speak in the name of the FCCT, but I refuse to accept such distortions of facts as you have stated here. It is simply not true that the FCCT has taken sides in the political trench warfare that goes on in Thailand. Individual journalists will report as they see fit, regularly disagree with each other’s analysis of what they report on, but will not be hindered by anyone that disagrees with their reporting, or who tries to smear their work with the sort of baseless accusations you as well sprout here and elsewhere.
Elephants in the room: Part 2
StanG, what? All journalists should support free speech, and if that inadvertently plays a role in causing a revolution – then it inadvertently plays a role in causing a revolution. I think they have plenty of diplomatic sense – they’re still there.
SOAS Thai politics event
StanG – to clarify: my understanding from the threads on Fa Dio Kan is that Somsak’s proposal (trans. in #21) is for academic debate, not an agenda for Puea Thai to take to the election.
Call for Applications – New Mandala Country Editors
Why not Vietnam? Too big a frog to fry?
Elephants in the room: Part 2
Stan G,
You keep raising hypotheticals. And quite contrary ones.
A dark oppressive one.”Had there been no such law they’d use something else, perhaps even more sinister, to get people to talk.” Comment 2
A fair and reasonable one. “The whole situation could have been easily avoided had they had any diplomatic sense”. Comment 9
Anything could happen in this imaginary world.
Talk about the real world. Free speech should include the right to say “daft” things, to be pro-Red, to be partisan and biased. It can not only include what is deemed by the authorities and you to be “diplomatic” sensible language.