People arrested in the rumors case could have been a small fry pressured to give up the big fish. If that is true, then charges against them were made only to look scary but had little substance and there was no genuine desire to prosecute.
That would mean the prosecution isn’t about translating Bloomberg’s article at all but Computer Act was a handy tool for police to intimidate people anyway.
Laksana said the statements alleged something, not translations. There’s a possibility she charged them for translating, but it’s really nitpicking.
I’m sure you’re aware that the ethnic demographics of Burma are a very contentious issue, with the ethnic groups claiming that they are consistantly undercounted or miscounted. Care to cite a source for your population claims?
Chatham House Rule. Does anyone seriously believe that the Thai Embassy is using the Chatham House Rule to promote open and frank discussion about politics in Thailand (at a public event)? Perhaps Daranee should have cited Chatham House before she gave her famous speeches; and perhaps Suwicha should have put a Chatham House disclaimer on his internet postings.
If there was a risk for participants at the SOAS event it was from the diligent note takers from the Embassy. I doubt they feel constrained by Chatham House in making their reports about Giles et al.
New Mandala is very happy to respect the Chatham House Rule when it is genuinely used to provide genuine protection. But we have no intention of shielding the Thai government’s international public relations events from wide-ranging scrutiny and discussion.
“Nobody wants to be left out from getting a better life that these exciting times bring and time is running out!”
Exactly my sentiments and everyone else’s I’m sure. The world unfortunately is still riddled with class and racial divides (religion is a bit of a red herring). The second is fraught with emotive black and white POV and its consequences, but the first appeals to man’s baser instincts of greed and selfishness hence a far more arduous struggle even if the second has been resolved peacefully and satisfactorily.
If the story of mankind had been one of technological advances employed as a neutral good benefiting all across the board and not as some alien power harnessed in the service of a few to turn a fat profit at the expense of the many, you needn’t have aired this sentiment at all.
The first half of the 20th century alone saw enough technological progress to feed, shelter, clothe, look after the health of, educate and entertain the lot of us. The intellectual and creativity potential of the entire human race in these circumstances would have been even more unbelievable than what we see today.
BTW here are some recent developments in your neck of the woods as well as in the land of the Kachin:
If speaking or writing in English is politically safer, better tell both Ji Ungpakorn…
In general, I think English language writers on Thailand have no intention of circumventing any Thai law; I doubt any one of us has elected to write in English with any such purpose in mind.
Rather, I think we want to make ourselves and others better informed — more so than following any Thai news media alone would suffice. Most of all, we want to tell the truth about Thailand.
“Now it’s chasing away and ridiculing academics like Young,”
Young does a thorough job of making himself look ridiculous without need of help from NM and others who have exposed the tunnel-vision flaws in his “analysis”. As for chasing him away – I see no attempt to do that; on the contrary – plenty of opportunities for him to answer the many criticisms and up to him if he can’t/won’t.
Keeping things harmonious – is what we should all be trying to do !
There’s no conclusive evidence the Crown Prince will not be a good king. We’re not going to know until he does the job.
He’s certainly going to face huge problems — perhaps insurmountable problems for even the greatest – which could very well result in break-up of the kingdom.
Releasing political prisoners – on the ascession of a new monarch – would be a wise move, done before.
But without an apology, Da Torpedo is not making that easy. Suwicha – as I understand it – has apologised, and so if he was released the prestige of the Royal Family as compassionate people. seeking harmony, would rise.
I call it the highlander-lowlander divide like the Assamese/Naga, Burmese/Kachins, Chinese/Tibetan, Vietnamese/Hmong etc. In India we have been able to contain these tensions to a good bit by granting overall autonomy to all individual groups. IMO this is the natural direction of affairs to get best results.
The Chinese model has been the other extreme of complete domination of minorities like in Yunnan, Tibet and Xinjiang etc. The degree of success has been varied. I am especially interested in the Chinese – Wa relationship.
It is inevitable that in this Asian 21st century, all these groups of people will have to hammer out their problems ASAP. Nobody wants to be left out from getting a better life that these exciting times bring and time is running out!
Flashman is correct in saying that the way this event has been reported on New Mandala is a breach of the Chatham House Rule. The Moderator clearly described the Rule (accurately quoted by Flashman) at the beginning of the panel discussion and again before the question session. Ms Upton’s claim of a distinction made between panellists and questioners is either an unfortunate misinterpretation or disingenuous.
If Burmanisation is the other part of a two pronged strategy, you do have a lot of precedent such as China in Tibet, Indonesia in East Timor, Bangladesh in the Chittagong Hill Tract etc. in an attempt at settling in these lands and marginalising the natives, very successfully in the past in the Americas and Australia.
Only one small problem. We are now in the 21st century, and it can turn into an intractable Middle East scenario. Burmese settlers however are not likely to behave in the way the Americans in the Old West did or the Isreali settlers do, armed to the teeth with no qualms about culling the natives. They’d just leave it to the army, and if it gets too hot in the kitchen they’d get out of there. It doesn’t quite suit the Buddhist mentality.
There has to be a better way than that. The minorities have already cottoned on to it and started accusing the regime of Burmanisation of their homelands. It does not bode well for fiture peace and harmony, never mind progress and development.
RE: Chatham House Rule, sorry we should have made it clear that he also told us when he said this- that the panelists can be named, not those that ask the questions. The only participant asking questions that we named was Giles Ungpakorn. We did list some affiliations of speakers i.e someone from Oxford University, etc, but their anonymity remains intact.
Thanks for these comments. Ralph, as your two examples conclusively show it is certainly not safe to express dissenting views on politics in Thailand in English or any language (although I guess Athapascan, Alqonquin or Amharic might have the safety of obscurity).
I certainly don’t want to minimize the risk.
My point was simply that there is a perception – maybe a false one – by commentators such as Hewison, Jotman, A Thai, FelixQui and Nattakorn that you can say some things in English that maybe you can’t say in Thai – not that it is always safe to do so. I’d be interested if any of these people, particularly Kevin Hewison, could explain why they think English is more open or safer.
In any case, its a multi-factorial equation. My hunch is that very personal factors might be at play in the cases of Ji Ungpakorn and Harry Nicolaides. Also, sometimes English might be specially targeted because someone doesn’t want certain views to get out into the rest of the world or for certain areas of discussion to be opened up. Sometimes it might be seen not to matter if that happens. Sometimes it might work in reverse; Bloomberg wasn’t charged but the Thai translators were. (There’s the added factor here of power relativities. Much easier to go after the small fry).
My real interest in this subject is that censorship and lese majeste laws distort and deform language and thought and I guess this happens in Thai too. Because of what has happened to the two people you mentioned, people who want to say things code them and seek the safety of obscurity and unintelligibility. In effect out of English, they create new private languages to discuss what cannot otherwise be said. I deal with this and its effects in the third part of this article.
And Frog, there is evidence of, if not PAD members at least possible fellow travellers, screaming treason and lese majeste at the English media some of which I recount in the second part of the article.
“You can understand that with a topic like this, I am going to have to speak in English as, for reasons that are all too well known, I need to be careful in what I say. For the same reason, I will read my paper.”
When I first heard KH say that I thought he meant that he wanted to be careful not to make any dangerous slip ups, and therefore wanted to use the language he was most comfortable with (and it was for the same reason that he chose to read from a prepared script)
Vasit Dejkunchorn*** is one who thinks some foreigners need to be ignored, but he himself seems unable to do so – perhaps it’s because he knows that anything said in English can easily be translated to Thai (by those who think it important enough to do so).
***see bangkok-pundit-blog/2008/12/those-foreigners-and-their-foreign
I’ve visited Thailand many times, over numerous decades – and was living there in the build up to the 2006 coup :
it was obvious for a long period prior that this was coming, despite 15 years of coup-free democracy.
Is English safer ? How much does the Thai elite have squirreled abroad, via bank cheques written in English ?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Elephants in the room: Part 2
People arrested in the rumors case could have been a small fry pressured to give up the big fish. If that is true, then charges against them were made only to look scary but had little substance and there was no genuine desire to prosecute.
That would mean the prosecution isn’t about translating Bloomberg’s article at all but Computer Act was a handy tool for police to intimidate people anyway.
Laksana said the statements alleged something, not translations. There’s a possibility she charged them for translating, but it’s really nitpicking.
Dave Everett and fighting for the KNLA
This link is to a very rare footage of one of many Burmese Army attacks against KNLA just after 8-8-88 uprising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R3akBdvfWI
A couple of young Majors in the video are now powerful Lt. Generals in the ruling junta SPDC.
Elephants in the room: Part 1
nganadeeleg is correct.
China and the Wa
Hla Oo,
I’m sure you’re aware that the ethnic demographics of Burma are a very contentious issue, with the ethnic groups claiming that they are consistantly undercounted or miscounted. Care to cite a source for your population claims?
SOAS Thai politics event
Chatham House Rule. Does anyone seriously believe that the Thai Embassy is using the Chatham House Rule to promote open and frank discussion about politics in Thailand (at a public event)? Perhaps Daranee should have cited Chatham House before she gave her famous speeches; and perhaps Suwicha should have put a Chatham House disclaimer on his internet postings.
If there was a risk for participants at the SOAS event it was from the diligent note takers from the Embassy. I doubt they feel constrained by Chatham House in making their reports about Giles et al.
New Mandala is very happy to respect the Chatham House Rule when it is genuinely used to provide genuine protection. But we have no intention of shielding the Thai government’s international public relations events from wide-ranging scrutiny and discussion.
China and the Wa
sangos,
“Nobody wants to be left out from getting a better life that these exciting times bring and time is running out!”
Exactly my sentiments and everyone else’s I’m sure. The world unfortunately is still riddled with class and racial divides (religion is a bit of a red herring). The second is fraught with emotive black and white POV and its consequences, but the first appeals to man’s baser instincts of greed and selfishness hence a far more arduous struggle even if the second has been resolved peacefully and satisfactorily.
If the story of mankind had been one of technological advances employed as a neutral good benefiting all across the board and not as some alien power harnessed in the service of a few to turn a fat profit at the expense of the many, you needn’t have aired this sentiment at all.
The first half of the 20th century alone saw enough technological progress to feed, shelter, clothe, look after the health of, educate and entertain the lot of us. The intellectual and creativity potential of the entire human race in these circumstances would have been even more unbelievable than what we see today.
BTW here are some recent developments in your neck of the woods as well as in the land of the Kachin:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=17740
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=17738
Elephants in the room: Part 1
[…] is the second of a three part article. Part 1 is available here. Part 3 will be posted next […]
Elephants in the room: Part 1
If speaking or writing in English is politically safer, better tell both Ji Ungpakorn…
In general, I think English language writers on Thailand have no intention of circumventing any Thai law; I doubt any one of us has elected to write in English with any such purpose in mind.
Rather, I think we want to make ourselves and others better informed — more so than following any Thai news media alone would suffice. Most of all, we want to tell the truth about Thailand.
Ferrara on Thai politics
Federico – so what do you think of Ongkapa, in The Nation, saying Thaksin’s fortune is finished ?
Media bias of the first order, as far as I can see.
Report on SOAS event, part I
“Now it’s chasing away and ridiculing academics like Young,”
Young does a thorough job of making himself look ridiculous without need of help from NM and others who have exposed the tunnel-vision flaws in his “analysis”. As for chasing him away – I see no attempt to do that; on the contrary – plenty of opportunities for him to answer the many criticisms and up to him if he can’t/won’t.
Reuters on Vajiralongkorn and succession
Keeping things harmonious – is what we should all be trying to do !
There’s no conclusive evidence the Crown Prince will not be a good king. We’re not going to know until he does the job.
He’s certainly going to face huge problems — perhaps insurmountable problems for even the greatest – which could very well result in break-up of the kingdom.
Releasing political prisoners – on the ascession of a new monarch – would be a wise move, done before.
But without an apology, Da Torpedo is not making that easy. Suwicha – as I understand it – has apologised, and so if he was released the prestige of the Royal Family as compassionate people. seeking harmony, would rise.
China and the Wa
I call it the highlander-lowlander divide like the Assamese/Naga, Burmese/Kachins, Chinese/Tibetan, Vietnamese/Hmong etc. In India we have been able to contain these tensions to a good bit by granting overall autonomy to all individual groups. IMO this is the natural direction of affairs to get best results.
The Chinese model has been the other extreme of complete domination of minorities like in Yunnan, Tibet and Xinjiang etc. The degree of success has been varied. I am especially interested in the Chinese – Wa relationship.
It is inevitable that in this Asian 21st century, all these groups of people will have to hammer out their problems ASAP. Nobody wants to be left out from getting a better life that these exciting times bring and time is running out!
SOAS Thai politics event
Flashman is correct in saying that the way this event has been reported on New Mandala is a breach of the Chatham House Rule. The Moderator clearly described the Rule (accurately quoted by Flashman) at the beginning of the panel discussion and again before the question session. Ms Upton’s claim of a distinction made between panellists and questioners is either an unfortunate misinterpretation or disingenuous.
China and the Wa
Hla Oo,
If Burmanisation is the other part of a two pronged strategy, you do have a lot of precedent such as China in Tibet, Indonesia in East Timor, Bangladesh in the Chittagong Hill Tract etc. in an attempt at settling in these lands and marginalising the natives, very successfully in the past in the Americas and Australia.
Only one small problem. We are now in the 21st century, and it can turn into an intractable Middle East scenario. Burmese settlers however are not likely to behave in the way the Americans in the Old West did or the Isreali settlers do, armed to the teeth with no qualms about culling the natives. They’d just leave it to the army, and if it gets too hot in the kitchen they’d get out of there. It doesn’t quite suit the Buddhist mentality.
There has to be a better way than that. The minorities have already cottoned on to it and started accusing the regime of Burmanisation of their homelands. It does not bode well for fiture peace and harmony, never mind progress and development.
SOAS Thai politics event
RE: Chatham House Rule, sorry we should have made it clear that he also told us when he said this- that the panelists can be named, not those that ask the questions. The only participant asking questions that we named was Giles Ungpakorn. We did list some affiliations of speakers i.e someone from Oxford University, etc, but their anonymity remains intact.
Elephants in the room: Part 1
Nganadeeleg,
That makes sense. I may have quite misread that.
Elephants in the room: Part 1
Thanks for these comments. Ralph, as your two examples conclusively show it is certainly not safe to express dissenting views on politics in Thailand in English or any language (although I guess Athapascan, Alqonquin or Amharic might have the safety of obscurity).
I certainly don’t want to minimize the risk.
My point was simply that there is a perception – maybe a false one – by commentators such as Hewison, Jotman, A Thai, FelixQui and Nattakorn that you can say some things in English that maybe you can’t say in Thai – not that it is always safe to do so. I’d be interested if any of these people, particularly Kevin Hewison, could explain why they think English is more open or safer.
In any case, its a multi-factorial equation. My hunch is that very personal factors might be at play in the cases of Ji Ungpakorn and Harry Nicolaides. Also, sometimes English might be specially targeted because someone doesn’t want certain views to get out into the rest of the world or for certain areas of discussion to be opened up. Sometimes it might be seen not to matter if that happens. Sometimes it might work in reverse; Bloomberg wasn’t charged but the Thai translators were. (There’s the added factor here of power relativities. Much easier to go after the small fry).
My real interest in this subject is that censorship and lese majeste laws distort and deform language and thought and I guess this happens in Thai too. Because of what has happened to the two people you mentioned, people who want to say things code them and seek the safety of obscurity and unintelligibility. In effect out of English, they create new private languages to discuss what cannot otherwise be said. I deal with this and its effects in the third part of this article.
And Frog, there is evidence of, if not PAD members at least possible fellow travellers, screaming treason and lese majeste at the English media some of which I recount in the second part of the article.
Elephants in the room: Part 1
“You can understand that with a topic like this, I am going to have to speak in English as, for reasons that are all too well known, I need to be careful in what I say. For the same reason, I will read my paper.”
When I first heard KH say that I thought he meant that he wanted to be careful not to make any dangerous slip ups, and therefore wanted to use the language he was most comfortable with (and it was for the same reason that he chose to read from a prepared script)
Vasit Dejkunchorn*** is one who thinks some foreigners need to be ignored, but he himself seems unable to do so – perhaps it’s because he knows that anything said in English can easily be translated to Thai (by those who think it important enough to do so).
***see bangkok-pundit-blog/2008/12/those-foreigners-and-their-foreign
The sum of all fears, again
I pray for His Majesty The King – the one person who can certainly save this dreadful catastrophe Thailand/ Siam is heading into.
Elephants in the room: Part 1
I’ve visited Thailand many times, over numerous decades – and was living there in the build up to the 2006 coup :
it was obvious for a long period prior that this was coming, despite 15 years of coup-free democracy.
Is English safer ? How much does the Thai elite have squirreled abroad, via bank cheques written in English ?