I think that generally the prostitution industry of a country is largely fuelled by the appetite of the men from that country, rather than tourists that may visit the country. This is true of Thailand for sure, where, even though there is a large sex tourism industry, prostitution has a large domestic market.
I read this article on Sex Laws in Thailand recently, and it goes over the involvement of Thai men as well as the local laws regulating some parts of the industry. Check it out!
I don’t have any studies to back it up, but consider this – growth of the economy far outpaces growth of the “elites”. There aren’t enough “connected” people to run everything in the country. Not to mention fierce competition in the market.
From what I know about headhunting business, the demand for capable and experienced personnel is very very high.
Abhisit gave in to opposition push for amendments last year, as a gesture of reconciliation in the aftermath of Songkran violence.
There was a join parliamentary-senate committee that agreed on six problematic issues to fix. It was obvious none of the proposed amendments had any public interest in mind and when Abhisit finally decided to take them to a referendum (where most of them would have been certainly killed) the opposition suddenly lost interest and withdrew its support.
Current Banharn’s proposal came out of the blue and has nothing to do with the alleged deficiencies of the junta sponsored constitution.
After some posturing and veiled threats Banharn decided to fade away and swear allegiance to the coalition. His rebellion was short lived, he failed to get either Democrats or PTP on board, and so current constitution is likely to stay untouched until next elections. If Thaksin verdict passes without big troubles it is highly likely that Abhisit government will last until the end of its term. Election campaign will start in about eighteen months anyway.
We all know there are many Thais who go abroad for Western education. They yearn for it. Their families yearn for it. So I always assumed their Western educations are highly valued by their fellow Thais when they return to Thailand to put their knowledge to work.
So I was shocked recently to hear a friend describe numerous Thai friends of his who have returned to the Thai workplace with a Western education and are simply shunned by their Thai colleagues, who fear losing face to someone with a superior education.
I was also shocked to meet a Thai dentist who received his degree in Thailand and went to study further in the U.S., and returned to Thailand to continue his post-grad education in dentistry, but he could not gain admission to the program (at Chula) because, although he was clearly qualified, the program was very limited in size and was already filled by students from “the right families.”
These are only anecdotes, of course. I would also like to see a report on this topic, with a rigorous survey. Thailand appears to be progressing by sending its best students abroad for education and training, but if Thais are in actuality shunning those people when they return BECAUSE of their superior knowledge, that is distressing.
If I recall correctly, the main comparison the Democrat Party leadership drew was not to parliaments in Australia, the UK or the US system but to Israel. They were keen to emphasize an approach rather than practice, as the latter would not make them look legitimate in UK and Australian terms.
I was not trying to infer that the two were mutually exclusive. What I didn’t get across was that I believe that ‘resistance’ doesn’t necessarily or normally result in regime change. Sometimes people have to resist for selfish reasons – keeping mental health in check, for example. I think that a lot of the Yangon punks are getting involved in the scene as a way to break out of norms, but not get thrown in jail for dissent.
[…] as well as at the Samaggi Academic Conference the following day. New Mandala has already put up a report on the SOAS event. Copies of a booklet written by him were also distributed at both […]
LM has nothing to do with current political battles. The only real political opponent was Jakrapob and he has lost his mind with threats of guerrilla war. Suwicha and Da Torpedo are not political opponents in any sense.
Real political opponents, the reds, spent several months collecting signatures for the royal petition, not trying to reform LM law.
Somehow Abhisit got the review panel going, if his speech at Oxford last year is any indication, he wants to prevent the abuse of LM for hidden purposes. That was also the speech where he made Giles look like a lunatic with feet clappers and a touch of paranoia.
So the original US constitutional vote was also a farce as there was no constitutional status quo to be returned to if the vote had been no and of course there was a very undemocratic quorating of a vote at one point there too! Thailand is not a developed democracy but a developing democracy, as was the US back then. As such what we expect in developed western democracies is not going to necessarily be appropriate to Thailand. Note this is an arguement frequently used by the red side supporters to jusitfy any of there more undemocracitc or violent actions or links to undemocratic or violent groups.
Les Abbey points out the legitimacy of any government in the parliamnetary system is conferred by the parliament as government is not directly elected.
The constitutional referendum also met the criteria it was held under.
This whole post is a campaign mode post rather than a balanced analytical one which is fair enough if this is pointed out. However, it should in no way be considered on an academic level anything other than an opinion piece by a bias observer making a one sided case.
I would also ask why is it only a matter of choice between two constitutions. That is the line of one side in the conflict, which also seems to be the thrust of this entire post. However, why cant the good points of both be considered? The 2007 does provide the people with greater protections and rights than 1997 which is something nobody seemingly wants to discuss. Not that polticians of any ilk ever really cared about such things but one would have thought that maybe academics would.
Here is an excellent excerpt of Mahathir’s speech arguing for the removal of immunity of the Malaysian Royalty in 1993.
Mahathir did the unthinkable – challenging one of the pillars of Malay supremacy – the Malay Royalty – and got away with it.
Hence, for the cynical Malaysian – Mahathir was the de facto “King of Malaysia.” A common joke during his 23 year reign was that while the Malaysian Supreme Head of State (Agung or King) changed every five years, the Prime Minister of Malaysia remained the same – which was the reverse of the British system after which Malaysia was modeled.
Of course down south we have another uncrowned King – does anyone dare criticize King Lee?
“Amidst all possible scenarios, motives, potential coupmakers and all, there’s one crucial ingredient missing – approval by Privy Council and the palace, and that is not forthcoming for any dark horses out there.” (45)
Well….. it just goes to show that, if you wait long enough, even the likes of StanG will say something with which it’s possible to agree – and even if he let it out inadvertently and then tries to back-pedal from it (47).
Agreeing with the basic premise, a further reason why there’s not likely to be a coup in present circumstances is the current uncertainty as to a] whose signature (50) would be sought and b] confidence of what that person’s views would be. Until those uncertainties are resolved, we’re likely to see a continuing limbo in which all sides continue to make predictable noises and gestures – but actually do nothing decisive.
On a separate point, it’s puzzling to see the calling-off of the UDD’s proposed airport rally as a sign of their weakness – “Red movement has lost its teeth” (35). The potential propaganda impact of just a token protest rally there (as a reminder of what PAD did full-on with so little legal consequence to themselves) must have been attractive – until the major negative implications of such a move became clear to those proposing it. That puts it on a par with the mooted and quickly discarded idea of staging a protest outside the very hospital where HMK is recovering. Arguably dumb to have considered either idea and certainly rash not to say inept to have announced the latter – but, if anything, dropping both suggests to me that they’re probably getting (belatedly) smarter rather more than that they’re “losing teeth”.
Giles Ungapakorn thus possesses considerably more credibility than Thaksin in his quest to have the law repealed much less reformed. While his socialist outlook gets in the way of logic and reason, his approach to the LM law is no longer a question. This is really what other Thais here need to do – must do: fight to have the law reformed at the minimum, and take it to the courts to get it done.
Andrew, I’m not sure about your legitimacy or lack of it. Isn’t the Thai Parliament still controlled by elected MPs and where MPs have been removed for electoral crimes haven’t elections taken place to replace them?
The fact that many MPs from both government and opposition parties are controlled by regional political or criminal bosses probably points to the need of stronger constitutional rules not weaker or less.
As far as I know in both the UK and Australia as long as a majority of MPs want a certain government then it is a legitimate government.
At the risk of becoming the bete noire of this debate I repeat my view that there is a need for caution when advocating global marketing of traditional handicrafts (and that’s all I’m saying).
The word “exotic” is not only an innocent adjective as it was in Van Gogh’s time; it is also used as a hook by marketers to sell their products. Obviously I am not accusing Mark and Suzie of using the word in this sense, only asking them to be aware that it is a two edged sword.
Suzie, if you want to encourage the preservation and marketing of this art form it is necessary to view it as a complete process. That means looking carefully at the production and distribution network. For how much are the producers selling their product? Does this represent a fair wage? Have they been asked if carrying on this traditional practice is really what they want to do? What alternatives are available to them?
At this point I should apologise to Mark for dragging him into this debate because I am sure he has no commercial interest in his venture.
I really don’t understand Suzie’s last paragraph. However, the last sentence does appear to indicate a surprising level of complacency over the hill tribe issue in Thailand. I would urge her to take a look at this website.
It is very testing times in Malaysia as Malaysians (especially Malays) question the role of “their protectors” – UMNO and the Royalty. Hence the muted send-off of probably Malaysia’s most notorious member of the Royalty.
The Crown Prince of Thailand, in my humble opinion is no match for HRH Sultan Iskandar – because by being of noble birth, who professes Islam and is of the Malay race, he is totally above the law – not to be challenged. Because if challenged, one is challenging the three core issues that symbolises the supremacy of the Malay race.
Here are several other interesting articles that discuss the Malaysian monarchy. (Read here and here)
There is no reason why Abhisit would consider reviewing LM. It’s just not in his political interest to do so – quite the opposite. LM does the job of intimidating anyone who would challenge the political dominance of the monarchy and the royalists. There’s no question that the Democrats benefit politically from this.
All Abhisit needs to do is field a couple of questions a year from foreign journalists – Thai journalists would not dare raise the issue of reforming LM – and give one of his polished answers. There would be no international pressure.
On the issue of what 65 million people think – we’ve seen that when the dominance of the royalists is challenged it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks. They will carry out coups, write new Constitutions, ban opposition politicians, dissolve opposition political parties, seize airports, in order to regain their control.
But when it has been given the chance the Thai electorate has voted overwhelmingly for Thaksin’s parties. I would think that there is much more sympathy for reforming LM from within the Thaksin camp than that of the Democrats.
Following Ralph’s request I have copied and pasted the statement about this event from Ji Ungpakorn’s site. For those not in Thailand it is available here. And if you want to see Ji in action at the event there is a picture here.
“Pro-democracy Red Shirts in U.K. expose pro-coup academics at SOAS
On 29th January 2010 the Thai Embassy in London organised a seminar in order to launder Thailand’s authoritarian image. The main speakers from Thailand were Suchit Bunbongkarn and Bowornsak Uwanno. Little booklets on the King’s Sufficiency Economy Ideology and Bawornsak’s pamphlet justifying the use of the lese majeste law were handed out to the audience, much to be bemusement of many.
However, the embassy and the two royalist academics did not have an easy time because pro-democracy Redshirts living in the U.K. came prepared for a debate. Leaflets were handed out at the meeting (see text below), although the embassy tried to use SOAS guards to prevent this and to prevent Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn from entering the seminar room. They were unsuccessful in doing this, however.
The Thai ambassador opened the meeting by claiming that the Red Shirts did not represent the majority in Thailand. He also stated that the King has always been “above politics”.
Suchit Bunbongkarn echoed the ambassador by saying that there was a silent majority in Thai society who did not support anyone. His talk was rather “economical with the truth” because he failed to mention the double standards in the judiciary, the manoeuvrings in the courts and in the army to frustrate the wishes of the electorate and the backsliding on human rights and censorship (as outlined in a recent Human Rights Watch Report). He also seemed to suffer from amnesia by saying that the present divisions in Thai society had never occurred in the past. He obviously forgot the 1932 Revolution and the civil war with the Communist Party in the 1970s. He argued that the NGOs were an important civil society force for Democracy. This is a strange claim, given the support among nearly all NGOs for the 2006 coup!
When asked about the les majeste law and the court procedures, Suchit stated that it was all fair and just. He defended the use of secret trials where there is no transparency of the system of justice. He claimed that the new committee set up by the government to oversee lese majeste cases would solve any problems. He claimed that those who were found guilty of lese majeste could appeal to the King, failing to mention that Suwich Takor’s appeal has been ignored for over a year while he sits in prison. He also ignored the fact that those who maintain their innocence would not wish to ask the King for “forgiveness”. Suchit ended by saying that we could not have freedom of speech in Thailand because it would be against the Thai culture of loving and respecting the King. This is a one-sided interpretation of Thai culture which turns Thais into slaves. However, there is a rich history of Thais fighting for freedom and Democracy against such attitudes.
Bowornsak Uwanno started his talk by stating the obvious fact that Thailand is a very unequal society, the gap between the rich and poor being very high. However, when asked if he would therefore oppose the King’s Sufficiency Economy Ideology, which is against redistribution of wealth, he failed to reply. He claimed that he supported the idea of a Welfare State, while attacking Thai Rak Thai’s pro-poor policies for “creating a culture of dependency”. This Thatcherite phrase is in keeping with Bowornsak’s neo-liberal ideas. Academics like him who supported the 2006 coup, have long argued that Thai Rak Thai’s pro-poor policies trapped the poor in a patron-client system. For them, governments should expect to win votes by not promising economic benefits to the majority. But alas, the poor in Thailand are too “stupid” to realise that the pro-poor policies are actually bad for them!!
Bowornsak denied that there were any double standards in the use of the law in Thailand. But if there were any problems, he said that it was the fault of the police, certainly not the fault of the judiciary.
In his booklet defending the use of lese majeste, Bowornsak falsely claimed that similar laws were in use in Western Europe. (How many people are in jail for criticising the ruling elites in Western Europe?) He defended the use of lese majeste by saying that Thailand had a “special culture” where all Thais love the great “Buddha King” who is “our father”. The Thai King rules in a “moral manner” according to Bowornsak. Yet when questioned in the meeting about why the King signed the military junta’s laws after the illegal 2006 coup, he claimed that this did not mean that the King supported the coup. “Have pity and be fair to the King”, he said. One man from the audience responded by asking “and what about the Thai people?”
Two British academics were also speakers in this meeting and they both indicated that there were serious problems with the lese majeste law and freedom of speech in Thailand.
Text of the leaflet handed out in the meeting: Free all Thai Political Prisoners!
Return the country to Democracy!
Since the 2006 military coup, which overthrew a democratically elected government in Thailand, it has become a crime to advocate Democracy. The coup claimed Royal Legitimacy and two draconian laws: the lese majeste law and the computer crimes law have been used. Suwicha Takor was sentenced to 10 years in prison for posting a picture on the internet. Darunee Charnchoensilpakul was sentenced to 18 years, in a secret trial, for making political speeches. Lese majeste and computer crimes charges have been made against: 13 executive members of the Foreign Correspondents Club, the BBC correspondent, the British editor of The Times, Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn, four people charged with posting the truth about stock market fears for the King’s health, the webmaster of Prachatai, and dozens of others. Military installed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, while lying about human rights, has always prioritised “protecting the monarchy” and the dictatorship. Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has threatened to deal with Prachatai , one of the only independent news sites left in Thailand. Since the 2006 coup, thousands of websites and blogs have been blocked by the Ministry of Censorship. Nearly all the media are controlled by the military, the government, and their allies.
Since the 2006 coup, the judiciary have been working hand in glove with the military in order to frustrate the democratic process, twice disbanding the political party which won the most votes in repeated elections. The military also pushed through its own Constitution instead of the 1997 democratic Constitution. The present Constitution legitimises the 2006 coup and enshrines the obligation of all governments to increase military spending while keeping public social spending to a minimum. Borwornsak Uwanno, one of today’s advertised panellists, had a key role in supporting the coup and drawing up the military’s Constitution. He is Secretary-General of the King Prajadhipok Institute, named after Thailand’s last absolute monarch who was overthrown by a pro-democracy revolution in 1932. Previously Borwornsak served former Prime Minister Thaksin, changing ships at the last minute to save his own skin. While serving Thaksin he never criticised that government’s human rights abuses in the War on Drugs or in the South. Suchit Boonbongkarn and the Thai Ambassador are also apologists for the military coup and the systematic destruction of Democracy. Today there is no Rule of Law or Justice. The military, the Government and the semi-fascist Peoples Alliance for Democracy have used violence and repression on the streets with impunity. No one has been punished for wrecking Government House, occupying the international airports or for shooting unarmed demonstrators in the streets. The Minister of Finance and the Foreign Minister were involved in these crimes. Yet pro-democracy activists are constantly being charged or put in prison.
Apologists for the 2006 coup justify their position by insulting the intelligence of the Thai electorate. They claim that they are ‘uneducated’ and ‘uninformed’ and ‘allowed themselves to be bought’. Yet the strong support for Thaksin’s democratically elected government which still exists today, is a result of the implementation of a Universal Health Care Scheme and many pro-poor policies. These policies are abhorred by the coup supporters. They want to turn the clock back to the bad old days when the elites could rule without any concern for the population, where political parties had no policies and bought votes, and where the military could act with impunity just by claiming that they were doing everything “for the King”. Throughout this crisis the King has failed, as he always did, to speak up in favour of Democracy and Freedom of Speech. Instead, as the richest Monarch in the World, he advocates the ideology of the Sufficiency Economy, where the poor must remain happy in their poverty. It is an ideology that opposes redistribution of wealth in a country with great inequalities. But the King is old and has been in hospital since September. The elites are afraid that when he dies, their legitimising tool will die with him. His son is hated and feared.
In Thailand we need genuine Democracy. The lese majeste and computer laws must be scrapped, the military needs to be cut down to size and those who commit Human Rights abuses should be punished. We need a European-style Welfare State and a fully democratic Republic.
Exactly what one would expect from Suchit. He’s been wheeled out plenty of times. He’s one of those academics who manages to sell his services to various buyers – there’s a less polite term for this. His comments on the monarchy and constitutionality are simply stupid and wrong. He knows it but also knows what his masters want him to say.
McCargo confuses me by apparently making a Stephen Young-like comment that Thailand was all goodness and light in the past – all this mai pen rai stuff. Is he misquoted? Was he saying that this is a perspective that was never accurate?
Tukkae – how about posting the Ji account? I can’t access it thanks to MICT blocking.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
On prostitution and Thailand today
I think that generally the prostitution industry of a country is largely fuelled by the appetite of the men from that country, rather than tourists that may visit the country. This is true of Thailand for sure, where, even though there is a large sex tourism industry, prostitution has a large domestic market.
I read this article on Sex Laws in Thailand recently, and it goes over the involvement of Thai men as well as the local laws regulating some parts of the industry. Check it out!
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
I don’t have any studies to back it up, but consider this – growth of the economy far outpaces growth of the “elites”. There aren’t enough “connected” people to run everything in the country. Not to mention fierce competition in the market.
From what I know about headhunting business, the demand for capable and experienced personnel is very very high.
Abhisit’s fading blur of legitimacy
Abhisit gave in to opposition push for amendments last year, as a gesture of reconciliation in the aftermath of Songkran violence.
There was a join parliamentary-senate committee that agreed on six problematic issues to fix. It was obvious none of the proposed amendments had any public interest in mind and when Abhisit finally decided to take them to a referendum (where most of them would have been certainly killed) the opposition suddenly lost interest and withdrew its support.
Current Banharn’s proposal came out of the blue and has nothing to do with the alleged deficiencies of the junta sponsored constitution.
After some posturing and veiled threats Banharn decided to fade away and swear allegiance to the coalition. His rebellion was short lived, he failed to get either Democrats or PTP on board, and so current constitution is likely to stay untouched until next elections. If Thaksin verdict passes without big troubles it is highly likely that Abhisit government will last until the end of its term. Election campaign will start in about eighteen months anyway.
A writer’s view of recent history
Thai proverb;
р╕лр╕Щр╕╡р╣Ар╕кр╕╖р╕┤р╕н р╕Ыр╕░р╕Ир╕гр╣Ар╕Вр╣Й
Escaping a tiger then facing a croc.
Agonizing situation in Siam.
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
EURUSDTrader: Good points.
We all know there are many Thais who go abroad for Western education. They yearn for it. Their families yearn for it. So I always assumed their Western educations are highly valued by their fellow Thais when they return to Thailand to put their knowledge to work.
So I was shocked recently to hear a friend describe numerous Thai friends of his who have returned to the Thai workplace with a Western education and are simply shunned by their Thai colleagues, who fear losing face to someone with a superior education.
I was also shocked to meet a Thai dentist who received his degree in Thailand and went to study further in the U.S., and returned to Thailand to continue his post-grad education in dentistry, but he could not gain admission to the program (at Chula) because, although he was clearly qualified, the program was very limited in size and was already filled by students from “the right families.”
These are only anecdotes, of course. I would also like to see a report on this topic, with a rigorous survey. Thailand appears to be progressing by sending its best students abroad for education and training, but if Thais are in actuality shunning those people when they return BECAUSE of their superior knowledge, that is distressing.
Abhisit’s fading blur of legitimacy
If I recall correctly, the main comparison the Democrat Party leadership drew was not to parliaments in Australia, the UK or the US system but to Israel. They were keen to emphasize an approach rather than practice, as the latter would not make them look legitimate in UK and Australian terms.
Yangon punks
U le Moe,
I was not trying to infer that the two were mutually exclusive. What I didn’t get across was that I believe that ‘resistance’ doesn’t necessarily or normally result in regime change. Sometimes people have to resist for selfish reasons – keeping mental health in check, for example. I think that a lot of the Yangon punks are getting involved in the scene as a way to break out of norms, but not get thrown in jail for dissent.
Report on SOAS event, part I
[…] as well as at the Samaggi Academic Conference the following day. New Mandala has already put up a report on the SOAS event. Copies of a booklet written by him were also distributed at both […]
The evidence of intention
LM has nothing to do with current political battles. The only real political opponent was Jakrapob and he has lost his mind with threats of guerrilla war. Suwicha and Da Torpedo are not political opponents in any sense.
Real political opponents, the reds, spent several months collecting signatures for the royal petition, not trying to reform LM law.
Somehow Abhisit got the review panel going, if his speech at Oxford last year is any indication, he wants to prevent the abuse of LM for hidden purposes. That was also the speech where he made Giles look like a lunatic with feet clappers and a touch of paranoia.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Smarter or weaker, whatever suits you, Steve, they don’t have public support to mount any serious challenge to the government.
Approving a coup is not the same as being behind it.
Abhisit’s fading blur of legitimacy
So the original US constitutional vote was also a farce as there was no constitutional status quo to be returned to if the vote had been no and of course there was a very undemocratic quorating of a vote at one point there too! Thailand is not a developed democracy but a developing democracy, as was the US back then. As such what we expect in developed western democracies is not going to necessarily be appropriate to Thailand. Note this is an arguement frequently used by the red side supporters to jusitfy any of there more undemocracitc or violent actions or links to undemocratic or violent groups.
Les Abbey points out the legitimacy of any government in the parliamnetary system is conferred by the parliament as government is not directly elected.
The constitutional referendum also met the criteria it was held under.
This whole post is a campaign mode post rather than a balanced analytical one which is fair enough if this is pointed out. However, it should in no way be considered on an academic level anything other than an opinion piece by a bias observer making a one sided case.
I would also ask why is it only a matter of choice between two constitutions. That is the line of one side in the conflict, which also seems to be the thrust of this entire post. However, why cant the good points of both be considered? The 2007 does provide the people with greater protections and rights than 1997 which is something nobody seemingly wants to discuss. Not that polticians of any ilk ever really cared about such things but one would have thought that maybe academics would.
Malaysia’s “killer king”
Here is an excellent excerpt of Mahathir’s speech arguing for the removal of immunity of the Malaysian Royalty in 1993.
Mahathir did the unthinkable – challenging one of the pillars of Malay supremacy – the Malay Royalty – and got away with it.
Hence, for the cynical Malaysian – Mahathir was the de facto “King of Malaysia.” A common joke during his 23 year reign was that while the Malaysian Supreme Head of State (Agung or King) changed every five years, the Prime Minister of Malaysia remained the same – which was the reverse of the British system after which Malaysia was modeled.
Of course down south we have another uncrowned King – does anyone dare criticize King Lee?
The return of Thailand’s old friend
“Amidst all possible scenarios, motives, potential coupmakers and all, there’s one crucial ingredient missing – approval by Privy Council and the palace, and that is not forthcoming for any dark horses out there.” (45)
Well….. it just goes to show that, if you wait long enough, even the likes of StanG will say something with which it’s possible to agree – and even if he let it out inadvertently and then tries to back-pedal from it (47).
Agreeing with the basic premise, a further reason why there’s not likely to be a coup in present circumstances is the current uncertainty as to a] whose signature (50) would be sought and b] confidence of what that person’s views would be. Until those uncertainties are resolved, we’re likely to see a continuing limbo in which all sides continue to make predictable noises and gestures – but actually do nothing decisive.
On a separate point, it’s puzzling to see the calling-off of the UDD’s proposed airport rally as a sign of their weakness – “Red movement has lost its teeth” (35). The potential propaganda impact of just a token protest rally there (as a reminder of what PAD did full-on with so little legal consequence to themselves) must have been attractive – until the major negative implications of such a move became clear to those proposing it. That puts it on a par with the mooted and quickly discarded idea of staging a protest outside the very hospital where HMK is recovering. Arguably dumb to have considered either idea and certainly rash not to say inept to have announced the latter – but, if anything, dropping both suggests to me that they’re probably getting (belatedly) smarter rather more than that they’re “losing teeth”.
The evidence of intention
Giles Ungapakorn thus possesses considerably more credibility than Thaksin in his quest to have the law repealed much less reformed. While his socialist outlook gets in the way of logic and reason, his approach to the LM law is no longer a question. This is really what other Thais here need to do – must do: fight to have the law reformed at the minimum, and take it to the courts to get it done.
Abhisit’s fading blur of legitimacy
Andrew, I’m not sure about your legitimacy or lack of it. Isn’t the Thai Parliament still controlled by elected MPs and where MPs have been removed for electoral crimes haven’t elections taken place to replace them?
The fact that many MPs from both government and opposition parties are controlled by regional political or criminal bosses probably points to the need of stronger constitutional rules not weaker or less.
As far as I know in both the UK and Australia as long as a majority of MPs want a certain government then it is a legitimate government.
Collection seeks soul mate
At the risk of becoming the bete noire of this debate I repeat my view that there is a need for caution when advocating global marketing of traditional handicrafts (and that’s all I’m saying).
The word “exotic” is not only an innocent adjective as it was in Van Gogh’s time; it is also used as a hook by marketers to sell their products. Obviously I am not accusing Mark and Suzie of using the word in this sense, only asking them to be aware that it is a two edged sword.
Suzie, if you want to encourage the preservation and marketing of this art form it is necessary to view it as a complete process. That means looking carefully at the production and distribution network. For how much are the producers selling their product? Does this represent a fair wage? Have they been asked if carrying on this traditional practice is really what they want to do? What alternatives are available to them?
At this point I should apologise to Mark for dragging him into this debate because I am sure he has no commercial interest in his venture.
I really don’t understand Suzie’s last paragraph. However, the last sentence does appear to indicate a surprising level of complacency over the hill tribe issue in Thailand. I would urge her to take a look at this website.
Malaysia’s “killer king”
It is very testing times in Malaysia as Malaysians (especially Malays) question the role of “their protectors” – UMNO and the Royalty. Hence the muted send-off of probably Malaysia’s most notorious member of the Royalty.
The Crown Prince of Thailand, in my humble opinion is no match for HRH Sultan Iskandar – because by being of noble birth, who professes Islam and is of the Malay race, he is totally above the law – not to be challenged. Because if challenged, one is challenging the three core issues that symbolises the supremacy of the Malay race.
Here are several other interesting articles that discuss the Malaysian monarchy. (Read here and here)
The evidence of intention
There is no reason why Abhisit would consider reviewing LM. It’s just not in his political interest to do so – quite the opposite. LM does the job of intimidating anyone who would challenge the political dominance of the monarchy and the royalists. There’s no question that the Democrats benefit politically from this.
All Abhisit needs to do is field a couple of questions a year from foreign journalists – Thai journalists would not dare raise the issue of reforming LM – and give one of his polished answers. There would be no international pressure.
On the issue of what 65 million people think – we’ve seen that when the dominance of the royalists is challenged it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks. They will carry out coups, write new Constitutions, ban opposition politicians, dissolve opposition political parties, seize airports, in order to regain their control.
But when it has been given the chance the Thai electorate has voted overwhelmingly for Thaksin’s parties. I would think that there is much more sympathy for reforming LM from within the Thaksin camp than that of the Democrats.
Report on SOAS event, part I
Following Ralph’s request I have copied and pasted the statement about this event from Ji Ungpakorn’s site. For those not in Thailand it is available here. And if you want to see Ji in action at the event there is a picture here.
“Pro-democracy Red Shirts in U.K. expose pro-coup academics at SOAS
On 29th January 2010 the Thai Embassy in London organised a seminar in order to launder Thailand’s authoritarian image. The main speakers from Thailand were Suchit Bunbongkarn and Bowornsak Uwanno. Little booklets on the King’s Sufficiency Economy Ideology and Bawornsak’s pamphlet justifying the use of the lese majeste law were handed out to the audience, much to be bemusement of many.
However, the embassy and the two royalist academics did not have an easy time because pro-democracy Redshirts living in the U.K. came prepared for a debate. Leaflets were handed out at the meeting (see text below), although the embassy tried to use SOAS guards to prevent this and to prevent Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn from entering the seminar room. They were unsuccessful in doing this, however.
The Thai ambassador opened the meeting by claiming that the Red Shirts did not represent the majority in Thailand. He also stated that the King has always been “above politics”.
Suchit Bunbongkarn echoed the ambassador by saying that there was a silent majority in Thai society who did not support anyone. His talk was rather “economical with the truth” because he failed to mention the double standards in the judiciary, the manoeuvrings in the courts and in the army to frustrate the wishes of the electorate and the backsliding on human rights and censorship (as outlined in a recent Human Rights Watch Report). He also seemed to suffer from amnesia by saying that the present divisions in Thai society had never occurred in the past. He obviously forgot the 1932 Revolution and the civil war with the Communist Party in the 1970s. He argued that the NGOs were an important civil society force for Democracy. This is a strange claim, given the support among nearly all NGOs for the 2006 coup!
When asked about the les majeste law and the court procedures, Suchit stated that it was all fair and just. He defended the use of secret trials where there is no transparency of the system of justice. He claimed that the new committee set up by the government to oversee lese majeste cases would solve any problems. He claimed that those who were found guilty of lese majeste could appeal to the King, failing to mention that Suwich Takor’s appeal has been ignored for over a year while he sits in prison. He also ignored the fact that those who maintain their innocence would not wish to ask the King for “forgiveness”. Suchit ended by saying that we could not have freedom of speech in Thailand because it would be against the Thai culture of loving and respecting the King. This is a one-sided interpretation of Thai culture which turns Thais into slaves. However, there is a rich history of Thais fighting for freedom and Democracy against such attitudes.
Bowornsak Uwanno started his talk by stating the obvious fact that Thailand is a very unequal society, the gap between the rich and poor being very high. However, when asked if he would therefore oppose the King’s Sufficiency Economy Ideology, which is against redistribution of wealth, he failed to reply. He claimed that he supported the idea of a Welfare State, while attacking Thai Rak Thai’s pro-poor policies for “creating a culture of dependency”. This Thatcherite phrase is in keeping with Bowornsak’s neo-liberal ideas. Academics like him who supported the 2006 coup, have long argued that Thai Rak Thai’s pro-poor policies trapped the poor in a patron-client system. For them, governments should expect to win votes by not promising economic benefits to the majority. But alas, the poor in Thailand are too “stupid” to realise that the pro-poor policies are actually bad for them!!
Bowornsak denied that there were any double standards in the use of the law in Thailand. But if there were any problems, he said that it was the fault of the police, certainly not the fault of the judiciary.
In his booklet defending the use of lese majeste, Bowornsak falsely claimed that similar laws were in use in Western Europe. (How many people are in jail for criticising the ruling elites in Western Europe?) He defended the use of lese majeste by saying that Thailand had a “special culture” where all Thais love the great “Buddha King” who is “our father”. The Thai King rules in a “moral manner” according to Bowornsak. Yet when questioned in the meeting about why the King signed the military junta’s laws after the illegal 2006 coup, he claimed that this did not mean that the King supported the coup. “Have pity and be fair to the King”, he said. One man from the audience responded by asking “and what about the Thai people?”
Two British academics were also speakers in this meeting and they both indicated that there were serious problems with the lese majeste law and freedom of speech in Thailand.
Text of the leaflet handed out in the meeting:
Free all Thai Political Prisoners!
Return the country to Democracy!
Since the 2006 military coup, which overthrew a democratically elected government in Thailand, it has become a crime to advocate Democracy. The coup claimed Royal Legitimacy and two draconian laws: the lese majeste law and the computer crimes law have been used. Suwicha Takor was sentenced to 10 years in prison for posting a picture on the internet. Darunee Charnchoensilpakul was sentenced to 18 years, in a secret trial, for making political speeches. Lese majeste and computer crimes charges have been made against: 13 executive members of the Foreign Correspondents Club, the BBC correspondent, the British editor of The Times, Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn, four people charged with posting the truth about stock market fears for the King’s health, the webmaster of Prachatai, and dozens of others. Military installed Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, while lying about human rights, has always prioritised “protecting the monarchy” and the dictatorship. Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has threatened to deal with Prachatai , one of the only independent news sites left in Thailand. Since the 2006 coup, thousands of websites and blogs have been blocked by the Ministry of Censorship. Nearly all the media are controlled by the military, the government, and their allies.
See: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/, http://facthai.wordpress.com/, http://www.prachatai.com/english/, http://www.newmandala.org/, http://www.ahrchk.net/index.php and The Economist magazine.
See also the latest Human Rights Watch report on Thailand: http://www.hrw.org/node/87869
Since the 2006 coup, the judiciary have been working hand in glove with the military in order to frustrate the democratic process, twice disbanding the political party which won the most votes in repeated elections. The military also pushed through its own Constitution instead of the 1997 democratic Constitution. The present Constitution legitimises the 2006 coup and enshrines the obligation of all governments to increase military spending while keeping public social spending to a minimum. Borwornsak Uwanno, one of today’s advertised panellists, had a key role in supporting the coup and drawing up the military’s Constitution. He is Secretary-General of the King Prajadhipok Institute, named after Thailand’s last absolute monarch who was overthrown by a pro-democracy revolution in 1932. Previously Borwornsak served former Prime Minister Thaksin, changing ships at the last minute to save his own skin. While serving Thaksin he never criticised that government’s human rights abuses in the War on Drugs or in the South. Suchit Boonbongkarn and the Thai Ambassador are also apologists for the military coup and the systematic destruction of Democracy. Today there is no Rule of Law or Justice. The military, the Government and the semi-fascist Peoples Alliance for Democracy have used violence and repression on the streets with impunity. No one has been punished for wrecking Government House, occupying the international airports or for shooting unarmed demonstrators in the streets. The Minister of Finance and the Foreign Minister were involved in these crimes. Yet pro-democracy activists are constantly being charged or put in prison.
Apologists for the 2006 coup justify their position by insulting the intelligence of the Thai electorate. They claim that they are ‘uneducated’ and ‘uninformed’ and ‘allowed themselves to be bought’. Yet the strong support for Thaksin’s democratically elected government which still exists today, is a result of the implementation of a Universal Health Care Scheme and many pro-poor policies. These policies are abhorred by the coup supporters. They want to turn the clock back to the bad old days when the elites could rule without any concern for the population, where political parties had no policies and bought votes, and where the military could act with impunity just by claiming that they were doing everything “for the King”. Throughout this crisis the King has failed, as he always did, to speak up in favour of Democracy and Freedom of Speech. Instead, as the richest Monarch in the World, he advocates the ideology of the Sufficiency Economy, where the poor must remain happy in their poverty. It is an ideology that opposes redistribution of wealth in a country with great inequalities. But the King is old and has been in hospital since September. The elites are afraid that when he dies, their legitimising tool will die with him. His son is hated and feared.
In Thailand we need genuine Democracy. The lese majeste and computer laws must be scrapped, the military needs to be cut down to size and those who commit Human Rights abuses should be punished. We need a European-style Welfare State and a fully democratic Republic.
Giles Ji Ungpakorn http://wdpress.blog.co.uk/, http://siamrd.blog.co.uk/ (blocked by censors in Thailand)”
Report on SOAS event, part I
Exactly what one would expect from Suchit. He’s been wheeled out plenty of times. He’s one of those academics who manages to sell his services to various buyers – there’s a less polite term for this. His comments on the monarchy and constitutionality are simply stupid and wrong. He knows it but also knows what his masters want him to say.
McCargo confuses me by apparently making a Stephen Young-like comment that Thailand was all goodness and light in the past – all this mai pen rai stuff. Is he misquoted? Was he saying that this is a perspective that was never accurate?
Tukkae – how about posting the Ji account? I can’t access it thanks to MICT blocking.