I appreciate the perspective shared here that the phrase self-sufficient living doesn’t carry the radical flavor anymore it once had. While we could consider the potential opportunities to generate income to support one’s family. Even more basic is the concept of families learning to grow the food they need to survive, and make the things they need for daily life. Many people reflexively conclude that such an idea isn’t feasible, however many are proving otherwise. Farmer Steve’s comment above is a perfect example. In any case, thanks for encouraging people to think more favorably about the concept of being self sufficient.
Rep to chris beale – what allegations do you mean?
Rep to thomas hoy – I agree with you and Elizabeth Fitzgerald that the law and its application is unjust.
I just think that arguing that the judge made an error of interpretation will not work, if your aim is to fight this law.
And I don’t think it would work in the specific case of DT either, based on my reading of the evidence presented in the judgment published in Fa Dio Kan.
But someone more knowledgeable in Thai law than me might have a better idea.
Rep to FGA – my point is exactly that fighting the lese majeste law is indeed a direct challenge to the monarchy. That is why it is an extremely hard thing to do: it’s a political problem, not a legal one.
One suggestion would be to have the student in a room alone with a supervisor. On the desk is the answer sheet. Have the teacher leave the room for some reason. If the student continues taking the test without looking at the answer sheet, they pass the test.
Aladdin – you’re raising a lot of very serious allegations that would stand almost no chance of conviction even in a Western court of law.
Where’s your evidence, other than rumour ?
Thanks StanG.
Good to have your optimistic input.
You should n’t be treated as a “troll”.
And your analysis may be roughly correct – if there is no coup.
But if there’s a coup, or even an attempted coup – there’s little if any grounds for optimism.
On the airport – of course what the Red shirts are complaining about is that they have been very quickly smacked down for even suggesting a mild protest there, but the Yellow shirts prosecution for actually an act of international terrorism, is going nowhere (though Sondhi may have been shot as pay-back).
Aladdin, part of the process of changing or getting rid of this law could be to highlight its manifest absurdity and arbitrariness. Elizabeth Fitzgerald does well to point this out saying that the judges make the point that “Even though the defendant does not clearly mention any individual by name, the fact is that the prosecutor has brought evidence that makes it possible to interpret that the defendant meant the King and Queen Sirikit”.
So with this reading she is guilty not simply of what she said but of what people might interpret her to have said. Any negative comment on the ruling classes in Thailand by anyone could be interpreted by someone somewhere as an attack on the monarchy.
I don’t read Thai so there may be translation issues here but, on the face of it, it really amounts to a judgement that she “possibly” committed a crime. That’s a very weak standard of proof for 18 years jail.
If it is as they say “possible” to interpret Da Torpedo’s speech one way, then logically it must be possible to interpret it in other ways.
So I agree with Elizabeth that those other interpretations should be made. For three reasons, to relieve a person who is oppressed, to make inroads against the continuing oppression of speech and thought, and to highlight the injustice of this law and its application.
Rajshekhar, should not the ‘editor of Burma Review’ have more than a ‘little understanding’ of Burmese affairs?
It is apparent that you mis-read some of this interview: you label Prof Aung-Thwin an ‘SPDC supporter’. Please re-read: “Because I may not want American style democracy imposed on Burma doesn’t mean I must necessarily want the status quo.”
Unfortunately, as with others, you also insist on using the reductionist labelling of the ‘people of Burma’. As the editor of Burma Review, I would have expected a less generalising tendency towards a highly diverse populous (suffice it so say, is there any ‘people’ which is wholly united in its views?).
Perhaps you should also consider exploring ‘legitimacy; that the concept is not universal, and has different meanings to different people (on this I would recommend you explore some field research carried out in Burma by Kyaw Yin Hlaing).
Awzar Thi, your comment is self-defeating. You question why big words are used, then admit after looking up said ‘big word’ that its application is useful; perhaps you should take from this article that, in this case, language is constructive of meaning, and a predilection for ‘big words’ does not negate the utility of an interviewee.
That this article has been commented on as it has (with some ad hominem arguments), is, at least for myself, a sign of its usefulness. New Mandala encourages vigorous debate; this is it.
You may have entirely missed the point. There would be no allegations against despots in high places if that is what you mean. I thought I had indicated that police, justices, public prosecutors, plaintiffs in past and current LM cases all be included in a class action suit. The point is not to challenge any monarchy per se, but instead to get the issue out onto the court, in the court, and open media. It’s a fight worth fighting. I am not a great ACLU fan, but I believe this is what they did when they were first founded – they took on a major social issue for the first time and won.
EF – I don’t think there is much difference between our positions on the injustice of the lese majeste law. But the details are important.
From the evidence presented in the judgment that was published in FDK, it didn’t seem to me that there was a great deal of doubt about DT’s intention. While I am no expert in Thai law I didn’t think that the judge’s interpretation of her intention was unreasonable.
So I think it is the wrong tactic to emphasize interpretation of intention, if you are opposed to the injustice of people who are imprisoned under lese majeste.
The real problem is that under the lese majeste law if you tell the truth about the monarchy you will be prosecuted. So if you want a rational understanding about the place of the monarchy in Thailand, based on fact, you have to abolish lese majeste, not quibble about interpretation of the law (IMHO).
Re. your comment that, “The precise injustice of the court is that the issue of whether or not one should be able to say what Darunee said cannot even be raised within the court”; again, I don’t think I can agree.
In my understanding the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law, not to question whether the laws are just or not.
In a democracy it should be the people, through their political representatives, who decide whether or not a law is just, not unelected judges – who in recent years appear in any case to be more beholden to the monarchy than they are to the people. So this debate should take place in society generally. Then, if it is the will of the people, the politicians as the people’s political representatives change the law.
***
FGA – For the same reason as above I can’t agree with your call to “take the lese majeste issue into the courts”.
I do agree that one could and should demand open trials and open reporting, but it would be a futile effort under the current regime. Can you really imagine Thai newspapers or TV news programs reporting that a defendant in a lese majeste case had accused the King of being involved in the killing of his brother, that the Thai monarchy was despotic and that the Thai royal family should be guillotined or shot? And this is the tip of the iceberg. I understand that there are 100s of cases pending prosecution. The whole idea of lese majeste is to limit criticism of the monarchy, not broadcast it through the media, even if it were in the form of court reporting.
As I said in my first post, the notion that the problem with the lese majeste law is that it is misused or abused by others is a royalist argument and should be rejected.
The lese majeste law is at the heart of the current undemocratic regime. If Thais knew all the facts about and could openly discuss and criticise the monarchy then it could not survive in its current form. This would mean that the “network” of military, business, party political and bureaucratic interests that depend on the monarchy would also be severely weakened.
That is why those interests would never consider altering the lese majeste law themselves.
One needs somehow to build up a political constituency that demands abolition or at least drastic change to the law. What this means, therefore, is that you need a political constituency, and a strategy, to fight the monarchy.
I think these pictures were taken from the same Khao Yai concert, there are war drums, Jaturporn, Nattawut and Veera dressed as ancient warriors and more.
Lacking of the contextual knowledge about traditional informal Chinese lending system in Thailand, American way of life, and the Thai government scholarship and bureaucratic promotional system, the comments made above are simply inaccurate.
1. Informal lending system is still operating in Thailand similar to the lottery system. The coexisting of informal and formal systems, is common characteristics of most developing countries in transition towards a full market economy. Most of the informal money lending in Bangkok are operated by Thai Chinese. And as we know in a pre-modern society, fortune teller is still influential in Thais’ sets of belief. I think the lender did belief in the traditional Chinese face reading as well as intending to help another Thai Chinese by giving a hand to Thaksin to get his business started.
2. In the Thai government scholarship system, if you study abroad one year you have to stay in the government for two years, the ratio of 1:2. And just like any other country, degree does count in the promotional decision. Most of Thais stay on with government jobs after the obligation period ended. However, some of the bright, talented and ambitious Thais would get out and take a risk with other type of jobs. Thaksin had made the choice to face the challenge of the business world and he succeeded.
3. Having car in the U.S. is equivalent to having legs, with no meaning associate with luxurious life style. In the U.S. it is part of a daily life necessity. Unlike Europe and Asia where public transportation plays essential role, American way of life is based on freeway. American people use large car because it’s a very big country and the gasoline is inexpensive. Whereas European pay $90 to fill up a car, American would pay only $ 25. In the U.S. , it’s so easy to buy a car as long as you hold a job, you can buy a car with very low monthly payment of $200/month. An American two-door Pontiac Firebird is common and inexpensive in the oil rich Texas State. In the U.S. unless you drive Porsche, everything else is not big deal.
I don’t think it’s fair to make comments without knowing the context. In the U.S., people would admire a self-made successful person like Thaksin, so does the present day China. In contrast to pre-modern Thai society, in developed as well as transition market economy, governments recognize the critical role of entrepreneurs as catalyst and the engine of growth and innovation.
To repeat my earlier few suggestions, Thais and/or expats here in Thailand must take the lese majeste issue into the courts by swearing criminal and civil plaints against:
1. those administering the law.
2. those enforcing the law.
3. class action suit against those in the past who filed wrongful lese majeste charges.
4. those involved in the legislation process from beginning to passing into law.
While the courts get and deserve many high marks for administering justice in many cases, it is no secret that here in Thailand they fall far short of either preventing or properly dealing with injustice, particularly in this area…in part because of the attitudes of justices and lawyers and police toward the real intent of the lese majeste law and why it is being retained and used so often. The fact that now the military is openly involved in policing opinion and expression should highlight that things can only get worse.
There is the opinion that any group that actually carries this issue into the courts will face imprisonment. I am sure it will face harassment and derision, denunciation and possibly demonstrations (orchestrated), and possibly even minimal violence, but right now over sixty million citizens are living under an archaic law that does so much more harm than good.
So, again, get together one and all and let’s take this issue into the courts – demanding open trials and media coverage – where it will get the attention it deserves.
In Darunee’s case as to the secrecy involved, one of the main considerations on the part of the court had to be prevention of opposing viewpoints that would undermining the juristic portion of administering the law. This is one of the things that a group which gets together to take the lese majeste circus into court can latch onto. Unless justices are put on the defense they are not going to back down – which it seems they currently feel is an evil concept.
Northeast India with its Naga, Ahom and Mizo peoples, and also the Chakma in the Chittagong Hill Tract of Bangladesh, are closer to people in the East. The Naga and Chin (Mizo) minorities also live in Burma. Their physical difference from the peoples of India is striking, not just the culture. Some were converted to Christianity whilst others to Buddhism, still by and large mixed with animism.
Burma has in the past invaded and annexed these lands. Clearly a natural land empire of the olden days, despite its failure to hold on to these western regions, faced considerable difficulties in becoming a modern union of myriad races and tribes within races, especially after falling prey in its turn to a century of colonial rule. If the minorities that straddle Burma and either India or China aspire to become independent states, the problem will take on another intractable dimension unless and until the metropolitan state disintegrates as with the USSR. The issue becomes even more complex as the giant neighbours enter the equation.
If any future Burmese leadership that succeeds the junta, by peaceful means or no, is able to rise up to the challenge of creating a federation of the willing, unlike the present unhappy situation, we can hope for a happy ending to this protracted tale of communal strife and disunion.
Aladdin, I agree that the problem is “the lese majeste law itself which forbids criticism of the monarchy.” However, what became of interest to me when I read the decision was how the court justified and argued its claims against Darunee. The precise injustice of the court is that the issue of whether or not one should be able to say what Darunee said cannot even be raised within the court. There is literally no space within the court to raise this question — that is a problem. So I return to the question with which I ended: when one examines this court decision, and how the incredibly harsh sentence against Darunee was justified, what might one conclude? In particular, what does the logic of the court tell us about injustice, democracy, censorship and repression in Thailand?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Self-sufficient Pyramid Scheme
I appreciate the perspective shared here that the phrase self-sufficient living doesn’t carry the radical flavor anymore it once had. While we could consider the potential opportunities to generate income to support one’s family. Even more basic is the concept of families learning to grow the food they need to survive, and make the things they need for daily life. Many people reflexively conclude that such an idea isn’t feasible, however many are proving otherwise. Farmer Steve’s comment above is a perfect example. In any case, thanks for encouraging people to think more favorably about the concept of being self sufficient.
The evidence of intention
Rep to chris beale – what allegations do you mean?
Rep to thomas hoy – I agree with you and Elizabeth Fitzgerald that the law and its application is unjust.
I just think that arguing that the judge made an error of interpretation will not work, if your aim is to fight this law.
And I don’t think it would work in the specific case of DT either, based on my reading of the evidence presented in the judgment published in Fa Dio Kan.
But someone more knowledgeable in Thai law than me might have a better idea.
Rep to FGA – my point is exactly that fighting the lese majeste law is indeed a direct challenge to the monarchy. That is why it is an extremely hard thing to do: it’s a political problem, not a legal one.
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
Thanks Suzie Wong for the providing the context – I was unaware that Thailand was such a land of opportunity (for those not too lazy to succeed:)
The moral of University admissions
I wonder what the test would be like.
One suggestion would be to have the student in a room alone with a supervisor. On the desk is the answer sheet. Have the teacher leave the room for some reason. If the student continues taking the test without looking at the answer sheet, they pass the test.
The evidence of intention
The appeal is merely a re-eamination of existing evidence and review of procedures, etc. if I am correct.
The evidence of intention
A further word. I just read somewhere that Darunee’s case is still on appeal. This makes it more urgent that her case be argued in every way possible.
The evidence of intention
Aladdin – you’re raising a lot of very serious allegations that would stand almost no chance of conviction even in a Western court of law.
Where’s your evidence, other than rumour ?
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Thanks StanG.
Good to have your optimistic input.
You should n’t be treated as a “troll”.
And your analysis may be roughly correct – if there is no coup.
But if there’s a coup, or even an attempted coup – there’s little if any grounds for optimism.
On the airport – of course what the Red shirts are complaining about is that they have been very quickly smacked down for even suggesting a mild protest there, but the Yellow shirts prosecution for actually an act of international terrorism, is going nowhere (though Sondhi may have been shot as pay-back).
The evidence of intention
Aladdin, part of the process of changing or getting rid of this law could be to highlight its manifest absurdity and arbitrariness. Elizabeth Fitzgerald does well to point this out saying that the judges make the point that “Even though the defendant does not clearly mention any individual by name, the fact is that the prosecutor has brought evidence that makes it possible to interpret that the defendant meant the King and Queen Sirikit”.
So with this reading she is guilty not simply of what she said but of what people might interpret her to have said. Any negative comment on the ruling classes in Thailand by anyone could be interpreted by someone somewhere as an attack on the monarchy.
I don’t read Thai so there may be translation issues here but, on the face of it, it really amounts to a judgement that she “possibly” committed a crime. That’s a very weak standard of proof for 18 years jail.
If it is as they say “possible” to interpret Da Torpedo’s speech one way, then logically it must be possible to interpret it in other ways.
So I agree with Elizabeth that those other interpretations should be made. For three reasons, to relieve a person who is oppressed, to make inroads against the continuing oppression of speech and thought, and to highlight the injustice of this law and its application.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Rajshekhar, should not the ‘editor of Burma Review’ have more than a ‘little understanding’ of Burmese affairs?
It is apparent that you mis-read some of this interview: you label Prof Aung-Thwin an ‘SPDC supporter’. Please re-read: “Because I may not want American style democracy imposed on Burma doesn’t mean I must necessarily want the status quo.”
Unfortunately, as with others, you also insist on using the reductionist labelling of the ‘people of Burma’. As the editor of Burma Review, I would have expected a less generalising tendency towards a highly diverse populous (suffice it so say, is there any ‘people’ which is wholly united in its views?).
Perhaps you should also consider exploring ‘legitimacy; that the concept is not universal, and has different meanings to different people (on this I would recommend you explore some field research carried out in Burma by Kyaw Yin Hlaing).
Awzar Thi, your comment is self-defeating. You question why big words are used, then admit after looking up said ‘big word’ that its application is useful; perhaps you should take from this article that, in this case, language is constructive of meaning, and a predilection for ‘big words’ does not negate the utility of an interviewee.
That this article has been commented on as it has (with some ad hominem arguments), is, at least for myself, a sign of its usefulness. New Mandala encourages vigorous debate; this is it.
On the judgment against Da Torpedo
[…] the post “On the judgment of Da Torpedo,” New Mandala posted an English-language summary of the segments of the court decision against […]
The evidence of intention
You may have entirely missed the point. There would be no allegations against despots in high places if that is what you mean. I thought I had indicated that police, justices, public prosecutors, plaintiffs in past and current LM cases all be included in a class action suit. The point is not to challenge any monarchy per se, but instead to get the issue out onto the court, in the court, and open media. It’s a fight worth fighting. I am not a great ACLU fan, but I believe this is what they did when they were first founded – they took on a major social issue for the first time and won.
Review of Thai Forestry: A Critical History
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2010/01/22/review-of-thai-forestry-critical-history–N… […]
The evidence of intention
EF – I don’t think there is much difference between our positions on the injustice of the lese majeste law. But the details are important.
From the evidence presented in the judgment that was published in FDK, it didn’t seem to me that there was a great deal of doubt about DT’s intention. While I am no expert in Thai law I didn’t think that the judge’s interpretation of her intention was unreasonable.
So I think it is the wrong tactic to emphasize interpretation of intention, if you are opposed to the injustice of people who are imprisoned under lese majeste.
The real problem is that under the lese majeste law if you tell the truth about the monarchy you will be prosecuted. So if you want a rational understanding about the place of the monarchy in Thailand, based on fact, you have to abolish lese majeste, not quibble about interpretation of the law (IMHO).
Re. your comment that, “The precise injustice of the court is that the issue of whether or not one should be able to say what Darunee said cannot even be raised within the court”; again, I don’t think I can agree.
In my understanding the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law, not to question whether the laws are just or not.
In a democracy it should be the people, through their political representatives, who decide whether or not a law is just, not unelected judges – who in recent years appear in any case to be more beholden to the monarchy than they are to the people. So this debate should take place in society generally. Then, if it is the will of the people, the politicians as the people’s political representatives change the law.
***
FGA – For the same reason as above I can’t agree with your call to “take the lese majeste issue into the courts”.
I do agree that one could and should demand open trials and open reporting, but it would be a futile effort under the current regime. Can you really imagine Thai newspapers or TV news programs reporting that a defendant in a lese majeste case had accused the King of being involved in the killing of his brother, that the Thai monarchy was despotic and that the Thai royal family should be guillotined or shot? And this is the tip of the iceberg. I understand that there are 100s of cases pending prosecution. The whole idea of lese majeste is to limit criticism of the monarchy, not broadcast it through the media, even if it were in the form of court reporting.
As I said in my first post, the notion that the problem with the lese majeste law is that it is misused or abused by others is a royalist argument and should be rejected.
The lese majeste law is at the heart of the current undemocratic regime. If Thais knew all the facts about and could openly discuss and criticise the monarchy then it could not survive in its current form. This would mean that the “network” of military, business, party political and bureaucratic interests that depend on the monarchy would also be severely weakened.
That is why those interests would never consider altering the lese majeste law themselves.
One needs somehow to build up a political constituency that demands abolition or at least drastic change to the law. What this means, therefore, is that you need a political constituency, and a strategy, to fight the monarchy.
The evidence of intention
“In particular, what does the logic of the court tell us about injustice, democracy, censorship and repression in Thailand?” >> A lot, presumably.
Saturday red, Sunday yellow: the temperature rises again
I think these pictures were taken from the same Khao Yai concert, there are war drums, Jaturporn, Nattawut and Veera dressed as ancient warriors and more.
Another set of pictures
Currently featured on the cover of Truth Today magazine, must be important.
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
Lacking of the contextual knowledge about traditional informal Chinese lending system in Thailand, American way of life, and the Thai government scholarship and bureaucratic promotional system, the comments made above are simply inaccurate.
1. Informal lending system is still operating in Thailand similar to the lottery system. The coexisting of informal and formal systems, is common characteristics of most developing countries in transition towards a full market economy. Most of the informal money lending in Bangkok are operated by Thai Chinese. And as we know in a pre-modern society, fortune teller is still influential in Thais’ sets of belief. I think the lender did belief in the traditional Chinese face reading as well as intending to help another Thai Chinese by giving a hand to Thaksin to get his business started.
2. In the Thai government scholarship system, if you study abroad one year you have to stay in the government for two years, the ratio of 1:2. And just like any other country, degree does count in the promotional decision. Most of Thais stay on with government jobs after the obligation period ended. However, some of the bright, talented and ambitious Thais would get out and take a risk with other type of jobs. Thaksin had made the choice to face the challenge of the business world and he succeeded.
3. Having car in the U.S. is equivalent to having legs, with no meaning associate with luxurious life style. In the U.S. it is part of a daily life necessity. Unlike Europe and Asia where public transportation plays essential role, American way of life is based on freeway. American people use large car because it’s a very big country and the gasoline is inexpensive. Whereas European pay $90 to fill up a car, American would pay only $ 25. In the U.S. , it’s so easy to buy a car as long as you hold a job, you can buy a car with very low monthly payment of $200/month. An American two-door Pontiac Firebird is common and inexpensive in the oil rich Texas State. In the U.S. unless you drive Porsche, everything else is not big deal.
I don’t think it’s fair to make comments without knowing the context. In the U.S., people would admire a self-made successful person like Thaksin, so does the present day China. In contrast to pre-modern Thai society, in developed as well as transition market economy, governments recognize the critical role of entrepreneurs as catalyst and the engine of growth and innovation.
The evidence of intention
To repeat my earlier few suggestions, Thais and/or expats here in Thailand must take the lese majeste issue into the courts by swearing criminal and civil plaints against:
1. those administering the law.
2. those enforcing the law.
3. class action suit against those in the past who filed wrongful lese majeste charges.
4. those involved in the legislation process from beginning to passing into law.
While the courts get and deserve many high marks for administering justice in many cases, it is no secret that here in Thailand they fall far short of either preventing or properly dealing with injustice, particularly in this area…in part because of the attitudes of justices and lawyers and police toward the real intent of the lese majeste law and why it is being retained and used so often. The fact that now the military is openly involved in policing opinion and expression should highlight that things can only get worse.
There is the opinion that any group that actually carries this issue into the courts will face imprisonment. I am sure it will face harassment and derision, denunciation and possibly demonstrations (orchestrated), and possibly even minimal violence, but right now over sixty million citizens are living under an archaic law that does so much more harm than good.
So, again, get together one and all and let’s take this issue into the courts – demanding open trials and media coverage – where it will get the attention it deserves.
In Darunee’s case as to the secrecy involved, one of the main considerations on the part of the court had to be prevention of opposing viewpoints that would undermining the juristic portion of administering the law. This is one of the things that a group which gets together to take the lese majeste circus into court can latch onto. Unless justices are put on the defense they are not going to back down – which it seems they currently feel is an evil concept.
China and the Wa
Northeast India with its Naga, Ahom and Mizo peoples, and also the Chakma in the Chittagong Hill Tract of Bangladesh, are closer to people in the East. The Naga and Chin (Mizo) minorities also live in Burma. Their physical difference from the peoples of India is striking, not just the culture. Some were converted to Christianity whilst others to Buddhism, still by and large mixed with animism.
Burma has in the past invaded and annexed these lands. Clearly a natural land empire of the olden days, despite its failure to hold on to these western regions, faced considerable difficulties in becoming a modern union of myriad races and tribes within races, especially after falling prey in its turn to a century of colonial rule. If the minorities that straddle Burma and either India or China aspire to become independent states, the problem will take on another intractable dimension unless and until the metropolitan state disintegrates as with the USSR. The issue becomes even more complex as the giant neighbours enter the equation.
If any future Burmese leadership that succeeds the junta, by peaceful means or no, is able to rise up to the challenge of creating a federation of the willing, unlike the present unhappy situation, we can hope for a happy ending to this protracted tale of communal strife and disunion.
The evidence of intention
Aladdin, I agree that the problem is “the lese majeste law itself which forbids criticism of the monarchy.” However, what became of interest to me when I read the decision was how the court justified and argued its claims against Darunee. The precise injustice of the court is that the issue of whether or not one should be able to say what Darunee said cannot even be raised within the court. There is literally no space within the court to raise this question — that is a problem. So I return to the question with which I ended: when one examines this court decision, and how the incredibly harsh sentence against Darunee was justified, what might one conclude? In particular, what does the logic of the court tell us about injustice, democracy, censorship and repression in Thailand?