I think that by making such an argument one risks falling in line with royalist propaganda about the Thai monarchy.
First, we need to distinguish between two kinds of statements: (i) statements that a defendant would make in court as a defense against a lese majeste charge; and (ii) statements concerning the monarchy that are free of the threat of imprisonment, violence or some other penalty.
In court, unless one wants to grandstand or commit legal suicide, one would want to fight the charges by whatever means necessary, and the question of intent would be one legal strategy. It would be in one’s interest to argue that by saying the things one is accused of saying one did NOT intend those words to refer to the Thai King, Queen, or royal family, and therefore such statements could not be interpreted as having violated lese majeste.
In other words, one would argue that the defendant certainly did not imply that the King and Queen were behind the coup, that they supported the PAD, that the King interfered in the judiciary, that the King was “involved” in the killing of his elder brother King Rama VIII, and that the Thai monarchy was despotic and oppressed the Thai people, etc.
That is, by denying that one had intended to mean such things in making those statements one’s real views would be assumed to be consistent with royalist propaganda about the monarchy and thus within the law.
This would be a sensible argument to make in a courtroom to avoid an 18 year prison sentence.
But it seems to me that in the poster’s penultimate paragraph she comes close to implying that “Da Torpedo” was imprisoned based purely on a WRONG interpretation by the court.
Now, *** outside of a Thai courtroom context *** this line of argument is dangerous, in my opinion, because it shifts the focus away from the injustice of the lese majeste law and onto the question of interpretation and the role of the courts and judges. That is, the counterargument (to that of the sentencing judge) could be that the judges erred in their interpretation of DT’s intention; DT did not really intend her statements to mean that she was referring to the King and Queen. Why? Because (according to royalist propaganda) the King and Queen are virtuous and above politics, and DT believes that to be true.
(In fact, this is precisely the royalist argument about the lese majeste law; the law is not in itself wrong, but it is abused by others – the finger is usually pointed at politicians, but one could add over-eager judges. )
This is not just a legal problem but also a problem for Thai politicians. Because of the lese majeste law they must go along with the fiction that the King and Queen are virtuous and above politics even when the King and Queen are assisting and supporting their political opponents, sometimes openly.
It seems to me that if one thinks of statements that are made based purely on the factual evidence and even on simple common sense – the things many Thais say privately where there is little threat of imprisonment or other penalty – there is no question that people intend what they mean when they say exactly the same things that DT was accused of saying: that the King and Queen WERE behind the coup, that the King and Queen WERE supporting the PAD, that the King DID interfere in the judiciary, that the King WAS involved in the killing of his elder brother, that the Thai monarchy IS despotic, etc. etc.
Such views are not a question of interpretation or intention. People mean and intend what they say because they believe it to be the truth. The only problem is that they can’t say so in public because of the lese majeste law and the political regime which it supports.
In summary, the problem, in my opinion, is not the question of intention or interpretation, but the lese majeste law itself which forbids criticism of the monarchy.
1) Steve Young is not a “professor”, but a lobbyist and failed politician of the Republican party.
2) He has formulated a recommendation (The Nation, 30 January 2010) that he might as well apply to himself:
“6. Beware Farangs bearing condescending [“ignorant” would have been a better choice of words, Sri.] advice
The farang mindset, no matter how well educated or how well intended, has no necessary commitment to the wellbeing of Thai society. Nor will the farang mindset necessarily have good remedies for Thailand if all goes wrong with farang recommendations to better conform Thai values and social practices with foreign standards.
Even the well-meaning farangs will probably not stick around to pick up the pieces if it all falls apart. Remember the Americans in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.”
3) He tops his recommendation with this:
“8. Use the Thosapit Rajatham
The 10 guiding principles of just rule, taken from Theravada teachings on moderation, can work just fine in the 21st century.
Politicians, political parties, even government programs, can be judged good or bad by their alignment with the Thosapit Rajatham.”
In his list, I miss privy councilors, soldiers, bureaucrats, technocrats, etc. From Young’s perspective, the military coup of September 2006 must have been an expression of Thosapit Rajatham!
One of the policies that earned Thaksin the label of a populist was the universal health care scheme (30 baht thuk rok). Now, it seems that it is an internationally admired example, embedded in the supra-national discourse on public health policy models. See the quote below. This poses the question of whether Pasuk’s book belongs to an earlier more “politically motivated” critical discourse that was based on the non-responsive character of the pre-Thaksin policy-making process in Thailand, and the resultant expectations of the critical public.
“What are the strengths and weaknesses of universal healthcare schemes?
The strengths are that Thailand took the decision to implement the universal healthcare coverage (UC) in 2001. The speed with which it moved towards universal health coverage is remarkable if we look at the history of universal health coverage in other countries. Thailand has been able to expand population coverage remarkably quickly.
Another is that you have a very good infrastructure of services, particularly in rural areas. There is much less difference between level of utilisation in rural and urban areas than you get in many other countries.
The payment system based on capitation is another strength because it has been a very big problem in some countries like South Korea and Taiwan.
The difference is what they are paying for. In Thailand, you pay outpatient and health prevention per capitation which is per person per year. For inpatient care, you pay per case which is weighted by complexity of the case.
But in Taiwan and in South Korea, they pay per items of service. We know from experience in other countries where you pay for individual items of service, that it means incentive for hospitals to increase the number of services. So they may use more drugs, they may be less careful about wasting medical supplies, they may treat patients in bed in the hospital longer because they get money for additional days.
The final strength was the pragmatic decision to maintain the three main schemes. Because one of the problems in a major healthcare reform is if you try to do a lot at one time, it can be very difficult to implement.
If you said you were going to have just one scheme, you would have so much opposition from the civil servants and from social security that it might damage the achievement of the goal. And Thailand focused on those people who did not have coverage. I think that was pragmatic.
The weakness is because there are three main schemes. The difficulty is the difference in the level of expenditure between them. At the level of the hospital, how much cross-subsidy is there between the civil service benefits scheme and the UC scheme? Some of the additional money paid out for the civil service scheme is being spent on additional services. I would think a considerable part of that money goes to the civil servants. But it is possible that some of the payment that comes to the civil services scheme is being diverted to help subsidise UC. I think there is need for a new reform in the civil service medical benefits scheme. It’s important to understand what might be the effect on possible financing.
The social security scheme was developed on a sound basis in terms of the payment mechanism. I would like to see the Social Security Scheme covering the worker, spouse and children, not the larger family.
One of my concerns, which is a weakness for all three schemes, is the weakness of primary care in Thailand. As you open up demand for health care, if people just come to the hospitals all the time, the hospitals get extremely crowded. Someone goes to a hospital, they are more likely to get extra procedures to get admitted. And most healthcare needs can be met outside the hospital. In fact, in England we have seen a major shift away from in-patient care to out-patient care and to primary care in the community. Many things can be dealt on an out-patient basis.
The weakness of primary health care has been identified in Thailand for a long time. But somehow you need to raise the status of primary care. You need to make general practice more attractive for doctors. The way that was dealt with in England was by making specialism on a par with surgery or medicine and paying for general practice equivalent to other specialties. So they will be rewarded in a way.
In Thailand, it could easily take 10 years to do. You need to build up not just your general practitioners but also nurses. Nurse practitioners are a very important part of primary care team.
One weakness of UC is the excessive hospital dominance. The other thing is human resource distribution in Thailand. The separation of how money is managed, that is how the labour in the capitalist system is managed.
Although a large amount of money goes to the National Health Security Office (NHSO,) they did not finance the health workers or the infrastructure because that still came under the Ministry of Public Health. Without the ability to influence workers or infrastructure, it’s very difficult to use money on its own. You have tied the NHSO’s hands from improving the system. You need to decentralise the employment and it needs to be made possible. You need a stronger mechanism to move health workers around the country.”
Agree with Polo – there seems to be some gaps in the story, particularly about his access to borrowed money.
Sure the interest rate was high, but wouldn’t the bank manager need more security than just ambition?
Running two cars also does not seem too much like a struggling students lifestyle to me.
The other thing I found fascinating was the study for the police dept, with each degree leading to an automatic rank increase?
I imagine there weould have to be some sort of bond or contract requiring him to remain in the dept – seems to have glossed over how he got out of the police into business – hopefully he will revisit that matter in Chapter 2.
1. You are factually wrong about the use of the word “Allah” in that it is exclusive to Islam. Only in Peninsular Malaysia since 1986 has this attempt to make it exclusive to Muslims for purely political reasons.
2. Constitutionally in Malaysia, the state has no authority to regulate the personal beliefs and practises of any other religion except Islam.
If you would take a little effort to research this subject (even by surfing this blog), you would find that your perception that Allah is exclusive to Muslims patently wrong.
It is to Anupong’s great credit that he has – thus far – headed off pressure for a coup. Ditto Defence Minister Prawit.
Indeed, so far, this is one of the few optimistic outcomes of Thailand’s crisis to date. : soldiers have not fired on soldiers.
So in this respect, the country is currently doing better than
the during the two coups of 1986, when soldiers did begin firing at each other (with great journalist Neil Davis killed in the
crossfire).
IMO ethnicities overlap in areas where there are geographic migrations of people over time. Its actually truer for hill people organized into tribes – as a case in point most tribes of Northeast India are of Tibeto-Burman origins in varying degrees to the extent where this area is culturally closer to its eastern neighbors than mainland India. That said the range of intermingling may be very localized and its very interesting to read about the Chinese and Wa here.
Noud – your point is quite true.
Though my impression is that nation-building by the Thai state,
eg. through the school system, has only at best been partially successful. I’d suggest Thai pop culture has perhaps been a more effective unifier.
I’m not suggesting Isaarn would want to become part of Lao PDR. Simply that it may break away into an independent, o r semi-independent Isaarn.
This becomes ever more likely the more Isaarn sees its’ rights – of which they’re now fully aware – being eroded, marginalised, or treated with double-standards by Bangkok and Southern Thailand. But the real trigger for secession would be a pro-PAD coup resulting in widespread bloodshed.
The PAD keep talking about Thailand being “indivisable”, but as far as I can see they’re the ones doing the most to divide it.
Are any of the PAD core leaders from Isaarn ? They’re almost all either Bangkok or Southern Thai.
Chris, at this point whatever I say is going to run contrary to some knowledgeable and informed people who hold diametrically opposite opinions, so please don’t drag me into an argument why I could possibly be right and Wassana could be wrong.
I still think that Thaksin’s verdict is going to be largely uneventful and there will be no dramatic changes. That doesn’t mean, however, that the army and Abhisit can simply sit it out, it just means they will be able to control the situation and will ultimately prevail, tough it won’t be easy.
The worst possible scenario is when the reds go out on a full blown assault to elicit violent response. That could happen but I don’t believe they will get any sympathy either from Thai public or internationally. On the contrary, the resolute and decisive response would be most welcome by all concerned parties – Thailand’s greatest weakness is uncertainty and the country would become a basket case if red vs elites conflict becomes unmanageable again.
You could see how serious the society is about it by how quickly it forced the reds to abandon their plans to go anywhere near the airport. Reds have got their space to hold rallies and sing songs but they are deeply mistaken if they think they will be tolerated if they start creating any real troubles. I believe their leaders realize this, btw, but have very little choice as they have to follow Thaksin’s bidding.
Bkk Lawyer, wealth gap is not the driving force behind the current conflict, it’s been exploited when it was convenient and was quietly moved backstage when the war on ammart appeared to be a more appealing rallying cry.
Another factor is where Vajiralongkorn’s military favourites are likely to align themselves. If they have been kept on the outer for a long time by the Prem crowd, they might gang up with the reds. One should never underestimate the enmity that develops between the toadies of a monarch and those of his successor.
I agree with Nicholas that it looks thin. At best a masters thesis. On the other hand, ‘partial fulfillment’ on the title page suggests that there was perhaps a substantial course work component to his PhD, which is not uncommon in the US.
Interestingly, the English is very good – far better than his recent spoken efforts. Of course it is 30 years since he (?) “wrote” it.
As to the premise of the thesis, an education in criminal justice certainly doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression on him.
Patrick’s observation is just the beginning. Every time Thaksin suggests he was poor, he then says something that shows he was rich. It’s only a matter of whether he is deluding himself or that he thinks others would lap this up.
Muslims, whatever their race or ethnicity, USE Allah because it is in the Quran. For Muslims, the Quran is the literal word of God, which is in the original language that it was revealed in – Arabic. Muslims recite the Quran in Arabic, they pray in Arabic – the usage of Arabic is a daily occurence for praticising Muslims, regardless of what thjeir native language is.
Non-Muslim Arabs using the word Allah to denote God in their Bibles does not spark controversy because Arabic is THEIR native language.
Christians, whose native language is NOT Arabic, using Allah to denote God is farcical. The usage of Allah by these people bespeaks of an intent to appeal to Muslims used to usage of Arabic word for God.
The only thing i am interested here at this point is getting an answer to my questions by “steve young”, after he has appeared here once to make a statement.
No answer at all speak volumes though, my dear professor… 😉
Well the thing preventing the situation Chris just descibed is the clear economic gap between Lao PDR and Thailand. Isaarn might feel economically discriminated by Bangkok, they can see they’re still better of as a neglected Thai province then they would be as part of Lao PDR.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The evidence of intention
An unjust law and/or an unjust interpretation of it – either way, I still think more people know about it.
The evidence of intention
I think that by making such an argument one risks falling in line with royalist propaganda about the Thai monarchy.
First, we need to distinguish between two kinds of statements: (i) statements that a defendant would make in court as a defense against a lese majeste charge; and (ii) statements concerning the monarchy that are free of the threat of imprisonment, violence or some other penalty.
In court, unless one wants to grandstand or commit legal suicide, one would want to fight the charges by whatever means necessary, and the question of intent would be one legal strategy. It would be in one’s interest to argue that by saying the things one is accused of saying one did NOT intend those words to refer to the Thai King, Queen, or royal family, and therefore such statements could not be interpreted as having violated lese majeste.
In other words, one would argue that the defendant certainly did not imply that the King and Queen were behind the coup, that they supported the PAD, that the King interfered in the judiciary, that the King was “involved” in the killing of his elder brother King Rama VIII, and that the Thai monarchy was despotic and oppressed the Thai people, etc.
That is, by denying that one had intended to mean such things in making those statements one’s real views would be assumed to be consistent with royalist propaganda about the monarchy and thus within the law.
This would be a sensible argument to make in a courtroom to avoid an 18 year prison sentence.
But it seems to me that in the poster’s penultimate paragraph she comes close to implying that “Da Torpedo” was imprisoned based purely on a WRONG interpretation by the court.
Now, *** outside of a Thai courtroom context *** this line of argument is dangerous, in my opinion, because it shifts the focus away from the injustice of the lese majeste law and onto the question of interpretation and the role of the courts and judges. That is, the counterargument (to that of the sentencing judge) could be that the judges erred in their interpretation of DT’s intention; DT did not really intend her statements to mean that she was referring to the King and Queen. Why? Because (according to royalist propaganda) the King and Queen are virtuous and above politics, and DT believes that to be true.
(In fact, this is precisely the royalist argument about the lese majeste law; the law is not in itself wrong, but it is abused by others – the finger is usually pointed at politicians, but one could add over-eager judges. )
This is not just a legal problem but also a problem for Thai politicians. Because of the lese majeste law they must go along with the fiction that the King and Queen are virtuous and above politics even when the King and Queen are assisting and supporting their political opponents, sometimes openly.
It seems to me that if one thinks of statements that are made based purely on the factual evidence and even on simple common sense – the things many Thais say privately where there is little threat of imprisonment or other penalty – there is no question that people intend what they mean when they say exactly the same things that DT was accused of saying: that the King and Queen WERE behind the coup, that the King and Queen WERE supporting the PAD, that the King DID interfere in the judiciary, that the King WAS involved in the killing of his elder brother, that the Thai monarchy IS despotic, etc. etc.
Such views are not a question of interpretation or intention. People mean and intend what they say because they believe it to be the truth. The only problem is that they can’t say so in public because of the lese majeste law and the political regime which it supports.
In summary, the problem, in my opinion, is not the question of intention or interpretation, but the lese majeste law itself which forbids criticism of the monarchy.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
1) Steve Young is not a “professor”, but a lobbyist and failed politician of the Republican party.
2) He has formulated a recommendation (The Nation, 30 January 2010) that he might as well apply to himself:
“6. Beware Farangs bearing condescending [“ignorant” would have been a better choice of words, Sri.] advice
The farang mindset, no matter how well educated or how well intended, has no necessary commitment to the wellbeing of Thai society. Nor will the farang mindset necessarily have good remedies for Thailand if all goes wrong with farang recommendations to better conform Thai values and social practices with foreign standards.
Even the well-meaning farangs will probably not stick around to pick up the pieces if it all falls apart. Remember the Americans in South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.”
3) He tops his recommendation with this:
“8. Use the Thosapit Rajatham
The 10 guiding principles of just rule, taken from Theravada teachings on moderation, can work just fine in the 21st century.
Politicians, political parties, even government programs, can be judged good or bad by their alignment with the Thosapit Rajatham.”
In his list, I miss privy councilors, soldiers, bureaucrats, technocrats, etc. From Young’s perspective, the military coup of September 2006 must have been an expression of Thosapit Rajatham!
Review of Populism in Asia
One of the policies that earned Thaksin the label of a populist was the universal health care scheme (30 baht thuk rok). Now, it seems that it is an internationally admired example, embedded in the supra-national discourse on public health policy models. See the quote below. This poses the question of whether Pasuk’s book belongs to an earlier more “politically motivated” critical discourse that was based on the non-responsive character of the pre-Thaksin policy-making process in Thailand, and the resultant expectations of the critical public.
“What are the strengths and weaknesses of universal healthcare schemes?
The strengths are that Thailand took the decision to implement the universal healthcare coverage (UC) in 2001. The speed with which it moved towards universal health coverage is remarkable if we look at the history of universal health coverage in other countries. Thailand has been able to expand population coverage remarkably quickly.
Another is that you have a very good infrastructure of services, particularly in rural areas. There is much less difference between level of utilisation in rural and urban areas than you get in many other countries.
The payment system based on capitation is another strength because it has been a very big problem in some countries like South Korea and Taiwan.
The difference is what they are paying for. In Thailand, you pay outpatient and health prevention per capitation which is per person per year. For inpatient care, you pay per case which is weighted by complexity of the case.
But in Taiwan and in South Korea, they pay per items of service. We know from experience in other countries where you pay for individual items of service, that it means incentive for hospitals to increase the number of services. So they may use more drugs, they may be less careful about wasting medical supplies, they may treat patients in bed in the hospital longer because they get money for additional days.
The final strength was the pragmatic decision to maintain the three main schemes. Because one of the problems in a major healthcare reform is if you try to do a lot at one time, it can be very difficult to implement.
If you said you were going to have just one scheme, you would have so much opposition from the civil servants and from social security that it might damage the achievement of the goal. And Thailand focused on those people who did not have coverage. I think that was pragmatic.
The weakness is because there are three main schemes. The difficulty is the difference in the level of expenditure between them. At the level of the hospital, how much cross-subsidy is there between the civil service benefits scheme and the UC scheme? Some of the additional money paid out for the civil service scheme is being spent on additional services. I would think a considerable part of that money goes to the civil servants. But it is possible that some of the payment that comes to the civil services scheme is being diverted to help subsidise UC. I think there is need for a new reform in the civil service medical benefits scheme. It’s important to understand what might be the effect on possible financing.
The social security scheme was developed on a sound basis in terms of the payment mechanism. I would like to see the Social Security Scheme covering the worker, spouse and children, not the larger family.
One of my concerns, which is a weakness for all three schemes, is the weakness of primary care in Thailand. As you open up demand for health care, if people just come to the hospitals all the time, the hospitals get extremely crowded. Someone goes to a hospital, they are more likely to get extra procedures to get admitted. And most healthcare needs can be met outside the hospital. In fact, in England we have seen a major shift away from in-patient care to out-patient care and to primary care in the community. Many things can be dealt on an out-patient basis.
The weakness of primary health care has been identified in Thailand for a long time. But somehow you need to raise the status of primary care. You need to make general practice more attractive for doctors. The way that was dealt with in England was by making specialism on a par with surgery or medicine and paying for general practice equivalent to other specialties. So they will be rewarded in a way.
In Thailand, it could easily take 10 years to do. You need to build up not just your general practitioners but also nurses. Nurse practitioners are a very important part of primary care team.
One weakness of UC is the excessive hospital dominance. The other thing is human resource distribution in Thailand. The separation of how money is managed, that is how the labour in the capitalist system is managed.
Although a large amount of money goes to the National Health Security Office (NHSO,) they did not finance the health workers or the infrastructure because that still came under the Ministry of Public Health. Without the ability to influence workers or infrastructure, it’s very difficult to use money on its own. You have tied the NHSO’s hands from improving the system. You need to decentralise the employment and it needs to be made possible. You need a stronger mechanism to move health workers around the country.”
Ann Mills, Bangk0k Post, 30 January 2007
The evidence of intention
what has Prem got to do with LM , Since when was he covered ?
Only if acting as the Regent is my understanding ?
The evidence of intention
Great Stuff – would be nice to see summarised versions of Ms Fitzgerald’s work published in mainstream media.
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
Agree with Polo – there seems to be some gaps in the story, particularly about his access to borrowed money.
Sure the interest rate was high, but wouldn’t the bank manager need more security than just ambition?
Running two cars also does not seem too much like a struggling students lifestyle to me.
The other thing I found fascinating was the study for the police dept, with each degree leading to an automatic rank increase?
I imagine there weould have to be some sort of bond or contract requiring him to remain in the dept – seems to have glossed over how he got out of the police into business – hopefully he will revisit that matter in Chapter 2.
Rachel Leow on Malaysian Allah
Hi Nina,
Thank you for your point of view.
The contention is two-fold.
1. You are factually wrong about the use of the word “Allah” in that it is exclusive to Islam. Only in Peninsular Malaysia since 1986 has this attempt to make it exclusive to Muslims for purely political reasons.
2. Constitutionally in Malaysia, the state has no authority to regulate the personal beliefs and practises of any other religion except Islam.
If you would take a little effort to research this subject (even by surfing this blog), you would find that your perception that Allah is exclusive to Muslims patently wrong.
Regards
Greg
Doubts and fears in Thailand
It is to Anupong’s great credit that he has – thus far – headed off pressure for a coup. Ditto Defence Minister Prawit.
Indeed, so far, this is one of the few optimistic outcomes of Thailand’s crisis to date. : soldiers have not fired on soldiers.
So in this respect, the country is currently doing better than
the during the two coups of 1986, when soldiers did begin firing at each other (with great journalist Neil Davis killed in the
crossfire).
China and the Wa
IMO ethnicities overlap in areas where there are geographic migrations of people over time. Its actually truer for hill people organized into tribes – as a case in point most tribes of Northeast India are of Tibeto-Burman origins in varying degrees to the extent where this area is culturally closer to its eastern neighbors than mainland India. That said the range of intermingling may be very localized and its very interesting to read about the Chinese and Wa here.
Thailand’s crown prince
Noud – your point is quite true.
Though my impression is that nation-building by the Thai state,
eg. through the school system, has only at best been partially successful. I’d suggest Thai pop culture has perhaps been a more effective unifier.
I’m not suggesting Isaarn would want to become part of Lao PDR. Simply that it may break away into an independent, o r semi-independent Isaarn.
This becomes ever more likely the more Isaarn sees its’ rights – of which they’re now fully aware – being eroded, marginalised, or treated with double-standards by Bangkok and Southern Thailand. But the real trigger for secession would be a pro-PAD coup resulting in widespread bloodshed.
The PAD keep talking about Thailand being “indivisable”, but as far as I can see they’re the ones doing the most to divide it.
Are any of the PAD core leaders from Isaarn ? They’re almost all either Bangkok or Southern Thai.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Chris, at this point whatever I say is going to run contrary to some knowledgeable and informed people who hold diametrically opposite opinions, so please don’t drag me into an argument why I could possibly be right and Wassana could be wrong.
I still think that Thaksin’s verdict is going to be largely uneventful and there will be no dramatic changes. That doesn’t mean, however, that the army and Abhisit can simply sit it out, it just means they will be able to control the situation and will ultimately prevail, tough it won’t be easy.
The worst possible scenario is when the reds go out on a full blown assault to elicit violent response. That could happen but I don’t believe they will get any sympathy either from Thai public or internationally. On the contrary, the resolute and decisive response would be most welcome by all concerned parties – Thailand’s greatest weakness is uncertainty and the country would become a basket case if red vs elites conflict becomes unmanageable again.
You could see how serious the society is about it by how quickly it forced the reds to abandon their plans to go anywhere near the airport. Reds have got their space to hold rallies and sing songs but they are deeply mistaken if they think they will be tolerated if they start creating any real troubles. I believe their leaders realize this, btw, but have very little choice as they have to follow Thaksin’s bidding.
Bkk Lawyer, wealth gap is not the driving force behind the current conflict, it’s been exploited when it was convenient and was quietly moved backstage when the war on ammart appeared to be a more appealing rallying cry.
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 […]
Doubts and fears in Thailand
Another factor is where Vajiralongkorn’s military favourites are likely to align themselves. If they have been kept on the outer for a long time by the Prem crowd, they might gang up with the reds. One should never underestimate the enmity that develops between the toadies of a monarch and those of his successor.
Thaksin’s PhD
I agree with Nicholas that it looks thin. At best a masters thesis. On the other hand, ‘partial fulfillment’ on the title page suggests that there was perhaps a substantial course work component to his PhD, which is not uncommon in the US.
Interestingly, the English is very good – far better than his recent spoken efforts. Of course it is 30 years since he (?) “wrote” it.
As to the premise of the thesis, an education in criminal justice certainly doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression on him.
Stephen B. Young on a “grand consultation”
Just a note to readers – it’s becoming increasingly obvious that StanG is either a troll or a plant.
He is posting across a range of Thai english language blogs and makes continued outrageous and ridiculous points in an attempt to divert discussion.
So far he’s proved quite successful but I would caution that from this point his comments are roundly ignored.
DON’T FEED THE TROLL
I’m just a soul whose intentions are good …
Patrick’s observation is just the beginning. Every time Thaksin suggests he was poor, he then says something that shows he was rich. It’s only a matter of whether he is deluding himself or that he thinks others would lap this up.
Rachel Leow on Malaysian Allah
My two cents:
Muslims, whatever their race or ethnicity, USE Allah because it is in the Quran. For Muslims, the Quran is the literal word of God, which is in the original language that it was revealed in – Arabic. Muslims recite the Quran in Arabic, they pray in Arabic – the usage of Arabic is a daily occurence for praticising Muslims, regardless of what thjeir native language is.
Non-Muslim Arabs using the word Allah to denote God in their Bibles does not spark controversy because Arabic is THEIR native language.
Christians, whose native language is NOT Arabic, using Allah to denote God is farcical. The usage of Allah by these people bespeaks of an intent to appeal to Muslims used to usage of Arabic word for God.
Simple as that.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
The only thing i am interested here at this point is getting an answer to my questions by “steve young”, after he has appeared here once to make a statement.
No answer at all speak volumes though, my dear professor… 😉
Thailand’s crown prince
Well the thing preventing the situation Chris just descibed is the clear economic gap between Lao PDR and Thailand. Isaarn might feel economically discriminated by Bangkok, they can see they’re still better of as a neglected Thai province then they would be as part of Lao PDR.