One of the statements Da Torpedo allegedly made that was judged to have violated the lese majeste law was that the King had interfered in the judicial process.
Political scientists have referred more obliquely to this development as “tulakanphiwat”, or a “judicial revolution”; ie. the use of the judiciary as a political tool, since military force is no longer sufficient to win political battles.
The King has given several well-publicized addresses to audiences of judges at crucial periods during the current political crisis.
On 25 April 2006 , following Thai Rak Thai’s victory in the election boycotted by the Democrats the King summoned the judges of the country’s three highest courts, the Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitution Court, to “sort out the mess” caused by the election. Within two weeks the Constitutional Court declared the April 2 election results null and void.
On 24th May 2007 in a televised address to a group of senior Administrative Court judges the King stressed the importance of the case involving the dissolution of the political parties, telling them that “he had already made up his mind” and encouraging them to make the “right” decision to stop the country from “collapsing”. The following week Thai Rak Thai was dissolved and the case against the Democrats dismissed.
The content of these speeches was vague but the motive was clear: to give royal authority to judicial decisions.
The timing of the King’s speech yesterday, just before next month’s decision on the Thaksin asset seizure case, is very ominous for the outcome of the case.
Needless to say, it goes against all democratic principle for the King to address the judiciary on any judicial case – especially political cases – without his speech being countersigned by a representatives of the democratically elected government.
The problem is that stating this publicly is likely to be considered an offense under lese majeste.
Nevertheless, one of the principles that pro-democracy campaigners ought to campaign on is that the King should be forbidden from speaking to the judiciary unless his speech has been approved by the government of the day.
By going along with the restriction of information, Google is preventing Thais from engaging in a dialogue about issues that are important to them. This is really a human rights and democracy issue. Social stability not only means ability of people to have access to information, but also means that people can dissent from government policies, and they can make their views known.
There is no Buddhist culture or tradition prohibits Internet freedom. At issue is the death of Ananda Mahidol which has strategic implication on mainland Southeast Asia. Google, and diplomats in Thailand should use their diplomacy to help push the discussion. They should call attention to the reality of the world today that there is going to be an open debate across borders about issues that really matter to people.
Internet freedom, a component of human rights and democracy and therefore, should be the foreign policy of the U.S. and other countries. As the society is growing and developing rapidly, people have rising expectations. People want more control over their destiny. Google should help people in Thailand who are trying to make their voices heard, give them some capacity and some support as they do this.
Internet freedom is the way the world is now communicating. This is the way people are discussing ideas, both within countries and across borders. Instead of going along with the restriction of information, Google should encourage the development of real democracy and free society and empowering the media to have these issues discussed openly within Thailand and abroad.
Chris: What is at least half-understood by many and probably most Thais here in Bangkok is that Thailand is only semi-democratic and that Thaksin was just one in a long line of paternalistic leaders heading governments of a decidedly authoritarian bias to exploit the masses lack of education and access to information and thereby gain and ‘legitimize’ power through “democraticaly-elected” means – a term cited ad nauseum by Western governments whenever anyone emerges with both a plausible claim to the leadership and a ‘business as usual’ approach to foreign capital interests.
Of course, if they were better educated, they’d understand a lot more than half of it – which is obviously why PM Abhisit gave up “Grade A” money-making ministries (like the Interior) to secure the Ministry of Education and begin Thailand’s first real push for the introduction of a thoroughly modern education system.
Call it a Faustian bargain if you will, I see it as real progress, at last.
Mr Young’s comments in the Nation, mentioned at #20 are reflective of a combination of a lack of understanding of Thai history and living and moving in privileged circles in Thailand. Thailand has changed. Well yes, but it has never been short of political conflict.
Just a few examples of the claim that Thailand was once all mai pen rai and lovely. For all of the problems, one can read the Ayuthaya Chronicles and see a never-ending domestic competition that often resulted in considerable bloodshed. But that’s old stuff.
But let’s look at the period since 1932 ever so briefly. Boworodej rebellion was a serious military battle, with lots of casualties, especially as the Bangkok populace came out to defend the revolution and constitution. Manhattan coup (1951) where Wyatt claims (p. 270) 3,000 casualties and 1200 dead, mostly civilians. The massacre at Thammasat university in 1976, presaged by political murders, assassinations, bombings etc. The war with the CPT. The 1992 Bangkok uprising. The endless, century-long war in the south.
In a perfect example of mai pen rai, we can recall that Pridi was exiled for the rest of his life.
Yes, Thais have always been docile, mai pen rai types uninterested in politics or democracy.
Why am I not surprised at the above comments, when it is commonly believed here in Bangkok that Thaksin is merely one of the legion of Thais known to have ‘bought’ rather than earned their foreign education – something which Thaksin himself has always had a strong tendency to confirm by his own words or deeds whenever he has departed from the prepared script – as in the infamous ‘Maew Rap’ clip on Youtube where he threatened to stop paying his mob their 500 baht daily wage (double or triple for organizers) if they didn’t keep fighting street battles with the army during the Songkran riots last year.
Result: Anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, anti-constitutional rule and no real political manifesto or policy program other than to turn back the clock to the mythical ‘golden era’ of “ugly crony capitalism” and “insulting populism” under the infallible, incorruptible, sage-like guidance of “CEO-PM” Thaksin in order to obtain immunity for any legal transgressions – past, present or future – and get your two billion fee refunded for the purchase of Thai Land Inc.
The Bangkok Post has now run its own review of “Thai Forestry”, written by Philip Hirsch. Hirsch seems awfully indulgent toward Usher’s intensely ideological approach to her topic. A more critical evaluation of her claims for “community forestry” would have served Hirsch’s review well. But it nevertheless very much worth a look.
Such mystical mumbo jumbo was practiced by the Nazi’s, Just ask whether magic and superstition promote democracy or not? Keyes is a closet royalist reformist
@David – nice thoughtful comments. Yes its unfortunate that this area with so much potential should lie in such imposed isolation. While I also feel it has preserved the traditions and environment, this isolation has deprived the people of all the innovations of the modern world. The Stilwell Road is their only hope and thankfully we see some movement in that direction in spite of all the problems as you are aware. And it is due to the two emerging giants India and China working in tandem.
@ Hla Oo – Thanks! Is there some provision in the treaty of these areas (thats actually the most of India’s Northeast Btw) being returned to Burma – something like British Hong Kong returned to China in 1992. I am no expert on law but such a document would have valid international mandate. Also am not sure if the Junta is ready to take on India on this matter. They seem more interested in playing India against China – correct me.
That thought has been sitting on my lap the last few days – “Thais decide” – as if there is some sort of democratic consensus here that permits Thais to freely decide most aspects of their lives.
To which I would maintain there is not. Not overlooking the Star Trekkian Prime Directive need to avoid saddling Thais with “our” viewpoint and “our” solutions, nonetheless there is obviously a question as to what “Thais decide” means. Many accept that as all the Thais, or at least all the Thais “that matter.” Still others believe they know that an elite runs the country, society and economy…to name a few…and that the same elite steers the course for as many Thais as they can when it comes to what to believe, to think, to do.
If we accept this latter rationale, then we have to accept that the term “Thais decide” is a catch-all phrase for not coming up with our own little contribution as a part of society even if we are foreigners. Do we, as foreigners, have a right to help Thais decide? Apparently so, and even the diplomats admit to this with statements and joint efforts at various kinds of interaction on many levels.
The issue is probably as basic as asking whether I am my brother’s keeper. Am I? How far has he made it on his own and how far has he been pushed? It is up to me to determine that he has indeed been pushed, corralled or dictated to and then to liberate him or show him the light? Who gives me such a right?
Over the centuries this question has plagued and blessed one society after another. Activists have sacrificed themselves and been sacrificed, along with supporters, friends and relatives, to achieve freedom from slavery of one form or another. When such slavery is the norm, or a norm, in a society where we reside – whether it is “our own” or not – do we have an obligation, a right, a duty, the freedom, do we owe it, indeed – to rise up to “the occasion” and lend a hand to our brothers?
Seen from such a wide but what is generally held to be an unrealistic perspective, then it appears that yes, we do owe those around us some measure of devotion to the extent where we try to make thgeir lives better. And that phrase is also loaded with interpretive variances.
In summary, I am uncomfortable with “let them decide” insofar as it feels more like a justification for apathy, or at best, some kind of condescending overview of a situation that is much different than what we interpret it as being.
Oh blah,
I’m Dutch myself and I for one have never seen these adverts, which probably means they aren’t that popular to begin with.
I studied in Thailand for quite some time, so I totally understand that this is perceived as offensive… but then again a lot of things published in The Netherlands are considered offensive to other states/people even sometimes to the Dutch themselves.
Geenstijl.nl is just a website, which shows people apparent a-correct clips and articles produced/said by whoever. No one really looks at the site unless they are bored and want some fun news or whatever. It’s all meant with a huge amount of sarcasm… If people don’t realize that, well…
Two elected governments driven from power. Judicial decisions that convict cooking show hosts and persons that sign off on their wives financial dealings but leave airport and government house occupiers free……..
Please…………….
Do you believe your own Alice in Wonderland arguments?
Next you will be telling us about Thailand’s human rights record in 2009. A shining example of…………………. yada, yada, yada.
Who makes your rose coloured glasses?
But how many more elections will the oligarchs and bureaucrats steal from the voters? How many more PMs will be the results of back room deals with men wearing green, before the tipping point is reached?
And what will the result be?
No, I don’t expect you to answer, “Mai Phen Rai. Every thing fine. I good. You good. Everything good. Sanook. Sanook. Pass me some nam plaa.”
No conflict, then why does it take the mobilization of a small army of thugs, soldiers, and police for democrats to visit Issan and Chaing Mai or for Phua Thai MPs to visit the South?
I have to admit – i am somewhat confused.
In your recent article in the nation, you have put the yellow and the red shirts on an equal level (quote: …not just the pontificating and bluster from the red and yellow shirts) and hinted at the futility of extremism. I agree very much that extremism is a slippery slope downhill.
Yet in real life you have taken a clear pro-yellow position, not just through the views expressed in your interview, but also by having now foreign minister Kasit, a very high profile PAD member, leading the Thailand chapter of “caux round table”, the think thank that employs you in a very senior position, right until his appointment as foreign minister. And the previous time you have been in Thailand, “caux round table” has held a seminar in the premises of the ministry of foreign affairs, Kasit also having held a speech.
Does your article now mean that you have somewhat shifted your position, especially as you advocate compromise now, which also seems to be in clear contrast to especially the coup group and the government coalition (also the red shirts do not seem to be ready to compromise now)?
Besides this, i found that you seem to be rather depressed about the developments in Thailand, judging from the tone of your article “What is happening to the land of ‘mai pen rai’?”. The ideas that Thais somewhat avoid open confrontation and prefer the famous middle path is in contemporary Thaiand only an illusion, and are a theory that have little in common with reality on the ground in the communities. This may have been the way in your childhood here in the 50’s, but if i do look at Thai history from those days – it already then as a rather violent place.
Since in have been here though Thailand has been the same old violent place as it is now, not just in politics, but in every day conflict resolution (i have been many years with Por Teck Tueng volunteers, collecting the results and sending them off to hospitals and morgues). Nothing to be overly depressed about – there is no sudden descend into violence of a once peaceful society. It has always been a bit dodgy here. There has just been a huge discrepancy between image and reality, and reality is getting only a bit more obvious now to the observer.
I can’t say which theoretical model of governance may be the most suitable one for Thailand – this is entirely up to Thais to decide. And if a western style liberal democracy is what they will decide upon in a majority decision, i would say that neither you, me, nor the elites in power presently should press upon the majority their views. Many Thais of all walks of life, including and especially villagers from Isaarn and the North have by now spend often years in the west, living often the same sort of life normal farang life in their own home countries, and are able to decide for themselves how they want their country to be governed. Wouldn’t you agree?
Did anyone actually say or even imply that ALL popular culture is just pure brainwashing? Far too touchy and bristling all over I’d say. Nobody has professed unqualified ageist and traditionalist views against today’s youth and modernity as far as I can tell. I personally can take classical music, Burmese or Western, in small doses only.
Popular culture, though open to manipulation these days, never was one- dimensional, and it certainly occupies centre stage when it comes to rebellious if not revolutionary youth getting their message across to the establishment. Today’s hip hop and rap are akin to the traditional thanjat at Thingyan new year festival.
Notwithstanding the vibrant freshness and welcome innovations, popular culture does have its downsides, not least its excesses in drink, drugs and debauchery destroying young lives and playing into the hands of the ruling class that will pay lip service to the issues, but all too happy that their rule will not be effectively challenged since all that youthful vigor and enthusiasm can be diverted away from organising and fighting the very establishment that they are supposed to be rebelling against. After all it’s also the establishment that profits from the sale of the drinks, if arguably not the drugs, and from the consumerist spin-offs of pop culture.
Symbols and gestures, like the dreaded term propaganda called PR nowadays, do have a crucial role to play though never enough on their own. I agree a creative outlet must exist, and the smart ones manage to get around the restrictions and taboos like today’s Burmese artists, writers and journalists make use of cryptic metaphors and hidden messages . To be young is to be rebellious but surely not to waste oneself into the ether.
Burma section will never open til the Junta is removed from power in Burma.
Today, the Chin and Kachin States/Tribes are very welcoming people and I believe they would love to open the roadway, with some reasonable controls. Norther states have a very nice mix of religion and they are very open to foreigners. I especially like because much of the older population in Burma still speak some English due to the WWII influences.
But the Junta puts great restrictions on foreigner involvement with the northern States of Burma. Why? Because Chin & Kachin state would love to separate and come under its own rule. Kachin State has had its own militia military, and still today, it exists but it is at a stand down with the Junta’s military. Junta restricts all Int’l travel to the north. I need a special permit to go visity my wife’s family in the Kachin State.
It would be a beautiful thing to drive across india, into burma and end up in China. Someday, Someday.
Thansk all three above, Steve young, Srithanonchai and Frank.
Not being an academic myself, simply a layman who stocks up on good reading material, the above three comments open up a whole n ew vista for me.
Do we EVER get to fully understand what is reality in this complex and subtle culture, so different from our own ?
We Burmese still have the copy of Anglo-Burmese treaty signed under duress of British cannons at the Burmese village of Yandabo in 1826.
Treaty of Yandaboo, 24 February 1826
ARTICLE 1.
There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the Honorable Company on the one part, and His Majesty the King of Ava on the other.
ARTICLE 2.
His Majesty the King of Ava renounces all claims upon, and will abstain from all future interference with, the principality of Assam and its dependencies, and also with the contiguous petty States of Cachar and Jyntia. With regard to Munnipoor it is stipulated, that should Ghumbheer Sing desire to return to that country, he shall be recognized by the King of Ava as Rajah thereof.
ARTICLE 3.
To prevent all future disputes respecting the boundary line between the two great Nations, the British Government will retain the conquered Provinces of Arracan, including the four divisions of Arracan, Ramree, Cheduba, and Sandoway, and His Majesty the King of Ava cedes all right thereto. The Unnoupectoumien or Arakan Mountains (known in Arakan by the name of the Yeomatoung or Pokhingloung Range) will henceforth form the boundary between the two great Nations on that side. Any doubts regarding the said line of demarcation will be settled by Commissioners appointed by the respective governments fur that purpose, such Commissioners from both powers to be of suitable and corresponding rank.
ARTICLE 4.
His Majesty the King of Ava cedes to the British Government the conquered Provinces of Yeh, Tavoy, and Mergui and Tenasserim, with the islands and dependencies thereunto appertaining, taking the Salween River as the line of demarcation on that frontier ; any doubts regarding their boundaries will be settled as specified in the concluding part of Article third.
ARTICLE 5.
In proof of the sincere disposition of the Burmese Government to maintain the relations of peace and amity between the Nations, and as part indemnification to the British Government for the expenses of the War, His Majesty the King of Ava agrees to pay the sum of one crore of Rupees.
Factual correction: The woman was not “sentenced to a public caning”. There is no public caning in Malaysia. All the caning is done privately in prison.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The return of Thailand’s old friend
The Royal Chronicles of Ayutthaya
Is this the book? Can’t find it anyplace. Help…
On the judgment against Da Torpedo
King addresses judges [see Matichon – http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1264428317&grpid=00&catid=%5D
One of the statements Da Torpedo allegedly made that was judged to have violated the lese majeste law was that the King had interfered in the judicial process.
Political scientists have referred more obliquely to this development as “tulakanphiwat”, or a “judicial revolution”; ie. the use of the judiciary as a political tool, since military force is no longer sufficient to win political battles.
The King has given several well-publicized addresses to audiences of judges at crucial periods during the current political crisis.
On 25 April 2006 , following Thai Rak Thai’s victory in the election boycotted by the Democrats the King summoned the judges of the country’s three highest courts, the Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitution Court, to “sort out the mess” caused by the election. Within two weeks the Constitutional Court declared the April 2 election results null and void.
On 24th May 2007 in a televised address to a group of senior Administrative Court judges the King stressed the importance of the case involving the dissolution of the political parties, telling them that “he had already made up his mind” and encouraging them to make the “right” decision to stop the country from “collapsing”. The following week Thai Rak Thai was dissolved and the case against the Democrats dismissed.
The content of these speeches was vague but the motive was clear: to give royal authority to judicial decisions.
The timing of the King’s speech yesterday, just before next month’s decision on the Thaksin asset seizure case, is very ominous for the outcome of the case.
Needless to say, it goes against all democratic principle for the King to address the judiciary on any judicial case – especially political cases – without his speech being countersigned by a representatives of the democratically elected government.
The problem is that stating this publicly is likely to be considered an offense under lese majeste.
Nevertheless, one of the principles that pro-democracy campaigners ought to campaign on is that the King should be forbidden from speaking to the judiciary unless his speech has been approved by the government of the day.
Google and lese majeste
By going along with the restriction of information, Google is preventing Thais from engaging in a dialogue about issues that are important to them. This is really a human rights and democracy issue. Social stability not only means ability of people to have access to information, but also means that people can dissent from government policies, and they can make their views known.
There is no Buddhist culture or tradition prohibits Internet freedom. At issue is the death of Ananda Mahidol which has strategic implication on mainland Southeast Asia. Google, and diplomats in Thailand should use their diplomacy to help push the discussion. They should call attention to the reality of the world today that there is going to be an open debate across borders about issues that really matter to people.
Internet freedom, a component of human rights and democracy and therefore, should be the foreign policy of the U.S. and other countries. As the society is growing and developing rapidly, people have rising expectations. People want more control over their destiny. Google should help people in Thailand who are trying to make their voices heard, give them some capacity and some support as they do this.
Internet freedom is the way the world is now communicating. This is the way people are discussing ideas, both within countries and across borders. Instead of going along with the restriction of information, Google should encourage the development of real democracy and free society and empowering the media to have these issues discussed openly within Thailand and abroad.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Chris: What is at least half-understood by many and probably most Thais here in Bangkok is that Thailand is only semi-democratic and that Thaksin was just one in a long line of paternalistic leaders heading governments of a decidedly authoritarian bias to exploit the masses lack of education and access to information and thereby gain and ‘legitimize’ power through “democraticaly-elected” means – a term cited ad nauseum by Western governments whenever anyone emerges with both a plausible claim to the leadership and a ‘business as usual’ approach to foreign capital interests.
Of course, if they were better educated, they’d understand a lot more than half of it – which is obviously why PM Abhisit gave up “Grade A” money-making ministries (like the Interior) to secure the Ministry of Education and begin Thailand’s first real push for the introduction of a thoroughly modern education system.
Call it a Faustian bargain if you will, I see it as real progress, at last.
Frank Lee.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Mr Young’s comments in the Nation, mentioned at #20 are reflective of a combination of a lack of understanding of Thai history and living and moving in privileged circles in Thailand. Thailand has changed. Well yes, but it has never been short of political conflict.
Just a few examples of the claim that Thailand was once all mai pen rai and lovely. For all of the problems, one can read the Ayuthaya Chronicles and see a never-ending domestic competition that often resulted in considerable bloodshed. But that’s old stuff.
But let’s look at the period since 1932 ever so briefly. Boworodej rebellion was a serious military battle, with lots of casualties, especially as the Bangkok populace came out to defend the revolution and constitution. Manhattan coup (1951) where Wyatt claims (p. 270) 3,000 casualties and 1200 dead, mostly civilians. The massacre at Thammasat university in 1976, presaged by political murders, assassinations, bombings etc. The war with the CPT. The 1992 Bangkok uprising. The endless, century-long war in the south.
In a perfect example of mai pen rai, we can recall that Pridi was exiled for the rest of his life.
Yes, Thais have always been docile, mai pen rai types uninterested in politics or democracy.
Thaksin’s PhD
Why am I not surprised at the above comments, when it is commonly believed here in Bangkok that Thaksin is merely one of the legion of Thais known to have ‘bought’ rather than earned their foreign education – something which Thaksin himself has always had a strong tendency to confirm by his own words or deeds whenever he has departed from the prepared script – as in the infamous ‘Maew Rap’ clip on Youtube where he threatened to stop paying his mob their 500 baht daily wage (double or triple for organizers) if they didn’t keep fighting street battles with the army during the Songkran riots last year.
Result: Anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, anti-constitutional rule and no real political manifesto or policy program other than to turn back the clock to the mythical ‘golden era’ of “ugly crony capitalism” and “insulting populism” under the infallible, incorruptible, sage-like guidance of “CEO-PM” Thaksin in order to obtain immunity for any legal transgressions – past, present or future – and get your two billion fee refunded for the purchase of Thai Land Inc.
Nice work… if you can get it.
Frank Lee.
Review of Thai Forestry: A Critical History
The Bangkok Post has now run its own review of “Thai Forestry”, written by Philip Hirsch. Hirsch seems awfully indulgent toward Usher’s intensely ideological approach to her topic. A more critical evaluation of her claims for “community forestry” would have served Hirsch’s review well. But it nevertheless very much worth a look.
Thai capital to shift (it’s in the stars)!
Buddhism if correctly understood is against all supernatural superstitious mumbo jumbo QED
Another side of Thai political life
Such mystical mumbo jumbo was practiced by the Nazi’s, Just ask whether magic and superstition promote democracy or not? Keyes is a closet royalist reformist
The Stilwell Road
@David – nice thoughtful comments. Yes its unfortunate that this area with so much potential should lie in such imposed isolation. While I also feel it has preserved the traditions and environment, this isolation has deprived the people of all the innovations of the modern world. The Stilwell Road is their only hope and thankfully we see some movement in that direction in spite of all the problems as you are aware. And it is due to the two emerging giants India and China working in tandem.
@ Hla Oo – Thanks! Is there some provision in the treaty of these areas (thats actually the most of India’s Northeast Btw) being returned to Burma – something like British Hong Kong returned to China in 1992. I am no expert on law but such a document would have valid international mandate. Also am not sure if the Junta is ready to take on India on this matter. They seem more interested in playing India against China – correct me.
Stephen B. Young on a “grand consultation”
” Ragnarok ” … verrrry trrricky, Mr Young: just like the clever wordplay of HM’s sermons to his
little childrensubjectsThe return of Thailand’s old friend
That thought has been sitting on my lap the last few days – “Thais decide” – as if there is some sort of democratic consensus here that permits Thais to freely decide most aspects of their lives.
To which I would maintain there is not. Not overlooking the Star Trekkian Prime Directive need to avoid saddling Thais with “our” viewpoint and “our” solutions, nonetheless there is obviously a question as to what “Thais decide” means. Many accept that as all the Thais, or at least all the Thais “that matter.” Still others believe they know that an elite runs the country, society and economy…to name a few…and that the same elite steers the course for as many Thais as they can when it comes to what to believe, to think, to do.
If we accept this latter rationale, then we have to accept that the term “Thais decide” is a catch-all phrase for not coming up with our own little contribution as a part of society even if we are foreigners. Do we, as foreigners, have a right to help Thais decide? Apparently so, and even the diplomats admit to this with statements and joint efforts at various kinds of interaction on many levels.
The issue is probably as basic as asking whether I am my brother’s keeper. Am I? How far has he made it on his own and how far has he been pushed? It is up to me to determine that he has indeed been pushed, corralled or dictated to and then to liberate him or show him the light? Who gives me such a right?
Over the centuries this question has plagued and blessed one society after another. Activists have sacrificed themselves and been sacrificed, along with supporters, friends and relatives, to achieve freedom from slavery of one form or another. When such slavery is the norm, or a norm, in a society where we reside – whether it is “our own” or not – do we have an obligation, a right, a duty, the freedom, do we owe it, indeed – to rise up to “the occasion” and lend a hand to our brothers?
Seen from such a wide but what is generally held to be an unrealistic perspective, then it appears that yes, we do owe those around us some measure of devotion to the extent where we try to make thgeir lives better. And that phrase is also loaded with interpretive variances.
In summary, I am uncomfortable with “let them decide” insofar as it feels more like a justification for apathy, or at best, some kind of condescending overview of a situation that is much different than what we interpret it as being.
“15 years in a tiny Thai apartment …”
Oh blah,
I’m Dutch myself and I for one have never seen these adverts, which probably means they aren’t that popular to begin with.
I studied in Thailand for quite some time, so I totally understand that this is perceived as offensive… but then again a lot of things published in The Netherlands are considered offensive to other states/people even sometimes to the Dutch themselves.
Geenstijl.nl is just a website, which shows people apparent a-correct clips and articles produced/said by whoever. No one really looks at the site unless they are bored and want some fun news or whatever. It’s all meant with a huge amount of sarcasm… If people don’t realize that, well…
Stephen B. Young on a “grand consultation”
StanG, no sign of conflict. WTF.
Two elected governments driven from power. Judicial decisions that convict cooking show hosts and persons that sign off on their wives financial dealings but leave airport and government house occupiers free……..
Please…………….
Do you believe your own Alice in Wonderland arguments?
Next you will be telling us about Thailand’s human rights record in 2009. A shining example of…………………. yada, yada, yada.
Who makes your rose coloured glasses?
But how many more elections will the oligarchs and bureaucrats steal from the voters? How many more PMs will be the results of back room deals with men wearing green, before the tipping point is reached?
And what will the result be?
No, I don’t expect you to answer, “Mai Phen Rai. Every thing fine. I good. You good. Everything good. Sanook. Sanook. Pass me some nam plaa.”
No conflict, then why does it take the mobilization of a small army of thugs, soldiers, and police for democrats to visit Issan and Chaing Mai or for Phua Thai MPs to visit the South?
The return of Thailand’s old friend
“steve young”:
I have to admit – i am somewhat confused.
In your recent article in the nation, you have put the yellow and the red shirts on an equal level (quote: …not just the pontificating and bluster from the red and yellow shirts) and hinted at the futility of extremism. I agree very much that extremism is a slippery slope downhill.
Yet in real life you have taken a clear pro-yellow position, not just through the views expressed in your interview, but also by having now foreign minister Kasit, a very high profile PAD member, leading the Thailand chapter of “caux round table”, the think thank that employs you in a very senior position, right until his appointment as foreign minister. And the previous time you have been in Thailand, “caux round table” has held a seminar in the premises of the ministry of foreign affairs, Kasit also having held a speech.
Does your article now mean that you have somewhat shifted your position, especially as you advocate compromise now, which also seems to be in clear contrast to especially the coup group and the government coalition (also the red shirts do not seem to be ready to compromise now)?
Besides this, i found that you seem to be rather depressed about the developments in Thailand, judging from the tone of your article “What is happening to the land of ‘mai pen rai’?”. The ideas that Thais somewhat avoid open confrontation and prefer the famous middle path is in contemporary Thaiand only an illusion, and are a theory that have little in common with reality on the ground in the communities. This may have been the way in your childhood here in the 50’s, but if i do look at Thai history from those days – it already then as a rather violent place.
Since in have been here though Thailand has been the same old violent place as it is now, not just in politics, but in every day conflict resolution (i have been many years with Por Teck Tueng volunteers, collecting the results and sending them off to hospitals and morgues). Nothing to be overly depressed about – there is no sudden descend into violence of a once peaceful society. It has always been a bit dodgy here. There has just been a huge discrepancy between image and reality, and reality is getting only a bit more obvious now to the observer.
I can’t say which theoretical model of governance may be the most suitable one for Thailand – this is entirely up to Thais to decide. And if a western style liberal democracy is what they will decide upon in a majority decision, i would say that neither you, me, nor the elites in power presently should press upon the majority their views. Many Thais of all walks of life, including and especially villagers from Isaarn and the North have by now spend often years in the west, living often the same sort of life normal farang life in their own home countries, and are able to decide for themselves how they want their country to be governed. Wouldn’t you agree?
Yangon punks
Banana Head
Did anyone actually say or even imply that ALL popular culture is just pure brainwashing? Far too touchy and bristling all over I’d say. Nobody has professed unqualified ageist and traditionalist views against today’s youth and modernity as far as I can tell. I personally can take classical music, Burmese or Western, in small doses only.
Popular culture, though open to manipulation these days, never was one- dimensional, and it certainly occupies centre stage when it comes to rebellious if not revolutionary youth getting their message across to the establishment. Today’s hip hop and rap are akin to the traditional thanjat at Thingyan new year festival.
Notwithstanding the vibrant freshness and welcome innovations, popular culture does have its downsides, not least its excesses in drink, drugs and debauchery destroying young lives and playing into the hands of the ruling class that will pay lip service to the issues, but all too happy that their rule will not be effectively challenged since all that youthful vigor and enthusiasm can be diverted away from organising and fighting the very establishment that they are supposed to be rebelling against. After all it’s also the establishment that profits from the sale of the drinks, if arguably not the drugs, and from the consumerist spin-offs of pop culture.
Symbols and gestures, like the dreaded term propaganda called PR nowadays, do have a crucial role to play though never enough on their own. I agree a creative outlet must exist, and the smart ones manage to get around the restrictions and taboos like today’s Burmese artists, writers and journalists make use of cryptic metaphors and hidden messages . To be young is to be rebellious but surely not to waste oneself into the ether.
The Stilwell Road
Burma section will never open til the Junta is removed from power in Burma.
Today, the Chin and Kachin States/Tribes are very welcoming people and I believe they would love to open the roadway, with some reasonable controls. Norther states have a very nice mix of religion and they are very open to foreigners. I especially like because much of the older population in Burma still speak some English due to the WWII influences.
But the Junta puts great restrictions on foreigner involvement with the northern States of Burma. Why? Because Chin & Kachin state would love to separate and come under its own rule. Kachin State has had its own militia military, and still today, it exists but it is at a stand down with the Junta’s military. Junta restricts all Int’l travel to the north. I need a special permit to go visity my wife’s family in the Kachin State.
It would be a beautiful thing to drive across india, into burma and end up in China. Someday, Someday.
The return of Thailand’s old friend
Thansk all three above, Steve young, Srithanonchai and Frank.
Not being an academic myself, simply a layman who stocks up on good reading material, the above three comments open up a whole n ew vista for me.
Do we EVER get to fully understand what is reality in this complex and subtle culture, so different from our own ?
The Stilwell Road
Dear Sangos,
We Burmese still have the copy of Anglo-Burmese treaty signed under duress of British cannons at the Burmese village of Yandabo in 1826.
Treaty of Yandaboo, 24 February 1826
ARTICLE 1.
There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the Honorable Company on the one part, and His Majesty the King of Ava on the other.
ARTICLE 2.
His Majesty the King of Ava renounces all claims upon, and will abstain from all future interference with, the principality of Assam and its dependencies, and also with the contiguous petty States of Cachar and Jyntia. With regard to Munnipoor it is stipulated, that should Ghumbheer Sing desire to return to that country, he shall be recognized by the King of Ava as Rajah thereof.
ARTICLE 3.
To prevent all future disputes respecting the boundary line between the two great Nations, the British Government will retain the conquered Provinces of Arracan, including the four divisions of Arracan, Ramree, Cheduba, and Sandoway, and His Majesty the King of Ava cedes all right thereto. The Unnoupectoumien or Arakan Mountains (known in Arakan by the name of the Yeomatoung or Pokhingloung Range) will henceforth form the boundary between the two great Nations on that side. Any doubts regarding the said line of demarcation will be settled by Commissioners appointed by the respective governments fur that purpose, such Commissioners from both powers to be of suitable and corresponding rank.
ARTICLE 4.
His Majesty the King of Ava cedes to the British Government the conquered Provinces of Yeh, Tavoy, and Mergui and Tenasserim, with the islands and dependencies thereunto appertaining, taking the Salween River as the line of demarcation on that frontier ; any doubts regarding their boundaries will be settled as specified in the concluding part of Article third.
ARTICLE 5.
In proof of the sincere disposition of the Burmese Government to maintain the relations of peace and amity between the Nations, and as part indemnification to the British Government for the expenses of the War, His Majesty the King of Ava agrees to pay the sum of one crore of Rupees.
Najib in 2010 – More of the same?
Factual correction: The woman was not “sentenced to a public caning”. There is no public caning in Malaysia. All the caning is done privately in prison.