I was once told by M.R. Kukrit Pramoj (we were discussing the succession and at the time only the eldest of the four MCs had been born) that the title Mom Chao comes not by being the son of a Chao Fa Chai, but by being the grandson of a king, and was automatic, requiring no naming ceremonies. The implication was that the Crown Prince had no say in the matter of titles for his sons (except, presumably, by persuading his father.)
Prince Dipangkorn was created HRH by the king (presumably after an entreaty by his son). He has one half-sister and two female first cousins who are HSH, in addition to the four half-brothers who were/are MC. Interestingly, HH (His/Her Highness) is higher than HSH, and is reserved for a Pra Ong Chao, the child of a king by a lesser wife, or for an “elevated” MC.
Remember, the whole system was set up only in the 1920s by King Rama VI.
One might recall here that it was none else than Kavi, who, during the PAD protests, published an article headlined “Transitional Justice” where he insinuatedf that Thaksin and Pojamarn should share the fate of Romanian dictator Caucescu and his wife, who were caught by the police/military and executed on the spot. Since then, Kavi is a journalistic non-entity to me. And do not even speak of journalistic “ethics” when talking about him!
I also wondered whether–logically–the “Third” secretary must not come after the “Second” secretary, who should be preceded by the “First” secretary. May the MoF enlighten us about their revision of the usual numerical order from 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5 to 3, 1, 2, 4, 5?
Let me add another observation. In recent years, it’s a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy if anyone starts comparing politcians to Hitler or the Nazis (and they invariably never use such comparison to the actual coup makers, both royalist and military!) Compare Thaksin to Hitler was of course one of the frequent slogans PAD and many academics (some with professorial rank) used during 2006: “Hitler also came to power by wining elections!” Hitler, as anyone who takes trouble to study will know, in fact never got more than 37% of overall vote. The precess by which he came to power in Weimar republic was extremely complex, and quite possibly unique, never to be repeated anywhere.
And on truth-telling and Kavi, did anyone ever hear he say anything, let alone invoking Goebbels’ name, about the 24-7 monarchist propaganda going on the past month, or past years?
The level of self-deception, hypocrisy that people like Kavi have sunk in recent years is astonishing.
It makes far more outrageous claims about torture than HRW.
After reading recent New Mandala articles about resettlement issues in Laos I wonder how much political persecution really exists there, or why their guerrilla war is called “realizing dreams”, or why struggle for democracy is brought into this issue, or the need to spill patriotic blood.
Are these latest Hmongs part of the original group that simply settled in a Thai forest, btw?
Kavi writes: 8. FEAR OF TELLING THE TRUTH. The way wide-eyed Jatuporn Promphan of the Phuea Thai Party manufactures lies and gets away scot free reveals serious flaws in Thai society. He can easily outwit Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, as he is doing it so often.
Jatuporn is largely a lightweight fool who has been thrusted into prominence because others, more intelligent than he, had been unjustly banned from politics. But to compare him to Goebbels only shows, or rather confirms, that Kavi despite appearing to be more intelligent than most of his colleagues in the Nation camp, is in fact no less stupid, no less intellectually bankrupt than they are.
And this ‘critique’ comes from a key writer of Nation group, whose records on truth-telling in recent years are beneath contempt! It has to be seen to be believed how hypocritical Kavi can be.
Thanks Nich, definitely interesting. Although it was a bit misleading when she said that communities in Burma’s ethnic areas have no schools. That’s obviously not the case across the board. Underfunded or community-funded yes, but not completely absent.
For the full report with actual details of the amount and what transpired, please read the Global Corruption Report 2009 chapter on Malaysia. It is available at the Transparency International website.
As I put questions there, does anyone know when she joined the Foreign Ministry and became the Third Secretary of the Rome Embassy?
Also I notice on the Embassy’s website that the name and picture of the “Third Secretary” are placed above the Ambassador himself, not to mention the First and Second Secretary, presumably her ‘seniors’ at the Embassy.
I think Hmong repatriation is different from Rohingya and Uighurs cases. Certainly Hmong repatriation was not voluntarily, however it should be seen as a successful case of solving refugee problem. It is obvious that no single country would want to take up refugee. It is commendable that Laos and Thailand could smoothly work this out.
As for Rohingya and Uighurs, I think the incidence should be examined in the context of the era of global terrorism. We have to ask why Muslim Rohingya were set to settle on Thailand’s seacoast along the Andaman Sea. Do we have enough Somali or Yemeni pirates at the gulf of Aden? Thailand had asked the dominantly Muslim country, Malaysia to take up Rohingya but Malaysia declined.
Why Muslim Uighurs came to Cambodia instead of going to any Muslim country or Turkey? What is the value of Mekong river to the training site calculation? Can natural ethnic conflict resulted in 198 Chinese got killed over night, when Uighurs hardly injured.
It is naive to see Rohingya and Uighurs from refugee regime or human rights perspective, when the strategic component is the root cause of the phenomena. So instead of looking from the principles of international law, the law of the sea, etc., I suggest we look at why it happened and who were the planners.
It may be thoughtful to observe when blanket statements are made to cover everyone. For example, “The grenades thrown into open-air markets some years ago by some anti-government Hmong is an accusation?” … I do not know the exact details of that incident, and by nature suspect any made available by state agencies or Hmong representatives – both with vested interests. The idea that opposition in any nation can do something wrong, immoral, violent and disruptive is valid, but dismissing, or appearing to dismiss, the multiple wrongs by the state that were doing beforehand and that followed is not the way to reason, either. The Palestine situation is a case in point, where Israeli interests and those supporting them deny any connection between the Middle East injustices and 9/11.
Back further, the native American Indian failed in their fight for homeland security because they did not have the weapons and allies to protect their homeland.
Democracies, as much as they exist, are born without exception with blood of patriots, usually following blood of ordinary men and women who have suffered persecution for sometimes decades or centuries.
Reality is also reality. The state’s first objective in maintaining control over diverse populations (even those that only have different beliefs) is first and foremost to remain in power, and secondly to avoid embarrassing situations that shame state officials. This is the reality all of us live under, to one extent or another.
“The military still pursues Hmong groups in jungle hideouts that it accuses of anti-government activity and insurgency. …”
Accuses? The grenades thrown into open-air markets some years ago by some anti-government Hmong is an accusation?
I believe that there are some Hmong groups still fighting the government. I believe the Lao government has the right to pursue these groups in a humane way.
But the point of these repatriations is to stop the idea that people can go to Thailand, and be relocated to the West all by claiming “persecution” and fleeing.
Is the problem with the Thai government forcing the Hmong to go back to Laos? Or is it that the world perceives that there is a mistreatment of the Hmong in Laos? Or is it both?
I don’t think you get it. I wrote a book with a detailed argument. You can’t convince anyone by just saying, “I was there, I lived in Thailand, you are wrong.” Until you give some details/evidence, it really isn’t worth arguing after this comment.
By your points:
1. You wrote “But how could I know that ?” Exactly, how can you resort to a personal attack if you don’t know?
– re agent provocateurs: I think I mentioned that in FEER back then, and if you look at page 352 in the book, it specifically mentions it. The thing is, there were provocateurs on both sides. Some worked on their own, and some were hired. What you could do to add to the discussion, if you are sure of your information, is give us details: provocateurs who did what, to achieve what, on whose behalf? And answer — is the existence of provocateurs the main story, or just a detail to the whole episode?
2. My argument is in the book, and you are declaring I’m wrong without offering any evidence.
3. That’s what they said in 1991. Now they say it for 2006. Guess you’ll say it next time too. Coups are NOT a sign of stability.
4. You just reject history here because you don’t have an argument.
5. Ditto.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Bangkok Post on the crown prince
I was once told by M.R. Kukrit Pramoj (we were discussing the succession and at the time only the eldest of the four MCs had been born) that the title Mom Chao comes not by being the son of a Chao Fa Chai, but by being the grandson of a king, and was automatic, requiring no naming ceremonies. The implication was that the Crown Prince had no say in the matter of titles for his sons (except, presumably, by persuading his father.)
Prince Dipangkorn was created HRH by the king (presumably after an entreaty by his son). He has one half-sister and two female first cousins who are HSH, in addition to the four half-brothers who were/are MC. Interestingly, HH (His/Her Highness) is higher than HSH, and is reserved for a Pra Ong Chao, the child of a king by a lesser wife, or for an “elevated” MC.
Remember, the whole system was set up only in the 1920s by King Rama VI.
The sum of all fears
One might recall here that it was none else than Kavi, who, during the PAD protests, published an article headlined “Transitional Justice” where he insinuatedf that Thaksin and Pojamarn should share the fate of Romanian dictator Caucescu and his wife, who were caught by the police/military and executed on the spot. Since then, Kavi is a journalistic non-entity to me. And do not even speak of journalistic “ethics” when talking about him!
Bangkok Post on the crown prince
I also wondered whether–logically–the “Third” secretary must not come after the “Second” secretary, who should be preceded by the “First” secretary. May the MoF enlighten us about their revision of the usual numerical order from 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5 to 3, 1, 2, 4, 5?
The sum of all fears
Let me add another observation. In recent years, it’s a sure sign of intellectual bankruptcy if anyone starts comparing politcians to Hitler or the Nazis (and they invariably never use such comparison to the actual coup makers, both royalist and military!) Compare Thaksin to Hitler was of course one of the frequent slogans PAD and many academics (some with professorial rank) used during 2006: “Hitler also came to power by wining elections!” Hitler, as anyone who takes trouble to study will know, in fact never got more than 37% of overall vote. The precess by which he came to power in Weimar republic was extremely complex, and quite possibly unique, never to be repeated anywhere.
And on truth-telling and Kavi, did anyone ever hear he say anything, let alone invoking Goebbels’ name, about the 24-7 monarchist propaganda going on the past month, or past years?
The level of self-deception, hypocrisy that people like Kavi have sunk in recent years is astonishing.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
BkkLawyer at 24, did you even read that Nation’s account?
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/read.php?newsid=30119480
It makes far more outrageous claims about torture than HRW.
After reading recent New Mandala articles about resettlement issues in Laos I wonder how much political persecution really exists there, or why their guerrilla war is called “realizing dreams”, or why struggle for democracy is brought into this issue, or the need to spill patriotic blood.
Are these latest Hmongs part of the original group that simply settled in a Thai forest, btw?
The sum of all fears
Kavi writes:
8. FEAR OF TELLING THE TRUTH. The way wide-eyed Jatuporn Promphan of the Phuea Thai Party manufactures lies and gets away scot free reveals serious flaws in Thai society. He can easily outwit Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, as he is doing it so often.
Jatuporn is largely a lightweight fool who has been thrusted into prominence because others, more intelligent than he, had been unjustly banned from politics. But to compare him to Goebbels only shows, or rather confirms, that Kavi despite appearing to be more intelligent than most of his colleagues in the Nation camp, is in fact no less stupid, no less intellectually bankrupt than they are.
And this ‘critique’ comes from a key writer of Nation group, whose records on truth-telling in recent years are beneath contempt! It has to be seen to be believed how hypocritical Kavi can be.
Al Jazeera on Burma’s nukes
Thanks Nich, definitely interesting. Although it was a bit misleading when she said that communities in Burma’s ethnic areas have no schools. That’s obviously not the case across the board. Underfunded or community-funded yes, but not completely absent.
Finger pointing and paper pushing no answer to Malaysia’s corruption crisis
Hi Someone,
Yes, there appears to be a typo.
For the full report with actual details of the amount and what transpired, please read the Global Corruption Report 2009 chapter on Malaysia. It is available at the Transparency International website.
Regards
Greg
Finger pointing and paper pushing no answer to Malaysia’s corruption crisis
A commentary on the need to reform Malaysia’s political financing system, which is considered a key hindrance to proper electoral competition.
Interestingly this article appeared in Malaysia’s leading financial daily, The Edge.
An open letter to Kevin Rudd
A nice article describing the regulations that restrict Freedom of Speech in Malaysia.
Internal resettlement in Laos: a response
[…] who followed this New Mandala debate about resettlement projects in Laos will be interested in a further exchange between Holly High, […]
The Lao resettlement controversy
[…] who followed this New Mandala debate about resettlement projects in Laos will be interested in a further exchange […]
The Lao resettlement controversy
[…] who followed this New Mandala debate about resettlement projects in Laos will be interested in a further exchange […]
Thailand’s crown prince
Long live the peoples republic of thailand
Bangkok Post on the crown prince
Thanks “An Avatar triber” for the very interesting info. I use it to post at Prachatai and Faw Diew Kan webboard:
http://www.prachataiwebboard.com/webboard/id/12924
http://sameskyboard.com/index.php?showtopic=41418&st=0&gopid=510488&
As I put questions there, does anyone know when she joined the Foreign Ministry and became the Third Secretary of the Rome Embassy?
Also I notice on the Embassy’s website that the name and picture of the “Third Secretary” are placed above the Ambassador himself, not to mention the First and Second Secretary, presumably her ‘seniors’ at the Embassy.
Fair’s fair – Pasuk on Thailand in transition
“restful time” >> Excellent idea!
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
I think Hmong repatriation is different from Rohingya and Uighurs cases. Certainly Hmong repatriation was not voluntarily, however it should be seen as a successful case of solving refugee problem. It is obvious that no single country would want to take up refugee. It is commendable that Laos and Thailand could smoothly work this out.
As for Rohingya and Uighurs, I think the incidence should be examined in the context of the era of global terrorism. We have to ask why Muslim Rohingya were set to settle on Thailand’s seacoast along the Andaman Sea. Do we have enough Somali or Yemeni pirates at the gulf of Aden? Thailand had asked the dominantly Muslim country, Malaysia to take up Rohingya but Malaysia declined.
Why Muslim Uighurs came to Cambodia instead of going to any Muslim country or Turkey? What is the value of Mekong river to the training site calculation? Can natural ethnic conflict resulted in 198 Chinese got killed over night, when Uighurs hardly injured.
It is naive to see Rohingya and Uighurs from refugee regime or human rights perspective, when the strategic component is the root cause of the phenomena. So instead of looking from the principles of international law, the law of the sea, etc., I suggest we look at why it happened and who were the planners.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
It may be thoughtful to observe when blanket statements are made to cover everyone. For example, “The grenades thrown into open-air markets some years ago by some anti-government Hmong is an accusation?” … I do not know the exact details of that incident, and by nature suspect any made available by state agencies or Hmong representatives – both with vested interests. The idea that opposition in any nation can do something wrong, immoral, violent and disruptive is valid, but dismissing, or appearing to dismiss, the multiple wrongs by the state that were doing beforehand and that followed is not the way to reason, either. The Palestine situation is a case in point, where Israeli interests and those supporting them deny any connection between the Middle East injustices and 9/11.
Back further, the native American Indian failed in their fight for homeland security because they did not have the weapons and allies to protect their homeland.
Democracies, as much as they exist, are born without exception with blood of patriots, usually following blood of ordinary men and women who have suffered persecution for sometimes decades or centuries.
Reality is also reality. The state’s first objective in maintaining control over diverse populations (even those that only have different beliefs) is first and foremost to remain in power, and secondly to avoid embarrassing situations that shame state officials. This is the reality all of us live under, to one extent or another.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
“The military still pursues Hmong groups in jungle hideouts that it accuses of anti-government activity and insurgency. …”
Accuses? The grenades thrown into open-air markets some years ago by some anti-government Hmong is an accusation?
I believe that there are some Hmong groups still fighting the government. I believe the Lao government has the right to pursue these groups in a humane way.
But the point of these repatriations is to stop the idea that people can go to Thailand, and be relocated to the West all by claiming “persecution” and fleeing.
Is the problem with the Thai government forcing the Hmong to go back to Laos? Or is it that the world perceives that there is a mistreatment of the Hmong in Laos? Or is it both?
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
Chris,
I don’t think you get it. I wrote a book with a detailed argument. You can’t convince anyone by just saying, “I was there, I lived in Thailand, you are wrong.” Until you give some details/evidence, it really isn’t worth arguing after this comment.
By your points:
1. You wrote “But how could I know that ?” Exactly, how can you resort to a personal attack if you don’t know?
– re agent provocateurs: I think I mentioned that in FEER back then, and if you look at page 352 in the book, it specifically mentions it. The thing is, there were provocateurs on both sides. Some worked on their own, and some were hired. What you could do to add to the discussion, if you are sure of your information, is give us details: provocateurs who did what, to achieve what, on whose behalf? And answer — is the existence of provocateurs the main story, or just a detail to the whole episode?
2. My argument is in the book, and you are declaring I’m wrong without offering any evidence.
3. That’s what they said in 1991. Now they say it for 2006. Guess you’ll say it next time too. Coups are NOT a sign of stability.
4. You just reject history here because you don’t have an argument.
5. Ditto.