Chris,
Happy Holidays. Wish you a restful time with your family. After the New Year I think you should focus your answer to Handly’s comments (Taksin on Crown Price).
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about culture. For work and personally.
It’s very wide but not very deep is my conclusion. However if the opportunity avails itself, I urge anyone flag waving for culture and Thai culture (the pernicious end of the spectrum) specifically to listen to McKenna on ‘culture is not your friend’
Judging from past reactions by the Laotian exile community in the United States, this will not be allowed to fade away quietly. They are hopping mad, and they know how to exert political pressure on the White House and their elected members of Congress. Expect to see some kind of call for sanctions against Thailand. The most immediate way to show some expression of displeasure would be to cancel the upcoming Operation Cobra Gold 2010, which the US bankrolls. It’s probably too late to cancel current activities that are set to begin next month, but contact your Congressman and Senator if you’re an American citizen and want to see Thailand punished for this latest human rights violation.
“the Home Ministry has stopped the entry of the book pending investigation if the book is a ‘security threat.’ >> It just makes me sick when some self-appointed “authorities” claim that they have rights above the citizens…
Pasuk’s avoidance of the monarchy issue here is pragmatic, pure and simple, because, like all of us, she doesn’t want or need her day in court. Nor does she want to risk the private and public harrasment that would follow should she make such comments. Ask yourselves this. If you had such information on the monarchy’s wealth, how much would you publish and with what kind of analysis? Why would you publish it and to what purpose?
However, Pasuk’s comments on the unequal distribution of power, wealth and income don’t go far enough. Money in the pocket and what it can buy is an often overblown and overcited reason for unfairness in this divided and unequal society.
Far worse are the reasons behind this inequality. Primitive, institutionalised feudalism comfortably coupled with the insidious deceit of kreng jai pervades all aspects of life, and it is these cancers that eat into and at the self respect and self esteem of many Thai people. Sadly, without most of them realising it.
I meet and work with middle class Thai professionals who, fully cognizant of these ills, still kowtow to the Phu Yai, and who still cannot exercise their right to be heard without fear of repercussions.
Fear is a potent and powerful psychological weapon. Would you put yourself at risk of imprisonment simply to be heard and have a voice of your own?
Who’s next to be deported? Was there this sort of outcry over the Rohingya asylum seekers from foreign governments? Did previous governments deport groups frequently too? Precedents…
I was at an ‘anti-malaria financing’ conference a couple of months ago and learned that Thailand supposedly extends healthcare benefits (free access to the 30 baht scheme?) to refugees. Surely Thailand could be receiving more merit from benignly letting refugees settle than pocketing the savings accrued from letting refugees ‘voluntarily’ leave their 30 baht healthcare behind?
Abhisit Vejjajiva is probably a nice guy on a personal level but I’ve yet to see anything that displays courage and conviction when it comes to dealing with the army. A PPE from Oxford includes doing philosophy. How anyone can emerge from that without a moral compass for the Hmong is like his actions with the Rohingya peoples indicative of the complete absence of spine.
Even more pertinent is the complete absence of neighbourly action with any of Thailands neighbours except when power is evident. The quintessential mark of cowards.
Wish Da a Happy New Year! There has been a crisis of justice in Thailand for the past 3 years, Thanks Da for opening the eyes and ears to see how Thailand is so cruel to her. Will visit her today,
I completely agree with Luecha.
Only if the PAD gain power, and start dis-enfranchising Isaarn, with PAD’s 50% only popular vote formula, will we see substantial risk of the bloody break-up of “Thailand”.
Otherwise, I’m expecting a smooth eventual succession to the Crown Prince – who may well surprise all by how good and great a king he can be.
It would be better if a settlement were reached with Thaksin during the current King’s reign – the sooner there is national reconciliation, the better. Let’s hope HMK lives much longer.
Yes – but Bangkok is sinking, and much of the high-rise is poorly constructed. Anyhow, Thailand urgently needs REAL de-centralisation – not the mere lip-service to that of the past four decades. REAL de-centralisation can only be achieved by a more federal, devolved system of government.
Oo – US intelligence would have detailed (though not total) knowledge BECAUSE the Royals are not investing in the Soviet Union!
Just look at a map of global telecommunications load – the current Times Desktop World Atlas has an excllent chart. There is little the US can not find out about.
Paul – thanks for your remarks, which I will have to return to more fully later, since as I’ve posted before : I simply don’t have enough time to devote so much to NM, especially during this Xmas-New Year.
Furthermore – since I’ve copped so much flak, I’m yet again re-reading your excessively weighty tome, plus searching for your FEER articles in my house : I was a regular reader before Crovitz took over. But I will make a few initial points in respectful reply :
1) one of the benefits of NM is the enlightenment from debate and discussion here. I was unaware you “considered Bowring a mentor”, as Unfaithful Reader pointed out to me. But how could I know that ?
I witnessed first hand May’92, and wrote FEER complaining about your coverage – or lack thereof – of agent provocateurs stirring violence in the first post-crackdown article by you that FEER published (I’ll cite you the date when I find it). But wrote them a subsequent letter saying your later coverage was better, from my eyewitness perspective. Crovitz published neither letter, and I’ve since held the impression you were one of the Crovitz crowd, and am thankful to Unfaithful Reader for correcting me on this.
On the issue of agent provocateurs, I do realise in sympathy to you that it is impossible for journalists to cover every angle of
such enormous events as those in May’92. Incidentally I criticise your book also for putting too much emphasis on rumours, and not enough on divisions within the military.
2) the ever-present palace-military coup threat you mention :
the evidence you present can be interpreted to support exactly the opposite argument to yours, namely mine – i.e. that the Palace leant towards democracy in the 15 year period, that this was a major obstacle if not THE major obstacle AGAINST another coup, and that it was crucial to saving the May uprising (though here you seem to be conceding the latter).
3) 15 years without a coup being “progressive” or not ? Well, for Thailand, and many other former Third World/ transistional nations that is progress !!
4) the prologue that you, Somsak, and Ralph bang on about is not such a big deal either – can I please be paid a dollar for everytime Thais have debated democracy, and railed against this or that of the 17 (?) constitutions since 1932 ?
5) The Crown Prince : presentation of this well-worn topic is so one-sided and hackneyed by Western journalists, for some-one like me who has been to Thailand over decades, since 1963,
your replaying this tired old record is simply boring – the worst part of your in other respects excellent, poorly edited tome. Does it ever occur to Western journalists that they are being played like a violin by palace intriguers ?
Have a good New Year !!
[…] Malaysian strongman has issued a statement that he reserves the right to sue author Barry Wain, veteran opposition leader, Lim Kit Siang and online news portal Malaysiakini for allegedly […]
jonfernquest says: Brilliant. Convinced me to buy the book and read it.
Same for me. I am a layman in these matters but the book, though not for the everyday reader, contained enough challenging nuggets to set me thinking on new paths.
One contention that intrigues me is the unwitting collusion by tourists through well meaning purchases of hill tribe artifacts etc in the presentation of hill tribes as the “other” Thai.
What avenues have been opened to publicise this image manipulation to potential tourists?
Somsak: thanks for pointing out the article in the Post on Prince Vajiralongkorn. There is indeed a link to the anniversary of his elevation — which I understand lasted from Dec 20-28 1972. But of course that’s just an excuse for the feature. Given who is writing it, it’s much more important for what it asserts after many months of quiet speculation: that there is no question of succession; and that the four sons of Sujarini are still official members of the royal establishment. Verrry Interesting.
Meanwhile Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my Thailand mates, yellow, red, pink, green or otherwise, and to the great guys at New Mandala for their work. (And a shoutout to Bangkok Pundit over there.)
I’ll ignore Chris Beale’s absolutely empty arguments on my writing about the crown prince; it’s a mystery why you insist on denying that there is and has been for a long time a serious problem. You are the only one who does so.
But on May 92: this is an important historical issue to debate. Somsak (thanks for your kind words) has it right that the key was where the king stood in the long runup to that date, and that includes the buildup of Class 5, the overthrow of Chatichai, the Nov-Dec. 91 constitutional fight, and the NPKC-controlled election that followed.
Yes you can argue that the king’s intervention headed off worse bloodshed, but you cannot ignore — as Beale does with great effort — this prologue. There was widespread popular opposition to Class 5’s hijacking of politics months before the May 92 violence. It was extreme by the end of November 91, after 10 months of a Suchinda-led corrupt NPKC government.
And it wasn’t a matter of some “Chamlong and Prem” military factions taking sides. It was finally a matter of some technocrats and technocratic generals telling the king, probably through Prem who finally, reluctantly opened his own ears, that things would go over a cliff if they went on another day or two.
Beale, you say: “Handley washes over this balance of power, and the question of whether HMK had any other realistic choices prior
to the May uprising.” There’s about 34 pages dedicated to this period, all of it about the balance of power. Hell, most of the book is about “this balance of power” and whether the king had other realistic choices to the ones he made. Don’t know how you missed that.
Instead, you argue that the king’s dismissal of the Class 5 power maniacs showed where his heart was, noting it took 15 years for another coup. My response to that: if you read my chapters on the following years, you’ll see that the palace-military dynamic in politcs was never far from the surface, that the coup threat was always around. I argue that the king (working through Prem) never shifted away from this ideology. You can say I’m wrong, but don’t say it isn’t in the book.
Indeed, you say more than once that I don’t address something in the book, and in each case you are wrong. Based on that I would not bother to reply. But because he mentioned a few specifics in the book on May 92, it merits a response. There has been little open debate about the hard content of my book, and what happened in May 92 and just before it deserves a lot of good debate and analysis.
As for Beale’s mildly ad hominem criticisms of my journalism (thanks Ralph, Unfaithful for your defenses) I would clarify: I worked for FEER beginning in 1984 or 85 in Indonesia, and left in 1994. That means I worked under Bowring, which would seem to completely undermine what Beale wants to say about me.
However, he has a point: the brand new regime of Gordon Crovitz at FEER in early1992 strongly sought to shape my coverage to focus on the concept of middle class revolt. I resisted, consciously, at casting this simple interpretation. If Beale genuinely went back to see what I wrote (and not the FEER editorial writer) he might see that.
But again, Beale has sought to discredit my arguments mostly by saying I don’t address things that in fact I do deal with, in detail. That is generally the palace/royalist approach, not really worth my comment.
Hopefully Mr Beale will offer us his own, in detail, one of these days.
I’d like to pose a him a question meanwhile: what does it mean if a country has a military coup every 15 years or so — and several threatened coups in the interim. Is that fine, normal, constructive, progressing, or otherwise?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Fair’s fair – Pasuk on Thailand in transition
Chris,
Happy Holidays. Wish you a restful time with your family. After the New Year I think you should focus your answer to Handly’s comments (Taksin on Crown Price).
Culture and rights in Thailand
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about culture. For work and personally.
It’s very wide but not very deep is my conclusion. However if the opportunity avails itself, I urge anyone flag waving for culture and Thai culture (the pernicious end of the spectrum) specifically to listen to McKenna on ‘culture is not your friend’
http://bit.ly/4Yt7lp
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
Judging from past reactions by the Laotian exile community in the United States, this will not be allowed to fade away quietly. They are hopping mad, and they know how to exert political pressure on the White House and their elected members of Congress. Expect to see some kind of call for sanctions against Thailand. The most immediate way to show some expression of displeasure would be to cancel the upcoming Operation Cobra Gold 2010, which the US bankrolls. It’s probably too late to cancel current activities that are set to begin next month, but contact your Congressman and Senator if you’re an American citizen and want to see Thailand punished for this latest human rights violation.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
>New Mandala has been remiss in not giving this story more coverage.
Unfortunately, New Mandala is not alone in this respect.
Japan Times May 16
Straits Times Dec 27
BBC Dec 28
BBC Dec 29
BBC Dec 30
NY Times Dec 28
NY Times Dec 29
Al Jazerra Dec 30
Mahathir threatens to sue author
“the Home Ministry has stopped the entry of the book pending investigation if the book is a ‘security threat.’ >> It just makes me sick when some self-appointed “authorities” claim that they have rights above the citizens…
Fair’s fair – Pasuk on Thailand in transition
Pasuk’s avoidance of the monarchy issue here is pragmatic, pure and simple, because, like all of us, she doesn’t want or need her day in court. Nor does she want to risk the private and public harrasment that would follow should she make such comments. Ask yourselves this. If you had such information on the monarchy’s wealth, how much would you publish and with what kind of analysis? Why would you publish it and to what purpose?
However, Pasuk’s comments on the unequal distribution of power, wealth and income don’t go far enough. Money in the pocket and what it can buy is an often overblown and overcited reason for unfairness in this divided and unequal society.
Far worse are the reasons behind this inequality. Primitive, institutionalised feudalism comfortably coupled with the insidious deceit of kreng jai pervades all aspects of life, and it is these cancers that eat into and at the self respect and self esteem of many Thai people. Sadly, without most of them realising it.
I meet and work with middle class Thai professionals who, fully cognizant of these ills, still kowtow to the Phu Yai, and who still cannot exercise their right to be heard without fear of repercussions.
Fear is a potent and powerful psychological weapon. Would you put yourself at risk of imprisonment simply to be heard and have a voice of your own?
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
Who’s next to be deported? Was there this sort of outcry over the Rohingya asylum seekers from foreign governments? Did previous governments deport groups frequently too? Precedents…
I was at an ‘anti-malaria financing’ conference a couple of months ago and learned that Thailand supposedly extends healthcare benefits (free access to the 30 baht scheme?) to refugees. Surely Thailand could be receiving more merit from benignly letting refugees settle than pocketing the savings accrued from letting refugees ‘voluntarily’ leave their 30 baht healthcare behind?
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
Abhisit Vejjajiva is probably a nice guy on a personal level but I’ve yet to see anything that displays courage and conviction when it comes to dealing with the army. A PPE from Oxford includes doing philosophy. How anyone can emerge from that without a moral compass for the Hmong is like his actions with the Rohingya peoples indicative of the complete absence of spine.
Even more pertinent is the complete absence of neighbourly action with any of Thailands neighbours except when power is evident. The quintessential mark of cowards.
Abhisit’s definition of voluntary
Voluntarily…in cattle trucks.
Send a card to Da
Wish Da a Happy New Year! There has been a crisis of justice in Thailand for the past 3 years, Thanks Da for opening the eyes and ears to see how Thailand is so cruel to her. Will visit her today,
Reuters on Vajiralongkorn and succession
I completely agree with Luecha.
Only if the PAD gain power, and start dis-enfranchising Isaarn, with PAD’s 50% only popular vote formula, will we see substantial risk of the bloody break-up of “Thailand”.
Otherwise, I’m expecting a smooth eventual succession to the Crown Prince – who may well surprise all by how good and great a king he can be.
It would be better if a settlement were reached with Thaksin during the current King’s reign – the sooner there is national reconciliation, the better. Let’s hope HMK lives much longer.
Young, old, rich, poor, good, bad, stylish, successful and wretched
Yes – but Bangkok is sinking, and much of the high-rise is poorly constructed. Anyhow, Thailand urgently needs REAL de-centralisation – not the mere lip-service to that of the past four decades. REAL de-centralisation can only be achieved by a more federal, devolved system of government.
Fair’s fair – Pasuk on Thailand in transition
Oo – US intelligence would have detailed (though not total) knowledge BECAUSE the Royals are not investing in the Soviet Union!
Just look at a map of global telecommunications load – the current Times Desktop World Atlas has an excllent chart. There is little the US can not find out about.
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
Paul – thanks for your remarks, which I will have to return to more fully later, since as I’ve posted before : I simply don’t have enough time to devote so much to NM, especially during this Xmas-New Year.
Furthermore – since I’ve copped so much flak, I’m yet again re-reading your excessively weighty tome, plus searching for your FEER articles in my house : I was a regular reader before Crovitz took over. But I will make a few initial points in respectful reply :
1) one of the benefits of NM is the enlightenment from debate and discussion here. I was unaware you “considered Bowring a mentor”, as Unfaithful Reader pointed out to me. But how could I know that ?
I witnessed first hand May’92, and wrote FEER complaining about your coverage – or lack thereof – of agent provocateurs stirring violence in the first post-crackdown article by you that FEER published (I’ll cite you the date when I find it). But wrote them a subsequent letter saying your later coverage was better, from my eyewitness perspective. Crovitz published neither letter, and I’ve since held the impression you were one of the Crovitz crowd, and am thankful to Unfaithful Reader for correcting me on this.
On the issue of agent provocateurs, I do realise in sympathy to you that it is impossible for journalists to cover every angle of
such enormous events as those in May’92. Incidentally I criticise your book also for putting too much emphasis on rumours, and not enough on divisions within the military.
2) the ever-present palace-military coup threat you mention :
the evidence you present can be interpreted to support exactly the opposite argument to yours, namely mine – i.e. that the Palace leant towards democracy in the 15 year period, that this was a major obstacle if not THE major obstacle AGAINST another coup, and that it was crucial to saving the May uprising (though here you seem to be conceding the latter).
3) 15 years without a coup being “progressive” or not ? Well, for Thailand, and many other former Third World/ transistional nations that is progress !!
4) the prologue that you, Somsak, and Ralph bang on about is not such a big deal either – can I please be paid a dollar for everytime Thais have debated democracy, and railed against this or that of the 17 (?) constitutions since 1932 ?
5) The Crown Prince : presentation of this well-worn topic is so one-sided and hackneyed by Western journalists, for some-one like me who has been to Thailand over decades, since 1963,
your replaying this tired old record is simply boring – the worst part of your in other respects excellent, poorly edited tome. Does it ever occur to Western journalists that they are being played like a violin by palace intriguers ?
Have a good New Year !!
Send a card to Da
Vive l’esprit indomptable et combatif de Da Torpedo
A bas Sakdina Sayam et le clique militaire de Bangkok
Send a card to Da
Free for khoun Da
and Happy new year 2010 for you
Mahathir squandered RM100 billion says new book
[…] Malaysian strongman has issued a statement that he reserves the right to sue author Barry Wain, veteran opposition leader, Lim Kit Siang and online news portal Malaysiakini for allegedly […]
Review of Jonsson’s Mien Relations
jonfernquest says: Brilliant. Convinced me to buy the book and read it.
Same for me. I am a layman in these matters but the book, though not for the everyday reader, contained enough challenging nuggets to set me thinking on new paths.
One contention that intrigues me is the unwitting collusion by tourists through well meaning purchases of hill tribe artifacts etc in the presentation of hill tribes as the “other” Thai.
What avenues have been opened to publicise this image manipulation to potential tourists?
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
Somsak: thanks for pointing out the article in the Post on Prince Vajiralongkorn. There is indeed a link to the anniversary of his elevation — which I understand lasted from Dec 20-28 1972. But of course that’s just an excuse for the feature. Given who is writing it, it’s much more important for what it asserts after many months of quiet speculation: that there is no question of succession; and that the four sons of Sujarini are still official members of the royal establishment. Verrry Interesting.
Meanwhile Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my Thailand mates, yellow, red, pink, green or otherwise, and to the great guys at New Mandala for their work. (And a shoutout to Bangkok Pundit over there.)
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
I’ll ignore Chris Beale’s absolutely empty arguments on my writing about the crown prince; it’s a mystery why you insist on denying that there is and has been for a long time a serious problem. You are the only one who does so.
But on May 92: this is an important historical issue to debate. Somsak (thanks for your kind words) has it right that the key was where the king stood in the long runup to that date, and that includes the buildup of Class 5, the overthrow of Chatichai, the Nov-Dec. 91 constitutional fight, and the NPKC-controlled election that followed.
Yes you can argue that the king’s intervention headed off worse bloodshed, but you cannot ignore — as Beale does with great effort — this prologue. There was widespread popular opposition to Class 5’s hijacking of politics months before the May 92 violence. It was extreme by the end of November 91, after 10 months of a Suchinda-led corrupt NPKC government.
And it wasn’t a matter of some “Chamlong and Prem” military factions taking sides. It was finally a matter of some technocrats and technocratic generals telling the king, probably through Prem who finally, reluctantly opened his own ears, that things would go over a cliff if they went on another day or two.
Beale, you say: “Handley washes over this balance of power, and the question of whether HMK had any other realistic choices prior
to the May uprising.” There’s about 34 pages dedicated to this period, all of it about the balance of power. Hell, most of the book is about “this balance of power” and whether the king had other realistic choices to the ones he made. Don’t know how you missed that.
Instead, you argue that the king’s dismissal of the Class 5 power maniacs showed where his heart was, noting it took 15 years for another coup. My response to that: if you read my chapters on the following years, you’ll see that the palace-military dynamic in politcs was never far from the surface, that the coup threat was always around. I argue that the king (working through Prem) never shifted away from this ideology. You can say I’m wrong, but don’t say it isn’t in the book.
Indeed, you say more than once that I don’t address something in the book, and in each case you are wrong. Based on that I would not bother to reply. But because he mentioned a few specifics in the book on May 92, it merits a response. There has been little open debate about the hard content of my book, and what happened in May 92 and just before it deserves a lot of good debate and analysis.
As for Beale’s mildly ad hominem criticisms of my journalism (thanks Ralph, Unfaithful for your defenses) I would clarify: I worked for FEER beginning in 1984 or 85 in Indonesia, and left in 1994. That means I worked under Bowring, which would seem to completely undermine what Beale wants to say about me.
However, he has a point: the brand new regime of Gordon Crovitz at FEER in early1992 strongly sought to shape my coverage to focus on the concept of middle class revolt. I resisted, consciously, at casting this simple interpretation. If Beale genuinely went back to see what I wrote (and not the FEER editorial writer) he might see that.
But again, Beale has sought to discredit my arguments mostly by saying I don’t address things that in fact I do deal with, in detail. That is generally the palace/royalist approach, not really worth my comment.
Hopefully Mr Beale will offer us his own, in detail, one of these days.
I’d like to pose a him a question meanwhile: what does it mean if a country has a military coup every 15 years or so — and several threatened coups in the interim. Is that fine, normal, constructive, progressing, or otherwise?