Comments

Thanks to Mr. Borchert for this post, and to all the interesting comments it has inspired. I especially appreciate the way that the question was framed. As Borchert states, he is interested in learning about “when it is okay for phra to edge into the political realm in Thailand and how they do so.”

I believe a project which looks historically and comparatively at the emergence of the sangha into political discourse would be quite worthwhile. As a specialist in Sri Lankan Buddhism, it strikes me that a study of the in-fighting and public statements of the relatively recent (2004-) JHU party, a political party formed by Buddhist monks which has monks sitting in seats of Parliament, would prove fertile ground for comparative work with mainland SEA cases.

Since this topic interests me, and no doubt many who have posted comments here, I would like to suggest that those who have the means of initiating such things attempt to form a conference panel centered around the questions raised here. This would set the stage for some valuable dialogue regarding comaparative perspectives on these issues.

US $780! Sorry. CJ, if FACT has the rights, why don’t you make copies available yourself? Even if you cover your costs, it should be a bit more affordable than $780.

Some postscript for interested Readers:
1. Some folk may argue that granted while democratic governments obviously need to be elected, not all elected governments are democratic (yeah I’ve heard that one); thus we (the elites/intelligentsia) have the right to stop this nascent process, turn it around, and put whatever (whoever) we like in its place in the name of “salvaging” (S.Lim’s word) the nation (kuu-chaat р╕Бр╕╣р╣Йр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤) [in our own imagining] and its perduring civic institutions. Applying this is like a dog chasing its tail – useless.
Electoral democracy (ED) took a backward step in late 2006 and retreated ever since. Thaksin had attempted to empower (horizontally) local & meso level instrumentalities for this purpose; to dislodge the nested central (vertical) power and authority, though absolutely committed to a constitutional monarchy. But remember: ED involves a participatory community development (CD) process. The trouble is it is not allowed to run its natural course as the intellectuals think they know best and prefer to make decisions for the electorate who are not able to make decisions for themselves. This is the attitude of Thai academics/CSOs and many foreign academics. That being the case, then why not just give up altogether and bring back the dictatorship by the state/military (reminiscent of Thanom and Prapat). Australians may recall three terms of Howard Government. How many of us wanted the narrow conservatism to end? BUT it had to run its course and ED process eventual showed that all things are unstable and changeable and in the end people (in a democracy) have the ability to make choices. There is no reason why this cannot apply in a different context.

2.Thaksin tried to sue the media/press because it was his only avenue of seeking to right wrongs with liable and groundless accusations made against him; all citizens have that right, including pollies, and sometimes we follow it through and are compensated accordingly – which he did not. Neither did he do as the military: simple shut the press up or, like the current regime, share the same bed with the media…

3….the same bed? Let’s look at some facts: regional alliances are pervasive in Thailand. The locale for current media mischief making is Songkhla; which happens to be Prem’s home town and the Nation’s Suthichai Yoon. [as for Prem’s influence on Abhisit? – readers can make that determination how they please]. Indeed, many in the current media leadership are actually from the south [Mention Prem in any negative context and the media immediately jump in highbrow indignation]. The Nation media has recently been allocated space on virtually every channel in Thailand. Suthichai’s younger brother controls one of these TV stations, TPBS.

4. Media bias? example: (a) on one occasion a few months back Abhisit was impromptly cut off during a political broadcast on Channel 11. The boss got immediately moved to the south (b) Remember when during a ceremony for the king (I think either Coronation or Chakri day??) earlier this year TPBS made a serious faux pas by playing a song Saeng Dao Haeng Sattha “Starlight of Faith” by Marxist writer the late Jit Phoumisak, symbol of the left. Listeners were stunned for fleeting moment it was aired. During the king’s ceremony? Abhisit let it disappear without anything more serious than a slap for a low level technician. Is this all Double standards? Read between the lines.

Ralph – I’m not “PROPOSING” anything.
Thai – or rather Siamese – sovereignty rules here.
Us farang can simply suggest.
But it does seem to me increasing polarisation is pushing events in the direction of a break-up, which would be unlikely to be as peaceful as the break-up of Czechs from Slovaks.
More like the break-up of former Yugoslavia – which is the great fear for us in Australia.
Mind you similiar dooms-day scenarios were on the horrizon for Indonesia in the dying days of Suharto supremacy – but Indonesia managed to avoid that through far greater de-facto de-centralisation. Something Siam may be better off finding their own version of.

In reference to Arthurson’s comments in particular. Yes – these cases could drag on for years, including into the next Reign, thereby well and truly keeping Thaksin’s name alive.

Sally #13 – you’re missing the point (Everyone knows manipulation is illegal – but who really started the rumours?). The 2 people who have been arrested had merely translated an article from Bloomberg which reported that the SET had fallen as a result of rumours, & the translations were posted AFTER the close of the market on the day of the slump. In other words, they weren’t guilty of causing the slump. If there is an investigation into who was waiting in the wings to make a huge profit out of the rumour, the culprits may be found. It is ***rumoured*** that some fairly highly placed people made large profits. If this is true, it would explain why two bloggers on alternative news sites are being scape-goated.

Bertil Lintner is probably the most informed critic of engagement with the SPDC and his point about incentives (in the form of material and social benefits) given by the senior leadership to ensure support within the Tatmadaw is quite relevant. This is similar to a point made by Nicholas in a previous post that “Command loyalty and solidarity remains a hallmark of the Burmese military system.”

However, I still feel that it is important to recognise that these incentives are not being satisfactorily obtained at the lowest ranks of the military. I also think it is important to pay attention to dissent, corruption and diversity within the Tatmadaw and the civil bureaucracy; not because it signals any impending mutiny by a group of Young Turks (I don’t think it does), but because it highlights the opportunities and space that exist (however limited) to address human rights concerns at a local level within the current system.

Any academic who put these kind of ” statements ” out there either have an “Academic Balls of STeel” or blinded by the extreme prejudice.
That will make Turnell and Vicary plain old garden variety SPDC hater who claim to fame is bashing SPDC for the past decades.
Even giving them the benefit of the doubt of an idiot proof 99 to 1 in their favor of SPDC hurt the people 99% of the time.
Is it justifiable that the 1% is caused by their advocacy is OK?
That is not even mentioning the the insane cascade of vilification that followed after such inaccurate statements which were repeated used as absolute truth that cause so much sufferings.
Please read the contrasting responsible article by fellow academic and realize the gravity of Sean Turnell and Vicary committed against thE Burmese people.

Truth or Fiction?
The Mundane ones:
1)”There are no effective property rights in Burma, contract enforcement is non-existent,”
2)”Most of Burma’s leading corporations are owned by serving and retired military officers, and the country is judged by Transparency International as the second-most corrupt in the world.2″
The Serious Ones:
1)”Burma spends a mere 1.4 per cent of GDP on health and education, less than half that spent by the next poorest member of ASEAN,”
2)” and secondary school has become the preserve of children of the (relatively) well- off. Universities (when they are allowed to open), almost exclusively belong to the ‘connected’ elite”
These are but some examples of some absolutely unproven from first few pages alone.

Thanks polo. It does, however, seems somewhat odd that the statements come from abroad and that those on the spot say nothing.