In this context, I think Christine Gray’s statement from two years ago is very pertinent:
– – – – –
What bothers me about Thailand’s lese majeste (insult to the Crown) laws is that they are in the dominant idiom of sight. People, including Western scholars, are literally forbidden to say what they observe or “see” (du) with their own eyes. That is true even if those sights are all over social media, like the Crown Prince, his Porsche, his mistress and kneeling courtiers in front of a garden supply store in Germany, or the weight of the Crown Princess, or the sad state of health, literally, of the royal family.
The pressure and observance of these taboos has gotten so extreme we’ve now ventured into the realm of the ridiculously blind, and the ridiculously dangerous. Speaking as a parent, who would ever want to raise his or her child in this state of “not seeing” and therefore not knowing or trusting their own thoughts and observations? How can anyone run a university on these terms?
The essential nature of the LM laws is signified by prostration — the literal “not seeing” or glancing on the face of the monarch while the monarch sees and knows all — and the custom of Siamese kings’ archers shooting out the eyes of those who would dare watch the royal procession. This latter custom was discontinued by King Mongkut (Rama IV) in the face of Western cries of barbarism as a means of justifying treaty demands designed to wreck the economy and the society. The custom of prostration to royalty was supposedly discontinued by Rama V, Chulalongkorn, but instead was selectively managed by context. This trend — the selective management of prostration to avoid Western audiences — is no longer being observed by the younger (a.k.a. middle aged) generation of royals.
The cultural formula over the last 150+ years has been gradually to link Thai nationalism to respect (the selective seeing) of the Thai Buddhist monarchy. Therefore, at some deeply held level, many Thai citizens associate insult to the Crown as insult to themselves or “Thai-ness” as experienced in the context of colonial threat and cultural insult, American troops and Western tourists using the country and its children as a happy global whorehouse while the U.S. State Department looks the other way (averts its own gaze). That’s probably one reason why royals have resorting to using pet dogs as a means of insult to each other and the West. And why not?
The other sickening aspect of these laws is U.S. complicity. The current threats against persons via violation of LM laws — previously police actions against “suspected” terrorists, Communists, etc., highly profitable sightings in terms of U.S. defense dollars — arose out of a legacy of colonialism and free trade, hypocritical cries for democracy or constitutional monarchy. These in turn were a thinly disguised if not cynical rationale for ripping off Thai resources or developing Thailand as our corporate export market. The cries for free trade of the 19th century — the right of the British to export Indian opium to China and Siam/Thailand — were followed by a World War II alliance with the OSS (Office of Strategic Services/CIA), then U.S. military presence during the Vietnam War. Democracy was turned upside down by us, by the British, then by Thai royalist politicians as a means of disguising the transfer of what is now apparent as being extreme wealth. Fast forward 50 or 60 years and how has that “good ole democracy” (to paraphrase Sarah Palin) worked out for ordinary Thai citizens?
With over 100 years of Thailand’s best and brightest scholars receiving degrees from Western universities, it becomes more unlikely than ever that leading Thai scholars, teachers and citizens are willing to “not see” the evidence in front of their own eyes, even if that training, as in the case of former prime minister Thaksin, led to the acquisition of enormous wealth. The result of Thai populism at its worst, like American Tea Party populism at its worst, is to play on the lowest and most violent instincts of Thai citizens in the cause of outdated if not twisted notions of nationalism. The worst thing about U.S. “democratic” influence in Thailand is that the results, at the deepest visual level, most resemble North Korea, which has never had to go through the charade of Western democracy in support of what were obviously dictatorships, the case in Thailand by way of field marshals Sarit, Thanom and Praphat. (My era, I know I’m outdated.)
I probably know the Thai monarchy of the mid-20th century as well as any farang. I deeply respect and remember members of the Palace staff, monks at royal temples, etc. and have some degree of sympathy for royalty as persons, certainly in view of the ugly (U.S. and CIA-supported) dynamics of the late 1940s and 1950s. (Believe me, as a parent and a teacher I admire deeply ingrained Asian customs of respect for teachers and elders.) But I, like every other U.S. scholar of Thailand, have been taught by a generation of teachers who carefully observed the LM rules of academic writing. I have been careful to “watch my words” and silence myself in the interests of promoting my work — for almost an entire lifetime — just as people close to the monarchy have waited decades if not lifetimes to make public the most obvious circumstances of their own lives or the lives of their ancestors. This is particularly true of women.
Now we, U.S. and Western scholars and journalists, are huddled and in hiding — self censoring — as much as the Thai scholars and citizens we should be protecting, our fear being “we can never go back” and do our research. It’s clear that our scholar and teacher friends, their idealistic students, journalists, etc. are in line to get detained, disappeared or killed in the awful present and possible future. Perhaps it’s time for everyone to quit hiding.
So there. I guess I can “never go back,” but that’s trivial in light of what’s happening now in the streets and private homes and yes, I have to believe, in many of the Buddhist temples of Thailand. It’s time for everyone to step over the line. It’s neither honorable nor justifiable for us to remain selectively silent, leaving a few intrepid and terrified journalists or Thai activists to perform the task of simple observation.
Surely the primary duty of foreign commentators – especially academics – is for them to as objectively as possible ANALYSE and inform their FOREIGN (i.e. outside Thailand) audiences. If not, how on earth can the rest of the world make responsible, informed decisions in relation to Thailand ? Analysis – NOT advocacy – is surely the key. Thailand is, after all, a sovereign country, entitled to
not have its’ internal affairs interfered with by foreigners. So far the junta has only dared punish foreigners holding dual Thai / foreign nationality for making comments outside Thailand – eg. Joe Gordon. Even his case became an important diplomatic irritant.
Certainly holding the conference outside Thailand would still not enable participants to enjoy full freedom of speech given the junta’s paranoia and the lese majeste law. Any participant who wanted to return to Thailand would have to be careful about what they said while abroad. However, the discussion would be freer than is possible in Thailand, and most importantly, moving the conference abroad would avoid perpetuating the dangerous myth that unfettered academic discussion is possible within Thailand. It would be a betrayal of Thailand’s people for academics to pretend that a credible conference can be held under the current conditions.
Holding the conference outside of Thailand will not in any way make it more likely that “participants can speak freely and honestly”. People returning to Thailand after such an alternate site conference would still be at risk for anything that might have been said by any participant, in particular things said by foreign based commentators who would face arrest in Thailand (if there are any such). Attendees might also face a greater challenge with respect to attendance at a foreign location, thus making attendance a higher profile act and personally more risky. These risks are present at a Thailand based conference too, but the likelihood of incendiary speech is greater somewhere else. Also, as the hosts, there is at least some social obligation on the part of the government to refrain from heavy-handedness. And those offending correspondents — they probably won’t be there.
But what use is doing your best to “guarantee that all academically qualified papers will be accepted to be presented at the conference” when the organisers acknowledge that those presenting papers on the crucial subjects of the military and monarchy may face arrest and imprisonment? Surely the only way to maintain the integrity of the conference is to change the venue and hold it outside Thailand in a place where all participants can speak freely and honestly?
Great article beautiful writing by a writer with real knowledge of Xanana TL’s history and recovery through the lense of gender equity. I look forward to your new book.
All religions resemble each other in ‘outlook’. In general there are three varieties; monotheistic, polytheistic and non-theistic . Buddhism and (philosophical) Taoism are non-theistic religions. It is not appropriate to enshrine Thai Buddhism in the Thai constitution because it discriminates against Thai Muslims, Christians, Animists, and followers of Traditional Chinese Religions. Buddhism already has more than adequate protection in Thai law and there is no need to supplement this protection any further. As Sulak Sivaraksa has pointed out, this idea of making Buddhism an official religion of Thailand is born out of an imbalenced and excessively nationalistic mindset. Buddhism encourages a more tolerant and inclusive attitude towards other religions. Lastly, most of the problems that are afflicting Thai Buddhism are due to the controlling and restrictive interference of the Thai state so the last thing that Thai Buddhism needs is for this to be become ‘official’.
Input by academics with knowledge of the relevant literature is severely needed, I might add.
Take the case of the sudden surprise move by the Thai junta to not incarcerate with a backbreaking prison term, every person who gets sucked into the drug trade.
Take, for example, the Burmese twenty-something wife, sister, mother of my Burmese friends from Yangon in Maesai, an ordinary non-criminal who was shown no discretion or mercy with a whopping 15-year jail sentence for making a stupid decision under the grind of poverty.
In the newspaper I work for in Bangkok, instead of getting academics knowledgeable about methamphetamine trade and abuse such as anthropology of police expert William Garriot who authored “Policing Methamphetamine: Narcopolitics in Rural America” (2011), for instance, or the equivalent expert advice from a Southeast Asia expert in this field, the staffer who writes on business writes an angry op-ed piece on this subject **without a shred of knowledge, a guy how doesn’t know a thing about the larger context of the meph drug trade and meph addiction** or anything about what goes on at the provincial level outside of Bangkok, a guy who sits in an air-conditioned office 365 days 24/7. This is truly infuriating for those seek real knowledge on what is really happening in this area.
It is a moral imperative that academics at all levels including masters and PhD students get involved as specialized media-engaged public-intellectuals, especially in a time when top schools in Thailand, for instance, are talking of cutting their journalism programs because not enough students are interested in enrolling.
For centuries muslims lived in Europe. Does this make Europe an ensemble of muslim states? What I find surprising is that a significant percentage of those refugees trying to find a save heaven in Europe come from muslim states! Does this mean that the conditions for muslims to live a religious live are better in secular Europe then in islamic states?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Committing to open academic spaces in Thailand
In this context, I think Christine Gray’s statement from two years ago is very pertinent:
– – – – –
What bothers me about Thailand’s lese majeste (insult to the Crown) laws is that they are in the dominant idiom of sight. People, including Western scholars, are literally forbidden to say what they observe or “see” (du) with their own eyes. That is true even if those sights are all over social media, like the Crown Prince, his Porsche, his mistress and kneeling courtiers in front of a garden supply store in Germany, or the weight of the Crown Princess, or the sad state of health, literally, of the royal family.
The pressure and observance of these taboos has gotten so extreme we’ve now ventured into the realm of the ridiculously blind, and the ridiculously dangerous. Speaking as a parent, who would ever want to raise his or her child in this state of “not seeing” and therefore not knowing or trusting their own thoughts and observations? How can anyone run a university on these terms?
The essential nature of the LM laws is signified by prostration — the literal “not seeing” or glancing on the face of the monarch while the monarch sees and knows all — and the custom of Siamese kings’ archers shooting out the eyes of those who would dare watch the royal procession. This latter custom was discontinued by King Mongkut (Rama IV) in the face of Western cries of barbarism as a means of justifying treaty demands designed to wreck the economy and the society. The custom of prostration to royalty was supposedly discontinued by Rama V, Chulalongkorn, but instead was selectively managed by context. This trend — the selective management of prostration to avoid Western audiences — is no longer being observed by the younger (a.k.a. middle aged) generation of royals.
The cultural formula over the last 150+ years has been gradually to link Thai nationalism to respect (the selective seeing) of the Thai Buddhist monarchy. Therefore, at some deeply held level, many Thai citizens associate insult to the Crown as insult to themselves or “Thai-ness” as experienced in the context of colonial threat and cultural insult, American troops and Western tourists using the country and its children as a happy global whorehouse while the U.S. State Department looks the other way (averts its own gaze). That’s probably one reason why royals have resorting to using pet dogs as a means of insult to each other and the West. And why not?
The other sickening aspect of these laws is U.S. complicity. The current threats against persons via violation of LM laws — previously police actions against “suspected” terrorists, Communists, etc., highly profitable sightings in terms of U.S. defense dollars — arose out of a legacy of colonialism and free trade, hypocritical cries for democracy or constitutional monarchy. These in turn were a thinly disguised if not cynical rationale for ripping off Thai resources or developing Thailand as our corporate export market. The cries for free trade of the 19th century — the right of the British to export Indian opium to China and Siam/Thailand — were followed by a World War II alliance with the OSS (Office of Strategic Services/CIA), then U.S. military presence during the Vietnam War. Democracy was turned upside down by us, by the British, then by Thai royalist politicians as a means of disguising the transfer of what is now apparent as being extreme wealth. Fast forward 50 or 60 years and how has that “good ole democracy” (to paraphrase Sarah Palin) worked out for ordinary Thai citizens?
With over 100 years of Thailand’s best and brightest scholars receiving degrees from Western universities, it becomes more unlikely than ever that leading Thai scholars, teachers and citizens are willing to “not see” the evidence in front of their own eyes, even if that training, as in the case of former prime minister Thaksin, led to the acquisition of enormous wealth. The result of Thai populism at its worst, like American Tea Party populism at its worst, is to play on the lowest and most violent instincts of Thai citizens in the cause of outdated if not twisted notions of nationalism. The worst thing about U.S. “democratic” influence in Thailand is that the results, at the deepest visual level, most resemble North Korea, which has never had to go through the charade of Western democracy in support of what were obviously dictatorships, the case in Thailand by way of field marshals Sarit, Thanom and Praphat. (My era, I know I’m outdated.)
I probably know the Thai monarchy of the mid-20th century as well as any farang. I deeply respect and remember members of the Palace staff, monks at royal temples, etc. and have some degree of sympathy for royalty as persons, certainly in view of the ugly (U.S. and CIA-supported) dynamics of the late 1940s and 1950s. (Believe me, as a parent and a teacher I admire deeply ingrained Asian customs of respect for teachers and elders.) But I, like every other U.S. scholar of Thailand, have been taught by a generation of teachers who carefully observed the LM rules of academic writing. I have been careful to “watch my words” and silence myself in the interests of promoting my work — for almost an entire lifetime — just as people close to the monarchy have waited decades if not lifetimes to make public the most obvious circumstances of their own lives or the lives of their ancestors. This is particularly true of women.
Now we, U.S. and Western scholars and journalists, are huddled and in hiding — self censoring — as much as the Thai scholars and citizens we should be protecting, our fear being “we can never go back” and do our research. It’s clear that our scholar and teacher friends, their idealistic students, journalists, etc. are in line to get detained, disappeared or killed in the awful present and possible future. Perhaps it’s time for everyone to quit hiding.
So there. I guess I can “never go back,” but that’s trivial in light of what’s happening now in the streets and private homes and yes, I have to believe, in many of the Buddhist temples of Thailand. It’s time for everyone to step over the line. It’s neither honorable nor justifiable for us to remain selectively silent, leaving a few intrepid and terrified journalists or Thai activists to perform the task of simple observation.
[Source: https://www.facebook.com/notes/andrew-macgregor-marshall/its-time-for-everyone-to-step-over-the-line-christine-gray-on-l%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9/804537222898952/%5D
The King is (nearly) dead: long live the King?
Yes, but they could never cover anything like this. They would be put in jail.
Committing to open academic spaces in Thailand
Surely the primary duty of foreign commentators – especially academics – is for them to as objectively as possible ANALYSE and inform their FOREIGN (i.e. outside Thailand) audiences. If not, how on earth can the rest of the world make responsible, informed decisions in relation to Thailand ? Analysis – NOT advocacy – is surely the key. Thailand is, after all, a sovereign country, entitled to
not have its’ internal affairs interfered with by foreigners. So far the junta has only dared punish foreigners holding dual Thai / foreign nationality for making comments outside Thailand – eg. Joe Gordon. Even his case became an important diplomatic irritant.
Committing to open academic spaces in Thailand
Certainly holding the conference outside Thailand would still not enable participants to enjoy full freedom of speech given the junta’s paranoia and the lese majeste law. Any participant who wanted to return to Thailand would have to be careful about what they said while abroad. However, the discussion would be freer than is possible in Thailand, and most importantly, moving the conference abroad would avoid perpetuating the dangerous myth that unfettered academic discussion is possible within Thailand. It would be a betrayal of Thailand’s people for academics to pretend that a credible conference can be held under the current conditions.
Committing to open academic spaces in Thailand
Holding the conference outside of Thailand will not in any way make it more likely that “participants can speak freely and honestly”. People returning to Thailand after such an alternate site conference would still be at risk for anything that might have been said by any participant, in particular things said by foreign based commentators who would face arrest in Thailand (if there are any such). Attendees might also face a greater challenge with respect to attendance at a foreign location, thus making attendance a higher profile act and personally more risky. These risks are present at a Thailand based conference too, but the likelihood of incendiary speech is greater somewhere else. Also, as the hosts, there is at least some social obligation on the part of the government to refrain from heavy-handedness. And those offending correspondents — they probably won’t be there.
The King is (nearly) dead: long live the King?
I think everyone prefers the Princess, but with no children it would likely be the end of the monarchy.
Committing to open academic spaces in Thailand
But what use is doing your best to “guarantee that all academically qualified papers will be accepted to be presented at the conference” when the organisers acknowledge that those presenting papers on the crucial subjects of the military and monarchy may face arrest and imprisonment? Surely the only way to maintain the integrity of the conference is to change the venue and hold it outside Thailand in a place where all participants can speak freely and honestly?
The King is (nearly) dead: long live the King?
Suggest you re-read the article more carefully, your questions were answered as authoritively as they can be (under the present circumstances.)
‘What a piece of work is a man!’
Great article beautiful writing by a writer with real knowledge of Xanana TL’s history and recovery through the lense of gender equity. I look forward to your new book.
‘What a piece of work is a man!’
It is better that way, to be ambiguous than explicit.
I find the article succinct and touching the core stages Xanana’s political life..
‘What a piece of work is a man!’
Yes I agree – ambiguous. Not sure what the point was/is.
The King is (nearly) dead: long live the King?
republic thailand !
‘What a piece of work is a man!’
Lyrical, nuanced, insightful but ambiguous. The last sentence left me dangling in mid-air. I look forward to Part II.
Buddhist politics and Thailand’s dangerous path
All religions resemble each other in ‘outlook’. In general there are three varieties; monotheistic, polytheistic and non-theistic . Buddhism and (philosophical) Taoism are non-theistic religions. It is not appropriate to enshrine Thai Buddhism in the Thai constitution because it discriminates against Thai Muslims, Christians, Animists, and followers of Traditional Chinese Religions. Buddhism already has more than adequate protection in Thai law and there is no need to supplement this protection any further. As Sulak Sivaraksa has pointed out, this idea of making Buddhism an official religion of Thailand is born out of an imbalenced and excessively nationalistic mindset. Buddhism encourages a more tolerant and inclusive attitude towards other religions. Lastly, most of the problems that are afflicting Thai Buddhism are due to the controlling and restrictive interference of the Thai state so the last thing that Thai Buddhism needs is for this to be become ‘official’.
The King is (nearly) dead: long live the King?
Khaosod and Prachathai (both in Thai and English langauge) are excellent
Buddhist politics and Thailand’s dangerous path
This is accurate. Buddhism does not resemble Abrahamic religions in outlook or doctrine. It is appropriate to recognize it in a Thai constitution.
Challenging times for Thai tourism
Yes! right! Thailand is among the world’s top tourist destinations 🙂
really love this country and the tourism
The blogger’s rise and media’s demise
Input by academics with knowledge of the relevant literature is severely needed, I might add.
Take the case of the sudden surprise move by the Thai junta to not incarcerate with a backbreaking prison term, every person who gets sucked into the drug trade.
Take, for example, the Burmese twenty-something wife, sister, mother of my Burmese friends from Yangon in Maesai, an ordinary non-criminal who was shown no discretion or mercy with a whopping 15-year jail sentence for making a stupid decision under the grind of poverty.
In the newspaper I work for in Bangkok, instead of getting academics knowledgeable about methamphetamine trade and abuse such as anthropology of police expert William Garriot who authored “Policing Methamphetamine: Narcopolitics in Rural America” (2011), for instance, or the equivalent expert advice from a Southeast Asia expert in this field, the staffer who writes on business writes an angry op-ed piece on this subject **without a shred of knowledge, a guy how doesn’t know a thing about the larger context of the meph drug trade and meph addiction** or anything about what goes on at the provincial level outside of Bangkok, a guy who sits in an air-conditioned office 365 days 24/7. This is truly infuriating for those seek real knowledge on what is really happening in this area.
It is a moral imperative that academics at all levels including masters and PhD students get involved as specialized media-engaged public-intellectuals, especially in a time when top schools in Thailand, for instance, are talking of cutting their journalism programs because not enough students are interested in enrolling.
The King is (nearly) dead: long live the King?
Two princesses publicly showed support for the coup. They lost all credibility.
Islam and the state in Myanmar
For centuries muslims lived in Europe. Does this make Europe an ensemble of muslim states? What I find surprising is that a significant percentage of those refugees trying to find a save heaven in Europe come from muslim states! Does this mean that the conditions for muslims to live a religious live are better in secular Europe then in islamic states?