Thanks again Nick! Felt almost like being there as they say.
Without a clear platform, they can easily fizzle like Palang Dharma before them. It seems that they are also adopting the ‘green’ color and, possibly, the Green Party platform.
Will the Reds eventually form a party of their own to? Surely the more progressives in the Red crowd cannot continue to piggy back on PMThaksin’s popularity. On an interesting note, Pheu Thai still remains ‘leaderless’ in parliament: http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30103756/Pheu-Thai-cancels-plan-to-elect-new-leader
Nobody #12. I dare say that the early days of ITV before PMThaksin took over held a lot of promise in heading towards investigative journalism. However it wasn’t doing good business and after ShinCorp bought the station, the entertainment content was increased while the subject matter investigated in the news became ‘safe topics’. In other words, it became commercialized – much like our channels 7, 9 and 10 in Australia. A publicly funded model like SBS and ABC is needed – with editoria/programming independence from the government unlike Thailand’s former channel 11 (on that note the Democrats may be taking the channel to a better direction offering the leader of the opposition a half hour slot to follow the prime minister’s one hour each week – just that Pheu Thai interestingly has no leader. Might as well just let PMThaksin have that half hour! It is certainly better than having Red TV and Yellow TV in terms of exposing audiences to diverse views).
Their whole event looked not badly staged, and the fact that they did not get too ‘angry’ is also quite a good move for them politically.
But why do they have to demean “red shirts” and show them as bought by money? Kinda counter-productive, don’t you think?
Politically, to remove their ‘yellow shirt’ to go with ‘green’ as a political party in my mind is a good move as it allows them to decouple their foray into politics with their street protesting.
Personally, I do not believe the PAD will do well in the short-term, but if they are really able to ‘clean up’ politics, remain idealistic and be a leader in clamping down corruption as well as being a bottom-up political party, this will in fact bode well for Thailand as a whole.
Am I that naive to believe what I wrote in the above paragraph will happen? Well, no. It ain’t gonna happen, Sondhi L. will try to make money immediately.
I would say most governments maneuvre their foreign policy to best serve their national interests. It’s their job, really. It’s just that Myanmar’s “government” generally doesn’t act on behalf of the nation but rather in their own best interests – holding onto power and its associated benefits.
In fact, Myanmar’s foreign policy has actually been against the country’s national interests, in my opinion, as it has further isolated it from the West, and made it increasingly reliant on Asian neighbours alone.
Admittedly, there are certainly elements of the military that see themselves as the protectors of a country – one that is not just there to be used and abused.
Protecting from what, I’m not so sure. The risk of a partial breakup of the country is real, I suppose, given the wishes of the insurgent groups and the minority groups they represent. There have been times in the past, post-independence, when this has been a real possibility, even likely.
But how real is the threat of foreign invasion? (Dr Selth has produced an interesting article on this.) I don’t think that such a threat exists today, so I don’t see your comment – “The emergence of China is … critical to the security of Southeast Asia” – as being particularly relevant to Myanmar, even if it is to some other countries.
Also, you said Japan’s conquest of Southeast Asia was indisputable. That’s true. But it wasn’t taking over a collective of small states, rather the remnants of two colonial empires (British and French) with the help of local elements, at least in Myanmar and Malaysia (I’m not so sure about other countries).
All this is a bit off topic I guess but there you go.
@tumbler #45
you are right and we admitted it in our post #23 already.
prof. Bowornsak compared the wrong ‘majesties’,
as the ambassador later followed suit.
as we said many times a ‘majesty’ is NOT a person alone,
it is a believe, a dogma, a cult.
if YOUR dogma is: ‘democracy & freedom of speech’,
you defend it & fight for it ‘tooth & nail’.
“the romans must do whatever makes the romans happy.”
even if somebody does NOT share YOUR opinion or dogma,
you want him to respect you. especially in YOUR home!
so let us forget their lame comparison.
let’s compare it with ‘holocaust denial’! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
one goes to jail for no more than saying: “we don’t believe it”
what do you think about this ‘dogma’ & its ‘lese majesty’ laws?
Myanmar, a dominant country in Southeast Asia with her rich heritage, maneuvers its foreign policy best served her national interests. The special relationship between Burma and China contributes to the stability of the Asia-Pacific, similar to the special relationship between Great Britain and the United States that has been contributing to the international stability of the world at large.
China’s power transition with its shifts in capabilities as its emergence on to the world stage has disrupted and frustrated the Hegemonic Challengers’ strategic objectives. In other words, while the Hegemon (the U.S.) is in relative decline in its wealth (the current U.S. economic troubles), and its military preoccupies in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; China’s capability shifts and power transition, has made the Hegemonic Challengers hesitate in its timing of war.
History has taught us over and over that the collective of small states can never be able to resist Great Powers conquest. During the World War II, the swift conquest of Southeast Asia by Japan was indisputable. The emergence of China is not only critical to the security of Southeast Asia, but paramount to the international stability of the Pacific and the Atlantic because only Great Powers can resist Great Powers.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s father collaborated with Japan in bringing independence of Burma from the British colonial power. Aung San Suu Kyi herself studied at Kyoto University. I think we need to understand those links to her problem.
Sorry I don’t see what you’re getting at here. How does this affect “her problem”? I’d be interested to hear how you define her problem.
I agree about China’s influence in Myanmar though. Western governments have played into their hands, to a degree. I wouldn’t go as far to say “province of China” though – they might play a large role financially in some areas, but you only have to go to Mandalay to find the average Burmese person’s resentment to China’s presence there (although they’re happy to ride around on motorbikes imported from China, as the article pointed out). China’s cultural impact is still pretty small, relatively, I believe.
Yes, Reader, internet penetration is incredibly low but I don’t think it’s for a lack of interest. If the small percentage that used the internet weren’t doing so in an interesting way, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Obviously internet penetration is a problem. There aren’t too many countries where it costs a few thousand US dollars to establish a home internet connection, which means the reliance on internet cafes in Myanmar is abnormally high. Unfortunately for the 50 million people – about 90 percent – who live outside of Yangon and Mandalay, there aren’t too many internet cafes around. It would be interesting if we could find a statistic that shows the population percentage that live within 2km of public internet centre.
For various reasons, we are also talking about a very limited demographic here – perhaps 15-30 years old. So I think for the people in this age bracket that live in cities with internet access, social networking sites are an important outlet – and internet penetration in this demographic is probably quite “high”.
Another important dimension in this argument are the 2 million Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, who don’t have citizenship in those countries and seem to hold on pretty tight to their Myanmar identity and this means using both Myanmar-language and English-language social networking sites.
This group would certainly boost the .6pc internet penetration figure if you included them, as well. But I don’t think internet penetration is a good way to discuss the merits of this post and social networking in Myanmar because, as you say, it is a “special” country.
Thank you for the information. I have high respect for the solid works of these two prominent scholars Charnvit Kasetsiri and Benedict Anderson. I value their dedication. Professor Charnvit Kasetsiri’s latest proposal to change the country name back to Siam is so appropriate. I hope to see it happen soon. I also hope to see more historians like Dr. Charnvit Kasetsiri who writes with integrity. There are so much work needed to be done about Siam political history. I am glad to see that recently the Pridi and Poonsuk Library was established. The history of Pridi’s period is crucial to the present day politics, both domestic politics as well as the international politics. Once we understand thoroughly about the history of that period we can understand the forces of the current conflict. For example, we can understand why they focus on attacking Jakrapob and Ji. All in all, I look forward to seeing more quality works in the tradition of true scholar….VeRiTas!
In reply to Jean-Philippe Leblond, the only published account I know of is Prasit Leepreecha et al 2547, Mien: Lak lai chiwit jak khun khao su meuang (CMU, SRI), page 91, they give the year 2518 (1975) for the move, and mention only Mien people from Lampang, Chiangrai, and Tak. I know from talking to Mien in the US that they were told they could move there from refugee camps (late 1970s, maybe also 1980s, am still collecting info on this). As far as I can tell, these were not “border self-defense villages”, in at least some cases there were shoot-outs between some Hmong and some Thai military (details not so detailed, except that the Hmong village was called Ban Thang Sut, that’s where the road ended because the Hmong would not accommodate road construction etc.). These were emphatically not lowland Kamph Phet people who moved uphill, nor were they people who had “sided with the Thai gov’t in the 1960s or 1970s” (they weren’t anti-govt but had other concerns). In 1990, I had a brief chat with some Mien people in Nan town, who were inside a fence and guarded by heavily armed military guys, the people had been evicted and trucked from Kph Phet to Nan, and may have ended up in the US — most of the refugee camps were closed in the 1980s, but Chiangkham ran until 1992 or longer.
“1. the vast majority of european citizens simply don’t care
about their ‘royal families’ or ‘head of state’.
but STILL have these LM laws.
this is totally different in thailand,
where the vast majority of citizens deeply respect & love their king.
that cannot be compared in any way!”
You need to keep in mind that Mr Van Den Hout was writing in response to an earlier article by Prof Bowornsak Uwanno which tried to justfy Thailand’s LM law.
The point is, Prof Bowornsak was defending the Thai LM law by citing the existence of LM laws in European constitutional monarchies, basically implying that Thailand’s use of LM was justified because it was doing what the so-called civilised Europeans were also doing.
If you then think Thailand and Europe “cannot be compared in any way”, you’ll need to direct your concerns to Prof Bowornsak, the one who tried to make such a comparison in the first place.
Leif Jonsson said :
” The Khlong Lan people, highlanders in Kamphaeng Phet, were invited there by the Thai authorities (most likely just the military, and at that time the Forestry Dept seems not to have minded), in an effort to preclude forest bases by the Communist Party of Thailand. Many of the people were in refugee camp – some rented their own trucks or other transport after they got the green light to settle there. They were encouraged to plant corn, and had to buy their own seeds. After the CPT surrendered, many were evicted, throughout the 1980s possibly, and at least as late as 1990 (by essentially the same outfits as had invited them earlier).”
Is there a published source for these precious information?
Do you mean that people who sided with the government in the late 1960s and 1970s and resettled in lowland resettlement centres in Kamphaeng Phet were then ‘offered’ to relocate in the uplands of western Kamphaeng Phet? Is it possible to know when approximately that occurred and if it was part of one of the many national security projects? Could it be for example part of the ‘border self-defense village project’ created in 1978 and which had by 1981 94 such villages established along the Thai-Burmese border (Bamrungsuk 1999)?
ref
Bamrungsuk S. (1999) From Dominance to Power Sharing: The Military and Politics in Thailand, 1973 – 1992. Columbia University.
Improved understanding of Burma’s political crisis depends in part on Great Powers’ more probing analysis of the post 9/11 strategic landscape. I don’t think it is wise to impose economic sanctions when one doesn’t even understand the current strategic issue of the Asia Pacific.
“China’s economic presence in Burma is growing fast, filling in where sanctions have forced the United States and its allies out…
“We have become a province of China,” a friend told me.
Indeed….
Mandalay, Burma’s second-largest city, has become a magnet for Chinese investors and businessmen–so much so that there are now daily flights to and from Kunming, the capital of China’s nearby Yunnan province.
Trade between the two countries increased by 40 percent in 2007, according to the latest official figures.
And it was lopsided in China’s favor. China sent Burma nearly U.S. $1.7 billion worth of goods–everything from pots and pans to motorbikes–and Burma sent back just U.S. $371 million, mostly farm products…
China is in the process of developing two major projects in partnership with Burma’s military government. They will assure China a role in Burma’s economy for a long time to come.
The first is a U.S. $2.55 billion pipeline linking the natural gas fields off Burma’s southwest coast with China. The pipeline will run 3,800 miles (6,080 kms) overland through Mandalay and on to Yunnan province.
A parallel oil pipeline will enable Chinese tankers from the Middle East and Africa to offload their cargoes off Burma instead of having to sail around Southeast Asia to the ports of eastern China.
The second project involves building a series of dams on the upper Irrawaddy River in Burma and connecting them to the Chinese power grid. Burma will get a share of the electricity in return…. “
US, UK and other Western countries were silly to impose those scantions. it only benefited China, as well as India and Thailand. I have suspected that China supports Burma against West, but today reading this article I’ve just realized how big the influence is –
province of China !
perhaps Thailand soon will also become such (or already is ?)
I note the author’s omission of two important facts in describing the situation in Europe.
1. the vast majority of european citizens simply don’t care
about their ‘royal families’ or ‘head of state’.
but STILL have these LM laws.
this is totally different in thailand,
where the vast majority of citizens deeply respect & love their king.
that cannot be compared in any way!
2. these people in europe have invented new ‘majesties’.
take ‘holocaust’ as an example.
it is a heinous fact that in germany anyone who denies
the official history version is put into jail mercylessly.
no pardons granted!
you see that the ‘majesties’ may be different,
but the ‘principles’ are the same.
a diplomat who shows such little understanding
for the cultural differences disqualifies himself.
Dickie, at 29 you said: “Cases against Jakrapob and Gi should be changed to ‘threats against the sovereignity of the Thai state’ as one has called for armed struggle, and the other for a major revolution.”
To be precise, can you tell me if “threats against sovereignty of the Thai state” is a crime and if so under what laws? Genuine question here. Under the constitution there is something about not advocating a govt that is not a democracy (presumably with the king as head of state etc.), but what laws govern this? I don’t know.
I would like to see a quote where Jakkrapob calls for armed struggle. If you have it, can you provide a link or reference? I have only seen him saying that there may eventually be an armed struggle.
I haven’t thoroughly checked if The Nation carried the story yet (but from a quick perusal, they haven’t) although they are doing a fine job with Myanmar and the Democrat’s tendency to quickly make enemies all round (PAD looks increasingly likely to compete with them in the next election for the same voting demographic; their coalition partners don’t like their standards/principles; Myanmar and Cambodia dislike their interference – everyone seems to desire “BUSINESS as usual” good old days under PMThaksin)
Yes, Amberwaves, let the chips fall where they may. It will be beneficial for Thai society to be able to at least get to the truth of state abuses against its own population. At least the most recent ones, still fresh in peoples minds, must be investigated.
Yes, the War on Drugs may be highly popular amongst Thais (and hence PMThaksin claims credit for it and still markets it as recently as the Songkran Red Riots as his premiership’s ‘success’) at all social strata – my middleclass friends and family overwhelmingly supported it then. This may also have something to do with what they see in the Thai media then. Exposed to Australian investigative journalism (I think it was SBS), I was very, very uncomfortable. But as with democracy in general, even if it is popular doesn’t mean that it is right (one of the crux of the current conflicts in Thai Democracy)…
The challenge is if any of these events gets politicized, it will be very hard to get to the truths amongst blatant lies and half-truths. Look at what is happening in the parliaments Reconciliation Committee to investigate the most recent Songkran state and citizen conflicts. Our Thai Mandela, PMThaksin and the Red Elites now claim that the government had ingeniously and masterfully orchestrated all the violence from Pattaya to Bangkok!
What hope do we have going back to Oct 7 Crackdown on PAD, Southern Unrests, War on Drugs, Black May 1992, Oct 1976 (that AjarnSomsak is very passionate about) etc…etc…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
PAD celebrates decision to found political party
Thanks again Nick! Felt almost like being there as they say.
Without a clear platform, they can easily fizzle like Palang Dharma before them. It seems that they are also adopting the ‘green’ color and, possibly, the Green Party platform.
Will the Reds eventually form a party of their own to? Surely the more progressives in the Red crowd cannot continue to piggy back on PMThaksin’s popularity. On an interesting note, Pheu Thai still remains ‘leaderless’ in parliament:
http://nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30103756/Pheu-Thai-cancels-plan-to-elect-new-leader
Suthichai Yoon on the state of Thai journalism
Nobody #12. I dare say that the early days of ITV before PMThaksin took over held a lot of promise in heading towards investigative journalism. However it wasn’t doing good business and after ShinCorp bought the station, the entertainment content was increased while the subject matter investigated in the news became ‘safe topics’. In other words, it became commercialized – much like our channels 7, 9 and 10 in Australia. A publicly funded model like SBS and ABC is needed – with editoria/programming independence from the government unlike Thailand’s former channel 11 (on that note the Democrats may be taking the channel to a better direction offering the leader of the opposition a half hour slot to follow the prime minister’s one hour each week – just that Pheu Thai interestingly has no leader. Might as well just let PMThaksin have that half hour! It is certainly better than having Red TV and Yellow TV in terms of exposing audiences to diverse views).
PAD celebrates decision to found political party
Nice report Nick, as always!
Their whole event looked not badly staged, and the fact that they did not get too ‘angry’ is also quite a good move for them politically.
But why do they have to demean “red shirts” and show them as bought by money? Kinda counter-productive, don’t you think?
Politically, to remove their ‘yellow shirt’ to go with ‘green’ as a political party in my mind is a good move as it allows them to decouple their foray into politics with their street protesting.
Personally, I do not believe the PAD will do well in the short-term, but if they are really able to ‘clean up’ politics, remain idealistic and be a leader in clamping down corruption as well as being a bottom-up political party, this will in fact bode well for Thailand as a whole.
Am I that naive to believe what I wrote in the above paragraph will happen? Well, no. It ain’t gonna happen, Sondhi L. will try to make money immediately.
Andrew Selth on conspiracies and cock-ups
I would say most governments maneuvre their foreign policy to best serve their national interests. It’s their job, really. It’s just that Myanmar’s “government” generally doesn’t act on behalf of the nation but rather in their own best interests – holding onto power and its associated benefits.
In fact, Myanmar’s foreign policy has actually been against the country’s national interests, in my opinion, as it has further isolated it from the West, and made it increasingly reliant on Asian neighbours alone.
Admittedly, there are certainly elements of the military that see themselves as the protectors of a country – one that is not just there to be used and abused.
Protecting from what, I’m not so sure. The risk of a partial breakup of the country is real, I suppose, given the wishes of the insurgent groups and the minority groups they represent. There have been times in the past, post-independence, when this has been a real possibility, even likely.
But how real is the threat of foreign invasion? (Dr Selth has produced an interesting article on this.) I don’t think that such a threat exists today, so I don’t see your comment – “The emergence of China is … critical to the security of Southeast Asia” – as being particularly relevant to Myanmar, even if it is to some other countries.
Also, you said Japan’s conquest of Southeast Asia was indisputable. That’s true. But it wasn’t taking over a collective of small states, rather the remnants of two colonial empires (British and French) with the help of local elements, at least in Myanmar and Malaysia (I’m not so sure about other countries).
All this is a bit off topic I guess but there you go.
Suwicha Thakor on his life in prison
@tumbler #45
you are right and we admitted it in our post #23 already.
prof. Bowornsak compared the wrong ‘majesties’,
as the ambassador later followed suit.
as we said many times a ‘majesty’ is NOT a person alone,
it is a believe, a dogma, a cult.
if YOUR dogma is: ‘democracy & freedom of speech’,
you defend it & fight for it ‘tooth & nail’.
“the romans must do whatever makes the romans happy.”
even if somebody does NOT share YOUR opinion or dogma,
you want him to respect you. especially in YOUR home!
so let us forget their lame comparison.
let’s compare it with ‘holocaust denial’!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
one goes to jail for no more than saying: “we don’t believe it”
what do you think about this ‘dogma’ & its ‘lese majesty’ laws?
Book review series
This is a very welcome addition to New Mandala!
Andrew Selth on conspiracies and cock-ups
Myanmar, a dominant country in Southeast Asia with her rich heritage, maneuvers its foreign policy best served her national interests. The special relationship between Burma and China contributes to the stability of the Asia-Pacific, similar to the special relationship between Great Britain and the United States that has been contributing to the international stability of the world at large.
China’s power transition with its shifts in capabilities as its emergence on to the world stage has disrupted and frustrated the Hegemonic Challengers’ strategic objectives. In other words, while the Hegemon (the U.S.) is in relative decline in its wealth (the current U.S. economic troubles), and its military preoccupies in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; China’s capability shifts and power transition, has made the Hegemonic Challengers hesitate in its timing of war.
History has taught us over and over that the collective of small states can never be able to resist Great Powers conquest. During the World War II, the swift conquest of Southeast Asia by Japan was indisputable. The emergence of China is not only critical to the security of Southeast Asia, but paramount to the international stability of the Pacific and the Atlantic because only Great Powers can resist Great Powers.
Andrew Selth on conspiracies and cock-ups
Sorry I don’t see what you’re getting at here. How does this affect “her problem”? I’d be interested to hear how you define her problem.
I agree about China’s influence in Myanmar though. Western governments have played into their hands, to a degree. I wouldn’t go as far to say “province of China” though – they might play a large role financially in some areas, but you only have to go to Mandalay to find the average Burmese person’s resentment to China’s presence there (although they’re happy to ride around on motorbikes imported from China, as the article pointed out). China’s cultural impact is still pretty small, relatively, I believe.
“No toilet paper but unity!” Burma does social networking
Yes, Reader, internet penetration is incredibly low but I don’t think it’s for a lack of interest. If the small percentage that used the internet weren’t doing so in an interesting way, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Obviously internet penetration is a problem. There aren’t too many countries where it costs a few thousand US dollars to establish a home internet connection, which means the reliance on internet cafes in Myanmar is abnormally high. Unfortunately for the 50 million people – about 90 percent – who live outside of Yangon and Mandalay, there aren’t too many internet cafes around. It would be interesting if we could find a statistic that shows the population percentage that live within 2km of public internet centre.
For various reasons, we are also talking about a very limited demographic here – perhaps 15-30 years old. So I think for the people in this age bracket that live in cities with internet access, social networking sites are an important outlet – and internet penetration in this demographic is probably quite “high”.
Another important dimension in this argument are the 2 million Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, who don’t have citizenship in those countries and seem to hold on pretty tight to their Myanmar identity and this means using both Myanmar-language and English-language social networking sites.
This group would certainly boost the .6pc internet penetration figure if you included them, as well. But I don’t think internet penetration is a good way to discuss the merits of this post and social networking in Myanmar because, as you say, it is a “special” country.
Imagined Communities
Thank you for the information. I have high respect for the solid works of these two prominent scholars Charnvit Kasetsiri and Benedict Anderson. I value their dedication. Professor Charnvit Kasetsiri’s latest proposal to change the country name back to Siam is so appropriate. I hope to see it happen soon. I also hope to see more historians like Dr. Charnvit Kasetsiri who writes with integrity. There are so much work needed to be done about Siam political history. I am glad to see that recently the Pridi and Poonsuk Library was established. The history of Pridi’s period is crucial to the present day politics, both domestic politics as well as the international politics. Once we understand thoroughly about the history of that period we can understand the forces of the current conflict. For example, we can understand why they focus on attacking Jakrapob and Ji. All in all, I look forward to seeing more quality works in the tradition of true scholar….VeRiTas!
The sufficiency panacea
Bravo, Jack Russell!
The violent suppression of opium cultivation
In reply to Jean-Philippe Leblond, the only published account I know of is Prasit Leepreecha et al 2547, Mien: Lak lai chiwit jak khun khao su meuang (CMU, SRI), page 91, they give the year 2518 (1975) for the move, and mention only Mien people from Lampang, Chiangrai, and Tak. I know from talking to Mien in the US that they were told they could move there from refugee camps (late 1970s, maybe also 1980s, am still collecting info on this). As far as I can tell, these were not “border self-defense villages”, in at least some cases there were shoot-outs between some Hmong and some Thai military (details not so detailed, except that the Hmong village was called Ban Thang Sut, that’s where the road ended because the Hmong would not accommodate road construction etc.). These were emphatically not lowland Kamph Phet people who moved uphill, nor were they people who had “sided with the Thai gov’t in the 1960s or 1970s” (they weren’t anti-govt but had other concerns). In 1990, I had a brief chat with some Mien people in Nan town, who were inside a fence and guarded by heavily armed military guys, the people had been evicted and trucked from Kph Phet to Nan, and may have ended up in the US — most of the refugee camps were closed in the 1980s, but Chiangkham ran until 1992 or longer.
Suwicha Thakor on his life in prison
“1. the vast majority of european citizens simply don’t care
about their ‘royal families’ or ‘head of state’.
but STILL have these LM laws.
this is totally different in thailand,
where the vast majority of citizens deeply respect & love their king.
that cannot be compared in any way!”
You need to keep in mind that Mr Van Den Hout was writing in response to an earlier article by Prof Bowornsak Uwanno which tried to justfy Thailand’s LM law.
The point is, Prof Bowornsak was defending the Thai LM law by citing the existence of LM laws in European constitutional monarchies, basically implying that Thailand’s use of LM was justified because it was doing what the so-called civilised Europeans were also doing.
If you then think Thailand and Europe “cannot be compared in any way”, you’ll need to direct your concerns to Prof Bowornsak, the one who tried to make such a comparison in the first place.
The violent suppression of opium cultivation
Leif Jonsson said :
” The Khlong Lan people, highlanders in Kamphaeng Phet, were invited there by the Thai authorities (most likely just the military, and at that time the Forestry Dept seems not to have minded), in an effort to preclude forest bases by the Communist Party of Thailand. Many of the people were in refugee camp – some rented their own trucks or other transport after they got the green light to settle there. They were encouraged to plant corn, and had to buy their own seeds. After the CPT surrendered, many were evicted, throughout the 1980s possibly, and at least as late as 1990 (by essentially the same outfits as had invited them earlier).”
Is there a published source for these precious information?
Do you mean that people who sided with the government in the late 1960s and 1970s and resettled in lowland resettlement centres in Kamphaeng Phet were then ‘offered’ to relocate in the uplands of western Kamphaeng Phet? Is it possible to know when approximately that occurred and if it was part of one of the many national security projects? Could it be for example part of the ‘border self-defense village project’ created in 1978 and which had by 1981 94 such villages established along the Thai-Burmese border (Bamrungsuk 1999)?
ref
Bamrungsuk S. (1999) From Dominance to Power Sharing: The Military and Politics in Thailand, 1973 – 1992. Columbia University.
Andrew Selth on conspiracies and cock-ups
I agree !
here is some reference to prove that :
“In Burma, China’s Presence Grows“
US, UK and other Western countries were silly to impose those scantions. it only benefited China, as well as India and Thailand. I have suspected that China supports Burma against West, but today reading this article I’ve just realized how big the influence is –
province of China !
perhaps Thailand soon will also become such (or already is ?)
Suwicha Thakor on his life in prison
An interesting article in BKKpost written by Tjaco Van Den Hout, the Dutch Ambassador,
‘Europe’s lese majeste laws and the freedom of expression’. Here’s the link:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/17035/europe-lese-majeste-laws-and-the-freedom-of-expression
I note the author’s omission of two important facts in describing the situation in Europe.
1. the vast majority of european citizens simply don’t care
about their ‘royal families’ or ‘head of state’.
but STILL have these LM laws.
this is totally different in thailand,
where the vast majority of citizens deeply respect & love their king.
that cannot be compared in any way!
2. these people in europe have invented new ‘majesties’.
take ‘holocaust’ as an example.
it is a heinous fact that in germany anyone who denies
the official history version is put into jail mercylessly.
no pardons granted!
you see that the ‘majesties’ may be different,
but the ‘principles’ are the same.
a diplomat who shows such little understanding
for the cultural differences disqualifies himself.
Suwicha Thakor on his life in prison
Dickie, at 29 you said: “Cases against Jakrapob and Gi should be changed to ‘threats against the sovereignity of the Thai state’ as one has called for armed struggle, and the other for a major revolution.”
To be precise, can you tell me if “threats against sovereignty of the Thai state” is a crime and if so under what laws? Genuine question here. Under the constitution there is something about not advocating a govt that is not a democracy (presumably with the king as head of state etc.), but what laws govern this? I don’t know.
I would like to see a quote where Jakkrapob calls for armed struggle. If you have it, can you provide a link or reference? I have only seen him saying that there may eventually be an armed struggle.
Suthichai Yoon on the state of Thai journalism
You would have to be incredibly brave to be a real investigative journalist in Thailand, and your life expectancy would probably be very short.
How about human trafficking up North?
On the front line of globalisation
Can I please use this globalisation photo for secondary lessons on globalisation that I have done online. It is part of a uni assignment.
Thanks
Greg
Suthichai Yoon on the state of Thai journalism
And an editorial from Bangkok Post on the War on Drugs:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/17231/investigations-are-important-step
I haven’t thoroughly checked if The Nation carried the story yet (but from a quick perusal, they haven’t) although they are doing a fine job with Myanmar and the Democrat’s tendency to quickly make enemies all round (PAD looks increasingly likely to compete with them in the next election for the same voting demographic; their coalition partners don’t like their standards/principles; Myanmar and Cambodia dislike their interference – everyone seems to desire “BUSINESS as usual” good old days under PMThaksin)
Yes, Amberwaves, let the chips fall where they may. It will be beneficial for Thai society to be able to at least get to the truth of state abuses against its own population. At least the most recent ones, still fresh in peoples minds, must be investigated.
Yes, the War on Drugs may be highly popular amongst Thais (and hence PMThaksin claims credit for it and still markets it as recently as the Songkran Red Riots as his premiership’s ‘success’) at all social strata – my middleclass friends and family overwhelmingly supported it then. This may also have something to do with what they see in the Thai media then. Exposed to Australian investigative journalism (I think it was SBS), I was very, very uncomfortable. But as with democracy in general, even if it is popular doesn’t mean that it is right (one of the crux of the current conflicts in Thai Democracy)…
The challenge is if any of these events gets politicized, it will be very hard to get to the truths amongst blatant lies and half-truths. Look at what is happening in the parliaments Reconciliation Committee to investigate the most recent Songkran state and citizen conflicts. Our Thai Mandela, PMThaksin and the Red Elites now claim that the government had ingeniously and masterfully orchestrated all the violence from Pattaya to Bangkok!
What hope do we have going back to Oct 7 Crackdown on PAD, Southern Unrests, War on Drugs, Black May 1992, Oct 1976 (that AjarnSomsak is very passionate about) etc…etc…