the Abhisit government has been remarkably swift in organising identification and arrests of redshirt leaders and some talk about those alleged to have been involved in attacks in Pattaya, the Interior Ministry and Lopburi
but, why has there apparently been no effort to identify and arrest those alleged to have been involved in the murders at Nang Lerng and the gas tanker scare at Din Daeng?
surely there were many witnesses to both events..
is it because the government knows that redshirts were not involved in those incidents?
now we discover the government strategy is to label the redshirts as “nearly” terrorists… is this what the military operations planners identified as the objective?
I was at the Urapong (Rama VI – Phetburi Road) intersection on Monday 13 April and spoke to two different groups of red shirt protesters. They were all very emotional and over-wrought from the events of the night before – earlier that morning – at Din Daeng.
They all said – and were in common agreement – that six protesters had been killed by the army there. (This was told to me around 1.00 PM) The bodies were removed by the army. They wanted people to know about this. They were despairing that the army could actually open fire on unarmed protesters – their comrades.
I believed their testimonies and find it incredulous to know that the government and army had the temerity to report that there were no fatalities from the events that occurred at Din Daeng that fateful night.
The Thai newspapers (including the English language press) and television were obviously under the absolute control of the government when it came to reporting the actual events that night.
Interestingly the House and Senate meeting last week for the objective of societal ‘reconciliation’ turned into sessions for Pheu Thai MPs to shift all blame for the Red’s violence (specifically the Hot-headed radical reads) over Songkran to the government!!!
It is this precisely this attitude that refuses any accountability and responsibility on PMThaksin and the Red Leadership part that is a major barrier to any possible reconciliation. This could be comparable to TycoonSonthi and Chamlong saying that ‘PMSamak and PMSomchai illegally occupied Government House and the two airports’ – or saying the ‘crowds did it themselves, we did not issue the order’, which they wouldn’t do. This is another clear contrast between the Reds and Yellow leaderships.
David Brown#9, surely you know that is easier to identify leaders than the actual people, amidst the mayhem, that committed the violence. Look, have the police under PMSamak and PMSomchai governments ever found out who committed the violence against PAD at Udonthani, or the person who shot the M79 at PAD crowd at Government House and DonMuang?
And surely it is better than Chalerm’s favoured anonymous ‘AaiPaed’ to shoulder all the blame!
I think the Thai politics now go to the changing era. The changing era to democracy (real democracy without any group of the monachy) will be not allowance from the monachy then they try to do everything to remain thier power.
Thailand never be democracy until now. In the past just the some group of power changed to other group. then there are many suituation that show that There are no justice to people side but from elite group they are still un guilty if they want to breaking the rule of law.
This dictator government are the clearly image to show us about this un justice still remain from the invisible hand from the monachy.
Thai people are sad for this destiny of Thailand.
If they can do they want make this changing by no more people died from this time.
I was just wondering if the army was wavering in there support for the current government in bangkok in the recent unrest, as reports in various newspapers highlighted a rift in the military.The red shirts stormed the economic summit in pattaya, there was very little military response, some reports were saying military units were brought in from outside bangkok to stop the unrest in bangkok.
Is there a rift between abhisit and general anupong.
i dont think he had to say the words to rally up the people.
from his whole speech, even i felt like he wanted the people to create a revolution. if he didnt, why was he sooo… what’s a word to use… forceful with his words and the animations of his hand.
if he had wanted peace, he woulda urged the people to do it with words and silent protests but i think with his energy, many people took it as a call for a revolution. if he didnt want a ‘revolution’ he shoulda kept his mouth closed or at least talk to the current government. not use people’s troubles and issues as a fuel to do his work.
… and in relation to your Yale University Press point, regarding The King Never Smiles being blocked – it was blocked in Thailand, nothing happened for anyone else trying to access it. I don’t feel that asking diplomats here to censor the offending section for Australians would work… although maybe DFAT has a license to do what is necessary to prevent Australians accessing information freely so the TAFTA can prosper!
Portman – I have not had much sleep, so I apologize if some of this is not coherent.
Thanks for clarifying about how people can be prosecuted.
I feel your second point would be thoroughly illogical, as prosecuting the academic who studies Thailand would bring attention to Lese Majeste in a negative light internationally – once again plunging Thailand into a siege mentality regarding the monarchy’s image. Surely, the Thai authorities wouldn’t take the bait so naively creating martyrs for our media to lap up in turn highlighting the issue for Australian politicians to be making populist responses to.
I don’t think it’s about the stature of the ANU or Australia as buildings or land or population size. It’s about the influence that the people in these institutions wield as part of the ‘West’. Google, youtube, are corporate entities. They do not represent vast groups of people.
Australia is a middle power regionally. I am not under any illusion that we alone would make a great dent in the Thai tourism industry. But Australia does have much stronger links to countries with more entrenched liberal democratic values than Thailand. Those countries economies and population sizes are much larger and much more significant to Thai tourism.
Furthermore, from what I understand, the TAFTA has more practical benefit to Australia than Thailand at the moment. However, I’d argue that it wouldn’t be unpopular if Australia disbanded importing cheaper Thai produce in relation to promoting local produce and the all important ‘job creation’ phrase. Especially in these trying economic times, a disengaged Thailand would not bode well for an Asia-Pacific multilateral future, but would instead be more suggestive of a future receding into protectionism.
Sure people would still travel, but there would be many people hesitant to go and feel safe in a country they were not able to speak their minds in – that otherwise, at the moment, don’t even consider it before going. Would you think having a negative image of Lese Majeste more prominent than a beach on Koh Chang a good thing for Thai tourism?
If I imply affiliation with the ANU means immunity, then I apologize for my arrogance. I just question whether making an example of someone from any academic institution in a Western country is a good idea with loaded petitions floating about and a volatile global economic ‘system’.
Portman, the way you’ve posited this issue though, that New Mandala is a political entity rather than an academic one, is fightin’ talk for me.
I am talking out of my arse. Sorry if you are not.
Maybe I’ve delusions and assumptions about the legal aspects of LM in a Thai court, but I am not sure how suggesting and asking questions regarding possible responses to Thailand if LM was to be used against New Mandala or other academics is being delusional. I feel my hypothetical situations can only be as delusional as the hypothesis originally suggested.
the Abhisit government has been remarkably swift in organising identifiaction and arrests of redshirt leaders and those alleged to have been involved in attacks in Pattaya, the Interior Ministry and Lopburi
but, why has there apparently been no effort to identify and arrest those alleged to have been involved in the murders at Nang Lerng and the gas tanker scare at Din Daeng?
surely there were many witnesses to both events..
is it because the government knows that redshirts were not involved in those incidents?
or some other not so politically sensitive reason?
I do not have any direct experience regarding forest monasteries. Nonetheless, for many social and historical reasons, I suspect your analysis, Jim, is accurate. I also imagine that in the past, whether it was the 70s or other times, the political viewpoints of monks were also profoundly personal and not easily mapped onto their membership in either the Thammayut or the Mahanikai.
In this vein, it is useful to keep in mind that while the Thammayut ‘sect’ is a relatively coherent, integrated and bounded social and ideological institutional phenomenon, the Mahanikai is not. Therefore the latter has historically always contained much more diversity, pluralism and contradictions. Imagining the Mahanikai as a social and institutional presence interested in and capable of establishing a clear and unified political orientation is therefore highly unlikely.
In addition, since the 60s and 70s the flourishing of various independent organizations in civil society, many of which have an explicitly political orientation, has meant that the relative salience and influence of the Sangha vis-a-vis political activity has declined. I think this means that those actors who want to express themselves politically, and especially regarding certain ideological projects, will find other organizations and settings within civil society as a more fertile ground for fostering political movements and alliances. Especially given that the degree to which the Sangha remains captured as an institutional force by the bureaucratic, conservative state remains relatively high.
Finally, the formal and informal injunctions against monks participating in ‘politics’ (usually interpreted in a relatively broad sense) means that the the political viewpoints of monastics is likely to remain idiosyncratic and rarely collectively organized in any particular ideological direction once one steps beyond a range of predictably general, status quo, and relatively innocuous ideas concerning politics in particular, or the proper relationship of religion to politics in particular. As a result, political opinions are expressed in public in code or more openly in private and backstage.
Continuing with the hypothetical situation of LM accusations against New Mandala authors, you wouldn’t see prosecutions entirely “in absentia”. That is not possible under Thai law, even though offenses committed overseas that affect national security can be prosecuted in Thailand. The defendant must be in court in Thailand to hear the charges and plead before the trial can commence. The risk to individuals would be that those in Thailand could be prosecuted and those in other countries could be charged in absentia and/or declared persona non grata. The Thai authorities would probably argue, with some logic, that a Thai studies academic, who is an expert on Thai society and culture and posted articles deemed insulting to the monarchy while residing in Thailand was deliberately asking for trouble and they had no choice but to prosecute, if some one complained. Harry Nicholaedis’ defence of ignorance and stupidity would certainly not apply and the fact that a knowledgeable academic had knowingly and willingly committed the offence would probably dampen public sympathy in Australia somewhat. It is unlikely that the Thai authorities would make a fuss about any one living overseas but they might be arrested, if they arrived in Thailand, or just declared persona non grata and put back on the plane.
Thailand was quite happy to ask Yale University Press not to publish Paul Handley’s book and then to block part of its website when they refused. I am sure they wouldn’t hesitate to ask ANU to tone down criticism of the monarchy on its website or to block the offending part of it in Thailand, if they felt it was necessary.
You talk as if you believe that being affiliated with ANU can give provide people with immunity from Thai laws when they are in Thailand. Obviously the authorities are not looking for a fight, as New Mandala is not blocked and any bonehead working in the cyber suppression division can find it by plugging a few words to do with the monarchy or banned publications into a search engine. But I don’t see how a prosecutor would be able to consider all the trivial detail you raise about Thai studies in Australia and the training of Australian diplomats etc, as justification not to proceed with a solid LM case which might make him guilty of LM. He would look only at the evidence in front of him. I think you are deluding yourself. At the end of the day I don’t think that ANU would be regarded as more significant than Google in Thailand. It is just a university and Australia is a country with a rather small population. Australian and Thai companies would still be happy to trade with each other and Australian tourists would probably still come to Thailand. If they didn’t, it wouldn’t make much difference to the Thai economy anyway.
Dhammanusari has posed interesting questions not dealt with much in my book given the timeline, or even in blogs here at NM: what is the relationship between the deep & continuing social and political divide post-2006 coup and civic Buddhism? It is clear for instance that Luang Ta Maha Bua has been placed centre stage in the last five years because most of his supporters were amaat (aristocrats, royalist elites and aligned wealthy middle classes) with vested interests & response post 1997 economic crisis. Even Sondhi Lim played the religious card to the max and tried to get an image of himself and his elite cronies endorsed by a widely recognised living Arahant. But from my stay in the forest monasties in 2007, many northeastern born kru-ba-ajaan (Thammayut forest teachers in the line of Phra Ajahn Man Phurithatto) were in a moral dilemma: they could see the real benefits in nearby communities of pro-Thaksin polices and reforms and also see the injustices, double standards and immorality of the post-2006 anti-democratic pro-Prem alliance which had hurt so many ordinary people. Some monks talked about this in private to trusted supporters but rarely in public discourses. Many monks Thammayut and Mahanikai are embroiled in this divide especially as it concerns the monarchy and in my view it is not possible to identify one sect with one strand of political orientation. It is profoundly personal. Perhaps other NM readers may have experiences?
Susie:
Your substandard spelling of the king’s name must be corrected.
Secondly, there is a wide space between scholars and academics, as are the number and variety of conclusions that even world level experts present to us form time to time. the Big Bang and Evolution theories, for example, are sewed as truth when that has not been established. As to explaining why Thailand has failed in his historical pursuit of governance, first you must recognized that power brokers and others have generally not pursued the path toward democratization. Far from it, most efforts in Thailand have been to preserve the status quo or to stifle dissent and carry on the tradition of icon worship of both religious and royal subjects. It is no secret. If you want an explanation of why Thailand is not democratic and why it more often seems to be oppressive and even dictatorial, you do not need to skip over historical writings – just stay away from those produced by Thais with vested interests. Many Thai scholars or academics, are, in fact, so imbued with the concept of self-knowledge and ignorance on the part of others that they feel no need to seek truth and knowledge. To them, they already possess it.
Van Tasker: Glad you are on board. There’s got to be a way to make these NM types understand the stuff they’ve been writing about for years now. By the way, how’s it going up there in the mountains of Oregon? Do you make you own bullets? How can I get some?
What are the moral responsibilities of a scholar in this context?
When academics’ responsibility is to think, one should embrace the fact that it entails a set of practices that allows for thinking to flourish. Our information about Phumipon differs substantially from the past. We now have more accurate information about Phumipon. Is it time to inquire about what went wrong with the past research methodology? History and politics go hand in hand. We cannot explain the current events in an ahistorical manner; the present moment has its own historical dynamics.
I would like to pose research questions to historians and political scientists who possess both intellectual range and specialized competence, as to why has democratization in Thailand proved so difficult, which are the main actors and forces involved? And how have memory and psychological factor of the past played a role in the preference of the subject of history?
Nick, what a great read. Thanks. Blows me away to find someone in Thailand willing to say some of these things.
Once again Thailand has gone to the State vs The People, the sad thing is that some of the leaders of the Democratic Movements of the past seem to have forgotten what they were fighting for and they have certainly forgotten October 1973 and 1976 and May 1992.
Is the difference this time that the protesters this time are mainly from the poorer regions of Thailand and not from the middle classes? … I hope not!
Sorry I have so much to say but like you need to organise my thoughts.
Thanks once again and if you get the chance please let the Redshirts know that they have much support here in the UK and we are trying to lead the fight to get the foreign media and governments to recognise that they were not completely to blame for their actions at Songkran, they had a great deal of provocation directly from the government.
In the recent clashes between the Yellow and Red shirts, one could also see Buddhist monks joining both sides. Does that indicate an ideological split in the Thai Sangha, perhaps along Dhammayut/Mahanikai lines, just like some 30 years ago?
Jim Taylor has already written in a comment here on NM about Gen. Surayud (the PM in the recent post-coup government) doing a stint as temporary monk in one of the strictest forest monasteries in Isaan, while at the same time planning to overthrow Thaksin. One wonders whether such a period spent in a monastery practising meditation is for the goal of Nibbana or rather for accumulating the necessary meritorious power to accomplish one’s more worldly goals. It also opens the interesting question as to what extent are Dhammayut forest monasteries (supposedly strictly devoted to meditation practice and not involved with the problems of society “out there”) linked to Wat Bovorn as the centre of religio-politics in Thailand, and how much of their donations come in as a result of this important connection to the rich elites (wearing yellow shirts, presumably).
Little to add to a fine comment from a journalist who knows only that the truth is all we are charged to deliver. I can live with bias if it is declared and does not ruin the report as this oversight does. The story continues and as Mr Royle says, lets away with the colours and not let Thaksin’s Washington spin doctors turn your heads. The guy is a loony tune, lost in his desperate dream that he had become someone, without having to pay the piper for a while – real power no less – and no need to bribe his way into the corridors of power around Asia. This cornered rat is a dangerous rat replete with a disease that knows no cure bar the bullet. Let the powers that be guide the opposition to a kinder fate than the boot of the army or worse. Complex as the issues may be, they all just want a better life and it can be delivered. Just dig a little deeper. AIG anyone…GM?
Now, you translated the 3rd line as : And you don’t need to go to queue up for 500 baht.
The mistake (and it’s important in the context of the ‘controversy’) is it should be “I” not “you”. (The correct translation would be: “And I don’t need to queqe up to receive 500 Bht.”)
In other words, Thaksin was saying :
I will work for you for free: I don’t need to be paid even the 500 Bht (which I’d be entitled to under Abhisit scheme).
It is “I” because Thaksin was refering to himself being 60 years old (this July), but still willing to work if called for. If it were “you”, that sentence would not make sense.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Battle at Dindaeng, Bangkok, 13 April 2009
the Abhisit government has been remarkably swift in organising identification and arrests of redshirt leaders and some talk about those alleged to have been involved in attacks in Pattaya, the Interior Ministry and Lopburi
but, why has there apparently been no effort to identify and arrest those alleged to have been involved in the murders at Nang Lerng and the gas tanker scare at Din Daeng?
surely there were many witnesses to both events..
is it because the government knows that redshirts were not involved in those incidents?
now we discover the government strategy is to label the redshirts as “nearly” terrorists… is this what the military operations planners identified as the objective?
Battle at Dindaeng, Bangkok, 13 April 2009
I was at the Urapong (Rama VI – Phetburi Road) intersection on Monday 13 April and spoke to two different groups of red shirt protesters. They were all very emotional and over-wrought from the events of the night before – earlier that morning – at Din Daeng.
They all said – and were in common agreement – that six protesters had been killed by the army there. (This was told to me around 1.00 PM) The bodies were removed by the army. They wanted people to know about this. They were despairing that the army could actually open fire on unarmed protesters – their comrades.
I believed their testimonies and find it incredulous to know that the government and army had the temerity to report that there were no fatalities from the events that occurred at Din Daeng that fateful night.
The Thai newspapers (including the English language press) and television were obviously under the absolute control of the government when it came to reporting the actual events that night.
Reconciliation in Thailand?
Interestingly the House and Senate meeting last week for the objective of societal ‘reconciliation’ turned into sessions for Pheu Thai MPs to shift all blame for the Red’s violence (specifically the Hot-headed radical reads) over Songkran to the government!!!
It is this precisely this attitude that refuses any accountability and responsibility on PMThaksin and the Red Leadership part that is a major barrier to any possible reconciliation. This could be comparable to TycoonSonthi and Chamlong saying that ‘PMSamak and PMSomchai illegally occupied Government House and the two airports’ – or saying the ‘crowds did it themselves, we did not issue the order’, which they wouldn’t do. This is another clear contrast between the Reds and Yellow leaderships.
David Brown#9, surely you know that is easier to identify leaders than the actual people, amidst the mayhem, that committed the violence. Look, have the police under PMSamak and PMSomchai governments ever found out who committed the violence against PAD at Udonthani, or the person who shot the M79 at PAD crowd at Government House and DonMuang?
And surely it is better than Chalerm’s favoured anonymous ‘AaiPaed’ to shoulder all the blame!
Reflections on Thai politics from Ayutthaya
I think the Thai politics now go to the changing era. The changing era to democracy (real democracy without any group of the monachy) will be not allowance from the monachy then they try to do everything to remain thier power.
Thailand never be democracy until now. In the past just the some group of power changed to other group. then there are many suituation that show that There are no justice to people side but from elite group they are still un guilty if they want to breaking the rule of law.
This dictator government are the clearly image to show us about this un justice still remain from the invisible hand from the monachy.
Thai people are sad for this destiny of Thailand.
If they can do they want make this changing by no more people died from this time.
Lift weights, lift team, dig ponds!
I was just wondering if the army was wavering in there support for the current government in bangkok in the recent unrest, as reports in various newspapers highlighted a rift in the military.The red shirts stormed the economic summit in pattaya, there was very little military response, some reports were saying military units were brought in from outside bangkok to stop the unrest in bangkok.
Is there a rift between abhisit and general anupong.
Did Thaksin call for revolution?
i dont think he had to say the words to rally up the people.
from his whole speech, even i felt like he wanted the people to create a revolution. if he didnt, why was he sooo… what’s a word to use… forceful with his words and the animations of his hand.
if he had wanted peace, he woulda urged the people to do it with words and silent protests but i think with his energy, many people took it as a call for a revolution. if he didnt want a ‘revolution’ he shoulda kept his mouth closed or at least talk to the current government. not use people’s troubles and issues as a fuel to do his work.
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
… and in relation to your Yale University Press point, regarding The King Never Smiles being blocked – it was blocked in Thailand, nothing happened for anyone else trying to access it. I don’t feel that asking diplomats here to censor the offending section for Australians would work… although maybe DFAT has a license to do what is necessary to prevent Australians accessing information freely so the TAFTA can prosper!
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
Portman – I have not had much sleep, so I apologize if some of this is not coherent.
Thanks for clarifying about how people can be prosecuted.
I feel your second point would be thoroughly illogical, as prosecuting the academic who studies Thailand would bring attention to Lese Majeste in a negative light internationally – once again plunging Thailand into a siege mentality regarding the monarchy’s image. Surely, the Thai authorities wouldn’t take the bait so naively creating martyrs for our media to lap up in turn highlighting the issue for Australian politicians to be making populist responses to.
I don’t think it’s about the stature of the ANU or Australia as buildings or land or population size. It’s about the influence that the people in these institutions wield as part of the ‘West’. Google, youtube, are corporate entities. They do not represent vast groups of people.
Australia is a middle power regionally. I am not under any illusion that we alone would make a great dent in the Thai tourism industry. But Australia does have much stronger links to countries with more entrenched liberal democratic values than Thailand. Those countries economies and population sizes are much larger and much more significant to Thai tourism.
Furthermore, from what I understand, the TAFTA has more practical benefit to Australia than Thailand at the moment. However, I’d argue that it wouldn’t be unpopular if Australia disbanded importing cheaper Thai produce in relation to promoting local produce and the all important ‘job creation’ phrase. Especially in these trying economic times, a disengaged Thailand would not bode well for an Asia-Pacific multilateral future, but would instead be more suggestive of a future receding into protectionism.
Sure people would still travel, but there would be many people hesitant to go and feel safe in a country they were not able to speak their minds in – that otherwise, at the moment, don’t even consider it before going. Would you think having a negative image of Lese Majeste more prominent than a beach on Koh Chang a good thing for Thai tourism?
If I imply affiliation with the ANU means immunity, then I apologize for my arrogance. I just question whether making an example of someone from any academic institution in a Western country is a good idea with loaded petitions floating about and a volatile global economic ‘system’.
Portman, the way you’ve posited this issue though, that New Mandala is a political entity rather than an academic one, is fightin’ talk for me.
I am talking out of my arse. Sorry if you are not.
Maybe I’ve delusions and assumptions about the legal aspects of LM in a Thai court, but I am not sure how suggesting and asking questions regarding possible responses to Thailand if LM was to be used against New Mandala or other academics is being delusional. I feel my hypothetical situations can only be as delusional as the hypothesis originally suggested.
Reconciliation in Thailand?
the Abhisit government has been remarkably swift in organising identifiaction and arrests of redshirt leaders and those alleged to have been involved in attacks in Pattaya, the Interior Ministry and Lopburi
but, why has there apparently been no effort to identify and arrest those alleged to have been involved in the murders at Nang Lerng and the gas tanker scare at Din Daeng?
surely there were many witnesses to both events..
is it because the government knows that redshirts were not involved in those incidents?
or some other not so politically sensitive reason?
Buddhism and postmodern imaginings
I do not have any direct experience regarding forest monasteries. Nonetheless, for many social and historical reasons, I suspect your analysis, Jim, is accurate. I also imagine that in the past, whether it was the 70s or other times, the political viewpoints of monks were also profoundly personal and not easily mapped onto their membership in either the Thammayut or the Mahanikai.
In this vein, it is useful to keep in mind that while the Thammayut ‘sect’ is a relatively coherent, integrated and bounded social and ideological institutional phenomenon, the Mahanikai is not. Therefore the latter has historically always contained much more diversity, pluralism and contradictions. Imagining the Mahanikai as a social and institutional presence interested in and capable of establishing a clear and unified political orientation is therefore highly unlikely.
In addition, since the 60s and 70s the flourishing of various independent organizations in civil society, many of which have an explicitly political orientation, has meant that the relative salience and influence of the Sangha vis-a-vis political activity has declined. I think this means that those actors who want to express themselves politically, and especially regarding certain ideological projects, will find other organizations and settings within civil society as a more fertile ground for fostering political movements and alliances. Especially given that the degree to which the Sangha remains captured as an institutional force by the bureaucratic, conservative state remains relatively high.
Finally, the formal and informal injunctions against monks participating in ‘politics’ (usually interpreted in a relatively broad sense) means that the the political viewpoints of monastics is likely to remain idiosyncratic and rarely collectively organized in any particular ideological direction once one steps beyond a range of predictably general, status quo, and relatively innocuous ideas concerning politics in particular, or the proper relationship of religion to politics in particular. As a result, political opinions are expressed in public in code or more openly in private and backstage.
Lese majeste under a new Thaksin government
Colum Graham #18
Continuing with the hypothetical situation of LM accusations against New Mandala authors, you wouldn’t see prosecutions entirely “in absentia”. That is not possible under Thai law, even though offenses committed overseas that affect national security can be prosecuted in Thailand. The defendant must be in court in Thailand to hear the charges and plead before the trial can commence. The risk to individuals would be that those in Thailand could be prosecuted and those in other countries could be charged in absentia and/or declared persona non grata. The Thai authorities would probably argue, with some logic, that a Thai studies academic, who is an expert on Thai society and culture and posted articles deemed insulting to the monarchy while residing in Thailand was deliberately asking for trouble and they had no choice but to prosecute, if some one complained. Harry Nicholaedis’ defence of ignorance and stupidity would certainly not apply and the fact that a knowledgeable academic had knowingly and willingly committed the offence would probably dampen public sympathy in Australia somewhat. It is unlikely that the Thai authorities would make a fuss about any one living overseas but they might be arrested, if they arrived in Thailand, or just declared persona non grata and put back on the plane.
Thailand was quite happy to ask Yale University Press not to publish Paul Handley’s book and then to block part of its website when they refused. I am sure they wouldn’t hesitate to ask ANU to tone down criticism of the monarchy on its website or to block the offending part of it in Thailand, if they felt it was necessary.
You talk as if you believe that being affiliated with ANU can give provide people with immunity from Thai laws when they are in Thailand. Obviously the authorities are not looking for a fight, as New Mandala is not blocked and any bonehead working in the cyber suppression division can find it by plugging a few words to do with the monarchy or banned publications into a search engine. But I don’t see how a prosecutor would be able to consider all the trivial detail you raise about Thai studies in Australia and the training of Australian diplomats etc, as justification not to proceed with a solid LM case which might make him guilty of LM. He would look only at the evidence in front of him. I think you are deluding yourself. At the end of the day I don’t think that ANU would be regarded as more significant than Google in Thailand. It is just a university and Australia is a country with a rather small population. Australian and Thai companies would still be happy to trade with each other and Australian tourists would probably still come to Thailand. If they didn’t, it wouldn’t make much difference to the Thai economy anyway.
Buddhism and postmodern imaginings
Dhammanusari has posed interesting questions not dealt with much in my book given the timeline, or even in blogs here at NM: what is the relationship between the deep & continuing social and political divide post-2006 coup and civic Buddhism? It is clear for instance that Luang Ta Maha Bua has been placed centre stage in the last five years because most of his supporters were amaat (aristocrats, royalist elites and aligned wealthy middle classes) with vested interests & response post 1997 economic crisis. Even Sondhi Lim played the religious card to the max and tried to get an image of himself and his elite cronies endorsed by a widely recognised living Arahant. But from my stay in the forest monasties in 2007, many northeastern born kru-ba-ajaan (Thammayut forest teachers in the line of Phra Ajahn Man Phurithatto) were in a moral dilemma: they could see the real benefits in nearby communities of pro-Thaksin polices and reforms and also see the injustices, double standards and immorality of the post-2006 anti-democratic pro-Prem alliance which had hurt so many ordinary people. Some monks talked about this in private to trusted supporters but rarely in public discourses. Many monks Thammayut and Mahanikai are embroiled in this divide especially as it concerns the monarchy and in my view it is not possible to identify one sect with one strand of political orientation. It is profoundly personal. Perhaps other NM readers may have experiences?
From the archives: Davis quoting King Bhumibol
Susie:
Your substandard spelling of the king’s name must be corrected.
Secondly, there is a wide space between scholars and academics, as are the number and variety of conclusions that even world level experts present to us form time to time. the Big Bang and Evolution theories, for example, are sewed as truth when that has not been established. As to explaining why Thailand has failed in his historical pursuit of governance, first you must recognized that power brokers and others have generally not pursued the path toward democratization. Far from it, most efforts in Thailand have been to preserve the status quo or to stifle dissent and carry on the tradition of icon worship of both religious and royal subjects. It is no secret. If you want an explanation of why Thailand is not democratic and why it more often seems to be oppressive and even dictatorial, you do not need to skip over historical writings – just stay away from those produced by Thais with vested interests. Many Thai scholars or academics, are, in fact, so imbued with the concept of self-knowledge and ignorance on the part of others that they feel no need to seek truth and knowledge. To them, they already possess it.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Van Tasker: Glad you are on board. There’s got to be a way to make these NM types understand the stuff they’ve been writing about for years now. By the way, how’s it going up there in the mountains of Oregon? Do you make you own bullets? How can I get some?
From the archives: Davis quoting King Bhumibol
What are the moral responsibilities of a scholar in this context?
When academics’ responsibility is to think, one should embrace the fact that it entails a set of practices that allows for thinking to flourish. Our information about Phumipon differs substantially from the past. We now have more accurate information about Phumipon. Is it time to inquire about what went wrong with the past research methodology? History and politics go hand in hand. We cannot explain the current events in an ahistorical manner; the present moment has its own historical dynamics.
I would like to pose research questions to historians and political scientists who possess both intellectual range and specialized competence, as to why has democratization in Thailand proved so difficult, which are the main actors and forces involved? And how have memory and psychological factor of the past played a role in the preference of the subject of history?
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Nick, what a great read. Thanks. Blows me away to find someone in Thailand willing to say some of these things.
Once again Thailand has gone to the State vs The People, the sad thing is that some of the leaders of the Democratic Movements of the past seem to have forgotten what they were fighting for and they have certainly forgotten October 1973 and 1976 and May 1992.
Is the difference this time that the protesters this time are mainly from the poorer regions of Thailand and not from the middle classes? … I hope not!
Sorry I have so much to say but like you need to organise my thoughts.
Thanks once again and if you get the chance please let the Redshirts know that they have much support here in the UK and we are trying to lead the fight to get the foreign media and governments to recognise that they were not completely to blame for their actions at Songkran, they had a great deal of provocation directly from the government.
Buddhism and postmodern imaginings
In the recent clashes between the Yellow and Red shirts, one could also see Buddhist monks joining both sides. Does that indicate an ideological split in the Thai Sangha, perhaps along Dhammayut/Mahanikai lines, just like some 30 years ago?
Jim Taylor has already written in a comment here on NM about Gen. Surayud (the PM in the recent post-coup government) doing a stint as temporary monk in one of the strictest forest monasteries in Isaan, while at the same time planning to overthrow Thaksin. One wonders whether such a period spent in a monastery practising meditation is for the goal of Nibbana or rather for accumulating the necessary meritorious power to accomplish one’s more worldly goals. It also opens the interesting question as to what extent are Dhammayut forest monasteries (supposedly strictly devoted to meditation practice and not involved with the problems of society “out there”) linked to Wat Bovorn as the centre of religio-politics in Thailand, and how much of their donations come in as a result of this important connection to the rich elites (wearing yellow shirts, presumably).
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Ecrit – Take 64
Little to add to a fine comment from a journalist who knows only that the truth is all we are charged to deliver. I can live with bias if it is declared and does not ruin the report as this oversight does. The story continues and as Mr Royle says, lets away with the colours and not let Thaksin’s Washington spin doctors turn your heads. The guy is a loony tune, lost in his desperate dream that he had become someone, without having to pay the piper for a while – real power no less – and no need to bribe his way into the corridors of power around Asia. This cornered rat is a dangerous rat replete with a disease that knows no cure bar the bullet. Let the powers that be guide the opposition to a kinder fate than the boot of the army or worse. Complex as the issues may be, they all just want a better life and it can be delivered. Just dig a little deeper. AIG anyone…GM?
The crushing of the Red Shirts
I already commented on this video somewhere on this site, so I’ll confine myself to the following issue.
Jotman #87
You mis-translated the crucial sentence, the one you emphasized with bold fonts. (Unfortunately, even BP repeats the mistake on his post.)
Thai text:
р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕Ур╕бр╕▓р╕Чр╕│р╣Ар╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕ер╕в р╕Юр╕гр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
р╕Ир╕░р╕Вр╕нр╣Ар╕лр╕Щр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕вр╕Хр╕нр╕Щр╕нр╕▓р╕вр╕╕ 60 р╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕лр╕Щр╕╢р╣Ир╕З
р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Бр╕Цр╕зр╕гр╕нр╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ 500 р╕Ър╕▓р╕Ч
Now, you translated the 3rd line as : And you don’t need to go to queue up for 500 baht.
The mistake (and it’s important in the context of the ‘controversy’) is it should be “I” not “you”. (The correct translation would be: “And I don’t need to queqe up to receive 500 Bht.”)
In other words, Thaksin was saying :
I will work for you for free: I don’t need to be paid even the 500 Bht (which I’d be entitled to under Abhisit scheme).
It is “I” because Thaksin was refering to himself being 60 years old (this July), but still willing to work if called for. If it were “you”, that sentence would not make sense.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Matichon online mentions this post and has 4 of the photos – see here. They call you “New Mandala 2009”