In this field, I’m only a young boy. I hope that I will learn a lot from this community, so any comments and suggestions are welcome. Just take it easy as to teach a young boy.
Re: Somsak Jeamteerasakul
Thank you again for your comments. Your historical point of view is precise, i.e. only number is the major point here. Well, I intend to make it satirical/humerous. Next time, I will find the topic which will be acceptable to historians as well. I appreciate your remark here in the future.
Re: Lleij Samuel Schwartz
In this field, I’m only a young boy. I hope that I will learn a lot from this community, so any comments and suggestions are welcome. Just take it easy as to teach a young boy. Well, in other field, I might be a baby or an old man. Anyway, age shouldn’t be a barrier for an academic exhange.
I realise this too requires clarification, apologies.
The embassy list was reserved. For security reasons, we had to have names of people who attended the talk, so people were required to sign up before hand. Around 400 people chose to do so. Of these 400, the 180/190 or so seats in the auditorium were dished out in a first come first served basis. The professors complaining were part of the list of 400.
Sorry to clarify – the Thai embassy reserved a few of the two hundred seats available. For those not in the Thai embassies party, the places were allocated in a first come, first served basis. This applied to the vast majority of audience members.
Reply to Khun р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Кр╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕┤р╕бр╕лр╕▒р╕Щр╕Хр╣М
To be frank, I simply couldn’t see any point in your historical comparison/analogy. Apart from the fact that there is ‘same’ number of PMs in 1946 and 2008, the situations behind the two periods that produced this number are totally different. In 1946 politics was dominated by, or under the leadership of, just one man – Pridi Phanomyong. Neither the ‘Thamrong’ nor the ‘Seni’ Cabinet can be said to be really Thamrong or Seni Cabinet – both were Pridi Cabinet, literally! So even the ‘same’ number of ‘four’ turns out to be illusory and . At present, that there have been four PMs in one year reflects the situation of gigantic struggle between two Power Blocs that are – temporally – quite equally balanced, though they are based on different socio-political settings – rural popular electoral supports vs Palace-Military-Judiciary-urban middle classes. These socio-political settings were largely non-existent in 1946. The Palace-Military partnership didn’t come into existence until ten years later – the first time since 1932. The Judiciary was still largely non-political. And neither rural electoral power nor urban middle classes can be said to emerge yet until many decades later. All historical analogy/comparison have limits, but I’m not sure there should even be one here in the first place.
By the way, I’m not at all convinced the CCP should not be counted as Asia’s second oldest party because it’s not parliamentary. For a very long time in its history, the KMT was not a parliamentary party either.
May I to add to Ravin Thambapillai comment on Mar 16 that “St Johns College Auditorium was merely used as the venue”, that the College’s President did so on the understanding that no one would be barred from the meeting, and he maintained this position despite some pressure. He also insisted on a genuine Q&A (in the event, it was over 30 mins). The President’s opening remarks locating the event in the context of academic freedom were construed by many as praise for Abhisit’s democractic credentials, but I am not at all sure that this was what was intended. For me, they pointed to the important difference between inviting someone to speak and deciding not to refuse them a platform. Personally, the only circumstances in which I would invite Abhisit to speak on democracy would be if those who have suffered from his interpretation of it were given equal time on the platform and and equal support to speak. But that would mean releasing them from jail, allowing them to travel freely, protecting them from violence and intimidation, encouraging a free press to report their views and experiences honestly….hmm, can you imagine that in Thailand today?
Well if you look at the picture taken in front of the St. John, there were about 10-20 red shirt standing there and were not allow to go in because seats were reserved.
“Abhisit’s arrival was greeted by Red Shirt protesters who were waiting for him in front of St.John’s. However, most of the Red Shirts were not allowed to go inside. This is because everyone needed to reserve their place. It was Oxford students (most of them Thai), Thai students from other UK universities, and guests invited by the the Thai Embassy in London, who composed the majority of the audience.”
In my interpretation based on both my reading of documents and talking to people of that period, Pridi had a personal trait, a kind of ‘aversion’ to taking highest office (unlike Phibun). I’m reluctant to call it ‘humility’ or ‘lack of ambition’ (though some of his supporters claim that’s what it was). It’s also known that he’s not used to political attack, he lost his temper easily (too ‘thin-skin’ to be a politician, so to speak). That Pridi was alsways ‘aversed’ to taking highest office and prefered to ‘act behind the sceen’ (his opponets would say, ‘like a puppet master), is the basis for a story, widely told among people who lived through that period that, when Pridi assumed the Premiership, he was in fact ‘lured into a trap‘ by Khukrit Pramot. It is said that Khukrit knew very well Pridi’s weakness (short-tempered when being attacked, etc). So after Khuang resigned, Khukrit went to see Pridi and persuaded him to assme the post. I’m not sure how reliable is the story. In any case, as I see it, Pridi did seem to be a kind of person very unconfortable in the open top job. In other words, he seemed unsuit to the role of a politician.
In fact even after the general elections in early 1946 (following Seni’s dissolution of parliament), most people thought Pridi would take the PM job, now that the initial dealing with tha Allies (that he ‘delegated’ to Seni) was over. But he declined and instead proposed his follower, Direk Chai-ya-nam. Direk was not a match to Khuang in terms of popularity, so Khuang won the vote in the house and took the job.
Regarding the specific choice of Seni after the war, Pridi offered the reason that Seni was leader of the Free Thai abroad and former minister to the US and therefore would be best suit to deal with post-war negotiation with the Allies. But this was unconvincing. During the war, the Allies always regarded Pridi (‘Ruth’) himself as the one true leader of the whole movement and, as I said (based on US State Department and UK FO documents at the time) they were surprised Pridi wouldn’t take the PM job.
Thais and bilateral trade> KNLA Leaders Still Barred from Mae Sot
Saw David Taw, a member of KNU central executive committee, said that Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) senior leaders have been denied permission to re-enter Mae Sot since they were forced to return to Burma.
“Many are worried that they can’t ever return to Mae Sot,”
we always thought, the law on issue does not protect a family, but the constitutional head of state, symbol of thailands pride, love of its people and deep believes of most buddhists.
just ty to go into any church in america and proclaim aloud that jesus is dead. or that you are simply more popular than jesus (just like lennon said it once). you may experience a protest storm and you will be punished severely, even up to death-threats.
in germany so-called holocaust-deniers languish in jail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
in america today you will be detained in guantanamo if you dare to express sympathy for the 9/11 pilots. most peoples in the world seem to have their ‘majesties’ and are vigorously defending them……
in the youtube clip, abhisit demands that giles “learn to live with differences in opinion” if he “is really a democrat”…
but is not precisely giles opinions, as expressed in his book that got him charged??? in other words, it is utterly hypocritical of abhisit to demand giles to live with differences in opinion, when it is precisely the inability of the thai elite (i.e. abhisit and his pad friends) to live with differences in opinion (regarding the thai monarchy) that got giles charged in the first place…
until abhisit and co learn “to live with differences in opinion” themselves… they have no right to demand that of giles… or to call themselves “democrats”…
and of course giles cannot debate abhisit in thailand under thai law, because under thai law abhisits opinions are coterminus with the officially sanctioned national narative, while giles opinions are illegal… ‘duh!!!
abhisit, you are a coward and a hypocrit… sorry, but its my opinion, learn to live with it… 🙂
i also have other opinions, but these i am afraid to express here because i am in thailand right now 🙁
р╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Бр╣Зр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕нр╕▒р╕Зр╕Бр╕др╕йр╕Бр╣Зр╕Фр╕╡р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
Both Thai and English are welcome
р╕Вр╕нр╕Ър╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Гр╕Щр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ыр╕Ир╕░р╕гр╕░р╕бр╕▒р╕Фр╕гр╕░р╕зр╕▒р╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щ
Thank you very much for your comments. I will be more careful next time.
there are lese majeste laws in some other countries…
it seems most people do not have problems with these
how about a comparison of the laws and their implementation
to expose the extremities of the Thai law….
– its included under national security of the criminal code
– its extreme punishments
– there are no limits on who can file and no penalties for false filings
– the filer does not need to present or defend their evidence
– accused are gaoled or bailed seemingly arbitrarily (reasons?)
– there is no open prosecution
– there is no open discussion
– no defence is provided (truth? relevance? public interest?)
– judgement is by judges with no legal appeal
– the judges are protected from criticism (extreme form of contempt rules)
do any of the other countries laws approach this list?
In terms of Thai legal history, the LM law has been part of the ‘national security’ offence section in the Criminal Code because it originated in the Absolute Monarchy, which naturally regarded the monarchy as equivalent to the State. That the People’s Party didn’t remove it from that section of the Criminal Code or from the Code altogether, even though in others areas such as its adminstration of state affairs, it had practically and effectively removed the monarchy from involvement, is in my opinion one of the key historic mistakes of the Party.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Four Prime Ministers in one year
р╕Ир╕Ър╕ер╕Зр╣Др╕Ыр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╕нр╕бр╕Юр╕ер╕Др╕Щр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕Фр╕┤р╕бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Др╕гр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╕гр╕нр╕Ър╣Бр╕гр╕Бр╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕Бр╕╖р╕нр╕Ъ р╣Ш р╕Ыр╕╡р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Бр╕ер╕▒р╕Ър╕бр╕▓
The first round of Phibun’s regime only lasted 5 years 7 months (mid December 1938 – end of July 1944) not ‘almost 8 years’.
If I wanedt to argue about number I could have said this from the beginning. It’s you who make illusory number into false historical analogy.
Four Prime Ministers in one year
In this field, I’m only a young boy. I hope that I will learn a lot from this community, so any comments and suggestions are welcome. Just take it easy as to teach a young boy.
р╕Вр╕нр╕нр╕Щр╕╕р╕Нр╕▓р╕Х р╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕ар╕▓р╕йр╕▓р╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕кр╕▒р╕Б 2-3 р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Вр╕вр╕Др╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕З
р╕Ьр╕бр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕З р╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡ cover-up р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕вр╕нр╕бр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З-р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ьр╕┤р╕Фр╕Юр╕ер╕▓р╕Ф р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Гр╕Кр╣Й false/pretended humility р╕бр╕▓р╕нр╣Йр╕▓р╕З
р╕Ьр╕бр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Фр╕▒р╕Фр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Х р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
р╕Ьр╕бр╣Ар╕кр╕Щр╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕нр╕ар╕┤р╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕вр╕Ыр╕▒р╕Нр╕лр╕▓р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Хр╕гр╣Мр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕Чр╕в/р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╣Др╕Чр╕вр╣Ж р╕Бр╣Зр╕нр╕ар╕┤р╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╣Ж р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕З pretend р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕З “р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Б” “р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╣Гр╕лр╕Нр╣И” р╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕кр╕┤р╣Йр╕Щ
р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕З р╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡р╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕лр╕бр╕Ф р╕гр╕зр╕бр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕зр╕┤р╕Шр╕╡ р╕Фр╕▒р╕Фр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Х р╣Бр╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕Зр╕Чр╕│р╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щ “р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Б” р╣Гр╕Щр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Ар╕нр╕З р╕Бр╣Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕нр╕нр╕Бр╕бр╕▓р╣Гр╕Щр╕ер╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕Ур╕░р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ж (р╕Ьр╕бр╕бр╕╡р╕нр╕▓р╕Кр╕╡р╕Юр╕кр╕нр╕Щр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Б р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Щр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╣Гр╕Щр╕кр╕┤р╣Ир╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щ) р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ж р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ж р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Фр╕▒р╕Фр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Хр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╕бр╕╡р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╣Гр╕лр╕Нр╣И р╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Фр╕▒р╕Фр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Х р╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Й
Four Prime Ministers in one year
р╕вр╕┤р╕Щр╕Фр╕╡р╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
р╣С. р╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕нр╕Зр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ър╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕ер╕╢р╕Бр╕Вр╕▒р╣Йр╕зр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕И “р╣Ф” р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕ер╕В р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Ьр╕бр╣Бр╕Др╣Ир╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕ер╕Вр╕Бр╣Зр╕Вр╕│р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Др╕Ыр╕Вр╕▓р╕вр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Хр╕гр╣Мр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ар╕кр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Вр╕│ р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Др╕гр╕Бр╣Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕бр╕Ьр╕бр╕вр╣Йр╕│р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕Бр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕п р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕е
р╕Фр╕╡р╕Щр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ьр╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓ “р╣Ф” р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕бр╕Щр╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Ыр╕гр╕╡р╕Фр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Ър╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╣Вр╕Ир╕гр╕бр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕╣ (р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Хр╕│р╕гр╕зр╕Ир╕Бр╣Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕гр╕╣р╣Й) р╕бр╕▓р╕Вр╕▓р╕в р╕Юр╕гр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Вр╕Кр╕Др╕гр╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕ер╕В “р╣Ф” р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Хр╕гр╣Мр╕Др╕Зр╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Вр╕│р╣Др╕Ыр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Гр╕лр╕Нр╣И
р╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕зр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕бр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Вр╕│ р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Хр╕гр╣Мр╕вр╕нр╕бр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕в р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╣Вр╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕кр╕Бр╣Зр╕Вр╕нр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Бр╕гр╕╕р╕Ур╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕│р╕Кр╕╡р╣Йр╣Бр╕Щр╕░р╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щр╣Ар╕Др╕вр╕Щр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Вр╕нр╕Ър╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕ер╣Ир╕зр╕Зр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕ер╕вр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
р╣Т. р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Ьр╕бр╣Ар╕Фр╕▓ р╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕ер╕Вр╕нр╕▒р╕Щр╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕нр╕Зр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Юр╕гр╕гр╕Др╣Ар╕Бр╣Ир╕▓р╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╕Др╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕Щр╕Юр╕вр╕▓р╕бр╕Ир╕▒р╕Фр╕нр╕▒р╕Щр╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Фр╕╡ (р╣Гр╕Щр╕зр╕┤р╕Бр╕┤р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕ар╕▓р╕йр╕▓р╣Др╕Чр╕в р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕Щр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕╣р╕ер╕бр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕нр╕Бр╕кр╕▓р╕гр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Юр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕┤р╕вр╕бр╕Юр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╕лр╕Щр╕╢р╣Ир╕З) р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Бр╕Щр╣Ир╣Гр╕Ир╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Др╣Йр╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ж р╕Ир╕░р╕бр╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕бр╕┤р╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╣Бр╕Чр╕гр╕Бр╕бр╕▓р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╣Др╕бр╣И р╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕зр╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Кр╣Зр╕Др╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Цр╕╡р╣Ир╕Цр╣Йр╕зр╕Щр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╣Бр╕лр╕ер╣Ир╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
р╣У. “р╕Др╕Щр╕Ир╕░р╣Бр╕Бр╣И р╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕Щр╕▓р╕Щ р╕Др╕Щр╕Ир╕░р╕гр╕зр╕в р╕гр╕зр╕вр╕кр╕┤р╕Щр╕Чр╕▓р╕Щ р╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╣Вр╕Х” р╕Ьр╕бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Кр╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕Щр╕зр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕зр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕нр╕╖р╣Ир╕Щр╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Чр╕▓р╕гр╕Бр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Тр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╣Зр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕лр╕Щр╕╢р╣Ир╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕вр╕▒р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Кр╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕Щр╕зр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╕Бр╣Зр╣Ар╕ер╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Др╕нр╕вр╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Др╕│р╕кр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕кр╕нр╕Щ р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щ р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕гр╕вр╣Мр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕нр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щ р╕У р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕бр╕╡р╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╕Ир╕░р╕Кр╕╡р╣Йр╣Бр╕Щр╕░р╕кр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕кр╕нр╕Щр╕Бр╣Зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕ер╕в р╕Щр╕╢р╕Бр╣Ар╕кр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Кр╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕Щр╕лр╕Щр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕Ир╕░р╕кр╣Ир╕Зр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╣Ж р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╕нр╕▓р╕Чр╕┤р╕Хр╕вр╣М р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Др╕гр╕╣ р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕╣р╣Й р╣Бр╕ер╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╕Юр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Юр╕╡р╣И р╕бр╕┤р╕Хр╕гр╕кр╕лр╕▓р╕в р╣Вр╕Ыр╕гр╕Фр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Кр╕╡р╣Йр╣Бр╕Щр╕░ р╕Ир╕░р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Гр╕Ър╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕ир╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Бр╣Зр╕вр╕┤р╕Щр╕Фр╕╡р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕кр╕нр╕Ър╕Ьр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕гр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щ
Re: Somsak Jeamteerasakul
Thank you again for your comments. Your historical point of view is precise, i.e. only number is the major point here. Well, I intend to make it satirical/humerous. Next time, I will find the topic which will be acceptable to historians as well. I appreciate your remark here in the future.
Re: Lleij Samuel Schwartz
In this field, I’m only a young boy. I hope that I will learn a lot from this community, so any comments and suggestions are welcome. Just take it easy as to teach a young boy. Well, in other field, I might be a baby or an old man. Anyway, age shouldn’t be a barrier for an academic exhange.
Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the outside
I realise this too requires clarification, apologies.
The embassy list was reserved. For security reasons, we had to have names of people who attended the talk, so people were required to sign up before hand. Around 400 people chose to do so. Of these 400, the 180/190 or so seats in the auditorium were dished out in a first come first served basis. The professors complaining were part of the list of 400.
Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the outside
Sorry to clarify – the Thai embassy reserved a few of the two hundred seats available. For those not in the Thai embassies party, the places were allocated in a first come, first served basis. This applied to the vast majority of audience members.
Four Prime Ministers in one year
Reply to Khun р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Кр╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕┤р╕бр╕лр╕▒р╕Щр╕Хр╣М
To be frank, I simply couldn’t see any point in your historical comparison/analogy. Apart from the fact that there is ‘same’ number of PMs in 1946 and 2008, the situations behind the two periods that produced this number are totally different. In 1946 politics was dominated by, or under the leadership of, just one man – Pridi Phanomyong. Neither the ‘Thamrong’ nor the ‘Seni’ Cabinet can be said to be really Thamrong or Seni Cabinet – both were Pridi Cabinet, literally! So even the ‘same’ number of ‘four’ turns out to be illusory and . At present, that there have been four PMs in one year reflects the situation of gigantic struggle between two Power Blocs that are – temporally – quite equally balanced, though they are based on different socio-political settings – rural popular electoral supports vs Palace-Military-Judiciary-urban middle classes. These socio-political settings were largely non-existent in 1946. The Palace-Military partnership didn’t come into existence until ten years later – the first time since 1932. The Judiciary was still largely non-political. And neither rural electoral power nor urban middle classes can be said to emerge yet until many decades later. All historical analogy/comparison have limits, but I’m not sure there should even be one here in the first place.
By the way, I’m not at all convinced the CCP should not be counted as Asia’s second oldest party because it’s not parliamentary. For a very long time in its history, the KMT was not a parliamentary party either.
Four Prime Ministers in one year
re: р╕Ф.р╕К. р╕Др╕┤р╕бр╕лр╕▒р╕Щр╕Хр╣М
р╕Вр╕нр╕Ър╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕Щр╣Ир╕▓р╕кр╕Щр╣Гр╕И р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕бр╕╡р╕нр╕▓р╕гр╕бр╕Ур╣Мр╕Вр╕▒р╕Щр╕Фр╕╡р╕Бр╣Зр╕Кр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕Др╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╣Ж р╕ер╕░р╕Др╕гр╕Хр╕ер╕Б!
р╕Ьр╕бр╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Ф.р╕К. р╕Др╕┤р╕бр╕лр╕▒р╕Щр╕Хр╣Мр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Щр╕▓р╕бр╕Ыр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Мр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕нр╕▒р╕Ир╕Йр╕гр╕┤р╕в?
p.s. Please feel free to correct any errors in my Thai. Thanks.
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
May I to add to Ravin Thambapillai comment on Mar 16 that “St Johns College Auditorium was merely used as the venue”, that the College’s President did so on the understanding that no one would be barred from the meeting, and he maintained this position despite some pressure. He also insisted on a genuine Q&A (in the event, it was over 30 mins). The President’s opening remarks locating the event in the context of academic freedom were construed by many as praise for Abhisit’s democractic credentials, but I am not at all sure that this was what was intended. For me, they pointed to the important difference between inviting someone to speak and deciding not to refuse them a platform. Personally, the only circumstances in which I would invite Abhisit to speak on democracy would be if those who have suffered from his interpretation of it were given equal time on the platform and and equal support to speak. But that would mean releasing them from jail, allowing them to travel freely, protecting them from violence and intimidation, encouraging a free press to report their views and experiences honestly….hmm, can you imagine that in Thailand today?
From the archives: Region of Revolt
I agree with Joy. A good analysis of the moral state of Thai society and suggestions for reform are presented in this article:
Buddhism for the Next Century
Toward Renewing a Moral Thai Society
by Phra Phaisan Visalo
http://www.bpf.org/tsangha/phaisan.htm
Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the outside
To: Ralph
Well if you look at the picture taken in front of the St. John, there were about 10-20 red shirt standing there and were not allow to go in because seats were reserved.
Here is the link:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2009/03/16/abhisits-talk-in-oxford-from-the-inside/
Quote from the article.
“Abhisit’s arrival was greeted by Red Shirt protesters who were waiting for him in front of St.John’s. However, most of the Red Shirts were not allowed to go inside. This is because everyone needed to reserve their place. It was Oxford students (most of them Thai), Thai students from other UK universities, and guests invited by the the Thai Embassy in London, who composed the majority of the audience.”
Four Prime Ministers in one year
Reply to Khun John Francis Lee,
In my interpretation based on both my reading of documents and talking to people of that period, Pridi had a personal trait, a kind of ‘aversion’ to taking highest office (unlike Phibun). I’m reluctant to call it ‘humility’ or ‘lack of ambition’ (though some of his supporters claim that’s what it was). It’s also known that he’s not used to political attack, he lost his temper easily (too ‘thin-skin’ to be a politician, so to speak). That Pridi was alsways ‘aversed’ to taking highest office and prefered to ‘act behind the sceen’ (his opponets would say, ‘like a puppet master), is the basis for a story, widely told among people who lived through that period that, when Pridi assumed the Premiership, he was in fact ‘lured into a trap‘ by Khukrit Pramot. It is said that Khukrit knew very well Pridi’s weakness (short-tempered when being attacked, etc). So after Khuang resigned, Khukrit went to see Pridi and persuaded him to assme the post. I’m not sure how reliable is the story. In any case, as I see it, Pridi did seem to be a kind of person very unconfortable in the open top job. In other words, he seemed unsuit to the role of a politician.
In fact even after the general elections in early 1946 (following Seni’s dissolution of parliament), most people thought Pridi would take the PM job, now that the initial dealing with tha Allies (that he ‘delegated’ to Seni) was over. But he declined and instead proposed his follower, Direk Chai-ya-nam. Direk was not a match to Khuang in terms of popularity, so Khuang won the vote in the house and took the job.
Regarding the specific choice of Seni after the war, Pridi offered the reason that Seni was leader of the Free Thai abroad and former minister to the US and therefore would be best suit to deal with post-war negotiation with the Allies. But this was unconvincing. During the war, the Allies always regarded Pridi (‘Ruth’) himself as the one true leader of the whole movement and, as I said (based on US State Department and UK FO documents at the time) they were surprised Pridi wouldn’t take the PM job.
Karen Colonel reportedly out on bail
Thais and bilateral trade> KNLA Leaders Still Barred from Mae Sot
Saw David Taw, a member of KNU central executive committee, said that Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) senior leaders have been denied permission to re-enter Mae Sot since they were forced to return to Burma.
“Many are worried that they can’t ever return to Mae Sot,”
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=15317
On lèse majesté
we always thought, the law on issue does not protect a family, but the constitutional head of state, symbol of thailands pride, love of its people and deep believes of most buddhists.
just ty to go into any church in america and proclaim aloud that jesus is dead. or that you are simply more popular than jesus (just like lennon said it once). you may experience a protest storm and you will be punished severely, even up to death-threats.
in germany so-called holocaust-deniers languish in jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
in america today you will be detained in guantanamo if you dare to express sympathy for the 9/11 pilots. most peoples in the world seem to have their ‘majesties’ and are vigorously defending them……
Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the inside
in the youtube clip, abhisit demands that giles “learn to live with differences in opinion” if he “is really a democrat”…
but is not precisely giles opinions, as expressed in his book that got him charged??? in other words, it is utterly hypocritical of abhisit to demand giles to live with differences in opinion, when it is precisely the inability of the thai elite (i.e. abhisit and his pad friends) to live with differences in opinion (regarding the thai monarchy) that got giles charged in the first place…
until abhisit and co learn “to live with differences in opinion” themselves… they have no right to demand that of giles… or to call themselves “democrats”…
and of course giles cannot debate abhisit in thailand under thai law, because under thai law abhisits opinions are coterminus with the officially sanctioned national narative, while giles opinions are illegal… ‘duh!!!
abhisit, you are a coward and a hypocrit… sorry, but its my opinion, learn to live with it… 🙂
i also have other opinions, but these i am afraid to express here because i am in thailand right now 🙁
Four Prime Ministers in one year
When Pridi decided to give the post to Seni, the Allies were very surprised by the decision. They thought Pridi would/should assume the post himself.
Why did Pridi give the post to Seni, Khun Somsak?
Four Prime Ministers in one year
Communist Party of China ф╕нхЫ╜хЕ▒ф║зхЕЪ
Founded July 1, 1921 (official)
Kuomintang of China ф╕нхЬЛхЬЛц░Сщ╗и
Founded 1919-10-10 (modern)
1894-11-24 (as Revive China Society)
Abhisit’s talk in Oxford: From the outside
Ravin Thambapillai says that it was first come, first served while others say the Thai Embassy invited people and had reserved seats. Which is true?
Four Prime Ministers in one year
р╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Бр╣Зр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕нр╕▒р╕Зр╕Бр╕др╕йр╕Бр╣Зр╕Фр╕╡р╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
Both Thai and English are welcome
р╕Вр╕нр╕Ър╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Гр╕Щр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ыр╕Ир╕░р╕гр╕░р╕бр╕▒р╕Фр╕гр╕░р╕зр╕▒р╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щ
Thank you very much for your comments. I will be more careful next time.
1. р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕е р╕Бр╣Зр╕Цр╕╣р╕Бр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕бр╕╡р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕ер╕Др╕зр╕Зр╣Др╕зр╣Йр╕Др╕▓р╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕╡р╕Фр╕╡р╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕ер╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╣Гр╕Щр╕Ыр╕╡р╕Фр╕▒р╕Зр╕Бр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕з р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕Ыр╕гр╕╡р╕Фр╕╡р╕Др╕гр╕нр╕Зр╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕кр╕┤р╣Йр╕Щр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕б
р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕ер╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕ер╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕бр╕▓ р╕б.р╕г.р╕з. р╣Ар╕кр╕Щр╕╡р╕вр╣М р╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕нр╕Зр╕гр╕░р╣Бр╕лр╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Ыр╕гр╕╡р╕Фр╕╡ (р╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕Щр╕Бр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Ир╕нр╕бр╕Юр╕ер╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕Фр╕╡р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕вр╕╕р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Лр╕┤р╕Ър╣Гр╕кр╣Ир╕лр╕╣р╕Хр╕нр╕Щр╕кр╣Ир╕Зр╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Чр╕╣р╕Х) р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Др╕Ыр╕гр╣Ир╕зр╕бр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕зр╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Юр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Хр╕вр╣М р╕Ьр╕бр╕Ир╕╢р╕Зр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕ер╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕╡р╕Фр╕╡р╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ж р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕Щ р╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕кр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕Щр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Др╣Ир╕нр╕вр╕Цр╕╣р╕Бр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Ыр╕гр╕╡р╕Фр╕╡
р╕Ир╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Цр╕╣р╕Бр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Бр╕Др╣Ир╣Др╕лр╕Щр╕Ьр╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╕Чр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Др╕Фр╣Й р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Др╕Щр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Гр╕Др╕гр╣Ар╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕зр╕Хр╕░р╣Вр╕Бр╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╣Вр╕гр╕Зр╕лр╕Щр╕▒р╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╣Бр╕кр╕бр╕зр╕ер╕Кр╕Щр╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕Ыр╕гр╕╡р╕Фр╕╡р╕Ир╕░р╕ер╕▓р╕нр╕нр╕Бр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╣Др╕бр╣И р╕Вр╕нр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╣Ар╕Бр╕Хр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕ер╕▓р╕нр╕нр╕Бр╕лр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕кр╕зр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕Хр╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╣Гр╕Ф р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Ьр╕ер╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╕░р╣Вр╕Бр╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╣Вр╕гр╕Зр╕лр╕Щр╕▒р╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Ьр╕ер╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╕Др╕Фр╕╡р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕лр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╕кр╕┤р╕Ър╕Ыр╕╡р╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕бр╕▓р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Др╕г
Three governments in the year were Pridi’s, but only two PMs are his. Several evidences have shown that the other two were anti-Pridi.
2. р╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Бр╣Ир╕▓р╣Бр╕Бр╣И р╕Юр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕Др╕нр╕бр╕бр╕┤р╕зр╕Щр╕┤р╕кр╕Хр╣Мр╣Ар╕Бр╣Ир╕▓р╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕кр╕╕р╕Фр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕кр╕▒р╕Щр╕Щр╕┤р╕йр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╕Юр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕Ър╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕кр╕ар╕▓ р╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕╣р╕ер╣Ар╕Бр╣Ир╕▓р╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕▒р╕Щр╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╕бр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕зр╕┤р╕Бр╕┤р╕Юр╕╡р╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╕ар╕▓р╕йр╕▓р╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕Ъ
CCP is not a political party in a parliamentary system, it may not be counted by the following Wikipedia article.
http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/р╕Юр╕гр╕гр╕Др╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╕▒р╕Хр╕вр╣М
Government responses to LM campaign
there are lese majeste laws in some other countries…
it seems most people do not have problems with these
how about a comparison of the laws and their implementation
to expose the extremities of the Thai law….
– its included under national security of the criminal code
– its extreme punishments
– there are no limits on who can file and no penalties for false filings
– the filer does not need to present or defend their evidence
– accused are gaoled or bailed seemingly arbitrarily (reasons?)
– there is no open prosecution
– there is no open discussion
– no defence is provided (truth? relevance? public interest?)
– judgement is by judges with no legal appeal
– the judges are protected from criticism (extreme form of contempt rules)
do any of the other countries laws approach this list?
Government responses to LM campaign
In terms of Thai legal history, the LM law has been part of the ‘national security’ offence section in the Criminal Code because it originated in the Absolute Monarchy, which naturally regarded the monarchy as equivalent to the State. That the People’s Party didn’t remove it from that section of the Criminal Code or from the Code altogether, even though in others areas such as its adminstration of state affairs, it had practically and effectively removed the monarchy from involvement, is in my opinion one of the key historic mistakes of the Party.