Fascinating. That makes sense and gels with what I am being told. It would, of course, be nice to have some more analysis of this general block. What ISPs are using this method? If there is no court order then on what legal (?) basis is this block being made? If (for instance) we changed the name of New Mandala to “rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/lesemajesteinthailand” would the whole site get blocked…
…I guess so.
Further comments from anyone out there would be greatly appreciated.
I would like to argue that these groups of people who are bombarding Lee Jones are not Thai. Here are my reasons:
1. Even Thai people who can make it to study in England, Australia, the United States have difficulty expressing themselves in English. Those who can write English at the level of putting political opinion in public are highly educated Thai whose manner tend to be quiet, submissive, and avoid any argument altogether, especially an argument against people from the developed country. Thai people are humble about their knowledge. They would be hesitate to argue against a scholar from the developed world, let alone someone like Lee Jones, a lecturer at Oxford University, the most prestigious university in the world.
2. Ordinary Thai do not follow politics so closely, only government officials in the intelligence work and politicians follow Thai politics at New Mandala level. And even those Thai in the intelligence and politics cannot write English on spot about the current political events the way these people wrote.
At issue:
1. Why these non-Thai group of people are so against Thaksin Shinawatra, Jakrapob Penkair, Giles Ungpakorn, Prachatai Webboard?
2. Why these non-Thai group of people spend 24/7 defending the Thai monarchy, lese majeste law, and Abhisit?
You are not being targeted as it is taking the keywords in your URL for each blog. It is blocking anything with the words “lese majeste” in the address. This happens the second you post a blog. If I try to open this blog from a link, I get page not found as if your server was having problems or you had “deleted” your article. The only way I can then read this latest blog article is to go to your front page. As you noted, it is not every ISP in Thailand so I guess there is no court order.
Did Ji ever actually say anything like this? Can the person citing it (that means you, ‘a Siamese’) – or anyone else – please provide the source for the quote and its context?
It would be wonderful if we could pin this matter down once and for all. I have asked for other readers to offer their experiences and, with some information sharing, hopefully we can all learn something.
O, and just a reminder that if any NM readers do attend this event we would be delighted to publish a report.
Wake up old son. Obviously you haven’t a clue what;’s going on here and just listen to good old Giles, a true son of his father who tend to flee when they ought to make a stand or serve as an example..
You said…quote’
In reality there is neither freedom of speech nor academic freedom nor democracy in Thailand today.” Unquote’
No more than before, no less. Thaksin was the big divider, either HATED or LOVED but nothing in between. Abhisit is the big hope.
Don’t compare fledgling democracy in Thailand to that of the UK , where incidentally extra judicial killings are also condoned (ref police killing of innocent Brazilian thought to be a terrorist)
All pages with LM content on New Mandala, Bangkok Pundit, Asia Sentinel, Political Prisoners in Thailand et al come up with the same “404 error: File not found” format page after about 24hrs.
Sidh: To slightly change the old saying, a few puny swallows do not a summer make. You may be right in your assertion that “a bit of political accountability is better than none at all,” but I’ll wait until such acts as you’ve enumerated become closer to the norm & therefore more conclusive evidence of a trend, before I look on them as positively as you appear to be doing.
I’m not viewing anything through “Red-tinted glasses,” BTW. I’m not a supporter of either the Red or the Yellow faction, although I think I may be prepared to reconsider at some future time, if the Reds drop their allegiance to Thaksin (and demand accountability for the atrocities in the South & during the ‘war on drugs’), and re-educate the Chiangmai homophobes, amongst other things. (Also, I do admire Ji, especially for his 9 points on the Red Siam doc., & for his sincere & courageous contribution to getting a much-needed open debate going. Although I’m absolutely not a marxist or a maoist, I can’t ignore the positive contribution of marxist criticism to many academic fields and most societies – including Oz, where I vote Labor, being a liberal, but NOT a Liberal.)
I’ll admit that the 2 examples you’ve given re. provincial courts do look quite good. I’d like to know more about the cases in question before I form any opinion as to their fairness, though. And that raises the question of just how open & transparent judicial processes & the media’s reportage of them are. BTW, I would never be so limp-brained as to imagine any Thai court would make a decision in favour of the poor in order to generate positive media. To suggest that I would is rather puerile & insulting on your part. And I certainly wouldn’t support a verdict on that basis.
I wouldn’t include your last paragraph either ….so why did you?
a Siamese said: “To Comrade Ji, Wasn’t you who say “I’m pround of not being Thai (Chinese Father + English Mom)”????”
Did Ji ever actually say anything like this? Can the person citing it (that means you, ‘a Siamese’) – or anyone else – please provide the source for the quote and its context?
I’m a little surprised to hear Ji’s father, Dr. Puey, described as Chinese, but anyway, I’d guess that both Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang, sons of Chinese immigrant fathers, might agree that you should give the race card a break.
michael #62: If you take the trouble to peruse other threads on similar subjects on this site, you’ll see that the name you’ve chosen to post under is already in use and has in fact posted several times in the last week. To avoid confusion, please choose another name. (‘Another michael’ is also taken.) Thanks.
“In reality there is neither freedom of speech nor academic freedom nor democracy in Thailand today” . . .
It is irrelevant that this letter was “personal and private.” As the author admits, the statement is an exaggeration – in other words, untrue, a deliberate lie, used in what was hoped to be a surreptitious attempt to slander a nation and deny its leader the right to speak in a public forum.
That is truly shameful for an “academic” – and a self-styled defender of freedom of speech and democracy. A Ph.D. isn’t a license to lie or censor others.
Did Thailand have democracy in 2006 when voters were denied a secret ballot? Or in 2005, when Thai Rak Thai used soldiers to buy votes and intimidate opponents in the North?
Meanwhile, Jones’ letter has even made some waves on The Nations’ web site (they even have two pictures showing what seems to be a very young academic):
Foreign researcher criticised Thai PM’s planned speech at Oxford U
By The Nation (March 12, 2009)
Lee Jones chaired a forum where Giles Ji Ungpakorn criticised Thai army and monarch in London last month. (Read Letter inside)
Lee Jones, a foreign researcher in International relations of the Oxford University has expressed “deep concern” on Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s plan to give a speech at the St John’s College.
Abhisit is scheduled to visit the St John college where he was graduated to deliver speech on democracy and Thailand’s situation on March 14.
In his letter to dean of the college, Lee Johns said he was very deep concern about the reports that St John’s has invited Abhisit to speak at the college.
“Although it is understandable given his education at St John’s, I do not believe it is appropriate to ask someone like him to address the Oxford community on the subject of ‘democracy’.
As you may be aware, the Abhisit administration has only come to power in Thailand following a period of naked manipulation of Thai politics by cynical political elites, including the leadership of Abhisit’s own ‘Democrat’ Party.”
He also alleged that Thai courts were used to dismantle the democratically elected government by forcing ministers, including Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, to resign, to create a lethal confrontation with Cambodia over Preah Vihear temple for purely domestic political reasons, and to disband the People’s Power Party, the party of the legitimately elected government.
Jones chaired Giles Ji Ungpakorn’s talk at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, in February 2009. Giles who is facing lese majesty charges had spoken in the forum, criticising Thai government and the monarch.
Johns’ letter
I have read the letter you submitted to Sir Michael which is widely posted in many websites at the moment. I do mind and question some parts of your letter.
Firstly, you accused that Abhisit has come to power undemocratically with the manipulation and assist from behind the scene elites and that Thai courts have been exploited extensively to disable and finally dissolve the so-called democratically elected PPP government.
As to my knowledge the present government has come to office constitutionally with support from the majority in the parliament after Thai court dissolved PPP party. Although this could happen only because the faction of MPs under Nevin’ s control defected from pro-Thaksin or PPP side. Whatever accusations that you made , the fact is that all of these political movements occurred under the rules of the present constitution. So, how could you be able to blame that it was not a democratic process. Can Thai people have only a government coming directly from a vote-buying election and not from the process determined by our constitution? Besides, I still wonder whether you feel OK with any governments that come to office by winning in vote-buying elections. Do you still call these governments a democratically elected government without feeling embarrassment?
I know that vote buying is not a problem in you country, but it is in mine. With this weak point in electoral process, tycoons and provincial business men can obtain administrative and legislative power quite easily as Thaksin government already had demonstrated that. This led us to a conflict because they had ventured their money so they had to gain interests back. I do want to know your point on this issue.
Secondly, you accused that Abhisit government has clamped down on political opponents by charging them with lese majeste . You cited Australian author Harry Nicolaides as an example. I think this was a real mistake of you , because Harry Nicolaides had been arrested and had been under prosecution since the previous government was in office not this government. Only the final judgment from Thai court on this case was made while this government run the country, but the government had nothing to do with the court decision on the case.
Concerning Professor Giles Ungpakorn and Prachathai, they deeds have long been publicly known to violate Thai criminal law. If they want to modify or improve the law, they should do by talking to the political party or some other ways that are legal via the parliament. It is not right to try modifying the law by violating it.
Finally, as your country is an origin of democracy, it is good to let anyone, even though coming from a non-democratic process, to express their ideas and be confronted with the academy in open atmosphere that anyone who have good principles or reasons would be accepted and win in that forum.
I agree Joy. Midnight University and Prachatai has helped expand Thailand’s intellectual space. In normal political climates (let’s say pre-Southern Unrest if I have to pick a date), I am certain that they would have grown from strength to strength. In a polarized political climate, as with the global war on terrorism earlier, the middle spaces often becomes the first victim…
NM is a great site – occupying the middle spaces – and it too has become a victim of this “us vs them”. I find it a rather amusing, yet unfortunate and sad, phenomenon that LM has dominated the blogs with all other issues related to Thailand and other mainland Southeast Asian countries losing out almost completely. In fact I find it quite baffling that LM law gets so much more interest amongst our foriegn NM colleagues than arguably more serious life and death issues in Myanmar and Cambodia (let’s throw in the Internal Security Laws south of Thailand’s borders for that matter). For instance, you raised the Rohingyas tragedy in Thailand. We are beginning to know now that is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of their plight in Myanmar and the region…
Amidst this Red-Yellow civil war in Thailand, the LM law has been abused and taken out of proportions by the Thai elites and that must be addressed, I agree. That our learnt foriegn colleagues to define Thai democracy with LM law is sadly taking things way out of proportion too. I wonder how many Thais see it that way? And if Thais, ask to draw a priority list of what they want their leaders to do, where will LM appear on that list? I wonder how Aung San Suu Kyi, from the confines of her house arrest, views this?
-The King and the royal family members have never taken legal action -against anyone who insulted or fabricated lies again them. More often -than not, it has been the wicked politicians who abuse their power, -intentionally and conveniently misapply the law against their -opponents.
The signatories to the letter wrote:
-“frequent abuse of the lese majeste law against political opponents -undermines democratic processes” and generates “heightened criticism -of the monarchy and Thailand itself, both inside and outside the -country.”
It seems to me like there is a lot of common ground here. You both agree that the law is abused and misapplied. Peter T, what do you suggest could be done to address this problem?
Land of Snarls and Vox Populi, Lee Jones has admitted his exaggerations and overstatements and I am fine with it. Otherwise, I share your concerns on those points and I hope the next round of political reform also encompasses police, military, media and education (for me the most important) reforms.
But let’s count the positive recent developments too:
– a bit of political accountability is better than none at all. Apirak Kosayodhin’s resignation even before trials begin; Vitoon Nambutr’s stepping down, although hesitantly. This may count as nothing in Oz politics, but compared to the zero accountability of the capitalist mafias, it is quite refreshing (at least for me).
– while on Apirak, why not count the recent colorful, clean and fair Bangkok elections.
– white collar crimes by Thai elites gets punished with the Criminal Court handing BBC senior executives long jail terms.
– Justice for the little people over the big corporates: Rayong provincial administrative court (note that this is a local court!)declare the areas around Map Ta Phut industrial estate a pollution control zone and Chiang Mai provincial administrative court (another provincial court!) ordered the EGAT to pay compensation to Mae Moh villagers. (viewing things from Red-tinted glass, you may cynically say the biased courts just want to generate some positive media??)
– the varying successes of public participation housing-upgrading BaanManKong that have given tenure security and raised the standard of living of thousands of urban poor household countrywide (this is not the corruption prone, top-down BaanUrArthorn)
– etc…etc… and so much more, large and small positve developments…
And I am not including the jail terms on the capitalist mafias of KamnonPoh, Vatana Asavaheme, PMThaksin, KYPotjaman etal to avoid issues associated with Red-Yellow civil war (even if I count them as very positive developments as these are all some of the cream of the Thai elite). I also don’t count them because some elements of the state (probably the police/military), must have colluded in their escape (the ‘special treatment ‘).
It would be good, in my view, if an outspoken supporter of HM King Bhumipol Adulyadej who was also an opponent of the lèse–majesté laws would speak up and point out that the laws have no real connection to HM the King, that indeed they treat HM as a tool, a mere object of convenience, as a farmer might use a stone to gain leverage on something he is incapable of moving himself. That in so dehumanising HM the King the lèse–majesté laws themselves are an instance of that which they purport to remedy.
The open contempt for HM King Bhumipol exhibited by those most fervid among the “royalist” Taleban is glaring, although removed from the frame of public discourse by the Thai MSM. The actions of the PAD during their wild rampage preceding the PAD/Democrat putsch were blatant, jarring acts of lèse–majesté, not mere words. There were thugs with guns firing into crowds of Thais while waving placards bearing HM the King’s portrait. The PAD forced HM the King himself to use the servants’ entrance to go to and from his sister’s cremation because they had occupied the Ratchadamnoern in pursuit of their own lawless ends. These were shocking acts of lèse–majesté. If a picture is worth a thousand words then surely a bald act is worth a million. The utter hypocrisy of the PAD ought to be brought back within the frame of discussion.
The opposition to the putsch is dominated by the dregs of the Thaksin mob, an unattractive bunch if ever there was one. And the likes of Giles with his wholly unnecessary criticism’s of HM King Bhumipol do not at all appeal to ordinary Thais, and of course it is ordinary Thais who are on the receiving end of the new authoritarianism the PAD/Democrat putsch is presently pushing forward. It is ordinary Thais who must push back the putsch and return one-man/one-woman one-vote rule to Thailand.
I think leaving the putsch to define and then occupy the “moral high ground” is a fatal mistake. Surely there is someone, there ought to be many, who stand with HM the King against the lèse–majesté laws and for the people of Thailand, who are appalled at the PAD and willing to speak up on this matter? Something is needed to galvanize opposition to the putsch, and a candid discussion of the PAD/Democrat’s own real acts of lèse–majesté, their legality or illegality regardless, could provide a rallying point around HM the King and opposed to the hypocrites who have appropriated him wily-nily to forward their own sordid aims.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Lese majeste-related web pages blocked in Thailand?
Thanks Richard,
Fascinating. That makes sense and gels with what I am being told. It would, of course, be nice to have some more analysis of this general block. What ISPs are using this method? If there is no court order then on what legal (?) basis is this block being made? If (for instance) we changed the name of New Mandala to “rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/lesemajesteinthailand” would the whole site get blocked…
…I guess so.
Further comments from anyone out there would be greatly appreciated.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
I would like to argue that these groups of people who are bombarding Lee Jones are not Thai. Here are my reasons:
1. Even Thai people who can make it to study in England, Australia, the United States have difficulty expressing themselves in English. Those who can write English at the level of putting political opinion in public are highly educated Thai whose manner tend to be quiet, submissive, and avoid any argument altogether, especially an argument against people from the developed country. Thai people are humble about their knowledge. They would be hesitate to argue against a scholar from the developed world, let alone someone like Lee Jones, a lecturer at Oxford University, the most prestigious university in the world.
2. Ordinary Thai do not follow politics so closely, only government officials in the intelligence work and politicians follow Thai politics at New Mandala level. And even those Thai in the intelligence and politics cannot write English on spot about the current political events the way these people wrote.
At issue:
1. Why these non-Thai group of people are so against Thaksin Shinawatra, Jakrapob Penkair, Giles Ungpakorn, Prachatai Webboard?
2. Why these non-Thai group of people spend 24/7 defending the Thai monarchy, lese majeste law, and Abhisit?
Lese majeste-related web pages blocked in Thailand?
You are not being targeted as it is taking the keywords in your URL for each blog. It is blocking anything with the words “lese majeste” in the address. This happens the second you post a blog. If I try to open this blog from a link, I get page not found as if your server was having problems or you had “deleted” your article. The only way I can then read this latest blog article is to go to your front page. As you noted, it is not every ISP in Thailand so I guess there is no court order.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Did Ji ever actually say anything like this? Can the person citing it (that means you, ‘a Siamese’) – or anyone else – please provide the source for the quote and its context?
I suspect it came from the audio of the Oxford talk.
http://www.4shared.com/account/file/89296532/b1dcb0b1/Giles_Ji_Ungpakorn_-_Lese_Majeste.html
Have a listen from the 59 minute point, where there is an exchange that goes something like this:
Question from the floor: If you are born in Thai (or are Thai), why do you speak like that of our king…….
Interjection by someone (possibly the Chair?): ‘He says he’s not Thai, he’s Chinese English’
Giles: ‘I was born in Thailand but the King of Thailand was not born in Thailand, of course’
Have a listen for yourself and form your own opinion.
My opinion is that it just sad that the debate has got down to such a low level!
A lese majeste event in Bangkok
Thanks Flashman,
It would be wonderful if we could pin this matter down once and for all. I have asked for other readers to offer their experiences and, with some information sharing, hopefully we can all learn something.
O, and just a reminder that if any NM readers do attend this event we would be delighted to publish a report.
Thanks!
NSF
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
Mr Jones,
Wake up old son. Obviously you haven’t a clue what;’s going on here and just listen to good old Giles, a true son of his father who tend to flee when they ought to make a stand or serve as an example..
You said…quote’
In reality there is neither freedom of speech nor academic freedom nor democracy in Thailand today.” Unquote’
No more than before, no less. Thaksin was the big divider, either HATED or LOVED but nothing in between. Abhisit is the big hope.
Don’t compare fledgling democracy in Thailand to that of the UK , where incidentally extra judicial killings are also condoned (ref police killing of innocent Brazilian thought to be a terrorist)
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
I’ve posted a full statement elsewhere about this since it this private email is now being used for political purposes.
http://leejones-san.blogspot.com/2009/03/statement-on-abhisit-visit-to-oxford.html
Lao explorers reach Vietnam on Italian Scooters
hii : everybordy friends vepsa club in laos
A lese majeste event in Bangkok
This page is blocked in Thailand.
All pages with LM content on New Mandala, Bangkok Pundit, Asia Sentinel, Political Prisoners in Thailand et al come up with the same “404 error: File not found” format page after about 24hrs.
Proxy servers come in very useful these days…
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
Sidh: To slightly change the old saying, a few puny swallows do not a summer make. You may be right in your assertion that “a bit of political accountability is better than none at all,” but I’ll wait until such acts as you’ve enumerated become closer to the norm & therefore more conclusive evidence of a trend, before I look on them as positively as you appear to be doing.
I’m not viewing anything through “Red-tinted glasses,” BTW. I’m not a supporter of either the Red or the Yellow faction, although I think I may be prepared to reconsider at some future time, if the Reds drop their allegiance to Thaksin (and demand accountability for the atrocities in the South & during the ‘war on drugs’), and re-educate the Chiangmai homophobes, amongst other things. (Also, I do admire Ji, especially for his 9 points on the Red Siam doc., & for his sincere & courageous contribution to getting a much-needed open debate going. Although I’m absolutely not a marxist or a maoist, I can’t ignore the positive contribution of marxist criticism to many academic fields and most societies – including Oz, where I vote Labor, being a liberal, but NOT a Liberal.)
I’ll admit that the 2 examples you’ve given re. provincial courts do look quite good. I’d like to know more about the cases in question before I form any opinion as to their fairness, though. And that raises the question of just how open & transparent judicial processes & the media’s reportage of them are. BTW, I would never be so limp-brained as to imagine any Thai court would make a decision in favour of the poor in order to generate positive media. To suggest that I would is rather puerile & insulting on your part. And I certainly wouldn’t support a verdict on that basis.
I wouldn’t include your last paragraph either ….so why did you?
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
a Siamese said: “To Comrade Ji, Wasn’t you who say “I’m pround of not being Thai (Chinese Father + English Mom)”????”
Did Ji ever actually say anything like this? Can the person citing it (that means you, ‘a Siamese’) – or anyone else – please provide the source for the quote and its context?
I’m a little surprised to hear Ji’s father, Dr. Puey, described as Chinese, but anyway, I’d guess that both Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang, sons of Chinese immigrant fathers, might agree that you should give the race card a break.
International scholars call for reform of Thailand’s lese majeste law
michael #62: If you take the trouble to peruse other threads on similar subjects on this site, you’ll see that the name you’ve chosen to post under is already in use and has in fact posted several times in the last week. To avoid confusion, please choose another name. (‘Another michael’ is also taken.) Thanks.
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
“In reality there is neither freedom of speech nor academic freedom nor democracy in Thailand today” . . .
It is irrelevant that this letter was “personal and private.” As the author admits, the statement is an exaggeration – in other words, untrue, a deliberate lie, used in what was hoped to be a surreptitious attempt to slander a nation and deny its leader the right to speak in a public forum.
That is truly shameful for an “academic” – and a self-styled defender of freedom of speech and democracy. A Ph.D. isn’t a license to lie or censor others.
Did Thailand have democracy in 2006 when voters were denied a secret ballot? Or in 2005, when Thai Rak Thai used soldiers to buy votes and intimidate opponents in the North?
Why weren’t you protesting then. Mr. Jones?
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
Meanwhile, Jones’ letter has even made some waves on The Nations’ web site (they even have two pictures showing what seems to be a very young academic):
Foreign researcher criticised Thai PM’s planned speech at Oxford U
By The Nation (March 12, 2009)
Lee Jones chaired a forum where Giles Ji Ungpakorn criticised Thai army and monarch in London last month. (Read Letter inside)
Lee Jones, a foreign researcher in International relations of the Oxford University has expressed “deep concern” on Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s plan to give a speech at the St John’s College.
Abhisit is scheduled to visit the St John college where he was graduated to deliver speech on democracy and Thailand’s situation on March 14.
In his letter to dean of the college, Lee Johns said he was very deep concern about the reports that St John’s has invited Abhisit to speak at the college.
“Although it is understandable given his education at St John’s, I do not believe it is appropriate to ask someone like him to address the Oxford community on the subject of ‘democracy’.
As you may be aware, the Abhisit administration has only come to power in Thailand following a period of naked manipulation of Thai politics by cynical political elites, including the leadership of Abhisit’s own ‘Democrat’ Party.”
He also alleged that Thai courts were used to dismantle the democratically elected government by forcing ministers, including Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, to resign, to create a lethal confrontation with Cambodia over Preah Vihear temple for purely domestic political reasons, and to disband the People’s Power Party, the party of the legitimately elected government.
Jones chaired Giles Ji Ungpakorn’s talk at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, in February 2009. Giles who is facing lese majesty charges had spoken in the forum, criticising Thai government and the monarch.
Johns’ letter
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
Dear Mr. Lee Jones ,
I have read the letter you submitted to Sir Michael which is widely posted in many websites at the moment. I do mind and question some parts of your letter.
Firstly, you accused that Abhisit has come to power undemocratically with the manipulation and assist from behind the scene elites and that Thai courts have been exploited extensively to disable and finally dissolve the so-called democratically elected PPP government.
As to my knowledge the present government has come to office constitutionally with support from the majority in the parliament after Thai court dissolved PPP party. Although this could happen only because the faction of MPs under Nevin’ s control defected from pro-Thaksin or PPP side. Whatever accusations that you made , the fact is that all of these political movements occurred under the rules of the present constitution. So, how could you be able to blame that it was not a democratic process. Can Thai people have only a government coming directly from a vote-buying election and not from the process determined by our constitution? Besides, I still wonder whether you feel OK with any governments that come to office by winning in vote-buying elections. Do you still call these governments a democratically elected government without feeling embarrassment?
I know that vote buying is not a problem in you country, but it is in mine. With this weak point in electoral process, tycoons and provincial business men can obtain administrative and legislative power quite easily as Thaksin government already had demonstrated that. This led us to a conflict because they had ventured their money so they had to gain interests back. I do want to know your point on this issue.
Secondly, you accused that Abhisit government has clamped down on political opponents by charging them with lese majeste . You cited Australian author Harry Nicolaides as an example. I think this was a real mistake of you , because Harry Nicolaides had been arrested and had been under prosecution since the previous government was in office not this government. Only the final judgment from Thai court on this case was made while this government run the country, but the government had nothing to do with the court decision on the case.
Concerning Professor Giles Ungpakorn and Prachathai, they deeds have long been publicly known to violate Thai criminal law. If they want to modify or improve the law, they should do by talking to the political party or some other ways that are legal via the parliament. It is not right to try modifying the law by violating it.
Finally, as your country is an origin of democracy, it is good to let anyone, even though coming from a non-democratic process, to express their ideas and be confronted with the academy in open atmosphere that anyone who have good principles or reasons would be accepted and win in that forum.
“Super Sandwich” for northern Thailand
It amazes me that 40 some years later mainstreeam publications like the BKK Post still claim this nonsense.
New Mandala on lese majeste
I agree Joy. Midnight University and Prachatai has helped expand Thailand’s intellectual space. In normal political climates (let’s say pre-Southern Unrest if I have to pick a date), I am certain that they would have grown from strength to strength. In a polarized political climate, as with the global war on terrorism earlier, the middle spaces often becomes the first victim…
NM is a great site – occupying the middle spaces – and it too has become a victim of this “us vs them”. I find it a rather amusing, yet unfortunate and sad, phenomenon that LM has dominated the blogs with all other issues related to Thailand and other mainland Southeast Asian countries losing out almost completely. In fact I find it quite baffling that LM law gets so much more interest amongst our foriegn NM colleagues than arguably more serious life and death issues in Myanmar and Cambodia (let’s throw in the Internal Security Laws south of Thailand’s borders for that matter). For instance, you raised the Rohingyas tragedy in Thailand. We are beginning to know now that is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of their plight in Myanmar and the region…
Amidst this Red-Yellow civil war in Thailand, the LM law has been abused and taken out of proportions by the Thai elites and that must be addressed, I agree. That our learnt foriegn colleagues to define Thai democracy with LM law is sadly taking things way out of proportion too. I wonder how many Thais see it that way? And if Thais, ask to draw a priority list of what they want their leaders to do, where will LM appear on that list? I wonder how Aung San Suu Kyi, from the confines of her house arrest, views this?
International scholars call for reform of Thailand’s lese majeste law
Peter T wrote:
-The King and the royal family members have never taken legal action -against anyone who insulted or fabricated lies again them. More often -than not, it has been the wicked politicians who abuse their power, -intentionally and conveniently misapply the law against their -opponents.
The signatories to the letter wrote:
-“frequent abuse of the lese majeste law against political opponents -undermines democratic processes” and generates “heightened criticism -of the monarchy and Thailand itself, both inside and outside the -country.”
It seems to me like there is a lot of common ground here. You both agree that the law is abused and misapplied. Peter T, what do you suggest could be done to address this problem?
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
Land of Snarls and Vox Populi, Lee Jones has admitted his exaggerations and overstatements and I am fine with it. Otherwise, I share your concerns on those points and I hope the next round of political reform also encompasses police, military, media and education (for me the most important) reforms.
But let’s count the positive recent developments too:
– a bit of political accountability is better than none at all. Apirak Kosayodhin’s resignation even before trials begin; Vitoon Nambutr’s stepping down, although hesitantly. This may count as nothing in Oz politics, but compared to the zero accountability of the capitalist mafias, it is quite refreshing (at least for me).
– while on Apirak, why not count the recent colorful, clean and fair Bangkok elections.
– white collar crimes by Thai elites gets punished with the Criminal Court handing BBC senior executives long jail terms.
– Justice for the little people over the big corporates: Rayong provincial administrative court (note that this is a local court!)declare the areas around Map Ta Phut industrial estate a pollution control zone and Chiang Mai provincial administrative court (another provincial court!) ordered the EGAT to pay compensation to Mae Moh villagers. (viewing things from Red-tinted glass, you may cynically say the biased courts just want to generate some positive media??)
– the varying successes of public participation housing-upgrading BaanManKong that have given tenure security and raised the standard of living of thousands of urban poor household countrywide (this is not the corruption prone, top-down BaanUrArthorn)
– etc…etc… and so much more, large and small positve developments…
And I am not including the jail terms on the capitalist mafias of KamnonPoh, Vatana Asavaheme, PMThaksin, KYPotjaman etal to avoid issues associated with Red-Yellow civil war (even if I count them as very positive developments as these are all some of the cream of the Thai elite). I also don’t count them because some elements of the state (probably the police/military), must have colluded in their escape (the ‘special treatment ‘).
Thongchai Winichakul’s update on lese majeste reform
It would be good, in my view, if an outspoken supporter of HM King Bhumipol Adulyadej who was also an opponent of the lèse–majesté laws would speak up and point out that the laws have no real connection to HM the King, that indeed they treat HM as a tool, a mere object of convenience, as a farmer might use a stone to gain leverage on something he is incapable of moving himself. That in so dehumanising HM the King the lèse–majesté laws themselves are an instance of that which they purport to remedy.
The open contempt for HM King Bhumipol exhibited by those most fervid among the “royalist” Taleban is glaring, although removed from the frame of public discourse by the Thai MSM. The actions of the PAD during their wild rampage preceding the PAD/Democrat putsch were blatant, jarring acts of lèse–majesté, not mere words. There were thugs with guns firing into crowds of Thais while waving placards bearing HM the King’s portrait. The PAD forced HM the King himself to use the servants’ entrance to go to and from his sister’s cremation because they had occupied the Ratchadamnoern in pursuit of their own lawless ends. These were shocking acts of lèse–majesté. If a picture is worth a thousand words then surely a bald act is worth a million. The utter hypocrisy of the PAD ought to be brought back within the frame of discussion.
The opposition to the putsch is dominated by the dregs of the Thaksin mob, an unattractive bunch if ever there was one. And the likes of Giles with his wholly unnecessary criticism’s of HM King Bhumipol do not at all appeal to ordinary Thais, and of course it is ordinary Thais who are on the receiving end of the new authoritarianism the PAD/Democrat putsch is presently pushing forward. It is ordinary Thais who must push back the putsch and return one-man/one-woman one-vote rule to Thailand.
I think leaving the putsch to define and then occupy the “moral high ground” is a fatal mistake. Surely there is someone, there ought to be many, who stand with HM the King against the lèse–majesté laws and for the people of Thailand, who are appalled at the PAD and willing to speak up on this matter? Something is needed to galvanize opposition to the putsch, and a candid discussion of the PAD/Democrat’s own real acts of lèse–majesté, their legality or illegality regardless, could provide a rallying point around HM the King and opposed to the hypocrites who have appropriated him wily-nily to forward their own sordid aims.