Comments

Joy, I have stated my bias. I don’t subscribe to either the Thai emotional responses nor foriegners’ selective interpretations of Thai history.

KhunTaro, I understand the points you are making IF ANU really used its official website to attack LM laws. However, in relation to my previous line of argument, if ANU uses the same venue to attack China’s human rights record or the “coalition of the willing” bomb ’em into a democracy record in Iraq, then I won’t mind at all. It means their critical gaze is equally applied to the powerful, less powerful and powerless like any top quality institution should do and I commend that.

(Administrators, academics, students at ANU, please point me to those official links if any)

disagree with the abolition!
Don’t you think that is too obvious.
Anyway please prepare to have large crowd of audience.

To Peter T and Taro,

Thailand is not immune from the effects of global economic meltdown. There are more important matters of higher priority affecting over 60 million lives in the Kingdom that PM Abhisit & his cabinet members must urgently deal with. But the authors and supporting casts here are trying to divert his and everyone’s attention to this one law that affects only a few disrespectful foreign visitors and some radical Thai instigators who wanted to seek headlines & fame, and who take pleasure seeing Thailand remains in the state of chaos. The authors who masterminded this offensive move want to put undue pressure on PM Abhisit so that he may falls apart just like what the fugitive exPM Thaksin publicly predicted or prescribed.

1) The vast majority of Thais will survive the world financial crisis in much the same way they have survived on very little for the most of their lives. The world financial crisis will largely affect elites in Thailand and I suppose this is why you’d suggest that the “Democrat” government must focus more on a global economic crisis than the law prohibiting those Thais living on very little, and indeed everyone else from speaking their minds in Thailand. If Lese Majeste was abolished, and subsequently Thailand was more liberally orientated, then 64 million Thais might have more to worry about as the wealth of the country would be more of their direct responsibility.

2) It’s got nothing to do with Thaksin. You’ve conflated why Thaksin was even ousted in the first place with Lese Majeste, a completely separate issue. I put it to you that it is the desire of elites in Thailand to use the demonisation of Thaksin to justify whatever is in their self-interest.

3) If some foreign academics can put pressure on Abhisit to lead him to fall apart, then he doesn’t really have the character to survive political office, does he?

Many of these scholars spent considerable time (years and even decades) working, researching & living in Thailand. The scholars appeared to be a sympathetic bunch. But where were they when massive refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia flooded the country and took shelters there for years? Thailand has to carry tremendous burden taking care the refugees, totaling in millions, pretty much by herself most of those years immediately before and after the end of Vietnam War. As a small developing country with limited resources, Thailand did not complain about the enormous hardship she endured. Though Vietnam War ended almost 35 years ago, large numbers of refugees from countries near and far (Burma, Bangladesh, Laos, Pakistan, China, North Korea, etc.) have continuously made their ways into this small but friendly and free nation. Despite this fact, Thailand still does not create noise to gain global attention but continue to quietly deal with the problems immediately incurred and followed subsequently. Yet, the world has not seen or heard any foreign scholars who claimed to be friends of Thailand come out to publicly raise the awareness and help Thailand. No one stepped forward to defend Thailand when the rare incident of Rohingya refugee problem surfaced last month!

4) What has Thailand taking in refugees got to do with Lese Majeste? Why is this a burden? If anything Thailand should pick up it’s socks and be an example for the rest of the region. Are you implying that Lese Majeste is needed because refugees don’t respect the King? If not, why even bring up refugees? Furthermore, why does Thailand need to be defended for taking in refugees? Or do you mean Abhisit should be defended for copping out and saying Thai law must be followed, and the Rohingya sent back to Myanmar? That is indefensible, because he is sending them back to a certain end. Abhisit is not Thailand, and if he is, this reflects poorly on such a ‘friendly nation’.

In the past 60 years, it’s not a secret that King Bhumipol has done much more good things than bad to the people across the country. We all know that no one is perfect, and the King is no exception. The prince and princesses including their children are also far from perfect; they made mistakes. But the royal family did not involve in massive corruption or gross misconducts like Thaksin and politicians as well as those dictators before Thaksin. 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. Occasionally, a few insane and disrespectful Thai citizens and foreign visitors who wanted to prove their bravery and gain publicity stunt have decided to test the law/system. Normal people who are rational and have positive outlook would prefer to do something else for fun and experience that is better and more worthwhile.

5) Sympathetic to being chased out of your country because you do not share the same view as the next man about its direction? You’re writing like a fascist.
6) Nobody is saying that King Bhumipol is comparable to Thaksin. Again, it’s got nothing to do with Thaksin. Nobody is being subversive about the Thai King’s character. It’s an assumption you’re making.
7) Inadvertently writing about the King, and waiting a few years before being sought after for Lese Majeste is hardly evidence of a desire to prove ones bravery.
8 ) Normal is a subjective word, and what is normal for Thais right now is to not know whether they can talk or not. Is that fun?
9) I believe, I may be wrong, that Giles Ji Ungpakorn never intended to slur the King, only those around him abusing his identity and influence.

In March 2007 Swiss national Oliver Jufer was convicted of lèse majesté and sentenced to 10 years for spray-painting on several portraits of the king while drunk in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Jufer was pardoned by the king on 12 April 2007. In most cities across the US, it is the crime to create graffiti on public or private properties. Is it right that this foreigner who knew about this sensitive subject from living in Thailand for sometime intentionally proceeded with his act? Is it acceptable to you when your guest deliberately defaced or mutilated the pictures of your beloved parent while visiting you?

10) Oliver Jufer was a jackass and would have done community service for defacing public property anywhere else in the world.

In September 2008, Harry Nicolaides from Melbourne, Australia, was arrested at Bangkok’s international airport and charged with lèse majesté, for an offending passage in his self published book Verisimilitude. Subsequently, in January 2009, after pleading guilty, he was sentenced to three years in jail. On February 21, 2009, he was pardoned by the king and released. In this case, according to the testimony given by his fellow expatriate teachers, Harry told them he planned to add short stories on the sensitive subject (about the crown prince) to his book to help promote the sale. His colleagues warned him but he did it anyway. So, what was his intention? Whose fault is it?

11) Harry Nicolaides sold 7 copies of his book. What he told his colleagues has nothing to do with his intent. He may have been a buffoon, but 7 copies sold in three years hardly represents a successful attempt to promote his book by using royal slander. Six months in a Thai prison for some words which didn’t even make a scratch on the Thai identity the King represents is hardly just. Preventive of further scratches, definitely not as the incident is now making negative publicity for Thaliand all over the world. Those few ‘friends’ of his are not really going to be heard when you’re a lead story on CNN. What are you going to do next, accuse CNN of breaking Lese Majeste? Sure it’s Harry’s fault for writing slanderous things about the Crown Prince. Is the over-reaction his fault too?

For Giles Unpakorn, what he said in his Red Siam Manifesto can very well be interpreted as the BLUEPRINT for Thaksin’s RED GUARDS. Without giving any evidence, he maliciously accused & blamed King Bhumipol on a few things besides showing his hatred on the monarchy or royal institution.

12) Thaksin’s red guards? Are you serious? Maybe you are.

For Mr. Chotisak Onsoong, with his young and strong healthy body, he decided to challenge the law by sitting down while the entire audience stood up during the play of the Royal anthem. In disregarding the customary practice by the norm, the new graduate from Thammasart University claimed he wanted to exercise his freedom of expression and contended that it’s not the crime for thinking and acting differently. The young man seemed to be confused about the difference between social norm, respect, and one law versus other laws (freedom/rights).

13) You say, in regards to Chotisak Onsoong, The young man seemed to be confused about the difference between social norm, respect, and one law versus other laws (freedom/rights). So if it’s a social norm, he did not break any law. His freedom to sit was perfectly justified as a social norm is not a law. Or is it?

Oh yes, the scholars talked about civil liberty in their letter but seemed to forget one of Lord Action’s words of wisdom which said: Liberty is not the power to do what we like but the right to do what we ought to. How is this statement reconciled against what Mr. Chotisak and the entire audience did as mentioned above? If the scholars really care about civil liberty and human rights, I wonder why they were silent when Thaksin and his cronies carried out the war on drugs where over 3,000 people were killed or kidnapped without due process. While the intents of these law breakers were quite clear but their ought-to-do or constructive comment about the monarchy was clearly absent. Likewise, our worldly renowned scholars on Thailand here while strongly criticized the lèse majesté law, their constructive idea (detailed solutions/improvement for fairness, effective enforcement, practical applicability & where the line should be drawn, etc.), was nowhere to be found in the letter. Our scholars seemed to forget that even small companies/organizations have rules, regulations and culture that employees must follow.

14) I’ll highlight that you say, the scholars talked about civil liberty in their letter but seemed to forget one of Lord Action’s words of wisdom which said: Liberty is not the power to do what we like but the right to do what we ought to. And what ought we do? Who determines that? If Thai elites were not so insecure, maybe Thais would like to be Thais instead of being told what Thai is by people unconnected to them. Maybe they could choose what they like, and indeed if they like to follow the King, Thaksin, Abhisit, whomever – then what’s to be afraid of? How is it a slight on Thai identity to acknowledge there are many types of Thais? Aren’t your Lord’s words open to interpretation?…. ‘ought to’ certainly implies they are. Small companies have regulations, but you don’t get fired for not standing as the CEO walks into the board room… if so, why would you want to work that company?

It’s quite amazing to find that the world leading scholars can easily be used as the tool to embarrass a small but friendly and harmless country like Thailand. Someone with the ax to grind did a good job convincing these learnt ones to jump on the wrecking train. It’s a good trial but I don’t believe it’ll work because the overwhelmingly majority of Thais in and outside the kingdom know the facts, love our King and have no problem with this lese majeste law. The young rising leader, PM Abhisit seemed to do a good job not being rattled by this hot air while focusing on the more pressing issues confronting him, the mass and the nation. A thumb down for our professors/scholars but thumb up for PM Abhisit! Stay focus, PM Abhisit! You have our supports.

15) They weren’t silent when Thaksin carried out his war on drugs. And because I’m more familiar with him, I can point to Noam Chomsky acknowledging it. Certainly not, and maybe if you were worried about Thai identity when Thaksin was committing his war on drugs, you would have noticed.
16) Thaksin again, has nothing to do with Lese Majeste. I put it to you that the crux of Lese Majeste is Thai identity. And Thaksin presents to you a significant challenge to what you feel to be Thai is. Challenges are good because they make you think. What’s wrong with a challenge? Aren’t they fun?
17) It can equally be said that it is amazing how many Thais are used by a small number of powerful men with only an interest in the status quo. Academics are hardly puppets of defectors. And being academics in Western universities, they would have had to make a fair effort of not being interested in anything other than what people tell them to be interested in to not have an opinion on pursuing ideas freely.
18) Thailand is not harmless. Thailand has a military.
19) They are some of the world’s leading scholars because they’ve made a habit of not being fooled through many years of disciplined work and thinking. Maybe you should take heed of their thinking for yourself and be amazed that you can question them and then be equally amazed at what you can’t question.

…. And Taro, as just another Westerner I don’t think I am perfect, far from it. I don’t see why, if the King is loved so much, he needs to be so protected? Why do you need to protect what you love? You don’t own love. What do you think of what I’ve said in response to Peter?

@Taro:

It’s not a “personally-driven” agenda; it’s a push against an unjust law that is used to silence dissent. Despite what you yourself may believe, there are people who care about issues of right and wrong simply because they care about right and wrong, not because they have been duped or bought. As you are studying in Australia, then surely you know this to be true. If not, then your course of study has sadly missed its ultimate purpose: turning you into a reflective and analytical being.

As for “how will changing the LM law benefit the Thai Monarchy?”; only a fool would ask that question. Consider the events of the past year or so. Has the use of LM laws (a) enhanced the Monarchy’s prestige, or (b) damaged it?

Quite obviously, the answer is ‘b’. As someone who cares about the Thai Monarchy, you should be furious at the use to which the LM has been put.

If you are not, and you support (for example) charging a man with an offense carrying a possible fifteen year jail term for not standing in a cinema, then you are demonstrating that you care less about protecting the Royal Institution and more about destroying those whom you perceive to be its enemies. However, even you should realize that the very process of attempting to crush any and all dissent ends by creating the very thing it seeks to stamp out.

Excessive and draconian application of the LM laws is creating the very conditions that the LM laws were enacted to prevent. And that is why the LM laws need to be amended.*

*Note that ‘amended’ does not mean ‘repealed’, so please don’t pull out the tired old rhetorical saw of pretending that’s what I said.

FYI: Thongchai Winichakul had made a comment in Prachatai, concerning his “letter”. Here’s the link
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=1027#3314

Taro:
Again that attempt at condescension. It is laborious in the extreme.
Not to be sorry about people not tuning into my YouTube videos. The latest one got a lot of hits, in part because it shows the obvious behavior of a Thai who purports to support the monarchy and Thai values but instead acts like an… never mind. the video is obvious.
I was here with the Peace Corps in 1966-67, and actually surveyed the ox trail that became the highway between Buriram and Nong Rong. I put in my time at the village level time and time again, and can recite the same situation that exists now that existed then: people are intentionally being kept ignorant and misled by people like yourself.
If you are hunting for material about how to more constructively and morally to protect, so to speak, the monarchy, you seem not to have read anything Ajarn Sulak has written, or even what His Majesty said in 2005 about lese majeste. In fact, when people like yourself are reminded of the king’s own words, you get uncomfortable, adopt an unpleasant look, and squirm out of it by making it appear as if a nasty and ignorant foreigner has again unnecessarily raised a bad issue.
to cite another royal entreaty to the Thai people that has not been paid much attention to by the likes of you as well, the king has often chided Thai society for being selfish, having double standards and being intolerant. Besides violent, I can think of not much to add.
So when you talk about protection, do it intellectually and not from the depths of ignorant prejudice that tries to cop out with the old us-vs.-them argument. As I said and don’t need to tell you a third time, I have a right and obligation to speak since not only I but my family and friends here are subject to the whims of the ignorant and mean who pretend to be loyal but live their personal lives as massively inexcusable hypocrites.
Need I say more? If I do, then what about the other two institutions here, the religion and the nation? Do they not need protection? Do they not need review? Do they need to be forever maligned by those who demand to determine for others what to think, what to say and what to do? OTY.

Don’t we all know that the upcoming talk by Apisit at Oxford is but a part of propaganda machine designed to paint a falsely rosy image of the man—a familiar tactic of the falsely labelled Democrat party. Once Apisit fell into the clutch of this party, he has not been able to do anything right.

It is evidently that the person who wrote the article was not a Thai person. Thai people dream of an opportunity to study at ANU and experience living in an advanced developed country like Australia. Furthermore, any Thai person who can participate in the debate at the New Mandala level, would not write such an uneducated Thai, i.e. р╕Фр╣Ир╕▓р╕бр╕▒р╕Щ was used instead of р╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕Вр╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓ or р╕зр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╣Мр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓.

The lack of an advance Thai vocabulary, i.e. the word “anti” the writer simply translated the English word р╣Бр╕нр╕Щр╕Хр╕╡р╣Й instead of using a Thai word р╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕Хр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щ. The inability to use the right contextual word, i.e. р╕гр╕░р╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕и was used to mean “at the national level” instead of р╕гр╕░р╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤.

The sentence in the article “р╕нр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Бр╣Зр╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕Ир╕░р╣Бр╕нр╕Щр╕Хр╕╡р╣Й р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╣Ар╕ер╣Кр╕вр╕в” is a street language, whereas an educated Thai will write this way, “р╕нр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕кр╕╢р╕Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕Хр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щ р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╣Др╕Ыр╕ир╕╢р╕Бр╕йр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щ.”

@doctorJ: Many thanks for your kind words. Nich and Andrew posted a link to the thesis a few months ago: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/07/03/serhat-unaldi-on-kingship-in-thailand-and-spain/

some thai pp are so arrogant and ignorants,please see above comment from ( PKK) , shame on you , why don’t you look at other pp comments and see what sort of language do they use ? no wondered why Thailand is no longer peaceful and full of angry pp.