Peter T’s comments represent a very fluent miscomprehension as best.
Without possibly realization or honest room for doubt, he says that members of the royal family have never this and never that.
Of course one cannot say they did this or that unless there is evidence, and that evidence is what is the target behind the lese majeste law. Anything that is or could possibly be true along alleged reports is safely hidden with the threat of 15 years in prison. That is why the law is being attacked for it to be repealed – it is grossly unfair by nature and structurally conceals wrongful acts by certain people while making sure that the common man or woman is severely punished and taught a lesson for future in bringing up any unpleasantries.
To repeat past statements to this effect, any imprisonment of fellow human beings for perceived insults such as contained in the lese majeste law is a gross human rights violation. That is why scholars are demanding that the law be repealed. It is inherently unjust and is being applied unjustly.
You can argue as fluently as you wish about others not understanding or being misled and not really knowing the Thai culture, the Thai people or the Thai rationale for the lese majeste law, but all that argument falls flat in the face of your own misled insistence that you know better because you are Thai, and other Thais who believe in opposition to you have been misled or are somehow insane. These are the arguments of addicts.
Thank you Lee, unfortunately I had just finished typing up the notes when I saw that you had posted a recording on the internet. I had worked from my own recording…. which was of pitiful quality compared to yours! So I’m sorry about the ending, yes it was you who recommended AJ Ji’s book.
The notes were originally for my own use and for those students at Bath who wanted to come along, but couldn’t make it and didn’t have time to listen to the recording. I also advised them to read your commentry on the event.
Something I was quite shocked about, was that even after the talk and discussion, a friend of mine, from the South of Thailand still was convinced AJ Ji supported Thaksin. Even though during the talk AJ Ji was very critical of him and explained he had never been supportive of him. It seems that the red-yellow split (or whatever you want to call it) is so deep and entrenched in values, that people have stopped listening to eachother. And that is the really scarey thing.
‘A Thai student’- you hit the nail on the head. … don’t underestimate the power of the unspoken and thanks to AJ Ji who inspired us all to have more of these kinds of dicussions… for there are alot more to come.
Quote Sidh:”… this instance, it is possibly also due to my fellow Thais who wrote those remarks not having a critical distance/understanding of Thai history and foriegners in NM having a selective interpretation of Thai history”..
How abt yrself? Having read yr line of thought above, i tend to believe that perhaps someone who could argue like this is much more biased than those he blames for lacking adequate understading of Thai history or being too partial in one’s analysis. What a childish counter-attack! Not enrolling in an institution that telling the other side of the story that one does not want to hear ( not wanting to hear ,either because of one’s own prejudice, indoctrinated mentality or ,more likely, inclination to defend existing status quo for the sake of ONE”S OWN power and privileged social and economic position (WHILE PRETENDING to do it for other ‘noble’ goal!!)
Sidh, so u are suggesting that Giles should allow himself to be imprisoned?? Only after one has served a jail term that it would be possible for one to call for a reform of the law? In fact, informal jail term starts from the very beginning because the chance that one is granted bail is very slim, and maybe none, if one is simply an ordinary citizen, not someone of great connections like Sulak.
I guess yr purpose is to defend Aphisit. My purpose however is not to defend Taksin (or any leader )because I don’t give a damn abt them because so far neither of them has shown any sincerity to make the country more democratic. I simply want this law to be reformed to ensure that no one can use it for evil purpose at the cost of the reputation of the ‘insitution’ itself. If Aphisit is sincere, he could take action now instead of issuing meaningless, hallow speeches/statements. There are members of both the Red and Yellow who are agressive and unreasonable, but who is to blame? I believe it ‘s the culture that discourages intellectual , constructive and intelligent (while promoting mindless use of propaganda, violence and blind worship of ‘heroic’ figures that must be blamed). The culture that emphasizes ‘poo-yai, poo-noi’ mentality and submission to those in power must also be blamed. And THaksin, although IMO he is a self-serving, self-righteous, and dictatotial leader, is NOT the root of the problem. The root can be traced much further back! That partly explains why even after he’s gone, no problems whatsoever can be solved.
I find the whole discussion on LM repetitive. Unfortunately, constant repetition is nice in a Mantra but not for discussions. It does neither improve clarity nor reason of any of the arguments. Nevertheless, I like many of the comments as a kind of ethnological data.
Does the list of prominent scholars of international renown add new aspects? Chomsky certainly is a profound critical scholar and his books have an impact, but he certainly is not well versed in Southeast Asian Studies, as his work on the Khmer Rouge in the seventies indicated. Nevertheless, each new signature of another well known scholar is celebrated already as a small victory. Does this follow the pattern nicely described for the royalists that if positive statements come from the West the West is celebrated as wise, while critique shows the decadence and cultural ignorance of the west?
Is really LM the crucial issue at stake? Let’s assume it will be changed or even abolished due to whatever pressure. Is anybody that na├пve to assume matters would change? In Malaysia f.e. there is no LM, even though they have a king. There is the ISA (internal security act). In Singapore there is not even a lese Lee Kuan Yew. The problem certainly is not LM, but rather the working of the legal system, and its political (or economic) use, amply exhibited during the last years. In a strictly legal sense most LM cases would not exist anyway. The question thus is, why can the legal system be hijacked by political forces? (Not why is it hijacked. I think this is a question too easy to answer). In this context it is worthwhile to keep in mind that a constitution is as well part of the legal system. Consequently, as long as such hijackings can take place and are more or less widely accepted, any perspective for open discourse remains quite limited, whether there is LM or not.
Thanks for these notes, Susan. They are pretty accurate – I assume you worked from the recording? They only misattribute one comment that I know of – at the end, before Giles answers, the final remark (on the impermanence of culture) is mine, not Giles’s – and I recommend his book. The rude comments about Susan were, I think, quite uncalled for.
I wouldn’t agree that the majority of the auidence was hostile to Giles. I would say there was a hard core of about 15 royalists who, as has been intimated already, were quite vocal in defence of the monarchy. It is intriguing to learn that the embassy felt the need to ask monarchists to attend in addition to showing up to spy on their fellow countrymen and exercise a chilling effect on free speech. It reminds me of the way the Indonesian diplomatic corps was used by the Suharto regime to frustrate civil society activism on East Timor in the 1990s. This is a very sad development indeed for a country like Thailand.
Finally I think it is extremely troubling that young people feel they cannot speak up at events like this, or within Thailand itself. I have received quite a lot of emails since all this began thanking me for my involvement. Nearly all of them express fear of persecution saying “we cannot talk”. In this sense perhaps LM has achieved its goal, which is to silence dissent and make people afraid. It would be cruel to judge those who did not speak up (I would say, the majority of the audience) out of fear. After all, they only have one passport. However, when I am receiving emails with subject lines like “please save Thailand”, I am reminded, as always, that outsiders like me can really do next to nothing and that Thailand’s future will depend entirely on the struggles of the Thai people themselves.
1. This letter was not drafted for public consumption but was apparently ‘leaked’ to Prachatai, so people will have to excuse its unpolished nature.
2. Had it been written for public consumption I would have made it clearer that I am not calling for Abhisit to be disinvited. I actually believe in totally unfettered free speech and think the best way to reach the truth and defeat your enemies is through completely open debate (for this reason I have defended the freedom of other academics – including, as it happens, a professor at St John’s – with whom I violently disagree). I simply want to communicate my concerns to St John’s, which is hosting the event, especially on the day of the raid on Prachatai.
I have since discovered that the event is being organised by the International Relations Society. At the request of the organisers of the international anti-lese majeste campaign I am trying to secure permission for attendees to distribute the campaign’s information at the Abhisit event. If this is granted then a proper clash of opinions will be possible.
Abhisit’s statement on media freedom:
“And by keeping up a with standards and ensuring the quality of your news and reports, that is the only to say no to people who aspire to be journalists and reporters by using the Internet without having the necessary qualification or knowledge or even ethical standards.”
This just leaves me baffled. Can anyone help clarify this statement?
I found the Pantip discussion interesting, not due to the lynch-mob mentality expressed by “The Taro,” but how said tuber was absolutely “pwned” (as they say in the vernacular of the Internet) by posters “kanoomtan” and ” р╕вр╕┤р╕Щр╣Ар╕Ир╕╡р╕вр╕лр╕бр╕┤р╕З”.
It’s encouraging that of the three replies to that post, two of them were critical of Taro’s attempted mau-mauing of ANU and NM.
From Lee Jones:
“… I do not support calls for him to be disinvited and I do not suggest this route in my email to St John’s. I believe in unbridled free speech and so I heartily agree with your comments … At the moment I am trying to secure permission for the anti-lese majeste press release to be circulated at the event, but the organisers in the International Relations Society are worried about how St John’s might react. You could help by (a) clarifying my position on the Prachatai website and (b) writing to St Johns ([email protected]) and the organisers ([email protected],[email protected]) and urging your friends to do the same.”
Lee is having difficulty posting on the Prachathai website, due to his inability to read Thai. I can’t either, so maybe an NM reader can post the above there. (The Prachathai site has changed in the last few hours.)
Academic is a profession that can never take a cavalier attitude toward truth. I support Lee Jones’ letter. He thinks clearly and provides very good arguments for his view. In evaluating Lee Jones’ position, we should address ourselves to his arguments, not to his chaired of the talk. Lee‘s arguments in this sense are, of course, neither exercises in fisticuffs nor emotional outburst. Rather, they are attempts to give supporting reasons for views we or others hold or are considering holding.
The motivating factor behind Abhisit’s foreign trips is simply to gain acceptance because he knows that majority of Thai people did not vote for him. Sonthi Limthongkul (ASTV radio March 7th,2009) said that Abhisit told him that “I needed to cheat on the process otherwise I would never have the opportunity to be prime minister.” Should professor ignore the fact that student cheat on homework? Should a prestigious Oxford University abandon the value of integrity?
Abhisit uses foreign trips to compensate for the domestic hostility against his illegitimacy. Everywhere provinces he went, people protest against him. Yesterday, in Lopburi province, people held a sign saying, р╕Бр╕╣р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕бр╕╢р╕З, meaning “I didn’t choose you”.
Good observation doctorJ. The Democrats approach is that the leader must be “Mr.Clean” while the secretary-general does the “dirty politics” (PMChuan-MajGenSanan; PMAbhisit-Suthep). Although there is hypocrisy in this approach, the alternatives have been either zero-accountability capitalist-mafias or ambitious military personalities at the helm.
A quick analysis – this is a Democrat innovation for Thai politics as, please correct me if I am wrong, the PMChuan-MajGenSanan was the first to utilize this mode of operation. Generally, compared to the capitalist-mafia and military personality modes, this “Clean PM/Dirty Secretary” mode are relatively much more receptive to political reform. However, interestingly, they often turn up at worst economic times (1997 and 2009 recessions) and their reforms are often compromised by other priorities (or, alternatively, one can view the recession as a good excuse to drag their feet on reform).
On the other hand, AjarnGiles’ “Red Manifesto” may have all but compromised the many Thais, who are not opposed to the monarchy, who would like to reform Les Majeste law and AjarnSomsak’s analysis may be correct. There is now a fear, with evidence provided by AjarnGiles, of the “movement” (ka-buan-kan). This also makes for great soap-opera, Thai-style.
A typical NM article that leaves out the critical contexts. For one, Abhisit’s staunchly royalist government has been in power for only 2.5 months – and he (not the government, to be fair) is already receptive to the calls for reform. What did PMThaksin and nominees been doing for 7 years in power??? Is it the case of Lese-Thaksin leading back to authoritarianism (as Andrew and Nich concluded)???
“This is an issue which matters for Australia. It matters because an Australian citizen has just spent six months in prison for writing one controversial paragraph. Other Australians could fall foul of the law, even for statements made outside Thailand.”
For the hundreds of thousands of Aussies visiting Thailand for a good time THERE IS NO PROBLEM. For the many Aussie expat working in Thailand staying clear of the Les Majeste LAW, THERE IS NO PROBLEM. For others INTENTIONALLY FALLING FOUL OF THE LAW, you should be BRAVE ENOUGH TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCE (here, my utmost respect to Ajarn S.Srivalaksa and disappointment with AjarnGiles. I would advise Andrew and Nich to stay away from the country).
While I do agree, the law must be reformed – as it has become an ugly tool in the RED-YELLOW CIVIL WAR between Thai elites – it must be an indigenous, transparent process. AjarnGiles rallying from a Thai prison as a “Thai”, not “British” citizen, could be an effective start…
pkk said: go to hell or just leave the country in peace…take all your families with you …
Isn’t that a thing! I said the same thing to the fellows who staged the September 2006 coup… and the funny thing is, Gen. Saprang actually took my advice and brought some of the family along to Europe — for a week, anyway, and a cost to the taxpayers of 7.2 million baht.
While I disagree with the emotional responses, I can emphathize with it. If someone is highly critical of people I respect such as my parents, respected teachers, mentors I would be quite uneasy. I don’t think it is Thai, but a universal response…
In this instance, it is possibly also due to my fellow Thais who wrote those remarks not having a critical distance/understanding of Thai history and foriegners in NM having a selective interpretation of Thai history. I am an optimist and believe a conciliation is possible.
On a mathematical note, the disappearance of Thai students from these august institutions will be barely noticed. On the other hand, if the same set of scholars start offending the Chinese government resulting in a boycott, it might just hurt the ‘bottom line’ and ‘freedom of speech’ can easily become ‘collateral damage’…
Lee Jones sound like someone who never visited Thailand?! This is a highly inaccurate concluding statement to a selective interpretation of Thailand’s recent political history (here, I prescribe an objective distance from AjarnGiles, with all due respect):
“In reality there is neither freedom of speech nor academic freedom nor democracy in Thailand today.”
It would be a rather sad state of affairs if most in NM subscribe to this extreme “reality” – but on the flip side, it actually reflect how far Thailand has come in terms of democracy and freedom of speech when you have top academics from around the world subscribing to “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”.
The good news is that, according to ‘democracy experts’ from top institutions, Thailand is only one law away from becoming a vibrant, full-fledged democracy!!!
While I agree broadly that LM laws do need reform, but I plead with you to leave the Thais to do it themselves, unless you are from the ‘bomb a country to impose democracy’ of the US, UK, Australia et al, “coalition of the willing” school of democracy of course…
On that note, I agree with Chris Fry. Please subject PMAbhisit to a rigorous Q & A session. One problem with Thai democracy of the past 8 years is that very few of our leaders, cabinet ministers, top bureaucrats, military and police officers – or even academics from a top institution like AjarnGiles for that matter – has been subjected to any direct, hard questions – and hence accountability. We need to have an ABC/SBS-like media in Thailand where pollies are directly grilled by a quality media…
Serhat Uenadi: are you the one who wrote a thesis about “Modern Monarch”. I do appriciate your thesis a lot, and highly recommend it to any one who’re interested in the issue(google is always your friend).
Duangta had made an very important point here. The very crucial problem in Thailand is the education. From kindergarten to college, all are filled with sets of propaganda, no room for critical thinking allowed. Taro and some others more(here and also other websites/blogs) might be victims of the propagandas, planted for Thai kids for ages. Only through the education reform, will give these victims a true “insight” of what’s going on in their homeland.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
International scholars call for reform of Thailand’s lese majeste law
Peter T’s comments represent a very fluent miscomprehension as best.
Without possibly realization or honest room for doubt, he says that members of the royal family have never this and never that.
Of course one cannot say they did this or that unless there is evidence, and that evidence is what is the target behind the lese majeste law. Anything that is or could possibly be true along alleged reports is safely hidden with the threat of 15 years in prison. That is why the law is being attacked for it to be repealed – it is grossly unfair by nature and structurally conceals wrongful acts by certain people while making sure that the common man or woman is severely punished and taught a lesson for future in bringing up any unpleasantries.
To repeat past statements to this effect, any imprisonment of fellow human beings for perceived insults such as contained in the lese majeste law is a gross human rights violation. That is why scholars are demanding that the law be repealed. It is inherently unjust and is being applied unjustly.
You can argue as fluently as you wish about others not understanding or being misled and not really knowing the Thai culture, the Thai people or the Thai rationale for the lese majeste law, but all that argument falls flat in the face of your own misled insistence that you know better because you are Thai, and other Thais who believe in opposition to you have been misled or are somehow insane. These are the arguments of addicts.
Further details on Giles’ Oxford talk
Thank you Lee, unfortunately I had just finished typing up the notes when I saw that you had posted a recording on the internet. I had worked from my own recording…. which was of pitiful quality compared to yours! So I’m sorry about the ending, yes it was you who recommended AJ Ji’s book.
The notes were originally for my own use and for those students at Bath who wanted to come along, but couldn’t make it and didn’t have time to listen to the recording. I also advised them to read your commentry on the event.
Something I was quite shocked about, was that even after the talk and discussion, a friend of mine, from the South of Thailand still was convinced AJ Ji supported Thaksin. Even though during the talk AJ Ji was very critical of him and explained he had never been supportive of him. It seems that the red-yellow split (or whatever you want to call it) is so deep and entrenched in values, that people have stopped listening to eachother. And that is the really scarey thing.
‘A Thai student’- you hit the nail on the head. … don’t underestimate the power of the unspoken and thanks to AJ Ji who inspired us all to have more of these kinds of dicussions… for there are alot more to come.
“Don’t study at the ANU”
Quote Sidh:”… this instance, it is possibly also due to my fellow Thais who wrote those remarks not having a critical distance/understanding of Thai history and foriegners in NM having a selective interpretation of Thai history”..
How abt yrself? Having read yr line of thought above, i tend to believe that perhaps someone who could argue like this is much more biased than those he blames for lacking adequate understading of Thai history or being too partial in one’s analysis. What a childish counter-attack! Not enrolling in an institution that telling the other side of the story that one does not want to hear ( not wanting to hear ,either because of one’s own prejudice, indoctrinated mentality or ,more likely, inclination to defend existing status quo for the sake of ONE”S OWN power and privileged social and economic position (WHILE PRETENDING to do it for other ‘noble’ goal!!)
New Mandala on lese majeste
Sidh, so u are suggesting that Giles should allow himself to be imprisoned?? Only after one has served a jail term that it would be possible for one to call for a reform of the law? In fact, informal jail term starts from the very beginning because the chance that one is granted bail is very slim, and maybe none, if one is simply an ordinary citizen, not someone of great connections like Sulak.
I guess yr purpose is to defend Aphisit. My purpose however is not to defend Taksin (or any leader )because I don’t give a damn abt them because so far neither of them has shown any sincerity to make the country more democratic. I simply want this law to be reformed to ensure that no one can use it for evil purpose at the cost of the reputation of the ‘insitution’ itself. If Aphisit is sincere, he could take action now instead of issuing meaningless, hallow speeches/statements. There are members of both the Red and Yellow who are agressive and unreasonable, but who is to blame? I believe it ‘s the culture that discourages intellectual , constructive and intelligent (while promoting mindless use of propaganda, violence and blind worship of ‘heroic’ figures that must be blamed). The culture that emphasizes ‘poo-yai, poo-noi’ mentality and submission to those in power must also be blamed. And THaksin, although IMO he is a self-serving, self-righteous, and dictatotial leader, is NOT the root of the problem. The root can be traced much further back! That partly explains why even after he’s gone, no problems whatsoever can be solved.
“Don’t study at the ANU”
Don’t study at the Oxford…
Because someone ‘s brought authoritarian regime to Thailand.
Haaha
“Nothing wrong with the lese majeste law”
I find the whole discussion on LM repetitive. Unfortunately, constant repetition is nice in a Mantra but not for discussions. It does neither improve clarity nor reason of any of the arguments. Nevertheless, I like many of the comments as a kind of ethnological data.
Does the list of prominent scholars of international renown add new aspects? Chomsky certainly is a profound critical scholar and his books have an impact, but he certainly is not well versed in Southeast Asian Studies, as his work on the Khmer Rouge in the seventies indicated. Nevertheless, each new signature of another well known scholar is celebrated already as a small victory. Does this follow the pattern nicely described for the royalists that if positive statements come from the West the West is celebrated as wise, while critique shows the decadence and cultural ignorance of the west?
Is really LM the crucial issue at stake? Let’s assume it will be changed or even abolished due to whatever pressure. Is anybody that na├пve to assume matters would change? In Malaysia f.e. there is no LM, even though they have a king. There is the ISA (internal security act). In Singapore there is not even a lese Lee Kuan Yew. The problem certainly is not LM, but rather the working of the legal system, and its political (or economic) use, amply exhibited during the last years. In a strictly legal sense most LM cases would not exist anyway. The question thus is, why can the legal system be hijacked by political forces? (Not why is it hijacked. I think this is a question too easy to answer). In this context it is worthwhile to keep in mind that a constitution is as well part of the legal system. Consequently, as long as such hijackings can take place and are more or less widely accepted, any perspective for open discourse remains quite limited, whether there is LM or not.
Further details on Giles’ Oxford talk
Thanks for these notes, Susan. They are pretty accurate – I assume you worked from the recording? They only misattribute one comment that I know of – at the end, before Giles answers, the final remark (on the impermanence of culture) is mine, not Giles’s – and I recommend his book. The rude comments about Susan were, I think, quite uncalled for.
I wouldn’t agree that the majority of the auidence was hostile to Giles. I would say there was a hard core of about 15 royalists who, as has been intimated already, were quite vocal in defence of the monarchy. It is intriguing to learn that the embassy felt the need to ask monarchists to attend in addition to showing up to spy on their fellow countrymen and exercise a chilling effect on free speech. It reminds me of the way the Indonesian diplomatic corps was used by the Suharto regime to frustrate civil society activism on East Timor in the 1990s. This is a very sad development indeed for a country like Thailand.
Finally I think it is extremely troubling that young people feel they cannot speak up at events like this, or within Thailand itself. I have received quite a lot of emails since all this began thanking me for my involvement. Nearly all of them express fear of persecution saying “we cannot talk”. In this sense perhaps LM has achieved its goal, which is to silence dissent and make people afraid. It would be cruel to judge those who did not speak up (I would say, the majority of the audience) out of fear. After all, they only have one passport. However, when I am receiving emails with subject lines like “please save Thailand”, I am reminded, as always, that outsiders like me can really do next to nothing and that Thailand’s future will depend entirely on the struggles of the Thai people themselves.
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
Two quick points:
1. This letter was not drafted for public consumption but was apparently ‘leaked’ to Prachatai, so people will have to excuse its unpolished nature.
2. Had it been written for public consumption I would have made it clearer that I am not calling for Abhisit to be disinvited. I actually believe in totally unfettered free speech and think the best way to reach the truth and defeat your enemies is through completely open debate (for this reason I have defended the freedom of other academics – including, as it happens, a professor at St John’s – with whom I violently disagree). I simply want to communicate my concerns to St John’s, which is hosting the event, especially on the day of the raid on Prachatai.
I have since discovered that the event is being organised by the International Relations Society. At the request of the organisers of the international anti-lese majeste campaign I am trying to secure permission for attendees to distribute the campaign’s information at the Abhisit event. If this is granted then a proper clash of opinions will be possible.
Crackdown on Prachatai
Abhisit’s statement on media freedom:
“And by keeping up a with standards and ensuring the quality of your news and reports, that is the only to say no to people who aspire to be journalists and reporters by using the Internet without having the necessary qualification or knowledge or even ethical standards.”
This just leaves me baffled. Can anyone help clarify this statement?
“Don’t study at the ANU”
I found the Pantip discussion interesting, not due to the lynch-mob mentality expressed by “The Taro,” but how said tuber was absolutely “pwned” (as they say in the vernacular of the Internet) by posters “kanoomtan” and ” р╕вр╕┤р╕Щр╣Ар╕Ир╕╡р╕вр╕лр╕бр╕┤р╕З”.
It’s encouraging that of the three replies to that post, two of them were critical of Taro’s attempted mau-mauing of ANU and NM.
Further details on Giles’ Oxford talk
Dear Ms Wong,
Referring to your note:
“…The monarchy’s ethnic was originally Arab immigrant, while Pridi’s ethnic was Chinese who would not ally with the Japanese…”,
What would it be if the fact is:
…the monarchy also has had strong Chinese ancestry,
and Pridi also had some Arab ancestry…
???
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
From Lee Jones:
“… I do not support calls for him to be disinvited and I do not suggest this route in my email to St John’s. I believe in unbridled free speech and so I heartily agree with your comments … At the moment I am trying to secure permission for the anti-lese majeste press release to be circulated at the event, but the organisers in the International Relations Society are worried about how St John’s might react. You could help by (a) clarifying my position on the Prachatai website and (b) writing to St Johns ([email protected]) and the organisers ([email protected],[email protected]) and urging your friends to do the same.”
Lee is having difficulty posting on the Prachathai website, due to his inability to read Thai. I can’t either, so maybe an NM reader can post the above there. (The Prachathai site has changed in the last few hours.)
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
Academic is a profession that can never take a cavalier attitude toward truth. I support Lee Jones’ letter. He thinks clearly and provides very good arguments for his view. In evaluating Lee Jones’ position, we should address ourselves to his arguments, not to his chaired of the talk. Lee‘s arguments in this sense are, of course, neither exercises in fisticuffs nor emotional outburst. Rather, they are attempts to give supporting reasons for views we or others hold or are considering holding.
The motivating factor behind Abhisit’s foreign trips is simply to gain acceptance because he knows that majority of Thai people did not vote for him. Sonthi Limthongkul (ASTV radio March 7th,2009) said that Abhisit told him that “I needed to cheat on the process otherwise I would never have the opportunity to be prime minister.” Should professor ignore the fact that student cheat on homework? Should a prestigious Oxford University abandon the value of integrity?
Abhisit uses foreign trips to compensate for the domestic hostility against his illegitimacy. Everywhere provinces he went, people protest against him. Yesterday, in Lopburi province, people held a sign saying, р╕Бр╕╣р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕бр╕╢р╕З, meaning “I didn’t choose you”.
Crackdown on Prachatai
Good observation doctorJ. The Democrats approach is that the leader must be “Mr.Clean” while the secretary-general does the “dirty politics” (PMChuan-MajGenSanan; PMAbhisit-Suthep). Although there is hypocrisy in this approach, the alternatives have been either zero-accountability capitalist-mafias or ambitious military personalities at the helm.
A quick analysis – this is a Democrat innovation for Thai politics as, please correct me if I am wrong, the PMChuan-MajGenSanan was the first to utilize this mode of operation. Generally, compared to the capitalist-mafia and military personality modes, this “Clean PM/Dirty Secretary” mode are relatively much more receptive to political reform. However, interestingly, they often turn up at worst economic times (1997 and 2009 recessions) and their reforms are often compromised by other priorities (or, alternatively, one can view the recession as a good excuse to drag their feet on reform).
On the other hand, AjarnGiles’ “Red Manifesto” may have all but compromised the many Thais, who are not opposed to the monarchy, who would like to reform Les Majeste law and AjarnSomsak’s analysis may be correct. There is now a fear, with evidence provided by AjarnGiles, of the “movement” (ka-buan-kan). This also makes for great soap-opera, Thai-style.
New Mandala on lese majeste
A typical NM article that leaves out the critical contexts. For one, Abhisit’s staunchly royalist government has been in power for only 2.5 months – and he (not the government, to be fair) is already receptive to the calls for reform. What did PMThaksin and nominees been doing for 7 years in power??? Is it the case of Lese-Thaksin leading back to authoritarianism (as Andrew and Nich concluded)???
“This is an issue which matters for Australia. It matters because an Australian citizen has just spent six months in prison for writing one controversial paragraph. Other Australians could fall foul of the law, even for statements made outside Thailand.”
For the hundreds of thousands of Aussies visiting Thailand for a good time THERE IS NO PROBLEM. For the many Aussie expat working in Thailand staying clear of the Les Majeste LAW, THERE IS NO PROBLEM. For others INTENTIONALLY FALLING FOUL OF THE LAW, you should be BRAVE ENOUGH TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCE (here, my utmost respect to Ajarn S.Srivalaksa and disappointment with AjarnGiles. I would advise Andrew and Nich to stay away from the country).
While I do agree, the law must be reformed – as it has become an ugly tool in the RED-YELLOW CIVIL WAR between Thai elites – it must be an indigenous, transparent process. AjarnGiles rallying from a Thai prison as a “Thai”, not “British” citizen, could be an effective start…
On lèse majesté
pkk said: go to hell or just leave the country in peace…take all your families with you …
Isn’t that a thing! I said the same thing to the fellows who staged the September 2006 coup… and the funny thing is, Gen. Saprang actually took my advice and brought some of the family along to Europe — for a week, anyway, and a cost to the taxpayers of 7.2 million baht.
“Don’t study at the ANU”
While I disagree with the emotional responses, I can emphathize with it. If someone is highly critical of people I respect such as my parents, respected teachers, mentors I would be quite uneasy. I don’t think it is Thai, but a universal response…
In this instance, it is possibly also due to my fellow Thais who wrote those remarks not having a critical distance/understanding of Thai history and foriegners in NM having a selective interpretation of Thai history. I am an optimist and believe a conciliation is possible.
On a mathematical note, the disappearance of Thai students from these august institutions will be barely noticed. On the other hand, if the same set of scholars start offending the Chinese government resulting in a boycott, it might just hurt the ‘bottom line’ and ‘freedom of speech’ can easily become ‘collateral damage’…
Lee Jones on Abhisit in Oxford
Lee Jones sound like someone who never visited Thailand?! This is a highly inaccurate concluding statement to a selective interpretation of Thailand’s recent political history (here, I prescribe an objective distance from AjarnGiles, with all due respect):
“In reality there is neither freedom of speech nor academic freedom nor democracy in Thailand today.”
It would be a rather sad state of affairs if most in NM subscribe to this extreme “reality” – but on the flip side, it actually reflect how far Thailand has come in terms of democracy and freedom of speech when you have top academics from around the world subscribing to “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”.
The good news is that, according to ‘democracy experts’ from top institutions, Thailand is only one law away from becoming a vibrant, full-fledged democracy!!!
While I agree broadly that LM laws do need reform, but I plead with you to leave the Thais to do it themselves, unless you are from the ‘bomb a country to impose democracy’ of the US, UK, Australia et al, “coalition of the willing” school of democracy of course…
On that note, I agree with Chris Fry. Please subject PMAbhisit to a rigorous Q & A session. One problem with Thai democracy of the past 8 years is that very few of our leaders, cabinet ministers, top bureaucrats, military and police officers – or even academics from a top institution like AjarnGiles for that matter – has been subjected to any direct, hard questions – and hence accountability. We need to have an ABC/SBS-like media in Thailand where pollies are directly grilled by a quality media…
Further details on Giles’ Oxford talk
Serhat Uenadi: are you the one who wrote a thesis about “Modern Monarch”. I do appriciate your thesis a lot, and highly recommend it to any one who’re interested in the issue(google is always your friend).
International scholars call for reform of Thailand’s lese majeste law
Duangta had made an very important point here. The very crucial problem in Thailand is the education. From kindergarten to college, all are filled with sets of propaganda, no room for critical thinking allowed. Taro and some others more(here and also other websites/blogs) might be victims of the propagandas, planted for Thai kids for ages. Only through the education reform, will give these victims a true “insight” of what’s going on in their homeland.