Point taken Colum on the democratic abilities of Thai people.
I was more trying to take a swipe at David Brown.
He seems to think that Thaksin is the hero who can save the country.
What I was trying say, was that, given a clear path – with no Thaksin types, to hero worship – Thai people are as capable of being democratic as anyone else. They don’t need a hero, but they keep getting blinded by these characters not just now, but throughout history. And most of them have done more harm, than good.
I also agree with you, there are many reasons why people will join the red shirts – just as there are probably as many opposing resons, for joining the yellow shirts. But, it’s really the one’s in the middle who matter most – there’s a lot more of them. Just as there are, in most countries.
Sorry, of course there would be many factors influencing someone finding themselves wearing a shirt as I’ve said, but Regular Reader, this ‘I know they can be democratic’ line is almost as condescending as me saying ‘there might be other options.’
Regular Reader, have you asked people in the groups why they joined? Do they say ‘because someone told me to’, or do they say ‘because I felt the cause was just’? There might be other options.
Brainface is right. All established religions are “good” in the sense that they provide a basis for a successful culture. But each has its faults, and that of Buddhism is the spectacular extent to which power corrupts. Good people are either at the bottom of the power pyramid, or headed in that direction. There is strength in the foundations but the superstructure is unstable and downright ugly.
Prasit is quite wrong on S. Sivarak. Sulak has been specifically critical of specific kings, including the present one. He is not critical of the monarchy as an institution.
Susie: I thought р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Кр╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕┤р╕бр╕лр╕▒р╕Щр╕Хр╣М was being ironic about how long Thailand has been fighting for democracy. I took it as he has yet to make any argument (or maybe he did, but I didn’t get it =__=). I’m waiting curiously for his next episodes.
I have admitted already that lese majeste cause some problem. You might have not read that before you post because today, my post await for moderation for ten hours. And HM the king have show his concern on those use lese majeste for their own interest and claim that is the protection for himself but it is instead discredit and offense him. It is worthless to give an example on my profession.
I and manyone who listened to Ji have already receive his ideas that he said that he is not Taksin supporter and he have never vote for him. But I put the question that I doubt that why he have to go into that red shirts with big shadow from Taksin and why he dig the evil health policy of that Taksin’s goverment to show how modernization should be. He have never tried to give any answer.
I myself totally do not agree with doctors who use their profession for any non medical issues especially when it create the conflict with ethics. As a doctor, we can not refuse to give treatment unless we are not in the ready status. In this case, if any doctors have strong emotions against someone, they should do the basic life support and send patients to other doctors who can care the patients after that and they must suppress their emotion at least during the patients are under their supervision.
The health care system before the universal health system has evolved for a long period. parts of the populations has some kinds or welfare system, but there are also lots of people who cannot afford for any health service and don’t have any kinds of insurance.
But as our scarcity of health resources, doctors and health personnels and budgets for running the projects, we have to build health infrastructure and personnel to support the system and co-payment that use in every country of the world is one of the best way to limit unnecessary use of health service .
Universal health system like Taksin’s policy will create the vicious cycle and will end up with poor service, financial disruption.
Education and health promotion will ameriolate the problems.
Not every events of illness need doctors or hospital care.
ANyway, everyone should do their function and their duty first. I understand that you might think that I don’t take serious on the politics. That’s not true. I agree that everyone are in politics but politics is not to offense other people’s idea or try to assume other thought from their understanding. Critical thinking is not to critic other.
I am quite disappointin that another one who try to assume and offend other are redisappearing again by the very closed name as the previous one.
I am not appreciate for some one who recommend me the book they have read except they show what emerge in their mind after they read that book.
Thank you for give reader the clearer pictures about damn- univeral health policies amended by Taksin. It is easily understand that the any government after these to carry on the project unless they will lose their vote within minutes. Popular show must go one. So it is pointless.
In your report of the meeting, Lee, you say: “What is Thailand if not a space/people defined by fealty to the king and Buddhism? Isn’t the crucial thing not so much institutions but Thailand’s ‘political culture’ and the king’s centrality as a ‘value-concept’?”
This seems to relate to something I said at the meeting. But not very well. May I clarify?
When we speak of a monarch, we may refer to a person and/or to an institution. Then there is also another usage that relates not so much to a feature of the world as to people’s experience of being part of their society.
Every society projects a sense of its value-system upon complex terms/images (like: Communism, Democracy or Monarchy; Churchill or Lenin; or Karl Marx, Adam Smith or the Buddha). Some negative attitudes and values (submissiveness, hysteria or whatever) are commonly involved. The patterns of cognitive behaviour that emerge from the usage of such broad value-terms are always a bit of a mixed bag.
By the same token, much positive affect (to do with social solidarity) can be bound up with this type of projection. That surely applies also to the way Thai people speak and think about Buddhism, for instance. It presumably also applies to that other value-term which is central to the experience of modernisation in many Thai people’s lives, namely monarchy.
[ This is nothing to do with ‘fealty’, nor with abstract notions of a country as a ‘space’ that is in some way ‘defined’. It’s just that people do think and talk about their Thai-ness, for instance when society is in crisis — and in such discussions the monarchy does crop up. ]
Of course modernisation processes are generally fairly brutal, and it is not too helpful to disguise this reality. Equally, impulses that have contributed to solidarity are dismissed at some risk.
Okay, people (and peoples) do run away from uncomfortable perceptions and choices. Still, it must make sense to achieve necessary change with as little conflict as may be possible.
Of course you are quite right, Lee, that the drive to polarisation was much in evidence all round at our meeting. All the more need, perhaps, to find a middle way.
I once heard a psychiatrist of Jewish descent talk about his work in re-educating young German prisoners at the end of World War II. He said his breakthrough came when he realised that the most convinced Nazis among them were the ‘best people’ in their group. His first task was to connect with and validate their positive impulses. Then he could help them find a better way forward.
The Buddha is continually shown as doing this. He is no mean polemicist, but he always starts by finding some way to agree with his interlocutors, along the lines of “I see — broadly you’re starting from a wish to endorse [motherhood and apple pie] and from there you’re going on to the thought that perhaps [dominance and submission is the beginning of wisdom]. Well, now — isn’t there a better way to endorse [motherhood and apple pie?]”
Again, consider the way Thai people relate to Buddhism. Some may do so in feudal terms. Equally, some influential Thai Buddhists have been freethinkers — Buddhadasa for one. He sought to revalidate the Buddhist tradition in terms of its best and truest aspects. Since it is unlikely that Thais’ involvement with the tradition will come to an abrupt end, this approach would seem to have some merit even from a perspective that is unsympathetic to Buddhism.
Something similar may apply in respect of the monarchy. It is clearly a significant element in the lives of many Thai people. There must be something positive in this phenomenon. In which case: how to build on the positive?
Incidentally, Thai people do distinguish monarchy from monarch. They separate the way the monarchical system is used and abused politically from the person of the current King. More than one told me on Friday that they endorsed much of what was said about the situation in the country but felt deeply discomfited at what they took to be animadversions against the person of the King. This may be a relevant consideration for those who wish to build a broad coalition in favour of democratic change. (Also, it is perhaps worth noting that numbers of people with nothing to gain from it seem to have found admirable personal qualities in the King.)
The other point I would like to raise from the talk is the nationalist, thainess and any terms in similar meaning.
I do not agree with the young yellow shirt man to put these things into the talk. I am not the nationalist and I am quite indifferent to different cultures and different background eventhough I still not happy to sit among people with very different historical and cultural back ground as many people feel. But I try not to judge other people from their cultural and traditional believes.
Jiles said something that should be ad hominem as much as that young yellow shirt man.
I can easily tolerate for the British or westerners who use their feet as their hands to point out or use as other functions. This kind of practice is quite unacceptable in many culture including Thais. I am not sure that Jiles has been taught about Thai manner and culture enough while he said something disgusting like “the British are very polite, if you are in Thailand, other people will slam the door to you. And clawing on the floor is the animal behaviour”. This is unacceptable and non academic point of view and he should admit for this.
I as a Thais proud that thai manner and thai cultures are beautiful, we show respect to the elder and we have never slammed the doors to any others if they has been taught enough Thais manner. But I have never call the different culture barbarian or out of date.
In conclusion, I and lots of people agree that lese majeste caused some problems in our society. But if this is for the case of Jiles, I don’t think that it should be adapted for interest for his view.
Optimistically, academical stand points of view and ethical report on the media can be accepted and can be tolerate for Thais who love the kings but the unproove or difficult to proove, personal issues in order to defame and insult like Jiles case will not be easily accepted.
I think he is too coward to be response for the charge and proove himself so he fleed here in UK. And as he is not clear for the politics, his talks are not judge to be academic as it should be.
The third components is the intention of the people who have been charged for breaking this laws.
As I have said in the previous post that S. Sivalak is another Thai acadmics who always critic the royal family and the constituional monarchy. But his critical is upon the system not to attack the king and royal family so I do not surprise that he have not been sentenced guilty.
For Jakrapop case, there are some comflict of interest and the political issues behind that so it is not worth enough to cry out before the end of the story in the jurisdiction process.
For foreign’s journalists case, there is no exemption for not knowing that the laws exist, the texts attacks personally issue that intended to defamed and insult explicitly. But the generosity and kindness of the king, the writer has been pardoned and freed.
ANd as I convinced that criticize the kings and royal family should be separate from the discussion about the laws.
The critics of the royal family from Ji is vague and difficult to proove. He said that he don’t love the king so he have the right to say. It will create lot of problems to himself like to defame the other parents which has not been tolerated for any people. In other word, insulting others will create liability to the laws of defaming for general people. This is the general accepted laws for many countries in the world, so even lese majeste was excluding, Ji is still liable to be charged by the general laws. It breaks other people’ s right to be standing in the society with their dignity. So to be liberalism, one should considerate others people right. If there is no such limitation of righteous use, the community will bring into chaos and disruption soon.
Nganadeeleg raised points that have been discussed somewhere else but anyway quite bias from opposite sites.
I will discuss in term of laws and academic point of view. Obviously, I am not the red shirts nor the PAD lover because I think that their head T and S are the same kind of people. As a matter of fact, they were very closed friend who eventually had conflict between their business. So why the country should be depend on those two.
There are many cases accused for the lese majeste from very different contexts and some show the weak point of this laws that I agree with. But we should separate it and analyse from the point who use that laws.
Firstly, obviously, HM the king is not very happy with this laws especially when it is abusively used.
Secondly, the political power that use this laws for their own interest to against the opposite side. I totally agree that there are always double standards for this purposes. Not only for this governments or the previous claim to be popular government or even back to the very beginning when this laws first included into the constitution. This is the weak point of this laws and that is why it should have been amended. That was the most silly thing to do with this laws when T and S accuse each other for the charge of the lese majeste rules.
Thirdly, this laws has no limit for anyone who can accuse others because the logical back bround of this laws is the king and royal family are not in the position to defense themself. This will bring some probblem for many cases like the case of a man who did not stand for the royal anthem in the cinema has been charged by the police. As the general rules for the criminal laws, the intention has to be include for the account for complete the components of guilty. So the judge should create some of the standards for such cases and the interpretation of the laws should be restricted as much as possible as the general rules for the criminal laws.
Like this case, I am quite indifferent for people who choose not to standing for the royal anthem in the cinema as far as they don’t do anything intended to defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent. So I agree that disrespectful is not the same as insult.
This story is totally different for the abusively use of this laws by the political powers and so I understand why many people have signed for Ji petition or those man ( I couldn’t remember his name) who didn’t stand in the cinema for the view that this laws should be abandoned even they might not be Taksin supporter or the red shirts party. But there are many many one try to merge these cases into the same story.
“We look at the people who are mid-career working for us and we find we have people who speak fluent Bahasa, fluent Japanese or even fluent Mandarin; but if I look at the youngsters that are joining us now it almost feels like we have gone backwards.”
People in “mid-career” would have picked it up in the field working for the mining company and not in the university. One or two elective classes at university is not going to make you fluent in a language. Most language education takes place outside the university after life lands you in some foreign country that you could hardly could have planned for beforehand, a good reason for funding online language materials that can be shared by everyone, e.g. Doug Couper’s Sealang funded by the US Department of Education. (p.s. when I worked as a computer consultant I remember one interview with a Fortune 50 company where language knowledge won some brownie points, maybe it is the bigger companies that can better make use of these skills).
Thanks for pointing this out. It seems almost government policy to allow a public service to decay until it becomes bad enough that people will pay out of their own pocket (if they can afford it) for a solution.
There are many examples of this, including education and electricity.
You mentioned electricity supply briefly but only in regards to water. Perhaps water supply has become more of an issue because electricity supply in Yangon is much worse than 12 months ago. Even where I live, in an “exclusive” neighbourhood, the power drifts on an off. On Friday (Feb 27), it was off there for most of the day. However, we are lucky in that we don’t have rationing. Most townships have no electricity at night every third day and even when they “have” electricity it will often be out. But good electricity supply is a luxury, whereas clean water is a necessity.
Dear Prasit, whereas I agree that everyone should mostly focus on the things he/she knows best (in your case, the healthcare system, which is of course an extremely sensitive issue), I can’t help shivering at the though of a nation in which everyone exclusively thinks and cares of his own business, oblivious of the rest. We are all political individuals, and we live in societies, it is therefore our duty to do our best in order to make our society a better one. Thailand is a monarchy, we all know that, and we know it’s not the only monarchy in the world with L.M laws. We all know how many great things HM the King did for his country, and we are grateful to you for explaining this to us once again. Nevertheless, we have to agree that L.M. laws in Thailand are particularly fierce and, especially because they’ve been used innumerable times as a weapon to silence political opponents (and it’s not true that Ji’s failed on giving evidence, as he and many other journalists and scholars talked about that in details so many times) they represent a real threat to the kingdom’s development. As written by Nganadeeleg “What do you think is a more serious crime: not standing for the anthem, or conducting violence in the name of the King?”. We would like to know your stance regarding this. I would even push it a bit further. Don’t you think using HM the King’s name to perpetrate or promote violence is intrinsically deeply offensive to HM the King himself?
Pretend that your staff at the hospital suddenly start doing things in your name which you never told them to do, and these things are meant to earn them money or power within the hospital. You never told them to do those things, and by doing them they create troubles in the clinic, but they keep acting that way, and claim that they do it to protect you. Wouldn’t that feel offensive to your professional integrity?
Also: when you blame Ji Ungpakorn of being a Thaksin supporter, you are forgetting that all the criticism against Thaksin that we read today is nothing compared to Ji’s criticism back in the times when Sondhi was one Thaksin’s staunchest supporters and Chamlong his mentor. In other words, back in the times when criticism against Thaksin was badly needed (not conveniently too late, when there’s no risk involved, like now), and when most people were openly agreeing with just about anything Thaksin came up with. Even more importantly, Ji’s criticism was focused on very important issues such as human rights abuses, the handling on the situation in the South etc. As a doctor, you should be particularly sensitive to these issues, so I have to assume you were publicly agreeing with Ji Ungpakorn when he harshly criticized the War on Drugs or the tough stance against southern insurgents. And I guess you must have solemnly criticized the PAD and your colleagues at Chulalongkorn Hospital when they refused to treat policemen last year’s October after the PAD-police riots. The fact that none of Thaksin critics of today were criticizing him during his greatest political mistakes reeks of vested interests, and undermine their credibility.
Lastly: I agree that Thaksin’s healthcare policies were controversial, but I truly think Thailand desperately needs a healthcare system (at the moment only the rich can enjoy a decent treatment, and that’s wrong, I hope you agree on that), but I am not a doctor, nor am I an expert on that field, therefore I would like to read some ideas/proposals from you.
btw, my last question is not a call for political intervention by HMK (in case you got the wrong impression AW), but rather a call to stop mindless violence, and it can apply equally to the leaders on all sides of the current conflict, including those in exile.
Somsak Jeamteerasakul had made abundant rational arguements regarding lesse majeste. Have a look for yourself at the sameskybooks website. ( as I presume Prasit is a Thai)
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Red Shirt protest at Government House
Point taken Colum on the democratic abilities of Thai people.
I was more trying to take a swipe at David Brown.
He seems to think that Thaksin is the hero who can save the country.
What I was trying say, was that, given a clear path – with no Thaksin types, to hero worship – Thai people are as capable of being democratic as anyone else. They don’t need a hero, but they keep getting blinded by these characters not just now, but throughout history. And most of them have done more harm, than good.
I also agree with you, there are many reasons why people will join the red shirts – just as there are probably as many opposing resons, for joining the yellow shirts. But, it’s really the one’s in the middle who matter most – there’s a lot more of them. Just as there are, in most countries.
Red Shirt protest at Government House
Sorry, of course there would be many factors influencing someone finding themselves wearing a shirt as I’ve said, but Regular Reader, this ‘I know they can be democratic’ line is almost as condescending as me saying ‘there might be other options.’
Red Shirt protest at Government House
Regular Reader, have you asked people in the groups why they joined? Do they say ‘because someone told me to’, or do they say ‘because I felt the cause was just’? There might be other options.
Thailand: Love it or leave it
Brainface is right. All established religions are “good” in the sense that they provide a basis for a successful culture. But each has its faults, and that of Buddhism is the spectacular extent to which power corrupts. Good people are either at the bottom of the power pyramid, or headed in that direction. There is strength in the foundations but the superstructure is unstable and downright ugly.
Thai democracy wasn’t built in a day
re: Susie Wong
You misread my comment. Please read it again carefully.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Prasit is quite wrong on S. Sivarak. Sulak has been specifically critical of specific kings, including the present one. He is not critical of the monarchy as an institution.
Thai democracy wasn’t built in a day
Susie: I thought р╣Ар╕Фр╣Зр╕Бр╕Кр╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕┤р╕бр╕лр╕▒р╕Щр╕Хр╣М was being ironic about how long Thailand has been fighting for democracy. I took it as he has yet to make any argument (or maybe he did, but I didn’t get it =__=). I’m waiting curiously for his next episodes.
On lèse majesté
Many thanks for this article.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Thanks alex for the long discussion.
I have admitted already that lese majeste cause some problem. You might have not read that before you post because today, my post await for moderation for ten hours. And HM the king have show his concern on those use lese majeste for their own interest and claim that is the protection for himself but it is instead discredit and offense him. It is worthless to give an example on my profession.
I and manyone who listened to Ji have already receive his ideas that he said that he is not Taksin supporter and he have never vote for him. But I put the question that I doubt that why he have to go into that red shirts with big shadow from Taksin and why he dig the evil health policy of that Taksin’s goverment to show how modernization should be. He have never tried to give any answer.
I myself totally do not agree with doctors who use their profession for any non medical issues especially when it create the conflict with ethics. As a doctor, we can not refuse to give treatment unless we are not in the ready status. In this case, if any doctors have strong emotions against someone, they should do the basic life support and send patients to other doctors who can care the patients after that and they must suppress their emotion at least during the patients are under their supervision.
The health care system before the universal health system has evolved for a long period. parts of the populations has some kinds or welfare system, but there are also lots of people who cannot afford for any health service and don’t have any kinds of insurance.
But as our scarcity of health resources, doctors and health personnels and budgets for running the projects, we have to build health infrastructure and personnel to support the system and co-payment that use in every country of the world is one of the best way to limit unnecessary use of health service .
Universal health system like Taksin’s policy will create the vicious cycle and will end up with poor service, financial disruption.
Education and health promotion will ameriolate the problems.
Not every events of illness need doctors or hospital care.
ANyway, everyone should do their function and their duty first. I understand that you might think that I don’t take serious on the politics. That’s not true. I agree that everyone are in politics but politics is not to offense other people’s idea or try to assume other thought from their understanding. Critical thinking is not to critic other.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
I am quite disappointin that another one who try to assume and offend other are redisappearing again by the very closed name as the previous one.
I am not appreciate for some one who recommend me the book they have read except they show what emerge in their mind after they read that book.
Thank you for give reader the clearer pictures about damn- univeral health policies amended by Taksin. It is easily understand that the any government after these to carry on the project unless they will lose their vote within minutes. Popular show must go one. So it is pointless.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
In your report of the meeting, Lee, you say: “What is Thailand if not a space/people defined by fealty to the king and Buddhism? Isn’t the crucial thing not so much institutions but Thailand’s ‘political culture’ and the king’s centrality as a ‘value-concept’?”
This seems to relate to something I said at the meeting. But not very well. May I clarify?
When we speak of a monarch, we may refer to a person and/or to an institution. Then there is also another usage that relates not so much to a feature of the world as to people’s experience of being part of their society.
Every society projects a sense of its value-system upon complex terms/images (like: Communism, Democracy or Monarchy; Churchill or Lenin; or Karl Marx, Adam Smith or the Buddha). Some negative attitudes and values (submissiveness, hysteria or whatever) are commonly involved. The patterns of cognitive behaviour that emerge from the usage of such broad value-terms are always a bit of a mixed bag.
By the same token, much positive affect (to do with social solidarity) can be bound up with this type of projection. That surely applies also to the way Thai people speak and think about Buddhism, for instance. It presumably also applies to that other value-term which is central to the experience of modernisation in many Thai people’s lives, namely monarchy.
[ This is nothing to do with ‘fealty’, nor with abstract notions of a country as a ‘space’ that is in some way ‘defined’. It’s just that people do think and talk about their Thai-ness, for instance when society is in crisis — and in such discussions the monarchy does crop up. ]
Of course modernisation processes are generally fairly brutal, and it is not too helpful to disguise this reality. Equally, impulses that have contributed to solidarity are dismissed at some risk.
Okay, people (and peoples) do run away from uncomfortable perceptions and choices. Still, it must make sense to achieve necessary change with as little conflict as may be possible.
Of course you are quite right, Lee, that the drive to polarisation was much in evidence all round at our meeting. All the more need, perhaps, to find a middle way.
I once heard a psychiatrist of Jewish descent talk about his work in re-educating young German prisoners at the end of World War II. He said his breakthrough came when he realised that the most convinced Nazis among them were the ‘best people’ in their group. His first task was to connect with and validate their positive impulses. Then he could help them find a better way forward.
The Buddha is continually shown as doing this. He is no mean polemicist, but he always starts by finding some way to agree with his interlocutors, along the lines of “I see — broadly you’re starting from a wish to endorse [motherhood and apple pie] and from there you’re going on to the thought that perhaps [dominance and submission is the beginning of wisdom]. Well, now — isn’t there a better way to endorse [motherhood and apple pie?]”
Again, consider the way Thai people relate to Buddhism. Some may do so in feudal terms. Equally, some influential Thai Buddhists have been freethinkers — Buddhadasa for one. He sought to revalidate the Buddhist tradition in terms of its best and truest aspects. Since it is unlikely that Thais’ involvement with the tradition will come to an abrupt end, this approach would seem to have some merit even from a perspective that is unsympathetic to Buddhism.
Something similar may apply in respect of the monarchy. It is clearly a significant element in the lives of many Thai people. There must be something positive in this phenomenon. In which case: how to build on the positive?
Incidentally, Thai people do distinguish monarchy from monarch. They separate the way the monarchical system is used and abused politically from the person of the current King. More than one told me on Friday that they endorsed much of what was said about the situation in the country but felt deeply discomfited at what they took to be animadversions against the person of the King. This may be a relevant consideration for those who wish to build a broad coalition in favour of democratic change. (Also, it is perhaps worth noting that numbers of people with nothing to gain from it seem to have found admirable personal qualities in the King.)
Incidentally, Comment No. 1 above is not from me.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
The other point I would like to raise from the talk is the nationalist, thainess and any terms in similar meaning.
I do not agree with the young yellow shirt man to put these things into the talk. I am not the nationalist and I am quite indifferent to different cultures and different background eventhough I still not happy to sit among people with very different historical and cultural back ground as many people feel. But I try not to judge other people from their cultural and traditional believes.
Jiles said something that should be ad hominem as much as that young yellow shirt man.
I can easily tolerate for the British or westerners who use their feet as their hands to point out or use as other functions. This kind of practice is quite unacceptable in many culture including Thais. I am not sure that Jiles has been taught about Thai manner and culture enough while he said something disgusting like “the British are very polite, if you are in Thailand, other people will slam the door to you. And clawing on the floor is the animal behaviour”. This is unacceptable and non academic point of view and he should admit for this.
I as a Thais proud that thai manner and thai cultures are beautiful, we show respect to the elder and we have never slammed the doors to any others if they has been taught enough Thais manner. But I have never call the different culture barbarian or out of date.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
In conclusion, I and lots of people agree that lese majeste caused some problems in our society. But if this is for the case of Jiles, I don’t think that it should be adapted for interest for his view.
Optimistically, academical stand points of view and ethical report on the media can be accepted and can be tolerate for Thais who love the kings but the unproove or difficult to proove, personal issues in order to defame and insult like Jiles case will not be easily accepted.
I think he is too coward to be response for the charge and proove himself so he fleed here in UK. And as he is not clear for the politics, his talks are not judge to be academic as it should be.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
continue from the last post:
The third components is the intention of the people who have been charged for breaking this laws.
As I have said in the previous post that S. Sivalak is another Thai acadmics who always critic the royal family and the constituional monarchy. But his critical is upon the system not to attack the king and royal family so I do not surprise that he have not been sentenced guilty.
For Jakrapop case, there are some comflict of interest and the political issues behind that so it is not worth enough to cry out before the end of the story in the jurisdiction process.
For foreign’s journalists case, there is no exemption for not knowing that the laws exist, the texts attacks personally issue that intended to defamed and insult explicitly. But the generosity and kindness of the king, the writer has been pardoned and freed.
ANd as I convinced that criticize the kings and royal family should be separate from the discussion about the laws.
The critics of the royal family from Ji is vague and difficult to proove. He said that he don’t love the king so he have the right to say. It will create lot of problems to himself like to defame the other parents which has not been tolerated for any people. In other word, insulting others will create liability to the laws of defaming for general people. This is the general accepted laws for many countries in the world, so even lese majeste was excluding, Ji is still liable to be charged by the general laws. It breaks other people’ s right to be standing in the society with their dignity. So to be liberalism, one should considerate others people right. If there is no such limitation of righteous use, the community will bring into chaos and disruption soon.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Nganadeeleg raised points that have been discussed somewhere else but anyway quite bias from opposite sites.
I will discuss in term of laws and academic point of view. Obviously, I am not the red shirts nor the PAD lover because I think that their head T and S are the same kind of people. As a matter of fact, they were very closed friend who eventually had conflict between their business. So why the country should be depend on those two.
There are many cases accused for the lese majeste from very different contexts and some show the weak point of this laws that I agree with. But we should separate it and analyse from the point who use that laws.
Firstly, obviously, HM the king is not very happy with this laws especially when it is abusively used.
Secondly, the political power that use this laws for their own interest to against the opposite side. I totally agree that there are always double standards for this purposes. Not only for this governments or the previous claim to be popular government or even back to the very beginning when this laws first included into the constitution. This is the weak point of this laws and that is why it should have been amended. That was the most silly thing to do with this laws when T and S accuse each other for the charge of the lese majeste rules.
Thirdly, this laws has no limit for anyone who can accuse others because the logical back bround of this laws is the king and royal family are not in the position to defense themself. This will bring some probblem for many cases like the case of a man who did not stand for the royal anthem in the cinema has been charged by the police. As the general rules for the criminal laws, the intention has to be include for the account for complete the components of guilty. So the judge should create some of the standards for such cases and the interpretation of the laws should be restricted as much as possible as the general rules for the criminal laws.
Like this case, I am quite indifferent for people who choose not to standing for the royal anthem in the cinema as far as they don’t do anything intended to defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent. So I agree that disrespectful is not the same as insult.
This story is totally different for the abusively use of this laws by the political powers and so I understand why many people have signed for Ji petition or those man ( I couldn’t remember his name) who didn’t stand in the cinema for the view that this laws should be abandoned even they might not be Taksin supporter or the red shirts party. But there are many many one try to merge these cases into the same story.
Asian languages in Australia
“We look at the people who are mid-career working for us and we find we have people who speak fluent Bahasa, fluent Japanese or even fluent Mandarin; but if I look at the youngsters that are joining us now it almost feels like we have gone backwards.”
People in “mid-career” would have picked it up in the field working for the mining company and not in the university. One or two elective classes at university is not going to make you fluent in a language. Most language education takes place outside the university after life lands you in some foreign country that you could hardly could have planned for beforehand, a good reason for funding online language materials that can be shared by everyone, e.g. Doug Couper’s Sealang funded by the US Department of Education. (p.s. when I worked as a computer consultant I remember one interview with a Fortune 50 company where language knowledge won some brownie points, maybe it is the bigger companies that can better make use of these skills).
Water problems in Yangon
Thanks for pointing this out. It seems almost government policy to allow a public service to decay until it becomes bad enough that people will pay out of their own pocket (if they can afford it) for a solution.
There are many examples of this, including education and electricity.
You mentioned electricity supply briefly but only in regards to water. Perhaps water supply has become more of an issue because electricity supply in Yangon is much worse than 12 months ago. Even where I live, in an “exclusive” neighbourhood, the power drifts on an off. On Friday (Feb 27), it was off there for most of the day. However, we are lucky in that we don’t have rationing. Most townships have no electricity at night every third day and even when they “have” electricity it will often be out. But good electricity supply is a luxury, whereas clean water is a necessity.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Dear Prasit, whereas I agree that everyone should mostly focus on the things he/she knows best (in your case, the healthcare system, which is of course an extremely sensitive issue), I can’t help shivering at the though of a nation in which everyone exclusively thinks and cares of his own business, oblivious of the rest. We are all political individuals, and we live in societies, it is therefore our duty to do our best in order to make our society a better one. Thailand is a monarchy, we all know that, and we know it’s not the only monarchy in the world with L.M laws. We all know how many great things HM the King did for his country, and we are grateful to you for explaining this to us once again. Nevertheless, we have to agree that L.M. laws in Thailand are particularly fierce and, especially because they’ve been used innumerable times as a weapon to silence political opponents (and it’s not true that Ji’s failed on giving evidence, as he and many other journalists and scholars talked about that in details so many times) they represent a real threat to the kingdom’s development. As written by Nganadeeleg “What do you think is a more serious crime: not standing for the anthem, or conducting violence in the name of the King?”. We would like to know your stance regarding this. I would even push it a bit further. Don’t you think using HM the King’s name to perpetrate or promote violence is intrinsically deeply offensive to HM the King himself?
Pretend that your staff at the hospital suddenly start doing things in your name which you never told them to do, and these things are meant to earn them money or power within the hospital. You never told them to do those things, and by doing them they create troubles in the clinic, but they keep acting that way, and claim that they do it to protect you. Wouldn’t that feel offensive to your professional integrity?
Also: when you blame Ji Ungpakorn of being a Thaksin supporter, you are forgetting that all the criticism against Thaksin that we read today is nothing compared to Ji’s criticism back in the times when Sondhi was one Thaksin’s staunchest supporters and Chamlong his mentor. In other words, back in the times when criticism against Thaksin was badly needed (not conveniently too late, when there’s no risk involved, like now), and when most people were openly agreeing with just about anything Thaksin came up with. Even more importantly, Ji’s criticism was focused on very important issues such as human rights abuses, the handling on the situation in the South etc. As a doctor, you should be particularly sensitive to these issues, so I have to assume you were publicly agreeing with Ji Ungpakorn when he harshly criticized the War on Drugs or the tough stance against southern insurgents. And I guess you must have solemnly criticized the PAD and your colleagues at Chulalongkorn Hospital when they refused to treat policemen last year’s October after the PAD-police riots. The fact that none of Thaksin critics of today were criticizing him during his greatest political mistakes reeks of vested interests, and undermine their credibility.
Lastly: I agree that Thaksin’s healthcare policies were controversial, but I truly think Thailand desperately needs a healthcare system (at the moment only the rich can enjoy a decent treatment, and that’s wrong, I hope you agree on that), but I am not a doctor, nor am I an expert on that field, therefore I would like to read some ideas/proposals from you.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
No worries Joy.
btw, my last question is not a call for political intervention by HMK (in case you got the wrong impression AW), but rather a call to stop mindless violence, and it can apply equally to the leaders on all sides of the current conflict, including those in exile.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Regarding Prasit’s comments on lesse majeste:
Somsak Jeamteerasakul had made abundant rational arguements regarding lesse majeste. Have a look for yourself at the sameskybooks website. ( as I presume Prasit is a Thai)