Well, having read yr latest post, I have to say I’m very disappointed with yr attitude abt research. I also have nothing more to say to u. Of course, anyone who reads enough will be able to see both the strengths and weaknesses of Giles’s writing. No book is perfect. That;s why one needs to read a lot and research so as to get a balanced picture of things. I also have nothing more to say to u. it’s up to u whether u want to continue posting yr comment here or not.
Giles and many researchers make much efforts to present’ there own views even that is accepted by other or not. Although giles evidence is quite weak and he is not clear himself from conflict of interest but that is very much better than someone here that read many books but they couldn’t think anything but just believe without showing their evidence or reason why they believe or do not believe in that.
Fung mai dai sub jub ma kra dead is the Thai proverb match with these people.
Anyway, Giles can not give us any evidence about Thai’s lese majeste how is it bad? He just repeat the idea that it has been abusively used by political powers.
There are many forms of insult laws to the figure heads or head of the states around the world. Penalties for insult head of states varied but in many case it is not so much difference from general people defaming or insulting laws. We should discuss that who can accuse for this law. Should it be criminal laws or civil laws only? How to protect the king or head of states from violation especially non sense, not true or lack of evidence?
If there were not such these laws, could the country or democracy be evolved better than the present situation?
Prasit, I admit that in some parts of my post, it sounds like I’m attacking u as an individual and if this makes u feel bad, I sincerely apologize. The thing is I think it is crucial for all Thais to be well-informed and read widely so that their judgement will be less biased as possible, and they won’t be easily manipulated by anyone. I know that in Thailand, many people don’t care much abt reading or research, and tend to dismiss this sort of stuff as unrelated to real life. The acquisition of knowledge abt one’s society and others’ should not be viewed in this light or else it is impossible for a society to develop intellectually. Of course I admire those who work hard (physically) but at the same time one should not dismiss reading and the enthusiasm to keep oneself well-informed as a waste of time.In fact, one can be ‘hard-workining’ (in yr sense of the word) and keep oneself well-informed abt what ‘s going on around us at the same time. I wish u continue to post yr comments here. I apologize if my posts have offended u.
To Joy
I think you should behave yourself by stoping critics others people by assuming on other people’s thought.
I wouldn’t bother to make any comment on your idea any more after these because you don’t understand anything and don’t have any point to discuss so you just attack other as I quote from Jile’s word by word.
I think you should pay attention more on your duties instead read manager online which I never pay any interst on and many books written by Jile. I will do my job that is the health problems as I am a doctor. I discussed on the misunderstanding problem sabout universal health system, the most involving topics from this talk. And left the political things for pesudopolitician like you who knows everythings from the others book but don’t do anything else.
meanwhile, a common theme here seems to be to ignore it is the military and elite rulers that are continuing to repress the majority of Thai people
for example, its Prem that seems to be the manipulator of justice in Thailand… even the original case against Thaksin that he misrepresented his assets in the Chavalit(?) government that could have stopped him continuing as PM… is said to have been manipulated by Prem for Thaksin to win… this must count as the beginning of a blowback of almost US proportions
anyway… CJHinke… I am waiting to hear if you think the PAD have a platform” and what you think it is
and … Regular Reader… in between guffaws… perhaps recognise I was stating that many (most probably) red shirt supporters see Thaksin as the instigator and hero of the democratic movement… which is independent of what you or I might believe… but its something we all should recognise and understand when looking for ways to replace rule by Prem, the senior military and the elite families
and… Colum Graham… if you just want to look and are happy if Prem, the military and elites keep ruling life in Thailand, so be it… please do not stand in the way of change that is important for Thailand
Dhammanusari ‘s points are very interesting (Giels’s comment abt the political role of Buddhism in Thailand). Peter A Jackson also discusses this in detail in his 1989 book: “Buddhism, Legitimation, and Conflict: The Political Functions of Urban Thai Buddhism”.
Giles made an interesting remark about Thai cultural values and the way social hierarchy (and in particular the monarchy) is supported by using Buddhist concepts, which is going back to the Traiphum text and its ideology (adopted strongly by Rama I). Now Giles as a professed Marxist probably does not consider himself a Buddhist, yet he knows about the history of Buddhism and he indicated that quite a different social ethic could just as well be justified on this basis. For historical reasons, the Cakkavatti-raja (righteous king) concept has become the prominent one in SE Asia, even though the Buddha himself seems to have preferred the republican way of government, which is the system of administration he set up for the monastic Sangha (democratic decision-making governed by the rules of Vinaya). Such a system, though, requires a certain education of its members (unfortunately no longer practised in the monastic Sangha where a similar hierarchy has been adopted as in the secular administration). It is a system which is harder to maintain, no doubt, but it could well be argued that is much more appropriate for the modern society of the 21st century with higher standards of education.
Compare:
The Sakyans had a council (sabha) that was made up of warriors of the tribe respected for their military prowess or wisdom. The council met regularly in Kapilavatthu’s assembly hall (sala) to discuss the running of the state [ N2 ] The council would have also settled disputes and acted as a law court. … The Sakyans’ clannishness and pride eventually led to their downfall. Although the Sakyans were free to run their own affairs, they were controlled to some degree by their powerful neighbour to the west, Kosala. By the Buddha’s time, Kosala had so much say in Sakyans’ affairs that once he actually described his homeland as being a part of Kosala. “Now the Sakyans are vassals of the king of Kosala. They offer him service and salute him, stand for him, do him honour and give him deference.”[ N4 ] The Buddha’s love of personal freedom and independence was probably influenced by his Sakyan upbringing and there is no doubt that he sympathised with the small tribal republics in their struggles to keep their independence from the authoritarian monarchies that were emerging at the time. When he heard that King Ajatasattu was preparing to invade the Vajjian republic, he asked Ananda: “Have you heard that the Vajjians hold regular and frequent assemblies, that they meet in harmony, conduct business in harmony, and adjure in harmony, that they abide by the decisions they have made in accordance with tradition, that they honour, respect, revere and salute their elders and listen to their advice, that they do not abduct others’ wives or daughters and compel them to live with them, that they honour, respect, revere, and salute the Vajjian shrines at home and abroad, and do not withdraw the support given to them and that proper provisions and protection are given to holy men so that they can dwell there in comfort and more will come in the future?” Ananda replied that the Vajjians did do all these things and the Buddha said: “For as long as they do these things, the Vajjians may be expected to prosper and not decline.” http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/disciples04.htm
If the Vajji people could do it, why not the Thai people?
“I look at how Lee Jones’ approach in international relations in comparison to Michael Conners, it is black and white. This is the reason why the Axis can make an offensive move.”
Ralph Kramden #10: The link you’ve given comes up with the message ‘the file is damaged & could not be repaired.’ As the file is PDF, do you or anyone else have it saved? If so, could you make it available through NM? ‘Thank you before!’ (as my sanook Thai friends say.)
I hear that there are TVs being sold with red-yellow static in Bangkok. Has anyone seen the new wave of blue shirts about? Their aim is simply to provide a tri-colour spectacle. Maybe when Thailand is a liberal democracy, there will be a full 64 million colour spectrum! (only 1.7 million to go…)
Just reading the responses that the red shirts are provoking here suggests to me, that the arguments about the direction of Thailand are still on the wrong level as the level seems to be one only where rams can butt heads. It should not be so mono – the red shirts needn’t be promoted to be ‘more’ than the supporters of Thaksin, because there seems to be a sensationalisation of the something Thailand is lacking, or of the chasm that is ever growing between the two parties views on Thai identity. The sensationalisation of the PAD led to ridiculous incidents.
Coverage of these movements is interesting because it is seemingly used to suit whoever has an opinion on what they think is ‘Thai’. Maybe a ‘shirt’ joined up for personal vengeance, or because his or her friends did, because they were bored, wanted a free drink, because they are sick of the ‘if you don’t like it, leave’ mentality or indeed that they feel Thai culture is somehow under threat. Maybe all of those reasons! Just because ‘they’ wear the same shirt, doesn’t mean their reasons for being part of it are the same.
For me, the real sickness is categorizing the reasons of those part of the PAD, or those part of the ‘red shirts’, and lumping masses of people together under supposed reasons. By doing this, we perpetuate the situation and make it increasingly un-resolvable as the rhetoric of ‘one must prevail over the other’, is implied. The analysis of ‘the mob’, is like trying to guess what the angry beast will devour next. Generalisations, like those above, bleeding hearts for Thailand like Giles (gripping the podium tensely emotional), and those rubbing their hands together while this all goes on, their political will maintained, will only see the beasts keep running savagely and exponentially growing more than whatever they originally were.
There never seems to be mention of those rational people who aren’t taking part in the madness of those adorning a ‘shirt’, liberally growing with experience in life irrespective of whether they are exposed to a “functioning democracy”. I hope their rationality isn’t pervaded by the mob mentality (which we are part of) who are perpetuating the generalization game. This whole situation could very easily find itself portrayed in an edition of Wheres Wally. Those sitting on New Mandala, at the bar looking on as idle speculators.
David Brown, you really make me laugh with lines like :
“I think the redshirts…
represent a mass movement, most of their mass background people see Thaksin as the symbol of what they want in Thailand”
Then a couple of sentences later, you follow it with this :
“they want Thailand ruled by a government elected by the people, more specifically democratic elections under the 1997 constitution rather than 2007 they want reliable unmanipulated justice system in Thailand that applies to everyone”
Apart from your assertion that “they” want elections under the 1997 constitution (of which you or I have no proof) I would agree with you, that this is a noble desire.
But, where I draw the line,is when you associate that with your man,Thaksin.
Did Thailand have a “reliable and unmanipulated” justice system from 2001 to 2006 ?
I don’t think so.
So how would bringing your hero back, achieve something, I too, think would be a good thing ?
You tell me?
I was just read an article, “Criticizing Malaysia’s Royals” in the AsiaSentinel, Feb 16th 2009. Malaysia Mamakthir had created a rule to allow Malaysians to criticize the Sultans without fear of the Sedition Act.
Mamakthir addressed the parliament that “the people could no longer accept a system that only gives power to the Rajas and the people are not given any role in the country’s politics.”
In the comment section, Malaysia thanks Mamakthir’s program to decrease the Royal’s power and abuse. It said, “Thanks Mamakthir for showing us the way to hammer these leeches and parasites.”
In Thailand, Harry wrote a few sentences that most of the whole world have never read it, he got shackled in jails for months. Without the influence of Australia, he’ll be there for 3 years. So many Thai political prisoners are still being shackled in jail for wanting democracy, social justice, liberty, and human dignity.
We don’t know where to cry out! Even people of Giles’ status had to flee the country. No one can do anything!
Prasit, you did make assumption for other Thais when u said that most Thai won’t bother abt certain political issue that much because they have to make ends meet. Your post leargely aims to defend the ideology forced on Thai people and by doing so u join hands with the powers-that-be in Thai society to suppress and silence difference and
critical thinking. All yr attack of Ji relies on the assumption that he is closely related to Thaksin and is a Thaksin supporter. This sort of argument is the mainstay of Manager Online ( a highly biased news/information source) and it has been overused until it is no longer effective (well, maybe it has never been effective).
Also, yr argument clearly doesn’t show that u have read widely on Thai political history (esp from sources which are not controlled by the Thai establishment).You simply repeat what Thai primary school children have been taught from Day one and are supposed to believe in that all their life.
Well, Ji’s book may not be perfect , but many things he raises in A Coup for the Rich and in his other works in fact correspond with what many researchers, both Thai and foreigners, have been suggesting before. These reseachers and scholars may not say exactly the same thing as Ji, but their arguments go along the same line. You could look up books by people like Scot Barme, Thak Chaloemtiarana, pasuk and Baker, Craig Reynolds, and even Peter A Jackson (whose works are not abt Thai politics but he did touch on a number of points Ji mentions in his works e.g the Sarit , Thanom, prapat era and how this impacts on the status of the Thai monarchy).
I don’t think it was particularly the great depression that brought down the monarchy… no doubt it helped, but seems to me that the major factors were:
1) VI had made a complete fool of himself and dragged the monarchy into massive disrepute by being a screaming queer (as opposed to batting for both sides in the approved dignified aristocratic Thai manner) and promoting his numerous catamites over more qualified members of the official class.
2) Thailand had reached the point where it had two (and sometimes three) generations of modern style ‘white uniform + tin medals’ official families – of course mostly descended from royals and the aristocracy… This ‘nomenklatura class’ was now big enough to have its own interests and these were not necessarily the same as those of the monarchy and the monarch’s immediate family.
I will admit to occasionally churning out less than perfectly pellucid prose :).
OTOH, I am not a careerist… and have no position to maintain or improve. I’m just interested in banging rocks together dialectic-wise and seeing if any sparks eventuate.
Thank you for your point re Sarit and the Monarchy. I will poke around in the books a bit more.
One issue I would like to raise: it’s easy enough to say ‘CIA sponsored anthropologists dreamt up the Devaraja Renaissance’ – this is what you guys *would* say, isn’t it? Well, it may even be true. Or part of the truth…. and if I were a US taxpayer and the CIA hadn’t done that, I’d be wanting my money back. I just wonder though… are the Thais so supine and stupid that various generals and royalists wouldn’t have been actively shopping the idea to the Americans before this plague of engaged (we can’t have that now, can we?) anthropologists?
As for numbers of people knocked off during the various regional communist insurgencies. No we don’t know. But presumably one would need to knock one or two zeroes off the Cambodian and Indonesian figures to get a handle on it. I think it is fair to say that seeing off Communism in Thailand by topical application of the Special Royal Sauce had a butcher’s bill at least one order of magnitude less than the aforementioned. Of course this bears no relation to the suitability of the monarchy today, but that’s another issue.
I would guess (without much real knowledge) that the King was a fence sitter until things became clearer and it was clear Pridi was never coming back… that’s the only interpretation I can place on his translating a book about Tito – a sign that he wasn’t signing up for either team. Regardless, Thais should be thankful he wasn’t a clown like Sihanouk.
As for historical record. I am sure if you are a professional academic historian, you realise that what really happened and what you can write about without losing your job are sometimes two different things entirely. ergo referring to ‘the historical record’ can sometimes be a cop out.
i.e. there must be a very interesting back story to how the Old Guy’s mother got taken up by an aristocratic family… but it will never be told. The story of how he had to marry a particular Kityakara in effect to just *stay alive* in Phibun’s Thailand will also never be told. In the case of HK, how certain people became tycoons will never be told. The story of Ibu Tien and Suharto’s mistress, the fire truck, and the sewage plant probably won’t make it into any book you author either – but it happened. 🙂
seems to me the red shirts have a platform… so am interested if you have more specific views on what you think they should do…
just for the record I think the redshirts…
represent a mass movement, most of their mass background people see Thaksin as the symbol of what they want in Thailand
the red shirts I think have a more sophisticated and detailed view
they want Thailand ruled by a government elected by the people, more specifically democratic elections under the 1997 constitution rather than 2007
they want reliable unmanipulated justice system in Thailand that applies to everyone (they are obeying the law, they want the PAD punished for breaking the law, they want the manipulation of the court that convicted Thaksin to be recognised and undone)
it is true they do not have a strong autocratic discipline to stop renegade and foolish groups as in chiang mai and udon
the PAD were a movement, but now they have regressed to an action group inspired and funded by the military and elite families masterminded by Prem…
the PAD is a single objective group with a hierarchical control chain which gives them cohesion and power… their objective is to preserve the wealth and power in the tradional hierarchy where the ordinary people are slaves/buffaloes
Joy, I think I didn’t make any assumption for any other as you wrote. So I don’t know what you are talking about and you can’t simply assume that I or any one read your most interesting book from just a few paragraphs.
Anyway, that quote came from Ji in that talk why he just did the thing that he said for attack the yellow young man.
And I don’t claim anything for Thai. So can you just post your idea, the argument for that and try not to give the impression to force other to think or beleive like you have done?
Ji started the talk with critic Taksin and he always said that he are not Taksin supporter but why he change to become a part of red shirts? As his manifesto, he argued that he just want to use some part of this people who believe in democracy and not for the political point.
I think it might be clearer for himself if he didn’t use this people from the red shirts and then so he don’t have to said that he is not the Taksin’ s supporter as the same time that he is not the PAD supporter too.
To Yuwi, if giles did research on the problems of universal health care system correctly, and unbiased, he might notice and pick up a lot of problems on these amended policies of Taksin for his own interest. But he just look at the matter circumferentially and grab a picture that it is good. So it is very doubtful. I don’t know exactly as Yuwi don’t know too that what is the explaination for that. One of the explanation, which might be wrong or right, is gile change his mind to support Taksin for his own interest.
The campaign success for people to vote for Taksin, but there were hundreds of hospital closed for the financial burden, the quality of service drops from the increasing demand and anyway, the person who need real help could not access the service because it is not the matter of payment but the availability and accessibility itself.
unbiased folks see that the yellows are far ahead in the violence stakes
That doesn’t sound like an unbiased comment.
Unless you can provide detailed evidence from 2006 to date, I suggest a more objective view would be that there are elements of both sides that have a propensity to violence.
It looks like the leadership of both sides seem to be showing more restraint of late, so hopefully that is a good sign for the future (if they do have any control over their respective groups).
Thanks everyone for your feedback on the report. I’m glad to hear from some of the attendees that many people were pleased to be able to attend and at least able to debate among themselves later on. The comments here challenge those on the SOAS post claiming that such events have no impact. Incidentally, it wasn’t my intention to portray the event negatively – just accurately, based on what was actually said, without editorialising too much and presuming what people might be thinking. LM naturally has a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech.
It is also interesting (but unsurprising) to learn that two Thai government officials were in attendance.
Incidentally, if there are Thai students in Oxford who would like to follow up this event with more discussions and perhaps readings on Thai politics, do please get in touch, and maybe we can put our heads together.
“*to foster freedom of discussion and expression, Samaggi Samagom would like to restrict the press/media from entering the event.”, so does this mean that the talk wont be transcribed/make available to the public? isnt this a contradiction in itself.. “fair dicussion”, ha dont make me laugh.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Well, having read yr latest post, I have to say I’m very disappointed with yr attitude abt research. I also have nothing more to say to u. Of course, anyone who reads enough will be able to see both the strengths and weaknesses of Giles’s writing. No book is perfect. That;s why one needs to read a lot and research so as to get a balanced picture of things. I also have nothing more to say to u. it’s up to u whether u want to continue posting yr comment here or not.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Giles and many researchers make much efforts to present’ there own views even that is accepted by other or not. Although giles evidence is quite weak and he is not clear himself from conflict of interest but that is very much better than someone here that read many books but they couldn’t think anything but just believe without showing their evidence or reason why they believe or do not believe in that.
Fung mai dai sub jub ma kra dead is the Thai proverb match with these people.
Anyway, Giles can not give us any evidence about Thai’s lese majeste how is it bad? He just repeat the idea that it has been abusively used by political powers.
There are many forms of insult laws to the figure heads or head of the states around the world. Penalties for insult head of states varied but in many case it is not so much difference from general people defaming or insulting laws. We should discuss that who can accuse for this law. Should it be criminal laws or civil laws only? How to protect the king or head of states from violation especially non sense, not true or lack of evidence?
If there were not such these laws, could the country or democracy be evolved better than the present situation?
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Prasit, I admit that in some parts of my post, it sounds like I’m attacking u as an individual and if this makes u feel bad, I sincerely apologize. The thing is I think it is crucial for all Thais to be well-informed and read widely so that their judgement will be less biased as possible, and they won’t be easily manipulated by anyone. I know that in Thailand, many people don’t care much abt reading or research, and tend to dismiss this sort of stuff as unrelated to real life. The acquisition of knowledge abt one’s society and others’ should not be viewed in this light or else it is impossible for a society to develop intellectually. Of course I admire those who work hard (physically) but at the same time one should not dismiss reading and the enthusiasm to keep oneself well-informed as a waste of time.In fact, one can be ‘hard-workining’ (in yr sense of the word) and keep oneself well-informed abt what ‘s going on around us at the same time. I wish u continue to post yr comments here. I apologize if my posts have offended u.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
To Joy
I think you should behave yourself by stoping critics others people by assuming on other people’s thought.
I wouldn’t bother to make any comment on your idea any more after these because you don’t understand anything and don’t have any point to discuss so you just attack other as I quote from Jile’s word by word.
I think you should pay attention more on your duties instead read manager online which I never pay any interst on and many books written by Jile. I will do my job that is the health problems as I am a doctor. I discussed on the misunderstanding problem sabout universal health system, the most involving topics from this talk. And left the political things for pesudopolitician like you who knows everythings from the others book but don’t do anything else.
Red Shirt protest at Government House
Regular Reader and others
its always good to laugh…
meanwhile, a common theme here seems to be to ignore it is the military and elite rulers that are continuing to repress the majority of Thai people
for example, its Prem that seems to be the manipulator of justice in Thailand… even the original case against Thaksin that he misrepresented his assets in the Chavalit(?) government that could have stopped him continuing as PM… is said to have been manipulated by Prem for Thaksin to win… this must count as the beginning of a blowback of almost US proportions
anyway… CJHinke… I am waiting to hear if you think the PAD have a platform” and what you think it is
and … Regular Reader… in between guffaws… perhaps recognise I was stating that many (most probably) red shirt supporters see Thaksin as the instigator and hero of the democratic movement… which is independent of what you or I might believe… but its something we all should recognise and understand when looking for ways to replace rule by Prem, the senior military and the elite families
and… Colum Graham… if you just want to look and are happy if Prem, the military and elites keep ruling life in Thailand, so be it… please do not stand in the way of change that is important for Thailand
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Dhammanusari ‘s points are very interesting (Giels’s comment abt the political role of Buddhism in Thailand). Peter A Jackson also discusses this in detail in his 1989 book: “Buddhism, Legitimation, and Conflict: The Political Functions of Urban Thai Buddhism”.
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Giles made an interesting remark about Thai cultural values and the way social hierarchy (and in particular the monarchy) is supported by using Buddhist concepts, which is going back to the Traiphum text and its ideology (adopted strongly by Rama I). Now Giles as a professed Marxist probably does not consider himself a Buddhist, yet he knows about the history of Buddhism and he indicated that quite a different social ethic could just as well be justified on this basis. For historical reasons, the Cakkavatti-raja (righteous king) concept has become the prominent one in SE Asia, even though the Buddha himself seems to have preferred the republican way of government, which is the system of administration he set up for the monastic Sangha (democratic decision-making governed by the rules of Vinaya). Such a system, though, requires a certain education of its members (unfortunately no longer practised in the monastic Sangha where a similar hierarchy has been adopted as in the secular administration). It is a system which is harder to maintain, no doubt, but it could well be argued that is much more appropriate for the modern society of the 21st century with higher standards of education.
Compare:
The Sakyans had a council (sabha) that was made up of warriors of the tribe respected for their military prowess or wisdom. The council met regularly in Kapilavatthu’s assembly hall (sala) to discuss the running of the state [ N2 ] The council would have also settled disputes and acted as a law court. … The Sakyans’ clannishness and pride eventually led to their downfall. Although the Sakyans were free to run their own affairs, they were controlled to some degree by their powerful neighbour to the west, Kosala. By the Buddha’s time, Kosala had so much say in Sakyans’ affairs that once he actually described his homeland as being a part of Kosala. “Now the Sakyans are vassals of the king of Kosala. They offer him service and salute him, stand for him, do him honour and give him deference.”[ N4 ] The Buddha’s love of personal freedom and independence was probably influenced by his Sakyan upbringing and there is no doubt that he sympathised with the small tribal republics in their struggles to keep their independence from the authoritarian monarchies that were emerging at the time. When he heard that King Ajatasattu was preparing to invade the Vajjian republic, he asked Ananda: “Have you heard that the Vajjians hold regular and frequent assemblies, that they meet in harmony, conduct business in harmony, and adjure in harmony, that they abide by the decisions they have made in accordance with tradition, that they honour, respect, revere and salute their elders and listen to their advice, that they do not abduct others’ wives or daughters and compel them to live with them, that they honour, respect, revere, and salute the Vajjian shrines at home and abroad, and do not withdraw the support given to them and that proper provisions and protection are given to holy men so that they can dwell there in comfort and more will come in the future?” Ananda replied that the Vajjians did do all these things and the Buddha said: “For as long as they do these things, the Vajjians may be expected to prosper and not decline.”
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/disciples04.htm
If the Vajji people could do it, why not the Thai people?
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
“I look at how Lee Jones’ approach in international relations in comparison to Michael Conners, it is black and white. This is the reason why the Axis can make an offensive move.”
I don’t really follow what you mean here.
Thailand: Love it or leave it
Ralph Kramden #10: The link you’ve given comes up with the message ‘the file is damaged & could not be repaired.’ As the file is PDF, do you or anyone else have it saved? If so, could you make it available through NM? ‘Thank you before!’ (as my sanook Thai friends say.)
Red Shirt protest at Government House
I hear that there are TVs being sold with red-yellow static in Bangkok. Has anyone seen the new wave of blue shirts about? Their aim is simply to provide a tri-colour spectacle. Maybe when Thailand is a liberal democracy, there will be a full 64 million colour spectrum! (only 1.7 million to go…)
Just reading the responses that the red shirts are provoking here suggests to me, that the arguments about the direction of Thailand are still on the wrong level as the level seems to be one only where rams can butt heads. It should not be so mono – the red shirts needn’t be promoted to be ‘more’ than the supporters of Thaksin, because there seems to be a sensationalisation of the something Thailand is lacking, or of the chasm that is ever growing between the two parties views on Thai identity. The sensationalisation of the PAD led to ridiculous incidents.
Coverage of these movements is interesting because it is seemingly used to suit whoever has an opinion on what they think is ‘Thai’. Maybe a ‘shirt’ joined up for personal vengeance, or because his or her friends did, because they were bored, wanted a free drink, because they are sick of the ‘if you don’t like it, leave’ mentality or indeed that they feel Thai culture is somehow under threat. Maybe all of those reasons! Just because ‘they’ wear the same shirt, doesn’t mean their reasons for being part of it are the same.
For me, the real sickness is categorizing the reasons of those part of the PAD, or those part of the ‘red shirts’, and lumping masses of people together under supposed reasons. By doing this, we perpetuate the situation and make it increasingly un-resolvable as the rhetoric of ‘one must prevail over the other’, is implied. The analysis of ‘the mob’, is like trying to guess what the angry beast will devour next. Generalisations, like those above, bleeding hearts for Thailand like Giles (gripping the podium tensely emotional), and those rubbing their hands together while this all goes on, their political will maintained, will only see the beasts keep running savagely and exponentially growing more than whatever they originally were.
There never seems to be mention of those rational people who aren’t taking part in the madness of those adorning a ‘shirt’, liberally growing with experience in life irrespective of whether they are exposed to a “functioning democracy”. I hope their rationality isn’t pervaded by the mob mentality (which we are part of) who are perpetuating the generalization game. This whole situation could very easily find itself portrayed in an edition of Wheres Wally. Those sitting on New Mandala, at the bar looking on as idle speculators.
The only time anyone wins is when Wally is found.
Red Shirt protest at Government House
David Brown, you really make me laugh with lines like :
“I think the redshirts…
represent a mass movement, most of their mass background people see Thaksin as the symbol of what they want in Thailand”
Then a couple of sentences later, you follow it with this :
“they want Thailand ruled by a government elected by the people, more specifically democratic elections under the 1997 constitution rather than 2007 they want reliable unmanipulated justice system in Thailand that applies to everyone”
Apart from your assertion that “they” want elections under the 1997 constitution (of which you or I have no proof) I would agree with you, that this is a noble desire.
But, where I draw the line,is when you associate that with your man,Thaksin.
Did Thailand have a “reliable and unmanipulated” justice system from 2001 to 2006 ?
I don’t think so.
So how would bringing your hero back, achieve something, I too, think would be a good thing ?
You tell me?
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
I was just read an article, “Criticizing Malaysia’s Royals” in the AsiaSentinel, Feb 16th 2009. Malaysia Mamakthir had created a rule to allow Malaysians to criticize the Sultans without fear of the Sedition Act.
Mamakthir addressed the parliament that “the people could no longer accept a system that only gives power to the Rajas and the people are not given any role in the country’s politics.”
In the comment section, Malaysia thanks Mamakthir’s program to decrease the Royal’s power and abuse. It said, “Thanks Mamakthir for showing us the way to hammer these leeches and parasites.”
In Thailand, Harry wrote a few sentences that most of the whole world have never read it, he got shackled in jails for months. Without the influence of Australia, he’ll be there for 3 years. So many Thai political prisoners are still being shackled in jail for wanting democracy, social justice, liberty, and human dignity.
We don’t know where to cry out! Even people of Giles’ status had to flee the country. No one can do anything!
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Prasit, you did make assumption for other Thais when u said that most Thai won’t bother abt certain political issue that much because they have to make ends meet. Your post leargely aims to defend the ideology forced on Thai people and by doing so u join hands with the powers-that-be in Thai society to suppress and silence difference and
critical thinking. All yr attack of Ji relies on the assumption that he is closely related to Thaksin and is a Thaksin supporter. This sort of argument is the mainstay of Manager Online ( a highly biased news/information source) and it has been overused until it is no longer effective (well, maybe it has never been effective).
Also, yr argument clearly doesn’t show that u have read widely on Thai political history (esp from sources which are not controlled by the Thai establishment).You simply repeat what Thai primary school children have been taught from Day one and are supposed to believe in that all their life.
Well, Ji’s book may not be perfect , but many things he raises in A Coup for the Rich and in his other works in fact correspond with what many researchers, both Thai and foreigners, have been suggesting before. These reseachers and scholars may not say exactly the same thing as Ji, but their arguments go along the same line. You could look up books by people like Scot Barme, Thak Chaloemtiarana, pasuk and Baker, Craig Reynolds, and even Peter A Jackson (whose works are not abt Thai politics but he did touch on a number of points Ji mentions in his works e.g the Sarit , Thanom, prapat era and how this impacts on the status of the Thai monarchy).
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
@Fonzi:
I don’t think it was particularly the great depression that brought down the monarchy… no doubt it helped, but seems to me that the major factors were:
1) VI had made a complete fool of himself and dragged the monarchy into massive disrepute by being a screaming queer (as opposed to batting for both sides in the approved dignified aristocratic Thai manner) and promoting his numerous catamites over more qualified members of the official class.
2) Thailand had reached the point where it had two (and sometimes three) generations of modern style ‘white uniform + tin medals’ official families – of course mostly descended from royals and the aristocracy… This ‘nomenklatura class’ was now big enough to have its own interests and these were not necessarily the same as those of the monarchy and the monarch’s immediate family.
Thailand: Love it or leave it
@Ralph K:
I will admit to occasionally churning out less than perfectly pellucid prose :).
OTOH, I am not a careerist… and have no position to maintain or improve. I’m just interested in banging rocks together dialectic-wise and seeing if any sparks eventuate.
Thank you for your point re Sarit and the Monarchy. I will poke around in the books a bit more.
One issue I would like to raise: it’s easy enough to say ‘CIA sponsored anthropologists dreamt up the Devaraja Renaissance’ – this is what you guys *would* say, isn’t it? Well, it may even be true. Or part of the truth…. and if I were a US taxpayer and the CIA hadn’t done that, I’d be wanting my money back. I just wonder though… are the Thais so supine and stupid that various generals and royalists wouldn’t have been actively shopping the idea to the Americans before this plague of engaged (we can’t have that now, can we?) anthropologists?
As for numbers of people knocked off during the various regional communist insurgencies. No we don’t know. But presumably one would need to knock one or two zeroes off the Cambodian and Indonesian figures to get a handle on it. I think it is fair to say that seeing off Communism in Thailand by topical application of the Special Royal Sauce had a butcher’s bill at least one order of magnitude less than the aforementioned. Of course this bears no relation to the suitability of the monarchy today, but that’s another issue.
I would guess (without much real knowledge) that the King was a fence sitter until things became clearer and it was clear Pridi was never coming back… that’s the only interpretation I can place on his translating a book about Tito – a sign that he wasn’t signing up for either team. Regardless, Thais should be thankful he wasn’t a clown like Sihanouk.
As for historical record. I am sure if you are a professional academic historian, you realise that what really happened and what you can write about without losing your job are sometimes two different things entirely. ergo referring to ‘the historical record’ can sometimes be a cop out.
i.e. there must be a very interesting back story to how the Old Guy’s mother got taken up by an aristocratic family… but it will never be told. The story of how he had to marry a particular Kityakara in effect to just *stay alive* in Phibun’s Thailand will also never be told. In the case of HK, how certain people became tycoons will never be told. The story of Ibu Tien and Suharto’s mistress, the fire truck, and the sewage plant probably won’t make it into any book you author either – but it happened. 🙂
Red Shirt protest at Government House
CJHinke
seems to me the red shirts have a platform… so am interested if you have more specific views on what you think they should do…
just for the record I think the redshirts…
represent a mass movement, most of their mass background people see Thaksin as the symbol of what they want in Thailand
the red shirts I think have a more sophisticated and detailed view
they want Thailand ruled by a government elected by the people, more specifically democratic elections under the 1997 constitution rather than 2007
they want reliable unmanipulated justice system in Thailand that applies to everyone (they are obeying the law, they want the PAD punished for breaking the law, they want the manipulation of the court that convicted Thaksin to be recognised and undone)
it is true they do not have a strong autocratic discipline to stop renegade and foolish groups as in chiang mai and udon
the PAD were a movement, but now they have regressed to an action group inspired and funded by the military and elite families masterminded by Prem…
the PAD is a single objective group with a hierarchical control chain which gives them cohesion and power… their objective is to preserve the wealth and power in the tradional hierarchy where the ordinary people are slaves/buffaloes
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Joy, I think I didn’t make any assumption for any other as you wrote. So I don’t know what you are talking about and you can’t simply assume that I or any one read your most interesting book from just a few paragraphs.
Anyway, that quote came from Ji in that talk why he just did the thing that he said for attack the yellow young man.
And I don’t claim anything for Thai. So can you just post your idea, the argument for that and try not to give the impression to force other to think or beleive like you have done?
Ji started the talk with critic Taksin and he always said that he are not Taksin supporter but why he change to become a part of red shirts? As his manifesto, he argued that he just want to use some part of this people who believe in democracy and not for the political point.
I think it might be clearer for himself if he didn’t use this people from the red shirts and then so he don’t have to said that he is not the Taksin’ s supporter as the same time that he is not the PAD supporter too.
To Yuwi, if giles did research on the problems of universal health care system correctly, and unbiased, he might notice and pick up a lot of problems on these amended policies of Taksin for his own interest. But he just look at the matter circumferentially and grab a picture that it is good. So it is very doubtful. I don’t know exactly as Yuwi don’t know too that what is the explaination for that. One of the explanation, which might be wrong or right, is gile change his mind to support Taksin for his own interest.
The campaign success for people to vote for Taksin, but there were hundreds of hospital closed for the financial burden, the quality of service drops from the increasing demand and anyway, the person who need real help could not access the service because it is not the matter of payment but the availability and accessibility itself.
Spying on the Red Shirts
unbiased folks see that the yellows are far ahead in the violence stakes
That doesn’t sound like an unbiased comment.
Unless you can provide detailed evidence from 2006 to date, I suggest a more objective view would be that there are elements of both sides that have a propensity to violence.
It looks like the leadership of both sides seem to be showing more restraint of late, so hopefully that is a good sign for the future (if they do have any control over their respective groups).
Report on “Lèse Majesté in Thailand: The Enemy of Democracy”
Thanks everyone for your feedback on the report. I’m glad to hear from some of the attendees that many people were pleased to be able to attend and at least able to debate among themselves later on. The comments here challenge those on the SOAS post claiming that such events have no impact. Incidentally, it wasn’t my intention to portray the event negatively – just accurately, based on what was actually said, without editorialising too much and presuming what people might be thinking. LM naturally has a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech.
It is also interesting (but unsurprising) to learn that two Thai government officials were in attendance.
Incidentally, if there are Thai students in Oxford who would like to follow up this event with more discussions and perhaps readings on Thai politics, do please get in touch, and maybe we can put our heads together.
Tej Bunnag speaking in London
“*to foster freedom of discussion and expression, Samaggi Samagom would like to restrict the press/media from entering the event.”, so does this mean that the talk wont be transcribed/make available to the public? isnt this a contradiction in itself.. “fair dicussion”, ha dont make me laugh.