I felt that your wording left me with little alternative hermeneutic options. But mai pen rai.
Still, I have some more problems. For example, when you refer to the monarchy as a “manifestation of a whole set of Thai sociocultural ideals,” I can’t really figure out what this means. Moreover, if the monarchy is to be a “vehicle for real political change,” I wonder what you mean by “political change,” “real,” and the role of the monarchy’s imagined prestige in this (given, for example, that there is a huge groundswell of attitudes directly critical of the monarchy in Thailand — a counterhegemony so to speak, something to which Gramsci had not paid too much attention, as far as I know — rather than a subversion or cooptation of the prevailing hegemony).
In order to get the conversation coming (and misunderstandings going), may I suggest that you take some time to put together a more systematic statement of your positions (doesn’t need to be long; one or two pages would do) and publish them as a post on New Mandala?
John Francis Lee:
As you said:” Giles’ harsh, unnecessary criticism of HM left the folks who signed “his” petition in a very awkward position in Thailand”
There’s at least one who didn’t feel that way. Somkiat Tangmano from Midnight University website had reinstate his “signing” Giles petition, though he didn’t agree with all of Giles “manifesto”. I do support Somkiat’s stance, the petition is about the LM law , not the institution. I do admire his stance for the freedom of speech, even for the one that he didn’t agree with.
This is wonderful.
Could it be that HM’s quick pardon indicates some displeasure with those who have tried to use the les majeste laws to silence political dissent?
After all, those who have misued the les majeste laws for political reasons could themselves be held to be guilty of les majeste, for dragging HM’s name into politics, when he is supposed to be above politics.
Hopefully a lesson has been learnt and the Ahibisit Government will send the signals out to stop misusing the les majeste laws.
Meanwhile, we can celebrate one victory for freedom.
But what about all the other cases, and particularly the Thais accused of les majeste, whose cases will not be publicised internationally? Its tough for them and you gotta feel sad that its come to this…
Thank you to all the people who participated in the email campain to the Australian Prime Minister ,The Australian Embassy in Bangkok,The Royal Thai Embassy Canberra and vairous media outlets.
May you find the peace you deserve Harry and I pray that your mother makes a full recovery.
“I think that the King is now in such a position that he could, for example, make statement about the injustice that occurred when three people were executed because the death of his brother. He could do that without looking bad for him. It would actually look better for him. He could come out and defend democracy. But I think it’s really too late to change his mind about these things.”
No, I’m not advocating assassination. Especially in an open forum. I was merely pointing out that the KNLA has tried in the past to kill Htain Maung, and that they now have one additional reason to want him dead.
Following amberwaves note regarding Oxford-Cambridge, and apologies for taking the thread sideways, the absolute best report of the alumni meeting is the one in the Nation, Published on November 12, 2005:
Oxbridge bash a quipster’s battleground
Not even Wednesday’s Oxford and Cambridge Annual Dinner could escape the current climate of fierce political competition.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was supposed to be one of the special guests at Bangkok’s Suan Ambara Auditorium, but he opted instead for a state visit to Kenya.
Too bad, said the event’s chairman, MR Tongnoi Tongyai, because he was going to be sitting next to Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Oxford-educated leader of the opposition Democrat Party.
And across the table from the PM would have been Cambridge-educated Anand Panyarachun, twice a premier himself and now chairman of the National Reconciliation Commission.
Just as well Thaksin couldn’t make it, Anand quipped to his younger table-mate. Even with an Oxford tie around his neck, he said, Abhisit probably couldn’t match the high-school boy from Montford – meaning Thaksin.
“He’s tough competition!”
Not to be outdone, Abhisit mentioned three other MPs who’d made two correct decisions in their lives – first to attend Oxford, and second to join the Democrat Party.
So there was good give and take, but nevertheless some young Oxonians at the party complained that the venue had too much light blue in its decor – the colour of Cambridge University, quite pale compared to Oxford’s dusky hue.
“Our [party] logo colour has become steadily darker and darker and the poll ratings go up just the same,” Abhisit told the crowd of about 200.
The event wouldn’t be an Oxbridge dinner, of course, without verbal sparring between the universities’ alumni.
In a toast to Cambridge, Abhisit pointed out that, to his horror, an American website he’d seen listed Cambridge in a global university survey as being ahead of Oxford in terms of quality of education.
“It was wrong, because that survey had Cambridge second and Oxford 10th!” he noted.
So Abhisit went to the website of London’s Guardian newspaper and was relieved to find Oxford restored to the pinnacle of the rankings, as “it so deserved”, while Cambridge came second.
Fine food and free-flowing wine, champagne and port aside, the dinner was historic in that His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn and Her Royal Highness Princess Srirasmi presided, for the first time.
Some who attended viewed this as a formal acceptance of the two as future rulers of the Kingdom by Oxbridge men and women.
The surprise guest not on the list, however, was Fu Fu, the Prince’s favourite poodle, clad in white royal pager attire, who sat at the high table along with the royal guests of honour.
It seems that we are missing as well pages 533>578 of the Thai “complete version”.
Is there anybody who can scan those missing pages too.
And isn’t the English version worth too?
For once the ILP and PAP system appears to be a very good system in that the beautiful state and it’s people are allowed to grow in it’s own pace without any external influence. But on a second thought, does it really help the state and her people? Isn’t it hindering the development of the State? The case of point is the post itself which says the tourism industry in the State has never taken off as envisaged due to strict inner-line regime.
“Get your little Oxford bum down to Thailand pronto and actually teach some of the poor rural folk you are always pontificating about.
“… not the Oxford financed by my rich daddy pseudo-intellectual world.”
Oh, dear. Don’t you now that encouraging class antagonism is much frowned upon in today’s Thailand?
Or perhaps your comments are meant as a sly dig at the current government (Oxford alumni: Abhisit, Korn)?
Moreover, my Manifesto is not necessarily just a critique of the King, it is a critique of how the monarchy system is used in Thailand. This is because I do not believe the King planned the Coup. I don’t believe that the King is necessarily even the most powerful person in Thailand. I think that the military, and those that surround themselves and legitimise what they’re doing by claiming royal patronage, are those who really have power in Thailand. It (the Manifesto) is more of a critique of them and their use of the monarchy.
I wish that Giles’ manifesto had skipped the criticism of HM and stuck to the real point of contention. You cannot have it both ways: claiming to want HM the King out of politics and then criticizing him for not being active on the side you’re interested in. Neither politicians nor political scientists seem able to keep themselves from trying to use HM for their own ends.
As well, Giles’ harsh, unnecessary criticism of HM left the folks who signed “his” petition in a very awkward position in Thailand. Not everyone can pick up and fly home to Oxford. The folks who signed the petition were not making Giles their spokesman, or even agreeing with all he had said and stood for up to that point. They were calling for an end to the lese majeste law, as HM the King has himself done, specifically on the occasion of his birthday speech in December 2005. But Giles’ manifesto has played them into the hands of the opposition. And his criticism of HM in his manifesto cast a shadow over the very good points he made that followed.
Giles missed an opportunity to stand with HM the King against lese majeste, and I think that would have struck a resonant note in Thailand and made his protest much more effective, if perhaps personally less satisfying.
I wish he had pointed out the blatant act of lese majeste the PAD committed when they made HM use the servants’ entrance of the palace to attend to his sister’s funeral ceremony. An act is worth a thousand words, and the PAD displayed their contempt for HM the King at that point as no one had before. Giles certainly had an audience at that point and I think he missed a golden opportunity to point out the sheer hypocrisy of the PAD/Democrat putsch..
Well, hindsight is always 20/20. Good luck to Giles in the UK, and to everyone in Thailand. If an election is ever again held here things will be put right again.
Mark Lamerton must be new to this list as he seems surprised by jonfernquest’s “extraordinary” response. Actually, it is ordinary for him to be angry and disparaging while valuing only his own particular Thailand experience. Search his name on this blog and you’ll get a feeling for this.
Here, it is the anti-intellectualism that is interesting. While one might agree that much of the teaching in Thai (and many other universities and colleges worldwide) is about vocationalism, the use of bold characters suggests a raging anti-intellectualism at work. That others might have different ideals and value free and critical thinking while encourage students to get excited about intellectual work seems somehow unworthy. That is sad, not extraordinary.
Good last comments there!
I am going to expose another illusion, perhaps for the first time publicly, but it would ne interesting to see if any serious researcher has ever made a study – or who can now do so! – about Thai illusions and fact. Given what happened in Harry’s case between fact and fiction, we can note that there is a great deal of confusion here in the LOS about what is and what is not.
I speak of Thai TV soap operas, of course. Having watched plenty, and reactions of people watching them, and noting how Thai people in general REALLY behave when no one is watching them…or even when they are, I postulate that the Thai culture is letting off some steam by ‘allowing’ or ‘engineering’ these soap operas as a way of public, but hidden, confession. That is, when you watch these soap operas, you see people who are conniving, impolite, violent, jealous, greedy and selfish, focused on wealth, devoid of ethical and moral compass, and easily impressed by others with money or pretenses of being someone.
Now, this is from the soap operas. But I think that if you turn off the TV for a few minutes and reflect a bit, you might note that around you is one huge soap opera. Land of Illusion? Of course. The really sad thing though is that those on TV are acting – the rest are doing it for real.
Hope you’re not encouraging assassinations, Charles. It’s a bankrupt policy with the US as a role model that never achieves any lasting peace and harmony within and between groups.
I think our point of misunderstanding is that you seem to think that I take what I said in your quote as a “natural truth” and that I am propogating this perspective here. I intend neither, and I apologize if my wording may have misled you.
I too am interested in analyzing the structures and processes of this phenomenon, but what I’m even more interested in is using such an analysis to see whether the monarchy’s sociocultural star can be a vehicle for real political change. This is the conversation I want to engage in.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Giles in The Guardian
Nong Juu:
I felt that your wording left me with little alternative hermeneutic options. But mai pen rai.
Still, I have some more problems. For example, when you refer to the monarchy as a “manifestation of a whole set of Thai sociocultural ideals,” I can’t really figure out what this means. Moreover, if the monarchy is to be a “vehicle for real political change,” I wonder what you mean by “political change,” “real,” and the role of the monarchy’s imagined prestige in this (given, for example, that there is a huge groundswell of attitudes directly critical of the monarchy in Thailand — a counterhegemony so to speak, something to which Gramsci had not paid too much attention, as far as I know — rather than a subversion or cooptation of the prevailing hegemony).
In order to get the conversation coming (and misunderstandings going), may I suggest that you take some time to put together a more systematic statement of your positions (doesn’t need to be long; one or two pages would do) and publish them as a post on New Mandala?
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
John Francis Lee:
As you said:” Giles’ harsh, unnecessary criticism of HM left the folks who signed “his” petition in a very awkward position in Thailand”
There’s at least one who didn’t feel that way. Somkiat Tangmano from Midnight University website had reinstate his “signing” Giles petition, though he didn’t agree with all of Giles “manifesto”. I do support Somkiat’s stance, the petition is about the LM law , not the institution. I do admire his stance for the freedom of speech, even for the one that he didn’t agree with.
Aturan Permainan DominoQQ utk Pemula
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25086262-5006785,00.html
This is wonderful.
Could it be that HM’s quick pardon indicates some displeasure with those who have tried to use the les majeste laws to silence political dissent?
After all, those who have misued the les majeste laws for political reasons could themselves be held to be guilty of les majeste, for dragging HM’s name into politics, when he is supposed to be above politics.
Hopefully a lesson has been learnt and the Ahibisit Government will send the signals out to stop misusing the les majeste laws.
Meanwhile, we can celebrate one victory for freedom.
But what about all the other cases, and particularly the Thais accused of les majeste, whose cases will not be publicised internationally? Its tough for them and you gotta feel sad that its come to this…
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
Good interview! I’m looking forward to the second part.
Aturan Permainan DominoQQ utk Pemula
Congatutations Harry Nicolaides on your release
Thank you to all the people who participated in the email campain to the Australian Prime Minister ,The Australian Embassy in Bangkok,The Royal Thai Embassy Canberra and vairous media outlets.
May you find the peace you deserve Harry and I pray that your mother makes a full recovery.
Steve
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
“I think that the King is now in such a position that he could, for example, make statement about the injustice that occurred when three people were executed because the death of his brother. He could do that without looking bad for him. It would actually look better for him. He could come out and defend democracy. But I think it’s really too late to change his mind about these things.”
Thank you for this important message!
More repressive efforts in Thailand
Maybe the “Oxford bum” comment was meant to be “cheeky input”.
War and the Wa
Moe Aung,
No, I’m not advocating assassination. Especially in an open forum. I was merely pointing out that the KNLA has tried in the past to kill Htain Maung, and that they now have one additional reason to want him dead.
More repressive efforts in Thailand
Following amberwaves note regarding Oxford-Cambridge, and apologies for taking the thread sideways, the absolute best report of the alumni meeting is the one in the Nation, Published on November 12, 2005:
Oxbridge bash a quipster’s battleground
Not even Wednesday’s Oxford and Cambridge Annual Dinner could escape the current climate of fierce political competition.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was supposed to be one of the special guests at Bangkok’s Suan Ambara Auditorium, but he opted instead for a state visit to Kenya.
Too bad, said the event’s chairman, MR Tongnoi Tongyai, because he was going to be sitting next to Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Oxford-educated leader of the opposition Democrat Party.
And across the table from the PM would have been Cambridge-educated Anand Panyarachun, twice a premier himself and now chairman of the National Reconciliation Commission.
Just as well Thaksin couldn’t make it, Anand quipped to his younger table-mate. Even with an Oxford tie around his neck, he said, Abhisit probably couldn’t match the high-school boy from Montford – meaning Thaksin.
“He’s tough competition!”
Not to be outdone, Abhisit mentioned three other MPs who’d made two correct decisions in their lives – first to attend Oxford, and second to join the Democrat Party.
So there was good give and take, but nevertheless some young Oxonians at the party complained that the venue had too much light blue in its decor – the colour of Cambridge University, quite pale compared to Oxford’s dusky hue.
“Our [party] logo colour has become steadily darker and darker and the poll ratings go up just the same,” Abhisit told the crowd of about 200.
The event wouldn’t be an Oxbridge dinner, of course, without verbal sparring between the universities’ alumni.
In a toast to Cambridge, Abhisit pointed out that, to his horror, an American website he’d seen listed Cambridge in a global university survey as being ahead of Oxford in terms of quality of education.
“It was wrong, because that survey had Cambridge second and Oxford 10th!” he noted.
So Abhisit went to the website of London’s Guardian newspaper and was relieved to find Oxford restored to the pinnacle of the rankings, as “it so deserved”, while Cambridge came second.
Fine food and free-flowing wine, champagne and port aside, the dinner was historic in that His Royal Highness Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn and Her Royal Highness Princess Srirasmi presided, for the first time.
Some who attended viewed this as a formal acceptance of the two as future rulers of the Kingdom by Oxbridge men and women.
The surprise guest not on the list, however, was Fu Fu, the Prince’s favourite poodle, clad in white royal pager attire, who sat at the high table along with the royal guests of honour.
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
It seems that we are missing as well pages 533>578 of the Thai “complete version”.
Is there anybody who can scan those missing pages too.
And isn’t the English version worth too?
“Arunachal Pradesh…exotically yours”
For once the ILP and PAP system appears to be a very good system in that the beautiful state and it’s people are allowed to grow in it’s own pace without any external influence. But on a second thought, does it really help the state and her people? Isn’t it hindering the development of the State? The case of point is the post itself which says the tourism industry in the State has never taken off as envisaged due to strict inner-line regime.
War and the Wa
Junta urges UWSA to turn into militia group
http://www.mizzima.com/news/inside-burma/1746-junta-urges-uwsa-to-turn-into-militia-group.html
More repressive efforts in Thailand
“Get your little Oxford bum down to Thailand pronto and actually teach some of the poor rural folk you are always pontificating about.
“… not the Oxford financed by my rich daddy pseudo-intellectual world.”
Oh, dear. Don’t you now that encouraging class antagonism is much frowned upon in today’s Thailand?
Or perhaps your comments are meant as a sly dig at the current government (Oxford alumni: Abhisit, Korn)?
Or a jab at the Thai establishment in general? (see: http://www.bangkokpost.com/071208_Brunch/07Dec2008_brun017.php
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
Moreover, my Manifesto is not necessarily just a critique of the King, it is a critique of how the monarchy system is used in Thailand. This is because I do not believe the King planned the Coup. I don’t believe that the King is necessarily even the most powerful person in Thailand. I think that the military, and those that surround themselves and legitimise what they’re doing by claiming royal patronage, are those who really have power in Thailand. It (the Manifesto) is more of a critique of them and their use of the monarchy.
I wish that Giles’ manifesto had skipped the criticism of HM and stuck to the real point of contention. You cannot have it both ways: claiming to want HM the King out of politics and then criticizing him for not being active on the side you’re interested in. Neither politicians nor political scientists seem able to keep themselves from trying to use HM for their own ends.
As well, Giles’ harsh, unnecessary criticism of HM left the folks who signed “his” petition in a very awkward position in Thailand. Not everyone can pick up and fly home to Oxford. The folks who signed the petition were not making Giles their spokesman, or even agreeing with all he had said and stood for up to that point. They were calling for an end to the lese majeste law, as HM the King has himself done, specifically on the occasion of his birthday speech in December 2005. But Giles’ manifesto has played them into the hands of the opposition. And his criticism of HM in his manifesto cast a shadow over the very good points he made that followed.
Giles missed an opportunity to stand with HM the King against lese majeste, and I think that would have struck a resonant note in Thailand and made his protest much more effective, if perhaps personally less satisfying.
I wish he had pointed out the blatant act of lese majeste the PAD committed when they made HM use the servants’ entrance of the palace to attend to his sister’s funeral ceremony. An act is worth a thousand words, and the PAD displayed their contempt for HM the King at that point as no one had before. Giles certainly had an audience at that point and I think he missed a golden opportunity to point out the sheer hypocrisy of the PAD/Democrat putsch..
Well, hindsight is always 20/20. Good luck to Giles in the UK, and to everyone in Thailand. If an election is ever again held here things will be put right again.
More repressive efforts in Thailand
Mark Lamerton must be new to this list as he seems surprised by jonfernquest’s “extraordinary” response. Actually, it is ordinary for him to be angry and disparaging while valuing only his own particular Thailand experience. Search his name on this blog and you’ll get a feeling for this.
Here, it is the anti-intellectualism that is interesting. While one might agree that much of the teaching in Thai (and many other universities and colleges worldwide) is about vocationalism, the use of bold characters suggests a raging anti-intellectualism at work. That others might have different ideals and value free and critical thinking while encourage students to get excited about intellectual work seems somehow unworthy. That is sad, not extraordinary.
More repressive efforts in Thailand
Good last comments there!
I am going to expose another illusion, perhaps for the first time publicly, but it would ne interesting to see if any serious researcher has ever made a study – or who can now do so! – about Thai illusions and fact. Given what happened in Harry’s case between fact and fiction, we can note that there is a great deal of confusion here in the LOS about what is and what is not.
I speak of Thai TV soap operas, of course. Having watched plenty, and reactions of people watching them, and noting how Thai people in general REALLY behave when no one is watching them…or even when they are, I postulate that the Thai culture is letting off some steam by ‘allowing’ or ‘engineering’ these soap operas as a way of public, but hidden, confession. That is, when you watch these soap operas, you see people who are conniving, impolite, violent, jealous, greedy and selfish, focused on wealth, devoid of ethical and moral compass, and easily impressed by others with money or pretenses of being someone.
Now, this is from the soap operas. But I think that if you turn off the TV for a few minutes and reflect a bit, you might note that around you is one huge soap opera. Land of Illusion? Of course. The really sad thing though is that those on TV are acting – the rest are doing it for real.
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
article is banned in Thailand
War and the Wa
Hope you’re not encouraging assassinations, Charles. It’s a bankrupt policy with the US as a role model that never achieves any lasting peace and harmony within and between groups.
Giles in The Guardian
PS Sri,
I think our point of misunderstanding is that you seem to think that I take what I said in your quote as a “natural truth” and that I am propogating this perspective here. I intend neither, and I apologize if my wording may have misled you.
I too am interested in analyzing the structures and processes of this phenomenon, but what I’m even more interested in is using such an analysis to see whether the monarchy’s sociocultural star can be a vehicle for real political change. This is the conversation I want to engage in.
Special interview: Giles Ungpakorn, part 1
Thanks for this – I’m looking forward to part 2.