Sorry to learn about the illness of your daughter, and glad to hear that she is better now. I look forward to reading your paper. Maybe, you can email it to me via Andrew or Nich.
Reading your quote from Fichte on Prussia made me chuckle (and reminded me of the reason of state as a distinct governmental rationality). In an earlier text, I had written the following (in particular, see the concluding sentence):
“Finally, it took educational efforts–the process of edu┬мcationalization–an equally long time to get differentiated not only from the highest stratum but also from reli-gion, family, and from its local interactional embeddedness and con┬мtrol. For example, the local priest being the schoolmaster’s superior characterized local-level education in 16th- and 17th-century Prussia. The schoolmaster earned his livelihood in his usual profession, except during the wintertime when he taught. Education had not been differentiated from the agricul┬мtural cycle nor had it created a specialized professional role, the “teacher.” Moreover, instruction at school and reli┬мgious duties in church were mixed whilst teaching materials con┬мsisted of religious writings. Even to speak of a “school” often made no sense, as in many areas the “teacher” was boarded alternately by different farmers in their homes one room of which served as the “classroom” (Ahrens 1991:3). Although this organization might have been devised out of budgetary constraints, it nevertheless produced a tight communal control of educational activities. This organization was used well into the second half of the 19th century; in some villages, it even persisted up to about 1918 (ibid.).
Besides financial considerations, it is certainly also correct to say that communities maintained a “tenacious preference for time-honored arrangements, wedding the teacher to the local fabric and keeping him vulnerable to its sanctions” (La Vopa 1976:451). The teachers’ change of role toward being “missionaries of popular enlightenment” demanded that they became “disentangled from face-to-face dependencies” (ibid.:450). This differentiation became even more imperative when the teachers were ascribed the mission “to realize, and secure, the democratic, unitary Nation State” (ibid.:464), “to integrate popular culture into a new whole–into the cultural and political unity of a German (or at least a Prussian) State–despite the stubborn particularism of local life” (ibid.:466). It seems that there is little difference between Prussia and Thailand.”
Sources mentioned:
Ahrens, P. 1991. Die Geschichte der Agathenburger Schule von der Gr├╝ndung durch Gr├дfin Catharina Charlotta Königsmarck 1697 bis zum Jahr 1900: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Landschulwesens im Elbe-Weser-Raum. Stade: Landkreis Stade – Der Oberkreisdirektor.
La Vopa, A. J. 1976. “From Schoolmasters to Schoolteachers: The Making of a Modern Professional Corporation in Prussia, 1763-1850.” PhD thesis, Cornell University.
I think the debate centers on the wrong level of analysis.
Nga.. wrote “So the goal is clear, but what’s the strategy?”
It means
1) to destroy the reputation of Thaksin and Ji,
2) to eliminate the chance of the two forces be able to unite.
Ji Ungpakorn and Jakrapob Penkair together on stage addressed the Red Shirts crowd frightens the hegemonic challengers.
We should ask: What are the forces Thaksin, Ji, and Jakrapob represent that could threaten the the hegemonic challengers’ objectives in Thailand, the mainland Southeast Asia, and the Asia-Pacific Theatre?
We play into the enemy’s hand if we focus on the individual level of analysis, i.e. Thaksin’s capitalist ideology, Ji’s Marxist approach, Jakrapob’s progressive motivation.
At issue should be the link between domestic politics and the great powers strategic objective in the region.
David Brown: Are you finally admitting Thaksin did wrong?
If so, at least we now have something we can agree upon 🙂
Nowhere have I advocated that wrongdoings by anyone in government should go unpunsihed, irrespective of what color that government is.
The big picture here has always been about whether building Thaksin up to bring others down was the right way to achieve what most people here would agree is necessary for Thailand.
I’m still of the opinion that would just be replacing one tyranny with another, and it is because of the prevalence of people like you (unconditional, unwavering support & defence of Thaksin) that makes me think it would be an equally difficult struggle to remove the new tyrant.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I just cannot subscribe to the theory that the ultimate solution for the country will come from more unthinking, unconditional support of a white knight.
Sorry to Giles for hijacking this thread (about him), but I’m still prepared to argue for the song mai ow position, whether it is fashionable or not.
(I admire Giles for taking a stand, and, as I said on my blog, I fully support all his 9 platform discussion points, with the exception of the last sentence of point #4 – instead I would seek the abolishment of the Privy Council, and an amendment to the lese majeste laws such that only the palace can make the charge)
PS, I discarded Sondhi Lim around the same time I discarded Thaksin!
Ralph Kramden: You raise good questions about my post on KhiKwai.com. Some of the ambiguities you pointed out were intentional. However, the post’s key points were:
1) The best hope for real democratization in Thailand is an alliance of the provincial masses and those urban middle income voters who have largely been on the fence over the past few years (applauding, perhaps, the case made in support of the coup but never particularly enthusiastic about either the PAD or military rule). Because of recent events, that alliance seems to me to be more workable now than it has been at any point in modern Thai history.
2) Generally speaking, real democratization is only achievable by effectively using discourse that is acceptable in current Thai society, as opposed to appear to want to burn the whole house down (which makes any “democratic movement” must easier to demonize and repress). Hence the references to (highly idealized) aspects of the Thai past that any such movement might be able to evoke for the purposes of mobilization. This, incidentally, is why I thought Giles’ statement (which I had not read prior to publishing the post) was in fact quite counterproductive. If the goal is “democracy,” I would argue that the way to achieve it is to make a case for its compatibility with Thai culture, as opposed to tainting the case with ideologies most people in Thailand find distasteful or downright heretical.
thanks for responding to my comments, which I know are somewhat bucking the trend amongst many of you. I think that many that directly experienced the later time of the Thaksin governments while Sondhi Lim and his PAD were doing the dirty work for the Amart show the mental scars. Sondhi Lim is very persuasive because of his ability to continually obscure the bigger picture with ravings on trivialities.
“CIA” in article at http://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/jais-global-league/
points out that Thailand, in terms of its political and economic development could be classed with Malaysia and Singapore. His scheme envisaged three main grouping with Myanmar as the second and the Indo-china countries as the other. He believes Thailand has reverted to being classifiable with Myanmar.
The Chuan(?) and Thaksin governments raised Thailand but someone else said (sorry cant be bothered looking up the ref) Thailand is now “more strongly under military control that ever before”.
The glare of publicity that surrounds a democratic government, compare with the secret deals of the military controlled administrations, reveals all sorts of things about business and politics that are OK when you do not know about them but you now consider “unethical, if not clearly proven illegal”.
Because you have seen the real way politics and business works (strictly by majority vote and the letter of the law) you discard the one person that really worked to secure permanent democracy in Thailand!
Maybe you are more comfortable if deals are done in secret by military dictators?
Peaople are asking here how Khi Khwai excellent vision can be achieved. My advice for what it is worth… find a leader strong enough to bring the military under control of parliament and the government (all composed solely of fully elected members).
And, if you already know one, let him compete to take the job!
Susie, I don’t know what Ecrit’s intent is, but I don’t think he said Lese Majeste was defendable. I don’t think anything is going to be solved fervourusly demonising anybody.
Do you think that Giles fleeing to the UK has positioned him as a treacherous monster? Or is he an innocent being persecuted by the dastardly elites? That these are seemingly the only two conclusions being adopted by people, is itself, a pretty narrow way to look at the situation of censorship in Thailand. Censorship is cancerous because it polarises peoples emotions.. leading to greater reactions and so on and so on etc.
I can understand why some observers find Ji’s views too extreme or leftist. In fact, his unalloyed commitment to socialist principles fashionable decades ago is unusual, perhaps even quaint. I suspect, however, that his socialism and Marxism form the wellspring that guides his thought and practice. His manifesto rings with historical allusions that enhance its power.
I read the Thai version of “Red Siam” Manifesto against the English version. How does he render one version into the other? I don’t know how he works, but these are not exact translations. I found some interesting differences.
Manifesto / thalaengkan The English immediately invokes Marx’s Communist Manifesto, but the Thai term simply means proclamation, announcement, communiqué. Edicts from the Sangha are called thalaengkan khana song, Sangha Announcements. With the Thai title, Ji’s statement has been normalized as if it were issued from a government department’s press office.
this king / kasat khon ni Thai kasat comes from Sanskrit ksatriya, the warrior, kingly caste in the ancient Indian hierarchy, but it is a common noun. In his The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today (1957), Jit Poumisak (1930-1966), the “political poet” imprisoned by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat in the late 1950s, also referred to the king as kasat, thereby avoiding the use of royal language or rachasap and rendering the monarch as an ordinary person. Referring to the king by a common noun, Ji can thus use the classifier for ordinary person, khon, rather than the classifier ong reserved for kings, Buddha images, and monks. I also note that the Thai version repeats “this king / kasat khon ni” six times, driving the linguistic point home.
The present exploitative society / sangkhom lalang patjuban Thai lalang means backward, un-modern. My sense is that the English is familiar jargon, while the Thai version with “backward” is insulting to a ruling class proud of its modernity.
Their time is finished [following his list of nine ideas] / thi kuan ja long thang khaya haeng prawattisat The Thai literally means that they should disappear into the dustbin / garbage can of history, a clear reference to Trotsky’s famous remark. The Thai version here has much more rhetorical flair than the English version.
The Thai language is being deployed in “The Red Siam” Manifesto to great effect, and in one significant instance, is being re-engineered.
Ralph Kramden: Thanks for the further explanation, and I apologize if my tone offended.
‘So the goal might be clear, but what is the strategy?‘
It takes education, and a gradual weaning off the notion that the solution lies in one person.
Prawase & Anand only tell one side of the story – they are still clinging to someoone’s coattails.
Likewise, Jakrapop, although obviously he is hanging off someone else’s coattails.
The same can be said for most of the other pundits, and if no,t their work is usually too highbrow for plebs like me.
Giles gets it better, but he’s too far out in left field, still fighting a war that’s already been lost.
Khikwai’s piece is not an instant fix, but it shows the way forward.
I hear you still asking: ‘How?’
Here’s a practical first step:
Translate Khi Kwai’s piece into Thai and distribute it as widely as you can – you might just be sowing the seeds for something good.
I have read the preceding comments with interest. My understanding is that Ji is a revolutionary Communist, and therefore that he favors a dismantling of the capitalist system and the introduction of a “workers’ democracy”. Doesn’t this require revolutionary action, or at least a stand in the face of the threat of the curtailment of liberty?
For this reason, I feel quite surprised about Ji’s abscondment. Many people have mentioned that pressure is building towards at least some sort of change, and there is a feeling that Ji could have proved to have been something of a lightning rod if he had dug in his heels. He has some support from academics both locally and internationally, and he seems to have developed a relationship with Thaksin’s apparently still considerable power through his publicly declared solidarity with Jakrapob and the Redshirts. Even if this didn’t represent a safety net, the left needs its heroes. Ji shouting to the roof tops in the courts or in jail surely would have ratcheted up the temperature.
To sum up, I have to disagree with the tenor of the commentary above. To be sure, it’s easy for anonymous scribblers to suggest that public figures stand up and fight for their principles in the face of dire consequences, but a powerfully connected revolutionary such as Ji had the latitude to make his voice heard in an international forum. I really feel that Ji funked it, and eventually this may be a source of regret for him, and even for a few commentators on this board.
A while ago I spent some time at Chula and frankly, even then I did not understand how an eloquent and critical (+ left) scholar like Giles is tolerated by all the mediocre thai-ajaarns who are rather right-wing oriented with an unhealthy portion of nationalism.
Among a few other thai-ajaarns at Chula, Giles had the ability to introduce critical academic thoughts to graduate thai students – an ability which is tremendously needed in thai- social sciences. Because until now thai students, if not raised and educated abroad, take everything strait from the horses mouth.
Granted, Chula is an prestigious institution but good scholarship can not be find there, especially at the social sciences. The leaving of an excellent scholar, and here I am not refering to his political orientation, is not only regrettable for the academic debate inside Thailand, but also unfortunate for many graduate thai and foreign students at Chula.
nganadeeleg makes too many assumptions. I was simply asking why it is to be considered the best thing written? It is a cry and a plea that many will find resonates, me included.
It seems to me that there is much in it that reflects the feelings and frustrations of many educated observers of Thai politics, but it does feel a little like the “song mai aw” position writ large. Not cynicism, but we can do better by rejecting what we have.
Surrounded by devils, dinosaurs and vultures, a pox on all of them and move the undifferentiated “Thai people” forward (Thaksinite populism?) to something that is “real” such as Thai-style democracy (whatever that might be? Wasn’t that a PAD idea also?). Surrounded by devils, dinosaurs and vultures we seek to draw on (better?) royal examples from the past.
Surrounded by devils, dinosaurs and vultures we have to move forward in a way that is democratic, respects human rights etc. Well, yes, of course! But as FreeThai said at the KK web site, How? That’s the question that bedevils all good thinking people (or is it people thinking good things?). It partly accounts for why PAD had so much early support from NGOs, social movements, human rights groups, etc.
So the goal might be clear, but what is the strategy? More compromise with the great and good (Prawase, Anand and their ilk)? How many times can the rules be revamped? The revolution favoured by Ji? But where is party or movement? What is the way forward? How do the poor and disenfranchised get a voice?
I was just hoping for some thoughtful commentary on an interesting piece.
I know that my critique comes a little bit late, but after reading all the posts here I thought some remarks were appropriate. At first I want to thank Mr. Handley for his active involvement here on NM, it’s nice to know to the writer directly.
After reading the TKNS two times in the library I finally decided to spend the 25 Euro to buy one copy for myself, if you knew my monthly budged you would know that this is a compliment in itself…
I’m thankful for this book, especially because it contains the rumours and what I would call “grey literature”. As mentioned above, rumours often have a value in itself, and contribute to the tide of history; just think of the “predictions” about the length of the Chakri rule and their impact on 1932 or the succession.
As a student living abroad I appreciate this kind of information, even with the ambiguities attached. As far as I remember Handley has always marked passages in his book that were based on underground information, and of course we are bound to harsh scrutiny anyway before quoting any book. That the book was published by YUP does not release the reader from common sense and responsible use.
That some students though fell into the trap, mixing likely assumptions out of TKNS with confirmed data as Bangkok Pundit has pointed out, can be ignored as collateral damage.
However, the gentlemen assembled here seem to overlook that not everybody has a Thai wife, girlfriend or other acquaintance teaching at Chula, TU, SWU or RKH, who can feel the pulse of the Thai nation directly.
TKNS positively stands out from what we are usually served with – especially in Thai – from those syrupy hagiographies that try harder to hide than to reveal. If you have fought your way through lengthy passages about dhammaraja and devaraja cult theories, you finally had a good reading at rainy days too, an underestimated quality in the field of academic writing.
I do not appreciate the system of endnotes though; especially not separate endnotes for each chapter, – but at least and laudably TKNS contains a useful index, unlike many recently published books.
The only point I deplore is that the most entertaining sources are by their very nature unavailable, like the alleged treatise of Prince Sukhumbhand or the inflammatory remarks about Thailand’s alleged Susie Wong.
David Brown – you completley miss nganadeeleg’s point.
Instead, as usual,you go on “boosting” Thaksin .
Although Khi Kwai makes a couple of comments about your man, the thrust of his piece is more focused on Thailand, the Thai people and the future. Your man is only a part of the game, right now.
Khi Kwai knows what he is is talking about – do you ?
One of the most disturbing aspects of this story is its virtual absence from the Thai press. As far as I know, only the Nation is carrying a (somewhat anodyne) account of events. At least one well-known expat website has been deleting threads and posts relating to Giles’ flight to the UK. Together with news of a new Thai wesbite which invites citizens to inform on others guilty of lese majeste, this is making the current Thai government look very unattractive vis-a-vis freedom of expression.
Maybe in Thai eyes. But last time I looked it up in the TES world university rankings a few years back it came in at something like 191. Harvard was in the top half dozen.
David Brown: I’d hoped we could move beyond Thaksin by now, but since you asked:
I agree that the PM often has little control over things on the ground, however Thaksin’s various statements regarding the drug war, Tak Bai etc are a matter of record.
(also, I’m curious why you expect more of Abhisit than you do of Thaksin in this regard)
Also, I very much doubt it was the military forcing Thaksin to use tax havens & other artificial structures such as nominee maids etc.
Even if you are prepared to turn a blind eye to Thaksin’s many wrongdoings (unethical, if not clearly proven illegal), surely you can see that he is simply too divisive a figure to ever again be PM.
also, have you ever considered that he is actually holding back your cause, and his continued prominence provides ready ammunition for those wishing to hang on to control of the country?
to get some idea why I think some people unfairly copy some myths put out about Thaksin and keep throwing the odd statement around apparently without thought
it rather spoils the fairness and objectivity that you admire
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Maintaining the rage
LSS:
Sorry to learn about the illness of your daughter, and glad to hear that she is better now. I look forward to reading your paper. Maybe, you can email it to me via Andrew or Nich.
Reading your quote from Fichte on Prussia made me chuckle (and reminded me of the reason of state as a distinct governmental rationality). In an earlier text, I had written the following (in particular, see the concluding sentence):
“Finally, it took educational efforts–the process of edu┬мcationalization–an equally long time to get differentiated not only from the highest stratum but also from reli-gion, family, and from its local interactional embeddedness and con┬мtrol. For example, the local priest being the schoolmaster’s superior characterized local-level education in 16th- and 17th-century Prussia. The schoolmaster earned his livelihood in his usual profession, except during the wintertime when he taught. Education had not been differentiated from the agricul┬мtural cycle nor had it created a specialized professional role, the “teacher.” Moreover, instruction at school and reli┬мgious duties in church were mixed whilst teaching materials con┬мsisted of religious writings. Even to speak of a “school” often made no sense, as in many areas the “teacher” was boarded alternately by different farmers in their homes one room of which served as the “classroom” (Ahrens 1991:3). Although this organization might have been devised out of budgetary constraints, it nevertheless produced a tight communal control of educational activities. This organization was used well into the second half of the 19th century; in some villages, it even persisted up to about 1918 (ibid.).
Besides financial considerations, it is certainly also correct to say that communities maintained a “tenacious preference for time-honored arrangements, wedding the teacher to the local fabric and keeping him vulnerable to its sanctions” (La Vopa 1976:451). The teachers’ change of role toward being “missionaries of popular enlightenment” demanded that they became “disentangled from face-to-face dependencies” (ibid.:450). This differentiation became even more imperative when the teachers were ascribed the mission “to realize, and secure, the democratic, unitary Nation State” (ibid.:464), “to integrate popular culture into a new whole–into the cultural and political unity of a German (or at least a Prussian) State–despite the stubborn particularism of local life” (ibid.:466). It seems that there is little difference between Prussia and Thailand.”
Sources mentioned:
Ahrens, P. 1991. Die Geschichte der Agathenburger Schule von der Gr├╝ndung durch Gr├дfin Catharina Charlotta Königsmarck 1697 bis zum Jahr 1900: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Landschulwesens im Elbe-Weser-Raum. Stade: Landkreis Stade – Der Oberkreisdirektor.
La Vopa, A. J. 1976. “From Schoolmasters to Schoolteachers: The Making of a Modern Professional Corporation in Prussia, 1763-1850.” PhD thesis, Cornell University.
Giles leaves Thailand
I think the debate centers on the wrong level of analysis.
Nga.. wrote “So the goal is clear, but what’s the strategy?”
It means
1) to destroy the reputation of Thaksin and Ji,
2) to eliminate the chance of the two forces be able to unite.
Ji Ungpakorn and Jakrapob Penkair together on stage addressed the Red Shirts crowd frightens the hegemonic challengers.
We should ask: What are the forces Thaksin, Ji, and Jakrapob represent that could threaten the the hegemonic challengers’ objectives in Thailand, the mainland Southeast Asia, and the Asia-Pacific Theatre?
We play into the enemy’s hand if we focus on the individual level of analysis, i.e. Thaksin’s capitalist ideology, Ji’s Marxist approach, Jakrapob’s progressive motivation.
At issue should be the link between domestic politics and the great powers strategic objective in the region.
Giles leaves Thailand
David Brown: Are you finally admitting Thaksin did wrong?
If so, at least we now have something we can agree upon 🙂
Nowhere have I advocated that wrongdoings by anyone in government should go unpunsihed, irrespective of what color that government is.
The big picture here has always been about whether building Thaksin up to bring others down was the right way to achieve what most people here would agree is necessary for Thailand.
I’m still of the opinion that would just be replacing one tyranny with another, and it is because of the prevalence of people like you (unconditional, unwavering support & defence of Thaksin) that makes me think it would be an equally difficult struggle to remove the new tyrant.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I just cannot subscribe to the theory that the ultimate solution for the country will come from more unthinking, unconditional support of a white knight.
Sorry to Giles for hijacking this thread (about him), but I’m still prepared to argue for the song mai ow position, whether it is fashionable or not.
(I admire Giles for taking a stand, and, as I said on my blog, I fully support all his 9 platform discussion points, with the exception of the last sentence of point #4 – instead I would seek the abolishment of the Privy Council, and an amendment to the lese majeste laws such that only the palace can make the charge)
PS, I discarded Sondhi Lim around the same time I discarded Thaksin!
Giles leaves Thailand
Ralph Kramden: You raise good questions about my post on KhiKwai.com. Some of the ambiguities you pointed out were intentional. However, the post’s key points were:
1) The best hope for real democratization in Thailand is an alliance of the provincial masses and those urban middle income voters who have largely been on the fence over the past few years (applauding, perhaps, the case made in support of the coup but never particularly enthusiastic about either the PAD or military rule). Because of recent events, that alliance seems to me to be more workable now than it has been at any point in modern Thai history.
2) Generally speaking, real democratization is only achievable by effectively using discourse that is acceptable in current Thai society, as opposed to appear to want to burn the whole house down (which makes any “democratic movement” must easier to demonize and repress). Hence the references to (highly idealized) aspects of the Thai past that any such movement might be able to evoke for the purposes of mobilization. This, incidentally, is why I thought Giles’ statement (which I had not read prior to publishing the post) was in fact quite counterproductive. If the goal is “democracy,” I would argue that the way to achieve it is to make a case for its compatibility with Thai culture, as opposed to tainting the case with ideologies most people in Thailand find distasteful or downright heretical.
Giles leaves Thailand
nganadeeleg and Regular Reader
thanks for responding to my comments, which I know are somewhat bucking the trend amongst many of you. I think that many that directly experienced the later time of the Thaksin governments while Sondhi Lim and his PAD were doing the dirty work for the Amart show the mental scars. Sondhi Lim is very persuasive because of his ability to continually obscure the bigger picture with ravings on trivialities.
“CIA” in article at http://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/jais-global-league/
points out that Thailand, in terms of its political and economic development could be classed with Malaysia and Singapore. His scheme envisaged three main grouping with Myanmar as the second and the Indo-china countries as the other. He believes Thailand has reverted to being classifiable with Myanmar.
The Chuan(?) and Thaksin governments raised Thailand but someone else said (sorry cant be bothered looking up the ref) Thailand is now “more strongly under military control that ever before”.
The glare of publicity that surrounds a democratic government, compare with the secret deals of the military controlled administrations, reveals all sorts of things about business and politics that are OK when you do not know about them but you now consider “unethical, if not clearly proven illegal”.
Because you have seen the real way politics and business works (strictly by majority vote and the letter of the law) you discard the one person that really worked to secure permanent democracy in Thailand!
Maybe you are more comfortable if deals are done in secret by military dictators?
Peaople are asking here how Khi Khwai excellent vision can be achieved. My advice for what it is worth… find a leader strong enough to bring the military under control of parliament and the government (all composed solely of fully elected members).
And, if you already know one, let him compete to take the job!
Giles leaves Thailand
Susie, I don’t know what Ecrit’s intent is, but I don’t think he said Lese Majeste was defendable. I don’t think anything is going to be solved fervourusly demonising anybody.
Do you think that Giles fleeing to the UK has positioned him as a treacherous monster? Or is he an innocent being persecuted by the dastardly elites? That these are seemingly the only two conclusions being adopted by people, is itself, a pretty narrow way to look at the situation of censorship in Thailand. Censorship is cancerous because it polarises peoples emotions.. leading to greater reactions and so on and so on etc.
Giles leaves Thailand
I can understand why some observers find Ji’s views too extreme or leftist. In fact, his unalloyed commitment to socialist principles fashionable decades ago is unusual, perhaps even quaint. I suspect, however, that his socialism and Marxism form the wellspring that guides his thought and practice. His manifesto rings with historical allusions that enhance its power.
I read the Thai version of “Red Siam” Manifesto against the English version. How does he render one version into the other? I don’t know how he works, but these are not exact translations. I found some interesting differences.
Manifesto / thalaengkan The English immediately invokes Marx’s Communist Manifesto, but the Thai term simply means proclamation, announcement, communiqué. Edicts from the Sangha are called thalaengkan khana song, Sangha Announcements. With the Thai title, Ji’s statement has been normalized as if it were issued from a government department’s press office.
this king / kasat khon ni Thai kasat comes from Sanskrit ksatriya, the warrior, kingly caste in the ancient Indian hierarchy, but it is a common noun. In his The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today (1957), Jit Poumisak (1930-1966), the “political poet” imprisoned by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat in the late 1950s, also referred to the king as kasat, thereby avoiding the use of royal language or rachasap and rendering the monarch as an ordinary person. Referring to the king by a common noun, Ji can thus use the classifier for ordinary person, khon, rather than the classifier ong reserved for kings, Buddha images, and monks. I also note that the Thai version repeats “this king / kasat khon ni” six times, driving the linguistic point home.
The present exploitative society / sangkhom lalang patjuban Thai lalang means backward, un-modern. My sense is that the English is familiar jargon, while the Thai version with “backward” is insulting to a ruling class proud of its modernity.
Their time is finished [following his list of nine ideas] / thi kuan ja long thang khaya haeng prawattisat The Thai literally means that they should disappear into the dustbin / garbage can of history, a clear reference to Trotsky’s famous remark. The Thai version here has much more rhetorical flair than the English version.
The Thai language is being deployed in “The Red Siam” Manifesto to great effect, and in one significant instance, is being re-engineered.
Giles leaves Thailand
Ralph Kramden: Thanks for the further explanation, and I apologize if my tone offended.
‘So the goal might be clear, but what is the strategy?‘
It takes education, and a gradual weaning off the notion that the solution lies in one person.
Prawase & Anand only tell one side of the story – they are still clinging to someoone’s coattails.
Likewise, Jakrapop, although obviously he is hanging off someone else’s coattails.
The same can be said for most of the other pundits, and if no,t their work is usually too highbrow for plebs like me.
Giles gets it better, but he’s too far out in left field, still fighting a war that’s already been lost.
Khikwai’s piece is not an instant fix, but it shows the way forward.
I hear you still asking: ‘How?’
Here’s a practical first step:
Translate Khi Kwai’s piece into Thai and distribute it as widely as you can – you might just be sowing the seeds for something good.
Tej Bunnag shows the way
Rosslyn is a world away from Rangoon.
Giles leaves Thailand
Ecrit, your real intention is so clear. Giles’s intellect, integrity, and popularity frightens you!
Why don’t you volunteer for Harry’s place if you want to stand your ground? I am sure you wouldn’t dare.
Giles leaves Thailand
I have read the preceding comments with interest. My understanding is that Ji is a revolutionary Communist, and therefore that he favors a dismantling of the capitalist system and the introduction of a “workers’ democracy”. Doesn’t this require revolutionary action, or at least a stand in the face of the threat of the curtailment of liberty?
For this reason, I feel quite surprised about Ji’s abscondment. Many people have mentioned that pressure is building towards at least some sort of change, and there is a feeling that Ji could have proved to have been something of a lightning rod if he had dug in his heels. He has some support from academics both locally and internationally, and he seems to have developed a relationship with Thaksin’s apparently still considerable power through his publicly declared solidarity with Jakrapob and the Redshirts. Even if this didn’t represent a safety net, the left needs its heroes. Ji shouting to the roof tops in the courts or in jail surely would have ratcheted up the temperature.
To sum up, I have to disagree with the tenor of the commentary above. To be sure, it’s easy for anonymous scribblers to suggest that public figures stand up and fight for their principles in the face of dire consequences, but a powerfully connected revolutionary such as Ji had the latitude to make his voice heard in an international forum. I really feel that Ji funked it, and eventually this may be a source of regret for him, and even for a few commentators on this board.
Giles leaves Thailand
A while ago I spent some time at Chula and frankly, even then I did not understand how an eloquent and critical (+ left) scholar like Giles is tolerated by all the mediocre thai-ajaarns who are rather right-wing oriented with an unhealthy portion of nationalism.
Among a few other thai-ajaarns at Chula, Giles had the ability to introduce critical academic thoughts to graduate thai students – an ability which is tremendously needed in thai- social sciences. Because until now thai students, if not raised and educated abroad, take everything strait from the horses mouth.
Granted, Chula is an prestigious institution but good scholarship can not be find there, especially at the social sciences. The leaving of an excellent scholar, and here I am not refering to his political orientation, is not only regrettable for the academic debate inside Thailand, but also unfortunate for many graduate thai and foreign students at Chula.
Giles leaves Thailand
nganadeeleg makes too many assumptions. I was simply asking why it is to be considered the best thing written? It is a cry and a plea that many will find resonates, me included.
It seems to me that there is much in it that reflects the feelings and frustrations of many educated observers of Thai politics, but it does feel a little like the “song mai aw” position writ large. Not cynicism, but we can do better by rejecting what we have.
Surrounded by devils, dinosaurs and vultures, a pox on all of them and move the undifferentiated “Thai people” forward (Thaksinite populism?) to something that is “real” such as Thai-style democracy (whatever that might be? Wasn’t that a PAD idea also?). Surrounded by devils, dinosaurs and vultures we seek to draw on (better?) royal examples from the past.
Surrounded by devils, dinosaurs and vultures we have to move forward in a way that is democratic, respects human rights etc. Well, yes, of course! But as FreeThai said at the KK web site, How? That’s the question that bedevils all good thinking people (or is it people thinking good things?). It partly accounts for why PAD had so much early support from NGOs, social movements, human rights groups, etc.
So the goal might be clear, but what is the strategy? More compromise with the great and good (Prawase, Anand and their ilk)? How many times can the rules be revamped? The revolution favoured by Ji? But where is party or movement? What is the way forward? How do the poor and disenfranchised get a voice?
I was just hoping for some thoughtful commentary on an interesting piece.
Paul Handley replies to comments
I know that my critique comes a little bit late, but after reading all the posts here I thought some remarks were appropriate. At first I want to thank Mr. Handley for his active involvement here on NM, it’s nice to know to the writer directly.
After reading the TKNS two times in the library I finally decided to spend the 25 Euro to buy one copy for myself, if you knew my monthly budged you would know that this is a compliment in itself…
I’m thankful for this book, especially because it contains the rumours and what I would call “grey literature”. As mentioned above, rumours often have a value in itself, and contribute to the tide of history; just think of the “predictions” about the length of the Chakri rule and their impact on 1932 or the succession.
As a student living abroad I appreciate this kind of information, even with the ambiguities attached. As far as I remember Handley has always marked passages in his book that were based on underground information, and of course we are bound to harsh scrutiny anyway before quoting any book. That the book was published by YUP does not release the reader from common sense and responsible use.
That some students though fell into the trap, mixing likely assumptions out of TKNS with confirmed data as Bangkok Pundit has pointed out, can be ignored as collateral damage.
However, the gentlemen assembled here seem to overlook that not everybody has a Thai wife, girlfriend or other acquaintance teaching at Chula, TU, SWU or RKH, who can feel the pulse of the Thai nation directly.
TKNS positively stands out from what we are usually served with – especially in Thai – from those syrupy hagiographies that try harder to hide than to reveal. If you have fought your way through lengthy passages about dhammaraja and devaraja cult theories, you finally had a good reading at rainy days too, an underestimated quality in the field of academic writing.
I do not appreciate the system of endnotes though; especially not separate endnotes for each chapter, – but at least and laudably TKNS contains a useful index, unlike many recently published books.
The only point I deplore is that the most entertaining sources are by their very nature unavailable, like the alleged treatise of Prince Sukhumbhand or the inflammatory remarks about Thailand’s alleged Susie Wong.
Giles leaves Thailand
David Brown – you completley miss nganadeeleg’s point.
Instead, as usual,you go on “boosting” Thaksin .
Although Khi Kwai makes a couple of comments about your man, the thrust of his piece is more focused on Thailand, the Thai people and the future. Your man is only a part of the game, right now.
Khi Kwai knows what he is is talking about – do you ?
Giles leaves Thailand
One of the most disturbing aspects of this story is its virtual absence from the Thai press. As far as I know, only the Nation is carrying a (somewhat anodyne) account of events. At least one well-known expat website has been deleting threads and posts relating to Giles’ flight to the UK. Together with news of a new Thai wesbite which invites citizens to inform on others guilty of lese majeste, this is making the current Thai government look very unattractive vis-a-vis freedom of expression.
Giles leaves Thailand
> Chulalongkom, Thailand’s version of Harvard
Maybe in Thai eyes. But last time I looked it up in the TES world university rankings a few years back it came in at something like 191. Harvard was in the top half dozen.
Giles leaves Thailand
David Brown: I’d hoped we could move beyond Thaksin by now, but since you asked:
I agree that the PM often has little control over things on the ground, however Thaksin’s various statements regarding the drug war, Tak Bai etc are a matter of record.
(also, I’m curious why you expect more of Abhisit than you do of Thaksin in this regard)
Also, I very much doubt it was the military forcing Thaksin to use tax havens & other artificial structures such as nominee maids etc.
Even if you are prepared to turn a blind eye to Thaksin’s many wrongdoings (unethical, if not clearly proven illegal), surely you can see that he is simply too divisive a figure to ever again be PM.
also, have you ever considered that he is actually holding back your cause, and his continued prominence provides ready ammunition for those wishing to hang on to control of the country?
Giles leaves Thailand
nganadeeleg
suggest you read my comment on the article at
http://khikwai.com/blog/2009/02/09/thailands-orange-revolution/#comment-188
to get some idea why I think some people unfairly copy some myths put out about Thaksin and keep throwing the odd statement around apparently without thought
it rather spoils the fairness and objectivity that you admire
Giles leaves Thailand
Thanks for your interest Ralph.
Firstly, I am a little surprised that you cannot see what an exccellent summary the blogger gave of the situation.
Further, unlike most blogs, it is without bias (or being beholden to any side), and it also has a message (suggestion) of hope in these dark times.
Lastly, I presume you have read the piece, but in any case I suggest you read it again (without blinkers) 🙂