I should add that I remain curious about the social uses of the proverb. Your last post clarified a bit about Khmer responses to it, presumably when you have prompted them specifically about it. But I am interested in knowing who uses the proverb or comments on the proverb without prompting by you or another researcher, either orally or textually, and in what contexts, and to what ends (as much as these can be reconstructed from the larger discursive and performative interactions). I don’t know how one can determine the meaning and significance of the proverb outside of those naturalistic settings and uses.
I don’t think the parallels of the first two lines are overstated, in fact. In ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ mainland Southeast Asia, is it really so odd to claim that women, alcohol, high value technology and property are all things offered to men of prowess and stature in the pursuit of seeking their benevolence, assistance, good will? They don’t just seize those objects; sometimes they are offered up, either voluntarily or to avoid a more rapacious seizure. Similarly, you seek to influence / bribe / show your respect of men of prowess through those offerings just like you seek to show your reverence for devas and powerful spirits through offerings of candles and incense (with an ambiguous line existing between reverence and bribery, in practice).
The parallelism of the first two lines is so strong to me, and the logic in such contrast to the normative ideals with regards to the third line, that I’m not surprised folks giggle, seem unconformtable and unwilling or unable to explain the final line. Nor am I surprised that monks who do offer an interpretation of the third offer conventional exegesis that simply avoids the logical, moral and cognitive tensions produced by the parallelisms. I would expect them to do exactly what you have indicated.
From a historical perspective, it isn’t surprising that the grave is a treasure of the Buddha. As Schopen has argued persuasively, the Buddhist occupation of graveyards and sites of the dead was one of their pre-eminent claims to religious and social power in ancient India (and the logic extends almost universally, as well). Not that i would expect most Buddhist monks to put it in those terms. And from what you say, they don’t.
But isn’t it very odd that you can never get them to talk about the final line. I mean, except for the reference to ‘grave’, there is obviously nothing controversial about calling nirvana a treasure of the Buddha (and his awakening, his teachings, etc). And there is nothing controversial about death and graveyards in Buddhism; they fully thrive on that imaginary. It is the association of nirvana with grave that is clearly transgressive here and produces silence, inexpressibility. So why the silence? And why the conjunction of the two in the proverb – what provoked it; how is it mythically productive?
Are we for or against armed struggle? Are we for or against violence? At least the history of the West in this regard is nothing if not consistent. They have consistently applied double standards based on time-honoured self- interest. If they don’t have a hand in it, they will once things begin to look like going the ‘wrong’ way i’e. not to their advantage or decidedly against their world order.
As for the Burmese including the nationalities, it’s never been ruled out, and it has in practice been a continuation of politics by other means or rather the consequences of denial by the state of a political solution. Desperate times call for desperate measures and people have been driven to utter desperation often enough it’s hardly surprising the civil war is as old as modern independent Burma. If we see another armed uprising in urban areas or a renewed and reinvigorated civil war, then the causation of renewed violence rests with the state and the people will only be exercising their right to resist.
Westerners should realise it’s people like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Naomi Klein who contribute to their projected image of a free and fair society that also has a place however limited for a few dissenting voices and for those who do not put narrow national interests above all else taking it for granted it’s synonymous with the interests of the whole of mankind.
Some broader anthropological questions no doubt are this: under what conditions and in what contexts do Cambodians use this proverb, either orally or textually? What types of Cambodians are prone to employing this proverb? What are the reactions of those who hear others using it? The actual social uses of this trope would seem to be key to actually determining somethng of its social, cultural and religious meaning.
Absolutely. I neglected to put those details up in any real form, except to note that the proverb elicits a nervous giggle. There are exceptions: usually among assertive, older aacaarya (сЮвсЮ╢сЮЕсЮ╢сЮЪсЯТсЮЩ, Thai: ajhaan) – by definition men, will occasionally hear the proverb from my lips and respond forcefully “That’s right!” and then begin a slight exegesis. However – and here’s the thing that’s interesting for me: they have universally focused on the first two lines, and I can never get them to talk in detail about what it means to ‘value the grave.’
I think the structural parallel you point out is somewhat overstated, if I may. In the second line (the gods), it is very clear that these are offerings the faithful give to the gods. But the first line (men), the treasures stated are things men want, or take, or possess – not things that are given, for the most part. And it is very difficult to understand how one might give a grave, or nirvana, to the Buddha. The Buddha has no need of the latter, already having entered his parinirvana. And if we are the metaphorize both objects as ‘death,’ we end up with a very strange, seemingly christian-oriented focus on the ‘gift of death,’ which I don’t think is what’s going on here.
Isn’t the structural parallel here this: the second set of ‘objects’ in each series is an offering to the actor/agent prior to them in the sentence? These items constitute objects desired by those agents, and thus these are the best gifts to give them in order to curry favor with and/or please them. Thus, the Buddha appreciates, desires, is postively responsive to those who offer him “grave and nirvana”.
The interpretive complexity lies therefore, it seems to me, not only in the question of how is the Buddha appreciative and desirous of both the grave and nirvana such that they are ‘his treasures’ (literally, metaphorically, or both) but also who offers these to him and why? Also, what exactly does the “grave” mean in this context? Is it simply a metaphor for “deathlessness”, which is similarly a metaphor for “nirvana”?
Some broader anthropological questions no doubt are this: under what conditions and in what contexts do Cambodians use this proverb, either orally or textually? What types of Cambodians are prone to employing this proverb? What are the reactions of those who hear others using it? The actual social uses of this trope would seem to be key to actually determining somethng of its social, cultural and religious meaning.
@Stephen: This is a very plausible extrapolation of the proverb, from a very doctrine-oriented point of view. In fact, I think that insofar as it has doctrinal relevance to everyday life, your interpretation is likely to be one of the only options.
My reservation about your interpretation is not that it is in any way incorrect, but that it might be too limited, especially since this proverb is almost never, in my experience, spoken by (or even in the presence of) Buddhist monks – there’s a real sense that it is somehow transgressive.
I suppose my main question about it is my attempt to integrate (if that’s even a worthwhile or plausible thing) the observations in the first and second paragraphs above – that the proverb points to doctrinal truths about death and grasping, and that these doctrinal truths, couched in this way, are felt to be transgressive, even somehow irreligious.
Any good sites for reading criticisms of SE, Reg? (I’m quite new here :P).
IMHO, Yes Reg, I think it is more ideological but people try to pin it with substance. As I mentioned, its best and easiest to just go back to the Intentions and Start from there [Like Designing], rather than get lost in the context of implementing something where “Success Measurement” is quite non-existent.
I think it is the same as the understanding of Buddhism in Thailand. Its easy to get lost in the Mechanical Context (Go to Temple, Pray, Give this Hindu god some bribe [no one even questions why there is a Hindu god in the first place!], ask for some holy number, Release the Birds, etc etc), and lose the very simple Fundamental Principles (Nirvana, Non-Self, Silp 5) altogether! They try to pin Buddhism with ‘substance’, and lose it altogether.. hahaha.
So I’m hoping that people would take “Sufficiency Philosophy” (not economy as I never touched SE –maybe I’m not supposed to even type my stuff under this thread!) for what it is — a very good guideline for striving for the Optimum.
IMHO.
P.S. Sorry I got into the dirty word Thaksin — I should never have, but his system is Never based on Sustainability, and shouldn’t even be mentioned here.
Sidh, you are spot on – PAD come from many fronts, but mainly to eradicate the Thaksinism once and for all. To attain this goal, you do see many “interesting proposals” (Academically Unapproved by Srithanonchai, which is quite right according to simplistic view in the “Dummies Guide to Democracy” probably at Amazon.com. I hope people in academia do know that “Life Ain’t That Simple” ).
GUYS DO YOU HAVE BETTER SOLUTION THAN PAD? Reg, Srithanonchai – Simple question: Do you have any solutions for Thailand? If you do believe the current “Thai Government” (I dare not say “Royal Thai Government”) was fairly elected, and have the Mandate to stay the Whole Term of Elections [please change the constitution, please bring Mr. Autocratic Thaksin back, lets give back everything we owe back to Khmer, since their ancestors (if you believe Italians are Romans) built it (oh yeah, the Thai governement can teach this to encourage Australia back to the Aborigines) but more importantly because Thaksin can use it for a vehicle for more wealth against the corrupt Hun Sen who stole from Cambodian people, etc etc. It would be very interesting to see your point of view.
Only then, we’ll see whether there maybe one or two “Educated Gullibles” to import to Thailand to encourage the Thaksin return, where perhaps to “Agree to Disagree” is the best way out [since I, to you am probably not making sense and probably a jerk in your view]. “Waiting for the Courts To Decide” might be a good non-loss of face exit.
UNEDUCATED GULLIBLE TROUBLE
Sidh, in a way I think the “Uneducated Gullibles” are still the problem- they are the mass (quite right, abused government after government) who are kept uneducated and Myopic (Give me 500THB, and I’m happy) are the crowd who bring in the corrupt year after year for SO MANY DECADES. Don’t get me wrong — I love my fellow countrymen — and I’ve met so much good simple farmers and really want these group of people to at last “Do The Right Thing”; I believe education (thanks to you academics) is the only way to break this “Vicious Cycle” of transferring wrong ideals ; but I do not think it is easy, since it is Thaksin’s only source of power, and the peope who try to educate this group about what’s going on ALWAYS get thrashed by Thaksin’s henchmen- we’ve seen this so often when people try to do so.
CLARIFICATION: THAILAND PEOPLE IN GENERAL ARE NOT READY FOR DEMOCRACY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS NO BETTER SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
I also want to clear up something:
1. While I am Nationalistic, I am not Extreme Right ” to take the fight to the Cambodians” (quoting Reg). I think socially economically it is best for peace — tourism will pour in, and is best for both. I highly despise the “uneducated Thais” who make fun of Cambodians or Laos and will be happy to give them a good whack if I could. I hate it if other countries win soccer becuase of unfair judges (especially if it is a Thai judge), but quite proud, at least in SEA games we are the fairest Nation in the lot. And I do NOT tolerate international thieves like Thaksin and Hun Sen.
2. I am not an Elitist; However, having been educated in “Comparative Government” in Highschool (Thanks Mr. Glenn Gamble) I do have thoughts.
Here is an example: Why in the World, in Every Single Country, do we treat juveniles (persons under age 18 or so) different from Adults? This is the same basis for which I personally want to compare Thailand to.
Lets say there are 2 classes. One full of 25 year olds (First World Democracy), and another full of 13 year olds (Thailand Democracy). Each class has to respond to a bizarre vote: “Whether To Allow Sex In Class”.
A) The 25 year old adults who have been educated to the pros and cons of such behaviour (not appropriate, future problem in society of orphans, bad precedence) decide not to allow it, most more or less in some form of principle. They press charge the teacher for asking such a vote.
B) The 13 year old teenagers, the highschool football teham who have discovered the sensual experiences of such, encourage others to experiment, find more entertainment value than mathematics, decide to shout out loud to do so. Others who arn’t sure but do not want to go against the football thugs, etc. eventually decide democratically in favor of such behaviour. Only when Mr. Academic Headmaster (taa daaa) comes in, realizes what’s going on, gives the students a good whopping (however undemocratic it may seem), fires the Rectangular Head Teacher, and tries undo the situation. The 13 year olds as they are, having felt the ‘goodness’ of pleasureable experience, revolt by doing the “Dead Poets Society” look alike stand -on -table and insist their teacher back. Head Teacher calls in the parents (elitists?) and save the day.
I believe Thailand’s democratic maturity is as good as in Case B. I think what you so call “Elitists” are not elitists, but the more mature 1st World People of Case A.
So what’s the future of Thai Democracy? Simply, as in the quite bizarre case above, “I think sometimes the Juvenile Should Respect Their Headmasters,” and thus “The Uneducated Gullibles should try to listen what PAD has done to try to save Thailand”.
IMHO.
Sorry if I seem disrespectful, I’m quite a nice guy actually, and would like to entertain you guys Reg, Srithanonchai, if you happen to be in Bkk sometime. Let you guys meet the PAD at least my version 😉
(although this is a global phenomenon, where development takes precedence over ecological and cultural landscape conservation – time for a Thai Green Party?)
Srithanonchai, the elite are not “morally untouchable”. They’ve already shown that the are less “rotten” by not overstaying in power if recent history reflect their true intents. PMThaksin has publicly declared that he planned to (monopolize) Thai politics for “20 years”. In contrast, GenSonthi and PMSurayud “did their job” (you can judge whether they did well or not – most Thais I know were disappointed with their performance) for 1.5 years and stepped aside. Evidences so far suggest (but lets wait for a few more years to judge either way) that they advocate a stronger rule of law, better checks-and-balances. PAD is a group of elite, but they don’t speak for all ‘elites’. Reading Kuson’s post, I understand that the PAD leadership’s views is not necessary shared by fellow Bangkok middle-class protestors…
Reg Varney, I’ve already confessed my “injustice” to you about DADD protest in front of PMPrem’s house last year (headed by Jakrapob, Dr Weng etal) and the 200 police injured. It is unprecedented that the security forces “did their job” and certainly a positive sign. That the generals are the ones calling for cool and calm here (in light of provocations and nationalism fervour) is certainly sign of progress (I hope that it is real, as my hope for the justice system).
Reg, we can assume that all the MPs knew the election law (regardless of who wrote it) before contesting it in Dec 2007. They knowingly broke the law expecting to get away with it as was usual. Regardless of all the MPs of the past that got away with it, its time that the rules gets enforced and let us hope that this applies to all future elections. The same goes to corrupt prime ministers and cabinet ministers. We suspect that many in the past had their hands in the cookie jar – but that does not mean that PMThaksin should not be tried, especially in light of the surfacing incriminating evidences. This is a critical juncture in Thai society and democracy and we need strong precedences, like the many we are seeing now to set it on a new path. If the momentum gets going, eventually everyone, regardless of political color, socio-economic class will be subjected to the rule of law… PPP need not provoke PAD by proposing constitution amendments to white-wash PMThaksin. If PMThaksin is certain of his innocence, fight it in court. Let the evidences be publicly revealed for society to judge if the courts “did their job”…
Sidh: ““uneducated gullibles” – personally, I think they are the least of Thailand’s problems. It is the ‘educated gullibles’ that is most dangerous” > That’s the nice thing with the elitist model of democracy in Thailand, which has been advertised for some time (and practiced during the coup). What if this elite is just as rotten as the abhorred “electocrats”, including their “gullible” voters? Where do we get the morally untouchable elite from that Kuson wants–import it?
manning – imitation? you mean he’s an illegitimate royal? He may not be to your taste, but he sure costs the Thai taxpayer a fortune! The whole family does! So he deserves critical attention, just like the rest of his family.
Boy! kuson, you have bought the whole kit of elite nationalism. Even the king’s view that welfare makes the plebs lazy! No wonder Thaksin/TRT is so threatening! Hope you get out to the border and fight those nasty Khmer. Seriously, you should sit down and read the criticisms of SE. But I suspect the support for SE is ideologically driven, so the criticism may not matter. But none of your points seem to address the criticisms that were made. You simply state: SE good, Thaksin bad. That gets the debate nowhere.
kuson and sidh: so PAD is just responding to provocation, and that’s okay? If you were pro-PPP would you be arguing that the government has been to lenient in the face of considerable provocation by PAD?
karmablues: I am often taken aback by the lack of evenhandedness in the debates at present. I know I shouldn’t be. However, just one example. PADites use the military’s constitution, approved by referendum, to demand various things be done according to the law. But when the constitution allows changes by parliament, they object. Odd, don’t you think, how positions change for political advantage? Both sides seem to me to be equally good at manipulating the basic law for their own purposes.
“There were significant decisions by courts last week. Why can’t the foreign media can’t bring themselves to report these facts?” Rather than making such ill-informed comments, why not get a google subscription that send you reports of the international news on Thailand? Of course, these decisions have been reported in a number of international venues.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
“The treasures of man are women, wine, cars and villas…”
I should add that I remain curious about the social uses of the proverb. Your last post clarified a bit about Khmer responses to it, presumably when you have prompted them specifically about it. But I am interested in knowing who uses the proverb or comments on the proverb without prompting by you or another researcher, either orally or textually, and in what contexts, and to what ends (as much as these can be reconstructed from the larger discursive and performative interactions). I don’t know how one can determine the meaning and significance of the proverb outside of those naturalistic settings and uses.
“The treasures of man are women, wine, cars and villas…”
I don’t think the parallels of the first two lines are overstated, in fact. In ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ mainland Southeast Asia, is it really so odd to claim that women, alcohol, high value technology and property are all things offered to men of prowess and stature in the pursuit of seeking their benevolence, assistance, good will? They don’t just seize those objects; sometimes they are offered up, either voluntarily or to avoid a more rapacious seizure. Similarly, you seek to influence / bribe / show your respect of men of prowess through those offerings just like you seek to show your reverence for devas and powerful spirits through offerings of candles and incense (with an ambiguous line existing between reverence and bribery, in practice).
The parallelism of the first two lines is so strong to me, and the logic in such contrast to the normative ideals with regards to the third line, that I’m not surprised folks giggle, seem unconformtable and unwilling or unable to explain the final line. Nor am I surprised that monks who do offer an interpretation of the third offer conventional exegesis that simply avoids the logical, moral and cognitive tensions produced by the parallelisms. I would expect them to do exactly what you have indicated.
From a historical perspective, it isn’t surprising that the grave is a treasure of the Buddha. As Schopen has argued persuasively, the Buddhist occupation of graveyards and sites of the dead was one of their pre-eminent claims to religious and social power in ancient India (and the logic extends almost universally, as well). Not that i would expect most Buddhist monks to put it in those terms. And from what you say, they don’t.
But isn’t it very odd that you can never get them to talk about the final line. I mean, except for the reference to ‘grave’, there is obviously nothing controversial about calling nirvana a treasure of the Buddha (and his awakening, his teachings, etc). And there is nothing controversial about death and graveyards in Buddhism; they fully thrive on that imaginary. It is the association of nirvana with grave that is clearly transgressive here and produces silence, inexpressibility. So why the silence? And why the conjunction of the two in the proverb – what provoked it; how is it mythically productive?
Armed struggle: The way forward?
Are we for or against armed struggle? Are we for or against violence? At least the history of the West in this regard is nothing if not consistent. They have consistently applied double standards based on time-honoured self- interest. If they don’t have a hand in it, they will once things begin to look like going the ‘wrong’ way i’e. not to their advantage or decidedly against their world order.
As for the Burmese including the nationalities, it’s never been ruled out, and it has in practice been a continuation of politics by other means or rather the consequences of denial by the state of a political solution. Desperate times call for desperate measures and people have been driven to utter desperation often enough it’s hardly surprising the civil war is as old as modern independent Burma. If we see another armed uprising in urban areas or a renewed and reinvigorated civil war, then the causation of renewed violence rests with the state and the people will only be exercising their right to resist.
Westerners should realise it’s people like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Naomi Klein who contribute to their projected image of a free and fair society that also has a place however limited for a few dissenting voices and for those who do not put narrow national interests above all else taking it for granted it’s synonymous with the interests of the whole of mankind.
“The treasures of man are women, wine, cars and villas…”
@ Erick
Absolutely. I neglected to put those details up in any real form, except to note that the proverb elicits a nervous giggle. There are exceptions: usually among assertive, older aacaarya (сЮвсЮ╢сЮЕсЮ╢сЮЪсЯТсЮЩ, Thai: ajhaan) – by definition men, will occasionally hear the proverb from my lips and respond forcefully “That’s right!” and then begin a slight exegesis. However – and here’s the thing that’s interesting for me: they have universally focused on the first two lines, and I can never get them to talk in detail about what it means to ‘value the grave.’
I think the structural parallel you point out is somewhat overstated, if I may. In the second line (the gods), it is very clear that these are offerings the faithful give to the gods. But the first line (men), the treasures stated are things men want, or take, or possess – not things that are given, for the most part. And it is very difficult to understand how one might give a grave, or nirvana, to the Buddha. The Buddha has no need of the latter, already having entered his parinirvana. And if we are the metaphorize both objects as ‘death,’ we end up with a very strange, seemingly christian-oriented focus on the ‘gift of death,’ which I don’t think is what’s going on here.
I’m grateful for these thoughts!
“The treasures of man are women, wine, cars and villas…”
Isn’t the structural parallel here this: the second set of ‘objects’ in each series is an offering to the actor/agent prior to them in the sentence? These items constitute objects desired by those agents, and thus these are the best gifts to give them in order to curry favor with and/or please them. Thus, the Buddha appreciates, desires, is postively responsive to those who offer him “grave and nirvana”.
The interpretive complexity lies therefore, it seems to me, not only in the question of how is the Buddha appreciative and desirous of both the grave and nirvana such that they are ‘his treasures’ (literally, metaphorically, or both) but also who offers these to him and why? Also, what exactly does the “grave” mean in this context? Is it simply a metaphor for “deathlessness”, which is similarly a metaphor for “nirvana”?
Some broader anthropological questions no doubt are this: under what conditions and in what contexts do Cambodians use this proverb, either orally or textually? What types of Cambodians are prone to employing this proverb? What are the reactions of those who hear others using it? The actual social uses of this trope would seem to be key to actually determining somethng of its social, cultural and religious meaning.
“The treasures of man are women, wine, cars and villas…”
@Stephen: This is a very plausible extrapolation of the proverb, from a very doctrine-oriented point of view. In fact, I think that insofar as it has doctrinal relevance to everyday life, your interpretation is likely to be one of the only options.
My reservation about your interpretation is not that it is in any way incorrect, but that it might be too limited, especially since this proverb is almost never, in my experience, spoken by (or even in the presence of) Buddhist monks – there’s a real sense that it is somehow transgressive.
I suppose my main question about it is my attempt to integrate (if that’s even a worthwhile or plausible thing) the observations in the first and second paragraphs above – that the proverb points to doctrinal truths about death and grasping, and that these doctrinal truths, couched in this way, are felt to be transgressive, even somehow irreligious.
Thanks for your thoughts here….
Sufficiency and the rich
Any good sites for reading criticisms of SE, Reg? (I’m quite new here :P).
IMHO, Yes Reg, I think it is more ideological but people try to pin it with substance. As I mentioned, its best and easiest to just go back to the Intentions and Start from there [Like Designing], rather than get lost in the context of implementing something where “Success Measurement” is quite non-existent.
I think it is the same as the understanding of Buddhism in Thailand. Its easy to get lost in the Mechanical Context (Go to Temple, Pray, Give this Hindu god some bribe [no one even questions why there is a Hindu god in the first place!], ask for some holy number, Release the Birds, etc etc), and lose the very simple Fundamental Principles (Nirvana, Non-Self, Silp 5) altogether! They try to pin Buddhism with ‘substance’, and lose it altogether.. hahaha.
So I’m hoping that people would take “Sufficiency Philosophy” (not economy as I never touched SE –maybe I’m not supposed to even type my stuff under this thread!) for what it is — a very good guideline for striving for the Optimum.
IMHO.
P.S. Sorry I got into the dirty word Thaksin — I should never have, but his system is Never based on Sustainability, and shouldn’t even be mentioned here.
Time to go home
Sidh, you are spot on – PAD come from many fronts, but mainly to eradicate the Thaksinism once and for all. To attain this goal, you do see many “interesting proposals” (Academically Unapproved by Srithanonchai, which is quite right according to simplistic view in the “Dummies Guide to Democracy” probably at Amazon.com. I hope people in academia do know that “Life Ain’t That Simple” ).
GUYS DO YOU HAVE BETTER SOLUTION THAN PAD?
Reg, Srithanonchai – Simple question: Do you have any solutions for Thailand? If you do believe the current “Thai Government” (I dare not say “Royal Thai Government”) was fairly elected, and have the Mandate to stay the Whole Term of Elections [please change the constitution, please bring Mr. Autocratic Thaksin back, lets give back everything we owe back to Khmer, since their ancestors (if you believe Italians are Romans) built it (oh yeah, the Thai governement can teach this to encourage Australia back to the Aborigines) but more importantly because Thaksin can use it for a vehicle for more wealth against the corrupt Hun Sen who stole from Cambodian people, etc etc. It would be very interesting to see your point of view.
Only then, we’ll see whether there maybe one or two “Educated Gullibles” to import to Thailand to encourage the Thaksin return, where perhaps to “Agree to Disagree” is the best way out [since I, to you am probably not making sense and probably a jerk in your view]. “Waiting for the Courts To Decide” might be a good non-loss of face exit.
UNEDUCATED GULLIBLE TROUBLE
Sidh, in a way I think the “Uneducated Gullibles” are still the problem- they are the mass (quite right, abused government after government) who are kept uneducated and Myopic (Give me 500THB, and I’m happy) are the crowd who bring in the corrupt year after year for SO MANY DECADES. Don’t get me wrong — I love my fellow countrymen — and I’ve met so much good simple farmers and really want these group of people to at last “Do The Right Thing”; I believe education (thanks to you academics) is the only way to break this “Vicious Cycle” of transferring wrong ideals ; but I do not think it is easy, since it is Thaksin’s only source of power, and the peope who try to educate this group about what’s going on ALWAYS get thrashed by Thaksin’s henchmen- we’ve seen this so often when people try to do so.
CLARIFICATION: THAILAND PEOPLE IN GENERAL ARE NOT READY FOR DEMOCRACY, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS NO BETTER SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
I also want to clear up something:
1. While I am Nationalistic, I am not Extreme Right ” to take the fight to the Cambodians” (quoting Reg). I think socially economically it is best for peace — tourism will pour in, and is best for both. I highly despise the “uneducated Thais” who make fun of Cambodians or Laos and will be happy to give them a good whack if I could. I hate it if other countries win soccer becuase of unfair judges (especially if it is a Thai judge), but quite proud, at least in SEA games we are the fairest Nation in the lot. And I do NOT tolerate international thieves like Thaksin and Hun Sen.
2. I am not an Elitist; However, having been educated in “Comparative Government” in Highschool (Thanks Mr. Glenn Gamble) I do have thoughts.
Here is an example: Why in the World, in Every Single Country, do we treat juveniles (persons under age 18 or so) different from Adults? This is the same basis for which I personally want to compare Thailand to.
Lets say there are 2 classes. One full of 25 year olds (First World Democracy), and another full of 13 year olds (Thailand Democracy). Each class has to respond to a bizarre vote: “Whether To Allow Sex In Class”.
A) The 25 year old adults who have been educated to the pros and cons of such behaviour (not appropriate, future problem in society of orphans, bad precedence) decide not to allow it, most more or less in some form of principle. They press charge the teacher for asking such a vote.
B) The 13 year old teenagers, the highschool football teham who have discovered the sensual experiences of such, encourage others to experiment, find more entertainment value than mathematics, decide to shout out loud to do so. Others who arn’t sure but do not want to go against the football thugs, etc. eventually decide democratically in favor of such behaviour. Only when Mr. Academic Headmaster (taa daaa) comes in, realizes what’s going on, gives the students a good whopping (however undemocratic it may seem), fires the Rectangular Head Teacher, and tries undo the situation. The 13 year olds as they are, having felt the ‘goodness’ of pleasureable experience, revolt by doing the “Dead Poets Society” look alike stand -on -table and insist their teacher back. Head Teacher calls in the parents (elitists?) and save the day.
I believe Thailand’s democratic maturity is as good as in Case B. I think what you so call “Elitists” are not elitists, but the more mature 1st World People of Case A.
So what’s the future of Thai Democracy? Simply, as in the quite bizarre case above, “I think sometimes the Juvenile Should Respect Their Headmasters,” and thus “The Uneducated Gullibles should try to listen what PAD has done to try to save Thailand”.
IMHO.
Sorry if I seem disrespectful, I’m quite a nice guy actually, and would like to entertain you guys Reg, Srithanonchai, if you happen to be in Bkk sometime. Let you guys meet the PAD at least my version 😉
Sufficiency and the rich
Hehehe! Reg, are you stating that “SE bad, Thaksin good”? Let’s have some clarification of your standpoint too so the debate can start.
“Let the electorate judge”
Here’s a more even-handed commentary piece from Bangkok Post’s Sanitsuda Ekachai:
“Lacking in real outrage” in:
http://www.bangkokpost.net/170708_News/17Jul2008_news22.php
(although this is a global phenomenon, where development takes precedence over ecological and cultural landscape conservation – time for a Thai Green Party?)
Time to go home
Srithanonchai, the elite are not “morally untouchable”. They’ve already shown that the are less “rotten” by not overstaying in power if recent history reflect their true intents. PMThaksin has publicly declared that he planned to (monopolize) Thai politics for “20 years”. In contrast, GenSonthi and PMSurayud “did their job” (you can judge whether they did well or not – most Thais I know were disappointed with their performance) for 1.5 years and stepped aside. Evidences so far suggest (but lets wait for a few more years to judge either way) that they advocate a stronger rule of law, better checks-and-balances. PAD is a group of elite, but they don’t speak for all ‘elites’. Reading Kuson’s post, I understand that the PAD leadership’s views is not necessary shared by fellow Bangkok middle-class protestors…
Time to go home
Reg Varney, I’ve already confessed my “injustice” to you about DADD protest in front of PMPrem’s house last year (headed by Jakrapob, Dr Weng etal) and the 200 police injured. It is unprecedented that the security forces “did their job” and certainly a positive sign. That the generals are the ones calling for cool and calm here (in light of provocations and nationalism fervour) is certainly sign of progress (I hope that it is real, as my hope for the justice system).
Reg, we can assume that all the MPs knew the election law (regardless of who wrote it) before contesting it in Dec 2007. They knowingly broke the law expecting to get away with it as was usual. Regardless of all the MPs of the past that got away with it, its time that the rules gets enforced and let us hope that this applies to all future elections. The same goes to corrupt prime ministers and cabinet ministers. We suspect that many in the past had their hands in the cookie jar – but that does not mean that PMThaksin should not be tried, especially in light of the surfacing incriminating evidences. This is a critical juncture in Thai society and democracy and we need strong precedences, like the many we are seeing now to set it on a new path. If the momentum gets going, eventually everyone, regardless of political color, socio-economic class will be subjected to the rule of law… PPP need not provoke PAD by proposing constitution amendments to white-wash PMThaksin. If PMThaksin is certain of his innocence, fight it in court. Let the evidences be publicly revealed for society to judge if the courts “did their job”…
Time to go home
Sidh: ““uneducated gullibles” – personally, I think they are the least of Thailand’s problems. It is the ‘educated gullibles’ that is most dangerous” > That’s the nice thing with the elitist model of democracy in Thailand, which has been advertised for some time (and practiced during the coup). What if this elite is just as rotten as the abhorred “electocrats”, including their “gullible” voters? Where do we get the morally untouchable elite from that Kuson wants–import it?
Crown Prince scouting European airports
manning – imitation? you mean he’s an illegitimate royal? He may not be to your taste, but he sure costs the Thai taxpayer a fortune! The whole family does! So he deserves critical attention, just like the rest of his family.
Sufficiency and the rich
Boy! kuson, you have bought the whole kit of elite nationalism. Even the king’s view that welfare makes the plebs lazy! No wonder Thaksin/TRT is so threatening! Hope you get out to the border and fight those nasty Khmer. Seriously, you should sit down and read the criticisms of SE. But I suspect the support for SE is ideologically driven, so the criticism may not matter. But none of your points seem to address the criticisms that were made. You simply state: SE good, Thaksin bad. That gets the debate nowhere.
Time to go home
kuson and sidh: so PAD is just responding to provocation, and that’s okay? If you were pro-PPP would you be arguing that the government has been to lenient in the face of considerable provocation by PAD?
Time to go home
karmablues: I am often taken aback by the lack of evenhandedness in the debates at present. I know I shouldn’t be. However, just one example. PADites use the military’s constitution, approved by referendum, to demand various things be done according to the law. But when the constitution allows changes by parliament, they object. Odd, don’t you think, how positions change for political advantage? Both sides seem to me to be equally good at manipulating the basic law for their own purposes.
“Let the electorate judge”
jonfernquest // Jul 16, 2008 at 4:50 am
“There were significant decisions by courts last week. Why can’t the foreign media can’t bring themselves to report these facts?” Rather than making such ill-informed comments, why not get a google subscription that send you reports of the international news on Thailand? Of course, these decisions have been reported in a number of international venues.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
I am also interested to read this book either in Thai or English. Do you still have a link that I can download from?
Thanks
“The treasures of man are women, wine, cars and villas…”
oops – aufhebung – German was never mein stronge suit.