Three cheers for the DFID guy. One day things will improve.
Names in Burma-Myanmar are very confusing. The government does have a valid point that the place has always been called Myanmar but, on the other hand, South Korea has always been called Han-guk in Korean script, and it is possible to use one name for internal consumption and the other for the outside world, just to provide continuity and make life simpler and less confusing.
There are definitely too many transliterations and ways to spell Burmese place names too, which causes confusion. Like every work on the Pagan era uses a transliteration that is based on how inscriptions were written and can’t be pronounced so when non-experts try to pronounce it…ouch. But I guess this is all the least of poor old Burma-Myanmar’s ills though.
So should the New York Times reporter current imprisoned in Zimbabwe also “have known better”? Or should he have ignored the oppressive efforts of the brutal Mugabe regime to limit the information available to the world, as he did?
I don’t think it is Jonathan Head who should know better, it is the power that keep using the LM law to eliminate dissent. The law only worked in the past because of careful use and the absense of the ability to comment anonymously via internet. Applying it to international reporter who may have trod on a thin grey line is guaranteed to backfire.
Just as Teth has said, there are no ‘incriminating evidences’ here leading straight up to PMThaksin (or the security commanders for that matter – PMSurayud’s fact finding committee seemed to have been neutralized). I only remembered the news reporting him saying along the line of “I will be responsible” and/or “I gave the orders”. I am sure PMThaksin will be quite vague on details if one questions him today… (hence, the most I can accuse PMThaksin and TRT of, lacking solid evidences, is that they “sanctioned” state violence against the Thai citizen)
Anyway, ‘human rights’, ‘rule of law’, ‘corruption’ seem to merit little discussion and interests in NM as is the usual. It is obviously not as sexy and exotic as Lese Majeste law – but I will argue anytime that there are issues far more significant for the ‘big picture’ and the future of Thailand’s democracy… (for goodness sake, PPP is trying to dismantle independent bodies such as the Election Commission and the Counter Corruption Commission, huge milestone achievements in Thai democracy – while the brightest minds in NM are debating LM and a man refusing to stand up for the national anthem in a movie theatre!!! Talk about extreme fetish!!!)…
Dog lover: It is not wise soley because there are murky aspects to democracy in the West. That was just a haphazard example.
I think ‘objectivity’ in reporting is dependent on the culture one is from, and is therefore, subjective — unless one is able to articulate, like an anthropologist the cultural circumstance surrounding the issue. I made the point that the West’s abililty to criticize itself and reform allows Westerners to claim a socially enlightened position toward the rest of the world. Which is exactly what I’m doing now – so if you don’t understand my point, you can understand that I am wrong! We have convinced ourselves of our righteousness such that it has become a prophecy. I don’t think much of prophecies (at this moment..)
More pragmatically, I make the point that Western democracy is much more subversive due to the power of un-elected civil servants who remain constant compared to the ever changing elected representatives. They interpret what those elected say and implement policy — maybe this is flawed though, because in Australia so many elected politicians are lawyers…
“Lawyers: Having the public’s best interests at heart post Hitler.” – me
I asked a loaded question at the end of my last rant, which nobody attempted to bite — so I will just say that all I am advocating for is an acceptance of pluralism amongst all concerned(I am not condoning what lese majeste is, but equally I am not defending Jonathon Head who has held many foreign postings and should know better.)
If this is not clear, I apologize and bid you good day Winston. mwahahaha… :S
Btw, here is a somewhat frightening piece of rhetoric by Chamlong Srimueang produced at the PAD rally at Thammasat on April 25. He was quoted in Matichon (April 27) as having said, “Today’s politicians are extremely insolent. Whatever terrible things they can think of, they can do them every day. Now, they don’t only aim at destroying the chairperson of the Privy Council alone. Today, they aim at destroying the highest institution of the country. Therefore, we must be prepared to resist.”
Srithanonchai, I am not questioning the quote or your translation, but I just want to read the whole article. Do you have a link to the article or remember the title of the article? Searching on Privy Council in Thai brings up too many articles.
Ajarn Somsak: I agree that political reasons more than legal ones are relevant, but the legal argument provides a political reason to find the person “not guilty”. His outright challenging of the status quo though will be difficult for the elite to tolerate. However, by being so vocal he can establish himself as a cause celebre and well this might not be seemed as helpful as internationally exposes Thailand. Quietly dropping the case vs making him a public example seems the choice which the elite is faced with. Now, what will they choose.
Yeah, it opened. Every bit the no-hold-barred, action-packed anti-SPDC propaganda reel you’d expect from Hollywood, A review is here. I was in cinemas for about month, but didn’t do very well at the box office, clobbered by the likes of Step Up 2, The Spiderwick Chronicles and 10,000 BC.
Does anybody remember Rambo opening in Thailand? At the time of this post, Major Cineplex said it was due to open in mid-March, but I don’t remember seeing any advertising or stuff in the papers. Just me being blind, or something more sinister…?
Khun Somsak: In order to end the speculation about what is on Thongbai’s mind, do you have a way to ask him whether he in fact has a “negative judgment” about Chotisak’s actions? I remember well that Thongbai welcomed the coup als strong medicine that was sometimes necessary. But has he also become a royalist, and does he want to help the “rightist royalists”? In this context, your final sentence is interesting. What has happaned to the political mind of Thongbai?
The browser ate my post: so I’m going to try again…
Re: Srithanonchai
Perhaps I’m being a bit too sensitive, but I cannot help but feel that the tone of your reply was slightly patronizing. Especially considering the fact that I’m the one calling for interdisciplinary collaboration; whereas, McCargo devotes the opening part of his paper to catty snickering at the field of terrorism studies. (Though knowing what an analyst working for Jane’s can make, I must admit feeling a slight bit of bitterness and envy myself.)
That having been said, I don’t disagree with some of McCargo’s points; however, McCargo’s efforts to pull the current academic discourse on the topic away from the effect Islamic doctrines on warfare have on the ideologies and goals of the insurgents only serve to obfuscate what role such doctrines do have. Just as McCargo observes that “[t]erroism experts frequently know very little about the countries on which they write…” McCargo, himself, seems to know very little about Islam beyond what would be covered in Comparative Religions 101. When he writes such howlers, like, “the Southern Thai conflict is not really part of a global conflict, a global jihad, or a global war on terror,” because “the Islam underlying the Southern Thai conflict is local, ‘traditionalist’ Islam, not Islam of the Salafi-Wahhabi variety,” one wonders whether he has any authority upon which to write on the topic at all. McCargo, probably having heard of the Salafi from a “news-clipping” or “internet source,” confuses what is essentially spiritual revival movement, like Sufism, with a school of Islamic jurisprudence, or madh’hab. The madh’hab most common in Southern Thailand is the Shafi’i. Within the Salafi movement, all four Sunni schools are found, including the Shafi’i. (And even if they were not, so what? The Salafi of Al-Qaeda had no problems working hand-in-hand with the Sufi Deobandi Taliban.) As I have stated before, all major madh’hab argue that that jihad is acceptable, and mandatory for defending the dar al-Islam; this includes the Shafi’i of Southern Thailand.
In assuring us that the Southern Thai conflict “is not a jihad,” McCargo seems to define jihad by the very stereotype he ridcules analysts of terrorism as possessing: Jihad as swarthy men on camelback, riding into battle with their trusty shibouks while ululating blood-curdling war cries. In actuality, jihad bin saif can consist of any action taken that disrupts or destroys the life, livelihood, and instiutions of the ahl-i-harb (Ahl-i-harb being defined as non-Muslims as a whole). It may be uncomfortable for some to label lawyers who make careers out of defending accused terrorists, or mothers who protest outside of police stations as mujihadeen, but I assure you that for many Muslims, no such cognitive dissonance exists. And it is due to such painful cognitive dissonance that McCargo twists his arguments so that he may wring the dirty water of “critical analysis of Islamic juriprudence” out of the fabric from which this discussion is woven. He writes that “[l]ike Muslims in many other countries, Patani Muslims do not revel because of deep-rooted socio-economic or psychological grievances, and nor are they primarily animated by jihadist ideologies. Their cause is a political one which centers on local questions of legitimacy; they want to regain control of territory they believe to be theirs, and doing so involves violently rejecting the claims of the Thai state”. Yet, in his paper, McCargo never gets around to telling us why the Patani Muslims believe that Thai claims to Patani are illegitimate, nor does he tell us why they chose to engage in violence, as opposed to Gandhi-esque satyagraha, for example. He only tells us that it is do to “politics” and asks our indulgence to trust him on his word. To counter the arguments that according to Islamic doctrine, the Patani conflict can be defined as a defensive jihad, McCargo is only willing to admit that “Islam serves simply as a mobilizing resource, and a means of framing increasingly shrill justifications for the anticivilian violence”. Again, McCargo doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge the fact that the orthodox (“traditionalist” in his words) interpretations of Qur’anic exegesis frame the political and sociological world-view of the Patani Muslim population.
Of course, recognizing all of this doesn’t absolve the Thai government of any of its brutal actions in the Southern provinces, and this is where someone like McCargo, with his scholarship on the “network monarchy,” could potentially be useful. I wish McCargo would stick to analyzing, for example, how the Queen’s rallying speeches to the various paramilitary groups in the South help formulate counter-insurgency policy. In any case, I do hope that before his next book is published, McCargo takes a walk across the Leeds campus to visit one of his colleagues in the Theology and Religious Studies department, so that he or she may fact-check McCargo’s manuscript before it goes to the presses.
Khun Srithanonchai writes: As I understand it, Thongbai tried to provide information on the current legal situation as he sees it. I wonder what his normative-political stance on this issue is.
I’m not quite sure what K.Srithanonchai means here, but I’m afraid “Phi Bai” is doing more than “provid[ing] information”: I believe he’s expressing his negative judgement on the action of Mr.Chotisak and friend. Thongbai has been involved in politics for a very long time and has intimate knowledge and experience with the LM cases (perhaps more than anyone else). He should know (I think he knows) that by publicly lending his authority to the view that “Chotisak committed less majesty” he in fact helps the rightist royalist attack on Chotisak of the Manager and co.
I write these lines with deep painful feeling. For, as you may know, Phi Bai was the lawyer who defended me and my friends against the LM charge in the 6 October trail (not to mention most other LM cases both before and after Oct6). But lately his public pronouncement on the LM issue has been highly regretable. Last year, at the high of the campaign to denounce Prem (which many groups joined, not only the pro-Thaksin), Thongbai has invoked the article in the Constituion “The person of the King is sacred and inviolable”, implying that the anti-Prem campaign was in violation of LM.
My name is Sondita Mein and i am related to Chowna Mein. I was surprised and delighted to discover that someone from ANU would have gone to my part of the world and taken these beautiful photographs! If you are doing some research on the Tai Khamti and the Singphos, i could get in touch with my people and we would love to help you in any way that we can :O) It has been a long standing dream of mine to eventually trace the paths taken by my ancestors and understand our migration patterns and hopefully trace our ancestral roots beyond Thailand. I am just a layman so i suppose i am not explaining myself very well in anthropological terms. But if i can be of any help to you with your work, please let me know.
Over the years I have fixed on a compromise approach to describing places in Burma that works quite well. In general, although I’m sure there are exceptions, I tend to write “Myanmar” when I refer to the central authorities.
I also find it is often best to use the revised spellings where the English-language place names have changed during the rule of that Myanmar government. As an extreme example, I go with Pyin Oo Lwin (not Maymyo). And in the case of Yangon the new English-language spelling simply seems more accurate (a bit like the way the Bengalis have changed to “Kolkata”).
But for the country as a whole, and here I mean the full territory (including all the Special Regions, and the areas where there is still ongoing civil war), it makes the most sense to still say “Burma”. I don’t know if this is diplomatic. But I do think it is effective and helps to somewhat reconcile the competing “Myanmar” or “Burma” claims that are made on the national territory. Perhaps it just ends up making everyone unhappy. Anyway, for all of the tens of thousands of words expended on trying to justify various naming regimes, I think this works best.
It is very similar to the approach taken by Mary Callahan in Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma (2003). On page xvi she notes, regarding her dual deployment of “Burma” and “Myanmar”, that “[t]his choice is intended to reflect less a political stance than a recognition that there remains controversy over the issue”.
There is no perfect answer to any of this. This dual approach just seems to make the most sense (to me) in the present moment. But I am certainly happy to have a discussion about this. Is there an even better way of dealing with the nomenclature that takes into account the many complexities?
Grasshopper: “my point is lese majeste is just a more obvious power than ones Westerners are inadvertently subservient too, and for better international utility, I don’t think it is terribly wise for Jonathon Head to be the pot calling the kettle black.”
Why is it not wise? I don’t get the point. Because there are “murky” aspects to democracy in the West – including the role of the private media (such as Murdoch’s) Head, as the BBC’s assigned correspondent shouldn’t comment on Thai politics? That is an odd view. Let’s not have any foreign correspondents? In any case people and reporters in, say, Britain and the US do have the capacity to criticise institutions such as the media (look at Chomsky’s books) and the British crown.
athur: your comment is a an obvious part of the palace campaign to discredit all people who they don’t like. Say it often enough and the charge sticks. The BBC reported on Thaksin in critical terms many, many times. You are a tool of feudalists and a fool to boot.
Johpa you sound like some one who at least has a clue as to what he is talking about. Please send my warmest reguards to MR. Thu Thu lay and tell him the FBR founder speaks very highly of him. I would like to meet Mr. Thu Thu Lay on my next trip to Burma. Also please tell him it is my intention to help in the best way possible, but I need him to tell me and maybe the rest of the world what the best way is.
I have read Thomas Bleming’s book, I know and understand the KNU’s issues with the errors made in it. I also know Mr. Bleming and feel that he means well with all of his heart and soul. Purhaps he needs some history lessons and a better understanding of the situation. Maybe you should explain to him what would be safe to print or say and what may not be. Eventhough that might not get him to obey at least he knows what bounderies he is crossing when he does cross them. I know he is a man who thinks we should point the KNLA at the enemy and say GO! GO! GO! Often even I wonder why there has been such a long stale mate. I have heard of a tentative peace in certain regions with the SPDC and yet there are villages still being attacked and innocent blood being shed. How can this be? This is not peace.
When I was a young boy my father kept chickens. We fed them and kept them safe from other predators. We took their eggs and they pecked at us for it. Then every once and a while we would butcher a few as the others looked on. These chickens were free to roam for the most part and could have left at any time but, the food was good, they had shelter, and we would never kill them all at once.
When I hear the words “tentative peace” I imagine thats what the chickens thought they had with us. I can not imagine the Karen, Shan, or any other people being happy to be the chickens, could you?
My point is this: The SPDC will continue to kill innocent people until they are defeated. It is that simple. There should be no “tentative peace”. There is only PEACE not a little peace or occassional peace or modified peace. I do not mean to offend anyone, I am simply stating my opinion. Jack
P.S. Mr. Charles Foster you seem like a good friend to have. God Bless you and stay strong.
“… don’t think it is terribly wise for Jonathon Head to be the pot calling the kettle black.” – Grasshopper – Head has a job to do. It is his JOB to observe and comment and maybe he does a sterling job of being objective, maybe not, but if all of us were to wait until we were pure of heart and intention ….
Somsak and Melly: Thanks for the link and the pasting of the text. As I understand it, Thongbai tried to provide information on the current legal situation as he sees it. I wonder what his normative-political stance on this issue is.
Teth: The situation is even more ironic, because this government is headed by Samak, who, in October 1976, was also out there at Thammasat University–outside with the right-wingers, not inside with the students, of course! And now he stands accused by Chamlong of helping those who want to destruct the monarchy, notwithstanding his family’s unwavering service to the monarchy over decades (and this as Chinese, not even Thai).
Jon: Please, don’t go as far as putting yellow make-up in your face! Is the crown prince included in that family shrine?
Doglover is right. The national anthem was played before the start of performances in UK cinemas during the 1960s and into the early 1970s. Fewer and fewer people stood and it was quietly abandonned. But we never had the anthem played on tv/radio twice a day nor traffic stopping twice a day, nor the threat of 15 years prison if it was not done
In reply to Observer, an old anarchist protest was to stick postage stamps on letters upside down. Wonder if that would ever catch on in Thailand…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
DFID man in Burma
Three cheers for the DFID guy. One day things will improve.
Names in Burma-Myanmar are very confusing. The government does have a valid point that the place has always been called Myanmar but, on the other hand, South Korea has always been called Han-guk in Korean script, and it is possible to use one name for internal consumption and the other for the outside world, just to provide continuity and make life simpler and less confusing.
There are definitely too many transliterations and ways to spell Burmese place names too, which causes confusion. Like every work on the Pagan era uses a transliteration that is based on how inscriptions were written and can’t be pronounced so when non-experts try to pronounce it…ouch. But I guess this is all the least of poor old Burma-Myanmar’s ills though.
Lèse majesté and the BBC
Grasshopper,
So should the New York Times reporter current imprisoned in Zimbabwe also “have known better”? Or should he have ignored the oppressive efforts of the brutal Mugabe regime to limit the information available to the world, as he did?
I don’t think it is Jonathan Head who should know better, it is the power that keep using the LM law to eliminate dissent. The law only worked in the past because of careful use and the absense of the ability to comment anonymously via internet. Applying it to international reporter who may have trod on a thin grey line is guaranteed to backfire.
Ringbarking a government
Just a reminder to NM that today is the 4th anniversary of Krue Se massacre. I would have forgotten myself if not for Bangkok Post’s article:
http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/28Apr2008_news03.php
Just as Teth has said, there are no ‘incriminating evidences’ here leading straight up to PMThaksin (or the security commanders for that matter – PMSurayud’s fact finding committee seemed to have been neutralized). I only remembered the news reporting him saying along the line of “I will be responsible” and/or “I gave the orders”. I am sure PMThaksin will be quite vague on details if one questions him today… (hence, the most I can accuse PMThaksin and TRT of, lacking solid evidences, is that they “sanctioned” state violence against the Thai citizen)
Anyway, ‘human rights’, ‘rule of law’, ‘corruption’ seem to merit little discussion and interests in NM as is the usual. It is obviously not as sexy and exotic as Lese Majeste law – but I will argue anytime that there are issues far more significant for the ‘big picture’ and the future of Thailand’s democracy… (for goodness sake, PPP is trying to dismantle independent bodies such as the Election Commission and the Counter Corruption Commission, huge milestone achievements in Thai democracy – while the brightest minds in NM are debating LM and a man refusing to stand up for the national anthem in a movie theatre!!! Talk about extreme fetish!!!)…
Lèse majesté and the BBC
Dog lover: It is not wise soley because there are murky aspects to democracy in the West. That was just a haphazard example.
I think ‘objectivity’ in reporting is dependent on the culture one is from, and is therefore, subjective — unless one is able to articulate, like an anthropologist the cultural circumstance surrounding the issue. I made the point that the West’s abililty to criticize itself and reform allows Westerners to claim a socially enlightened position toward the rest of the world. Which is exactly what I’m doing now – so if you don’t understand my point, you can understand that I am wrong! We have convinced ourselves of our righteousness such that it has become a prophecy. I don’t think much of prophecies (at this moment..)
More pragmatically, I make the point that Western democracy is much more subversive due to the power of un-elected civil servants who remain constant compared to the ever changing elected representatives. They interpret what those elected say and implement policy — maybe this is flawed though, because in Australia so many elected politicians are lawyers…
“Lawyers: Having the public’s best interests at heart post Hitler.” – me
I asked a loaded question at the end of my last rant, which nobody attempted to bite — so I will just say that all I am advocating for is an acceptance of pluralism amongst all concerned(I am not condoning what lese majeste is, but equally I am not defending Jonathon Head who has held many foreign postings and should know better.)
If this is not clear, I apologize and bid you good day Winston. mwahahaha… :S
Taking a stand against lèse majesté
Btw, here is a somewhat frightening piece of rhetoric by Chamlong Srimueang produced at the PAD rally at Thammasat on April 25. He was quoted in Matichon (April 27) as having said, “Today’s politicians are extremely insolent. Whatever terrible things they can think of, they can do them every day. Now, they don’t only aim at destroying the chairperson of the Privy Council alone. Today, they aim at destroying the highest institution of the country. Therefore, we must be prepared to resist.”
Srithanonchai, I am not questioning the quote or your translation, but I just want to read the whole article. Do you have a link to the article or remember the title of the article? Searching on Privy Council in Thai brings up too many articles.
The shades of 1976 are disturbing.
Taking a stand against lèse majesté
Ajarn Somsak: I agree that political reasons more than legal ones are relevant, but the legal argument provides a political reason to find the person “not guilty”. His outright challenging of the status quo though will be difficult for the elite to tolerate. However, by being so vocal he can establish himself as a cause celebre and well this might not be seemed as helpful as internationally exposes Thailand. Quietly dropping the case vs making him a public example seems the choice which the elite is faced with. Now, what will they choose.
Rambo off the menu in Thailand?
Yeah, it opened. Every bit the no-hold-barred, action-packed anti-SPDC propaganda reel you’d expect from Hollywood, A review is here. I was in cinemas for about month, but didn’t do very well at the box office, clobbered by the likes of Step Up 2, The Spiderwick Chronicles and 10,000 BC.
Rambo off the menu in Thailand?
Does anybody remember Rambo opening in Thailand? At the time of this post, Major Cineplex said it was due to open in mid-March, but I don’t remember seeing any advertising or stuff in the papers. Just me being blind, or something more sinister…?
Taking a stand against lèse majesté
Khun Somsak: In order to end the speculation about what is on Thongbai’s mind, do you have a way to ask him whether he in fact has a “negative judgment” about Chotisak’s actions? I remember well that Thongbai welcomed the coup als strong medicine that was sometimes necessary. But has he also become a royalist, and does he want to help the “rightist royalists”? In this context, your final sentence is interesting. What has happaned to the political mind of Thongbai?
An unwinnable war?
The browser ate my post: so I’m going to try again…
Re: Srithanonchai
Perhaps I’m being a bit too sensitive, but I cannot help but feel that the tone of your reply was slightly patronizing. Especially considering the fact that I’m the one calling for interdisciplinary collaboration; whereas, McCargo devotes the opening part of his paper to catty snickering at the field of terrorism studies. (Though knowing what an analyst working for Jane’s can make, I must admit feeling a slight bit of bitterness and envy myself.)
That having been said, I don’t disagree with some of McCargo’s points; however, McCargo’s efforts to pull the current academic discourse on the topic away from the effect Islamic doctrines on warfare have on the ideologies and goals of the insurgents only serve to obfuscate what role such doctrines do have. Just as McCargo observes that “[t]erroism experts frequently know very little about the countries on which they write…” McCargo, himself, seems to know very little about Islam beyond what would be covered in Comparative Religions 101. When he writes such howlers, like, “the Southern Thai conflict is not really part of a global conflict, a global jihad, or a global war on terror,” because “the Islam underlying the Southern Thai conflict is local, ‘traditionalist’ Islam, not Islam of the Salafi-Wahhabi variety,” one wonders whether he has any authority upon which to write on the topic at all. McCargo, probably having heard of the Salafi from a “news-clipping” or “internet source,” confuses what is essentially spiritual revival movement, like Sufism, with a school of Islamic jurisprudence, or madh’hab. The madh’hab most common in Southern Thailand is the Shafi’i. Within the Salafi movement, all four Sunni schools are found, including the Shafi’i. (And even if they were not, so what? The Salafi of Al-Qaeda had no problems working hand-in-hand with the Sufi Deobandi Taliban.) As I have stated before, all major madh’hab argue that that jihad is acceptable, and mandatory for defending the dar al-Islam; this includes the Shafi’i of Southern Thailand.
In assuring us that the Southern Thai conflict “is not a jihad,” McCargo seems to define jihad by the very stereotype he ridcules analysts of terrorism as possessing: Jihad as swarthy men on camelback, riding into battle with their trusty shibouks while ululating blood-curdling war cries. In actuality, jihad bin saif can consist of any action taken that disrupts or destroys the life, livelihood, and instiutions of the ahl-i-harb (Ahl-i-harb being defined as non-Muslims as a whole). It may be uncomfortable for some to label lawyers who make careers out of defending accused terrorists, or mothers who protest outside of police stations as mujihadeen, but I assure you that for many Muslims, no such cognitive dissonance exists. And it is due to such painful cognitive dissonance that McCargo twists his arguments so that he may wring the dirty water of “critical analysis of Islamic juriprudence” out of the fabric from which this discussion is woven. He writes that “[l]ike Muslims in many other countries, Patani Muslims do not revel because of deep-rooted socio-economic or psychological grievances, and nor are they primarily animated by jihadist ideologies. Their cause is a political one which centers on local questions of legitimacy; they want to regain control of territory they believe to be theirs, and doing so involves violently rejecting the claims of the Thai state”. Yet, in his paper, McCargo never gets around to telling us why the Patani Muslims believe that Thai claims to Patani are illegitimate, nor does he tell us why they chose to engage in violence, as opposed to Gandhi-esque satyagraha, for example. He only tells us that it is do to “politics” and asks our indulgence to trust him on his word. To counter the arguments that according to Islamic doctrine, the Patani conflict can be defined as a defensive jihad, McCargo is only willing to admit that “Islam serves simply as a mobilizing resource, and a means of framing increasingly shrill justifications for the anticivilian violence”. Again, McCargo doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge the fact that the orthodox (“traditionalist” in his words) interpretations of Qur’anic exegesis frame the political and sociological world-view of the Patani Muslim population.
Of course, recognizing all of this doesn’t absolve the Thai government of any of its brutal actions in the Southern provinces, and this is where someone like McCargo, with his scholarship on the “network monarchy,” could potentially be useful. I wish McCargo would stick to analyzing, for example, how the Queen’s rallying speeches to the various paramilitary groups in the South help formulate counter-insurgency policy. In any case, I do hope that before his next book is published, McCargo takes a walk across the Leeds campus to visit one of his colleagues in the Theology and Religious Studies department, so that he or she may fact-check McCargo’s manuscript before it goes to the presses.
Taking a stand against lèse majesté
Khun Srithanonchai writes:
As I understand it, Thongbai tried to provide information on the current legal situation as he sees it. I wonder what his normative-political stance on this issue is.
I’m not quite sure what K.Srithanonchai means here, but I’m afraid “Phi Bai” is doing more than “provid[ing] information”: I believe he’s expressing his negative judgement on the action of Mr.Chotisak and friend. Thongbai has been involved in politics for a very long time and has intimate knowledge and experience with the LM cases (perhaps more than anyone else). He should know (I think he knows) that by publicly lending his authority to the view that “Chotisak committed less majesty” he in fact helps the rightist royalist attack on Chotisak of the Manager and co.
I write these lines with deep painful feeling. For, as you may know, Phi Bai was the lawyer who defended me and my friends against the LM charge in the 6 October trail (not to mention most other LM cases both before and after Oct6). But lately his public pronouncement on the LM issue has been highly regretable. Last year, at the high of the campaign to denounce Prem (which many groups joined, not only the pro-Thaksin), Thongbai has invoked the article in the Constituion “The person of the King is sacred and inviolable”, implying that the anti-Prem campaign was in violation of LM.
Ministers at the Arunachal Pradesh Manau
Hi Nicholas,
My name is Sondita Mein and i am related to Chowna Mein. I was surprised and delighted to discover that someone from ANU would have gone to my part of the world and taken these beautiful photographs! If you are doing some research on the Tai Khamti and the Singphos, i could get in touch with my people and we would love to help you in any way that we can :O) It has been a long standing dream of mine to eventually trace the paths taken by my ancestors and understand our migration patterns and hopefully trace our ancestral roots beyond Thailand. I am just a layman so i suppose i am not explaining myself very well in anthropological terms. But if i can be of any help to you with your work, please let me know.
Warm regards,
Sondita Mein
DFID man in Burma
Thanks Polo,
Your friendly jibe got me thinking…
Over the years I have fixed on a compromise approach to describing places in Burma that works quite well. In general, although I’m sure there are exceptions, I tend to write “Myanmar” when I refer to the central authorities.
I also find it is often best to use the revised spellings where the English-language place names have changed during the rule of that Myanmar government. As an extreme example, I go with Pyin Oo Lwin (not Maymyo). And in the case of Yangon the new English-language spelling simply seems more accurate (a bit like the way the Bengalis have changed to “Kolkata”).
But for the country as a whole, and here I mean the full territory (including all the Special Regions, and the areas where there is still ongoing civil war), it makes the most sense to still say “Burma”. I don’t know if this is diplomatic. But I do think it is effective and helps to somewhat reconcile the competing “Myanmar” or “Burma” claims that are made on the national territory. Perhaps it just ends up making everyone unhappy. Anyway, for all of the tens of thousands of words expended on trying to justify various naming regimes, I think this works best.
It is very similar to the approach taken by Mary Callahan in Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma (2003). On page xvi she notes, regarding her dual deployment of “Burma” and “Myanmar”, that “[t]his choice is intended to reflect less a political stance than a recognition that there remains controversy over the issue”.
There is no perfect answer to any of this. This dual approach just seems to make the most sense (to me) in the present moment. But I am certainly happy to have a discussion about this. Is there an even better way of dealing with the nomenclature that takes into account the many complexities?
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Lèse majesté and the BBC
Grasshopper: “my point is lese majeste is just a more obvious power than ones Westerners are inadvertently subservient too, and for better international utility, I don’t think it is terribly wise for Jonathon Head to be the pot calling the kettle black.”
Why is it not wise? I don’t get the point. Because there are “murky” aspects to democracy in the West – including the role of the private media (such as Murdoch’s) Head, as the BBC’s assigned correspondent shouldn’t comment on Thai politics? That is an odd view. Let’s not have any foreign correspondents? In any case people and reporters in, say, Britain and the US do have the capacity to criticise institutions such as the media (look at Chomsky’s books) and the British crown.
athur: your comment is a an obvious part of the palace campaign to discredit all people who they don’t like. Say it often enough and the charge sticks. The BBC reported on Thaksin in critical terms many, many times. You are a tool of feudalists and a fool to boot.
Lèse majesté and the BBC
Jonathan has clearly sold his integrity, it is as plain as pie, any media analyst knows he is in bed with Thaksin
By media analyst do you mean Sondhi Limthongkul?
Please substantiate your statement.
Lèse majesté and the BBC
Jonathan has clearly sold his integrity, it is as plain as pie, any media analyst knows he is in bed with Thaksin
Thomas Bleming in the news
Johpa you sound like some one who at least has a clue as to what he is talking about. Please send my warmest reguards to MR. Thu Thu lay and tell him the FBR founder speaks very highly of him. I would like to meet Mr. Thu Thu Lay on my next trip to Burma. Also please tell him it is my intention to help in the best way possible, but I need him to tell me and maybe the rest of the world what the best way is.
I have read Thomas Bleming’s book, I know and understand the KNU’s issues with the errors made in it. I also know Mr. Bleming and feel that he means well with all of his heart and soul. Purhaps he needs some history lessons and a better understanding of the situation. Maybe you should explain to him what would be safe to print or say and what may not be. Eventhough that might not get him to obey at least he knows what bounderies he is crossing when he does cross them. I know he is a man who thinks we should point the KNLA at the enemy and say GO! GO! GO! Often even I wonder why there has been such a long stale mate. I have heard of a tentative peace in certain regions with the SPDC and yet there are villages still being attacked and innocent blood being shed. How can this be? This is not peace.
When I was a young boy my father kept chickens. We fed them and kept them safe from other predators. We took their eggs and they pecked at us for it. Then every once and a while we would butcher a few as the others looked on. These chickens were free to roam for the most part and could have left at any time but, the food was good, they had shelter, and we would never kill them all at once.
When I hear the words “tentative peace” I imagine thats what the chickens thought they had with us. I can not imagine the Karen, Shan, or any other people being happy to be the chickens, could you?
My point is this: The SPDC will continue to kill innocent people until they are defeated. It is that simple. There should be no “tentative peace”. There is only PEACE not a little peace or occassional peace or modified peace. I do not mean to offend anyone, I am simply stating my opinion. Jack
P.S. Mr. Charles Foster you seem like a good friend to have. God Bless you and stay strong.
Lèse majesté and the BBC
“… don’t think it is terribly wise for Jonathon Head to be the pot calling the kettle black.” – Grasshopper – Head has a job to do. It is his JOB to observe and comment and maybe he does a sterling job of being objective, maybe not, but if all of us were to wait until we were pure of heart and intention ….
…… nobody would ever say anything.
Taking a stand against lèse majesté
Somsak and Melly: Thanks for the link and the pasting of the text. As I understand it, Thongbai tried to provide information on the current legal situation as he sees it. I wonder what his normative-political stance on this issue is.
Teth: The situation is even more ironic, because this government is headed by Samak, who, in October 1976, was also out there at Thammasat University–outside with the right-wingers, not inside with the students, of course! And now he stands accused by Chamlong of helping those who want to destruct the monarchy, notwithstanding his family’s unwavering service to the monarchy over decades (and this as Chinese, not even Thai).
Jon: Please, don’t go as far as putting yellow make-up in your face! Is the crown prince included in that family shrine?
Taking a stand against lèse majesté
Doglover is right. The national anthem was played before the start of performances in UK cinemas during the 1960s and into the early 1970s. Fewer and fewer people stood and it was quietly abandonned. But we never had the anthem played on tv/radio twice a day nor traffic stopping twice a day, nor the threat of 15 years prison if it was not done
In reply to Observer, an old anarchist protest was to stick postage stamps on letters upside down. Wonder if that would ever catch on in Thailand…