Since the monarchy is the most popular topic on New Mandala, this piece of news may be interesting: The Nation reports:
Police file lese majeste case against bbc man
A police investigator has filed a lese majeste complaint against a BBC reporter over comments he made in a short speech on “Coup, Capital and Crown” at the Foreign Correspond-ents’ Club (FCCT) in Bangkok in December.
Published on April 9, 2008
Pol Lt-Colonel Watanasak Mungkijkarndee, an investigator at Bang Mod police station, filed a copy of the video of Jonathan Head’s opening speech at the FCCT plus a transcript and translation to investigators at the Crime Suppression Division.
He said he filed the case alone and without any political motive.
Pol Lt-Colonel Boonlert Kalayanamitr, the officer in charge of the case, said an investigative committee must be appointed. Evidence will be sent to the Royal Thai Police’s Foreign Affairs Division, which will translate and interpret the comments as well as request advice from linguistic experts on Head’s speech, he said.
Head, who has worked in Asia for the BBC for many years, was not available for comment last night. Friends said the reporter – highly regarded here – is on assignment in the Philippines.
A member of the FCCT board preferred not to discuss the news “at this stage” because the issue was sensitive and the club was unsure of all the details relating to the complaint.
The move was the talk of foreign reporters yesterday. “It just sends a chill,” one commented.
The Nation
If five months are needed to file charges, then we should keep our eyes open for similar news in May – five months after the ICTS.
I am not surprised by the new constitution. The question is not, in how far this is democratic or even maintains a facade of parliamentarism, but rather does a legal framework potentially allow for a certain level of calculability in Burma. This would already be quite an achievement, and define a certain, even if minimal level of control of the junta. This is the reason why I am surprised that the junta even formulated such a constitution. What are the reasons for it? I don’t think it is due to external presure, or that it is just fashionable.
To take any action, we must first be aware of the problem.
World leaders have the power to stop this suffering. By making them witness the injustice of poverty, disease, violence and hunger, Lebua has created an awareness which would not only benefit the village but would also lead to more acts of charity on part of the guests.
In the whole furore no one seems to have mentioned that this village was neglected. The people of this village have lived a life of hardship. Had lebua not bought our attention to this village it could have been years before some progress took place there. They plan to set up water sanitation programs, associate the village with the Bill Gates charity foundation educate the villagers about better methods of farming and actually help the villagers make their life better.
If one really has to go on touting the whole point about “poverty tourism” really what has anybody done for the village till date? It is easy for us to sit here and call it a marketing gimmick, but at least something is being done. Plans to improve conditions are underway.
I am surprised that in all this no one has even mentioned that the hotel has collected a sizeable amount of donation for the benefit of the village without even asking for any donation from the guests. I don’t see the villagers who will benefit from this event complaining. To us it is just another controversial issue, but to the people of Surin, this is the chance to start again with a ray of hope.
Why it that this has become an issue? Is it because it actually involved something good?
I wonder why the media is making such a big deal about it. The guests donated money, the village is going to have better living conditions as well as a chance to make their life easier. Perhaps there was no other “juicer” story that day. After all who likes a happy ending?
Kelly
If anyone involved with the event would like to write a report on it, we would be very happy to host it on New Mandala. Here is your chance to provide some unbiased coverage!
Please see the first news as covered by AP.
I am really appalled at how misquotes by the Press, especially AFP is trying to marr the entire event. If you’ve been a part of the event, you would know how few cynical journalists are making a mockery of a sincere effort. Even Asia Pacific News, which roger has rightly quoted, has got its facts wrong. The 1million baht dinner that is mentioned was held last year and was not a part of emotional tourism
In this profiteering corporate jungle, I rarely find any company braving the fussilade of inaccurate, at times deriding media coverage
and yet remaining steadfast to achieve greater good. A fund of 4.5 million baht is not built up through hypocrisy. Let’s for once appreciate an earnest effort.
I am not even sure I should continue commentating . . . but here I am anyway just to be sure that Samak or Chalerm will NOT be suspected of Colonel Jeru’s vanishing act.
I purposedly “murdered” the Jeroo wordpress blogsite to “discourage” myself from getting overly engrossed at blogging . . . Anyway on the average I was getting 75 hits a day, and there was only two or three days when I got 300 hits. So I felt Jeroo website was not good enough to invest my time in.
Ngana: Vichai N and Colonel Jeru are one and the same person . . suffering multiple personality disorders.
[…] And just in case you thought this was going to be limited to an economic crash only in the agricultural sectors (as if), note that Thailand’s “lucky charms” are losing value – rapidly. [via New Mandala] […]
Hello all,
Just saw this enraging debate about whether these hoteliers are hypocrites. I thought my personal experience can be of some help. First, I think this is a novel initiative undertaken by any luxury hotel. And yes, there is a real sense of altruism involved. Just to share a few facts, do you guys know, that even snacks were not served to the visitors who went out to have a feel of the place they were commited to change. Don’t dub it as a picnic within poverty, or poverty tourism.
The very purpose for the trip was to let people understand and feel the cause to which their money would be contributed. The profile of people were top bankers, industrialists, hospital owners..and the idea was to help them see and understand how they can change the face of the village even without direct donations. The hotel never told me that you have to contribute to Lebua’s fund, they were free to do so in any way they wanted.
Personally I feel that the objective is a noble one, and yes when talking about the dinner William got it right, the cost for the entire event for all the guests together was $300,000 and more importantly the dinner was there to help people understand how fortunate they were to enjoy the best in life. This indeed is a sublte prod to one’s conscience to share a part of their fortune with the underprivileged.
I think that people can have an honest difference of opinion about how far constitutional reform should go. After all, why have a constitution, if the constitution is just defined to be whatever current government policy is.
Furthermore, there is supposed to be checks and balances between the judicial and executive legislative branch at the heart of the constitution, I would assume, although the current constitution was weighted more towards the judiciary, it seemed.
A lot of people have already thrown their support behind revising Section 237, the business community, Nattakorn and other people concerned about fostering the growth of political parties in Thailand. The real question it seems is whether the revision of 237 will lead to a revision free for all, ” a messy finger painting constitution is whatever I want it to be right now and I’ll change it ever 30 seconds to suit me and you’ll never keep track of the Gerrymandering and election rigging I build into the constitution”, sort of thing.
Some people are against revising it, pro-keeping the consittution intact.
Section 237 allows the Constitutional Court to dissolve a political party if one of its executives is found guilty of electoral irregularity (or failing to act to prevent such an irregularity).
Of course they are changing the rules mid-stream all the sake of democracy, however it’s interesting that they seem to be targeting only a few sections, the amendment of which would clearly benefit themselves (plus Dr Thaksin and the banned 111).
Makes me wonder if they would in such a rush to amend if it were only their opponents who were under threat of dissolution.
btw, I have no problem with an orderly review of all sections of the constitution, but those rules applied to all parties at the time of the election, and a quick amendment to benefit themselves does leave a bad taste.
The form of any amendments they come up (and the beneficiaries thereof) will go a long way in showing whether there has been any attitudinal reform
Srithanonchai, which came first – the chicken or the egg? Public politicis will continue to be a byproduct national social attitude. Private politics will continue to be a reflection of societal structure. When the national social attitude is fed up with the societal structure, then there is a possibility for the chicken to lay a new egg and an improved private structure to hatch which can be more relevant to the national social attitude.
With issues like the amendment to section 273 of the 07 constitution and stories like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7328054.stm , I am beginning to believe that the egg of Thai social attitude may be made of stone.
The only way to crack the stone egg I think is through multiculturalism within Thailand. Particularly, targeting people from the West to immigrate. Example is the best form of influence, etc. What would it take for the elites of Thailand to want to move in the direction of globalism? Would cracking the stone egg begin to dismantle Thai identity, or would it enforce it? Or perhaps a better metaphor would be reducing the stone to a mouldable clay? Imperialistic?! Probably.
Now that Jeru is gone as is the military’s idiocy, I feel like I’ve have a lot less to say. Ah well. We shall see how things are in the Colonel’s camp eventually.
“Some serious attitudinal reforms are required before sensible institutional reforms can be put into place.” > This statement might even be applied to politicians and voters, and not only to those sections of the elite that identify neither with the different political worldviews (“rural constitution”) of some sections of the voters nor with the political practice of significant sections of the politicians. And, no, for all these groups, I don’t hold my breath (ask Australians or Germans to change their operational worldviews…).
Anyway, I wonder what the relationship is of political attitude and political structure. If attitudes reflect structures (meaning that it is structures that select both the personnel operating within them and its attitudes), should we not rather call for a change of the latter? Unfortunately, societal structures do not normally care much about immediate normative demands for change. If structures could be changed, some institutional (i.e., legal) reforms might work. On the other hand, what is the effect of such legal provisions on both attitude and structure?
There’s also an article on the meeting of Burmese and Thai foreign ministers at the opening of the Mai Sai – Tachilek bridge in the January 2006 online edition of the Myanmar Times (available here).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Anthropology goes to war, again
It’s hard to work in an area without getting involved in the local issues.
Popular on New Mandala
Since the monarchy is the most popular topic on New Mandala, this piece of news may be interesting: The Nation reports:
Police file lese majeste case against bbc man
A police investigator has filed a lese majeste complaint against a BBC reporter over comments he made in a short speech on “Coup, Capital and Crown” at the Foreign Correspond-ents’ Club (FCCT) in Bangkok in December.
Published on April 9, 2008
Pol Lt-Colonel Watanasak Mungkijkarndee, an investigator at Bang Mod police station, filed a copy of the video of Jonathan Head’s opening speech at the FCCT plus a transcript and translation to investigators at the Crime Suppression Division.
He said he filed the case alone and without any political motive.
Pol Lt-Colonel Boonlert Kalayanamitr, the officer in charge of the case, said an investigative committee must be appointed. Evidence will be sent to the Royal Thai Police’s Foreign Affairs Division, which will translate and interpret the comments as well as request advice from linguistic experts on Head’s speech, he said.
Head, who has worked in Asia for the BBC for many years, was not available for comment last night. Friends said the reporter – highly regarded here – is on assignment in the Philippines.
A member of the FCCT board preferred not to discuss the news “at this stage” because the issue was sensitive and the club was unsure of all the details relating to the complaint.
The move was the talk of foreign reporters yesterday. “It just sends a chill,” one commented.
The Nation
If five months are needed to file charges, then we should keep our eyes open for similar news in May – five months after the ICTS.
Roads in the eastern Shan State
many thanks for the link, Stephen; this is an Irrawaddy article on the “Laos side of the road” that I had missed:
http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=11225
Burma’s draft 2008 constitution
I am not surprised by the new constitution. The question is not, in how far this is democratic or even maintains a facade of parliamentarism, but rather does a legal framework potentially allow for a certain level of calculability in Burma. This would already be quite an achievement, and define a certain, even if minimal level of control of the junta. This is the reason why I am surprised that the junta even formulated such a constitution. What are the reasons for it? I don’t think it is due to external presure, or that it is just fashionable.
Emotional tourism
To take any action, we must first be aware of the problem.
World leaders have the power to stop this suffering. By making them witness the injustice of poverty, disease, violence and hunger, Lebua has created an awareness which would not only benefit the village but would also lead to more acts of charity on part of the guests.
In the whole furore no one seems to have mentioned that this village was neglected. The people of this village have lived a life of hardship. Had lebua not bought our attention to this village it could have been years before some progress took place there. They plan to set up water sanitation programs, associate the village with the Bill Gates charity foundation educate the villagers about better methods of farming and actually help the villagers make their life better.
If one really has to go on touting the whole point about “poverty tourism” really what has anybody done for the village till date? It is easy for us to sit here and call it a marketing gimmick, but at least something is being done. Plans to improve conditions are underway.
I am surprised that in all this no one has even mentioned that the hotel has collected a sizeable amount of donation for the benefit of the village without even asking for any donation from the guests. I don’t see the villagers who will benefit from this event complaining. To us it is just another controversial issue, but to the people of Surin, this is the chance to start again with a ray of hope.
Why it that this has become an issue? Is it because it actually involved something good?
I wonder why the media is making such a big deal about it. The guests donated money, the village is going to have better living conditions as well as a chance to make their life easier. Perhaps there was no other “juicer” story that day. After all who likes a happy ending?
Kelly
Emotional tourism
If anyone involved with the event would like to write a report on it, we would be very happy to host it on New Mandala. Here is your chance to provide some unbiased coverage!
Emotional tourism
http://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2008/04/feasting-after-poverty-tour-leaves-bad.html
Please see the first news as covered by AP.
I am really appalled at how misquotes by the Press, especially AFP is trying to marr the entire event. If you’ve been a part of the event, you would know how few cynical journalists are making a mockery of a sincere effort. Even Asia Pacific News, which roger has rightly quoted, has got its facts wrong. The 1million baht dinner that is mentioned was held last year and was not a part of emotional tourism
In this profiteering corporate jungle, I rarely find any company braving the fussilade of inaccurate, at times deriding media coverage
and yet remaining steadfast to achieve greater good. A fund of 4.5 million baht is not built up through hypocrisy. Let’s for once appreciate an earnest effort.
Whatever happened to Colonel Jeru?
I am not even sure I should continue commentating . . . but here I am anyway just to be sure that Samak or Chalerm will NOT be suspected of Colonel Jeru’s vanishing act.
I purposedly “murdered” the Jeroo wordpress blogsite to “discourage” myself from getting overly engrossed at blogging . . . Anyway on the average I was getting 75 hits a day, and there was only two or three days when I got 300 hits. So I felt Jeroo website was not good enough to invest my time in.
Ngana: Vichai N and Colonel Jeru are one and the same person . . suffering multiple personality disorders.
enuff said!
Emotional tourism
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/southeastasia/view/339917/1/.html
When the bubble bursts
[…] And just in case you thought this was going to be limited to an economic crash only in the agricultural sectors (as if), note that Thailand’s “lucky charms” are losing value – rapidly. [via New Mandala] […]
Emotional tourism
Hello all,
Just saw this enraging debate about whether these hoteliers are hypocrites. I thought my personal experience can be of some help. First, I think this is a novel initiative undertaken by any luxury hotel. And yes, there is a real sense of altruism involved. Just to share a few facts, do you guys know, that even snacks were not served to the visitors who went out to have a feel of the place they were commited to change. Don’t dub it as a picnic within poverty, or poverty tourism.
The very purpose for the trip was to let people understand and feel the cause to which their money would be contributed. The profile of people were top bankers, industrialists, hospital owners..and the idea was to help them see and understand how they can change the face of the village even without direct donations. The hotel never told me that you have to contribute to Lebua’s fund, they were free to do so in any way they wanted.
Personally I feel that the objective is a noble one, and yes when talking about the dinner William got it right, the cost for the entire event for all the guests together was $300,000 and more importantly the dinner was there to help people understand how fortunate they were to enjoy the best in life. This indeed is a sublte prod to one’s conscience to share a part of their fortune with the underprivileged.
What hope of amending attitudes?
I think that people can have an honest difference of opinion about how far constitutional reform should go. After all, why have a constitution, if the constitution is just defined to be whatever current government policy is.
Furthermore, there is supposed to be checks and balances between the judicial and executive legislative branch at the heart of the constitution, I would assume, although the current constitution was weighted more towards the judiciary, it seemed.
A lot of people have already thrown their support behind revising Section 237, the business community, Nattakorn and other people concerned about fostering the growth of political parties in Thailand. The real question it seems is whether the revision of 237 will lead to a revision free for all, ” a messy finger painting constitution is whatever I want it to be right now and I’ll change it ever 30 seconds to suit me and you’ll never keep track of the Gerrymandering and election rigging I build into the constitution”, sort of thing.
Some people are against revising it, pro-keeping the consittution intact.
Whatever happened to Colonel Jeru?
Oh, he will be miss.
Many times his comments brought a reply that really got you thinking. About what are be advocated or point being discussed.
Whatever happened to Colonel Jeru?
I also miss Vichai N, Taxi Driver, Nirut and Patiwat – a big HELLO to you all if you are still reading.
Whatever happened to Colonel Jeru?
Maybe Jakrapob has done a Praya Pichai on the Colonel?
🙂
What hope of amending attitudes?
Section 237 allows the Constitutional Court to dissolve a political party if one of its executives is found guilty of electoral irregularity (or failing to act to prevent such an irregularity).
Of course they are changing the rules mid-stream all the sake of democracy, however it’s interesting that they seem to be targeting only a few sections, the amendment of which would clearly benefit themselves (plus Dr Thaksin and the banned 111).
Makes me wonder if they would in such a rush to amend if it were only their opponents who were under threat of dissolution.
btw, I have no problem with an orderly review of all sections of the constitution, but those rules applied to all parties at the time of the election, and a quick amendment to benefit themselves does leave a bad taste.
The form of any amendments they come up (and the beneficiaries thereof) will go a long way in showing whether there has been any attitudinal reform
What hope of amending attitudes?
Srithanonchai, which came first – the chicken or the egg? Public politicis will continue to be a byproduct national social attitude. Private politics will continue to be a reflection of societal structure. When the national social attitude is fed up with the societal structure, then there is a possibility for the chicken to lay a new egg and an improved private structure to hatch which can be more relevant to the national social attitude.
With issues like the amendment to section 273 of the 07 constitution and stories like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7328054.stm , I am beginning to believe that the egg of Thai social attitude may be made of stone.
The only way to crack the stone egg I think is through multiculturalism within Thailand. Particularly, targeting people from the West to immigrate. Example is the best form of influence, etc. What would it take for the elites of Thailand to want to move in the direction of globalism? Would cracking the stone egg begin to dismantle Thai identity, or would it enforce it? Or perhaps a better metaphor would be reducing the stone to a mouldable clay? Imperialistic?! Probably.
Whatever happened to Colonel Jeru?
Now that Jeru is gone as is the military’s idiocy, I feel like I’ve have a lot less to say. Ah well. We shall see how things are in the Colonel’s camp eventually.
What hope of amending attitudes?
“Some serious attitudinal reforms are required before sensible institutional reforms can be put into place.” > This statement might even be applied to politicians and voters, and not only to those sections of the elite that identify neither with the different political worldviews (“rural constitution”) of some sections of the voters nor with the political practice of significant sections of the politicians. And, no, for all these groups, I don’t hold my breath (ask Australians or Germans to change their operational worldviews…).
Anyway, I wonder what the relationship is of political attitude and political structure. If attitudes reflect structures (meaning that it is structures that select both the personnel operating within them and its attitudes), should we not rather call for a change of the latter? Unfortunately, societal structures do not normally care much about immediate normative demands for change. If structures could be changed, some institutional (i.e., legal) reforms might work. On the other hand, what is the effect of such legal provisions on both attitude and structure?
Roads in the eastern Shan State
There’s also an article on the meeting of Burmese and Thai foreign ministers at the opening of the Mai Sai – Tachilek bridge in the January 2006 online edition of the Myanmar Times (available here).