Thanks Land of Snarls.
Maybe Andrew was only referencing Tolkein – or that PMThaksin is now openly promoted as the anti-monarchy posterboy in NM! I am sensing a double personality here. I am much more familiar with Andrew’s writing now and it is of a very high quality academic undoubtedly (one of the best and passionate on his area of interest) – on the other hand, there’s an activist streak in him when it comes to one person, HMK. Personally I think that is unfortunate (especially when he try to link with his very rigorous research), but it does make for very lively discussions here!
Response to #7 + # 38: I’ve tried hard to restrain myself from commenting on Michael Connors’ intellectually pretentious, morally self-righteous, and very condescending series of posts, but it was just too much for me. I’ve tried to limit myself to just eight points.
Let’s start with this one:
1. “I think I have now called Somsak’s bluff…”
Maybe I missed something in that long-winded, pretentious wankery that is supposed to pass as an intellectually sophisticated comment (#38), but nowhere in his response did I see Connors do what Somsak called for in his posts: to put the same efforts (or even more) into denouncing the king as he does in denouncing democratically-elected Prime Ministers and political parties. The best he could do was say, “…I have no problem in declaring the monarchy illegitimate from a political perspective based on equality…” Whereas almost in the same breath he calls the newly democratically-elected government led by Samak a “monstrosity”. I can’t recall him using the same language to describe the CNS or the king. Connors’ response does not call his bluff at all; it actually proves Somsak’s point: the hypocrisy of Connors and so many other academics who cover themselves in the self-righteous veil of moral superiority in their criticisms of Thaksin and Samak and PPP-TRT, but are virtually silent on the longer, more serious, more insidious, and less visible abuses of the king and the royalist establishment.
2. “…It is important to put Somsak’s insistence in proper context. His questions to me and his name calling are quite irrelevant in a Thai context as I am an outsider, not a political actor …”
Hello? Connors is an academic isn’t he? Why one earth would criticisms by one academic – Somsak – of another academic – Connors – on an academic blog be irrelevant? What has it got to do with being an “outsider”, whatever that means? Connors ought to have the intellectual courage to respond to the points of criticism without calling them “irrelevant”.
3. “… Quite sensibly, Somsak’s position is viewed as untenable by people in Thailand…”
This statement is not only insulting in its condescension (”people” are sensible, Somsak is not), it is untrue. Anyone who has followed debates on Fa Dio Kan over the last couple of years would see that Somsak’s position has many supporters.
4. “…The more I try and answer Somsak the more abuse I get, so this is my last post on this topic…”
This preciousness of academics is what really pisses me off about Thai Studies. An academic finds himself on the end of some sharp criticism (not “abuse”) and he starts whining for sympathy (because he can’t defend himself) then finally runs away. In fact, even if one is “abused” (and I’ve been on the receiving end occasionally) I don’t see why one has to run away, or even feel “hurt”. Connors doesn’t seem to mind heaping abuse on the Thaksin and Samak governments. But when he cops a little criticism on a blog he starts whining. One would wish that academics – especially political “scientists” (I hesitate to use the term) – have thicker skin than this.
As in earlier posts I find myself in disagreement with virtually every sentence of what Connors writes. The tone of condescension and superiority is what really grates. The following from #7 is a beauty:
5. “…Any legitimacy he [ie. Thaksin] may have had as a consequence of being selected prime minister by elected representatives was negated by his actions in that position…”
What does this statement actually mean? Connors has unilaterally declared from on high that Thaksin had no “legitimacy”. So Connors (and the royalists) decides what is or is not “legitimate”, not the Thai people. The fact that Thaksin and his party have been democratically elected now on four consecutive occasions, and that Thaksin enjoys great popularity with the electorate means nothing to Connors in terms of democratic legitimacy. This is EXACTLY the argument of the CNS and their royalist backers. So Connors and the former royalist dictatorship are totally in agreement on this point. In fact, it seems that Connors is not in the “song mai ao” camp after all; the camp that Connors belongs to based on his own arguments is that of the CNS and the royalists.
6. “…Why people such as Somsak continue to require that people support the legitimacy of figures such as Thaksin I have no idea…”
Well obviously Connors has no idea. It is much too much to ask for, that Connors respects the democratic choice of the Thai electorate, that he acknowledges the legitimacy that comes from elections. Connors believes he knows better than the majority of the Thai electorate who elected Thaksin. Another demonstration of the undemocratic, authoritarian, patronizing, even neo-colonial stance of Connors towards the Thai electorate.
7. “…His [ie. Somsak’s] absolutism on this point (and I have to say I admire his courage as much as he despises my cowardice) serves the interests of political immobilism on issues that people feel are achievable (human rights and the war on drugs, disappearances in the South). Achievement on current issues can alter greatly the way the Thai state works in the future, it can establish standards of accountability, rule of law, witness protection. It can save lifes…”
Spot the moral self-righteousness? Connors accuses Somsak of holding a position which will not lead to a politics that will achieve morally good ends. But “people” (?) and Connors do hold a morally superior position – that “can save lives”. Connors as a “khon di”. Right up there with Prem and Surayudh and Mor Prawet and the profoundly undemocratic “phak prachachon”, declaring who is “legitimate” or not, and showing Thais through their superior intelligence and moral consciousness the way to “do good”.
(By the way, nowhere did Somsak accuse Connors of “cowardice”. He criticized his hypocrisy, inconsistency, and ridiculous, perverted understanding of socialism – a travesty of socialist ideals, actually).
And lastly:
8. “…The Thai monarch has himself commented on the burden of being judged to be superhuman, which I take to mean that he [the king] would be happy to be subject to equal treatment in matters of law in his position as an individual, not as an institution…”
This is one of the most ridiculous, na├пve, credulous statements I have ever read by any political scientist working on Thailand. “Happy to be subject to equal treatment”?! You mean by us specks of dust? You might expect this from a child indoctrinated on Thai royalist propaganda, but a university academic? What is it with farang academics and the monarchy? Why do they go all gooey in the presence of royalty? In this one statement we have the key to understanding Connors’ apparent total misreading of the Thai political scene.
So, Jon, the possibility that only part of the military wanted to murder Thakin makes them unseen heroes?
I nominate this for most repulsive comment on the web today.
Considering the broad speculation that the 2006 car bomb incident was a previous attempt at murder, it seems these new reports should be taken seriously.
A second thought: Maybe you should post the whole fawning news release. It shows how far U.S. institutions are prepared to forgo in terms of academic credentials in seeking to promote themselves and raise cash. This is a truly embarrassing announcement. Those who complain that the direct royal involvement in horrendous events like the October 6 massacre are forgotten and brushed aside have an exceptionally good point.
“Of course, when the time comes for Thaksin to take on a more formal political role there will be those that protest about his dishonesty given his previous promises of retirement. But their charges will have little traction in the court of public opinion. That’s how the “regime of images” works.”
Hopefully, Paul Handley will still around to write another book:
What on earth is jonfernquest getting at? Do you mean that if the military doesn’t get in the way just at this moment , then they are heroes? I don’t get it.
The EWC has long been a supporter to the Thai monarchy and vice versa. There are mutual benefits. It is an academic outfit, but seems more like an arm of US foreign policy in the way that it operates.
Hopefully I can put together more posts of this type over the coming weeks. We will see what happens.
And, as for mobile phone reception, Teth, the valley where these pictures were taken has only the most erratic service. It is one of those places where it seems like if you stand on the right hillock, with your back to the sun, a cricket on your shoulder, and a strong breeze from the north-west then, maybe, just maybe, you will get a couple of bars of signal. And then maybe only long enough for you to say, “Hi Mum, I’m…”
Sidh S: re. your questions on the Stolen Generations, I don’t have time to answer right at the moment, and it’s not a mainland S.E.Asian issue, so probably not appropriate for discussion on NM. I suggest you google it. There’s a lot of material available. You can get the report of the National Enquiry at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/part1.rtf
Sorry I can’t be more helpful – flat out.
BTW, what do you think of A.W’s header, “The return of the king”? (Serious question, I’m not being flippant.) Don’t know what I think. Overload.
I’m not sure whether he spoke about it, but the printed English-language statement Thaksin issued Thursday mentioned the 2006 car bomb case (allegedly directed at him) , briefly, in a paragraph about his security.
Those who think the plot was simply a concoction of Thaksin will likely take it as another example of his chutzpah.
However, his remark that the case was still open suggests strongly to me that there is some pretty hard evidence around (I’d bet tapes) which might embarrass some influential people should push come to shove.
Or perhaps I missed some obscure and unreported developments in this case. Can anyone enlighten us?
P.S. Pretty interesting as well, though buried in the Bangkok Post’s About Politics column on Thursday, was a tale about rumored army snipers, including these assertions:
…” However, to make sure the command would not be involved in any plot to kill Mr Thaksin, Gen Anupong has ordered Lt-Gen Sunai to report to him the number of special warfare officers who specialise in using sniper rifles and where they are.
Gen Anupong even checked the number of weapons in the command’s arsenal in Lop Buri province himself when he presided over celebrations of the Special Warfare Day.
He also transferred special warfare officers who use sniper rifles who served as Gen Sonthi’s bodyguards while he was army chief and chairman of the CNS back to barracks . “…
The real unseen heroes of the moment are the boys in khaki.
Sonthi’s boys.
They could have thrown a monkey wrench in the works but they didn’t
Good on you mates.
The only reason I asked is that I can’t find it in my English/Jinghpaw dictionary, which like a lot of those dictionaries isn’t exactly the most accurate, and which has a different term listed under “beer”.
Nobody used “n-tsin” for drinking water? It’s kind of cool to look at all the dialect differences, and it really is good that you’re able to travel, research, and share this information with us.
The only thing better would be if you could bring us a plate of curry with some hpalap (sp?). I’m a tea drinker, not a beer drinker.
A perhaps strengthened Thaksin and a poorly qualified cabinet: So much for the unintended consequences of intended actions.
“What counts in public is that the right thing is said at the right time.” >> This does not seem to be much different from open politics anywhere; it is not specific to Thailand. Look to George W Bush for a “regime of images.”
Sciortino says: Indeed, most peoples of the GMS are not aware of the regional plans affecting their lives. Caught in the specificity of their local contexts, they do not subscribe to the concept of “the Mekong” as a region, remaining divided along socio-economic means and ethnic and national-identity lines.
It is certainly not for the ADB to promote regionalism in the Mekong region. The Mekong community must go to the ADB.
A Mekong region like Guandong or the Bohai straight is a ridiculous fantasy of foreigners who see all the appropriate natural infrastructures and think it should happen. Then these foreigners apply the principles of “globalisation”, which hasn’t happened yet (in order for it to be properly defined), to peoples who seemingly must share their philosophy and techniques of universal connectedness.
Furthermore what form of regionalism along the Mekong could possibly occur? It couldn’t be a closed regionalism like in the EU because histories between relevant cultures are still volatile and economic progression in the Mekong region is very much dependent on FDI from afar. I think the only regionalism that is likely to happen in SE Asia is through ASEAN, because it is structured around what each state can agree on and conforms to cultural structures of power — not silly NGO’s pseudo imperialistic take on justice.
One of these experimental approaches is spearheaded by the PETA Mekong Partnership Project. Since 2004, the Project has strived to build a community of GMS artists committed to enhancing public well-being. Through arts workshops (laboratories) and play production and performances, artists from the six Mekong countries share their experiences and skills and learn to apply their arts to highlight social issues affecting their region, starting with HIV/AIDS and gender discrimination.
Who is the Philippine Educational Theatre Association running these ‘laboritories’ of arty wonderfulness ? Couldn’t be holistic catholics wanting to ‘share’ and ‘communicate’, and just be generally ‘nice’ – could it? Kymlicka, whose views on multiculturalism should be hammered into these type of people before they set off on idolatrous hooray for the human quests, argues in Multicultural Citizenship that people are free within a culture and that it is very difficult for one to integrate into another culture — that mostly the culture you come from defines your perception and it is this perception which will continue to define the individual. It is quite ironic then that such lame sparks for GMS are occurring through PETA, which obviously would not be paid attention too enough (as it requires many to find secularism — a Western cultural product??) for an ignition, therefore leaving cultural integration, essential for ‘regionalism’ in a pragmatic, ‘economically prosperous’ and ‘disease curing’ way, in a more antagonistic state than if it didn’t happen at all as there would have been no failed imposition. I think her final points are contradictory to what she was saying in the beginning about hostility, because they promote it… at least in me.
Over the course of time, however, the participating artists came to appreciate the opportunity to learn from one another, explore both traditional and modern art forms, and mix them together in their new productions. Ultimately, they were all struck by the seemingly endless shapes of Mekong arts, many of which they had not known before. They recognised that they had learned to accept each other’s differences and respect divergent views.
What an incredibly condescending thing to write. That’s like interpreting some statistics to meet your own objectives and ignoring the ones which may provide a contradiction to your objective, but she is doing it with cultures! And in this case, forgetting to ask questions like ‘will you continue to share artistic journeys in modernist appreciation with your new brothers and sisters from other cultures ?’ If one asks the right series of questions with the appropriate ‘aww group hug’ tone, one will get whatever answers one likes.
If we didn’t try to force regionalism it would happen a lot quicker. Speculatively, with ASEAN introducing binding economic agreements to their agenda, maybe the GMS would be viewed as a SREZ like HK?
Thaksin in the press conference after his return: “I and my family have suffered from injustice but this can not be compared to the hardship befallen the people who are the worst victims of political rivalry,” he said.” (The Nation, February 28, 2008) >> Does Thaksin’s regret include the victims of the anti-drug campaign, Tak Bai, and Krue Se?
Yes, I think it is the same word. My Myitkyina-sourced Kachin-English dictionary has “tsapi” and “tsahpa” both defined as “native beer”. “Tsahku” is “fermented liquor”. “Tsa” is simply “liquor, beer or whiskey”. All gels pretty closely with the usages I have heard in various Kachin areas (including Arunachal Pradesh). As for water, I think the word in Singpho lands is still “hka”, etc.
Stephen Morey’s Tai and Tibeto-Burman Languages of Assam website confirms my gut feeling on the water front.
Land of Snarls, maybe a better analogy would be the case of Japan’s Emperor and WWII – a case that will never likely be revisited except on historical books on the issue (which is also banned in Japan if I am not wrong?). If Thailand’s case resembles Japan’s more, then I think you and Alfred are right and pigs will never fly – even if the country eventually evolves into a vibrant liberal democracy. The weight of centuries of history, culture and identity will be too much – and apart from published books in other countries, academic conferences and blogs like this may be the most public it gets.
Many of the 1976 generation have also been absorbed into the mainstream (have any research, indepth interviews with them been conducted on why?) – with exceptions such as AjarnSomsak. Post AjarnSomsak – who will carry on the activism (and hate) on 1976? History says that it will not, and 1992’s injustices may get more attention and then eventually 2003 (a bit trickier as no activists have been at the recieving end of the state’s actions this time – only petty drug dealers at most and an ethnic minority. Is this a reason why many here cannot feel empathy for these latter groups?)
On the Stolen Generation issue, have all the perpretators (politicians, church leaders etc.) passed away (and the Australian parliament have said “sorry” on their behalf post-humous?)?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Thanks Land of Snarls.
Maybe Andrew was only referencing Tolkein – or that PMThaksin is now openly promoted as the anti-monarchy posterboy in NM! I am sensing a double personality here. I am much more familiar with Andrew’s writing now and it is of a very high quality academic undoubtedly (one of the best and passionate on his area of interest) – on the other hand, there’s an activist streak in him when it comes to one person, HMK. Personally I think that is unfortunate (especially when he try to link with his very rigorous research), but it does make for very lively discussions here!
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Response to #7 + # 38: I’ve tried hard to restrain myself from commenting on Michael Connors’ intellectually pretentious, morally self-righteous, and very condescending series of posts, but it was just too much for me. I’ve tried to limit myself to just eight points.
Let’s start with this one:
1. “I think I have now called Somsak’s bluff…”
Maybe I missed something in that long-winded, pretentious wankery that is supposed to pass as an intellectually sophisticated comment (#38), but nowhere in his response did I see Connors do what Somsak called for in his posts: to put the same efforts (or even more) into denouncing the king as he does in denouncing democratically-elected Prime Ministers and political parties. The best he could do was say, “…I have no problem in declaring the monarchy illegitimate from a political perspective based on equality…” Whereas almost in the same breath he calls the newly democratically-elected government led by Samak a “monstrosity”. I can’t recall him using the same language to describe the CNS or the king. Connors’ response does not call his bluff at all; it actually proves Somsak’s point: the hypocrisy of Connors and so many other academics who cover themselves in the self-righteous veil of moral superiority in their criticisms of Thaksin and Samak and PPP-TRT, but are virtually silent on the longer, more serious, more insidious, and less visible abuses of the king and the royalist establishment.
2. “…It is important to put Somsak’s insistence in proper context. His questions to me and his name calling are quite irrelevant in a Thai context as I am an outsider, not a political actor …”
Hello? Connors is an academic isn’t he? Why one earth would criticisms by one academic – Somsak – of another academic – Connors – on an academic blog be irrelevant? What has it got to do with being an “outsider”, whatever that means? Connors ought to have the intellectual courage to respond to the points of criticism without calling them “irrelevant”.
3. “… Quite sensibly, Somsak’s position is viewed as untenable by people in Thailand…”
This statement is not only insulting in its condescension (”people” are sensible, Somsak is not), it is untrue. Anyone who has followed debates on Fa Dio Kan over the last couple of years would see that Somsak’s position has many supporters.
4. “…The more I try and answer Somsak the more abuse I get, so this is my last post on this topic…”
This preciousness of academics is what really pisses me off about Thai Studies. An academic finds himself on the end of some sharp criticism (not “abuse”) and he starts whining for sympathy (because he can’t defend himself) then finally runs away. In fact, even if one is “abused” (and I’ve been on the receiving end occasionally) I don’t see why one has to run away, or even feel “hurt”. Connors doesn’t seem to mind heaping abuse on the Thaksin and Samak governments. But when he cops a little criticism on a blog he starts whining. One would wish that academics – especially political “scientists” (I hesitate to use the term) – have thicker skin than this.
As in earlier posts I find myself in disagreement with virtually every sentence of what Connors writes. The tone of condescension and superiority is what really grates. The following from #7 is a beauty:
5. “…Any legitimacy he [ie. Thaksin] may have had as a consequence of being selected prime minister by elected representatives was negated by his actions in that position…”
What does this statement actually mean? Connors has unilaterally declared from on high that Thaksin had no “legitimacy”. So Connors (and the royalists) decides what is or is not “legitimate”, not the Thai people. The fact that Thaksin and his party have been democratically elected now on four consecutive occasions, and that Thaksin enjoys great popularity with the electorate means nothing to Connors in terms of democratic legitimacy. This is EXACTLY the argument of the CNS and their royalist backers. So Connors and the former royalist dictatorship are totally in agreement on this point. In fact, it seems that Connors is not in the “song mai ao” camp after all; the camp that Connors belongs to based on his own arguments is that of the CNS and the royalists.
6. “…Why people such as Somsak continue to require that people support the legitimacy of figures such as Thaksin I have no idea…”
Well obviously Connors has no idea. It is much too much to ask for, that Connors respects the democratic choice of the Thai electorate, that he acknowledges the legitimacy that comes from elections. Connors believes he knows better than the majority of the Thai electorate who elected Thaksin. Another demonstration of the undemocratic, authoritarian, patronizing, even neo-colonial stance of Connors towards the Thai electorate.
7. “…His [ie. Somsak’s] absolutism on this point (and I have to say I admire his courage as much as he despises my cowardice) serves the interests of political immobilism on issues that people feel are achievable (human rights and the war on drugs, disappearances in the South). Achievement on current issues can alter greatly the way the Thai state works in the future, it can establish standards of accountability, rule of law, witness protection. It can save lifes…”
Spot the moral self-righteousness? Connors accuses Somsak of holding a position which will not lead to a politics that will achieve morally good ends. But “people” (?) and Connors do hold a morally superior position – that “can save lives”. Connors as a “khon di”. Right up there with Prem and Surayudh and Mor Prawet and the profoundly undemocratic “phak prachachon”, declaring who is “legitimate” or not, and showing Thais through their superior intelligence and moral consciousness the way to “do good”.
(By the way, nowhere did Somsak accuse Connors of “cowardice”. He criticized his hypocrisy, inconsistency, and ridiculous, perverted understanding of socialism – a travesty of socialist ideals, actually).
And lastly:
8. “…The Thai monarch has himself commented on the burden of being judged to be superhuman, which I take to mean that he [the king] would be happy to be subject to equal treatment in matters of law in his position as an individual, not as an institution…”
This is one of the most ridiculous, na├пve, credulous statements I have ever read by any political scientist working on Thailand. “Happy to be subject to equal treatment”?! You mean by us specks of dust? You might expect this from a child indoctrinated on Thai royalist propaganda, but a university academic? What is it with farang academics and the monarchy? Why do they go all gooey in the presence of royalty? In this one statement we have the key to understanding Connors’ apparent total misreading of the Thai political scene.
The return of the king
Still, maybe Thaksin came back to a different country.
His absence made him the hero of everything. Presence though requires actions – his limits may be tested.
The media and civil society won’t give in that easily this time around to attempts of intimidation – and then there’s always the great unknown Samak.
Key now is: How independent/dependent is Samak?
Another PM Thaksin may be in the making – not because this would be the will of the people, but the people get what they’re paid for.
The return of the king
The Bangkok Post story is here:
http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/28Feb2008_news98.php
So, Jon, the possibility that only part of the military wanted to murder Thakin makes them unseen heroes?
I nominate this for most repulsive comment on the web today.
Considering the broad speculation that the 2006 car bomb incident was a previous attempt at murder, it seems these new reports should be taken seriously.
East-West Center to host Thai royal visit
A second thought: Maybe you should post the whole fawning news release. It shows how far U.S. institutions are prepared to forgo in terms of academic credentials in seeking to promote themselves and raise cash. This is a truly embarrassing announcement. Those who complain that the direct royal involvement in horrendous events like the October 6 massacre are forgotten and brushed aside have an exceptionally good point.
The return of the king
“Of course, when the time comes for Thaksin to take on a more formal political role there will be those that protest about his dishonesty given his previous promises of retirement. But their charges will have little traction in the court of public opinion. That’s how the “regime of images” works.”
Hopefully, Paul Handley will still around to write another book:
“The President never had to tell the truth”
The return of the king
What on earth is jonfernquest getting at? Do you mean that if the military doesn’t get in the way just at this moment , then they are heroes? I don’t get it.
East-West Center to host Thai royal visit
The EWC has long been a supporter to the Thai monarchy and vice versa. There are mutual benefits. It is an academic outfit, but seems more like an arm of US foreign policy in the way that it operates.
Crossing a river in Arunachal Pradesh
Thanks for all of your feedback,
Hopefully I can put together more posts of this type over the coming weeks. We will see what happens.
And, as for mobile phone reception, Teth, the valley where these pictures were taken has only the most erratic service. It is one of those places where it seems like if you stand on the right hillock, with your back to the sun, a cricket on your shoulder, and a strong breeze from the north-west then, maybe, just maybe, you will get a couple of bars of signal. And then maybe only long enough for you to say, “Hi Mum, I’m…”
Best wishes to all,
Nich
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Sidh S: re. your questions on the Stolen Generations, I don’t have time to answer right at the moment, and it’s not a mainland S.E.Asian issue, so probably not appropriate for discussion on NM. I suggest you google it. There’s a lot of material available. You can get the report of the National Enquiry at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/part1.rtf
Sorry I can’t be more helpful – flat out.
BTW, what do you think of A.W’s header, “The return of the king”? (Serious question, I’m not being flippant.) Don’t know what I think. Overload.
The return of the king
I’m not sure whether he spoke about it, but the printed English-language statement Thaksin issued Thursday mentioned the 2006 car bomb case (allegedly directed at him) , briefly, in a paragraph about his security.
Those who think the plot was simply a concoction of Thaksin will likely take it as another example of his chutzpah.
However, his remark that the case was still open suggests strongly to me that there is some pretty hard evidence around (I’d bet tapes) which might embarrass some influential people should push come to shove.
Or perhaps I missed some obscure and unreported developments in this case. Can anyone enlighten us?
P.S. Pretty interesting as well, though buried in the Bangkok Post’s About Politics column on Thursday, was a tale about rumored army snipers, including these assertions:
…” However, to make sure the command would not be involved in any plot to kill Mr Thaksin, Gen Anupong has ordered Lt-Gen Sunai to report to him the number of special warfare officers who specialise in using sniper rifles and where they are.
Gen Anupong even checked the number of weapons in the command’s arsenal in Lop Buri province himself when he presided over celebrations of the Special Warfare Day.
He also transferred special warfare officers who use sniper rifles who served as Gen Sonthi’s bodyguards while he was army chief and chairman of the CNS back to barracks . “…
The return of the king
The real unseen heroes of the moment are the boys in khaki.
Sonthi’s boys.
They could have thrown a monkey wrench in the works but they didn’t
Good on you mates.
Would you like Tsa Pi with that?
The only reason I asked is that I can’t find it in my English/Jinghpaw dictionary, which like a lot of those dictionaries isn’t exactly the most accurate, and which has a different term listed under “beer”.
Nobody used “n-tsin” for drinking water? It’s kind of cool to look at all the dialect differences, and it really is good that you’re able to travel, research, and share this information with us.
The only thing better would be if you could bring us a plate of curry with some hpalap (sp?). I’m a tea drinker, not a beer drinker.
The return of the king
A perhaps strengthened Thaksin and a poorly qualified cabinet: So much for the unintended consequences of intended actions.
“What counts in public is that the right thing is said at the right time.” >> This does not seem to be much different from open politics anywhere; it is not specific to Thailand. Look to George W Bush for a “regime of images.”
Visions of a Mekong “community”
.. Special Administrative Region, not SARZ. Acronyms. Hah!
Visions of a Mekong “community”
… i mean SARZ like Hong Kong.
Visions of a Mekong “community”
Sciortino says:
Indeed, most peoples of the GMS are not aware of the regional plans affecting their lives. Caught in the specificity of their local contexts, they do not subscribe to the concept of “the Mekong” as a region, remaining divided along socio-economic means and ethnic and national-identity lines.
It is certainly not for the ADB to promote regionalism in the Mekong region. The Mekong community must go to the ADB.
A Mekong region like Guandong or the Bohai straight is a ridiculous fantasy of foreigners who see all the appropriate natural infrastructures and think it should happen. Then these foreigners apply the principles of “globalisation”, which hasn’t happened yet (in order for it to be properly defined), to peoples who seemingly must share their philosophy and techniques of universal connectedness.
Furthermore what form of regionalism along the Mekong could possibly occur? It couldn’t be a closed regionalism like in the EU because histories between relevant cultures are still volatile and economic progression in the Mekong region is very much dependent on FDI from afar. I think the only regionalism that is likely to happen in SE Asia is through ASEAN, because it is structured around what each state can agree on and conforms to cultural structures of power — not silly NGO’s pseudo imperialistic take on justice.
One of these experimental approaches is spearheaded by the PETA Mekong Partnership Project. Since 2004, the Project has strived to build a community of GMS artists committed to enhancing public well-being. Through arts workshops (laboratories) and play production and performances, artists from the six Mekong countries share their experiences and skills and learn to apply their arts to highlight social issues affecting their region, starting with HIV/AIDS and gender discrimination.
Who is the Philippine Educational Theatre Association running these ‘laboritories’ of arty wonderfulness ? Couldn’t be holistic catholics wanting to ‘share’ and ‘communicate’, and just be generally ‘nice’ – could it? Kymlicka, whose views on multiculturalism should be hammered into these type of people before they set off on idolatrous hooray for the human quests, argues in Multicultural Citizenship that people are free within a culture and that it is very difficult for one to integrate into another culture — that mostly the culture you come from defines your perception and it is this perception which will continue to define the individual. It is quite ironic then that such lame sparks for GMS are occurring through PETA, which obviously would not be paid attention too enough (as it requires many to find secularism — a Western cultural product??) for an ignition, therefore leaving cultural integration, essential for ‘regionalism’ in a pragmatic, ‘economically prosperous’ and ‘disease curing’ way, in a more antagonistic state than if it didn’t happen at all as there would have been no failed imposition. I think her final points are contradictory to what she was saying in the beginning about hostility, because they promote it… at least in me.
Over the course of time, however, the participating artists came to appreciate the opportunity to learn from one another, explore both traditional and modern art forms, and mix them together in their new productions. Ultimately, they were all struck by the seemingly endless shapes of Mekong arts, many of which they had not known before. They recognised that they had learned to accept each other’s differences and respect divergent views.
What an incredibly condescending thing to write. That’s like interpreting some statistics to meet your own objectives and ignoring the ones which may provide a contradiction to your objective, but she is doing it with cultures! And in this case, forgetting to ask questions like ‘will you continue to share artistic journeys in modernist appreciation with your new brothers and sisters from other cultures ?’ If one asks the right series of questions with the appropriate ‘aww group hug’ tone, one will get whatever answers one likes.
If we didn’t try to force regionalism it would happen a lot quicker. Speculatively, with ASEAN introducing binding economic agreements to their agenda, maybe the GMS would be viewed as a SREZ like HK?
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Thaksin in the press conference after his return: “I and my family have suffered from injustice but this can not be compared to the hardship befallen the people who are the worst victims of political rivalry,” he said.” (The Nation, February 28, 2008) >> Does Thaksin’s regret include the victims of the anti-drug campaign, Tak Bai, and Krue Se?
Would you like Tsa Pi with that?
Hi Aiontay,
Yes, I think it is the same word. My Myitkyina-sourced Kachin-English dictionary has “tsapi” and “tsahpa” both defined as “native beer”. “Tsahku” is “fermented liquor”. “Tsa” is simply “liquor, beer or whiskey”. All gels pretty closely with the usages I have heard in various Kachin areas (including Arunachal Pradesh). As for water, I think the word in Singpho lands is still “hka”, etc.
Stephen Morey’s Tai and Tibeto-Burman Languages of Assam website confirms my gut feeling on the water front.
I hope the Morey site is helpful.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”
Land of Snarls, maybe a better analogy would be the case of Japan’s Emperor and WWII – a case that will never likely be revisited except on historical books on the issue (which is also banned in Japan if I am not wrong?). If Thailand’s case resembles Japan’s more, then I think you and Alfred are right and pigs will never fly – even if the country eventually evolves into a vibrant liberal democracy. The weight of centuries of history, culture and identity will be too much – and apart from published books in other countries, academic conferences and blogs like this may be the most public it gets.
Many of the 1976 generation have also been absorbed into the mainstream (have any research, indepth interviews with them been conducted on why?) – with exceptions such as AjarnSomsak. Post AjarnSomsak – who will carry on the activism (and hate) on 1976? History says that it will not, and 1992’s injustices may get more attention and then eventually 2003 (a bit trickier as no activists have been at the recieving end of the state’s actions this time – only petty drug dealers at most and an ethnic minority. Is this a reason why many here cannot feel empathy for these latter groups?)
On the Stolen Generation issue, have all the perpretators (politicians, church leaders etc.) passed away (and the Australian parliament have said “sorry” on their behalf post-humous?)?