“…the opinion of Craig J. Reynolds re King Bhumipol bear repeating: i.e. the king has held the country together time after time during periods of crisis – or words to that effect…”
I would think this is very unlikely – it sounds more like the opinion of Bhumipol himself. Can anyone who attended confirm whether this is actually true?
Oh how I laugh, Frank (ironic how they call Thaksin that now). You should realize that I am a firmly middle class barbershop Thai you talk about. How it must feel good to be one of ‘us’, eh, Frank!
So I see that you have based on argument on witty one liners and amateur observations rather than giving me the privilege of discussing evidence, historical or anecdotal.
So shall I relate my own on the field observations with you (and engage at your level–since it is the barbershop level which you so seem to embrace and love and use to denigrate other viewpoints). I know a couple of students (now many years my senior) who were protesting the return of FM Thanom back in 1976. They certain don’t point to the picture on the wall with praise. In fact they refuse to wear yellow shirts for fear of it tainting them! Why, it was because they saw this figure visit Thanom on his return, they heard no condemnation against the former dictator, instead, they only received the barbarous treatment of Village Scouts, Border Patrol Police, and other rightist yobs. Any word of protest from the Palace? Any condemnation or justice? But that’s not the least of it. When they had to flee into the jungles, they realized who was behind it all: who gave patronage to the Border Patrol Police, who gave patronage to the Village Scouts.
Maybe you should change your barbershop, Frank. All your court cases and all your years in Bangkok nor all your letters to the Bangkok Post or your presence in Suan Lum means that you are enlightened in the least.
If anything, I was also there at Suan Lum listening to Sonthi: good assumptions you make, Frank. So much for your bottomless pool of expertise and so much for criticizing my assumptions.
Oh, and do actually read the book, I’m sure you know know the phrase about books and their covers (in this case, titles).
I’ve seen SOME PEOPLE spend huge amount of public money “buying vote”, or, rather “buying” their “popularity” (or should I use words like “reverence status”?) for many, many years. About 50 years or so, I think, and daily too.
But I don’t seem to remember where I saw all these. On TV perhaps? Nor do I seem to remember who those “SOME PEOPLE” are. umm.
I must be getting confused here. I forgot that in discussion about this GREAT, thevada-protected country. Only POLITICIANS can be said to have been “buying vote”.
Or, perhaps, I’m not confused after all, but somebody like the one who’d like to р╕нр╕╕р╕Ыр╣Вр╕ер╕Бр╕Щр╣М himself as “Colonel” here is simply р╕Фр╕▒р╕Фр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Х
I also missed registration deadline, at least the on-line one. I subsequently sent an email to the organisers seeking advice as to how I could register. The reply, when it eventually came, was that registration was not possible. Like “June” I didn’t want coffee, dinner, attendance at opening receptions, accommodation, or conference bags or t-shirts, and I would have been happy to wait until after the conference finished for copies of the abstracts. Basically I just wanted to attend a few sessions that were of interest and would have been happy to pay the registration fee (despite the ridiculous two-tiered pricing). Unlike “June” I didn’t persevere and didn’t get to attend.
It seems to me that the Conference has departed radically from the spirit in which it was originally conceived, which was to include rather than exclude, and encourage participation of all genuinely interested in Thai (Tai) studies.
Republican and Dog Lover: Words are always loaded, if this is a game of chess why not just see it as a game of chess. It seems that you both see that good politics and power are results based increments of liberal enlightenment. The only result of good politics is sustained order.
Republican, to take the bullet you have metaphorically loaded from the gun of Princess Sirindhorn, wouldn’t these seminars at the international Thai conference create chaos from rejection of tradition if they were able to be overtly influential? They are views from confused chaotic academics from the baby boomer generation suffering all sorts of arrested development problems. As hrk explores, if academics and their ideas and critiques were focused upon by society at large, then reason itself would certainly be the great victim because who would it be to establish whose reason greater than another? Elites?!? There are elites everywhere, so I don’t see how you can reasonably judge that foreign academics are always on the outside when academics are on the outside even in their own countries. Obviously this rhetoric stems from personal desire to be a philosopher king! Denying elitism and in doing so, confirming it.
Frank, I am pretty sure sufficiency economy is a fantastic order maintaining instrument.
Many thanks to Grant Evans for the comments and the reference –and sorry for a late response. Regarding the supposed improvement represented by this “compromise” in relation to previous projects, I agree with what you said; nevertheless, I am not that optimistic about it. Several problems have arised during the construction of the temple, and more are bound to appear in the near future when the Buddhist school moves there; some monks involved in the project would admit that to build the temple-school they have no option but to rely on outside funding –and thus the project has arguably become yet another political and economic instrumentalization of local religion.
Apart from becoming a new symbol for the integration of Lue Buddhism into economic and educational national structures (exemplified by the compulsory inclusion of public school subjects in the curriculum, in order for it to obtain state recognition), and in relation to it, the temple is probably also another step in the transformation (or “reformation”) of local Buddhism into a tradition focused on “educational” or “monastic” elements, as opposed to the traditional role of monks in the performance of community rituals –a transformation surely based on Thai models. This may obviously serve to partially thwart the destructive effects that state schooling has upon ordination, but it also implies a reduction of the traditional social role of the Lue monk; that is, if the new school will serve to increase the social mobility of local monks (through an enhanced integration of the sangha in state structures, etc.), it will do so at the cost of modifying the relationship between the monks and the laity, transforming old monastic education into a kind of vocational training in which those elements of traditional knowledge not fundamental to achieve individual recognition will expectedly tend to be excluded and ultimately disappear from the system.
I would argue that such a process is still in its early phases in Sipsongpanna, and in fact local Buddhism remains a strongly community-embedded practice, as the massive attendance of locals to the inauguration of the new Wat Luang Muang Lue (another name for the temple which refers to the old denomination of the Sipsongpanna) shows –as it also shows what the Dai “think” of the new site, surely considered by locals to be a legitimate place for performing making-merit activities, in spite of the ongoing confusion surrounding the entrance fee (which by the way is more expensive than I first stated, around 15 USD per visitor), who is to be charged and who is not.
There are also of course those Lue who oppose or mistrust this and other developments in which the local Buddhist hierarchy is involved –but their discourse does not seem to have an articulate presence in Lue society –which can be read as another success of PRC administration–, and their only option is to keep aloof from such developments.
Anyway, these views may not be so accurate, and I would appreciate any further insight and comments that can be offered
Saraburian: So, now the fun part of the monarchy panels will start, hoping that the “sky won’t fall on our heads” (AW, Hagar)? It is the duty of the Thammasat organizers to issue a statement on this point, and to closely follow up the police proceedings. It tells us something about the state of academic freedom in Thailand that such an international academic conference is subject to police observation. Annette Hamilton’d words at the conference spring to mind.
PS: By the way, as an educator having worked extensively in both govt. and private sector schools here as well as working as holsing posts as a researcher, administrator and editor, I understand well the schooling of students to be good, obedient, little Thais rather than to be mature adults capable of developing their own opinions. Thus, for most Thai’s, their real education starts only AFTER they leave the formal education sector and enter the university of life – where experience is the best teacher. In my own case, while I managed to give the defendant Noranit, his lawyer Bowornsak, and the Court itself all a black eye, I the plaintiff i.e. the injured party consequently had his career prospects destroyed both in Thailand and Australia by the influence of the governmental elites in those countries and ultimately had my day in Court only for it to apply a clear double standard by ‘shifting the goal posts’ . But you wouldn’t know that because of the defacto gov’t media ban on reporting the case due to it’s political nature i.e. the jusiciary playing politics by using my case as a pretext to go on a fishing expedition at a royally-named, government-funded “political think-tank” and political training centre.
Unlike any of it’s neighbours, I have always found myself able to express my views as forthrightly ion public among Thais in Bangkok as I have in Australia. Compare this to Georgetown in our politically ‘stable’ wealthy neighbour Malaysia, where the populace consider public talk concerning politics to be too dangerous. So, having dashed off an opening salvo in this forum last Friday, I took the opportunity to get my usual trim and ‘barber shop review’ re the state of the nation here in Minburi. I have found it to be an invaluable way of double checking the validity of my own opinions. The denoument came in the form of the manager ( a Thai-Chinese former Thaksin supporter) pointing with pride to the King’s picture hanging over her desk.
So, to the task at hand i.e. responding to my critic(s).
First, I would note that Teth assumes the position of academics in seeking to define/redefine terms. So One may well assume that Teth is a professional academic striving to preserve or improve his/her standing against ‘amateur’ interlopers. I would therefore refer Teth to Craig Reynolds himself on this point.
Second, the King does not have the power to make governmental reforms, but he has consistently and doggedly used precious political capital to provide Thais with pointed criticism of Thaksin’s ways and means as well as seeking to shame Thaksin into understanding that if “the king can do wrong” then so can Thaksin. Unfortunately, Thaksin is not the messiah, he’s just a very naughty boy with too much dodgy money and a dodgy education and the philistine attitude that comes to politicians of that type. To quote losely from the king’s birthday address of 3-4 years ago) “Mr. Thaksin, your ears don’t hear too good, your eyes don’t see too well, and you are always drawn humourously by one local cartoonist with a satellite spinning around his head.” Inshort the king has tried to educate all Thais including Thaksin about Thaksin’s shortcomings for Thaksin’s own good. Unfortunately, precisely because the king is NOT a ‘god king’ he hasn’t the luxury of being self-critical very often in public.
Third, all I will say further is that the effect of the king’s passing is unlikely to draw comparison to that of the King of Rock and Roll, Elvis Presley, which one wag summed up in three words:
“Smart career move”.
Fourth, as far as I know, I was the first farang to seriously attend the anti-thaksin rallies at Lumpini Park, and ‘quietitude’ didn’t stop numbers at subsequent protests swelling to the hundreds of thousands – including dozens of farang like me. This and The protagonist’s intransigence ultimately presented the king with what muct have been a galling dilema: risk a replay of the ’92 massacre with the government using Border Patrol killers to clear the streets or give the green light for a pre-emptive coup.
Fifth: as the incorrigible critic Bernard Trink would say, any further comment would be superflous.
Sixth, Sir you assume too much. I have spent ONLY HALF my time here in Bangkok and I did not have my contracts extended at NIDA, KPI or PGC/TDO precisely because I refuse to adopt the sort of self-serving/ self-delusional uncritical “brainwashed” careerist attitude so commonly encountered here – as I believe my suit against King Prajadhipok’s (sic) Institute and Sec. Gen. Noranit Sethabutr (Central Administrative Court – Case # 889/47) and my regular writings in the local english language press adequately attest to.
Finally, as to my criticism of ‘over-intellectualizing’. This was largely in response to the kind of attitude perhaps most famously expressed in the book title, “The King Never Smiles”. Actually, if you take the time to study him, he smiles and jokes regularly and often (for a king), if not all the time. Is that wrong/ Is this Hollywood? To my mind he clearly stands with the enlightened/reformist minded of Thailand’s contending elites as well as those of the middle class and the poor- in ideas and morals, if not in political allegiance.
Seems to me, some people can’t see the forest for the trees: the king is far better understood by your average than than your average foreign academic, but you’d have to establish trust at places like barbershops and soi cafe’s and with your neighbours to really understand that. Otherwise, it’s all too easy to make offhand allegations of brainwashing and excuses like “Thailand defies rational analysis”.
If Saraburian is right, can anyone say on what grounds the organiser gave/shared the videotape with the police? That’s outrageous. If the police want information with no grounds, they ought to have to work for it. Even if the point is to show them nothing happened.
……..on the third day….the police requested for the video tape of the Monarchy panel?!
……..from an academic conference?!
……..if I were a Thai academic with a wife and family to support and a career in Thailand to ponder, I would either be keeping my mouth completely shut………or only using words that were completely pc and safe.
…..how can the academics from all the other countries passively accept such a situation!?
The “fee issue” raised by Srithanonchai:
This issue had been discussed already with regards to another conference dealing with the
sufficiency economy, but I think, the main point has been missed.
I do not think that the differences actually express racism or recognition of differences with regards to economic means to participate in a conference. I take it as ethnological data indicating certain cognitive structures quite prevailing in Thailand, which do not leave scholars unaffected. Cognitive structures define what makes sense within a social and cultural context, and thus if these are shared, they work very well and are enforcing themselves. This is a reason, why scholars working on Thailand, who lived here for a longer time quite often share these structures when looking at Thai culture.
The distinction between Thai and foreigner is common in Thailand. (In fact, far more common then it is f.e. in Malaysia! When I worked there, I was even asked to get financial support from the university to participate in a conference). The differentiation between Thai and non-Thai (just to include certain non-Thai minorities in Thailand) is based on ascribed characteristics, which, in the case of “farang”, are connected to a phenotype. As we know from the introduction to sociology, differentiations within a society along ascribed characteristics are a feature of a feudal social order. Does this feudal based cognitive structure fit into the current conditions? If we look at the importance of rents, of patronage and of personal relations (well described in the new book edited by Pasuk and Baker), which are, as Terray and others pointed out already during the seventies, aspects of feudalism, we certainly recognize that a personal based status accommodation makes a lot of sense. In consequence, to follow this mind set even in a conference makes sense as well. (There are a few more indicators of feudal structures including academia to be found on which a lot has been written already in other contexts).
But it is definitely misleading to discuss Thailand in terms of feudalism (only). Globalization in terms of integration into a world economy, consumerism etc. can hardly be ignored, even if global dynamics are often connected to local translations and dynamics. How can both be taken into consideration?
During the eighties there was a very fruitful debate in Thailand on how to understand what is going on. Namely the Journal of Political Economy, the Thammasat University Journal, or the works of Preecha Piangpongsan (just to mention a few) come to mind. I still regard these discussions together with the discussion on civil society (on which I’am nevertheless very critical) as a high time of academic studies. Even the current neo-romantic post-modern nationalism of Thirayud can hardly compete with these older analysis’. One leading argument was of the “half feudal, half colonial (or later capitalist)” society. This certainly needs to be modified. But, in this tradition I think that speaking of “half feudal, half neo-liberal globalized” does make some sense.
Coming back to the fees: Isn’t the interesting mix between differentiation based on ascribed characteristics (Thai – foreign) connected to the use of two different currencies (one local, one global) quite telling? Does this – perhaps – provide some explanation for different worlds in which scholars live? Globalized academia is increasingly now living in the neo-liberal globalized world, in which universities are to compete on a market for degrees and education. This market economy of education and science is one reason why many universities now charge different fees for national and foreign students, and why research that can not be easily translated into monetary denominations (like regional studies) becomes ever more marginalized compared to MBA, IT etc. This trend is of course found in Thailand as well (see neo-liberal globalization). Thus, scholars (regardless of nationality, ethnicity etc.) face a quite similar task in developing a new critical science, although in different contexts. Perhaps the ICTS did provide new perspectives?
P.s.: The argument that Thai scholars tend to have less economic means is not convincing. If economic means play a role, which they certainly do, then a distinction between those having well paid positions and do even receive funding (Prof. lecturer etc.) and those who do not (Ph.D. students, other scholars) would make sense, combined with transparently defined regulations concerning reduction of fees or even waiving them.
Note about my first paragraph: I do not mean to suggest that all responsibility for the country’s development should be shoved upon the King’s shoulders. But to credit him for “holding the country together” or any other thing, one needs to also put those “milestones” into perspective (ie. as constitutional monarch, has he been impartial?, has he been democratic?, has he been too involved?, has he taken responsibility for his mistakes?).
“First, I think the opinion of Craig J. Reynolds re King Bhumipol bear repeating: i.e. the king has held the country together time after time during periods of crisis – or words to that effect.”
May I ask what the definition of “holding the country together” means? Have there not been rebel armies and Malay insurgents? Because in my view, with or without the King, the country would be held together. Secondly, the King’s method of problem solving has thus far involved sweeping the problem under the carpet. How has education (which everyone also factors in as a “problem” with Thai democracy) improved? How has the civil service improved? How has public accountability improved? How has the military improved? The answer to all of these is: not very adequately. And what improvement there has been has mostly been confined to Thailand’s fantastic economic growth in the late 80s and 90s.
“Third, as he has made no undue effort to conceal his steady decline, the people seem reasonably well prepared as possible psychologically for his eventual demise – of which, the recent death of his sister has been an indelible reminder.
Fourth, the quietitude inculcated by Thai buddhism will, as always, have a strong calming effect once this dedicated servant of the public is laid to rest: As they say, ‘life goes on’.”
Is this quietitude the same quietitude we can see via the amulet trade, fortune telling monks, and royal Brahmin rituals?
I sincerely doubt the Thai people’s preparedness for his death mainly because there is so much propaganda surrounding the King. To put it bluntly, the propaganda machine will label his death as “the most tragic event in the history of Thailand.” After all, how else will you mourn someone who’s life has always been portrayed with over the top propaganda? Why, they’ll do it over the top, of course. I’m rather confident that such a big opportunity will not be passed off by the propaganda machine and we will probably we in for a year-long memorial (as we have been in year-long celebrations), the erection of a hundred statues, the renaming of a few provinces, and the creation of a thousand museums and institutes. Oh wait, I think some of that has already happened.
“Sixth, the country would seem to be well prepared for the event politically as any successor would be very unlikely to have morethan a small aprt of the barramee/standing that the present monarch has built up.”
Once again I dispute your assertion that the country is well prepared, but I agree that we all anticipate political chaos in the short term. Hopefully, that political chaos will result in a democratic, equitable, republican government being established, if someone can stop the royal propaganda machine and the royalists, of course. I see no more legitimate reason (ie popular “love” of the current monarch) to continue such a feudal, hereditary system. It should be a good symbolic moment for Thailand that we will abolish the old to embrace republican values of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
“Finally, I am struck by the dissonance between the views contributed by many of the ‘unsympathetic to the king’ ilk and my own which have been gathered in academia in Australia as well as living exclusively with Thai communities here in Bangkok for almost half of the last three decades and having worked for several top Thai organizations here. It seems that some contributors are overenamored with the revisionist deconstruction/destruction of over-intellectualizing frenchmen such as Lacan and Derrida – of whom Voltaire would perhaps have said, “It’s a pity that the gentlemen didn’t take the time to write shorter books”.”
That is the problem, sir. Living in Thailand, working with Thai people, you tend to absorb what they think and what they believe. If your only valid criticism of us UTKI (unsympathetic to the King ilk) is of our “revisionist deconstruction” and “over-intellectualizing” ideas, that tells me you have been thoroughly brainwashed. For your information, this last paragraph makes you sound as if your integration into Thai society is now complete: you find it unacceptable (“struck”, in fact) that anyone would disagree with your stance on the King and that those who have р╕лр╕ер╕Зр╕Ьр╕┤р╕Ф are laughably over-intellectualizing or “revisionist deconstructionist”.
Of course, I may be wrong, but I am willing to personally convince you of why I believe my stance is not over-intellectualizing or deconstructionist. It is merely simple history that is taught and studied the world over (except in N. Korea perhaps).
“Although I haven’t made a study of the Sufficiency Economy concept, I get the impression that it boils down to the old saying, ‘Don’t put all your eggs in one basket’ – and what’s wrong with that?”
Frank, that is the twist you are getting out of it. First, I must ask you, are you assuming the Thai King is all-wise and benevolent? If not, then that’s a good start to critically exploring his deeds and misdeeds.
Perhaps the main facet of Sufficiency Economy you would have picked up from the King’s speeches is the idea of inhibiting your desires (which extends to the desire for social mobility, equality, etc), in this case, the King paints it as “greed” even though it may simply mean social equality. Yet the King does not recommend how to develop Thailand’s human resources, he emphasizes how one should remain fixed in what you do and rely only (hence the term sufficiency) on one’s farm, little pond, resources, etc. That is why it can only ever be a cold consolation to the poor: he does not demand better governance, he does not encourage development or any sort of social justice or rule of law to his own people. Instead he advocates “sufficiency”, a vague, ill-defined, pseudo-philosophical, unquantifiable term.
That sufficiency should be touted as an economic theory is not entirely the King’s fault. But nevertheless, it is not anything new and it doesn’t really qualify as a theory of economics.
“In my opinion, King Bhumipol himself can be seen as ‘consolation’ for the rabid capitalism/ materialismthat is destroying Thailand, as the king has said many times. So if you feel that’s ‘cold comfort’ for the poor, well it’s better than none – which is what the elite as a class provide.”
The irony of all this is that the King himself is the foremost capitalist of Thailand and a participant in the crony capitalism and indebtedness (mostly by proxy) that plunged the country into the economic crisis. Else, would there be reason for Siam Cement to take on a foreign partner or the SCB to receive emergency loans from the government at the expense of smaller faltering enterprises?
I would also like to stress that capitalism is not bad, contrary to what some leftists will say. Crony capitalism and capitalism without any social safety net is bad. Rampant, uncritical material is detrimental as well.
“….listening to the king’s speeches in the original Thai over the years and comparing his words and deeds, I remain firmly convinced that, as a nation, Thailand has been much better off with the king around than without him.”
May I ask the question how long does “over the years” mean? Have you observed Thailand and her monarch’s constant and overt interventions in the 1960s and 1970s?
Myself having been raised a fervent fan of the King, until only recently, always made an effort to listen to the birthday speeches of our benevolent and all-wise King. Sufficiency sounded good and defensible, but even then, I asked myself whether it was wise for such a King to advise “sufficiency” to the nation when other things were much more pressing. Surely, I asked, doubting the propaganda having been inserted into my head, the King should be emphasizing rule of law and due process, not extrajudicial killing (even for drug dealers), sustainable development and not merely inward-looking, stick-to-the-status-quo sufficiency, and more.
With such tremendous soft power, power which he does use (ie. building the Industrial Ring Road, Royal Development Projects, his birthday speech and the subsequent clamor to “obey”, speeches to military generals and high ranking judges, etc), I have always wondered why he has not done more effective things for the country, after all he is advertised as such a hardworking genius. So why has he not encouraged (at least one of these would’ve been nice) the rule of law, spoken out against police corruption and abuse of power, social justice, income inequality, improvement of education and Thai critical thinking standards so we can finally get rid of “The Thai Way to Democracy”, improving economic competitiveness instead of using protectionist policies, inhibiting the role of the military, telling the military to strictly conform to the Constitution, and emphasizing the importance and sanctity of the Constitution, which he himself signed into law, reforming the bureaucracy into more efficient organization, etc etc etc? Instead, we get the same vague rambling speech about “good morals”, “sufficiency”, and some general economic comments he doesn’t fully comprehend the nuance of. Of course, there are little gems here and there that seem to suggest what I wrote above, but in the end, most speeches’ have been a disappointment even for the formerly King-loving me because he seems to comment on the irrelevant details but is vague on things that matter. If you’re going to interfere and start nitpicking at government official (unlike a Constitutional monarch should), why not do it well? Of course, I now understand why, but you should read the King Never Smiles, Frank.
On the third day of the conference I think the organizer openly acknowledged that the police requested for the video tape of the Monarchy panel in which they said they willingly co-operated. I also didn’t see any confiscation during or after the panel.
On wearing black, my own estimation is 70-80% were in black.
Colonel, you are so busy frothing about things that you don’t read what has long been posted. You simply conjure things up. You are wrong and a fabricator to boot. Can you show me where I said that “that the Puea Paendin friend of yours won because they dumped more money”? I don’t think I claimed a Phua Paendin friend, either.
You made up the money from HK story, based on gossip. You continue to make claims that are unsubstantiated.
I missed the registration deadline, yes, my fault!
I didn’t want coffee, dinner, and anything. All I want is to sit and listen to what presenters say. It was unbelievably difficult for me to finally get a permission from the conference organizers. I can’t help but wonder why, why, and why. Isn’t academic conference supposed to be open for all who wants to join it?
FL: “Sixth, the country would seem to be well prepared for the event politically as any successor would be very unlikely to have more than a small part of the baramee/standing that the present monarch has built up.” >> Normally, this is seen as a problematic point, both in political terms and as far as the role of the monarchy is concerned. This latter issue concers both the crown prince and his eventual successor.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Time for academic frankness
“…the opinion of Craig J. Reynolds re King Bhumipol bear repeating: i.e. the king has held the country together time after time during periods of crisis – or words to that effect…”
I would think this is very unlikely – it sounds more like the opinion of Bhumipol himself. Can anyone who attended confirm whether this is actually true?
Time for academic frankness
Oh how I laugh, Frank (ironic how they call Thaksin that now). You should realize that I am a firmly middle class barbershop Thai you talk about. How it must feel good to be one of ‘us’, eh, Frank!
So I see that you have based on argument on witty one liners and amateur observations rather than giving me the privilege of discussing evidence, historical or anecdotal.
So shall I relate my own on the field observations with you (and engage at your level–since it is the barbershop level which you so seem to embrace and love and use to denigrate other viewpoints). I know a couple of students (now many years my senior) who were protesting the return of FM Thanom back in 1976. They certain don’t point to the picture on the wall with praise. In fact they refuse to wear yellow shirts for fear of it tainting them! Why, it was because they saw this figure visit Thanom on his return, they heard no condemnation against the former dictator, instead, they only received the barbarous treatment of Village Scouts, Border Patrol Police, and other rightist yobs. Any word of protest from the Palace? Any condemnation or justice? But that’s not the least of it. When they had to flee into the jungles, they realized who was behind it all: who gave patronage to the Border Patrol Police, who gave patronage to the Village Scouts.
Maybe you should change your barbershop, Frank. All your court cases and all your years in Bangkok nor all your letters to the Bangkok Post or your presence in Suan Lum means that you are enlightened in the least.
If anything, I was also there at Suan Lum listening to Sonthi: good assumptions you make, Frank. So much for your bottomless pool of expertise and so much for criticizing my assumptions.
Oh, and do actually read the book, I’m sure you know know the phrase about books and their covers (in this case, titles).
р╕Ыр╕е. р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Бр╕Др╣Ир╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Др╕Ыр╕кр╕╕р╕Зр╕кр╕┤р╕Зр╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Фр╕▓р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Ир╕░р╕Бр╕ер╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕нр╕Ър╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Др╕Ыр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Зр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕н? р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Фр╣Ир╕▓ “р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕г” р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕лр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Фр╕╣р╣Ар╕лр╕Хр╕╕р╕Ьр╕ер╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕Щ р╕Юр╕╣р╕Фр╕Зр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╣Ж р╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Бр╣Зр╕Ир╕░р╕лр╕▓р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Фр╕┤р╕кр╣Ар╕Др╕гр╕Фр╕┤р╕Хр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╕бр╕▒р╣Йр╕в? р╕Ьр╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Др╕вр╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╣Ар╕ер╕вр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ьр╕бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╕│р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Ьр╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕Ир╕▒р╕Бр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Др╕Щр╕нр╕╖р╣Ир╕Щр╣Ж р╕Ър╕Щр╣Ар╕зр╣Зр╕Ър╣Др╕Лр╕Чр╣Мр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╣Гр╕Щр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Бр╕ер╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ р╕Ьр╕бр╕нр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕зр╣Зр╕Ър╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕лр╕▓р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╣Гр╕лр╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Юр╕┤р╣Ир╕бр╣Ар╕Хр╕┤р╕бр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╣Ж р╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Гр╕Др╕гр╕бр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╣Др╕лр╕Щ р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Ьр╕бр╕Кр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Щр╣Йр╕│р╕лр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Др╕│р╕Юр╕╣р╕Фр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕лр╕Хр╕╕ р╕Ьр╕е р╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Бр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щ р╣Бр╕ер╕░ р╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕бр╕╣р╕ер╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕кр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╕гр╕Цр╕Щр╕│р╣Ар╕кр╕Щр╕нр╣Др╕Фр╣Й р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Ар╕Юр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕Щр╕Шр╕Щр╕▓р╕Цр╕Бр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Др╕Щр╕нр╕╖р╣Ир╕Щр╣Ж р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕╡р╣Й
Thailand’s coup by stealth
About “vote-buying”.
I’ve seen SOME PEOPLE spend huge amount of public money “buying vote”, or, rather “buying” their “popularity” (or should I use words like “reverence status”?) for many, many years. About 50 years or so, I think, and daily too.
But I don’t seem to remember where I saw all these. On TV perhaps? Nor do I seem to remember who those “SOME PEOPLE” are. umm.
I must be getting confused here. I forgot that in discussion about this GREAT, thevada-protected country. Only POLITICIANS can be said to have been “buying vote”.
Or, perhaps, I’m not confused after all, but somebody like the one who’d like to р╕нр╕╕р╕Ыр╣Вр╕ер╕Бр╕Щр╣М himself as “Colonel” here is simply р╕Фр╕▒р╕Фр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Х
Thai studies conference open forum
I also missed registration deadline, at least the on-line one. I subsequently sent an email to the organisers seeking advice as to how I could register. The reply, when it eventually came, was that registration was not possible. Like “June” I didn’t want coffee, dinner, attendance at opening receptions, accommodation, or conference bags or t-shirts, and I would have been happy to wait until after the conference finished for copies of the abstracts. Basically I just wanted to attend a few sessions that were of interest and would have been happy to pay the registration fee (despite the ridiculous two-tiered pricing). Unlike “June” I didn’t persevere and didn’t get to attend.
It seems to me that the Conference has departed radically from the spirit in which it was originally conceived, which was to include rather than exclude, and encourage participation of all genuinely interested in Thai (Tai) studies.
Thai studies conference underway
Republican and Dog Lover: Words are always loaded, if this is a game of chess why not just see it as a game of chess. It seems that you both see that good politics and power are results based increments of liberal enlightenment. The only result of good politics is sustained order.
Republican, to take the bullet you have metaphorically loaded from the gun of Princess Sirindhorn, wouldn’t these seminars at the international Thai conference create chaos from rejection of tradition if they were able to be overtly influential? They are views from confused chaotic academics from the baby boomer generation suffering all sorts of arrested development problems. As hrk explores, if academics and their ideas and critiques were focused upon by society at large, then reason itself would certainly be the great victim because who would it be to establish whose reason greater than another? Elites?!? There are elites everywhere, so I don’t see how you can reasonably judge that foreign academics are always on the outside when academics are on the outside even in their own countries. Obviously this rhetoric stems from personal desire to be a philosopher king! Denying elitism and in doing so, confirming it.
Frank, I am pretty sure sufficiency economy is a fantastic order maintaining instrument.
Wat Luang Sipsongpanna
Many thanks to Grant Evans for the comments and the reference –and sorry for a late response. Regarding the supposed improvement represented by this “compromise” in relation to previous projects, I agree with what you said; nevertheless, I am not that optimistic about it. Several problems have arised during the construction of the temple, and more are bound to appear in the near future when the Buddhist school moves there; some monks involved in the project would admit that to build the temple-school they have no option but to rely on outside funding –and thus the project has arguably become yet another political and economic instrumentalization of local religion.
Apart from becoming a new symbol for the integration of Lue Buddhism into economic and educational national structures (exemplified by the compulsory inclusion of public school subjects in the curriculum, in order for it to obtain state recognition), and in relation to it, the temple is probably also another step in the transformation (or “reformation”) of local Buddhism into a tradition focused on “educational” or “monastic” elements, as opposed to the traditional role of monks in the performance of community rituals –a transformation surely based on Thai models. This may obviously serve to partially thwart the destructive effects that state schooling has upon ordination, but it also implies a reduction of the traditional social role of the Lue monk; that is, if the new school will serve to increase the social mobility of local monks (through an enhanced integration of the sangha in state structures, etc.), it will do so at the cost of modifying the relationship between the monks and the laity, transforming old monastic education into a kind of vocational training in which those elements of traditional knowledge not fundamental to achieve individual recognition will expectedly tend to be excluded and ultimately disappear from the system.
I would argue that such a process is still in its early phases in Sipsongpanna, and in fact local Buddhism remains a strongly community-embedded practice, as the massive attendance of locals to the inauguration of the new Wat Luang Muang Lue (another name for the temple which refers to the old denomination of the Sipsongpanna) shows –as it also shows what the Dai “think” of the new site, surely considered by locals to be a legitimate place for performing making-merit activities, in spite of the ongoing confusion surrounding the entrance fee (which by the way is more expensive than I first stated, around 15 USD per visitor), who is to be charged and who is not.
There are also of course those Lue who oppose or mistrust this and other developments in which the local Buddhist hierarchy is involved –but their discourse does not seem to have an articulate presence in Lue society –which can be read as another success of PRC administration–, and their only option is to keep aloof from such developments.
Anyway, these views may not be so accurate, and I would appreciate any further insight and comments that can be offered
Thai studies conference open forum
Saraburian: So, now the fun part of the monarchy panels will start, hoping that the “sky won’t fall on our heads” (AW, Hagar)? It is the duty of the Thammasat organizers to issue a statement on this point, and to closely follow up the police proceedings. It tells us something about the state of academic freedom in Thailand that such an international academic conference is subject to police observation. Annette Hamilton’d words at the conference spring to mind.
Thai studies conference underway
hrk — Welcome to another German on this blog! 🙂
Time for academic frankness
PS: By the way, as an educator having worked extensively in both govt. and private sector schools here as well as working as holsing posts as a researcher, administrator and editor, I understand well the schooling of students to be good, obedient, little Thais rather than to be mature adults capable of developing their own opinions. Thus, for most Thai’s, their real education starts only AFTER they leave the formal education sector and enter the university of life – where experience is the best teacher. In my own case, while I managed to give the defendant Noranit, his lawyer Bowornsak, and the Court itself all a black eye, I the plaintiff i.e. the injured party consequently had his career prospects destroyed both in Thailand and Australia by the influence of the governmental elites in those countries and ultimately had my day in Court only for it to apply a clear double standard by ‘shifting the goal posts’ . But you wouldn’t know that because of the defacto gov’t media ban on reporting the case due to it’s political nature i.e. the jusiciary playing politics by using my case as a pretext to go on a fishing expedition at a royally-named, government-funded “political think-tank” and political training centre.
Time for academic frankness
Unlike any of it’s neighbours, I have always found myself able to express my views as forthrightly ion public among Thais in Bangkok as I have in Australia. Compare this to Georgetown in our politically ‘stable’ wealthy neighbour Malaysia, where the populace consider public talk concerning politics to be too dangerous. So, having dashed off an opening salvo in this forum last Friday, I took the opportunity to get my usual trim and ‘barber shop review’ re the state of the nation here in Minburi. I have found it to be an invaluable way of double checking the validity of my own opinions. The denoument came in the form of the manager ( a Thai-Chinese former Thaksin supporter) pointing with pride to the King’s picture hanging over her desk.
So, to the task at hand i.e. responding to my critic(s).
First, I would note that Teth assumes the position of academics in seeking to define/redefine terms. So One may well assume that Teth is a professional academic striving to preserve or improve his/her standing against ‘amateur’ interlopers. I would therefore refer Teth to Craig Reynolds himself on this point.
Second, the King does not have the power to make governmental reforms, but he has consistently and doggedly used precious political capital to provide Thais with pointed criticism of Thaksin’s ways and means as well as seeking to shame Thaksin into understanding that if “the king can do wrong” then so can Thaksin. Unfortunately, Thaksin is not the messiah, he’s just a very naughty boy with too much dodgy money and a dodgy education and the philistine attitude that comes to politicians of that type. To quote losely from the king’s birthday address of 3-4 years ago) “Mr. Thaksin, your ears don’t hear too good, your eyes don’t see too well, and you are always drawn humourously by one local cartoonist with a satellite spinning around his head.” Inshort the king has tried to educate all Thais including Thaksin about Thaksin’s shortcomings for Thaksin’s own good. Unfortunately, precisely because the king is NOT a ‘god king’ he hasn’t the luxury of being self-critical very often in public.
Third, all I will say further is that the effect of the king’s passing is unlikely to draw comparison to that of the King of Rock and Roll, Elvis Presley, which one wag summed up in three words:
“Smart career move”.
Fourth, as far as I know, I was the first farang to seriously attend the anti-thaksin rallies at Lumpini Park, and ‘quietitude’ didn’t stop numbers at subsequent protests swelling to the hundreds of thousands – including dozens of farang like me. This and The protagonist’s intransigence ultimately presented the king with what muct have been a galling dilema: risk a replay of the ’92 massacre with the government using Border Patrol killers to clear the streets or give the green light for a pre-emptive coup.
Fifth: as the incorrigible critic Bernard Trink would say, any further comment would be superflous.
Sixth, Sir you assume too much. I have spent ONLY HALF my time here in Bangkok and I did not have my contracts extended at NIDA, KPI or PGC/TDO precisely because I refuse to adopt the sort of self-serving/ self-delusional uncritical “brainwashed” careerist attitude so commonly encountered here – as I believe my suit against King Prajadhipok’s (sic) Institute and Sec. Gen. Noranit Sethabutr (Central Administrative Court – Case # 889/47) and my regular writings in the local english language press adequately attest to.
Finally, as to my criticism of ‘over-intellectualizing’. This was largely in response to the kind of attitude perhaps most famously expressed in the book title, “The King Never Smiles”. Actually, if you take the time to study him, he smiles and jokes regularly and often (for a king), if not all the time. Is that wrong/ Is this Hollywood? To my mind he clearly stands with the enlightened/reformist minded of Thailand’s contending elites as well as those of the middle class and the poor- in ideas and morals, if not in political allegiance.
Seems to me, some people can’t see the forest for the trees: the king is far better understood by your average than than your average foreign academic, but you’d have to establish trust at places like barbershops and soi cafe’s and with your neighbours to really understand that. Otherwise, it’s all too easy to make offhand allegations of brainwashing and excuses like “Thailand defies rational analysis”.
Frank Lee/ Bangkok
Thai studies conference open forum
If Saraburian is right, can anyone say on what grounds the organiser gave/shared the videotape with the police? That’s outrageous. If the police want information with no grounds, they ought to have to work for it. Even if the point is to show them nothing happened.
Thai studies conference open forum
……..on the third day….the police requested for the video tape of the Monarchy panel?!
……..from an academic conference?!
……..if I were a Thai academic with a wife and family to support and a career in Thailand to ponder, I would either be keeping my mouth completely shut………or only using words that were completely pc and safe.
…..how can the academics from all the other countries passively accept such a situation!?
Thai studies conference underway
The “fee issue” raised by Srithanonchai:
This issue had been discussed already with regards to another conference dealing with the
sufficiency economy, but I think, the main point has been missed.
I do not think that the differences actually express racism or recognition of differences with regards to economic means to participate in a conference. I take it as ethnological data indicating certain cognitive structures quite prevailing in Thailand, which do not leave scholars unaffected. Cognitive structures define what makes sense within a social and cultural context, and thus if these are shared, they work very well and are enforcing themselves. This is a reason, why scholars working on Thailand, who lived here for a longer time quite often share these structures when looking at Thai culture.
The distinction between Thai and foreigner is common in Thailand. (In fact, far more common then it is f.e. in Malaysia! When I worked there, I was even asked to get financial support from the university to participate in a conference). The differentiation between Thai and non-Thai (just to include certain non-Thai minorities in Thailand) is based on ascribed characteristics, which, in the case of “farang”, are connected to a phenotype. As we know from the introduction to sociology, differentiations within a society along ascribed characteristics are a feature of a feudal social order. Does this feudal based cognitive structure fit into the current conditions? If we look at the importance of rents, of patronage and of personal relations (well described in the new book edited by Pasuk and Baker), which are, as Terray and others pointed out already during the seventies, aspects of feudalism, we certainly recognize that a personal based status accommodation makes a lot of sense. In consequence, to follow this mind set even in a conference makes sense as well. (There are a few more indicators of feudal structures including academia to be found on which a lot has been written already in other contexts).
But it is definitely misleading to discuss Thailand in terms of feudalism (only). Globalization in terms of integration into a world economy, consumerism etc. can hardly be ignored, even if global dynamics are often connected to local translations and dynamics. How can both be taken into consideration?
During the eighties there was a very fruitful debate in Thailand on how to understand what is going on. Namely the Journal of Political Economy, the Thammasat University Journal, or the works of Preecha Piangpongsan (just to mention a few) come to mind. I still regard these discussions together with the discussion on civil society (on which I’am nevertheless very critical) as a high time of academic studies. Even the current neo-romantic post-modern nationalism of Thirayud can hardly compete with these older analysis’. One leading argument was of the “half feudal, half colonial (or later capitalist)” society. This certainly needs to be modified. But, in this tradition I think that speaking of “half feudal, half neo-liberal globalized” does make some sense.
Coming back to the fees: Isn’t the interesting mix between differentiation based on ascribed characteristics (Thai – foreign) connected to the use of two different currencies (one local, one global) quite telling? Does this – perhaps – provide some explanation for different worlds in which scholars live? Globalized academia is increasingly now living in the neo-liberal globalized world, in which universities are to compete on a market for degrees and education. This market economy of education and science is one reason why many universities now charge different fees for national and foreign students, and why research that can not be easily translated into monetary denominations (like regional studies) becomes ever more marginalized compared to MBA, IT etc. This trend is of course found in Thailand as well (see neo-liberal globalization). Thus, scholars (regardless of nationality, ethnicity etc.) face a quite similar task in developing a new critical science, although in different contexts. Perhaps the ICTS did provide new perspectives?
P.s.: The argument that Thai scholars tend to have less economic means is not convincing. If economic means play a role, which they certainly do, then a distinction between those having well paid positions and do even receive funding (Prof. lecturer etc.) and those who do not (Ph.D. students, other scholars) would make sense, combined with transparently defined regulations concerning reduction of fees or even waiving them.
Time for academic frankness
Note about my first paragraph: I do not mean to suggest that all responsibility for the country’s development should be shoved upon the King’s shoulders. But to credit him for “holding the country together” or any other thing, one needs to also put those “milestones” into perspective (ie. as constitutional monarch, has he been impartial?, has he been democratic?, has he been too involved?, has he taken responsibility for his mistakes?).
Time for academic frankness
May I ask what the definition of “holding the country together” means? Have there not been rebel armies and Malay insurgents? Because in my view, with or without the King, the country would be held together. Secondly, the King’s method of problem solving has thus far involved sweeping the problem under the carpet. How has education (which everyone also factors in as a “problem” with Thai democracy) improved? How has the civil service improved? How has public accountability improved? How has the military improved? The answer to all of these is: not very adequately. And what improvement there has been has mostly been confined to Thailand’s fantastic economic growth in the late 80s and 90s.
Is this quietitude the same quietitude we can see via the amulet trade, fortune telling monks, and royal Brahmin rituals?
I sincerely doubt the Thai people’s preparedness for his death mainly because there is so much propaganda surrounding the King. To put it bluntly, the propaganda machine will label his death as “the most tragic event in the history of Thailand.” After all, how else will you mourn someone who’s life has always been portrayed with over the top propaganda? Why, they’ll do it over the top, of course. I’m rather confident that such a big opportunity will not be passed off by the propaganda machine and we will probably we in for a year-long memorial (as we have been in year-long celebrations), the erection of a hundred statues, the renaming of a few provinces, and the creation of a thousand museums and institutes. Oh wait, I think some of that has already happened.
Once again I dispute your assertion that the country is well prepared, but I agree that we all anticipate political chaos in the short term. Hopefully, that political chaos will result in a democratic, equitable, republican government being established, if someone can stop the royal propaganda machine and the royalists, of course. I see no more legitimate reason (ie popular “love” of the current monarch) to continue such a feudal, hereditary system. It should be a good symbolic moment for Thailand that we will abolish the old to embrace republican values of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
That is the problem, sir. Living in Thailand, working with Thai people, you tend to absorb what they think and what they believe. If your only valid criticism of us UTKI (unsympathetic to the King ilk) is of our “revisionist deconstruction” and “over-intellectualizing” ideas, that tells me you have been thoroughly brainwashed. For your information, this last paragraph makes you sound as if your integration into Thai society is now complete: you find it unacceptable (“struck”, in fact) that anyone would disagree with your stance on the King and that those who have р╕лр╕ер╕Зр╕Ьр╕┤р╕Ф are laughably over-intellectualizing or “revisionist deconstructionist”.
Of course, I may be wrong, but I am willing to personally convince you of why I believe my stance is not over-intellectualizing or deconstructionist. It is merely simple history that is taught and studied the world over (except in N. Korea perhaps).
Thai studies conference underway
Frank, that is the twist you are getting out of it. First, I must ask you, are you assuming the Thai King is all-wise and benevolent? If not, then that’s a good start to critically exploring his deeds and misdeeds.
Perhaps the main facet of Sufficiency Economy you would have picked up from the King’s speeches is the idea of inhibiting your desires (which extends to the desire for social mobility, equality, etc), in this case, the King paints it as “greed” even though it may simply mean social equality. Yet the King does not recommend how to develop Thailand’s human resources, he emphasizes how one should remain fixed in what you do and rely only (hence the term sufficiency) on one’s farm, little pond, resources, etc. That is why it can only ever be a cold consolation to the poor: he does not demand better governance, he does not encourage development or any sort of social justice or rule of law to his own people. Instead he advocates “sufficiency”, a vague, ill-defined, pseudo-philosophical, unquantifiable term.
That sufficiency should be touted as an economic theory is not entirely the King’s fault. But nevertheless, it is not anything new and it doesn’t really qualify as a theory of economics.
The irony of all this is that the King himself is the foremost capitalist of Thailand and a participant in the crony capitalism and indebtedness (mostly by proxy) that plunged the country into the economic crisis. Else, would there be reason for Siam Cement to take on a foreign partner or the SCB to receive emergency loans from the government at the expense of smaller faltering enterprises?
I would also like to stress that capitalism is not bad, contrary to what some leftists will say. Crony capitalism and capitalism without any social safety net is bad. Rampant, uncritical material is detrimental as well.
May I ask the question how long does “over the years” mean? Have you observed Thailand and her monarch’s constant and overt interventions in the 1960s and 1970s?
Myself having been raised a fervent fan of the King, until only recently, always made an effort to listen to the birthday speeches of our benevolent and all-wise King. Sufficiency sounded good and defensible, but even then, I asked myself whether it was wise for such a King to advise “sufficiency” to the nation when other things were much more pressing. Surely, I asked, doubting the propaganda having been inserted into my head, the King should be emphasizing rule of law and due process, not extrajudicial killing (even for drug dealers), sustainable development and not merely inward-looking, stick-to-the-status-quo sufficiency, and more.
With such tremendous soft power, power which he does use (ie. building the Industrial Ring Road, Royal Development Projects, his birthday speech and the subsequent clamor to “obey”, speeches to military generals and high ranking judges, etc), I have always wondered why he has not done more effective things for the country, after all he is advertised as such a hardworking genius. So why has he not encouraged (at least one of these would’ve been nice) the rule of law, spoken out against police corruption and abuse of power, social justice, income inequality, improvement of education and Thai critical thinking standards so we can finally get rid of “The Thai Way to Democracy”, improving economic competitiveness instead of using protectionist policies, inhibiting the role of the military, telling the military to strictly conform to the Constitution, and emphasizing the importance and sanctity of the Constitution, which he himself signed into law, reforming the bureaucracy into more efficient organization, etc etc etc? Instead, we get the same vague rambling speech about “good morals”, “sufficiency”, and some general economic comments he doesn’t fully comprehend the nuance of. Of course, there are little gems here and there that seem to suggest what I wrote above, but in the end, most speeches’ have been a disappointment even for the formerly King-loving me because he seems to comment on the irrelevant details but is vague on things that matter. If you’re going to interfere and start nitpicking at government official (unlike a Constitutional monarch should), why not do it well? Of course, I now understand why, but you should read the King Never Smiles, Frank.
Thai studies conference open forum
Re: Fab-bob
On the third day of the conference I think the organizer openly acknowledged that the police requested for the video tape of the Monarchy panel in which they said they willingly co-operated. I also didn’t see any confiscation during or after the panel.
On wearing black, my own estimation is 70-80% were in black.
Thailand’s coup by stealth
Colonel, you are so busy frothing about things that you don’t read what has long been posted. You simply conjure things up. You are wrong and a fabricator to boot. Can you show me where I said that “that the Puea Paendin friend of yours won because they dumped more money”? I don’t think I claimed a Phua Paendin friend, either.
You made up the money from HK story, based on gossip. You continue to make claims that are unsubstantiated.
Thai studies conference open forum
I missed the registration deadline, yes, my fault!
I didn’t want coffee, dinner, and anything. All I want is to sit and listen to what presenters say. It was unbelievably difficult for me to finally get a permission from the conference organizers. I can’t help but wonder why, why, and why. Isn’t academic conference supposed to be open for all who wants to join it?
Time for academic frankness
FL: “Sixth, the country would seem to be well prepared for the event politically as any successor would be very unlikely to have more than a small part of the baramee/standing that the present monarch has built up.” >> Normally, this is seen as a problematic point, both in political terms and as far as the role of the monarchy is concerned. This latter issue concers both the crown prince and his eventual successor.