why everybody only asks for coverage in English papers. There had been a substantial coverage of the event with 3 or 4 quite critical comments on the german internet site http://www.schoenes-thailand.de
FCC was packed out for this event, which provided an opportunity for the International Burmese Monks Organisation to remind us that the struggle continues, & that IBMO intends to support it, both inside & outside of Burma. Their handouts had lists of murdered monks (7), incarcerated monks (38) and nuns (6), including their whereabouts, where known, & monasteries which had been raided (53), with items that had been stolen. There were no surprises.
Acharn Sulak gave a short talk, living up to his reputation as a Plain Speaking Man. He began by announcing that his case against the Thai Government for confiscating copies of his most recent book , & making it impossible to distribute it, was due to commence at the Administrative Court today (Wed. 16th). He then went on to rubbish the Thai Government (too ‘obsessed with the funeral of Phra Pi Nang’ to focus on anything else), and give his opinions of the Burmese Sangha (‘free’ – i.e. of government influence), and the Thai Sangha (in the main, ‘gutless’). This was all well-received by the audience.
A. Sulak also referred to the Japanese Buddhists as ‘funeral Buddhists,’ which seemed odd because one of the guest monks was a Japanese one, who later spoke. The latter did not, however, address the Burmese question, preferring to announce that he was a founder of another international monks’ network, and showing us a rather silly-looking flag which would be their symbol.
During Question Time a rather obnoxious Burmese man, who identified himself as a lawyer working for Burmese commercial interests in Thailand, performed a rather prolonged floorshow, in which he threw himself on the floor & prostrated himself three times to each of the two senior monks (but not to A. Sulak !), as the audience & the chairperson muttered & looked at their watches. The monks behaved with what can only be called admirable ‘sangha-froid.’ He then went on to criticise the Burmese Sangha for their adoption of the term ‘saffron revolution.’ He pointed out rather smugly that his dictionary of English defines a revolution as an essentially violent act. Various audience members could be heard muttering that he should get a better dictionary. The monks responded that it was the media who had given the protest movement that title, not the sangha. He seemed not to absorb this explanation & continued to prattle on. Eventually the chairperson ordered him to leave the microphone, & he did, after being instructed to do so 3 or 4 times. A stunning example of the utter insensitivity & stupidity of Those Who Just Don’t Get It!
xWhy have there been so few comments on the ICTS, and not a single substantial post on its panels so far (the only one I saw was by Justin McDaniel on his mailing list)?
[…] But the Thaksin fan club over at NewMandala will forgive PPP’s vote buying shenanigans. In one New Mandala election story, a NM blogger calling himself Histrionicus (or something) went over to Esan country, confirmed that a PPP candidate was vote-buying (but allegedly outspent by a Puea Paendin candidate) and that PPP candidate LOST! Yet Mr. Histrionicus went on to declare that despite his own anecdotal first-hand election story, he believes PPP could have won anyway, PAID or OTHERWISE. Huh? […]
Further to Fab-bob/polo/Srithanonchai/Chris IPS/Saraburian’s query whether the ICTS organizers handed over the video tape of the panel on the monarchy to the police/Santibal: can anyone confirm this?
This seems to me to be an extremely serious issue. I agree with Srithanonchai (#9) that, given the significance of the ICTS to Thai Studies generally, as well as the controversy surrounding this year’s conference in particular, the organizers ought to make a statement of clarification.
This ICTS was advertised as an academic conference (with a substantial registration fee), and participants were encouraged to be critical. If we find out that the ICTS organizers were complicit in providing evidence which could later be used to substantiate a lese majeste charge against conference participants (whether they were legally required to do so or not) then what does this tell us about the integrity of the ICTS organizers and the ICTS itself?
I was completely disappointed with the conference’s over-use of packaging and plastic for food.
Snacks: individually wrapped and served in boxes.
Meals: cold, un-appetizing meals served in plastic boxes with plastic utensils wrapped in plastic ( I will not even go into their lack of vegetarian options). Even the ‘banquet’ meals deferred to plastic! There is really no excuse; every time after meals or snacks you could see wait staff hauling away full-garbage gags!
I assume that this was an ‘oversight’ on the organizers part but I strongly recommend that this be of concern for future conference (and yes, I wrote all this on the evaluation).
“The big problem with reporting on the monarchy in general, both in the Thai and in the international media, is that the authors continually use words like “elite”, “conservative”, “rightists”, “military”, etc. (the Bangkok Post report on the ICTS is an example). This enables the king and the royal family to escape scrutiny.”
It is exactly these “elite” high members of the bureaucracy, police, military who need to be scrutinized in more detail.
These groups consistently use the institution of monarchy to build a non-transparent wall around themselves to protect their power and rent seeking opportunities.
To point this out violates no lese majeste law, though you might get targeted in some other way.
I’ve seen it at the university I taught at. The university was named after a prominent member of the royal family, led by a former high-ranking bureaucrat with a very wealthy police general with a huge ranch nearby on the board of directors which took every opportunity to cheat the ajaans out of pay and renege on promises. Deans that had left other universities under a cloud of suspicion were effectively recycled (also a product of non-transparency and non-democratic policies of silence). Frequent legitimating royal ceremonies were followed and echoed by mini-versions local versions that reinforced their own local absolute power making it so that no one questioned them. For instance, a vice president and law professor were arrested for involvement in a child prostitution ring. This story made it to Matichon a major national daily, yet the news was quickly stifled and not even mentioned on campus! As an autonomous university a gigantic 60 million baht spa was built in back of the university, of course certain people benefited from the initial choice of the land for the university in the first place, and re-elections of the university head seem to have been rigged continually since there is ever only one candidate in elections. Local people are somehow under the impression that this university excels academically but the staff doesn’t really do research and never publishes. Why? Because the ajaans were picked to be easily controllable, mostly young women back from a masters degree in a foreign university supported by their parents obviating the necessity of paying them any money.
Anyway, I could go on, but I think that **academics are simply being superfluous cowards** by not tackling the difficult real issues that might require them to put even their life on the line, instead they create some bogus strawman issue like criticising the monarchy itself, so they can wear their tweed jackets to their seminars and engage in something that could hardly be classified as “work.”
Investigative journalism should be the model they are following.
If they really wanted to be heroes they’d get their lazy little r*mps out of their offices and start looking into the very very untransparent real problems.
Papers, papers, academic papers, more things to file away on a library shelf and for most people forget about.
Nithi was even worse than Kobkua. He did not even finished his part nor responded to any questions. Kobkua at least finished her part as well as responded to many comments, albeit half-heartedly.
Well, how much can we expect from the most prominent coup-inviting academic?
Regarding today’s Bangkok Post report on debates over sufficient economy.
Notice how Prof.Keyes’ positive remarks on HMK’s ‘sufficient economy’ is being used by the reporter to contrast with views of others critical of HMK’s idea. Just as Khun Republican has earlier predicted here.
#11 Thanks for the link to the Kavi article. I couldn’t help but notice this comment: “…Last October, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand published a collection of articles written by foreign journalists from around the world about His Majesty and his six-decade reign. Almost all of them were positive…”
Here lies the problem. Blame it on the Privy Council or the military or the “elite” or the “conservatives” or the bureaucracy or anybody but the king himself. Why can’t the foreign journos see through the charade? If they can see through the charade why don’t they say?
On the Paul Hanley’s session, I was surprised to hear Prof. Kobkua.
“As to questions from people who specifically mention my name, let’s talk during coffee~”
Oh~ My~
What about other people who also want to hear from the author of ?
I don’t think this kind of attitude is appropriate at the academic conference. I expected more than that from Thai academia. It was very disappointing.
The Nation: Kavi is so daring, he has to embed a few words on the Thai monarchy and the ICTS in an article on the monarchies of Nepal, Bhutan and the UK.
SJ: Surely, the condemnation of buying admiration is distributed unevenly. And while some MP-elects were shown red cards because they had mobilized an audience with “gasoline money,” the “travel allowance” paid by the provincial constitution drafting panels to mobilize audiences for their “public hearings” was quite all right with the powers-that-be. Speaking od double standards…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thai studies conference open forum
why everybody only asks for coverage in English papers. There had been a substantial coverage of the event with 3 or 4 quite critical comments on the german internet site http://www.schoenes-thailand.de
Thai studies conference open forum
Naaah! They’re all caught up in queus, waiting to sign the Memorial Book.
Thai studies conference open forum
NG: Hopefully in transit! 🙂
Thai studies conference open forum
Why have there been so few comments on the ICTS, and not a single substantial post on its panels so far
Perhaps they have all been arrested 🙂
(or still in transit?)
Saffron revolution: unfinished business
FCC was packed out for this event, which provided an opportunity for the International Burmese Monks Organisation to remind us that the struggle continues, & that IBMO intends to support it, both inside & outside of Burma. Their handouts had lists of murdered monks (7), incarcerated monks (38) and nuns (6), including their whereabouts, where known, & monasteries which had been raided (53), with items that had been stolen. There were no surprises.
Acharn Sulak gave a short talk, living up to his reputation as a Plain Speaking Man. He began by announcing that his case against the Thai Government for confiscating copies of his most recent book , & making it impossible to distribute it, was due to commence at the Administrative Court today (Wed. 16th). He then went on to rubbish the Thai Government (too ‘obsessed with the funeral of Phra Pi Nang’ to focus on anything else), and give his opinions of the Burmese Sangha (‘free’ – i.e. of government influence), and the Thai Sangha (in the main, ‘gutless’). This was all well-received by the audience.
A. Sulak also referred to the Japanese Buddhists as ‘funeral Buddhists,’ which seemed odd because one of the guest monks was a Japanese one, who later spoke. The latter did not, however, address the Burmese question, preferring to announce that he was a founder of another international monks’ network, and showing us a rather silly-looking flag which would be their symbol.
During Question Time a rather obnoxious Burmese man, who identified himself as a lawyer working for Burmese commercial interests in Thailand, performed a rather prolonged floorshow, in which he threw himself on the floor & prostrated himself three times to each of the two senior monks (but not to A. Sulak !), as the audience & the chairperson muttered & looked at their watches. The monks behaved with what can only be called admirable ‘sangha-froid.’ He then went on to criticise the Burmese Sangha for their adoption of the term ‘saffron revolution.’ He pointed out rather smugly that his dictionary of English defines a revolution as an essentially violent act. Various audience members could be heard muttering that he should get a better dictionary. The monks responded that it was the media who had given the protest movement that title, not the sangha. He seemed not to absorb this explanation & continued to prattle on. Eventually the chairperson ordered him to leave the microphone, & he did, after being instructed to do so 3 or 4 times. A stunning example of the utter insensitivity & stupidity of Those Who Just Don’t Get It!
Thai studies conference open forum
xWhy have there been so few comments on the ICTS, and not a single substantial post on its panels so far (the only one I saw was by Justin McDaniel on his mailing list)?
Thailand’s coup by stealth
[…] But the Thaksin fan club over at NewMandala will forgive PPP’s vote buying shenanigans. In one New Mandala election story, a NM blogger calling himself Histrionicus (or something) went over to Esan country, confirmed that a PPP candidate was vote-buying (but allegedly outspent by a Puea Paendin candidate) and that PPP candidate LOST! Yet Mr. Histrionicus went on to declare that despite his own anecdotal first-hand election story, he believes PPP could have won anyway, PAID or OTHERWISE. Huh? […]
Thai studies conference open forum
Further to Fab-bob/polo/Srithanonchai/Chris IPS/Saraburian’s query whether the ICTS organizers handed over the video tape of the panel on the monarchy to the police/Santibal: can anyone confirm this?
This seems to me to be an extremely serious issue. I agree with Srithanonchai (#9) that, given the significance of the ICTS to Thai Studies generally, as well as the controversy surrounding this year’s conference in particular, the organizers ought to make a statement of clarification.
This ICTS was advertised as an academic conference (with a substantial registration fee), and participants were encouraged to be critical. If we find out that the ICTS organizers were complicit in providing evidence which could later be used to substantiate a lese majeste charge against conference participants (whether they were legally required to do so or not) then what does this tell us about the integrity of the ICTS organizers and the ICTS itself?
Time for academic frankness
Genuine questions:
1. How many people attended this conference? Can anyone estimate the ‘total number’ of participants throughout the entire programme for me?
2. Did any Thai paper report on it?
Cheers.
Time for academic frankness
LSS and anyone else: If you are aware of an electronic copy of those papers on the South please post a link to them.
Thai studies conference open forum
To all: Does anybody have an overview on how the ICTS was reflected in the Thai press, English and Thai?
Thai studies conference open forum
I was completely disappointed with the conference’s over-use of packaging and plastic for food.
Snacks: individually wrapped and served in boxes.
Meals: cold, un-appetizing meals served in plastic boxes with plastic utensils wrapped in plastic ( I will not even go into their lack of vegetarian options). Even the ‘banquet’ meals deferred to plastic! There is really no excuse; every time after meals or snacks you could see wait staff hauling away full-garbage gags!
I assume that this was an ‘oversight’ on the organizers part but I strongly recommend that this be of concern for future conference (and yes, I wrote all this on the evaluation).
Monarchy, monarchy, monarchy
“The big problem with reporting on the monarchy in general, both in the Thai and in the international media, is that the authors continually use words like “elite”, “conservative”, “rightists”, “military”, etc. (the Bangkok Post report on the ICTS is an example). This enables the king and the royal family to escape scrutiny.”
It is exactly these “elite” high members of the bureaucracy, police, military who need to be scrutinized in more detail.
These groups consistently use the institution of monarchy to build a non-transparent wall around themselves to protect their power and rent seeking opportunities.
To point this out violates no lese majeste law, though you might get targeted in some other way.
I’ve seen it at the university I taught at. The university was named after a prominent member of the royal family, led by a former high-ranking bureaucrat with a very wealthy police general with a huge ranch nearby on the board of directors which took every opportunity to cheat the ajaans out of pay and renege on promises. Deans that had left other universities under a cloud of suspicion were effectively recycled (also a product of non-transparency and non-democratic policies of silence). Frequent legitimating royal ceremonies were followed and echoed by mini-versions local versions that reinforced their own local absolute power making it so that no one questioned them. For instance, a vice president and law professor were arrested for involvement in a child prostitution ring. This story made it to Matichon a major national daily, yet the news was quickly stifled and not even mentioned on campus! As an autonomous university a gigantic 60 million baht spa was built in back of the university, of course certain people benefited from the initial choice of the land for the university in the first place, and re-elections of the university head seem to have been rigged continually since there is ever only one candidate in elections. Local people are somehow under the impression that this university excels academically but the staff doesn’t really do research and never publishes. Why? Because the ajaans were picked to be easily controllable, mostly young women back from a masters degree in a foreign university supported by their parents obviating the necessity of paying them any money.
Anyway, I could go on, but I think that **academics are simply being superfluous cowards** by not tackling the difficult real issues that might require them to put even their life on the line, instead they create some bogus strawman issue like criticising the monarchy itself, so they can wear their tweed jackets to their seminars and engage in something that could hardly be classified as “work.”
Investigative journalism should be the model they are following.
If they really wanted to be heroes they’d get their lazy little r*mps out of their offices and start looking into the very very untransparent real problems.
Papers, papers, academic papers, more things to file away on a library shelf and for most people forget about.
Thai studies conference open forum
Nithi was even worse than Kobkua. He did not even finished his part nor responded to any questions. Kobkua at least finished her part as well as responded to many comments, albeit half-heartedly.
Well, how much can we expect from the most prominent coup-inviting academic?
Thai studies conference open forum
Regarding today’s Bangkok Post report on debates over sufficient economy.
Notice how Prof.Keyes’ positive remarks on HMK’s ‘sufficient economy’ is being used by the reporter to contrast with views of others critical of HMK’s idea. Just as Khun Republican has earlier predicted here.
Thai studies conference open forum
#11 Thanks for the link to the Kavi article. I couldn’t help but notice this comment: “…Last October, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand published a collection of articles written by foreign journalists from around the world about His Majesty and his six-decade reign. Almost all of them were positive…”
Here lies the problem. Blame it on the Privy Council or the military or the “elite” or the “conservatives” or the bureaucracy or anybody but the king himself. Why can’t the foreign journos see through the charade? If they can see through the charade why don’t they say?
Thai studies conference open forum
from the author of “Kings, Country and Constitution”
Thai studies conference open forum
On the Paul Hanley’s session, I was surprised to hear Prof. Kobkua.
“As to questions from people who specifically mention my name, let’s talk during coffee~”
Oh~ My~
What about other people who also want to hear from the author of ?
I don’t think this kind of attitude is appropriate at the academic conference. I expected more than that from Thai academia. It was very disappointing.
Thai studies conference open forum
ICTS:
The Nation: Kavi is so daring, he has to embed a few words on the Thai monarchy and the ICTS in an article on the monarchies of Nepal, Bhutan and the UK.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/01/14/opinion/opinion_30062115.php
Bangkok Post: Here is an article reporting the broadside on the sufficiency economy at the ICTS.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/14Jan2008_news15.php
Thailand’s coup by stealth
SJ: Surely, the condemnation of buying admiration is distributed unevenly. And while some MP-elects were shown red cards because they had mobilized an audience with “gasoline money,” the “travel allowance” paid by the provincial constitution drafting panels to mobilize audiences for their “public hearings” was quite all right with the powers-that-be. Speaking od double standards…