I don’t want to spread false rumours, but has anyone seen a confirmation that the police confiscated the videos taken during the conference (including of course those of the SE and Handley panels)
Btw, I found there was not that many people wearing black the second and third day.
Reply to Dog Lover: she certainly attended the one in Chiang Mai in 1996 (she opened it); I recall (but could have it mixed up with another ICTS) that she also attended the one at SOAS in 1993. By “sponsorship” I meant giving royal support/approval/presence, not financial support.
Maybe “intimately” was too strong, but what I meant was that in my opinion it is no accident that the royal family should take a special interest in an academic event that is, to a certain extent, about defining the Thai nation (which is precisely the problem of the concept for this conference). Management of the monarchy’s external image, as I’ve said before, is very important to their overall political strategy and you have to admit that they have been very successful at it.
Even though the international media jumped on the issue of monks demonstrating as an expression of a protest movement, and envisioned a “saffron revolution” comparable to the “orange revolution” in Ukrainia etc. what happened in September was neither a revolution nor an attempt to push the junta away, or to try to find a new unity in the country after the National Convention.
Unfortunately, the announcement of the FCC ignores quite a few issues that easily lead to misunderstandings: Firstly that monks play a political role in Burma is nothing new nor special. The anti-colonial movements were lead and influenced by monks. Even later on during the protests against Ne Win monks always were part of those protesting. Neither the British nor the Burmese felt restricted in their actions against the protesters. Thus, it is not such a special case that the military kills monks. Secondly, it should be remembered that not all citizen of Burma are Buddhists. In fact one reason for the rebellion of the Kachin in the sixties had been that U Nu wanted to establish Buddhism as state religion. Furthermore since fifty years most minorities suffer from the Buddhist Burmese Military, a fact too often ignored in international reporting on Burma, which still focuses on the NLD. It is certainly not only the “the horrifying crimes committed against the monks in particular (that) have laid bare the false piety of the junta.” I doubt whether the Junta has any piety. In fact, I take it as cynical to speak of piety and the junta. The junta lives in its own reality, which might best be described as “psychotic” and therefore it is wishful thinking that the acts against the monks “will have far-reaching consequences, not least inside the military which contains countless families that would normally consider themselves devout Buddhists.”
Together with the earlier argument of the announcement, where it is pointed out that the junta should take advice “from some of the wisest elements in Burmese society”, the above sentence has a rather strange and I hope unintended meaning: Does it imply that the Buddhist Burmese monks form the “wisest” elements and thus, by implication, advice from the minorities is not “wise”? Does it imply furthermore that while killing Buddhist Burmans might have far reaching consequences, killing Karen, Kachin or Rohingha does not put a strain on the conscience of the soldiers and generals? At least they do it with no restrain since fifty years. Even the FCC should keep in mind that any liberalization or even democratization in Burma is only possible if the minorities are part of the process. Thus, they should not be left out only because their plight has become so common that it seems not to be worthwhile to report about it.
Rep: “Rather than emphasising the unity of scholars working together within the same field the statement reinforces the separateness of “foreign” and “Thai”.” >> Exactly, and this is why the organizers at Thammasat University had no qualms to chage different “us” and “them” registration fee, bordering on the racist. This made it impossible for me to attend the conference, although it would have been very important to me.
What hope can we have for “academic unity” if even those Thammasat people could not bring themselves to see foreigners as academic colleagues, but merely as “foreigners”? Obviously, “we” (foreigners) and “them” (Thai academics” still live in different worlds, and our communications and interactions are still fundamentally cross-cultural, i.e. “them” have not yet become part of the “world system of science.” But don’t tell them, because the Thais will not like it, and complain that you look down on them. Anyway, it was “them” who were in charge of organizing the conference and setting the fee, right?
Republican: I agree with your comments. However, I have some questions:
You say, “Why else do you have the Crown Princess so intimately associated with the International Thai Studies conference over so many years?” I have only attended conferences in London, Amsterdam, DeKalb and Bangkok (1984) and did not see the princess as “intimately associated” with these (I think she showed up at the London event).
You say, “The Princess’s sponsorship of the ICTS”. Did she sponsor? Or should I take this term to mean no more than just doing an opening speech?
As I said, I agree with your points, but these words could begin the creation a myth of her intimate involvement with ICTS.
You also forgot another political strategy used for academics. The various royals are used to charm them. Think of the way this princess has been able to befriend and beguile academics. I have had two senior farang SE Asia scholars point out to me how “nice” she is (the unspoken comparison being to the prince): “I’ve met her and she was so nice and down-to-earth” stuff. Forget her political position and the role her family plays because she is polite and “nice”. Shows a decided lack of critical attention to Thai politics and history, but it is a strategy that works.
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.
Second, from the considerable drop in scope and intensity of his public addresses in general over the past 12 months, it seems quite apparent that the king’s physical/intellectual powers are seriously on the wane.
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’.
Fifth, I would guess therefore that the initial shock of his passing (and it will be a shock to nearly all we locals) will be felt for about a week, official rites not withstanding, because most of us cannot financially afford to indulge in prolonged grieving .
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.
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”.
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?
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.
Actually, it is all that the elite as a class provide, because the king’s power/influence is very circumscribed. For example, if you want to petition the king you have to go through the government.
Of course, between the elite and the monarchy there is a mutually legitimizing relationship, but from 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.
Seriously, who would say the same about Thaksin Shinawatra – Paul Handley?
Frank Lee / Bangkok
I hope the govt. doesn’t wish to sue me for this comment under the ‘ lese majeste’ law.
The Paul Handley book can be accessed online (without violating any intellectual property rights) at: http://www.shop.ebrary.com. If you sign up for an account and put at least 5USD on (which you never have to use), you can read the full book on your computer screen. A good option for those interested in reading it in the Kingdom without carrying around a banned book.
“…As outsiders, they can see us from afar more clearly because we ourselves are too close to the subject,” the Princess said…”
Although superficially modest and framed in the form of a compliment – i.e. the foreigners may have a thing or two to tell us Thais about our nation – this statement is obviously designed to portray foreign academics as forever “outside” Thai studies, and by so doing to subtly attack the legitimacy of their criticisms. At the same time it ties the monarchy with the nation – “insiders”. Why else do you have the Crown Princess so intimately associated with the International Thai Studies conference over so many years?
Rather than emphasising the unity of scholars working together within the same field the statement reinforces the separateness of “foreign” and “Thai”. The monarchy, as it has done since the colonial era, portrays itself as defender of the nation. You can see this in the king’s speeches which are full of accusations of how the foreigners are “saying bad things about the Thai”, trying to take advantage of “us”, etc.
The Princess’s sponsorship of the ICTS is is a good example of the political strategy of the monarchy: identify a potential enemy (the military, leftist students, pro-democracy monks, parliamentary parties, NGOs, environmentalists, ethnic or religious minorities, foreign academics, etc.), isolate the most radical of them (by killing them, exiling them, etc.), while developing political and patronage connections with the rest.
Jeez Historicus you don’t even read the crap you write! If you will re-read it, you will find that you admitted in YOUR story that PPP and Puea Paendin parties were BOTH buying votes . . . and you were actually suggesting that the Puea Paendin friend of yours won because they dumped more money – – PPP short of funds, eh? So where did you Historicus draw your ridiculous conclusion that PPP could have won anyway PAID or otherwise?
That HK-money-source the news covered (which you seem quick to absolve Thaksin as the source) was obviously not the HK-money-bags I was talking about . . . otherwise why would those police generals wives tongues be wagging? Hey can anyone at Suvarnabhumi airport stop to search one or three police generals with lots of luggages from Hongkong?
You know, one thing that I think is really important is using the correct language. 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. So we must mention the monarchy at every opportunity to prevent this. The problem of course is lese majeste.
“…The sky will not fall in if we talk freely and frankly about the king’s role in contemporary Thai politics…”, maybe this is true for foreign academics who are beyond the reach of lese majeste – but what about the example of Handley? (by the way, was he refused a visa? was he discouraged from coming? or did he choose not to come out of fear for his safety? or?).
Obviously for Thai academics the sky can indeed “fall in” in the sense that if the law was enforced to the fullest extent then one faces a 15 year prison sentence. Besides the legal punishment there is also the social sanction and the threat of extreme violence.
Yeah I noticed Bangkok Post has pulled the article about the 300 million Bahts of taxpayers’ money being put up in smoke. It’s going to be one hell of a big bonfire for the world to see. Can’t wait to see it on youtube.
Well, from looking at the program, it seems that while people may be tip-toeing around the 10,000 pound elephant, they aren’t ignoring the 5,000 pound gorilla in the room, i.e. Islam and the Southern insurgency. In particular, Hishasi Ogawa
‘s paper concerning the “Re-Islamisation” of villagers in Trang…a very interesting choice of words, if you ask me. Also, I am eager to read Laura Godtfredsen’s thoughts on COIN strategy.
It’s nice to see that some scholars are taking a look at the possible relationship between mainstream Arab-locus Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir and ta’wil) and the ideology driving the events in the South, and are not just dragging out the old tired neo-Marxist “ethno/socio-economic struggle” rhetoric.
Long may study of the Southern conflict continue without interference from MESA and its ilk!
For TKNS, as mentioned earlier, I read it through but do not believe it at all. It’s a good book but still contains some emotional idea of writer. Anyway, it’s just a book with critism but without proof.
Right…..clearly you haven’t read the book either that or you are too overcome with your own personal relationship with His benevolent majesty. Stop saying its without evidence and actually tell me what it says it false.
Did the King not support dictators? Was the Palace not silent in the 6 Oct massacre? In fact, was it not the King’s forces who instigated the massacre? You ask what he did to me and I tell you that’s what he did to Thailand.
Now tell me is that not “proof”?
Bear in mind, I was born in Issarn and live there. You blamed on Issarn people and never been aware that they are clever than you ; a sophisticated ,civilian and educated middle class . Although you may say it’s just your sarcasm, it’s still in your mind to look down “Issarn” . Not wise, man.
Here is the definition of sarcasm and irony, because it seems you don’t properly understand it: the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
That means I DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY ISARN PEOPLE ARE STUPID! Get that into your head: I was mocking the people who normally think like you, as they usually look down on Isarn people.
In the town I live , who say like you say about our King is “sin” in our belief. King gave a lot to our people at my province and my town. I can say I grew up because of his mercy to grant the free education and find carreer to our people in town through his project.
In the meantime, he also supported military coups, dictatorships, and massacre of students. Always two sides to a story, eh?
Mr. Teth who is a civilian guy. I warn you. Don’t separate people only if they live in Issarn. I can say in Issarn, people love their King wholeheartedly. If you wish to separate this country, just go on looking down people. One day, it becomes true.
I can also tell you that there will be people in Isarn who don’t love the King, whether you like it or not. Not many, but there will be. And what if I’m a civilian? The Thai military certainly cannot defend the country when they’re too busy destroying it. The police? What are they good for?
If you wish to change our Royal Family to be like in UK, you can. Just go to the parliament as suggested. If you don’t have hidden agenda in your intention, it’s in order.
I wish to change it like France, not the UK.
Well, you and Somsak still have freedom to say without charge , right? What is the restriction? If you use critique, no one arrest you but on the other hand, if you aren’t polite not only to Royal family but others , you will of course be put in jail.
Sorry, but if I actually used “critique”, I would be put into jail. I remain free because I remain anonymous while Somsak probably remains free because he watches what he says and says things that are “interpretable.”
Simple logic!
р╕Ыр╕е. р╕Ьр╕бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕кр╕Щр╕Шр╕Щр╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕ар╕▓р╕йр╕▓р╣Др╕Чр╕в р╕Ьр╕бр╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Гр╕Ир╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щ and vice versa
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thai studies conference open forum
I don’t want to spread false rumours, but has anyone seen a confirmation that the police confiscated the videos taken during the conference (including of course those of the SE and Handley panels)
Btw, I found there was not that many people wearing black the second and third day.
Thai studies conference open forum
At least one media ‘outlet’ is giving the Conference good coverage …
http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=340
http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=347
http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=345
Thai studies conference open forum
Are the organizers going to make all the papers presented at the conference available for the public on their web site?
Thai studies conference underway
Reply to Dog Lover: she certainly attended the one in Chiang Mai in 1996 (she opened it); I recall (but could have it mixed up with another ICTS) that she also attended the one at SOAS in 1993. By “sponsorship” I meant giving royal support/approval/presence, not financial support.
Maybe “intimately” was too strong, but what I meant was that in my opinion it is no accident that the royal family should take a special interest in an academic event that is, to a certain extent, about defining the Thai nation (which is precisely the problem of the concept for this conference). Management of the monarchy’s external image, as I’ve said before, is very important to their overall political strategy and you have to admit that they have been very successful at it.
Agree with the rest of your post.
Saffron revolution: unfinished business
I am doing an update this evening in Silver Spring, MD.
Saffron revolution: unfinished business
Even though the international media jumped on the issue of monks demonstrating as an expression of a protest movement, and envisioned a “saffron revolution” comparable to the “orange revolution” in Ukrainia etc. what happened in September was neither a revolution nor an attempt to push the junta away, or to try to find a new unity in the country after the National Convention.
Unfortunately, the announcement of the FCC ignores quite a few issues that easily lead to misunderstandings: Firstly that monks play a political role in Burma is nothing new nor special. The anti-colonial movements were lead and influenced by monks. Even later on during the protests against Ne Win monks always were part of those protesting. Neither the British nor the Burmese felt restricted in their actions against the protesters. Thus, it is not such a special case that the military kills monks. Secondly, it should be remembered that not all citizen of Burma are Buddhists. In fact one reason for the rebellion of the Kachin in the sixties had been that U Nu wanted to establish Buddhism as state religion. Furthermore since fifty years most minorities suffer from the Buddhist Burmese Military, a fact too often ignored in international reporting on Burma, which still focuses on the NLD. It is certainly not only the “the horrifying crimes committed against the monks in particular (that) have laid bare the false piety of the junta.” I doubt whether the Junta has any piety. In fact, I take it as cynical to speak of piety and the junta. The junta lives in its own reality, which might best be described as “psychotic” and therefore it is wishful thinking that the acts against the monks “will have far-reaching consequences, not least inside the military which contains countless families that would normally consider themselves devout Buddhists.”
Together with the earlier argument of the announcement, where it is pointed out that the junta should take advice “from some of the wisest elements in Burmese society”, the above sentence has a rather strange and I hope unintended meaning: Does it imply that the Buddhist Burmese monks form the “wisest” elements and thus, by implication, advice from the minorities is not “wise”? Does it imply furthermore that while killing Buddhist Burmans might have far reaching consequences, killing Karen, Kachin or Rohingha does not put a strain on the conscience of the soldiers and generals? At least they do it with no restrain since fifty years. Even the FCC should keep in mind that any liberalization or even democratization in Burma is only possible if the minorities are part of the process. Thus, they should not be left out only because their plight has become so common that it seems not to be worthwhile to report about it.
Thai studies conference open forum
So did everyone wear black?
Thai studies conference underway
Rep: “Rather than emphasising the unity of scholars working together within the same field the statement reinforces the separateness of “foreign” and “Thai”.” >> Exactly, and this is why the organizers at Thammasat University had no qualms to chage different “us” and “them” registration fee, bordering on the racist. This made it impossible for me to attend the conference, although it would have been very important to me.
What hope can we have for “academic unity” if even those Thammasat people could not bring themselves to see foreigners as academic colleagues, but merely as “foreigners”? Obviously, “we” (foreigners) and “them” (Thai academics” still live in different worlds, and our communications and interactions are still fundamentally cross-cultural, i.e. “them” have not yet become part of the “world system of science.” But don’t tell them, because the Thais will not like it, and complain that you look down on them. Anyway, it was “them” who were in charge of organizing the conference and setting the fee, right?
Thai studies conference underway
Republican: I agree with your comments. However, I have some questions:
You say, “Why else do you have the Crown Princess so intimately associated with the International Thai Studies conference over so many years?” I have only attended conferences in London, Amsterdam, DeKalb and Bangkok (1984) and did not see the princess as “intimately associated” with these (I think she showed up at the London event).
You say, “The Princess’s sponsorship of the ICTS”. Did she sponsor? Or should I take this term to mean no more than just doing an opening speech?
As I said, I agree with your points, but these words could begin the creation a myth of her intimate involvement with ICTS.
You also forgot another political strategy used for academics. The various royals are used to charm them. Think of the way this princess has been able to befriend and beguile academics. I have had two senior farang SE Asia scholars point out to me how “nice” she is (the unspoken comparison being to the prince): “I’ve met her and she was so nice and down-to-earth” stuff. Forget her political position and the role her family plays because she is polite and “nice”. Shows a decided lack of critical attention to Thai politics and history, but it is a strategy that works.
Time for academic frankness
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.
Second, from the considerable drop in scope and intensity of his public addresses in general over the past 12 months, it seems quite apparent that the king’s physical/intellectual powers are seriously on the wane.
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’.
Fifth, I would guess therefore that the initial shock of his passing (and it will be a shock to nearly all we locals) will be felt for about a week, official rites not withstanding, because most of us cannot financially afford to indulge in prolonged grieving .
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.
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”.
Frank Lee / Bangkok.
Thai studies conference underway
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?
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.
Actually, it is all that the elite as a class provide, because the king’s power/influence is very circumscribed. For example, if you want to petition the king you have to go through the government.
Of course, between the elite and the monarchy there is a mutually legitimizing relationship, but from 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.
Seriously, who would say the same about Thaksin Shinawatra – Paul Handley?
Frank Lee / Bangkok
I hope the govt. doesn’t wish to sue me for this comment under the ‘ lese majeste’ law.
Monarchy, monarchy, monarchy
An AP report on the monarchy panel(s):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_re_as/thailand_king_biography;_ylt=AqLMubuLQG8jq5j8oOeTUzSnxQ8F
Thai studies conference underway
The Paul Handley book can be accessed online (without violating any intellectual property rights) at: http://www.shop.ebrary.com. If you sign up for an account and put at least 5USD on (which you never have to use), you can read the full book on your computer screen. A good option for those interested in reading it in the Kingdom without carrying around a banned book.
Thai studies conference underway
“…As outsiders, they can see us from afar more clearly because we ourselves are too close to the subject,” the Princess said…”
Although superficially modest and framed in the form of a compliment – i.e. the foreigners may have a thing or two to tell us Thais about our nation – this statement is obviously designed to portray foreign academics as forever “outside” Thai studies, and by so doing to subtly attack the legitimacy of their criticisms. At the same time it ties the monarchy with the nation – “insiders”. Why else do you have the Crown Princess so intimately associated with the International Thai Studies conference over so many years?
Rather than emphasising the unity of scholars working together within the same field the statement reinforces the separateness of “foreign” and “Thai”. The monarchy, as it has done since the colonial era, portrays itself as defender of the nation. You can see this in the king’s speeches which are full of accusations of how the foreigners are “saying bad things about the Thai”, trying to take advantage of “us”, etc.
The Princess’s sponsorship of the ICTS is is a good example of the political strategy of the monarchy: identify a potential enemy (the military, leftist students, pro-democracy monks, parliamentary parties, NGOs, environmentalists, ethnic or religious minorities, foreign academics, etc.), isolate the most radical of them (by killing them, exiling them, etc.), while developing political and patronage connections with the rest.
Thailand’s coup by stealth
Jeez Historicus you don’t even read the crap you write! If you will re-read it, you will find that you admitted in YOUR story that PPP and Puea Paendin parties were BOTH buying votes . . . and you were actually suggesting that the Puea Paendin friend of yours won because they dumped more money – – PPP short of funds, eh? So where did you Historicus draw your ridiculous conclusion that PPP could have won anyway PAID or otherwise?
That HK-money-source the news covered (which you seem quick to absolve Thaksin as the source) was obviously not the HK-money-bags I was talking about . . . otherwise why would those police generals wives tongues be wagging? Hey can anyone at Suvarnabhumi airport stop to search one or three police generals with lots of luggages from Hongkong?
Monarchy, monarchy, monarchy
You know, one thing that I think is really important is using the correct language. 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. So we must mention the monarchy at every opportunity to prevent this. The problem of course is lese majeste.
“…The sky will not fall in if we talk freely and frankly about the king’s role in contemporary Thai politics…”, maybe this is true for foreign academics who are beyond the reach of lese majeste – but what about the example of Handley? (by the way, was he refused a visa? was he discouraged from coming? or did he choose not to come out of fear for his safety? or?).
Obviously for Thai academics the sky can indeed “fall in” in the sense that if the law was enforced to the fullest extent then one faces a 15 year prison sentence. Besides the legal punishment there is also the social sanction and the threat of extreme violence.
Royal funerary rites
Yeah I noticed Bangkok Post has pulled the article about the 300 million Bahts of taxpayers’ money being put up in smoke. It’s going to be one hell of a big bonfire for the world to see. Can’t wait to see it on youtube.
Time for academic frankness
Well, from looking at the program, it seems that while people may be tip-toeing around the 10,000 pound elephant, they aren’t ignoring the 5,000 pound gorilla in the room, i.e. Islam and the Southern insurgency. In particular, Hishasi Ogawa
‘s paper concerning the “Re-Islamisation” of villagers in Trang…a very interesting choice of words, if you ask me. Also, I am eager to read Laura Godtfredsen’s thoughts on COIN strategy.
It’s nice to see that some scholars are taking a look at the possible relationship between mainstream Arab-locus Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir and ta’wil) and the ideology driving the events in the South, and are not just dragging out the old tired neo-Marxist “ethno/socio-economic struggle” rhetoric.
Long may study of the Southern conflict continue without interference from MESA and its ilk!
More on the 2008 Thai Studies conference
Right…..clearly you haven’t read the book either that or you are too overcome with your own personal relationship with His benevolent majesty. Stop saying its without evidence and actually tell me what it says it false.
Did the King not support dictators? Was the Palace not silent in the 6 Oct massacre? In fact, was it not the King’s forces who instigated the massacre? You ask what he did to me and I tell you that’s what he did to Thailand.
Now tell me is that not “proof”?
Here is the definition of sarcasm and irony, because it seems you don’t properly understand it: the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
That means I DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY ISARN PEOPLE ARE STUPID! Get that into your head: I was mocking the people who normally think like you, as they usually look down on Isarn people.
In the meantime, he also supported military coups, dictatorships, and massacre of students. Always two sides to a story, eh?
I can also tell you that there will be people in Isarn who don’t love the King, whether you like it or not. Not many, but there will be. And what if I’m a civilian? The Thai military certainly cannot defend the country when they’re too busy destroying it. The police? What are they good for?
I wish to change it like France, not the UK.
Sorry, but if I actually used “critique”, I would be put into jail. I remain free because I remain anonymous while Somsak probably remains free because he watches what he says and says things that are “interpretable.”
Simple logic!
р╕Ыр╕е. р╕Ьр╕бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕кр╕Щр╕Шр╕Щр╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕ар╕▓р╕йр╕▓р╣Др╕Чр╕в р╕Ьр╕бр╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Гр╕Ир╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щ and vice versa
Monarchy, monarchy, monarchy
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/11Jan2008_news20.php