You are right Mariner, complete anonymity is a myth, and it is a struggle and a risk to make any kind of public expression, but I think it is a worthy ideal to uphold and the internet blogsite is still relatively anonymous compared to other forms of media, even in post-coup Thailand. I think it is important because if it was not an option then the only contributions to debates like these would be from prudes like John Hall who gain satisfaction from attacking other contributors for speaking single words out of place and supposedly discrediting them by association with industry.
This may be my final communication regarding this matter but maybe not “exactly”.
this is an extremely insightful, subtle and interesting deconstruction of what is presently going on in Thailand. please do not stop here but continue on…….
So what is it, did the King really sacrifice his life for his country, or is he a political meddler, or is he a coward who is easily forced to do things that HMK in his infinite wisdom and limitless sacrifice should easily stand up against? Or is he still good but misguided? Then why do you trust him so much?
It’s all relative, as I don’t really trust anyone that I have not known personally over a number of years.
Should I trust a politician more?
Which one?
Yes, I do think HMK has sacrificed his life for his country
(would you want to be king?)
As for political meddler or coward, I think only those who personally know HMK have the truth, but from where I sit, the compromise for stability factor [point (a) in my previous post] seems to have been the dominant feature in recent decades.
No doubt the king is a conservative, and I do think the country needs a shake up, but was (is) Thaksin the right person to do it?
Jakrapob says it’s a war between PPP and the military, but I don’t think either side can provide the solution.
In response to Khamtham, above, I have doubts about the degree of anonymity. It is no secret that New Mandala is a site which the Thai ‘authorities’ keep an eye on. For those of us here in the ‘land of smiles’ we have to be pretty careful about what we write -and no I don’t think I being particularly paranoid. There is a new and alarming reality here and the future looks pretty grim.
“I think academia may be starting to feel embarrassed that Thai studies had become a “faith-based” practice.”
They’ll still have to do the hard math.:
a. Cold war body count less than almost anywhere else, especially neighbors like Cambodia, bless my soul.
b. A country that despite being in the middle of political “turmoil,” you’d never recognise it when walking down the street. No violent street protests or conflicts, no deaths except some taxi driver who hung himself in protest (does that really count?)
Compare to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma,…the hard thing will be getting to the next step on the economic ladder, like where South Korea is now, but once Thailand gets there, they’ll be glad they have a King, an institution that seems to fill a gap in the human psyche, look at Burma (lost their king, now they have nasty generals) or South Korea (lost their king, seem to worship their ethnicity or race as a substitute), maybe they should think about loosening up the rules one day and having queens too.
The problem with western academia is that it’s like a broken democracy record, despite the fact that everytime they try to impose it (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam, Russia, that guy before Pol Pot, Lon Nol?) it doesn’t seem to work, and the countries that have found their way to growth led by exports to the west (South Korea, China) have hardly been democratic initially.
The cost of everyone arguing with each other all the time, probably slower growth, albeit greater equity, like in this week’s PTT case.
Like I said previously, it would be wrong to pin the blame on one person, and it is hard to prove the intent of a person as well. But to me, HMK has been a keystone to some events and has given quiet backing in others.
As for evidence, how about when the King visited Thanom when he attempted to return from exile? And the fact that Thanom was ordained at Wat Bovornives? Or his speeches, where he rebukes the students telling them to keep their heads down and study, leaving government to (ironically) the soldiers.
I suspect the Palace is forced overt interventions but not at times of national crises or national danger. Instead, palatial intervention seems to coincide to those times when the Palace’s image is threatened, or an opportunity for furthering the Palace’s barami arrives. Note in the May 1992 talk between Chamlong and Suchinda what the King actually says: I believe it fits into your point (b).
And the “Young Turk” coup? Did Gen Prem not flee into the welcoming arms of the royal family? And the Palace’s close relationship with Sarit?
An irony I would also like to point out: royalists will both say the King has dedicated his life to his country when he did not have to AND the King was forced to do this and do that, he actually didn’t do it! So what is it, did the King really sacrifice his life for his country, or is he a political meddler, or is he a coward who is easily forced to do things that HMK in his infinite wisdom and limitless sacrifice should easily stand up against? Or is he still good but misguided? Then why do you trust him so much?
I think Khamtham is misrepresenting the situation. Richard Jackson initially said that Holly High’s post “exactly” paralleled his own experiences. Since he works on project-related resettlement associated with the Xepon Mine, it was reasonable for me to question whether his experiences really did parallel Holly High’s experiences “exactly”, as he claimed. She has apparently mainly been working with lowland people (with some experiences with the Hmong in Vieng Xay), including resettlement of lowlanders in the Lowlands. Richard Jackson, however, has been working on project-related resettlement with Mon-Khmer language speakers and Phou Thai in the uplands of Savannakhet.
I appreciate Richard Jackson’s explanation. He makes some interesting observations, but it still appears that while he may be aware of other non-project resettlement going on in Vilaboury district, I doubt that he has been directly working on that resettlement, or with the people involved, as that resettlement does not relate to the Xepon Mine. So, in the end I can’t imagine that his experiences “exactly” parallel Holly High’s.
I think that those who post on this blog have the right to contribute whatever information they see fit, provided that they are polite. Khamtham should not try to impose rules on others. It appears that he or she is guilty of the exact thing that he or she has accussed me of. But I just asked for Richard Jackson to provide more information, as did Holly High. It was up to him to either respond or not. We all have that right. He didn’t have to respond.
One last comment: It is interesting that Richard Jackson refers to resettlement as either “voluntary” or “unvoluntary”. This is actually the type of dichotomy that Baird and Shoemaker warn against. They suggest that we need to examine our use of those terms more critically. I agree.
This will be my last communication regarding this matter.
Another great interview with yet another legend in Southeast Asian studies. At some point you are going to have enough of these interviews to publish in one print form or another.
I was hard to interpret how Hewison’s presentation was received as they did not go to direct questions afterwards. I don’t recall any questions directed to the most controversial points, either in agreement or not. He did apologize in advance for extreme jet lag and, in my view, several of his unwritten responses seemed to refect this set back.
By the way, The FCCT event launched two books; the journal and Phasuk’s compilation Thai Capital. I have found the second far more readable and interesting. The journal has some fairly provacative titles, but I had a lot of trouble penetrating the articles themselves or finding a unique or compelling storyline. Thai Capital will, I believe, become another of Phasuk and Baker’s must reads.
If I had to identify a single theme running through the event, it might be a warning that the gloves are coming off. I think academia may be starting to feel embarrassed that Thai studies had become a “faith-based” practice.
Teth: Is an LKY as good as it gets?
IMO it probably is, especially in a country where no one seems to be accountable for their actions.
You brought up 1976: How does it make you feel to see Samak as the PPP leader now?
Restorationist brought up 1992: Has Surayud been held to account for his involvement in those events?
Likewise Thaksin’s involvement in the war on drugs.
Thanom, Suchinda etc etc
My request for evidence was a serious question.
I know Handley does present a good case, and the fact that people like Samak, Surayud & Thaksin can be still be such large players is quite damning of not only the country, but also the king.
We all know that HMK gets involved in politics in times of crisis – the big question is whether he is forced into that involvement (for the sake of the country and stability) to compromise between competing elites , or whether he is an active participant helping one side.
I can only put the fact that no one is properly accountable for their actions to one of the following:
(a) deals have to be made to reach the compromise required for stability
(b) The palace makes sure their friends are not punished (even rewards them)
(b) TIT, and no one cares
Tosakan (Fonzi) on his Thailand Jumped the Shark site has a link to an Al Jazeera interview with Abhisit, Jakrapob and someone from The Nation.
IMO the country would be better off taking a chance on Abhisit, than unleashing the likes of Samak on the country, and quite frankly the fact that guys like Jakropob are in bed with people like Samak scares me.
Even if you, Handley & Republican are correct, I would like to know how the election of PPP under Samak (Thaksin) would make things better at this stage?
Now there’s some people doing something rather than going on and on about who is or was “song mai ao” and who is more anti-throne than the other and all that crap.
How short-sighted some can be! If “all that crap” that you’re referring to is actually the question of what was and is the correct attitude and course of action towards issue of democracy, elected government, the monarchy, etc. , then it’s not crap. In fact, I’d say, anyone’s not patient enough to think through such ‘crap’ can only jump to ‘action’ ‘blindly’. I’d argue that over the past years (last year especially) they DID jump and caused – and HAVE CONTINUED to cause – many harms to the course of Thai democracy.
How would you know that what Hewison , et al. is doing is correct? Actually, I DO have ceertain grave reservations with Hewison’s speech as reported above.
Why, for instance in the above speech, would Hewison refer to “Thaksin period of government, its authoritarianism, its failed policies in the south, its cronyism and its human rights violations” but only to the monarchy simply : “[t]he problem is that this also means that the monarchy – always said to be “above politics” except in times of crisis – is now situated at the heart of ongoing political struggles. ” Why wouldn’t he also mention “its cronyism and its human rights violations” in the latter case too? Because there was not any?
Those who don’t think the issue of “song mai ao” is seriuos will continue to speak and frame their discourse THIS WAY, and in effect help create the idelogical world in which only politicians can be mentioned FREELY, about “human right violations, etc.”
Now there’s some people doing something rather than going on and on about who is or was “song mai ao” and who is more anti-throne than the other and all that crap. Any report on how Hewison’s presentation was received?
So basically, nganadeeleg, you choose the 6 October massacre over a hypothetical “Siamese Rogue”. What about the possibility of Lee Kuan Yew? If we are are judging HMK’s reign hypothetically, then I shall say HMK’s reign could have been much better if he actually were a super genius Buddha.
BTW, there has always been those who are spilling the beans, its just that they are censored, they self-censor, or disappear.
nganadeeleg : “I would be interested to see the evidence you mention concerning your claims about HMK’s involvement in politics. At this stage it looks to me like a conspiracy theory, without any proof.” This seems like one of those set-up questions. I would point to the most recent recent examples of his involvement around the the 1976 events, 1992 uprising, and 2006 coup. And, you will now come back and deny this was “involvement in politics”. But even the palace admits to involvement in times of crisis….
Jim C – definitely – Additionally, for me, High’s position was unclear because of the word ‘poverty’, which I interpreted as a contrived value judgment rather than an objective statement about economic inequality. Was there a survey given to these ethnic groups that was collated to produce a venn diagram that showed a majority of ethnicities thought that they were too ‘poverty’ stricken to decide whether relocation was right for them? Is sentimentality or cynicism toward the land for whomever it concerned a poverty stricken idea?!
Aren’t the individual subjective attitudes of persons within Laos too overwhelming for any sort of conclusion to be made about a political implication for many persons defined here solely by their ethnic group? Especially because relocation and resettlement is a present political issue and not an objective history. Isn’t this therefore saying that politics in Laos is largely defined by ethnic identity and less to do with ideas by people in Laos which transcend ethnicity? I think that a lot of people who try and decipher opinions outside of their local environments end up doing what they detest most, which is underestimating the people whose opinions they are collecting by being able to write an article about the ‘other’.
Why is it that resettlement of people is discussed as though we are architects designing a botanic garden of deciduous ethnicities?
Teth: I would be interested to see the evidence you mention concerning your claims about HMK’s involvement in politics.
At this stage it looks to me like a conspiracy theory, without any proof.
I love conspiracy theories, but after 60 years, surely some insider would have spilled the beans if HMK was as actively involved as some make out – I’m still waiting for the evidence .
Generally I’m not a great fan of any royalty, think the King is nowhere near perfect, and there are lots of things about the Thai extended royalty that frankly give me the shits.
Yes, I concede things could be a lot better, but my gut feeling is that things would have been a lot worse without HMK around.
BTW, I have read The King Never Smiles, and thought it was well researched and a good read.
The strength of these forums is that they provide an ‘anonymous’ space for people to present their ideas and viewpoints without being chastised for them. But if someone’s only contribution to this forum is to chastise others then they should be held to account. Come on “John Hall”, post a reply.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The Lao resettlement controversy
You are right Mariner, complete anonymity is a myth, and it is a struggle and a risk to make any kind of public expression, but I think it is a worthy ideal to uphold and the internet blogsite is still relatively anonymous compared to other forms of media, even in post-coup Thailand. I think it is important because if it was not an option then the only contributions to debates like these would be from prudes like John Hall who gain satisfaction from attacking other contributors for speaking single words out of place and supposedly discrediting them by association with industry.
This may be my final communication regarding this matter but maybe not “exactly”.
Chachoengsao: Celebrating the King’s 80th Birthday
this is an extremely insightful, subtle and interesting deconstruction of what is presently going on in Thailand. please do not stop here but continue on…….
Military sufficiency
So what is it, did the King really sacrifice his life for his country, or is he a political meddler, or is he a coward who is easily forced to do things that HMK in his infinite wisdom and limitless sacrifice should easily stand up against? Or is he still good but misguided? Then why do you trust him so much?
It’s all relative, as I don’t really trust anyone that I have not known personally over a number of years.
Should I trust a politician more?
Which one?
Yes, I do think HMK has sacrificed his life for his country
(would you want to be king?)
As for political meddler or coward, I think only those who personally know HMK have the truth, but from where I sit, the compromise for stability factor [point (a) in my previous post] seems to have been the dominant feature in recent decades.
No doubt the king is a conservative, and I do think the country needs a shake up, but was (is) Thaksin the right person to do it?
Jakrapob says it’s a war between PPP and the military, but I don’t think either side can provide the solution.
The Lao resettlement controversy
In response to Khamtham, above, I have doubts about the degree of anonymity. It is no secret that New Mandala is a site which the Thai ‘authorities’ keep an eye on. For those of us here in the ‘land of smiles’ we have to be pretty careful about what we write -and no I don’t think I being particularly paranoid. There is a new and alarming reality here and the future looks pretty grim.
The heart of political struggle
“I think academia may be starting to feel embarrassed that Thai studies had become a “faith-based” practice.”
They’ll still have to do the hard math.:
a. Cold war body count less than almost anywhere else, especially neighbors like Cambodia, bless my soul.
b. A country that despite being in the middle of political “turmoil,” you’d never recognise it when walking down the street. No violent street protests or conflicts, no deaths except some taxi driver who hung himself in protest (does that really count?)
Compare to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma,…the hard thing will be getting to the next step on the economic ladder, like where South Korea is now, but once Thailand gets there, they’ll be glad they have a King, an institution that seems to fill a gap in the human psyche, look at Burma (lost their king, now they have nasty generals) or South Korea (lost their king, seem to worship their ethnicity or race as a substitute), maybe they should think about loosening up the rules one day and having queens too.
The problem with western academia is that it’s like a broken democracy record, despite the fact that everytime they try to impose it (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam, Russia, that guy before Pol Pot, Lon Nol?) it doesn’t seem to work, and the countries that have found their way to growth led by exports to the west (South Korea, China) have hardly been democratic initially.
The cost of everyone arguing with each other all the time, probably slower growth, albeit greater equity, like in this week’s PTT case.
Military sufficiency
Nganadeeleg,
Like I said previously, it would be wrong to pin the blame on one person, and it is hard to prove the intent of a person as well. But to me, HMK has been a keystone to some events and has given quiet backing in others.
As for evidence, how about when the King visited Thanom when he attempted to return from exile? And the fact that Thanom was ordained at Wat Bovornives? Or his speeches, where he rebukes the students telling them to keep their heads down and study, leaving government to (ironically) the soldiers.
I suspect the Palace is forced overt interventions but not at times of national crises or national danger. Instead, palatial intervention seems to coincide to those times when the Palace’s image is threatened, or an opportunity for furthering the Palace’s barami arrives. Note in the May 1992 talk between Chamlong and Suchinda what the King actually says: I believe it fits into your point (b).
And the “Young Turk” coup? Did Gen Prem not flee into the welcoming arms of the royal family? And the Palace’s close relationship with Sarit?
An irony I would also like to point out: royalists will both say the King has dedicated his life to his country when he did not have to AND the King was forced to do this and do that, he actually didn’t do it! So what is it, did the King really sacrifice his life for his country, or is he a political meddler, or is he a coward who is easily forced to do things that HMK in his infinite wisdom and limitless sacrifice should easily stand up against? Or is he still good but misguided? Then why do you trust him so much?
The Lao resettlement controversy
I think Khamtham is misrepresenting the situation. Richard Jackson initially said that Holly High’s post “exactly” paralleled his own experiences. Since he works on project-related resettlement associated with the Xepon Mine, it was reasonable for me to question whether his experiences really did parallel Holly High’s experiences “exactly”, as he claimed. She has apparently mainly been working with lowland people (with some experiences with the Hmong in Vieng Xay), including resettlement of lowlanders in the Lowlands. Richard Jackson, however, has been working on project-related resettlement with Mon-Khmer language speakers and Phou Thai in the uplands of Savannakhet.
I appreciate Richard Jackson’s explanation. He makes some interesting observations, but it still appears that while he may be aware of other non-project resettlement going on in Vilaboury district, I doubt that he has been directly working on that resettlement, or with the people involved, as that resettlement does not relate to the Xepon Mine. So, in the end I can’t imagine that his experiences “exactly” parallel Holly High’s.
I think that those who post on this blog have the right to contribute whatever information they see fit, provided that they are polite. Khamtham should not try to impose rules on others. It appears that he or she is guilty of the exact thing that he or she has accussed me of. But I just asked for Richard Jackson to provide more information, as did Holly High. It was up to him to either respond or not. We all have that right. He didn’t have to respond.
One last comment: It is interesting that Richard Jackson refers to resettlement as either “voluntary” or “unvoluntary”. This is actually the type of dichotomy that Baird and Shoemaker warn against. They suggest that we need to examine our use of those terms more critically. I agree.
This will be my last communication regarding this matter.
Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
Another great interview with yet another legend in Southeast Asian studies. At some point you are going to have enough of these interviews to publish in one print form or another.
The heart of political struggle
Polo,
I was hard to interpret how Hewison’s presentation was received as they did not go to direct questions afterwards. I don’t recall any questions directed to the most controversial points, either in agreement or not. He did apologize in advance for extreme jet lag and, in my view, several of his unwritten responses seemed to refect this set back.
By the way, The FCCT event launched two books; the journal and Phasuk’s compilation Thai Capital. I have found the second far more readable and interesting. The journal has some fairly provacative titles, but I had a lot of trouble penetrating the articles themselves or finding a unique or compelling storyline. Thai Capital will, I believe, become another of Phasuk and Baker’s must reads.
If I had to identify a single theme running through the event, it might be a warning that the gloves are coming off. I think academia may be starting to feel embarrassed that Thai studies had become a “faith-based” practice.
Military sufficiency
typo above – it should be:
(c) TIT, and no one cares (as long as they can get something for themselves)
Military sufficiency
Teth: Is an LKY as good as it gets?
IMO it probably is, especially in a country where no one seems to be accountable for their actions.
You brought up 1976: How does it make you feel to see Samak as the PPP leader now?
Restorationist brought up 1992: Has Surayud been held to account for his involvement in those events?
Likewise Thaksin’s involvement in the war on drugs.
Thanom, Suchinda etc etc
My request for evidence was a serious question.
I know Handley does present a good case, and the fact that people like Samak, Surayud & Thaksin can be still be such large players is quite damning of not only the country, but also the king.
We all know that HMK gets involved in politics in times of crisis – the big question is whether he is forced into that involvement (for the sake of the country and stability) to compromise between competing elites , or whether he is an active participant helping one side.
I can only put the fact that no one is properly accountable for their actions to one of the following:
(a) deals have to be made to reach the compromise required for stability
(b) The palace makes sure their friends are not punished (even rewards them)
(b) TIT, and no one cares
Tosakan (Fonzi) on his Thailand Jumped the Shark site has a link to an Al Jazeera interview with Abhisit, Jakrapob and someone from The Nation.
IMO the country would be better off taking a chance on Abhisit, than unleashing the likes of Samak on the country, and quite frankly the fact that guys like Jakropob are in bed with people like Samak scares me.
Even if you, Handley & Republican are correct, I would like to know how the election of PPP under Samak (Thaksin) would make things better at this stage?
Military sufficiency
Dear Khun Dickie Simpkins,
I just saw your question above (I don’t visit here everyday). Sorry not having enough time to response properly yet.
The heart of political struggle
Now there’s some people doing something rather than going on and on about who is or was “song mai ao” and who is more anti-throne than the other and all that crap.
How short-sighted some can be! If “all that crap” that you’re referring to is actually the question of what was and is the correct attitude and course of action towards issue of democracy, elected government, the monarchy, etc. , then it’s not crap. In fact, I’d say, anyone’s not patient enough to think through such ‘crap’ can only jump to ‘action’ ‘blindly’. I’d argue that over the past years (last year especially) they DID jump and caused – and HAVE CONTINUED to cause – many harms to the course of Thai democracy.
How would you know that what Hewison , et al. is doing is correct? Actually, I DO have ceertain grave reservations with Hewison’s speech as reported above.
Why, for instance in the above speech, would Hewison refer to “Thaksin period of government, its authoritarianism, its failed policies in the south, its cronyism and its human rights violations” but only to the monarchy simply : “[t]he problem is that this also means that the monarchy – always said to be “above politics” except in times of crisis – is now situated at the heart of ongoing political struggles. ” Why wouldn’t he also mention “its cronyism and its human rights violations” in the latter case too? Because there was not any?
Those who don’t think the issue of “song mai ao” is seriuos will continue to speak and frame their discourse THIS WAY, and in effect help create the idelogical world in which only politicians can be mentioned FREELY, about “human right violations, etc.”
The heart of political struggle
Now there’s some people doing something rather than going on and on about who is or was “song mai ao” and who is more anti-throne than the other and all that crap. Any report on how Hewison’s presentation was received?
Military sufficiency
So basically, nganadeeleg, you choose the 6 October massacre over a hypothetical “Siamese Rogue”. What about the possibility of Lee Kuan Yew? If we are are judging HMK’s reign hypothetically, then I shall say HMK’s reign could have been much better if he actually were a super genius Buddha.
BTW, there has always been those who are spilling the beans, its just that they are censored, they self-censor, or disappear.
Military sufficiency
nganadeeleg : “I would be interested to see the evidence you mention concerning your claims about HMK’s involvement in politics. At this stage it looks to me like a conspiracy theory, without any proof.” This seems like one of those set-up questions. I would point to the most recent recent examples of his involvement around the the 1976 events, 1992 uprising, and 2006 coup. And, you will now come back and deny this was “involvement in politics”. But even the palace admits to involvement in times of crisis….
Internal resettlement in Laos: a response
Jim C – definitely – Additionally, for me, High’s position was unclear because of the word ‘poverty’, which I interpreted as a contrived value judgment rather than an objective statement about economic inequality. Was there a survey given to these ethnic groups that was collated to produce a venn diagram that showed a majority of ethnicities thought that they were too ‘poverty’ stricken to decide whether relocation was right for them? Is sentimentality or cynicism toward the land for whomever it concerned a poverty stricken idea?!
Aren’t the individual subjective attitudes of persons within Laos too overwhelming for any sort of conclusion to be made about a political implication for many persons defined here solely by their ethnic group? Especially because relocation and resettlement is a present political issue and not an objective history. Isn’t this therefore saying that politics in Laos is largely defined by ethnic identity and less to do with ideas by people in Laos which transcend ethnicity? I think that a lot of people who try and decipher opinions outside of their local environments end up doing what they detest most, which is underestimating the people whose opinions they are collecting by being able to write an article about the ‘other’.
Why is it that resettlement of people is discussed as though we are architects designing a botanic garden of deciduous ethnicities?
Military sufficiency
Teth: I would be interested to see the evidence you mention concerning your claims about HMK’s involvement in politics.
At this stage it looks to me like a conspiracy theory, without any proof.
I love conspiracy theories, but after 60 years, surely some insider would have spilled the beans if HMK was as actively involved as some make out – I’m still waiting for the evidence .
Generally I’m not a great fan of any royalty, think the King is nowhere near perfect, and there are lots of things about the Thai extended royalty that frankly give me the shits.
Yes, I concede things could be a lot better, but my gut feeling is that things would have been a lot worse without HMK around.
BTW, I have read The King Never Smiles, and thought it was well researched and a good read.
The Lao resettlement controversy
The strength of these forums is that they provide an ‘anonymous’ space for people to present their ideas and viewpoints without being chastised for them. But if someone’s only contribution to this forum is to chastise others then they should be held to account. Come on “John Hall”, post a reply.
The heart of political struggle
Could Thaksin have been successful if he depended on Thailand’s “poor and dispossessed”? How many voters belong to this group?