Yes, Sidh can be very very around the issue. And while your point-by-point issue wasn’t for me, I couldn’t help but think about the answers for them.
1. The King has a point, we don’t have the industry to manufacture state-of-the-art planes that can be used for strategic defense. Now his ‘falling out of the sky’ has a point too, it is dangerous for our soldiers. And it is completely in the practice of sufficiency to do what you can do safely, and then use the funds to purchase what you can’t.
2. The speech is vague. The target audience didn’t seem to be journos but his rural constituency. This was his most direct speech I can remember regarding disunity. His analogy about the 2 legs was to the point. He wants some type of ‘compromise’ to be worked out, but the man in exile won’t go for it, hence the disunity. Thaksin sees he has a strong mandate from the poor, and is willing to fight on, not for them, but for his interests, and using them as pawns. Everywhere in the world politicians will succumb to some conservatism, even if that conservativeness is just 20-30% of the population, any ‘leader of the majority’ should respect the rights of the minority, for the sake of unity. Hence the onus and responsibility of unity should be on the popular political leader to clearly give up 1-2 issues and not be vague about them. Another point on majority rule, the majority of Americans liked segregation in the 60’s, but that didn’t make it right, or are you telling me it did?
3. I think I answered most of this in point 2 until the word ‘furthermore’. I agree, no popular PM needs to resign. Had Thaksin backed off in 1-2 of the issues, perhaps worked a compromise in the choice of a military general (as he did when sonthi came up) and gave some of the money from Shin-corp sale to charity, we could have avoided this mess.
4. The military should get a ‘slap in the wrist’. The King should speak against coups whenever he gets an opportunity in the future to say that he asked the judges to take care of the mess, and the military came to spoil things. He can call what they did was an ‘honest mistake’ in the name of ‘securing the country against division’; but allow them to be punished as a sign that we no longer accept coups ‘as a way out’ of political conflict. But mostly, I see your validity in point 4.
5. Its back to point 2 for me. The monarchy provides the country a constant figure. Without this figure, I believe that the country will end up being like most 3rd world nations, where we will end up with a Marcos, Suharto, or Mahatir who maybe good for the nation in the short-medium term, but terrible for long term progress. So the ‘understanding’ and the work from the proxies were there, but no concessions were made. What is difficult here is determining exactly what concessions were asked, but I really think it was to back off on the military, hence the speech about the military being the King’s horse, and the government just a jockey.
6. Well, his speeches are not intended to arouse public opinion or create a surge in polls.
Re: Your criticism of Prof. Thongchai:
I always got it. You are castigating him here because you felt that he gave a ‘Royalist Spin’ on the case against the new Lese-Majeste law when you felt that he should’ve or could’ve gone further in analysing LM or being against the LM amendment without using the Royalist version of things. In other words, you state that reading the nation article, one could conclude that Thongchai is Royalist. To his defence, Thongchai stated he used this logic because of the immediate goal of being against the LM amendment.
I don’t think I, or any other poster here is really gone against that logic per se. You never really got to answering the issues in my #102. You nitpicked an issue pretty much for scoring points: ie, you criticised without any offer of an alternative (as grasshoper stated above), and you criticised anonymously inside an academic post slating an academic for not being held to a ‘higher standard’.
Unlike Somsak,
1. You don’t use your real name.
2. You didn’t give a definitive alternative to your criticism. Any food with a keyboard can just type, to prove your “elite academic worthiness” you should’ve followed through your criticism and conclusion with ‘how Thongchai could’ve framed the argument to steer clear of the current LM law, and still be against the amendment.
3. Stating more recently that the best way to be against LM in the long run was to be ‘for’ the expanding powers. I don’t think you had this idea in #100 or you would’ve said it: having said that, it is an interesting concept…
4. Somsak was never attacked while defending you because the premise of the attack against you has been your unfair attack on Thongchai asking him to get to the borderline or committing LM while hiding behind an alias. Somsak however provided concise points, though I disagree, but was a better way for an anti-royalist to attack an anti-royalist than your proud “Oh I found a flaw!” argument.
Thats why my post #102 I avoided discussion of pro or anti-royalist, because that was never my point, and should never have ventured in that direction.
Grasshopper’s second last paragraph says what I want to say, and I wish to join him, pratjoe, srithanonchai fishing.
Republican: “So unlike me you are commanding your intellectual cruise liner on the world’s oceans, right?” >> No, my coconut shell floats rudderless in the imaginative universe if academic “discourses.” Ha!
Truth as a function of a democratic vote?
The people will determine whether he broke the law?
This sounds like Roman politics circa the year zero A.D. (or B.C. ?)
Local officials make up lists of names.
All those names end up dead.
Then the claim that the government didn’t do it.
What is the implication here?
That some unofficial group aligned with government did it.
Perhaps policemen without uniforms.
Perhaps local mafia.
Of course, no one will probe into this matter.
Because they might end up dead too.
Truth = money + a gun, I guess.
Reply to fallingangels #185: Thanks for your comment, the first that actually addresses the problem I raised in #100.
The reason that I do not show my real identity is that if I did I would not be able to say the things that I want to say. I guess you can call that “cowardly”. I just want to write the things that I believe, whether they are right or wrong, and luckily NM and other academic blogs give me a forum to do this, as well as to receive comments and criticisms in return. If you gave me the choice to write in a national newspaper, but I had to use royalist arguments, then I would simply refuse, because I think it is unnecessary and in fact has bad “side-effects”, eg. indirectly giving legitimacy to the lese majeste law and the monarchy. Especially after September 19.
But I don’t accept the argument that if I do not write for the newspapers then I have no right to criticize those who do because I’m not “brave” enough (to write in newspapers using my real name). The problem with the many academics who write for the newspapers and who wield considerable intellectual influence is that in the newspaper medium there is virtually no possibility of their being criticized, apart from a letter to the newspaper which no-one reads anyway. In the seminar room or lecture theatre hardly anyone will dare to criticize the big-name academics, even when they write or say “idiot” things. More criticism of these people is needed, especially when they “play politics”, and that is why the webboards are so important now.
Re. your question “….While you asking someone’s bravery to “insult” the lese majeste law in the “ought-to-be way”, you still hide yourself cowardly?…” Well, I have admitted that I am a coward on this. In #114 I said that *IF* I was beyond the reach of the Thai authorities I would have criticized the role of the monarchy in the coup, and I hoped that other academics who were in a similar position, ie. who did not “have to fear for their safety”, could do so (therefore, not a question of “bravery”). In terms of criticizing the monarchy Handley, McCargo and some others have shown a good example. I hope there are more. And I hope they speak to the “big media” at some stage. But right now I can not.
I think we should accept that most academics are complicit in the monarchy’s abuse of the Thai political system since we know the long list of political abuses and crimes and violations of human rights, but we are too “cowardly” to speak out (me too), because we fear the consequences if we did speak out. There are varying degrees of complicitness; I guess my criticism of Thongchai is that I believe that he went too far in that article.
What annoys me, and Somsak has made this point so many times, is that the academics had no such fear of criticizing Thaksin and his democratically-elected government, hence destabilizing it and paving the way for the royalist coup. That is, they criticized Thaksin because they had nothing to fear, but they were silent on the king, because of their own fear. So thanks to the academics the king retains his false status as morally pure and Thaksin is the demon; ie. the royalists’ discourse. Yet so many of these academics portray themselves as “democrats” and “defenders of the people”, etc. etc. I think that this is a worse hyprocrisy than the hypocrisy of knowing about the monarchy’s abuses but remaining silent.
Reply to Grasshopper # 186. If my views are published on NM then in my view they are already “actualized”, and in the purest form.
On the contrary Kritdikorn, your English is really good.
You say: Why you have to use the “royalist-argument” while you “lebelling” yourself as anti-royalist?
I think this is because many of the people making comments here think that Republican does not counter the royalist argument well enough to really argue for a Thailand with a less powerful monarchy, or even a republic. So they throw the pro royalist argument back at him or her to see the holes in the argument.
So can you accept my words that; The way you had done (esp. in this case), “has done more harm than good to The Anti-Royalists”? (at least, it extends “royalist” power on using “these kind of arguement”.)
Yes. Haha, people picking on each others faults will not lead to an amicable solution.
– You said that, “The lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”
Is this sentense really “what you think”?
In the society that even “Doraemon” is not allow to be screened on the “YELLOW t-shirt” which has the “King Symbol”? Really think so?
I think you direct this toward Thongchai, but I do think that the law has done more harm than good for the monarchy because lese majeste allows for this kind of discussion which is not doing the King’s reputation good on New Mandala. How can a law protecting Royals like this be construed as something other than unjust to people on this site with liberal educations? However, in lots of international media, because of the King’s popularity, the lese majeste law is treated lightly as it is (at least recently) written that the King lets offenders off and deports them-which is not as bad as spending 10-15 years in prison. There seems to be a ‘oh, it is crazy Thailand where there are beautiful beaches and as long as the tourists don’t have to leave’ attitude from these journalists. So maybe if you ask BBC or CNN believers these questions you will get a different answer.
And yes, Republican says “Why would I want to write in the newspapers?” To see your views actualised?! To see many people start thinking about the position of the King? If you don’t really believe in this republican movement Republican, why have you carried this on for over a hundred comments? Or maybe you do believe in it, but are too cowardly to confront it. Would you like someone else to confront the King for you?
I agree with pratjoe. It is much better to go fishing.
Good article.
Thanks for pointing it out.
I liked the line by Thaksin, if you attack me, I will attack you back. He did exactly that to journos when he was PM.
And his passing the blame when asked about the war on drugs…
it seems he loves taking accountability for the good results. If he was really concerned about the high number of deaths, why didn’t he denounce the killing when PM and order an investigation into the trigger happy death squads?
what crap!
It appears that Richard Jackson is a bit mixed up. After doing a little internet search, I found that he works for Oxiana Minerals in relation to their massive gold and copper mine in Xepon district, Savannakhet province. This might be why he failed to provide any details. That being the case, his comment that Holly High’s article parallels his own experiences exactly is misplaced to say the least. According to Baird and Shoemaker, resettlement associated with a project like the one he is involved with would be defined as ‘large development project oriented resettlement’, not the type of internal resettlement that they write about.
I’ve got something that really want to ask both “Mr.Republican’s side” and “Pro.Thongchai’s side”.
Questioning Pro.Thongchai:
– Why you have to use the “royalist-argument” while you “lebelling” yourself as anti-royalist?
– You may say that, it’s not safe to use the “extremely anti-royalist arguement” in Thailand, eventhough it’s still not reasonable enough to use the “royalist-arguement”.
So can you accept my words that; The way you had done (esp. in this case), “has done more harm than good to The Anti-Royalists”? (at least, it extends “royalist” power on using “these kind of arguement”.)
– You said that, “The lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”
Is this sentense really “what you think”?
In the society that even “Doraemon” is not allow to be screened on the “YELLOW t-shirt” which has the “King Symbol”? Really think so?
———
Questioning Mr.Republican:
I am quite agree with your logic that countered Pro.Thongchai’s article.
But I have to question you the same question as others had asked you.
– Why you do not show your REAL IDENTITY in the public (at least in the webboard)? While you asking someone’s bravery to “insult” the lese majeste law in the “ought-to-be way”, you still hide yourself cowardly?
Is that the “ought-to-be way” to ask for some one’s bravery?
———
With Respect.
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. I must be apologize if my english (esp. grammar) annoy you, I am not good in English at all.
Discussion with you, Sidh, is always so exhausting because of the way you tiptoe around everything. So let me be straightforward and let’s discuss things point by point:
1) The King’s speech in Thai is even worse than the Nation’s English translation. He generalizes to the point of absurdity and ignorance, like planes falling. Our Air Force is capable of manufacturing training planes for itself and those aren’t falling. What’s happened to encouraging self-sufficiency then? Or is he just uninformed. I would feel terrible if the King whom I dearly love said the planes I build would fall out of the sky. Either that or admit he’s an old uninformed man. Or, make up an excuse to explain it all away (like the difference between training planes and fighter jets! even though I believe the King himself didn’t consider that).
2) The speech does cause disunity: skillful or not, he should not be expressing his opinion as a constitutional monarch. In your opinion, should he keep emphasizing unity when he himself does not help foster it? Has he ever suggested practical ways to reach unity? If no, his urges are worthless, like how every politician takes five minutes of their time to say, “I agree with the King. I urge for unity” before going off and continuing their campaigns (and rejecting the idea of a unity government).
3) Thaksin very well could have saved himself, but the point still remains that the King rejected a more democratic solution for the coup. Furthermore, why should a PM overwhelming popular with the population resign? On what basis should that happen?
4) The military should be reprimanded for staging the coup in the first place. Given all his soft power and his emphasis on democracy (see his speech to the justices around April of last year) that is what he should be doing. Yet he never mentions it. Truth be told, the title of maharaja should be endowed on King Juan Carlos II, not Bhumibol, who lavished praise on the junta’s government last year, even before they began to prove him monumentally wrong.
5) We here are not confusing hard power with soft power. But “we” know that a certain soft power has had a hand in setting up the present hard power. The way things are done through proxies (Prem, Sonthi) and “understandings” is no different from Thaksin’s dealings with money.
6) As for you considering the long winded, rambling speech to be excellent, no comment except that the King is no great orator. Otherwise they would’ve advertised his genius in speaking long ago.
Reply to #182: Oh that’s great. Declare it’s your last comment “in the coconut bowl” (ie. how ignorant, unworldy and petty I am) then attack me with a sarcastic comment like this.
My position:
If an academic is going to write in a newspaper then DON’T use royalist arguments that will indirectly help legitimize the existing law.
(An example: Just imagine a first-year student reading Thongchai’s article in The Nation. He comes across the statement that one of the problems with the amendment is that “violation of lèse majesté could not be punished”, or “the lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”. He puts this in a term paper, and, because Thongchai is a leading authority in the field, the marker can hardly say he’s wrong. (Who has said he’s wrong, except Republican and Somsak paddling in their coconut bowl?). The student gets an A. The royalist stance receives some more legitimacy. Now think of the thousands of people who may have read the article.)
If academics can not write in the newspapers without making royalist arguments then better not to write in them at all. Unless of course if they are royalists.
If an academic does use royalist arguments in a newspaper then he and others should not be outraged that people question why he should be willing to be seen as a royalist, and criticised for the reasons given above.
In reply to your sarcastic “looking forward”: I have written enough trenchant critiques of lese majeste and other matters here on NM. Why would I want to write in the newspapers?
Wow! Apart from being a very thorough lesson in Thai politics mentioned by jonfernquest, it is almost like being there in person. Thank you Michael and we look forward to the future episodes of the political drama at Chachoengsao!
Here is the link to the original story on the propaganda mission and Somchai’s role (see comments). Although he does not appear to have spoken specifically in support of the coup, joining the program is a strong statement in favor.
On a somewhat related note, Somchai Homlaor seems to engaging in a bout of damage control. In contrast to his previous apparent pro-coup activism reported in the New Mandala’s earlier story on the junta’s Australia PR trip, he now says human rights are just as bad as before and purports to have not approved of the coup.
“Somchai also defended his role right after the coup when he and many activists failed to take to the streets to protest. He said he and his colleagues had made it clear they did not approve of the coup but did not visibly protest because there were groups that stood to gain or lose from the putsch.”
I would recommend reading the Thai transcript to get the whole picture of what the HMK said. If anyone would like to do the speech justice in English, then a word for word translation may work best.
Personally, I thought it was a very good speech covering a wide range of serious issues in a good humored manner: from issues of ‘unity’ (and the comparison to his uncoordinating right and left legs); floods, dams – pluses/minuses, relation to SE; SE and ‘profit’; colors; PMSurayud’s performance; his sister’s health; his time in hospital; energy issues and bio-diesel (“go for 100%”); military spending and military hardware (as well as the its usefulness of in times of environmental crisis; “build our own boats but not aircraft as they will fall”!). One of the many interesting remarks was about ‘state secrets’ (when talking about military spending) being the ‘worse kept secrets’!
Teth thought the ambiguity leads to different interpretations and thus ‘disunity’. I think it is actually a skillful way in giving his opinion but at the same time to be seen as not taking sides. If there are reprimands (of which the military recieved its fair share this time), it is not delivered in a way that puts people down.
(Maybe to be more objective, NM could post military spending across the region – budget-wise, as percentage of GDP…etc. I am not asking NM to go as far as comparing capabilities like how does the Swedish Gripens bought by the airforce compares to MiG29’s ordered Myanmar… I personally don’t subscribe to excessive military spending – but I suspect it is a global condition. I remember reading an article a year or so ago that military spending worldwide has been on the increasing trend for a long time…)
Tosakan and Taxi-driver, PMChuan’s second government must be the first civilian government to try to ‘professionalize’ the military and take it away from politics (the first ‘military’ government to try to break the military from politics was PMPrem – otherwise, for one, GenChavalit will not become PM through party politics, but via a coup). He was the first civilian minister of defence who promoted GenSurayud, with 4-5 years before retiring to the top post, breaking with the army’s penchant for seniority. The civilian government that followed, a much more powerful one with a stronger mandate, had a chance to take reform much much further. PMThaksin instead meddled and politicized the security forces (both police and army), and with the ‘winner takes all’ attitude mentioned by Nganadeeleg, paid dearly for his karma (he is paying a lot now to get it all back, and this time had to use his own money to buy a Primier League team).
Teth, to continue from Nganadeeleg’s comments, if PMThaksin had resigned and install the very popular and capable Deputy PM Somkid – almost everyone would be happy. If he paid his taxes or contribute a sizable chunk to charity, almost everyone would be happy too. TRT members could have stood up to him as Nganadeeleg mentioned, but TRT is not a ‘public’ political party but functions as a ‘private’ political extension of ShinCorp business empire (many in NM might still disagree), that wasn’t possible.
Many in NM are confusing ‘soft power’ (HMK) with ‘hard power’ (PMThaksin). I think that is hampering meaningful dialogue on Thai democracy. The closest HMK got to ‘hard power’ is when ParPrem was PM. Do a detail biography of PMPrem or just focus on his tenure as PM to track HMK’s indirect influence. On the other hand, that is all history now (still worth investigation nonetheless) – the major players today is a whole different generation (except for Samak!)…
Yes Nganadeeleg, “Citizen Dog” is a powerful movie, both in imagery and satirical content – but in a too abstract way to be a hit at the box-office (his “The Unseen” is a more direct, ‘traditional’ ghost story which I really enjoyed).
I think the ‘Talok Cafe’ crew are naturally more adept at communicating to the Thai masses. Ok, they produce lots of terrible (but makes heaps of money stuff, especially if it feels ‘straight from the stage’) – but once in a while they produce gems (or even ‘moments’ within the film) that conveys sharp, critical observations of societal conditions. I personally think Mum and Jaturon Jokmok are great talents to watch – especially if they ‘get their own way’. However, they might be too specific, too local to effectively communicate with the international audiences. (some movies I like from this crowd so far: Mum’s lead role in “Midnight my love”, his movie “Yam Yasothon”; Jaturon’s movies – “Koy teh Yom”, “Toot soo fat” (the latter a straightforward Chinese triad comedy – but done very well)…
Thank you for this very complete and thorough lesson in Thai politics. The references/citations are particularly nice, drawing attention to things overlooked.
Nice attempt at a put-down Srithanonchai (#181). So unlike me you are commanding your intellectual cruise liner on the world’s oceans, right?
As I said above, I would have let this subject drop way back, but (i) Thongchai attacked me on another webboard instead of debating me here, and (ii) some posters on this blog had some questions about my argument.
Where I come from it’s good manners to reply when questioned.
Absolutely my last comment on the debate in this coconut bowl.
Republican (180): of course the implication is something I draw. How could it be otherwise? I am pleased to accept that you do not think that Thongchai is a royalist and that you feel that this particular article in the Nation was logically flawed. I can agree with those basic points. I now look forward to your new articles in newspapers and journals that provide a detailed and trenchant critique of the lese majeste law. Do let us know when they appear!
Bhumibol then returned to Switzerland in order to complete his education, and his uncle, Rangsit, Prince of Chainat, was appointed Prince Regent. Bhumibol switched over his field of study to law and political science in order to prepare himself more effectively for his new position as ruler.
From wikipedia and from numerous sources I have read (but cannot cite right now). Perhaps he did not graduate but merely changed his course. However, I have heard (from Thai “documentaries”) that HMK returned to Switzerland to finish a degree in political science before becoming formally coronated.
Not to mention all the honorary titles he receives…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Military sufficiency
Teth,
Yes, Sidh can be very very around the issue. And while your point-by-point issue wasn’t for me, I couldn’t help but think about the answers for them.
1. The King has a point, we don’t have the industry to manufacture state-of-the-art planes that can be used for strategic defense. Now his ‘falling out of the sky’ has a point too, it is dangerous for our soldiers. And it is completely in the practice of sufficiency to do what you can do safely, and then use the funds to purchase what you can’t.
2. The speech is vague. The target audience didn’t seem to be journos but his rural constituency. This was his most direct speech I can remember regarding disunity. His analogy about the 2 legs was to the point. He wants some type of ‘compromise’ to be worked out, but the man in exile won’t go for it, hence the disunity. Thaksin sees he has a strong mandate from the poor, and is willing to fight on, not for them, but for his interests, and using them as pawns. Everywhere in the world politicians will succumb to some conservatism, even if that conservativeness is just 20-30% of the population, any ‘leader of the majority’ should respect the rights of the minority, for the sake of unity. Hence the onus and responsibility of unity should be on the popular political leader to clearly give up 1-2 issues and not be vague about them. Another point on majority rule, the majority of Americans liked segregation in the 60’s, but that didn’t make it right, or are you telling me it did?
3. I think I answered most of this in point 2 until the word ‘furthermore’. I agree, no popular PM needs to resign. Had Thaksin backed off in 1-2 of the issues, perhaps worked a compromise in the choice of a military general (as he did when sonthi came up) and gave some of the money from Shin-corp sale to charity, we could have avoided this mess.
4. The military should get a ‘slap in the wrist’. The King should speak against coups whenever he gets an opportunity in the future to say that he asked the judges to take care of the mess, and the military came to spoil things. He can call what they did was an ‘honest mistake’ in the name of ‘securing the country against division’; but allow them to be punished as a sign that we no longer accept coups ‘as a way out’ of political conflict. But mostly, I see your validity in point 4.
5. Its back to point 2 for me. The monarchy provides the country a constant figure. Without this figure, I believe that the country will end up being like most 3rd world nations, where we will end up with a Marcos, Suharto, or Mahatir who maybe good for the nation in the short-medium term, but terrible for long term progress. So the ‘understanding’ and the work from the proxies were there, but no concessions were made. What is difficult here is determining exactly what concessions were asked, but I really think it was to back off on the military, hence the speech about the military being the King’s horse, and the government just a jockey.
6. Well, his speeches are not intended to arouse public opinion or create a surge in polls.
The King Never Smiles?
Republican,
Re: Your criticism of Prof. Thongchai:
I always got it. You are castigating him here because you felt that he gave a ‘Royalist Spin’ on the case against the new Lese-Majeste law when you felt that he should’ve or could’ve gone further in analysing LM or being against the LM amendment without using the Royalist version of things. In other words, you state that reading the nation article, one could conclude that Thongchai is Royalist. To his defence, Thongchai stated he used this logic because of the immediate goal of being against the LM amendment.
I don’t think I, or any other poster here is really gone against that logic per se. You never really got to answering the issues in my #102. You nitpicked an issue pretty much for scoring points: ie, you criticised without any offer of an alternative (as grasshoper stated above), and you criticised anonymously inside an academic post slating an academic for not being held to a ‘higher standard’.
Unlike Somsak,
1. You don’t use your real name.
2. You didn’t give a definitive alternative to your criticism. Any food with a keyboard can just type, to prove your “elite academic worthiness” you should’ve followed through your criticism and conclusion with ‘how Thongchai could’ve framed the argument to steer clear of the current LM law, and still be against the amendment.
3. Stating more recently that the best way to be against LM in the long run was to be ‘for’ the expanding powers. I don’t think you had this idea in #100 or you would’ve said it: having said that, it is an interesting concept…
4. Somsak was never attacked while defending you because the premise of the attack against you has been your unfair attack on Thongchai asking him to get to the borderline or committing LM while hiding behind an alias. Somsak however provided concise points, though I disagree, but was a better way for an anti-royalist to attack an anti-royalist than your proud “Oh I found a flaw!” argument.
Thats why my post #102 I avoided discussion of pro or anti-royalist, because that was never my point, and should never have ventured in that direction.
Grasshopper’s second last paragraph says what I want to say, and I wish to join him, pratjoe, srithanonchai fishing.
The King Never Smiles?
Republican: “So unlike me you are commanding your intellectual cruise liner on the world’s oceans, right?” >> No, my coconut shell floats rudderless in the imaginative universe if academic “discourses.” Ha!
Thaksin speaks his mind
“Can he beat them? ‘Oh, easy,’ he grins.”
Truth as a function of a democratic vote?
The people will determine whether he broke the law?
This sounds like Roman politics circa the year zero A.D. (or B.C. ?)
Local officials make up lists of names.
All those names end up dead.
Then the claim that the government didn’t do it.
What is the implication here?
That some unofficial group aligned with government did it.
Perhaps policemen without uniforms.
Perhaps local mafia.
Of course, no one will probe into this matter.
Because they might end up dead too.
Truth = money + a gun, I guess.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to fallingangels #185: Thanks for your comment, the first that actually addresses the problem I raised in #100.
The reason that I do not show my real identity is that if I did I would not be able to say the things that I want to say. I guess you can call that “cowardly”. I just want to write the things that I believe, whether they are right or wrong, and luckily NM and other academic blogs give me a forum to do this, as well as to receive comments and criticisms in return. If you gave me the choice to write in a national newspaper, but I had to use royalist arguments, then I would simply refuse, because I think it is unnecessary and in fact has bad “side-effects”, eg. indirectly giving legitimacy to the lese majeste law and the monarchy. Especially after September 19.
But I don’t accept the argument that if I do not write for the newspapers then I have no right to criticize those who do because I’m not “brave” enough (to write in newspapers using my real name). The problem with the many academics who write for the newspapers and who wield considerable intellectual influence is that in the newspaper medium there is virtually no possibility of their being criticized, apart from a letter to the newspaper which no-one reads anyway. In the seminar room or lecture theatre hardly anyone will dare to criticize the big-name academics, even when they write or say “idiot” things. More criticism of these people is needed, especially when they “play politics”, and that is why the webboards are so important now.
Re. your question “….While you asking someone’s bravery to “insult” the lese majeste law in the “ought-to-be way”, you still hide yourself cowardly?…” Well, I have admitted that I am a coward on this. In #114 I said that *IF* I was beyond the reach of the Thai authorities I would have criticized the role of the monarchy in the coup, and I hoped that other academics who were in a similar position, ie. who did not “have to fear for their safety”, could do so (therefore, not a question of “bravery”). In terms of criticizing the monarchy Handley, McCargo and some others have shown a good example. I hope there are more. And I hope they speak to the “big media” at some stage. But right now I can not.
I think we should accept that most academics are complicit in the monarchy’s abuse of the Thai political system since we know the long list of political abuses and crimes and violations of human rights, but we are too “cowardly” to speak out (me too), because we fear the consequences if we did speak out. There are varying degrees of complicitness; I guess my criticism of Thongchai is that I believe that he went too far in that article.
What annoys me, and Somsak has made this point so many times, is that the academics had no such fear of criticizing Thaksin and his democratically-elected government, hence destabilizing it and paving the way for the royalist coup. That is, they criticized Thaksin because they had nothing to fear, but they were silent on the king, because of their own fear. So thanks to the academics the king retains his false status as morally pure and Thaksin is the demon; ie. the royalists’ discourse. Yet so many of these academics portray themselves as “democrats” and “defenders of the people”, etc. etc. I think that this is a worse hyprocrisy than the hypocrisy of knowing about the monarchy’s abuses but remaining silent.
Reply to Grasshopper # 186. If my views are published on NM then in my view they are already “actualized”, and in the purest form.
The King Never Smiles?
On the contrary Kritdikorn, your English is really good.
You say: Why you have to use the “royalist-argument” while you “lebelling” yourself as anti-royalist?
I think this is because many of the people making comments here think that Republican does not counter the royalist argument well enough to really argue for a Thailand with a less powerful monarchy, or even a republic. So they throw the pro royalist argument back at him or her to see the holes in the argument.
So can you accept my words that; The way you had done (esp. in this case), “has done more harm than good to The Anti-Royalists”? (at least, it extends “royalist” power on using “these kind of arguement”.)
Yes. Haha, people picking on each others faults will not lead to an amicable solution.
– You said that, “The lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”
Is this sentense really “what you think”?
In the society that even “Doraemon” is not allow to be screened on the “YELLOW t-shirt” which has the “King Symbol”? Really think so?
I think you direct this toward Thongchai, but I do think that the law has done more harm than good for the monarchy because lese majeste allows for this kind of discussion which is not doing the King’s reputation good on New Mandala. How can a law protecting Royals like this be construed as something other than unjust to people on this site with liberal educations? However, in lots of international media, because of the King’s popularity, the lese majeste law is treated lightly as it is (at least recently) written that the King lets offenders off and deports them-which is not as bad as spending 10-15 years in prison. There seems to be a ‘oh, it is crazy Thailand where there are beautiful beaches and as long as the tourists don’t have to leave’ attitude from these journalists. So maybe if you ask BBC or CNN believers these questions you will get a different answer.
And yes, Republican says “Why would I want to write in the newspapers?” To see your views actualised?! To see many people start thinking about the position of the King? If you don’t really believe in this republican movement Republican, why have you carried this on for over a hundred comments? Or maybe you do believe in it, but are too cowardly to confront it. Would you like someone else to confront the King for you?
I agree with pratjoe. It is much better to go fishing.
Thaksin speaks his mind
Good article.
Thanks for pointing it out.
I liked the line by Thaksin, if you attack me, I will attack you back. He did exactly that to journos when he was PM.
And his passing the blame when asked about the war on drugs…
it seems he loves taking accountability for the good results. If he was really concerned about the high number of deaths, why didn’t he denounce the killing when PM and order an investigation into the trigger happy death squads?
what crap!
The Lao resettlement controversy
It appears that Richard Jackson is a bit mixed up. After doing a little internet search, I found that he works for Oxiana Minerals in relation to their massive gold and copper mine in Xepon district, Savannakhet province. This might be why he failed to provide any details. That being the case, his comment that Holly High’s article parallels his own experiences exactly is misplaced to say the least. According to Baird and Shoemaker, resettlement associated with a project like the one he is involved with would be defined as ‘large development project oriented resettlement’, not the type of internal resettlement that they write about.
The King Never Smiles?
I’ve got something that really want to ask both “Mr.Republican’s side” and “Pro.Thongchai’s side”.
Questioning Pro.Thongchai:
– Why you have to use the “royalist-argument” while you “lebelling” yourself as anti-royalist?
– You may say that, it’s not safe to use the “extremely anti-royalist arguement” in Thailand, eventhough it’s still not reasonable enough to use the “royalist-arguement”.
So can you accept my words that; The way you had done (esp. in this case), “has done more harm than good to The Anti-Royalists”? (at least, it extends “royalist” power on using “these kind of arguement”.)
– You said that, “The lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”
Is this sentense really “what you think”?
In the society that even “Doraemon” is not allow to be screened on the “YELLOW t-shirt” which has the “King Symbol”? Really think so?
———
Questioning Mr.Republican:
I am quite agree with your logic that countered Pro.Thongchai’s article.
But I have to question you the same question as others had asked you.
– Why you do not show your REAL IDENTITY in the public (at least in the webboard)? While you asking someone’s bravery to “insult” the lese majeste law in the “ought-to-be way”, you still hide yourself cowardly?
Is that the “ought-to-be way” to ask for some one’s bravery?
———
With Respect.
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. I must be apologize if my english (esp. grammar) annoy you, I am not good in English at all.
Military sufficiency
Discussion with you, Sidh, is always so exhausting because of the way you tiptoe around everything. So let me be straightforward and let’s discuss things point by point:
1) The King’s speech in Thai is even worse than the Nation’s English translation. He generalizes to the point of absurdity and ignorance, like planes falling. Our Air Force is capable of manufacturing training planes for itself and those aren’t falling. What’s happened to encouraging self-sufficiency then? Or is he just uninformed. I would feel terrible if the King whom I dearly love said the planes I build would fall out of the sky. Either that or admit he’s an old uninformed man. Or, make up an excuse to explain it all away (like the difference between training planes and fighter jets! even though I believe the King himself didn’t consider that).
2) The speech does cause disunity: skillful or not, he should not be expressing his opinion as a constitutional monarch. In your opinion, should he keep emphasizing unity when he himself does not help foster it? Has he ever suggested practical ways to reach unity? If no, his urges are worthless, like how every politician takes five minutes of their time to say, “I agree with the King. I urge for unity” before going off and continuing their campaigns (and rejecting the idea of a unity government).
3) Thaksin very well could have saved himself, but the point still remains that the King rejected a more democratic solution for the coup. Furthermore, why should a PM overwhelming popular with the population resign? On what basis should that happen?
4) The military should be reprimanded for staging the coup in the first place. Given all his soft power and his emphasis on democracy (see his speech to the justices around April of last year) that is what he should be doing. Yet he never mentions it. Truth be told, the title of maharaja should be endowed on King Juan Carlos II, not Bhumibol, who lavished praise on the junta’s government last year, even before they began to prove him monumentally wrong.
5) We here are not confusing hard power with soft power. But “we” know that a certain soft power has had a hand in setting up the present hard power. The way things are done through proxies (Prem, Sonthi) and “understandings” is no different from Thaksin’s dealings with money.
6) As for you considering the long winded, rambling speech to be excellent, no comment except that the King is no great orator. Otherwise they would’ve advertised his genius in speaking long ago.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to #182: Oh that’s great. Declare it’s your last comment “in the coconut bowl” (ie. how ignorant, unworldy and petty I am) then attack me with a sarcastic comment like this.
My position:
If an academic is going to write in a newspaper then DON’T use royalist arguments that will indirectly help legitimize the existing law.
(An example: Just imagine a first-year student reading Thongchai’s article in The Nation. He comes across the statement that one of the problems with the amendment is that “violation of lèse majesté could not be punished”, or “the lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”. He puts this in a term paper, and, because Thongchai is a leading authority in the field, the marker can hardly say he’s wrong. (Who has said he’s wrong, except Republican and Somsak paddling in their coconut bowl?). The student gets an A. The royalist stance receives some more legitimacy. Now think of the thousands of people who may have read the article.)
If academics can not write in the newspapers without making royalist arguments then better not to write in them at all. Unless of course if they are royalists.
If an academic does use royalist arguments in a newspaper then he and others should not be outraged that people question why he should be willing to be seen as a royalist, and criticised for the reasons given above.
In reply to your sarcastic “looking forward”: I have written enough trenchant critiques of lese majeste and other matters here on NM. Why would I want to write in the newspapers?
Chachoengsao: Candidacies Confirmed
Wow! Apart from being a very thorough lesson in Thai politics mentioned by jonfernquest, it is almost like being there in person. Thank you Michael and we look forward to the future episodes of the political drama at Chachoengsao!
Thailand’s ‘‘Good Coup’’: the Fall of Thaksin, the Military and Democracy
Here is the link to the original story on the propaganda mission and Somchai’s role (see comments). Although he does not appear to have spoken specifically in support of the coup, joining the program is a strong statement in favor.
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2007/08/23/a-loose-cannon-in-the-war-room/#more-1438
Thailand’s ‘‘Good Coup’’: the Fall of Thaksin, the Military and Democracy
On a somewhat related note, Somchai Homlaor seems to engaging in a bout of damage control. In contrast to his previous apparent pro-coup activism reported in the New Mandala’s earlier story on the junta’s Australia PR trip, he now says human rights are just as bad as before and purports to have not approved of the coup.
“Somchai also defended his role right after the coup when he and many activists failed to take to the streets to protest. He said he and his colleagues had made it clear they did not approve of the coup but did not visibly protest because there were groups that stood to gain or lose from the putsch.”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/12/10/national/national_30038459.php
Military sufficiency
I would recommend reading the Thai transcript to get the whole picture of what the HMK said. If anyone would like to do the speech justice in English, then a word for word translation may work best.
Personally, I thought it was a very good speech covering a wide range of serious issues in a good humored manner: from issues of ‘unity’ (and the comparison to his uncoordinating right and left legs); floods, dams – pluses/minuses, relation to SE; SE and ‘profit’; colors; PMSurayud’s performance; his sister’s health; his time in hospital; energy issues and bio-diesel (“go for 100%”); military spending and military hardware (as well as the its usefulness of in times of environmental crisis; “build our own boats but not aircraft as they will fall”!). One of the many interesting remarks was about ‘state secrets’ (when talking about military spending) being the ‘worse kept secrets’!
Teth thought the ambiguity leads to different interpretations and thus ‘disunity’. I think it is actually a skillful way in giving his opinion but at the same time to be seen as not taking sides. If there are reprimands (of which the military recieved its fair share this time), it is not delivered in a way that puts people down.
(Maybe to be more objective, NM could post military spending across the region – budget-wise, as percentage of GDP…etc. I am not asking NM to go as far as comparing capabilities like how does the Swedish Gripens bought by the airforce compares to MiG29’s ordered Myanmar… I personally don’t subscribe to excessive military spending – but I suspect it is a global condition. I remember reading an article a year or so ago that military spending worldwide has been on the increasing trend for a long time…)
Tosakan and Taxi-driver, PMChuan’s second government must be the first civilian government to try to ‘professionalize’ the military and take it away from politics (the first ‘military’ government to try to break the military from politics was PMPrem – otherwise, for one, GenChavalit will not become PM through party politics, but via a coup). He was the first civilian minister of defence who promoted GenSurayud, with 4-5 years before retiring to the top post, breaking with the army’s penchant for seniority. The civilian government that followed, a much more powerful one with a stronger mandate, had a chance to take reform much much further. PMThaksin instead meddled and politicized the security forces (both police and army), and with the ‘winner takes all’ attitude mentioned by Nganadeeleg, paid dearly for his karma (he is paying a lot now to get it all back, and this time had to use his own money to buy a Primier League team).
Teth, to continue from Nganadeeleg’s comments, if PMThaksin had resigned and install the very popular and capable Deputy PM Somkid – almost everyone would be happy. If he paid his taxes or contribute a sizable chunk to charity, almost everyone would be happy too. TRT members could have stood up to him as Nganadeeleg mentioned, but TRT is not a ‘public’ political party but functions as a ‘private’ political extension of ShinCorp business empire (many in NM might still disagree), that wasn’t possible.
Many in NM are confusing ‘soft power’ (HMK) with ‘hard power’ (PMThaksin). I think that is hampering meaningful dialogue on Thai democracy. The closest HMK got to ‘hard power’ is when ParPrem was PM. Do a detail biography of PMPrem or just focus on his tenure as PM to track HMK’s indirect influence. On the other hand, that is all history now (still worth investigation nonetheless) – the major players today is a whole different generation (except for Samak!)…
Thinking like a Thai Army general
Yes Nganadeeleg, “Citizen Dog” is a powerful movie, both in imagery and satirical content – but in a too abstract way to be a hit at the box-office (his “The Unseen” is a more direct, ‘traditional’ ghost story which I really enjoyed).
I think the ‘Talok Cafe’ crew are naturally more adept at communicating to the Thai masses. Ok, they produce lots of terrible (but makes heaps of money stuff, especially if it feels ‘straight from the stage’) – but once in a while they produce gems (or even ‘moments’ within the film) that conveys sharp, critical observations of societal conditions. I personally think Mum and Jaturon Jokmok are great talents to watch – especially if they ‘get their own way’. However, they might be too specific, too local to effectively communicate with the international audiences. (some movies I like from this crowd so far: Mum’s lead role in “Midnight my love”, his movie “Yam Yasothon”; Jaturon’s movies – “Koy teh Yom”, “Toot soo fat” (the latter a straightforward Chinese triad comedy – but done very well)…
Chachoengsao: Candidacies Confirmed
Thank you for this very complete and thorough lesson in Thai politics. The references/citations are particularly nice, drawing attention to things overlooked.
The King Never Smiles?
Nice attempt at a put-down Srithanonchai (#181). So unlike me you are commanding your intellectual cruise liner on the world’s oceans, right?
As I said above, I would have let this subject drop way back, but (i) Thongchai attacked me on another webboard instead of debating me here, and (ii) some posters on this blog had some questions about my argument.
Where I come from it’s good manners to reply when questioned.
The King Never Smiles?
Absolutely my last comment on the debate in this coconut bowl.
Republican (180): of course the implication is something I draw. How could it be otherwise? I am pleased to accept that you do not think that Thongchai is a royalist and that you feel that this particular article in the Nation was logically flawed. I can agree with those basic points. I now look forward to your new articles in newspapers and journals that provide a detailed and trenchant critique of the lese majeste law. Do let us know when they appear!
Military sufficiency
Bhumibol then returned to Switzerland in order to complete his education, and his uncle, Rangsit, Prince of Chainat, was appointed Prince Regent. Bhumibol switched over his field of study to law and political science in order to prepare himself more effectively for his new position as ruler.
From wikipedia and from numerous sources I have read (but cannot cite right now). Perhaps he did not graduate but merely changed his course. However, I have heard (from Thai “documentaries”) that HMK returned to Switzerland to finish a degree in political science before becoming formally coronated.
Not to mention all the honorary titles he receives…