I suggest a “thought-experiment”. Read Thongchai’s article without thinking it’s Thongchai’s. And ask yourself whether such phrases/sentences are valid from the standpoint of non- or anti- royalism:
“This is a blunt affront to the monarchy, to tradition…”
“…The amendment bill may be in breach of l?se majest? itself…”
“…Imagine if such a person did something that injured the reputation and status of the monarchy, he would still be protected by the amended l?se majest? law. In other words, his violation of l?se majest? could not be punished, …”
“…Yet they cannot be punished, even when they do harm to the monarchy….”
“…The l?se majest? law has done more harm than good to the monarchy….”
etc.
To me, such phrases/sentences make sense if they come from someone who wants to PROTECT the monarchy from abuses by those surrounding it (Prem?) or acting in its name, someone like Sulak Sivalak, for instance. But from non- or anti- royalist standpoint, they are, first of all, untrue, and more importantly, unneccessary and harmful. Why would a non- or anti- royalist care if there’s an affront to the monarchy anyway? Why would s/he care that violators of less majesty law could not be punished!? Shouldn’t a non- or anti- royalist point out HOW GOOD the law has been to the monarchy instead?
Now Thongchai isn’t a royalist. I NEVER said he is. (His continued charge that I did is quite bizarre.) Nor did Republican, as far as I ever read his writings. But what Republican in this case points out is Thongchai, for some unknown reason, uses the same kind of arguments a liberal Royalist (like Sulak) wold use. Such arguments, again from the standpoint of non- or anti- royalism, are untrue, unnecessary and harmful (appearing in The Nation for all places!).
Tosakan : “I don’t subscribe to Republican’s “you are either with us or against us” reasoning.”
While I ageee with much of what Tosakan writes, I disagree with such attribution to Repulican’s reasoning. For me it shoud be something like “If you are against them, why on earth did you use argument in their favour, or similiar to theirs?”
I find it incredulous that anyone doubts there is an HIV/AIDS epidemic when scientists and doctors, who are undoubtedly much more qualified than yourself and your dilettante conspiracy theories are saying there is one!
For your information, no one would know when a retrovirus has bit their ass unless properly isolated and detected with appropriate instruments. The clinical implications, however, are clear enough. The fact that HART has been clinically tested to work also shows that there is a certain set of patients who are being correctly categorized and are being correctly treated. Do you understand the biochemical mechanism in which HART interferes with viral reproduction (which categorises it as a retrovirus)? Or will you continue to deny that “medical men” would be unable to spot a retrovirus if it bit them on the ass? Seeing as you yourself have not even managed to remember the presentation of HIV infection nor understood the subtlety or its clinical presentation.
For you information, the CDC defines AIDS using a defined CD4 count, but previously defined AIDS through progression of associated ‘diseases’, which constitute the syndrome. Be sure you understand the definition of a syndrome versus a disease. Tens of thousands did not acquire AIDS overnight unless they already had corresponding presentations of the syndrome, which means they are not ten thousand new people. What’s more, the widened net probably has helped discovered more people who need the treatment.
For you information, HIV RNA has been isolated. Surely the character of the discoverer of HIV will have no effect on such microbiological standards? Let me repeat that, the genetic material of the virus has been isolated and identified.
For your information, as with all medical tests (and as with all things in life), there is a statistical margin of error. ELISA and Western blots alone do not diagnose HIV, it is a combination of both tests that gives an extremely accurate diagnosis for HIV antibodies. 0.0004% to 0.0007% false positive rates and 0.003% false negative rates. Better than the efficacy of condoms.
For your information, if the patient has seroconverted and there is evidence of HIV antibodies, that is a positive result.
For your information, there is a vaccine available worldwide for protection against the most common HPV strain, a virus which, causes cervical cancer. Many more viruses are also implicated as a cause of cancers. If you want to quote scientific papers, why not quote them all.
The world has gone mad when they can’t trust the verifiable, experimentally proven, observable world of the microbiologist/biochemist.
This rebuke brought to you courtesy of major wikipedia pages, all of which are well referenced and have been put through thorough vetting.
Judy was a champion of our better understanding of Thailand in particular, and of S.E.Asia more generally. I remember when she interviewed me at Bush House apropos a book I wrote about Vietnam. Was I aware, she asked afterwards, that my film star cicerone in Saigon, Sau Dang, was in fact a Lt.Col. in Vietnam’s military intelligence? No, I answered, but how do you know that? It’s my job to know, she answered. Was she also a spook? Who cares. She was among the brghtest and the best of my country’s kind. JW
Teth: So, if you or I had shares in SCB, would we be aiding and abetting Thaksin to avoid tax ?
I also suggest you re-read the ‘ridiculous statements’ I made in italics, bearing in mind one of the main propositions of Handley’s book, and also the fact that I preceded the statements with the following:
“……..the following statements, which IMO should be repeated as far and wide as possible over the next 60 years“
nganadeeleg states: “Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.”
As I understand it, a case can and has been made in the Thai courts a number of times. The problem is that several courts have made several contradictory decisions effectively meaning that the Crown Property Bureau is neither state enterprise nor private enterprise. This legal disarray means that nothing is clear.
I don’t know why people here keep picking on Republican, especially for his style or personality, when that has no bearing on his post concerning Thongchai’s lese majeste article in The Nation.
From my perspective, I think there is some faulty reasoning in the article. Also, it was a sloppily written piece, especially in lieu of the clarifications Thongchai has written in his last post here, which I totally agree with.
With that being said, I don’t subscribe to Republican’s “you are either with us or against us” reasoning.
I don’t think it is fair to attack others just because they are not radical. The reality is that if Thai academics were as radical and as outspoken in public as Republican is online their lives would be in danger. I don’t think this threat is imaginary. The fact that this threat exists in 2007 is sad and pathetic. And maybe Thai academics should do more to alleviate the threat rather than cowing to it. Since it is a matter of life and death, however, I am sympathetic, especially when so many Thai intellectuals have been slaughtered, jailed and exiled over the last 75 years in the name of protecting the monarchy.
Yet, I think it is fair to criticize Thai academics for hypocrisy, selfishness, bad writing and poorly made arguments.
And an academic who hides behind lese majeste because he is a “bad” scholar for producing shoddy work should be criticized!
I think if a Thai academic writes a piece for a newspaper, or whatever, then the argument should be clear and defensible.
If a critic like Republican doesn’t believe that the article is clear and defensible, I see no problems with him pointing that out, and I think it is absurd for attacking him for just being a critic or his style of criticism. In a democratic society, a critic should not be given a litmus test for criticism other than his own words. In other words, just because Republican writes anonymously or has less than a charming personality, does that mean what he writes isn’t valid? Conversely, Thongchai has the right to refute Republican’s criticism. Shouldn’t political discourse be judged by the arguments being made and the policies that result from them rather than by the personalities who are making them?
I don’t agree with everything Republican writes or some of his conclusions, but I support his right to criticize and push the boundaries, even if that makes people uneasy or pisses them off. I say, more power to him.
I don’t think his intent is to score points; I think his intent is to wake people up. Hell, if only 10,000 Thais had the same passion and commitment as he does to Thailand’s democratic development, the country would be far better off.
Lastly, I don’t blame Republican for being just a little angry and bitter when a military cabal overthrew the government with full backing from the palace, capriciously disenfranchising 65 million Thai people, while most of the Thai academy put on their yellow shirts, defended the coup and actually sought professional benefits for supporting it.
I don’t think Thongchai is part of this group, but I think there is certain complacency about lese majeste (even a reformed version), which prevents historians, political scientists, journalists from doing any real work on analyzing the monarchy, especially the 9th reign, and the impact it has had on Thailand’s democratic development.
“How, then, would one justify not supporting an elected PM in face of royalist assault?”
I don’t think anyone has argued the “song mai ao” argument very well, but here’s a little thought on it: when one sees the democratic system being undermined from within (Thaksin) one can seek out another force that one thinks will be a better protector of the system (the monarchy). This is a logical response if one believes/concludes that the monarchy accepts and protects its co-existence with the elected parliament and government. TKNS of course argues this is not the case, but most people in Thailand have not been privy to its conclusions, and they are more likely to accept the throne as a defender of democracy. They just get a little shock when they remember too late that it all involves the military.
So perhaps there is blame to be put on people’s weak thinking when they turn back to the throne to counter a possible-dictator. A real “song mai ao” position doesn’t solve the problem — it just hangs in the middle, waiting for someone (the army) to act.
Then, unlike Somsak and Republican who focus on academics, I would pin the real blame on folks like the Democrats for conceding the fight with their lame boycott rather than doing the hard work of working the public and fighting through elections to prove the system can work. In a democracy, politicians, even in the opposition, have to provide leadership. The Wimpocrats folded, and are now waiting for the hand of Prem to make Aphisit PM.
As for academics who criticize, I don’t understand why they — say, unlike Kraisak Choonhavan — don’t take the plunge into politics on this point, to help make things clear to the public.
I’m a HIV/AIDS doubter.
AIDS is an umbrella term for 29 diseases[viral,bacterial and fungal] that have been in existence long before HIV appeared on the scene,and the vast majority of medical men would not be able to recogonise a retrovirus ,as HIV is supposed to be, even if it bit them on the bum.
One day many years ago the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta changed the definition of AIDS by adding 3 diseases to the previous 26.Lo and behold,tens of thousands of US citizens acquired AIDS overnight.
The criteria determining the seropositivity or seronegativity of the HIV test[ Western Blot test] vary from country to country ,and as was discovered many years ago ,from one path lab to another,for example ,a HIV +ve in Africa would be a HIV-ve in Australia.
What criteria does Thailand use to determine if a person has AIDS?
HIV -ve[though the manufacturer of the Elisa test and of the Western Blot test warn that the tests are not to be used to test for AIDS]?clinical symptoms [persistence fever,persistent cough and 2 others that I’ve forgotten]?
I’ve yet to locate an article that appeared in Science a number of years ago that seem to suggest that some female Thai prostitutes were acquiring an immunity to HIV.??????
And don’t forget the co-discoverer of HIV[Gallo] previously discovered a virus that turn out not to exist ,had spent many years trying to find a viral cause of cancer.
Modern biomedical research is reductionist science gone mad.
Well, it isn’t quite over 10 years, and most of the equipment is not for counterinsurgency. The report stated: “Thailand’s defence ministry said Monday it will seek 300 billion baht (8.8 billion US dollars) from the next government to buy 10 more fighter jets, a submarine and other weaponry.” That is, most of the spending is for the next government, in addition to the already massive budget increases granted by the military-appointed government. Fighters and submarines aren’t counterinsurgency kit. In fact, the king appears to have criticized these proposed purchases, while calling for even more spending for the military.
It is interesting that the king has returned to one of his oldest themes, support for the military. Remember when he was almost always dressed in a military uniform, pictured on shooting ranges, and claiming to be inventing weapons for the military?
Truth be told, most people are half asleep through that speech. And everyone focuses on the bits they like anyways. Most ignore the bits they don’t like, which is convenient. Its also good for the country.
I would have thought taxpayer’s would have reason to not support a PM who contrives things to avoid paying taxes.
If you would care to know, Siam Commercial Bank played a large part in the brokerage of that deal. In fact, they were the ones who loaned a large sum of money for Temasek (who did not actually need cash, did they) and one very close deputy private secratary to the King was involved.
Surely who don’t mean to implicate… But oh wait, surely his name was misused, but then such a misuse on a grand scale would surely require his intervention, wouldn’t it?
Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.
What a convenient way to avoid the argument. So where is that case of yours to back up those two ridiculous statements in italics? Consult Patiwat if you want enlightenment regarding the Crown Property Bureau, something which you clearly need.
How those vast capitalist companies have benefited the Thai people must be publicized far and wide! Even state enterprises pay tax, and I am sure those royal enterprises must as well. But why is it the royal family itself is not taxed? They should damn well be.
There are much better ways to spend that money: improving our railways, building motorways, improving mass transit in BKK, flood prevention, etc. Why waste it on tanks that will eventually go obsolete in 10, 20 years and will probably never see action in any actual war. Plus, the military has had 2 budget increases since taking over. Substantial increases.
How tanks and planes will quell a guerilla insurgency is beyond me. But perhaps such a ridiculous notion is not beyond our Colonel, nor, it seems another prominent figure who survived the Cold War. Our dear colonel may as well be an actual colonel in the Thai army: an army which has no Mossad, no elite unit, no brilliant tactician, no firebrand reformer, no commonsense, no tact, no professionalism. How anyone can believe that the Army is our saviour is beyond me.
If we want to solve the Southern insurgency, the number thing to fix is the Army and its idiocy, cronyism, and selfish myopia. Many a good and able soldier are simply allowed to rot in its bureaucratic mess while suckups and incompetent nutcases (from the same graduating Chulachomklao classes!) reign. I wonder if anybody else had a hand in this. Somebody whose influence with the military was supposed to rein in this sort of behaviour…
There are moments when ignorance can be bliss and rewarding Teth. And certain books by my own free choice I can afford NOT to read just to keep my ignorant bliss going.
But it is the personality of the man behind the institution that keeps the faith. And HMK’s personality had been around for so long that his every imperfection or flaw, however well concealed by lese majeste or royal protectors, would all be known by now . . . and they are! And yet HMK’s spiritual father figure to the Nation gains more strength even as HMK physically weakens each year.
Will the Thai monarchy endure after HMK Bhumibhol? I sincerely cannot answer with conviction that it will.
300 billion baht over 10 years averages out at Baht 30 billion a year. I thought that with the raging insurgency at the South that require absolute military attention AND funding, Baht 30 billion additional military funding for the immediate next year is way insufficient. (Goodness me . . . those Americans would readily spend millions of dollars to support ONE American soldier and still they’ve not succeeded at Iraq!)
But HMK got it right. It is how the money is spent, not saved, that would define whether a country, or its military, got its SUFFICIENCY credentials right.
After that remarkable birthday speech last night in which the King basically neutralized any possible public opposition to arms purchases by the Thai military (since criticism of this after last night would be tantamount to lese majeste) I had an idea.
What better way to join in the royal celebrations at the Thai Embassy in Canberra on the 7th than for pro-democracy academics and activists to organize a demonstration outside the Embassy with huge banners saying:
“Thai King Supports Military Dictatorship in Thailand”
“Thai King Supports Coup”
“Thai King 5th Richest in the World While Urging his Subjects to Live in Subsistence ”
etc.
Then, distibute translations of the King’s birthday speech yesterday, or even last year’s speech after the coup, and distribute pictures of him with the coup leaders and any other incriminating material you can get your hands on. Maybe find some of his choice speeches dishing the West, like the one a few months ago saying that Western knowledge was making Thais stupid. Journalists like that kind of thing.
That is, unless you are worried that such an action might pose a problem for your next research trip to Thailand. In which case you’d better just prepare your yellow attire and bone up on the royal anthem.
“How, then, would one justify not supporting an elected PM in face of royalist assualt?”
Should the actions of that elected PM have no bearing on matters?
I would have thought taxpayer’s would have reason to not support a PM who contrives things to avoid paying taxes.
Likewise, a relative of a victim extra-judicially killed in the drug war would be well justified in not supporting the PM who encouraged such killings.
BTW, wasn’t the coup just part of Thaksin’s brilliant strategic master plan anyway, so why would he need support from academics?
Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.
It’s easy for me to say these things sitting outside of Thailand, but in any case, I wonder whether LM would be applicable to the following statements, which IMO should be repeated as far and wide as possible over the next 60 years:
HMK is a wonderful benevolent person who would surely not claim all his vast wealth as personal, but rather would consider it belongs to the state for the benefit of the Thai people
or
The LM law should be amended so that only the monarch can make the charge, and we would then know it would never be misused because the monarch is such a wise and benevolent person
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The King Never Smiles?
I suggest a “thought-experiment”. Read Thongchai’s article without thinking it’s Thongchai’s. And ask yourself whether such phrases/sentences are valid from the standpoint of non- or anti- royalism:
“This is a blunt affront to the monarchy, to tradition…”
“…The amendment bill may be in breach of l?se majest? itself…”
“…Imagine if such a person did something that injured the reputation and status of the monarchy, he would still be protected by the amended l?se majest? law. In other words, his violation of l?se majest? could not be punished, …”
“…Yet they cannot be punished, even when they do harm to the monarchy….”
“…The l?se majest? law has done more harm than good to the monarchy….”
etc.
To me, such phrases/sentences make sense if they come from someone who wants to PROTECT the monarchy from abuses by those surrounding it (Prem?) or acting in its name, someone like Sulak Sivalak, for instance. But from non- or anti- royalist standpoint, they are, first of all, untrue, and more importantly, unneccessary and harmful. Why would a non- or anti- royalist care if there’s an affront to the monarchy anyway? Why would s/he care that violators of less majesty law could not be punished!? Shouldn’t a non- or anti- royalist point out HOW GOOD the law has been to the monarchy instead?
Now Thongchai isn’t a royalist. I NEVER said he is. (His continued charge that I did is quite bizarre.) Nor did Republican, as far as I ever read his writings. But what Republican in this case points out is Thongchai, for some unknown reason, uses the same kind of arguments a liberal Royalist (like Sulak) wold use. Such arguments, again from the standpoint of non- or anti- royalism, are untrue, unnecessary and harmful (appearing in The Nation for all places!).
Tosakan : “I don’t subscribe to Republican’s “you are either with us or against us” reasoning.”
While I ageee with much of what Tosakan writes, I disagree with such attribution to Repulican’s reasoning. For me it shoud be something like “If you are against them, why on earth did you use argument in their favour, or similiar to theirs?”
Yellow celebrations in Canberra
How much does it cost to print a 3-page ad in that paper? And what’s all this hubbub about sufficiency and cost-effectiveness?
Last time I checked they were nothing new.
Thailand’s “deadly denial”
I find it incredulous that anyone doubts there is an HIV/AIDS epidemic when scientists and doctors, who are undoubtedly much more qualified than yourself and your dilettante conspiracy theories are saying there is one!
For your information, no one would know when a retrovirus has bit their ass unless properly isolated and detected with appropriate instruments. The clinical implications, however, are clear enough. The fact that HART has been clinically tested to work also shows that there is a certain set of patients who are being correctly categorized and are being correctly treated. Do you understand the biochemical mechanism in which HART interferes with viral reproduction (which categorises it as a retrovirus)? Or will you continue to deny that “medical men” would be unable to spot a retrovirus if it bit them on the ass? Seeing as you yourself have not even managed to remember the presentation of HIV infection nor understood the subtlety or its clinical presentation.
For you information, the CDC defines AIDS using a defined CD4 count, but previously defined AIDS through progression of associated ‘diseases’, which constitute the syndrome. Be sure you understand the definition of a syndrome versus a disease. Tens of thousands did not acquire AIDS overnight unless they already had corresponding presentations of the syndrome, which means they are not ten thousand new people. What’s more, the widened net probably has helped discovered more people who need the treatment.
For you information, HIV RNA has been isolated. Surely the character of the discoverer of HIV will have no effect on such microbiological standards? Let me repeat that, the genetic material of the virus has been isolated and identified.
For your information, as with all medical tests (and as with all things in life), there is a statistical margin of error. ELISA and Western blots alone do not diagnose HIV, it is a combination of both tests that gives an extremely accurate diagnosis for HIV antibodies. 0.0004% to 0.0007% false positive rates and 0.003% false negative rates. Better than the efficacy of condoms.
For your information, if the patient has seroconverted and there is evidence of HIV antibodies, that is a positive result.
For your information, there is a vaccine available worldwide for protection against the most common HPV strain, a virus which, causes cervical cancer. Many more viruses are also implicated as a cause of cancers. If you want to quote scientific papers, why not quote them all.
The world has gone mad when they can’t trust the verifiable, experimentally proven, observable world of the microbiologist/biochemist.
This rebuke brought to you courtesy of major wikipedia pages, all of which are well referenced and have been put through thorough vetting.
Reflection on the life of Judy Stowe
Judy was a champion of our better understanding of Thailand in particular, and of S.E.Asia more generally. I remember when she interviewed me at Bush House apropos a book I wrote about Vietnam. Was I aware, she asked afterwards, that my film star cicerone in Saigon, Sau Dang, was in fact a Lt.Col. in Vietnam’s military intelligence? No, I answered, but how do you know that? It’s my job to know, she answered. Was she also a spook? Who cares. She was among the brghtest and the best of my country’s kind. JW
Thinking like a Thai Army general
Sidh: Thanks for the amusing (to me) predictions – they would be funny if they were not so sad.
The King Never Smiles?
Teth: So, if you or I had shares in SCB, would we be aiding and abetting Thaksin to avoid tax ?
I also suggest you re-read the ‘ridiculous statements’ I made in italics, bearing in mind one of the main propositions of Handley’s book, and also the fact that I preceded the statements with the following:
“……..the following statements, which IMO should be repeated as far and wide as possible over the next 60 years“
The King Never Smiles?
nganadeeleg states: “Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.”
As I understand it, a case can and has been made in the Thai courts a number of times. The problem is that several courts have made several contradictory decisions effectively meaning that the Crown Property Bureau is neither state enterprise nor private enterprise. This legal disarray means that nothing is clear.
The King Never Smiles?
I don’t know why people here keep picking on Republican, especially for his style or personality, when that has no bearing on his post concerning Thongchai’s lese majeste article in The Nation.
From my perspective, I think there is some faulty reasoning in the article. Also, it was a sloppily written piece, especially in lieu of the clarifications Thongchai has written in his last post here, which I totally agree with.
With that being said, I don’t subscribe to Republican’s “you are either with us or against us” reasoning.
I don’t think it is fair to attack others just because they are not radical. The reality is that if Thai academics were as radical and as outspoken in public as Republican is online their lives would be in danger. I don’t think this threat is imaginary. The fact that this threat exists in 2007 is sad and pathetic. And maybe Thai academics should do more to alleviate the threat rather than cowing to it. Since it is a matter of life and death, however, I am sympathetic, especially when so many Thai intellectuals have been slaughtered, jailed and exiled over the last 75 years in the name of protecting the monarchy.
Yet, I think it is fair to criticize Thai academics for hypocrisy, selfishness, bad writing and poorly made arguments.
And an academic who hides behind lese majeste because he is a “bad” scholar for producing shoddy work should be criticized!
I think if a Thai academic writes a piece for a newspaper, or whatever, then the argument should be clear and defensible.
If a critic like Republican doesn’t believe that the article is clear and defensible, I see no problems with him pointing that out, and I think it is absurd for attacking him for just being a critic or his style of criticism. In a democratic society, a critic should not be given a litmus test for criticism other than his own words. In other words, just because Republican writes anonymously or has less than a charming personality, does that mean what he writes isn’t valid? Conversely, Thongchai has the right to refute Republican’s criticism. Shouldn’t political discourse be judged by the arguments being made and the policies that result from them rather than by the personalities who are making them?
I don’t agree with everything Republican writes or some of his conclusions, but I support his right to criticize and push the boundaries, even if that makes people uneasy or pisses them off. I say, more power to him.
I don’t think his intent is to score points; I think his intent is to wake people up. Hell, if only 10,000 Thais had the same passion and commitment as he does to Thailand’s democratic development, the country would be far better off.
Lastly, I don’t blame Republican for being just a little angry and bitter when a military cabal overthrew the government with full backing from the palace, capriciously disenfranchising 65 million Thai people, while most of the Thai academy put on their yellow shirts, defended the coup and actually sought professional benefits for supporting it.
I don’t think Thongchai is part of this group, but I think there is certain complacency about lese majeste (even a reformed version), which prevents historians, political scientists, journalists from doing any real work on analyzing the monarchy, especially the 9th reign, and the impact it has had on Thailand’s democratic development.
The King Never Smiles?
That last point on Kraisak was unclear — it is meant to say that at least he has made the effort to fight in politics, if others don’t.
The King Never Smiles?
“How, then, would one justify not supporting an elected PM in face of royalist assault?”
I don’t think anyone has argued the “song mai ao” argument very well, but here’s a little thought on it: when one sees the democratic system being undermined from within (Thaksin) one can seek out another force that one thinks will be a better protector of the system (the monarchy). This is a logical response if one believes/concludes that the monarchy accepts and protects its co-existence with the elected parliament and government. TKNS of course argues this is not the case, but most people in Thailand have not been privy to its conclusions, and they are more likely to accept the throne as a defender of democracy. They just get a little shock when they remember too late that it all involves the military.
So perhaps there is blame to be put on people’s weak thinking when they turn back to the throne to counter a possible-dictator. A real “song mai ao” position doesn’t solve the problem — it just hangs in the middle, waiting for someone (the army) to act.
Then, unlike Somsak and Republican who focus on academics, I would pin the real blame on folks like the Democrats for conceding the fight with their lame boycott rather than doing the hard work of working the public and fighting through elections to prove the system can work. In a democracy, politicians, even in the opposition, have to provide leadership. The Wimpocrats folded, and are now waiting for the hand of Prem to make Aphisit PM.
As for academics who criticize, I don’t understand why they — say, unlike Kraisak Choonhavan — don’t take the plunge into politics on this point, to help make things clear to the public.
Thailand’s “deadly denial”
I’m a HIV/AIDS doubter.
AIDS is an umbrella term for 29 diseases[viral,bacterial and fungal] that have been in existence long before HIV appeared on the scene,and the vast majority of medical men would not be able to recogonise a retrovirus ,as HIV is supposed to be, even if it bit them on the bum.
One day many years ago the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta changed the definition of AIDS by adding 3 diseases to the previous 26.Lo and behold,tens of thousands of US citizens acquired AIDS overnight.
The criteria determining the seropositivity or seronegativity of the HIV test[ Western Blot test] vary from country to country ,and as was discovered many years ago ,from one path lab to another,for example ,a HIV +ve in Africa would be a HIV-ve in Australia.
What criteria does Thailand use to determine if a person has AIDS?
HIV -ve[though the manufacturer of the Elisa test and of the Western Blot test warn that the tests are not to be used to test for AIDS]?clinical symptoms [persistence fever,persistent cough and 2 others that I’ve forgotten]?
I’ve yet to locate an article that appeared in Science a number of years ago that seem to suggest that some female Thai prostitutes were acquiring an immunity to HIV.??????
And don’t forget the co-discoverer of HIV[Gallo] previously discovered a virus that turn out not to exist ,had spent many years trying to find a viral cause of cancer.
Modern biomedical research is reductionist science gone mad.
Military sufficiency
Well, it isn’t quite over 10 years, and most of the equipment is not for counterinsurgency. The report stated: “Thailand’s defence ministry said Monday it will seek 300 billion baht (8.8 billion US dollars) from the next government to buy 10 more fighter jets, a submarine and other weaponry.” That is, most of the spending is for the next government, in addition to the already massive budget increases granted by the military-appointed government. Fighters and submarines aren’t counterinsurgency kit. In fact, the king appears to have criticized these proposed purchases, while calling for even more spending for the military.
It is interesting that the king has returned to one of his oldest themes, support for the military. Remember when he was almost always dressed in a military uniform, pictured on shooting ranges, and claiming to be inventing weapons for the military?
Military sufficiency
Truth be told, most people are half asleep through that speech. And everyone focuses on the bits they like anyways. Most ignore the bits they don’t like, which is convenient. Its also good for the country.
The King Never Smiles?
I would have thought taxpayer’s would have reason to not support a PM who contrives things to avoid paying taxes.
If you would care to know, Siam Commercial Bank played a large part in the brokerage of that deal. In fact, they were the ones who loaned a large sum of money for Temasek (who did not actually need cash, did they) and one very close deputy private secratary to the King was involved.
Surely who don’t mean to implicate… But oh wait, surely his name was misused, but then such a misuse on a grand scale would surely require his intervention, wouldn’t it?
Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.
What a convenient way to avoid the argument. So where is that case of yours to back up those two ridiculous statements in italics? Consult Patiwat if you want enlightenment regarding the Crown Property Bureau, something which you clearly need.
How those vast capitalist companies have benefited the Thai people must be publicized far and wide! Even state enterprises pay tax, and I am sure those royal enterprises must as well. But why is it the royal family itself is not taxed? They should damn well be.
Military sufficiency
There are much better ways to spend that money: improving our railways, building motorways, improving mass transit in BKK, flood prevention, etc. Why waste it on tanks that will eventually go obsolete in 10, 20 years and will probably never see action in any actual war. Plus, the military has had 2 budget increases since taking over. Substantial increases.
How tanks and planes will quell a guerilla insurgency is beyond me. But perhaps such a ridiculous notion is not beyond our Colonel, nor, it seems another prominent figure who survived the Cold War. Our dear colonel may as well be an actual colonel in the Thai army: an army which has no Mossad, no elite unit, no brilliant tactician, no firebrand reformer, no commonsense, no tact, no professionalism. How anyone can believe that the Army is our saviour is beyond me.
If we want to solve the Southern insurgency, the number thing to fix is the Army and its idiocy, cronyism, and selfish myopia. Many a good and able soldier are simply allowed to rot in its bureaucratic mess while suckups and incompetent nutcases (from the same graduating Chulachomklao classes!) reign. I wonder if anybody else had a hand in this. Somebody whose influence with the military was supposed to rein in this sort of behaviour…
The King Never Smiles?
There are moments when ignorance can be bliss and rewarding Teth. And certain books by my own free choice I can afford NOT to read just to keep my ignorant bliss going.
But it is the personality of the man behind the institution that keeps the faith. And HMK’s personality had been around for so long that his every imperfection or flaw, however well concealed by lese majeste or royal protectors, would all be known by now . . . and they are! And yet HMK’s spiritual father figure to the Nation gains more strength even as HMK physically weakens each year.
Will the Thai monarchy endure after HMK Bhumibhol? I sincerely cannot answer with conviction that it will.
Military sufficiency
300 billion baht over 10 years averages out at Baht 30 billion a year. I thought that with the raging insurgency at the South that require absolute military attention AND funding, Baht 30 billion additional military funding for the immediate next year is way insufficient. (Goodness me . . . those Americans would readily spend millions of dollars to support ONE American soldier and still they’ve not succeeded at Iraq!)
But HMK got it right. It is how the money is spent, not saved, that would define whether a country, or its military, got its SUFFICIENCY credentials right.
Yellow celebrations in Canberra
After that remarkable birthday speech last night in which the King basically neutralized any possible public opposition to arms purchases by the Thai military (since criticism of this after last night would be tantamount to lese majeste) I had an idea.
What better way to join in the royal celebrations at the Thai Embassy in Canberra on the 7th than for pro-democracy academics and activists to organize a demonstration outside the Embassy with huge banners saying:
“Thai King Supports Military Dictatorship in Thailand”
“Thai King Supports Coup”
“Thai King 5th Richest in the World While Urging his Subjects to Live in Subsistence ”
etc.
Then, distibute translations of the King’s birthday speech yesterday, or even last year’s speech after the coup, and distribute pictures of him with the coup leaders and any other incriminating material you can get your hands on. Maybe find some of his choice speeches dishing the West, like the one a few months ago saying that Western knowledge was making Thais stupid. Journalists like that kind of thing.
That is, unless you are worried that such an action might pose a problem for your next research trip to Thailand. In which case you’d better just prepare your yellow attire and bone up on the royal anthem.
The King Never Smiles?
“How, then, would one justify not supporting an elected PM in face of royalist assualt?”
Should the actions of that elected PM have no bearing on matters?
I would have thought taxpayer’s would have reason to not support a PM who contrives things to avoid paying taxes.
Likewise, a relative of a victim extra-judicially killed in the drug war would be well justified in not supporting the PM who encouraged such killings.
BTW, wasn’t the coup just part of Thaksin’s brilliant strategic master plan anyway, so why would he need support from academics?
Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.
It’s easy for me to say these things sitting outside of Thailand, but in any case, I wonder whether LM would be applicable to the following statements, which IMO should be repeated as far and wide as possible over the next 60 years:
HMK is a wonderful benevolent person who would surely not claim all his vast wealth as personal, but rather would consider it belongs to the state for the benefit of the Thai people
or
The LM law should be amended so that only the monarch can make the charge, and we would then know it would never be misused because the monarch is such a wise and benevolent person
The King Never Smiles?
Then again, people may choose to remain ignorant like you. Yet it is undeniable that without lese majeste, there will be more enlightened people.