The sun won’t disappear if Thongchai was a royalist, and it would also not disappear if he wasn’t one. Looks as if some people enjoyed paddling their intellectual boats in a coconut bowl.
Reply to #179: I can’t think of what more I can add which I haven’t already said above. To repeat, the “implication” is something YOU draw. In my first post I concluded,” either … or…” Nowhere did I say that Thongchai was a royalist, as you admit. I asked you if I had misrepresented Thongchai’s article, which, since you did not reply, I assume you accept I did not. Your argument about “implication” and “insinuation” appears to me to be an attempt to absolve Thongchai of responsibility for what he himself has written, and to blame me for simply pointing out the logical implication of what he has written. And if you want to “engender debate” on something else then by all means do it!
Re. people drawing “implications” – what implications do you think non-academics reading Thongchai’s article in The Nation, who do not know Thongchai, would draw? That is, an academic who works at a leading North American university (and so with considerable intellectual authority), using royalist arguments, including accepting the validity of the lese majeste law? Do you think that this would strengthen or weaken the case against the original lese majeste law in their minds?
As a political tactic (and if academics want to be politically active then I believe they deserve special scrutiny) to oppose the lese majeste amendment then I believe that you lose more than you gain by making arguments like this, especially for academics (we don’t hold politicians to the same standards). In fact, for those who want to see an end to the lese majeste law it may have been better to let the amendment pass, because, as Thongchai argued (here I agree with him) it would have led to all kinds of abuses (even more than under the existing law). I think it would have been terrible publicity for the Palace and the royalists generally, likely to have damaged their popularity, and would have fed into greater support for PPP/TRT. I suspect that it was for this reason that the amendment was dropped.
This is like a merry-go-round. The implication throughout the thread is that Thongchai is a royalist. I know, you didn’t say that, but it is the implication that I would draw and that many others have as well. A clear statement by you acknowledged that Thongchai was NOT considered by you to be a royalist would have engendered debate on things other than the implication. That insinuation was (for me as a reader) too clear.
Jon, normally, the journal is available at the libraries of Thammasat and the National Assembly. This particular issue has been designed as a leftist perspective on the events, not as a pluralistic debate.
Reply to #176: You missed out, “Based on Thongchai’s reasoning in this article one can only conclude that… etc.”
Answer: Well, if we take into account Thongchai’s responses in this thread it has to be your (v) “His arguments are logically invalid” (in #100 I numbered it as another (iv) – sorry), since he presents statements that are either not true (“The lèse majesté law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”) or he doesn’t believe in the premises on which his argument is based (that violators of lèse majesté should be punished).
Thongchai indicated as much in his #117, where he tried to downplay the importance of logical argument.
But actually I think my original set of choices to describe Thongchai’s position based on this article was not quite right. It is possible to be both (iv) “willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column”; and (v) “His arguments are logically invalid”, at the same time.
Re. your comment, “…Might have been easier if you’d just said that instead of allowing implications to be drawn by other readers…” I’m not in a position to “allow” or “not allow” implications to be drawn by readers. I gave the reference to Thongchai’s article. I urged people to read the article for themselves. If I have misrepresented Thongchai’s article, which may have led to a reader making some “implication”, please point it out to me.
Kevin Hewison, Pasuk Phongpaichit, Porphant Ouyyanont, Ukrist Pathmanand are speaking at the FCCT in Bangkok this Thursday about the journal. The book will be on sale.
“Why does he, during the Thaksin crisis, not name a royally appointed Prime Minister……”
It sounds like a reasonable solution, but imagine the outcry from Republican, AW & co if he had done that – I’m surprised you think that way, Teth.
The whole crisis could probably have been avoided if Thaksin had either changed his ways slightly, paid full tax on the Shincorp sale, or resigned.
(or even if his TRT part members had stood up to him and smoothed his worst habits & excesses)
Instead, we are stuck with the current ‘winner take all’ scenario.
As for submarines & military hardware, I think the thrust of his comments were that now is as good a time as any to get the purchases, while the baht is strong (overvalued?)
Sorry doing this again as the numbering in post 100 was mixed up:
So just to sum up, what’s your answer:
Either,
(i) Thongchai believes in the validity of the lèse majesté law;
(ii) Thongchai believes that violators of the lèse majesté law must be punished;
(iii) Thongchai is a royalist; and
(iv) Thongchai is willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column.
Or,
(v) His arguments above are logically invalid.
Presumably after all of this debate you are going to say (v), because you do not say that Thongchai is a royalist, and (i) through (iv) are linked by the use of “either”. Might have been easier if you’d just said that instead of allowing implications to be drawn by other readers.
(i) Thongchai believes in the validity of the lèse majesté law;
(ii) Thongchai believes that violators of the lèse majesté law must be punished;
(iii) Thongchai is a royalist; and
(iv) Thongchai is willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column.
Or,
(v) His arguments above are logically invalid.
Presumably after all of this debate you are going to say (iv), because you do not say that Thongchai is a royalist, and (i) through (iv) are linked by the use of “either”. Might have been easier if you’d just said that instead of allowing implications to be drawn by other readers.
I wonder what would have happened to these people had the Liberal Party won the election. Maybe they could have applied for Nauru permanent residency! Something has to change because the fate of asylum seekers shouldn’t reside on a particular government, but a standard that can be applied constantly. Hopefully it would be a standard where there would be no cues to jump.
Thongchai would have more credibility if he faced up to me and answered my questions here on NM where the original debate took place, instead of going behind my back on another webboard. So I would like to exercise my right of reply, here on NM.
I emphasise that ALL of my comments on this topic relate to Thongchai’s article on the amendment to the lese majeste law that he published in the pro-royalist newspaper, The Nation, and not to his other work. Therefore all of our debate on this issue should refer to this particular article. Notice that in his 4 postings on this thread on NM nowhere does Thongchai make any mention of this article. This suggests to me that Thongchai knows that he can not defend what his has written.
There is no question that in his article in The Nation Thongchai presented royalist arguments, as I have explained in detail above. Read the article for yourself.
Does this mean Thongchai is a royalist? I did not say that. What I said was that based on the argumentation in his Nation article EITHER ………. OR ……… (see final paragraph of #100)
CONCLUSION: The moral of this story is that if academics are worried about being misrepresented in public as royalists it is best not to make royalist arguments in pro-royalist newspapers.
Tell me if I’m wrong but I’ve got the feeling that often the King uses a “chinese style” in his speeches, with sentences that can have double or triple meanings…
See, that’s the thing. The King is always vague and ambiguous in his speeches, which, to be honest, does not help anybody! There will be those who are accused of “misusing” the King’s words, but why is he himself not bothered? Why is he causing a lack of unity with his speeches yet he always “urges unity” whilst giving no practical solution? He commands people to do this and that in his speeches, so why did he not play a more active role in resolving a constitutional crisis democratically? Why does he let people use his name, his image as a tool for division (aka Sondhi Lim)? Why does he, during the Thaksin crisis, not name a royally appointed Prime Minister and quell the protests before paving way for an election instead of endorsing a coup? I remember him saying a royally appointed PM would be “undemocratic”. Surely it is much more democratic than a coup, especially given that under a Parliamentary system, the electorate does not select a PM anyways!
Why is the King, a man graduating in political science with a previous interest in engineering suddenly have an opinion with regards to tanks. Surely he understands his position as constitutional head of state (who’s word is taken as law) and therefore should leave technical details about weaponry to those in the army?
Does one see any other constitutional monarch discuss the details of tank purchases (in such simplistic, general terms/understanding as well)?
It is supposed to be “none”. Reading a book won’t turn you into an Intellectual Pretender. For me at least, it was the beginning of seeing the other side of the coin, a side which, in Thailand, is guarded by law.
What about “full intelligence misery syndrome” or FIMS?
Lots of NM bloggers seem to suffer FIMS . . . Republican for one!
Fully informed of Thaksin’s blatant crimes and constitutional abuses but hooked still to that Thaksin charisma.
I wonder if Republican and many of the others would still be belligently blogging for “A Republic for Thailand”, had Thaksin Shinawatra still been Thai PM . . .
…and restructuring of the armed forces is the key (more so than reforming the monarchy, stopping vote buying, etc. etc.). But how might this happen? What conditions must exist to enable this to occur?
We cannot expect the military to reform itself from within (there are simply no up and coming individuals or cliques in sight that has shown any serious inkling of being true reformers). Nor can we expect a reform push to come from the palace (as Tosakan pointed out).
So…that leaves potential reform push coming from a civilian government. While this is no where in sight — but I wonder how successful might a political party be if it campaigned on a platform of reforming the military?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Military sufficiency
“Why is the King, a man graduating in political science with a previous interest in engineering suddenly have an opinion with regards to tanks.”
I can find no evidence that he graduated in any subject, and certainly not political science.
The King Never Smiles?
The sun won’t disappear if Thongchai was a royalist, and it would also not disappear if he wasn’t one. Looks as if some people enjoyed paddling their intellectual boats in a coconut bowl.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to #179: I can’t think of what more I can add which I haven’t already said above. To repeat, the “implication” is something YOU draw. In my first post I concluded,” either … or…” Nowhere did I say that Thongchai was a royalist, as you admit. I asked you if I had misrepresented Thongchai’s article, which, since you did not reply, I assume you accept I did not. Your argument about “implication” and “insinuation” appears to me to be an attempt to absolve Thongchai of responsibility for what he himself has written, and to blame me for simply pointing out the logical implication of what he has written. And if you want to “engender debate” on something else then by all means do it!
Re. people drawing “implications” – what implications do you think non-academics reading Thongchai’s article in The Nation, who do not know Thongchai, would draw? That is, an academic who works at a leading North American university (and so with considerable intellectual authority), using royalist arguments, including accepting the validity of the lese majeste law? Do you think that this would strengthen or weaken the case against the original lese majeste law in their minds?
As a political tactic (and if academics want to be politically active then I believe they deserve special scrutiny) to oppose the lese majeste amendment then I believe that you lose more than you gain by making arguments like this, especially for academics (we don’t hold politicians to the same standards). In fact, for those who want to see an end to the lese majeste law it may have been better to let the amendment pass, because, as Thongchai argued (here I agree with him) it would have led to all kinds of abuses (even more than under the existing law). I think it would have been terrible publicity for the Palace and the royalists generally, likely to have damaged their popularity, and would have fed into greater support for PPP/TRT. I suspect that it was for this reason that the amendment was dropped.
The King Never Smiles?
This is like a merry-go-round. The implication throughout the thread is that Thongchai is a royalist. I know, you didn’t say that, but it is the implication that I would draw and that many others have as well. A clear statement by you acknowledged that Thongchai was NOT considered by you to be a royalist would have engendered debate on things other than the implication. That insinuation was (for me as a reader) too clear.
Thailand’s ‘‘Good Coup’’: the Fall of Thaksin, the Military and Democracy
Jon, normally, the journal is available at the libraries of Thammasat and the National Assembly. This particular issue has been designed as a leftist perspective on the events, not as a pluralistic debate.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to #176: You missed out, “Based on Thongchai’s reasoning in this article one can only conclude that… etc.”
Answer: Well, if we take into account Thongchai’s responses in this thread it has to be your (v) “His arguments are logically invalid” (in #100 I numbered it as another (iv) – sorry), since he presents statements that are either not true (“The lèse majesté law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”) or he doesn’t believe in the premises on which his argument is based (that violators of lèse majesté should be punished).
Thongchai indicated as much in his #117, where he tried to downplay the importance of logical argument.
But actually I think my original set of choices to describe Thongchai’s position based on this article was not quite right. It is possible to be both (iv) “willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column”; and (v) “His arguments are logically invalid”, at the same time.
Re. your comment, “…Might have been easier if you’d just said that instead of allowing implications to be drawn by other readers…” I’m not in a position to “allow” or “not allow” implications to be drawn by readers. I gave the reference to Thongchai’s article. I urged people to read the article for themselves. If I have misrepresented Thongchai’s article, which may have led to a reader making some “implication”, please point it out to me.
Thailand’s ‘‘Good Coup’’: the Fall of Thaksin, the Military and Democracy
Jon and others:
Kevin Hewison, Pasuk Phongpaichit, Porphant Ouyyanont, Ukrist Pathmanand are speaking at the FCCT in Bangkok this Thursday about the journal. The book will be on sale.
Military sufficiency
“Why does he, during the Thaksin crisis, not name a royally appointed Prime Minister……”
It sounds like a reasonable solution, but imagine the outcry from Republican, AW & co if he had done that – I’m surprised you think that way, Teth.
The whole crisis could probably have been avoided if Thaksin had either changed his ways slightly, paid full tax on the Shincorp sale, or resigned.
(or even if his TRT part members had stood up to him and smoothed his worst habits & excesses)
Instead, we are stuck with the current ‘winner take all’ scenario.
As for submarines & military hardware, I think the thrust of his comments were that now is as good a time as any to get the purchases, while the baht is strong (overvalued?)
Thailand’s ‘‘Good Coup’’: the Fall of Thaksin, the Military and Democracy
Being in Thailand I can’t actually read the journal.
But I wonder if there is actually a debate going on between the authors in this special issue or whether they are all on the same side.
I remember when there were strong objections on this blog when the government presented its opinion without rebuttal at ANU.
The King Never Smiles?
The card-carrying royalists must be laughing and rubbing their hands in glee at the sight of people they consider enemies attacking each other.
The King Never Smiles?
Sorry doing this again as the numbering in post 100 was mixed up:
So just to sum up, what’s your answer:
Either,
(i) Thongchai believes in the validity of the lèse majesté law;
(ii) Thongchai believes that violators of the lèse majesté law must be punished;
(iii) Thongchai is a royalist; and
(iv) Thongchai is willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column.
Or,
(v) His arguments above are logically invalid.
Presumably after all of this debate you are going to say (v), because you do not say that Thongchai is a royalist, and (i) through (iv) are linked by the use of “either”. Might have been easier if you’d just said that instead of allowing implications to be drawn by other readers.
The King Never Smiles?
So just to sum up, what’s your answer:
Either,
(i) Thongchai believes in the validity of the lèse majesté law;
(ii) Thongchai believes that violators of the lèse majesté law must be punished;
(iii) Thongchai is a royalist; and
(iv) Thongchai is willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column.
Or,
(v) His arguments above are logically invalid.
Presumably after all of this debate you are going to say (iv), because you do not say that Thongchai is a royalist, and (i) through (iv) are linked by the use of “either”. Might have been easier if you’d just said that instead of allowing implications to be drawn by other readers.
Rohingya to settle in Australia
I wonder what would have happened to these people had the Liberal Party won the election. Maybe they could have applied for Nauru permanent residency! Something has to change because the fate of asylum seekers shouldn’t reside on a particular government, but a standard that can be applied constantly. Hopefully it would be a standard where there would be no cues to jump.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to Restorationist (#168): If I had said Thongchai was a royalist the score would have been: Republican 1, Royalists 0.
I had originally decided to say no more on this topic, but yesterday I noticed that instead of replying to me here on NM Thongchai has been continuing his criticisms of me and Somsak with numerous posts on the Fa Dio Kan webboard [eg. “A few days ago on New Mandala, I was accused for being royalist by Mr. Republican who admires Somsak like an idol and speaks like Somsak on almost every issue….” etc. etc. at
http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?s=cc6c600994f90003e3594be9c6e4a2fc&showtopic=4376
, and http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?showtopic=4317&st=20%5D
Thongchai would have more credibility if he faced up to me and answered my questions here on NM where the original debate took place, instead of going behind my back on another webboard. So I would like to exercise my right of reply, here on NM.
I emphasise that ALL of my comments on this topic relate to Thongchai’s article on the amendment to the lese majeste law that he published in the pro-royalist newspaper, The Nation, and not to his other work. Therefore all of our debate on this issue should refer to this particular article. Notice that in his 4 postings on this thread on NM nowhere does Thongchai make any mention of this article. This suggests to me that Thongchai knows that he can not defend what his has written.
There is no question that in his article in The Nation Thongchai presented royalist arguments, as I have explained in detail above. Read the article for yourself.
Does this mean Thongchai is a royalist? I did not say that. What I said was that based on the argumentation in his Nation article EITHER ………. OR ……… (see final paragraph of #100)
CONCLUSION: The moral of this story is that if academics are worried about being misrepresented in public as royalists it is best not to make royalist arguments in pro-royalist newspapers.
Reflection on the life of Judy Stowe
The passing of another great woman in Thailand’s social and political landscape should be noted with a post on New Mandala:
Jon Ungpakorn’s eulogy to Wanida Tantiwittayapitak:
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=407
and an English poem by her:
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=408
Military sufficiency
My impression : it’s extremely confusing !
Tell me if I’m wrong but I’ve got the feeling that often the King uses a “chinese style” in his speeches, with sentences that can have double or triple meanings…
See, that’s the thing. The King is always vague and ambiguous in his speeches, which, to be honest, does not help anybody! There will be those who are accused of “misusing” the King’s words, but why is he himself not bothered? Why is he causing a lack of unity with his speeches yet he always “urges unity” whilst giving no practical solution? He commands people to do this and that in his speeches, so why did he not play a more active role in resolving a constitutional crisis democratically? Why does he let people use his name, his image as a tool for division (aka Sondhi Lim)? Why does he, during the Thaksin crisis, not name a royally appointed Prime Minister and quell the protests before paving way for an election instead of endorsing a coup? I remember him saying a royally appointed PM would be “undemocratic”. Surely it is much more democratic than a coup, especially given that under a Parliamentary system, the electorate does not select a PM anyways!
Why is the King, a man graduating in political science with a previous interest in engineering suddenly have an opinion with regards to tanks. Surely he understands his position as constitutional head of state (who’s word is taken as law) and therefore should leave technical details about weaponry to those in the army?
Does one see any other constitutional monarch discuss the details of tank purchases (in such simplistic, general terms/understanding as well)?
The King Never Smiles?
It is supposed to be “none”. Reading a book won’t turn you into an Intellectual Pretender. For me at least, it was the beginning of seeing the other side of the coin, a side which, in Thailand, is guarded by law.
The King Never Smiles?
What about “full intelligence misery syndrome” or FIMS?
Lots of NM bloggers seem to suffer FIMS . . . Republican for one!
Fully informed of Thaksin’s blatant crimes and constitutional abuses but hooked still to that Thaksin charisma.
I wonder if Republican and many of the others would still be belligently blogging for “A Republic for Thailand”, had Thaksin Shinawatra still been Thai PM . . .
Military sufficiency
Was not Russian submarine just…err… sunk?
May be the warning/supporting tone just imply that what ever you do, be moderate and a little transparent?
(In other word, dont over do the kick back)
Military sufficiency
Following on from Tosakan #8
…and restructuring of the armed forces is the key (more so than reforming the monarchy, stopping vote buying, etc. etc.). But how might this happen? What conditions must exist to enable this to occur?
We cannot expect the military to reform itself from within (there are simply no up and coming individuals or cliques in sight that has shown any serious inkling of being true reformers). Nor can we expect a reform push to come from the palace (as Tosakan pointed out).
So…that leaves potential reform push coming from a civilian government. While this is no where in sight — but I wonder how successful might a political party be if it campaigned on a platform of reforming the military?