“And Teth, you have made your judgment aloud and with great confidence in this very public blog. You are not a mere “observer” as you claim to be (in which case you will only whisper privately to your friend next to you)”
But am I a judge, executioner, jury, all rolled in one as you said? Ridiculous how when faced with rational argument you retreat into these minute disputable details when clearly you are wrong.
“And I maintain that this based on highly selective history (unless you are confident that you have comprehensive knowledge of Siamese-Thai histories) which privileges modern standards applying it retroactively.”
You “maintain”, even when faced with facts. Spot bleating and actually mention what it is that makes you think like you do. Are you not being “selective” yourself? Are you not being judgmental yourself? The difference is that I use “modern values” by which I judge, whereas your foundation is the assumption that Siamese-Thai kings must be benevolent in general.
Perhaps the facts I refer to are “selective”, but are they false? I do give considerations for context which explain relevant events, but do they then excuse someone?
“The notion of “honor”, “honorable” haven’t occured to me – so I suppose you believe your judgment to be “honorable”? What do you tying to get at?”
I’m trying to say your relativism is nonsense. At the very least admit that murder is wrong and that Siamese kings of the past were very complicit in it. Or perhaps greed for power was not something the Buddha preached about. Surely the Buddha’s teachings had existed back then and is not merely my ‘modern’ judgment. Surely you understand the concept of right and wrong, Sidh. You cannot claim the ‘ignorance’ defense when it is so clear what is brutal and unjust.
Perhaps your so-called “modern values” are not so modern after all. Refer to LSS’s replies.
“without blogs who could debate with an Ivy League professor who publishes with the top academic publisher except his/her academic colleagues.” >> Some more non-Ivy League professors working in the field of Thai studies could participate in New Mandala.
o.k. Andrew I will have to agree with you on this point. It may give you some satisfaction to know that a few months ago I did not believe so.
But any new-fangled technology is only as good or as useful depending on how the user employs it. A cellphone should be very helpful to the farmer to get his daily market information … and negotiate all the “deals” he needs to get his farm competitive. But does the Thai farmer realize that?
With so many dinosaurs, literally dozens of dirty old men running for office, it is going to be very difficult pinning the genius behind this vote getting gimmick! If this was Samak’s idea, he will definitely get my vote . . . in exchange for the blue pill of course!
But in this forum, in my personal opinion, the one who needs the blue pills the most (with so much repressed hostility demanding release) is Republican! Republican you really need to get laid.
That “Old Burmese” is something mysterious and incomprehensible is also probably a myth of Aung-Thwin’s making. (Again no attempts have been made to pass on this knowledge. What are teachers for? How many PhD students has he had? What exactly is his legacy? Charney as Lieberman’s student is part of Liebermna’s legacy as a teacher.) Most inscriptions from the Ava period I’ve been looking at are land donations using a very limited set of vocabulary. Furthermore, a parallel translation with English next to the Burmese of Jatakas in the Lokhateikpan inscription shows that a lot of the Burmese is common everyday Burmese, in a slightly different script perhaps. Aung-Thwin’s Pagan gives most of the credit for the one long inscription translation to John Okell.
That there is something mysterious and different about Burmese history. Mysterious constructions called “spirals” are supposedly not to be found anywhere else, as if premodern agrarian states did not share things in common as modern economies do. This sort of mystification or mythification of Aung-Thwin’s own creation is rife and is more significant than the “myths” he claims to have found in Burmese chronicles, of which a good %85 is devoted to warfare, something not touched on much in inscriptions outside of conflicts with the Chinese, and something that most historians of Burma for some mysterious reason tend to downplay. Research on Trojan warfare such as Barry Strauss’s recent “Trojan Wars” stress universal characteristics of warfare which can also be found in Rajadhirat and the Burmese chronicle as well and the Illiad is even more myth-like than the Burmese chornicle.
Anyway, to pretend that you are going to get a 100% resolution on historical truth, that history is a deterministic yes or no sort of thing, than a multiple possibilities sort of thing, is a little ridiculous and to pretend that colonials themselves such as Luce were not aware of the contingent nature of their historical sources is also ridiculous. As Luce remarked on determining what might plausibly have happened from evidence in the Burmese chronicles: “To thread this maze is not, perhaps, so hopeless as it seems. External sources often come to one’s assistance. But I cannot deny that one often has to depend on probability.” (Luce, 1969, vol. 1, 19) He even tried to capture the sentiment in a poetry, “as Fulke Grevelle frightenly called it [probability]” :
“O false and treacherous probability,
Enemy of truth, and friend to wickedness,
With whose bleary eyes opinion learns to see,
Truth’s feeble party here, and barennesse!”
(Luce, 1969, vol. 1, 19)
Everything Aung-Thwin writes is a power play. This is the main criticism from which all other criticisms must flow. “Myth and History in the Historiography of Early Burma” reads as one long list of source criticisms (ripping the sources apart) without in the end producing any positive history at all, answering the commonsense question: “So what do you think happened professor?”
Moreover, Aung-Thwin’s sources are usually inaccessible. Take the Ming history cited that his Chinese research assistant did for him. This research assistant gave me a copy so I can actually engage with and evaluate Aung-Thwin’s criticism, but most people can’t. The same goes for the Kalyani inscriptions or most of the other inscriptions cited in his works. They’ve all been out of print for 50-100 years and are highly inaccessible to almost everyone. Aung-Thwin himself is reliant on these colonial era works though.
This is the sort of preliminary text-centered scholarly work (translation and annotation) done by people like Luce and Coedes and Michael Charney (though as yet unpublished) that Aung-Thwin just skips. Take for instance vocabulary found in the chronicles. He faults people for using informants when he knows very well that many words and phrases in chronicles are not to be found in any published dictionary. One can easily get a sense of the gist, but for accurate translations one needs accurate dictionaries. San Lwin’s translation of Rajadhirat does exactly this and a dictionary of phrases can be reverse engineered out of it, which I am doing slowly. (I sent Aung-Thwin a copy of San Lwin’s unpublished Rajadhirat translation, so our relation is not me begging to become his student or tabei-disciple and being refused as he seems to imply. He does have a very extensive patron-client chain though and uses it.)
Aung-Thwin typically skips several steps and produces some gigantic uber theory called the “Mon paradigm” which forces everyone to work on his intellectual territory. The analogy in warfare would be choosing the ground on which a battle is fought. In the case of the “Mon Paradigm” he does not know the Mon language and therefore cannot study Mon chronicles, inscriptions, or religious text traditions in any detail, but that does not seem to make any difference. Many Mon are rightly offended by his cursory non-chalant attempt to erase their history. He believes he has arrived at the truth when his VIP friend at Harvard Lily Handlin pays for his airplane ticket to give a presentation and he can name drop her. Truth as a function of who your friends are…..[continued in next posting…]
Given that Chang Noi’s piece is a summary of actual military thinking, maybe the military isn’t as light and nimble on their feet as it seemed.
I sure wish that Chang Noi would start predicting possible future worlds so people can know what to anticipate. Surely, it must be possible to predict a little bit, like a couple of possible worlds.
How the efforts of PPP and the Democrats to form coalition governments might play out? Or what might happen if Samak opens his mouth and starts abusing people after a victory? Or what might happen to all the efforts of the Assets Scrutiny Committee?
[…] why the National Assembly is considering the latest draft of an internal security law which will heap enormous powers on the command that Sonthi currently […]
Republican said:
“Finally, you have done everything possible in your posts to give away my identity without actually mentioning my name, knowing what the likely consequences would be for me if that identity became publicly known. Why?”
My dear Republican. You want Prof. Thongchai to openly state he is against all forms of lese majeste laws and commit lese majeste publicly (hence endangering himself) while totally being in fear when he gives a couple of hints as to your identity. Will your hypocrisy never end? and stop with this self-victimization. Its gotta be like 5-0 at this point.
Prof Thongchai, as a clarification, my questions are based on your opinion, and thus I would like to know what your definition of Royalism is.
Taking it a step further, there has been one poster consistent in NM saying the only amendment needed on the lese majeste law is to add one line ‘only by the consent of the king, or affected party (ie the royal to whom the lese majeste is occuring against).’ Hence, the State, the PM, nor any official (military or otherwise) can move on a Lese Majeste law without “explicit” notice (or else it would be unlawful) from the royal.
–> I would like to know your opinion on such an amendment.
Thank you for your post and clarification albeit long-wided and completely unexpected.
First I would like to confirm that based on the article in ‘the nation’, one cannot make the firm conclusion that you are indeed a Royalist (as Republican put it) but more that you are against the latest Lese Majeste law proposal. If one really reads your methodology of answering, one could make the assumption that you are only using your examples as ‘straw men’ so as not to break any law yourself. Smart tactic as the lese majeste laws have been used against people for much less.
My question for you is this though: while you say you are not a ‘royalist’ (i take this meaning from your 3 posts), do you take it as far as wanting thailand to be a republic? Or do you look at the monarchy as an institution that should evolve like the one in England, Norway, Denmark, and the likes? Naturally, this evolution will have to come past the current reign as it is not going to be a realistic notion during. IE: Is it possible to not be a Royalist, and still want the monarchic institution to be around, albeit not as politically involved as the current role?
I totally agree that mobile phones make very good sense and if PMThaksin’s village fund really had those objectives in mind, then it is highly commendable. Unfortunately not, as it is actually not that much different to PMThaksin’s government extending loans to Myanmar under the condition that they use the services of ShinCorp. Sure, better telecommunications connectivity will benefit the Burmese people at large – and even the Burmese opposition – but it does not make PMThaksin a hero (besides, it also greatly benefitted the Burmese Junta). We must not confuse the two. In the case of the village fund, carefully administered micro-credit schemes may be a better alternative (my two cents on economic issues).
I’ve been visiting Chachoengsao yesterday and today, and I was struck by a decent number of candidate posters up around town here and there, especially on Thanon Thepsothon. Also, I’ve noticed that many songthaew, especially seemingly all of the white ones running out towards Wat Cinprachasamosorn, have Phak Palang Prachachon stickers on their front windows and inside on the back wall panel facing the customers.
What is your sense of the comparative presence of the different parties in public and private space, and are certain areas or occupational groups clearly in support of one party or the other to any significant degree?
The ‘cold war’ article is a straight summary of a document which Bangkok Pundit mentioned (thanks for the link, BP) and promised to summarize, but then abandoned the idea.
Upon sober reflection, the thought of properly summarising it meant trawling through all 12 pages. After the cold war analogies on the first page or so, my sanity got the better of me.
Those quotes about HM the King would have been worth it though.
I’m also glad to know your thoughts on capital shift from “Rangoon to Naypidaw – historical, cultural and strategic”, but please convey your friends of Naypidaw to update their information displayed on SPDC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs left side link about Rangoon/Yangon:-http://www.mofa.gov.mm/aboutmyanmar/thecityofyangon.html , which is still running as their the official version about Rangoon/Yangon, dated 8th of August 2003. And for the readers of New Mandala, I’m copying it below:
“Yangon, the capital city and the gateway to Myanmar, was founded in 1755 by King AlaungPaya on the site of the small settlement called Dagon.
Yangon has a unique charm, with its old colonial buildings, tree-lined streets, bustling local markets and tranquil lakes.
There are famous golden pagodas that glisten amongst the trees and buildings like Shwedagon Pagoda, Sule Pagoda, Botataung Pagoda and Chaukhtatgyi Pagoda to name a few. The Shwedagon Pagoda, situated on a small hill with its spire rising to a height of 99.4 meters (326 ft.) is visible from all parts of the city and is considered one of the most magnificent monuments on earth. It’s stupa is covered with 8,000 solid gold plates and its tips set with diamonds, rubies, sapphires and topaz. A huge emerald in the middle of the stupa catches the first and last rays of the sun. Eight hairs of Lord Buddha and other relics are said to be enshrined in this pagoda.”
Please also correct the last statement of my first paragraph from, “When see says that, Michael don’t you miss Burma or to your son about Burmese thing? to “When She says that, Michael don’t you miss Burma or to your daughter about Burmese thing?”. My fast response to your interview and poor internet connectivity resulted to this typing error.
I find AjarnThongchai’s post fascinating read. It does reveal a very basic truth if I may say so that ‘royalists’ don’t necessary see eye to eye with each other and the same applies to ‘anti-royalists’. The next basic truth I deduce is that a ‘royalist’ like myself can have the utmost respect for AjarnThongchai, who obviously isn’t one, as an academic. Royalist/republican are merely one of the many identities we consciously or subconsciously dwell and it is important that we try no to hate, maim and kill over it – nor judge each other too harshly base on it. I may hate PMThaksin as head of government, but I do have a soft spot for ManCity (I am a Kop) since he took over and did a decent job so far (but that may be a bad example here).
“No, what you are saying is that you would do what they did if you were completely in their place, their culture, their values, their society.”
Can I be someone else that is not me? Can I be you, Teth? This is a rather problematic statement and I don’t understand what you are suggesting here…
And Teth, you have made your judgment aloud and with great confidence in this very public blog. You are not a mere “observer” as you claim to be (in which case you will only whisper privately to your friend next to you):
“… Therefore, I judge Siamese kings of the past as ruthless, vile, and self-serving.”
And I maintain that this based on highly selective history (unless you are confident that you have comprehensive knowledge of Siamese-Thai histories) which privileges modern standards applying it retroactively.
The notion of “honor”, “honorable” haven’t occured to me – so I suppose you believe your judgment to be “honorable”? What do you tying to get at?
Based on your long, rather hysterical series of posts I understand that you are affirming that you are not a royalist, and consequently that the argumentation in your article was indeed illogical. That is, exactly my conclusion in post #100. So I take it you agree with my post.
First, it is rather surprising that an academic like you should have such an ambivalent stance towards the use of logic: “Logical argument is OK. But logical argument alone is always flawed”. I am no expert in this field but I would think there might be some philosophy professors, not to mention economists and most of the modern field of academic endeavour who would beg to differ. But the aim in your posts is clearly to downplay the importance of logical argument. Why?
Secondly, in my view it is very damaging for high profile academics to be writing articles in the national Thai media, read by hundreds of thousands of people, based on the logic that the lese majeste law is valid and that violaters should be punished: “Imagine if such a person did something that injured the reputation and status of the monarchy, he would still be protected by the amended lèse majesté law. In other words, his violation of lèse majesté could not be punished, thanks to the amended lèse majesté law…”
What are you saying here? That violaters of lese majeste should be punished. And then you get all hysterical when someone points out that this is a royalist stance.
I repeat, your argument against the amendment to the lese majeste law is based on the validity of the existing lese majeste law. Worse, you do not write this just in an academic journal read by a few dozen people, but to a general readership of hundreds of thousands. Very damaging in my opinion and deserving of criticism on an academic webblog (read by perhaps 100 people daily (Webmaster?), compared to the far larger numbers of people who read your article). Believe it or not, I do sincerely believe that you should be scrutinized – all the more so if you choose to write in the national media which is far more influential than a journal article – let alone a blog!
Thirdly, I wonder why an academic like you should be writing illogical arguments in a national newspaper. There are plenty of journalists, politicians and other political commentators who we do not expect to follow the rules of reason or logic. But academics have a certain status in society precisely because they at least attempt to follow these rules.
Finally, you have done everything possible in your posts to give away my identity without actually mentioning my name, knowing what the likely consequences would be for me if that identity became publicly known. Why?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The King Never Smiles?
“And Teth, you have made your judgment aloud and with great confidence in this very public blog. You are not a mere “observer” as you claim to be (in which case you will only whisper privately to your friend next to you)”
But am I a judge, executioner, jury, all rolled in one as you said? Ridiculous how when faced with rational argument you retreat into these minute disputable details when clearly you are wrong.
“And I maintain that this based on highly selective history (unless you are confident that you have comprehensive knowledge of Siamese-Thai histories) which privileges modern standards applying it retroactively.”
You “maintain”, even when faced with facts. Spot bleating and actually mention what it is that makes you think like you do. Are you not being “selective” yourself? Are you not being judgmental yourself? The difference is that I use “modern values” by which I judge, whereas your foundation is the assumption that Siamese-Thai kings must be benevolent in general.
Perhaps the facts I refer to are “selective”, but are they false? I do give considerations for context which explain relevant events, but do they then excuse someone?
“The notion of “honor”, “honorable” haven’t occured to me – so I suppose you believe your judgment to be “honorable”? What do you tying to get at?”
I’m trying to say your relativism is nonsense. At the very least admit that murder is wrong and that Siamese kings of the past were very complicit in it. Or perhaps greed for power was not something the Buddha preached about. Surely the Buddha’s teachings had existed back then and is not merely my ‘modern’ judgment. Surely you understand the concept of right and wrong, Sidh. You cannot claim the ‘ignorance’ defense when it is so clear what is brutal and unjust.
Perhaps your so-called “modern values” are not so modern after all. Refer to LSS’s replies.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
“without blogs who could debate with an Ivy League professor who publishes with the top academic publisher except his/her academic colleagues.” >> Some more non-Ivy League professors working in the field of Thai studies could participate in New Mandala.
The King Never Smiles?
It’s true that he never smiles !
http://www.bkkapt.com/find-apartment/visit-thai-king-website-thailand-kings-birthday-long-live-king-all-thai-people-love-king.html
One-2-grow
o.k. Andrew I will have to agree with you on this point. It may give you some satisfaction to know that a few months ago I did not believe so.
But any new-fangled technology is only as good or as useful depending on how the user employs it. A cellphone should be very helpful to the farmer to get his daily market information … and negotiate all the “deals” he needs to get his farm competitive. But does the Thai farmer realize that?
Uncle, is that a gun in your pocket or did you just sell your vote?
With so many dinosaurs, literally dozens of dirty old men running for office, it is going to be very difficult pinning the genius behind this vote getting gimmick! If this was Samak’s idea, he will definitely get my vote . . . in exchange for the blue pill of course!
But in this forum, in my personal opinion, the one who needs the blue pills the most (with so much repressed hostility demanding release) is Republican! Republican you really need to get laid.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
That “Old Burmese” is something mysterious and incomprehensible is also probably a myth of Aung-Thwin’s making. (Again no attempts have been made to pass on this knowledge. What are teachers for? How many PhD students has he had? What exactly is his legacy? Charney as Lieberman’s student is part of Liebermna’s legacy as a teacher.) Most inscriptions from the Ava period I’ve been looking at are land donations using a very limited set of vocabulary. Furthermore, a parallel translation with English next to the Burmese of Jatakas in the Lokhateikpan inscription shows that a lot of the Burmese is common everyday Burmese, in a slightly different script perhaps. Aung-Thwin’s Pagan gives most of the credit for the one long inscription translation to John Okell.
That there is something mysterious and different about Burmese history. Mysterious constructions called “spirals” are supposedly not to be found anywhere else, as if premodern agrarian states did not share things in common as modern economies do. This sort of mystification or mythification of Aung-Thwin’s own creation is rife and is more significant than the “myths” he claims to have found in Burmese chronicles, of which a good %85 is devoted to warfare, something not touched on much in inscriptions outside of conflicts with the Chinese, and something that most historians of Burma for some mysterious reason tend to downplay. Research on Trojan warfare such as Barry Strauss’s recent “Trojan Wars” stress universal characteristics of warfare which can also be found in Rajadhirat and the Burmese chronicle as well and the Illiad is even more myth-like than the Burmese chornicle.
Anyway, to pretend that you are going to get a 100% resolution on historical truth, that history is a deterministic yes or no sort of thing, than a multiple possibilities sort of thing, is a little ridiculous and to pretend that colonials themselves such as Luce were not aware of the contingent nature of their historical sources is also ridiculous. As Luce remarked on determining what might plausibly have happened from evidence in the Burmese chronicles: “To thread this maze is not, perhaps, so hopeless as it seems. External sources often come to one’s assistance. But I cannot deny that one often has to depend on probability.” (Luce, 1969, vol. 1, 19) He even tried to capture the sentiment in a poetry, “as Fulke Grevelle frightenly called it [probability]” :
“O false and treacherous probability,
Enemy of truth, and friend to wickedness,
With whose bleary eyes opinion learns to see,
Truth’s feeble party here, and barennesse!”
(Luce, 1969, vol. 1, 19)
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Everything Aung-Thwin writes is a power play. This is the main criticism from which all other criticisms must flow. “Myth and History in the Historiography of Early Burma” reads as one long list of source criticisms (ripping the sources apart) without in the end producing any positive history at all, answering the commonsense question: “So what do you think happened professor?”
Moreover, Aung-Thwin’s sources are usually inaccessible. Take the Ming history cited that his Chinese research assistant did for him. This research assistant gave me a copy so I can actually engage with and evaluate Aung-Thwin’s criticism, but most people can’t. The same goes for the Kalyani inscriptions or most of the other inscriptions cited in his works. They’ve all been out of print for 50-100 years and are highly inaccessible to almost everyone. Aung-Thwin himself is reliant on these colonial era works though.
This is the sort of preliminary text-centered scholarly work (translation and annotation) done by people like Luce and Coedes and Michael Charney (though as yet unpublished) that Aung-Thwin just skips. Take for instance vocabulary found in the chronicles. He faults people for using informants when he knows very well that many words and phrases in chronicles are not to be found in any published dictionary. One can easily get a sense of the gist, but for accurate translations one needs accurate dictionaries. San Lwin’s translation of Rajadhirat does exactly this and a dictionary of phrases can be reverse engineered out of it, which I am doing slowly. (I sent Aung-Thwin a copy of San Lwin’s unpublished Rajadhirat translation, so our relation is not me begging to become his student or tabei-disciple and being refused as he seems to imply. He does have a very extensive patron-client chain though and uses it.)
Aung-Thwin typically skips several steps and produces some gigantic uber theory called the “Mon paradigm” which forces everyone to work on his intellectual territory. The analogy in warfare would be choosing the ground on which a battle is fought. In the case of the “Mon Paradigm” he does not know the Mon language and therefore cannot study Mon chronicles, inscriptions, or religious text traditions in any detail, but that does not seem to make any difference. Many Mon are rightly offended by his cursory non-chalant attempt to erase their history. He believes he has arrived at the truth when his VIP friend at Harvard Lily Handlin pays for his airplane ticket to give a presentation and he can name drop her. Truth as a function of who your friends are…..[continued in next posting…]
Thinking like a Thai Army general
Given that Chang Noi’s piece is a summary of actual military thinking, maybe the military isn’t as light and nimble on their feet as it seemed.
I sure wish that Chang Noi would start predicting possible future worlds so people can know what to anticipate. Surely, it must be possible to predict a little bit, like a couple of possible worlds.
How the efforts of PPP and the Democrats to form coalition governments might play out? Or what might happen if Samak opens his mouth and starts abusing people after a victory? Or what might happen to all the efforts of the Assets Scrutiny Committee?
Thinking like a Thai Army general
[…] Chang Noi, The new Cold War, 26 November 2007 (and further comments & links) […]
Thailand’s revised Internal Security Act
[…] why the National Assembly is considering the latest draft of an internal security law which will heap enormous powers on the command that Sonthi currently […]
The King Never Smiles?
Republican said:
“Finally, you have done everything possible in your posts to give away my identity without actually mentioning my name, knowing what the likely consequences would be for me if that identity became publicly known. Why?”
My dear Republican. You want Prof. Thongchai to openly state he is against all forms of lese majeste laws and commit lese majeste publicly (hence endangering himself) while totally being in fear when he gives a couple of hints as to your identity. Will your hypocrisy never end? and stop with this self-victimization. Its gotta be like 5-0 at this point.
Prof Thongchai, as a clarification, my questions are based on your opinion, and thus I would like to know what your definition of Royalism is.
Taking it a step further, there has been one poster consistent in NM saying the only amendment needed on the lese majeste law is to add one line ‘only by the consent of the king, or affected party (ie the royal to whom the lese majeste is occuring against).’ Hence, the State, the PM, nor any official (military or otherwise) can move on a Lese Majeste law without “explicit” notice (or else it would be unlawful) from the royal.
–> I would like to know your opinion on such an amendment.
The King Never Smiles?
Prof Thongchai,
Thank you for your post and clarification albeit long-wided and completely unexpected.
First I would like to confirm that based on the article in ‘the nation’, one cannot make the firm conclusion that you are indeed a Royalist (as Republican put it) but more that you are against the latest Lese Majeste law proposal. If one really reads your methodology of answering, one could make the assumption that you are only using your examples as ‘straw men’ so as not to break any law yourself. Smart tactic as the lese majeste laws have been used against people for much less.
My question for you is this though: while you say you are not a ‘royalist’ (i take this meaning from your 3 posts), do you take it as far as wanting thailand to be a republic? Or do you look at the monarchy as an institution that should evolve like the one in England, Norway, Denmark, and the likes? Naturally, this evolution will have to come past the current reign as it is not going to be a realistic notion during. IE: Is it possible to not be a Royalist, and still want the monarchic institution to be around, albeit not as politically involved as the current role?
One-2-grow
I totally agree that mobile phones make very good sense and if PMThaksin’s village fund really had those objectives in mind, then it is highly commendable. Unfortunately not, as it is actually not that much different to PMThaksin’s government extending loans to Myanmar under the condition that they use the services of ShinCorp. Sure, better telecommunications connectivity will benefit the Burmese people at large – and even the Burmese opposition – but it does not make PMThaksin a hero (besides, it also greatly benefitted the Burmese Junta). We must not confuse the two. In the case of the village fund, carefully administered micro-credit schemes may be a better alternative (my two cents on economic issues).
Taking an oath for a clean and fair election
Michael,
I’ve been visiting Chachoengsao yesterday and today, and I was struck by a decent number of candidate posters up around town here and there, especially on Thanon Thepsothon. Also, I’ve noticed that many songthaew, especially seemingly all of the white ones running out towards Wat Cinprachasamosorn, have Phak Palang Prachachon stickers on their front windows and inside on the back wall panel facing the customers.
What is your sense of the comparative presence of the different parties in public and private space, and are certain areas or occupational groups clearly in support of one party or the other to any significant degree?
Thinking like a Thai Army general
Chang Noi:
The ‘cold war’ article is a straight summary of a document which Bangkok Pundit mentioned (thanks for the link, BP) and promised to summarize, but then abandoned the idea.
Upon sober reflection, the thought of properly summarising it meant trawling through all 12 pages. After the cold war analogies on the first page or so, my sanity got the better of me.
Those quotes about HM the King would have been worth it though.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Respected Prof. Michael Aung-Thwin,
I’m also glad to know your thoughts on capital shift from “Rangoon to Naypidaw – historical, cultural and strategic”, but please convey your friends of Naypidaw to update their information displayed on SPDC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs left side link about Rangoon/Yangon:-http://www.mofa.gov.mm/aboutmyanmar/thecityofyangon.html , which is still running as their the official version about Rangoon/Yangon, dated 8th of August 2003. And for the readers of New Mandala, I’m copying it below:
“Yangon, the capital city and the gateway to Myanmar, was founded in 1755 by King AlaungPaya on the site of the small settlement called Dagon.
Yangon has a unique charm, with its old colonial buildings, tree-lined streets, bustling local markets and tranquil lakes.
There are famous golden pagodas that glisten amongst the trees and buildings like Shwedagon Pagoda, Sule Pagoda, Botataung Pagoda and Chaukhtatgyi Pagoda to name a few. The Shwedagon Pagoda, situated on a small hill with its spire rising to a height of 99.4 meters (326 ft.) is visible from all parts of the city and is considered one of the most magnificent monuments on earth. It’s stupa is covered with 8,000 solid gold plates and its tips set with diamonds, rubies, sapphires and topaz. A huge emerald in the middle of the stupa catches the first and last rays of the sun. Eight hairs of Lord Buddha and other relics are said to be enshrined in this pagoda.”
Please also correct the last statement of my first paragraph from, “When see says that, Michael don’t you miss Burma or to your son about Burmese thing? to “When She says that, Michael don’t you miss Burma or to your daughter about Burmese thing?”. My fast response to your interview and poor internet connectivity resulted to this typing error.
Best regards,
Rajshekhar
Editor, Burma Review
http://www.burmareview.com
The King Never Smiles?
I find AjarnThongchai’s post fascinating read. It does reveal a very basic truth if I may say so that ‘royalists’ don’t necessary see eye to eye with each other and the same applies to ‘anti-royalists’. The next basic truth I deduce is that a ‘royalist’ like myself can have the utmost respect for AjarnThongchai, who obviously isn’t one, as an academic. Royalist/republican are merely one of the many identities we consciously or subconsciously dwell and it is important that we try no to hate, maim and kill over it – nor judge each other too harshly base on it. I may hate PMThaksin as head of government, but I do have a soft spot for ManCity (I am a Kop) since he took over and did a decent job so far (but that may be a bad example here).
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Reply to JW: If you’ve been reading my posts on NM I would have thought the reason is obvious.
But does it matter if we use real names or “noms de guerre” (an appropriate term right now) in academic debate?
Isn’t it the value of the argument, rather than the status of the person who is presenting the argument, that is most important?
The King Never Smiles?
“No, what you are saying is that you would do what they did if you were completely in their place, their culture, their values, their society.”
Can I be someone else that is not me? Can I be you, Teth? This is a rather problematic statement and I don’t understand what you are suggesting here…
And Teth, you have made your judgment aloud and with great confidence in this very public blog. You are not a mere “observer” as you claim to be (in which case you will only whisper privately to your friend next to you):
“… Therefore, I judge Siamese kings of the past as ruthless, vile, and self-serving.”
And I maintain that this based on highly selective history (unless you are confident that you have comprehensive knowledge of Siamese-Thai histories) which privileges modern standards applying it retroactively.
The notion of “honor”, “honorable” haven’t occured to me – so I suppose you believe your judgment to be “honorable”? What do you tying to get at?
The King Never Smiles?
Based on your long, rather hysterical series of posts I understand that you are affirming that you are not a royalist, and consequently that the argumentation in your article was indeed illogical. That is, exactly my conclusion in post #100. So I take it you agree with my post.
First, it is rather surprising that an academic like you should have such an ambivalent stance towards the use of logic: “Logical argument is OK. But logical argument alone is always flawed”. I am no expert in this field but I would think there might be some philosophy professors, not to mention economists and most of the modern field of academic endeavour who would beg to differ. But the aim in your posts is clearly to downplay the importance of logical argument. Why?
Secondly, in my view it is very damaging for high profile academics to be writing articles in the national Thai media, read by hundreds of thousands of people, based on the logic that the lese majeste law is valid and that violaters should be punished: “Imagine if such a person did something that injured the reputation and status of the monarchy, he would still be protected by the amended lèse majesté law. In other words, his violation of lèse majesté could not be punished, thanks to the amended lèse majesté law…”
What are you saying here? That violaters of lese majeste should be punished. And then you get all hysterical when someone points out that this is a royalist stance.
I repeat, your argument against the amendment to the lese majeste law is based on the validity of the existing lese majeste law. Worse, you do not write this just in an academic journal read by a few dozen people, but to a general readership of hundreds of thousands. Very damaging in my opinion and deserving of criticism on an academic webblog (read by perhaps 100 people daily (Webmaster?), compared to the far larger numbers of people who read your article). Believe it or not, I do sincerely believe that you should be scrutinized – all the more so if you choose to write in the national media which is far more influential than a journal article – let alone a blog!
Thirdly, I wonder why an academic like you should be writing illogical arguments in a national newspaper. There are plenty of journalists, politicians and other political commentators who we do not expect to follow the rules of reason or logic. But academics have a certain status in society precisely because they at least attempt to follow these rules.
Finally, you have done everything possible in your posts to give away my identity without actually mentioning my name, knowing what the likely consequences would be for me if that identity became publicly known. Why?