LSS, maybe in a communist republic? But surely in a liberal republic, the will of a person is always geared to be top of the pile. Mill’s “always to better oneself” principal for instance. Of course, not everyone betters themselves; but usually if you question these people about their beliefs they are vindictive and volatile – like hot air that has been trapped under a rock and failed to rise. Also, sure you can say that if one is truly bettering themselves they would not need to be top of the pile, but this acknowledgment of unnecessary desire is itself a desire of righteousness, of which all King’s share.
Republican, replying to your reply to Dickie Simpkins – I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Is Thongchai the leader of a revolutionary army that has decided to overthrow the monarchy? No?!, so how can you be dissapointed? He is an academic whose analysis is important to many peoples interpretations; maybe in this context he was sensible enough to not be convicted of lese majeste himself for desiring that the monarchy be harmed. If this isn’t sensible; then I eagerly await your appearance on BBC worldwide when you have overthrown the monarchy with your moderate republicanism.
Reply to Historicus: I don’t see what this has to do with Trotsky. This is NOT a question of doctrinal rigour but of logical argumentation. Call me old fashioned but I believe that the argumentation of academics should be held up to scrutiny – more so than others whom we don’t expect to follow the laws of logic and reason as closely. Read the Thongchai article, read my critique, and tell me if I am right or wrong in arguing that Thongchai’s argument against the amendment to the lese majeste law in his article is based on his public acceptance of the legitimacy of the current lese majeste law. This is a question of logic and argumentation, which I would have thought has a place on an academic website.
There’s no end to regimist mischief, is there? Michael Aung-Thwin says: ‘Either way, maybe Wintle should have contacted me first before rushing to judgment.’ But he knows very very well that, a year and more before my book was published, that I did contact him, and that we had a protracted and sometimes buoyant e-mail correspodence, which I would be more than happy to publish. That I have not already done so is because I have respected his inital request that anything he wrote to me was off the record. So I have no hesitation in asserting that what he has said about me to New Mandala is one hundred per cent disingenuous. If MAT cares to nominate a mutually acceptable neutral referee (if such an individual can be found), I will happily pass on print-outs of our e-mails for a judgement that New Mandala should then publish. Otherwise, Michael Aung-Thwin should desist from telling lies about me. JW
This reminds me a bit of the debates that Trotskyists have. What is most important is having doctrinal rigor rather than anything else. But the true problem/issues/people get let off the hook because there is always an internal battle to fight. I think Thongchai has said enough and taken enough swipes at the institution to deserve credit.
I will have to agree with Republican. All my criticisms of Republican are full of abuse, foul language, and threats of violence. I seem to beintellectually incapable of mounting any rational counter-arguments to the cases presented against the monarchy.
I must warn you Republican . . . if next week I don’t see you in full yellow uniform, I will not be restrained from heaping further abuse, foul language and threats of violence against your person.
This reminds me a bit of the debates that Trotskyists have. What is most important is having doctrinal rigor rather than anything else. But the true problem/issues/people get let off the hook because there is always an internal battle to fight. I think Thongchai has said enough and taken enough swipes at the institution to deserve credit.
I don’t know if I would define a republic as you do. I think a more accurate definition would be is that in a republic “every man is not king.”
I think this is an important distinction to make as it is through this apophasis [are Greek terms pretentious also?] that such “sheepish” head-butting is avoided.
Reply to Polo: You say that Thongchai is “arguing the case in the standard Thai (royalist) context”. Isn’t that exactly what I said in part (iv) of my conclusion? So I take it you agree with me. Thanks for your support. Republican 1, Thongchai-Royalists 0.
Reply to Dickie Simpkins: one of the interesting things your could do in your spare time would be to trawl through the various Thai academic and political blogs where you would find criticism of the Thai king and the monarchy many times stronger than mild old Republican’s.
Another thing you would find is that the royalists’ criticisms of their opponents in the blogs are full of abuse, foul language, and threats of violence. They seem intellectually incapable to mount any rational counter-arguments to the cases presented against the monarchy. In fact, similar to your post above. Given that you are unable to counter my argument against Thongchai I take it you also agree with me. Republican 2, Thongchai-Royalists 0.
Maybe it’s time to bring on your interchange players.
Republican, are you smiling? As this post is about a King that doesn’t smile and since in a Republic all are king, perhaps you can explain why the King never smiles? Wouldn’t you find the lese majeste law convenient now?
When I look in the mirror I see Julia Gillard (Kevin Rudd is basically Gaia). I suppose this diffuses any testosterone fueled quest to establish myself as a King and allows instead for surreal affirmations of myself emasculated and realising that this whole everyman is a King thing is too much a rams butting heads on the mountain top to be taken seriously.
I’m just curious, on what “principle” does the good Professor not read blogs? If he doesn’t read blogs, then why did he accept to be interviewed by New Mandala? How will he know that Nicholas won’t slander him, if he doesn’t deign to read blogs? Perhaps the Burmese word for “blog” carries with it a semantic or pragmatic nuance that is not cross-culturally translatable.
Despite the supercilious tone of his comments, his points on peer review and on how academic journals assign reviewers are cogent.
If Thaksin and the TRT are like communism than the whole thing should be separate from the person of Thaksin and his wealth but it isn’t.
Yesterday’s op-ed piece in The Bangkok Post by Boonrak Boonyaketmala argued that Somkid was in many ways an independent entity from Thaksin and that he was pushed out of the way so that Thaksin could solidify personal control and that the PDA’s blocking him from joining the interim government early on was a big mistake. A lot of former TRT people have branched off on their own too. Their are old loyalists who still faithful and fighting for the return of Thaksin. That specifically is what the army seems to be scared about and there’s an easy solution that isn’t a cold war, it’s divide and conquer to eliminate one person’s power.
Hopefully, the Democrats will strike a nice coalition and the prove that ***Thaksin like policies (but improved) are possible without Thaksin***. This personality cult stuff is starting to eat Thailand alive like it ate Burma with Aung San Suu Kyi. Thaksin seems more like he’s becoming an Aung San Suu Kyi with big bags of cash. A rebranding from the old “UN is not my father” days.
“Their tools now are the populist policies offered to the electorate. These policies are designed solely to win popular support and gain election to political office.”
How is this different than in the US, Cananda, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, or any other “democracy” in the world?
This excerpt is totally off the mark, Thai generals think about their own personal power and wealth, (and if today’s Bangkok Post can be believed, The Thai dictators are doing a good job of enriching themselves). A resurgent of communists may be used for justification for power grabs, but it seems impossible to think the dictators take their own rhetoric seriously.
You seem to be “surprised” everytime some famous academic, etc. does not challenge the institution of the monarchy in public.
So I ask you:
What are you doing to challenge the institution of Monarchy in public?
Forget the public, you won’t even leave your real name on the board. Damn, you won’t take any risks, but you want someone to do it on prachatai and the nation?
Calling it like it is. You’re a hypocrite. And a bigger one too because you claim to be ‘exposing’ other academics for their hypocrisy.
Secondly, you’re a chicken shit because you won’t even leave your real name, who you are, or what you do, for the world to know.
I would’ve respected you for being consistent with your beliefs that Thailand should be a Republic state. A notion I highly disagree with, but can respect. But you’re just another belittling coward.
Compliments, Michael, on the interesting and colorful account.
I personally experienced the preparations for an event much like this one, back in 1996 when I was teaching at a small elementary school in the provincial capital of a lower Northern region province. The celebrations then were marking the 50th anniversary of the King’s accession to the throne. In the two weeks before the parade, all academic work virtually stopped. Instead, students were taken from class to practice marching, playing instruments, singing and dancing. As the date drew nearer, much time was spent preparing costumes and decorations (folding leaves, stringing flowers, etc.) for the school’s procession.
I asked my older (prathom 5-6) students their thoughts about the whole event. Why are they doing all this work for a parade? Because the teachers told them to, and because they love the King. Is it fun, or at least more fun than regular classes? Mixed reactions, but in general it seemed that though preparing for parades can be boring and tiring, it is a bit more fun than sitting in class. What about your schoolwork–aren’t you worried about your final exams? With very few exceptions, not really. This is school–shouldn’t you be here studying instead of marching and dancing? The teachers want us to do this.
The event, combined with the fact that schoolwork stopped in a similar way for several other lesser events (for instance provincial sports day) throughout the year, probably created the impression that ceremony is more important than study. Some students, though not all, seemed to learn that it is important to do your best for the honor of your school (and probably, by extension, whatever social/institutional group you are part of). Obviously, there was the message that it is important to honor the King, though I somehow doubt that many students abstracted this imperative beyond the King as an individual to the monarchy in general–the focus was almost entirely on Nai Luang himself, though his recently-deceased (non-royal-blooded) mother was also honored.
Regarding the ceremony in Michael’s account, I am inclined to agree that other messages, like those about democracy, are secondary and only connected in a vague way — i.e., the King is good, democracy is good (at least in principle), so honor the King and elect good people. Perhaps more controversially, though, I don’t really see how such ceremonies reinforce the _institution_ of the monarchy or the “bureaucratic-royalist model of politics” except insofar as the current King is the embodiment of the monarchy. I would welcome someone to point out what I am missing.
Republican, you are either being silly or just plain thick. Thongchai is arguing the case in the standard Thai (royalist) context, not in the one you want him to argue. Get real, man. He’s not writing for you.
This is Roy Fairfield speaking. I think that what I have written, above, is clear. I would like to resume correspondence with Bob via e-mail at his pleasure.
I’m the Roy Fairfield to whom Bob Taylor refers in his interview. I cannot comment intelligently about his scholarship; I simply know that JohnCady, one of my colleagues and his professor at Ohio University, lighted the Burma fire in Bob’s head and heart. I am hoping that this comment willsomehow reach him, wherever he is, and that we may resume forty-plus years of correspondence. Thank you, Professor Farreley, for an insightful interview and an understanding summary.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The King Never Smiles?
LSS, maybe in a communist republic? But surely in a liberal republic, the will of a person is always geared to be top of the pile. Mill’s “always to better oneself” principal for instance. Of course, not everyone betters themselves; but usually if you question these people about their beliefs they are vindictive and volatile – like hot air that has been trapped under a rock and failed to rise. Also, sure you can say that if one is truly bettering themselves they would not need to be top of the pile, but this acknowledgment of unnecessary desire is itself a desire of righteousness, of which all King’s share.
Republican, replying to your reply to Dickie Simpkins – I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Is Thongchai the leader of a revolutionary army that has decided to overthrow the monarchy? No?!, so how can you be dissapointed? He is an academic whose analysis is important to many peoples interpretations; maybe in this context he was sensible enough to not be convicted of lese majeste himself for desiring that the monarchy be harmed. If this isn’t sensible; then I eagerly await your appearance on BBC worldwide when you have overthrown the monarchy with your moderate republicanism.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to Historicus: I don’t see what this has to do with Trotsky. This is NOT a question of doctrinal rigour but of logical argumentation. Call me old fashioned but I believe that the argumentation of academics should be held up to scrutiny – more so than others whom we don’t expect to follow the laws of logic and reason as closely. Read the Thongchai article, read my critique, and tell me if I am right or wrong in arguing that Thongchai’s argument against the amendment to the lese majeste law in his article is based on his public acceptance of the legitimacy of the current lese majeste law. This is a question of logic and argumentation, which I would have thought has a place on an academic website.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
There’s no end to regimist mischief, is there? Michael Aung-Thwin says: ‘Either way, maybe Wintle should have contacted me first before rushing to judgment.’ But he knows very very well that, a year and more before my book was published, that I did contact him, and that we had a protracted and sometimes buoyant e-mail correspodence, which I would be more than happy to publish. That I have not already done so is because I have respected his inital request that anything he wrote to me was off the record. So I have no hesitation in asserting that what he has said about me to New Mandala is one hundred per cent disingenuous. If MAT cares to nominate a mutually acceptable neutral referee (if such an individual can be found), I will happily pass on print-outs of our e-mails for a judgement that New Mandala should then publish. Otherwise, Michael Aung-Thwin should desist from telling lies about me. JW
The King Never Smiles?
Spot on.
The King Never Smiles?
I will have to agree with Republican. All my criticisms of Republican are full of abuse, foul language, and threats of violence. I seem to beintellectually incapable of mounting any rational counter-arguments to the cases presented against the monarchy.
I must warn you Republican . . . if next week I don’t see you in full yellow uniform, I will not be restrained from heaping further abuse, foul language and threats of violence against your person.
The King Never Smiles?
This reminds me a bit of the debates that Trotskyists have. What is most important is having doctrinal rigor rather than anything else. But the true problem/issues/people get let off the hook because there is always an internal battle to fight. I think Thongchai has said enough and taken enough swipes at the institution to deserve credit.
The King Never Smiles?
Re: Grasshopper>
I don’t know if I would define a republic as you do. I think a more accurate definition would be is that in a republic “every man is not king.”
I think this is an important distinction to make as it is through this apophasis [are Greek terms pretentious also?] that such “sheepish” head-butting is avoided.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to Polo: You say that Thongchai is “arguing the case in the standard Thai (royalist) context”. Isn’t that exactly what I said in part (iv) of my conclusion? So I take it you agree with me. Thanks for your support. Republican 1, Thongchai-Royalists 0.
Reply to Dickie Simpkins: one of the interesting things your could do in your spare time would be to trawl through the various Thai academic and political blogs where you would find criticism of the Thai king and the monarchy many times stronger than mild old Republican’s.
Another thing you would find is that the royalists’ criticisms of their opponents in the blogs are full of abuse, foul language, and threats of violence. They seem intellectually incapable to mount any rational counter-arguments to the cases presented against the monarchy. In fact, similar to your post above. Given that you are unable to counter my argument against Thongchai I take it you also agree with me. Republican 2, Thongchai-Royalists 0.
Maybe it’s time to bring on your interchange players.
The King Never Smiles?
Republican, are you smiling? As this post is about a King that doesn’t smile and since in a Republic all are king, perhaps you can explain why the King never smiles? Wouldn’t you find the lese majeste law convenient now?
When I look in the mirror I see Julia Gillard (Kevin Rudd is basically Gaia). I suppose this diffuses any testosterone fueled quest to establish myself as a King and allows instead for surreal affirmations of myself emasculated and realising that this whole everyman is a King thing is too much a rams butting heads on the mountain top to be taken seriously.
The King Never Smiles?
Let me ask you why you disagree with the notion of Thailand as a republic?
Royalist propaganda got to you before Handley did?
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
I’m just curious, on what “principle” does the good Professor not read blogs? If he doesn’t read blogs, then why did he accept to be interviewed by New Mandala? How will he know that Nicholas won’t slander him, if he doesn’t deign to read blogs? Perhaps the Burmese word for “blog” carries with it a semantic or pragmatic nuance that is not cross-culturally translatable.
Despite the supercilious tone of his comments, his points on peer review and on how academic journals assign reviewers are cogent.
Thinking like a Thai Army general
If Thaksin and the TRT are like communism than the whole thing should be separate from the person of Thaksin and his wealth but it isn’t.
Yesterday’s op-ed piece in The Bangkok Post by Boonrak Boonyaketmala argued that Somkid was in many ways an independent entity from Thaksin and that he was pushed out of the way so that Thaksin could solidify personal control and that the PDA’s blocking him from joining the interim government early on was a big mistake. A lot of former TRT people have branched off on their own too. Their are old loyalists who still faithful and fighting for the return of Thaksin. That specifically is what the army seems to be scared about and there’s an easy solution that isn’t a cold war, it’s divide and conquer to eliminate one person’s power.
Hopefully, the Democrats will strike a nice coalition and the prove that ***Thaksin like policies (but improved) are possible without Thaksin***. This personality cult stuff is starting to eat Thailand alive like it ate Burma with Aung San Suu Kyi. Thaksin seems more like he’s becoming an Aung San Suu Kyi with big bags of cash. A rebranding from the old “UN is not my father” days.
Thinking like a Thai Army general
“Their tools now are the populist policies offered to the electorate. These policies are designed solely to win popular support and gain election to political office.”
How is this different than in the US, Cananda, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Japan, or any other “democracy” in the world?
This excerpt is totally off the mark, Thai generals think about their own personal power and wealth, (and if today’s Bangkok Post can be believed, The Thai dictators are doing a good job of enriching themselves). A resurgent of communists may be used for justification for power grabs, but it seems impossible to think the dictators take their own rhetoric seriously.
Bovine populism
The bovine is indeed divine.
The King Never Smiles?
Hey Republican,
You seem to be “surprised” everytime some famous academic, etc. does not challenge the institution of the monarchy in public.
So I ask you:
What are you doing to challenge the institution of Monarchy in public?
Forget the public, you won’t even leave your real name on the board. Damn, you won’t take any risks, but you want someone to do it on prachatai and the nation?
Calling it like it is. You’re a hypocrite. And a bigger one too because you claim to be ‘exposing’ other academics for their hypocrisy.
Secondly, you’re a chicken shit because you won’t even leave your real name, who you are, or what you do, for the world to know.
I would’ve respected you for being consistent with your beliefs that Thailand should be a Republic state. A notion I highly disagree with, but can respect. But you’re just another belittling coward.
Chachoengsao: Celebrating the King
Compliments, Michael, on the interesting and colorful account.
I personally experienced the preparations for an event much like this one, back in 1996 when I was teaching at a small elementary school in the provincial capital of a lower Northern region province. The celebrations then were marking the 50th anniversary of the King’s accession to the throne. In the two weeks before the parade, all academic work virtually stopped. Instead, students were taken from class to practice marching, playing instruments, singing and dancing. As the date drew nearer, much time was spent preparing costumes and decorations (folding leaves, stringing flowers, etc.) for the school’s procession.
I asked my older (prathom 5-6) students their thoughts about the whole event. Why are they doing all this work for a parade? Because the teachers told them to, and because they love the King. Is it fun, or at least more fun than regular classes? Mixed reactions, but in general it seemed that though preparing for parades can be boring and tiring, it is a bit more fun than sitting in class. What about your schoolwork–aren’t you worried about your final exams? With very few exceptions, not really. This is school–shouldn’t you be here studying instead of marching and dancing? The teachers want us to do this.
The event, combined with the fact that schoolwork stopped in a similar way for several other lesser events (for instance provincial sports day) throughout the year, probably created the impression that ceremony is more important than study. Some students, though not all, seemed to learn that it is important to do your best for the honor of your school (and probably, by extension, whatever social/institutional group you are part of). Obviously, there was the message that it is important to honor the King, though I somehow doubt that many students abstracted this imperative beyond the King as an individual to the monarchy in general–the focus was almost entirely on Nai Luang himself, though his recently-deceased (non-royal-blooded) mother was also honored.
Regarding the ceremony in Michael’s account, I am inclined to agree that other messages, like those about democracy, are secondary and only connected in a vague way — i.e., the King is good, democracy is good (at least in principle), so honor the King and elect good people. Perhaps more controversially, though, I don’t really see how such ceremonies reinforce the _institution_ of the monarchy or the “bureaucratic-royalist model of politics” except insofar as the current King is the embodiment of the monarchy. I would welcome someone to point out what I am missing.
The King Never Smiles?
Republican, you are either being silly or just plain thick. Thongchai is arguing the case in the standard Thai (royalist) context, not in the one you want him to argue. Get real, man. He’s not writing for you.
Interview with Professor Robert Taylor
This is Roy Fairfield speaking. I think that what I have written, above, is clear. I would like to resume correspondence with Bob via e-mail at his pleasure.
Interview with Professor Robert Taylor
I’m the Roy Fairfield to whom Bob Taylor refers in his interview. I cannot comment intelligently about his scholarship; I simply know that JohnCady, one of my colleagues and his professor at Ohio University, lighted the Burma fire in Bob’s head and heart. I am hoping that this comment willsomehow reach him, wherever he is, and that we may resume forty-plus years of correspondence. Thank you, Professor Farreley, for an insightful interview and an understanding summary.
Chachoengsao: Celebrating the King
Brilliant. Great pictures. Thanks Michael.