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. It has a policy paper dated 16 September, apparently signed as “approved” by General Sonthi; and transcripts of two speeches given on 21 September 2007 in the Kittikachorn Auditorium of the army command at a meeting to relay the policy to battalion heads. The second speech is probably by General Sonthi; he is referred to as simply ‘Chairman’, but addresses the assembled crowd as nong nong, so it must be the top dog. The other speech is by a deputy (р╕гр╕нр╕З р╕Ьр╕Ъ. р╕Юр╕ер╣Гр╣С р╕гр╕н.).
Maybe the generals don’t believe their own rhetoric. But they seem intent on acting on it.
The document is still available as a pdf. The two links from there back to the hi-thaksin site now seem to be broken, but hi-thaksin’s first-page banner directs you to the document .
We omitted one part of the argument because inclusion would probably have meant that The Nation would not print the piece. Here are two key extracts, both from the deputy’s speech.
“Whether in the pre-war era, the cold war era, or the era of capitalist democracy, the trend of conflict, and the procedures to deal with the ‘war over the people,’ have not changed at all. We remember well that twenty years ago, we faced the cold war. We know that our predecessors began with a military approach, but ended with a strategy of mass politics. But throughout that period of struggle, there was one person who fought body and soul throughout his life, with methods that were ingenious throughout; that is, His Majesty the King. He understood the war over the people thoroughly. Throughout the period of struggle, he went to meet the people, he competed for the grassroots, he carried out over 4,000 royal projects….. but now, I must tell you, we do not see His Majesty covered in sweat, or see him walking to meet the people any more, because of his physical condition and because of time; but that is something we must understand, and we must carry out our duty in His Majesty’s footsteps at all times.”
“In truth His Majesty gave us the sufficiency economy since 1974, but what surfaced in the last 4-5 years was a message to the people to cure the problem of populist policies; that is the cleverness and ability of His Majesty the King.”
Republican,
If I draft a doctrine of anti-royalism, but I don’t want to get in jail, how can I do it? Please advise.
A solution is to not use my real name. But if I do so, how could you know it is me?
Then, how do you know that I had not done it already? How do you know that I have not done anything else that you don’t know?
But I know that you have done nothing else that helps the cause that you advocate. Nothing at all.
What are other options here?
– Try to do as one think one can even though it may or may not satisfy Mr Republican. But that is a sin according to the judgment of Republican and the like.
– I think I can apply logical argument to some passages of Handley’s book, regardless of the whole book and other things he does. Does that make him a royalist too?
By the way, Somsak, your idol, always wrote articles about the royals with good Rachasap (royal vocab). I cannot match him on that because I am not interested in making any efforts to do that. Is that an evidence that he endorses the ideology that the royals are higher than others? By using those words, is it a reproduction of the royalist ideology? Is writing in the same discourse that the royalists always do and demand people to so make him a royalist? Why don’t you apply the same rigorous logical argument to the act of using Rachasap by him? Is he a hypocrite? Is he a royalist?
If I apply the same approach you do to Somsak, focusing only on the use of Rachasap, just only one instance, namely, refering to the king every time by his feet only — prabat somdet…– because he is so hig above the speaker that we are allow only to talk to his feet, I think he is a royalist for sure 100%. If he is not, why should he bother refering to the king by only talking to his feet? Is it an ultimate surrender to royalism — talking to the feet of the king every time you mention him in public?
By the way, to Historicus, had the kind of Republican and his idol have power in Thailand, I am sure that I’ll be among the first to ask for permanent asylum in another country. They are as scary as the royalists.
By the way, another anti-roylaist whom I know, probably #1 in the country if he is happy to be honored as such, did receive the degree from the hand of the King?
Is he a hypocrite? If we apply a logical argument to his act, he must be a royalist too. Calling him a royalist could be one of the most serious offenses he ever got in his life.
Any sane people know that he had to do it, otherwise his head could be marked.
Lessons from this sotry:
1. Logical argument often doesn’t work, esp even when an anti-royalist applies it to others.
2. An anti-roylaist should be humble too, like verybody else. Be tolerate, because nobody can be the full extent one wishes to be.
3. Not every act is doctrinal and should not be evaluated from a doctrinal postion. Doing so is illogical.
Thanks, Historicus. I hope people read your comment and realize what Republican has been doing.
Logical argument is OK. But logical argument alone is always flawed. We can have an exercise of logics that turns black into white and many more absurd solutions. As a matter of fact, a very good logical argument often lead to an inconclusive outcome. (That’s why mathematicians cannot solve many questions and some lasts for centuries. Many are finally solved only when they add new “dimensions” to the question.)
An abuse of logical argument for a specific outcome is known in all political world. Anbody can do that. It is not a magic; it is a child play. If anyone is only satisfied at doing that, it is his choice. But if anybody or an intellectual community is trapped by such abuses, it is sad. If anybody lives his political life just making logical argument to discredit others, he is hopeless.
A historian who only picks on particular words and makes superficial interpretations based on the pick-on words but ignoring other facts, other dimensions, or contexts cannot make a good interpretation, no matter how logical it is. We call misleading interpretations, at the very least.
Meanwhile, I wish people with lots of brain energy can write more (even once) to fight the lese majeste law. But if he chooses to fight people who fight the lese majeste law, a very logical implication is that he is supporting the lese majeste law. Based on the posting by Republican above, and not knowing who he is or what he has written any other places or before this posting, he must be supporting the amendment by attacking those who are against the amendment. (Does it sound familiar — anybody who does not support Thaksin = a royalist?)
But we don’t reach such an absurd conclusion because we know Republican from previous posting or from his real person, because we bring in other facts, factor, other dimensions into our understanding. Somehow, it is hard for the abuser of logical argument to bring in other facts, factors, dimensions into his argument. Why is it hard? because the purpose is not a good argument or a good discussion, because the purpose is not even to make a good logical argumentation, but the purpose is to discredit the target even by an abuse of logical argument.
In fact, I can show that the logical argument by Republican above is not logical at all if I bring in other facts and factors. In fact the above accusation of me being a royalist is not even logical if taking out Republican’s hidden agenda, implicit ideology and biases. It only works and sounds convincing if the reader is equipped with the same bias, agenda and ideology as Republican.
The fact that I am in the US seems to bother Republican so much. I’m not sure why. The fact is that I am still a Thai citizen. It has never been revoked, as far as I know. Only me and my own family are in the US. My father, siblings, and relatives are all in Thailand. The fact is I am SCARED of the lese majeste law too. In fact for a foreigner like Republican, the worst that ever happens is to be deported. But for a Thai like me — a jail term, plus whatever to my parents and extended family inThailand.
Even so, I have been doing my job and whatever I think as decently as I can here. I don’t understand why doing it as I can, much or less as I can, is wrong, or worth a bashing, or worthless for an anti-royalist like Republican? Can you, Republican, provide a logical argument for your own act? Only a logical argument, please.
Please, Republican, do not hide behind a cheap and very dishonest reason that an acdemic desrves scrutiny. Academics deserve that, I agree. But I know that it is not the real reason for your action. Even you do not want to use real name, at least please be honest and do not hide behind such a pseudo-reasoning.
More questions as exercises of logical arguments:
Why does speaking out straightforwardly against the monarchy on BBC is a higher accomplishment or a better, more heroic thing to do than many other acts? Can you provide a logical argument to support that?
Why are a writing, many writings plus other acts, worth less points than a BBC interview, or a posting with the name Republican?
Can you also provide a logical argument why bashing academics (of course who deserve being scrutinized) should be a higher mission than fighting the royalists themselves?
Why do the ones that are not royalists deserve more attacks even more than the royalists or any other academics for that matter?
By labelling me a royalist, does it help your anti-royalist cause? Does it help much? How much?
Please – logical argument only for all the questions above; please do not bring in any other kinds of reasoning or interpretive factors into your argument.
Last but not least, it is a serious offense for a non-Western person to be called a Nazi. I am so disappointed at your, Republican’s, behavior of labelling me a royalist. It may be fun to you to play this game. It may be important to you to declare me a royalist (for whatever purpose I am not sure). It is not a laughing matter to me, given all the past events that come to my mind right now (you can guess what they are). And you did this to me more than once. Last time you denied that you did it to me. This time it is so obvious.
Just let you, Republicn, know that you should think twice before calling any farang a Nazi.
I am glad that at least unlike an anti-roylaist person I know, I am not working at a university that is named after a princess, thus everytime people menting my affiliation it is not a promotion of the not-so-popular princess. Had I been in such situation, I would have felt a dilemma and it would have made me either resign from that university or stop bragging my anti-royalism because it is utterly illogical to my narrow-mindedness.
Teth, I haven’t thought that far – in fact I wouldn’t do the same “…if-I-were-in-their-place” because:
“…we can never live through the experience of any other individual, past or present or future…” which is precisely the point I was trying to make.
Each person in history are conditioned by their specific times/places/events which determines their thoughts and actions. I am a ‘modern’ person and if (another speculation – it is a habit as a designer) I am transported back in time would ask the question of those ‘babaric’ pasts that you asked “Should justice, fairness, liberty, respect not belong to all people?”… But would they appreciate and understand me? Would I be able to lay the seeds of 20th, 21st century modern beliefs/realities many that we already take for granted in 16th century Siam?
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. That is what I meant, not time travel.
Once again, you are bellowing out a simplistic view of things: I am judging them and I am judging their values. You may continue with the line of thought that a human being is merely the result of his environment and therefore should not be faulted for any actions. If that is the case, I wonder how the ideas of fairness, justice, liberty, respect ever came about as you seem to believe people from a past age would be unable to understand such values. Are you saying murder was morally correct, in their time? Regardless of what virtues we hold in the modern day, I believe there is no such thing as moral relativism. Sure, there are nuances in real life that should be reflected in our understanding of morality, but that moral standard does not change, and no, the ends do not justify the means. Therefore, I judge Siamese kings of the past as ruthless, vile, and self-serving.
When you ask “would they appreciate modern beliefs/realities many that we take for granted?” The answer is unequivocally yes. They are human beings and surely understand the concept of liberty, justice, and respect: you are too contemptuous towards members of your own species. Perhaps they may not understand our lifestyle and the inanities/vestigial practices that have evolved, but surely they will understand such a fundamental concept as justice.
I’m pretty sure Buddhism was introduced in Siam long before the 21st century and certainly there are elements of the 21st century values laid out in Buddhism…
So I will accept that I am using “… contextualism and relativism to defend them…” which “… smacks of naivety and a desperate desire to defend them”. If only they could defend themselves in this ‘court’ of history!? (it’s to big a responsbility to be judge, jury, prosecutor, executioner all rolled into one – especially when ALWAYS dealing with selective histories. Teth, you may be confident that you have a very comprehensive knowledge of every aspect of Siamese-Thai history to make those judgments. I will readily admit, anytime, that I don’t)
Your courtroom analogy completely falls short of the real situation. How, do tell, am I being the executioner when I am merely an observer in the court who turns around to tell the person next to him what he thinks of the whole issue. There is no court but in the minds of those who write history. Therefore, your honourable feat of defending those you cannot defend themselves is no feat neither is it honourable.
Happy to say that I have something on which I can agree with Jon Fernquest (and LSS above) – the importance of blogs as a new medium of intellectual exchange, as well as other internet resources like the Wikipedia.
Quite amazing that an intellectual today can say that he avoids blogs “as a matter of principle”. Although they have their pros and cons, one of the things that blogs do do is bring everyone down to the same level – after all, without blogs who could debate with an Ivy League professor who publishes with the top academic publisher except his/her academic colleagues.
In the interests of knowledge surely the more open the debate the better, and that’s what blogs do.
But lese majeste is a valid law. Where do you think laws come from? Constitutions written on paper? Just because you don’t agree with a public law doesn’t make it invalid. If it were the case that you could invalidate the law through your will you would be equally ridiculous as Bhumibol and his impressive ram horns sitting atop the mountain.
Public truth is subjective, this is your truth against Bhumibol’s. Thongchai shares in Bhumibol’s truth. I don’t know what your trying to prove other than your own loss.
Michael Aung-Thwin: “I don’t read blogs as a matter of principle.”
Nowadays blogs are the most relevant and up-to-date medium for disciplines with a lot of people working in them like economics.
In the history area there’s a blog for epigraphy, papyrology. The not very interesting sound of one hand clapping is the only reason there isn’t one for Burmese epigraphy, but Doug Couper at SEALANG has scanned a significant portion of the Luce papers [sealang.net/archives/luce/] from Australian National Library and Myanmar book centre says it will have the elephant volumes online within 6 months, and others will eventually have them online for free, and there will be a cooperative online translation project for Burmese inscriptions, like that in my proposal to the Australian National Library that was rejected. There was a seminar at the U.C. Davis History department on scholarly blogging last year with videos available online somewhere. Fernando Pereira now Chair, Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, one of the founding fathers of computational linguistics. Just check out the Academic Blog portal, there are hundreds in every. As for Michael Charney’s review that was published on H-NET an online of professional academic historians only. That it never made it officially onto the web I can only speculate was due to your connections at NUS because that is where the coordinator for H-NET Southeast Asia is located.
In the future there will be a mandatory public intellectual component attached to many PhDs and blogging will be the pillar of that.
The biggest argument I can think of for putting things online is to help poor people learn. That’s the idea behind MIT’s Opencourseware project The very idea of an academic book or article on Southeast Asia not being available anywhere in Southeast Asia is ridiculous, and even though I may not have a PhD like you big city intellectual types, I can proudly say that I have helped thousands of poor rural kids learn and develop thinking skills and IMHO that’s beats being a comfy tenured prof type for rich kids anyday. One day I will get a PhD. And that goes for poo poing Wikipedia too. For some people in universities it’s above them and that’s a shame. What some academics do is analogous to the rent-seeking of the Thai generals that gets a lot of criticism on New Mandala. Professors should be exemplars, not live in a cave.
BTW Thank for praising my Burmese language skills but trying to employ bheda upaya will get you nowhere, Michael Charney is almost a full professor of Burmese history and has published three books, all of which depend on Burmese language sources. He is forward looking in his use of the internet too. In fact, Burmese language skills are not needed at all to criticise the methodology of Mists of Ramanya. Even trying to criticise the book is like playing cards with a stacked deck as far as I can see.
What a completely unstable situation in which to live, the post war deaths which will go on for generations to come after thousands & thousands of air raids over many years leave a legacy of fear & death due to the thousands of clusters of bombies laying in wait for the unsuspecting children & those digging them up for an income.
I will be sure to pass on the realities to the uninformed & the many ignorant who choose not to acknowledge the past.
Stay safe to those EODT’s, putting your lives on the line to give life some sort of normality to the locals over there, you’re all heroes.
Regards
Budgie of Brisbane
Reply to Grasshopper: “I’m not sure what you are trying to prove” … Hmmm, it’s written in black and white so I don’t know what part it is that you’re not sure about. Thongchai is arguing in public (The Nation) that the existing lese majeste law is valid.
You say “He is an academic whose analysis is important to many peoples interpretations”. Yes, absolutely. That is why it matters if he takes a royalist stance in public.
Thongchai lives and works in the US, and is a major figure in Thai Studies. So I don’t see how why he should worry about being convicted of lese majeste.
If ever BBC World was far-sighted enough to want to interview me, and I was beyond the long hand of the Thai police, I would certainly tell the world of the Thai king’s implication in the overthrow of a democratically-elected government, and the king’s long-standing support for military dictatorship in Thailand. I also eagerly await an academic who does not live in Thailand to say such things on BBC or CNN, and am surprised that so far no-one has done so.
I am not asking for a revolutionary uprising or overthrow of anything, just for academics who do not have to fear for their safety to state the truth about the Thai monarchy in public.
Instead we have academics like Thongchai publically expressing support for lese majeste and the monarchy after it has given its full support to the overthrow of a democratically-elected government.
What a load of rubbish. I thought the only interesting mention in the article was that the military govt has a more forgiving policy towards sick people. Otherwise, the core of this tirade can be applied to every government in the world. HRW is hilarious. Can I please have some chai tea…? oh and a sandalwood candle thanks.
Based on Chang Noi’s article, Thailand is heading towards very interesting, volatile times if Samak becomes PM and Chalerm becomes interior minister. In that scenario, soon enough, people will be on the streets again (also due to the antagonistic nature of the Samak/Chalerm team).
Is this a replay of 2006 and a chance to ‘correct’ the conflicts ‘democratically’? If PPP gets a bit less than half of the 480 seats and have to form a coalition with Chart Thai, then there’s not too much to worry. When the situation gets really bad, PMBanharn will make the ‘heroic’ move and form a coalition with the Democrats and smaller parties (after pocketing PMThaksin’s money! Clever!).
I strangely see this as the ‘ideal’ scenario so that we can all see, once and for all, how far PMThaksin will go to get his money back and seek revenge on his political enemies. If PPP can form a single party government and all their MPs are hard-core Thaksinites, we’ll have a very dramatic 2007 to remember. However, if there are weak links and some factions can still be ‘bought’ – back to Thai politics as usual.
PPP better not meddle too much with the army though. As long as they get their budget and inner security act – which Samak, as PM, might find very ‘useful’ – they would probably stay in the background. But knowing PMThaksin, he will be very tempted to replace GenAnupong with a loyal classmate – and the army will be in the middle of the fray again…
With due regards to you, I’m sorry to say to you, that, as a historian you have not grown up from your Kyoto University days about assessment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (DASSK). Your assessment about DASSK is like assessment of Dr. Oldfield (a great advocate of Vegetarianism and Editor of the journal “The Vegetarian”) about Gandhi when he was studying at London. When Gandhi ji got elected in the Executive Committee of the Vegetarian Society, Dr Oldfield reacted because of Gandhi’s shyness that, “You talk to me quite all right, but why is that you never open your lips at a committee meeting? You are a drone.” I hope you would have read about Mahatma Gandhi and his autobiography – “The Story of my experiments with truth” and for your information I quote his autobiography when he was studying at London. Gandhi himself accepts in his autobiography, and I quote, “To speak ex tempore would have been out of the question for me. I had therefore written down my speech. I stood up to read it, but could not. My vision became blurred and I trembled, though the speech hardly covered a sheet of foolscap”, unquote. How anyone would have reacted, if they would have met Gandhi during his student days at London? A very common man, a person who can’t even speak freely in any public meetings without knowing that he would turn one day an outstanding orator par excellence rising above all of his senior political colleagues and even world would recognize his contributions. So, as a noted scholar you should try to understand, that, any political personality in any nations become great because of his or her personal sacrifices and work, which he or she has done for the nation or people of the country. DASSK has individually sacrificed a lot for the nation that’s why people of Burma love her? I don’t think if you would have been placed in a similar situation, you would have afforded to leave your cozy American Professorial life, although, she had sacrificed her comfortable life of London for the nation? DASSK’s love for Burma could be seen in her questions to you, which you have mentioned in your interview. When see says that, Michael don’t you miss Burma or to your son about Burmese thing?
Regarding your thoughts on National Reconciliation, that democratic groups want regime change. I’m sorry to say that you are intentionally trying to confuse Burma observers and policy makers on the democratization issues of Burma. As far as my little understanding of Burma affairs are concerned (although, I’m not a big name of Burma studies like you and very small student of Burma affairs with little resources and hard Indian life compared with western academic facilities available to you) and about DASSK & democratic groups, that they want that ultimately people of Burma should decide freely that who would be their rulers and not that, you manage things with the power of guns to perpetuate power, which SPDC is doing? Recent monks/mass protests of August-September 2007 prove that common people of Burma can stand against even guns courageously. You know that military has reserved seats in the proposed constitution of the National Convention to remain in power. If they have more than twenty five millions cadres in USDA, then, why they reserve parliamentary seats? It is because they know that once future elections are held they are not coming to power, it is fear of losing power and priviledges. Although they miss one thing to understand that, military would always remain in power, even if democracy returns to Burma and the great opportunity of cohesive larger Indian, Western, American, ASEAN, IMF, World Bank, Russian, Chinese economic support to build the nation. I appreciate the gestures of SPDC of appointing liaison minister with DASSK, but it should be also reflected in deeds not in continued arrests. They have great diplomats to scuttle veto at UN Security Council by managing Russian and Chinese support. But they lack diplomacy to understand the political gains of freeing DASSK, and world support of it. Let DASSK allow talk to the world press freely and world evaluate her. It is the communication gap, which any authoritarian regime wants to create to misinform the world.
For your thoughts on Prof. Michael Charney (if Charney is Prof. Michael Charney), I beg to differ with you. He is an outstanding Burma Scholar. Moreover, it doesn’t look nice for big names like you, that, you say in that way. In my view, any academician’s life could be well evaluated at the end of his academic career and Prof. Charney has a long way to go in Burma studies and till now he has contributed a lot. And for me as a Burma studies student, I have entered into the big field of Burma Studies (However, I want to do research on Contemporary South Asian Studies). Although I accept your statement, that, you are a men of history and not politics. Further I accept that, you are a great scholar of 15th-16th century Burma history and you will be remembered for centuries for your contributions in Burma history.
If any of my words hurt you, I sincerely apologizes for that, my intention is not to hurt you. And, I hope you would take my criticism in a positive way. Please don’t respond like other SPDC supporters, who used to write to me, that, think about poverty of India and not Burma, as I know India not only in terms of academic discipline but also the great Indian heritage of Eastern Civilization, which I wants to follow, going beyond monetary gains of materialistic life of west. However, I appreciate western civilization for their support to democratization of Burma and DASSK, the true disciple of my great father of the nation – Mahatma Gandhi.
Teth, I haven’t thought that far – in fact I wouldn’t do the same “…if-I-were-in-their-place” because:
“…we can never live through the experience of any other individual, past or present or future…” which is precisely the point I was trying to make.
Each person in history are conditioned by their specific times/places/events which determines their thoughts and actions. I am a ‘modern’ person and if (another speculation – it is a habit as a designer) I am transported back in time would ask the question of those ‘babaric’ pasts that you asked “Should justice, fairness, liberty, respect not belong to all people?”… But would they appreciate and understand me? Would I be able to lay the seeds of 20th, 21st century modern beliefs/realities many that we already take for granted in 16th century Siam?
So I will accept that I am using “… contextualism and relativism to defend them…” which “… smacks of naivety and a desperate desire to defend them”. If only they could defend themselves in this ‘court’ of history!? (it’s to big a responsbility to be judge, jury, prosecutor, executioner all rolled into one – especially when ALWAYS dealing with selective histories. Teth, you may be confident that you have a very comprehensive knowledge of every aspect of Siamese-Thai history to make those judgments. I will readily admit, anytime, that I don’t)
This also leads me to Lleij Samuel Schwartz’s entertaining post which ends:
“…Therefore, in summary, I would ask that when we do bust balls here, let’s not cross the line into attacking someone’s ethnicity, religious belief or lack there of, cultural naming traditions, or patriotism or lack there of. All such topics are slimy rhetorical invocations, and the thrust of my original posting in this topic was an appeal to Sidh to stop such behavior, which is neither constructive or acceptable in this online forum.”
I will stop if LSS writes a formal letter to the ‘higher authority’ (who or whatever that is here) to ban me for the crime of merely expressing my views, as politely as I can, in NM (or are you the higher authority LSS – not satisfied with being the superior intellect? More metta please for lesser beings like me). I have read many things here that would offend millions of Thais, including myself. I’ve never asked them to stop. It is with Teth’s principle of “justice, fairness, liberty” and always with “respect” that I “naively” and “desperately” defend the people I love and the cultures/country I hold dear.
Living in ultra-patriotic yellow/pink/green/etc. Thailand with this attitude must be great suffering LSS.
Your “reply” to me wasn’t really a reply but a statement to go check web sites regarding anti-monarchic sentiment.
Your statement has no relationship with mine. For that, you scored an own goal Dickie 1, Republican 0.
I was referring solely to your “surprise” at Thongchai for not openly declaring war on the monarchic institution by a simple need of survival or being a martyr. Now I don’t know whether Thongchai is pro or anti monarchic, my only argument was that you don’t care about the anti-monarchic cause enough to be martyred or bring it out to the public arena. For you not to have a reply to that, I assume you agree with my logic: Dickie 2, Republican 0.
I was very nicely pointing your hypocrisy via feigning ‘surprise’ at Thongchai and totally kept away at your ideology of Republic vs. Constitutional monarchy, a notion I prefer to agree to disagree rather than argue till we have both lost our voices. I had no interest in arguing the benefits of a constitutional democracy in my above post, we can do it on another date or another thread. To state that I argued for that is a second own goal. Dickie 3, Republican 0.
Finally, you remain a chicken shit for not using your real name or wanting to challenge the monarchy in the public domain and your hypocrisy that Thongchai should have done. That is enough for making it Dickie 4, Republican 0.
Wendell, one might say that the model is reinforced by giving it massive public space for display (which merely is one element of the entire public show) and involve school children and their parents. Reproduction leads to reinforcement, in other words, because it represents requests for a certain kind of behavior. As for the institution of the monarchy, it is more the public image that is reinforced, and, as you point out, this refers mostly to the present King. Thus the problem for the bureaucratic-royalist model of what to do in the post-King and post-Prem time.
Oh dear. New Mandala’s interview series is beset with petulant professors using big vocabularies to puncture the egos of assorted windbags. (I had to look up “ad hominem” but now understand why it featured more than once in this short exchange.)
Nicholas, please next interview somebody without an honorific. Mere mortals also have opinions and experiences from which we might learn. Plus, they usually complain about other people less and get to the point faster. Oh, and some of them are even women.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thinking like a Thai Army general
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. It has a policy paper dated 16 September, apparently signed as “approved” by General Sonthi; and transcripts of two speeches given on 21 September 2007 in the Kittikachorn Auditorium of the army command at a meeting to relay the policy to battalion heads. The second speech is probably by General Sonthi; he is referred to as simply ‘Chairman’, but addresses the assembled crowd as nong nong, so it must be the top dog. The other speech is by a deputy (р╕гр╕нр╕З р╕Ьр╕Ъ. р╕Юр╕ер╣Гр╣С р╕гр╕н.).
Maybe the generals don’t believe their own rhetoric. But they seem intent on acting on it.
The document is still available as a pdf. The two links from there back to the hi-thaksin site now seem to be broken, but hi-thaksin’s first-page banner directs you to the document .
We omitted one part of the argument because inclusion would probably have meant that The Nation would not print the piece. Here are two key extracts, both from the deputy’s speech.
“Whether in the pre-war era, the cold war era, or the era of capitalist democracy, the trend of conflict, and the procedures to deal with the ‘war over the people,’ have not changed at all. We remember well that twenty years ago, we faced the cold war. We know that our predecessors began with a military approach, but ended with a strategy of mass politics. But throughout that period of struggle, there was one person who fought body and soul throughout his life, with methods that were ingenious throughout; that is, His Majesty the King. He understood the war over the people thoroughly. Throughout the period of struggle, he went to meet the people, he competed for the grassroots, he carried out over 4,000 royal projects….. but now, I must tell you, we do not see His Majesty covered in sweat, or see him walking to meet the people any more, because of his physical condition and because of time; but that is something we must understand, and we must carry out our duty in His Majesty’s footsteps at all times.”
“In truth His Majesty gave us the sufficiency economy since 1974, but what surfaced in the last 4-5 years was a message to the people to cure the problem of populist policies; that is the cleverness and ability of His Majesty the King.”
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Quite so, Republican. But why then do you hide behind a nom de guerre? JW
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
“one of the things that blogs do do is bring everyone down to the same level”
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is the reason why the professor avoids reading them.
The King Never Smiles?
Republican,
If I draft a doctrine of anti-royalism, but I don’t want to get in jail, how can I do it? Please advise.
A solution is to not use my real name. But if I do so, how could you know it is me?
Then, how do you know that I had not done it already? How do you know that I have not done anything else that you don’t know?
But I know that you have done nothing else that helps the cause that you advocate. Nothing at all.
What are other options here?
– Try to do as one think one can even though it may or may not satisfy Mr Republican. But that is a sin according to the judgment of Republican and the like.
– I think I can apply logical argument to some passages of Handley’s book, regardless of the whole book and other things he does. Does that make him a royalist too?
By the way, Somsak, your idol, always wrote articles about the royals with good Rachasap (royal vocab). I cannot match him on that because I am not interested in making any efforts to do that. Is that an evidence that he endorses the ideology that the royals are higher than others? By using those words, is it a reproduction of the royalist ideology? Is writing in the same discourse that the royalists always do and demand people to so make him a royalist? Why don’t you apply the same rigorous logical argument to the act of using Rachasap by him? Is he a hypocrite? Is he a royalist?
If I apply the same approach you do to Somsak, focusing only on the use of Rachasap, just only one instance, namely, refering to the king every time by his feet only — prabat somdet…– because he is so hig above the speaker that we are allow only to talk to his feet, I think he is a royalist for sure 100%. If he is not, why should he bother refering to the king by only talking to his feet? Is it an ultimate surrender to royalism — talking to the feet of the king every time you mention him in public?
By the way, to Historicus, had the kind of Republican and his idol have power in Thailand, I am sure that I’ll be among the first to ask for permanent asylum in another country. They are as scary as the royalists.
The King Never Smiles?
By the way, another anti-roylaist whom I know, probably #1 in the country if he is happy to be honored as such, did receive the degree from the hand of the King?
Is he a hypocrite? If we apply a logical argument to his act, he must be a royalist too. Calling him a royalist could be one of the most serious offenses he ever got in his life.
Any sane people know that he had to do it, otherwise his head could be marked.
Lessons from this sotry:
1. Logical argument often doesn’t work, esp even when an anti-royalist applies it to others.
2. An anti-roylaist should be humble too, like verybody else. Be tolerate, because nobody can be the full extent one wishes to be.
3. Not every act is doctrinal and should not be evaluated from a doctrinal postion. Doing so is illogical.
The King Never Smiles?
Thanks, Historicus. I hope people read your comment and realize what Republican has been doing.
Logical argument is OK. But logical argument alone is always flawed. We can have an exercise of logics that turns black into white and many more absurd solutions. As a matter of fact, a very good logical argument often lead to an inconclusive outcome. (That’s why mathematicians cannot solve many questions and some lasts for centuries. Many are finally solved only when they add new “dimensions” to the question.)
An abuse of logical argument for a specific outcome is known in all political world. Anbody can do that. It is not a magic; it is a child play. If anyone is only satisfied at doing that, it is his choice. But if anybody or an intellectual community is trapped by such abuses, it is sad. If anybody lives his political life just making logical argument to discredit others, he is hopeless.
A historian who only picks on particular words and makes superficial interpretations based on the pick-on words but ignoring other facts, other dimensions, or contexts cannot make a good interpretation, no matter how logical it is. We call misleading interpretations, at the very least.
Meanwhile, I wish people with lots of brain energy can write more (even once) to fight the lese majeste law. But if he chooses to fight people who fight the lese majeste law, a very logical implication is that he is supporting the lese majeste law. Based on the posting by Republican above, and not knowing who he is or what he has written any other places or before this posting, he must be supporting the amendment by attacking those who are against the amendment. (Does it sound familiar — anybody who does not support Thaksin = a royalist?)
But we don’t reach such an absurd conclusion because we know Republican from previous posting or from his real person, because we bring in other facts, factor, other dimensions into our understanding. Somehow, it is hard for the abuser of logical argument to bring in other facts, factors, dimensions into his argument. Why is it hard? because the purpose is not a good argument or a good discussion, because the purpose is not even to make a good logical argumentation, but the purpose is to discredit the target even by an abuse of logical argument.
In fact, I can show that the logical argument by Republican above is not logical at all if I bring in other facts and factors. In fact the above accusation of me being a royalist is not even logical if taking out Republican’s hidden agenda, implicit ideology and biases. It only works and sounds convincing if the reader is equipped with the same bias, agenda and ideology as Republican.
The fact that I am in the US seems to bother Republican so much. I’m not sure why. The fact is that I am still a Thai citizen. It has never been revoked, as far as I know. Only me and my own family are in the US. My father, siblings, and relatives are all in Thailand. The fact is I am SCARED of the lese majeste law too. In fact for a foreigner like Republican, the worst that ever happens is to be deported. But for a Thai like me — a jail term, plus whatever to my parents and extended family inThailand.
Even so, I have been doing my job and whatever I think as decently as I can here. I don’t understand why doing it as I can, much or less as I can, is wrong, or worth a bashing, or worthless for an anti-royalist like Republican? Can you, Republican, provide a logical argument for your own act? Only a logical argument, please.
Please, Republican, do not hide behind a cheap and very dishonest reason that an acdemic desrves scrutiny. Academics deserve that, I agree. But I know that it is not the real reason for your action. Even you do not want to use real name, at least please be honest and do not hide behind such a pseudo-reasoning.
More questions as exercises of logical arguments:
Why does speaking out straightforwardly against the monarchy on BBC is a higher accomplishment or a better, more heroic thing to do than many other acts? Can you provide a logical argument to support that?
Why are a writing, many writings plus other acts, worth less points than a BBC interview, or a posting with the name Republican?
Can you also provide a logical argument why bashing academics (of course who deserve being scrutinized) should be a higher mission than fighting the royalists themselves?
Why do the ones that are not royalists deserve more attacks even more than the royalists or any other academics for that matter?
By labelling me a royalist, does it help your anti-royalist cause? Does it help much? How much?
Please – logical argument only for all the questions above; please do not bring in any other kinds of reasoning or interpretive factors into your argument.
Last but not least, it is a serious offense for a non-Western person to be called a Nazi. I am so disappointed at your, Republican’s, behavior of labelling me a royalist. It may be fun to you to play this game. It may be important to you to declare me a royalist (for whatever purpose I am not sure). It is not a laughing matter to me, given all the past events that come to my mind right now (you can guess what they are). And you did this to me more than once. Last time you denied that you did it to me. This time it is so obvious.
Just let you, Republicn, know that you should think twice before calling any farang a Nazi.
I am glad that at least unlike an anti-roylaist person I know, I am not working at a university that is named after a princess, thus everytime people menting my affiliation it is not a promotion of the not-so-popular princess. Had I been in such situation, I would have felt a dilemma and it would have made me either resign from that university or stop bragging my anti-royalism because it is utterly illogical to my narrow-mindedness.
The King Never Smiles?
Sidh:
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. That is what I meant, not time travel.
Once again, you are bellowing out a simplistic view of things: I am judging them and I am judging their values. You may continue with the line of thought that a human being is merely the result of his environment and therefore should not be faulted for any actions. If that is the case, I wonder how the ideas of fairness, justice, liberty, respect ever came about as you seem to believe people from a past age would be unable to understand such values. Are you saying murder was morally correct, in their time? Regardless of what virtues we hold in the modern day, I believe there is no such thing as moral relativism. Sure, there are nuances in real life that should be reflected in our understanding of morality, but that moral standard does not change, and no, the ends do not justify the means. Therefore, I judge Siamese kings of the past as ruthless, vile, and self-serving.
When you ask “would they appreciate modern beliefs/realities many that we take for granted?” The answer is unequivocally yes. They are human beings and surely understand the concept of liberty, justice, and respect: you are too contemptuous towards members of your own species. Perhaps they may not understand our lifestyle and the inanities/vestigial practices that have evolved, but surely they will understand such a fundamental concept as justice.
I’m pretty sure Buddhism was introduced in Siam long before the 21st century and certainly there are elements of the 21st century values laid out in Buddhism…
Your courtroom analogy completely falls short of the real situation. How, do tell, am I being the executioner when I am merely an observer in the court who turns around to tell the person next to him what he thinks of the whole issue. There is no court but in the minds of those who write history. Therefore, your honourable feat of defending those you cannot defend themselves is no feat neither is it honourable.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Happy to say that I have something on which I can agree with Jon Fernquest (and LSS above) – the importance of blogs as a new medium of intellectual exchange, as well as other internet resources like the Wikipedia.
Quite amazing that an intellectual today can say that he avoids blogs “as a matter of principle”. Although they have their pros and cons, one of the things that blogs do do is bring everyone down to the same level – after all, without blogs who could debate with an Ivy League professor who publishes with the top academic publisher except his/her academic colleagues.
In the interests of knowledge surely the more open the debate the better, and that’s what blogs do.
The King Never Smiles?
But lese majeste is a valid law. Where do you think laws come from? Constitutions written on paper? Just because you don’t agree with a public law doesn’t make it invalid. If it were the case that you could invalidate the law through your will you would be equally ridiculous as Bhumibol and his impressive ram horns sitting atop the mountain.
Public truth is subjective, this is your truth against Bhumibol’s. Thongchai shares in Bhumibol’s truth. I don’t know what your trying to prove other than your own loss.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Last entry rejected this:
Treating blogs as if they were trash is just not right, a flunking grade. To get the latest work by economists on the sub-prime meltdown or the China trade deficit problem, Brad De Long of UC Berkeley former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, or development economist Dani Rodrick of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Business, or Greg Mankiw at Harvard Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers in 2005, but enough name dropping, Mark Thoma at University of Oregon is hands down the easiest to read (and not too partisan).
[To be continued…]
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Michael Aung-Thwin: “I don’t read blogs as a matter of principle.”
Nowadays blogs are the most relevant and up-to-date medium for disciplines with a lot of people working in them like economics.
In the history area there’s a blog for epigraphy, papyrology. The not very interesting sound of one hand clapping is the only reason there isn’t one for Burmese epigraphy, but Doug Couper at SEALANG has scanned a significant portion of the Luce papers [sealang.net/archives/luce/] from Australian National Library and Myanmar book centre says it will have the elephant volumes online within 6 months, and others will eventually have them online for free, and there will be a cooperative online translation project for Burmese inscriptions, like that in my proposal to the Australian National Library that was rejected. There was a seminar at the U.C. Davis History department on scholarly blogging last year with videos available online somewhere. Fernando Pereira now Chair, Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, one of the founding fathers of computational linguistics. Just check out the Academic Blog portal, there are hundreds in every. As for Michael Charney’s review that was published on H-NET an online of professional academic historians only. That it never made it officially onto the web I can only speculate was due to your connections at NUS because that is where the coordinator for H-NET Southeast Asia is located.
In the future there will be a mandatory public intellectual component attached to many PhDs and blogging will be the pillar of that.
The biggest argument I can think of for putting things online is to help poor people learn. That’s the idea behind MIT’s Opencourseware project The very idea of an academic book or article on Southeast Asia not being available anywhere in Southeast Asia is ridiculous, and even though I may not have a PhD like you big city intellectual types, I can proudly say that I have helped thousands of poor rural kids learn and develop thinking skills and IMHO that’s beats being a comfy tenured prof type for rich kids anyday. One day I will get a PhD. And that goes for poo poing Wikipedia too. For some people in universities it’s above them and that’s a shame. What some academics do is analogous to the rent-seeking of the Thai generals that gets a lot of criticism on New Mandala. Professors should be exemplars, not live in a cave.
BTW Thank for praising my Burmese language skills but trying to employ bheda upaya will get you nowhere, Michael Charney is almost a full professor of Burmese history and has published three books, all of which depend on Burmese language sources. He is forward looking in his use of the internet too. In fact, Burmese language skills are not needed at all to criticise the methodology of Mists of Ramanya. Even trying to criticise the book is like playing cards with a stacked deck as far as I can see.
[Will be continued…]
Violent landscape
What a completely unstable situation in which to live, the post war deaths which will go on for generations to come after thousands & thousands of air raids over many years leave a legacy of fear & death due to the thousands of clusters of bombies laying in wait for the unsuspecting children & those digging them up for an income.
I will be sure to pass on the realities to the uninformed & the many ignorant who choose not to acknowledge the past.
Stay safe to those EODT’s, putting your lives on the line to give life some sort of normality to the locals over there, you’re all heroes.
Regards
Budgie of Brisbane
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to Grasshopper: “I’m not sure what you are trying to prove” … Hmmm, it’s written in black and white so I don’t know what part it is that you’re not sure about. Thongchai is arguing in public (The Nation) that the existing lese majeste law is valid.
You say “He is an academic whose analysis is important to many peoples interpretations”. Yes, absolutely. That is why it matters if he takes a royalist stance in public.
Thongchai lives and works in the US, and is a major figure in Thai Studies. So I don’t see how why he should worry about being convicted of lese majeste.
If ever BBC World was far-sighted enough to want to interview me, and I was beyond the long hand of the Thai police, I would certainly tell the world of the Thai king’s implication in the overthrow of a democratically-elected government, and the king’s long-standing support for military dictatorship in Thailand. I also eagerly await an academic who does not live in Thailand to say such things on BBC or CNN, and am surprised that so far no-one has done so.
I am not asking for a revolutionary uprising or overthrow of anything, just for academics who do not have to fear for their safety to state the truth about the Thai monarchy in public.
Instead we have academics like Thongchai publically expressing support for lese majeste and the monarchy after it has given its full support to the overthrow of a democratically-elected government.
Thailand’s “deadly denial”
What a load of rubbish. I thought the only interesting mention in the article was that the military govt has a more forgiving policy towards sick people. Otherwise, the core of this tirade can be applied to every government in the world. HRW is hilarious. Can I please have some chai tea…? oh and a sandalwood candle thanks.
Thinking like a Thai Army general
Based on Chang Noi’s article, Thailand is heading towards very interesting, volatile times if Samak becomes PM and Chalerm becomes interior minister. In that scenario, soon enough, people will be on the streets again (also due to the antagonistic nature of the Samak/Chalerm team).
Is this a replay of 2006 and a chance to ‘correct’ the conflicts ‘democratically’? If PPP gets a bit less than half of the 480 seats and have to form a coalition with Chart Thai, then there’s not too much to worry. When the situation gets really bad, PMBanharn will make the ‘heroic’ move and form a coalition with the Democrats and smaller parties (after pocketing PMThaksin’s money! Clever!).
I strangely see this as the ‘ideal’ scenario so that we can all see, once and for all, how far PMThaksin will go to get his money back and seek revenge on his political enemies. If PPP can form a single party government and all their MPs are hard-core Thaksinites, we’ll have a very dramatic 2007 to remember. However, if there are weak links and some factions can still be ‘bought’ – back to Thai politics as usual.
PPP better not meddle too much with the army though. As long as they get their budget and inner security act – which Samak, as PM, might find very ‘useful’ – they would probably stay in the background. But knowing PMThaksin, he will be very tempted to replace GenAnupong with a loyal classmate – and the army will be in the middle of the fray again…
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Respected Prof. Michael Aung-Thwin,
With due regards to you, I’m sorry to say to you, that, as a historian you have not grown up from your Kyoto University days about assessment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (DASSK). Your assessment about DASSK is like assessment of Dr. Oldfield (a great advocate of Vegetarianism and Editor of the journal “The Vegetarian”) about Gandhi when he was studying at London. When Gandhi ji got elected in the Executive Committee of the Vegetarian Society, Dr Oldfield reacted because of Gandhi’s shyness that, “You talk to me quite all right, but why is that you never open your lips at a committee meeting? You are a drone.” I hope you would have read about Mahatma Gandhi and his autobiography – “The Story of my experiments with truth” and for your information I quote his autobiography when he was studying at London. Gandhi himself accepts in his autobiography, and I quote, “To speak ex tempore would have been out of the question for me. I had therefore written down my speech. I stood up to read it, but could not. My vision became blurred and I trembled, though the speech hardly covered a sheet of foolscap”, unquote. How anyone would have reacted, if they would have met Gandhi during his student days at London? A very common man, a person who can’t even speak freely in any public meetings without knowing that he would turn one day an outstanding orator par excellence rising above all of his senior political colleagues and even world would recognize his contributions. So, as a noted scholar you should try to understand, that, any political personality in any nations become great because of his or her personal sacrifices and work, which he or she has done for the nation or people of the country. DASSK has individually sacrificed a lot for the nation that’s why people of Burma love her? I don’t think if you would have been placed in a similar situation, you would have afforded to leave your cozy American Professorial life, although, she had sacrificed her comfortable life of London for the nation? DASSK’s love for Burma could be seen in her questions to you, which you have mentioned in your interview. When see says that, Michael don’t you miss Burma or to your son about Burmese thing?
Regarding your thoughts on National Reconciliation, that democratic groups want regime change. I’m sorry to say that you are intentionally trying to confuse Burma observers and policy makers on the democratization issues of Burma. As far as my little understanding of Burma affairs are concerned (although, I’m not a big name of Burma studies like you and very small student of Burma affairs with little resources and hard Indian life compared with western academic facilities available to you) and about DASSK & democratic groups, that they want that ultimately people of Burma should decide freely that who would be their rulers and not that, you manage things with the power of guns to perpetuate power, which SPDC is doing? Recent monks/mass protests of August-September 2007 prove that common people of Burma can stand against even guns courageously. You know that military has reserved seats in the proposed constitution of the National Convention to remain in power. If they have more than twenty five millions cadres in USDA, then, why they reserve parliamentary seats? It is because they know that once future elections are held they are not coming to power, it is fear of losing power and priviledges. Although they miss one thing to understand that, military would always remain in power, even if democracy returns to Burma and the great opportunity of cohesive larger Indian, Western, American, ASEAN, IMF, World Bank, Russian, Chinese economic support to build the nation. I appreciate the gestures of SPDC of appointing liaison minister with DASSK, but it should be also reflected in deeds not in continued arrests. They have great diplomats to scuttle veto at UN Security Council by managing Russian and Chinese support. But they lack diplomacy to understand the political gains of freeing DASSK, and world support of it. Let DASSK allow talk to the world press freely and world evaluate her. It is the communication gap, which any authoritarian regime wants to create to misinform the world.
For your thoughts on Prof. Michael Charney (if Charney is Prof. Michael Charney), I beg to differ with you. He is an outstanding Burma Scholar. Moreover, it doesn’t look nice for big names like you, that, you say in that way. In my view, any academician’s life could be well evaluated at the end of his academic career and Prof. Charney has a long way to go in Burma studies and till now he has contributed a lot. And for me as a Burma studies student, I have entered into the big field of Burma Studies (However, I want to do research on Contemporary South Asian Studies). Although I accept your statement, that, you are a men of history and not politics. Further I accept that, you are a great scholar of 15th-16th century Burma history and you will be remembered for centuries for your contributions in Burma history.
If any of my words hurt you, I sincerely apologizes for that, my intention is not to hurt you. And, I hope you would take my criticism in a positive way. Please don’t respond like other SPDC supporters, who used to write to me, that, think about poverty of India and not Burma, as I know India not only in terms of academic discipline but also the great Indian heritage of Eastern Civilization, which I wants to follow, going beyond monetary gains of materialistic life of west. However, I appreciate western civilization for their support to democratization of Burma and DASSK, the true disciple of my great father of the nation – Mahatma Gandhi.
Sincerely yours,
With warm regards,
Rajshekhar
Editor, Burma Review
http://www.burmareview.com
The King Never Smiles?
Teth, I haven’t thought that far – in fact I wouldn’t do the same “…if-I-were-in-their-place” because:
“…we can never live through the experience of any other individual, past or present or future…” which is precisely the point I was trying to make.
Each person in history are conditioned by their specific times/places/events which determines their thoughts and actions. I am a ‘modern’ person and if (another speculation – it is a habit as a designer) I am transported back in time would ask the question of those ‘babaric’ pasts that you asked “Should justice, fairness, liberty, respect not belong to all people?”… But would they appreciate and understand me? Would I be able to lay the seeds of 20th, 21st century modern beliefs/realities many that we already take for granted in 16th century Siam?
So I will accept that I am using “… contextualism and relativism to defend them…” which “… smacks of naivety and a desperate desire to defend them”. If only they could defend themselves in this ‘court’ of history!? (it’s to big a responsbility to be judge, jury, prosecutor, executioner all rolled into one – especially when ALWAYS dealing with selective histories. Teth, you may be confident that you have a very comprehensive knowledge of every aspect of Siamese-Thai history to make those judgments. I will readily admit, anytime, that I don’t)
This also leads me to Lleij Samuel Schwartz’s entertaining post which ends:
“…Therefore, in summary, I would ask that when we do bust balls here, let’s not cross the line into attacking someone’s ethnicity, religious belief or lack there of, cultural naming traditions, or patriotism or lack there of. All such topics are slimy rhetorical invocations, and the thrust of my original posting in this topic was an appeal to Sidh to stop such behavior, which is neither constructive or acceptable in this online forum.”
I will stop if LSS writes a formal letter to the ‘higher authority’ (who or whatever that is here) to ban me for the crime of merely expressing my views, as politely as I can, in NM (or are you the higher authority LSS – not satisfied with being the superior intellect? More metta please for lesser beings like me). I have read many things here that would offend millions of Thais, including myself. I’ve never asked them to stop. It is with Teth’s principle of “justice, fairness, liberty” and always with “respect” that I “naively” and “desperately” defend the people I love and the cultures/country I hold dear.
Living in ultra-patriotic yellow/pink/green/etc. Thailand with this attitude must be great suffering LSS.
Also with metta.
The King Never Smiles?
Republican,
Your “reply” to me wasn’t really a reply but a statement to go check web sites regarding anti-monarchic sentiment.
Your statement has no relationship with mine. For that, you scored an own goal Dickie 1, Republican 0.
I was referring solely to your “surprise” at Thongchai for not openly declaring war on the monarchic institution by a simple need of survival or being a martyr. Now I don’t know whether Thongchai is pro or anti monarchic, my only argument was that you don’t care about the anti-monarchic cause enough to be martyred or bring it out to the public arena. For you not to have a reply to that, I assume you agree with my logic: Dickie 2, Republican 0.
I was very nicely pointing your hypocrisy via feigning ‘surprise’ at Thongchai and totally kept away at your ideology of Republic vs. Constitutional monarchy, a notion I prefer to agree to disagree rather than argue till we have both lost our voices. I had no interest in arguing the benefits of a constitutional democracy in my above post, we can do it on another date or another thread. To state that I argued for that is a second own goal. Dickie 3, Republican 0.
Finally, you remain a chicken shit for not using your real name or wanting to challenge the monarchy in the public domain and your hypocrisy that Thongchai should have done. That is enough for making it Dickie 4, Republican 0.
The foul language. The abuse. The horror.
Don’t feel too victimized by my post.
Chachoengsao: Celebrating the King
Wendell, one might say that the model is reinforced by giving it massive public space for display (which merely is one element of the entire public show) and involve school children and their parents. Reproduction leads to reinforcement, in other words, because it represents requests for a certain kind of behavior. As for the institution of the monarchy, it is more the public image that is reinforced, and, as you point out, this refers mostly to the present King. Thus the problem for the bureaucratic-royalist model of what to do in the post-King and post-Prem time.
Interview with Professor Michael Aung-Thwin
Oh dear. New Mandala’s interview series is beset with petulant professors using big vocabularies to puncture the egos of assorted windbags. (I had to look up “ad hominem” but now understand why it featured more than once in this short exchange.)
Nicholas, please next interview somebody without an honorific. Mere mortals also have opinions and experiences from which we might learn. Plus, they usually complain about other people less and get to the point faster. Oh, and some of them are even women.