“I began to speculate about the real motivation of the organizers–what exactly is this “ritualistic event imposed…by the state bureaucracy” supposed to achieve?”
Submission to the bureaucracy of course. You’d immediately recognise this sort of thing if you had worked in any hard core bureaucratic institution around here.
This sort of ceremony was par for the course in the university I worked at. Annual Tham-Hua ceremony (everyone prostrates not to HMK, but to the university president, not joyfully and willingly mind you), Brahmanic sprinking of water on teachers overseen by university president reinforcing power in lower levels of hierarchy (boycotted by missionaries, visits by royals (attended eagerly by missionaries, soldiers push Thai ajaans out of seat, ajaan farangs embarassingly llowed to keep their’s), mandatory Mo hawm day, now no doubt yellow shirt day. You name it, the mind control technique need not be associated with royalty or Thai-ness, for instance the four C’s (inherited from Toyota’s automobile plants apparently) with involuntarily committee members taking photos of cubicle work space (thus aggravating otherwise eager conformists) and secretaries making little tape marks on desks to mark where the scissors are to be placed on your desk when not using them, standard number of pencils to keep in drawer, no personal posters or decoration on wall, etc. Yes, it all wreaks of invasion of the body snatchers and solidifies bureaucratic power as per Chang Noi’s new theory:
“Third, ministries and other bureaucratic agencies must draw up long-terms plans and insist upon following these plans in their day-to-day operations so that politicians who are put in charge of these agencies will not be able to implement the policies they promise to the electorate.” (Source)
“The threat of divine or karmic retribution also interests me. I wonder to what extent the organizers, and participants for that matter, really believe the threat? Is it seen as simply formula, or is it actually seen as an invocation of potentially potent magic? (Leaving aside for the moment how magic is rationalized in the Thai “Buddhist” tradition). ”
The ones that don’t believe in the oath must be the new “communists” that the military is fighting the new cold war against (that Chang Noi talks about).
[Note: In the Mon epic Ratchathirat (translated into Thai during Rama I) if someone wanted to avoid the magical efficacy of an oath they left the Buddhist scriptures out of the case they took the oath under. The Mon hero Lagunein also states categorically and rather Machiavellianly that in warfare oaths are to be violated at any time you want, that one is foolish to believe in them. Ratchathirat was suppposedly written about 1560.]
Thanks very much, Wendell, for these additional suggestions concerning interpretations of the event. Certainly, the ECT has made the fight against what they see as vote buying one of its priorities. This might well turn against them after the election, in case the ECT might not be able to catch a good number of the supposedly many wrongdoers. “Absence would imply guilt” — or bad intentions, and a politically confrontational attitude. As for the “people at large”, I think that the ceremony is more about the relationship between bureaucracy and the candidates, simply because very few people in the province will know of what happened at Wat Sothorn. You will find some more, and more direct, references to “Nation, Religion, Monarchy” in the next post. It will not be directly on the election, but rather on a contextual aspect.
One of the reasons the publication of “The King Never Smiles” has been so controversial is that the lèse majesté law has prevented open criticism of the monarchy for so long.
So it was with some surprise that I read Thongchai Winichakul’s piece on the proposed amendment to the lèse majesté law published in The Nation on October 11 2007 [http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/10/11/opinion/opinion_30052054.php]. The article has also been translated into Thai on Prachatai [http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=9886&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&System_Session_Language=Thai]
As we know, this proposed amendment has already been withdrawn.
But what I was shocked about was the logic of Thongchai’s argument against the proposed amendment. For someone who markets himself on his anti-monarchy credentials I believe that Thongchai’s position on the monarchy and lèse majesté should be held up to close scrutiny.
I have extracted a number of passages from the article, with my comments below:
THONGCHAI: “…The more serious problem for years, moreover, is the continuing abuse of this law for political purposes because the law allows anybody to accuse anybody else of violating the lèse majesté principle…”
So, the “more serious” problem of the lèse majesté law for Thongchai is that it allows different parties to accuse each other of lèse majesté. Interestingly Thongchai neglects to mention that the basic, fundamental problem of the lèse majesté law, which is the huge obstacle to democratization in Thailand, is that it prevents the MONARCHY itself, which is an active political player in Thai politics, from being criticized.
THONGCHAI: “…Secondly, in doing the above, not only does this mean that some citizens may become legally elevated above others, but it also grants a few people the privileges and status of near-royalty. This is a blunt affront to the monarchy, to tradition and to every known modern and democratic tenet….”
So Thongchai’s argument is, the proposed amendment is wrong because it is a “blunt affront” to the monarchy – because it grants some people the status of “near-royalty”. The monarchy affronts the citizens of Thailand on a daily basis, but Thongchai is worried that the monarchy may be affronted?!
THONGCHAI: “…The amendment bill may be in breach of lèse majesté itself…”
So Thongchai’s argument is, the proposed amendment is wrong because it would violate lèse majesté. This argument can only be valid if Thongchai accepts the validity of lèse majesté.
THONGCHAI: “…Imagine if such a person did something that injured the reputation and status of the monarchy, he would still be protected by the amended lèse majesté law. In other words, his violation of lèse majesté could not be punished, thanks to the amended lèse majesté law…”
So Thongchai’s argument is, the proposed amendment is wrong because it would mean that violators of lèse majesté could not be punished. This argument can only be valid if Thongchai believes that violators of lèse majesté should be punished (!)
THONGCHAI: “…Last but not least, the intention of the amendment this time itself is also an abuse of the lèse majesté law, namely in providing protection to particular individuals in the current political conflict. It is a bad legal amendment from the start….”
So Thongchai’s argument is that the proposed amendment is wrong because it is an abuse of the lèse majesté law (“Last but not least” – so this is an important point for Thongchai). This argument can only be valid if Thongchai accepts the legitimacy of the existing lèse majesté law, that the law should not be “abused”.
THONGCHAI: “…In the end, if the amendment bill is passed, the revised lèse majesté law will certainly increase the number of violations, the number of political cheap shots. Similarly, the number of court cases will put the monarchical institution in the spotlights even more…”
So Thongchai’s argument is that the proposed amendment is wrong because it “will put the monarchical institution in the spotlights even more”. This argument can only be valid if Thongchai believes that the monarchy should NOT be “put in the spotlight”.
THONGCHAI: “…It will result in special privileges for many people, including non-royals, who act above the public interests and who do not deserve special protection above the law…”
This statement is somewhat illogical, but Thongchai’s argument appears to be that special privileges should not be granted to “non-royals”. The unstated subtext, based on Thongchai’s logic above, is that it IS acceptable for “royals” to have “special protection above the law” courtesy of the lèse majesté law.
THONGCHAI: “…Yet they cannot be punished, even when they do harm to the monarchy….”
Well, this is very surprising. Thongchai actually bases his argument on the principle that those who do harm to the monarchy must be punished … (!)
THONGCHAI: “…The lèse majesté law has done more harm than good to the monarchy. The amended one would do even more harm…”
So Thongchai’s argument is that the proposed amendment is wrong because it would harm the monarchy. For Thongchai’s argument to be valid it follows that he wants no harm to come to the monarchy.
Based on Thongchai’s reasoning in this article one can only conclude that,
Either,
(i) Thongchai believes in the validity of the lèse majesté law;
(ii) Thongchai believes that violators of the lèse majesté law must be punished;
(iii) Thongchai is a royalist; and
(iv) Thongchai is willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column.
Thank you. Michael, for that detailed account of proceedings in Chachoengsao. It made for interesting reading.
Reading the account, I began to speculate about the real motivation of the organizers–what exactly is this “ritualistic event imposed…by the state bureaucracy” supposed to achieve?
Obviously from the name of the ceremony, one aim is to create unity (or at least the appearance of unity). Candidates are to be reminded that though they are competing for political power, they are competing within the framework of “nation, religion, king” and must remember to act in the national interest; especially now, perhaps this implies that their little electoral exercise is occurring at the pleasure and under the watchful eye of the arbiters of national interest (no prizes for guessing who), so candidates should watch their step.
The threat of divine or karmic retribution also interests me. I wonder to what extent the organizers, and participants for that matter, really believe the threat? Is it seen as simply formula, or is it actually seen as an invocation of potentially potent magic? (Leaving aside for the moment how magic is rationalized in the Thai “Buddhist” tradition).
One potential practical effect of this ceremony is that it could be used to malign certain candidates. If some particular candidate were accused of violating the oath by acting dishonestly in the election, the violation could be presented as evidence that the person is not good and is indeed disrespectful to the nation, religion and presumably king. In addition, perhaps organizers hope that the devout/superstitious (depending on their view of the magic’s efficacy) “grassroots” people would not want to throw thier lot in with someone who is cursed to misery and disaster.
As to why candidates would consent to participate in the first place, and further why they would don their yellow shirts for the occasion, I think that the act is actually very political. Absence would imply guilt. Full participation, proudly wearing the King’s colours, is a rational political act meant to display one’s goodness and fitness for office to both the aforementioned arbiters of national interest and to the people at large, who are assumed to care.
LSS: It will again take me a while to decipher your latest post, however I admit my comments were ‘below the belt’.
The first comment #87 was in response to your preceding posts, and looking back it would have been better to just ask if it was possible for you to write in ‘plain English’ so at least I could read it without having to have a dictionary & translator at the ready.
(I value my time, and although interested in the topic, I am not particularly interested in learning Latin or expanding my vocabulary to include a number of words that, if I used them regularly, would risk my acquaintances calling me a wanker)
The second comment #91 was posted in disgust at having to read a rough translation of your post #89
Irrespective of your or Catullus’s intentions, it must be the prude in me that considers the mere mention of the actions in that poem as way more offensive than my anti-intellectual remark.
Teth: Out of the three tests (knowledgeable, reasonable, and open-minded), the only one that I am confident I pass is ‘reasonable’.
I can see both sides of the argument in your discussion with Sidh, but as a non-Thai, non-intellectual, non-resident of Thailand, it is only a hobby to me, and despite the impression we might get from New Mandala, it is not just Thailand & Burma that have problems.
Re: ngandeeleg, Sidh, et al. (Whoops, there goes the Latin again!)
I come home from a restful Loy Krathong weekend visiting my wife’s family in Nong Khai, far away from the dull hum of computer screens, only to return to the most bitter invective spat at me for the crime of quoting Cicero and Catullus in the original Latin. Considering the fact that such usually reserved for a fevered Jeru dithyramb or a stentorian Republican jeremiad, I should feel a bit tickled that the “pretentious LSS allocution” has earned enough infamy to be recognized as a trope in this forum.
I will admit that at times my writing style can be unnecessarily sesquipedalian; however, despite appearances, there is relatively little artifice in my writing style as I speak like this in my daily life as well. Perhaps, this is the reason why my wife never listens to me. Nevertheless, I will, for the remainder of this post, attempt to express myself in only the clearest, monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon.
Concerning my recent comments in this post, allow me to present the following points:
1. My purpose in quoting the beginning of Cicero’s Oratio in Catilinam Prima in Senatu Habita was not some attempt to show off Classical erudition, as ngandeeleg and Sidh seem to believe. As I was responding to Sidh’s mendacious charge that “tolerance” and “multiculturalism” are new concepts to Western civilization as compared to the East, as personified by old Siam. I exposed Sidh’s gross oversimplification by giving the example of Ancient Rome, one of the cornerstones of “Western” civilization, and its extremely globalized, tolerant, and multicultural society that existed well before the founding of his idealized Siam. The Ciceronian quotes served two rhetorical purposes: Firstly, to anyone familiar with the context in which the first Catiline Oration was given (and that should be anyone with a good Liberal Arts education) they reinforced the theme of republican Rome and its contributions to the West’s traditions of multiculturalism and tolerance. Secondly, if Sidh was not familiar with the quotes, then such a fact only highlights his ignorance of Western history and cultural idiom, and thusly, expose the weakness in his arguments through his misrepresentation of Western history and culture. [The irony is that making allusion to classical poems and idoms is found primarily in Asian rhetorical styles, of which I’m sure Sidh will claim to be superior by default, most notably the baguwen or “8-legged essay” used by Chinese students for passing imperial civil service examinations.]
2. My second point is that my comments were in the tradition of learned wit and sarcasm that exist in amongst this forum’s community. Again, quoting the opening lines of the first Catiline Oration, where Cicero called out his opponent right on the Senate floor with such rhetorical force that the other senators present actually shunned Catiline, causing him to feel the Senate in disgrace…and comparing that with how Sidh’s comments, too, were “abusing my patience,” humorously invokes the idea that my comments will possess the same rhetorical force.
In the online discussions I have had with several posters in this forum, most notably, Jeru, ngandeeleg, Republican, and Grasshopper, both interlocutors have often employed such intellectual joking to make our points more effectively and enjoy such jokes with an audience that can ostensibly appreciate it. Not surprisingly, a sense of community has evolved in our online culture that allows for a speech genre that is similar to the Australian speech act known as “chiacking” (See the work of Anna Wierzbicka for more on the pragmatics of many Australian speech acts, including “chiack”). A similar speech genre is the Italian-American concept known as “bustin’ balls”. (See the work of HBO’s The Sopranos for more about “bustin’ balls”). This is why I’m particularly disappointed with ngandeeleg’s recent personal attacks that I feel violate the pragmatics of such speech genres. Ngandeeleg and I have agreed and disagreed in the past, and both of us have poked fun at the other. However, paraphrasing Catullus 16, and inserting a screen name into one of the most well-known poems of Classical Latin, is not a threat to rape; just as it wasn’t one when Catullus wrote the stanzas 2,000 years ago. If ngandeeleg knew about the context of the poem, he would have known it was a hyperbolic response to prudishness concerning his Lesbia poems; just as mine was a hyperbolic response to his anti-intellectualism in calling me a “wanker” just because I can decline the noun dies in the singular and plural and he cannot. Furthermore, I feel it certainly doesn’t warrant the patently offensive pseudo-psychological analysis that ngandeeleg engages in #91, and it most certainly doesn’t warrant making fun of my name -especially from someone hiding behind a pseudonym. [So I take it the whole “Sheikh Abu Hamaar Nganadeeleg ibn Abd’malik al-Siam/Abu Tarikh Usama ibn Warraq al-Amriki” went way over your head.]
Well, it seems that despite my best efforts, this comment has once again turned into a pretentious, unnecessarily sesquipedalian allocution. 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.
As a non Thai, I prefer not to interfere in serious discussions between Thais, and therefore think it better to let Sidh & Teth sort out their differences themselves, but I’m happy to call you a wanker whenever the cap fits.
Nationality shouldn’t be a factor, nganadeeleg, as long as you are knowledgeable, reasonable, and open-minded. Generally you would think someone Thai would be more qualified to discuss matters concerning Thailand, but this is clearly not always the case, so please don’t let us stifle what you have to say. (And going back to the points raised by Lleij concerning nationalism and what not).
We have the same “facts” in hand – just that we are conditioned to interpret them differently as I mentioned.
No we don’t. Its not just a matter of different interpretation, its a matter of selectivity of facts to fit a pre-existing view, but mostly from you. Enclosing the word facts in apostrophes already shows your disdain for it and how they are irrelevant to your relativistic view of history and your favor for “context”, which to me sounds more like “excuse”.
They might assume we are suppressed, frustrated people – and probably very unhappy. Thai life expectancy might be 120 years by then – so we in 2007 who are expected to live to 70ish must also be “unhealthy”… We inescapably interpret, judge the past from our ‘modern’ standpoint. We can try to empathize, but it is only possible ‘textually’ – never through experience as a person who lived in those times and places who we assumed lived “horrible, short lives”.
Not only is that speculative, but it is awfully bad history and bad logic. Firstly, we can never live through the experience of any other individual, past or present or future, so your point is utter nonsense. Second, your view of what historians do is dated and ridiculous. Certainly historians are much more nuanced than yourself and probably do not assume as much. Third, don’t be a science fiction writer.
There is no denial that context is important in order to understand and study history, after all, the setting of a play allows us to understand the dialogue. That much is obvious. But when you try to “view the world through their eyes” as in your little trip to the future, it enters into speculative territory. That sort of history is more suitable for historical novels. Mind you, these modern values by which we judge those in the past were cultivated from their own views and values. To you, the cultural and moral relativist, what are your view on cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea? Are there any fundamental, universal human rights? Or are they merely a new set of views that can be ignored for the sake of stability, or, for the sake or respecting tradition and history? Should justice, fairness, liberty, respect not belong to all people?
All in all, what is clear to me is that Thai kings have not been entirely benevolent nor suitable to rule, in both distant and recent past. Undeniably, some have been benevolent, but as you always seem to evoke your your “I’d-do-the-same-if-I-were-in-their-place” contextualism and relativism to defend them, it smacks of naivety and a desperate desire to defend them.
I’ve mentioned in previous posts that “democracy” is next mode of stability and ‘progress’ has been made……………be only expressed in democratic elections, sports fields and not coups and violent wars? But will it?
Sorry, what progress? The unstoppable progression of time? Or the unfurling ‘progress’ of Thailand, a story in which you believe will end up in Thailand joining the ranks of Europe and Japan? Is that your definition of progress? No matter how the plot develops you know it will all end well?
Once again, you are excusing Thailand: because the Europeans have been through it, it must be OK! Its the next mode of stability, OK!
P.S. Please stop repeating your “I’d-do-the-same-if-I-were-in-their-place” defense whislt labeling it as “I place great importance on context”. But do correct me if I’m wrong here.
Gosh, it is a strange feeling I have. Although I am relieved that Labor has won, but John Howard was the only PM I ever knew in my 10.5 years here!
He has done a lot of good for Australia (responsible economic manager they say), but also a lot of bad. By slavishly toeing America’s line, the international bad image has also rubbed off on us here (although Aussie pride has risen, as much if not more, due to prowess on the global sports fields as Howard’s revisioning of history). He probably did more harm than good for his own the Liberal Party by not handing leadership to the next generation (Peter Costello etal) much sooner. Australia is now in an interesting situation with both federal and state levels of government monopolized by Labor. With the Greens likely to hold the balance of power in the Senate, we might witness a significant ‘correction’ of Howard’s social and environmental agenda long overdue (unless Kevin Rudd is merely a younger Howard as many suggested and Australians have just voted for more of the same)!
Lessons for Thailand? Surely there are many – notably related to corruption (internally lack-off – althrough externally a bit more problematic). If you need to ‘buy votes’, buy them via policies and pork-barrelling (this is catching on already though post-TRT). Of course, as Srithanonchai has noted there are significant structural limits. Most notably is ‘conflict’, as we all know, between the the rural poor who has the votes and the urban middle-classes who provides most of the country’s tax revenues… Actually Australia has something slightly comparable with the rural and suburban ‘mortgage belts’ voting Liberal in the past elections (that I followed)…
Thanks for the elaboration Lleij Samuel Schwartz. However, I maintain that either you intentionally misprepresented or misunderstood my writings. You can go back to all my posts for their proper context – which were in response to, relationship with their respective topics and discussions.
Not being able to understand ‘Latin’ may be a good thing, for I am spared of your jibes (which Nganadeeleg seemed to find unfavorable)…
Teth,
“…your perception that I am a disloyal, unpatriotic Thai. Even if I am, does it matter?”
My apologies if that thought occured to you, I will admit being irresponsible with my wordings/intents there. Your response answered my curiousity.
“…I do not need to explain to anyone why I view Thai history in your so-called negative light because the facts in which I raise have never been disputed…”
We have the same “facts” in hand – just that we are conditioned to interpret them differently as I mentioned. It is quite relative really and many of our fellow ‘patriotic’ Thais’ will probably brand me disloyal and unpatriotic for engaging in NM! You may notice I place high importance on ‘context’. I’ve talked about alternative histories. Let’s imagine a hundred years from now and the Thai monarchy resembles the Japanese in practice or Thailand becomes a republic. A thought may occur amongst NM commentators in the year 3007 “Those Thais in the end of the 20th, early 21st century lived under a tyrannical, violent regime”. They might assume we are suppressed, frustrated people – and probably very unhappy. Thai life expectancy might be 120 years by then – so we in 2007 who are expected to live to 70ish must also be “unhealthy”… We inescapably interpret, judge the past from our ‘modern’ standpoint. We can try to empathize, but it is only possible ‘textually’ – never through experience as a person who lived in those times and places who we assumed lived “horrible, short lives”.
“Times and places” also leads me to Tip’s point:
“What you call “stability” in the Siamese period up until 100 years ago was in fact “slavery, corvee labor, and taxes”.
Now I have a question for you, what do you think of Thai Nationalism ideology = Nation + Religion + King”
I think Tip has already answered her question in terms of the tranformation of Siamese-Thai “stability”. I’ve mentioned in previous posts that “democracy” is next mode of stability and ‘progress’ has been made (regardless of who/what is ‘holding’ Thai democracy back and who/what is pushing it forward).
And going back to LSS’s and Grasshopper’s points (as I understand), there may be nothing exceptional and this characterizes any ‘modernizing’ society/culture past/present. The difference is merely defined by time lags in modernization. Europe/America/Japan has ‘modernized’, countries like Thailand are just ‘developing’. Maybe this will further dilute “racial/ethnic exceptionalism” – constructed “fairly tales” (to borrow from Teth), which will in an ideal future, be only expressed in democratic elections, sports fields and not coups and violent wars? But will it?
Relative to child prostitution and child labor, I believe Mr. Baker is correct in noting that things have improved for those who are ethnic Tai or have obtained Thai citizenship with the burden now on those without Thai citizenship and on minorities, especially highland minority children from the north, and as a previous poster noted, neighboring populations. But once in their early teens, options are still not that great for those who attended rural Thai public schools, but certainly better than a generation ago.
The question remains open whether the decrease in child prostitution is a function of “development” or perhaps the decline of a middle aged Sino-Thai population in Bangkok that honestly believes that having sex with very young girls is beneficial towards one’s physical health and longevity.
And how is Erik Cohen still being taken seriously? The man suffered from a serious bout of that bane of Southeast Asian anthropologists, village headman hypocredulitis, believing all the nonsense that my former drinking acquaintance, the now incarcerated, and finally dishonored Laota, foisted upon him. And then he came up with his overly simplistic view of budget tourists.
Australia does not need conservative military generals to lead coups, bloodless or otherwise. They have the Governor-General’s office for those purposes. Or are you all too young to remember a certain Prime Minister named Whitlam?
Anytime Australia needs lessons about \’peaceful demonstrations\’ to protest against corrupt and extra-judicially killing Prime Ministers who just won\’t leave office, check out Thailand. Or the Philippines, if a second opinion is needed.
Even on such ordinary routine matters as how to carry out a bloodless military coup without spilling a cup of coffee, we have Thai generals aplenty only willing to oblige.
But Republican is already crying a river he gets hysterically incoherent on such moments I have to take my leave hastily before I puke.
BTW who is Kevin Rudd? Never heard of the guy until he won.
To me the issue of the different registration fee payments for farang and Thais is secondary.
The more important issue is the professional morality of the academics involved in this conference.
Just over a year after a royalist coup d’etat, in which a royalist dictatorship has forced 64 million Thai people to accept the SE at gunpoint, when almost half the country remains under martial law, when the media is controlled by regime and the former democratically-elected government has been banned by the king’s military, here we have the spectacle of Thai academics (servants of the raja), who will in fact receive a monthly salary paid by the tax-payer for the rest of their lives, providing intellectual support for the king’s SE propaganda.
How can I put this is? The king is not a gifted intellectual. Judging by his writings he has a below-average intelligence but a gift for politics. No-one should take his intellectual pretensions seriously. Especially when he is protected from any criticism by lese majeste.
Yes, there is certainly something to be said for alternative models of development, and yes, alternative economic theories are of course worth exploring.
But don’t mix this up with the royalist dictatorship’s SE propaganda, which has a purely political purpose.
If you salaried academics are serious about SE do us a favour. Resign from your academic positions. Donate your pensions to charity. Live like a villager for two years. And then come back and hold your conference on sufficiency economy.
Then the academic world might take you seriously.
And by the way, I hope your conference can explain the contradiction between the king’s SE prescription for the Thai people and his own accumulated wealth of $40 billion which, based on Forbes’ list of wealthy monarchs, would make the king of Thailand the wealthiest king in the world.
In other countries such a conference might be staged by a literature department under the theme of “humour”. In Thailand economists and social scientists actually take the concept seriously.
It saddens me that Kelly could have come from my hometown of Perth. Flag waving and ****licking were distinctly on the nose when I was finishing my school education in the 1980s.
That was an utterly ridiculous and naive post by Andrew Walker. I know AW has spent a fair bit of time in Thailand so perhaps the kindest interpretation of this silliness is that he was completely shitfaced when he stuck that graphic up at 1.01am.
No, no, no, no, no! that just won’t do in Thailand.
The “progressive” political science academics in Thaiand would condemn this as an “electocracy”, or “majority” democracy. Don’t you know that elections are just another way in which the “state” and “capital” in cahoots with “global capital” exploit “the people”? Because you can’t have elections without those terrible, evil people: politicians! Ughhhhhhhh……
And anyway, the people don’t have enough education to vote sensibly. They just give their votes to anyone who might improve their lives. How selfish.
What the academics, their media lackeys, the NGOs and their royalist backers behind the scenes want is to lead a courageous “people’s movement” to fight the “state” and “capital” in order to protect the rights of the “community”.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Taking an oath for a clean and fair election
“I began to speculate about the real motivation of the organizers–what exactly is this “ritualistic event imposed…by the state bureaucracy” supposed to achieve?”
Submission to the bureaucracy of course. You’d immediately recognise this sort of thing if you had worked in any hard core bureaucratic institution around here.
This sort of ceremony was par for the course in the university I worked at. Annual Tham-Hua ceremony (everyone prostrates not to HMK, but to the university president, not joyfully and willingly mind you), Brahmanic sprinking of water on teachers overseen by university president reinforcing power in lower levels of hierarchy (boycotted by missionaries, visits by royals (attended eagerly by missionaries, soldiers push Thai ajaans out of seat, ajaan farangs embarassingly llowed to keep their’s), mandatory Mo hawm day, now no doubt yellow shirt day. You name it, the mind control technique need not be associated with royalty or Thai-ness, for instance the four C’s (inherited from Toyota’s automobile plants apparently) with involuntarily committee members taking photos of cubicle work space (thus aggravating otherwise eager conformists) and secretaries making little tape marks on desks to mark where the scissors are to be placed on your desk when not using them, standard number of pencils to keep in drawer, no personal posters or decoration on wall, etc. Yes, it all wreaks of invasion of the body snatchers and solidifies bureaucratic power as per Chang Noi’s new theory:
“Third, ministries and other bureaucratic agencies must draw up long-terms plans and insist upon following these plans in their day-to-day operations so that politicians who are put in charge of these agencies will not be able to implement the policies they promise to the electorate.” (Source)
Taking an oath for a clean and fair election
“The threat of divine or karmic retribution also interests me. I wonder to what extent the organizers, and participants for that matter, really believe the threat? Is it seen as simply formula, or is it actually seen as an invocation of potentially potent magic? (Leaving aside for the moment how magic is rationalized in the Thai “Buddhist” tradition). ”
The ones that don’t believe in the oath must be the new “communists” that the military is fighting the new cold war against (that Chang Noi talks about).
[Note: In the Mon epic Ratchathirat (translated into Thai during Rama I) if someone wanted to avoid the magical efficacy of an oath they left the Buddhist scriptures out of the case they took the oath under. The Mon hero Lagunein also states categorically and rather Machiavellianly that in warfare oaths are to be violated at any time you want, that one is foolish to believe in them. Ratchathirat was suppposedly written about 1560.]
Taking an oath for a clean and fair election
Thanks very much, Wendell, for these additional suggestions concerning interpretations of the event. Certainly, the ECT has made the fight against what they see as vote buying one of its priorities. This might well turn against them after the election, in case the ECT might not be able to catch a good number of the supposedly many wrongdoers. “Absence would imply guilt” — or bad intentions, and a politically confrontational attitude. As for the “people at large”, I think that the ceremony is more about the relationship between bureaucracy and the candidates, simply because very few people in the province will know of what happened at Wat Sothorn. You will find some more, and more direct, references to “Nation, Religion, Monarchy” in the next post. It will not be directly on the election, but rather on a contextual aspect.
The King Never Smiles?
One of the reasons the publication of “The King Never Smiles” has been so controversial is that the lèse majesté law has prevented open criticism of the monarchy for so long.
So it was with some surprise that I read Thongchai Winichakul’s piece on the proposed amendment to the lèse majesté law published in The Nation on October 11 2007 [http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/10/11/opinion/opinion_30052054.php]. The article has also been translated into Thai on Prachatai [http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=9886&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&System_Session_Language=Thai]
As we know, this proposed amendment has already been withdrawn.
But what I was shocked about was the logic of Thongchai’s argument against the proposed amendment. For someone who markets himself on his anti-monarchy credentials I believe that Thongchai’s position on the monarchy and lèse majesté should be held up to close scrutiny.
I have extracted a number of passages from the article, with my comments below:
THONGCHAI: “…The more serious problem for years, moreover, is the continuing abuse of this law for political purposes because the law allows anybody to accuse anybody else of violating the lèse majesté principle…”
So, the “more serious” problem of the lèse majesté law for Thongchai is that it allows different parties to accuse each other of lèse majesté. Interestingly Thongchai neglects to mention that the basic, fundamental problem of the lèse majesté law, which is the huge obstacle to democratization in Thailand, is that it prevents the MONARCHY itself, which is an active political player in Thai politics, from being criticized.
THONGCHAI: “…Secondly, in doing the above, not only does this mean that some citizens may become legally elevated above others, but it also grants a few people the privileges and status of near-royalty. This is a blunt affront to the monarchy, to tradition and to every known modern and democratic tenet….”
So Thongchai’s argument is, the proposed amendment is wrong because it is a “blunt affront” to the monarchy – because it grants some people the status of “near-royalty”. The monarchy affronts the citizens of Thailand on a daily basis, but Thongchai is worried that the monarchy may be affronted?!
THONGCHAI: “…The amendment bill may be in breach of lèse majesté itself…”
So Thongchai’s argument is, the proposed amendment is wrong because it would violate lèse majesté. This argument can only be valid if Thongchai accepts the validity of lèse majesté.
THONGCHAI: “…Imagine if such a person did something that injured the reputation and status of the monarchy, he would still be protected by the amended lèse majesté law. In other words, his violation of lèse majesté could not be punished, thanks to the amended lèse majesté law…”
So Thongchai’s argument is, the proposed amendment is wrong because it would mean that violators of lèse majesté could not be punished. This argument can only be valid if Thongchai believes that violators of lèse majesté should be punished (!)
THONGCHAI: “…Last but not least, the intention of the amendment this time itself is also an abuse of the lèse majesté law, namely in providing protection to particular individuals in the current political conflict. It is a bad legal amendment from the start….”
So Thongchai’s argument is that the proposed amendment is wrong because it is an abuse of the lèse majesté law (“Last but not least” – so this is an important point for Thongchai). This argument can only be valid if Thongchai accepts the legitimacy of the existing lèse majesté law, that the law should not be “abused”.
THONGCHAI: “…In the end, if the amendment bill is passed, the revised lèse majesté law will certainly increase the number of violations, the number of political cheap shots. Similarly, the number of court cases will put the monarchical institution in the spotlights even more…”
So Thongchai’s argument is that the proposed amendment is wrong because it “will put the monarchical institution in the spotlights even more”. This argument can only be valid if Thongchai believes that the monarchy should NOT be “put in the spotlight”.
THONGCHAI: “…It will result in special privileges for many people, including non-royals, who act above the public interests and who do not deserve special protection above the law…”
This statement is somewhat illogical, but Thongchai’s argument appears to be that special privileges should not be granted to “non-royals”. The unstated subtext, based on Thongchai’s logic above, is that it IS acceptable for “royals” to have “special protection above the law” courtesy of the lèse majesté law.
THONGCHAI: “…Yet they cannot be punished, even when they do harm to the monarchy….”
Well, this is very surprising. Thongchai actually bases his argument on the principle that those who do harm to the monarchy must be punished … (!)
THONGCHAI: “…The lèse majesté law has done more harm than good to the monarchy. The amended one would do even more harm…”
So Thongchai’s argument is that the proposed amendment is wrong because it would harm the monarchy. For Thongchai’s argument to be valid it follows that he wants no harm to come to the monarchy.
Based on Thongchai’s reasoning in this article one can only conclude that,
Either,
(i) Thongchai believes in the validity of the lèse majesté law;
(ii) Thongchai believes that violators of the lèse majesté law must be punished;
(iii) Thongchai is a royalist; and
(iv) Thongchai is willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column.
Or,
(iv) His arguments above are logically invalid.
Taking an oath for a clean and fair election
Thank you. Michael, for that detailed account of proceedings in Chachoengsao. It made for interesting reading.
Reading the account, I began to speculate about the real motivation of the organizers–what exactly is this “ritualistic event imposed…by the state bureaucracy” supposed to achieve?
Obviously from the name of the ceremony, one aim is to create unity (or at least the appearance of unity). Candidates are to be reminded that though they are competing for political power, they are competing within the framework of “nation, religion, king” and must remember to act in the national interest; especially now, perhaps this implies that their little electoral exercise is occurring at the pleasure and under the watchful eye of the arbiters of national interest (no prizes for guessing who), so candidates should watch their step.
The threat of divine or karmic retribution also interests me. I wonder to what extent the organizers, and participants for that matter, really believe the threat? Is it seen as simply formula, or is it actually seen as an invocation of potentially potent magic? (Leaving aside for the moment how magic is rationalized in the Thai “Buddhist” tradition).
One potential practical effect of this ceremony is that it could be used to malign certain candidates. If some particular candidate were accused of violating the oath by acting dishonestly in the election, the violation could be presented as evidence that the person is not good and is indeed disrespectful to the nation, religion and presumably king. In addition, perhaps organizers hope that the devout/superstitious (depending on their view of the magic’s efficacy) “grassroots” people would not want to throw thier lot in with someone who is cursed to misery and disaster.
As to why candidates would consent to participate in the first place, and further why they would don their yellow shirts for the occasion, I think that the act is actually very political. Absence would imply guilt. Full participation, proudly wearing the King’s colours, is a rational political act meant to display one’s goodness and fitness for office to both the aforementioned arbiters of national interest and to the people at large, who are assumed to care.
The King Never Smiles?
LSS: It will again take me a while to decipher your latest post, however I admit my comments were ‘below the belt’.
The first comment #87 was in response to your preceding posts, and looking back it would have been better to just ask if it was possible for you to write in ‘plain English’ so at least I could read it without having to have a dictionary & translator at the ready.
(I value my time, and although interested in the topic, I am not particularly interested in learning Latin or expanding my vocabulary to include a number of words that, if I used them regularly, would risk my acquaintances calling me a wanker)
The second comment #91 was posted in disgust at having to read a rough translation of your post #89
Irrespective of your or Catullus’s intentions, it must be the prude in me that considers the mere mention of the actions in that poem as way more offensive than my anti-intellectual remark.
Teth: Out of the three tests (knowledgeable, reasonable, and open-minded), the only one that I am confident I pass is ‘reasonable’.
I can see both sides of the argument in your discussion with Sidh, but as a non-Thai, non-intellectual, non-resident of Thailand, it is only a hobby to me, and despite the impression we might get from New Mandala, it is not just Thailand & Burma that have problems.
The King Never Smiles?
Re: ngandeeleg, Sidh, et al. (Whoops, there goes the Latin again!)
I come home from a restful Loy Krathong weekend visiting my wife’s family in Nong Khai, far away from the dull hum of computer screens, only to return to the most bitter invective spat at me for the crime of quoting Cicero and Catullus in the original Latin. Considering the fact that such usually reserved for a fevered Jeru dithyramb or a stentorian Republican jeremiad, I should feel a bit tickled that the “pretentious LSS allocution” has earned enough infamy to be recognized as a trope in this forum.
I will admit that at times my writing style can be unnecessarily sesquipedalian; however, despite appearances, there is relatively little artifice in my writing style as I speak like this in my daily life as well. Perhaps, this is the reason why my wife never listens to me. Nevertheless, I will, for the remainder of this post, attempt to express myself in only the clearest, monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon.
Concerning my recent comments in this post, allow me to present the following points:
1. My purpose in quoting the beginning of Cicero’s Oratio in Catilinam Prima in Senatu Habita was not some attempt to show off Classical erudition, as ngandeeleg and Sidh seem to believe. As I was responding to Sidh’s mendacious charge that “tolerance” and “multiculturalism” are new concepts to Western civilization as compared to the East, as personified by old Siam. I exposed Sidh’s gross oversimplification by giving the example of Ancient Rome, one of the cornerstones of “Western” civilization, and its extremely globalized, tolerant, and multicultural society that existed well before the founding of his idealized Siam. The Ciceronian quotes served two rhetorical purposes: Firstly, to anyone familiar with the context in which the first Catiline Oration was given (and that should be anyone with a good Liberal Arts education) they reinforced the theme of republican Rome and its contributions to the West’s traditions of multiculturalism and tolerance. Secondly, if Sidh was not familiar with the quotes, then such a fact only highlights his ignorance of Western history and cultural idiom, and thusly, expose the weakness in his arguments through his misrepresentation of Western history and culture. [The irony is that making allusion to classical poems and idoms is found primarily in Asian rhetorical styles, of which I’m sure Sidh will claim to be superior by default, most notably the baguwen or “8-legged essay” used by Chinese students for passing imperial civil service examinations.]
2. My second point is that my comments were in the tradition of learned wit and sarcasm that exist in amongst this forum’s community. Again, quoting the opening lines of the first Catiline Oration, where Cicero called out his opponent right on the Senate floor with such rhetorical force that the other senators present actually shunned Catiline, causing him to feel the Senate in disgrace…and comparing that with how Sidh’s comments, too, were “abusing my patience,” humorously invokes the idea that my comments will possess the same rhetorical force.
In the online discussions I have had with several posters in this forum, most notably, Jeru, ngandeeleg, Republican, and Grasshopper, both interlocutors have often employed such intellectual joking to make our points more effectively and enjoy such jokes with an audience that can ostensibly appreciate it. Not surprisingly, a sense of community has evolved in our online culture that allows for a speech genre that is similar to the Australian speech act known as “chiacking” (See the work of Anna Wierzbicka for more on the pragmatics of many Australian speech acts, including “chiack”). A similar speech genre is the Italian-American concept known as “bustin’ balls”. (See the work of HBO’s The Sopranos for more about “bustin’ balls”). This is why I’m particularly disappointed with ngandeeleg’s recent personal attacks that I feel violate the pragmatics of such speech genres. Ngandeeleg and I have agreed and disagreed in the past, and both of us have poked fun at the other. However, paraphrasing Catullus 16, and inserting a screen name into one of the most well-known poems of Classical Latin, is not a threat to rape; just as it wasn’t one when Catullus wrote the stanzas 2,000 years ago. If ngandeeleg knew about the context of the poem, he would have known it was a hyperbolic response to prudishness concerning his Lesbia poems; just as mine was a hyperbolic response to his anti-intellectualism in calling me a “wanker” just because I can decline the noun dies in the singular and plural and he cannot. Furthermore, I feel it certainly doesn’t warrant the patently offensive pseudo-psychological analysis that ngandeeleg engages in #91, and it most certainly doesn’t warrant making fun of my name -especially from someone hiding behind a pseudonym. [So I take it the whole “Sheikh Abu Hamaar Nganadeeleg ibn Abd’malik al-Siam/Abu Tarikh Usama ibn Warraq al-Amriki” went way over your head.]
Well, it seems that despite my best efforts, this comment has once again turned into a pretentious, unnecessarily sesquipedalian allocution. 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.
Always with metta,
Lleij Samuel Schwartz
Taking an oath for a clean and fair election
Pictures of smoke and mirrors…
The King Never Smiles?
Nationality shouldn’t be a factor, nganadeeleg, as long as you are knowledgeable, reasonable, and open-minded. Generally you would think someone Thai would be more qualified to discuss matters concerning Thailand, but this is clearly not always the case, so please don’t let us stifle what you have to say. (And going back to the points raised by Lleij concerning nationalism and what not).
No we don’t. Its not just a matter of different interpretation, its a matter of selectivity of facts to fit a pre-existing view, but mostly from you. Enclosing the word facts in apostrophes already shows your disdain for it and how they are irrelevant to your relativistic view of history and your favor for “context”, which to me sounds more like “excuse”.
Not only is that speculative, but it is awfully bad history and bad logic. Firstly, we can never live through the experience of any other individual, past or present or future, so your point is utter nonsense. Second, your view of what historians do is dated and ridiculous. Certainly historians are much more nuanced than yourself and probably do not assume as much. Third, don’t be a science fiction writer.
There is no denial that context is important in order to understand and study history, after all, the setting of a play allows us to understand the dialogue. That much is obvious. But when you try to “view the world through their eyes” as in your little trip to the future, it enters into speculative territory. That sort of history is more suitable for historical novels. Mind you, these modern values by which we judge those in the past were cultivated from their own views and values. To you, the cultural and moral relativist, what are your view on cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea? Are there any fundamental, universal human rights? Or are they merely a new set of views that can be ignored for the sake of stability, or, for the sake or respecting tradition and history? Should justice, fairness, liberty, respect not belong to all people?
All in all, what is clear to me is that Thai kings have not been entirely benevolent nor suitable to rule, in both distant and recent past. Undeniably, some have been benevolent, but as you always seem to evoke your your “I’d-do-the-same-if-I-were-in-their-place” contextualism and relativism to defend them, it smacks of naivety and a desperate desire to defend them.
Sorry, what progress? The unstoppable progression of time? Or the unfurling ‘progress’ of Thailand, a story in which you believe will end up in Thailand joining the ranks of Europe and Japan? Is that your definition of progress? No matter how the plot develops you know it will all end well?
Once again, you are excusing Thailand: because the Europeans have been through it, it must be OK! Its the next mode of stability, OK!
P.S. Please stop repeating your “I’d-do-the-same-if-I-were-in-their-place” defense whislt labeling it as “I place great importance on context”. But do correct me if I’m wrong here.
How to get rid of a government
Gosh, it is a strange feeling I have. Although I am relieved that Labor has won, but John Howard was the only PM I ever knew in my 10.5 years here!
He has done a lot of good for Australia (responsible economic manager they say), but also a lot of bad. By slavishly toeing America’s line, the international bad image has also rubbed off on us here (although Aussie pride has risen, as much if not more, due to prowess on the global sports fields as Howard’s revisioning of history). He probably did more harm than good for his own the Liberal Party by not handing leadership to the next generation (Peter Costello etal) much sooner. Australia is now in an interesting situation with both federal and state levels of government monopolized by Labor. With the Greens likely to hold the balance of power in the Senate, we might witness a significant ‘correction’ of Howard’s social and environmental agenda long overdue (unless Kevin Rudd is merely a younger Howard as many suggested and Australians have just voted for more of the same)!
Lessons for Thailand? Surely there are many – notably related to corruption (internally lack-off – althrough externally a bit more problematic). If you need to ‘buy votes’, buy them via policies and pork-barrelling (this is catching on already though post-TRT). Of course, as Srithanonchai has noted there are significant structural limits. Most notably is ‘conflict’, as we all know, between the the rural poor who has the votes and the urban middle-classes who provides most of the country’s tax revenues… Actually Australia has something slightly comparable with the rural and suburban ‘mortgage belts’ voting Liberal in the past elections (that I followed)…
The King Never Smiles?
Thanks for the elaboration Lleij Samuel Schwartz. However, I maintain that either you intentionally misprepresented or misunderstood my writings. You can go back to all my posts for their proper context – which were in response to, relationship with their respective topics and discussions.
Not being able to understand ‘Latin’ may be a good thing, for I am spared of your jibes (which Nganadeeleg seemed to find unfavorable)…
Teth,
“…your perception that I am a disloyal, unpatriotic Thai. Even if I am, does it matter?”
My apologies if that thought occured to you, I will admit being irresponsible with my wordings/intents there. Your response answered my curiousity.
“…I do not need to explain to anyone why I view Thai history in your so-called negative light because the facts in which I raise have never been disputed…”
We have the same “facts” in hand – just that we are conditioned to interpret them differently as I mentioned. It is quite relative really and many of our fellow ‘patriotic’ Thais’ will probably brand me disloyal and unpatriotic for engaging in NM! You may notice I place high importance on ‘context’. I’ve talked about alternative histories. Let’s imagine a hundred years from now and the Thai monarchy resembles the Japanese in practice or Thailand becomes a republic. A thought may occur amongst NM commentators in the year 3007 “Those Thais in the end of the 20th, early 21st century lived under a tyrannical, violent regime”. They might assume we are suppressed, frustrated people – and probably very unhappy. Thai life expectancy might be 120 years by then – so we in 2007 who are expected to live to 70ish must also be “unhealthy”… We inescapably interpret, judge the past from our ‘modern’ standpoint. We can try to empathize, but it is only possible ‘textually’ – never through experience as a person who lived in those times and places who we assumed lived “horrible, short lives”.
“Times and places” also leads me to Tip’s point:
“What you call “stability” in the Siamese period up until 100 years ago was in fact “slavery, corvee labor, and taxes”.
Now I have a question for you, what do you think of Thai Nationalism ideology = Nation + Religion + King”
I think Tip has already answered her question in terms of the tranformation of Siamese-Thai “stability”. I’ve mentioned in previous posts that “democracy” is next mode of stability and ‘progress’ has been made (regardless of who/what is ‘holding’ Thai democracy back and who/what is pushing it forward).
And going back to LSS’s and Grasshopper’s points (as I understand), there may be nothing exceptional and this characterizes any ‘modernizing’ society/culture past/present. The difference is merely defined by time lags in modernization. Europe/America/Japan has ‘modernized’, countries like Thailand are just ‘developing’. Maybe this will further dilute “racial/ethnic exceptionalism” – constructed “fairly tales” (to borrow from Teth), which will in an ideal future, be only expressed in democratic elections, sports fields and not coups and violent wars? But will it?
How to get rid of a government
Two down (Thaksin, Howard), one more to go (Bush).
The nouveau riche?
Relative to child prostitution and child labor, I believe Mr. Baker is correct in noting that things have improved for those who are ethnic Tai or have obtained Thai citizenship with the burden now on those without Thai citizenship and on minorities, especially highland minority children from the north, and as a previous poster noted, neighboring populations. But once in their early teens, options are still not that great for those who attended rural Thai public schools, but certainly better than a generation ago.
The question remains open whether the decrease in child prostitution is a function of “development” or perhaps the decline of a middle aged Sino-Thai population in Bangkok that honestly believes that having sex with very young girls is beneficial towards one’s physical health and longevity.
And how is Erik Cohen still being taken seriously? The man suffered from a serious bout of that bane of Southeast Asian anthropologists, village headman hypocredulitis, believing all the nonsense that my former drinking acquaintance, the now incarcerated, and finally dishonored Laota, foisted upon him. And then he came up with his overly simplistic view of budget tourists.
How to get rid of a government
Australia does not need conservative military generals to lead coups, bloodless or otherwise. They have the Governor-General’s office for those purposes. Or are you all too young to remember a certain Prime Minister named Whitlam?
How to get rid of a government
Anytime Australia needs lessons about \’peaceful demonstrations\’ to protest against corrupt and extra-judicially killing Prime Ministers who just won\’t leave office, check out Thailand. Or the Philippines, if a second opinion is needed.
Even on such ordinary routine matters as how to carry out a bloodless military coup without spilling a cup of coffee, we have Thai generals aplenty only willing to oblige.
But Republican is already crying a river he gets hysterically incoherent on such moments I have to take my leave hastily before I puke.
BTW who is Kevin Rudd? Never heard of the guy until he won.
Sufficiency economy conference in Bangkok
To me the issue of the different registration fee payments for farang and Thais is secondary.
The more important issue is the professional morality of the academics involved in this conference.
Just over a year after a royalist coup d’etat, in which a royalist dictatorship has forced 64 million Thai people to accept the SE at gunpoint, when almost half the country remains under martial law, when the media is controlled by regime and the former democratically-elected government has been banned by the king’s military, here we have the spectacle of Thai academics (servants of the raja), who will in fact receive a monthly salary paid by the tax-payer for the rest of their lives, providing intellectual support for the king’s SE propaganda.
How can I put this is? The king is not a gifted intellectual. Judging by his writings he has a below-average intelligence but a gift for politics. No-one should take his intellectual pretensions seriously. Especially when he is protected from any criticism by lese majeste.
Yes, there is certainly something to be said for alternative models of development, and yes, alternative economic theories are of course worth exploring.
But don’t mix this up with the royalist dictatorship’s SE propaganda, which has a purely political purpose.
If you salaried academics are serious about SE do us a favour. Resign from your academic positions. Donate your pensions to charity. Live like a villager for two years. And then come back and hold your conference on sufficiency economy.
Then the academic world might take you seriously.
And by the way, I hope your conference can explain the contradiction between the king’s SE prescription for the Thai people and his own accumulated wealth of $40 billion which, based on Forbes’ list of wealthy monarchs, would make the king of Thailand the wealthiest king in the world.
In other countries such a conference might be staged by a literature department under the theme of “humour”. In Thailand economists and social scientists actually take the concept seriously.
How to get rid of a government
Hey Aussie – I am in Europe right now so I was as sober as a judge!
“A husband, a father and a king…”
Oh puke.
It saddens me that Kelly could have come from my hometown of Perth. Flag waving and ****licking were distinctly on the nose when I was finishing my school education in the 1980s.
How to get rid of a government
Thanks Srithanonchai.
That was an utterly ridiculous and naive post by Andrew Walker. I know AW has spent a fair bit of time in Thailand so perhaps the kindest interpretation of this silliness is that he was completely shitfaced when he stuck that graphic up at 1.01am.
How to get rid of a government
No, no, no, no, no! that just won’t do in Thailand.
The “progressive” political science academics in Thaiand would condemn this as an “electocracy”, or “majority” democracy. Don’t you know that elections are just another way in which the “state” and “capital” in cahoots with “global capital” exploit “the people”? Because you can’t have elections without those terrible, evil people: politicians! Ughhhhhhhh……
And anyway, the people don’t have enough education to vote sensibly. They just give their votes to anyone who might improve their lives. How selfish.
What the academics, their media lackeys, the NGOs and their royalist backers behind the scenes want is to lead a courageous “people’s movement” to fight the “state” and “capital” in order to protect the rights of the “community”.