It is interesting how Vichai N. has disappeared. Perhaps he has developed a sense of shame. Perhaps his anger has simmered away into nothingness. Perhaps he is still finding an excuse.
To summarize Vichai N.: “YOU LOT ARE ACADEMIC-SOUNDING THAKSIN LACKEYS! F-OFF!!!!!1111”
I laugh at his ability to be wound up protecting the dignity of one man whom he does not know, has probably not met, and has done nothing for him except make him feel good before he watches a movie.
Continue getting wound up and make a fool of yourself. It is the most mature and erudite case you have made in support of HMK!
Lese majeste has very long tentacles indeed. Neither the panel abstract nor the abstracts for two of the three papers make any mention of the king!
Admittedly these are abstracts, but the abstracts do mention “middle-class” and “Bangkok-based groups”, and SE as a “class response”. So why not the king?
If the authors don’t understand that the only reason SE has appeared is because of the king and his royalist dictatorship one doesn’t hold out much hope for the papers.
The king has much to thank these foreign scholars for providing theoretical substance to his inane ramblings. What better birthday present could they have presented him with for this year’s ICTS.
As usual we will have to rely on Andrew W. for some rational criticism of SE, and, we hope, its chief theoretician.
The Nation Institute of Development Administration has just published a thematic issue of its NIDA Development Journal on the SE (Vol. 47, issue 1/2550). Most appropriately, the cover is yellow (printing was too late to change it to pink, I guess).
There are six Thai-language articles and a report by a NIDA librarian what books they have on SE.
I can’t list all the titles here, but one of the English translations of the titles says, “Sufficiency Economy at Individual Level: Theory and Research Findings for The Construction of Psycho-Behavioral Indicators.” Part of the English abstract reads, “The most important Thai ideology, which is highly acclaimed in the world at present, is the King’s principle of ‘Sufficiency Economy.’ This principle has been bestowed to Thai people for more than 25 years. Today, academicians in various disciplines have united to use their knowledge and expertise to increase the mobilization on this principle in various ways of life of the Thai people.”
555 you’re right. I’m being very unfair to the mafia.
But maybe the Godmother does have something to teach us about modern Thai realities. I’m thinking that she could get on the cultural studies bandwagon and give her talk at the ICTS on consumerism and consumer culture, using Siam Paragon as her case study. Then somehow integrate this with Father’s sufficiency economy theory. There’s a whole new research field in this. Maybe they could get the researchers from the ANU’s NTSC on board. Who knows, the UNDP might even be interested. This is Thai Studies after all. Everything is possible. Everyone who matters is a winner – the royals, their academic lackeys, the funding organizations and the media.
[…] the coup in Thailand┬ back in September 2006.┬ It is also relevant that he recently published a scholarly article on Burma’s 1990 elections.┬ That article, or at least its abstract, is certainly worth a […]
[…] British Ambassador to Thailand.┬ I mentioned Tonkin and his┬ arguments after┬ the coup in Thailand┬ back in September 2006.┬ It is also relevant that he recently published a scholarly article on Burma’s 1990 […]
Well then, someone at Matichon smuggled a sly cut on the Network into the article in question.
But I remain curious about whether Gen Surayut has left the privy council. Can anyone offer reliable information on this?
And why, Republican, so unfair to mafiosi?? . . . Their bosses are sure to have a more realistic sense of Italian realities than the Godmother has of Thailand.
Thanks, Jon. But might you elaborate a bit on “Euwen Bagshawe’s translation and Kin Wun Mingyi diaries” and also on your experience with “a smart non-elite rural scholar” of Burmese history? Please … Both of these tidbits are very intriguing.
SR — As I have often written, I think visiting Burma / Myanmar of the essence, and I am as aware as anyone of the very real complexities of that country. Professor Taylor has made useful contributions particularly with regard to our understanding of the relationship between (some of) the ethnic minirities and the Burmese state. Parts of what he says I agree with, but he has made damaging remarks about me and I intend to defend myself. You may call that mud-slinging, I call it my democratic right. JW
“Aung Din, Co-founder of the USCB and a 1988 veteran, updated on how on 25 September 25 alone, a hundred dead bodies were counted at the Rangoon General Hospital.”
I have added this report to the others filed under the Hidden Crisis topic at my website. There I have been tracking any and all reports of massacres around the time of the crackdown and after:
You’ve got me there, I’m not sure. But my understanding was that to take up the position of Prime Minister one could not simultaneously hold the position of privy counsellor. That might be too р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Фр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щ even for the royalists. But there’s no doubt that whatever his official status is, he is doing the bidding of Sauron.
As for Matichon, it is a mouthpiece of network monarchy, aimed at indoctrinating the middle class in the values of the network. Phra Thep is its “Godmother”.
By the way, I see the Godmother is also opening the ICTS conference. The network really has things sewn up. Why on earth do they need to invite a princess to open a Thai Studies conference? It’s basically like asking a mafia boss to open a conference on Italian culture. Why can’t they invite a scholar?
Is there any more evidence needed to show the true purpose of the ICTS?
b. Euwen Bagshawe’s translation and Kin Wun Mingyi diaries.
Translations of important Burmese works have a lasting value, that this year’s stylised theoretical observations will soon lose.
d. Don’t agree with this statement at all:
“Not surprisingly, the largest proportion of scholarly books and articles on Burma that have appeared since 1945 can be broadly classed as history.”
[Most are political science (Silverstein, Callahan, Taylor, Steinberg), often history by political scientists. There were some historians who started in the colonial era who continued working into the post-colonial era like Luce and Than Tun, for instance. In recent history, there have been very few mentors in the area of history to study under.]
c. Regarding this statement:
“In recent years, there has been a number of important works in English produced by Western-trained Burmese scholars, looking at their country’s history from an indigenous perspective.” (footnote citing Aung-Thwin’s “Mists of Ramanya”)
He really should have listed Thant Myint-U’s latest book, because that is the default history of Burma that people are buying in the bookstore and reading nowadays according to bookstore owner friends of mine.
As for Aung-Thwin’s “Mists of Ramanya” attempt to erase Mon history without knowing any Mon language at all, or deeply reading reading any Mon inscriptions or chronicles, and by essentially blaming Mon history on some colonial era historians tried to mess with the prior ethnic Burmese state, there was a whole international Mon history conference last month that dealt with this topic, only partly because there are mor important issues like starting to read and study Mon chronicles themselves, and a whole string of negative book reviews of his book (Pierre Pichard included).
IMHO what Burmese history really needs is a smart non-elite rural scholar. Enlightened western educational institutions don’t seem to be able to provide such an opportunity. It’s not difficult. I did it by myself by hiring a research assistant who was waiting for university to reopen. More imagination please.
a. Good that Selth acknowledges three referreed journals, because the Journal of Burma Studies has been passing itself off as the only one around: “Journal of Burma Studies: The world’s only peer-reviewed printed research journal on Burma published outside of Burma/ Myanmar….” (From their website) I can vouchsafe that the SOAS journal is also refereed since I’ve published four articles in it.
Republican, you write that “Surayudh was a privy counsellor before he was appointed PM. ” This language implies that he has not remained a member of the privy council while serving as premier. I recall no announcement of his resignation or of the appointment of a replacement to fill any vacancy that that resignation would have created. But I may have missed something. I do know that Matichon ran a brilliant, mischievous article noting that, directly after his appoimtment as premier, Gen Surayut attended the regular lunch of the privy council. And the article certainly suggested that he attended that lunch as a continuing member … In short, I am not sure about this. Anyone have any idea? (It seems to me that, during the 1970s, one Thai premier did resign from the privy council to become premier. Or do I misremember this, too.)
And such mud-slinging as yours, Mr Wintle, does what exactly to promote either understanding of or progress for Burma? Knowing personally how Prof Taylor operates in Burma, I can tell you that there is much more going on than meets the eye of those who refuse to travel there. And I believe that, read carefully, his replies to Mr Farrelly’s questions are a studious attempt to point that out.
“to engage the current academic discourse on their own terms” >> On their own terms, but only after accepting the exogenously determined logic of this academic discourse, I guess. Which brings us to the point of “inconvenient truths,” and to the well-known remark of Thai academics on “western” scholarship, “Oh, no, this is too negative, too critical” (when they actually mean “too analytical”).
“human nature” — “Truth is all prevailing. What was truth in the past is truth in the present too” >> Clearly, a little basic knowledge in social science and philosophy would not harm the author.
Historicus: The point I was making is that by calling it a “military” coup or a “military” regime the media and academics absolve the Palace of any responsibility. The military are cast as the “bad guys”, which follows the plot already well-known to the international media. So it can continue following the Thai media’s eulogising of the king. This positive international media coverage in turn bolsters the king’s authority in Thailand.
What the people who read the international media don’t know is the massive propaganda fog that surrounds the king, and the lese majeste law which prevents people from telling the truth about the monarchy, especially its role in the coup.
So what we want is for the international community to know that in this coup the main agent was the Palace, acting in the interests of the Palace. The military was merely an instrument.
We need the international media to know that essentially, the king ordered his military to overthrow a democratically-elected government.
So we need to call the coup by a name that will demonstrate this.
Hence, “palace coup” or “royalist coup” or “network monarchy” coup, although the latter would only work with academics.
Once it gets called by its right name often enough in the international media it will become much harder for the regime and the media in Thailand to hide the king’s support for dictatorship in Thailand.
In the same way, “sufficiency economy” should be called by its right name: “political hoax by embattled authoritarian king losing his grip on power”.
Academics and anyone who takes sufficiency economy seriously: “idiots”.
By the rectification of names the world will return to order.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Self-sufficient junta
It is interesting how Vichai N. has disappeared. Perhaps he has developed a sense of shame. Perhaps his anger has simmered away into nothingness. Perhaps he is still finding an excuse.
Sufficiency democracy
To summarize Vichai N.: “YOU LOT ARE ACADEMIC-SOUNDING THAKSIN LACKEYS! F-OFF!!!!!1111”
I laugh at his ability to be wound up protecting the dignity of one man whom he does not know, has probably not met, and has done nothing for him except make him feel good before he watches a movie.
Continue getting wound up and make a fool of yourself. It is the most mature and erudite case you have made in support of HMK!
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Breaking News! King Missing!
I’ve just checked out the “Sufficiency Economy” panel for the ICTS Conference. [see http://www.thaiconference.tu.ac.th/1011abstracts/SUFFICIENCY%20ECONOMY.doc%5D.
Lese majeste has very long tentacles indeed. Neither the panel abstract nor the abstracts for two of the three papers make any mention of the king!
Admittedly these are abstracts, but the abstracts do mention “middle-class” and “Bangkok-based groups”, and SE as a “class response”. So why not the king?
If the authors don’t understand that the only reason SE has appeared is because of the king and his royalist dictatorship one doesn’t hold out much hope for the papers.
The king has much to thank these foreign scholars for providing theoretical substance to his inane ramblings. What better birthday present could they have presented him with for this year’s ICTS.
As usual we will have to rely on Andrew W. for some rational criticism of SE, and, we hope, its chief theoretician.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Sorry, that’s the “National” (not “Nation”) Institute of Development Administration.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
The Nation Institute of Development Administration has just published a thematic issue of its NIDA Development Journal on the SE (Vol. 47, issue 1/2550). Most appropriately, the cover is yellow (printing was too late to change it to pink, I guess).
There are six Thai-language articles and a report by a NIDA librarian what books they have on SE.
I can’t list all the titles here, but one of the English translations of the titles says, “Sufficiency Economy at Individual Level: Theory and Research Findings for The Construction of Psycho-Behavioral Indicators.” Part of the English abstract reads, “The most important Thai ideology, which is highly acclaimed in the world at present, is the King’s principle of ‘Sufficiency Economy.’ This principle has been bestowed to Thai people for more than 25 years. Today, academicians in various disciplines have united to use their knowledge and expertise to increase the mobilization on this principle in various ways of life of the Thai people.”
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
555 you’re right. I’m being very unfair to the mafia.
But maybe the Godmother does have something to teach us about modern Thai realities. I’m thinking that she could get on the cultural studies bandwagon and give her talk at the ICTS on consumerism and consumer culture, using Siam Paragon as her case study. Then somehow integrate this with Father’s sufficiency economy theory. There’s a whole new research field in this. Maybe they could get the researchers from the ANU’s NTSC on board. Who knows, the UNDP might even be interested. This is Thai Studies after all. Everything is possible. Everyone who matters is a winner – the royals, their academic lackeys, the funding organizations and the media.
Recent Burma scholarship
[…] the coup in Thailand┬ back in September 2006.┬ It is also relevant that he recently published a scholarly article on Burma’s 1990 elections.┬ That article, or at least its abstract, is certainly worth a […]
Diplomatic intent
[…] British Ambassador to Thailand.┬ I mentioned Tonkin and his┬ arguments after┬ the coup in Thailand┬ back in September 2006.┬ It is also relevant that he recently published a scholarly article on Burma’s 1990 […]
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Well then, someone at Matichon smuggled a sly cut on the Network into the article in question.
But I remain curious about whether Gen Surayut has left the privy council. Can anyone offer reliable information on this?
And why, Republican, so unfair to mafiosi?? . . . Their bosses are sure to have a more realistic sense of Italian realities than the Godmother has of Thailand.
Interview with Professor Robert Taylor
Fair, fair, fair, Mr Wintle … But we await that defense!
An analysis of Burma studies
Thanks, Jon. But might you elaborate a bit on “Euwen Bagshawe’s translation and Kin Wun Mingyi diaries” and also on your experience with “a smart non-elite rural scholar” of Burmese history? Please … Both of these tidbits are very intriguing.
Interview with Professor Robert Taylor
SR — As I have often written, I think visiting Burma / Myanmar of the essence, and I am as aware as anyone of the very real complexities of that country. Professor Taylor has made useful contributions particularly with regard to our understanding of the relationship between (some of) the ethnic minirities and the Burmese state. Parts of what he says I agree with, but he has made damaging remarks about me and I intend to defend myself. You may call that mud-slinging, I call it my democratic right. JW
U.S. Senate Hearing on Burma
This line caught my attention:
“Aung Din, Co-founder of the USCB and a 1988 veteran, updated on how on 25 September 25 alone, a hundred dead bodies were counted at the Rangoon General Hospital.”
I have added this report to the others filed under the Hidden Crisis topic at my website. There I have been tracking any and all reports of massacres around the time of the crackdown and after:
http://jotman.blogspot.com/search/label/Burma%20-%20reports%20on%20the%20Hidden%20Crisis
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
You’ve got me there, I’m not sure. But my understanding was that to take up the position of Prime Minister one could not simultaneously hold the position of privy counsellor. That might be too р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Фр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щ even for the royalists. But there’s no doubt that whatever his official status is, he is doing the bidding of Sauron.
As for Matichon, it is a mouthpiece of network monarchy, aimed at indoctrinating the middle class in the values of the network. Phra Thep is its “Godmother”.
By the way, I see the Godmother is also opening the ICTS conference. The network really has things sewn up. Why on earth do they need to invite a princess to open a Thai Studies conference? It’s basically like asking a mafia boss to open a conference on Italian culture. Why can’t they invite a scholar?
Is there any more evidence needed to show the true purpose of the ICTS?
An analysis of Burma studies
Thanks. This is valuable. Three observations:
a. The Japanese? The French?
b. Euwen Bagshawe’s translation and Kin Wun Mingyi diaries.
Translations of important Burmese works have a lasting value, that this year’s stylised theoretical observations will soon lose.
d. Don’t agree with this statement at all:
“Not surprisingly, the largest proportion of scholarly books and articles on Burma that have appeared since 1945 can be broadly classed as history.”
[Most are political science (Silverstein, Callahan, Taylor, Steinberg), often history by political scientists. There were some historians who started in the colonial era who continued working into the post-colonial era like Luce and Than Tun, for instance. In recent history, there have been very few mentors in the area of history to study under.]
c. Regarding this statement:
“In recent years, there has been a number of important works in English produced by Western-trained Burmese scholars, looking at their country’s history from an indigenous perspective.” (footnote citing Aung-Thwin’s “Mists of Ramanya”)
He really should have listed Thant Myint-U’s latest book, because that is the default history of Burma that people are buying in the bookstore and reading nowadays according to bookstore owner friends of mine.
As for Aung-Thwin’s “Mists of Ramanya” attempt to erase Mon history without knowing any Mon language at all, or deeply reading reading any Mon inscriptions or chronicles, and by essentially blaming Mon history on some colonial era historians tried to mess with the prior ethnic Burmese state, there was a whole international Mon history conference last month that dealt with this topic, only partly because there are mor important issues like starting to read and study Mon chronicles themselves, and a whole string of negative book reviews of his book (Pierre Pichard included).
IMHO what Burmese history really needs is a smart non-elite rural scholar. Enlightened western educational institutions don’t seem to be able to provide such an opportunity. It’s not difficult. I did it by myself by hiring a research assistant who was waiting for university to reopen. More imagination please.
a. Good that Selth acknowledges three referreed journals, because the Journal of Burma Studies has been passing itself off as the only one around: “Journal of Burma Studies: The world’s only peer-reviewed printed research journal on Burma published outside of Burma/ Myanmar….” (From their website) I can vouchsafe that the SOAS journal is also refereed since I’ve published four articles in it.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Republican, you write that “Surayudh was a privy counsellor before he was appointed PM. ” This language implies that he has not remained a member of the privy council while serving as premier. I recall no announcement of his resignation or of the appointment of a replacement to fill any vacancy that that resignation would have created. But I may have missed something. I do know that Matichon ran a brilliant, mischievous article noting that, directly after his appoimtment as premier, Gen Surayut attended the regular lunch of the privy council. And the article certainly suggested that he attended that lunch as a continuing member … In short, I am not sure about this. Anyone have any idea? (It seems to me that, during the 1970s, one Thai premier did resign from the privy council to become premier. Or do I misremember this, too.)
Interview with Professor Robert Taylor
And such mud-slinging as yours, Mr Wintle, does what exactly to promote either understanding of or progress for Burma? Knowing personally how Prof Taylor operates in Burma, I can tell you that there is much more going on than meets the eye of those who refuse to travel there. And I believe that, read carefully, his replies to Mr Farrelly’s questions are a studious attempt to point that out.
Interview with Professor David Chandler
“to engage the current academic discourse on their own terms” >> On their own terms, but only after accepting the exogenously determined logic of this academic discourse, I guess. Which brings us to the point of “inconvenient truths,” and to the well-known remark of Thai academics on “western” scholarship, “Oh, no, this is too negative, too critical” (when they actually mean “too analytical”).
Interview with Professor David Chandler
“human nature” — “Truth is all prevailing. What was truth in the past is truth in the present too” >> Clearly, a little basic knowledge in social science and philosophy would not harm the author.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Historicus: The point I was making is that by calling it a “military” coup or a “military” regime the media and academics absolve the Palace of any responsibility. The military are cast as the “bad guys”, which follows the plot already well-known to the international media. So it can continue following the Thai media’s eulogising of the king. This positive international media coverage in turn bolsters the king’s authority in Thailand.
What the people who read the international media don’t know is the massive propaganda fog that surrounds the king, and the lese majeste law which prevents people from telling the truth about the monarchy, especially its role in the coup.
So what we want is for the international community to know that in this coup the main agent was the Palace, acting in the interests of the Palace. The military was merely an instrument.
We need the international media to know that essentially, the king ordered his military to overthrow a democratically-elected government.
So we need to call the coup by a name that will demonstrate this.
Hence, “palace coup” or “royalist coup” or “network monarchy” coup, although the latter would only work with academics.
Once it gets called by its right name often enough in the international media it will become much harder for the regime and the media in Thailand to hide the king’s support for dictatorship in Thailand.
In the same way, “sufficiency economy” should be called by its right name: “political hoax by embattled authoritarian king losing his grip on power”.
Academics and anyone who takes sufficiency economy seriously: “idiots”.
By the rectification of names the world will return to order.