I do acknowledge that my analysis was one sided. And as you said, perhaps comparatively and by any measure, other nations are as violent as we are. But somehow, we manage to believe that “Thai nee rak sangob” (Thais love peace) and are a gentle race of peace-loving mai-pen-rai people, which is clearly untrue. Regardless of how we compare to other nations, we are still certainly not the pacifists we delude ourselves to be.
What I mean when I say “from the top down” is that one can see a reflection of the attitude that pervades Thai society with regards to the use of violence. Obviously it is not the only trait commonly found in Thai people, but there is that violent side of Thais that is often on display but seldom acknowledged.
Response to gaudiefreak // Oct 31, 2007 at 12:49 pm
1)You Said, “Carelus’s rambling speech”,
Sorry that’s my style
2) You said, If he were more direct in what he was supposedly trying say it would most likely be something like:
“Handley’s book is subversive to Thai culture and politics – therefore potentially dangerous. Notions of honesty, transparency, and the right to question traditonal systems that may indeed be corrupt (and the propaganda machine that protects that corruption) are merely a “Western epistemological attempt to engage with a reality that is indigenous, existential and altogether unknowable by the author”.
Dear Mr. Freak,
Sounds like you already made up your mind on this before you read my stuff.
You also said , “Notions of honesty, transparency, and the right to question traditonal systems that may indeed be corrupt”
Try a regional analysis of the evolution of Social complexity in South East Asia during the last 1500 years and contrast and compare it with Western intervention during the last 500 years and see how things turned out for the indigenous populations. The methods employed by the “West” were not always transparent, legal or honest. Strangely enough the most dishonest western intervention into one particular South East Asian country resulted in a mass genocide primarily because it was halted by guys like you that like to see things in some sort of good-guy/bad guy howdy doody cowboy parade.
I think if we want to cry, “human rights abuse”, “corruption” etc., we really need to do our homework and make sure these terms mean the same thing across cultures.
You also suggest the book is, “subversive to Thai culture and politics”.
I hardly think it is a threat to Politics, but I was there when the Cambodians burned the Thai Embassy in Cambodia. No responsible country should openly invite a mob action. That aside, I believe most Thais are more interested in acquiring the luxuries of life, like food and some semblance of peace in a nation enduring the onslaught of Globalization.
I bet if you passed out a thousand books, most would end up in the garbage can because, (again my belief) that the majority of Thais simply don’t think the way you do. It has been my experience that they don’t want to either.
It is also my belief that these nations will follow along a path to what you perceive to be freedom. Let’s hope when they get there they aren’t all taking prozac in order to cope.
I am in interested in your republic idea, but Phra Thep for President? For life? These people live a long time! So we have the Presidential Palace at Siam Paragon?! No. We shouldn’t make the same mistake Pridi did.
On the meaning of the republic, I understand that the original meaning of р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в during the р╕Др╕Ур╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕йр╕Пр╕г era was in fact, “republic”.
Since 14th October we’ve had to settle for the р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕нр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕╡р╕Юр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕Чр╕гр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕╕р╕В
Wirot Na Ranong hardly came to any of these conclusions yesterday. He is a man in whom the commitments of many Thai students during the 1970s have proved particularly deeply rooted. It is striking to see the change in his demeanor when he talks about issues of social justice and rural poverty in Thailand … Wirot is also a damned good economist.
Actually no, I merely cut and pasted some ideas from various papers I had written, into what became ultimately short on truth and long on verbose constructions and jargon ridden mumbo jumbo. I knew what I wanted to say but as you pointed out, in an academic forum it reads much like a parody.
Sidh S: I don’t want to debate this too much, for the review represents my views pretty accurately.
When I read of “discursive locations” and similar language, I readily admit that I run an hide. However, I too ” am a believer in sustainability, sustainable development, environmentally sustainable design etc….” Well, at least as far as I understand them anyway, and I am certainly not really knowledgeable in any of these areas. Yet that does not seem to me to be what SE is about (I guess you are saying that SE is about these things?). There is no consistency on this in the palace/king’s views that would lead one to accept this proposition. Big dams are just one practical example. So my point that SE is largely an ideological device is one that I am comfortable sticking with.
Srithanonchai : Chris Baker can speak for himself, but I took the acknowledgments in the UNDP report to be saying that he was the writer who put together a report more-or-less based on a string of reports authored by others.
Thank you for the reply ProfessorKevin.
I think our different discursive locations defines our different views – and this may even be on the level of ideology. I am a believer in sustainability, sustainable development, environmentally sustainable design and all its permutations, allied concepts, interpretations into other cultural contexts. When I started ‘believing’ in the late 90s, many of my colleagues thought it was a dated concept – but global warming and the extended drought in Australia shifted the playing field again. But, arguably, it is still an elites’ game and people in broader society and politicians that seek their votes are still not convinced – or see it as relevant to their lifes (as say, interests rates). So while the concept permeates societal narratives, it is most often only skin deep.
I will argue that the same applies to SE and PMSurayud’s government policy platform. Lot’s of SE narrative but mainly business-as-usual in practice. It is merely to shore up their legitimacy amongst the Thai populace – which is politically much more important than being a laughing stock of foriegn media and academics. It is practical, full-stop.
My point here is that in this highly globalized world, most governments, ‘democratically’ elected or not, are playing the same pro-development game. If IFCC projections prove correct, then this is a race to global environmental and societal collapse. Academics, think-tanks, research institutes who are responsible for for reports such as the UNDP’s are merely hoping that narratives may influence serious action from politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe in the context of the UNDP report, that was on AjarnChris Baker’s mind – considering he has many other more effective avenues to be critical the coup government.
KH: It is good to have this additional piece of information re CB merely editing a Thai[?]-produced draft of the UNDP report. Makes me wonder who those original authors were, i.e. from inside or outside UNDP. As for the last point, even institutional politics won’t work without actors. It is good that you have mentioned a few of them in your review.
“that Cambodians do not like to openly admit unpleasant realities, hence they prefer to bury them rather than discuss them in a straighforward [sic] manner.” >> Many have said the same about the Thais…
True, and many have also said the same concerning the Japanese, and the Chinese….hell, you could add the Americans, when talking about race; Europeans, when talking about anti-semitism; et alii, mutatis mutandis.
I must admit I’ve had a problem catching just what is the crux of the discussion in this post. I mean, no one with any knowledge of the subject denies that events in Cambodia were part of the proxy wars of the Sino-Soviet split. I also believe that Prof Chandler wasn’t necessarily being paternalistic in his observation that many Cambodians are not aware of their own history. In addition to the cultural concept of “face” as relating to Cambodian socio-pedagogy, Cambodian schools just don’t have the money and other resources to produce modern textbooks that can afford to cover these topics. Thus, if they are going to teach this part of history, they are forced to depend on outside sources for the time being. I don’t see why recognition of this fact is controversial.
Indeed, in referring to Grasshopper and Don’s discussion, if the Cambodians wish to reestablish ownership of their historical narrative then they must legitimize their cultural narrative/folk history through the production of a large body of work from indigenous scholars in the fields of History, Anthropology, and Archeology, to engage the current academic discourse on their own terms.
*steps on soapbox*
(Unless, of course, such scholarship unveils too many inconvenient truths. I refer to the latest polemic by “Prof.” Nadia Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground, which attacks the Israeli attempts to reclaim and legitimize their heritage through indigenous scholarship in History, Anthropology, and especially, Archeology, because such findings threaten such post-colonalist sacred cows as “trendy academic Judeophobia” and “the cult of eternal Palestinian victimhood”. )
*steps off soapbox*
Thank you for the clarification Land of snarls.
I am probably more optimistic than you in all of this (maybe I have no choice as a Thai?). As I’ve said, it is a society in transformation – maybe too slow for the punters – but I am quietly confident that it is gradually for the better. Maybe Thai social behaviour might eventually not be “so damn seductive” as I suspect the younger generation is already made of something different!
Teth, that is a reductive observation of Thai society – seeing one side of a box (not coin – I don’t see Thai society/culture as a dualistic non-violent/violent sides, it is far more complex)…
Maybe it is worth putting things in broader context and let’s take your time-span from the deposing of King Thaksin by King Yodfa to today. Let’s compare with other cultures and societies and record how many wars and civil wars Europeans, American and other Asian societies have been through with how many that we have? How many deaths per capita from those wars and civil conflicts?
If you think that is simplistic, let’s also use another measure – immigration from wars and civil conflicts. If we exclude the early KingTaksin-Chakri reigns where people were forcebly moved to populate Siamese territories, how many Chinese, Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, Burmese and others willingly fled their respective countries to take refuge (whether temporily or permanently) in Siam/Thailand. Look around you in Bangkok and see all those faces, of both 3rd/4th/5th generations and of recent migrants…
Without peace and stability, they won’t be here. In that context, I also think you have to separate the rhetoric from actual, multiple practices. These nationalistic narratives arose from King Rama VI, continuing under FMPibul – with the aim of assimilating immigrants (particularly Chinese then). The reality on ground is different, always has been.
Very good point. Should a king only stay in a palace? What do we, Thai citizens, really want from the monarchy? In a democratic nation-state such as Thailand, what should be a king’s role really? Can he do business? Can he accumulate wealth through Crown Property Bureau? Should he and his family pay tax? Should royal projects support organic and sustainable farming instead of commercial cash crops?
I would retroactive audit his books and tax him. Let him and his family keep their inherited wealth, but I would strip them of all political powers, whether reserve or otherwise. Basically, I would declare a republic and appoint Phra Thep as President for life after which we would elect our Presidents. Of course, this scheme is not the most Republican one available, but for the sake of legitimacy as well as continuity and avoiding the need for any Charles and Olivers, it sounds good.
Sorry about that, Historicus, I believed him without actually looking at the evidence. Thanks for clearing that up. If I could edit my post, it should say, “allegedly rabid pro-Thaksin supporters,” because I was also put into that list.
..lumping me in with the rabid pro-Thaksin supporters
If the cap fits?
Teth & Historicus don’t like the cap – are you calling out Srithanonchai?
still can’t get out of the blindingly dumb view that there are just two sides in Thai politics
Unfortunately, at this point in time it sure looks to me like there are only two sides in Thai politics, and I was merely trying to restore the balance as I read plenty of criticism of one side here, but for some reason it’s hands off PPP & Samak.
For the record:
– Yes, I am anti-Thaksin, but for the reasons stated in my post #3 above.
– Yes, I chose to accept the coup (after the event)
– Although pleased Thaksin is gone, I am not pleased with many aspects of the junta’s rule.
Overall, I agree with much of Teth’s post #14 above
To certain degree of argument Mr. Ponchaud is correct but it depends on who Mr. Ponchaud was asking. I just hope that I have the opportunity to answer Mr. Ponchaud personally about Cambodia culture and tradition. To make it short…let’s just say that Mr. Ponchaud was asking the wrong person for the right information.
Regarding the admittance of guilts and responsibilities; you probably didnt read my lines clearly in sentences. Please read between the line. If you believe what Mr. Ponchaud is saying then you should read in abstract to which Mr. Ponchaud claimed that we as Khmer do not understand abstracts. Not that I despise your ability to understand things in abstracts. Please forgive me. My point is that as human we have the ability to learn and grasp on new things should opportunities present to us in ways where coercion is not a part of the tactics.
We are the next baby boomers and we are nowhere close to those of our predecessors. We are educated and learnt from the West thus our mind are sharp and ready to except the responsibility with full understanding of consequences should there be as such. However, we do not preach of violence. We are utilizing the logical sense of what has been practiced by famous individual such as Ghandi and MLK. These are heroes of our time and I have learnt quite abit must I say so. We do not believe in vengence or having vindictive attitude to those who have harmed us.
The question you have to ask yourself is…what makes you happy as a person? If happiness is what we’re after then the world would be a great place to live, but it is not so. We as nations constantly think of ways to protect our national security and at the same time become a perpetrator to our own cause and because of this heinous and psychotic thinking we also put ourselves at risks. Hence, what Dr. Kissinger is saying in 1957 is true until this very day and I quote:
” There are those who believe that the principal objective of this generation should be peace at any price. For such people the capacity of the Russians to bring on an atomic holocaust should not be particularly disturbing since peace can probably always be secured — on Russian terms.”
As people and most importantly as human, we must begin to dissect the statement made by or written by Dr. Kissinger with best possible observation then proceed with full comprehension as to what led to the idea of Atomic Holocaust into the thoughts of the Russian government when most believe in peace. I hate to be offtrack discussing the issue of Cambodia and jumping onto something else, but you have to understand that they are all related. Just as Russia, China and Vietnam related to Cambodia dilapidation.
Thus foreign policy and respecting of each country sovereignty is most crucial act. However, it is not so. Bigger nations tend to interveine with smaller nations for the sake of economic interests as we have seen in the case of Cambodia. Such as granades, tanks, AK47, artilleries and ammunitions not to mention a bunch of other sophisticated weaponry systems. These weapons if placed in the wrong hands of people then innocense lives will be at risk again as the case in Cambodia.
If peace is the ultimate quest for human endeavors, why creating more destructive weapons for the sake of saving lives. Why not develop something that would help secure peace rather than war?
oo: “Because of the election, Thaksin could win any election because he could buy politicians. This is the real issue of destroying democratic system in Thailand.”
In my opinion, the media and middle class are obsessed with petty issues that technocrats and bureaucrats like to talk about. If you really care about democracy, instead of dwelling on issues like ‘buying votes’ you should start asking more serious questions. What stops Thailand from implementing progressive tax system, agrarian reform, universal health care, free education, etc.? Is Thailand affluent enough to be in that position?
Nattha: “He can stay in a palace , does’t need to see with his eyes how his people live.Everyone is not perfect.His project has developped faster than the government do.”
Very good point. Should a king only stay in a palace? What do we, Thai citizens, really want from the monarchy? In a democratic nation-state such as Thailand, what should be a king’s role really? Can he do business? Can he accumulate wealth through Crown Property Bureau? Should he and his family pay tax? Should royal projects support organic and sustainable farming instead of commercial cash crops?
Sidh S, thanks for your response. It seems that you are in agreement with me regarding Thai gaols and the Lese Majeste law – although, I will remind you that you did use the word “usually,” when “sometimes” would have been more accurate. Perhaps I expressed my point re. lengthy gaol sentences badly. My intention was to state that everyone knows that these (in general) seem to be entirely at the discretion of judges & often appear to be extremely disproportionate, not to imply that anyone has ever been imprisoned for life for Lese Majeste.
I’d also like to clarify my statement re. feudalism. I did not say that “Thais are disgusting feudalists.” What I did say was “the disgusting feudalism that is their lot” – in other words, the disgusting system of feudalism that they are forced to endure. This is a system that is perpetuated by the conduct of those in power, feeding into every aspect of society. It’s largely responsible for: inadequate education & the lack of any genuine attempts to improve teaching methods, curricula , assessment methods and class sizes; poor wages & working conditions in every sector, & enormous fear of standing up to the exploitation of the labour market, as well as bare-faced greed on the part of employers; the institutionalized corruption that is well-known to exist in the police force, the armed forces & the public sector; the unbelievably cynical neglect of rural people which made it a simple matter for Thaksin to get enormous support in areas like Isan by handing out a few pathetically small “loans”; the blatant injustice of a system of justice where police can go out & murder thousands of their fellow people in a “drug war” with no judicial enquiries into the deaths (except 2 – the murder of a child, & the murder of an elderly couple who were thought to be “unusually rich” following, it emerged, a lottery win.) ; the mendacious & corruption-riddled handling of the problem in the south…etc. All of this tends to indicate that those who are trapped on the bottom and middle rungs of the ladder are indeed powerless to do anything to improve their condition. I feel disgusted & depressed as I type this, & certainly NOT lacking in compassion or empathy. And I also don’t feel that it is my right or duty to intervene. There are close to 70 million people living here. They don’t need westerners coming here to tell them how to solve the problem, & if I wanted to be a political activist I would be doing it in Australia, where Howard has done such damage to what was formerly a relatively fair & egalitarian society.
At the same time, I do believe that access to information and freedom of discussion about what’s really going on in a society are the beginnings of justice. That’s why I’m pleased to see anything at all that attempts to cut through the bullshit, as TKNS does.
I must say also that what I’m most afraid of is the possibility of violent change here when HM goes. My hope is that whatever happens, everyone else keeps out of it & leaves the Thais to work out their own problems…although, of course we will be observing & commenting.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
“Royalist populism”
I do acknowledge that my analysis was one sided. And as you said, perhaps comparatively and by any measure, other nations are as violent as we are. But somehow, we manage to believe that “Thai nee rak sangob” (Thais love peace) and are a gentle race of peace-loving mai-pen-rai people, which is clearly untrue. Regardless of how we compare to other nations, we are still certainly not the pacifists we delude ourselves to be.
What I mean when I say “from the top down” is that one can see a reflection of the attitude that pervades Thai society with regards to the use of violence. Obviously it is not the only trait commonly found in Thai people, but there is that violent side of Thais that is often on display but seldom acknowledged.
Interview with Professor Robert Taylor
This is ludicrous! I mean, Nicolas just softpedals Bob Taylor! The man has a lot to answer for his buddies in uniform…
“Lee Kuan Yew – ANU is not for you!”
Here’s something nice about Singapore!
http://thislittlereddot.blogspot.com/2005/09/guess-who-watches-over-us-citizens.html
Interview with Paul Handley
Response to gaudiefreak // Oct 31, 2007 at 12:49 pm
1)You Said, “Carelus’s rambling speech”,
Sorry that’s my style
2) You said, If he were more direct in what he was supposedly trying say it would most likely be something like:
“Handley’s book is subversive to Thai culture and politics – therefore potentially dangerous. Notions of honesty, transparency, and the right to question traditonal systems that may indeed be corrupt (and the propaganda machine that protects that corruption) are merely a “Western epistemological attempt to engage with a reality that is indigenous, existential and altogether unknowable by the author”.
Dear Mr. Freak,
Sounds like you already made up your mind on this before you read my stuff.
You also said , “Notions of honesty, transparency, and the right to question traditonal systems that may indeed be corrupt”
Try a regional analysis of the evolution of Social complexity in South East Asia during the last 1500 years and contrast and compare it with Western intervention during the last 500 years and see how things turned out for the indigenous populations. The methods employed by the “West” were not always transparent, legal or honest. Strangely enough the most dishonest western intervention into one particular South East Asian country resulted in a mass genocide primarily because it was halted by guys like you that like to see things in some sort of good-guy/bad guy howdy doody cowboy parade.
I think if we want to cry, “human rights abuse”, “corruption” etc., we really need to do our homework and make sure these terms mean the same thing across cultures.
You also suggest the book is, “subversive to Thai culture and politics”.
I hardly think it is a threat to Politics, but I was there when the Cambodians burned the Thai Embassy in Cambodia. No responsible country should openly invite a mob action. That aside, I believe most Thais are more interested in acquiring the luxuries of life, like food and some semblance of peace in a nation enduring the onslaught of Globalization.
I bet if you passed out a thousand books, most would end up in the garbage can because, (again my belief) that the majority of Thais simply don’t think the way you do. It has been my experience that they don’t want to either.
It is also my belief that these nations will follow along a path to what you perceive to be freedom. Let’s hope when they get there they aren’t all taking prozac in order to cope.
I here Rama 9 bridge is getting more popular.
c
The King Never Smiles?
I am in interested in your republic idea, but Phra Thep for President? For life? These people live a long time! So we have the Presidential Palace at Siam Paragon?! No. We shouldn’t make the same mistake Pridi did.
On the meaning of the republic, I understand that the original meaning of р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в during the р╕Др╕Ур╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕йр╕Пр╕г era was in fact, “republic”.
Since 14th October we’ve had to settle for the р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕нр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕╡р╕Юр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕Чр╕гр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕╕р╕В
Time to go back to the original meaning.
“Royalist populism”
Wirot Na Ranong hardly came to any of these conclusions yesterday. He is a man in whom the commitments of many Thai students during the 1970s have proved particularly deeply rooted. It is striking to see the change in his demeanor when he talks about issues of social justice and rural poverty in Thailand … Wirot is also a damned good economist.
Interview with Paul Handley
Response to:
Srithanonchai // Oct 24, 2007 at 1:59 am
carelus: Your comment meant as a parody, right?
Actually no, I merely cut and pasted some ideas from various papers I had written, into what became ultimately short on truth and long on verbose constructions and jargon ridden mumbo jumbo. I knew what I wanted to say but as you pointed out, in an academic forum it reads much like a parody.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Sidh S: I don’t want to debate this too much, for the review represents my views pretty accurately.
When I read of “discursive locations” and similar language, I readily admit that I run an hide. However, I too ” am a believer in sustainability, sustainable development, environmentally sustainable design etc….” Well, at least as far as I understand them anyway, and I am certainly not really knowledgeable in any of these areas. Yet that does not seem to me to be what SE is about (I guess you are saying that SE is about these things?). There is no consistency on this in the palace/king’s views that would lead one to accept this proposition. Big dams are just one practical example. So my point that SE is largely an ideological device is one that I am comfortable sticking with.
Srithanonchai : Chris Baker can speak for himself, but I took the acknowledgments in the UNDP report to be saying that he was the writer who put together a report more-or-less based on a string of reports authored by others.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Thank you for the reply ProfessorKevin.
I think our different discursive locations defines our different views – and this may even be on the level of ideology. I am a believer in sustainability, sustainable development, environmentally sustainable design and all its permutations, allied concepts, interpretations into other cultural contexts. When I started ‘believing’ in the late 90s, many of my colleagues thought it was a dated concept – but global warming and the extended drought in Australia shifted the playing field again. But, arguably, it is still an elites’ game and people in broader society and politicians that seek their votes are still not convinced – or see it as relevant to their lifes (as say, interests rates). So while the concept permeates societal narratives, it is most often only skin deep.
I will argue that the same applies to SE and PMSurayud’s government policy platform. Lot’s of SE narrative but mainly business-as-usual in practice. It is merely to shore up their legitimacy amongst the Thai populace – which is politically much more important than being a laughing stock of foriegn media and academics. It is practical, full-stop.
My point here is that in this highly globalized world, most governments, ‘democratically’ elected or not, are playing the same pro-development game. If IFCC projections prove correct, then this is a race to global environmental and societal collapse. Academics, think-tanks, research institutes who are responsible for for reports such as the UNDP’s are merely hoping that narratives may influence serious action from politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe in the context of the UNDP report, that was on AjarnChris Baker’s mind – considering he has many other more effective avenues to be critical the coup government.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
KH: It is good to have this additional piece of information re CB merely editing a Thai[?]-produced draft of the UNDP report. Makes me wonder who those original authors were, i.e. from inside or outside UNDP. As for the last point, even institutional politics won’t work without actors. It is good that you have mentioned a few of them in your review.
Interview with Professor David Chandler
“that Cambodians do not like to openly admit unpleasant realities, hence they prefer to bury them rather than discuss them in a straighforward [sic] manner.” >> Many have said the same about the Thais…
True, and many have also said the same concerning the Japanese, and the Chinese….hell, you could add the Americans, when talking about race; Europeans, when talking about anti-semitism; et alii, mutatis mutandis.
I must admit I’ve had a problem catching just what is the crux of the discussion in this post. I mean, no one with any knowledge of the subject denies that events in Cambodia were part of the proxy wars of the Sino-Soviet split. I also believe that Prof Chandler wasn’t necessarily being paternalistic in his observation that many Cambodians are not aware of their own history. In addition to the cultural concept of “face” as relating to Cambodian socio-pedagogy, Cambodian schools just don’t have the money and other resources to produce modern textbooks that can afford to cover these topics. Thus, if they are going to teach this part of history, they are forced to depend on outside sources for the time being. I don’t see why recognition of this fact is controversial.
Indeed, in referring to Grasshopper and Don’s discussion, if the Cambodians wish to reestablish ownership of their historical narrative then they must legitimize their cultural narrative/folk history through the production of a large body of work from indigenous scholars in the fields of History, Anthropology, and Archeology, to engage the current academic discourse on their own terms.
*steps on soapbox*
(Unless, of course, such scholarship unveils too many inconvenient truths. I refer to the latest polemic by “Prof.” Nadia Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground, which attacks the Israeli attempts to reclaim and legitimize their heritage through indigenous scholarship in History, Anthropology, and especially, Archeology, because such findings threaten such post-colonalist sacred cows as “trendy academic Judeophobia” and “the cult of eternal Palestinian victimhood”. )
*steps off soapbox*
Interview with Paul Handley
Thank you for the clarification Land of snarls.
I am probably more optimistic than you in all of this (maybe I have no choice as a Thai?). As I’ve said, it is a society in transformation – maybe too slow for the punters – but I am quietly confident that it is gradually for the better. Maybe Thai social behaviour might eventually not be “so damn seductive” as I suspect the younger generation is already made of something different!
“Royalist populism”
Teth, that is a reductive observation of Thai society – seeing one side of a box (not coin – I don’t see Thai society/culture as a dualistic non-violent/violent sides, it is far more complex)…
Maybe it is worth putting things in broader context and let’s take your time-span from the deposing of King Thaksin by King Yodfa to today. Let’s compare with other cultures and societies and record how many wars and civil wars Europeans, American and other Asian societies have been through with how many that we have? How many deaths per capita from those wars and civil conflicts?
If you think that is simplistic, let’s also use another measure – immigration from wars and civil conflicts. If we exclude the early KingTaksin-Chakri reigns where people were forcebly moved to populate Siamese territories, how many Chinese, Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, Burmese and others willingly fled their respective countries to take refuge (whether temporily or permanently) in Siam/Thailand. Look around you in Bangkok and see all those faces, of both 3rd/4th/5th generations and of recent migrants…
Without peace and stability, they won’t be here. In that context, I also think you have to separate the rhetoric from actual, multiple practices. These nationalistic narratives arose from King Rama VI, continuing under FMPibul – with the aim of assimilating immigrants (particularly Chinese then). The reality on ground is different, always has been.
The King Never Smiles?
Very good point. Should a king only stay in a palace? What do we, Thai citizens, really want from the monarchy? In a democratic nation-state such as Thailand, what should be a king’s role really? Can he do business? Can he accumulate wealth through Crown Property Bureau? Should he and his family pay tax? Should royal projects support organic and sustainable farming instead of commercial cash crops?
I would retroactive audit his books and tax him. Let him and his family keep their inherited wealth, but I would strip them of all political powers, whether reserve or otherwise. Basically, I would declare a republic and appoint Phra Thep as President for life after which we would elect our Presidents. Of course, this scheme is not the most Republican one available, but for the sake of legitimacy as well as continuity and avoiding the need for any Charles and Olivers, it sounds good.
“Royalist populism”
Sorry about that, Historicus, I believed him without actually looking at the evidence. Thanks for clearing that up. If I could edit my post, it should say, “allegedly rabid pro-Thaksin supporters,” because I was also put into that list.
“Royalist populism”
..lumping me in with the rabid pro-Thaksin supporters
If the cap fits?
Teth & Historicus don’t like the cap – are you calling out Srithanonchai?
still can’t get out of the blindingly dumb view that there are just two sides in Thai politics
Unfortunately, at this point in time it sure looks to me like there are only two sides in Thai politics, and I was merely trying to restore the balance as I read plenty of criticism of one side here, but for some reason it’s hands off PPP & Samak.
For the record:
– Yes, I am anti-Thaksin, but for the reasons stated in my post #3 above.
– Yes, I chose to accept the coup (after the event)
– Although pleased Thaksin is gone, I am not pleased with many aspects of the junta’s rule.
Overall, I agree with much of Teth’s post #14 above
Interview with Professor David Chandler
To Don:
To certain degree of argument Mr. Ponchaud is correct but it depends on who Mr. Ponchaud was asking. I just hope that I have the opportunity to answer Mr. Ponchaud personally about Cambodia culture and tradition. To make it short…let’s just say that Mr. Ponchaud was asking the wrong person for the right information.
Regarding the admittance of guilts and responsibilities; you probably didnt read my lines clearly in sentences. Please read between the line. If you believe what Mr. Ponchaud is saying then you should read in abstract to which Mr. Ponchaud claimed that we as Khmer do not understand abstracts. Not that I despise your ability to understand things in abstracts. Please forgive me. My point is that as human we have the ability to learn and grasp on new things should opportunities present to us in ways where coercion is not a part of the tactics.
We are the next baby boomers and we are nowhere close to those of our predecessors. We are educated and learnt from the West thus our mind are sharp and ready to except the responsibility with full understanding of consequences should there be as such. However, we do not preach of violence. We are utilizing the logical sense of what has been practiced by famous individual such as Ghandi and MLK. These are heroes of our time and I have learnt quite abit must I say so. We do not believe in vengence or having vindictive attitude to those who have harmed us.
The question you have to ask yourself is…what makes you happy as a person? If happiness is what we’re after then the world would be a great place to live, but it is not so. We as nations constantly think of ways to protect our national security and at the same time become a perpetrator to our own cause and because of this heinous and psychotic thinking we also put ourselves at risks. Hence, what Dr. Kissinger is saying in 1957 is true until this very day and I quote:
” There are those who believe that the principal objective of this generation should be peace at any price. For such people the capacity of the Russians to bring on an atomic holocaust should not be particularly disturbing since peace can probably always be secured — on Russian terms.”
As people and most importantly as human, we must begin to dissect the statement made by or written by Dr. Kissinger with best possible observation then proceed with full comprehension as to what led to the idea of Atomic Holocaust into the thoughts of the Russian government when most believe in peace. I hate to be offtrack discussing the issue of Cambodia and jumping onto something else, but you have to understand that they are all related. Just as Russia, China and Vietnam related to Cambodia dilapidation.
Thus foreign policy and respecting of each country sovereignty is most crucial act. However, it is not so. Bigger nations tend to interveine with smaller nations for the sake of economic interests as we have seen in the case of Cambodia. Such as granades, tanks, AK47, artilleries and ammunitions not to mention a bunch of other sophisticated weaponry systems. These weapons if placed in the wrong hands of people then innocense lives will be at risk again as the case in Cambodia.
If peace is the ultimate quest for human endeavors, why creating more destructive weapons for the sake of saving lives. Why not develop something that would help secure peace rather than war?
There are more to come…
Thank You
Sophea
The King Never Smiles?
oo: “Because of the election, Thaksin could win any election because he could buy politicians. This is the real issue of destroying democratic system in Thailand.”
In my opinion, the media and middle class are obsessed with petty issues that technocrats and bureaucrats like to talk about. If you really care about democracy, instead of dwelling on issues like ‘buying votes’ you should start asking more serious questions. What stops Thailand from implementing progressive tax system, agrarian reform, universal health care, free education, etc.? Is Thailand affluent enough to be in that position?
Nattha: “He can stay in a palace , does’t need to see with his eyes how his people live.Everyone is not perfect.His project has developped faster than the government do.”
Very good point. Should a king only stay in a palace? What do we, Thai citizens, really want from the monarchy? In a democratic nation-state such as Thailand, what should be a king’s role really? Can he do business? Can he accumulate wealth through Crown Property Bureau? Should he and his family pay tax? Should royal projects support organic and sustainable farming instead of commercial cash crops?
Interview with Paul Handley
Sidh S, thanks for your response. It seems that you are in agreement with me regarding Thai gaols and the Lese Majeste law – although, I will remind you that you did use the word “usually,” when “sometimes” would have been more accurate. Perhaps I expressed my point re. lengthy gaol sentences badly. My intention was to state that everyone knows that these (in general) seem to be entirely at the discretion of judges & often appear to be extremely disproportionate, not to imply that anyone has ever been imprisoned for life for Lese Majeste.
I’d also like to clarify my statement re. feudalism. I did not say that “Thais are disgusting feudalists.” What I did say was “the disgusting feudalism that is their lot” – in other words, the disgusting system of feudalism that they are forced to endure. This is a system that is perpetuated by the conduct of those in power, feeding into every aspect of society. It’s largely responsible for: inadequate education & the lack of any genuine attempts to improve teaching methods, curricula , assessment methods and class sizes; poor wages & working conditions in every sector, & enormous fear of standing up to the exploitation of the labour market, as well as bare-faced greed on the part of employers; the institutionalized corruption that is well-known to exist in the police force, the armed forces & the public sector; the unbelievably cynical neglect of rural people which made it a simple matter for Thaksin to get enormous support in areas like Isan by handing out a few pathetically small “loans”; the blatant injustice of a system of justice where police can go out & murder thousands of their fellow people in a “drug war” with no judicial enquiries into the deaths (except 2 – the murder of a child, & the murder of an elderly couple who were thought to be “unusually rich” following, it emerged, a lottery win.) ; the mendacious & corruption-riddled handling of the problem in the south…etc. All of this tends to indicate that those who are trapped on the bottom and middle rungs of the ladder are indeed powerless to do anything to improve their condition. I feel disgusted & depressed as I type this, & certainly NOT lacking in compassion or empathy. And I also don’t feel that it is my right or duty to intervene. There are close to 70 million people living here. They don’t need westerners coming here to tell them how to solve the problem, & if I wanted to be a political activist I would be doing it in Australia, where Howard has done such damage to what was formerly a relatively fair & egalitarian society.
At the same time, I do believe that access to information and freedom of discussion about what’s really going on in a society are the beginnings of justice. That’s why I’m pleased to see anything at all that attempts to cut through the bullshit, as TKNS does.
I must say also that what I’m most afraid of is the possibility of violent change here when HM goes. My hope is that whatever happens, everyone else keeps out of it & leaves the Thais to work out their own problems…although, of course we will be observing & commenting.
The King Never Smiles?
ku khon thai is, I think, the first person to use a profanity on this blog. That is a great shame, especially as s/he has nothing to say of any worth.