Re: Sidh S> My blood boils with Sidh S and his consistant confusion of a logically sound and valid argument with ignoratio elenchi.
While his criticisms of the Anglo-American industrial-military complex MAY be vaild, they have absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of democracy and universal human rights in Thailand. Freedom and liberty do not belong to any one nationality; while he may have bought into the American propaganda of the concept of a “leader of the free word,” it doesn’t mean such concept possesses any inherent reality.
Sidh defends the actions of the current Thai stratocracy through reprehensible moral equivalence in the form of a tu quoque fallacy. If Sidh believes that the deeds of any country, especially in the West, have, or should have, any significant correlation to Thai freedom, liberty or dignity, then Sidh truly deserves to be derided as “р╕Др╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕Ир╣Лр╕▓”.
Thankyou for your deconstruction of my unenlightened Thai self Srithanonchai. In response to the others (Restorationist, Taxi Driver, Bob), it might help to do a deeper discussion of that ‘self’.
We are all well-read people here and all trained in that ‘enlightened’ , ‘scientific’, ”modern’, Western’ tradition where everything is differentiated, discriminated, spliced up to the finest sub-atomic particles to construct knowledge. This has led us to industrialization, European colonization, modernity and globalization – which has led to great things for humanity (longer, better, material rich lives). But there are many downsides too such as the global environmental health at its worse (at least by human hands), some of the bloodiest wars and genocides in history, some of the greatest socio-economic distributive inequities (and I read this morning that 225 richest people holds the equivalent wealth of 2.7 billion of the poorest)…
It is the mind which spawned discriminating concepts of ‘nation-state’, ‘ethnicity and race’, ‘civilized/uncivilized’, ‘science/arts’, ‘religious/secular’, ‘nature/culture’ – which, by nature, encourage competitions and conflicts some of which are for the good (creative frictions) but many, unfortunately has been for the bad (degeneration). With that point of view, the way one deals with ‘differences’ is either to make them the same (conversion, make civilized) or to get rid of them (extermination) much like what the Germans did to the European Jewish population in WWII and how the ‘West’ is treating Islam and Muslims through the guise of ‘War on Terror’…
This is the context that I view Paul Handey’s book – the aim is neo-colonialism which is to ‘civilize’, ‘sterilize’ the Thais. It want to convert the Mahidols into the Windsors, it want to convert the animist Thais from their magical mumbo-jumbo, the idolatory, the Jatukam Ramathep, Palad Khik and Buddhist amulet nonsense. It wants to do that through belittlement – to make Thais a global laughing stock for worshipping a ‘false god’ (and by extension all false gods/spirits). It is clearly uncomfortable with Thai culture and identity and its long historical links to the monarchy. It can’t wait for Thai society to become ‘modern’ and ‘developed’ to become like ‘us’ in the West.
So, I don’t think Paul Handey really misses Thailand…
On the other hand, Taxi Driver and Bob, I am not saying that the book should be burned or banned. It is certainly a useful book for Western audiences to understand Thai monarchy and ‘modern’ Thailand from a Western worldview as Craig Steffenson has found. I will not discuss the contents (as I’ve said, I view it as ‘Rumours/gossips Greatest Hits’ which certainly makes it an interesting read) and will concentrate on the author’s intents (more accurately, my analysis of it)…
Vichai: Since the “culture of vote buying” is only a minor factor in creating politicians, what, according to your perception, are actually the main structural conditions that serve as mechanisms to recruit people into the Thai political system, and how can they be changed to get supposedly better people? Are Thai politicians any worse than other Thais, such as bureaucrats, academics, soldiers, businesspeople, office workers, journalists, etc?
Paul — you may recall we used to bump into one another at TDRI annual meetings in Jomtien and the FCCT. I lived and worked in Thailand and Cambodia for 12 years, and I’m a jazz saxophone player . I used to wonder why Bhumibol and Sihanouk weren’t buddies. Your account (i.e., Sihanouk was kinda screwy and worse, he borrowed and failed to return the Bhumibol’s golden saxophone) was, to me, as good a reason as any why their relationship wasn’t closer. The point is, your book contains many such anecdotes, most of which were new to me, which may be discounted as hearsay by some readers but for those of us who play saxophones, so to speak, they make perfect sense. Thanks for opening my eyes to the Thai monarchy — and to modern Thailand — in ways which no other book before yours has come close. Regards — Craig
This little intellectual screed is nothing but hot air, unless the author doesn’t get his little high-horse hiny out into the countryside himself and start contributing to the education of poor rural folk.
Partisan ping pong arguments do nothing to solve the problem.
The least vocal lot of all are the people (mostly Thais, some foreigners) actually out there working in rural zones educating people.
And they will do this whether Thaksin, Surayud, or even Santa Claus is in power.
Sidh H, if Handley was “merely a brilliant opportunist who happens to spot a niche area”, he’d have chosen a topic that would have taken less than 15 years to research and write.
Your questioning why scholars did not write such a book first is an important one, although I don’t agree with your conclusion. If that were the reason, then one could not have much respect for such scholars, whose discipline should be ‘without fear or favour’.
Re bias, you have stated yours. Few outside Thailand would hold a similar position on the fanciful ‘semi-divinity’ of HMK.
Handley on the other hand said that his view of the King changed several times during the writing of the book.
Your critique doesn’t stand up. Can you tell us what a non-hagiographical treatment of HMK would contain in your view ?
Sidh S.: you practice the tired old method of attacking the messenger, not the message. You say you’ve read the book, so why not refute its central thesis with reasoned, rational arguments instead of attacking the motivation and methods of the author.
Restorationist: Sidh tried to make readers understand his post by introducing it with the sentence
“I am an animist-Buddhist Thai who considers HM the King semi-divine through his life-long work for the good of the people. Through his perseverence in being ‘thamma-racha’, he achieved ‘deva-racha’…),.”
and ending it with
“I will take my ‘Thai’ hat off and try to see things as a ‘Westerner’, I might just say “fair dinkum mate” (but did ya have to rip off the poor Thais?) – as nothing is ’sacred’ here…”
This is part of his struggle–he tries to deal with people who have gone through the period of enlightenment (and their products, such as Hendley’s book or academic publications) as a person with an essentially pre-enlightenment religious-animistic world view. In Europe, the stuggle between these two worlds lasted for many generations.
For people with Sidh’s outlook, the concepts of “knowledge”, and even more the scientific version of “new knowledge”, are hard to comprehend and accept. Look at what happens at Thai universties. As a result, Thais in the western world, and farang in Thailand, do only very partially live in the same worlds, or cultures. Most of their communications are still very much cross-cultural. One can never underestimate this situation, although it is of course fashionable, and politically more correct, to present an image that embraces cosmopolitan global modernity.
Statements such as that of Sidh’s, by contrast, are a lot more honest.
Ngarn, your (and many other Thais’) ability to internally reconcile choosing (a) on the one hand and ‘accepting’ the coup on the other, is exactly why Thai democracy is weak. You are guilty of exactly the same unethical behaviour that you level at the uneducated rural masses: whether it be vote buying/selling, corruption, or accepting a coup d’etat – the common underlying unethical behaviour is the willingness to accept or play a part in the violation of the rules. By accepting the violation of rules (i.e. coup d’etat to remove a government even if that government is perceived by you and me to be playing outside the rules itself) you are solving nothing, but instead helping to perpetuate the cycle of unethical/rule-breaking behaviour.
Your ‘seed of ethics’ is noble but misplaced, because politics, whether in the east or west, has always been about competing self-interests, not altruism, and we already have laws & rules to deal with vote selling & corruption. Unethical behaviour will always arise if those seeking to perform it know they are not going to have to face the consequences. If is naive to believe otherwise.
Thanks for the interview Nicholas – did you find out why there were no pictures in the book?
(I still think he should have been able to source a few interesting pics without being seen to be reinforcing the propaganda)
Yes Srithanonchai \’criminal opportunists\’ indeed apply to the great majority of Thai politicians . . . nourished by that \’harmless\’ village poor culture of vote selling.
I should add that I realize my attempts to elevate ethics above self interest is probably futile – the battle has already been lost in most western countries, so why should Thailand be any different?
I just keep trying in the hope that a seed might be planted (at least somewhere out there in cyberworld)
Taxi Driver: I choose (a).
You obviously don’t bother reading most of my posts.
Here’s a quick summary of them over last year:
– Thaksin was unsuitable for PM, and bad for democracy
– A coup happened – I chose to accept it, in the hope that democracy could be reset and next time the electorate would be more discerning.
– Corruption is still a major problem, and needs to stamped out at every level.
– I disagree that the king is the main problem, and think the politicians, military, police, bureaucrats & most people (including elites & rural masses) have to look at their own behavior.
– I agree with you that Thailand has taken quite a few steps over the last decade, and now the electorate is very important.
– Therefore I choose to concentrate on the portion of the electorate that has the real power – trying to plant a seed (of ethics above self interest) – if not directly into those voters, then at least into those academics and other interested persons who visit this site.
Sidh S.: I am not at all sure I understand your post, but let me suggest one thing: if anyone was writing a book on the king that was attempting to do more than reproduce the the sickly sweet hagiographical accounts that pepper Thailand’s bookshelves, would you want to be wandering around telling everyone that you were engaged in such an exercise? If one did, one wouldn’t last long.
And, protecting friends from accusations and charges after the book comes out might make good sense.
Finally, what is wrong with using women’s magazines as sources? Many of these (e.g. Dichan, Lips) have been used by the royals for their own purposes, including important interviews of the various royals.
(a disclosure: I am an animist-Buddhist Thai who considers HM the King semi-divine through his life-long work for the good of the people. Through his perseverence in being ‘thamma-racha’, he achieved ‘deva-racha’…)
Having read Paul’s book and this interview, it confirms to me that he is merely a brilliant opportunist who happens to spot a niche area – an area where no other foriegners dare thread before. I have asked myself why and came with the answer that other foriegners (many probably far more qualified to write on such a subject), however critical of the monarchy, also consider themselves ‘friends of Thailand’ and have Thai friends they love and respect enough not to ask “… questions about the monarchy under the cover of interviews on entirely different subjects…” not telling “… many (I assume Thai) people I was doing such a book”. From the interview, he has no intention of visiting Thailand and has not even attempted to do so – this implies that writing the book was coldly premeditated and calculated.
This is fair enough and I ask if this makes Paul Handey any different from a sex tourist visiting Patpong or Pattaya. His transactions with Thais are strictly business – the main difference is that his Thai ‘friends’ must have trusted him enough to discuss the monarchy… Ofcourse Mr.Handey is a journalist (and he has been upfront with that fact) – not an academic so I cannot subject him to that standard. On that note, I find Mr.Handey has compromised his book by reporting rumours/gossips as truths in the tradition of women’s celebrity magazines (in that sense, Paul Handey has been over-awed by the monarchy himself).
I will take my ‘Thai’ hat off and try to see things as a ‘Westerner’, I might just say “fair dinkum mate” (but did ya have to rip off the poor Thais?) – as nothing is ‘sacred’ here…
Paul Handley: The positive lessons: try to be a force for social good, to recognize that you have a role to help the little people against the hefty forces of freewheeling capitalism, that you have to keep the long-term view when others are short-term.
This is a rather strange way of putting the matter.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
New Mandala’s election watch
Does anyone really believe Thaksin wrote that article, and if by some miracle he did, do you think he really believes what he wrote?
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Re: Sidh S> My blood boils with Sidh S and his consistant confusion of a logically sound and valid argument with ignoratio elenchi.
While his criticisms of the Anglo-American industrial-military complex MAY be vaild, they have absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of democracy and universal human rights in Thailand. Freedom and liberty do not belong to any one nationality; while he may have bought into the American propaganda of the concept of a “leader of the free word,” it doesn’t mean such concept possesses any inherent reality.
Sidh defends the actions of the current Thai stratocracy through reprehensible moral equivalence in the form of a tu quoque fallacy. If Sidh believes that the deeds of any country, especially in the West, have, or should have, any significant correlation to Thai freedom, liberty or dignity, then Sidh truly deserves to be derided as “р╕Др╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕Ир╣Лр╕▓”.
Interview with Paul Handley
Thankyou for your deconstruction of my unenlightened Thai self Srithanonchai. In response to the others (Restorationist, Taxi Driver, Bob), it might help to do a deeper discussion of that ‘self’.
We are all well-read people here and all trained in that ‘enlightened’ , ‘scientific’, ”modern’, Western’ tradition where everything is differentiated, discriminated, spliced up to the finest sub-atomic particles to construct knowledge. This has led us to industrialization, European colonization, modernity and globalization – which has led to great things for humanity (longer, better, material rich lives). But there are many downsides too such as the global environmental health at its worse (at least by human hands), some of the bloodiest wars and genocides in history, some of the greatest socio-economic distributive inequities (and I read this morning that 225 richest people holds the equivalent wealth of 2.7 billion of the poorest)…
It is the mind which spawned discriminating concepts of ‘nation-state’, ‘ethnicity and race’, ‘civilized/uncivilized’, ‘science/arts’, ‘religious/secular’, ‘nature/culture’ – which, by nature, encourage competitions and conflicts some of which are for the good (creative frictions) but many, unfortunately has been for the bad (degeneration). With that point of view, the way one deals with ‘differences’ is either to make them the same (conversion, make civilized) or to get rid of them (extermination) much like what the Germans did to the European Jewish population in WWII and how the ‘West’ is treating Islam and Muslims through the guise of ‘War on Terror’…
This is the context that I view Paul Handey’s book – the aim is neo-colonialism which is to ‘civilize’, ‘sterilize’ the Thais. It want to convert the Mahidols into the Windsors, it want to convert the animist Thais from their magical mumbo-jumbo, the idolatory, the Jatukam Ramathep, Palad Khik and Buddhist amulet nonsense. It wants to do that through belittlement – to make Thais a global laughing stock for worshipping a ‘false god’ (and by extension all false gods/spirits). It is clearly uncomfortable with Thai culture and identity and its long historical links to the monarchy. It can’t wait for Thai society to become ‘modern’ and ‘developed’ to become like ‘us’ in the West.
So, I don’t think Paul Handey really misses Thailand…
On the other hand, Taxi Driver and Bob, I am not saying that the book should be burned or banned. It is certainly a useful book for Western audiences to understand Thai monarchy and ‘modern’ Thailand from a Western worldview as Craig Steffenson has found. I will not discuss the contents (as I’ve said, I view it as ‘Rumours/gossips Greatest Hits’ which certainly makes it an interesting read) and will concentrate on the author’s intents (more accurately, my analysis of it)…
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
“common underlying unethical behaviour is the willingness to accept or play a part in the violation of the rules.” >> Yes, indeed.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Vichai: Since the “culture of vote buying” is only a minor factor in creating politicians, what, according to your perception, are actually the main structural conditions that serve as mechanisms to recruit people into the Thai political system, and how can they be changed to get supposedly better people? Are Thai politicians any worse than other Thais, such as bureaucrats, academics, soldiers, businesspeople, office workers, journalists, etc?
Interview with Paul Handley
Paul — you may recall we used to bump into one another at TDRI annual meetings in Jomtien and the FCCT. I lived and worked in Thailand and Cambodia for 12 years, and I’m a jazz saxophone player . I used to wonder why Bhumibol and Sihanouk weren’t buddies. Your account (i.e., Sihanouk was kinda screwy and worse, he borrowed and failed to return the Bhumibol’s golden saxophone) was, to me, as good a reason as any why their relationship wasn’t closer. The point is, your book contains many such anecdotes, most of which were new to me, which may be discounted as hearsay by some readers but for those of us who play saxophones, so to speak, they make perfect sense. Thanks for opening my eyes to the Thai monarchy — and to modern Thailand — in ways which no other book before yours has come close. Regards — Craig
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
This little intellectual screed is nothing but hot air, unless the author doesn’t get his little high-horse hiny out into the countryside himself and start contributing to the education of poor rural folk.
Partisan ping pong arguments do nothing to solve the problem.
The least vocal lot of all are the people (mostly Thais, some foreigners) actually out there working in rural zones educating people.
And they will do this whether Thaksin, Surayud, or even Santa Claus is in power.
Interview with Paul Handley
Sidh H, if Handley was “merely a brilliant opportunist who happens to spot a niche area”, he’d have chosen a topic that would have taken less than 15 years to research and write.
Your questioning why scholars did not write such a book first is an important one, although I don’t agree with your conclusion. If that were the reason, then one could not have much respect for such scholars, whose discipline should be ‘without fear or favour’.
Re bias, you have stated yours. Few outside Thailand would hold a similar position on the fanciful ‘semi-divinity’ of HMK.
Handley on the other hand said that his view of the King changed several times during the writing of the book.
Your critique doesn’t stand up. Can you tell us what a non-hagiographical treatment of HMK would contain in your view ?
Interview with Paul Handley
Sidh S.: you practice the tired old method of attacking the messenger, not the message. You say you’ve read the book, so why not refute its central thesis with reasoned, rational arguments instead of attacking the motivation and methods of the author.
Interview with Paul Handley
Restorationist: Sidh tried to make readers understand his post by introducing it with the sentence
“I am an animist-Buddhist Thai who considers HM the King semi-divine through his life-long work for the good of the people. Through his perseverence in being ‘thamma-racha’, he achieved ‘deva-racha’…),.”
and ending it with
“I will take my ‘Thai’ hat off and try to see things as a ‘Westerner’, I might just say “fair dinkum mate” (but did ya have to rip off the poor Thais?) – as nothing is ’sacred’ here…”
This is part of his struggle–he tries to deal with people who have gone through the period of enlightenment (and their products, such as Hendley’s book or academic publications) as a person with an essentially pre-enlightenment religious-animistic world view. In Europe, the stuggle between these two worlds lasted for many generations.
For people with Sidh’s outlook, the concepts of “knowledge”, and even more the scientific version of “new knowledge”, are hard to comprehend and accept. Look at what happens at Thai universties. As a result, Thais in the western world, and farang in Thailand, do only very partially live in the same worlds, or cultures. Most of their communications are still very much cross-cultural. One can never underestimate this situation, although it is of course fashionable, and politically more correct, to present an image that embraces cosmopolitan global modernity.
Statements such as that of Sidh’s, by contrast, are a lot more honest.
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
Ngarn, your (and many other Thais’) ability to internally reconcile choosing (a) on the one hand and ‘accepting’ the coup on the other, is exactly why Thai democracy is weak. You are guilty of exactly the same unethical behaviour that you level at the uneducated rural masses: whether it be vote buying/selling, corruption, or accepting a coup d’etat – the common underlying unethical behaviour is the willingness to accept or play a part in the violation of the rules. By accepting the violation of rules (i.e. coup d’etat to remove a government even if that government is perceived by you and me to be playing outside the rules itself) you are solving nothing, but instead helping to perpetuate the cycle of unethical/rule-breaking behaviour.
Your ‘seed of ethics’ is noble but misplaced, because politics, whether in the east or west, has always been about competing self-interests, not altruism, and we already have laws & rules to deal with vote selling & corruption. Unethical behaviour will always arise if those seeking to perform it know they are not going to have to face the consequences. If is naive to believe otherwise.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Misprint: “disgruntled veterans of WWI” not WWII
New Mandala’s election watch
by the way, the original Wall Street Journal site with the article is here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119015623106831667.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
in case The Nation takes it down.
Interview with Paul Handley
Thanks for the interview Nicholas – did you find out why there were no pictures in the book?
(I still think he should have been able to source a few interesting pics without being seen to be reinforcing the propaganda)
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Yes Srithanonchai \’criminal opportunists\’ indeed apply to the great majority of Thai politicians . . . nourished by that \’harmless\’ village poor culture of vote selling.
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
I should add that I realize my attempts to elevate ethics above self interest is probably futile – the battle has already been lost in most western countries, so why should Thailand be any different?
I just keep trying in the hope that a seed might be planted (at least somewhere out there in cyberworld)
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
Taxi Driver: I choose (a).
You obviously don’t bother reading most of my posts.
Here’s a quick summary of them over last year:
– Thaksin was unsuitable for PM, and bad for democracy
– A coup happened – I chose to accept it, in the hope that democracy could be reset and next time the electorate would be more discerning.
– Corruption is still a major problem, and needs to stamped out at every level.
– I disagree that the king is the main problem, and think the politicians, military, police, bureaucrats & most people (including elites & rural masses) have to look at their own behavior.
– I agree with you that Thailand has taken quite a few steps over the last decade, and now the electorate is very important.
– Therefore I choose to concentrate on the portion of the electorate that has the real power – trying to plant a seed (of ethics above self interest) – if not directly into those voters, then at least into those academics and other interested persons who visit this site.
Interview with Paul Handley
Sidh S.: I am not at all sure I understand your post, but let me suggest one thing: if anyone was writing a book on the king that was attempting to do more than reproduce the the sickly sweet hagiographical accounts that pepper Thailand’s bookshelves, would you want to be wandering around telling everyone that you were engaged in such an exercise? If one did, one wouldn’t last long.
And, protecting friends from accusations and charges after the book comes out might make good sense.
Finally, what is wrong with using women’s magazines as sources? Many of these (e.g. Dichan, Lips) have been used by the royals for their own purposes, including important interviews of the various royals.
But maybe I didn’t understand your post.
Interview with Paul Handley
(a disclosure: I am an animist-Buddhist Thai who considers HM the King semi-divine through his life-long work for the good of the people. Through his perseverence in being ‘thamma-racha’, he achieved ‘deva-racha’…)
Having read Paul’s book and this interview, it confirms to me that he is merely a brilliant opportunist who happens to spot a niche area – an area where no other foriegners dare thread before. I have asked myself why and came with the answer that other foriegners (many probably far more qualified to write on such a subject), however critical of the monarchy, also consider themselves ‘friends of Thailand’ and have Thai friends they love and respect enough not to ask “… questions about the monarchy under the cover of interviews on entirely different subjects…” not telling “… many (I assume Thai) people I was doing such a book”. From the interview, he has no intention of visiting Thailand and has not even attempted to do so – this implies that writing the book was coldly premeditated and calculated.
This is fair enough and I ask if this makes Paul Handey any different from a sex tourist visiting Patpong or Pattaya. His transactions with Thais are strictly business – the main difference is that his Thai ‘friends’ must have trusted him enough to discuss the monarchy… Ofcourse Mr.Handey is a journalist (and he has been upfront with that fact) – not an academic so I cannot subject him to that standard. On that note, I find Mr.Handey has compromised his book by reporting rumours/gossips as truths in the tradition of women’s celebrity magazines (in that sense, Paul Handey has been over-awed by the monarchy himself).
I will take my ‘Thai’ hat off and try to see things as a ‘Westerner’, I might just say “fair dinkum mate” (but did ya have to rip off the poor Thais?) – as nothing is ‘sacred’ here…
Interview with Paul Handley
Paul Handley: The positive lessons: try to be a force for social good, to recognize that you have a role to help the little people against the hefty forces of freewheeling capitalism, that you have to keep the long-term view when others are short-term.
This is a rather strange way of putting the matter.