This is what I tried to upload last night – will see if works:
I see that you are a German, Srithanonchai – you misunderstood my comments and took it personally. No I am not equating the holocaust with contemporary ‘War on Terror’ – as a person who stresses specific historical and cultural contexts (some evidences in my past comments), it would be the last thing I do. Based on that misunderstanding, I believe you got carried away emotionally and thought that I suggest the present German government exterminate its Turkish/Kurdish Muslim population. We know that it is universally accepted that Germany has admirably redressed it’s war time atrocities (especially compared to Japan). No debates there.
Thanks Tosakan for doing another ‘deconstruction’ take. If Thais were ‘true’ Buddhist (if that state of being is possible), we’ll probably not have this discussion or this blog! I actually see Thais as more ‘animist’ than Buddhist (or their religion is an animist interpretation of Buddhism). I’m afraid they are not rationale (but who is really – when faced with self-interests). Yet Thais are quite (annoyingly at times) practical – if the Jatukam does not work, then its market price will naturally drop. The same goes to the ruling elites – historically, if they don’t perform their duties well, they will be overthrown. When we consider that with long historical-cultural experiences with violent dynastic successions during most of the Ayudhya era – I think many people are overly concerned with Thailand’s monarchic succession (please, although Thais are bad Buddhist – everyone knows the cycle of ‘kerd’, ‘kae’, ‘jeb’, ‘taye’. Thais are so well prepared I argue)…
In many ways, I see it as an external, foriegn construct and Paul Handey’s book is especially effective in prepetuating what is at most ‘quarter-truths’ – not even ‘half-truths’ (and I really wonder Observer how many Thai friends Paul had to trick to substantiate all those rumours). He writes it as if Thai democracy and democratic development is up to the whims of and held hostage by one person/one institution, HM the King and the monarchy. There were so many figures and agents as influential and critical, for better and for worse, particularly at the pinnacle of their careers (AjarnPridi Bhanomyong, FM P.Pibulsongkram, Sarit and a very long line of generals up to the present GenSonthi; the many godfathers and tycoons whether in the city or provinces up to the present PMThaksin…etc…etc…). We have to clearly diffentiate here – HM the King is not running the country (he never did) – at any time, a large ‘alliance of interests’ is. From time to time (at least 17 times if we only count the coups), through various reasons (often greed, conflicts in interests), those groups of people mess up and the King is drawn into the fray – to give guidance as best as he could.
And it is at these junctures that the world judges him – often unfairly as they don’t look carefully at the specific contexts and, focusing almost solely on the HM the King, often ignored the ‘real’ players/instigators/culprits. Thai people, living on the ground through those times, are also aware of the situation and, as we know, judged the King favorably. They know that the King, whether they agree or not with his decisions, always had the very best interests of the Thai people and, I argue, Thai democracy at heart. If PMThaksin wasn’t ‘too naughty and greedy’ and respected the spirit of the 1997 People’s Constitution, which also had the King’s tacit support, things would obviously be significantly different…
I can’t seem to post on the ‘Interview with Paul Handey’ site anymore. My apology goes to Srithanonchai as a misunderstanding of my previous comment may have caused unnecessary discomfort. I have written a more detailed explanation and tried posting 3-4 times last night and this morning. If it is not on you can contact me at [email protected].
Lleij Samuel Schwartz, you’ve picked on a Srithanonchai’s misunderstanding and chose to brand me as ‘racist’. That is up to you but my conscience is clear here.
My position is to mitigate what I see is the negative repurcussions of dualistic thinking so I don’t really see the problem of, to take your example of Siam being uncolonized but yet join the postcolonial non-aligned movement. It is never that simple and Siam has ‘self-colonized’ herself and took on the new name of ‘Thailand’.
It should also be quite obvious to you that I am also thinking on a ‘Western’ mode. We all are and we are all accountable for the problems of the world today…
I don’t think vote buying and selling is irrelevant. It is, however, indulged in by all sides of politics (including the junta government in the constitutional referendum, if I read the various posts here correctly). TRT can’t be said to be any more guilty than the Democrats or any other group. Furthermore, Thailand’s progress on the TI and World Bank indicators of corruption under Thaksin indicated the sort of ongoing, gradual improvement that eventually leads to real change.
In a historical perspective, the western democracies also passed through eras of “machine” or vote-buying politics, particularly in the 19th century (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_politics).
I believe what led to the decline of this practice was the rise of populist, socialist, labour and communist political parties around the turn of the century and into the 1930s who offered not just money on the day but money (e.g. pro-poor policies) for the entire term of government. This was and is more popular than vote buying. In order to combat the threat of populism, the centrist parties had to clean up their own acts, offer pro-poor policies, and convince the populace that moderate capitalism was the way to go. Combined with the great depression and WWII, this pressure led to the growth of the modern welfare state which expects high standards of governance.
This was a highly fraught transition in the West as well. To build on Sidh S.’s observations, it’s often forgotten that Britain, the US and Australia all came close to serious attempts to establish fascist, quasi-military dictatorships backed by those who saw social-democrat, socialist, communist, etc policies as evil. (I’m not being perjorative, this was the time of the rise of fascism in Europe and many people saw it as the only solution to communism). In Britain there was the rise of the British Union of Fascists (probably unique as the only Fascist group to attempt to gain power through the ballot box): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists
I meant that I wonder whether or not without Thais having developed organically a mechanism to critique their own society it is really wise for Thai people to use philosophers like Nietszche or Foucault for they have emerged from a societal environment based on Christian natural law. I think that a lot of people tend to view Buddhism as something that is able to be placed within a secular framework and its not and neither are any other paths to divinity, so how can a society thats law is based on generations of spiritual indoctrination be compatible with the law of an equally absolute one from a Judao-Christian framework? The view that due to globalisation there is this agnostic sentiment spreading worldwide is wrong because agnosticism is a product of secularism which is often incompatible with non Western law. Thus it becomes a loaded critique leading to a Huntington or Fukuyama tapestry.
Tosakan says: The Buddha also makes the same argument(but at a personal level) Put simply, most of us are deluded, and we take a lot of comfort in our mental delusions. But if we choose to examine and examine and examine some more in order to uncover our delusions and see the truth, dhamma, for what it is, we become liberated, but once liberated we must take responsibility for our freedom, and that scares the shit out of most people. Ergo, this is a reason why Thais never like to take responsibility for anything.
To say that specifically Thais don’t take responsibility for anything on a mass scale is ridiculous because neither does any other people. I don’t think that you can use European philosophers or conceptions of natural law to critique Thai politics because it becomes no longer about Thais, but the West’s relationship with Thailand, which in the end dilutes Thai sovereignty and development if it has too much influence.
In the final analysis, I agree with Handley on this point: The monarchy that King Bumibol has shaped the last 60 years has not prepared Thais, emotionally, politically, and mentally for a Thailand without him. And that is irresponsible.
Bhumibol is an essential element in Thai sovereignty (devine or not), so to say that it is irresponsible for him to leave no obvious successor is to be totally hypocritical of everything Tosakan said previously about learning to take responsibility from a Western paradigmatic! Therefore, it is not right to critique Thais with something that is not yet developed by them.
Re: Sidh> You said: “[the] Western’ tradition where everything is differentiated, discriminated, spliced up to the finest sub-atomic particles to construct knowledge.”
If you think that is purely a “Western” tradition, then I take it you’ve never read the Abhidharma. It is quite rediculous for you to launch into a diatribe concerning the “Western” discriminating, dualist mind, while you, yourself, draw an absolute dividing line between “East” and “West”.
Or are you just willing to think in a “Western” manner when it supports your own racist attitudes, my dear Sidh?
Long story short, Sidh, you can’t have it both ways: Thailand cannot triumph in the fact that it was never colonized by a Western power on the one hand, and on the other, join the chorus of its Non-Aligned Movement brethren in crying “Neo-Colonialism” (i.e. the “Blame Whitey” game), when things don’t go its way.
But I guess “truth/ignorance” is another one of those false Western dichotomies, isn’t?
I recall that in an interview shortly after the coup last year Paul Handley suggested that a key motivation for the coup was the succession issue. Mr Handley if you are reading this it would be great if you could re-elaborate on this point in this post.
“р╕Др╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕Ир╣Лр╕▓”- I’m not sure what you mean Lleij Samuel Schwartz. If it is a Thai who ‘apes’ Westerners, then I accept your derision (fellow Thais occasionally throw that one at me). This can’t be helped, with my knowledge of English, I have absorbed a another set of cultural understandings, practices and values. There are many other Thais like me in the past and present, many in very influential positions to shape Thai socio-political directions (not me ofcourse) and they have traditionally looked to the ‘West’ for models. Consistent with Nganadeeleg’s comments, I don’t understand why you can’t see the correlation…
I believe it was the elected corrupt leaders like Thaksin, Banharn and/or Chavalit who were responsible for the democratic course HMK must surely have NOT preferred.
I like Tosakan’s comment. However, do enough Thais exist in a Judao-Christian paradigm to use the criticisms of the human condition by Nietszche or Foucault? Should liberal criticisms of ‘what to do’ have influence over Thai culture post-Bhumibol? This angers me because I don’t like things tying into Fukuyama’s presumption.
Also, Liberalism assumes the divinity of the individual through natural law; natural law in the Buddhist framework cannot be secularized (which I think you infer) because it is an absolute. Simply because the Buddha admits it doesn’t make it any less absolute, instead I think it makes it more so!
“The monarchy that King Bumibol has shaped the last 60 years has not prepared Thais, emotionally, politically, and mentally for a Thailand without him. And that is irresponsible.”
I don’t know about that Tosakan. HMK did try to ‘guide’ the Kingdom towards a working democracy considering that a ‘working democracy’, rather than an ‘entrenched military’ prone to taking power by force, is the safer system to preserve HMK’s legacy and the monarchy.
I believe it was the elected corrupt leaders like Thaksin, Banharn and/or Chavalit who were responsible for the democratic course HMK must surely have preferred.
It was NOT for want of trying Tosakan: HMK tried very hard to prepare the Thais for a Thailand without him but the Thaksins, Banharns and Chavalits were jokers that got in the way.
I think he makes the same argument that Edward Said makes in “Orientalism.”
I don’t want to speak for Sidh because he can speak for himself, but for an outsider to deconstruct the Thai monarchy from a rationalist “western” perspective, I think that causes the same sort of discomfort, same, for example, when a person like Richard Dawkin’s deconstructs Christianity for a fundamentalist Christian.
Is it possible to talk about the monarchy with detachment? Shouldn’t a Buddhist be able to do that?
One would think so, but for many Thais it is difficult.
True believers don’t want anybody injecting any sort of Socratic/Buddhist reasoning into the rational breaking down of their belief system.
Foucault(also Marx) made the argument that when you deconstruct “truth”, what one really finds is that what we experience as present truth was created by the powers at be who wanted to sustain their power in the past. The Buddha also makes the same argument(but at a personal level) Put simply, most of us are deluded, and we take a lot of comfort in our mental delusions. But if we choose to examine and examine and examine some more in order to uncover our delusions and see the truth, dhamma, for what it is, we become liberated, but once liberated we must take responsibility for our freedom, and that scares the shit out of most people. Ergo, this is a reason why Thais never like to take responsibility for anything. It is easier to blame all of Thailand’s problems on the “other” (the farang, Thaksin, karma, the commies, the dark influences, the Burmese, the Khmer, globalization, capitalism, the poor, the dumb farmers) rather than act as democrats(Buddhists) and take responsibility for what is happening in the present.
For Thais, as a people, they haven’t had to deal with Nietzsche’s notion of “God is dead” because that is scary. They are told without God(the king) Thailand is destroyed and Thai identity will cease to exist. It is all bullshit, of course, but the brainwashing has occurred from cradle to grave. It is scary.
If the myth of King Bumibol(Thai kingship) is dead, that means a serious existential crisis for most Thais. (Also see Dostoevsky’s Grant Inquisitor in Brother Karamazov to illuminate this point) But who do we blame for our self-delusions? The elite who control the propaganda and perpetuate myths to the long term detriment of the country and its political development or the masses who eagerly accept the propaganda without question because they don’t want the responsibility of thinking for themselves? For those of us in the middle, what do we have left? Materialism and/or asceticism. We certainly don’t have a public space, because that has become corrupted and/or usurped by the military, the academics, the bureaucrats, the politicians and the media.
In the final analysis, I agree with Handley on this point: The monarchy that King Bumibol has shaped the last 60 years has not prepared Thais, emotionally, politically, and mentally for a Thailand without him. And that is irresponsible.
You can like the book or not, but it is flat out inaccurate to say it is based on mere rumor. The book was published by Yale University Press, which came under huge pressure by Thailand, and apparently the Bush administration, not to publish it.
I understand, and Paul can comment, that this book was subject to more scrunity than other books and anything not proven beyond academic standards was removed. Yale certainly knew that it would be controversial and wasn’t going to risk making mistakes.
Yale has little vested interest in a controversial book, aside from scolarship. The University Endowment dwarfs any potential revenue from a book about Thailand.
I have Royalist friends who heap scorn on the book and its theory that the King is an anti-democratic force, but at least they recognized that the research is solid and the history accurate.
Lleij Samuel Schwartz: While his criticisms of the Anglo-American industrial-military complex MAY be valid, they have absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of democracy and universal human rights in Thailand.
If ‘ethical democracy’ is merely an illusion in the west, then perhaps it does have some relevance to Thailand’s attempt to achieve it .
Sidh: HMK Semi-divine?
I’ve never actually heard anyone admit they believed that, and I struggle to understand what you mean – would you care to explain?
(or has an attempt at humor gone over my head?)
I don’t have the book anymore, but I seem to recall Handley concluded HMK’s biggest potential failure is the failure to facilitate a smooth succession.
The book was written before the latest coup, but based on what we know to date, I agree with Handley on that point.
As a German, I find equating Hitler’s Holocaust and the “Western” position towards Islam grossly nonsensical (similar to the Western-educated Thai university professors who, with astonishing ignorance, equated Thaksin with Hitler). By the way, Germany has a large Muslim population, more than Thailand. Do you really want to suggest that the German government has a policy of mass-murdering its own Muslim population as well as all other Muslims whereever they live?
Taxi Driver: I accept what you say, and although I did not call for a coup, I’m just naive enough to believe that in the current Thai political scene the only real alternative to accepting the coup is accepting Thaksin back – so pragmatism wins over idealism again.
Jon: Good points, but I’ll just stick to the hot air ping pong – I cannot see much evidence of the people heeding HMK’s advice, so I don’t think I would have much chance to educate anyone – anyway, people only really learn when they want to, and not before.
In Matichon of September 21, the People’s Power Party published a double-page advertisement announcing their election candidates for a large number of provinces. As for Chachoengsao’s four seats, we see the familiar faces of Thitima and Wutipong Chaisaeng, and Somchai Atsawachaisophon (all former TRT MPs). The fourth candidate is Phichet Tancharoen, who is the elder brother of former deputy speaker of the House TRT-MP Suchart Tancharoen, who was amongst the TRT board members disqualified by the Constitution Tribunal. Phichet and his three colleagues have good chances of representing Chachoengsao in the post-coup parliament.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Interview with Paul Handley
This is what I tried to upload last night – will see if works:
I see that you are a German, Srithanonchai – you misunderstood my comments and took it personally. No I am not equating the holocaust with contemporary ‘War on Terror’ – as a person who stresses specific historical and cultural contexts (some evidences in my past comments), it would be the last thing I do. Based on that misunderstanding, I believe you got carried away emotionally and thought that I suggest the present German government exterminate its Turkish/Kurdish Muslim population. We know that it is universally accepted that Germany has admirably redressed it’s war time atrocities (especially compared to Japan). No debates there.
Thanks Tosakan for doing another ‘deconstruction’ take. If Thais were ‘true’ Buddhist (if that state of being is possible), we’ll probably not have this discussion or this blog! I actually see Thais as more ‘animist’ than Buddhist (or their religion is an animist interpretation of Buddhism). I’m afraid they are not rationale (but who is really – when faced with self-interests). Yet Thais are quite (annoyingly at times) practical – if the Jatukam does not work, then its market price will naturally drop. The same goes to the ruling elites – historically, if they don’t perform their duties well, they will be overthrown. When we consider that with long historical-cultural experiences with violent dynastic successions during most of the Ayudhya era – I think many people are overly concerned with Thailand’s monarchic succession (please, although Thais are bad Buddhist – everyone knows the cycle of ‘kerd’, ‘kae’, ‘jeb’, ‘taye’. Thais are so well prepared I argue)…
In many ways, I see it as an external, foriegn construct and Paul Handey’s book is especially effective in prepetuating what is at most ‘quarter-truths’ – not even ‘half-truths’ (and I really wonder Observer how many Thai friends Paul had to trick to substantiate all those rumours). He writes it as if Thai democracy and democratic development is up to the whims of and held hostage by one person/one institution, HM the King and the monarchy. There were so many figures and agents as influential and critical, for better and for worse, particularly at the pinnacle of their careers (AjarnPridi Bhanomyong, FM P.Pibulsongkram, Sarit and a very long line of generals up to the present GenSonthi; the many godfathers and tycoons whether in the city or provinces up to the present PMThaksin…etc…etc…). We have to clearly diffentiate here – HM the King is not running the country (he never did) – at any time, a large ‘alliance of interests’ is. From time to time (at least 17 times if we only count the coups), through various reasons (often greed, conflicts in interests), those groups of people mess up and the King is drawn into the fray – to give guidance as best as he could.
And it is at these junctures that the world judges him – often unfairly as they don’t look carefully at the specific contexts and, focusing almost solely on the HM the King, often ignored the ‘real’ players/instigators/culprits. Thai people, living on the ground through those times, are also aware of the situation and, as we know, judged the King favorably. They know that the King, whether they agree or not with his decisions, always had the very best interests of the Thai people and, I argue, Thai democracy at heart. If PMThaksin wasn’t ‘too naughty and greedy’ and respected the spirit of the 1997 People’s Constitution, which also had the King’s tacit support, things would obviously be significantly different…
Youtube’s privy politics
I can’t seem to post on the ‘Interview with Paul Handey’ site anymore. My apology goes to Srithanonchai as a misunderstanding of my previous comment may have caused unnecessary discomfort. I have written a more detailed explanation and tried posting 3-4 times last night and this morning. If it is not on you can contact me at [email protected].
Lleij Samuel Schwartz, you’ve picked on a Srithanonchai’s misunderstanding and chose to brand me as ‘racist’. That is up to you but my conscience is clear here.
My position is to mitigate what I see is the negative repurcussions of dualistic thinking so I don’t really see the problem of, to take your example of Siam being uncolonized but yet join the postcolonial non-aligned movement. It is never that simple and Siam has ‘self-colonized’ herself and took on the new name of ‘Thailand’.
It should also be quite obvious to you that I am also thinking on a ‘Western’ mode. We all are and we are all accountable for the problems of the world today…
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
I don’t think vote buying and selling is irrelevant. It is, however, indulged in by all sides of politics (including the junta government in the constitutional referendum, if I read the various posts here correctly). TRT can’t be said to be any more guilty than the Democrats or any other group. Furthermore, Thailand’s progress on the TI and World Bank indicators of corruption under Thaksin indicated the sort of ongoing, gradual improvement that eventually leads to real change.
In a historical perspective, the western democracies also passed through eras of “machine” or vote-buying politics, particularly in the 19th century (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_politics).
I believe what led to the decline of this practice was the rise of populist, socialist, labour and communist political parties around the turn of the century and into the 1930s who offered not just money on the day but money (e.g. pro-poor policies) for the entire term of government. This was and is more popular than vote buying. In order to combat the threat of populism, the centrist parties had to clean up their own acts, offer pro-poor policies, and convince the populace that moderate capitalism was the way to go. Combined with the great depression and WWII, this pressure led to the growth of the modern welfare state which expects high standards of governance.
This was a highly fraught transition in the West as well. To build on Sidh S.’s observations, it’s often forgotten that Britain, the US and Australia all came close to serious attempts to establish fascist, quasi-military dictatorships backed by those who saw social-democrat, socialist, communist, etc policies as evil. (I’m not being perjorative, this was the time of the rise of fascism in Europe and many people saw it as the only solution to communism). In Britain there was the rise of the British Union of Fascists (probably unique as the only Fascist group to attempt to gain power through the ballot box): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists
Interview with Paul Handley
I mean not developed by them Haha, the yet shows the imperialist beast within!
Interview with Paul Handley
polo:
I meant that I wonder whether or not without Thais having developed organically a mechanism to critique their own society it is really wise for Thai people to use philosophers like Nietszche or Foucault for they have emerged from a societal environment based on Christian natural law. I think that a lot of people tend to view Buddhism as something that is able to be placed within a secular framework and its not and neither are any other paths to divinity, so how can a society thats law is based on generations of spiritual indoctrination be compatible with the law of an equally absolute one from a Judao-Christian framework? The view that due to globalisation there is this agnostic sentiment spreading worldwide is wrong because agnosticism is a product of secularism which is often incompatible with non Western law. Thus it becomes a loaded critique leading to a Huntington or Fukuyama tapestry.
Tosakan says: The Buddha also makes the same argument(but at a personal level) Put simply, most of us are deluded, and we take a lot of comfort in our mental delusions. But if we choose to examine and examine and examine some more in order to uncover our delusions and see the truth, dhamma, for what it is, we become liberated, but once liberated we must take responsibility for our freedom, and that scares the shit out of most people. Ergo, this is a reason why Thais never like to take responsibility for anything.
To say that specifically Thais don’t take responsibility for anything on a mass scale is ridiculous because neither does any other people. I don’t think that you can use European philosophers or conceptions of natural law to critique Thai politics because it becomes no longer about Thais, but the West’s relationship with Thailand, which in the end dilutes Thai sovereignty and development if it has too much influence.
In the final analysis, I agree with Handley on this point: The monarchy that King Bumibol has shaped the last 60 years has not prepared Thais, emotionally, politically, and mentally for a Thailand without him. And that is irresponsible.
Bhumibol is an essential element in Thai sovereignty (devine or not), so to say that it is irresponsible for him to leave no obvious successor is to be totally hypocritical of everything Tosakan said previously about learning to take responsibility from a Western paradigmatic! Therefore, it is not right to critique Thais with something that is not yet developed by them.
Interview with Paul Handley
Re: Sidh> You said: “[the] Western’ tradition where everything is differentiated, discriminated, spliced up to the finest sub-atomic particles to construct knowledge.”
If you think that is purely a “Western” tradition, then I take it you’ve never read the Abhidharma. It is quite rediculous for you to launch into a diatribe concerning the “Western” discriminating, dualist mind, while you, yourself, draw an absolute dividing line between “East” and “West”.
Or are you just willing to think in a “Western” manner when it supports your own racist attitudes, my dear Sidh?
Long story short, Sidh, you can’t have it both ways: Thailand cannot triumph in the fact that it was never colonized by a Western power on the one hand, and on the other, join the chorus of its Non-Aligned Movement brethren in crying “Neo-Colonialism” (i.e. the “Blame Whitey” game), when things don’t go its way.
But I guess “truth/ignorance” is another one of those false Western dichotomies, isn’t?
Interview with Paul Handley
I recall that in an interview shortly after the coup last year Paul Handley suggested that a key motivation for the coup was the succession issue. Mr Handley if you are reading this it would be great if you could re-elaborate on this point in this post.
Interview with Paul Handley
Correction: sorry, I meant : Grasshopper: huh?
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
“р╕Др╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕Ир╣Лр╕▓”- I’m not sure what you mean Lleij Samuel Schwartz. If it is a Thai who ‘apes’ Westerners, then I accept your derision (fellow Thais occasionally throw that one at me). This can’t be helped, with my knowledge of English, I have absorbed a another set of cultural understandings, practices and values. There are many other Thais like me in the past and present, many in very influential positions to shape Thai socio-political directions (not me ofcourse) and they have traditionally looked to the ‘West’ for models. Consistent with Nganadeeleg’s comments, I don’t understand why you can’t see the correlation…
Interview with Paul Handley
I believe it was the elected corrupt leaders like Thaksin, Banharn and/or Chavalit who were responsible for the democratic course HMK must surely have NOT preferred.
(Correction to #15)
Interview with Paul Handley
Tosakan: Huh?
Interview with Paul Handley
I like Tosakan’s comment. However, do enough Thais exist in a Judao-Christian paradigm to use the criticisms of the human condition by Nietszche or Foucault? Should liberal criticisms of ‘what to do’ have influence over Thai culture post-Bhumibol? This angers me because I don’t like things tying into Fukuyama’s presumption.
Also, Liberalism assumes the divinity of the individual through natural law; natural law in the Buddhist framework cannot be secularized (which I think you infer) because it is an absolute. Simply because the Buddha admits it doesn’t make it any less absolute, instead I think it makes it more so!
Interview with Paul Handley
“The monarchy that King Bumibol has shaped the last 60 years has not prepared Thais, emotionally, politically, and mentally for a Thailand without him. And that is irresponsible.”
I don’t know about that Tosakan. HMK did try to ‘guide’ the Kingdom towards a working democracy considering that a ‘working democracy’, rather than an ‘entrenched military’ prone to taking power by force, is the safer system to preserve HMK’s legacy and the monarchy.
I believe it was the elected corrupt leaders like Thaksin, Banharn and/or Chavalit who were responsible for the democratic course HMK must surely have preferred.
It was NOT for want of trying Tosakan: HMK tried very hard to prepare the Thais for a Thailand without him but the Thaksins, Banharns and Chavalits were jokers that got in the way.
Interview with Paul Handley
I think Sidh’s response is telling.
I think he makes the same argument that Edward Said makes in “Orientalism.”
I don’t want to speak for Sidh because he can speak for himself, but for an outsider to deconstruct the Thai monarchy from a rationalist “western” perspective, I think that causes the same sort of discomfort, same, for example, when a person like Richard Dawkin’s deconstructs Christianity for a fundamentalist Christian.
Is it possible to talk about the monarchy with detachment? Shouldn’t a Buddhist be able to do that?
One would think so, but for many Thais it is difficult.
True believers don’t want anybody injecting any sort of Socratic/Buddhist reasoning into the rational breaking down of their belief system.
Foucault(also Marx) made the argument that when you deconstruct “truth”, what one really finds is that what we experience as present truth was created by the powers at be who wanted to sustain their power in the past. The Buddha also makes the same argument(but at a personal level) Put simply, most of us are deluded, and we take a lot of comfort in our mental delusions. But if we choose to examine and examine and examine some more in order to uncover our delusions and see the truth, dhamma, for what it is, we become liberated, but once liberated we must take responsibility for our freedom, and that scares the shit out of most people. Ergo, this is a reason why Thais never like to take responsibility for anything. It is easier to blame all of Thailand’s problems on the “other” (the farang, Thaksin, karma, the commies, the dark influences, the Burmese, the Khmer, globalization, capitalism, the poor, the dumb farmers) rather than act as democrats(Buddhists) and take responsibility for what is happening in the present.
For Thais, as a people, they haven’t had to deal with Nietzsche’s notion of “God is dead” because that is scary. They are told without God(the king) Thailand is destroyed and Thai identity will cease to exist. It is all bullshit, of course, but the brainwashing has occurred from cradle to grave. It is scary.
If the myth of King Bumibol(Thai kingship) is dead, that means a serious existential crisis for most Thais. (Also see Dostoevsky’s Grant Inquisitor in Brother Karamazov to illuminate this point) But who do we blame for our self-delusions? The elite who control the propaganda and perpetuate myths to the long term detriment of the country and its political development or the masses who eagerly accept the propaganda without question because they don’t want the responsibility of thinking for themselves? For those of us in the middle, what do we have left? Materialism and/or asceticism. We certainly don’t have a public space, because that has become corrupted and/or usurped by the military, the academics, the bureaucrats, the politicians and the media.
In the final analysis, I agree with Handley on this point: The monarchy that King Bumibol has shaped the last 60 years has not prepared Thais, emotionally, politically, and mentally for a Thailand without him. And that is irresponsible.
Interview with Paul Handley
Sihd. S.
You can like the book or not, but it is flat out inaccurate to say it is based on mere rumor. The book was published by Yale University Press, which came under huge pressure by Thailand, and apparently the Bush administration, not to publish it.
I understand, and Paul can comment, that this book was subject to more scrunity than other books and anything not proven beyond academic standards was removed. Yale certainly knew that it would be controversial and wasn’t going to risk making mistakes.
Yale has little vested interest in a controversial book, aside from scolarship. The University Endowment dwarfs any potential revenue from a book about Thailand.
I have Royalist friends who heap scorn on the book and its theory that the King is an anti-democratic force, but at least they recognized that the research is solid and the history accurate.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Lleij Samuel Schwartz: While his criticisms of the Anglo-American industrial-military complex MAY be valid, they have absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of democracy and universal human rights in Thailand.
If ‘ethical democracy’ is merely an illusion in the west, then perhaps it does have some relevance to Thailand’s attempt to achieve it .
Interview with Paul Handley
Sidh: HMK Semi-divine?
I’ve never actually heard anyone admit they believed that, and I struggle to understand what you mean – would you care to explain?
(or has an attempt at humor gone over my head?)
I don’t have the book anymore, but I seem to recall Handley concluded HMK’s biggest potential failure is the failure to facilitate a smooth succession.
The book was written before the latest coup, but based on what we know to date, I agree with Handley on that point.
Interview with Paul Handley
As a German, I find equating Hitler’s Holocaust and the “Western” position towards Islam grossly nonsensical (similar to the Western-educated Thai university professors who, with astonishing ignorance, equated Thaksin with Hitler). By the way, Germany has a large Muslim population, more than Thailand. Do you really want to suggest that the German government has a policy of mass-murdering its own Muslim population as well as all other Muslims whereever they live?
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
Taxi Driver: I accept what you say, and although I did not call for a coup, I’m just naive enough to believe that in the current Thai political scene the only real alternative to accepting the coup is accepting Thaksin back – so pragmatism wins over idealism again.
Jon: Good points, but I’ll just stick to the hot air ping pong – I cannot see much evidence of the people heeding HMK’s advice, so I don’t think I would have much chance to educate anyone – anyway, people only really learn when they want to, and not before.
New Mandala’s election watch
In Matichon of September 21, the People’s Power Party published a double-page advertisement announcing their election candidates for a large number of provinces. As for Chachoengsao’s four seats, we see the familiar faces of Thitima and Wutipong Chaisaeng, and Somchai Atsawachaisophon (all former TRT MPs). The fourth candidate is Phichet Tancharoen, who is the elder brother of former deputy speaker of the House TRT-MP Suchart Tancharoen, who was amongst the TRT board members disqualified by the Constitution Tribunal. Phichet and his three colleagues have good chances of representing Chachoengsao in the post-coup parliament.