A Human Rights Watch report isn’t an academic paper. Nor is it intended to keep undergraduates busy. It’s going to be read in several languages by many tens of thousands of people the world over. Also by many more people than have read the local propaganda pamphlets.
A report like this also isn’t intended as “new” news in the sense that the daily reports of Thai news organs are. It should be more of a summary of what’s been going on by nonpartisan outside observers. There’s a different, wider readership that just doesn’t keep up with Thailand or Southeast Asian news on a day-to-day basis. Some of them will be in foreign governments. They are going to feel more obliged to discuss the South with Thai officials.
Even if the separatist goals have long been crystal clear to you, an HRW stamp does give it credibility to people far away. More people are aware of HRW than of the names of a few specialist academics. Honestly, loads of Thais in more northern parts of Thailand are pretty confused by what’s going on. Surely most Thais are a long way from accepting the possibility of a separate state in the South. I’m also unclear from reading this if HRW two years ago was blaming most of the violence on the state. HRW and NRC aren’t the same people or are they?
I agree the recommendations are amusing in a way, but I suppose they’re always supposed to be put in positive terms. Militants reading them wouldn’t be able to take much consolation.
Marc: In this Spiegel article you are quoted as saying:
Marc Askew has been coming to southern Thailand for years. A professor of political science in the Australian city of Melbourne, Askew blames one man for the slaughter: Thaksin Shinawatra.
…
In 2002, Thaksin prematurely declared the south pacified and sent in police to keep order in the region. This was the catalyst that triggered the violence, says Askew. By sending in the police, Thaksin lifted the cease-fire that had been in place between Muslim groups like the Pattani United Liberation Organization and the government in Bangkok.
I note that the article was written in German and has now been translated into English so please advise if the article doesn’t convey the correct meaning of what you stated to the journalist. May I ask how sending in the police was the catalyst? Why when Thaksin then sent in the military after the Jan 4, 2004 attack that this didn’t pacify the situation (i.e since we then had the military and police working together)? How this suddenly caused the insurgents to turn from killing mainly police and military in rural areas to killing civilians in rural and urban areas? I am interested in which cease-fire you are referring to. Was this a breach of some term in the cease-fire?
Giving money to the people WILL create jobs. If you give it to the “government” much of it will end up in overseas accounts which will do nothing for the people.
Fur the case of the Disappearance of Thanong … They jsut wanted to keep in the safe house … but his own ailment of Diabetes had killed him … so to safe the face of Junta … they have to mmade him “Disappeared” ….
I have never read so much rubbish on one page in my life, most visitors to Pattaya and the likes have never even been to Thailand. Let alone know something about its culture and traditions.
Farang who go to Pattaya then tell everyone at home what Thailand is like give the Kingdom a bad name. Pattaya and the likes were “man made” to get louts and idiots to part with their money, it works, stop complaining and go home !!
SS: It is probably a good idea to put “Thai” in questions marks. One reason is that the reader will not know whether you represent the world view of a Chinese-Thai businessman in Chiang Mai to your critical western (US, German, Italian, French?) audiences, or rather that of a Laotian Isarn peasant, or a member of Bangkok’s consumerist white-collar middle-class work force, or perhaps even that of the royalist sufficiency-economy C10-11 bureaucrat based in a Bangkok ministry.
Interesting! It is worth noting that a 1,oo1 such reports on Burma/Myanmar have acheived absolutely nothing. They may even have made the Burmese Junta worse.
If Marc, is reading this: What do your hosts in Pattani think about this?
Prof. Askew speaks truth to power; howver, it is shame it has to come from a historian and enthographer who specializes in urbanization as opposed to a scholar of Islamic Studies…you know, the academic discipline that is supposed to realize these truths, study them, and then, disseminate them.
Instead, we get the mendacious propagandizing of Roy, Levine,
Khalidi, Cole, and the rest of their ilk at the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), who instead of pursuing real scholarship, whore themselves out to Saudi funding so that, by their “work,” anything that could be considered disturbing about Islam is quickly thrown down the memory hole.
Under international law, states–not other parties to conflicts–carry obligations. Although we can impress upon groups violently opposed to the state (by whatever name or names they are known) that they ought to comply with human rights standards, there is no basis under established conventions to call upon them to do so as a legal requirement: they can laugh at any set of recommendations, no matter how good or bad they might be.
One reason for this is that state officers too have special obligations that apply only to them: a killing committed by a policeman falls into a special category not applicable to one committed by an insurgent. The police officer takes an oath–and has a duty under the law–to protect, not kill. The same cannot be said of an insurgent; his responsibilities are no more or less than the ordinary citizen.
Of course, states also ignore and neglect their obligations under worldwide treaties, but the fact that they are bound by law serves as the starting point for the defence of human rights. This is the reason for the state-centric human rights critiques in Thailand and elsewhere in Asia, as well as around the world; not reticence, or imagined good guys versus bad guys, but awareness that various methods can be used to influence state policy, behaviour and institutions that simply don’t work–or work with much less effect, in part for the reasons briefly outlined above–on other parties.
As the government of Thailand cannot be brought to acknowledge and prosecute extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and torture committed by its own personnel, how can demands for the same be placed upon others–to whom the same obligations and special categories anyhow don’t apply–with any expectation that they might be taken seriously?
Thus by their very nature such reports as the one by HRW described here can only amount to extended news features; and good human rights groups make reports in order to advocate more effectively, they don’t merely report.
Adding to Fall’s and Observer’s points, I am highly optimistic in all this viewing Thai society in a long term evolution. Things have progressed significantly albeit in increments, marked by the occasional lull, since the Siamese elite chose to impose a constitutional monarchy in 1932. We’ve had tragic violence events, but not civil wars. We’ve also had ‘heroes of democracy’ from a broad spectrum of society from the common people to the military elites. From the same spectrum, we also have people who are preoccupied with their ideologies and self-interests. This is a complex drama with no clear forces of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (unless your ‘reality’ is the same as George W.Bush’s).
Will there be more coups in the future? Fingers crossed that there’s no more. Fingers crossed that future civilian governments will be much more mature and know better not to give the military any justification for coups. It is possible and has been done before. PMChuan, as the first civilian defense minister and the then GenSurayud as army commander has done much to ‘professionalize’ the military and not politicize the annual military reshuffle (interestingly, current reforms are now aimed at the police). Another critical challenge would be to mitigate the excesses of ‘money politics’ (which distorts the democratic processes even in ‘developed’ liberal democracies).
With time, the Thai monarchy would more resemble that of Japan’s that has high status and respect in society, and gradually less role in politics. The Crown Property Bureau will continue on its path of gradually becoming an increasingly transparent (but not as yet being so large and complex and tied to so many other private and public agencies/interests), responsible business institution (and I hope its social role will also be enhanced).
Revolutions or overnight changes in Thailand just don’t seem to be the norm – the last time such an event occurred was the sacking of Ayudhya by the Burmese, if I am not wrong. Thonburi and Bangkok seem to then continue on as if nothing had happened (and many Thais just blame the current Burmese predicament on ‘karma’ – simplistic I will admit, but ‘makes sense’ according to ‘Thai reality’).
“I suspect much of their power will wane or collapse. The questions, then would be what will replace them and when? Will it be better or worse? I am optimistic, but uncertain. “
Pundit said: Hobby: “Thaksin sought to overthrow the patronage system?”
Jakrapob stated that Thaksin didn’t intend to overthrow the patronage system. Now, whether you believe him or not is up to you.
Pundit: I believe Jakrapob on this point – where did you get the above quote from?
(I assume you were referring to me: Hobby/Nganadeeleg?)
To help you deal with your anger, I suggest you start thinking of the CPB as state wealth rather than private wealth.
I’ll wait for the government to nationalise it then.
And let those politicians squander it – no way!
And he cannot even give it away to the poor, as even Handley documents the King’s dismay at how they just end up selling up to the carpetbaggers anyway.
I hope and pray that changes for the better happens soon – although I am rather pessimistic. In contrast to other countries in SEAsia experiencing gradual change via increased economic liberalization and integration with the global economy such as Vietnam and Cambodia, Myanmar’s ruling elite seems unwilling to ease their choking, feudalistic grip on power and resources (the ‘resource curse’ – this makes the protest on fuel price interesting). They seem to be clearly intent to prevent the growth of a ‘middle-class’ that may challenge their power – as much as they are keen to maintain control over other ethnic minorities.
On the Supinya case there was an interesting post on Fa Dio Kan that suggests that there was more to it than meets the eye. Apparently one of the key actors in Network Monarchy, Anand Panyarachun, helped raise funds to help her fight the case. See Somsak’s comments 9, 10 and 11 at http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=23208
I think that sounds right. Jakrapop seemed intend on underlining the inevitability of the clash and the inevitability that “modern”, democratic forces will prevail.
However, to a large degree many of the players seem to be backing the winner. For the last 30-40 years Prem has been the winner. But he is 83 years old and his powers aren’t institutionalized. Who will carry the banner?
Prem and the institutional monarchy can not be the same thing for the next thirty years that they were for the last thirty years. Their backers in the NLA and military don’t seem to have impressed during their current tenure.
I suspect much of their power will wane or collapse. The questions, then would be what will replace them and when? Will it be better or worse? I am optimistic, but uncertain.
Observer: I won’t say who it is, but I have heard it was not SS or someone political which does make some sense because otherwise I don’t think Jakrapob would have had a problem in naming a political figure or Prem.
Hobby: “Thaksin sought to overthrow the patronage system?”
Jakrapob stated that Thaksin didn’t intend to overthrow the patronage system. Now, whether you believe him or not is up to you.
To help you deal with your anger, I suggest you start thinking of the CPB as state wealth rather than private wealth.
I’ll wait for the government to nationalise it then.
Republican: When you see these “song mai ao” public intellectuals come out after the coup with their democratic protestations and their comparatively mild criticisms of the junta, one feels like pointing out, well you were the guys who helped bring down Thai Rak Thai in the court of (middle class) public opinion.
Not a reply, but just agreeing as this is what grates me the most. Under Thaksin, Supinya was given frequent press coverage, now that she says that the media environment under this government is “worse” than Thaksin, she is now ignored.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
A Human Rights Watch report isn’t an academic paper. Nor is it intended to keep undergraduates busy. It’s going to be read in several languages by many tens of thousands of people the world over. Also by many more people than have read the local propaganda pamphlets.
A report like this also isn’t intended as “new” news in the sense that the daily reports of Thai news organs are. It should be more of a summary of what’s been going on by nonpartisan outside observers. There’s a different, wider readership that just doesn’t keep up with Thailand or Southeast Asian news on a day-to-day basis. Some of them will be in foreign governments. They are going to feel more obliged to discuss the South with Thai officials.
Even if the separatist goals have long been crystal clear to you, an HRW stamp does give it credibility to people far away. More people are aware of HRW than of the names of a few specialist academics. Honestly, loads of Thais in more northern parts of Thailand are pretty confused by what’s going on. Surely most Thais are a long way from accepting the possibility of a separate state in the South. I’m also unclear from reading this if HRW two years ago was blaming most of the violence on the state. HRW and NRC aren’t the same people or are they?
I agree the recommendations are amusing in a way, but I suppose they’re always supposed to be put in positive terms. Militants reading them wouldn’t be able to take much consolation.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
Marc: In this Spiegel article you are quoted as saying:
Marc Askew has been coming to southern Thailand for years. A professor of political science in the Australian city of Melbourne, Askew blames one man for the slaughter: Thaksin Shinawatra.
…
In 2002, Thaksin prematurely declared the south pacified and sent in police to keep order in the region. This was the catalyst that triggered the violence, says Askew. By sending in the police, Thaksin lifted the cease-fire that had been in place between Muslim groups like the Pattani United Liberation Organization and the government in Bangkok.
I note that the article was written in German and has now been translated into English so please advise if the article doesn’t convey the correct meaning of what you stated to the journalist. May I ask how sending in the police was the catalyst? Why when Thaksin then sent in the military after the Jan 4, 2004 attack that this didn’t pacify the situation (i.e since we then had the military and police working together)? How this suddenly caused the insurgents to turn from killing mainly police and military in rural areas to killing civilians in rural and urban areas? I am interested in which cease-fire you are referring to. Was this a breach of some term in the cease-fire?
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
Well put. You are exactly right. I wish that I had more faith in the military’s ability to deal effectively with this crisis.
Cambodia’s oil curse?
Giving money to the people WILL create jobs. If you give it to the “government” much of it will end up in overseas accounts which will do nothing for the people.
Thailand’s crown prince
Ah…. Mom Siriwanwalee in See Through sleeping suit with G String too Boot …. That’s what I have known so far ….
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
Fur the case of the Disappearance of Thanong … They jsut wanted to keep in the safe house … but his own ailment of Diabetes had killed him … so to safe the face of Junta … they have to mmade him “Disappeared” ….
Tourist casualties mounting
I have never read so much rubbish on one page in my life, most visitors to Pattaya and the likes have never even been to Thailand. Let alone know something about its culture and traditions.
Farang who go to Pattaya then tell everyone at home what Thailand is like give the Kingdom a bad name. Pattaya and the likes were “man made” to get louts and idiots to part with their money, it works, stop complaining and go home !!
King denies royal rumour
Any news on the rumour about Thailand next queen?
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
Thanks. Very useful.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
SS: It is probably a good idea to put “Thai” in questions marks. One reason is that the reader will not know whether you represent the world view of a Chinese-Thai businessman in Chiang Mai to your critical western (US, German, Italian, French?) audiences, or rather that of a Laotian Isarn peasant, or a member of Bangkok’s consumerist white-collar middle-class work force, or perhaps even that of the royalist sufficiency-economy C10-11 bureaucrat based in a Bangkok ministry.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
Interesting! It is worth noting that a 1,oo1 such reports on Burma/Myanmar have acheived absolutely nothing. They may even have made the Burmese Junta worse.
If Marc, is reading this: What do your hosts in Pattani think about this?
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
Prof. Askew speaks truth to power; howver, it is shame it has to come from a historian and enthographer who specializes in urbanization as opposed to a scholar of Islamic Studies…you know, the academic discipline that is supposed to realize these truths, study them, and then, disseminate them.
Instead, we get the mendacious propagandizing of Roy, Levine,
Khalidi, Cole, and the rest of their ilk at the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), who instead of pursuing real scholarship, whore themselves out to Saudi funding so that, by their “work,” anything that could be considered disturbing about Islam is quickly thrown down the memory hole.
Awal Mula Permainan Bandarqq Online
Under international law, states–not other parties to conflicts–carry obligations. Although we can impress upon groups violently opposed to the state (by whatever name or names they are known) that they ought to comply with human rights standards, there is no basis under established conventions to call upon them to do so as a legal requirement: they can laugh at any set of recommendations, no matter how good or bad they might be.
One reason for this is that state officers too have special obligations that apply only to them: a killing committed by a policeman falls into a special category not applicable to one committed by an insurgent. The police officer takes an oath–and has a duty under the law–to protect, not kill. The same cannot be said of an insurgent; his responsibilities are no more or less than the ordinary citizen.
Of course, states also ignore and neglect their obligations under worldwide treaties, but the fact that they are bound by law serves as the starting point for the defence of human rights. This is the reason for the state-centric human rights critiques in Thailand and elsewhere in Asia, as well as around the world; not reticence, or imagined good guys versus bad guys, but awareness that various methods can be used to influence state policy, behaviour and institutions that simply don’t work–or work with much less effect, in part for the reasons briefly outlined above–on other parties.
As the government of Thailand cannot be brought to acknowledge and prosecute extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and torture committed by its own personnel, how can demands for the same be placed upon others–to whom the same obligations and special categories anyhow don’t apply–with any expectation that they might be taken seriously?
Thus by their very nature such reports as the one by HRW described here can only amount to extended news features; and good human rights groups make reports in order to advocate more effectively, they don’t merely report.
As to the remarks on recommendations:
Pat prescriptions don’t correct abuse
Thanks for the contribution.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Adding to Fall’s and Observer’s points, I am highly optimistic in all this viewing Thai society in a long term evolution. Things have progressed significantly albeit in increments, marked by the occasional lull, since the Siamese elite chose to impose a constitutional monarchy in 1932. We’ve had tragic violence events, but not civil wars. We’ve also had ‘heroes of democracy’ from a broad spectrum of society from the common people to the military elites. From the same spectrum, we also have people who are preoccupied with their ideologies and self-interests. This is a complex drama with no clear forces of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (unless your ‘reality’ is the same as George W.Bush’s).
Will there be more coups in the future? Fingers crossed that there’s no more. Fingers crossed that future civilian governments will be much more mature and know better not to give the military any justification for coups. It is possible and has been done before. PMChuan, as the first civilian defense minister and the then GenSurayud as army commander has done much to ‘professionalize’ the military and not politicize the annual military reshuffle (interestingly, current reforms are now aimed at the police). Another critical challenge would be to mitigate the excesses of ‘money politics’ (which distorts the democratic processes even in ‘developed’ liberal democracies).
With time, the Thai monarchy would more resemble that of Japan’s that has high status and respect in society, and gradually less role in politics. The Crown Property Bureau will continue on its path of gradually becoming an increasingly transparent (but not as yet being so large and complex and tied to so many other private and public agencies/interests), responsible business institution (and I hope its social role will also be enhanced).
Revolutions or overnight changes in Thailand just don’t seem to be the norm – the last time such an event occurred was the sacking of Ayudhya by the Burmese, if I am not wrong. Thonburi and Bangkok seem to then continue on as if nothing had happened (and many Thais just blame the current Burmese predicament on ‘karma’ – simplistic I will admit, but ‘makes sense’ according to ‘Thai reality’).
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Observer: Prem actually turned 87 last Sunday.
“I suspect much of their power will wane or collapse. The questions, then would be what will replace them and when? Will it be better or worse? I am optimistic, but uncertain. “
Why the optimism?
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Pundit said:
Hobby: “Thaksin sought to overthrow the patronage system?”
Jakrapob stated that Thaksin didn’t intend to overthrow the patronage system. Now, whether you believe him or not is up to you.
Pundit: I believe Jakrapob on this point – where did you get the above quote from?
(I assume you were referring to me: Hobby/Nganadeeleg?)
To help you deal with your anger, I suggest you start thinking of the CPB as state wealth rather than private wealth.
I’ll wait for the government to nationalise it then.
And let those politicians squander it – no way!
And he cannot even give it away to the poor, as even Handley documents the King’s dismay at how they just end up selling up to the carpetbaggers anyway.
Probably safest to just leave it as is.
Fuel and fire in Burma
I hope and pray that changes for the better happens soon – although I am rather pessimistic. In contrast to other countries in SEAsia experiencing gradual change via increased economic liberalization and integration with the global economy such as Vietnam and Cambodia, Myanmar’s ruling elite seems unwilling to ease their choking, feudalistic grip on power and resources (the ‘resource curse’ – this makes the protest on fuel price interesting). They seem to be clearly intent to prevent the growth of a ‘middle-class’ that may challenge their power – as much as they are keen to maintain control over other ethnic minorities.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
On the Supinya case there was an interesting post on Fa Dio Kan that suggests that there was more to it than meets the eye. Apparently one of the key actors in Network Monarchy, Anand Panyarachun, helped raise funds to help her fight the case. See Somsak’s comments 9, 10 and 11 at http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=23208
Republican on Thailand after the coup
fall,
I think that sounds right. Jakrapop seemed intend on underlining the inevitability of the clash and the inevitability that “modern”, democratic forces will prevail.
However, to a large degree many of the players seem to be backing the winner. For the last 30-40 years Prem has been the winner. But he is 83 years old and his powers aren’t institutionalized. Who will carry the banner?
Prem and the institutional monarchy can not be the same thing for the next thirty years that they were for the last thirty years. Their backers in the NLA and military don’t seem to have impressed during their current tenure.
I suspect much of their power will wane or collapse. The questions, then would be what will replace them and when? Will it be better or worse? I am optimistic, but uncertain.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Observer: I won’t say who it is, but I have heard it was not SS or someone political which does make some sense because otherwise I don’t think Jakrapob would have had a problem in naming a political figure or Prem.
Hobby: “Thaksin sought to overthrow the patronage system?”
Jakrapob stated that Thaksin didn’t intend to overthrow the patronage system. Now, whether you believe him or not is up to you.
To help you deal with your anger, I suggest you start thinking of the CPB as state wealth rather than private wealth.
I’ll wait for the government to nationalise it then.
Republican:
When you see these “song mai ao” public intellectuals come out after the coup with their democratic protestations and their comparatively mild criticisms of the junta, one feels like pointing out, well you were the guys who helped bring down Thai Rak Thai in the court of (middle class) public opinion.
Not a reply, but just agreeing as this is what grates me the most. Under Thaksin, Supinya was given frequent press coverage, now that she says that the media environment under this government is “worse” than Thaksin, she is now ignored.