Pardon? I presume you are referring to the link in comment 35. That is an incoming link from Thad Williamson’s site to New Mandala not the other way around. I recently had a post promoting Thad’s site:
And that post links to other material by Thad that New Mandala has hosted. In fact I suspect New Mandala has done more to disseminate Thad’s intelligent views than any other website in the world!
While the panel is obviously apologist, I don’t see them as simple mouthpieces of the Thai State. Somchai has a long history in human rights work critical of the Thai government, and Krisak was one of the few outspoken senators when he was in that position. They are obviously put together because they all commonly held very strong anti Thaksin views, particularly on human rights. But this gives the audience a perfect opportunity to question their commitment to these rights by asking about political rights currently in Thailand, including the appauling standard of freedom of expression.
The PR of the current Junta is so appauling that it is perhaps perversly fun to watch them flop one more time
The three part series of posts making the case against Thaksin are also worth reading.
(I have no interest in Manchester City or ‘football’, but I congratulate Thad on his considerable efforts in maintaining his blog)
I wasn’t trying to protect BP. Vichai had made his points (about BP and other matters) already. If you look at the relevant string of comments you will see Vichai had a very good run:
We welcome and encourage all viewpoints on New Mandala. We have given Vichai a great deal of coverage (try searching for “Vichai” in the search box above). We would welcome any further contributions from him on issues of substance. The two comments we deleted were personal rants against Bangkok Pundit that added nothing to Vichai’s previous contributions. None of his opinions have been censored.
Why on earth can they not get a real democrat to speak? Get Jaturon, or even Jakraphop, if he’s out of jail yet.
Jakrapob might not help your cause too much, Republican, if these reports are correct: “Jakrapob Penkair, an executive of the banned People’s Television (PTV) station and a protest leader, claims to have in his possession video footage from the palace on the night of the coup that shows King Bhumibol Adulyadej asking the coup makers why they had staged the coup – proof, he says, that the palace had no prior knowledge of the military’s intervention despite its vigorous mobilization of royal symbolism that evening. ” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IH10Ae02.html
[…] while the long-time regional identification of forests as guarantors of water supply may be an ecological falsehood, it clearly has some sort of historical experience behind it: killing of the forests may not […]
The community forest bill that is about to become law, giving groups that reside in forests some autonomous decision-making, wouldn’t that give local groups some ability to farm in the forest (a change from forest monoculture)?
An anonymous well-wisher has just sent me a sneak preview of the National Thai Studies Centre’s upcoming seminar series on the “current political situation” in a number of countries in the Asian region as well as further afield, by speakers who are every bit if not more entertaining as the group sent by Thailand’s royalist junta. It seems that Thailand has many admirers. Here’s part of the blurb they sent me.
[…] As part of its efforts to promote Thai Studies and “Thai Culture” the ANU’s National Thai Studies Centre is proud to present the following seminar series highlighting the efforts of well-meaning but misunderstood regimes and freedom fighters to advance democracy:
The Burmese Junta: “Burmese Democracy: One Step Back, Two Steps Forward, the Thai Way”
Kim Jong Il: “The Way Ahead for North Korean Democracy: Juche and the Sufficiency Economy, a Comparative Study”
Robert Mugabe: “Democracy in Zimbabwe: Don’t Believe What They Say, or, How We Can Learn from the Thais”
Osama Bin Laden: “Democracy the Jihad Way: What Jihadists can learn from Thailand’s ‘Coup for a Democratic System with the Great King as Head of State’”
and a special one-off guest lecture by,
The Crown Prince of Thailand: “My Contribution to the Flowering of Democracy in Thailand, October 6 1976 – 2007” (a reception will be organized for invited guests after the seminar. Dress requirement: not needed).
Given the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ well-known commitment to advancing democracy the Royal Thai Embassy, Canberra, will be chairing these seminars. […]
(OK. I also thought this preview looked a bit fishy when I read it and I would check the program first with the ANU’s National Thai Studies Centre to make sure it is kosha. But there is nothing fishy about the NTSC’s support for the royalist dictatorship in Thailand by agreeing to hold this “exclusive talks”. Why on earth can they not get a real democrat to speak? Get Jaturon, or even Jakraphop, if he’s out of jail yet. I ask the same question that I have asked of other Thai Studies institutions: don’t they understand what is going on in Thailand (in which case you may as well close down the NTSC given that such an institution is exactly the institution that SHOULD know what is happening), or, worse, they DO know what is happening, and they are actually WILLINGLY giving their support to the royalist dictatorship?)
And can I please make a request to NM to propose a seminar topic to the NTSC which might reflect the reality of the situation in Thailand?
“The Monarchy as the Principle Obstacle to Democratization in Thailand, and How to Overcome It”
Andrew, while I understand your outrage, ANU has often done this kind of thing – remember the LKY dispute! But maybe attending and debating is worthy. I think some of the apologists are beginning to have second thoughts, and it might be worth probing them a bit. Just a thought.
Robuzo’s comments perhaps say more about this subject than the Queen’s usual line. There is actually much research that says that forest monoculture either uses more water on balance than it releases… or that the statistics on forests-and-erosion only look at sheet erosion under forests rather than gully erosion… or that it is the soil infiltration that really matters for dry-season water release rather than forest cover alone (and there are various ways of protecting soil infiltration rather than replacing local agriculture with plantations). Indeed, other countries (eg South Africa, New Zealand, Nepal) have abandoned old fixed beliefs about hydrology and now reject the Queen’s line (they have different ways of doing science and public policy than, say, Russia).
I don’t think Andrew was arguing that destroying forests was a good idea, just that many of the ideas used to defend forest monoculture in Thailand simply do not add up, and we have to look for alternative, political explanations for how these ideas hang around. And stating the value of riparian forest is not the same as saying the Queen’s views are state-of-the-art.
Anyone worried about forests and hydrology should really start by looking at what has been written by hydrologists: start with Ian Calder or L. A. Bruijnzeel or (older:) Larry Hamilton.
In the capitalist system Tosakan will blindly embrace and recommend to the eager village hicks, we need to remember capitalists too when greedy can be such fools!
I like the NINJA (No Income No Job No Asset) loans described in the article. We let capitalist crooks like Thaksin distribute village loans to many who I suspect would not be far behind in NINJA skills needed to qualify . . . the 300,000 Thai villagers I remember reported recently in the Thai news as defaulting and in dire need of ‘political accommodations’ is the fool’s pain I was singing above.
I am not sure whether Frank S. sang that song . . .
Robuzo, I’m a big fan of riparian buffer zones. But I don’t think they are what the queen had in mind. And the sorts of plantations that the authorities in Thailand like to promote often don’t do a lot of sediment buffering, especially when ground cover is consistently removed as a result of controlled burning.
I think the real issue is lack of transparency in what the forestry department actually does. Sometimes planting right over poor hill tribe’s land, as Matthew documented.
There are probably more labour intensive and more environmentally
sustainable ways of farming than swidden, like the terracing for instance, that you find north of Baguio in the Phillipines.
To my understanding, it was lowlander generals who initiated the process of forest destruction during the Vietnam war by destroying the forest cover.
I just read the most frightening mother’s day quote, how Easter Islanders used to curse each other after they had destroyed all the forest and animal life on their island and had been reduced to endemic warfare and cannibalism: “The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth.” Let’s not go there!
IMHO the Queen’s speech was basically right and people should wake up and be even more creative. Like make a pedestrian-friendly Bangkok rather than buy more cars, but this is as likely as all the air molecules collecting in the corner of my room and suffocating me.
The “forest as water catchment” notion may be incorrect, but forests and woodlands do play an important role in water management:
http://njaes.rutgers.edu/njriparianforestbuffers/restoring.htm
Riparian forest buffers are one of the best management tools for enhancing water quality and protecting water bodies from NPS (non-point source) pollution. A riparian forest buffer is composed of trees, shrubs, and tall grasses planted to help protect the integrity of a waterway, act as a vegetative filter strip, and reduce impacts of the surrounding land-use on water quality. Riparian forest buffers:
* improve water quality by filtering sediments and absorbing chemical and nutrients;
* reduce erosion by stabilizing stream banks;
* provide wildlife habitat by providing cover and food;
* enhance aquatic habitat by stabilizing water temperature, reducing sediment and providing woody debris
————
Pointing out the mistakes in a “theory” positing a connection between rainfall and forest cover would probably be more helpful had you bothered to point other and better arguments for forest conservation and planting, for example the valuable roles of forests noted above (there are many others not directly related to water, of course). You are close to being deliberately misleading when you suggest that increased forest cover would be a net negative because forests are “thirsty water users”. That the people you are criticizing are themselves likely disingenuous is no excuse.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Sufficiency democracy in action
Pardon? I presume you are referring to the link in comment 35. That is an incoming link from Thad Williamson’s site to New Mandala not the other way around. I recently had a post promoting Thad’s site:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2007/08/07/thaksin-skeptic/
And that post links to other material by Thad that New Mandala has hosted. In fact I suspect New Mandala has done more to disseminate Thad’s intelligent views than any other website in the world!
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
While the panel is obviously apologist, I don’t see them as simple mouthpieces of the Thai State. Somchai has a long history in human rights work critical of the Thai government, and Krisak was one of the few outspoken senators when he was in that position. They are obviously put together because they all commonly held very strong anti Thaksin views, particularly on human rights. But this gives the audience a perfect opportunity to question their commitment to these rights by asking about political rights currently in Thailand, including the appauling standard of freedom of expression.
The PR of the current Junta is so appauling that it is perhaps perversly fun to watch them flop one more time
Sufficiency democracy in action
Why am I not surprised that Andrew linked to the section at Thad Williamson’s excellent blog site that looks at trying to justify or excuse Thaksin.
Here’s a link to part II of that argument, and Vichai’s excellent comment:
http://thaksinskeptic.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/mitigating-factors-arguing-thaksins-case-ii/#comments
The three part series of posts making the case against Thaksin are also worth reading.
(I have no interest in Manchester City or ‘football’, but I congratulate Thad on his considerable efforts in maintaining his blog)
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
I wasn’t trying to protect BP. Vichai had made his points (about BP and other matters) already. If you look at the relevant string of comments you will see Vichai had a very good run:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2007/08/03/sufficiency-democracy-in-action/
The deleted comments added nothing to what had gone before. If Vichai has anything more of substance to add he is very welcome to post it.
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
That is new Andrew. I myself had quite a few lively personal rant exchanges with Anon and a few others.
What has come Andrew being so overly protective of Bangkok Pundit who of all people should have been able to parry for himself.
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
We welcome and encourage all viewpoints on New Mandala. We have given Vichai a great deal of coverage (try searching for “Vichai” in the search box above). We would welcome any further contributions from him on issues of substance. The two comments we deleted were personal rants against Bangkok Pundit that added nothing to Vichai’s previous contributions. None of his opinions have been censored.
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Seriously, if Republican can express his view here, I don’t see why the Thai junta’s panel can’t express theirs at ANU.
Seems like Andrew is practicing his own form of censorship according to comments by Vichai N on Bangkok Pundit’s site.
http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/power-struggle.html#1024149834604261042
Very poor form, Andrew.
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Why on earth can they not get a real democrat to speak? Get Jaturon, or even Jakraphop, if he’s out of jail yet.
Jakrapob might not help your cause too much, Republican, if these reports are correct:
“Jakrapob Penkair, an executive of the banned People’s Television (PTV) station and a protest leader, claims to have in his possession video footage from the palace on the night of the coup that shows King Bhumibol Adulyadej asking the coup makers why they had staged the coup – proof, he says, that the palace had no prior knowledge of the military’s intervention despite its vigorous mobilization of royal symbolism that evening. ”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IH10Ae02.html
Wishful thinking about forests and water
[…] while the long-time regional identification of forests as guarantors of water supply may be an ecological falsehood, it clearly has some sort of historical experience behind it: killing of the forests may not […]
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Seriously, if Republican can express his view here, I don’t see why the Thai junta’s panel can’t express theirs at ANU.
Royal hydrology
The community forest bill that is about to become law, giving groups that reside in forests some autonomous decision-making, wouldn’t that give local groups some ability to farm in the forest (a change from forest monoculture)?
http://www.bangkokpost.com/110807_News/11Aug2007_news12.php
I haven’t seen an analysis anywhere.
Does it come with property rights?
Thanks for the hydrology references.
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
An anonymous well-wisher has just sent me a sneak preview of the National Thai Studies Centre’s upcoming seminar series on the “current political situation” in a number of countries in the Asian region as well as further afield, by speakers who are every bit if not more entertaining as the group sent by Thailand’s royalist junta. It seems that Thailand has many admirers. Here’s part of the blurb they sent me.
[…] As part of its efforts to promote Thai Studies and “Thai Culture” the ANU’s National Thai Studies Centre is proud to present the following seminar series highlighting the efforts of well-meaning but misunderstood regimes and freedom fighters to advance democracy:
The Burmese Junta: “Burmese Democracy: One Step Back, Two Steps Forward, the Thai Way”
Kim Jong Il: “The Way Ahead for North Korean Democracy: Juche and the Sufficiency Economy, a Comparative Study”
Robert Mugabe: “Democracy in Zimbabwe: Don’t Believe What They Say, or, How We Can Learn from the Thais”
Osama Bin Laden: “Democracy the Jihad Way: What Jihadists can learn from Thailand’s ‘Coup for a Democratic System with the Great King as Head of State’”
and a special one-off guest lecture by,
The Crown Prince of Thailand: “My Contribution to the Flowering of Democracy in Thailand, October 6 1976 – 2007” (a reception will be organized for invited guests after the seminar. Dress requirement: not needed).
Given the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ well-known commitment to advancing democracy the Royal Thai Embassy, Canberra, will be chairing these seminars. […]
(OK. I also thought this preview looked a bit fishy when I read it and I would check the program first with the ANU’s National Thai Studies Centre to make sure it is kosha. But there is nothing fishy about the NTSC’s support for the royalist dictatorship in Thailand by agreeing to hold this “exclusive talks”. Why on earth can they not get a real democrat to speak? Get Jaturon, or even Jakraphop, if he’s out of jail yet. I ask the same question that I have asked of other Thai Studies institutions: don’t they understand what is going on in Thailand (in which case you may as well close down the NTSC given that such an institution is exactly the institution that SHOULD know what is happening), or, worse, they DO know what is happening, and they are actually WILLINGLY giving their support to the royalist dictatorship?)
And can I please make a request to NM to propose a seminar topic to the NTSC which might reflect the reality of the situation in Thailand?
“The Monarchy as the Principle Obstacle to Democratization in Thailand, and How to Overcome It”
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Andrew, while I understand your outrage, ANU has often done this kind of thing – remember the LKY dispute! But maybe attending and debating is worthy. I think some of the apologists are beginning to have second thoughts, and it might be worth probing them a bit. Just a thought.
Report on SOAS event in London: “Thailand after the Coup”
[…] this year New Mandala reported on the event in London.┬ Now it’s Australia’s turn and guess who is hosting the visit […]
Still quiet in Chachoengsao
[…] my previous post, I briefly reported on a provincial representative of the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) […]
Royal hydrology
Robuzo’s comments perhaps say more about this subject than the Queen’s usual line. There is actually much research that says that forest monoculture either uses more water on balance than it releases… or that the statistics on forests-and-erosion only look at sheet erosion under forests rather than gully erosion… or that it is the soil infiltration that really matters for dry-season water release rather than forest cover alone (and there are various ways of protecting soil infiltration rather than replacing local agriculture with plantations). Indeed, other countries (eg South Africa, New Zealand, Nepal) have abandoned old fixed beliefs about hydrology and now reject the Queen’s line (they have different ways of doing science and public policy than, say, Russia).
I don’t think Andrew was arguing that destroying forests was a good idea, just that many of the ideas used to defend forest monoculture in Thailand simply do not add up, and we have to look for alternative, political explanations for how these ideas hang around. And stating the value of riparian forest is not the same as saying the Queen’s views are state-of-the-art.
Anyone worried about forests and hydrology should really start by looking at what has been written by hydrologists: start with Ian Calder or L. A. Bruijnzeel or (older:) Larry Hamilton.
The smirk of capitalism
It is an amusing read – When Fools Rush In, The Joke’s on Them
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20214947/site/newsweek/
In the capitalist system Tosakan will blindly embrace and recommend to the eager village hicks, we need to remember capitalists too when greedy can be such fools!
I like the NINJA (No Income No Job No Asset) loans described in the article. We let capitalist crooks like Thaksin distribute village loans to many who I suspect would not be far behind in NINJA skills needed to qualify . . . the 300,000 Thai villagers I remember reported recently in the Thai news as defaulting and in dire need of ‘political accommodations’ is the fool’s pain I was singing above.
I am not sure whether Frank S. sang that song . . .
Royal hydrology
Robuzo, I’m a big fan of riparian buffer zones. But I don’t think they are what the queen had in mind. And the sorts of plantations that the authorities in Thailand like to promote often don’t do a lot of sediment buffering, especially when ground cover is consistently removed as a result of controlled burning.
Royal hydrology
I think the real issue is lack of transparency in what the forestry department actually does. Sometimes planting right over poor hill tribe’s land, as Matthew documented.
There are probably more labour intensive and more environmentally
sustainable ways of farming than swidden, like the terracing for instance, that you find north of Baguio in the Phillipines.
To my understanding, it was lowlander generals who initiated the process of forest destruction during the Vietnam war by destroying the forest cover.
I just read the most frightening mother’s day quote, how Easter Islanders used to curse each other after they had destroyed all the forest and animal life on their island and had been reduced to endemic warfare and cannibalism: “The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth.” Let’s not go there!
IMHO the Queen’s speech was basically right and people should wake up and be even more creative. Like make a pedestrian-friendly Bangkok rather than buy more cars, but this is as likely as all the air molecules collecting in the corner of my room and suffocating me.
Royal hydrology
The “forest as water catchment” notion may be incorrect, but forests and woodlands do play an important role in water management:
http://njaes.rutgers.edu/njriparianforestbuffers/restoring.htm
Riparian forest buffers are one of the best management tools for enhancing water quality and protecting water bodies from NPS (non-point source) pollution. A riparian forest buffer is composed of trees, shrubs, and tall grasses planted to help protect the integrity of a waterway, act as a vegetative filter strip, and reduce impacts of the surrounding land-use on water quality. Riparian forest buffers:
* improve water quality by filtering sediments and absorbing chemical and nutrients;
* reduce erosion by stabilizing stream banks;
* provide wildlife habitat by providing cover and food;
* enhance aquatic habitat by stabilizing water temperature, reducing sediment and providing woody debris
————
Pointing out the mistakes in a “theory” positing a connection between rainfall and forest cover would probably be more helpful had you bothered to point other and better arguments for forest conservation and planting, for example the valuable roles of forests noted above (there are many others not directly related to water, of course). You are close to being deliberately misleading when you suggest that increased forest cover would be a net negative because forests are “thirsty water users”. That the people you are criticizing are themselves likely disingenuous is no excuse.