Comments

Thaksin versus Sonthi, no rules, winner takes all.

Or maybe we already have that.

Republican: In fact, cutting out distractions will make your case stronger.

I wonder if this sort of pardon is an option for Thaksin.

Statistically speaking Siriporn was hardly lucky to have not been killed in the extrajudical klillings. A very small minority of drug dealers were, and many of those killed seemed to have had nothing to do with drugs. Neither would it make sense to say that she was lucky that she wasn’t killed by the military in their brutal and illegal massacre of Muslims at Krue Sae.

Is the continual aestheticization of Burmese suffering by foreign writers/scholars actually complicit in the suffering? Does it help to create more suffering?

I wonder how the “Lizard Cage” fits into the long history of jail novels in Burma. U Nu’s “Man, the Wolf of Man” in a British jail or Ludu U Hla’s “The Caged Ones” in an U Nu jail and then numerous writers who were in jail but who never wrote about it, like Thein Pei Myint or Ma Ma Lei (?). Two of the most common books among the booksellers of Pansodan used to be Koestler’s “Darkness in the Afternoon” about jail during the Stalin purge trials and Koestler’s personal memoir about jail during the Spanish Civil War (featuring people discretely disappearing in the wee hours of the morning to be shot). Part of the way the Spanish finally got over Franco was by forgetting about his horrible legacy, quite unlike Burma where it is played over and over again, presumably to end it, but apparently with wuite the opposite effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludu_U_Hla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thein_Pei_Myint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Ma_Lei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_at_Noon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_with_Death

To my critics:

1. I refer you to Thongchai’s original criticism of Republican in # 11: “…it is unfair to put the blames on those hosts…” Thongchai’s point was that my criticism of certain international Thai Studies programs and academics was “unfair” (#11) on the grounds that these programs had also hosted Thongchai (and others) speaking out against the coup. I stand by my original criticism that these programs ought to be censured for hosting politicians and ideologues like Kraisak and Sondhi and propaganda teams who are in the pay of the regime, seeking to create international legitimacy for the coup and the dictatorship back in Thailand. I’m scratching my head as to why my criticisms should be viewed as “harsh” or “unfair” or “intolerant”. I believe that these programs ought to be held accountable for what they do. It is a similar issue to that of the ANU’s awarding of an honorary doctorate in law to Lee Kuan Yew, which was widely criticized by many people on this blogsite and elsewhere. In my opinion Thongchai’s call for me to be “fair” is simply an attempt to defend these programs from criticism. What I would rather hear is the argument why these programs should give the oxygen of publicity to propagandists for a dictatorship. So far I have not heard one – except Thongchai’s argument that these programs provide forums and opportunities to all. I disagree. My position is that these programs should refuse to provide these people with a forum. But I would hasten to add that this refusal should never extend to genuine academics of whatever political persuasion whose purpose is purely academic, (and even under “normal” circumstances – ie. not in the aftermath of a coup, and not having been sent by a military junta – I could also accept the occasional politician or media proprietor).

2. Thongchai warned Republican (#14) “If an anti-royalist like Mr. Republican wants to get some respect, please do not do this again, ever.” Leaving aside the fact that I do not accept warnings on a blogsite from anyone, for the record, I do NOT want respect. If I did I would not use a penname. But I do want to put forward arguments and criticisms of certain issues in Thai Studies, particularly in relation to the commentary on the coup and the aftermath, and am grateful to NM for giving me that opportunity. In my opinion this concern for “respect”, “tolerance” is a discourse designed to stifle criticism. This is a blogsite. Why do we need “respect” (apart from basic “web etiquette”)? It’s not as though we have to spend any time in each other’s company. An academic blogsite should be a place for a vigorous contest of ideas, not genteel appeals for “respect”. (I read contributors to this website accusing Andrew of all kinds of things (eg. being in the pay of Thaksin, etc.) in the most disrespectful way, but I don’t see him pleading for respect). In any case if (unlike Republican) Thongchai wants to teach others about “respect” then it is unwise for him to call other people’s criticisms “trash” (#14).

3. David W. (#17) implies that Republican is trying to claim a morally “pure” or “virtuous” political intent. I have no interest in expressing a superior morality, which is one of the reasons I use a penname. (For the record, I am a very immoral person). I also have no interest in political action. My only interest on this blogsite is in academic discussion and criticism. But how can David W. say that I am “beyond criticism”? By all means criticize me on the weaknesses of my argument. Who’s stopping him? What I find surprising is that he accuses me of claiming moral superiority but has nothing to say about Thongchai’s expressions of his own “moral correctness” re. the coup. If you are going to hand out yellow cards for claiming moral correctness the referee should be fair to both teams. He also accuses me of presenting myself as “clear-sighted”, but says nothing of Thongchai’s condescending put-down that Republican needs to “open your mind, eyes and ears”. Again, I don’t mind this kind of criticism, but if he is going to make it it would be more convincing if it weren’t so selective.

4. David W. also seems to imply that I accused Thongchai of being an “an apologist for the monarchy or the military”. This is a very serious accusation which I categorically reject. My point was that if Thongchai supports the stance that international Thai Studies programs should provide forums for propagandists for the dictatorship (because these programs “provide the forum and opportunites for all to take….” (#11)) and he rejects my criticism of this stance as, “unfair”, then under the present political conditions that effectively means supporting the dictatorship, because (i) such forums help the dictatorship get its message out internationally, with the imprimatur of a prestigious international university; and (ii) they help the dictatorship and its supporters with internal propaganda, eg. Sondhi Limthongkul’s heavy promotion in his media of his October 2006 SOAS talk. This seems to me to be irrefutable.

5. Thongchai says that Republican’s criticisms make him feel “disappointed” and “very sad”. To me this is just really annoying. Instead of appealing for sympathy respond to the criticisms with a superior argument.

6. Re. the “insider-outsider” issue. The relationship and differences between foreign and Thai scholars, international academic institutions and Thai academia, Thai and Western scholarship, are extremely important and very complex. It is one of the perennial debates in Thai Studies. As Thongchai says, these differences are often used by pro-coup “insiders” to discredit the criticisms of anti-coup “outsiders”, especially Westerners (the King is a particularly good example of this). But what I find unacceptable is that when Thongchai is himself criticized along these lines his response is to attempt to close down the debate (#14): “… All other criticisms about myself …. are irrelevant… ”; “… Mr Republican should be smart enough to know that they [the criticisms] are trash…”; “… please do not do this again, ever…”; “…the contrasts only serve the inside/outside rhetorics with no substantive grounds…”; “… All of those trash criticisms are …” My response is, defend yourself, and if you are going to teach “toleration” then tolerate the criticisms of others.

7. Re. the use of a pen-name. It is absolutely true that the anonymity of a pen-name gives one the liberty of criticizing anything and anyone, without the responsibility. But in my opinion, in the staid, polite, kreng jai filled, seniority-based, taboo-infested backwater of Thai Studies the beautiful thing about the webblog and its anonymity is the free discussion and criticisms and original ideas that can be expressed by anyone, anywhere, without fear of censure, precisely because of the nature of the medium. In my opinion it’s far more intellectually satisfying than most seminar presentations. My view is, first let the ideas be expressed, debated, proved, disproved, discarded or endorsed; then comes the issue of responsibility. Then one can start on the work of expressing these ideas according to the normal academic conventions, with real names, seminar presentations, journal articles, books, media interviews, etc. through which these ideas will move into the world of action.

8. Re. Republican’s “harshness”. I admit that some of my posts could be construed as “harsh”. Given that my colleagues on NM do not have to live or work with me (or even click on my posts) I can’t see that it is a major problem, but no doubt this attitude demonstrates my intolerance and lack of respect. But to anyone repelled by my harshness I offer the following justification: “a [coup] is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly.” My criticism of the coup, and the academic responses to it, is in the same vein, except without the tanks and guns.

It would be nice if there were other ways that the young people who get caught up in this sort of thing could reform themselves, for example, the wife of a Burmese friend of mine, and a mother, sentenced to 15 years in jail. Almost like she’s dead.

Selling amphetamines and a speedy release from jail? Hmm.

what do you really mean, A.Andrew, Rethinking Sipsongpanna?

In this remore country of southwest China, but also situates in the borderlands of the upper Mekong, there is no Tai, but Dai (Chinese Tai) as registered by the State and existed by local perception, though not all of them.

To me a term or concept ‘ethnicity’ is not really useful if you are going to deploy it in understanding what is actually on in Xishuangbanna, not Sipsongpanna (because it is gone), today.

Ethnicity studies, particularly in many Thai univ, is just what I call ‘an anthropological masturbation’, though many would alternately call it a statecraft in this (post)modern days and thereofore for those labelled peoples it is a tactic or a weapon of the weak.

Weak because at least they don have a tank and a missile like the State.