The institutions to which I was referring are all institutions, not some particular, “deplorable” ones.
I imagine that human institutions are like living organisms in that some survive and others don’t based upon a sort of fitness. That the organelles of an instituion are us humans who orignally called the institution into being, but now toil for its interests. If the institution survives and thrives then we, as its dependents survive and thrive. It is only through the active exertions of each generation of instituional slaves/masters that an institution can be made to serve the human interests of its masters, generally those it was founded to serve, rather than merely continue to survive and thrive do to the activities of its human slaves.
I cannot see how we can get along without institutions, so I imagine that our best chance to keep them serving human needs is to be careful of their scale. Small is good.
Carrying on a discourse using esoteric terms seems to me to suit the purposes of academic institutions. You need academics to invent the obfuscating terminology in order to fuel the never ending discourse which actually has the survival and thrift of the institution, the home of the obfuscators, as its object. A case of total internal reflection at its institutional best.
Of course academic institutions are no different from commercial or political institutions. It’s just that within them the institutional paradigm is more transparently visible, since they have readily measurable “product” to distract attention from their “process”.
Keep living in your confused dreamworld. Alternatively, take some time to study these issues further.
I’m open to the possibility that I’m living in a confused dreamworld. Can you give me some (electronic) pointers to study these issues further?
I just read that the new constitution is going to have an elected PM but an appointed Senate. Does that mean that real power will now devolve to the Senate?
I don’t know how democracy wll become rooted in Thailand, but the events unfolding before my eyes make it seem clear to me that HM the King’s admonitions to the Thai people to take control of as much of their own lives as possible in order that they may better be insulated from stresses over which they have no control (aka the sufficiency economy) is good advice indeed.
The King points out that the accusation of lese majeste impacts the monarchy directly. Talking to Thai society as a whole, the King says, ”If you rule out all criticism as a violation, the damage is done to the King.”
…
A rather simple solution suggests itself. Within Sections 101 and 102 of the Norwegian law code is the standard lese majeste formula: ”Any person who defames the King or the Regent shall be liable to detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.” But Section 103 adds the intriguing sentence: ”Prosecution of any defamation pursuant to sections 101 and 102 shall be initiated only by order of the King or with his consent.”
If abolition of the lese majeste law in Thailand seems unimaginable; if the police and prosecutors feel compelled to pursue charges; if Thai society itself cannot show restraint in making the charge despite the apparent displeasure of the King, then maybe the addition of this single clause may set things right.
JFL, maybe you should enrol in one of these institutions you find deplorable.
Liberalism isn’t what you’ve described or believe at all because it is not something that can give permission… Surely you can see this in what you go on to say about needing this alternative for Thai people?
What I see your nation is actively engaged in is the erosion of discourse. (- often by making ridiculous assumptions) By extension, do you see a parallel here?
My haphazard rant only highlights my igorance! It provides no value (unlike Srinthanonchai) other than really to say that we should shutup and pay attention.
For JFL & Pig: A quote from Giles about the co-opting of leftists into Thai Rak Thai: “No matter what they may believe about being close to the corridors of power, they become more of an instrument of the ruling class than advocates for the poor. Thai Rak Thai was no exception. It was a party of the rich capitalists for the rich capitalists and any reasonable policies it might have had were designed to buy social peace at the cheapest possible price.”
He’s right on the money (pun intended).
I’m still waiting for Andrew to explain how Thaksin’s tax avoidance/evasion fits in with TRT’s position of helping the rural poor.
Talking about spiritual and moral matters, is it JUST to incarcerate a man for blasphemy under the influence of alcohol, which is what Jufer’s action really is all about? Specifically, do Buddhism or any , the supposed national religion, or any other faiths for that matter, condone such cruel and unusual punishment?
Getting ridiculed is nothing compared to being sent to the royal Gulag for what is very likely a life sentence.
I don’t contest the legality of this imprisonment. But it is hypocrisy for those who claim to protect the “moral” authority of Thailand to resort to immoral legal tools. This is moral bankruptcy, as far as I’m concerned.
I wonder if anybody here really thinks tthat that imprisonment is morally right and just? Mind you laid out for all to see what kind of logics you use to arrive at that conclusion?
I asked my question of who or what exactly the King is comparable to because it is clear, to my eyes, that he is NOT the equivalent of the Pope or the Dalai Lama. The former is the legal and charismatic head of the Catholic Church while the latter is the legal and charismatic head of the Gelupka order (and thus be extension, the political ruler of pre-Modern Tibet, since that sect was hegemonically dominant). Nobody turns to the King for legally or theologically binding rulings on Thai buddhist practice or doctrinal positions to my knowledge. And Aung San Suu Kyi is not, again to my eyes, considered a religious icon or spiritual leader. She is a political leader who is seen as very pious and even perhaps religious accomplished. But again, no formal or informal religious authority is invested in her. Which raises the question – just how exactly is the King a spiritual leader? Does he given teachings on Buddhist scripture? What other religious actors does he exert direct authority over, and how is this compared with the authority of the Supreme Patriarch or others? Which ceremonies does he officiate at?
People throw around the phrases “like a god” and “spiritual leader” all the time. But I’m wondering just what that means in specific terms – whether with regard to explicit ideologies or behavior on the ground.
“Siam” as it was used prior to 1938 ESPECIALLY during the time of the Absolute Monarchy was NOT an ethnically inclusive name as Charnvit suggests. In fact, like the name “Thai”, it refered MANINLY to an ethnic group…”
That’s not really the point, the point is that before the late 19th century most ethnic minorities were ruled indirectly, which means they might have had a fair bit of autonomy (of course this is something that must be proven, since most of the pre-modern sources I am aware of hardly mention them)
What has been happening in recent times is that the owner of their land by law, the forestry department, often plants trees right over ther land and divests them of their land, after which they become lowland wage earners on plantations, this is pretty visible in many places in the north, and is well documented in books and especially the work of Matthew McDaniel, who basically observed everthing that was going on.
As for ethnicity, Siam is even found in the inscriptions of Burma to describe Tai raiders in the 13th-14th centuries.
As opposed to the West, where liberalism is not only a political value, but an ingrained cultural one making it much more meaningful and that much more impossible to obviously remove.
The present “adventure” of my country, the United States, in Iraq leads me to believe that liberalism is a fairy tale a population can afford to tell itself when it’s grabbed enough of the world’s wealth to be able to do so. The doctrine of American exceptionalism which locates America and Americans closer to the liberal than to the realist end of the political continuum, as defined by your wikipedia article, in their own minds is just that illusory liberalism that allows my nation blamelessly to engage in war crimes.
I do not see that it is “much more impossible to obviously remove”, unless you are talking about the obstinate denial that allows Americans to insist that it existed to begin with.
The political philosophy in Thailand is very stark in that there is a revered King whose judgment is trusted by the majority (and even if its not, it’s going to be enforced). Politically, there doesn’t need to be an alternative for this majority of Thai people.
I just don’t go along with this. I think that the King and politics are separate in the minds of Thais, just as they are officially billed to be, although the monarchy is then used as cover for all manner of crime by all manner of politicians.
I think the majority of the Thai people definitely need an alternative to the present realist mode of politics in Thailand, and that their belief in the other, more important dimensions of politics, those dimensions mentioned in your wikipedia liberalism article, are just the alternative dimensions they seek.
And then… you’ve lost me again I’m afraid. With the irony, interference, supposition and hypocrisy and the tape recorder. Sorry.
Keep living in your confused dreamworld. Alternatively, take some time to study these issues further. As I said, Giles’ piece merely is a political pamphlet, and nobody involved in the study of the South will take it seriously. There are lots of things out there for you to read and then arrive at a more informed understanding.
As for Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, Neocons, Iraq or whatever — I am not quite intererested, and I fail to see what such references help us in analyzing the problems in Thailand’s South.
Finally, something positive/negative: Yes, the 1997 Constitution called for decentralization. However, the constitution currently under preparation might well give the provinces as state administration constitutional status.
From an intellectual and aethetical standpoint I do favour “Siam”, as I do not support Phibulsongkram’s notion of a ethnonational Thai state and the name “Siam” does not contain any notion of the ethnic Thai.
However, the problem is that the whole discussion is entirely a intellectuals’ discussion far removed from most of the common Thai who simply call the country “Muang Thai”. I don’t believe that an official change would impact on the Thai usage of “Muang Thai” at all. I may mention the fact that the Shan call their (non-existing) state as “Mong Tai” as well, regardless of the other ethnic groups inhabiting the area.
It is actually more interesting to explore about the origin of the word “Lao”…
Having written my MA thesis on Thai nationalism I indeed appreciate this discussion.
(The Thai state is the root cause of violence in South Thailand.) This is highly doubtful as is the possibility that there indeed is just one “root cause”
How does this statement differ from Giles’ with regard to “any analysis… that would support this claim”? Or do you believe that the people of the region are just perverse killers, unlike ourselves in every respect? As the Israelis would have us believe of the Palestinians. The Neocons of the “Islamofascists” who are sitting on “our” oil?
“Most of the killings…” suggests that of the 2,000+ killed, most are attributable to the Thai state authorities. I think that my initial remark is sufficient.
I’m afraid that merely quantifying the total number killed without attribution is not sufficient to prove that most of them were not killed by Thai authorities. There are far more innocent Palestinians killed by Israelis than there are Israelis killed by Palestinians, far more innocent Iraqis killed by Americans than Americans killed by Iraqis, yet the average Israeli or American cannot think Palestinian or Iraqi without thinking “terrorist”. I have no idea how many people have been killed in the South, or how many have been killed by the Thai authorities or by those opposing them. Apparently you don’t either. It may be unknowable. The Thai authorities may just “disappear” most of their victims.
Do you think we should organize a referendum, in which the insurgents will lose, and then they will stop their armed struggle?
No. I think that the administration of ALL Tambons, Amphoes and Jangwats in Thailand should be given over to the local people and taken out of the hands of Bangkok. Starting with the South because that is where the crisis is. Didn’t the 1997 Constitution call for decentralization? Neither the crony capitalists nor the military think that is a good idea, apparently.
Even if the Thai state would let people determine their own lot, the separatists, old and new, would not.
I don’t know how you can know this. I think that the people are the sea in which the separatists swim. That the separatists are tolerated as long as the people in general feel ground beneath the heel of Bangkok. That terrorism will not be tolerated when the people themselves are in charge of their own affairs.
This reminds me of the argument put forth by the Neocons in the USA. The USA’s armed forces must stay in Iraq to control the violence. In fact the violence in Iraq is due to the American armed forces’ invasion and occupation of that country.
The quote “The Thai state…” is the headline of section 1., right on p. 119. That the Thai state has occupied those provinces is undisputed (well, at least to me, not to the Thais), as is the fact that the Thai state has committed violent acts in the South. The question is whether this constitutes the “root cause” of the current insurgency. This is highly doubtful as is the possibility that there indeed is just one “root cause” (but see third point).
“Most of the killings…” suggests that of the 2,000+ killed, most are attributable to the Thai state authorities. I think that my initial remark is sufficient.
The paragraph from which my third quote was taken is altogether naive, given the present situation. Do you think we should organize a referendum, in which the insurgents will lose, and then they will stop their armed struggle? This also doesn not take into account that, obviously, the “traditional” Malay-nationalist separatism has been overtaken (Giles mention this) by a network-based radical Islamist insurgency that looks at separatism from the perspective of establishing an Islamist Pattani state. In other words, the majority Muslims are as much under threat by these people as are the representatives of the Thai state. Even if the Thai state would let people determine their own lot, the separatists, old and new, would not.
In regards to the section you initially highlighted, when I refer to liberalism in Thailand being an imitation of Western liberalism, it is because there has been an overriding cultural power to take that ‘liberalism’ away as exemplified in the recent coup. As opposed to the West, where liberalism is not only a political value, but an ingrained cultural one making it much more meaningful and that much more impossible to obviously remove.
Sufficiency liberalism perhaps?
The political philosophy in Thailand is very stark in that there is a revered King whose judgment is trusted by the majority (and even if its not, it’s going to be enforced) Politically, there doesn’t need to be an alternative for this majority of Thai people. However, the way we communicate is ironically interfering with this liberalism we supposedly value, irrespective of whether Thai society does as a whole. (be it under a militaristic interim government or even Thaksin.) That we do not seem to see our hypocrisy means that we don’t truly value it – and judgment and analysis from our position as “slightly more free than the rest” becomes totally irrelevant.
In this respect, we in the West are rewinding while the ‘developing’ world is stuck on loop.
What I’ve now deviates from the original point, but I hope this better explains where my idiocy here begins. I’ve tried to say too much 🙂
The single thread that runs through the “rice mixed-salad” jumble of explanations is the brutality of the Thai State and the fact that the Thai State has occupied the 3 Southern border provinces for 200 years like a colony.
I apologize for taking up so much space. I hope that you can see that the above are Giles’ words and not mine or Srithanonchai’s.
My discussion of the first point raised should have two quoted sections, like this (I hope) :
I didn’t find
The Thai state is the root cause of violence in South Thailand.
The single thread that runs through the “rice mixed-salad” jumble of explanations is the brutality of the Thai State and the fact that the Thai State has occupied the 3 Southern border provinces for 200 years like a colony.
Is this statement in dispute? What is the root cause of violence in South Thailand in your opinion?
The Thai state is the root cause of violence in South Thailand.
The single thread that runs through the “rice mixed-salad” jumble of explanations is the brutality of the Thai State and the fact that the Thai State has occupied the 3 Southern border provinces for 200 years like a colony.
Is this statement in dispute? What is the root cause of violence in South Thailand in your opinion?
I did find
Most of those killed may have died at the hands of the security forces.
I don’t know what this means. I think it means : “The security forces may have killed more people than the local terrorists, but I don’t know.” I don’t either. Do you? I agree that it’s a strange way to state that, if that is what it does mean. I do not conclude that the Giles is crazy.
I did find
A solution can only be achieved by open democratic discussion.
It is in the middle of a paragraph :
The only long-term solution to the violence in the south of Thailand is to address the genuine concerns of local people and to set up structures where people can determine their own future. People must have the right to self-determination in whatever form they choose. They have the right to establish a separate state if that is what they want. A solution can only be achieved by open democratic discussion. But nothing can be achieved at all so long as there is a repressive security law, an armed occupation of the area by the police and army and a continuing atmosphere of state violence. The military coup in September 2006 only made matters worse.
I generally agree with that. I realize that the giving up Thai territory is a terrifying thought to the “authorities”, but it may well not even come into play if the interests of all the people in the South are taken into account. The terrorists operating there, or anywhere, do not “represent” anyone but themselves. If they are operating within a population that identifies more strongly with them, while deploring their actions, than with the forces they are opposing then the forces they are opposing may claim or actually believe that the terrorists “represent” the entire population.
In any case I agree that “People must have the right to self-determination in whatever form they choose.” Do you?
Is your argument with Giles due to his being on “the wrong side” of some sort of argument you seem to see between Habermas and unamed antagonists?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Offending the mainstream
Pig:
The institutions to which I was referring are all institutions, not some particular, “deplorable” ones.
I imagine that human institutions are like living organisms in that some survive and others don’t based upon a sort of fitness. That the organelles of an instituion are us humans who orignally called the institution into being, but now toil for its interests. If the institution survives and thrives then we, as its dependents survive and thrive. It is only through the active exertions of each generation of instituional slaves/masters that an institution can be made to serve the human interests of its masters, generally those it was founded to serve, rather than merely continue to survive and thrive do to the activities of its human slaves.
I cannot see how we can get along without institutions, so I imagine that our best chance to keep them serving human needs is to be careful of their scale. Small is good.
Carrying on a discourse using esoteric terms seems to me to suit the purposes of academic institutions. You need academics to invent the obfuscating terminology in order to fuel the never ending discourse which actually has the survival and thrift of the institution, the home of the obfuscators, as its object. A case of total internal reflection at its institutional best.
Of course academic institutions are no different from commercial or political institutions. It’s just that within them the institutional paradigm is more transparently visible, since they have readily measurable “product” to distract attention from their “process”.
Offending the mainstream
Keep living in your confused dreamworld. Alternatively, take some time to study these issues further.
I’m open to the possibility that I’m living in a confused dreamworld. Can you give me some (electronic) pointers to study these issues further?
I just read that the new constitution is going to have an elected PM but an appointed Senate. Does that mean that real power will now devolve to the Senate?
I don’t know how democracy wll become rooted in Thailand, but the events unfolding before my eyes make it seem clear to me that HM the King’s admonitions to the Thai people to take control of as much of their own lives as possible in order that they may better be insulated from stresses over which they have no control (aka the sufficiency economy) is good advice indeed.
The regime’s royal ridicule
Is it now time to discuss lese majeste law?
Offending the mainstream
JFL, maybe you should enrol in one of these institutions you find deplorable.
Liberalism isn’t what you’ve described or believe at all because it is not something that can give permission… Surely you can see this in what you go on to say about needing this alternative for Thai people?
What I see your nation is actively engaged in is the erosion of discourse. (- often by making ridiculous assumptions) By extension, do you see a parallel here?
My haphazard rant only highlights my igorance! It provides no value (unlike Srinthanonchai) other than really to say that we should shutup and pay attention.
The regime’s royal ridicule
David W: Read Handley – he explains it quite well.
Offending the mainstream
For JFL & Pig: A quote from Giles about the co-opting of leftists into Thai Rak Thai:
“No matter what they may believe about being close to the corridors of power, they become more of an instrument of the ruling class than advocates for the poor. Thai Rak Thai was no exception. It was a party of the rich capitalists for the rich capitalists and any reasonable policies it might have had were designed to buy social peace at the cheapest possible price.”
He’s right on the money (pun intended).
I’m still waiting for Andrew to explain how Thaksin’s tax avoidance/evasion fits in with TRT’s position of helping the rural poor.
The regime’s royal ridicule
Talking about spiritual and moral matters, is it JUST to incarcerate a man for blasphemy under the influence of alcohol, which is what Jufer’s action really is all about? Specifically, do Buddhism or any , the supposed national religion, or any other faiths for that matter, condone such cruel and unusual punishment?
Getting ridiculed is nothing compared to being sent to the royal Gulag for what is very likely a life sentence.
I don’t contest the legality of this imprisonment. But it is hypocrisy for those who claim to protect the “moral” authority of Thailand to resort to immoral legal tools. This is moral bankruptcy, as far as I’m concerned.
I wonder if anybody here really thinks tthat that imprisonment is morally right and just? Mind you laid out for all to see what kind of logics you use to arrive at that conclusion?
The regime’s royal ridicule
I asked my question of who or what exactly the King is comparable to because it is clear, to my eyes, that he is NOT the equivalent of the Pope or the Dalai Lama. The former is the legal and charismatic head of the Catholic Church while the latter is the legal and charismatic head of the Gelupka order (and thus be extension, the political ruler of pre-Modern Tibet, since that sect was hegemonically dominant). Nobody turns to the King for legally or theologically binding rulings on Thai buddhist practice or doctrinal positions to my knowledge. And Aung San Suu Kyi is not, again to my eyes, considered a religious icon or spiritual leader. She is a political leader who is seen as very pious and even perhaps religious accomplished. But again, no formal or informal religious authority is invested in her. Which raises the question – just how exactly is the King a spiritual leader? Does he given teachings on Buddhist scripture? What other religious actors does he exert direct authority over, and how is this compared with the authority of the Supreme Patriarch or others? Which ceremonies does he officiate at?
People throw around the phrases “like a god” and “spiritual leader” all the time. But I’m wondering just what that means in specific terms – whether with regard to explicit ideologies or behavior on the ground.
Thailand? Siam? Who cares?
“Siam” as it was used prior to 1938 ESPECIALLY during the time of the Absolute Monarchy was NOT an ethnically inclusive name as Charnvit suggests. In fact, like the name “Thai”, it refered MANINLY to an ethnic group…”
That’s not really the point, the point is that before the late 19th century most ethnic minorities were ruled indirectly, which means they might have had a fair bit of autonomy (of course this is something that must be proven, since most of the pre-modern sources I am aware of hardly mention them)
What has been happening in recent times is that the owner of their land by law, the forestry department, often plants trees right over ther land and divests them of their land, after which they become lowland wage earners on plantations, this is pretty visible in many places in the north, and is well documented in books and especially the work of Matthew McDaniel, who basically observed everthing that was going on.
As for ethnicity, Siam is even found in the inscriptions of Burma to describe Tai raiders in the 13th-14th centuries.
Sufficiency design principles
164 million baht for about 70 houses? In an area where the land is worse than worthless due to the insurgency? That’s 2.3 million per house!
You could build a three-story 6 bedroom luxury mansion with that much money.
And people say the Baan Ua Arthorn project was a waste….
Offending the mainstream
Pig :
As opposed to the West, where liberalism is not only a political value, but an ingrained cultural one making it much more meaningful and that much more impossible to obviously remove.
The present “adventure” of my country, the United States, in Iraq leads me to believe that liberalism is a fairy tale a population can afford to tell itself when it’s grabbed enough of the world’s wealth to be able to do so. The doctrine of American exceptionalism which locates America and Americans closer to the liberal than to the realist end of the political continuum, as defined by your wikipedia article, in their own minds is just that illusory liberalism that allows my nation blamelessly to engage in war crimes.
I do not see that it is “much more impossible to obviously remove”, unless you are talking about the obstinate denial that allows Americans to insist that it existed to begin with.
The political philosophy in Thailand is very stark in that there is a revered King whose judgment is trusted by the majority (and even if its not, it’s going to be enforced). Politically, there doesn’t need to be an alternative for this majority of Thai people.
I just don’t go along with this. I think that the King and politics are separate in the minds of Thais, just as they are officially billed to be, although the monarchy is then used as cover for all manner of crime by all manner of politicians.
I think the majority of the Thai people definitely need an alternative to the present realist mode of politics in Thailand, and that their belief in the other, more important dimensions of politics, those dimensions mentioned in your wikipedia liberalism article, are just the alternative dimensions they seek.
And then… you’ve lost me again I’m afraid. With the irony, interference, supposition and hypocrisy and the tape recorder. Sorry.
Offending the mainstream
JFL:
Keep living in your confused dreamworld. Alternatively, take some time to study these issues further. As I said, Giles’ piece merely is a political pamphlet, and nobody involved in the study of the South will take it seriously. There are lots of things out there for you to read and then arrive at a more informed understanding.
As for Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, Neocons, Iraq or whatever — I am not quite intererested, and I fail to see what such references help us in analyzing the problems in Thailand’s South.
Finally, something positive/negative: Yes, the 1997 Constitution called for decentralization. However, the constitution currently under preparation might well give the provinces as state administration constitutional status.
Thailand? Siam? Who cares?
From an intellectual and aethetical standpoint I do favour “Siam”, as I do not support Phibulsongkram’s notion of a ethnonational Thai state and the name “Siam” does not contain any notion of the ethnic Thai.
However, the problem is that the whole discussion is entirely a intellectuals’ discussion far removed from most of the common Thai who simply call the country “Muang Thai”. I don’t believe that an official change would impact on the Thai usage of “Muang Thai” at all. I may mention the fact that the Shan call their (non-existing) state as “Mong Tai” as well, regardless of the other ethnic groups inhabiting the area.
It is actually more interesting to explore about the origin of the word “Lao”…
Having written my MA thesis on Thai nationalism I indeed appreciate this discussion.
Offending the mainstream
(The Thai state is the root cause of violence in South Thailand.) This is highly doubtful as is the possibility that there indeed is just one “root cause”
How does this statement differ from Giles’ with regard to “any analysis… that would support this claim”? Or do you believe that the people of the region are just perverse killers, unlike ourselves in every respect? As the Israelis would have us believe of the Palestinians. The Neocons of the “Islamofascists” who are sitting on “our” oil?
“Most of the killings…” suggests that of the 2,000+ killed, most are attributable to the Thai state authorities. I think that my initial remark is sufficient.
I’m afraid that merely quantifying the total number killed without attribution is not sufficient to prove that most of them were not killed by Thai authorities. There are far more innocent Palestinians killed by Israelis than there are Israelis killed by Palestinians, far more innocent Iraqis killed by Americans than Americans killed by Iraqis, yet the average Israeli or American cannot think Palestinian or Iraqi without thinking “terrorist”. I have no idea how many people have been killed in the South, or how many have been killed by the Thai authorities or by those opposing them. Apparently you don’t either. It may be unknowable. The Thai authorities may just “disappear” most of their victims.
Do you think we should organize a referendum, in which the insurgents will lose, and then they will stop their armed struggle?
No. I think that the administration of ALL Tambons, Amphoes and Jangwats in Thailand should be given over to the local people and taken out of the hands of Bangkok. Starting with the South because that is where the crisis is. Didn’t the 1997 Constitution call for decentralization? Neither the crony capitalists nor the military think that is a good idea, apparently.
Even if the Thai state would let people determine their own lot, the separatists, old and new, would not.
I don’t know how you can know this. I think that the people are the sea in which the separatists swim. That the separatists are tolerated as long as the people in general feel ground beneath the heel of Bangkok. That terrorism will not be tolerated when the people themselves are in charge of their own affairs.
This reminds me of the argument put forth by the Neocons in the USA. The USA’s armed forces must stay in Iraq to control the violence. In fact the violence in Iraq is due to the American armed forces’ invasion and occupation of that country.
The regime’s royal ridicule
Perhaps, this falls into the category of jokes about “over-adjusted farang who become more Thai than the Thais themselves.”
Offending the mainstream
JFL:
The quote “The Thai state…” is the headline of section 1., right on p. 119. That the Thai state has occupied those provinces is undisputed (well, at least to me, not to the Thais), as is the fact that the Thai state has committed violent acts in the South. The question is whether this constitutes the “root cause” of the current insurgency. This is highly doubtful as is the possibility that there indeed is just one “root cause” (but see third point).
“Most of the killings…” suggests that of the 2,000+ killed, most are attributable to the Thai state authorities. I think that my initial remark is sufficient.
The paragraph from which my third quote was taken is altogether naive, given the present situation. Do you think we should organize a referendum, in which the insurgents will lose, and then they will stop their armed struggle? This also doesn not take into account that, obviously, the “traditional” Malay-nationalist separatism has been overtaken (Giles mention this) by a network-based radical Islamist insurgency that looks at separatism from the perspective of establishing an Islamist Pattani state. In other words, the majority Muslims are as much under threat by these people as are the representatives of the Thai state. Even if the Thai state would let people determine their own lot, the separatists, old and new, would not.
Offending the mainstream
JFL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Liberal_international_relations_theory
In regards to the section you initially highlighted, when I refer to liberalism in Thailand being an imitation of Western liberalism, it is because there has been an overriding cultural power to take that ‘liberalism’ away as exemplified in the recent coup. As opposed to the West, where liberalism is not only a political value, but an ingrained cultural one making it much more meaningful and that much more impossible to obviously remove.
Sufficiency liberalism perhaps?
The political philosophy in Thailand is very stark in that there is a revered King whose judgment is trusted by the majority (and even if its not, it’s going to be enforced) Politically, there doesn’t need to be an alternative for this majority of Thai people. However, the way we communicate is ironically interfering with this liberalism we supposedly value, irrespective of whether Thai society does as a whole. (be it under a militaristic interim government or even Thaksin.) That we do not seem to see our hypocrisy means that we don’t truly value it – and judgment and analysis from our position as “slightly more free than the rest” becomes totally irrelevant.
In this respect, we in the West are rewinding while the ‘developing’ world is stuck on loop.
What I’ve now deviates from the original point, but I hope this better explains where my idiocy here begins. I’ve tried to say too much 🙂
Offending the mainstream
The second quoted section :I didn’t find
I did find
I apologize for taking up so much space. I hope that you can see that the above are Giles’ words and not mine or Srithanonchai’s.
Offending the mainstream
My discussion of the first point raised should have two quoted sections, like this (I hope) :
I didn’t find
The single thread that runs through the “rice mixed-salad” jumble of explanations is the brutality of the Thai State and the fact that the Thai State has occupied the 3 Southern border provinces for 200 years like a colony.
Is this statement in dispute? What is the root cause of violence in South Thailand in your opinion?
Offending the mainstream
Srithanonchai :
I didn’t find
The single thread that runs through the “rice mixed-salad” jumble of explanations is the brutality of the Thai State and the fact that the Thai State has occupied the 3 Southern border provinces for 200 years like a colony.
Is this statement in dispute? What is the root cause of violence in South Thailand in your opinion?
I did find
I don’t know what this means. I think it means : “The security forces may have killed more people than the local terrorists, but I don’t know.” I don’t either. Do you? I agree that it’s a strange way to state that, if that is what it does mean. I do not conclude that the Giles is crazy.
I did find
It is in the middle of a paragraph :
I generally agree with that. I realize that the giving up Thai territory is a terrifying thought to the “authorities”, but it may well not even come into play if the interests of all the people in the South are taken into account. The terrorists operating there, or anywhere, do not “represent” anyone but themselves. If they are operating within a population that identifies more strongly with them, while deploring their actions, than with the forces they are opposing then the forces they are opposing may claim or actually believe that the terrorists “represent” the entire population.
In any case I agree that “People must have the right to self-determination in whatever form they choose.” Do you?
Is your argument with Giles due to his being on “the wrong side” of some sort of argument you seem to see between Habermas and unamed antagonists?