“And if he isn’t comparable to a president, then who or what is he comparable to such that he should be above criticism?”
I think that’s a good question. I think HMK is a spiritual leader, for sure. Take a look and read the books about HMK for both children and adults. HMK has the same status in Thailand that figures like the Dalai Lama or Aung Suu Kyi or the Pope have for westerners outside of Thailand and whom westerners would never think of making horrible pictures of. (Although if people did, kind-hearted laughter for the silly people who made them would probably be the only real response) As a spiritual leader HMK keeps the peace and settles disputes. Under his rule Thailand has certainly gone a lot further than Burma has under the Burmese Way to Socialism. Of course, during his long rule HMK could not prevent every bad thing in history from happening, like Handley would have liked, because HMK is human. YouTube should really intervene and delete the material that offends 60 million+ Thai people. They should think of how they felt when people were selling black tee-shirts and posters of Osama Bin Laden hovering over the twin towers in flames. Every culture has things they consider sacred.
I don’t understand a word you say Pig. “libertalist realism”? “acceptance of this individual determinism imitation”? What are you talking about?
Imagine that you’re speaking to an ordinary human being and say it again, please. Clarity, clarity, clarity.
I have no reason to think that you’re ignorant. I can’t claim that this is a rant. I can’t understand it and so can’t say anything about it other than that obviously do you have something to say and that I wish I understood it.
I do notice that you’ve mentioned HM the King. I think that there is no reason to let HM continue to be the exclusive preserve of the militarists. Organizing around an honest implementation of what has been termed his sufficiency economy, pointing up the difference between the actual policy as embodied not only in HM’s words but by his actual works over the course of the years and the projects such as the one presently highlighted at the top the page might be a good start.
(BangkokPost.com) – Public prosecutors decided Tuesday to drop three lese majeste charges against ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
According to the prosecutors office, Mr Thaksin had spoken impolitely, using inappropriate words that showed disrespect to His Majesty the King. However, the cases could not be considered lese majeste, they said.
The three cases were his December 2005 comments made before a rally for taxi drivers at Hua Mark Stadium, a controversial reference to the King during a radio speech, and the time when he was greeted by supporters who waved flags “Long Live the King” to welcome him.
The prosecutors are to forward their decision to Acting Police Chief Seripisuth Temiyavej for consideration. He can file the cases to the Office of the Attorney General if he disagrees and insists that the prosecution should go ahead.
Perhaps, I should say that I have been interested in the public and academic discourse on the South for some years. As part of this interest, I have collected piles of material, both from newspapers and academic sources. I thus read new arrivals with certain expectations.
I am decidedly not interested in political pamphlets (Pig Latin calls it “rant”). And it makes liitle sense to analyze such pieces from an academic point of view. These are just two completely different genres.
Nevertheless, here are three points to ponder:
— “The Thai state is the root cause of violence in South Thailand.” Is there any analysis in that chapter that would support this claim (if it was meant academically, that is–as a political statement, never mind)?
— “Most of those killed may have died at the hands of the security forces.” Would anybody in his or her right mind make such an outrageous statement? And where is his supporting evidence or analysis?
— “A solution can only be achieved by open democratic discussion.” Right — invite all those Habermas-loving insurgents to a power- and weapons-free discourse!
I think that if you really want to delve into this further, you must consider the conceptualisation of liberalism in Thailand.
In the West, our political philosophy is individual determinism and our analytical paradigm emerges from this position. When you call for a third body, what are you looking for in Thailand?
For me, I look for the embodiment of truth and as I become more educated here in Australia – if I don’t look at the world from the perspective of liberalist realism then the truth seems very far away. As a liberalist, I must accept this in other people’s perspectives, irrespective of whether or not they themselves are in fact in tune with liberalism (or what I see as a poor imitation). Otherwise I would become aware of my own obvious hypocrisy. So what we have here, as we have all over the world is the language of mirrors. Everything is correct if argued from the right position irrespective of whether or not it comes from the heart. Furthermore despite stark polarising rhetoric, the language used blurs the lines.
For Thailand as a nation, if their citizen’s hearts are with the King – then the King is the truth. Liberalist skepticism and polarising rhetoric (as opposed to acceptance of this individual determinism imitation) will only serve to isolate people within their respective culture, rather than (in spite of not having nearly enough time for organic acceptance) embrace globalism.
Therefore, in regards to this comparison with Bush, he is just proof of our retreat home… as opposed to ‘developing’ nations not really venturing out the front door.
There, I have displayed my ignorance and ranted. Haha…
Those of you who are outraged that someone should dare suggest that the Internet might be considered a tool of reason will presumably go back to your precious old books and newspapers and ignore Mein Kamf, The Sun, and the mountains of “unreason” that has appeared over the centuries in printed form. I will stick with the Internet and hope not to be bothered by your irrational posts anymore.
I ought to be a little more specific myself about what I found apt in this work.
Although I am not at all doctrinaire and have become convinced that every institution is my personal enemy unless it is being actively throttled and controlled by the humans presently lending it their lives, I found Giles’ lament about a lack of… someone else here called it a “political philosophy”, sawarin?… very apt and to the point.
How else can an alternative be realized?
pg 101.
The voting strategy proposed by the Thai social movements was called “voting to get the dogs to bite each other”, which is in fact, nothing but a pale reflection of the failed “tactical voting strategy” proposed by demoralised Labour Party voters in the U.K. in the 1980s.
It is similar too to the unsuccessful “Anyone But Bush” campaign in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. These tactics have failed in other countries because people are not encouraged to vote positively “for” a party or candidate because of their qualities. Instead, they are asked to vote for one bad choice to try and block another bad choice, which is hardly an incentive to vote.
What is more, in the Thai context, a call to vote to destabilise the Thai Rak Thai government amounted to a vote to destabilise many of the government’s Populist policies, including low cost health care and financial help to villages. This was not an attractive proposition for the poor. No wonder the strategy failed to gain any support.
I don’t know about labour in the 80’s but I do know all about “anybody but Bush”, which should have been termed “nobody but Bush”, for that was and is the effect of that stance.
In fact the choice between two faces of the same party, Republicrat or Demoplican, neither one representing the people’s interest, seems to be very similar to the situation that still prevails in Thailand.
There’s the military or there’s the crony capitalists.
No alternative is being proposed. If we’re going to “vote for what we believe in” we’re going to have to develop the candiates and their support network ourselves.
Well… the fact that no one offers substantial criticism leads me to believe that this is all “inside baseball”… a question of intellectual fashionistas sniffing at the one who’s “style sense” is in bad odor. Is “so over!”
I found the work informative and am thankful for it. Hope I don’t hang around long enough to develop a too refined sense of style myself.
JFL, having read some of this work, in my opinion I think that the angle Srithanonchai refers to is that it’s largely a rant. The sources Ungpakorn uses are often from media outlets and the few remaining references are not particularly academic in nature.
For me though it’s a rather “informative” rant, so like reading a trashy Michael Moore conspiracy – I briefly get to feel in on the big picture then suddenly realise that I’m not at all.
Why don’t they have a design contest and have some students come up with some creative interpretations of HMK’s ideas?
With no disrespect intended, the above uniform linear design with dirt instead of vegetation and an ominous soldier peering down upon it, looks like a penal facility. I’m sure that’s not what they intended, but unfortunately that’s what it looks like.
Really Srithanonchai, you shoot off your mouth with a general condemnation, no more than an insult really, and then refuse to specify exactly what the blatant ignorances of the author are. Am I supposed now to construct an argument for you?
Ok. Give me a hint. What should I say?
Your answer is of the order “anyone but a fool could see exactly what I’m talking about.” Well please help this old fool Khun Srithanonchai. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Maybe the Queen’s ‘house’ cost 150 million baht? That might be cheap for her!? How much did other ‘houses’ for her cost? Baby steps!
Apologies to Thai people who find my remarks superfluous and inflamatory. However, since when do demi-God’s submit to economics? I haven’t yet, but like palace decorations, there are only so many things you can do with 2 min noodles.
Another thanks for the link. I was able to get in a bit of reading this weekend. I never imagined myself saying this, but it is refreshing to read an old fashioned Marxist, not many left you know. Not that I am in total agreement with him on all issues, or any issues for that matter, and the underlying yet unspoken assumptions of historical determinism I find rather humerous. But all in all a thought provoking perspective so far. His criticism (deconstruction may be the more modern term that post-dates this cowboy) of the current myth of the historical monarchy is particularly enjoyable, digging back into 17th century English history for comparisons. I myself like to compare Thailand to Renaisannce Europe emerging out of feudalism and to talk about the various estates a la France rather than talk about more modern class conflict.
And even Ji, this nominal Marxist author, shows that it is Handley who has opened the Pandora’s box.
All in all, a fun read so far with lots to ponder and lots to tell the author he is off his rocker. Clearly the author is the kind of guy with whom I would enjoy sharing some Thai whiskey.
Spiritual leader is certainly the image that the authority want to portray for HMK. If you listen to the national radio program, the buddhist monks that preach on air always preach to people to do good in celebration of HMK’s 80th birthday.
In the past, I don’t think this practice has been as heavily used.
I’ve caught up with you at the last chapter of Giles’ book. Could you please elaborate on Giles’ display of blatant ignorance in that chapter? TIA.
From Chapter 3:
Yet, very few people in the Thai Peoples Movement would admit to being Autonomists or Post Modernists. This is because the rejection of theory by these two political currents encourages people to deny any political affiliation. Thai activists often articulate various international ideologies while believing that they are uniquely Thai.
It seems as though GIles has heard the criticism of mouthing “foreign ideas” before.
The latest Nation editorial on the controversy, in refuting the comparison of the King with President Bush, describes him rather as “a religious icon” and “a spiritual leader”. In what sense exactly is this thought to be the case by Thais? And just how widely is it believed that he is a spiritual leader? And if he isn’t comparable to a president, then who or what is he comparable to such that he should be above criticism?
Republican: the internet as “Reason” ? Come off it. There’s more mythology on the internet than a dynasty of Chakris!
(But at least there’s also more fun on the Net too.)
Actually, I’m sure the palace just wants the internet to be a place of reason, which is why it insists on only positive depictions of HM. What could be more fact-based?
The 25% share, relative to the state’s income, of local government authorities–PAOs, TAOs, and municipalities–has nothing to do with sufficiency economy, neither with the Surayud government. It was stipulated in the Decentralization Act 1999 as 35% and applied just the same under Thaksin. That is, the so-called CEO governors would not have received this money anyway.
In fact, it was the Surayud government that amended the Act, effective if I remember correctly 9 January 2007, so that the central government would not have to give 35% but only 25% to the local governments as of fiscal year 2007. Actually, the 35% tatget figure still stands, while the mandatory implementation with fiscal year 2007 was lifted and made subject to government discretion. Also, this has nothing to do with the grassroots.
The “living in happiness” policy might be termed “populist”, is an initiative of the Surayud government, and well worth of close monitoring.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The regime’s royal ridicule
“And if he isn’t comparable to a president, then who or what is he comparable to such that he should be above criticism?”
I think that’s a good question. I think HMK is a spiritual leader, for sure. Take a look and read the books about HMK for both children and adults. HMK has the same status in Thailand that figures like the Dalai Lama or Aung Suu Kyi or the Pope have for westerners outside of Thailand and whom westerners would never think of making horrible pictures of. (Although if people did, kind-hearted laughter for the silly people who made them would probably be the only real response) As a spiritual leader HMK keeps the peace and settles disputes. Under his rule Thailand has certainly gone a lot further than Burma has under the Burmese Way to Socialism. Of course, during his long rule HMK could not prevent every bad thing in history from happening, like Handley would have liked, because HMK is human. YouTube should really intervene and delete the material that offends 60 million+ Thai people. They should think of how they felt when people were selling black tee-shirts and posters of Osama Bin Laden hovering over the twin towers in flames. Every culture has things they consider sacred.
Offending the mainstream
I don’t understand a word you say Pig. “libertalist realism”? “acceptance of this individual determinism imitation”? What are you talking about?
Imagine that you’re speaking to an ordinary human being and say it again, please. Clarity, clarity, clarity.
I have no reason to think that you’re ignorant. I can’t claim that this is a rant. I can’t understand it and so can’t say anything about it other than that obviously do you have something to say and that I wish I understood it.
I do notice that you’ve mentioned HM the King. I think that there is no reason to let HM continue to be the exclusive preserve of the militarists. Organizing around an honest implementation of what has been termed his sufficiency economy, pointing up the difference between the actual policy as embodied not only in HM’s words but by his actual works over the course of the years and the projects such as the one presently highlighted at the top the page might be a good start.
The regime’s royal ridicule
No lese majeste for Thaksin:
Thaksin lese majeste charges dropped
(BangkokPost.com) – Public prosecutors decided Tuesday to drop three lese majeste charges against ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
According to the prosecutors office, Mr Thaksin had spoken impolitely, using inappropriate words that showed disrespect to His Majesty the King. However, the cases could not be considered lese majeste, they said.
The three cases were his December 2005 comments made before a rally for taxi drivers at Hua Mark Stadium, a controversial reference to the King during a radio speech, and the time when he was greeted by supporters who waved flags “Long Live the King” to welcome him.
The prosecutors are to forward their decision to Acting Police Chief Seripisuth Temiyavej for consideration. He can file the cases to the Office of the Attorney General if he disagrees and insists that the prosecution should go ahead.
Bangkok Post, Internet edition, April 10, 2007
Offending the mainstream
JFL:
Perhaps, I should say that I have been interested in the public and academic discourse on the South for some years. As part of this interest, I have collected piles of material, both from newspapers and academic sources. I thus read new arrivals with certain expectations.
I am decidedly not interested in political pamphlets (Pig Latin calls it “rant”). And it makes liitle sense to analyze such pieces from an academic point of view. These are just two completely different genres.
Nevertheless, here are three points to ponder:
— “The Thai state is the root cause of violence in South Thailand.” Is there any analysis in that chapter that would support this claim (if it was meant academically, that is–as a political statement, never mind)?
— “Most of those killed may have died at the hands of the security forces.” Would anybody in his or her right mind make such an outrageous statement? And where is his supporting evidence or analysis?
— “A solution can only be achieved by open democratic discussion.” Right — invite all those Habermas-loving insurgents to a power- and weapons-free discourse!
Offending the mainstream
I think that if you really want to delve into this further, you must consider the conceptualisation of liberalism in Thailand.
In the West, our political philosophy is individual determinism and our analytical paradigm emerges from this position. When you call for a third body, what are you looking for in Thailand?
For me, I look for the embodiment of truth and as I become more educated here in Australia – if I don’t look at the world from the perspective of liberalist realism then the truth seems very far away. As a liberalist, I must accept this in other people’s perspectives, irrespective of whether or not they themselves are in fact in tune with liberalism (or what I see as a poor imitation). Otherwise I would become aware of my own obvious hypocrisy. So what we have here, as we have all over the world is the language of mirrors. Everything is correct if argued from the right position irrespective of whether or not it comes from the heart. Furthermore despite stark polarising rhetoric, the language used blurs the lines.
For Thailand as a nation, if their citizen’s hearts are with the King – then the King is the truth. Liberalist skepticism and polarising rhetoric (as opposed to acceptance of this individual determinism imitation) will only serve to isolate people within their respective culture, rather than (in spite of not having nearly enough time for organic acceptance) embrace globalism.
Therefore, in regards to this comparison with Bush, he is just proof of our retreat home… as opposed to ‘developing’ nations not really venturing out the front door.
There, I have displayed my ignorance and ranted. Haha…
Blocked tube
Those of you who are outraged that someone should dare suggest that the Internet might be considered a tool of reason will presumably go back to your precious old books and newspapers and ignore Mein Kamf, The Sun, and the mountains of “unreason” that has appeared over the centuries in printed form. I will stick with the Internet and hope not to be bothered by your irrational posts anymore.
Offending the mainstream
I ought to be a little more specific myself about what I found apt in this work.
Although I am not at all doctrinaire and have become convinced that every institution is my personal enemy unless it is being actively throttled and controlled by the humans presently lending it their lives, I found Giles’ lament about a lack of… someone else here called it a “political philosophy”, sawarin?… very apt and to the point.
How else can an alternative be realized?
pg 101.
I don’t know about labour in the 80’s but I do know all about “anybody but Bush”, which should have been termed “nobody but Bush”, for that was and is the effect of that stance.
In fact the choice between two faces of the same party, Republicrat or Demoplican, neither one representing the people’s interest, seems to be very similar to the situation that still prevails in Thailand.
There’s the military or there’s the crony capitalists.
No alternative is being proposed. If we’re going to “vote for what we believe in” we’re going to have to develop the candiates and their support network ourselves.
Offending the mainstream
Well… the fact that no one offers substantial criticism leads me to believe that this is all “inside baseball”… a question of intellectual fashionistas sniffing at the one who’s “style sense” is in bad odor. Is “so over!”
I found the work informative and am thankful for it. Hope I don’t hang around long enough to develop a too refined sense of style myself.
Offending the mainstream
JFL, having read some of this work, in my opinion I think that the angle Srithanonchai refers to is that it’s largely a rant. The sources Ungpakorn uses are often from media outlets and the few remaining references are not particularly academic in nature.
For me though it’s a rather “informative” rant, so like reading a trashy Michael Moore conspiracy – I briefly get to feel in on the big picture then suddenly realise that I’m not at all.
Offending the mainstream
Like they say, the longer you fight your enemies, the more you are becoming like them.
Sufficiency design principles
Why don’t they have a design contest and have some students come up with some creative interpretations of HMK’s ideas?
With no disrespect intended, the above uniform linear design with dirt instead of vegetation and an ominous soldier peering down upon it, looks like a penal facility. I’m sure that’s not what they intended, but unfortunately that’s what it looks like.
Offending the mainstream
Really Srithanonchai, you shoot off your mouth with a general condemnation, no more than an insult really, and then refuse to specify exactly what the blatant ignorances of the author are. Am I supposed now to construct an argument for you?
Ok. Give me a hint. What should I say?
Your answer is of the order “anyone but a fool could see exactly what I’m talking about.” Well please help this old fool Khun Srithanonchai. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Sufficiency design principles
Maybe the Queen’s ‘house’ cost 150 million baht? That might be cheap for her!? How much did other ‘houses’ for her cost? Baby steps!
Apologies to Thai people who find my remarks superfluous and inflamatory. However, since when do demi-God’s submit to economics? I haven’t yet, but like palace decorations, there are only so many things you can do with 2 min noodles.
Offending the mainstream
JFL: Please, have a look at his angle and his sources.
Offending the mainstream
Another thanks for the link. I was able to get in a bit of reading this weekend. I never imagined myself saying this, but it is refreshing to read an old fashioned Marxist, not many left you know. Not that I am in total agreement with him on all issues, or any issues for that matter, and the underlying yet unspoken assumptions of historical determinism I find rather humerous. But all in all a thought provoking perspective so far. His criticism (deconstruction may be the more modern term that post-dates this cowboy) of the current myth of the historical monarchy is particularly enjoyable, digging back into 17th century English history for comparisons. I myself like to compare Thailand to Renaisannce Europe emerging out of feudalism and to talk about the various estates a la France rather than talk about more modern class conflict.
And even Ji, this nominal Marxist author, shows that it is Handley who has opened the Pandora’s box.
All in all, a fun read so far with lots to ponder and lots to tell the author he is off his rocker. Clearly the author is the kind of guy with whom I would enjoy sharing some Thai whiskey.
The regime’s royal ridicule
Spiritual leader is certainly the image that the authority want to portray for HMK. If you listen to the national radio program, the buddhist monks that preach on air always preach to people to do good in celebration of HMK’s 80th birthday.
In the past, I don’t think this practice has been as heavily used.
Offending the mainstream
Srithanonchai :
I’ve caught up with you at the last chapter of Giles’ book. Could you please elaborate on Giles’ display of blatant ignorance in that chapter? TIA.
From Chapter 3:
It seems as though GIles has heard the criticism of mouthing “foreign ideas” before.
The regime’s royal ridicule
The latest Nation editorial on the controversy, in refuting the comparison of the King with President Bush, describes him rather as “a religious icon” and “a spiritual leader”. In what sense exactly is this thought to be the case by Thais? And just how widely is it believed that he is a spiritual leader? And if he isn’t comparable to a president, then who or what is he comparable to such that he should be above criticism?
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/10/opinion/opinion_30031536.php
Blocked tube
Republican: the internet as “Reason” ? Come off it. There’s more mythology on the internet than a dynasty of Chakris!
(But at least there’s also more fun on the Net too.)
Actually, I’m sure the palace just wants the internet to be a place of reason, which is why it insists on only positive depictions of HM. What could be more fact-based?
Sufficiency grass-roots
The 25% share, relative to the state’s income, of local government authorities–PAOs, TAOs, and municipalities–has nothing to do with sufficiency economy, neither with the Surayud government. It was stipulated in the Decentralization Act 1999 as 35% and applied just the same under Thaksin. That is, the so-called CEO governors would not have received this money anyway.
In fact, it was the Surayud government that amended the Act, effective if I remember correctly 9 January 2007, so that the central government would not have to give 35% but only 25% to the local governments as of fiscal year 2007. Actually, the 35% tatget figure still stands, while the mandatory implementation with fiscal year 2007 was lifted and made subject to government discretion. Also, this has nothing to do with the grassroots.
The “living in happiness” policy might be termed “populist”, is an initiative of the Surayud government, and well worth of close monitoring.