There is a lot of myths concerning the name Thailand/Siam.
Thais have always called themselves Thai and called their country “muang thai” which means Thailand. Actually, muang can mean other things than just “land” but in this context it is a literal translation.
Siam is what foreigners called Thailand. Some say that Siam come from the Malays, some say that it is bastardization of the word Shan, and some say that it comes from the “Siam kok” Angkor Wat stele.
I’m not a linguist, so I don’t know the real answer, but these are reasons I have seen from different sources.
If you read the old traveling texts written by foreigners, they always point this out: When you say the word Siam, most Siamese have no idea what you are talking about. They call themselves Thai, which means free, and they call their country Muang Thai, which means “land of the free.”
La Loubere points this out in his book about Siam written in the 1680s.
I also think Van Vliet, Schoeten, and other early Dutch travelers mention this.
Bowring, Crawfurd mention it.
Another interesting factoid is that central Thai used to refer to anybody outside the central Chao Phraya valley as Lao.
So people from the North or Lanna were called Lao Phung Dum, or the black bellied Lao, and the Lao Lao were called Lao Phung khao or White beliied Lao.
Regardless, I don’t think it is that important.
But Charnvit and Sulak like to make a big deal about it.
Aesthetically, I prefer Siam over Thai.
There are a coupls articles in the book National Identity and its Defenders if anybody is interested in this topic.
Also, I was glancing through Kukrit Pramoj’s Four Reigns lately, and I noted that the characters refer to Thailand as Muang Thai instead of Siam before the legal name change.
Panthip’s political forum has been closed down for national security reasons. Here is the Bangkok Post:
ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said the popular Ratchadamnoen web chat room was “flooded with posts compromising national security”. He made the owners of discussion rooms responsible for all posts by all users.
Mr Sitthichai announced he has called a meeting at police headquarters on Thursday with the caretaker police chief, Pol Gen Seriphisut Temiyavej.
The subject will be how to catch and what to do with “netsurfers who post messages to create division in the country,” he said.
Effective immediately, the Panthip.com discussion room is closed. Mr Sitthichai said the closure is temporary, but gave no hint how long it would remain shut.
The minister said the entire website might be closed if it does not cooperate with the ministry.
He strongly warned others he might close them as well.
The ICT ministry issued so-called “warnings” to Prachathai.com and Mthai.com to monitor posts which might violate national security and lese majeste.
I wonder if the MICT defines national security as the security of the government.
‘ And the Democrats and my friends a The Nation are willing to play into their hands, because this type of politics will wipe out the last remnants of the Thaksinistas, whom are their sworn mortal enemies. ‘
I think you have a point here. The Nation is showing itself to be much less than I, for one, had thought it was.
I’m working my way through A Coup for the Rich and the first chapter has nailed these guys dead on this score.
“So, from the outside, Thais look like right-wing narrow minded idiots, but internally, the junta is strengthening its hand…” This is indeed an important distinction. Most Thais, including the elite, don’t care that much about how foreigners see them. Chang Noi’s hope, then, that the boundary between the internal and the external might fall will have to wait for some more time.
[…] Last week, the Australian House of Representatives debated a motion expressing concern about the political situation in Burma. The transcript of the debate is available and – for anybody keen to see how it took shape – pages 44-49 of … – more – […]
Thank you for making the excellent point, which I haven’t seen articulated elsewhere, that the illegal junta has through its own incompetence and heavy handed approach managed to bring the monarchy into generally unfavourable international scrutiny.Putting the delicious irony on one side, I suspect that future historians will see events of the last week as a small but significant step in the decline and fall of the Chakri dynasty.
But may I offer an alternative view that I don’t necessarily agree with, but just thought of it as a possibility.
This whole Youtube drama may actually be a good thing for the junta.
What do governments do when they are in a politically weak position?
They play the patriotism “You are with us or against us” card.
In this case, “You are with the king or not with the king.” Most Thais, of course, will goose step in their yellow shirts behind whatever they have been brainwashed to believe about the monarchy, “and will defend it with their lives.”
Military dictatorships love to take advantage of this Manichean type of thinking.
So, from the outside, Thais look like right-wing narrow minded idiots, but internally, the junta is strengthening its hand by defending every thing it does in the name of defending the monarchy. Remember, they did this with sufficiency theory also.
And the Democrats and my friends a The Nation are willing to play into their hands, because this type of politics will wipe out the last remnants of the Thaksinistas, whom are their sworn mortal enemies.
People may disagree with about this, but I have a feeling there are many mainstream elements in the political and media spheres who are itching to violently wipe out the Thaksinistas once and for all in the name of an anti-lese majestie campaign.
And in typical Thai myopic thinking, these anti-Thaksin elements could care less about the consequences of this type of crackdown as long as they got what they wanted in the end, which is political power and control over what constitutes political debate in Thailand.
This put Thailand firmly on the map of nation of concern…(it doesn’t help to go up against a highly regarded company with a ‘do no evil’ motto, people inevitably will think you are evil) .
Please. Google is an active participant in the Chinese censors’ program. They doctor search results to specification.
It’s a question of market size.
In fact it might be Google themselves who are putting up these videos.
The bean counters may have figured it’s worth writing of this whole country in return for the fig leaf of standing up to censorship in Thailand to cover their turgid “anything for a buck” member exposed at the wink of China.
Google subcontracts China’s censorship. They’re just relying on enthusiasts like yourself to forget that fact. Apparently you’ve helped hoist the fig leaf.
“Anything for a buck” is of course their actual policy. As with any international corporation.
Yes the results are, presumably, the opposite of what was sought.
At this point I’m thinking about the mindset of the attempted censors.
Ordering the internet shut down is not like ordering, I don’t know, a gambling den or a whorehouse shut down. Taking for granted that their first reaction is based on their own perceived ability to just overpower their “opponents”, what is it that made them think that their arms are long enough to box with the internet?
The problem seems first of all to be one of addressing every problem in terms of the tools at hand, i.e. since they are dictators, dictating a solution. That’s the way the miitary works. The people on top give orders to all those below and they follow them. Except of course that we in the larger society don’t when we know the orders are ultimately unenforceable. So the exercise merely undermines the imaginary, rigid hierarchy that empowered the dictators to begin with.
Secondly, how out of touch are these dictators? Did they think they could shut down the internet? Are they so unaware of the limitations of their power. People this far “out of it” are dangerous. Their reactions to the obviously unexpected results of their actions are going to be unpredictable.
Further to #17 above, I have just finished reading Handley’s book.
BTW, I stuck to my principles and borrowed rather than purchased the book, however having read the book, I now do not begrudge Handley receiving financial reward for what was obviously years of research.
Overall it is a great read, particularly if one is aware of the spin.
The book is clearly well researched, and with my limited knowledge of Thai history I am in no position to dispute any historical facts.
There are enough side comments in the book that lead me to doubt Handley’s declaration in the preface: “I have never had any purpose but to satisfy my own curiosity and then to tell a more complete story of Bhumibol’s life and tenure on the throne”
Just the title of the book gives some indication of where Handley is coming from.
In his defence, I suppose from a commercial viewpoint it was necessary to have a more controversial theme, because merely regurgitating the 60th anniversary commemoration literature was unlikely to be a best seller even in Thailand, let alone outside.
No pictures are very unusual for a biography of this type – was copyright a factor ? I am sure Handley could have chosen some interesting photo’s of the various players if he had wanted to – has Handley offered any explanation for the lack of pictures in the book?
Handley wants us to accept that the King never smiles as part of the overall grand scheme, but with constant political bickering and people still suffering, why would the monarch want to be seen smiling – It would actually be offensive if the king went about his public duties smiling away, while his countries problems had yet to be alleviated.
We must also remember that the king lost both his father and his brother early in his life, and those events together with having to become monarch would surely have an influence – I imagine being a monarch would be quite a burden.
Another theme in the book is that the image of the king has been carefully cultivated during his reign via an orchestrated propaganda campaign to increase popularity of the monarchy. There may be some truth in that assertion, however in my opinion Handley has overplayed this matter.
He contends that the royal rituals and ceremonies are all part of this grand plan, but rituals are what royals do everywhere around the world (that’s just what they do – always have, probably always will).
For example Handley makes note of the various ceremonies after the death of Ananda as though they were also part of the grand plan, and in doing so he discounts or ignores the possibility that the family & the people felt a genuine sense of loss – in particular it would have been very hard for Bhumibol losing his brother and closest companion/friend.
It is also clear that the royals still had widespread popularity even before Bhumibol’s ascension to the throne – Handley even documents the large street gatherings to greet the young Mahidol’s during their first visit to Thailand, and the large gatherings for Ananda’s funeral ceremonies.
So rather than some grand plan, I think it can more properly be characterized as giving the people what they want – they expect rituals, they want the king to be considered a great man, a musician, sportsman, scientist, inventor, composer – it makes them feel good.
The royal charity works are also characterized as being part of the grand plan, but an alternative view is that the King genuinely wants to improve the situation in the country (the book documents the constant theme in the kings speeches and his preoccupation with droughts, floods, cooperative farming and sufficiency – rather than being a sinister way of advancing himself, I think it is clear that Bhumibol is trying to improve things)
Handley does a good job documenting the political events since 1932 together with the shortcomings of the leading politicians over that time.
Given the various flaws in most of the politicians, it is my opinion Handley has not made a strong case that things would have been any better without having Bhumibol on the scene, and it is fairly obvious that things could have been much worse.
The book also seems to imply that Western style democracy/capitalism is the best system for Thailand, without really making the case as to how things would be any better under that system and whether it would successfully translate to the Thai situation.
In my opinion Handley has failed to negate the King’s vision of unity being better than conflict, and communal work & moderation being better than capitalistic individual desires.
Handley offers some positive suggestions (in the last chapter) regarding the need for the monarchy to adapt and remake itself to ensure its survival.
It is obvious that the succession situation needs to be resolved and preferably before Bhumibol passes.
Here’s my suggestion: – Having acquired wisdom with maturity, the prince recognizes that his past actions make him unsuitable to be king and he withdraws in favor of his sister. Brother and sister work together to groom the prince’s children for the role after the princess’s reign ends.
OK that solves the succession issue, now let’s write a new constitution.
“but there is also a legitimate sense of outrage that a country claiming to be modern and internationally connected can sentence someone to 10 years imprisonment for, at worst, an act of drunken vandalism.”
JFL: Thanks very much for the link. Just looked through the chapter on the south. Hopefully, the rest of the piece is of better quality, since that chapter is blatantly ignorant.
Sawarin: I don’t really see that much of a principal difference in fields of knowledge. But as I said in a previous post, I am not a mathematician. So, I guess, I am not presupposed fully to understand you. 🙂
P.S.: I would not see theory “as an attempt to explain ‘truth'”, but rather as an attempt to present a description, or what others call an “explanation.” On the operational side, theory serves to order data.
Charnvit is a historian of pre-industrial Thailand, what do you expect? There’s no such thing as Thailand in those days.
I think he has a good point, and I will also welcome the return to the name ‘Siam’. If nothing else, it’s because I’m never a big fan of that fascist Por Pibulsongkram.
As I think more about this, the potential for this saga to blow things up further is not to be taken likely.
Right now, there’s basically a sign saying “Please dump on me!”, in front of the palace. The audience are all pumped up. The clips are getting more substantial, contentwise.
If the posters, whoever they are, want to go for the jugular, they can. There are seriously compromising digital contents out there, for sure. Those stuffs are gonna make the clips seen so far lookslike child’s play.
The irony is that the censor has just leveraged the royal family into a very vulnerable position.
Somehow I’m thinking of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Scandal in Bohemia”.
I don’t know how liberalism is taught in Thai universities but must emphasize that the root of liberalism lies in ‘political philosophy’. Its genesis can be traced back to the history of Magna Carta. You can’t simply reduce it to the post war economic theory of the Chicago School.
Thais never actually gave liberalism a chance. All they have are royalism, conservatism, elitism, right-centricism, and Marxism which moulded and translated into the ‘Nationalist’s language of Morality’. This particular way of ‘Thai nationalism’ gave impetus to the army’s staging of the coup. The lefts certainly forgot to assess their own role in this Sept coup.
I can see the working title of a new academic paper now:
Seminal Teleologies and the ambiguous dialectics of sex: The failure of the Bao Panda to inseminate the Sao Panda and the continued failiure of the post-Thaksin Regime and Thai perceptions of animism in Eros.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand? Siam? Who cares?
There is a lot of myths concerning the name Thailand/Siam.
Thais have always called themselves Thai and called their country “muang thai” which means Thailand. Actually, muang can mean other things than just “land” but in this context it is a literal translation.
Siam is what foreigners called Thailand. Some say that Siam come from the Malays, some say that it is bastardization of the word Shan, and some say that it comes from the “Siam kok” Angkor Wat stele.
I’m not a linguist, so I don’t know the real answer, but these are reasons I have seen from different sources.
If you read the old traveling texts written by foreigners, they always point this out: When you say the word Siam, most Siamese have no idea what you are talking about. They call themselves Thai, which means free, and they call their country Muang Thai, which means “land of the free.”
La Loubere points this out in his book about Siam written in the 1680s.
I also think Van Vliet, Schoeten, and other early Dutch travelers mention this.
Bowring, Crawfurd mention it.
Another interesting factoid is that central Thai used to refer to anybody outside the central Chao Phraya valley as Lao.
So people from the North or Lanna were called Lao Phung Dum, or the black bellied Lao, and the Lao Lao were called Lao Phung khao or White beliied Lao.
Regardless, I don’t think it is that important.
But Charnvit and Sulak like to make a big deal about it.
Aesthetically, I prefer Siam over Thai.
There are a coupls articles in the book National Identity and its Defenders if anybody is interested in this topic.
Also, I was glancing through Kukrit Pramoj’s Four Reigns lately, and I noted that the characters refer to Thailand as Muang Thai instead of Siam before the legal name change.
The regime’s royal ridicule
Panthip’s political forum has been closed down for national security reasons. Here is the Bangkok Post:
ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said the popular Ratchadamnoen web chat room was “flooded with posts compromising national security”. He made the owners of discussion rooms responsible for all posts by all users.
Mr Sitthichai announced he has called a meeting at police headquarters on Thursday with the caretaker police chief, Pol Gen Seriphisut Temiyavej.
The subject will be how to catch and what to do with “netsurfers who post messages to create division in the country,” he said.
Effective immediately, the Panthip.com discussion room is closed. Mr Sitthichai said the closure is temporary, but gave no hint how long it would remain shut.
The minister said the entire website might be closed if it does not cooperate with the ministry.
He strongly warned others he might close them as well.
The ICT ministry issued so-called “warnings” to Prachathai.com and Mthai.com to monitor posts which might violate national security and lese majeste.
I wonder if the MICT defines national security as the security of the government.
Offending the mainstream
re Damian Doyle’s remark: one swallow doth not a spring make!
The regime’s royal ridicule
‘ And the Democrats and my friends a The Nation are willing to play into their hands, because this type of politics will wipe out the last remnants of the Thaksinistas, whom are their sworn mortal enemies. ‘
I think you have a point here. The Nation is showing itself to be much less than I, for one, had thought it was.
I’m working my way through A Coup for the Rich and the first chapter has nailed these guys dead on this score.
The regime’s royal ridicule
“So, from the outside, Thais look like right-wing narrow minded idiots, but internally, the junta is strengthening its hand…” This is indeed an important distinction. Most Thais, including the elite, don’t care that much about how foreigners see them. Chang Noi’s hope, then, that the boundary between the internal and the external might fall will have to wait for some more time.
Burma debate in Aussie parliament
[…] Last week, the Australian House of Representatives debated a motion expressing concern about the political situation in Burma. The transcript of the debate is available and – for anybody keen to see how it took shape – pages 44-49 of … – more – […]
The regime’s royal ridicule
Thank you for making the excellent point, which I haven’t seen articulated elsewhere, that the illegal junta has through its own incompetence and heavy handed approach managed to bring the monarchy into generally unfavourable international scrutiny.Putting the delicious irony on one side, I suspect that future historians will see events of the last week as a small but significant step in the decline and fall of the Chakri dynasty.
The regime’s royal ridicule
A lot of good threads the past week.
But may I offer an alternative view that I don’t necessarily agree with, but just thought of it as a possibility.
This whole Youtube drama may actually be a good thing for the junta.
What do governments do when they are in a politically weak position?
They play the patriotism “You are with us or against us” card.
In this case, “You are with the king or not with the king.” Most Thais, of course, will goose step in their yellow shirts behind whatever they have been brainwashed to believe about the monarchy, “and will defend it with their lives.”
Military dictatorships love to take advantage of this Manichean type of thinking.
So, from the outside, Thais look like right-wing narrow minded idiots, but internally, the junta is strengthening its hand by defending every thing it does in the name of defending the monarchy. Remember, they did this with sufficiency theory also.
And the Democrats and my friends a The Nation are willing to play into their hands, because this type of politics will wipe out the last remnants of the Thaksinistas, whom are their sworn mortal enemies.
People may disagree with about this, but I have a feeling there are many mainstream elements in the political and media spheres who are itching to violently wipe out the Thaksinistas once and for all in the name of an anti-lese majestie campaign.
And in typical Thai myopic thinking, these anti-Thaksin elements could care less about the consequences of this type of crackdown as long as they got what they wanted in the end, which is political power and control over what constitutes political debate in Thailand.
Blocked tube
This put Thailand firmly on the map of nation of concern…(it doesn’t help to go up against a highly regarded company with a ‘do no evil’ motto, people inevitably will think you are evil) .
Please. Google is an active participant in the Chinese censors’ program. They doctor search results to specification.
It’s a question of market size.
In fact it might be Google themselves who are putting up these videos.
The bean counters may have figured it’s worth writing of this whole country in return for the fig leaf of standing up to censorship in Thailand to cover their turgid “anything for a buck” member exposed at the wink of China.
Google subcontracts China’s censorship. They’re just relying on enthusiasts like yourself to forget that fact. Apparently you’ve helped hoist the fig leaf.
“Anything for a buck” is of course their actual policy. As with any international corporation.
The regime’s royal ridicule
Yes the results are, presumably, the opposite of what was sought.
At this point I’m thinking about the mindset of the attempted censors.
Ordering the internet shut down is not like ordering, I don’t know, a gambling den or a whorehouse shut down. Taking for granted that their first reaction is based on their own perceived ability to just overpower their “opponents”, what is it that made them think that their arms are long enough to box with the internet?
The problem seems first of all to be one of addressing every problem in terms of the tools at hand, i.e. since they are dictators, dictating a solution. That’s the way the miitary works. The people on top give orders to all those below and they follow them. Except of course that we in the larger society don’t when we know the orders are ultimately unenforceable. So the exercise merely undermines the imaginary, rigid hierarchy that empowered the dictators to begin with.
Secondly, how out of touch are these dictators? Did they think they could shut down the internet? Are they so unaware of the limitations of their power. People this far “out of it” are dangerous. Their reactions to the obviously unexpected results of their actions are going to be unpredictable.
The King Never Smiles?
Further to #17 above, I have just finished reading Handley’s book.
BTW, I stuck to my principles and borrowed rather than purchased the book, however having read the book, I now do not begrudge Handley receiving financial reward for what was obviously years of research.
Overall it is a great read, particularly if one is aware of the spin.
The book is clearly well researched, and with my limited knowledge of Thai history I am in no position to dispute any historical facts.
There are enough side comments in the book that lead me to doubt Handley’s declaration in the preface:
“I have never had any purpose but to satisfy my own curiosity and then to tell a more complete story of Bhumibol’s life and tenure on the throne”
Just the title of the book gives some indication of where Handley is coming from.
In his defence, I suppose from a commercial viewpoint it was necessary to have a more controversial theme, because merely regurgitating the 60th anniversary commemoration literature was unlikely to be a best seller even in Thailand, let alone outside.
No pictures are very unusual for a biography of this type – was copyright a factor ? I am sure Handley could have chosen some interesting photo’s of the various players if he had wanted to – has Handley offered any explanation for the lack of pictures in the book?
Handley wants us to accept that the King never smiles as part of the overall grand scheme, but with constant political bickering and people still suffering, why would the monarch want to be seen smiling – It would actually be offensive if the king went about his public duties smiling away, while his countries problems had yet to be alleviated.
We must also remember that the king lost both his father and his brother early in his life, and those events together with having to become monarch would surely have an influence – I imagine being a monarch would be quite a burden.
Another theme in the book is that the image of the king has been carefully cultivated during his reign via an orchestrated propaganda campaign to increase popularity of the monarchy. There may be some truth in that assertion, however in my opinion Handley has overplayed this matter.
He contends that the royal rituals and ceremonies are all part of this grand plan, but rituals are what royals do everywhere around the world (that’s just what they do – always have, probably always will).
For example Handley makes note of the various ceremonies after the death of Ananda as though they were also part of the grand plan, and in doing so he discounts or ignores the possibility that the family & the people felt a genuine sense of loss – in particular it would have been very hard for Bhumibol losing his brother and closest companion/friend.
It is also clear that the royals still had widespread popularity even before Bhumibol’s ascension to the throne – Handley even documents the large street gatherings to greet the young Mahidol’s during their first visit to Thailand, and the large gatherings for Ananda’s funeral ceremonies.
So rather than some grand plan, I think it can more properly be characterized as giving the people what they want – they expect rituals, they want the king to be considered a great man, a musician, sportsman, scientist, inventor, composer – it makes them feel good.
The royal charity works are also characterized as being part of the grand plan, but an alternative view is that the King genuinely wants to improve the situation in the country (the book documents the constant theme in the kings speeches and his preoccupation with droughts, floods, cooperative farming and sufficiency – rather than being a sinister way of advancing himself, I think it is clear that Bhumibol is trying to improve things)
Handley does a good job documenting the political events since 1932 together with the shortcomings of the leading politicians over that time.
Given the various flaws in most of the politicians, it is my opinion Handley has not made a strong case that things would have been any better without having Bhumibol on the scene, and it is fairly obvious that things could have been much worse.
The book also seems to imply that Western style democracy/capitalism is the best system for Thailand, without really making the case as to how things would be any better under that system and whether it would successfully translate to the Thai situation.
In my opinion Handley has failed to negate the King’s vision of unity being better than conflict, and communal work & moderation being better than capitalistic individual desires.
Handley offers some positive suggestions (in the last chapter) regarding the need for the monarchy to adapt and remake itself to ensure its survival.
It is obvious that the succession situation needs to be resolved and preferably before Bhumibol passes.
Here’s my suggestion: – Having acquired wisdom with maturity, the prince recognizes that his past actions make him unsuitable to be king and he withdraws in favor of his sister. Brother and sister work together to groom the prince’s children for the role after the princess’s reign ends.
OK that solves the succession issue, now let’s write a new constitution.
The regime’s royal ridicule
I just read an article on the matter published by the online version of the most influential German weekly news magazine “Der Spiegel”:
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,476145,00.html
Very, very bad publicity for Thailand and, most regrettably, for the Thai King, I must say.
The regime’s royal ridicule
“but there is also a legitimate sense of outrage that a country claiming to be modern and internationally connected can sentence someone to 10 years imprisonment for, at worst, an act of drunken vandalism.”
Exactly!
Offending the mainstream
JFL: Thanks very much for the link. Just looked through the chapter on the south. Hopefully, the rest of the piece is of better quality, since that chapter is blatantly ignorant.
A royal petition
Sawarin: I don’t really see that much of a principal difference in fields of knowledge. But as I said in a previous post, I am not a mathematician. So, I guess, I am not presupposed fully to understand you. 🙂
P.S.: I would not see theory “as an attempt to explain ‘truth'”, but rather as an attempt to present a description, or what others call an “explanation.” On the operational side, theory serves to order data.
Thailand? Siam? Who cares?
Charnvit is a historian of pre-industrial Thailand, what do you expect? There’s no such thing as Thailand in those days.
I think he has a good point, and I will also welcome the return to the name ‘Siam’. If nothing else, it’s because I’m never a big fan of that fascist Por Pibulsongkram.
The regime’s royal ridicule
Well said, AW!
As I think more about this, the potential for this saga to blow things up further is not to be taken likely.
Right now, there’s basically a sign saying “Please dump on me!”, in front of the palace. The audience are all pumped up. The clips are getting more substantial, contentwise.
If the posters, whoever they are, want to go for the jugular, they can. There are seriously compromising digital contents out there, for sure. Those stuffs are gonna make the clips seen so far lookslike child’s play.
The irony is that the censor has just leveraged the royal family into a very vulnerable position.
Somehow I’m thinking of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Scandal in Bohemia”.
Offending the mainstream
I don’t know how liberalism is taught in Thai universities but must emphasize that the root of liberalism lies in ‘political philosophy’. Its genesis can be traced back to the history of Magna Carta. You can’t simply reduce it to the post war economic theory of the Chicago School.
Thais never actually gave liberalism a chance. All they have are royalism, conservatism, elitism, right-centricism, and Marxism which moulded and translated into the ‘Nationalist’s language of Morality’. This particular way of ‘Thai nationalism’ gave impetus to the army’s staging of the coup. The lefts certainly forgot to assess their own role in this Sept coup.
Pandas say no!
I can see the working title of a new academic paper now:
Seminal Teleologies and the ambiguous dialectics of sex: The failure of the Bao Panda to inseminate the Sao Panda and the continued failiure of the post-Thaksin Regime and Thai perceptions of animism in Eros.
Thailand? Siam? Who cares?
How old is Charnvit? Surely this is a nostalgic outburst?!