ANUSG, I’ve wandered through Singapore and been called a “bloody ang moh”. I think they were all high on $$$…
Maybe I’m prejudiced, shallow and immature, but I found it amusing you spelt Philippino without a capital. Are those colleagues your “house helpers?”
This is all culturally acceptable right? And it was culturally acceptable for the Brits to go off on colonising jaunts! And ausAid is not an extension of that same principle?!
If I remember correctly, back in 1995 there was an Esquire magazine article that was about travel in Burma and commenting on the smiles in Burma it said something to the effect that although the people may be oppressed, they weren’t depressed becasue they were smiling all the time.
Of course, what else can you do but smile? If you lose your temper at the idiots running the country, well that’ll land you in jail, at the least, so keep on smiling.
[…] International Thai Studies Conference. (For previous New Mandala discussion of this issue┬ see here and here.) The article concludes: A boycott may or may not be a good idea. But the call for this […]
The last international figure they gave a degree to was Anand Panyarachun. I think one can make a better case for him than for Harry Lee.
The Lee opportunity seems to be being driven by some of the same interests that were seen at ANU. That is, UNC has developing links with NUS and thinks that sucking up to Lee will help (it might!) and there are business people in UNC’s advisory groups who think Lee is a model political leader.
Chang Noi in today’s Nation has a commentary on this debate. Note two errors: (i) the mini-symposium at Cornell was not held under the title Chang Noi gives it. The title was: Issues in Contemporary Thai Politics; (ii) Chang Noi says, “The Royal association with these conferences is nothing new. In the past it has been a tradition for HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn to preside over the opening ceremony and listen to the keynote address.” I have attended 5 of these events, and I know of no such tradition. I suggest that this is recent – not a “tradition” – and limited to events in Thailand. Chang Noi is creating yet another royal tradition!!
nganadeeleg says “I base my opinion that the king DOES want the best for the country on what I have seen & read (including Handley). If he doesn’t want the best for the country, he sure spends a lot of time making speeches about it & trying to offer advice!”
That’s the point of the first post. As far as discussion of the Thai monarchy is concerned, there is a climate of repression that developed especially vigorously after 1976.
If you read all of the hagiography that comes out in Thailand regarding the current King and his family, you’d have to think like that this monarchy thinks about the country, works for its interests, protects it, loves it, etc. If you listen to all the speeches – at least those in recent years – you’d think that too. But of course! What do you expect? Anyway, where could there be an opposed voice? No critical accounts can really be allowed out into the open.
(By the way, if you look at earlier speeches, most were really very short and short of substance. Now they are long and light on substance.)
That Handley says that the king thinks he is doing good for the country is because the king equates the country with himself. Thaksin took a similar line. Monarchs have to justify their existence in some way (even to themselves).
If one looks at the historical record – and here Handley is pretty good – you can see that the palace has defined the best interests of the country in terms of what works for them. That’s no surprise. Most monarchs do this as do most dictators.
[…] Nicholas Farrelly wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptEvery tourism major must excel in the art of smiling and explaining their culture to foreigners. The elite valedictorians of the class go on to become stewardesses at Japan airlines. What I’m actually describing is the Thai university I … […]
Personally i think that the comments about LKY as a dictator/tyrant is really unjust, shallow and immature.
Like some said, the people in sg are aware of whats happening, but majority still vote for PAP. Why? i don’t believe it was out of fear for PAP, but rather fear of how sg economy will turn out if the opposition won.
I’ve got colleagues from all over the world. Australian, Americans, Indians, philipinos, Canadians, Brits, you name it. The one answer when asked how they found singapore, was that it is a safe and clean country.
I’ve been in Australia for 3 years and if you wonder the streets of Sydney, i don’t think you’ll feel as safe or clean as if you are in sg.
Lets not even talk about Sydney, take Canberra for e.g, known for being a boring state to be in. I’ve even had encounters where Aussies shout racist comments right across the street. Worse when they’re high on beer.
One shouldn’t compare the governing of one country to another. The obvious reason is because we’re dealing with different kinda people/culture/mindset.
Yes, LKY is a democrat, but running a country aint’ just following instructions of a manual, he has his own variations of his democracy which had proved to work.
My take is that LKY and his PAP had lead singapore well. If the opposition think they are better than PAP, then the opposition would have won the elections long time ago.
Yes you may add that because of PAP “tyrany” the opposition doesn’t stand a chance. But then again, if PAP was able to beat its predecessor party, it implies that it is not impossible to beat PAP. The only question is, are the oppositions capable enough to beat PAP?
[…] pablopalazzi wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptCovered in the dirt of the road, Solmonson writes that “we could put on a happy face. The face of Myanmar”. This persistent image of a smiling, happy country (”We also spent a lot of time smiling on the road to Mandalay”; … […]
Every tourism major must excel in the art of smiling and explaining their culture to foreigners.
The elite valedictorians of the class go on to become stewardesses at Japan airlines.
What I’m actually describing is the Thai university I taught at, which is probably a good predictor of Burma’s future.
If I had my druthers, I’d have them all become doctors or engineers, but I’m not in charge of reality. (fortunately)
IMHO On the other hand, most books about Burma are doom and gloom books, so sometimes a little non-doom and gloom is good. Like this little girl in the market once explained to me with a big proud smile that she had picked the Kazun-ywe (Thai: Pat-boong) by the side of the road. Smiles keep people going in depressing circumstances sometimes.
Check out: Chomsky on Burma policy, from Bangkok Post Perspective Sunday April 01, 2007:
“McLeod: The US has imposed trade sanctions on the Burmese junta. Given the brutality of the Burmese regime, do you think that this is an example of the US taking a positive stance in the region?
Chomsky: The US can have and occasionally does have benign influences on many things. Now exactly how to deal with the Burmese junta is a question that has to be raised.
Burma has a rotten, horrible government and surely, someone should try to help the Burmese people to free themselves from it, but the question of exactly how to do it is not simple.
Sanctions often backfire – you really have to think of the right means of doing it. Sometimes, engagement is more effective.
Anon: #35 “The animal never expressed remorse for his crimes, and he certainly wasn’t helped by the Australian embassy.
It certainly set a standard for what the King was willing to pardon and what crimes he was not willing to pardon.”
You clearly have no idea about the pardon process. He would never have been granted a pardon with Australian government support. If you look at the DFAT website you will find the following:
“The Australian Government may, however, initiate or support an application for a pardon lodged on behalf of Australian prisoners in overseas jails. This is only where local law and practice allow and where the prisoner has served a sentence approximately equivalent to the sentence that would have been served had the offence been committed in Australia, less one year. The purpose behind the one year reduction is to provide a reasonable amount of time for local authorities to process the pardon application.”
I know for drug sentences it was around 6 years (7 years – 1 year).
Thai law allows and Thai government officials require foreign government support for a pardon. Normally, in Thailand, the foreign prisoner will receive a pardon after a third of their sentence. For example, if they are sentenced to 36 years in jail the pardon will finally be processed after 12 years. I am not so sure how this works for shorter sentences, but a petition for a royal pardon can’t be submitted until the entire appeal process is finalised. It can take up to three years to work its way through the system, but this can depend on the level of government interaction from the foreign embassy.
The type of the crime is not relevant for Australian government support.
Srithanonchai: “The general problem was about the content, the intensity, the style, and the language used in these events. It even prompted the Thai Chapter of Amnesty International to warn the PAD against their verbal violence (such as saying that Thaksin’s daughters deserved being VD-infected prostitutes).”
“The politically most obscene libel case was brought by Thaksin against media activist Supinya Klanarong. Moreover, that case also served as an illustration were a libal suit is brought against a person that merely used her constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.”
Thanks, Srithanonchai. IMHO it’s the Supinya-type cases that make the news because they are so clear-cut and people can wrap the cockles of their hearts so easily wround them.
The Swiss guy too. He really just needs to be swiftly deported with a whole of other chronic drunks in Chiang Mai, one of whom was put in jail because he was harassing people as they gave their morning rice to the monks. (equally heinous)
But the Thai government puts first priority on attracting money to Thailand and the Swiss (as opposed to hard working Phillipinos in Catholic church schools, lets say) would be on top, although the Swiss guy who hung himself mysteriously in Chiang Rai prison a couple of years ago, the day after being hit up by the police for 1.5 million baht, didn’t even make the Thai English language press much less the BBC! Which supports my basic contention, that the media is not really seeing what is going on, especially in the provinces.
Sometimes us foreigners who don’t listen closely to what is being said (in Thai) and not having the opportunity to read translations, obviously don’t know the full story of how bad the things that people like Sondhi say.
When the big protests were in full swing, they were playng the Sondhi speeches live, where I work, and he sounded like Adolf Hitler. A lot of very knowledgable people I know, don’t think very highly of him. And this description by Chang Noi sounds like he was suffering from megalomaniac delusions of grandeur:
“Sondhi Limthongkul had begun his crusade several months before – wrapping himself in yellow, splashing “we will fight for the king” across his chest, and claiming to light a “dhamma candle” to spotlight Thaksin’s evil. Sondhi created the idea that politics had become a contest between the prime minister and the King. But his movement was stumbling. The rallies were dwindling and Sondhi’s allegations of corruption were embarrassingly thin. The Shin Corp sale gave him a second chance.”
“A week later one of his future PAD allies, Somkiat Phongpaiboon wrote, “Please watch the royalist group and the Privy Councillors, which Sondhi has called ‘the return of the royal power’.”
“On 4 February 2006, Thaksin said he would resign if the King whispered in his ear. That evening, Sondhi thundered from his rally stage “Where is the army? This talk is enough to bring [Thaksin] to the execution post.” That night he took a petition to General Prem. As he told the world on the following day, the Bureau of the Royal Household was surprisingly open at 9 p.m. as if ready to receive him. Sondhi also went to meet General Sonthi, and related later, “I asked [Sonthi], ‘Are you going to stand by the people?’ He nodded, ‘I will stand by the people because I am a soldier of the King’.” http://www.geocities.com/changnoi2/samesky.htm
Sawarin: I am not a mathematician, unfortunately… If you want to experience an institutional success story, why not move to the European Union (she just celebrated the anniversary of the Rome treaties)? Yes!
jason: i can’t believe you would say something like it.
Singapore is someone’s home, and it is just a particular type of structure of living. What LKY did is more than good enough for people who grew up in his generation and the later one. I’m not too sure about this particular generation we are in though. That’s why we do have new blood in the government, people more and more readily exposed to alternatives, whether taking them up or not is another matter outside of this. It all takes time.
I see an aboslute danger in sinking into a certain western mindframe backuped that defined itself w certain levels of democracy and trying to judge every country based on that criteria. When actually we all come from different starting points, and relatively speaking, LKY did do an extraoridinary amount of work.
I’ve been out of Singapore for a few years now and have felt the effects of LKY’s governing in my conditioning over most of my life. There is alot of deal with, de injected fear, repression, attitude/mentality and all. but each culture has their own way of doing things, and in 40years, that was very impressive. Now it’s time to move on and explore how my generation and later generations can deal with this new problem. I don’t care if LKY gets de doctorate, all this discussion in a way is juz mental mensturbation. I’m not even sure if it’s intellectual and reasonable. The reason why I manage to spend a few years out of Singapore was because of governmental funding.
It’s easy to get hateful, but let’s move on.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
“…put on a happy face. The face of Myanmar”
Macabre!
Great post Nich, thanks!
“Lee Kuan Yew – ANU is not for you!”
ANUSG, I’ve wandered through Singapore and been called a “bloody ang moh”. I think they were all high on $$$…
Maybe I’m prejudiced, shallow and immature, but I found it amusing you spelt Philippino without a capital. Are those colleagues your “house helpers?”
This is all culturally acceptable right? And it was culturally acceptable for the Brits to go off on colonising jaunts! And ausAid is not an extension of that same principle?!
Jolly good show!
“…put on a happy face. The face of Myanmar”
If I remember correctly, back in 1995 there was an Esquire magazine article that was about travel in Burma and commenting on the smiles in Burma it said something to the effect that although the people may be oppressed, they weren’t depressed becasue they were smiling all the time.
Of course, what else can you do but smile? If you lose your temper at the idiots running the country, well that’ll land you in jail, at the least, so keep on smiling.
A Thai Studies boycott?
[…] International Thai Studies Conference. (For previous New Mandala discussion of this issue┬ see here and here.) The article concludes: A boycott may or may not be a good idea. But the call for this […]
Thailand’s climate of repression
The Thai king is willing to pardon paedophiles and child pornographers.
But he isn’t willing to pardon people who spray paint on his posters.
This make perfect sense, and is a perfect reflection of modern Thai values.
Thoughts for the week
Yes, indeed! Write to UNC.
The last international figure they gave a degree to was Anand Panyarachun. I think one can make a better case for him than for Harry Lee.
The Lee opportunity seems to be being driven by some of the same interests that were seen at ANU. That is, UNC has developing links with NUS and thinks that sucking up to Lee will help (it might!) and there are business people in UNC’s advisory groups who think Lee is a model political leader.
Thai studies boycott? An update
Chang Noi in today’s Nation has a commentary on this debate. Note two errors: (i) the mini-symposium at Cornell was not held under the title Chang Noi gives it. The title was: Issues in Contemporary Thai Politics; (ii) Chang Noi says, “The Royal association with these conferences is nothing new. In the past it has been a tradition for HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn to preside over the opening ceremony and listen to the keynote address.” I have attended 5 of these events, and I know of no such tradition. I suggest that this is recent – not a “tradition” – and limited to events in Thailand. Chang Noi is creating yet another royal tradition!!
Thailand’s climate of repression
nganadeeleg says “I base my opinion that the king DOES want the best for the country on what I have seen & read (including Handley). If he doesn’t want the best for the country, he sure spends a lot of time making speeches about it & trying to offer advice!”
That’s the point of the first post. As far as discussion of the Thai monarchy is concerned, there is a climate of repression that developed especially vigorously after 1976.
If you read all of the hagiography that comes out in Thailand regarding the current King and his family, you’d have to think like that this monarchy thinks about the country, works for its interests, protects it, loves it, etc. If you listen to all the speeches – at least those in recent years – you’d think that too. But of course! What do you expect? Anyway, where could there be an opposed voice? No critical accounts can really be allowed out into the open.
(By the way, if you look at earlier speeches, most were really very short and short of substance. Now they are long and light on substance.)
That Handley says that the king thinks he is doing good for the country is because the king equates the country with himself. Thaksin took a similar line. Monarchs have to justify their existence in some way (even to themselves).
If one looks at the historical record – and here Handley is pretty good – you can see that the palace has defined the best interests of the country in terms of what works for them. That’s no surprise. Most monarchs do this as do most dictators.
“…put on a happy face. The face of Myanmar”
[…] Nicholas Farrelly wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptEvery tourism major must excel in the art of smiling and explaining their culture to foreigners. The elite valedictorians of the class go on to become stewardesses at Japan airlines. What I’m actually describing is the Thai university I … […]
“Lee Kuan Yew – ANU is not for you!”
Personally i think that the comments about LKY as a dictator/tyrant is really unjust, shallow and immature.
Like some said, the people in sg are aware of whats happening, but majority still vote for PAP. Why? i don’t believe it was out of fear for PAP, but rather fear of how sg economy will turn out if the opposition won.
I’ve got colleagues from all over the world. Australian, Americans, Indians, philipinos, Canadians, Brits, you name it. The one answer when asked how they found singapore, was that it is a safe and clean country.
I’ve been in Australia for 3 years and if you wonder the streets of Sydney, i don’t think you’ll feel as safe or clean as if you are in sg.
Lets not even talk about Sydney, take Canberra for e.g, known for being a boring state to be in. I’ve even had encounters where Aussies shout racist comments right across the street. Worse when they’re high on beer.
One shouldn’t compare the governing of one country to another. The obvious reason is because we’re dealing with different kinda people/culture/mindset.
Yes, LKY is a democrat, but running a country aint’ just following instructions of a manual, he has his own variations of his democracy which had proved to work.
My take is that LKY and his PAP had lead singapore well. If the opposition think they are better than PAP, then the opposition would have won the elections long time ago.
Yes you may add that because of PAP “tyrany” the opposition doesn’t stand a chance. But then again, if PAP was able to beat its predecessor party, it implies that it is not impossible to beat PAP. The only question is, are the oppositions capable enough to beat PAP?
“…put on a happy face. The face of Myanmar”
I like this report Nich.
How about ‘Aloha Junta-Aloha Burma’?
“…put on a happy face. The face of Myanmar”
[…] pablopalazzi wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptCovered in the dirt of the road, Solmonson writes that “we could put on a happy face. The face of Myanmar”. This persistent image of a smiling, happy country (”We also spent a lot of time smiling on the road to Mandalay”; … […]
“…put on a happy face. The face of Myanmar”
Every tourism major must excel in the art of smiling and explaining their culture to foreigners.
The elite valedictorians of the class go on to become stewardesses at Japan airlines.
What I’m actually describing is the Thai university I taught at, which is probably a good predictor of Burma’s future.
If I had my druthers, I’d have them all become doctors or engineers, but I’m not in charge of reality. (fortunately)
IMHO On the other hand, most books about Burma are doom and gloom books, so sometimes a little non-doom and gloom is good. Like this little girl in the market once explained to me with a big proud smile that she had picked the Kazun-ywe (Thai: Pat-boong) by the side of the road. Smiles keep people going in depressing circumstances sometimes.
Check out: Chomsky on Burma policy, from Bangkok Post Perspective Sunday April 01, 2007:
“McLeod: The US has imposed trade sanctions on the Burmese junta. Given the brutality of the Burmese regime, do you think that this is an example of the US taking a positive stance in the region?
Chomsky: The US can have and occasionally does have benign influences on many things. Now exactly how to deal with the Burmese junta is a question that has to be raised.
Burma has a rotten, horrible government and surely, someone should try to help the Burmese people to free themselves from it, but the question of exactly how to do it is not simple.
Sanctions often backfire – you really have to think of the right means of doing it. Sometimes, engagement is more effective.
You really have to think this through, you cannot just have formulas.”
http://www.bangkokpost.com/Perspective/01Apr2007_pers02.php
Thailand’s climate of repression
Anon: #35 “The animal never expressed remorse for his crimes, and he certainly wasn’t helped by the Australian embassy.
It certainly set a standard for what the King was willing to pardon and what crimes he was not willing to pardon.”
You clearly have no idea about the pardon process. He would never have been granted a pardon with Australian government support. If you look at the DFAT website you will find the following:
“The Australian Government may, however, initiate or support an application for a pardon lodged on behalf of Australian prisoners in overseas jails. This is only where local law and practice allow and where the prisoner has served a sentence approximately equivalent to the sentence that would have been served had the offence been committed in Australia, less one year. The purpose behind the one year reduction is to provide a reasonable amount of time for local authorities to process the pardon application.”
I know for drug sentences it was around 6 years (7 years – 1 year).
Thai law allows and Thai government officials require foreign government support for a pardon. Normally, in Thailand, the foreign prisoner will receive a pardon after a third of their sentence. For example, if they are sentenced to 36 years in jail the pardon will finally be processed after 12 years. I am not so sure how this works for shorter sentences, but a petition for a royal pardon can’t be submitted until the entire appeal process is finalised. It can take up to three years to work its way through the system, but this can depend on the level of government interaction from the foreign embassy.
The type of the crime is not relevant for Australian government support.
Thailand’s climate of repression
Srithanonchai: “The general problem was about the content, the intensity, the style, and the language used in these events. It even prompted the Thai Chapter of Amnesty International to warn the PAD against their verbal violence (such as saying that Thaksin’s daughters deserved being VD-infected prostitutes).”
“The politically most obscene libel case was brought by Thaksin against media activist Supinya Klanarong. Moreover, that case also served as an illustration were a libal suit is brought against a person that merely used her constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.”
Thanks, Srithanonchai. IMHO it’s the Supinya-type cases that make the news because they are so clear-cut and people can wrap the cockles of their hearts so easily wround them.
The Swiss guy too. He really just needs to be swiftly deported with a whole of other chronic drunks in Chiang Mai, one of whom was put in jail because he was harassing people as they gave their morning rice to the monks. (equally heinous)
But the Thai government puts first priority on attracting money to Thailand and the Swiss (as opposed to hard working Phillipinos in Catholic church schools, lets say) would be on top, although the Swiss guy who hung himself mysteriously in Chiang Rai prison a couple of years ago, the day after being hit up by the police for 1.5 million baht, didn’t even make the Thai English language press much less the BBC! Which supports my basic contention, that the media is not really seeing what is going on, especially in the provinces.
Sometimes us foreigners who don’t listen closely to what is being said (in Thai) and not having the opportunity to read translations, obviously don’t know the full story of how bad the things that people like Sondhi say.
When the big protests were in full swing, they were playng the Sondhi speeches live, where I work, and he sounded like Adolf Hitler. A lot of very knowledgable people I know, don’t think very highly of him. And this description by Chang Noi sounds like he was suffering from megalomaniac delusions of grandeur:
“Sondhi Limthongkul had begun his crusade several months before – wrapping himself in yellow, splashing “we will fight for the king” across his chest, and claiming to light a “dhamma candle” to spotlight Thaksin’s evil. Sondhi created the idea that politics had become a contest between the prime minister and the King. But his movement was stumbling. The rallies were dwindling and Sondhi’s allegations of corruption were embarrassingly thin. The Shin Corp sale gave him a second chance.”
“A week later one of his future PAD allies, Somkiat Phongpaiboon wrote, “Please watch the royalist group and the Privy Councillors, which Sondhi has called ‘the return of the royal power’.”
“On 4 February 2006, Thaksin said he would resign if the King whispered in his ear. That evening, Sondhi thundered from his rally stage “Where is the army? This talk is enough to bring [Thaksin] to the execution post.” That night he took a petition to General Prem. As he told the world on the following day, the Bureau of the Royal Household was surprisingly open at 9 p.m. as if ready to receive him. Sondhi also went to meet General Sonthi, and related later, “I asked [Sonthi], ‘Are you going to stand by the people?’ He nodded, ‘I will stand by the people because I am a soldier of the King’.”
http://www.geocities.com/changnoi2/samesky.htm
Thailand’s climate of repression
Sawarin: I am not a mathematician, unfortunately… If you want to experience an institutional success story, why not move to the European Union (she just celebrated the anniversary of the Rome treaties)? Yes!
“Lee Kuan Yew – ANU is not for you!”
Yes! Lets move ! Move out of the dictatorship! Vote with your feet!
Burma boycott – some questions about “avoided tourism”
[…] any tourist brand will always be a hard sell under that country’s current rulers.┬ The military regime, for its […]
“Lee Kuan Yew – ANU is not for you!”
jason: i can’t believe you would say something like it.
Singapore is someone’s home, and it is just a particular type of structure of living. What LKY did is more than good enough for people who grew up in his generation and the later one. I’m not too sure about this particular generation we are in though. That’s why we do have new blood in the government, people more and more readily exposed to alternatives, whether taking them up or not is another matter outside of this. It all takes time.
I see an aboslute danger in sinking into a certain western mindframe backuped that defined itself w certain levels of democracy and trying to judge every country based on that criteria. When actually we all come from different starting points, and relatively speaking, LKY did do an extraoridinary amount of work.
I’ve been out of Singapore for a few years now and have felt the effects of LKY’s governing in my conditioning over most of my life. There is alot of deal with, de injected fear, repression, attitude/mentality and all. but each culture has their own way of doing things, and in 40years, that was very impressive. Now it’s time to move on and explore how my generation and later generations can deal with this new problem. I don’t care if LKY gets de doctorate, all this discussion in a way is juz mental mensturbation. I’m not even sure if it’s intellectual and reasonable. The reason why I manage to spend a few years out of Singapore was because of governmental funding.
It’s easy to get hateful, but let’s move on.
“Lee Kuan Yew – ANU is not for you!”
[…] the protest against Lee Kuan Yew was done in Australian National Uni in Canberra (see http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2007/03/28/lee-kuan-yew-anu-is-not-for-you/┬ for the source of this photo, and others). ANU was conferring an honorary doctorate to LKY, and […]