In world where most people are selfish. only care about their own wealth. Democracy serve the best.
but democracy might not always be the best answer.
Different people have different ways of solving problem.
I am sure we will be back on democracy in a year, (ealier than US pulling their troops out of Iraq.)
When you got cancer you need strong medicine to cure the disease. You might suffer side effect like losing hair but who care? and it doesn’t matter what method we use, as long as life is saved.
I know you don’t see how our country was in greate danger but believe me, it was. but that time before coup, it’s not interesting enough to turn attention to isn’t it.
All we ask for here is nothing other than time and respect.
I believe it was a ‘patent absurdity’ for academics to hold on to that monomaniacal simplistic idea that the majority vote ‘sufficiently’ defines democracy. Now there are many worldy people who were so deeply educated about this basic majority vote mandate that they permitted themselves to readilybe blinded by Thaksin Shinawatra’s claim that whatever his corruption, whatever his constitutional abuses, and whatever conflict of interest was suggested by that whopping $1.8 billion AmpleRihch-Temasek-Shin affair, only the election should be final judge of his fate. The danger of civil division or worse should be of no concern to Thai people, according to scholars. And any coup that prevented chaos/disorder and bloodshed was of no merit, nor, interest to these scholars of democracy, Dr. Patrick Jory being one among many, among these distinguished scholars.
You make some very fair points, and I do see the great value in your comments. As I indicated in this brief report, New Mandala plans to provide more analysis of the SOAS event. Some of this analysis will be critical, and then some.
There were only a handful of audible, critical voices at this “seminar” and – in an effort to give New Mandala readers a balanced account of what happened at SOAS – I may have gone too far towards legitimising the SOAS endeavour. On re-reading what I wrote, some things could be given different emphasis.
We live and learn. More from New Mandala will be appearing soon.
An interesting point, A Nonymous. Perhaps it was just an afternoon…or perhaps not. It’s hard to know. This is a special circumstance: “Clive Parker” working under a pseudonym, with nobody to check “his” movements, covertly gathering information and data inside Burma.
There is journalistic license and then there is…
If anybody directly knows how the few journalists who have been to Naypyidaw have done it then we could start a discussion on the topic. It’s an issue, it definitely is.
Oh and just so you know. Thailand currently faces flood problem. While people having troblems not only the king give advise, provide important information like satellite image, now he just asked government’s official to direct the water to flood HIS OWN land so his people will suffer less.
That tells what kind of person our king is. and how much we hate when people criticize the king, even in the slightest way.
FYI most people who work closly for the king, like Gen pram, Gen Sonthi or Surayuth share similar personality with him.
1- u were appointed as a young naive boy
2 – trying to survive
3 – alone. not really a thai or a westerner
4 – surrounded yourself with groups that would make u survives …1st the military and etc.
face the facts, my man.
history will judge u soon.
it is even now doing so.
there is a movement / effort now of elivating the old man to be buddha equal like!! tell me the difference between north korean and thailand. while the first has the gut to face the world, holding on to its nonsese but true to its hearts ideology, the latter is rather a “performing arts” for the last 60 years of survival, and happy times!! disguised in the modern society. the latest act is the birthday party. u wonder what would happen if the coup took place before the party? how many would show up?
The first thing we must do as scholars is assess the status of the object which we are to study. In this case it appears to be a seminar, and your website is treating it like an academic seminar, but it was not an academic seminar (anyone who has been in Thai Studies for long enough would be used to the mismatch between the name and the thing). The sole reason for the attendance of Sondhi and Kraisak at this seminar, whether SOAS realized it or not, was political. As I wrote earlier, it was an attempt to whitewash the coup – no doubt accompanied by many earnest statements of “worry” and “concern” about how unfortunate it was that the Thaksin regime had to end in a coup. But it was only a “so-called” democracy anyway, as you note Kraisak saying, implying that, if it was never really democratic then the coup was hardly an overthrow of “democracy” AND, this is the key point, it is acceptable to disenfranchise the Thai population with tanks and guns!
Sondhi and Kraisak are not academics and their objective was not academic. They are both extremely busy and extremely ambitious men. Do you really think they took the time out of their busy schedules to fly half way around the world when the political situation in Thailand was still so fluid and uncertain, to talk to a group of students and academics most of whom they will never see again in their lives for the betterment of British scholarship? to generously and objectively share their knowledge in the public interest? Can’t you see the politics of this seminar? They wanted the SOAS brand on what they had to say, and that’s exactly what they got. For free! Have a look at the long write-ups in Phu Jat Kan. Please, these guys just don’t deserve to be taken seriously for contributing anything to a scholarly understanding of what is going on. As I say, this is part of the process of legitimizing the coup, the new regime and the monarchy that has been underway since 19 September. Do we as academics blindly participate in it? The message that Western academic institutions OUGHT to have been producing is, no matter how bad Thaksin was (and the media was full of criticism of Thaksin over the last year – especially Sondhi’s media – why go over it all again, NOW?) is that it is the people and only the people who have the right to decide their government. To be absolutely consistent, if we truly believed in democratic principles then once we have got off our high moral horse criticizing Thaksin, we should be condemning the king’s endorsement of the coup that has disenfranchised his own people. Even the Western media knows the king at the very least endorsed the coup. We denounce Thaksin, we denounce the military, why aren’t we denouncing the king?! Why wasn’t SOAS denouncing the king?
If SOAS did not realize they were being used by Sondhi and Kraisak, and the forces attempting to whitewash the coup whom they represent, then as a centre specializing in the study of Asian societies they should be harshly criticized for their naivety about what is going on in Thai politics, at the worst possible time. If they did realize it then that is a much more serious matter. Almost 30 years ago to the very day of the seminar, royalist para-militaries slaughtered students at Thammasat University before a coup ushered in a royalist-military regime. Just one day after the anniversary of the 6 October 1976 massacre, SOAS hosts a seminar with two of the leading anti-Thaksin figures who are attempting to whitewash yet another royalist-military coup and overthrow of a democratic regime by their denunciation of the leader of the former elected government. Personally I can hardly find the words to express how I feel about that. My sense of despair is intensified by the apparent obliviousness of many of my Western colleagues to their participation in this whitewash as they join in the scholarly dissection of the former Thaksin government.
I have said enough about SOAS. But why does New Mandala want to continue Sondhi and Kraisak’s debate about Thaksin’s nefariousness brought to us courtesy of the SOAS brand? Why now, when he and his democratically elected government are gone, do you want to go over what has been discussed in the millions of words already, including numerous scholarly books and dozens, if not hundreds of articles? You should know that “kala thesa” is everything. Why in your statement above is there no condemnation in the strongest possible terms of the new illegitimate regime? Why the inconsistency in referring to, as you put it, “Thaksin’s misdeeds” and “the monarchy”? Do you not view the monarchy’s endorsement of the overthrow of a democratic elected government by tanks and guns as a “misdeed”? Why do you continue this fiction (propaganda is the better term) of the “military coup” and not call it by its proper name, a “royalist coup”? Why do you join in this hypocrisy of the constant denunciation of the former democratically elected government, but are silent on the monarchy PRECISELY AT THIS VERY MOMENT WHEN A STRONG STATEMENT IS MOST NEEDED!? I can understand my Thai colleagues’ difficulty on this issue, given the constraints they work under, but not yours. And how on earth can you declare to your readers that “Saturday’s discussion provided a cogent and usually well-informed summary of the Thaksin administration’s many faults” with no-one on the panel representing the former democratically elected government’s position?! What has happened to your academic objectivity?
Finally, how dare Sondhi claim the key problem was “the lack of political education among rural people”, when most Thai academics and Bangkok’s educated class were all but cheering on the tanks! And you honour him with the word “sincere”?! You might accept the political analysis of a corrupt, failed businessman, trying to recoup his huge financial losses by using the monarchy to carry out a vendetta against his one-time business partner, but for me it is utterly appalling that we academics should be handing this man a megaphone to promote his anti-democratic views.
My suggestion is therefore to abandon the appalling example of the SOAS seminar and start a new topic for critique: an analysis of Thailand’s royalist dictatorship. Now then New Mandala, and the ANU at which it is based, would truly be leading the scholarly world of Thai Studies.
Patiwat – The King certainly worried that the ya ba trade was getting very visibly rampant at that time and called on Thaksin’s government to take action. But the King was also publicly dismayed at Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage and asked Thaksin to investigate/arrest the human rights abuses. Remember?
I think this obsession with the Gun’s and Roses dimension of the coup is more than yet another Thai novel twist to reality such as, “democrazy” and the sense of achievement as if the Guiness book of world cultural records was waiting with baited breath for another “innovation” from Thailand, is a bit tired and tedious.
It is an exoticisation of a common sense reponse of a population to a highly effective exercise of lethal power (Tanks) in a civilian setting.. Do people expect the unarmed civillians to rise up and get shot and run over. The coup of 1991 was bloodless it was the counter coup (popular uprising) that saw blood shed on the streets and that occurred a year later when power wasn’t returned to the people and after months of organised protests. 76 was similarly a back lash to 73 and with the kings support…roses and water offerings to soldiers now could very well be treated with the same contempt they were in 1992. Really what else could the population of Bangkok do when unannounced they are confronted with the sudden appearance of Tanks that are intent on regime change? I think the roses signify a symbol that the civilians don’t want any trouble (as oppossed to a welcome or sign of solidarity) and represent supplication, the metaphorical roll over and play dead…for now.
The coup was orchestrated incredibly effectively, people couldn’t do anything else but hope to secure their own safety when confronted with their own military who have a sustained record of killing their own in regime change situations.
Anyone care to recount, for Vichai’s sake, the details of the 2002 expulsion of the two far eastern economic review journalists for reporting about Thaksin’s attack on the King, after the world press rallie behind them when they were imprisoned and going to be charged with lesse Majeste? This is all I remember.
Democracy or coup – who cares it’s still gets the same results:
The following quote pus things into perspective:
‘True democracy remains almost as elusive as true socialism, and in much of the ”free” world what commonly passes for democracy is political theatre in which charismatic actors serve up the status quo, or a minor variant thereof, keeping vested interests and big business happy while taking turns at the helm.’
Sondhi did not speak up against the killings until 2004, when he had a falling out with Thaksin after Thaksin fired Viroj Nualkhair for forgiving so many bad loans to Sondhi and others. I recall that in late 2003-early 2004, Sondhi still called Thaksin “Thailand’s best Prime Minister.”
The public incredibly supportive of the drug war. A survey found that over 90% of the population supported the strong-arm approach. In his annual speach, even the King said the war on drugs was a good thing.
what u did in the forum is rather a poor service to your socalled higher institution. u basically got nothing but a group of lies and losers presenting fabricated stories. i feel pityful for all of u.
maybe, a typical rubbish british institution searching nothing but rubbish english!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
SOAS and the coup
In world where most people are selfish. only care about their own wealth. Democracy serve the best.
but democracy might not always be the best answer.
Different people have different ways of solving problem.
I am sure we will be back on democracy in a year, (ealier than US pulling their troops out of Iraq.)
When you got cancer you need strong medicine to cure the disease. You might suffer side effect like losing hair but who care? and it doesn’t matter what method we use, as long as life is saved.
I know you don’t see how our country was in greate danger but believe me, it was. but that time before coup, it’s not interesting enough to turn attention to isn’t it.
All we ask for here is nothing other than time and respect.
I hope you understand.
SOAS discussion on the Thai coup
I believe it was a ‘patent absurdity’ for academics to hold on to that monomaniacal simplistic idea that the majority vote ‘sufficiently’ defines democracy. Now there are many worldy people who were so deeply educated about this basic majority vote mandate that they permitted themselves to readilybe blinded by Thaksin Shinawatra’s claim that whatever his corruption, whatever his constitutional abuses, and whatever conflict of interest was suggested by that whopping $1.8 billion AmpleRihch-Temasek-Shin affair, only the election should be final judge of his fate. The danger of civil division or worse should be of no concern to Thai people, according to scholars. And any coup that prevented chaos/disorder and bloodshed was of no merit, nor, interest to these scholars of democracy, Dr. Patrick Jory being one among many, among these distinguished scholars.
Do I make sense Dr. Jory?
SOAS discussion on the Thai coup
Thanks Patrick –
You make some very fair points, and I do see the great value in your comments. As I indicated in this brief report, New Mandala plans to provide more analysis of the SOAS event. Some of this analysis will be critical, and then some.
There were only a handful of audible, critical voices at this “seminar” and – in an effort to give New Mandala readers a balanced account of what happened at SOAS – I may have gone too far towards legitimising the SOAS endeavour. On re-reading what I wrote, some things could be given different emphasis.
We live and learn. More from New Mandala will be appearing soon.
NSF
Naypyidaw reports from The Irrawaddy team
An interesting point, A Nonymous. Perhaps it was just an afternoon…or perhaps not. It’s hard to know. This is a special circumstance: “Clive Parker” working under a pseudonym, with nobody to check “his” movements, covertly gathering information and data inside Burma.
There is journalistic license and then there is…
If anybody directly knows how the few journalists who have been to Naypyidaw have done it then we could start a discussion on the topic. It’s an issue, it definitely is.
NSF
SOAS and the coup
Oh and just so you know. Thailand currently faces flood problem. While people having troblems not only the king give advise, provide important information like satellite image, now he just asked government’s official to direct the water to flood HIS OWN land so his people will suffer less.
That tells what kind of person our king is. and how much we hate when people criticize the king, even in the slightest way.
FYI most people who work closly for the king, like Gen pram, Gen Sonthi or Surayuth share similar personality with him.
SOAS and the coup
I agree with you that it is not appropriate for SOAS to hold such a one-sided seminar.
If you want to criticize SOAS please do so but don’t you bring the royal into this and present only half of the story.
What you are doing is no different than SOAS. one-sided article.
There was a mess in thailand but you what? we can take care of ourself. and only time will tell.
thank you for your concern.
The King Never Smiles?
what would u do if
1- u were appointed as a young naive boy
2 – trying to survive
3 – alone. not really a thai or a westerner
4 – surrounded yourself with groups that would make u survives …1st the military and etc.
face the facts, my man.
history will judge u soon.
it is even now doing so.
Exhibition: The King – “Father of Thai Innovation”
there is a movement / effort now of elivating the old man to be buddha equal like!! tell me the difference between north korean and thailand. while the first has the gut to face the world, holding on to its nonsese but true to its hearts ideology, the latter is rather a “performing arts” for the last 60 years of survival, and happy times!! disguised in the modern society. the latest act is the birthday party. u wonder what would happen if the coup took place before the party? how many would show up?
sick of being cursed as thai!
so naive.
SOAS and the coup
Sodhi & Kaisak:
nothing but rubbish from thailand.
hugo:
don’t even mention a royal family relationship. it is such a disgrace and he is nothing and a nobody here!
SOSC:
u r being used without doing more homework. so superficial.
thailand, my motherland:
the boy that never seems to grow up.
thailand:
it will have its biggest tsunami within the next 20 years. mark my word. no one is eternal!! grow up, those old men! and the old fat ladies!
Naypyidaw reports from The Irrawaddy team
I can find no firm evidence in the article that “Clive Parker” actually visited Naypyidaw ….
SOAS discussion on the Thai coup
The first thing we must do as scholars is assess the status of the object which we are to study. In this case it appears to be a seminar, and your website is treating it like an academic seminar, but it was not an academic seminar (anyone who has been in Thai Studies for long enough would be used to the mismatch between the name and the thing). The sole reason for the attendance of Sondhi and Kraisak at this seminar, whether SOAS realized it or not, was political. As I wrote earlier, it was an attempt to whitewash the coup – no doubt accompanied by many earnest statements of “worry” and “concern” about how unfortunate it was that the Thaksin regime had to end in a coup. But it was only a “so-called” democracy anyway, as you note Kraisak saying, implying that, if it was never really democratic then the coup was hardly an overthrow of “democracy” AND, this is the key point, it is acceptable to disenfranchise the Thai population with tanks and guns!
Sondhi and Kraisak are not academics and their objective was not academic. They are both extremely busy and extremely ambitious men. Do you really think they took the time out of their busy schedules to fly half way around the world when the political situation in Thailand was still so fluid and uncertain, to talk to a group of students and academics most of whom they will never see again in their lives for the betterment of British scholarship? to generously and objectively share their knowledge in the public interest? Can’t you see the politics of this seminar? They wanted the SOAS brand on what they had to say, and that’s exactly what they got. For free! Have a look at the long write-ups in Phu Jat Kan. Please, these guys just don’t deserve to be taken seriously for contributing anything to a scholarly understanding of what is going on. As I say, this is part of the process of legitimizing the coup, the new regime and the monarchy that has been underway since 19 September. Do we as academics blindly participate in it? The message that Western academic institutions OUGHT to have been producing is, no matter how bad Thaksin was (and the media was full of criticism of Thaksin over the last year – especially Sondhi’s media – why go over it all again, NOW?) is that it is the people and only the people who have the right to decide their government. To be absolutely consistent, if we truly believed in democratic principles then once we have got off our high moral horse criticizing Thaksin, we should be condemning the king’s endorsement of the coup that has disenfranchised his own people. Even the Western media knows the king at the very least endorsed the coup. We denounce Thaksin, we denounce the military, why aren’t we denouncing the king?! Why wasn’t SOAS denouncing the king?
If SOAS did not realize they were being used by Sondhi and Kraisak, and the forces attempting to whitewash the coup whom they represent, then as a centre specializing in the study of Asian societies they should be harshly criticized for their naivety about what is going on in Thai politics, at the worst possible time. If they did realize it then that is a much more serious matter. Almost 30 years ago to the very day of the seminar, royalist para-militaries slaughtered students at Thammasat University before a coup ushered in a royalist-military regime. Just one day after the anniversary of the 6 October 1976 massacre, SOAS hosts a seminar with two of the leading anti-Thaksin figures who are attempting to whitewash yet another royalist-military coup and overthrow of a democratic regime by their denunciation of the leader of the former elected government. Personally I can hardly find the words to express how I feel about that. My sense of despair is intensified by the apparent obliviousness of many of my Western colleagues to their participation in this whitewash as they join in the scholarly dissection of the former Thaksin government.
I have said enough about SOAS. But why does New Mandala want to continue Sondhi and Kraisak’s debate about Thaksin’s nefariousness brought to us courtesy of the SOAS brand? Why now, when he and his democratically elected government are gone, do you want to go over what has been discussed in the millions of words already, including numerous scholarly books and dozens, if not hundreds of articles? You should know that “kala thesa” is everything. Why in your statement above is there no condemnation in the strongest possible terms of the new illegitimate regime? Why the inconsistency in referring to, as you put it, “Thaksin’s misdeeds” and “the monarchy”? Do you not view the monarchy’s endorsement of the overthrow of a democratic elected government by tanks and guns as a “misdeed”? Why do you continue this fiction (propaganda is the better term) of the “military coup” and not call it by its proper name, a “royalist coup”? Why do you join in this hypocrisy of the constant denunciation of the former democratically elected government, but are silent on the monarchy PRECISELY AT THIS VERY MOMENT WHEN A STRONG STATEMENT IS MOST NEEDED!? I can understand my Thai colleagues’ difficulty on this issue, given the constraints they work under, but not yours. And how on earth can you declare to your readers that “Saturday’s discussion provided a cogent and usually well-informed summary of the Thaksin administration’s many faults” with no-one on the panel representing the former democratically elected government’s position?! What has happened to your academic objectivity?
Finally, how dare Sondhi claim the key problem was “the lack of political education among rural people”, when most Thai academics and Bangkok’s educated class were all but cheering on the tanks! And you honour him with the word “sincere”?! You might accept the political analysis of a corrupt, failed businessman, trying to recoup his huge financial losses by using the monarchy to carry out a vendetta against his one-time business partner, but for me it is utterly appalling that we academics should be handing this man a megaphone to promote his anti-democratic views.
My suggestion is therefore to abandon the appalling example of the SOAS seminar and start a new topic for critique: an analysis of Thailand’s royalist dictatorship. Now then New Mandala, and the ANU at which it is based, would truly be leading the scholarly world of Thai Studies.
SOAS discussion on the Thai coup
Patiwat – The King certainly worried that the ya ba trade was getting very visibly rampant at that time and called on Thaksin’s government to take action. But the King was also publicly dismayed at Thaksin’s extrajudicial rampage and asked Thaksin to investigate/arrest the human rights abuses. Remember?
SOAS and the coup
Mr. Jory and Mr. Thaksin both have tried to suppress the voices of those who think differently from them. This is censorship!
SOAS and the coup
I think this obsession with the Gun’s and Roses dimension of the coup is more than yet another Thai novel twist to reality such as, “democrazy” and the sense of achievement as if the Guiness book of world cultural records was waiting with baited breath for another “innovation” from Thailand, is a bit tired and tedious.
It is an exoticisation of a common sense reponse of a population to a highly effective exercise of lethal power (Tanks) in a civilian setting.. Do people expect the unarmed civillians to rise up and get shot and run over. The coup of 1991 was bloodless it was the counter coup (popular uprising) that saw blood shed on the streets and that occurred a year later when power wasn’t returned to the people and after months of organised protests. 76 was similarly a back lash to 73 and with the kings support…roses and water offerings to soldiers now could very well be treated with the same contempt they were in 1992. Really what else could the population of Bangkok do when unannounced they are confronted with the sudden appearance of Tanks that are intent on regime change? I think the roses signify a symbol that the civilians don’t want any trouble (as oppossed to a welcome or sign of solidarity) and represent supplication, the metaphorical roll over and play dead…for now.
The coup was orchestrated incredibly effectively, people couldn’t do anything else but hope to secure their own safety when confronted with their own military who have a sustained record of killing their own in regime change situations.
Its not crazy its pragmatic.
Exhibition: The King – “Father of Thai Innovation”
Anyone care to recount, for Vichai’s sake, the details of the 2002 expulsion of the two far eastern economic review journalists for reporting about Thaksin’s attack on the King, after the world press rallie behind them when they were imprisoned and going to be charged with lesse Majeste? This is all I remember.
SOAS and the coup
Excellent article here http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/10Oct2006_news18.php
Democracy or coup – who cares it’s still gets the same results:
The following quote pus things into perspective:
‘True democracy remains almost as elusive as true socialism, and in much of the ”free” world what commonly passes for democracy is political theatre in which charismatic actors serve up the status quo, or a minor variant thereof, keeping vested interests and big business happy while taking turns at the helm.’
SOAS and the coup
Now in Thai we have Demo-Crazy By Gun and roses
We just wait for a time to Shut in the Street “Free dom”
SOAS discussion on the Thai coup
Sondhi did not speak up against the killings until 2004, when he had a falling out with Thaksin after Thaksin fired Viroj Nualkhair for forgiving so many bad loans to Sondhi and others. I recall that in late 2003-early 2004, Sondhi still called Thaksin “Thailand’s best Prime Minister.”
The public incredibly supportive of the drug war. A survey found that over 90% of the population supported the strong-arm approach. In his annual speach, even the King said the war on drugs was a good thing.
SOAS discussion on the Thai coup
what u did in the forum is rather a poor service to your socalled higher institution. u basically got nothing but a group of lies and losers presenting fabricated stories. i feel pityful for all of u.
maybe, a typical rubbish british institution searching nothing but rubbish english!
shame on u.
SOAS and the coup
[…] SOAS and the coup […]