This post and petition are in line with recent excellent Bangkok Post coverage of the same topic. General Prayut seems determined to press the Thai regions into uncivil war.
Yes, “Support Renegades”, Pavin and Ji did have to flee Thailand, just as Andrew did. Both live in exile because they railed against coups and wrote things about the monarchy that were considered unsayable at the time. To suggest otherwise is crude. To not know this seems remarkably uninformed when participating in debates like this. And, as most readers at NM, many others have had to flee Thailand.
For my part, several years ago, I was “warned” to stay away from “sensitive” topics or risk trouble in Thailand. As this warning came from a reasonably senior Thai official, I took it seriously. I have not returned to Thailand since 2011. Several other academics have had similar warnings.
A correction on JCA. Andrew has not “declined” to to respond to Serhat’s review in the Journal.
JCA hasn’t had responses to reviews for several years because no one has submitted one. We do not specifically “invite” responses.
AMM can respond if he wishes to; it’s up to him.
While Andrew can respond in JCA, I would have thought that, if he wants to make a “response” to critics, this might be best done in the revised edition of his book.
I look forward to reading the new edition, just as I look forward to Serhat’s new book, due out next year (which I’d hope would also be reviewed in JCA).
It’s clear from your sudden change of subject that you are now conceding that ├Ьnaldi did indeed make accusations of plagiarism that turned out to be unfounded, but is unwilling to offer an apology or correction.
It’s also clear that, for whatever reason, you intensely dislike both Marshall and his book, and you are of course perfectly entitled to hold that view. Plenty of other people (including me) have much more positive opinions. An informed critical debate about the book can only be a good thing, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen in this conversation, which (as usual) is just degenerating into diatribes from people with axes to grind. So, like AMM, I think I will politely bow out of this discussion and leave it to the trolls and ranters.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never seen any claim from Marshall that he was the first to discuss the succession controversy surrounding the CP – indeed, his book discusses in detail how the controversy over the prince has evolved over the past several decades, citing numerous sources. But (at least from my reading of “A Kingdom in Crisis”) what was new (unless I missed previous work on this) was the theory that a succession struggle was one of the main driving forces behind Thailand’s post-2006 political instability, and that this was mainly a fight over control of the fortune of the CPB. This hypothesis may be right or wrong, but certainly had not been “discussed for years”.
One parting thought – if Marshall’s book is as useless and sensationalist as his critics say, why are they so peculiarly furious about it? Why not just produce a sensible reasoned critique – as Lee Jones did – or alternatively just let the book fade into obscurity and irrelevance? The most baffling thing about this whole discussion is the level of vitriol directed towards AMM and his book. I suspect it shows that he actually did a very good job, whatever his detractors say.
Link to Nanchanok Wongsamuth SPECTRUM piece on the Thai Junta’s insidious infiltration of almost all Thai universities for the purposes of intimidation…
But it does appear AMM hasn’t offered citations for lots of stuff whilst, at the same time, seeming as though he wants to claim the theory regarding succession for himself when, in fact, it’s been discussed for years.
As Ji pointed out AMM doesn’t cite numerous Thai academics (who’ve been writing about the monarchy for far longer than AMM and at far greater personal cost) but does find room for Lady GaGa. This seems bizarre.
It’s my view that AMM has a case to answer – why no mention of the likes of Ji etc? And then some parts of the book are completely devoid of any discernible evidence at all, relying almost entirely on rumor, gossip and hearsay. This finger pointing at Serhat seems to be a diversion from the actual and very apparent problems.
Whilst Zed Books – a north London based publisher who have little history of publishing anything on Thailand – might not being willing to challenge the veracity of AMM’s claims, it’s doubtful the book would survive rigorous journalistic or academic editorial.
Well it certainly seems ├Ьnaldi (incorrectly) accused Marshall of launching the first chapter of his book with a scene “borrowed” from the opening section of ├Ьnaldi’s 2013 article on graffiti. If you don’t think that is an accusation of plagiarism, perhaps you are unclear on what the word means.
Scaremongering by playing the race and religion card has backfired as people saw through it and realised where this was leading to.
The minority vote went in tandem with the mainstream vote as people rightly decided tribalism had no place in the historic polls and some perhaps chose the lesser of two evils.
ASSK moved quickly to ask for a meeting with the ruling troika explicitly aiming for national reconciliation. The ball is now in their court but they are dragging their feet with the exception of the outgoing Speaker of the House Shwe Mann, which aroused suspicions of delaying tactics meanwhile cooking up a plan B, plenty of time purposely provided before the new legislature convenes in April.
These are the realities aimed to inform people of Myanmar and the NLD. I suggest Andrew could write a sequel to inform the military for the same to complete adapted title of this piece.
“Unique” must be the defining term for the next steps.
Barring DASSK making the same mistake of:
1) Threatening the existing power with any ’empty’ power especially from the west HR org. and worst UN, in short “from the outside/the west.
2) Inciting previously proven method of protests e.g. Mass aimless protest that has become meaningless even with the involvement of monk, which are unlikely to join these with Ma Ba Ta.
3) Using ‘self defiance’ again that has serve no one in Myanmar that need help other than the west and cronies to enrich themselves.
Nick
Every time there is a comparison of Myanmar future it galls this protagonist and the ilks to see countries that are not more similar in most respects.
Myanmar is Unique in burdens that can be compared any where outside Asia.
The closest comparisons are Thailand and China.
Holding one chagrins, Thailand and China with similar burden of “ethnicity” has overcome most problem through economic development i.e. enlarging piece of pie that defuses too little for too many problems.
Thailand has long sole much of the ethnic problems thus:
1) Stop interference by the west.
2) Using military/police as a matter of fact even for mass execution.
The ethnicity problem was justly solved by using 2 category of citizenship:
1) Thai(ask anyone in Bangkok who look fairer or Dravidian than real Thai, they all insist on being Thai).
2) The Hill Peoples. Potpourri of A-Z ethnicity that are supposedly co equal but discriminated.
Until Myanmar citizenry, which has very similar make up as Thai in ethnicity, realize the common destiny the chance of peaceful transition is doubtful at best.
DASSK will best serve Myanmar by promoting “common destiny” at every turn and as the economic pie grow to accommodate every group the military will be seen as a yole my all and itself.
The “common destiny” will require the west recognize Myanmar as a unique Asian country instead of some far away western entity like Chile, Argentina or else where.
The Obsessive-Compulsive Western focus on Myanmar, down to what evening wear DASSK will be wearing, poses a far, far greater threat to Myanmar, than either Daw Suu or the NLD.
I think there are several issues here. That the “New Mandala” is topicalizing this is fine (in fact, I am pleasantly surpised); it’s a discussion item among the usual suspects and to bring it up here is not “clickbait” but perfectly legitimate.
One of the things ├Ьnaldi mentions in the review itself is that Marshall commands a small army of netizens and that if one disagrees with him, the danger to be sh*t-stormed is very high. I think that by now Marshall uses this on purpose to block even any discussion of what he says, except accolades (he does so very clearly in the cited tweet). The usual mass of his replies and this over-sensitive reaction against the slightest criticism, however slight and whether coming from the same kind of background, is clearly paranoid; that’s also visible from the reply here. (Both ├Ьnaldi and the New Mandala are, if one looks from the outside, exactly in the same Thai boat as Marshall, both in activism and in journalism/scholarship.) I think Lèse-André must still be possible. 🙂
That said, I found ├Ьnaldi’s review somewhat small-minded and peevish. If one basically credits Marshall with being correct in his analysis (and as regards the succession crisis, he is in many ways; as regards his views of the Thai Monarchy, I would say he is way too biased to be capable of helpful judgment for people outside his fan-base – but ├Ьnaldi has basically a similar take), then to blame him for not referencing, as a journalist-activist, the scholar-activists like ├Ьnaldi & Friends all the time is small-minded. That’s not what this book is about. (I think ├Ьnaldi is still considering a career in mainstream German academe.) Marshall’s book is what it is and a good review should judge it on its own basis.
Alas, it seem difficult, reading your article, to counter Andrew’s suggestion that there seems to be some (heedless, mindless, needless) ‘click-baiting’ going on here (hardly an accusation anyone would have levelled at the “old” New Mandala, which was such a source of being open and FAIR debate — let alone becoming a platform for ‘ivory tower envy’!)
So, a guy writes a brave book for mass readership, and suddenly he is being targeted for being ‘unscholarly’ : “…to write a book on the monarchy without quoting the works of experts like Hewison, Pavin or Ji is careless, to say the least.”..”
Really? Did these eminences mentioned above have to flee, like he did, with a young wife and child? Do they get their daily dose of death threats as AMM does? Did they really pay the DAILY price AMM pays in emotional, psychological, financial DEVASTATION.
If you ever get lucky again and get a ‘true voice of truth’, dear “new” Mandala, nurture it.. TREASURE it. Make your tent big enought to accommodate the ‘renegades’. THAT is where you publication first began. Stirring the pot because a brave young man missed putting down the name of some ‘browned off blogger ” in the bibliography shouldnt diminish a whit from the fact that this AMM chap, idealistically trying to change for the better the world he found himself in, taking INSANE chances with the establishment even while living next door in Cambodia , should be something we should salute.. and celebrate. The world already has enough of the poppy cutting pettifoggers who would bring down their neighbour rather than aspire to his heights of sacrifice. If you cant match it, at least try not to mock it. Just sayin’… PS: Catchy headline, btw. Though it seems you manufactured the ‘crisis’ you refer to, without getting the flood of responses you obviously prayed for… To quote a great band cover : “Crisis? What crisis?”)
Marshall is being disingenuous here – as Dr Lee Jones makes clear, he was offered a chance to respond to Serhat ├Ьnaldi in the Journal of Contemporary Asia. He refused. Instead he repeatedly accused Serhat ├Ьnaldi on twitter of “lying”. Can Marshall answer why he didn’t just respond in the JCA, as would’ve been the more reasoned, collegiate way to do so?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Academics face unjust detention in Thailand
This post and petition are in line with recent excellent Bangkok Post coverage of the same topic. General Prayut seems determined to press the Thai regions into uncivil war.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
I can’t let this response go by.
Yes, “Support Renegades”, Pavin and Ji did have to flee Thailand, just as Andrew did. Both live in exile because they railed against coups and wrote things about the monarchy that were considered unsayable at the time. To suggest otherwise is crude. To not know this seems remarkably uninformed when participating in debates like this. And, as most readers at NM, many others have had to flee Thailand.
For my part, several years ago, I was “warned” to stay away from “sensitive” topics or risk trouble in Thailand. As this warning came from a reasonably senior Thai official, I took it seriously. I have not returned to Thailand since 2011. Several other academics have had similar warnings.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
A correction on JCA. Andrew has not “declined” to to respond to Serhat’s review in the Journal.
JCA hasn’t had responses to reviews for several years because no one has submitted one. We do not specifically “invite” responses.
AMM can respond if he wishes to; it’s up to him.
While Andrew can respond in JCA, I would have thought that, if he wants to make a “response” to critics, this might be best done in the revised edition of his book.
I look forward to reading the new edition, just as I look forward to Serhat’s new book, due out next year (which I’d hope would also be reviewed in JCA).
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
It’s clear from your sudden change of subject that you are now conceding that ├Ьnaldi did indeed make accusations of plagiarism that turned out to be unfounded, but is unwilling to offer an apology or correction.
It’s also clear that, for whatever reason, you intensely dislike both Marshall and his book, and you are of course perfectly entitled to hold that view. Plenty of other people (including me) have much more positive opinions. An informed critical debate about the book can only be a good thing, but it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen in this conversation, which (as usual) is just degenerating into diatribes from people with axes to grind. So, like AMM, I think I will politely bow out of this discussion and leave it to the trolls and ranters.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never seen any claim from Marshall that he was the first to discuss the succession controversy surrounding the CP – indeed, his book discusses in detail how the controversy over the prince has evolved over the past several decades, citing numerous sources. But (at least from my reading of “A Kingdom in Crisis”) what was new (unless I missed previous work on this) was the theory that a succession struggle was one of the main driving forces behind Thailand’s post-2006 political instability, and that this was mainly a fight over control of the fortune of the CPB. This hypothesis may be right or wrong, but certainly had not been “discussed for years”.
One parting thought – if Marshall’s book is as useless and sensationalist as his critics say, why are they so peculiarly furious about it? Why not just produce a sensible reasoned critique – as Lee Jones did – or alternatively just let the book fade into obscurity and irrelevance? The most baffling thing about this whole discussion is the level of vitriol directed towards AMM and his book. I suspect it shows that he actually did a very good job, whatever his detractors say.
Academics face unjust detention in Thailand
Link to Nanchanok Wongsamuth SPECTRUM piece on the Thai Junta’s insidious infiltration of almost all Thai universities for the purposes of intimidation…
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/special-reports/772244/the-army-camp-creeps-on-to-the-uni-campus
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
But it does appear AMM hasn’t offered citations for lots of stuff whilst, at the same time, seeming as though he wants to claim the theory regarding succession for himself when, in fact, it’s been discussed for years.
As Ji pointed out AMM doesn’t cite numerous Thai academics (who’ve been writing about the monarchy for far longer than AMM and at far greater personal cost) but does find room for Lady GaGa. This seems bizarre.
It’s my view that AMM has a case to answer – why no mention of the likes of Ji etc? And then some parts of the book are completely devoid of any discernible evidence at all, relying almost entirely on rumor, gossip and hearsay. This finger pointing at Serhat seems to be a diversion from the actual and very apparent problems.
Whilst Zed Books – a north London based publisher who have little history of publishing anything on Thailand – might not being willing to challenge the veracity of AMM’s claims, it’s doubtful the book would survive rigorous journalistic or academic editorial.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Please note that Patrick Jory and Lee Jones reviewed “A Kingdom in Crisis” for New Mandala just over a year ago: http://www.newmandala.org/2014/11/12/review-of-kingdom-in-crisis-tlc-nmrev-lxxxiii/
Religion and the vote
As the scaremongering by Ma Ba Tha backfired comprehensively, we can be sure we haven’t heard the last from them yet. Wirathu has already fired a shot across the bow of the clear winners after the people’s verdict.
Thein Sein has also played his part dutifully invoking the Red menace practically on the eve of the polls.
If it isn’t the Muslims it’s the communists. Logical, innit?
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Well it certainly seems ├Ьnaldi (incorrectly) accused Marshall of launching the first chapter of his book with a scene “borrowed” from the opening section of ├Ьnaldi’s 2013 article on graffiti. If you don’t think that is an accusation of plagiarism, perhaps you are unclear on what the word means.
Minorities and the vote
Scaremongering by playing the race and religion card has backfired as people saw through it and realised where this was leading to.
The minority vote went in tandem with the mainstream vote as people rightly decided tribalism had no place in the historic polls and some perhaps chose the lesser of two evils.
We should all be proud of ourselves that the peoples of Burma have spoken in one voice and delivered in no uncertain terms what was expected of them, but we cannot afford to sit on our laurels or drop our guard at this moment in time.
ASSK moved quickly to ask for a meeting with the ruling troika explicitly aiming for national reconciliation. The ball is now in their court but they are dragging their feet with the exception of the outgoing Speaker of the House Shwe Mann, which aroused suspicions of delaying tactics meanwhile cooking up a plan B, plenty of time purposely provided before the new legislature convenes in April.
Academics face unjust detention in Thailand
The junta have to respect the human rights.
One of these is the right of “Free speech”
The realities of power in Myanmar
These are the realities aimed to inform people of Myanmar and the NLD. I suggest Andrew could write a sequel to inform the military for the same to complete adapted title of this piece.
The realities of power in Myanmar
Clear as mud. And who’s Nick? If you meant Nich he didn’t write this one.
Statement of support for Michael Buehler
Buka Dulu Topengmu, Sudirman Said!
http://bukadulutopengmusudirmansaid.blogspot.in/
The realities of power in Myanmar
“Unique” must be the defining term for the next steps.
Barring DASSK making the same mistake of:
1) Threatening the existing power with any ’empty’ power especially from the west HR org. and worst UN, in short “from the outside/the west.
2) Inciting previously proven method of protests e.g. Mass aimless protest that has become meaningless even with the involvement of monk, which are unlikely to join these with Ma Ba Ta.
3) Using ‘self defiance’ again that has serve no one in Myanmar that need help other than the west and cronies to enrich themselves.
Nick
Every time there is a comparison of Myanmar future it galls this protagonist and the ilks to see countries that are not more similar in most respects.
Myanmar is Unique in burdens that can be compared any where outside Asia.
The closest comparisons are Thailand and China.
Holding one chagrins, Thailand and China with similar burden of “ethnicity” has overcome most problem through economic development i.e. enlarging piece of pie that defuses too little for too many problems.
Thailand has long sole much of the ethnic problems thus:
1) Stop interference by the west.
2) Using military/police as a matter of fact even for mass execution.
The ethnicity problem was justly solved by using 2 category of citizenship:
1) Thai(ask anyone in Bangkok who look fairer or Dravidian than real Thai, they all insist on being Thai).
2) The Hill Peoples. Potpourri of A-Z ethnicity that are supposedly co equal but discriminated.
Until Myanmar citizenry, which has very similar make up as Thai in ethnicity, realize the common destiny the chance of peaceful transition is doubtful at best.
DASSK will best serve Myanmar by promoting “common destiny” at every turn and as the economic pie grow to accommodate every group the military will be seen as a yole my all and itself.
The “common destiny” will require the west recognize Myanmar as a unique Asian country instead of some far away western entity like Chile, Argentina or else where.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
But Serhat didn’t accuse you of plagiarism. And you know he didn’t do that. So why claim that he did?
Get over yourself.
NLD needs to lift the standard
The Obsessive-Compulsive Western focus on Myanmar, down to what evening wear DASSK will be wearing, poses a far, far greater threat to Myanmar, than either Daw Suu or the NLD.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
I think there are several issues here. That the “New Mandala” is topicalizing this is fine (in fact, I am pleasantly surpised); it’s a discussion item among the usual suspects and to bring it up here is not “clickbait” but perfectly legitimate.
One of the things ├Ьnaldi mentions in the review itself is that Marshall commands a small army of netizens and that if one disagrees with him, the danger to be sh*t-stormed is very high. I think that by now Marshall uses this on purpose to block even any discussion of what he says, except accolades (he does so very clearly in the cited tweet). The usual mass of his replies and this over-sensitive reaction against the slightest criticism, however slight and whether coming from the same kind of background, is clearly paranoid; that’s also visible from the reply here. (Both ├Ьnaldi and the New Mandala are, if one looks from the outside, exactly in the same Thai boat as Marshall, both in activism and in journalism/scholarship.) I think Lèse-André must still be possible. 🙂
That said, I found ├Ьnaldi’s review somewhat small-minded and peevish. If one basically credits Marshall with being correct in his analysis (and as regards the succession crisis, he is in many ways; as regards his views of the Thai Monarchy, I would say he is way too biased to be capable of helpful judgment for people outside his fan-base – but ├Ьnaldi has basically a similar take), then to blame him for not referencing, as a journalist-activist, the scholar-activists like ├Ьnaldi & Friends all the time is small-minded. That’s not what this book is about. (I think ├Ьnaldi is still considering a career in mainstream German academe.) Marshall’s book is what it is and a good review should judge it on its own basis.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Alas, it seem difficult, reading your article, to counter Andrew’s suggestion that there seems to be some (heedless, mindless, needless) ‘click-baiting’ going on here (hardly an accusation anyone would have levelled at the “old” New Mandala, which was such a source of being open and FAIR debate — let alone becoming a platform for ‘ivory tower envy’!)
So, a guy writes a brave book for mass readership, and suddenly he is being targeted for being ‘unscholarly’ : “…to write a book on the monarchy without quoting the works of experts like Hewison, Pavin or Ji is careless, to say the least.”..”
Really? Did these eminences mentioned above have to flee, like he did, with a young wife and child? Do they get their daily dose of death threats as AMM does? Did they really pay the DAILY price AMM pays in emotional, psychological, financial DEVASTATION.
If you ever get lucky again and get a ‘true voice of truth’, dear “new” Mandala, nurture it.. TREASURE it. Make your tent big enought to accommodate the ‘renegades’. THAT is where you publication first began. Stirring the pot because a brave young man missed putting down the name of some ‘browned off blogger ” in the bibliography shouldnt diminish a whit from the fact that this AMM chap, idealistically trying to change for the better the world he found himself in, taking INSANE chances with the establishment even while living next door in Cambodia , should be something we should salute.. and celebrate. The world already has enough of the poppy cutting pettifoggers who would bring down their neighbour rather than aspire to his heights of sacrifice. If you cant match it, at least try not to mock it. Just sayin’… PS: Catchy headline, btw. Though it seems you manufactured the ‘crisis’ you refer to, without getting the flood of responses you obviously prayed for… To quote a great band cover : “Crisis? What crisis?”)
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Marshall is being disingenuous here – as Dr Lee Jones makes clear, he was offered a chance to respond to Serhat ├Ьnaldi in the Journal of Contemporary Asia. He refused. Instead he repeatedly accused Serhat ├Ьnaldi on twitter of “lying”. Can Marshall answer why he didn’t just respond in the JCA, as would’ve been the more reasoned, collegiate way to do so?
https://twitter.com/DrLeeJones/status/662582205449924608