“Any regime not supported by the people, in this century, should not last long”. Such uplifting words from Chomsky! And such a shame he’s chosen to make an exception of the Assad regime in Syria, an infinitely more repressive and murderous regime than Prayuth’s dictatorship!
If you want crazy and chaotic there’s no shortage of stories from Thailand. Take the single internet gateway fiasco for starters. Then there’s the disconnect between what is said at UN and what happens back home. Maybe next time???
“Chomsky also asked why Thaksin’s political opponents … failed to initiate better … policies designed to win the hearts and minds of Thai villagers.”
In fact, Abhisit did just that, for example significantly increasing the village revolving load amount coupled with initiatives to teach and incentivise better money management, and crop insurance. There were committed redshirt farmers willing, grudgingly, to say that he did better for them than Thaksin had. So why did the Democrats loose so decisively in the next elections? 1) because of Abhisit’s disastrous and unforgivable handling of the protests/insurrection. 2) people firmly believed that when Thaksin came back he would pay off their debts for them. (based on conversations in rural Roiet where I live.) Having said all that the current state of affairs is a growing disaster.
Steve Evans
No, from what I’ve read here, it would appear that it is you who are confused.
The monarchy has been publicly involved in politics on and off for a very long time and Thais are fully aware of this.
As Not aligned is suggesting and you don’t seem to be able to take in, the difference is neither a question of “public” nor “overt” interventions but of the most recent overt public interventions going very much against the grain of the Thai public’s majority opinion.
In the context of a struggle for democracy, that is a significant difference.
Invoking what is or isn’t a part of “Thai norms” is a welcome feint in the direction of the difference between what comprises “common sense” in Thailand post-TRT and pre-TRT as well as between the bourgeoise liberalism that provides the unquestioned assumptions of so many commentators, Thai and foreign, and the “Thai norms” that, like it or not, are not the same thing at all.
Shawn: Chomsky never supported the Khmer Rouge. To suggest that he did so is to repeat a lie that, like Gilligan’s Island, has become immortal without, unlike the TV show, being in the least bit funny.
Your argument about how he came to be mistaken in emphasizing some figures and questioning others is precisely how I see his journalism from the period. The article everyone goes on about, if I recall correctly, even includes the authors’ own admission of not knowing the truth of the matter.
So no pretzels here.
My real point, about the twisting of history and context that characterizes not just Pavin’s recent journalism but so much of what purports to deal with contemporary Thai politics, is ripe for a Chomskian analysis.
The rule of law is incompatible with the rule of powerful people. The former was first tried seriously with the founding of the United States. It was developing in the European monarchies, with laws becoming stronger, but the contradiction was satisfactorily resolved only in those that became republics with democratic constitutions. A woolly compromise is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch’s power is supposedly encumbered by laws. Fascism, as a reaction against the rule of law, and an expression of people’s desire to be ruled by powerful individuals unencumbered by laws, was supported by monarchs, though they usually lost out to dictators. The same dilemma faces Thailand almost 100 years after Europe. Like any other country, Thailand is a mixture of people who want to be ruled by abstract laws and those who prefer to submit to powerful personalities, making their way in the hierarchy of partly secret power that continually evolves in such an environment. The question is: How much was the Thaksin phenomenon due to the people’s a desire to be governed according to a law that gave them a choice of who led them, and how much was it due to to the desire to be ruled by a powerful personage in much the same arbitrary way as they had been ruled by the rapidly declining king? Does it matter now that they have got fascism instead?
And just to add a bit more of my opinion. The phenomenon of ta sawang as a result of the Queen’s attendance of yellow shirt’s funeral could perhaps been used to explain the public sentiment regarding the monarchy’s involvement in politics in the open. The term is used to describe those who woke up from a long sleep ; that they did not realise the extend to which the monarchy intervened in politics until now.
Thank you Dr.Pavin for sharing your experience talking with Prof.Chomsky.
As I read the comments here, I understand that there are some suspicious comments, citing on the credibility from both of you. I remember once the junta referred an article from New Manada claiming the foreigner now better understand about their (the junta) action.
So I’m saying that there might be some army personnel monioring this website. (No doubt why Prayuth was mad at Pavin recently).
Anyway, back to what Pavin and Chomsky discussion. Why Thai people still hold their tolerate to this because ,Ah, they have guns.
Like a lot of critics, you won’t put your name to your comments. Why is that? To my eye, it’s not as though you are writing anything particularly dangerous. We’d all benefit from more discussion of these issues where more people are actually prepared to own their opinions.
As much as anything, it’s simply good manners.
Pavin, whatever his critics suggest are his faults, has a decade-long track record of putting his provocative analysis into the public domain for others to assess and discuss. The discussion of Thai political and social issues needs many more people with Pavin’s courage, intellect and vigour.
I often wonder what anonymous critics have done themselves, particularly when they boldly scorn the likes of Pavin, Nostitz, MacGregor Marshall, Somsak, et al. You don’t have to agree with their ideas and approaches to at least offer them some respect and goodwill.
***
And, while we are on the topic of online etiquette, for those of you who bombard us with abusive comments, indulge in nonsensical sock-puppetry, or seek to introduce mean-spiritedness at any opportunity — please be advised that you are wasting your time.
We show great tolerance and flexibility to our commentators but, at the end of the day, NM benefits from tighter moderation of comments. I wish that wasn’t necessary, but it is.
You are confused. I am not saying that these public interventions are not public. I only said that they become a part of the Thai norms (as you picked the two examples of endorsing the coups and writing patriotic songs). For Thais, they do not see these interventions as something overt. They have been blended with the Thai political culture and for the songs–a part of being patriotic Thais. I try to point out that these interventions are different from the recent ones (the funeral attendance and Princess Chulabhorn’s political involvement) which are out in the open, seen as taking side in the political divide. That’s all.
I am on my own, and when the junta issued a warrant for my arrest, my instinct told me to stand up for myself. If you really believe that in standing up for myself and not for the rest of Thailand–it is a part of boosting my career– then I would have little to say.
I never thought by being flamboyant, this could hurt Thailand. It is only fair to discuss the content of my work. But to criticise how I am as a person and how I write on my own Facebook, this is very unfair to me.
No, I’m not a “distinguished” political scientist and, unfortunately, I have not been recognized by Stanford as such.
So, therefore, I don’t have the necessary “status” that you possess to be your “peer”.
I’m just somebody pointing out the kind of very obvious weaknesses in your arguments that could be picked up at undergraduate level by a sharp-eyed seminar student.
I’m afraid you do appear very confused as you go on to list a whole series of public interventions by the royals which you then claim are not public because they became a “political norm in Thailand”.
So what you’re saying is that the previous public political interventions by the royals were so everyday & frequent that they weren’t even noticed as public anymore and this, in fact, means that they weren’t public at all?
I’m not sure I follow your analysis.
Have there been multiple public interventions by Thai royals in Thai politics stretching back for decades?
Yes.
Even you agree that this is the case.
It is indisputable this is the case and would require sophistry of the most extreme kind to deny this is the case.
What possibly differentiates the recent interventions that you mention – the PDRC and the funeral – is that they went against the clearly expressed democratic will of the Thai people.
Maybe if you saw yourself as being part of a collective struggle for democracy, freedom of expression and social justice for all rather than just your own personal struggle you might be better placed to actually win that struggle rather than use it as a backdrop to your career?
Pavin reminds me of Richard Quest, a CNN journalist. It is all about him every thing he does on Facebook, every thing he does on social media is all about him all about his glory. From a distance people like Pavin seriously hinder and make arguments on Thai politics seem ridiculous – yeah he is right, often, but the flamboyance and narcissism he portrays only hurts Thailand
So this person had a “private conversation” with Noam Chomsky and then rushes over to put it all down here to share with NM readers? How nice.
Unfortunately this thing reads like a boring embassy cable. If you’re going to do a “conversation” piece with Chomsky make it a real interview in his own words.
Though really I don’t think anybody cares about Chomsky’s opinions on anything.
Simon Obviously by calling Noam (not Norm) Chomsky a Communist, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Not only not knowing anything about Chomsky, but that same old mis-informed idea of Communism.
And Pavin acts like a child on social media??? That is how you base everything. Their celebrity charisma…
Why defend Chomsky on Cambodia? Why? He simply was wrong. Don’t try to excuse his errors. I would never argue that Chomsky was a supporter of the Khmer Rouge. What I would argue is that Chomsky’s critique of American intervention in Southeast Asia made him leery of what, initially, sounded to him like a knee-jerk anti-communist critique. He was leery of the early evidence presented. We can understand that. But he made some counter-claims, such as on the numbers of victims, that were utterly implausible. Why some people want to twist themselves into pretzels to excuse this is beyond me.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A conversation with Chomsky
“Any regime not supported by the people, in this century, should not last long”. Such uplifting words from Chomsky! And such a shame he’s chosen to make an exception of the Assad regime in Syria, an infinitely more repressive and murderous regime than Prayuth’s dictatorship!
Southeast Asian snapshots
If you want crazy and chaotic there’s no shortage of stories from Thailand. Take the single internet gateway fiasco for starters. Then there’s the disconnect between what is said at UN and what happens back home. Maybe next time???
A conversation with Chomsky
“Chomsky also asked why Thaksin’s political opponents … failed to initiate better … policies designed to win the hearts and minds of Thai villagers.”
In fact, Abhisit did just that, for example significantly increasing the village revolving load amount coupled with initiatives to teach and incentivise better money management, and crop insurance. There were committed redshirt farmers willing, grudgingly, to say that he did better for them than Thaksin had. So why did the Democrats loose so decisively in the next elections? 1) because of Abhisit’s disastrous and unforgivable handling of the protests/insurrection. 2) people firmly believed that when Thaksin came back he would pay off their debts for them. (based on conversations in rural Roiet where I live.) Having said all that the current state of affairs is a growing disaster.
Steve Evans
A conversation with Chomsky
No, from what I’ve read here, it would appear that it is you who are confused.
The monarchy has been publicly involved in politics on and off for a very long time and Thais are fully aware of this.
As Not aligned is suggesting and you don’t seem to be able to take in, the difference is neither a question of “public” nor “overt” interventions but of the most recent overt public interventions going very much against the grain of the Thai public’s majority opinion.
In the context of a struggle for democracy, that is a significant difference.
Invoking what is or isn’t a part of “Thai norms” is a welcome feint in the direction of the difference between what comprises “common sense” in Thailand post-TRT and pre-TRT as well as between the bourgeoise liberalism that provides the unquestioned assumptions of so many commentators, Thai and foreign, and the “Thai norms” that, like it or not, are not the same thing at all.
A conversation with Chomsky
Shawn: Chomsky never supported the Khmer Rouge. To suggest that he did so is to repeat a lie that, like Gilligan’s Island, has become immortal without, unlike the TV show, being in the least bit funny.
Your argument about how he came to be mistaken in emphasizing some figures and questioning others is precisely how I see his journalism from the period. The article everyone goes on about, if I recall correctly, even includes the authors’ own admission of not knowing the truth of the matter.
So no pretzels here.
My real point, about the twisting of history and context that characterizes not just Pavin’s recent journalism but so much of what purports to deal with contemporary Thai politics, is ripe for a Chomskian analysis.
Thailand’s constitution conundrum
The rule of law is incompatible with the rule of powerful people. The former was first tried seriously with the founding of the United States. It was developing in the European monarchies, with laws becoming stronger, but the contradiction was satisfactorily resolved only in those that became republics with democratic constitutions. A woolly compromise is a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch’s power is supposedly encumbered by laws. Fascism, as a reaction against the rule of law, and an expression of people’s desire to be ruled by powerful individuals unencumbered by laws, was supported by monarchs, though they usually lost out to dictators. The same dilemma faces Thailand almost 100 years after Europe. Like any other country, Thailand is a mixture of people who want to be ruled by abstract laws and those who prefer to submit to powerful personalities, making their way in the hierarchy of partly secret power that continually evolves in such an environment. The question is: How much was the Thaksin phenomenon due to the people’s a desire to be governed according to a law that gave them a choice of who led them, and how much was it due to to the desire to be ruled by a powerful personage in much the same arbitrary way as they had been ruled by the rapidly declining king? Does it matter now that they have got fascism instead?
A conversation with Chomsky
And just to add a bit more of my opinion. The phenomenon of ta sawang as a result of the Queen’s attendance of yellow shirt’s funeral could perhaps been used to explain the public sentiment regarding the monarchy’s involvement in politics in the open. The term is used to describe those who woke up from a long sleep ; that they did not realise the extend to which the monarchy intervened in politics until now.
A conversation with Chomsky
Thank you Dr.Pavin for sharing your experience talking with Prof.Chomsky.
As I read the comments here, I understand that there are some suspicious comments, citing on the credibility from both of you. I remember once the junta referred an article from New Manada claiming the foreigner now better understand about their (the junta) action.
So I’m saying that there might be some army personnel monioring this website. (No doubt why Prayuth was mad at Pavin recently).
Anyway, back to what Pavin and Chomsky discussion. Why Thai people still hold their tolerate to this because ,Ah, they have guns.
Indonesia’s forgotten genocide
[…] Source: http://www.newmandala.org/2015/09/29/indonesias-forgotten-genocide/ […]
A conversation with Chomsky
Thanks “Not aligned”,
Like a lot of critics, you won’t put your name to your comments. Why is that? To my eye, it’s not as though you are writing anything particularly dangerous. We’d all benefit from more discussion of these issues where more people are actually prepared to own their opinions.
As much as anything, it’s simply good manners.
Pavin, whatever his critics suggest are his faults, has a decade-long track record of putting his provocative analysis into the public domain for others to assess and discuss. The discussion of Thai political and social issues needs many more people with Pavin’s courage, intellect and vigour.
I often wonder what anonymous critics have done themselves, particularly when they boldly scorn the likes of Pavin, Nostitz, MacGregor Marshall, Somsak, et al. You don’t have to agree with their ideas and approaches to at least offer them some respect and goodwill.
***
And, while we are on the topic of online etiquette, for those of you who bombard us with abusive comments, indulge in nonsensical sock-puppetry, or seek to introduce mean-spiritedness at any opportunity — please be advised that you are wasting your time.
We show great tolerance and flexibility to our commentators but, at the end of the day, NM benefits from tighter moderation of comments. I wish that wasn’t necessary, but it is.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
A conversation with Chomsky
Thank you and I do appreciate your comments.
A conversation with Chomsky
You are confused. I am not saying that these public interventions are not public. I only said that they become a part of the Thai norms (as you picked the two examples of endorsing the coups and writing patriotic songs). For Thais, they do not see these interventions as something overt. They have been blended with the Thai political culture and for the songs–a part of being patriotic Thais. I try to point out that these interventions are different from the recent ones (the funeral attendance and Princess Chulabhorn’s political involvement) which are out in the open, seen as taking side in the political divide. That’s all.
I am on my own, and when the junta issued a warrant for my arrest, my instinct told me to stand up for myself. If you really believe that in standing up for myself and not for the rest of Thailand–it is a part of boosting my career– then I would have little to say.
A conversation with Chomsky
I never thought by being flamboyant, this could hurt Thailand. It is only fair to discuss the content of my work. But to criticise how I am as a person and how I write on my own Facebook, this is very unfair to me.
A conversation with Chomsky
Pavin,
Thanks once again for your response.
No, I’m not a “distinguished” political scientist and, unfortunately, I have not been recognized by Stanford as such.
So, therefore, I don’t have the necessary “status” that you possess to be your “peer”.
I’m just somebody pointing out the kind of very obvious weaknesses in your arguments that could be picked up at undergraduate level by a sharp-eyed seminar student.
Good luck.
A conversation with Chomsky
Pavin
Thanks for your response.
I’m afraid you do appear very confused as you go on to list a whole series of public interventions by the royals which you then claim are not public because they became a “political norm in Thailand”.
So what you’re saying is that the previous public political interventions by the royals were so everyday & frequent that they weren’t even noticed as public anymore and this, in fact, means that they weren’t public at all?
I’m not sure I follow your analysis.
Have there been multiple public interventions by Thai royals in Thai politics stretching back for decades?
Yes.
Even you agree that this is the case.
It is indisputable this is the case and would require sophistry of the most extreme kind to deny this is the case.
What possibly differentiates the recent interventions that you mention – the PDRC and the funeral – is that they went against the clearly expressed democratic will of the Thai people.
Maybe if you saw yourself as being part of a collective struggle for democracy, freedom of expression and social justice for all rather than just your own personal struggle you might be better placed to actually win that struggle rather than use it as a backdrop to your career?
Just a thought.
A conversation with Chomsky
Pavin reminds me of Richard Quest, a CNN journalist. It is all about him every thing he does on Facebook, every thing he does on social media is all about him all about his glory. From a distance people like Pavin seriously hinder and make arguments on Thai politics seem ridiculous – yeah he is right, often, but the flamboyance and narcissism he portrays only hurts Thailand
A conversation with Chomsky
So this person had a “private conversation” with Noam Chomsky and then rushes over to put it all down here to share with NM readers? How nice.
Unfortunately this thing reads like a boring embassy cable. If you’re going to do a “conversation” piece with Chomsky make it a real interview in his own words.
Though really I don’t think anybody cares about Chomsky’s opinions on anything.
Royal power in Thai politics
Pardon my ignorace, Notdisappointed, can you point out some of Rose’s half-truths and inaccuracies?
A conversation with Chomsky
Simon Obviously by calling Noam (not Norm) Chomsky a Communist, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Not only not knowing anything about Chomsky, but that same old mis-informed idea of Communism.
And Pavin acts like a child on social media??? That is how you base everything. Their celebrity charisma…
A conversation with Chomsky
Why defend Chomsky on Cambodia? Why? He simply was wrong. Don’t try to excuse his errors. I would never argue that Chomsky was a supporter of the Khmer Rouge. What I would argue is that Chomsky’s critique of American intervention in Southeast Asia made him leery of what, initially, sounded to him like a knee-jerk anti-communist critique. He was leery of the early evidence presented. We can understand that. But he made some counter-claims, such as on the numbers of victims, that were utterly implausible. Why some people want to twist themselves into pretzels to excuse this is beyond me.