Thank you once again Not Aligned. I have explained already about my view on the royal interventions in the open. Just want to quickly respond to your point about whether I have ever been “peer-reviewed”. Yes you are doing it here, right now. And I am glad you expressed your critical opinion about me. As for me earning the title of “distinguished fellow”, you may want to ask Stanford University why it offered me such a title. Once again, thank you.
Not Aligned, thanks for your comments. I have never claimed to fight for democracy in Thailand. Who am I to do that? And yes, it has been my own struggle and so what? I have been affected by the coup and why cannot I call for my own justice? It is easy for those who sit at home to expect others to do more.
Taking selfies? Is this an issue? Being an academic, one must not take selfies? it is irrelevant to the issue we discuss in this forum.
As for the monarchy breaking with its tradition to play politics in the open, I still stand on my argument. It is true that the King has endorsed so many coups, but at the same time, such practice has become a political norm in Thailand. In other words, it has become acceptable in the eyes of Thais and they do not see it as a kind of intervention. He was even perceived as a stabilising force! This periodic interventions of the King have also become a part of Thai-style democracy–the one that has been endorsed by the palace–so on this basis, I do not interpret his intervention as him playing politics in the open. He just neatly exploited the system to his own benefits. The same interpretation also goes to writing patriotic songs whereby the King exploited the domestic and international conditions to boost a sense of nationalism/royalism–I see this as part of social manipulation and it was promoted, again neatly through national education. In recent history, particularly after the coup, in my opinion, the monarchy has become much more active in the open–the Queen attending the funeral and Princess Chulabhorn endorsing the anti-Yingluck protest. I could not recall if the monarchy did this kind of things in the past.
As my last point–I agree with you, I might have been brave but there are many people out there who are even braver than me, with or without fanfare.
I wanted to add a bit more to debunk Pavin’s completely false claim that
“The royal institution has broken its past modus operandi of pulling the strings behind the political scene, and is now playing politics in the open.”
How many coups have they signed off on?
Black May?
The royals composing anti-communist songs eg Rao Su “We fight”?
The royal family has openly played politics for decades – it’s a complete fabrication to claim it’s a “recent thing” and part of their “succession crisis”.
Yes, the queen’s funeral attendance provoked a lot of anger but it’s absolutely not the first time they’ve been publicly involved.
Has anybody ever peer-reviewed Pavin’s work or statements? I’m quite surprised he’s such a “distinguished scholar” when he seems so bereft from the most basic facts of his nation’s relatively recent history.
But what I find revealing about Pavin is how it is too often about him and his “struggle” and not the collective struggle of Thais to find democracy.
So Pavin writes
“My life has been turned upside down”
“His sympathy towards my struggle was unexpected and much appreciated.”
“its harassment against my basic human rights.”
There are obvious opportunities there to write about the struggle facing many others, to express solidarity etc but Pavin seems to go into fanboy mode – a fan of both Chomsky (who has rightly been criticized on many things in the past) and himself – and like his endless “selfies” it becomes almost self-parody.
Pavin’s statement here is also self-evidently factually incorrect and I amazed he has made it.
“The royal institution has broken its past modus operandi of pulling the strings behind the political scene, and is now playing politics in the open.”
So all those times when the royals were publicly singing anti-leftist songs in 60s, 70s and 80s weren’t “playing politics in the open”?
I think there has been a desperate attempt to fit the facts to the theory regarding the succession. What’s fascinating about this discourse is that it is completely malleable and is continually rewritten – as Pavin seems to be doing here.
Pavin has been brave, sure, but so have many many more, without the fanfare, without the selfies and without the fanboy celebrity meet-ups with the famous.
A great role model for our generals in Burma. A road map to follow in Suharto’s footsteps never mind if it’s only half a century too late, never mind the CPB is either dead or defunct.
Reds under the bed! Works better than crying wolf every time, doesn’t it?
Tin Tin: It is just another all-too usual empty slander to repeat the lie that Chomsky ever supported the Khmer Rouge.
What he did do was his standard bravura exposure of how international/US media differentiates between, say, mass murder when it is committed by “leftists” like Pol Pot and that committed by rightwing US-supported state terrorists like Suharto in Indonesia.
In a similar spirit of inquiry, someone might want to ask Pavin why he proposes to “answer” Noam’s question about why opposition parties haven’t upped their game to compete with PT/PPP/TRT but utterly fails to address his equally “pertinent” question about how “Thaksin’s political idea” (deep insight there actually) could relate to democratization in Thailand.
Or might that risk exposing a milder version of the same sort of selective “reportage”?
Nor does he know the difference between ‘to’ and ‘too’. The issues are too serious? Are you one of those who would rather say nothing because you’d be chastised as a traitor for saying anything bad about Thailand (if you’re Thai).
The fact is anyone should be allowed to say anything about it and the fact that it is pretty much illegal to do so is the problem.
But it’s ok, go put your head back in the sand.
Really? Was he “advocating freedom of both peoples and minds around the globe” when he supported the Khmer Rouge? One of the second-order tragedies of Thai politics is that it allows long-discredited radical leftists like Chomsky and the CPT to claim relevance.
Constitutional reform, and the writing of a new constitution is purely a sham, and a delay tactic to keep the present junta in power “for ever”. They and the elite who control the resources of the country have no intention of rescinding their power and influence through the democratic process.The whole matter reeks of bad faith and subterfuge.
I think it’s fairer to say Chomsky is a socialist democrat with roots in libertarian socialism or anarchism. He’s a free thinker, advocating freedom of both peoples and minds around the globe. As Pavin can be criticized for his academic work he is still to be considered a medium for the rest of the world to gain some insight in the Thai debate – and once opening that door, one sees that Pavin is not the only debater.
Not sure Pavin and Norm are very credible social justice advocates. Pavin acts like a child on social media and Norm is a well known communist. The issues are to serious to allow people like this to lead the debate.
http://tinyurl.com/np27kj9 is my own take on G30S. It is (until today) an unpublished memorandum I wrote in 2001 on the basis of archived materials and my own recollection of events at the time.
I was in 1965 Burma Desk Officer in the UK Foreign Office, but was also responsible for Indonesian internal affairs as the senior Indonesian Desk Officer, George Chalmers, needed support – and Burma was rather quiet.
Those are both appointed positions, and they won’t even allow her the chance to become one of the three VPs by revoking Article 59(f). Min Aung Hlaing’s weasel words about willing to serve under a woman make even lip service as usual sound ridiculous.
Opening up to the rest of the world and to the Lady had to happen together. Engagement by Australia and the others is conducive to ‘democracy as we know it’ however interpreted or defined by the regime’s own agenda. A mutual and universal effort at broadening the horizons of our people can only lead to progress however belated. The full realisation of their genetic physical and creative potential has been impossible for a half century under military misrule.
No doubth this is the most dark history for my country, Indonesia. We’ve been feed too much lies on what’s going on that time we dont even know who’s right and wrong.
It is opportune this British Economist reporter wrote his book “commercial” with the following exerpt.
“The first part of the book is called “The plural society and its enemies”. It is a reference to the concept of the “plural society”, coined by the British Burma scholar and civil servant JS Furnivall specifically to describe the extraordinarily cosmopolitan and ethnically diverse society that flourished in colonial Rangoon (as well as Jakarta in what is now Indonesia). Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, often desperately poor, were drawn to the port city by the lure of Neruda’s dreams and gold; trading in commodities such as teak, oil and rice, British (and more often Scottish) trading houses made fortunes in Burma, and their activities sucked in financiers and bankers as much as labourers and stevedores from all over the world, and especially from South Asia.
Yet the plural society was as much a curse as a blessing. Indeed, Furnivall originally used the term in a pejorative sense, the opposite to how it is used today. Whereas the colonialists and immigrants might have built a bustling, wealthy city and country, the indigenous Burmans were largely excluded from this enterprise. The plural society was thus imposed on them, and they came to bitterly resent not only the British administrators, but the vast numbers of immigrants who came to Burma in their wake; the Indians, and particularly Muslims from nearby Bengal, were regarded as little better than colonial satraps. Even worse, indigenous ethnic-minority groups in Burma such as the Karen and Kachin enthusiastically enlisted in the colonial administration to promote their own interests and to police the ethnic Burmans, thus creating the essential divisions in the country between the Burman majority (that today make up about 60 per cent of the population) and the minority Karen, Chin, Kachin and others that survive to this day.”
So there it was poor, little isolated backward Burma with her medieval ways splenderised by virtue of the venerable “international communities” with its cosmopolital ways to achieve “prosperity”. With equality and empowerment of all the stake holders?
Now that the history is repeating itself, poor, little isolated backward Burma with her medieval ways being splendarised by virtue of the venerable “international communities” with its cosmopolital ways to achieve “prosperity”. With equality and empowerment of all the stake holders?
What Burma needs is a female defence minister, just like in Australia. How about Suu Kyi, since she can’t become President? Ms Payne and Ms Bishop will get along splendidly with the posh lady of Burma, no?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A conversation with Chomsky
Thank you once again Not Aligned. I have explained already about my view on the royal interventions in the open. Just want to quickly respond to your point about whether I have ever been “peer-reviewed”. Yes you are doing it here, right now. And I am glad you expressed your critical opinion about me. As for me earning the title of “distinguished fellow”, you may want to ask Stanford University why it offered me such a title. Once again, thank you.
A conversation with Chomsky
Not Aligned, thanks for your comments. I have never claimed to fight for democracy in Thailand. Who am I to do that? And yes, it has been my own struggle and so what? I have been affected by the coup and why cannot I call for my own justice? It is easy for those who sit at home to expect others to do more.
Taking selfies? Is this an issue? Being an academic, one must not take selfies? it is irrelevant to the issue we discuss in this forum.
As for the monarchy breaking with its tradition to play politics in the open, I still stand on my argument. It is true that the King has endorsed so many coups, but at the same time, such practice has become a political norm in Thailand. In other words, it has become acceptable in the eyes of Thais and they do not see it as a kind of intervention. He was even perceived as a stabilising force! This periodic interventions of the King have also become a part of Thai-style democracy–the one that has been endorsed by the palace–so on this basis, I do not interpret his intervention as him playing politics in the open. He just neatly exploited the system to his own benefits. The same interpretation also goes to writing patriotic songs whereby the King exploited the domestic and international conditions to boost a sense of nationalism/royalism–I see this as part of social manipulation and it was promoted, again neatly through national education. In recent history, particularly after the coup, in my opinion, the monarchy has become much more active in the open–the Queen attending the funeral and Princess Chulabhorn endorsing the anti-Yingluck protest. I could not recall if the monarchy did this kind of things in the past.
As my last point–I agree with you, I might have been brave but there are many people out there who are even braver than me, with or without fanfare.
A conversation with Chomsky
I wanted to add a bit more to debunk Pavin’s completely false claim that
“The royal institution has broken its past modus operandi of pulling the strings behind the political scene, and is now playing politics in the open.”
How many coups have they signed off on?
Black May?
The royals composing anti-communist songs eg Rao Su “We fight”?
The royal family has openly played politics for decades – it’s a complete fabrication to claim it’s a “recent thing” and part of their “succession crisis”.
Yes, the queen’s funeral attendance provoked a lot of anger but it’s absolutely not the first time they’ve been publicly involved.
Has anybody ever peer-reviewed Pavin’s work or statements? I’m quite surprised he’s such a “distinguished scholar” when he seems so bereft from the most basic facts of his nation’s relatively recent history.
A conversation with Chomsky
Interesting stuff.
But what I find revealing about Pavin is how it is too often about him and his “struggle” and not the collective struggle of Thais to find democracy.
So Pavin writes
“My life has been turned upside down”
“His sympathy towards my struggle was unexpected and much appreciated.”
“its harassment against my basic human rights.”
There are obvious opportunities there to write about the struggle facing many others, to express solidarity etc but Pavin seems to go into fanboy mode – a fan of both Chomsky (who has rightly been criticized on many things in the past) and himself – and like his endless “selfies” it becomes almost self-parody.
Pavin’s statement here is also self-evidently factually incorrect and I amazed he has made it.
“The royal institution has broken its past modus operandi of pulling the strings behind the political scene, and is now playing politics in the open.”
So all those times when the royals were publicly singing anti-leftist songs in 60s, 70s and 80s weren’t “playing politics in the open”?
I think there has been a desperate attempt to fit the facts to the theory regarding the succession. What’s fascinating about this discourse is that it is completely malleable and is continually rewritten – as Pavin seems to be doing here.
Pavin has been brave, sure, but so have many many more, without the fanfare, without the selfies and without the fanboy celebrity meet-ups with the famous.
Indonesia’s forgotten genocide
A great role model for our generals in Burma. A road map to follow in Suharto’s footsteps never mind if it’s only half a century too late, never mind the CPB is either dead or defunct.
Reds under the bed! Works better than crying wolf every time, doesn’t it?
A conversation with Chomsky
Tin Tin: It is just another all-too usual empty slander to repeat the lie that Chomsky ever supported the Khmer Rouge.
What he did do was his standard bravura exposure of how international/US media differentiates between, say, mass murder when it is committed by “leftists” like Pol Pot and that committed by rightwing US-supported state terrorists like Suharto in Indonesia.
In a similar spirit of inquiry, someone might want to ask Pavin why he proposes to “answer” Noam’s question about why opposition parties haven’t upped their game to compete with PT/PPP/TRT but utterly fails to address his equally “pertinent” question about how “Thaksin’s political idea” (deep insight there actually) could relate to democratization in Thailand.
Or might that risk exposing a milder version of the same sort of selective “reportage”?
A conversation with Chomsky
Chomsky should have asked a FOURTH question – I.e. will ethno-regionalism blow the wider Thai State apart, as it is doing in Patani ?
A conversation with Chomsky
Nor does he know the difference between ‘to’ and ‘too’. The issues are too serious? Are you one of those who would rather say nothing because you’d be chastised as a traitor for saying anything bad about Thailand (if you’re Thai).
The fact is anyone should be allowed to say anything about it and the fact that it is pretty much illegal to do so is the problem.
But it’s ok, go put your head back in the sand.
A conversation with Chomsky
Really? Was he “advocating freedom of both peoples and minds around the globe” when he supported the Khmer Rouge? One of the second-order tragedies of Thai politics is that it allows long-discredited radical leftists like Chomsky and the CPT to claim relevance.
A conversation with Chomsky
But serious enough to allow uninformed comments from someone who can’t even spell his name right. It’s ‘Noam’ not ‘Norm’, Simeon.
Thailand’s constitution conundrum
Constitutional reform, and the writing of a new constitution is purely a sham, and a delay tactic to keep the present junta in power “for ever”. They and the elite who control the resources of the country have no intention of rescinding their power and influence through the democratic process.The whole matter reeks of bad faith and subterfuge.
A conversation with Chomsky
I think it’s fairer to say Chomsky is a socialist democrat with roots in libertarian socialism or anarchism. He’s a free thinker, advocating freedom of both peoples and minds around the globe. As Pavin can be criticized for his academic work he is still to be considered a medium for the rest of the world to gain some insight in the Thai debate – and once opening that door, one sees that Pavin is not the only debater.
A conversation with Chomsky
Not sure Pavin and Norm are very credible social justice advocates. Pavin acts like a child on social media and Norm is a well known communist. The issues are to serious to allow people like this to lead the debate.
Mystery of Indonesia’s coup continues
Gosh, Hamish. 50 years ago!
http://tinyurl.com/np27kj9 is my own take on G30S. It is (until today) an unpublished memorandum I wrote in 2001 on the basis of archived materials and my own recollection of events at the time.
I was in 1965 Burma Desk Officer in the UK Foreign Office, but was also responsible for Indonesian internal affairs as the senior Indonesian Desk Officer, George Chalmers, needed support – and Burma was rather quiet.
Independence and interventions
sorry typo, should read ‘armed’ not ‘unarmed insurgency.’
What’s next for Myanmar and Australia?
Those are both appointed positions, and they won’t even allow her the chance to become one of the three VPs by revoking Article 59(f). Min Aung Hlaing’s weasel words about willing to serve under a woman make even lip service as usual sound ridiculous.
Opening up to the rest of the world and to the Lady had to happen together. Engagement by Australia and the others is conducive to ‘democracy as we know it’ however interpreted or defined by the regime’s own agenda. A mutual and universal effort at broadening the horizons of our people can only lead to progress however belated. The full realisation of their genetic physical and creative potential has been impossible for a half century under military misrule.
Mass killings and memory
Coincidentally Joshua Oppenheimer has a piece in today’s New York Times.
Suharto’s Purge, Indonesia’s Silence
Indonesia’s forgotten genocide
No doubth this is the most dark history for my country, Indonesia. We’ve been feed too much lies on what’s going on that time we dont even know who’s right and wrong.
NLD needs to lift the standard
#3.1.1.1.1
It is opportune this British Economist reporter wrote his book “commercial” with the following exerpt.
“The first part of the book is called “The plural society and its enemies”. It is a reference to the concept of the “plural society”, coined by the British Burma scholar and civil servant JS Furnivall specifically to describe the extraordinarily cosmopolitan and ethnically diverse society that flourished in colonial Rangoon (as well as Jakarta in what is now Indonesia). Hundreds of thousands of immigrants, often desperately poor, were drawn to the port city by the lure of Neruda’s dreams and gold; trading in commodities such as teak, oil and rice, British (and more often Scottish) trading houses made fortunes in Burma, and their activities sucked in financiers and bankers as much as labourers and stevedores from all over the world, and especially from South Asia.
Yet the plural society was as much a curse as a blessing. Indeed, Furnivall originally used the term in a pejorative sense, the opposite to how it is used today. Whereas the colonialists and immigrants might have built a bustling, wealthy city and country, the indigenous Burmans were largely excluded from this enterprise. The plural society was thus imposed on them, and they came to bitterly resent not only the British administrators, but the vast numbers of immigrants who came to Burma in their wake; the Indians, and particularly Muslims from nearby Bengal, were regarded as little better than colonial satraps. Even worse, indigenous ethnic-minority groups in Burma such as the Karen and Kachin enthusiastically enlisted in the colonial administration to promote their own interests and to police the ethnic Burmans, thus creating the essential divisions in the country between the Burman majority (that today make up about 60 per cent of the population) and the minority Karen, Chin, Kachin and others that survive to this day.”
So there it was poor, little isolated backward Burma with her medieval ways splenderised by virtue of the venerable “international communities” with its cosmopolital ways to achieve “prosperity”. With equality and empowerment of all the stake holders?
Now that the history is repeating itself, poor, little isolated backward Burma with her medieval ways being splendarised by virtue of the venerable “international communities” with its cosmopolital ways to achieve “prosperity”. With equality and empowerment of all the stake holders?
Can’t wait!
What’s next for Myanmar and Australia?
What Burma needs is a female defence minister, just like in Australia. How about Suu Kyi, since she can’t become President? Ms Payne and Ms Bishop will get along splendidly with the posh lady of Burma, no?