The dissidents are ALWAYS a minority. I don’t want to make any comparisons here, but if you would have asked some Germans in the during the Nazi regime, or some East Germans or Russians during the seventies or some North Koreans now, you probably always have a majority that is sort of OK with the status quo, just because most of the people just want to carry on with their lives.
And this fact is even more reason to support the few brave ones that show some dissent.
I think you will find in the battle between
‘Atheism’ (Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler-and no, Hitler was NOT a Christian)
and ‘Religion’, the number of people who have suffered due to the misuse of ANY belief system, evens out in the end, over the last few thousand years. After all, in the ancient faiths, even the dead fought each other. And we all assume that early humans who drew beautiful wall paintings
in Lascaux cave in Southwestern France, were early humans who had some form of faith. How do we know they weren’t talented atheist artists ?
My question is would you have done any better? Most likely not. Many of the commentators would be pissing in their pants, if they were in such a position
Mr Stevens could not have stated it any better, and I would add, if it were a man or woman wrongly accused of a violent crime based on a faulty forensic DNA evidence in any Indonesian court, not only will you be unable to bring that person back to life from the dead, you can be damn sure that the forensic evidence, for both defence and prosecution, is both faulty, unscientific and would inadmissible in any democratic court system in the modern world. The problem is not only that capital punishment exists in Indonesia (as it does, in say Texas or Japan), but that there is no reversing an execution, if subsequently the evidence is found to be tarnished, faulty or tampered with. We know this from 14 cases in Texas alone in the last few years.
I would not disagree with your assessment of Pullman’s view. And one could argue a parallel of sorts for Thailand. On your first point though I still stand by my view that the dissidents here are a minority.
But at least we are debating civilly and allowing opposing views. The voting system and comments of others show that is not typical in NM. Academics and academic sites should tolerate alternative opinions.
This piece is not written with the idea that condemning two men to death for the sake of short term bilateral relationships is a good idea.
I deplore any such suggestion and point out that this text attempts to suggest a long term program to abolish the death penalty permanently.
If the Australian government can successfully negotiate the staying of these two young men’s executions then that is fantastic, however also highly unlikely.
If they can successfully provide a long term solution to the situation and help other nations move on to create better justice systems without the death penalty (and save the lives of countless others down the track), then I believe that is even greater an achievement
SBY contacted King Abdullah, and returned the Saudi Ambassador to Indonesia home, because he was (shocking !) offended at Indonesian housemaids being accused of witchcraft, being abused by their employers, and being subjected to Shari’a Law which meant certain beheading for bogus charges
of witchcraft, hardly provable (or invalidated ) in a Saudi Shari’a Court run by several misogynistic males. It is called courage, or to borrow from Spike Lee’s class film, “Do the right thing”. SBY did the right thing. He was not scared of being barred from the Haj. He was not scared of being condemned by the OIC, and he was not scared of the reaction of Islamists in Indonesia. SBY’s ONLY mistake was not to make the ban on Indonesian women in the Gulf, permanent, a ban that President Jokowi would be well-advised to institute. It is not Plato that is relevant here, but Voltaire, and without knowing a word of French, SBY understood all that needs be known about Indonesian dignity. Something, that seems to escape the current President, eager to confuse brawn with intellect.
Though it is an important issue raised, that perpetrators of crime be given a chance to rehabilitate and become contributing members of society, how often does this actually happen? Hypothetically, out of 100 criminals that are put in prison and sentenced to death because of drug related crime, then granted leniency, how many will reform and become advocates against the very crime they committed? Sure the two accused have been well behaved and described by the media as “model prisoners” but I would be on my best behaviour too if I was on death row. Something to think about perhaps.
In your list of countries in SEA with interreligious problems you left out Malaysia which shows the very interesting case of members of a majority religion trying to dominate a minority religion by telling it what its (the minority’s) right and wrong beliefs should be and how they should express them (the ‘Allah’ controversy). I think this is unique, but not less worrying for all that.
This student of Platonic dialogues and frequent traveller to Indonesia makes the important point that governments should not try to pressure foreign leaders who about to execute some of their citizens if a ‘valuable international relationship’ is at stake.
The Australian government would clearly be better off only asking for clemency from the governments of countries of little consequence to us. As the current case in fact concerns Indonesia, by achieving the ‘short-term gain’ of saving Australian lives, we risk paying a high price. Perhaps, however, our ‘short-term gain’ might be a long-term gain for those who would otherwise be facing the firing-squad.
What on earth made SBY try to save an Indonesian from execution in Saudi Arabia by contacting King Abdullah? Didn’t he realise that he too was risking an important international relationship for a short-term gain? I guess that, voracious reader though he is, the former president may not have read any Plato.
This author has at least convinced me of one thing. That is to chuck out all my books on Platonic dialogues at the next opportunity.
As an update, NACC has decided to charge former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his then-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban with malfeasance. This in addition to consideration of impeachment against 269 former MPs. Guess this proves their impartiality. (Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.)
Quite the contrary, there were actually far fewer dissenters in countries like East Germany or Czechoslovakia during 1980s than there are in Thailand now. Many people resented various aspects of those regimes, but few opposed them openly. As Michal Pullmann argues in his Konec experimentu (“The end to an experiment”), most citizens of Czechoslovakia found it more practical to state their views using the regime’s terminology, thereby expressing a fundamental loyalty to Soviet-style socialism.
The mass participation seen in late 1989 protests came almost literally overnight (perhaps because Soviets had shrugged off regime change in Hungary and Poland; thereafter opposition seemed no longer impractical).
In comparison, many Thais’ grivances today are much more directly political, making their negotiation on regime’s terms impossible.
Meanwhile…leaving aside the bickering over just which person here has a complete understanding of what “all Thais” want, I would like to compliment Aim Simpeng on an informative and useful article. The protest by Resistant Citizen Group demonstrates a brave attempt under a regime where consequences for free political expression are certain. It may well mark a turning point as Aim Simpeng believes. If not, the event still matters for adding evidence to its result: unambiguous political repression.
As Aim Simpeng notes, it is factual that “the junta has used a combination of coercion and moral suasion to ‘direct’ and shape citizens’ behaviour.” Aim’s next comment that “the very legitimacy of the current government depends on its ability to use coercion effectively and to monopolize its use,” got me thinking, however. Her point is perhaps partially true but political legitimacy can never be derived from coercion alone. It is derived socially in the form of an observable relationship between the governors and the governed.
To quote Alagappa from Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia (Stanford 1995, pp. 11-12), “Legitimization of power is an interactive and therefore dynamic process among the government, the elite groups, and the politically significant public: those in power seek to legitimate their control and exercise of that power: the subjects seek to define their subordination in acceptable terms…[and such terms] are defined and redefined continuously.”
Thus, by definition, regime legitimacy cannot be afforded solely under duress of the governed. In Thailand, we observe a politically significant public without opportunity to negotiate, contest, or articulate what is legitimate rule, or “subordination in acceptable terms.” If members of the public try to do so, they are coercively detained for “attitude adjustment” – a practice that has no cultural or historic legitimacy in Thai political practice or law.
Legitimacy in non-democracies can be derived from sources other than popular elections, such as ideology, charisma, religion, or even economic performance, but not from coercion alone. Segments of the governed who support a coercive regime (such as the Yellow-Shirt elite and others in the Thai case) cannot claim the current regime is legitimate in the absence of an accepted subordination by the broader public. Perhaps the only plausible claim to legitimacy that the ruling junta and elite could make is on the basis of political tradition, i.e. the informal constitution of Thai elite politics and practice of coups which receive endorsement from the palace. But even this practice rarely involves the participation of a politically significant public to be made legitimate. It also is meaningful that the country’s previous written constitution rendered the planning of a coup illegal (as opposed, absurbly, to non-planned coups — a new and apparently justifiable political phenomenon among coup-addicted Thai brass and aristocrats.
Aim Sinpeng’s article usefully adds to an understanding of the shape of public opposition to the junta by analyzing recent events. Apologizes to her for nitpicking a single term, but I thought it worth raising. I am also curious how Aim or other NM readers understand political legitimacy similarly or differently.
Two points. It has become increasingly clear over the past couple of months that Jokowi is a dud. I think many of us held reservations about him during the incredibly poorly run campaign, but we chose to overlook this. Now we cannot. Every week there is another news story that makes me shake my head more than I ever have during my observation of Indonesia. And he has a gaggle of incompetent ministers making knee jerk decisions about serious matters — such as air transport.
My second point is about the Aussie accent and Jokowi. Sorry guys. Just sounds wrong. 🙂
Matt Owen Rees I rather suspect that I have a wider knowledge of Thailand and the Thai people than you.What is your obsession with NM voting? IF readers of this site don’t think much of your posts I guess you need to have a think about them or try Thai Visa where academic debate is not so valued.
“A mass protest by students abandoning classes at universities on an agreed day may occur in the near future.”
Are you clairvoyant? There are absolutely no sourced facts in this and no reasoned debate. Thais don’t read what you write because you can’t debate an issue. If you did they’d respond maybe agreeing with you maybe not but they won’t bother when they read the majority of posts on this site and see how the voting system is played.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
V-Day resistance to the junta’s coercive regime
Mr Owens Rees the only way that we will find out what the Thais think is by having a free and fair election.
V-Day resistance to the junta’s coercive regime
The dissidents are ALWAYS a minority. I don’t want to make any comparisons here, but if you would have asked some Germans in the during the Nazi regime, or some East Germans or Russians during the seventies or some North Koreans now, you probably always have a majority that is sort of OK with the status quo, just because most of the people just want to carry on with their lives.
And this fact is even more reason to support the few brave ones that show some dissent.
Religion and atheism: the need for dialogue
I think you will find in the battle between
‘Atheism’ (Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler-and no, Hitler was NOT a Christian)
and ‘Religion’, the number of people who have suffered due to the misuse of ANY belief system, evens out in the end, over the last few thousand years. After all, in the ancient faiths, even the dead fought each other. And we all assume that early humans who drew beautiful wall paintings
in Lascaux cave in Southwestern France, were early humans who had some form of faith. How do we know they weren’t talented atheist artists ?
The unfulfilled promise of Joko Widodo
My question is would you have done any better? Most likely not. Many of the commentators would be pissing in their pants, if they were in such a position
A fatal mistake
Mr Stevens could not have stated it any better, and I would add, if it were a man or woman wrongly accused of a violent crime based on a faulty forensic DNA evidence in any Indonesian court, not only will you be unable to bring that person back to life from the dead, you can be damn sure that the forensic evidence, for both defence and prosecution, is both faulty, unscientific and would inadmissible in any democratic court system in the modern world. The problem is not only that capital punishment exists in Indonesia (as it does, in say Texas or Japan), but that there is no reversing an execution, if subsequently the evidence is found to be tarnished, faulty or tampered with. We know this from 14 cases in Texas alone in the last few years.
V-Day resistance to the junta’s coercive regime
I would not disagree with your assessment of Pullman’s view. And one could argue a parallel of sorts for Thailand. On your first point though I still stand by my view that the dissidents here are a minority.
But at least we are debating civilly and allowing opposing views. The voting system and comments of others show that is not typical in NM. Academics and academic sites should tolerate alternative opinions.
A fatal mistake
This piece is not written with the idea that condemning two men to death for the sake of short term bilateral relationships is a good idea.
I deplore any such suggestion and point out that this text attempts to suggest a long term program to abolish the death penalty permanently.
If the Australian government can successfully negotiate the staying of these two young men’s executions then that is fantastic, however also highly unlikely.
If they can successfully provide a long term solution to the situation and help other nations move on to create better justice systems without the death penalty (and save the lives of countless others down the track), then I believe that is even greater an achievement
A fatal mistake
SBY contacted King Abdullah, and returned the Saudi Ambassador to Indonesia home, because he was (shocking !) offended at Indonesian housemaids being accused of witchcraft, being abused by their employers, and being subjected to Shari’a Law which meant certain beheading for bogus charges
of witchcraft, hardly provable (or invalidated ) in a Saudi Shari’a Court run by several misogynistic males. It is called courage, or to borrow from Spike Lee’s class film, “Do the right thing”. SBY did the right thing. He was not scared of being barred from the Haj. He was not scared of being condemned by the OIC, and he was not scared of the reaction of Islamists in Indonesia. SBY’s ONLY mistake was not to make the ban on Indonesian women in the Gulf, permanent, a ban that President Jokowi would be well-advised to institute. It is not Plato that is relevant here, but Voltaire, and without knowing a word of French, SBY understood all that needs be known about Indonesian dignity. Something, that seems to escape the current President, eager to confuse brawn with intellect.
A fatal mistake
Though it is an important issue raised, that perpetrators of crime be given a chance to rehabilitate and become contributing members of society, how often does this actually happen? Hypothetically, out of 100 criminals that are put in prison and sentenced to death because of drug related crime, then granted leniency, how many will reform and become advocates against the very crime they committed? Sure the two accused have been well behaved and described by the media as “model prisoners” but I would be on my best behaviour too if I was on death row. Something to think about perhaps.
Religion and atheism: the need for dialogue
In your list of countries in SEA with interreligious problems you left out Malaysia which shows the very interesting case of members of a majority religion trying to dominate a minority religion by telling it what its (the minority’s) right and wrong beliefs should be and how they should express them (the ‘Allah’ controversy). I think this is unique, but not less worrying for all that.
A fatal mistake
This student of Platonic dialogues and frequent traveller to Indonesia makes the important point that governments should not try to pressure foreign leaders who about to execute some of their citizens if a ‘valuable international relationship’ is at stake.
The Australian government would clearly be better off only asking for clemency from the governments of countries of little consequence to us. As the current case in fact concerns Indonesia, by achieving the ‘short-term gain’ of saving Australian lives, we risk paying a high price. Perhaps, however, our ‘short-term gain’ might be a long-term gain for those who would otherwise be facing the firing-squad.
What on earth made SBY try to save an Indonesian from execution in Saudi Arabia by contacting King Abdullah? Didn’t he realise that he too was risking an important international relationship for a short-term gain? I guess that, voracious reader though he is, the former president may not have read any Plato.
This author has at least convinced me of one thing. That is to chuck out all my books on Platonic dialogues at the next opportunity.
Impeaching Yingluck Shinawatra
As an update, NACC has decided to charge former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and his then-deputy Suthep Thaugsuban with malfeasance. This in addition to consideration of impeachment against 269 former MPs. Guess this proves their impartiality. (Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.)
The unfulfilled promise of Joko Widodo
Making opinions is easy, making opinions with academic rigour is difficult. Sadly, Greg’s commentary is lacking in analysis and rigour.
V-Day resistance to the junta’s coercive regime
Quite the contrary, there were actually far fewer dissenters in countries like East Germany or Czechoslovakia during 1980s than there are in Thailand now. Many people resented various aspects of those regimes, but few opposed them openly. As Michal Pullmann argues in his Konec experimentu (“The end to an experiment”), most citizens of Czechoslovakia found it more practical to state their views using the regime’s terminology, thereby expressing a fundamental loyalty to Soviet-style socialism.
The mass participation seen in late 1989 protests came almost literally overnight (perhaps because Soviets had shrugged off regime change in Hungary and Poland; thereafter opposition seemed no longer impractical).
In comparison, many Thais’ grivances today are much more directly political, making their negotiation on regime’s terms impossible.
Why is Malaysia experiencing a brain drain?
There are many worlds (or realities) in Malaysia.
V-Day resistance to the junta’s coercive regime
Meanwhile…leaving aside the bickering over just which person here has a complete understanding of what “all Thais” want, I would like to compliment Aim Simpeng on an informative and useful article. The protest by Resistant Citizen Group demonstrates a brave attempt under a regime where consequences for free political expression are certain. It may well mark a turning point as Aim Simpeng believes. If not, the event still matters for adding evidence to its result: unambiguous political repression.
As Aim Simpeng notes, it is factual that “the junta has used a combination of coercion and moral suasion to ‘direct’ and shape citizens’ behaviour.” Aim’s next comment that “the very legitimacy of the current government depends on its ability to use coercion effectively and to monopolize its use,” got me thinking, however. Her point is perhaps partially true but political legitimacy can never be derived from coercion alone. It is derived socially in the form of an observable relationship between the governors and the governed.
To quote Alagappa from Political Legitimacy in Southeast Asia (Stanford 1995, pp. 11-12), “Legitimization of power is an interactive and therefore dynamic process among the government, the elite groups, and the politically significant public: those in power seek to legitimate their control and exercise of that power: the subjects seek to define their subordination in acceptable terms…[and such terms] are defined and redefined continuously.”
Thus, by definition, regime legitimacy cannot be afforded solely under duress of the governed. In Thailand, we observe a politically significant public without opportunity to negotiate, contest, or articulate what is legitimate rule, or “subordination in acceptable terms.” If members of the public try to do so, they are coercively detained for “attitude adjustment” – a practice that has no cultural or historic legitimacy in Thai political practice or law.
Legitimacy in non-democracies can be derived from sources other than popular elections, such as ideology, charisma, religion, or even economic performance, but not from coercion alone. Segments of the governed who support a coercive regime (such as the Yellow-Shirt elite and others in the Thai case) cannot claim the current regime is legitimate in the absence of an accepted subordination by the broader public. Perhaps the only plausible claim to legitimacy that the ruling junta and elite could make is on the basis of political tradition, i.e. the informal constitution of Thai elite politics and practice of coups which receive endorsement from the palace. But even this practice rarely involves the participation of a politically significant public to be made legitimate. It also is meaningful that the country’s previous written constitution rendered the planning of a coup illegal (as opposed, absurbly, to non-planned coups — a new and apparently justifiable political phenomenon among coup-addicted Thai brass and aristocrats.
Aim Sinpeng’s article usefully adds to an understanding of the shape of public opposition to the junta by analyzing recent events. Apologizes to her for nitpicking a single term, but I thought it worth raising. I am also curious how Aim or other NM readers understand political legitimacy similarly or differently.
The unfulfilled promise of Joko Widodo
Two points. It has become increasingly clear over the past couple of months that Jokowi is a dud. I think many of us held reservations about him during the incredibly poorly run campaign, but we chose to overlook this. Now we cannot. Every week there is another news story that makes me shake my head more than I ever have during my observation of Indonesia. And he has a gaggle of incompetent ministers making knee jerk decisions about serious matters — such as air transport.
My second point is about the Aussie accent and Jokowi. Sorry guys. Just sounds wrong. 🙂
V-Day resistance to the junta’s coercive regime
Just who are “The Thais”?
(doesn’t sound like they are the Thai electorate – you know that group the junta is afraid to let have their say)
V-Day resistance to the junta’s coercive regime
Matt Owen Rees I rather suspect that I have a wider knowledge of Thailand and the Thai people than you.What is your obsession with NM voting? IF readers of this site don’t think much of your posts I guess you need to have a think about them or try Thai Visa where academic debate is not so valued.
V-Day resistance to the junta’s coercive regime
“A mass protest by students abandoning classes at universities on an agreed day may occur in the near future.”
Are you clairvoyant? There are absolutely no sourced facts in this and no reasoned debate. Thais don’t read what you write because you can’t debate an issue. If you did they’d respond maybe agreeing with you maybe not but they won’t bother when they read the majority of posts on this site and see how the voting system is played.