It is pretty certainly not remotely possible that the Sukhothai I inscription is forged or forged by Mongut. The linguistic evidence — from ANU’s Anthony Diller and Bill Gedney in Chamberlain’s ‘The Ramkhamhaeng Controvery’ collection — just totally demolishes any argument that it is. Don’t repeat it. You’ll look dumb.
Central to Blaxland’s arguments is his conviction that Judaeo-Christian ideas are more conductive to democratic development than Theravada Buddhism.
Democratic ideas did not arise from Judeao-Christian beliefs but from pagan ancient Greek civilisation at the same time as the rise of Buddhisme.
What Baxland tries to sell us as Theravada Buddhist ideas and Thai mindsets to which all real Thais (what about Moslims, Christians and other beliefs?) subscribe is only the twisted ideology of the elite who always have used Buddhisme as the underpinning of their birth right to rule. Buddhisme as a pillar of the state.
Baxland’s description of Theravada Buddhisme looks more like Hinduisme. Buddhisme was a revolutionary set of ideas contrary to Hinduisme.
The Buddha was always scathing if a Hindu priest, a Brahman, alluded to his birth right or to his karma as the right to rule or know the truth. Uppermost in the Buddha’s mind was not karma but the (good) deeds done in this live. He rejected forcefully all notions of cast. He never looked down on farmers or prostitutes. He talked to everybody. Karma does not determine one’s fate. It’s what we do in the here and now.
The Buddha set up the monkhood to be an example for all mankind. The monkhood, the Sangha, should be egalitarian, ruled by consensus and to choose, not appoint, its leaders. After some thought he allowed women to be ordained as full-blown monks.
There is no culture and no religion that is not compatible with democratic ideas. History doesn’t tell us otherwise.
Absolutely Andrew. I was preparing a rebuttal to this fatuous piece however you have saved my time. Blaxland should spend some time in the North and North East before he makes such patronising comments about these people and their place in society.The writer will have egg all over his face when the results of the reforms become evident. There is little doubt that this regime is intent on disenfranchising the Thai people to ensure that their own power and influence is entrenched.
I’m stunned to read this, even taking into account the poor quality of John Blaxland’s previous articles on Thailand. A remarkably uninformed and muddled argument that basically summarizes all the excuses we’ve heard from anti-democracy Thais and coup-apologists over the past 80 years, and presents them as if they are something new that nobody has pointed out before.
The factual errors are so numerous that it would be tedious to list them all, but here are some of the most egregious:
–– “previous coups have tended to be bloody affairs”. This is completely wrong, Thai coups are usually bloodless and theatrical, and it is very rare for people to be killed during a coup. In all the coups and coup attempts since 1932 put together, very few people have been killed or even wounded. The only arguable exception is 1976 but even then, the relationship between the massacre and the coup is complex and needs to be given a nuanced explanation.
–– “Prayuth acted when the instruments of state had mostly seized up. By 20 May 2014 Thailand’s democratic institutions had ground to a dysfunctional halt.” Again, this is wrong. Elections have functioned perfectly well in Thailand in recent decades, when they are allowed to take place, and as Pasuk and Baker have persuasively argued, the notion that vote buying skews the results of Thai elections is “dangerous nonsense”. It’s true that when Yingluck tried to hold a snap election in February, the anti-democratic forces took extreme measures to sabotage it. It’s also true that many of the so-called independent institutions that were created as checks and balances have become captured by the anti-democratic elite and used to try to bring down governments they don’t like. So the old elite have been actively trying to sabotage Thai democracy, and then saying that democracy clearly isn’t working so they need to suspend it. They are the ones who brought Thai democracy to its “dysfunctional halt”.
–– “rule of law is an important part of effective governance and that has been sadly lacking in recent years in Thai politics”. A remarkably cynical statement, given that the Thai military and old elite have conspired to undermine the rule of law in Thailand.
–– “Thailand, … is a Theravada Buddhist country that, unlike its other Theravada Buddhist neighbours (Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia), was never colonised by the West.” Laughably naive. Thailand was a semi-colony of Britain from the mid-19th century to the WW2, then a semi-colony of the U.S. from the end of WW2 to the 1970s, which Blaxland himself (probably unintentionally) acknowledges when he writes: “For the United States, Thailand remains a longstanding treaty ally, providing ongoing access to significant air bases and ports of strategic significance.”
–– “Prayuth is determined to be more thorough and insistent on generating institutional and economic reform to root out some of the corruption and nepotism, promoted by previous administrations.” This is a bad joke. The military is perhaps the most corrupt institution in Thailand. Prayuth, Prawit Wongsuwan and Anupong Pao-chinda have even gone out of their way to insist that the GT200 fake explosives detector actually works. They have more generals per capita than any other country on earth, and yet they don’t fight wars. How can this bloated, criminal and cynical institution do a better job of leading Thailand than democratically elected governments?
Then we get the tired old claims of Thai exceptionalism that the anti-democratic elite have trotted out for decades – “Thailand’s cultural and political dynamics cannot be read effectively through Western lenses alone.” According to this ludicrous argument, ordinary Thais are a different species, like dolphins or Martians, who don’t want what the rest of us want – fair government, the rule of law, a chance to build a better life for their children. They don’t care about being able to speak freely and to vote in democratic elections, because they are primitive superstitious folk who believe that instead of striving for a better future in this life, they should just patiently wait to be reincarnated higher up the social hierarchy in the next life. But it should be glaringly obvious from the events of the past decade that millions of ordinary Thais want progressive change now, and that the arcadian vision of humble smiling people contentedly accepting the injustices of their society is total hogwash.
Blaxland’s comments on succession are also intriguing. “Perhaps equally significant was the perceived need to prevent the Shinawatra clan from overseeing any fin-de-siecle royal succession. Thaksin simply was not to be trusted with such weighty responsibility.” Can he expand on this? If Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn is to be the next monarch, as all the elite (publicly) insist he will be, why would it make any difference which prime minister was in power at the time? If Blaxland is unable to explain his argument further, he should not be making it.
The real intent of Blaxland’s daft analysis can be inferred from his comment that “policy makers should remember that Thailand has been a good friend of Australia and others”. In other words, he is worried that Thailand will gravitate towards China if the West insist too much on such pesky details as fairness and freedom of speech for Thailand’s people. So his motivations are transparent, but what surprised me was the clumsiness and lack of originality of his arguments. This article could have been copied almost verbbatim from any Western propaganda story promoting the military dictatorship of the 1960s and 1970s. All that needed to be changed was the name of the dictator.
I’m glad that New Mandala published the article – it is always useful to debate different views. But nobody is going to take John Blaxland seriously unless he does a better job than this.
It may seem that the practice of human sacrifice at the foundation of a capital city was common in the region, as described here in “Mandalay Palace” published by the Directorate of Archaeological Survey, Burma, ed.1963 (pp19-20).
Cukup berani Pak. I am wondering if “an Indonesianist”(especially from ANU) could put an analysis in New Mandala using a word stronger than “in danger” (used by Edward Aspinall in predicting the damage that COULD BE caused by Prabowo) addressed to Yudhoyono’s SENDING Indonesian democracy back to Soeharto’s era.
@AIW – interesting link, of sorts. Not the sort of thing you read everyday, especially in Thai. Consequently it’s now been blocked.
Readers may recall one of those rambling birthday speeches of about ten years ago when HM made the radical (or, if you prefer, totally off the wall) observation that the heroin business in Thailand had been a communist plot. This link provides a rather forceful and, it would seem fanciful (to a greater or lesser degree), counter narrative to that decade old blathering, accusing the king of being the numero uno in the country’s drug trade while dragging in the old rumours about the CP’s former wife, Yuwutida and a bust in London, allegations of another narcotic misadventure in France starring Somsawali and retainers, even Sirinthon gets lumped into this epic saga together with various high ranking military and police officers, not to mention leading lights in the Democrat party etc. etc.etc.etc.
It’s a lengthy offering with lots of colourful photographs down through the ages. Towards the end Thaksin appears to be hailed for his efforts on the ‘war on drugs’ which brings this rather large dog’s breakfast together, in a manner of speaking.
Thailand is country where things get so murky or badly obscured the truth about so much generally goes missing in action as will, in all likelihood, anyone seriously trying to make light of it.
So, who’s got Agus Dwikarna? Returned from 12 years pokey in Manila in January, disappeared April. A bit anti-social of him wasn’t it? Alien abduction? Kalla must have been sweating buckets, what with an election coming on and his old buddy from Makassar comes back to tanah jihad. Just for fun, try and list all the people with an interest in finding out what Dwikarna knows, stopping him from telling it, making him tell it, punishing him for having told it or not told it etc
It is no secret that Rama IV and V sired many children, 80+ and 70+, respectively. Many Thais call Rama IV, “Tao Hua Ngu”, or an elderly snake-head in the English language. Indeed, he was a horny old king, bedded with young girls in their teens while in his 70’s. Most Thais appreciate truth. It seems that the people who are having difficulty in dealing with the truth are the elites themselves.
The change of name from Siam to Thailand, then back to Siam and then to Thailand again, certainly doesn’t make it any easier for those of us who write about the country. But I don’t see the point of being overly pedantic. If we write about “Thai attitudes” even when referring to the era when the country was known as Siam, it is perfectly clear what we mean. There are plenty of more important things to debate than this rather trivial issue.
Of course Yudhoyono bears some responsibility for this latest setback for Indonesian democracy. And then not so long ago he had his party back the more anti-democratic of the two coalitions of parties contesting the presidency.
In my view, he has been a flawed leader, period. He made known in 2004 that he didn’t want his ministers to hold executive posts in their respective parties, but didn’t dissuade Kalla from taking over the chair of Golkar in December of that year. It was open slather thereafter, and we ended up with mediocrities like Suryadharma Ali and Muhaimin Iskandar holding both cabinet posts and party chairs.
His idea of a 100 days of ministerial decisions that he introduced in his first term and repeated in his second term was a silly gimmick.
Kalla was far more effective in responding to the 2004 tsunami than the president. Then SBY was very protective of Aburizal Bakrie over the Lapindo scandal. How could such a man be Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare?
He should never have demoted Mari Pangestu to the Tourism and Creative Economy post. Did that demotion help her in her bid to become WTO director-general, which would have redounded to Indonesia’s credit had she been successful? He should never have joined in promoting dynastic politics by allowing his son, not obviously endowed with political skills, to become secretary-general of his party.
Ini cukup berani untuk Saudara Surjadi atau perlu saya teruskan?
What Martin has not established is whether Thaksin is more deeply involved with the northern drug trade than, say, the military, paramilitary organisations, or any other of the monarchy’s cronies. In an atmosphere of unsubstantiated rumors and deliberate lies, with so much hearsay flying about, nobody knows with any accuracy what is really going on. Accusations like Martin’s belong with all the others whose veracity is suspect. That is the whole point of not punishing people without a proper evidence-based investigation, which is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible. How do you find out the truth in a culture (including the police culture) plagued with liars, where even the honest but gullible are part of the problem?
Too bad Malaysia has instituted any policy with respect to both returning Malay jihadists and local extremists, some remnants
of Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM) and some members of Pondok-associated fanatics. Malaysia has plenty of ISIS supporters with the Malay community, and about 40 known jihadists, who have gone to fight in Syria, Initially, Prime Minister Najib PRAISED Malays who defended ISIS and killed Syrian Sh’ites as “Good Muslims” and encouraged more Malays to go to Syria. PM Najib 1.0 is a matter of public record and his early support cannot be invalidated. It was only after Indonesia and Muslim Arab nations publically proclaimed their opposition, that
Najib reversed himself 180 degrees, and become PM Najib 2.0, in opposition to ISIS a and all of sudden and Malay who goes to fight in Syria is himself a heretic, and is not doing “Allah’s work”. Despite Najib’s fairly obvious hypocritical epiphany, Malay men continue to go to Syria, and now some Malay women are actually going as well, to “service” jihadists (Malay and Arab) as
sexual companions. This is a matter of public record, and neither UMNO nor much of
Malaysia seems embarrassed by this revolting
self-abuse. It reveals much about the socialization of women in Malaysia, as well as strong latent misogyny in Malay society.
In addition to these “earthly virgins”, one should not forget that many of these Malay jihadists are leaving behind families, which seem not to interest them much. Malaysia is far, far more lax than Indonesia with regard to the radical extremist threat posed by ISIS, with several Malay NGOs supportive of ISIS, since jihadists kill heretical Shi’ites which seems to be one of the main foci of support. PAS, the Malaysian Islamic Party, has opposed ISIS, but its opposition has been equivocal and disingenuous, and PAS has not issued any rulings from its Syura council of Ulama. The UMNO-appointed national Syrua Council has been mostly silent, following UMNO’s less than enthusiastic opposition to ISIS. If Indonesia’s Government and security services have placed the opposition to ISIS in a nationalistic “Rebellion” context, rather than an violent Islamic extremist context, Malaysia analogous agencies haven’t even done that much. Let me be clear, Malaysia has done a lot of accusation of rebellion,
which in the Malaysian variant, is “sedition”. UMNO has indeed accused about 10-15 individuals of sedition and thus presumably a threat to the State, analogous to Indonesia’s use of “Rebellion” as a pretext or legitimate basis for arresting potential extremists. Malaysia’s problem ?
None of the “seditious” individual are extremists, half aren’t even Muslim, and the half that are (about 4 or 5) are moderates,
who hardly support ISIS whatsoever. These are opposition leaders, opposition candidates, lawyers, journalists, bloggers and civil servants. What makes this especially egregious, is that none of the accused committed anything remotely close to sedition (it is clear this is UMNO/BN’s way
of pre-empting popular politicians or potential political candidates from defeating UMNO candidates at the next general election). This is human rights abuse, plain and simple, and it happened under President Obama’s nose, when he visited Malaysia recently.
Thus, Malaysia’s security apparatus, which itself is quite devout from an Islamic standpoint and is as likely to be susceptible to ISIS entreaties, as the general Malay population, has done a great deal to try and nullify apolitical actions on the part of mostly opposition people who are mostly non-Muslim Chinese or Indians or moderate Malaysian journalists and politicians. It is a poor commentary that the charge of “sedition” which could be used proportionately and effectively against Malay Muslim extremists, domestically, and those fighting abroad in Iraq and Syria, is not used against them at all, and Prime Minister Najib’s epiphany of Islamic moderation and opposition to Salafi Sunni Islam and violence, has undergone several downgrades and upgrades, and in fact few Malaysians, and I suspect even fewer foreigners, believe a word he says. While Mbai in Indonesia, may be using the wrong framework (which is a matter of opinion), I doubt most Indonesians think of Mbai as a jokester; I have met him and he is a serious and intelligent man. Sadly, Malaysia suffers from a surfeit of such men, and one need only look at the creeping Islamisation of Malaysia itself, to see that even traditional Shaf’i Islam is being supplanted by more stringent Hanafi Islam. There is a lesson in this, which, for Malaysia could be positive, but given Malaysian-Indonesian relations, I do not see Putrajaya using Jakarta as a role model for much of anything.
In this instance, I think that is a mistake.
Agree with the above – large-scale shifts such as political culture takes time and I don’t think that 10 years is enough to expect a wholesale change in terms of regional power. This reversal does more to halt progress and remove potential than it does to destroy gains already achieved. The author needs to make a better distinction between “bureaucrats and businessmen connected the state” and those from “within society” as if doing business disconnects you from what matters to the middle class and below.
Lastly, if nothing else at least when the people voted in incompetence they would only have themselves to blame.
Here is the information that you seek, Martin. It is written in Thai by someone who appears to be a member of the trafficking organization or an insider person. The evidence provided appears to be strong but all must be wary of the author’s motivation….Why would this author decide to tell it now?
Chris #10
I believe that Sarit, no doubt with an eye to traditional culture and national unification had a wife in every Amphur. Hence 60 years later he can be fondly remembered as a local lad “who made the trains run on time”.
All cultures admire a “charismatic individual” it’s hard wired into our survival DNA. The trick for the despot is to tap into that desire.
My old mum in law,bless her used to make the tea shoot out of my nose with her opinion on the Kray twins:
“They made it safe to go out at night, they loved their mother, and they only murdered their own kind.”
I believe these timeless precepts are being religiously adhered to in the current rollout.
Mbak Elizabeth, I suppose the correct phrase is “orang itu-itu saja” (“those same persons”). “Gitu” (informal form of “begitu”) = “that way”. E.g “Nah, gitu donk!” = “I like it that way!” 😉
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
One militarist putting in a good word for another?
Review of Masked: The Life of Anna Leonowens
It is pretty certainly not remotely possible that the Sukhothai I inscription is forged or forged by Mongut. The linguistic evidence — from ANU’s Anthony Diller and Bill Gedney in Chamberlain’s ‘The Ramkhamhaeng Controvery’ collection — just totally demolishes any argument that it is. Don’t repeat it. You’ll look dumb.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Central to Blaxland’s arguments is his conviction that Judaeo-Christian ideas are more conductive to democratic development than Theravada Buddhism.
Democratic ideas did not arise from Judeao-Christian beliefs but from pagan ancient Greek civilisation at the same time as the rise of Buddhisme.
What Baxland tries to sell us as Theravada Buddhist ideas and Thai mindsets to which all real Thais (what about Moslims, Christians and other beliefs?) subscribe is only the twisted ideology of the elite who always have used Buddhisme as the underpinning of their birth right to rule. Buddhisme as a pillar of the state.
Baxland’s description of Theravada Buddhisme looks more like Hinduisme. Buddhisme was a revolutionary set of ideas contrary to Hinduisme.
The Buddha was always scathing if a Hindu priest, a Brahman, alluded to his birth right or to his karma as the right to rule or know the truth. Uppermost in the Buddha’s mind was not karma but the (good) deeds done in this live. He rejected forcefully all notions of cast. He never looked down on farmers or prostitutes. He talked to everybody. Karma does not determine one’s fate. It’s what we do in the here and now.
The Buddha set up the monkhood to be an example for all mankind. The monkhood, the Sangha, should be egalitarian, ruled by consensus and to choose, not appoint, its leaders. After some thought he allowed women to be ordained as full-blown monks.
There is no culture and no religion that is not compatible with democratic ideas. History doesn’t tell us otherwise.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
Absolutely Andrew. I was preparing a rebuttal to this fatuous piece however you have saved my time. Blaxland should spend some time in the North and North East before he makes such patronising comments about these people and their place in society.The writer will have egg all over his face when the results of the reforms become evident. There is little doubt that this regime is intent on disenfranchising the Thai people to ensure that their own power and influence is entrenched.
Thailand’s Prayuth: Not just another coup-maker
I’m stunned to read this, even taking into account the poor quality of John Blaxland’s previous articles on Thailand. A remarkably uninformed and muddled argument that basically summarizes all the excuses we’ve heard from anti-democracy Thais and coup-apologists over the past 80 years, and presents them as if they are something new that nobody has pointed out before.
The factual errors are so numerous that it would be tedious to list them all, but here are some of the most egregious:
–– “previous coups have tended to be bloody affairs”. This is completely wrong, Thai coups are usually bloodless and theatrical, and it is very rare for people to be killed during a coup. In all the coups and coup attempts since 1932 put together, very few people have been killed or even wounded. The only arguable exception is 1976 but even then, the relationship between the massacre and the coup is complex and needs to be given a nuanced explanation.
–– “Prayuth acted when the instruments of state had mostly seized up. By 20 May 2014 Thailand’s democratic institutions had ground to a dysfunctional halt.” Again, this is wrong. Elections have functioned perfectly well in Thailand in recent decades, when they are allowed to take place, and as Pasuk and Baker have persuasively argued, the notion that vote buying skews the results of Thai elections is “dangerous nonsense”. It’s true that when Yingluck tried to hold a snap election in February, the anti-democratic forces took extreme measures to sabotage it. It’s also true that many of the so-called independent institutions that were created as checks and balances have become captured by the anti-democratic elite and used to try to bring down governments they don’t like. So the old elite have been actively trying to sabotage Thai democracy, and then saying that democracy clearly isn’t working so they need to suspend it. They are the ones who brought Thai democracy to its “dysfunctional halt”.
–– “rule of law is an important part of effective governance and that has been sadly lacking in recent years in Thai politics”. A remarkably cynical statement, given that the Thai military and old elite have conspired to undermine the rule of law in Thailand.
–– “Thailand, … is a Theravada Buddhist country that, unlike its other Theravada Buddhist neighbours (Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia), was never colonised by the West.” Laughably naive. Thailand was a semi-colony of Britain from the mid-19th century to the WW2, then a semi-colony of the U.S. from the end of WW2 to the 1970s, which Blaxland himself (probably unintentionally) acknowledges when he writes: “For the United States, Thailand remains a longstanding treaty ally, providing ongoing access to significant air bases and ports of strategic significance.”
–– “Prayuth is determined to be more thorough and insistent on generating institutional and economic reform to root out some of the corruption and nepotism, promoted by previous administrations.” This is a bad joke. The military is perhaps the most corrupt institution in Thailand. Prayuth, Prawit Wongsuwan and Anupong Pao-chinda have even gone out of their way to insist that the GT200 fake explosives detector actually works. They have more generals per capita than any other country on earth, and yet they don’t fight wars. How can this bloated, criminal and cynical institution do a better job of leading Thailand than democratically elected governments?
Then we get the tired old claims of Thai exceptionalism that the anti-democratic elite have trotted out for decades – “Thailand’s cultural and political dynamics cannot be read effectively through Western lenses alone.” According to this ludicrous argument, ordinary Thais are a different species, like dolphins or Martians, who don’t want what the rest of us want – fair government, the rule of law, a chance to build a better life for their children. They don’t care about being able to speak freely and to vote in democratic elections, because they are primitive superstitious folk who believe that instead of striving for a better future in this life, they should just patiently wait to be reincarnated higher up the social hierarchy in the next life. But it should be glaringly obvious from the events of the past decade that millions of ordinary Thais want progressive change now, and that the arcadian vision of humble smiling people contentedly accepting the injustices of their society is total hogwash.
Blaxland’s comments on succession are also intriguing. “Perhaps equally significant was the perceived need to prevent the Shinawatra clan from overseeing any fin-de-siecle royal succession. Thaksin simply was not to be trusted with such weighty responsibility.” Can he expand on this? If Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn is to be the next monarch, as all the elite (publicly) insist he will be, why would it make any difference which prime minister was in power at the time? If Blaxland is unable to explain his argument further, he should not be making it.
The real intent of Blaxland’s daft analysis can be inferred from his comment that “policy makers should remember that Thailand has been a good friend of Australia and others”. In other words, he is worried that Thailand will gravitate towards China if the West insist too much on such pesky details as fairness and freedom of speech for Thailand’s people. So his motivations are transparent, but what surprised me was the clumsiness and lack of originality of his arguments. This article could have been copied almost verbbatim from any Western propaganda story promoting the military dictatorship of the 1960s and 1970s. All that needed to be changed was the name of the dictator.
I’m glad that New Mandala published the article – it is always useful to debate different views. But nobody is going to take John Blaxland seriously unless he does a better job than this.
Review of Masked: The Life of Anna Leonowens
It may seem that the practice of human sacrifice at the foundation of a capital city was common in the region, as described here in “Mandalay Palace” published by the Directorate of Archaeological Survey, Burma, ed.1963 (pp19-20).
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Why doesn’t this surprise me?
The reassertion of the state
Cukup berani Pak. I am wondering if “an Indonesianist”(especially from ANU) could put an analysis in New Mandala using a word stronger than “in danger” (used by Edward Aspinall in predicting the damage that COULD BE caused by Prabowo) addressed to Yudhoyono’s SENDING Indonesian democracy back to Soeharto’s era.
Captain Nat and the wheels of Thai justice
@AIW – interesting link, of sorts. Not the sort of thing you read everyday, especially in Thai. Consequently it’s now been blocked.
Readers may recall one of those rambling birthday speeches of about ten years ago when HM made the radical (or, if you prefer, totally off the wall) observation that the heroin business in Thailand had been a communist plot. This link provides a rather forceful and, it would seem fanciful (to a greater or lesser degree), counter narrative to that decade old blathering, accusing the king of being the numero uno in the country’s drug trade while dragging in the old rumours about the CP’s former wife, Yuwutida and a bust in London, allegations of another narcotic misadventure in France starring Somsawali and retainers, even Sirinthon gets lumped into this epic saga together with various high ranking military and police officers, not to mention leading lights in the Democrat party etc. etc.etc.etc.
It’s a lengthy offering with lots of colourful photographs down through the ages. Towards the end Thaksin appears to be hailed for his efforts on the ‘war on drugs’ which brings this rather large dog’s breakfast together, in a manner of speaking.
Thailand is country where things get so murky or badly obscured the truth about so much generally goes missing in action as will, in all likelihood, anyone seriously trying to make light of it.
Why Indonesia banned ISIS
So, who’s got Agus Dwikarna? Returned from 12 years pokey in Manila in January, disappeared April. A bit anti-social of him wasn’t it? Alien abduction? Kalla must have been sweating buckets, what with an election coming on and his old buddy from Makassar comes back to tanah jihad. Just for fun, try and list all the people with an interest in finding out what Dwikarna knows, stopping him from telling it, making him tell it, punishing him for having told it or not told it etc
Review of Masked: The Life of Anna Leonowens
It is no secret that Rama IV and V sired many children, 80+ and 70+, respectively. Many Thais call Rama IV, “Tao Hua Ngu”, or an elderly snake-head in the English language. Indeed, he was a horny old king, bedded with young girls in their teens while in his 70’s. Most Thais appreciate truth. It seems that the people who are having difficulty in dealing with the truth are the elites themselves.
Review of Masked: The Life of Anna Leonowens
The change of name from Siam to Thailand, then back to Siam and then to Thailand again, certainly doesn’t make it any easier for those of us who write about the country. But I don’t see the point of being overly pedantic. If we write about “Thai attitudes” even when referring to the era when the country was known as Siam, it is perfectly clear what we mean. There are plenty of more important things to debate than this rather trivial issue.
The reassertion of the state
Of course Yudhoyono bears some responsibility for this latest setback for Indonesian democracy. And then not so long ago he had his party back the more anti-democratic of the two coalitions of parties contesting the presidency.
In my view, he has been a flawed leader, period. He made known in 2004 that he didn’t want his ministers to hold executive posts in their respective parties, but didn’t dissuade Kalla from taking over the chair of Golkar in December of that year. It was open slather thereafter, and we ended up with mediocrities like Suryadharma Ali and Muhaimin Iskandar holding both cabinet posts and party chairs.
His idea of a 100 days of ministerial decisions that he introduced in his first term and repeated in his second term was a silly gimmick.
Kalla was far more effective in responding to the 2004 tsunami than the president. Then SBY was very protective of Aburizal Bakrie over the Lapindo scandal. How could such a man be Coordinating Minister for People’s Welfare?
He should never have demoted Mari Pangestu to the Tourism and Creative Economy post. Did that demotion help her in her bid to become WTO director-general, which would have redounded to Indonesia’s credit had she been successful? He should never have joined in promoting dynastic politics by allowing his son, not obviously endowed with political skills, to become secretary-general of his party.
Ini cukup berani untuk Saudara Surjadi atau perlu saya teruskan?
Captain Nat and the wheels of Thai justice
What Martin has not established is whether Thaksin is more deeply involved with the northern drug trade than, say, the military, paramilitary organisations, or any other of the monarchy’s cronies. In an atmosphere of unsubstantiated rumors and deliberate lies, with so much hearsay flying about, nobody knows with any accuracy what is really going on. Accusations like Martin’s belong with all the others whose veracity is suspect. That is the whole point of not punishing people without a proper evidence-based investigation, which is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible. How do you find out the truth in a culture (including the police culture) plagued with liars, where even the honest but gullible are part of the problem?
Why Indonesia banned ISIS
Too bad Malaysia has NOT instituted any policy with respect to both returning Malay jihadists and local extremists, some remnants..
Sorry, should read has “not” instituted…
Should also read as below:
In opposition to ISIS, “and all of a sudden
any Malay who goes to fight”…
Why Indonesia banned ISIS
Too bad Malaysia has instituted any policy with respect to both returning Malay jihadists and local extremists, some remnants
of Kumpulan Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM) and some members of Pondok-associated fanatics. Malaysia has plenty of ISIS supporters with the Malay community, and about 40 known jihadists, who have gone to fight in Syria, Initially, Prime Minister Najib PRAISED Malays who defended ISIS and killed Syrian Sh’ites as “Good Muslims” and encouraged more Malays to go to Syria. PM Najib 1.0 is a matter of public record and his early support cannot be invalidated. It was only after Indonesia and Muslim Arab nations publically proclaimed their opposition, that
Najib reversed himself 180 degrees, and become PM Najib 2.0, in opposition to ISIS a and all of sudden and Malay who goes to fight in Syria is himself a heretic, and is not doing “Allah’s work”. Despite Najib’s fairly obvious hypocritical epiphany, Malay men continue to go to Syria, and now some Malay women are actually going as well, to “service” jihadists (Malay and Arab) as
sexual companions. This is a matter of public record, and neither UMNO nor much of
Malaysia seems embarrassed by this revolting
self-abuse. It reveals much about the socialization of women in Malaysia, as well as strong latent misogyny in Malay society.
In addition to these “earthly virgins”, one should not forget that many of these Malay jihadists are leaving behind families, which seem not to interest them much. Malaysia is far, far more lax than Indonesia with regard to the radical extremist threat posed by ISIS, with several Malay NGOs supportive of ISIS, since jihadists kill heretical Shi’ites which seems to be one of the main foci of support. PAS, the Malaysian Islamic Party, has opposed ISIS, but its opposition has been equivocal and disingenuous, and PAS has not issued any rulings from its Syura council of Ulama. The UMNO-appointed national Syrua Council has been mostly silent, following UMNO’s less than enthusiastic opposition to ISIS. If Indonesia’s Government and security services have placed the opposition to ISIS in a nationalistic “Rebellion” context, rather than an violent Islamic extremist context, Malaysia analogous agencies haven’t even done that much. Let me be clear, Malaysia has done a lot of accusation of rebellion,
which in the Malaysian variant, is “sedition”. UMNO has indeed accused about 10-15 individuals of sedition and thus presumably a threat to the State, analogous to Indonesia’s use of “Rebellion” as a pretext or legitimate basis for arresting potential extremists. Malaysia’s problem ?
None of the “seditious” individual are extremists, half aren’t even Muslim, and the half that are (about 4 or 5) are moderates,
who hardly support ISIS whatsoever. These are opposition leaders, opposition candidates, lawyers, journalists, bloggers and civil servants. What makes this especially egregious, is that none of the accused committed anything remotely close to sedition (it is clear this is UMNO/BN’s way
of pre-empting popular politicians or potential political candidates from defeating UMNO candidates at the next general election). This is human rights abuse, plain and simple, and it happened under President Obama’s nose, when he visited Malaysia recently.
Thus, Malaysia’s security apparatus, which itself is quite devout from an Islamic standpoint and is as likely to be susceptible to ISIS entreaties, as the general Malay population, has done a great deal to try and nullify apolitical actions on the part of mostly opposition people who are mostly non-Muslim Chinese or Indians or moderate Malaysian journalists and politicians. It is a poor commentary that the charge of “sedition” which could be used proportionately and effectively against Malay Muslim extremists, domestically, and those fighting abroad in Iraq and Syria, is not used against them at all, and Prime Minister Najib’s epiphany of Islamic moderation and opposition to Salafi Sunni Islam and violence, has undergone several downgrades and upgrades, and in fact few Malaysians, and I suspect even fewer foreigners, believe a word he says. While Mbai in Indonesia, may be using the wrong framework (which is a matter of opinion), I doubt most Indonesians think of Mbai as a jokester; I have met him and he is a serious and intelligent man. Sadly, Malaysia suffers from a surfeit of such men, and one need only look at the creeping Islamisation of Malaysia itself, to see that even traditional Shaf’i Islam is being supplanted by more stringent Hanafi Islam. There is a lesson in this, which, for Malaysia could be positive, but given Malaysian-Indonesian relations, I do not see Putrajaya using Jakarta as a role model for much of anything.
In this instance, I think that is a mistake.
The reassertion of the state
Agree with the above – large-scale shifts such as political culture takes time and I don’t think that 10 years is enough to expect a wholesale change in terms of regional power. This reversal does more to halt progress and remove potential than it does to destroy gains already achieved. The author needs to make a better distinction between “bureaucrats and businessmen connected the state” and those from “within society” as if doing business disconnects you from what matters to the middle class and below.
Lastly, if nothing else at least when the people voted in incompetence they would only have themselves to blame.
Captain Nat and the wheels of Thai justice
http://ratlanna.blogspot.com/2014/07/5-6-8-9-6-7-2475-8-8-8-9-2489-8-8-9-9-9.html
Here is the information that you seek, Martin. It is written in Thai by someone who appears to be a member of the trafficking organization or an insider person. The evidence provided appears to be strong but all must be wary of the author’s motivation….Why would this author decide to tell it now?
Thai Studies in Australia, redux
Chris #10
I believe that Sarit, no doubt with an eye to traditional culture and national unification had a wife in every Amphur. Hence 60 years later he can be fondly remembered as a local lad “who made the trains run on time”.
All cultures admire a “charismatic individual” it’s hard wired into our survival DNA. The trick for the despot is to tap into that desire.
My old mum in law,bless her used to make the tea shoot out of my nose with her opinion on the Kray twins:
“They made it safe to go out at night, they loved their mother, and they only murdered their own kind.”
I believe these timeless precepts are being religiously adhered to in the current rollout.
The reassertion of the state
Mbak Elizabeth, I suppose the correct phrase is “orang itu-itu saja” (“those same persons”). “Gitu” (informal form of “begitu”) = “that way”. E.g “Nah, gitu donk!” = “I like it that way!” 😉