Thanks, Scott – very interesting. I’ve just been re-reading Edward Aspinall’s review of R. E. Elson: “The Idea of Indonesia: A History” (in: Indonesia: No. 87: Apr. 2009: pp 117-122). He notes that Elson’s book is in effect a (somewhat condescending) intellectual history of the idea of nationalism in Indonesia. Has anything similar been done for Thailand? There’s obviously some fascinating comparative work to be done on nationalism across SE Asia – and indeed globally, in this era of proliferating ultra-conservative neo-nationalisms. (Maybe that’s already been done too?) The clash of nationalisms in Thailand certainly looks somewhat odd to a non-specialist outsider. But doesn’t Chettawan Tuenprakhon underestimate the power of ideas? I suspect that few of the unconverted will be swayed by his “multicultural” version of Thai nationalism. It may indeed confirm their worst fears about the enemy they perceive themselves to be up against. They’ll probably be similarly unpersuaded by his constitutional argument. Perhaps this issue is not so much about a clash of ideas as a about a clash between ideas and emotion? And if that’s the case, an intellect ever prevail over feeling? Before we call in the philosophers, perhaps we need to consider what other factors may be at play here: perhaps a clash of economic, social class or political interests? I’m somewhat surprised that polemicists like Chettawan Tuenprakhon seldom seem to try and use the opposition’s perspective to argue the “progressive” case. He alludes, for example, to the inconsistency between the modern lifestyle which the conservatives adhere to and their irredentist political cause. So why not argue the case that in the face of the onslaught of modernism and globalisation, convservatives have to be strategic in deciding what’s worth conserving and how best to conserve it? Now that’s a position that even I might be able to subscribe to! And in the face of evident misunderstanding of the role of the constitution in the debate in Thailand, what about some consideration of the historical evolution of the constitution, how it came to be adopted, and the role of the monarchy in that process?
The answer is: maybe not. At least the way the script dictated by the monarcho-juntocracy is being played out now. Where Lese Majeste laws can result in imprisonments, murder… The lessons of Nepal and Laos should be kept in mind.
Thank-you for your clear-headed letter vis ├б vis the so-called “Men in Black”. As you say, there is no evidence to link them to the red-shirts. They may just as well be agents provocateurs of the elite, to smear the red-shirt movement. The demonization and hatred of Taksin has reached such a pathological pitch that people will believe anything and everything.
Your understanding of Kamol’s stance towards 112 is simply insufficient. There is no such thing as “his wider opposition to Article 112”. Let me give another example. When the original amnesty bill (the so-called Worachai’s bill) was tabled. I together with a few others specifically raised the issue of its lack of clarity on the 112 prisoners. The bill left the interpretation whether they would be included in the hands of judges, which as everyone knows, are not the friends of 112 prisoners. They would cirtainly rule that the latter were not covered by the bill. Kamol came out to attack anyone who criticized the bill on this point. (Very nasty attack, I might add.) etc. As I said, his stance toward 112 and his politics in general were more complicated; it’s not just his defence of the subsequent blanket amnesty bill that belies the claim of this article about the 112 connection.
I see my earlier comment has generated a lot of responses. I still take the view that advocating for Sarawak independence is not a mainstream view. If a referendum is held tomorrow, I highly doubt that Sarawakians want to become an independent state. I would like to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case here. Those who make their views known on political social media sites, such as NM, are really not your average Joe in the state.
Some of you have implied that, by holding this view, I am being un-Sarawakian or ignorant of unequal distribution of resources under the current arrangement. These are all untrue. Regardless of my personal views (under attack here), I don’t believe independence or separatism is desired by a majority of Sarawakians. This is all I am saying.
1) Myanmar is a Buddhist country as Thailand is. The latter get a free pass down South, comparatively small and almost Zero threat to it sovereignty the former continually scapegoated that accept all religions.
The inroad made by Jehovah Witness and Latter day Saint as well as New Chinese temples are undeniable proves.
2) Without any provision to put the money where the mouth is. As example the Millions of dollars send into the pockets of organization/NGO/UN that clearly have agendas other than solving the real problems of poverty and deprivations induced strives everywhere in Myanmar/Yakhine. Even if just a portion of the $$ to improve the road to Chaugtha will prove the sincerity of the west repenting from useless careless policy
3) Failure to even mention the Islamic supremacy concept, exemplified by the fact:
How many country that went Muslim does one see tolerance for other religionS, let alone going BACK TO Buddhista.
Point #3 should answer tocherian constant rants again the Chinese, once and for all one hope.
Unfortunately, nothing is black or white in the Thai politics. That is the reason why I asked: what evidence is out there that link Men in Black with the Red Shirt Movement? They could as well be linked to the Royalist Elites, the armed forces, or the police. If Thailand so wishes to bring justice to all and to be fair to all, one of the thing it could have done is ask to join the ICC. Bring forth the evidence and charge those who ever committed wrongs against the Thai people. You seem to imply that I am blinded to Thaksin’s corruptions. I am aware of his dealings and his political actions; I believe that he may have been guilty on some issues. However, given that his enemies are all influential and much, much richer than he is, I do not believe he will receive justice from the Thai courts. I stand by my earlier post about the majority of the people who lose their life in 2010 were ordinary Thai citizens–the protestors –and the people who killed them were trained Army personnel. The person who was in charge at the time was Mr. Abhisit. Of course, anyone, including the Red Shirts, Men in Black, and whatever colors, must face justice if they have committed wrong-doings. Simply bring forth the evidence. To date, all the writings in the media about Men in Black have been but speculation.
I am from Margherita, Assam, India. Can we go for a small museum dedicated to CBI theatre and as well as Stilwell Road ? Our proposed location is at Ledo Zero Mile Post. My email id is [email protected]. I appeal all those who are interested to contact me.
Scapegoating the Rohingyas and Muslims might be a delicate political strategy employed by Chinese and pro-Chinese ex-junta elements in Burma (or better Mian-Dian as the Chinese call Burma) in order to divert the attention of the Mianmarese away from how the greedy materialistic Chinese are exploiting and destroying the natural environment in Burma. There are more illegal Chinese “business” immigrants in Burma (just go to Mandalay or Lashio) than the wretched Rohingyas, but the Chinese have money, so they can bribe corrupt Burmese government officials or
even buy fake Burmese ID’s and passports (of dead Burmese!). Chinese are preparing the country for Chinese settlements. They already have a proxy army (the UWSA) stationed in the Eastern part of Burma and a naval base at Kyaukphru in Rakhaing State. There will be a railway link from Yunnan to the Bay of Bengal for easy transportation of Chinese settlers and Chinese troops to protect Chinese investments (dams, copper mines, gas/oil pipelines, real estate etc). It is remarkable that many of the “anti-Muslim incidents” occur along the Chinese pipeline! Peking is employing the 2Y-strategy (Yuan and Y-chromosomes) to colonise Burma just as they did in Tibet and Sinkiang.
This is the honest opinion of someone born in Burma, and not of some “politically and diplomatically corrected” statement of someone with vested interests (I have never been to Singapore and do not have a bank account there!)
This is a conversation that continues to take place, albeit in private, among the intelligentsia and leaders (both political and commercial) of both Sabah and Sarawak. What would Southeast Asia look like today had we gone with Singapore instead of Malaya in ’65? It is conceivable that we could have had a solid chain of prosperity linking the former British Crown Colonies of Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo, and Hong Kong. Along the main trading route linking China/Northeast Asia with the Middle East and Europe. Instead, Penang, Malacca, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu are sorry shadows of their former selves.
Sabah and Sarawak used to have very good administrations and a solid professional class, inherited from British rule and more efficient than the Malayans. Remnants are still there. Unfortunately, Mahathir did irreparable damage to key institutions such as the judiciary and officer class. Similar to what Sukarno did with Indonesia in the 1950s, though less extreme than China’s cultural revolution. Under Malaysian rule, there has also been a steady brain drain of Sabah and Sarawak’s best and brightest. They go to Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and North America. Singapore seems to have made the most effective use of such talent. Just look at the current Singaporean High Commissioner to Australia for an example.
At this point I will add a disclaimer. I fully support Malaysia and want it to be successful and prosperous. However, those in Semenanjung who are trying to take Malaysia backwards through the divisive use of religion, etc must be warned. Push too far, and you will lose the source of all your subsidies. Without Sabah and Sarawak, there would be no KLIA, no Petronas Twin Towers, no Grand Prix at Sepang, no subsidised petrol or affordable nasi lemak bungkus.
There is a lot of history that Malaysians are unaware of, except for those who lived through it. That is the main reason why Sarawakians and Sabahans have been publicly silent on the question of independence. Federation with Malaya provided an important level of security in the context of a Southeast Asia that was in turmoil. It has to be seen in the context of what was taking place in Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia at that time, as well as Konfrontasi and the Brunei rebellion of 1962, the race riots in Semenanjung, and various internal security matters in Sabah and Sarawak.
I am writing as vice chair of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign Thailand.
We appreciate your reply, and we especially appreciate your offer to contribute in some way to ease the suffering of those Palestinians caught in no-man’s land here in Bangkok.
However, with the best will in the world, we cannot accept your support, if this means undermining the moral and legitimate claims that the Palestinians have to a state of their own, to a place that they can call home – a place they once had.
You may decide to make that step unconditionally, out of humanitarian empathy and a natural and innate desire to help your fellow man. We hope you can. We hope you can cut a path for others to tread.
In the same spirit of generosity with which you wrote your letter, we would like to offer our critique of the narrative viewpoint that you assign to the Palestinians. We do so only as a means to narrow the gap between us to permit mutual support of the Palestinians marooned here in Bangkok.
Yes, it might be true – though to a far lesser degree than perhaps any other peoples who had known the Jews – the Palestinians might have done more to help. However, it is hard to see how a people under imperial rule – as you point out – could exercise sufficient sovereignty to make any meaningful difference. But why didn’t they? Why didn’t they extend an unconditional welcome into their own homes for all of those looking for sanctuary from the horrors of mass murder and genocide?
Before answering, please note that Jewish emigration from Tsarist Russia, and elsewhere in Europe in the early part of the twentieth century, was destined for the UK and the US, and not Palestine. It was these two states who were instrumental in redirecting Jewish immigrants away from their own shores – there was “no room at the inn”- to a place they deemed had room. There were also strategic reasons for populating the eastern end of the Mediterranean with white colonial settlers from Europe.
Why was it then that the Palestinians, not known for their warlike tendencies, eventually rejected continued Jewish immigration? Very simply, they realized that the Zionists hadn’t just come to settle but to expel.
No one should ever be asked to preside over their own extinction. This is in effect what you ask. This is not just. We are sure it is not what you intend.
We hope this message goes some way to clarify our position, and we hope you can come and join us in providing moral and material support for a psychologically traumatised people washed up in Bangkok.
Kamol’s support for the despicable Amnesty Bill need not cast doubt on his wider opposition to Article 112. The Amnesty Bill was a case of highly elaborate albeit ill-conceived politicking, from which the Red Shirt movement still stood to gain in other ways even if it did nothing for their political prisoners in jail. Also, how can you be so sure that his killing has “nothing to do with less majeste”? Kamol was a known critic of the law, the continued existence of which has tremendous implications for the nature of Thailand’s democracy, and he was mysterisouly shot dead by masked gunmen. Is that not enough to say that Kamol’s murder is at least implicitly related to lese majeste? I would welcome a follow up article which offers a “fuller account of the possible cause of [Kamol’s] murder”.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Can we really live together?
I believe the magazine in question is the February issue of р╣Бр╕Юр╕гр╕з
The power of Thailand’s networks
Very interesting .. Thank you for the good works
Can we really live together?
Sorry for my typo! I should of course have said “can intellect ever prevail over feeling?” (instead of “an intellect ever prevail over feeling?”)
Can we really live together?
Thanks, Scott – very interesting. I’ve just been re-reading Edward Aspinall’s review of R. E. Elson: “The Idea of Indonesia: A History” (in: Indonesia: No. 87: Apr. 2009: pp 117-122). He notes that Elson’s book is in effect a (somewhat condescending) intellectual history of the idea of nationalism in Indonesia. Has anything similar been done for Thailand? There’s obviously some fascinating comparative work to be done on nationalism across SE Asia – and indeed globally, in this era of proliferating ultra-conservative neo-nationalisms. (Maybe that’s already been done too?) The clash of nationalisms in Thailand certainly looks somewhat odd to a non-specialist outsider. But doesn’t Chettawan Tuenprakhon underestimate the power of ideas? I suspect that few of the unconverted will be swayed by his “multicultural” version of Thai nationalism. It may indeed confirm their worst fears about the enemy they perceive themselves to be up against. They’ll probably be similarly unpersuaded by his constitutional argument. Perhaps this issue is not so much about a clash of ideas as a about a clash between ideas and emotion? And if that’s the case, an intellect ever prevail over feeling? Before we call in the philosophers, perhaps we need to consider what other factors may be at play here: perhaps a clash of economic, social class or political interests? I’m somewhat surprised that polemicists like Chettawan Tuenprakhon seldom seem to try and use the opposition’s perspective to argue the “progressive” case. He alludes, for example, to the inconsistency between the modern lifestyle which the conservatives adhere to and their irredentist political cause. So why not argue the case that in the face of the onslaught of modernism and globalisation, convservatives have to be strategic in deciding what’s worth conserving and how best to conserve it? Now that’s a position that even I might be able to subscribe to! And in the face of evident misunderstanding of the role of the constitution in the debate in Thailand, what about some consideration of the historical evolution of the constitution, how it came to be adopted, and the role of the monarchy in that process?
Can we really live together?
The answer is: maybe not. At least the way the script dictated by the monarcho-juntocracy is being played out now. Where Lese Majeste laws can result in imprisonments, murder… The lessons of Nepal and Laos should be kept in mind.
The Aceh exception
[…] Read original article here: http://www.newmandala.org/2014/04/29/the-aceh-exception/ […]
The Aceh exception
[…] Read original article here: http://www.newmandala.org/2014/04/29/the-aceh-exception/ […]
Network monarchy’s twilight
Dear Guest,
Thank-you for your clear-headed letter vis ├б vis the so-called “Men in Black”. As you say, there is no evidence to link them to the red-shirts. They may just as well be agents provocateurs of the elite, to smear the red-shirt movement. The demonization and hatred of Taksin has reached such a pathological pitch that people will believe anything and everything.
Kamol, Rienthong, and 112
Your understanding of Kamol’s stance towards 112 is simply insufficient. There is no such thing as “his wider opposition to Article 112”. Let me give another example. When the original amnesty bill (the so-called Worachai’s bill) was tabled. I together with a few others specifically raised the issue of its lack of clarity on the 112 prisoners. The bill left the interpretation whether they would be included in the hands of judges, which as everyone knows, are not the friends of 112 prisoners. They would cirtainly rule that the latter were not covered by the bill. Kamol came out to attack anyone who criticized the bill on this point. (Very nasty attack, I might add.) etc. As I said, his stance toward 112 and his politics in general were more complicated; it’s not just his defence of the subsequent blanket amnesty bill that belies the claim of this article about the 112 connection.
Sarawak’s “Independence Day”
I see my earlier comment has generated a lot of responses. I still take the view that advocating for Sarawak independence is not a mainstream view. If a referendum is held tomorrow, I highly doubt that Sarawakians want to become an independent state. I would like to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case here. Those who make their views known on political social media sites, such as NM, are really not your average Joe in the state.
Some of you have implied that, by holding this view, I am being un-Sarawakian or ignorant of unequal distribution of resources under the current arrangement. These are all untrue. Regardless of my personal views (under attack here), I don’t believe independence or separatism is desired by a majority of Sarawakians. This is all I am saying.
Pathways to peace in Rakhine State
Despite how this is presented as long as:
1) Myanmar is a Buddhist country as Thailand is. The latter get a free pass down South, comparatively small and almost Zero threat to it sovereignty the former continually scapegoated that accept all religions.
The inroad made by Jehovah Witness and Latter day Saint as well as New Chinese temples are undeniable proves.
2) Without any provision to put the money where the mouth is. As example the Millions of dollars send into the pockets of organization/NGO/UN that clearly have agendas other than solving the real problems of poverty and deprivations induced strives everywhere in Myanmar/Yakhine. Even if just a portion of the $$ to improve the road to Chaugtha will prove the sincerity of the west repenting from useless careless policy
3) Failure to even mention the Islamic supremacy concept, exemplified by the fact:
How many country that went Muslim does one see tolerance for other religionS, let alone going BACK TO Buddhista.
Point #3 should answer tocherian constant rants again the Chinese, once and for all one hope.
Network monarchy’s twilight
Unfortunately, nothing is black or white in the Thai politics. That is the reason why I asked: what evidence is out there that link Men in Black with the Red Shirt Movement? They could as well be linked to the Royalist Elites, the armed forces, or the police. If Thailand so wishes to bring justice to all and to be fair to all, one of the thing it could have done is ask to join the ICC. Bring forth the evidence and charge those who ever committed wrongs against the Thai people. You seem to imply that I am blinded to Thaksin’s corruptions. I am aware of his dealings and his political actions; I believe that he may have been guilty on some issues. However, given that his enemies are all influential and much, much richer than he is, I do not believe he will receive justice from the Thai courts. I stand by my earlier post about the majority of the people who lose their life in 2010 were ordinary Thai citizens–the protestors –and the people who killed them were trained Army personnel. The person who was in charge at the time was Mr. Abhisit. Of course, anyone, including the Red Shirts, Men in Black, and whatever colors, must face justice if they have committed wrong-doings. Simply bring forth the evidence. To date, all the writings in the media about Men in Black have been but speculation.
The Stilwell Road
I am from Margherita, Assam, India. Can we go for a small museum dedicated to CBI theatre and as well as Stilwell Road ? Our proposed location is at Ledo Zero Mile Post. My email id is [email protected]. I appeal all those who are interested to contact me.
Ranu Baruwa
Can we really live together?
Thai flag on the FLOOR? Slipped up there. Someone’s head will roll.
Thainess classified in terms of nine things, nine categories. Where did this come from, how did it come about?
From the creative mind of someone seeking symbolism in numbers, no doubt. They were probably dressed to the nines as well.
Pathways to peace in Rakhine State
Scapegoating the Rohingyas and Muslims might be a delicate political strategy employed by Chinese and pro-Chinese ex-junta elements in Burma (or better Mian-Dian as the Chinese call Burma) in order to divert the attention of the Mianmarese away from how the greedy materialistic Chinese are exploiting and destroying the natural environment in Burma. There are more illegal Chinese “business” immigrants in Burma (just go to Mandalay or Lashio) than the wretched Rohingyas, but the Chinese have money, so they can bribe corrupt Burmese government officials or
even buy fake Burmese ID’s and passports (of dead Burmese!). Chinese are preparing the country for Chinese settlements. They already have a proxy army (the UWSA) stationed in the Eastern part of Burma and a naval base at Kyaukphru in Rakhaing State. There will be a railway link from Yunnan to the Bay of Bengal for easy transportation of Chinese settlers and Chinese troops to protect Chinese investments (dams, copper mines, gas/oil pipelines, real estate etc). It is remarkable that many of the “anti-Muslim incidents” occur along the Chinese pipeline! Peking is employing the 2Y-strategy (Yuan and Y-chromosomes) to colonise Burma just as they did in Tibet and Sinkiang.
This is the honest opinion of someone born in Burma, and not of some “politically and diplomatically corrected” statement of someone with vested interests (I have never been to Singapore and do not have a bank account there!)
Sarawak’s “Independence Day”
This is a conversation that continues to take place, albeit in private, among the intelligentsia and leaders (both political and commercial) of both Sabah and Sarawak. What would Southeast Asia look like today had we gone with Singapore instead of Malaya in ’65? It is conceivable that we could have had a solid chain of prosperity linking the former British Crown Colonies of Singapore, Sarawak, North Borneo, and Hong Kong. Along the main trading route linking China/Northeast Asia with the Middle East and Europe. Instead, Penang, Malacca, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu are sorry shadows of their former selves.
Sabah and Sarawak used to have very good administrations and a solid professional class, inherited from British rule and more efficient than the Malayans. Remnants are still there. Unfortunately, Mahathir did irreparable damage to key institutions such as the judiciary and officer class. Similar to what Sukarno did with Indonesia in the 1950s, though less extreme than China’s cultural revolution. Under Malaysian rule, there has also been a steady brain drain of Sabah and Sarawak’s best and brightest. They go to Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and North America. Singapore seems to have made the most effective use of such talent. Just look at the current Singaporean High Commissioner to Australia for an example.
At this point I will add a disclaimer. I fully support Malaysia and want it to be successful and prosperous. However, those in Semenanjung who are trying to take Malaysia backwards through the divisive use of religion, etc must be warned. Push too far, and you will lose the source of all your subsidies. Without Sabah and Sarawak, there would be no KLIA, no Petronas Twin Towers, no Grand Prix at Sepang, no subsidised petrol or affordable nasi lemak bungkus.
There is a lot of history that Malaysians are unaware of, except for those who lived through it. That is the main reason why Sarawakians and Sabahans have been publicly silent on the question of independence. Federation with Malaya provided an important level of security in the context of a Southeast Asia that was in turmoil. It has to be seen in the context of what was taking place in Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia at that time, as well as Konfrontasi and the Brunei rebellion of 1962, the race riots in Semenanjung, and various internal security matters in Sabah and Sarawak.
The 30%
[…] Read original article here: http://www.newmandala.org/2014/04/28/the-30/ […]
Interview with a Palestinian refugee in Thailand
Dear Bronxite,
I am writing as vice chair of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign Thailand.
We appreciate your reply, and we especially appreciate your offer to contribute in some way to ease the suffering of those Palestinians caught in no-man’s land here in Bangkok.
However, with the best will in the world, we cannot accept your support, if this means undermining the moral and legitimate claims that the Palestinians have to a state of their own, to a place that they can call home – a place they once had.
You may decide to make that step unconditionally, out of humanitarian empathy and a natural and innate desire to help your fellow man. We hope you can. We hope you can cut a path for others to tread.
In the same spirit of generosity with which you wrote your letter, we would like to offer our critique of the narrative viewpoint that you assign to the Palestinians. We do so only as a means to narrow the gap between us to permit mutual support of the Palestinians marooned here in Bangkok.
Yes, it might be true – though to a far lesser degree than perhaps any other peoples who had known the Jews – the Palestinians might have done more to help. However, it is hard to see how a people under imperial rule – as you point out – could exercise sufficient sovereignty to make any meaningful difference. But why didn’t they? Why didn’t they extend an unconditional welcome into their own homes for all of those looking for sanctuary from the horrors of mass murder and genocide?
Before answering, please note that Jewish emigration from Tsarist Russia, and elsewhere in Europe in the early part of the twentieth century, was destined for the UK and the US, and not Palestine. It was these two states who were instrumental in redirecting Jewish immigrants away from their own shores – there was “no room at the inn”- to a place they deemed had room. There were also strategic reasons for populating the eastern end of the Mediterranean with white colonial settlers from Europe.
Why was it then that the Palestinians, not known for their warlike tendencies, eventually rejected continued Jewish immigration? Very simply, they realized that the Zionists hadn’t just come to settle but to expel.
No one should ever be asked to preside over their own extinction. This is in effect what you ask. This is not just. We are sure it is not what you intend.
We hope this message goes some way to clarify our position, and we hope you can come and join us in providing moral and material support for a psychologically traumatised people washed up in Bangkok.
Kamol, Rienthong, and 112
Kamol’s support for the despicable Amnesty Bill need not cast doubt on his wider opposition to Article 112. The Amnesty Bill was a case of highly elaborate albeit ill-conceived politicking, from which the Red Shirt movement still stood to gain in other ways even if it did nothing for their political prisoners in jail. Also, how can you be so sure that his killing has “nothing to do with less majeste”? Kamol was a known critic of the law, the continued existence of which has tremendous implications for the nature of Thailand’s democracy, and he was mysterisouly shot dead by masked gunmen. Is that not enough to say that Kamol’s murder is at least implicitly related to lese majeste? I would welcome a follow up article which offers a “fuller account of the possible cause of [Kamol’s] murder”.
Polling says it’s Jokowi’s election to lose
Hello…
Jokowis only think about his position, higher position exactly, not citizen needed..
Jokowi promiseful,