Well, obviously Thaksin is not Gandhi or Mandela. He did not transcend the traditional behaviour of Thai political leaders. He behaved just as they always tend to behave. Hardly a reason to demonise him above all others.
AMcGM’s not an academic and his unearthing of as much stuff as he … a mere journalist … has, so quickly and so publicly … and for free! has indeed put the wind up some skirts. Academic gatekeepers’, seems to me.
I didn’t claim unique ownership of any theory. The key point is that I publicly report these issues, which as anyone who knows Thailand will know, is significant because of the lese majeste law.
I have become used to a shrill group of anonymous detractors following me around online. Most of them are the same person, and all make the same criticism – that I make exaggerated claims about the supposed brilliance of my work.
I don’t think I’ve ever done that, to be honest. I do claim that I am reporting and verifying information that generally has not been publicly reported before. And I’ve also said that my predictions in р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д have proven unusually accurate. I think those are fair claims to make.
Most online criticism of my work never engages with it substantively, but just repeats the same old accusations over and over. I suppose I should take it as a compliment that people are determined to attack what I write. I just wish they would do it better, via constructive engagement with the arguments. That kind of debate could improve all of our understanding of Thailand. Invective doesn’t get us anywhere.
Why would NOTA get thumbs downs here? In the electoral game we call democracy voters have to choose the least worst choice. The main opposition partiy the democrats are a hilariously misnamed and a disaster zone and their opponents the Phea thai are equally hilariously misnamed disaster zone.
Just when the PT exposes how bad it is, the democrats immediately find a way of being worse.
The thai political situation is crying out for NOTA option that counts and leads to new election, its time for thais to get the best representation not the least worst of a very very low standard.
I see the conflict as one between two moral systems: one in which moral law applies equally to everybody; and a stratified one in which virtue consists mainly in assiduous attention to the requirements of those in the levels above, and wickedness consists in aggression or indifference to them. The latter is indeed a moral system if you define one in terms of rules that keep the peace. The former is probably of Ancient Greek and Judeochristian origin, whereas the latter is a kind of natural order which once applied everywhere, even in quiet hen houses. It still applies within corporations. The traditional Bangkok elite are virtuous in their own way, but not in the eyes of those with more equitable ethics.
Equity has been slowly creeping into Thailand. It is generally welcomed by those with most to gain (the people at the bottom) and generally resisted by those with most to lose (those at the top). Nevertheless, the big steps are taken by exceptional people from privileged backgrounds. Those living a hand-to-mouth existence seldom have time to contribute. Chulalongkorn abolished slavery, and Pridi Banomyong led the early but unsuccessful struggle for democracy. Thaksin belongs in the equitable system, in the sense that he offers many poor individuals a win-win deal, but he also has a foot in the old system, because he wins more, and gets to climb much further than they do, in terms of money and power. He could probably have given them a better and more sustainable deal, but it was evidently better than that offered by the traditionalists.
” … The surprising popularity of Vajiralongkorn among Red Shirts …”-Marshall
HMK is beloved by Thais but not by the Thai Reds is the general perception. Why is that is because Thaksin and his Red leaders had poisoned the Isan North mindset against the Thai monarchy. With hatred rhetorics (listen to a few videoclips of Red rallies), the Isans had been convinced that their ills were caused or due to the deliberate neglect by Thai elites (monarchy), according to Jatuporn/Tida/Arisman and gang.
The anti-monarchy toxin had seeped in deep to the Isan Reds, so perhaps Marshall could explain why the Prince could affect the Isan region with a different and higher esteem than the other royals.
Thank you K. Chang Dek, I can appreciate your analogy, I often feel like Alice myself, tumbling down the rabbit hole, particularly with all the information and misinformation available. At times like this, I tend to favor the Systems view which, instead of direct impact, attempts to create ‘conditions for probability’ of change.
On the bright side, there are researchers who have studied sticky conflicts in other parts of the world (e.g., Mozambique, N. Ireland, Palestine & Israel) that might be able to shed light on our situation. I hope to have some more material on that soon.
His confrontational style is what annoys the Thais. Reuters accepted it at first but he went too far with some unsourced material which they rightly questioned.
I can send you copies of both my works as well as extracts from those of McCargo, Chambers and other western and Thai writers if you want and are interested ib sourced material on Thaialnd. My email is [email protected]
I agree with Nomi’s assessment of Andrew’s writings, and wouldn’t mind reading Matt’s ‘explosive’ insights into Thailand’s politics especially the palace goings on.
Mind you a lot of stuff in ‘Era of Insanity’ were carved from cable leaks so unless Matt is saying the embassadors were lying, then I believe a large part of Andrew’s writings were factual. The leaks have certainly shone a huge beacon on the otherwise misrepresented and lied about for decades palace maneuvering in Thai politics. If nothing else I applaud Andrew’s guts for doing it.
I have to agree. He could do some good work and write some unbiased stuff but he does use anecdote and unsourced material, which was Reuters’ point. He still holds a grudge against Reuters and Thais. There was a party in the London office when he “left” which is why I know so much about him. He was utterly disliked for his arrogance on his overseas assignments. Writers I know have no time for him and I refuse to engage in his flame wars
Khun Apivat, thank you for your valuable contribution, my comment was not intended to belittle your article in any way, maybe it was more a cry of desperation, where the important answers may lie with those who can only be described in increasingly perilous metaphor. Thank goodness for the kilted warriors, the roving teutonic eyes, and the brave probing natives who refuse to be toppled by convention and fear.
Thank you for your work Andrew, I’m glad there’s someone out there discussing the un-discussable. At some point, things will rise to the surface, nothing gets suppressed forever.
The country would be better off if we took a weekend to do some reflection on our own subjective worldviews, how they differ and how to accommodate those differences.
The absence of any perspective informed by a serious understanding of Thai history is pretty telling. It reflects a problem that goes a long, long way toward explaining Thailand’s crisis.
Thank you for reading K. Nomi. I haven’t done much work with the narrative approach, but I agree it would definitely be a fascinating approach – perhaps a long term study of central figures in the conflict, perhaps less visible aides from both camps (Dems and PT) to see how their perspective unfolds over time.
I’d be interested to hear the perspective of people who switch sides over the past 7 years, their reasoning and rationale for doing so.
A narrative inquiry about what people are learning from 2006 would definitely be a worthwhile study. The challenge would be access to those individuals and how forthcoming they would be.
“Joe Whitman” : you say of the Crown Prince, “His alleged excesses have long been rumoured to be funded by the Shinawatras.”
I think his “excesses” well predate any involvement of Thaksin, and were never something that depended on “funding” — though of course that helps.
Marshall,
Thaksin didn’t have to be corrupt when he became PM. He didn’t have to spend his time in office doing deals for his family. He could well have set an example for the rest. But he didn’t; instead he sought to further enrich himself on top of governing. He had a chance to win over the other side, and he screwed it up. There is no blaming “the system” for that, he was just stupid and egotistical.
We have lots of discussions how to stop corruption in Thailand but most Thai people are naive not knowing the institute that has corrupted Thailand for a long time. The simple solution for stopping corruption in Thailand is that put all the asset of this powerful institute on the surface.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Private: More creativity needed in defence of democracy
As I understand it, Thailand already has this option. Recall PAD’s vote no campaign in 2011.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
Well, obviously Thaksin is not Gandhi or Mandela. He did not transcend the traditional behaviour of Thai political leaders. He behaved just as they always tend to behave. Hardly a reason to demonise him above all others.
Reflections on the king’s speech
reply to 2.1.1.1.2
AMcGM’s not an academic and his unearthing of as much stuff as he … a mere journalist … has, so quickly and so publicly … and for free! has indeed put the wind up some skirts. Academic gatekeepers’, seems to me.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
I didn’t claim unique ownership of any theory. The key point is that I publicly report these issues, which as anyone who knows Thailand will know, is significant because of the lese majeste law.
I have become used to a shrill group of anonymous detractors following me around online. Most of them are the same person, and all make the same criticism – that I make exaggerated claims about the supposed brilliance of my work.
I don’t think I’ve ever done that, to be honest. I do claim that I am reporting and verifying information that generally has not been publicly reported before. And I’ve also said that my predictions in р╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕╕р╕Д have proven unusually accurate. I think those are fair claims to make.
Most online criticism of my work never engages with it substantively, but just repeats the same old accusations over and over. I suppose I should take it as a compliment that people are determined to attack what I write. I just wish they would do it better, via constructive engagement with the arguments. That kind of debate could improve all of our understanding of Thailand. Invective doesn’t get us anywhere.
Private: More creativity needed in defence of democracy
Why would NOTA get thumbs downs here? In the electoral game we call democracy voters have to choose the least worst choice. The main opposition partiy the democrats are a hilariously misnamed and a disaster zone and their opponents the Phea thai are equally hilariously misnamed disaster zone.
Just when the PT exposes how bad it is, the democrats immediately find a way of being worse.
The thai political situation is crying out for NOTA option that counts and leads to new election, its time for thais to get the best representation not the least worst of a very very low standard.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
I see the conflict as one between two moral systems: one in which moral law applies equally to everybody; and a stratified one in which virtue consists mainly in assiduous attention to the requirements of those in the levels above, and wickedness consists in aggression or indifference to them. The latter is indeed a moral system if you define one in terms of rules that keep the peace. The former is probably of Ancient Greek and Judeochristian origin, whereas the latter is a kind of natural order which once applied everywhere, even in quiet hen houses. It still applies within corporations. The traditional Bangkok elite are virtuous in their own way, but not in the eyes of those with more equitable ethics.
Equity has been slowly creeping into Thailand. It is generally welcomed by those with most to gain (the people at the bottom) and generally resisted by those with most to lose (those at the top). Nevertheless, the big steps are taken by exceptional people from privileged backgrounds. Those living a hand-to-mouth existence seldom have time to contribute. Chulalongkorn abolished slavery, and Pridi Banomyong led the early but unsuccessful struggle for democracy. Thaksin belongs in the equitable system, in the sense that he offers many poor individuals a win-win deal, but he also has a foot in the old system, because he wins more, and gets to climb much further than they do, in terms of money and power. He could probably have given them a better and more sustainable deal, but it was evidently better than that offered by the traditionalists.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
Please tell me the Democrats and their Military backers are not corrupt to the hilt? Please…
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
” … The surprising popularity of Vajiralongkorn among Red Shirts …”-Marshall
HMK is beloved by Thais but not by the Thai Reds is the general perception. Why is that is because Thaksin and his Red leaders had poisoned the Isan North mindset against the Thai monarchy. With hatred rhetorics (listen to a few videoclips of Red rallies), the Isans had been convinced that their ills were caused or due to the deliberate neglect by Thai elites (monarchy), according to Jatuporn/Tida/Arisman and gang.
The anti-monarchy toxin had seeped in deep to the Isan Reds, so perhaps Marshall could explain why the Prince could affect the Isan region with a different and higher esteem than the other royals.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Thank you K. Chang Dek, I can appreciate your analogy, I often feel like Alice myself, tumbling down the rabbit hole, particularly with all the information and misinformation available. At times like this, I tend to favor the Systems view which, instead of direct impact, attempts to create ‘conditions for probability’ of change.
On the bright side, there are researchers who have studied sticky conflicts in other parts of the world (e.g., Mozambique, N. Ireland, Palestine & Israel) that might be able to shed light on our situation. I hope to have some more material on that soon.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
His confrontational style is what annoys the Thais. Reuters accepted it at first but he went too far with some unsourced material which they rightly questioned.
I can send you copies of both my works as well as extracts from those of McCargo, Chambers and other western and Thai writers if you want and are interested ib sourced material on Thaialnd. My email is [email protected]
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
I agree with Nomi’s assessment of Andrew’s writings, and wouldn’t mind reading Matt’s ‘explosive’ insights into Thailand’s politics especially the palace goings on.
Mind you a lot of stuff in ‘Era of Insanity’ were carved from cable leaks so unless Matt is saying the embassadors were lying, then I believe a large part of Andrew’s writings were factual. The leaks have certainly shone a huge beacon on the otherwise misrepresented and lied about for decades palace maneuvering in Thai politics. If nothing else I applaud Andrew’s guts for doing it.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
I have to agree. He could do some good work and write some unbiased stuff but he does use anecdote and unsourced material, which was Reuters’ point. He still holds a grudge against Reuters and Thais. There was a party in the London office when he “left” which is why I know so much about him. He was utterly disliked for his arrogance on his overseas assignments. Writers I know have no time for him and I refuse to engage in his flame wars
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Khun Apivat, thank you for your valuable contribution, my comment was not intended to belittle your article in any way, maybe it was more a cry of desperation, where the important answers may lie with those who can only be described in increasingly perilous metaphor. Thank goodness for the kilted warriors, the roving teutonic eyes, and the brave probing natives who refuse to be toppled by convention and fear.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Thank you for your work Andrew, I’m glad there’s someone out there discussing the un-discussable. At some point, things will rise to the surface, nothing gets suppressed forever.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
The country would be better off if we took a weekend to do some reflection on our own subjective worldviews, how they differ and how to accommodate those differences.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
The absence of any perspective informed by a serious understanding of Thai history is pretty telling. It reflects a problem that goes a long, long way toward explaining Thailand’s crisis.
How to understand Thailand’s conflict
Thank you for reading K. Nomi. I haven’t done much work with the narrative approach, but I agree it would definitely be a fascinating approach – perhaps a long term study of central figures in the conflict, perhaps less visible aides from both camps (Dems and PT) to see how their perspective unfolds over time.
I’d be interested to hear the perspective of people who switch sides over the past 7 years, their reasoning and rationale for doing so.
A narrative inquiry about what people are learning from 2006 would definitely be a worthwhile study. The challenge would be access to those individuals and how forthcoming they would be.
All the best, Apivat
Reflections on the king’s speech
“Joe Whitman” : you say of the Crown Prince, “His alleged excesses have long been rumoured to be funded by the Shinawatras.”
I think his “excesses” well predate any involvement of Thaksin, and were never something that depended on “funding” — though of course that helps.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
Marshall,
Thaksin didn’t have to be corrupt when he became PM. He didn’t have to spend his time in office doing deals for his family. He could well have set an example for the rest. But he didn’t; instead he sought to further enrich himself on top of governing. He had a chance to win over the other side, and he screwed it up. There is no blaming “the system” for that, he was just stupid and egotistical.
Thaksin’s supporters care about corruption too
We have lots of discussions how to stop corruption in Thailand but most Thai people are naive not knowing the institute that has corrupted Thailand for a long time. The simple solution for stopping corruption in Thailand is that put all the asset of this powerful institute on the surface.