You make a very good point. Feel free to research any of my articles from 2009-2011 where I consistently ask for PM Abhisit to step down for his cosy relationship with the military and the coup makers.
The democrat party have never been electable in its almost 100 year history. It does not seem like it will change any time soon.
Hey Marcus,
There is a set of people who view my body of work as being without intellectual basis and a tad pretentious (an oxymoron perhaps) but this i can accept as legitimate arguments.
Others view this (http://codsbeenhere.com/main/?p=157) and take it seriously (despite obvious clues like the tags at the bottom) and then accuse me of ultra royalism then resort to personal attacks which i find lovely and quite funny.
Cod wears his liberal arts education on his sleeve here.
(as do we all at the NM website)
In my personal opinion he’s either:
a)deeply into irony
b)confused by bicameral cultural values
c)a troll
d) all of the above
If anyone’s read Cod’s last piece about loyalty/dissent etc in NM they may be familiar with my own (humble)posts related to that (the second 10 minutes ago) where I’m wondering what his critics are really griping about. Well, someone throw me a bone here, because I feel the same way with this one. Recap and for clarity: to say I’m not royalist is to UNDERSTATE things, big-time. So what’s going on here? Is there another side to Mr Cod that I don’t know about ? Why this curiously bitter disregard for the integrity of what he writes?(I’m not familiar with any other articles of his apart from his recent two in NM) Anyone who can give me a sensible response, you’re invited to do so. That perhaps goes for you too Mr Cod.
I posted previously regarding this article. It seems I may boast the distinction of being alone in liking it!Or rather, not taking terrible exception to it, like everyone else!. And ME of all people! You see, a royalist I am certainly NOT (read:understatement).
I have not read any other articles of Mr Cod and so have no predisposed prejudice towards his views. This said, I find his article hard to argue with. I really fail to see what is a)in any way ‘pro-royalist’, or b) untrue. Again, I ain’t no yellow, to put it mildly, but what am I missing? I genuinely seek to know.
What Cod and co can’t countenance is that anyone in their right mind could vote for PT or Taksin. They must have been duped, bribed or just plain silly. By the same token I can’t understand why anyone in their right mind would vote for the un-Democrat Party. Democrat supporters may not have been bribed but they have surely been duped. Duped for most of their lives.
I’m not Thai and I’m not a Taksin fan but a lot of my Red Shirt friends are.
If the majority of voters want Taksin or his party they should be allowed to govern.
After all the US had to but up with 8 years of George Bush. and the UK had 12 years of Margret Thatcher followed by 12 years of Tony Blair. Like all things they rise and fall. If it hadn’t been for the coup I’m sure Taksin would have fallen by now.
The Thai ruling class can also ask that “posh Lady” Suu Kyi, from a neighbouring country how she treats her subjects: the down-trodden farmers at the Chinese copper mine who lost their ancestral farmlands for the “glory of the oligarchy”
Lech Walesa? That anti-semite and homophobe? Another Cod hero along with the Thai king?
And didn’t Thaksin introduce one of the most successful universal health care schemes in Asia’s history? What, pray tell, has Cod done that can come anywhere equal to that? Written for New Mandala?
And let’s be straight up here – Cod has NO connection to any pro-democracy movement in Thailand in any way shape or form and has no connection to any of the kind of grass roots support he is attempting to speak for here.
Why no interviews with ordinary Red Shirts to find out how abandoned they feel by the UDD? He can’t even offer one anecdote. Why no research of any kind whatsoever? And was the UDD set up to represent the Bangkok middle classes? And is the real issue that Cod’s upset that they (and others) don;t care what he thinks?
This article, once again is unmitigated garbage. It’s not scholarly, it’s not journalistic, it’s not offering an original opinion or view and it’s dressed up with Cod meeting an old homophobe and anti-semite.
Nah, I used to read his old blog which he deleted as it was so full of nasty, extreme right wing nonsense. I kid you not.
And not sure why you’ve taken my criticism of Cod so personally either. You seem a bit het up about it.
And yes he displays all the outward signs of pretension, not only in this piece but even a couple of years back when he described himself as
“a part-time dragon slayer, part-time writer. When he’s not defending fair maidens and tangling with mystical beasts he visits reality (never a permanent stay) where he writes for a living. Based in Bangkok, his work has appeared in myriad magazines and publications, and he edits his own literary and art ezine.”
My main point would be that I don’t think his work is of any scholarly, journalistic or literary interest. It offers no new research and no new insights and most of it reflects the most hackneyed elements of a dominant view that is pretty ubiquitous anyway. This piece badly written and the use of overblown prose just makes it a difficult read – the classic device of someone struggling to say something of interest.
My favourite recent Codism was this >> “Hitchen’s sites [sic} his own support of his friend Salman Rushdie as an example of this”
Sites. Sights. Or cites. Hmm. And that in an article entitled “THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL (AND THEIR KIND IN THAILAND)”.
So yeah, in my view, it’s crap. And if that view ruins your day, well, tough.
Thanks for posting. This election is dubbed the mother of all election. Some of the old hats had been around for a long time. As in all democratic processes, we will not know who will win until the votes are counted. It may be the political grave for some of them. [the very bad ones will lose favour].
SteveCM protestation ” … Pheu Thai is a proxy of/for the UDD? Really? …” is correct. UDD is the proxy of Peau Thai Party, and, not the other way around. At any rate, both the UDD and the Peau Thai Party are merely ‘to-serve-Thaksin-and-family concierge outfits’, no ifs and buts.
“If one wants to go back into our recent past then one can do a lot worse than the writings of Chit Bhumisak.”
….Yes indeed, one could be reading Cod Sadtrusayang.
I’m beginning to empathise with Khun Cod,- stranger in a strange land, he’s come to Thailand and found his western intellect to be useless in facing the onslaught of thai culture, clutching at extremes of the political spectrum in an attempt to find order in chaos. His expensively cultivated values and access to literature achieve nought and bring zero respect in the old country.
All I can advise is choose a value system and stick with it. Be true unto thyself. The only change coming to Thailand soon is a dynastic one, which is no change at all.
The nomenclatura, as the poor, are with us always.
To quote Orwell. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
…and a little corruption goes a long, long way.
Pheu Thai is a proxy of/for the UDD? Really? Perhaps the author (or another) could clarify.
BTW, do the UDD “democracy schools” really not figure before considering the UDD membership as merely a “commodity”? Chairwoman Thida says “When you form local organizations, you need democratically elected committees that don’t rely on one person alone. Democratic principles need to be put into to practice, or else they become obsolete.”; is that simply not relevant?
[…] been possible to call it a success. Its brand of Islam is moderate. There has been no repeat of the 1969 race riots, a prelude to bumiputra affirmative action, when many ethnic Chinese were […]
But it’s not -any- criticism, it’s an accusation of pretentiousness that is unfounded. There isn’t any criticism. You accusing him of being a royalist is not a criticism, it’s just playing into the same old dynamic that Cod, to his or her credit, actually infers re what hasn’t been mentioned. There’s just an ego-bashing. How do you know who Cod is? Perhaps Cod is a moniker used by someone who is new and is interested in the grand drama. Who knows? But what he or she does know from this posting is that they can walk into a wall of disrespect and abuse. You can’t launch into him or her beyond what they have presented based on your suspicions. If you really object to me saying that what you’ve done is mindless butchering, why not use your own name and make an interesting argument yourself – that way criticism of something you have done could be made, and you would expose yourself to potentially the same vicious feedback that you dish out yourself (it would not be quite so vicious with real names, surely!) This process may help you be kinder. Without doing so you’ll just seem like a troll. In reacting in the manner you have, there is no ‘value-added’ for anyone – for Cod to consider his position, for a reader observing this venal commentary, or for yourself moving beyond immaturity. Your reaction reflects an ego blistering with resentment. Why are you resentful? I don’t really want to know, but it may be something for you to consider.
I followed the link and came to hyper racist and ultra nationalist tripe, which I assume can only be satire (“I suppose it could all be a cod”). But what if I am wrong??
Judging by Cod’s work for CNNGo eg “How To Date Thai Women” where he describes himself as a “self-styled Ladies man” I think, much like New Mandala, they have certainly be duped.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Subjects of the state
Hey Marcus
You make a very good point. Feel free to research any of my articles from 2009-2011 where I consistently ask for PM Abhisit to step down for his cosy relationship with the military and the coup makers.
The democrat party have never been electable in its almost 100 year history. It does not seem like it will change any time soon.
Subjects of the state
Hey Marcus,
There is a set of people who view my body of work as being without intellectual basis and a tad pretentious (an oxymoron perhaps) but this i can accept as legitimate arguments.
Others view this (http://codsbeenhere.com/main/?p=157) and take it seriously (despite obvious clues like the tags at the bottom) and then accuse me of ultra royalism then resort to personal attacks which i find lovely and quite funny.
– your favourite misogynistic ultra royalist.
Subjects of the state
Marcus #7
..If one wants to go back into our recent past then one can do a lot worse than the writings of Cod Sadtrusayang…
http://codsbeenhere.com/main/
Cod wears his liberal arts education on his sleeve here.
(as do we all at the NM website)
In my personal opinion he’s either:
a)deeply into irony
b)confused by bicameral cultural values
c)a troll
d) all of the above
Subjects of the state
If anyone’s read Cod’s last piece about loyalty/dissent etc in NM they may be familiar with my own (humble)posts related to that (the second 10 minutes ago) where I’m wondering what his critics are really griping about. Well, someone throw me a bone here, because I feel the same way with this one. Recap and for clarity: to say I’m not royalist is to UNDERSTATE things, big-time. So what’s going on here? Is there another side to Mr Cod that I don’t know about ? Why this curiously bitter disregard for the integrity of what he writes?(I’m not familiar with any other articles of his apart from his recent two in NM) Anyone who can give me a sensible response, you’re invited to do so. That perhaps goes for you too Mr Cod.
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
I posted previously regarding this article. It seems I may boast the distinction of being alone in liking it!Or rather, not taking terrible exception to it, like everyone else!. And ME of all people! You see, a royalist I am certainly NOT (read:understatement).
I have not read any other articles of Mr Cod and so have no predisposed prejudice towards his views. This said, I find his article hard to argue with. I really fail to see what is a)in any way ‘pro-royalist’, or b) untrue. Again, I ain’t no yellow, to put it mildly, but what am I missing? I genuinely seek to know.
Subjects of the state
What Cod and co can’t countenance is that anyone in their right mind could vote for PT or Taksin. They must have been duped, bribed or just plain silly. By the same token I can’t understand why anyone in their right mind would vote for the un-Democrat Party. Democrat supporters may not have been bribed but they have surely been duped. Duped for most of their lives.
I’m not Thai and I’m not a Taksin fan but a lot of my Red Shirt friends are.
If the majority of voters want Taksin or his party they should be allowed to govern.
After all the US had to but up with 8 years of George Bush. and the UK had 12 years of Margret Thatcher followed by 12 years of Tony Blair. Like all things they rise and fall. If it hadn’t been for the coup I’m sure Taksin would have fallen by now.
Subjects of the state
The Thai ruling class can also ask that “posh Lady” Suu Kyi, from a neighbouring country how she treats her subjects: the down-trodden farmers at the Chinese copper mine who lost their ancestral farmlands for the “glory of the oligarchy”
Subjects of the state
Lech Walesa? That anti-semite and homophobe? Another Cod hero along with the Thai king?
And didn’t Thaksin introduce one of the most successful universal health care schemes in Asia’s history? What, pray tell, has Cod done that can come anywhere equal to that? Written for New Mandala?
And let’s be straight up here – Cod has NO connection to any pro-democracy movement in Thailand in any way shape or form and has no connection to any of the kind of grass roots support he is attempting to speak for here.
Why no interviews with ordinary Red Shirts to find out how abandoned they feel by the UDD? He can’t even offer one anecdote. Why no research of any kind whatsoever? And was the UDD set up to represent the Bangkok middle classes? And is the real issue that Cod’s upset that they (and others) don;t care what he thinks?
This article, once again is unmitigated garbage. It’s not scholarly, it’s not journalistic, it’s not offering an original opinion or view and it’s dressed up with Cod meeting an old homophobe and anti-semite.
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
Nah, I used to read his old blog which he deleted as it was so full of nasty, extreme right wing nonsense. I kid you not.
And not sure why you’ve taken my criticism of Cod so personally either. You seem a bit het up about it.
And yes he displays all the outward signs of pretension, not only in this piece but even a couple of years back when he described himself as
“a part-time dragon slayer, part-time writer. When he’s not defending fair maidens and tangling with mystical beasts he visits reality (never a permanent stay) where he writes for a living. Based in Bangkok, his work has appeared in myriad magazines and publications, and he edits his own literary and art ezine.”
My main point would be that I don’t think his work is of any scholarly, journalistic or literary interest. It offers no new research and no new insights and most of it reflects the most hackneyed elements of a dominant view that is pretty ubiquitous anyway. This piece badly written and the use of overblown prose just makes it a difficult read – the classic device of someone struggling to say something of interest.
My favourite recent Codism was this >> “Hitchen’s sites [sic} his own support of his friend Salman Rushdie as an example of this”
Sites. Sights. Or cites. Hmm. And that in an article entitled “THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL (AND THEIR KIND IN THAILAND)”.
So yeah, in my view, it’s crap. And if that view ruins your day, well, tough.
Malaysia election special on NM
Thanks for posting. This election is dubbed the mother of all election. Some of the old hats had been around for a long time. As in all democratic processes, we will not know who will win until the votes are counted. It may be the political grave for some of them. [the very bad ones will lose favour].
Subjects of the state
SteveCM protestation ” … Pheu Thai is a proxy of/for the UDD? Really? …” is correct. UDD is the proxy of Peau Thai Party, and, not the other way around. At any rate, both the UDD and the Peau Thai Party are merely ‘to-serve-Thaksin-and-family concierge outfits’, no ifs and buts.
Subjects of the state
“If one wants to go back into our recent past then one can do a lot worse than the writings of Chit Bhumisak.”
….Yes indeed, one could be reading Cod Sadtrusayang.
I’m beginning to empathise with Khun Cod,- stranger in a strange land, he’s come to Thailand and found his western intellect to be useless in facing the onslaught of thai culture, clutching at extremes of the political spectrum in an attempt to find order in chaos. His expensively cultivated values and access to literature achieve nought and bring zero respect in the old country.
All I can advise is choose a value system and stick with it. Be true unto thyself. The only change coming to Thailand soon is a dynastic one, which is no change at all.
The nomenclatura, as the poor, are with us always.
To quote Orwell. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
…and a little corruption goes a long, long way.
Subjects of the state
“…the UDD, their proxy Pheu Thai…”
Pheu Thai is a proxy of/for the UDD? Really? Perhaps the author (or another) could clarify.
BTW, do the UDD “democracy schools” really not figure before considering the UDD membership as merely a “commodity”? Chairwoman Thida says “When you form local organizations, you need democratically elected committees that don’t rely on one person alone. Democratic principles need to be put into to practice, or else they become obsolete.”; is that simply not relevant?
May 13, 1969
[…] been possible to call it a success. Its brand of Islam is moderate. There has been no repeat of the 1969 race riots, a prelude to bumiputra affirmative action, when many ethnic Chinese were […]
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
But it’s not -any- criticism, it’s an accusation of pretentiousness that is unfounded. There isn’t any criticism. You accusing him of being a royalist is not a criticism, it’s just playing into the same old dynamic that Cod, to his or her credit, actually infers re what hasn’t been mentioned. There’s just an ego-bashing. How do you know who Cod is? Perhaps Cod is a moniker used by someone who is new and is interested in the grand drama. Who knows? But what he or she does know from this posting is that they can walk into a wall of disrespect and abuse. You can’t launch into him or her beyond what they have presented based on your suspicions. If you really object to me saying that what you’ve done is mindless butchering, why not use your own name and make an interesting argument yourself – that way criticism of something you have done could be made, and you would expose yourself to potentially the same vicious feedback that you dish out yourself (it would not be quite so vicious with real names, surely!) This process may help you be kinder. Without doing so you’ll just seem like a troll. In reacting in the manner you have, there is no ‘value-added’ for anyone – for Cod to consider his position, for a reader observing this venal commentary, or for yourself moving beyond immaturity. Your reaction reflects an ego blistering with resentment. Why are you resentful? I don’t really want to know, but it may be something for you to consider.
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
Well at least we can finally tell what he’s trying to say. Perhaps Andrew would like to host this on NM?
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
I followed the link and came to hyper racist and ultra nationalist tripe, which I assume can only be satire (“I suppose it could all be a cod”). But what if I am wrong??
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
Judging by Cod’s work for CNNGo eg “How To Date Thai Women” where he describes himself as a “self-styled Ladies man” I think, much like New Mandala, they have certainly be duped.
http://travel.cnn.com/bangkok/life/cod-satrusayang-how-date-thai-woman-bangkok-775919
Colonialism and ethnic conflict in Burma
a complete, detailed article allowing a puncual understanding of the burmese lasting conflict
Loyalty demands dissent, history demands scrutiny
If that were true, JohnW, it would appear that CNN (among others) are in on the “joke”.
Truth is always stranger than fiction.