Joe Gordon translated sections of a Yale University Press book which is internationally recognized as being an important and accurate book on the history of Thai politics and the present King’s documented role in Thai politics over the last 50 years. Joe then posted some of his translation on a blog while resident at his house in Colorado, USA. While in Thailand he was arbitrarily arrested, thrown in a Thai prison cell with hardened criminals, fed gruel, shuffled around in leg irons, unreasonably denied bail, subjected to a kangaroo court trial and sentenced to a lengthy prison term for what was 100% legal activity for a U.S. citizen in the United States. What difference does it make what passport he entered Thailand with?
I’m happy to see him, or anyone, get praise when its due.
The problem is that he’s only allowed to get praise, criticism is not allowed under the law, and certain judges and military commanders think questioning, investigating & analysing also should not be allowed.
What’s so wrong with transparency & accountability?
A very sad interview. I had a talk with my mum yesterday (mum is an avid Yingluck supporter, but my impression towards her is indifferent). Mum said she believes there are a lot of work behind the scenes by Yingluck to better the conditions of political prisoners. This interview proves her belief dead wrong. I shall remain indifferent to Yingluck and Thaksin, who regained their Parliamentary majority with the bloods and tears of the red shirts, yet they abandoned them completely after they got into power. They will not get any more vote from me, until they could convince me, through actions (not words), that they do something for the people who sacrifice their lives and freedom for them to win the election.
Traveled with a US passport in his possession. In other words he entered Thailand not as a US citizen on vacation but as a Thai on a Thai passport. More smoke and mirrors.
Thanks Roy. I don’t think this is really a story of “royals plotting and murdering each other for greed” more a story of a local royal (possibly) aligning himself with a group of Shan miners, timber workers and bandits to resist the expansion the power of the Bangkok administration. I don’t think this is such an uncommon pattern. Most of the “peasant rebellions” of this era seemed to involve similar alliances with local royals/notables to contest Bangkok’s rising power. The sorts of “classic” peasant rebellions you have in mind are, I think, rather hard to find in Thailand, partly because the abundance of land provided plenty of opportunities for discontented peasants to flee rather than fight.
The survey to which I referred is located at the link above.
I was a little off in my recollection, but not by much.
Other interestings findings of the survey were that he courts are regarded as having the most integrity and parliament/MPs as having the least integrity.
The police are regarded as the most politically biased and the courts as the least politically biased.
The most pressing concern of Thais was the state of the economy, what came bottom was democracy.
When asked what was the objective of the reds 15% felt it was democracy, the other 85 % listing other reasons. Wanting a new government was first at 26% and getting thaksin back was second at 19%.
So still think that the public want e PT to challenge the courts and change the constitution, which they are free to do if they hold a refendum and get permission from the people.
BTW if you really believe that the Thai people voted for the PT to change the constitution, then it has nothing to lose by holding a referendum on whether the current they have the mandate to change the current charter.
I think the gross injustices where rich and well connected people ride rough shod over common people are hardly rare and well known throughout thailand. I have never heard the UDD utter a peep about any of these or ever do anything about it.
They are a purely political organisational, playing politics in the narrowest sense. I don’t see anything impressive about teaching political ideology, or community radio, both smack solely of means of disseminating hatred and propaganda. And going by the responses here it works.
It’s street protests on any significant scale only seem to back the PT, the links between the 2 are far too close, whatever the factional make up of the UDD somehow the interests of the PT dominate.
I do know a little about red shirts as some of my gfs family are reds and her dad had wanted to make a red village in singburi, but apart from them I have the English media, you, and the good people at new mandala.
In the last survey I saw, conducted I think in 2011, 5% of the thailand population identify themselves as red shirts, with 7% as being sympathetic, or something close to those figures. In the same survey 95% of Thai consided democracy as he best form of government. Why is their so little support for the reds? They are failing In someway for sure, they should have large scale grass roots support. So is the Thai media also insufficient in its coverage?
I can see the preference for thaksin in terms of how government expenditure outside bangkok increases, but I can see nothing that develops democracy in thailand by supporting the UDD or the PT
Sure the military needs to be reformed, but their intervention came after a 13 year hiatus. Police reform is far more important to democratic progression than the army.
You will note that in any survey the police consistently rank the bottom in public trust far more than the army or the judiciary, who always come out on top.
Sure the constitution court is biased, but do you trust the PT to make it unbiased? They will just make it biased to their interests or make it toothless, if there are no checks and balances its not democracy.
The Thai people seem happy with the current situation, and so am I. None of the current players shows any indication of doing anything than playing selfish power games, so by that context, it’s as good as it gets.
It’s interesting you say that the PT cannot do anything out the army, they could but they choose not to do so as it does not gel with their political aims.
Is the frame of “oppressors” vs. “the dispossessed” the only frame for understanding the royal history of Thailand? The necessarily better, or best, frame for understanding all dimensions of the royal history of Thailand? Doesn’t it really depend on the questions being asked? Do all questions about Thai royalty, real or symbolic, have to be read through the single logic of oppressors vs. the dispossessed?
Isn’t it possible that Andrew is asking different or additional questions here? And that those questions might have some illuminating value as well?
With regards to the actual posting, it makes a useful contribution. Another dynamic I’m interested in is that of ‘governmentality’ as it plays out in ‘Zomic’ areas. That is, even those who attempt to evade the rule/control of central states inevitably exercise some kind of governmentality within their own society. I think of the Kachin here, and Kachin friends who talk about the KIA/O’s turn towards governmentality from around 2000 onwards, in an effort to redress decades of widespread everyday Kachin grievances towards them (forced portering, taxation etc). For me, this kind of internal ‘Zomic’ state-society dynamic is under-researched and of great interest – if anyone else has anything to add, particularly on Burmese ethnic state-society dynamics, I’d love to hear.
I dontknow who you are ane where you live, i believe you were born in Lao Land (Lanxang Country) as you know, please love your hameland and support us in advantage way to build your homeland if you are Lao, if you arent please close your mouth.
It is always interesting to read about royals plotting and murdering each other for greed. However, I am much more interested in peasant rebellions against their masters. The history of any country is full of evil plots, wars and murder. For a better understanding of how Thailand’s different cultures faught against their oppressors please give me a proper history lesson of the struggles for freedom and liberty amongst the dispossed.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
not joe is the wrong – the 112 is wrong and must be abolished
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
I entered Thailand with American passport.
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
If the passport is a non issue, why so much obfuscation?
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
Does it really matter?
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
Joe Gordon translated sections of a Yale University Press book which is internationally recognized as being an important and accurate book on the history of Thai politics and the present King’s documented role in Thai politics over the last 50 years. Joe then posted some of his translation on a blog while resident at his house in Colorado, USA. While in Thailand he was arbitrarily arrested, thrown in a Thai prison cell with hardened criminals, fed gruel, shuffled around in leg irons, unreasonably denied bail, subjected to a kangaroo court trial and sentenced to a lengthy prison term for what was 100% legal activity for a U.S. citizen in the United States. What difference does it make what passport he entered Thailand with?
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
So which passport did he enter on? This point has always seemed a bit murky.
Paul Handley replies to comments
I’m happy to see him, or anyone, get praise when its due.
The problem is that he’s only allowed to get praise, criticism is not allowed under the law, and certain judges and military commanders think questioning, investigating & analysing also should not be allowed.
What’s so wrong with transparency & accountability?
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
A very sad interview. I had a talk with my mum yesterday (mum is an avid Yingluck supporter, but my impression towards her is indifferent). Mum said she believes there are a lot of work behind the scenes by Yingluck to better the conditions of political prisoners. This interview proves her belief dead wrong. I shall remain indifferent to Yingluck and Thaksin, who regained their Parliamentary majority with the bloods and tears of the red shirts, yet they abandoned them completely after they got into power. They will not get any more vote from me, until they could convince me, through actions (not words), that they do something for the people who sacrifice their lives and freedom for them to win the election.
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
Traveled with a US passport in his possession. In other words he entered Thailand not as a US citizen on vacation but as a Thai on a Thai passport. More smoke and mirrors.
Interview with Joe Gordon: Lèse majesté and democracy
[…] New Mandala, there is an interview with Joe Gordon. The questions aren’t very penetrating and there isn’t a lot that is particularly new, […]
Thailand’s royal histories
Thanks Roy. I don’t think this is really a story of “royals plotting and murdering each other for greed” more a story of a local royal (possibly) aligning himself with a group of Shan miners, timber workers and bandits to resist the expansion the power of the Bangkok administration. I don’t think this is such an uncommon pattern. Most of the “peasant rebellions” of this era seemed to involve similar alliances with local royals/notables to contest Bangkok’s rising power. The sorts of “classic” peasant rebellions you have in mind are, I think, rather hard to find in Thailand, partly because the abundance of land provided plenty of opportunities for discontented peasants to flee rather than fight.
Why Thailand needs its king
http://www.asiafoundation.org/publications/pdf/855
The survey to which I referred is located at the link above.
I was a little off in my recollection, but not by much.
Other interestings findings of the survey were that he courts are regarded as having the most integrity and parliament/MPs as having the least integrity.
The police are regarded as the most politically biased and the courts as the least politically biased.
The most pressing concern of Thais was the state of the economy, what came bottom was democracy.
When asked what was the objective of the reds 15% felt it was democracy, the other 85 % listing other reasons. Wanting a new government was first at 26% and getting thaksin back was second at 19%.
So still think that the public want e PT to challenge the courts and change the constitution, which they are free to do if they hold a refendum and get permission from the people.
Why Thailand needs its king
BTW if you really believe that the Thai people voted for the PT to change the constitution, then it has nothing to lose by holding a referendum on whether the current they have the mandate to change the current charter.
Why Thailand needs its king
I think the gross injustices where rich and well connected people ride rough shod over common people are hardly rare and well known throughout thailand. I have never heard the UDD utter a peep about any of these or ever do anything about it.
They are a purely political organisational, playing politics in the narrowest sense. I don’t see anything impressive about teaching political ideology, or community radio, both smack solely of means of disseminating hatred and propaganda. And going by the responses here it works.
It’s street protests on any significant scale only seem to back the PT, the links between the 2 are far too close, whatever the factional make up of the UDD somehow the interests of the PT dominate.
I do know a little about red shirts as some of my gfs family are reds and her dad had wanted to make a red village in singburi, but apart from them I have the English media, you, and the good people at new mandala.
In the last survey I saw, conducted I think in 2011, 5% of the thailand population identify themselves as red shirts, with 7% as being sympathetic, or something close to those figures. In the same survey 95% of Thai consided democracy as he best form of government. Why is their so little support for the reds? They are failing In someway for sure, they should have large scale grass roots support. So is the Thai media also insufficient in its coverage?
I can see the preference for thaksin in terms of how government expenditure outside bangkok increases, but I can see nothing that develops democracy in thailand by supporting the UDD or the PT
Sure the military needs to be reformed, but their intervention came after a 13 year hiatus. Police reform is far more important to democratic progression than the army.
You will note that in any survey the police consistently rank the bottom in public trust far more than the army or the judiciary, who always come out on top.
Sure the constitution court is biased, but do you trust the PT to make it unbiased? They will just make it biased to their interests or make it toothless, if there are no checks and balances its not democracy.
The Thai people seem happy with the current situation, and so am I. None of the current players shows any indication of doing anything than playing selfish power games, so by that context, it’s as good as it gets.
It’s interesting you say that the PT cannot do anything out the army, they could but they choose not to do so as it does not gel with their political aims.
Thailand’s royal histories
Is the frame of “oppressors” vs. “the dispossessed” the only frame for understanding the royal history of Thailand? The necessarily better, or best, frame for understanding all dimensions of the royal history of Thailand? Doesn’t it really depend on the questions being asked? Do all questions about Thai royalty, real or symbolic, have to be read through the single logic of oppressors vs. the dispossessed?
Isn’t it possible that Andrew is asking different or additional questions here? And that those questions might have some illuminating value as well?
Why Thailand needs its king
sorry, i always get mixed up with the roman numerals, i guess i am slightly dyslexic 😉
Emulating the state
Was ‘very angry’ Roger reading a different piece?
With regards to the actual posting, it makes a useful contribution. Another dynamic I’m interested in is that of ‘governmentality’ as it plays out in ‘Zomic’ areas. That is, even those who attempt to evade the rule/control of central states inevitably exercise some kind of governmentality within their own society. I think of the Kachin here, and Kachin friends who talk about the KIA/O’s turn towards governmentality from around 2000 onwards, in an effort to redress decades of widespread everyday Kachin grievances towards them (forced portering, taxation etc). For me, this kind of internal ‘Zomic’ state-society dynamic is under-researched and of great interest – if anyone else has anything to add, particularly on Burmese ethnic state-society dynamics, I’d love to hear.
Distressing developments in Laos
I dontknow who you are ane where you live, i believe you were born in Lao Land (Lanxang Country) as you know, please love your hameland and support us in advantage way to build your homeland if you are Lao, if you arent please close your mouth.
Thailand’s royal histories
It is always interesting to read about royals plotting and murdering each other for greed. However, I am much more interested in peasant rebellions against their masters. The history of any country is full of evil plots, wars and murder. For a better understanding of how Thailand’s different cultures faught against their oppressors please give me a proper history lesson of the struggles for freedom and liberty amongst the dispossed.
Why Thailand needs its king
King Vajiravudh was actually Rama VI. Rama IV was King Mongkut.