It is a very sad irony that the most ardent campaigners for free speech are advocating the opposite when it comes to any discussion of the king of Thailand. This is only because we would fail the 112 test and suffer needlessly in prison. However, if this article was entitled ” Is 112 good or bad for Thailand” then there might of been a proper debate. The only consilation for Allowing this debate to take place is that we would serve our time with the moderators.
Walker and Farelly, what you two need to realise is that there should be no discussion of the king on New Mandala at all. Royalist opinion should not be allowed because anti royal arguments against it will land people in jail. And anti royal opinion should not be allowed because it will land people in jail and it may also attract royalist refutation which will then attract anti royal counter refutation which will also land people in jail. It is clear you are using your sadly declining blog to try to increase the prison population. There should be no discussion of royalty at all. Then 112 will be redundant, no one will go to jail and our campaign for free speech will have been successful!
Yes Mr JohnQPublic, I guess someone had to disabuse Andrew of his royalist fantasy. Most Thai blue bloods can trace their ancestry back to a common glorified nak leng. The chakri dynasty for example, a military man grabs power and for extra brownie points shacks up with someone from a previous royal family, anyone will do. Hardly original, king Jayavarman VII also pulled the same stunt hundreds of years earlier. Has it happened even earlier, more than likely, do other countries behave this way, the English royal family’s origins are just as dubious. So the payoff is high for a nak leng who is willing to risk it all and do what nak lengs do best, use force. Do you want one of these people running your society, well the Thais have in recent decades began to imagine other possibilities but Andrew and Cod would rather they gave up on these fancy ideas and just accept the old ways of doing things. Hell, I reckon they would both be real comfortable with that.
You said “How do you know what we can and cannot publish?” yet further down the comment admit that some stuff has to published “anonymously”.
Can you explain why it needs to be anonymous? Surely, as you Cod, Walker, Nostitz and others suggest we need to give equal voice to all sides – so why is it one side has to be anonymous and the other is backed by force and state and can be completely open with its pro-royalist take?
When you’ve published a piece entitled “Why Thailand needs to be a republic” I’m sure some of us will begin to take you seriously again.
Yes thanks for pointing that out. So now Thailand was only second behind Singapore in ASEAN countries in its level of democratic progress in 1999, just 7 years after 1992/3.
The point being that on any objective measure, whatever the role of the monarchy and the number of coups, Thailand was not doing that badly in developing democracy (not well, but better than almost all its peers).
To CS – 2000 is the only year I found data available, the next date available is 2008. If you look at the ratings by freedom house you will see that 1999, 2000 and 2001 Thailand was rated the most free country in ASEAN. These ratings continued after Thaksin was elected, but there was a proviso that the trend was down, and this came before the coup.
It cannot be dismissed easily, what frustrates me about this so called academic website, is that there is a smug, patronising dismissal on any positive views of the monarchy, but there is attempt made to objectively quantify its impact.
The the data I presented you can only surmise that either the monarchy was doing a terrible job of supressing freedom and democracy in Thailand, or that it didn’t have any near as much power as often postulated, or it was not trying to actively suppress democracy. Or of course that the whole amart meme is a load of simple minded rubbish and there are other reasons that prevent Thailand’s democracy progressing.
BKK Lawyer – Yes it did get worse, but why did they interfere when they did? Both Thaksin and his opponents were behaving with extreme selfishness. Can you just blame one side for the mess?
Democracy suffered, but it goes way beyond the evil amart meme so popular on this web site.
Quote Udd english:
“The transition from a largely middle-class movement to mass based grassroots activism has a lot to do with ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Elected in 2001, Thaksin’s government implemented policies that dramatically improved the quality of life for lower-class Thais. Millions gained access to affordable healthcare through the “30 baht program” and the Village Development Fund gave a lifeline to farmers who were still recovering from the devastating 1997 financial crisis and subsequent International Monetary Fund bailout. Thaksin’s sensibility to the needs of the lower classes was rewarded by a landslide re-election in 2005. For many, casting a ballot for Thaksin was their first meaningful act of democratic participation in a country where voting for the highest bidder was common place.”
So, who here has addressed the individual, instead of the law, outside of yourself, and a couple of others with a viewpoint that seems to be the same as yours, you do not need to be so defensive and take everything so personally. That is the exact thing that is being addressed
In the October 2010 issue of a local magazine called “Expat Society” he has written an article in which foreign journalists who covered the 2010 violence (yours truly was interviewed and portrayed as well) answered on the constant attacks by members of the establishment that we were biased.
In Cod’s article on the 8th April this year in Prachtai, entitle”does freedom of expression matter”, his last sentence states ” freedom of expression is the answer and not the enemy”. It is interesting to note that we have NOT received any further communication from Cod on his article here. Stirring the pot is not a good idea when his muses could lead to long prison sentences for others.
Alternatively, perhaps it’s beyond due that Cod now posts a comment to clarify the original intention of the piece? The responses don’t really amount to much of a debate – more the all-too-familiar lobbing from respective trenches. Nor have the twitter exchanges I’ve seen thrown any light on the intent. So, was it written to be “A Modest Proposal” (i.e. satire) or just to stir the pot a bit or……?
As many have rightly commented, it’s a dangerous subject for some actually in the kingdom to discuss freely and openly. It’s one thing to be faced with the task of interpreting the true meaning of December 5th utterances – quite another to be faced with it in a New Mandala piece.
When I read that portion of this article which asks “why not restore the jao muang (local lords),” I was wondering if the author has ever visited areas like Buriram, Chonburi, Chiang Mai or other provinces where princes of another kind,with no trace of blue blood,hold absolute sway over most.If Thaksin proved anything, it’s that Thailand has room for only one king.
– The problem is 18 military coups
– Military governments in a “democratic country”
– an invisible hand
– and the lie to a whole nation for such a long period
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Why Thailand needs its kings
Thai culture, perhaps, but what of Thailand and the people? What of them?
Why Thailand needs its king
It is a very sad irony that the most ardent campaigners for free speech are advocating the opposite when it comes to any discussion of the king of Thailand. This is only because we would fail the 112 test and suffer needlessly in prison. However, if this article was entitled ” Is 112 good or bad for Thailand” then there might of been a proper debate. The only consilation for Allowing this debate to take place is that we would serve our time with the moderators.
Why Thailand needs its king
Walker and Farelly, what you two need to realise is that there should be no discussion of the king on New Mandala at all. Royalist opinion should not be allowed because anti royal arguments against it will land people in jail. And anti royal opinion should not be allowed because it will land people in jail and it may also attract royalist refutation which will then attract anti royal counter refutation which will also land people in jail. It is clear you are using your sadly declining blog to try to increase the prison population. There should be no discussion of royalty at all. Then 112 will be redundant, no one will go to jail and our campaign for free speech will have been successful!
Why Thailand needs its kings
Yes Mr JohnQPublic, I guess someone had to disabuse Andrew of his royalist fantasy. Most Thai blue bloods can trace their ancestry back to a common glorified nak leng. The chakri dynasty for example, a military man grabs power and for extra brownie points shacks up with someone from a previous royal family, anyone will do. Hardly original, king Jayavarman VII also pulled the same stunt hundreds of years earlier. Has it happened even earlier, more than likely, do other countries behave this way, the English royal family’s origins are just as dubious. So the payoff is high for a nak leng who is willing to risk it all and do what nak lengs do best, use force. Do you want one of these people running your society, well the Thais have in recent decades began to imagine other possibilities but Andrew and Cod would rather they gave up on these fancy ideas and just accept the old ways of doing things. Hell, I reckon they would both be real comfortable with that.
Why Thailand needs its king
“Ex-pat Society” describes itself as
“Thailand Tatler’s Guide to the hottest members of the country’s expatriate society.”
So you’d include yourself amongst those “hottest members” Nick?
http://www.edipresse.com/lifestyle/expat-society
Why Thailand needs its kings
Nich
You said “How do you know what we can and cannot publish?” yet further down the comment admit that some stuff has to published “anonymously”.
Can you explain why it needs to be anonymous? Surely, as you Cod, Walker, Nostitz and others suggest we need to give equal voice to all sides – so why is it one side has to be anonymous and the other is backed by force and state and can be completely open with its pro-royalist take?
When you’ve published a piece entitled “Why Thailand needs to be a republic” I’m sure some of us will begin to take you seriously again.
Why Thailand needs its king
There is a way to reduce the tensions of LM reformation.
A proposal in parliament decriminalize the draconian defamation laws.
It would be a great symbolic gesture towards reconciliation and show the sincerity of motives in reforming these laws.
Why Thailand needs its king
Yes thanks for pointing that out. So now Thailand was only second behind Singapore in ASEAN countries in its level of democratic progress in 1999, just 7 years after 1992/3.
The point being that on any objective measure, whatever the role of the monarchy and the number of coups, Thailand was not doing that badly in developing democracy (not well, but better than almost all its peers).
To CS – 2000 is the only year I found data available, the next date available is 2008. If you look at the ratings by freedom house you will see that 1999, 2000 and 2001 Thailand was rated the most free country in ASEAN. These ratings continued after Thaksin was elected, but there was a proviso that the trend was down, and this came before the coup.
It cannot be dismissed easily, what frustrates me about this so called academic website, is that there is a smug, patronising dismissal on any positive views of the monarchy, but there is attempt made to objectively quantify its impact.
The the data I presented you can only surmise that either the monarchy was doing a terrible job of supressing freedom and democracy in Thailand, or that it didn’t have any near as much power as often postulated, or it was not trying to actively suppress democracy. Or of course that the whole amart meme is a load of simple minded rubbish and there are other reasons that prevent Thailand’s democracy progressing.
BKK Lawyer – Yes it did get worse, but why did they interfere when they did? Both Thaksin and his opponents were behaving with extreme selfishness. Can you just blame one side for the mess?
Democracy suffered, but it goes way beyond the evil amart meme so popular on this web site.
The data supports a far more complex picture.
Why Thailand needs its kings
Quote Udd english:
“The transition from a largely middle-class movement to mass based grassroots activism has a lot to do with ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Elected in 2001, Thaksin’s government implemented policies that dramatically improved the quality of life for lower-class Thais. Millions gained access to affordable healthcare through the “30 baht program” and the Village Development Fund gave a lifeline to farmers who were still recovering from the devastating 1997 financial crisis and subsequent International Monetary Fund bailout. Thaksin’s sensibility to the needs of the lower classes was rewarded by a landslide re-election in 2005. For many, casting a ballot for Thaksin was their first meaningful act of democratic participation in a country where voting for the highest bidder was common place.”
Why Thailand needs its king
So, who here has addressed the individual, instead of the law, outside of yourself, and a couple of others with a viewpoint that seems to be the same as yours, you do not need to be so defensive and take everything so personally. That is the exact thing that is being addressed
Why Thailand needs its king
I think we all figured that out, but thanks for bothering to correct it, I thought it was just done in humor
Why Thailand needs its king
he difference is :
thaksin was elected
tyranny is:
– 18 military coups
– judicial coups
– military governments
– massacres
– ┬з 112
Why Thailand needs its king
Cod’s appearance is not that sudden.
In the October 2010 issue of a local magazine called “Expat Society” he has written an article in which foreign journalists who covered the 2010 violence (yours truly was interviewed and portrayed as well) answered on the constant attacks by members of the establishment that we were biased.
Why Thailand needs its king
In Cod’s article on the 8th April this year in Prachtai, entitle”does freedom of expression matter”, his last sentence states ” freedom of expression is the answer and not the enemy”. It is interesting to note that we have NOT received any further communication from Cod on his article here. Stirring the pot is not a good idea when his muses could lead to long prison sentences for others.
Why Thailand needs its king
Alternatively, perhaps it’s beyond due that Cod now posts a comment to clarify the original intention of the piece? The responses don’t really amount to much of a debate – more the all-too-familiar lobbing from respective trenches. Nor have the twitter exchanges I’ve seen thrown any light on the intent. So, was it written to be “A Modest Proposal” (i.e. satire) or just to stir the pot a bit or……?
As many have rightly commented, it’s a dangerous subject for some actually in the kingdom to discuss freely and openly. It’s one thing to be faced with the task of interpreting the true meaning of December 5th utterances – quite another to be faced with it in a New Mandala piece.
Why Thailand needs its kings
When I read that portion of this article which asks “why not restore the jao muang (local lords),” I was wondering if the author has ever visited areas like Buriram, Chonburi, Chiang Mai or other provinces where princes of another kind,with no trace of blue blood,hold absolute sway over most.If Thaksin proved anything, it’s that Thailand has room for only one king.
Why Thailand needs its kings
– The problem is 18 military coups
– Military governments in a “democratic country”
– an invisible hand
– and the lie to a whole nation for such a long period
Why Thailand needs its king
Sorry for the typing error. It should read “Not the Nation”.
Why Thailand needs its king
“democratic tyranny” Could you expand on that. Is that like when you win electioos and stuff, right?
Why Thailand needs its king
Bill,
Cod’s piece is more suitable for “Not the ” where it could be seen in the light of satire. New Mandala is not the place for one sided debates.