Notsisappointed.
Obviously you do not read what is written. I want to respond to the article by Cod but the law denies me that opportunity. This is my point. Anyone can say/distort historical facts and even recent events as long as they are in line with the elites law. Opposition means jail. It is a pity that you lived in the USA for so long without understanding the meaning of democracy. Then again that is understandable as the USA spouts democracy for all whilst they prop up dictatorships. I noticed that you mentioned Thaksin. That shows your anti democratic principals and your adherance to the status quo.
How do you know what we can and cannot publish? To give you a few hints, check the 7 years of New Mandala back catalogue — you will find plenty of debate and discussion focused on the Thai monarchy. By my rough count there’s over 300 substantial pieces on the topic in the archive, many of which have spawned long threads of comments. There are many thousands of people who have offered their two satang. We have always sought to provide a forum for discussion. We prefer it to be polite and good humoured, and yet we understand that isn’t always the case.
And on the off-chance you hadn’t noticed — we don’t hide behind fake names. That has consequences, we know.
Those of you who really want to weigh into this current debate (“Why Thailand needs its….”) can take the conventional step of sending me a proposed contribution at the usual place. We prefer to publish pieces that come with a real name but as long-time readers know we do occasionally make important exceptions. Indeed we have sometimes published materials that are strictly anonymous.
I can’t promise that we will publish everything we receive on this topic (or any other) but we have a respectable track record of offering a widely-read platform to a diverse range of perspectives. We have been doing this for years. I anticipate there are many years to come…
I find Cod’s sudden appearance on the scene very odd.
I’ve read through his blog and it’s peppered with badly written, cod-intellectualism that reveals, in part, a deeply reactionary mind-set. It’s like he waffles on about enlightenment but is completely unenlightened to his own lack of enlightenment.
Is this Walker’s attempt to bring in readers to his faltering blog? Employ a ultra-royalist to set up a one-sided “debate” on the monarchy?
Never mind – it’s Walker’s blog and it’s no wonder it’s on the slide. It deserves to be.
This is quite possibly the weakest argument for monarchy ever published.
Strangely for an academic existing in an institution in the 21st Century Walker believes he can dehistoricise culture and power.
There is no “natural” fit between Thailand and monarchy as that assumes there is no history or struggle.
If, as it seems, Walker is suggesting that then he is just another tired old reactionary academic desperate to cling to his own status as much as the royalists are in Thailand.
If this entrenchment of royalism is Walker’s efforts to open up a debate it is both insidious and disingenuous.
There is NO debate without a counter proposition which Walker knows he can never publish.
Thailand doesn’t need more kings – it needs the opportunity to discuss, openly and without fear, if it wants a king at all.
I have thought a great deal about this in an impassioned way. I grew up in the States since the age of four and lived there for 30 years. No one brained-washed me. I did not grow up learning to love and respect HMK. I grew up learning and appreciating democracy in the States. I only now have gained huge respect and see why a majority of Thais love and revere HMK.
Since my return I have seen the dedication and tireless selflessness of HMK. I have also seen first-hand the greed and selfishness of Thais of all classes. And I had hoped that being a wealthy individual that thaksin would be immune to corruption and be good for democracy; to become the best PM that Thailand would ever have. I was mistaken. He turned out to be greedy and manipulative, bastardizing democracy with his democratic tyranny.
Perhaps you should you should put aside your angst and bias, and learn to think beyond a negative narrow viewpoint.
As suggested by two previous commentators, this article was fake troll bait. A complete waste of our time, with no insight into actual real royalist thought. Perhaps it was an experiment at our expense, or the writer was bored, or a late April fools joke.
This is definitely something that needed to be said Patrick 🙂
In the same vein, previous incidences of Buddhist ethnonationalism and racism/racist violence in Myanmar have likewise occurred in times of political and economic uncertainty. In many ways Muslims in Myanmar are seen as a historically legitimised scapegoat on which political and social frustrations of the nation might be vented (a “nation” whose identity has over time become bound up in Buddhist religio-nationalism).
But we can’t disregard the fact that these sentiments were forged through the long years of “stability”, under SLORC/SPDC and before that, the British who both played upon ethnic difference.
And that is the reason for all this divisiveness in the country. When a would-be king – thaksin, with his delusion of shinawatra dynasty, would have the people that he so successfully manipulates and markets the propaganda of class warfare/inequality, hand-outs, and populist policies using ‘other people’s money'(taxpayers) to buy the love and respect that has taken HMK, with his lifetime of dedication and selflessness to achieve.
I guess that money can buy happiness (or votes or democratic tyranny) – in Dubai.
Longway: You cite the democracy ranking from 1999, when Thailand was apparently at its apogee of democracy: 7 years since the disastrous events of 1992, 2 years after the “People’s Constitution,” and the eve of the majority electing a populist government (and Thaksin).
You say “Can you imagine what would have happened if that beacon of light thaksin did not show up when he did, just how bad things would be now?” Presumably you believe democracy would be worse off. But we can’t know because he was overthrown — in the most-undemocratic way.
We can know, however, how it turned out after he was overthrown, by looking at the same report you cite.
Democracy Ranking’s later reports:
2008: Thailand is not on the list
2009: Thailand is not on the list
2010: Thailand is #71
2011: Thailand is #69
2012: Thailand is #69
(These rankings are a bit confusing because the ‘loss/gain’ numbers don’t seem to jibe with the previous year’s numbers.)
Seems the “beacon of democracy” got worse without Thaksin’s help, but with the help of those who threw him out.
Actually the question really needing to be asked is: “Is there a need for 112?” You anti-monarchist can go elsewhere, if it bothers you so much. No need to get yourselves all in a tangle, for something that culturally you would never accept or be able to wrap your heads around. Leave your paradigms at home and see the situation in the eyes of the majority of Thais not a sea of minority red shirts who are subject to the propaganda of self-serving individuals.
Khun Roy, why so negative? If you just focus on the law 112, why would anyone bother with you. But when you attack or demean the person that not acceptable. Is it not possible to separate one from another? Or is it that you are anti-monarchist instead of anti-bad law?
Nick,
You totally miss the point. I respect most views other than rascist and fascist views. I respect Cod’s right to express his views openly. However, Cod has placed restrictions on others views by making comments that if replyed to honestly would land in prison terms. Therefore, New Mandala whilst trying to further the debate by their liberal views have given royalists a great opportunity to crush dissent. New Mandala GOT IT WRONG! As you are aware there are people just waiting to pounce on critics to charge them with LM. Some are on N.M. Freedom of speech works only where there are no restrictions on what is said or written. It is not a one way street.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Why Thailand needs its king
Well said Nick. I’ve been a bit taken aback by some of these comments here.
What Cod argues is a bit simplistic on the history to my mind, but his underlying argument is perfectly valid whether one agrees with it or not.
To cast him, as many here seem to, as an ultra-royalist comparable to a brainwashed North Korean seems grossly unfair to me.
Why Thailand needs its king
Notsisappointed.
Obviously you do not read what is written. I want to respond to the article by Cod but the law denies me that opportunity. This is my point. Anyone can say/distort historical facts and even recent events as long as they are in line with the elites law. Opposition means jail. It is a pity that you lived in the USA for so long without understanding the meaning of democracy. Then again that is understandable as the USA spouts democracy for all whilst they prop up dictatorships. I noticed that you mentioned Thaksin. That shows your anti democratic principals and your adherance to the status quo.
Why Thailand needs its kings
“Blinking in the light”, and everyone,
Thanks for all the comments.
How do you know what we can and cannot publish? To give you a few hints, check the 7 years of New Mandala back catalogue — you will find plenty of debate and discussion focused on the Thai monarchy. By my rough count there’s over 300 substantial pieces on the topic in the archive, many of which have spawned long threads of comments. There are many thousands of people who have offered their two satang. We have always sought to provide a forum for discussion. We prefer it to be polite and good humoured, and yet we understand that isn’t always the case.
And on the off-chance you hadn’t noticed — we don’t hide behind fake names. That has consequences, we know.
Those of you who really want to weigh into this current debate (“Why Thailand needs its….”) can take the conventional step of sending me a proposed contribution at the usual place. We prefer to publish pieces that come with a real name but as long-time readers know we do occasionally make important exceptions. Indeed we have sometimes published materials that are strictly anonymous.
I can’t promise that we will publish everything we receive on this topic (or any other) but we have a respectable track record of offering a widely-read platform to a diverse range of perspectives. We have been doing this for years. I anticipate there are many years to come…
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Why Thailand needs its king
Perhaps we need to turn to Game of Thrones for guidance here.
WWKJBD….
“What would King Joffrey Baratheon do?”
Why Thailand needs its king
johninbkk
I find Cod’s sudden appearance on the scene very odd.
I’ve read through his blog and it’s peppered with badly written, cod-intellectualism that reveals, in part, a deeply reactionary mind-set. It’s like he waffles on about enlightenment but is completely unenlightened to his own lack of enlightenment.
Is this Walker’s attempt to bring in readers to his faltering blog? Employ a ultra-royalist to set up a one-sided “debate” on the monarchy?
Never mind – it’s Walker’s blog and it’s no wonder it’s on the slide. It deserves to be.
Why Thailand needs its kings
all family conflicts can be settled with a helping of Yorkshire pudding…
Why Thailand needs its kings
This is quite possibly the weakest argument for monarchy ever published.
Strangely for an academic existing in an institution in the 21st Century Walker believes he can dehistoricise culture and power.
There is no “natural” fit between Thailand and monarchy as that assumes there is no history or struggle.
If, as it seems, Walker is suggesting that then he is just another tired old reactionary academic desperate to cling to his own status as much as the royalists are in Thailand.
If this entrenchment of royalism is Walker’s efforts to open up a debate it is both insidious and disingenuous.
There is NO debate without a counter proposition which Walker knows he can never publish.
Thailand doesn’t need more kings – it needs the opportunity to discuss, openly and without fear, if it wants a king at all.
Why Thailand needs its king
In a penalty shoot out, do you think both sides should get a chance to kick goals, or only one side?
Why Thailand needs its king
I have thought a great deal about this in an impassioned way. I grew up in the States since the age of four and lived there for 30 years. No one brained-washed me. I did not grow up learning to love and respect HMK. I grew up learning and appreciating democracy in the States. I only now have gained huge respect and see why a majority of Thais love and revere HMK.
Since my return I have seen the dedication and tireless selflessness of HMK. I have also seen first-hand the greed and selfishness of Thais of all classes. And I had hoped that being a wealthy individual that thaksin would be immune to corruption and be good for democracy; to become the best PM that Thailand would ever have. I was mistaken. He turned out to be greedy and manipulative, bastardizing democracy with his democratic tyranny.
Perhaps you should you should put aside your angst and bias, and learn to think beyond a negative narrow viewpoint.
Why Thailand needs its king
As suggested by two previous commentators, this article was fake troll bait. A complete waste of our time, with no insight into actual real royalist thought. Perhaps it was an experiment at our expense, or the writer was bored, or a late April fools joke.
How do I know this? See his latest article:
http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/3562
Not cool.
Why Thailand needs its kings
Is this going to be a thing now? I look forward to the entire series to follow such as ‘Why Thailand Needs Its Burger Kings’.
Why Thailand needs its kings
No disrespect to the author, and perhaps I’m being a bit slow understanding this, but what exactly is the point of this article?
On Myanmar’s plural society
This is definitely something that needed to be said Patrick 🙂
In the same vein, previous incidences of Buddhist ethnonationalism and racism/racist violence in Myanmar have likewise occurred in times of political and economic uncertainty. In many ways Muslims in Myanmar are seen as a historically legitimised scapegoat on which political and social frustrations of the nation might be vented (a “nation” whose identity has over time become bound up in Buddhist religio-nationalism).
But we can’t disregard the fact that these sentiments were forged through the long years of “stability”, under SLORC/SPDC and before that, the British who both played upon ethnic difference.
Why Thailand needs its kings
And that is the reason for all this divisiveness in the country. When a would-be king – thaksin, with his delusion of shinawatra dynasty, would have the people that he so successfully manipulates and markets the propaganda of class warfare/inequality, hand-outs, and populist policies using ‘other people’s money'(taxpayers) to buy the love and respect that has taken HMK, with his lifetime of dedication and selflessness to achieve.
I guess that money can buy happiness (or votes or democratic tyranny) – in Dubai.
Why Thailand needs its king
Longway: You cite the democracy ranking from 1999, when Thailand was apparently at its apogee of democracy: 7 years since the disastrous events of 1992, 2 years after the “People’s Constitution,” and the eve of the majority electing a populist government (and Thaksin).
You say “Can you imagine what would have happened if that beacon of light thaksin did not show up when he did, just how bad things would be now?” Presumably you believe democracy would be worse off. But we can’t know because he was overthrown — in the most-undemocratic way.
We can know, however, how it turned out after he was overthrown, by looking at the same report you cite.
Democracy Ranking’s later reports:
2008: Thailand is not on the list
2009: Thailand is not on the list
2010: Thailand is #71
2011: Thailand is #69
2012: Thailand is #69
(These rankings are a bit confusing because the ‘loss/gain’ numbers don’t seem to jibe with the previous year’s numbers.)
Seems the “beacon of democracy” got worse without Thaksin’s help, but with the help of those who threw him out.
Why Thailand needs its king
Does Thailand need thaksin’s brand of democratic and parliamentary tyranny?
Why Thailand needs its king
Actually the question really needing to be asked is: “Is there a need for 112?” You anti-monarchist can go elsewhere, if it bothers you so much. No need to get yourselves all in a tangle, for something that culturally you would never accept or be able to wrap your heads around. Leave your paradigms at home and see the situation in the eyes of the majority of Thais not a sea of minority red shirts who are subject to the propaganda of self-serving individuals.
Why Thailand needs its king
Khun Roy, why so negative? If you just focus on the law 112, why would anyone bother with you. But when you attack or demean the person that not acceptable. Is it not possible to separate one from another? Or is it that you are anti-monarchist instead of anti-bad law?
Why Thailand needs its king
Like I’m thinking Woody did a Borat on us when he interviewed Princess Chulabhorn, perhaps something close to that is happening here?
Cod’s latest:
http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/3562
Why Thailand needs its king
Nick,
You totally miss the point. I respect most views other than rascist and fascist views. I respect Cod’s right to express his views openly. However, Cod has placed restrictions on others views by making comments that if replyed to honestly would land in prison terms. Therefore, New Mandala whilst trying to further the debate by their liberal views have given royalists a great opportunity to crush dissent. New Mandala GOT IT WRONG! As you are aware there are people just waiting to pounce on critics to charge them with LM. Some are on N.M. Freedom of speech works only where there are no restrictions on what is said or written. It is not a one way street.