Sorry but the line that all sides are “equal” in the 112 & monarchy debate is a complete and total fraud.
One side has the full weight of the state, the army, the courts and the law behind it.
The other goes to jail – sometimes to die and certainly to suffer.
One completely dominates the Thai education system, the Thai media and the actual lived space of Thailand itself.
The other has to hide behind metaphor and in dark corners terrified it might be hit with one of the most draconian censorship laws on earth.
There is simply NO comparison and for NN to claim that somehow there are just two sides engaged in a simple debate where both should be given an equal right to be heard – even within a space like New Mandela, which has for a long time been one of the few spaces without the myth of royalist propaganda – is completely bogus nonsense. The simple fact that no anti-monarchy debate can be aired in public is testament to that.
As for Cod’s attempted “trick” – again, bogus, and straight out of the pretentious Voranai book of over-educated dumbed down Thai elite.
the royalists only a reform of the 112 agree, if they can be sure that the truth is always in the dark – but last end – that will not happen – so – they will use all their power that this law will not be abolished.
but in the end they dig with the monarchy’s grave
It is true that the 112 laws, and especially their application in court inhibit free and open discussion. This creates an atmosphere of fear, and strongly contributes to the very unhealthy polarization.
Yet i think it is of utmost importance for critics and opponents of the 112 laws not to fall into the same trap of not respecting the right of one’s opponents to voice their views, even if one does not agree with them.
We need a civil exchange of views based on the respect for others views. If ultra-royalists do not do that does not mean that opponents of these laws, or even of the monarchy, have to follow suit, and be equally intolerant.
The King had no hand in the coups and power-mongering subsequent to his constitutional monarchy. Blame it on the generals, businessmen and connivers who would keep the masses stupid, the better to manipulate them. The KIng has always placed his focus on the betterment of the people. It is in the power of the politiciams these past 80+ years to educate and improve the lives of the people; all the people not just the reds.
Why is it wrong to revere an individual. The “majority of the people also think this way.” So why do we have to change their thinking? It’s the law that needs fixing not the individual who has gained his love, reverance, and love, through his unselfish dedication towards his people.
What a load of pro-thaksin rubbish to even state that he showed up to bring light to the oppressed masses. He and his henchmen use the disenfranchised red as their tool to amass power for themselves. Hasn’t anyone noticed that the leaders of the reds ae now pretty well-off in terms of wealth, prestige, and political power? They wish to deconstruct the Thai constitution in their favor to enable them to maintain their hold on power and reduce any checks and balances to their power. The leaders of the red movement have now become the new and improved ‘amarts’. Criticism should be balanced shouldn’t it? 2 years in power and what have the red movement gained? Power for their leaders is all I see; they remain poor with their mouths open for populist hand-outs. What long-term policies have been planned or enacted for the growth and equalization of the disenfranchised?
Why does everyone focus on the individual, when its the law that is at the crux of the matter. The individual did not impose this law on anyone. If any scorn be heaped on any one person or group; it should be on those who would use him and the institution to give credibilty to themselves; whatever color or misguided thinking – green, khaki, red, yellow, or even those who post here now. It’s the law and its interpretation that needs to be changed/ revised/amended/done away with – not the individual. BTW, thaksin uses the issue as a springboard to set hmself up as the new dynasty of monied power and democratic dictator.
Roy, the issue is not that black and white. It’s not “them against us”. The plethora of opinions on the monarchy and on 112 is enormous.
A few examples: other than the people who don’t care either way, there are Royalists in defense of the 112 laws, there are Royalists who would like to get rid of the 112 laws, there are reformers who would like to modernize the 112 laws according to western legal applications in order to find a new social contract, there are anti-monarchists who want to get rid of the 112 laws, and there are even avowed anti-monarchists that are very glad about the existence of the 112 laws (as they believe that the 112 laws and every person who is sent to prison for violations against these laws undermine the monarchy more than any anti-monarchist activities can do).
My personal views on this issue are that i do not want people killing each other over their views on the future of the monarchy. If there is a future for the monarchy, and in which form is not for me to decide. I, as a journo, am only there to support the creation of space for debate, and that each side can speak their views (in peaceful and non-defamatory manner).
Thai PBS, as a major public broadcaster made the right step towards the creation of space (and all their lawyers still could not protect them from cases filed against them) – but they did not do that by shutting out one side of the debate, but by giving both sides equal saying.
And in this spirit, i would strongly support royalists to publish articles on new mandala as well. Not because these may be my views, but it is important for the public to learn of the views of all sides.
As it is 99% of the present debate on monarchy and 112 laws is only preaching to the choir, both on stages, seminars and on the web. And when, on rare occasions, both sides meet each other, the debate soon disintegrates into insults, threats or worse, without any respect for the opposing views. This is not gonna lead to peaceful solutions, but only to further conflict.
“To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.” >> Denn das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein…
Nick and JohnQPublic: You may be right, and maybe Cod gave us a hint (or a wink, wink, nudge, nudge) with his quote of Karl Marx and religion being “the opium of the people”. The quote seemed out of place to me, as it doesn’t seem to follow on what he was arguing. As Cod quoted Marx’s conclusion:
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.
Indeed. Was Cod saying that it’s time for Thais to fix their problems once and for all, thereby giving up the condition that requires certain illusions?
Interesting article with many ramification by Mr Walker. Especially with the general knowledge of Golden Triangle.
Sticking to Naw Kham:
The Chinese society has ALWAYS regard consumption of drug as a socially acceptable right if not a status especially among the effluent, as long as the users are functional.
Naw Kham is a 3rd generation drug-lords (mind the ‘s’) with WA and Shan support.
From his feature one can almost ascertain that he IS also part Chinese, undoubtedly at least partially a KMT descent.
Providing another source of income while serving the societal demand.
This will be no doubt a one time deal due to Nam Kham violating the ultimate rule of “Thou shalt not kill any official”, let alone quite a few, in this case, instead of bribing them generously, especially within China.
Assuring from now on that rest pay up ahead or else.
Thus maintaining the balances of ying and yang, again.
Smart drug lords that vested within China, Lao, Myanmar and Thailand will continue to enjoy Khun Sa fate.
Anyone who believe China will reciprocate if the culprit within China is a Chinese, taking advantage of the borders as Naw Kham did?
Nick,
If people are allowed to set traps for others to fall into and spend decades in prison, surely those traps should be sprung without danger to others.The PBS show had a falanx of lawyers protecting themselves. WE DON’T. For a truely serious debate on the monarchy I would have to leave this country and not return. New mandala were wrong to accept Cod’s piece as it does absolutely nothing to further the cause of FREE SPEECH.
I have been thinking rather hard if i should post a comment here, anticipating a mass of ego-destroying thumbs down judgements… 😉
Whatever…
Some commentators here criticized New Mandala for having published this article. If Cod truly would be an ultra-royalist, which he isn’t (you may want to take “JohnQPublic’s” hint), he would still have a right to have ultra-royalist (or just royalist) views to be published. Otherwise we may end up with a situation similar to the 112 debate, just reversed.
I have the impression that many people on both sides of the debate seem to forget that people do have a right to their opinion and views. While the 112 laws as they stand, and especially as they are applied, tilt the discussion without doubt, it still means that also defenders of the 112 laws (which i personally am not, i guess necessary to add) have a right to voice their views also and especially here on New Mandala.
In the recent Thai PBS show both sides got their say – and that is the right way to go. Debate does not happen when one side is shut out. New Mandala has always tried to stay a place of debate, and not of single-minded activism.
Longway, the poll was published in 2003, long before the coup, the two judicial coups, the shootings, the Tak Bai massacre, the airport takeover, and most importantly, the dramatic increase in lese majeste indictments. In other words, ratings such as these can change monthly, and are thus useless to cite so long after publication.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Why Thailand needs its king
Sorry but the line that all sides are “equal” in the 112 & monarchy debate is a complete and total fraud.
One side has the full weight of the state, the army, the courts and the law behind it.
The other goes to jail – sometimes to die and certainly to suffer.
One completely dominates the Thai education system, the Thai media and the actual lived space of Thailand itself.
The other has to hide behind metaphor and in dark corners terrified it might be hit with one of the most draconian censorship laws on earth.
There is simply NO comparison and for NN to claim that somehow there are just two sides engaged in a simple debate where both should be given an equal right to be heard – even within a space like New Mandela, which has for a long time been one of the few spaces without the myth of royalist propaganda – is completely bogus nonsense. The simple fact that no anti-monarchy debate can be aired in public is testament to that.
As for Cod’s attempted “trick” – again, bogus, and straight out of the pretentious Voranai book of over-educated dumbed down Thai elite.
Gah!
😉
Why Thailand needs its king
the royalists only a reform of the 112 agree, if they can be sure that the truth is always in the dark – but last end – that will not happen – so – they will use all their power that this law will not be abolished.
but in the end they dig with the monarchy’s grave
Why Thailand needs its kings
maybe there is a better way….
political schools in context: udd english
http://thairedshirts.org/2013/04/08/udd-political-schools-in-context/
…. and then there will be a head of state
– a king, a queen, a president
-is this important?
– yes! – like yorkshire pudding !
Why Thailand needs its king
@notdisapointed
60 years brainwashed… i understand
open your eyes, ears and then begin to think…
Why Thailand needs its king
It is true that the 112 laws, and especially their application in court inhibit free and open discussion. This creates an atmosphere of fear, and strongly contributes to the very unhealthy polarization.
Yet i think it is of utmost importance for critics and opponents of the 112 laws not to fall into the same trap of not respecting the right of one’s opponents to voice their views, even if one does not agree with them.
We need a civil exchange of views based on the respect for others views. If ultra-royalists do not do that does not mean that opponents of these laws, or even of the monarchy, have to follow suit, and be equally intolerant.
Why Thailand needs its king
Nick,
Royalists are allowed to write what they think about the subject. Unfortunately, I AM NOT. Unless of course I want to spend years in prison.
Why Thailand needs its king
The King had no hand in the coups and power-mongering subsequent to his constitutional monarchy. Blame it on the generals, businessmen and connivers who would keep the masses stupid, the better to manipulate them. The KIng has always placed his focus on the betterment of the people. It is in the power of the politiciams these past 80+ years to educate and improve the lives of the people; all the people not just the reds.
Why Thailand needs its king
Why is it wrong to revere an individual. The “majority of the people also think this way.” So why do we have to change their thinking? It’s the law that needs fixing not the individual who has gained his love, reverance, and love, through his unselfish dedication towards his people.
Why Thailand needs its king
What a load of pro-thaksin rubbish to even state that he showed up to bring light to the oppressed masses. He and his henchmen use the disenfranchised red as their tool to amass power for themselves. Hasn’t anyone noticed that the leaders of the reds ae now pretty well-off in terms of wealth, prestige, and political power? They wish to deconstruct the Thai constitution in their favor to enable them to maintain their hold on power and reduce any checks and balances to their power. The leaders of the red movement have now become the new and improved ‘amarts’. Criticism should be balanced shouldn’t it? 2 years in power and what have the red movement gained? Power for their leaders is all I see; they remain poor with their mouths open for populist hand-outs. What long-term policies have been planned or enacted for the growth and equalization of the disenfranchised?
Why Thailand needs its king
Why does everyone focus on the individual, when its the law that is at the crux of the matter. The individual did not impose this law on anyone. If any scorn be heaped on any one person or group; it should be on those who would use him and the institution to give credibilty to themselves; whatever color or misguided thinking – green, khaki, red, yellow, or even those who post here now. It’s the law and its interpretation that needs to be changed/ revised/amended/done away with – not the individual. BTW, thaksin uses the issue as a springboard to set hmself up as the new dynasty of monied power and democratic dictator.
Why Thailand needs its king
By force, of course.
Why Thailand needs its king
“We have created a state…”
Hard to believe the idea that the collective we had a hand in this.
Why Thailand needs its king
Roy, the issue is not that black and white. It’s not “them against us”. The plethora of opinions on the monarchy and on 112 is enormous.
A few examples: other than the people who don’t care either way, there are Royalists in defense of the 112 laws, there are Royalists who would like to get rid of the 112 laws, there are reformers who would like to modernize the 112 laws according to western legal applications in order to find a new social contract, there are anti-monarchists who want to get rid of the 112 laws, and there are even avowed anti-monarchists that are very glad about the existence of the 112 laws (as they believe that the 112 laws and every person who is sent to prison for violations against these laws undermine the monarchy more than any anti-monarchist activities can do).
My personal views on this issue are that i do not want people killing each other over their views on the future of the monarchy. If there is a future for the monarchy, and in which form is not for me to decide. I, as a journo, am only there to support the creation of space for debate, and that each side can speak their views (in peaceful and non-defamatory manner).
Thai PBS, as a major public broadcaster made the right step towards the creation of space (and all their lawyers still could not protect them from cases filed against them) – but they did not do that by shutting out one side of the debate, but by giving both sides equal saying.
And in this spirit, i would strongly support royalists to publish articles on new mandala as well. Not because these may be my views, but it is important for the public to learn of the views of all sides.
As it is 99% of the present debate on monarchy and 112 laws is only preaching to the choir, both on stages, seminars and on the web. And when, on rare occasions, both sides meet each other, the debate soon disintegrates into insults, threats or worse, without any respect for the opposing views. This is not gonna lead to peaceful solutions, but only to further conflict.
Why Thailand needs its king
Since when is Sri Lanka a member of ASEAN?
Why Thailand needs its king
“To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.” >> Denn das Sein bestimmt das Bewusstsein…
Why Thailand needs its king
Nick and JohnQPublic: You may be right, and maybe Cod gave us a hint (or a wink, wink, nudge, nudge) with his quote of Karl Marx and religion being “the opium of the people”. The quote seemed out of place to me, as it doesn’t seem to follow on what he was arguing. As Cod quoted Marx’s conclusion:
Indeed. Was Cod saying that it’s time for Thais to fix their problems once and for all, thereby giving up the condition that requires certain illusions?
Cross-border Shan: Naw Kham and Twet Nga Lu
Interesting article with many ramification by Mr Walker. Especially with the general knowledge of Golden Triangle.
Sticking to Naw Kham:
The Chinese society has ALWAYS regard consumption of drug as a socially acceptable right if not a status especially among the effluent, as long as the users are functional.
Naw Kham is a 3rd generation drug-lords (mind the ‘s’) with WA and Shan support.
From his feature one can almost ascertain that he IS also part Chinese, undoubtedly at least partially a KMT descent.
Providing another source of income while serving the societal demand.
This will be no doubt a one time deal due to Nam Kham violating the ultimate rule of “Thou shalt not kill any official”, let alone quite a few, in this case, instead of bribing them generously, especially within China.
Assuring from now on that rest pay up ahead or else.
Thus maintaining the balances of ying and yang, again.
Smart drug lords that vested within China, Lao, Myanmar and Thailand will continue to enjoy Khun Sa fate.
Anyone who believe China will reciprocate if the culprit within China is a Chinese, taking advantage of the borders as Naw Kham did?
Why Thailand needs its king
Nick,
If people are allowed to set traps for others to fall into and spend decades in prison, surely those traps should be sprung without danger to others.The PBS show had a falanx of lawyers protecting themselves. WE DON’T. For a truely serious debate on the monarchy I would have to leave this country and not return. New mandala were wrong to accept Cod’s piece as it does absolutely nothing to further the cause of FREE SPEECH.
Why Thailand needs its king
I have been thinking rather hard if i should post a comment here, anticipating a mass of ego-destroying thumbs down judgements… 😉
Whatever…
Some commentators here criticized New Mandala for having published this article. If Cod truly would be an ultra-royalist, which he isn’t (you may want to take “JohnQPublic’s” hint), he would still have a right to have ultra-royalist (or just royalist) views to be published. Otherwise we may end up with a situation similar to the 112 debate, just reversed.
I have the impression that many people on both sides of the debate seem to forget that people do have a right to their opinion and views. While the 112 laws as they stand, and especially as they are applied, tilt the discussion without doubt, it still means that also defenders of the 112 laws (which i personally am not, i guess necessary to add) have a right to voice their views also and especially here on New Mandala.
In the recent Thai PBS show both sides got their say – and that is the right way to go. Debate does not happen when one side is shut out. New Mandala has always tried to stay a place of debate, and not of single-minded activism.
Why Thailand needs its king
Longway, the poll was published in 2003, long before the coup, the two judicial coups, the shootings, the Tak Bai massacre, the airport takeover, and most importantly, the dramatic increase in lese majeste indictments. In other words, ratings such as these can change monthly, and are thus useless to cite so long after publication.