In that accursed let’s-unanimously-call-it-reform-and-rush-in-to-loot country, totally un-informed talk-of-the-street would take your topic as second most controversial and muddiest one following that of the world’s biggest narco-economy (which no one researches, by the way including UNODC. No one except Bertil Lintner).
Still good news,that “legal reform” surely would not get in your way or anyone’s way as it simply is smoke.
Funnily the owners of the mines are also easily visible starting with Than Shwe in his wife’s name (Kyaing Kyaing) and all the “Cronies” which in this funny land are easy to identify as owners of “Football clubs”, now even easier- Aung San Suu Kyi’s newest best friends by her own admission.
Just be careful. Some of them are not only close to the power and own everything, but also has well equipped standing armies of their own.
If you come across a company with funny English translated name like “Prosperity and Long Life Enterprise” or something pertaining to “Luck” in the name, that one belongs to Chinese recently in from the mainland renting out from those above.
Another easy clue: old “insurgents” of opium traders now leading enterprise owners living in Rangoon for decades and the new “Peace” groups of I-don’t-want-to-play-bad-guy-any-more armed ethnic nationalities.
Who, or which organisations, are sponsoring or lending their name to this event? To labour the point made many times before on this forum, I am sceptical of any official involvement by Thai ‘authorities’, especially government or educational institutions that will automatically excoriate any discussion about lese majeste, the royal family or, indeed, any channel of discussion that negates the official fairy tale.
I’m doing a research project on mine ownership in Myanmar in the context of the ongoing legal reform. So far, I’ve largely been limited to secondary sources, but I would love to communicate with someone who has some knowledge on this topic — or even just an informed opinion. 😉
Putting out screeds based on assumptions and generalisations, and when challenged taking refuge in ”just semantics” would get you laughed out of any professional journalism newsroom. For your information, I don’t even buy your basic premise that the foreign media is ”failing Thailand.” That itself is based on a vast generalisation; a simple search on Google reveals many reports and documentaries that refer to the central issue of the monarchy’s role in Thailand and the anxiety over the looming succession – and that’s only in the English language. Sure, they could go much further, but banging on about the cables is not the be-all and end-all of reportage about Thailand. Did you go further when you were in Thaialnd? The record shows you did not. But get this : Some of the reporters of the pieces I’ve seen are even or have been – horrors! – on the Board of the FCCT! But then, I suppose you don’t let facts get in the way of a good story?
Readers of this thread may be interested in an apparent statement by Reuters about the circumstances of your leaving and their refusal to publish your magnum opus : “Reuters didn’t publish this story as we didn’t think it worked in the format in which it was delivered. We had questions regarding length, sourcing, objectivity, and legal issues. Also, we were concerned the writer wasn’t participating in the normal editing process that would apply to any story Reuters publishes.”
So you went ”rogue.” That’s fine, you are entitled to that and to whatever beliefs or causes you want to champion. What is odd is your going after those who don’t follow the same path or agree with you. I for one think this post by Andrew Walker is spot on.
Just an aside : There is also something mildly amusing about a man from Scotland sitting safely in far Singapore an ”exile” in his mind, issuing edicts about the foreign media’s coverage of Thailand, and prescriptions to Thais on what is wrong with their country. So long, and thanks for the laughs.
One important point to add: I am not a believer in Thai exceptionalism, but there is no other country in the world for which foreign commentators tend to so obediently censor themselves and fail to be honest about this fact
AW, your notion that scholars writing about issues in ‘incomplete or obscure ways’ should command respect and that they should be entitled to maintain their comfort zone tenure for motives of ‘love and real estate’ somehow carries a fetid stench.
“Certain “bad” individuals (and officials) may target reporters that publicly claim self-censorship”.
This directly invokes an issue that has been missing from the entire debate (starting with Tolerating Intolerance) – to my bewilderment.
The whole point of craft guilds / trade unions / professional associations is collective strength: if all the members of the collective agree to act in concert, individuals can’t be victimised.
That’s why Jim Pollard’s statement is so lethal. By declaring that the FFCT will only defend members whose reporting does not offend the amnart, it hangs all the journalists in Thailand out to dry.
If Thaksin returns, and gets back to his old ways, people like Pollard might well try to invoke collective strength. By then, of course, it will be too late.
(“I am Spartacus” “I’m not – I’m Jim Pollard! I’m with the FCCT!”)
Andrew Walker thinks that criticizing journalists and academics who fail to tell the truth about Thailand demonstrates “a fundamentalist intolerance towards those who take a different approach”.
But what “different approach” is acceptable for journalists and academics other than making every effort to report and analyze the reality of what is going on in Thailand?
If I was a chef in a Thai restaurant and decided one day that I didn’t want to cook Thai food any more, I could hardly continue to work as a chef in a Thai restaurant. I would have to go find a different job.
Likewise, if journalists and academics don’t want to be honest about what is happening in 21st century Thailand, due to the risks, that’s understandable, but they can’t claim to be Thai specialists. They should look for alternative jobs or choose a different country to write about. At the very least, they should openly say in their articles that they are not telling the full truth, and explain why.
It is not fundamentalism to believe that people should be true to the principles of their job. It is an issue of basic professional standards.
They cannot lock everyone up, so all it will take is enough people to be “fearless, ethical or noble” at the same time and the back of the LM self-censorship camel will be broken.
QUOTE(Andrew Marshall):”I don’t know of any other country in the world in which foreign journalists are so obediently censoring themselves and failing to be honest with their readers and viewers about this self-censorship.”
Seconded. An important observation.
Thanks Kevin, I think this is a very useful contribution to the discussion but it makes me think that I may not have expressed myself clearly enough in the post you are responding to. My intention was not to advise academics (junior or senior) to self censor. Rather, my intention was to encourage respect and reflection.
On respect: the fact is that a great many academics (junior and senior) do self censor in relation to the monarchy and lese majeste. They do this in many ways: choosing not to write or speak publicly about certain things; writing about some issues in incomplete or obscure ways; making adjustments to articles or opinion pieces at the request or insistence of nervous publishers; and contributing to on-line discussion under pseudonyms. These are standard practice for a great many scholars working on Thailand. As I said in my recent post, sometimes this frustrates me but I respect it. I respect it because I can understand the reasons that influence the decisions people make. Quite apart from the career-oriented reasons I mentioned in the post there are a range of personal reasons (most commonly love and real estate) that mean that some academics are very reluctant to place their access to Thailand at risk. Many journalists face similar constraints and they too warrant respect rather than condemnation.
On reflection. The second key point in my post was to encourage some critical reflection on the benefits and costs of particular strategies. I am bemused that some contributors to the debate are so certain that what they are doing is the right thing to do. I think this is hazardous and, in some notable cases, it drives a fundamentalist intolerance towards those who take a different approach.
Over the past five years or so I have chosen, for the most part, not to self censor (though there are times when I have used some of the techniques listed above). If I was advising students or colleagues on the matter I would suggest that they think the issues through carefully and make their own decision about how “fearless, ethical or noble” they want to be.
Fair point, Lieij, in favor of legalized prostitution. But I think the point of Coles’ piece is that the various noir writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, make use of the full spectrum of noir material available to them in SE Asia as material for their various works, including the massive commerical sex and drug industries.
To me, the term “soocially corrosive” would seem to be a reasonably accurate description in regard to the enormous commercial sex and drug cultures present in Bangkok, Phuket, Pattaya, Hat Yai, Ranong. Corrosive to lives of the hundreds of thousands of young sex workers, their children and families. Corrosive to the millions of drug consumers, the low-level distributors. the neighborhoods and districts where drug use is endemic. Corrosive to the structure of the Thai State in terms of the ubiquitous corruption among bureaucrats, army and police officers.
[…] the last week there have been additional comments at New Mandala by Andrew Walker, arguing about foreign commentators, political tactics and research practicalities, with the latter […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Details on 2013 Myanmar Update
In that accursed let’s-unanimously-call-it-reform-and-rush-in-to-loot country, totally un-informed talk-of-the-street would take your topic as second most controversial and muddiest one following that of the world’s biggest narco-economy (which no one researches, by the way including UNODC. No one except Bertil Lintner).
Still good news,that “legal reform” surely would not get in your way or anyone’s way as it simply is smoke.
Funnily the owners of the mines are also easily visible starting with Than Shwe in his wife’s name (Kyaing Kyaing) and all the “Cronies” which in this funny land are easy to identify as owners of “Football clubs”, now even easier- Aung San Suu Kyi’s newest best friends by her own admission.
Just be careful. Some of them are not only close to the power and own everything, but also has well equipped standing armies of their own.
If you come across a company with funny English translated name like “Prosperity and Long Life Enterprise” or something pertaining to “Luck” in the name, that one belongs to Chinese recently in from the mainland renting out from those above.
Another easy clue: old “insurgents” of opium traders now leading enterprise owners living in Rangoon for decades and the new “Peace” groups of I-don’t-want-to-play-bad-guy-any-more armed ethnic nationalities.
Happy research!
Tolerating intolerance
AMM
Here’s one I found – not an article, but an entire book!
It predates your work by several years and was by somebody who was previously a Bangkok-based foreign correspondent.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/King-Never-Smiles-Biography-Thailands/dp/0300106823
Bob Carr and electoral reforms in Malaysia
In the 21st century democracy comes from the barrel of a gun. Iraq and Afghanistan among them. And now Mali.
Sorry, can’t see the Diggers running amok in the region to *free* Malaysia.
*Instant democracy* is a fantasy. Despite its flaws, democracy is a work in progress.
Thai studies in Sydney
Who, or which organisations, are sponsoring or lending their name to this event? To labour the point made many times before on this forum, I am sceptical of any official involvement by Thai ‘authorities’, especially government or educational institutions that will automatically excoriate any discussion about lese majeste, the royal family or, indeed, any channel of discussion that negates the official fairy tale.
Campaigning on lèse-majesté
They are forced to do so, and no one has the nerve to take to the courts to get this damned issue resolved.
Bob Carr and electoral reforms in Malaysia
Clive Kessler, arguably the most authoritative source on Malay culture and Malaysian politics provides his expert views on the Xenaphon affair.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-17/malaysia-expert-discusses-xenophon-deportation/4523442
Bob Carr and electoral reforms in Malaysia
ANU alumni, Amrita Malhi has an analysis over at The Conversation on Nick Xenaphon’s detention and deportation.
https://theconversation.edu.au/xenophons-malaysian-adventure-and-two-looming-elections-12254
Details on 2013 Myanmar Update
I’m doing a research project on mine ownership in Myanmar in the context of the ongoing legal reform. So far, I’ve largely been limited to secondary sources, but I would love to communicate with someone who has some knowledge on this topic — or even just an informed opinion. 😉
Tolerating intolerance
Could you give me some examples please of the many excellent articles on the Thai monarchy that you found with your simple Google search? Thanks!
Tolerating intolerance
Putting out screeds based on assumptions and generalisations, and when challenged taking refuge in ”just semantics” would get you laughed out of any professional journalism newsroom. For your information, I don’t even buy your basic premise that the foreign media is ”failing Thailand.” That itself is based on a vast generalisation; a simple search on Google reveals many reports and documentaries that refer to the central issue of the monarchy’s role in Thailand and the anxiety over the looming succession – and that’s only in the English language. Sure, they could go much further, but banging on about the cables is not the be-all and end-all of reportage about Thailand. Did you go further when you were in Thaialnd? The record shows you did not. But get this : Some of the reporters of the pieces I’ve seen are even or have been – horrors! – on the Board of the FCCT! But then, I suppose you don’t let facts get in the way of a good story?
Readers of this thread may be interested in an apparent statement by Reuters about the circumstances of your leaving and their refusal to publish your magnum opus : “Reuters didn’t publish this story as we didn’t think it worked in the format in which it was delivered. We had questions regarding length, sourcing, objectivity, and legal issues. Also, we were concerned the writer wasn’t participating in the normal editing process that would apply to any story Reuters publishes.”
So you went ”rogue.” That’s fine, you are entitled to that and to whatever beliefs or causes you want to champion. What is odd is your going after those who don’t follow the same path or agree with you. I for one think this post by Andrew Walker is spot on.
Just an aside : There is also something mildly amusing about a man from Scotland sitting safely in far Singapore an ”exile” in his mind, issuing edicts about the foreign media’s coverage of Thailand, and prescriptions to Thais on what is wrong with their country. So long, and thanks for the laughs.
Campaigning on lèse-majesté
One important point to add: I am not a believer in Thai exceptionalism, but there is no other country in the world for which foreign commentators tend to so obediently censor themselves and fail to be honest about this fact
Campaigning on lèse-majesté
AW, your notion that scholars writing about issues in ‘incomplete or obscure ways’ should command respect and that they should be entitled to maintain their comfort zone tenure for motives of ‘love and real estate’ somehow carries a fetid stench.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
“Certain “bad” individuals (and officials) may target reporters that publicly claim self-censorship”.
This directly invokes an issue that has been missing from the entire debate (starting with Tolerating Intolerance) – to my bewilderment.
The whole point of craft guilds / trade unions / professional associations is collective strength: if all the members of the collective agree to act in concert, individuals can’t be victimised.
That’s why Jim Pollard’s statement is so lethal. By declaring that the FFCT will only defend members whose reporting does not offend the amnart, it hangs all the journalists in Thailand out to dry.
If Thaksin returns, and gets back to his old ways, people like Pollard might well try to invoke collective strength. By then, of course, it will be too late.
(“I am Spartacus” “I’m not – I’m Jim Pollard! I’m with the FCCT!”)
Campaigning on lèse-majesté
Andrew Walker thinks that criticizing journalists and academics who fail to tell the truth about Thailand demonstrates “a fundamentalist intolerance towards those who take a different approach”.
But what “different approach” is acceptable for journalists and academics other than making every effort to report and analyze the reality of what is going on in Thailand?
If I was a chef in a Thai restaurant and decided one day that I didn’t want to cook Thai food any more, I could hardly continue to work as a chef in a Thai restaurant. I would have to go find a different job.
Likewise, if journalists and academics don’t want to be honest about what is happening in 21st century Thailand, due to the risks, that’s understandable, but they can’t claim to be Thai specialists. They should look for alternative jobs or choose a different country to write about. At the very least, they should openly say in their articles that they are not telling the full truth, and explain why.
It is not fundamentalism to believe that people should be true to the principles of their job. It is an issue of basic professional standards.
Campaigning on lèse-majesté
They cannot lock everyone up, so all it will take is enough people to be “fearless, ethical or noble” at the same time and the back of the LM self-censorship camel will be broken.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
QUOTE(Andrew Marshall):”I don’t know of any other country in the world in which foreign journalists are so obediently censoring themselves and failing to be honest with their readers and viewers about this self-censorship.”
Seconded. An important observation.
Campaigning on lèse-majesté
Thanks Kevin, I think this is a very useful contribution to the discussion but it makes me think that I may not have expressed myself clearly enough in the post you are responding to. My intention was not to advise academics (junior or senior) to self censor. Rather, my intention was to encourage respect and reflection.
On respect: the fact is that a great many academics (junior and senior) do self censor in relation to the monarchy and lese majeste. They do this in many ways: choosing not to write or speak publicly about certain things; writing about some issues in incomplete or obscure ways; making adjustments to articles or opinion pieces at the request or insistence of nervous publishers; and contributing to on-line discussion under pseudonyms. These are standard practice for a great many scholars working on Thailand. As I said in my recent post, sometimes this frustrates me but I respect it. I respect it because I can understand the reasons that influence the decisions people make. Quite apart from the career-oriented reasons I mentioned in the post there are a range of personal reasons (most commonly love and real estate) that mean that some academics are very reluctant to place their access to Thailand at risk. Many journalists face similar constraints and they too warrant respect rather than condemnation.
On reflection. The second key point in my post was to encourage some critical reflection on the benefits and costs of particular strategies. I am bemused that some contributors to the debate are so certain that what they are doing is the right thing to do. I think this is hazardous and, in some notable cases, it drives a fundamentalist intolerance towards those who take a different approach.
Over the past five years or so I have chosen, for the most part, not to self censor (though there are times when I have used some of the techniques listed above). If I was advising students or colleagues on the matter I would suggest that they think the issues through carefully and make their own decision about how “fearless, ethical or noble” they want to be.
Southeast Asia noir
Fair point, Lieij, in favor of legalized prostitution. But I think the point of Coles’ piece is that the various noir writers, artists, musicians, filmmakers, make use of the full spectrum of noir material available to them in SE Asia as material for their various works, including the massive commerical sex and drug industries.
To me, the term “soocially corrosive” would seem to be a reasonably accurate description in regard to the enormous commercial sex and drug cultures present in Bangkok, Phuket, Pattaya, Hat Yai, Ranong. Corrosive to lives of the hundreds of thousands of young sex workers, their children and families. Corrosive to the millions of drug consumers, the low-level distributors. the neighborhoods and districts where drug use is endemic. Corrosive to the structure of the Thai State in terms of the ubiquitous corruption among bureaucrats, army and police officers.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
[…] the last week there have been additional comments at New Mandala by Andrew Walker, arguing about foreign commentators, political tactics and research practicalities, with the latter […]
Campaigning on lèse-majesté
[…] at New Mandala, Kevin Hewison responds and takes issue with these comments and concludes with […]