I was told my a merchant banker from Dubai last night that he was offered an ASEM villa for USD 4 million.
Not a bad mark up.
Plus from V Times. ASEM proved to be very profitable.
ASEM Summit cars up for sale
The government is selling off the luxury cars it purchased for use by dignitaries attending the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Summit, which took place in Vientiane in November.
The cars are available for inspection at the Government Office compound in Vientiane.
Director General of the Ministry of Finance’s State Asset Department, Mr Chanthanorm Phithasone, signed an announcement yesterday on the sale of 40 Mercedes Benz Class 350 cars, 65 Mercedes Benz E Class 350 cars, and 62 Toyota Camry 2.5 litre cars to the public. All of the cars were manufactured in 2012.
The government also announced the sale of 15 used Benz S Class 350 cars, which were manufactured in 2004.
Officials decided to sell the vehicles after serious discussion over the best use of these cars, which were purchased with public tax money.
The government had originally planned to keep the cars for use by officials but realised it was unacceptable to use luxury vehicles while urging civil servants and members of the public not to engage in conspicuous consumption and to use government money frugally.
All of the cars are now available for inspection at the Government Office compound in Vientiane. The prices range from US$35,000 to US$119,000 depending on the model and year of manufacture.
Price details can be obtained at the State Asset Department. Finance officials responsible for the sale of the cars said prices were fixed and could not be bargained down. The cars were much cheaper than comparable models on sale in Vientiane showrooms, they added.
Parties interested in buying one of the cars are required to fill in an application form, which are also available at the department.
The government spent about 240 billion kip on the ASEM Summit. Forty percent of this amount, or 96 billion kip, went towards the purchase of vehicles.
The government also purchased a large number of police cars, motorbikes and minivans for the event.
Er, no, I can assure you I didn’t make it up and I dearly wish it would be safe for me to return to Thailand. But I have knowingly broken Thai law on multiple occasions, and it is the widespread view of many sympathetic people in the Thai police and Thai foreign ministry that if I return there I would spend a significant amount of time in prison. I am choosing not to return to Thailand because I don’t want to go to jail.
So I think it is entirely accurate for me to describe myself as a fugitive from Thai justice. You may disagree, but it is basically just a small semantic disagreement.
As we know, the FCCT board and their supporters have a habit of resorting to semantic chicanery to try to defend themselves – such as the claim that the FCCT is a “club” not an “association” and therefore has no mandate to comment. That little piece of misdirection was quickly shown to be false when the FCCT was later embarrassed into issuing a statement a week later.
It speaks for itself that these are the only arguments that supporters of the FCCT’s stance can muster.
AMM : Nice if somewhat laboured obfuscation. The point is not your own hypocrisy, which is just a collateral casualty. After all who among us can’t be accused of some hypocrisy, somewhere. The point is you made it up (that you are a ”fugitive from Thai justice”). And that flies in the face of your claims to be a ”journalist” dedicated to the ”truth” and writing on ”reality” not ”fairy tales.” In short, it goes well beyond your own hypocrisy. It raises the question : What else in your polemical attack was based on self-serving inferences, and stated assumptions and sweeping generalisations as fact? Good luck.
I’m in full agreement with Andrew, and have already reached these conclusions before myself. I think it’s good he’s written this article to bring open debate to this issue.
If Thais perceive anti-112 efforts as farang interference, then it could be counter-productive. At the same time many of us are afraid of Thai prison, and lifetime banishment from the country we love.
It’s a bit like how the US influenced the Arab Spring, keeping it hush-hush considering the counter-productive issues that would arise if Arabs knew the ‘capitalist pigs’ were influencing them.
As such, my own efforts have been to act as a support role for Thais willing to act by showing them how to get around website censorship using software, translating, and posting specifically selected videos/links on a very popular Thai site I run (and others) to influence opinions.
The sentence in your note should actually read р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Чр╕гр╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╣Бр╕к ‘р╕Чр╕гр╕З’ being the all-purpose prefix added to verbs when addressing royalty.
That sentence can be translated as “… The King is very displeased even though he did not speak directly [about it].”
Blaming the media alone has valid and invalid merits. However, despite the multiple infractions against those in the media who would do more if they could, the essence of what Andrew says is still there – to wit, media in Thailand, or media persons who wish to visit Thailand without going to prison, must muzzle themselves beyond any semblance of reason or decency. As humanitarians we are not permitted to speak up, and when we do, are denounced by feckless fools who have been indoctrinated since birth to believe that which is not possible, that which is not true. It’s little more than an Aesop’s fable, but has contemporary effect in carte blanche ability to silence and severely punish (even with death) those who dare speak out. Until lese majeste in particular and criminal defamation regime in general is recognized for the thing it really is – hate speech – Thailand will continue to squander Buddhist merit in the pursuit of impossible perfection on the one hand, and assumption of it on the other.
A rushed, on-the-fly translation of the letter mentioned by Ajarn Somsak into English below. Alternate versions welcome, especially since the use of language seems purposefully blurred at points.
***
Office of His Majesty’s Principal Private Secretary
The Grand Palace, Bangkok
1 June 2531 [1988 C.E.]
Dear [redacted],
I just learned about the issue from [redacted]. S/he is on the panel responsible in the case in which the prosecutor is the plaintiff against Mr. Wira Musikapong. Even though it is not the explicit wish of the king, I however request to firmly inform you that the king is very displeased. But it would be improper for the king to speak directly. If you wish to learn further details, please call me directly at home (telephone number [redacted] after 21.00 daily).
Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] Bureau of the Royal Household
***
A few notes:
* “improper” is an imperfect choice for one of the “р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╕гр╕З”s above. The entire sentence is “р╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╣Бр╕кр╕нр╕нр╕Бр╕бр╕▓р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ”
* For those of you who, like me, are glaringly unfamiliar with р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕▓р╕ир╕▒р╕Юр╕Чр╣М, this short pdf is a helpful reference: http://tinyurl.com/dx96hgu
hi Ajarn Somsak,
is there any chance for an English translation for the non-academic-too-lazy-to-learn-to-read-Thai population? the document sounds extremely interesting.
This may be of interest to readers of this post who can read Thai (apology to those who can’t):
I’ve just posted a almost never-before-seen document concerning the LM case against Vira Musikkaphong (now a Red Shirt leader) in 1988.
The author of the letter was a high-ranking member of the Royal Secretariat. He wrote the letter to one of the judges of the case, in which he claimed that although HMK didn’t expresses his wish to have Vira prosecuted “directly”, he “must have felt extremely displeased” (with Vira).
And still nobody has answered the question: What would the FCC and journalists do if you, and by you I mean you as a person, were gaoled for the comments of others. Would you expect condemnation by the foreign media or just silence and excuses? I know what I’d want.
If it is a matter of God, or, as you say, For God’s sake, the Muslims of Malaysia must have a slogan “Today Malaysia, tomorrow, the world.” But we only see them claiming the exclusive use of Allah in Malaysia. Not Singapore, not Indonesia, not Saudi, not Iran, etc. So is Allah God of Malaysian Muslims or God of all Muslims? If he is God of all Muslims, aren’t they rather cavalier in taking this war only on Malaysian Non-Muslims who use this same word in the National Language of Malaysia, ie Bahasa Malaysia in their Bible which for centuries have used this word, and which circulation is increasing quickly because after all it is the National Language and the Christian community is growing rather faster than at organic rate.
If no one else should use their Malay word for God, then what about Illahi? The Ibans, natives of Sarawak (where they have cabinet ministers like the miinisters of Malaysia) use Illahi in the Bible in their language. Muslim activists managed to get a ban on their Bible but the sitting PM ruled that as the Ibans call their God Illahi, nobody should stop them from printing or ussing their Bible. Not a squeak from the Activists. Isn’t Illahi a word for their God? Are they not doing anything For God’s sake?
So the only difference is that there are agitators against Allah. There are no agitators against Illahi. Why this difference of this Malay thing you refer to?
Worse still, in Indonesia the word Koran (a spelling of the Arabic word Q’uran, the Muslim’s Holy Book which had been in use in Malaya and Malaysia for centuries), means news or newspaper. So in the Koran you read about corruption, sexual improprieties and stories about Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and so on. Why have Malaysian Muslims not considered this an affront and try to persuade or, failing which PERSUADE Indonesia, a very friendly country to turn from their unIslamic ways? Does this mean the Indonesians are showing disrespect to the Malaysian Muslim’s holy book? After all, like your commentator Amin said, Allah had no Son, so Koran must not have stories about football betting, corrupt politicians, sexy film stars not covered up except the eyes and hands, etc? When will Malaysian Muslims move on the Indonesian users of the word Koran?
Taking it nearer the cradle of Islam, in Saudi,they have mussabaqah track races. In Malaysia mussabaqah is used only for the Q’uran Reading Competition. Does this not give Malaysian Muslims the right to protest the use of mussabaqah in Saudi? Why are they not doing this? Isn’t it a Malay thing to reserve mussabaqah for Muslim religious competitions?
Now let us digress a bit. Prof, you mean there is no Non-Malay thing? Do you see Non-Malay Christians quickly using Koran for news and newspapers so that they might, for example, lay priority claims to the use of this word in Christiandom? Do you see them even trying to use mussabaqah Bible Quiz? You see, if it is not a non-Malay Christian thing, nobody, because they are not activists, would propose to quickly claim the equal right to use these words in the Christian world. It should be clear that Allah is used only because it is a Malaysian Christian thing from of old. Does a Malay thing override a Malaysian Christian thing?
So what we see is that this Malay thing can be strengthened a lot if Malay Muslims were to bring their claim for exclusivity on the word Allah and other words to the international stage. Let it be decided on the international stage, and then take it home.
Otherwise, since there is no protest on Illahi, or even if in Malaysia we were to use Koran for other publications, or mussabaqah for other competitions, you only find that when it comes to Allah, there are agitators, and that is why there is agitation.
You even hear a lot of NGO’s in Malaysia calling on the opposition to give up on their claim to the right to the use of Allah. If enough NGOs call on Christians to give up, should they, on that account give up? How? Instruct Christians not to use Allah, reprint all their Bibles, re-sing all their songs, re-publish all their articles, transcribe all their decades- or even centuries-old notes onto new Bibles? No NGO has the authority to do that. No Christian has the authority to accept such an edict on behalf of Christians. So this would lead nowhere unless some Constitutional provision can be found to empower this.
So let us step back and see why there is this agitation. Muslim leaders say that the use of Allah in Christian Bibles will confuse Muslims. The Theory of Evolution may also confuse some Muslims (and indeed many Christians). Should both Muslims and Christians agitate to prevent further publications on Evolution? Or should we educate everyone so that such simple use of the same word, which Amin says, does not refer the the same God, does not confuse them?
Marek, you are continuing to frame this discussion in terms of whether foreigners should get involved in a political battle over Article 112, and if so, how they should go about it. Andrew Walker has framed the debate in the same way.
However, as a journalist, I think journalists should approach the issue from a different perspective. Whatever their views on activism by foreigners in a country not their own, journalists’ foremost professional obligation is to report what is happening. This is an obligation that cannot be ducked or suspended until things get safer and more conducive to unbiased reporting.
In my view, once journalists in Thailand understand and decide to honour this professional obligation, it will naturally lead them to oppose harsh enforcement of Article 112. But the route to this position is not taking sides in a Thai political struggle. It is a professional necessity.
Is every god awful thing that is wrong with Thailand the monarchy’s fault? My vote’s with NY Mouse on this one. If anything, the king’s messages – regardless of whether you think them hypocritical or not – have always stressed the very merits you say are lacking in royalist rhetoric, and that’s the message our hyper-royalist curricula have always espoused.
I agree with literally all of the arguments put forward by the commentators above. However, I think a lack of definition of the issue is blurring the debate. In order to discuss what foreign journalists should do/must not do, we first need a better understanding of what it actually means if a foreign journalists wades into the murky waters of LM.
Seen from the perspective of the six groups I outlined above, does the commentary:
1. Show solidarity for/ campaign for the release of an individual accused of/ convicted of LM?
2. Raise awareness for/ campaign for the reform of Art.112/ CCA as a constraint to the right to freedom of expression?
3. Comment on LM as a symbolic proxy for the role of the monarchy, in other words engage in the political struggle over the political order of Thailand.
The stakes/risks associated with stepping into these three battlefields vary widely. Hence, as self-censorship has a lot to do with the fact that the “red lines” are not clear, differentiating between these three cases can serve as a yardstick of how big of a risk you are actually taking (and, btw, assess the impact a foreign contribution is likely to make).
Ajarn Sulak Sivaraksa has been involved in many lese majeste confrontations during his life. One reason for this is that he is one of the few people who has publicly stated the most probable explanation of what happened on June 9, 1946. A 2006 issue of Seeds of Peace, Sulak’s magazine, shared important U.S. and British cables on this subject. Sulak was also quoted in a 2011 Toronto Star article that can be read here: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2011/08/03/kings_failing_health_and_his_30b_fortune_puts_thailand_in_jeopardy.html
Sulak told me a few months ago that he was threatened with another lese majeste charge over these revelations. He says he told Anand Panyarachun that he would fight it in court, and he thought a lese majeste case over 1945 would be the final straw for the king’s health.
Thanks for amplifying that point. I didn’t feel qualified at the time to go beyond what I said but several folk have indicated additional dimensions, including worries that if the case went ahead it would ruin the king’s health.
The point you make about foreign contacts made whilst in exile is interesting. I am not aware of any foreign travel having been made by Somyot so do not know if he has a similar privilege of contacts. Nonetheless he is a member of the labour movement and will not easily be forgotten outside Thailand.
“… Sulak Sivaraksa was asked what kind of international support was it that managed to get his LM charge dismissed in 1984…. His answer intimated that it was subtle behind the scenes pressure that worked in his case…”.
Not having been at the recent seminar and not being privy to any backroom dealing back in 1984, I can’t comment directly on Sulak’s intimations. However, as someone who was involved in the campaign supporting Sulak, journalist Chatcharin Chaiwat and academic Preecha Piampongsarn, I can vouch for the fact that there was an international campaign.
On 25 August that year Matichon reported on a letter to the then Prem government signed by academics from several countries during the International Conference on Thai Studies. Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of the letter or of the whole Matichon article. However, the article comments on a news conference the previous day that included myself, Craig Reynolds and John Girling.
At that conference, Thai academics specifically requested that the foreign participants take a stand on these cases. Of course, some participants refused to sign, but quite a number did.
That this international intervention had at least some impact was revealed the next year when ANU had an unannounced visit from, to the best of my recollection, the palace administration. The meeting was with those who had signed the 1984 letter and it was a kind of semi-official explanation of the cases. I seem to recall that Sulak’s case was explained in terms that amounted to him needing to be taught a lesson.
I may be wrong, but by that time I think all three had probably been released.
I just noticed that Sulak’s Wikipedia page states: “The foreign contacts he made while in exile proved beneficial when Sivaraksa was arrested in 1984 for lese majesty, causing international protests which pressured the government to release him.”
In other words, it wasn’t just subtle behind-the-scenes pressure.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
So what should be the role of foreign journalists in all this johninbkk?
Don Chan: once were tomatoes
I was told my a merchant banker from Dubai last night that he was offered an ASEM villa for USD 4 million.
Not a bad mark up.
Plus from V Times. ASEM proved to be very profitable.
ASEM Summit cars up for sale
The government is selling off the luxury cars it purchased for use by dignitaries attending the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Summit, which took place in Vientiane in November.
The cars are available for inspection at the Government Office compound in Vientiane.
Director General of the Ministry of Finance’s State Asset Department, Mr Chanthanorm Phithasone, signed an announcement yesterday on the sale of 40 Mercedes Benz Class 350 cars, 65 Mercedes Benz E Class 350 cars, and 62 Toyota Camry 2.5 litre cars to the public. All of the cars were manufactured in 2012.
The government also announced the sale of 15 used Benz S Class 350 cars, which were manufactured in 2004.
Officials decided to sell the vehicles after serious discussion over the best use of these cars, which were purchased with public tax money.
The government had originally planned to keep the cars for use by officials but realised it was unacceptable to use luxury vehicles while urging civil servants and members of the public not to engage in conspicuous consumption and to use government money frugally.
All of the cars are now available for inspection at the Government Office compound in Vientiane. The prices range from US$35,000 to US$119,000 depending on the model and year of manufacture.
Price details can be obtained at the State Asset Department. Finance officials responsible for the sale of the cars said prices were fixed and could not be bargained down. The cars were much cheaper than comparable models on sale in Vientiane showrooms, they added.
Parties interested in buying one of the cars are required to fill in an application form, which are also available at the department.
The government spent about 240 billion kip on the ASEM Summit. Forty percent of this amount, or 96 billion kip, went towards the purchase of vehicles.
The government also purchased a large number of police cars, motorbikes and minivans for the event.
Tolerating intolerance
Er, no, I can assure you I didn’t make it up and I dearly wish it would be safe for me to return to Thailand. But I have knowingly broken Thai law on multiple occasions, and it is the widespread view of many sympathetic people in the Thai police and Thai foreign ministry that if I return there I would spend a significant amount of time in prison. I am choosing not to return to Thailand because I don’t want to go to jail.
So I think it is entirely accurate for me to describe myself as a fugitive from Thai justice. You may disagree, but it is basically just a small semantic disagreement.
As we know, the FCCT board and their supporters have a habit of resorting to semantic chicanery to try to defend themselves – such as the claim that the FCCT is a “club” not an “association” and therefore has no mandate to comment. That little piece of misdirection was quickly shown to be false when the FCCT was later embarrassed into issuing a statement a week later.
It speaks for itself that these are the only arguments that supporters of the FCCT’s stance can muster.
Tolerating intolerance
AMM : Nice if somewhat laboured obfuscation. The point is not your own hypocrisy, which is just a collateral casualty. After all who among us can’t be accused of some hypocrisy, somewhere. The point is you made it up (that you are a ”fugitive from Thai justice”). And that flies in the face of your claims to be a ”journalist” dedicated to the ”truth” and writing on ”reality” not ”fairy tales.” In short, it goes well beyond your own hypocrisy. It raises the question : What else in your polemical attack was based on self-serving inferences, and stated assumptions and sweeping generalisations as fact? Good luck.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
I’m in full agreement with Andrew, and have already reached these conclusions before myself. I think it’s good he’s written this article to bring open debate to this issue.
If Thais perceive anti-112 efforts as farang interference, then it could be counter-productive. At the same time many of us are afraid of Thai prison, and lifetime banishment from the country we love.
It’s a bit like how the US influenced the Arab Spring, keeping it hush-hush considering the counter-productive issues that would arise if Arabs knew the ‘capitalist pigs’ were influencing them.
As such, my own efforts have been to act as a support role for Thais willing to act by showing them how to get around website censorship using software, translating, and posting specifically selected videos/links on a very popular Thai site I run (and others) to influence opinions.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
The sentence in your note should actually read р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Чр╕гр╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╣Бр╕к ‘р╕Чр╕гр╕З’ being the all-purpose prefix added to verbs when addressing royalty.
That sentence can be translated as “… The King is very displeased even though he did not speak directly [about it].”
Tolerating intolerance
Blaming the media alone has valid and invalid merits. However, despite the multiple infractions against those in the media who would do more if they could, the essence of what Andrew says is still there – to wit, media in Thailand, or media persons who wish to visit Thailand without going to prison, must muzzle themselves beyond any semblance of reason or decency. As humanitarians we are not permitted to speak up, and when we do, are denounced by feckless fools who have been indoctrinated since birth to believe that which is not possible, that which is not true. It’s little more than an Aesop’s fable, but has contemporary effect in carte blanche ability to silence and severely punish (even with death) those who dare speak out. Until lese majeste in particular and criminal defamation regime in general is recognized for the thing it really is – hate speech – Thailand will continue to squander Buddhist merit in the pursuit of impossible perfection on the one hand, and assumption of it on the other.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
A rushed, on-the-fly translation of the letter mentioned by Ajarn Somsak into English below. Alternate versions welcome, especially since the use of language seems purposefully blurred at points.
***
Office of His Majesty’s Principal Private Secretary
The Grand Palace, Bangkok
1 June 2531 [1988 C.E.]
Dear [redacted],
I just learned about the issue from [redacted]. S/he is on the panel responsible in the case in which the prosecutor is the plaintiff against Mr. Wira Musikapong. Even though it is not the explicit wish of the king, I however request to firmly inform you that the king is very displeased. But it would be improper for the king to speak directly. If you wish to learn further details, please call me directly at home (telephone number [redacted] after 21.00 daily).
Sincerely,
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] Bureau of the Royal Household
***
A few notes:
* “improper” is an imperfect choice for one of the “р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╕гр╕З”s above. The entire sentence is “р╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╣Бр╕кр╕нр╕нр╕Бр╕бр╕▓р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Хр╕гр╕Зр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ”
* For those of you who, like me, are glaringly unfamiliar with р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕▓р╕ир╕▒р╕Юр╕Чр╣М, this short pdf is a helpful reference: http://tinyurl.com/dx96hgu
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
hi Ajarn Somsak,
is there any chance for an English translation for the non-academic-too-lazy-to-learn-to-read-Thai population? the document sounds extremely interesting.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
This may be of interest to readers of this post who can read Thai (apology to those who can’t):
I’ve just posted a almost never-before-seen document concerning the LM case against Vira Musikkaphong (now a Red Shirt leader) in 1988.
The author of the letter was a high-ranking member of the Royal Secretariat. He wrote the letter to one of the judges of the case, in which he claimed that although HMK didn’t expresses his wish to have Vira prosecuted “directly”, he “must have felt extremely displeased” (with Vira).
http://goo.gl/zZC8N
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
And still nobody has answered the question: What would the FCC and journalists do if you, and by you I mean you as a person, were gaoled for the comments of others. Would you expect condemnation by the foreign media or just silence and excuses? I know what I’d want.
For God’s sake?
Good article Prof:
If it is a matter of God, or, as you say, For God’s sake, the Muslims of Malaysia must have a slogan “Today Malaysia, tomorrow, the world.” But we only see them claiming the exclusive use of Allah in Malaysia. Not Singapore, not Indonesia, not Saudi, not Iran, etc. So is Allah God of Malaysian Muslims or God of all Muslims? If he is God of all Muslims, aren’t they rather cavalier in taking this war only on Malaysian Non-Muslims who use this same word in the National Language of Malaysia, ie Bahasa Malaysia in their Bible which for centuries have used this word, and which circulation is increasing quickly because after all it is the National Language and the Christian community is growing rather faster than at organic rate.
If no one else should use their Malay word for God, then what about Illahi? The Ibans, natives of Sarawak (where they have cabinet ministers like the miinisters of Malaysia) use Illahi in the Bible in their language. Muslim activists managed to get a ban on their Bible but the sitting PM ruled that as the Ibans call their God Illahi, nobody should stop them from printing or ussing their Bible. Not a squeak from the Activists. Isn’t Illahi a word for their God? Are they not doing anything For God’s sake?
So the only difference is that there are agitators against Allah. There are no agitators against Illahi. Why this difference of this Malay thing you refer to?
Worse still, in Indonesia the word Koran (a spelling of the Arabic word Q’uran, the Muslim’s Holy Book which had been in use in Malaya and Malaysia for centuries), means news or newspaper. So in the Koran you read about corruption, sexual improprieties and stories about Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and so on. Why have Malaysian Muslims not considered this an affront and try to persuade or, failing which PERSUADE Indonesia, a very friendly country to turn from their unIslamic ways? Does this mean the Indonesians are showing disrespect to the Malaysian Muslim’s holy book? After all, like your commentator Amin said, Allah had no Son, so Koran must not have stories about football betting, corrupt politicians, sexy film stars not covered up except the eyes and hands, etc? When will Malaysian Muslims move on the Indonesian users of the word Koran?
Taking it nearer the cradle of Islam, in Saudi,they have mussabaqah track races. In Malaysia mussabaqah is used only for the Q’uran Reading Competition. Does this not give Malaysian Muslims the right to protest the use of mussabaqah in Saudi? Why are they not doing this? Isn’t it a Malay thing to reserve mussabaqah for Muslim religious competitions?
Now let us digress a bit. Prof, you mean there is no Non-Malay thing? Do you see Non-Malay Christians quickly using Koran for news and newspapers so that they might, for example, lay priority claims to the use of this word in Christiandom? Do you see them even trying to use mussabaqah Bible Quiz? You see, if it is not a non-Malay Christian thing, nobody, because they are not activists, would propose to quickly claim the equal right to use these words in the Christian world. It should be clear that Allah is used only because it is a Malaysian Christian thing from of old. Does a Malay thing override a Malaysian Christian thing?
So what we see is that this Malay thing can be strengthened a lot if Malay Muslims were to bring their claim for exclusivity on the word Allah and other words to the international stage. Let it be decided on the international stage, and then take it home.
Otherwise, since there is no protest on Illahi, or even if in Malaysia we were to use Koran for other publications, or mussabaqah for other competitions, you only find that when it comes to Allah, there are agitators, and that is why there is agitation.
You even hear a lot of NGO’s in Malaysia calling on the opposition to give up on their claim to the right to the use of Allah. If enough NGOs call on Christians to give up, should they, on that account give up? How? Instruct Christians not to use Allah, reprint all their Bibles, re-sing all their songs, re-publish all their articles, transcribe all their decades- or even centuries-old notes onto new Bibles? No NGO has the authority to do that. No Christian has the authority to accept such an edict on behalf of Christians. So this would lead nowhere unless some Constitutional provision can be found to empower this.
So let us step back and see why there is this agitation. Muslim leaders say that the use of Allah in Christian Bibles will confuse Muslims. The Theory of Evolution may also confuse some Muslims (and indeed many Christians). Should both Muslims and Christians agitate to prevent further publications on Evolution? Or should we educate everyone so that such simple use of the same word, which Amin says, does not refer the the same God, does not confuse them?
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Marek, you are continuing to frame this discussion in terms of whether foreigners should get involved in a political battle over Article 112, and if so, how they should go about it. Andrew Walker has framed the debate in the same way.
However, as a journalist, I think journalists should approach the issue from a different perspective. Whatever their views on activism by foreigners in a country not their own, journalists’ foremost professional obligation is to report what is happening. This is an obligation that cannot be ducked or suspended until things get safer and more conducive to unbiased reporting.
In my view, once journalists in Thailand understand and decide to honour this professional obligation, it will naturally lead them to oppose harsh enforcement of Article 112. But the route to this position is not taking sides in a Thai political struggle. It is a professional necessity.
Can Thailand escape its middle-income trap?
Is every god awful thing that is wrong with Thailand the monarchy’s fault? My vote’s with NY Mouse on this one. If anything, the king’s messages – regardless of whether you think them hypocritical or not – have always stressed the very merits you say are lacking in royalist rhetoric, and that’s the message our hyper-royalist curricula have always espoused.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
I agree with literally all of the arguments put forward by the commentators above. However, I think a lack of definition of the issue is blurring the debate. In order to discuss what foreign journalists should do/must not do, we first need a better understanding of what it actually means if a foreign journalists wades into the murky waters of LM.
Seen from the perspective of the six groups I outlined above, does the commentary:
1. Show solidarity for/ campaign for the release of an individual accused of/ convicted of LM?
2. Raise awareness for/ campaign for the reform of Art.112/ CCA as a constraint to the right to freedom of expression?
3. Comment on LM as a symbolic proxy for the role of the monarchy, in other words engage in the political struggle over the political order of Thailand.
The stakes/risks associated with stepping into these three battlefields vary widely. Hence, as self-censorship has a lot to do with the fact that the “red lines” are not clear, differentiating between these three cases can serve as a yardstick of how big of a risk you are actually taking (and, btw, assess the impact a foreign contribution is likely to make).
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Ajarn Sulak Sivaraksa has been involved in many lese majeste confrontations during his life. One reason for this is that he is one of the few people who has publicly stated the most probable explanation of what happened on June 9, 1946. A 2006 issue of Seeds of Peace, Sulak’s magazine, shared important U.S. and British cables on this subject. Sulak was also quoted in a 2011 Toronto Star article that can be read here: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2011/08/03/kings_failing_health_and_his_30b_fortune_puts_thailand_in_jeopardy.html
Sulak told me a few months ago that he was threatened with another lese majeste charge over these revelations. He says he told Anand Panyarachun that he would fight it in court, and he thought a lese majeste case over 1945 would be the final straw for the king’s health.
The charges were quietly dropped.
Mahathir squandered RM100 billion says new book
A great loss.
John Funston pays tribute to the doyen of Australian journalists in Asia.
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/02/12/Barry-Wain-17-July-1944-e28094-5-February-2013.aspx
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Kevin Hewison #18
Thanks for amplifying that point. I didn’t feel qualified at the time to go beyond what I said but several folk have indicated additional dimensions, including worries that if the case went ahead it would ruin the king’s health.
The point you make about foreign contacts made whilst in exile is interesting. I am not aware of any foreign travel having been made by Somyot so do not know if he has a similar privilege of contacts. Nonetheless he is a member of the labour movement and will not easily be forgotten outside Thailand.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Sorry, not the whole palace administration, but a person from that administration.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Above, Sam Deedes wrote:
“… Sulak Sivaraksa was asked what kind of international support was it that managed to get his LM charge dismissed in 1984…. His answer intimated that it was subtle behind the scenes pressure that worked in his case…”.
Not having been at the recent seminar and not being privy to any backroom dealing back in 1984, I can’t comment directly on Sulak’s intimations. However, as someone who was involved in the campaign supporting Sulak, journalist Chatcharin Chaiwat and academic Preecha Piampongsarn, I can vouch for the fact that there was an international campaign.
On 25 August that year Matichon reported on a letter to the then Prem government signed by academics from several countries during the International Conference on Thai Studies. Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy of the letter or of the whole Matichon article. However, the article comments on a news conference the previous day that included myself, Craig Reynolds and John Girling.
At that conference, Thai academics specifically requested that the foreign participants take a stand on these cases. Of course, some participants refused to sign, but quite a number did.
That this international intervention had at least some impact was revealed the next year when ANU had an unannounced visit from, to the best of my recollection, the palace administration. The meeting was with those who had signed the 1984 letter and it was a kind of semi-official explanation of the cases. I seem to recall that Sulak’s case was explained in terms that amounted to him needing to be taught a lesson.
I may be wrong, but by that time I think all three had probably been released.
I just noticed that Sulak’s Wikipedia page states: “The foreign contacts he made while in exile proved beneficial when Sivaraksa was arrested in 1984 for lese majesty, causing international protests which pressured the government to release him.”
In other words, it wasn’t just subtle behind-the-scenes pressure.