There are stil “seeds of hope” in Thailand. Thai education needs a major overhaul,especially civics and history in conjunction with technology. The current government has so far made an initiative to make changes, exempli gratia, free tablet computers to young Thai Students. Culture forms the root of our society. If we can seed a new root, a new culture will follow. It may take time, but it can be done. Thais presently have very narrow perspectives, from my observation. When I was younger, living in northeast Thailand, I had witnessed many teachers partaking long lunch breaks often accompanied by alcoholic drinks. I had no idea what these teachers were thinking. I now know this behavior is unethical and unprofessional;it should not be tolerated. This illustration of my experience is in no way disrespecting Thais. It is out of concern for the progress of the Thai people. Thais must enable self discovery and self criticism. Constructive criticism from other individuals should be viewed as positive: a way of increasing self awareness. In the face of authority, they must be able to constructively raise valid questions so that different point of views may be heard. To increase critical thinking skills in the young, new ideas and values must be encouraged. The “Haves” must be willing to help the “Have Nots” for the Thai society to move forward. Strong positive ethical role models must take precedent to the status quo. After all, Thailand is a Buddhist country. Impermanence (change) is one of the major teachings of the Lord Buddha. Change is good for people.
To Noo NY mouse, the value you have described of Thai is pre-Buddhist. The concept of the “god king” is Hindu in origin. Before present day Thailand, the land was governed by the Khmer empire and that culture was heavily influenced by Hinduism before the introduction of Buddhism in SE Asia. To sum it up, the Thais have Mother india, Father Khmer, and Cousin China in the mixture. I am no Buddhist scholar but I have read my fair share of books on this subject. May I suggest some documentary films for you to enjoy? One is “The Story of India” with Michael Wood and the other one called, “The Buddha:The Story of Siddhartha,” a film by David Grubin.
“Do Not Fear Truth for it is The Light of Humanity”
You re indeed right. It is a malay issue in a malay land named Malaysia. If only people would understand that Allah had no Son named Jesus but only his Messenger p.b.u.h.
I don’t agree with your conclusions. The fact is that more Thai people are now against 112 as a result of criticism of the monarchy and lese majeste law from foreign journalists. Likewise, less Thai people now support the PAD cranks.
But I do agree with you that foreigners need Thai people to help them in their fight against 112. Without more of this support, little will change.
“The hardline on L-M comes squarely from Puea Thai. After all, Thaksin would never allow himself to be seen as anti-Royal (hoping for his amnesty and all that). It is incredible to me that more Reds simply don’t wake up and realise they have been used and discarded.” Well said CJHinke.
“How many times can a man turn his head pretending he doesn’t see? … the answer is blowin in the wind.”
Firstly, the following point made in the piece by AW: QUOTE “An elected government like that of Yingluck Shinawatra will only move on lèse-majesté when the electoral cost-benefit ratio shifts in favour of reform. Quite simply, at present it is not an electoral winner…” UNQUOTE, in my view over simplifies the complexity in which the elected government finds itself and its constraints over moving towards reform. I know members of PTP who would like to see constitutional reform and changes to 112. It is precisely because of the “electoral cost-benefit ration” mentioned in the piece that PTP cannot move [at least quickly] to amend the constitution because it would start a revolt from the far right (looking for the excuse). But to do nothing at all is, in my view, equally inexcusable.
second point, Thaksin’s so-called “War on Drugs” is hardly comparable to the issue at hand. It could be argued that this was conducted (rightly or wrongly and aside from the dreadful consequences) with an electoral mandate/mass support, even the praise of the king in a 2003 birthday speech.
Nor do journalists need to “campaign” against LM as Marek #10 suggests
“To answer the question “what good does international journalists campaigning against LM abuse do” needs to be assessed against the background of the political struggle in Thailand.”
All they need to do is report fully on it and make the limitations of their reporting clear.
The point that Andrew MacGregor Marshall has been making all along is simple, clear and unexceptionable.
When journalists cannot tell the whole truth or when they have to resort to ambiguities and coded language because of the LM law, they should inform their readers that this is the case. What could be simpler?
Whether or not AMM did this when he was based in Thailand and working at Reuters is absolutely irrelevant. His suggestion for a “health hazard” label is for the here and now.
I do not think that journalists need to worry about strategies to prevent themselves being seen as interfering western busybodies who don’t understand things. All they need to do is tell the truth to the best of their abilities and to make clear what limits their ability to tell the truth.
We can’t predict whether truth-telling will result in repression or in liberation. But the job of journalists and academic is to tell the truth as best they can grasp it and with as many of its nuances as they can grasp. Truth has its own value.
It would be nice to hear from some journos on this subject.
I am very perplexed by this statement by Andrew Walker:
My second reservation is more about strategy. An elected government like that of Yingluck Shinawatra will only move on lèse-majesté when the electoral cost-benefit ratio shifts in favour of reform. Quite simply, at present it is not an electoral winner.
What Andrew Walker meticulously fails to mention is that any attempt from Yingluck to reform 112 will result in her being kicked out of office either by Yellow Shirts/PAD massive and disruptive protests or by military force (most likely both, in that order) and her being deemed an outlaw, perhaps even imprisoned.
Actually, from an electoral strategy point of view, the Pheua Thai has a lot to gain by neutering 112, in terms of political campaigning, and there is little doubt that Yingluck’s electoral base – a substantial majority of the electorate – will easily adhere to such a reform if the PM and the Pheua Thai could openly campaign for it.
It’s hard to believe that a scholar like Mr Walker would not be aware of those elements.
No doubt about that, and I very much agree with the idea to insert a “health disclaimer”. This seems to be a reasonable and practical way to deal with the situation for those who are inside Thailand.
This is a very intelligent contribution, but it neglects one key point: foreign journalists in Thailand can choose the extent they want to be engaged in a political struggle over 112, but whatever they decide does not alter the fact that they have a responsibility to their audience to report the reality of what is happening in 21st century Thailand.
“One of the great disappointments of the Prime Ministership of Yingluck Shinawatra is her unwillingness, or inability, to put in place any meaningful reform of Thailand’s lèse-majesté law.”
Every Peau Thai Party leader and every Red leader only listens to and complies with the “Voice of Thaksin”. So what does that “Voice” tells them over and over again … “get me my amnesty damn it!”
The question if foreign journalists can make a decisive contribution depends on the exact definition on “contribution to what”. The LM issue means very different things to different groups of actors, hence, contributions by foreign journalists must be evaluated against this background.
1. To many foreign commentators, LM is about
the right of freedom of expression, as a major building bloc of a liberal democracy. Therefore, the rising number of convictions and the lack of proportion in sentences is seen as a failure of Thai democracy to live up to international (human rights) standards.
This view is widely shared by (mostly younger) freedom of expression activists. Maybe Andrew Walker talks about this group as the “already converted”, with “converted” referring to the international human rights philosophy.
2. To royalist stalwarts, LM is about the future of the monarchy. Harsh sentences are supposed to deter attempts to overhaul the political order. In effect, royalists turn every conversation about lèse majesté (or charter change) into a referendum over His Majesty.
3. Anti-royalist activists campaign against LM for exactly this reason: because it is has been made into a symbolic proxy, and attacking it offers several advantages: to wrap the attack on the monarchy into a campaign for human rights, legitimized by international conventions, supported by international academics, embassies and media, carried out it in the anonymity of the web, and most importantly, ideal to provoke royalist stalwarts into overreaction that is devastating for the legitimacy of the monarchy.
4. Judges and political decision makers need to maneuver this terrain. Hyped up as a symbol for the monarchy, no political actor can afford to alienate his coalition by failing to act. As long as the discursive link between LM and “defending the monarchy” is widely shared, it would be political suicide to champion the campaign for reform.
5. The Pheua Thai government is trapped between a rock and a hard place. Not being tough on LM allows its opponents to manufacture a pretext for another overthrow. Being to complacent alienates civil society, the international community and most importantly the red shirt movement. Hence, the Yingluck government tries to duck and cover on the issue in order to be able to stay in power.
6. For the powers that be, in Dubai and in Thailand, LM is the proof and seal that both sides hang on to the Brunei deal. Wavering on the issue would endanger the fragile arrangement to jointly manage the succession. Accordingly, flaring up the debate on LM is a way to torpedo this arrangement.
The list goes on, but I think my point became clear: LM means very different things for different groups. To answer the question “what good does international journalists campaigning against LM abuse do” needs to be assessed against the background of the political struggle in Thailand. As in all societies, different actors with different priorities but compatible objectives may join forces in a coalition to reform LM, while others band together in blocking any attempt to do so. Foreign actors will be part of this political landscape, and their impact or lack thereof depends on the balance of power between these camps.
Hence, there is no need for “tactical restraint” as Andrew Walker suggest, but neither a “moral obligation to engage” as Andrew McGregor Marshall insists. It is a political struggle that everybody needs to be aware of, and engage at one own risk.
On the theory that LM is being used a a forewarning to protect the future monarch, it sounds plausible, but without a breakdown of the type of things the authorities are choosing to prosecute its hard to know if the theory is correct.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which members of the monarchy the charges in recent years mainly relate to?
I could also ask what were the substance of the ‘slights’ on the monarchy members, but that might be pushing it a bit too far given the LM laws (and AW’s new found pragmatism)
This is a far more intelligent article than Andrew Walker’s previous effort on the same subject, but I fear he is still completely missing the point.
Whatever their views may be on the best way to achieve saner enforcement of Article 112, journalists have a professional obligation to do their best to report developments in Thailand in an accurate and impartial way. If they are unable to do so as a result of Thai law, they have a professional obligation to say that in their reports.
By choosing not to tell the truth, and not to be honest about the fact they are giving a partial and slanted account of Thai politics, many foreign journalists in Thailand are breaching basic journalistic ethics.
I’m intrigued that Andrew Walker seems to regard me as “a campaigner” who wants to publish “openly critical commentary” of the monarchy. I am a journalist who wants to report accurately and honestly on Thailand’s history and politics, and that requires me to seek out and publish the facts about the events of 1945, 1976, 2006 etc, the tensions over the succession, and so on. Reporting honestly on these issues is not “virulent anti-royal fundamentalism”. It is what journalists are supposed to do.
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.
Does Andrew think that the foreign media should start being more tactful in their coverage of North Korea, so that the North Korean people can make their own decisions in their own time about what can be said and what cannot be said? It is a ludicrous argument.
Because I understand the predicament journalists in Thailand find themselves in, I have suggested that foreign media put a “health warning” at the start of their reports, making clear they are operating in a climate of extreme censorship that prevents them telling the full story. In this way, journalists who want to continue working in Thailand can come closer to honouring their professional obligations while avoiding becoming entangled in a lese majeste case.
If anybody has sensible objections to this suggestion I would be delighted to hear them.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Can Thailand escape its middle-income trap?
There are stil “seeds of hope” in Thailand. Thai education needs a major overhaul,especially civics and history in conjunction with technology. The current government has so far made an initiative to make changes, exempli gratia, free tablet computers to young Thai Students. Culture forms the root of our society. If we can seed a new root, a new culture will follow. It may take time, but it can be done. Thais presently have very narrow perspectives, from my observation. When I was younger, living in northeast Thailand, I had witnessed many teachers partaking long lunch breaks often accompanied by alcoholic drinks. I had no idea what these teachers were thinking. I now know this behavior is unethical and unprofessional;it should not be tolerated. This illustration of my experience is in no way disrespecting Thais. It is out of concern for the progress of the Thai people. Thais must enable self discovery and self criticism. Constructive criticism from other individuals should be viewed as positive: a way of increasing self awareness. In the face of authority, they must be able to constructively raise valid questions so that different point of views may be heard. To increase critical thinking skills in the young, new ideas and values must be encouraged. The “Haves” must be willing to help the “Have Nots” for the Thai society to move forward. Strong positive ethical role models must take precedent to the status quo. After all, Thailand is a Buddhist country. Impermanence (change) is one of the major teachings of the Lord Buddha. Change is good for people.
To Noo NY mouse, the value you have described of Thai is pre-Buddhist. The concept of the “god king” is Hindu in origin. Before present day Thailand, the land was governed by the Khmer empire and that culture was heavily influenced by Hinduism before the introduction of Buddhism in SE Asia. To sum it up, the Thais have Mother india, Father Khmer, and Cousin China in the mixture. I am no Buddhist scholar but I have read my fair share of books on this subject. May I suggest some documentary films for you to enjoy? One is “The Story of India” with Michael Wood and the other one called, “The Buddha:The Story of Siddhartha,” a film by David Grubin.
“Do Not Fear Truth for it is The Light of Humanity”
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
I am.
For God’s sake?
You re indeed right. It is a malay issue in a malay land named Malaysia. If only people would understand that Allah had no Son named Jesus but only his Messenger p.b.u.h.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
I don’t agree with your conclusions. The fact is that more Thai people are now against 112 as a result of criticism of the monarchy and lese majeste law from foreign journalists. Likewise, less Thai people now support the PAD cranks.
But I do agree with you that foreigners need Thai people to help them in their fight against 112. Without more of this support, little will change.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Andrew, looks like a veiled apology to me. be cool.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Maybe, and that would be an interesting discussing to have. But we are talking about Thailand.
Interview with Surachai Danwattananusorn
“The hardline on L-M comes squarely from Puea Thai. After all, Thaksin would never allow himself to be seen as anti-Royal (hoping for his amnesty and all that). It is incredible to me that more Reds simply don’t wake up and realise they have been used and discarded.” Well said CJHinke.
“How many times can a man turn his head pretending he doesn’t see? … the answer is blowin in the wind.”
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Firstly, the following point made in the piece by AW: QUOTE “An elected government like that of Yingluck Shinawatra will only move on lèse-majesté when the electoral cost-benefit ratio shifts in favour of reform. Quite simply, at present it is not an electoral winner…” UNQUOTE, in my view over simplifies the complexity in which the elected government finds itself and its constraints over moving towards reform. I know members of PTP who would like to see constitutional reform and changes to 112. It is precisely because of the “electoral cost-benefit ration” mentioned in the piece that PTP cannot move [at least quickly] to amend the constitution because it would start a revolt from the far right (looking for the excuse). But to do nothing at all is, in my view, equally inexcusable.
second point, Thaksin’s so-called “War on Drugs” is hardly comparable to the issue at hand. It could be argued that this was conducted (rightly or wrongly and aside from the dreadful consequences) with an electoral mandate/mass support, even the praise of the king in a 2003 birthday speech.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Nor do journalists need to “campaign” against LM as Marek #10 suggests
“To answer the question “what good does international journalists campaigning against LM abuse do” needs to be assessed against the background of the political struggle in Thailand.”
All they need to do is report fully on it and make the limitations of their reporting clear.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
The point that Andrew MacGregor Marshall has been making all along is simple, clear and unexceptionable.
When journalists cannot tell the whole truth or when they have to resort to ambiguities and coded language because of the LM law, they should inform their readers that this is the case. What could be simpler?
Whether or not AMM did this when he was based in Thailand and working at Reuters is absolutely irrelevant. His suggestion for a “health hazard” label is for the here and now.
I do not think that journalists need to worry about strategies to prevent themselves being seen as interfering western busybodies who don’t understand things. All they need to do is tell the truth to the best of their abilities and to make clear what limits their ability to tell the truth.
We can’t predict whether truth-telling will result in repression or in liberation. But the job of journalists and academic is to tell the truth as best they can grasp it and with as many of its nuances as they can grasp. Truth has its own value.
It would be nice to hear from some journos on this subject.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
I am very perplexed by this statement by Andrew Walker:
My second reservation is more about strategy. An elected government like that of Yingluck Shinawatra will only move on lèse-majesté when the electoral cost-benefit ratio shifts in favour of reform. Quite simply, at present it is not an electoral winner.
What Andrew Walker meticulously fails to mention is that any attempt from Yingluck to reform 112 will result in her being kicked out of office either by Yellow Shirts/PAD massive and disruptive protests or by military force (most likely both, in that order) and her being deemed an outlaw, perhaps even imprisoned.
Actually, from an electoral strategy point of view, the Pheua Thai has a lot to gain by neutering 112, in terms of political campaigning, and there is little doubt that Yingluck’s electoral base – a substantial majority of the electorate – will easily adhere to such a reform if the PM and the Pheua Thai could openly campaign for it.
It’s hard to believe that a scholar like Mr Walker would not be aware of those elements.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
No doubt about that, and I very much agree with the idea to insert a “health disclaimer”. This seems to be a reasonable and practical way to deal with the situation for those who are inside Thailand.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
This is a very intelligent contribution, but it neglects one key point: foreign journalists in Thailand can choose the extent they want to be engaged in a political struggle over 112, but whatever they decide does not alter the fact that they have a responsibility to their audience to report the reality of what is happening in 21st century Thailand.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
“One of the great disappointments of the Prime Ministership of Yingluck Shinawatra is her unwillingness, or inability, to put in place any meaningful reform of Thailand’s lèse-majesté law.”
Every Peau Thai Party leader and every Red leader only listens to and complies with the “Voice of Thaksin”. So what does that “Voice” tells them over and over again … “get me my amnesty damn it!”
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
There is a very interesting difference in the reporting about Myanmar and Vietnam…
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
The question if foreign journalists can make a decisive contribution depends on the exact definition on “contribution to what”. The LM issue means very different things to different groups of actors, hence, contributions by foreign journalists must be evaluated against this background.
1. To many foreign commentators, LM is about
the right of freedom of expression, as a major building bloc of a liberal democracy. Therefore, the rising number of convictions and the lack of proportion in sentences is seen as a failure of Thai democracy to live up to international (human rights) standards.
This view is widely shared by (mostly younger) freedom of expression activists. Maybe Andrew Walker talks about this group as the “already converted”, with “converted” referring to the international human rights philosophy.
2. To royalist stalwarts, LM is about the future of the monarchy. Harsh sentences are supposed to deter attempts to overhaul the political order. In effect, royalists turn every conversation about lèse majesté (or charter change) into a referendum over His Majesty.
3. Anti-royalist activists campaign against LM for exactly this reason: because it is has been made into a symbolic proxy, and attacking it offers several advantages: to wrap the attack on the monarchy into a campaign for human rights, legitimized by international conventions, supported by international academics, embassies and media, carried out it in the anonymity of the web, and most importantly, ideal to provoke royalist stalwarts into overreaction that is devastating for the legitimacy of the monarchy.
4. Judges and political decision makers need to maneuver this terrain. Hyped up as a symbol for the monarchy, no political actor can afford to alienate his coalition by failing to act. As long as the discursive link between LM and “defending the monarchy” is widely shared, it would be political suicide to champion the campaign for reform.
5. The Pheua Thai government is trapped between a rock and a hard place. Not being tough on LM allows its opponents to manufacture a pretext for another overthrow. Being to complacent alienates civil society, the international community and most importantly the red shirt movement. Hence, the Yingluck government tries to duck and cover on the issue in order to be able to stay in power.
6. For the powers that be, in Dubai and in Thailand, LM is the proof and seal that both sides hang on to the Brunei deal. Wavering on the issue would endanger the fragile arrangement to jointly manage the succession. Accordingly, flaring up the debate on LM is a way to torpedo this arrangement.
The list goes on, but I think my point became clear: LM means very different things for different groups. To answer the question “what good does international journalists campaigning against LM abuse do” needs to be assessed against the background of the political struggle in Thailand. As in all societies, different actors with different priorities but compatible objectives may join forces in a coalition to reform LM, while others band together in blocking any attempt to do so. Foreign actors will be part of this political landscape, and their impact or lack thereof depends on the balance of power between these camps.
Hence, there is no need for “tactical restraint” as Andrew Walker suggest, but neither a “moral obligation to engage” as Andrew McGregor Marshall insists. It is a political struggle that everybody needs to be aware of, and engage at one own risk.
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Potent royals! Majestic military might and Chinese Capitalist power to dominate more like it!
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
On the theory that LM is being used a a forewarning to protect the future monarch, it sounds plausible, but without a breakdown of the type of things the authorities are choosing to prosecute its hard to know if the theory is correct.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which members of the monarchy the charges in recent years mainly relate to?
I could also ask what were the substance of the ‘slights’ on the monarchy members, but that might be pushing it a bit too far given the LM laws (and AW’s new found pragmatism)
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
Here is a voice that even Prem listened to:
http://bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/335289/adapting-rights-to-changing-times
Western campaigners and lèse-majesté
This is a far more intelligent article than Andrew Walker’s previous effort on the same subject, but I fear he is still completely missing the point.
Whatever their views may be on the best way to achieve saner enforcement of Article 112, journalists have a professional obligation to do their best to report developments in Thailand in an accurate and impartial way. If they are unable to do so as a result of Thai law, they have a professional obligation to say that in their reports.
By choosing not to tell the truth, and not to be honest about the fact they are giving a partial and slanted account of Thai politics, many foreign journalists in Thailand are breaching basic journalistic ethics.
I’m intrigued that Andrew Walker seems to regard me as “a campaigner” who wants to publish “openly critical commentary” of the monarchy. I am a journalist who wants to report accurately and honestly on Thailand’s history and politics, and that requires me to seek out and publish the facts about the events of 1945, 1976, 2006 etc, the tensions over the succession, and so on. Reporting honestly on these issues is not “virulent anti-royal fundamentalism”. It is what journalists are supposed to do.
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.
Does Andrew think that the foreign media should start being more tactful in their coverage of North Korea, so that the North Korean people can make their own decisions in their own time about what can be said and what cannot be said? It is a ludicrous argument.
Because I understand the predicament journalists in Thailand find themselves in, I have suggested that foreign media put a “health warning” at the start of their reports, making clear they are operating in a climate of extreme censorship that prevents them telling the full story. In this way, journalists who want to continue working in Thailand can come closer to honouring their professional obligations while avoiding becoming entangled in a lese majeste case.
If anybody has sensible objections to this suggestion I would be delighted to hear them.