Indo Ojek: Your latest question really goes to the heart of this debate: “How is anyone distorting the past and hiding what the state does?”
If you genuinely don’t believe that there are vast underreported or misreported areas of Thai history and contemporary politics, then with all due respect, you need to educate yourself.
Here are a few numbers to get you started: 1946, 1955, 1975, 2006, 2008, 2010.
You know that I cannot respond to your nonesense as I would break the 112 law. Your history cannot be told accurately whilst 112 is on the statute books.I suppose now you will quote the rubbish of Thainess. It is not a question of culture but suppression of free speech.
I think Matthews is totally wrong on this. First of all, these maps show indicative planning – the lists of all possible dam sites, most of which were identified in the 60s, and many of which are mutually exclusive.
More importantly, watergrabbing is a faulty concept. There is no comprehensive attempt to assert ownership over water resources in the Mekong Basin, even if there are struggles over who gets to use certain resources for different purposes. In fact, there is no debate over water ownership in Laos.
Just as important (and a correlative), there is no legal attempt to hold hydro operators responsible for damage caused by power station outflows. Authority over a resource implies responsibility for damages, no? Consider water buffalos. yet for hydro it’s simply not a legal issue.
The term water grabbing is faulty at base because it just tries to apply a concept from land-based legal regimes, with all the assumptions about territorial & legal sovereignty, to hydraulic contexts.
How is anyone distorting the past and hiding what the state does? It’s all laid out in the open. The 112 law is attacked all the time, by a fantastic student protest most recently. Your attack here reflects an insensitive, bludgeoning, and a culturally condescending line that achieves nothing but an tendency for hyper reaction from Thai authorities.
The Niti Raat group regularly holds public seminar on 112 with attendance at least five times bigger than what FCCT ever hosted. Have you ever heard about this group of seven law professors from TU?
[…] or not this is enough is another question (for some it is not, but then again never will be) – but it also begs the question that if a statement by the FCCT was made, it would be […]
I am not an academic either. I fight against 112 and the computer crimes act 2007 because they are unjust laws. My agenda is not for a republic as you suggest. I just want your history books to reflect honesty about the royal institution. Absolutely nothing can be achieved by distorting your past and hiding anything the state does not like.Please tell me what you believe can be achieved by not attacking these unjust laws.
It’s no secret that I have long been critical of most foreign media coverage of Thailand. On February 1, I wrote an article setting out my views, in considerable anger and disgust, after the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand failed to make any statement on the 11-year jail sentence handed to Thai editor Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, the gravest blow to Thai media freedom since the 1970s.
My tone was aggressive and provocative, and in turn it drew some melodramatic responses – the usually mild-mannered Andrew Walker accused me of being a virulent anti-royal fundamentalist, and FCCT board member Jim Pollard spectacularly imploded on Facebook.
I’m very glad that the issue of how foreign journalists should cover Thailand is now being robustly debated, and I am particularly glad that the debate is starting to be covered by Thai-language media – it is an extremely important issue that needs to be discussed.
Several FCCT members and foreign journalists in Thailand contacted me privately to say that while they thought my arguments were valid, my tone was excessively condemnatory. That’s a fair point. They also asked me what I would do in their position. That’s a fair question. Both deserve a considered response.
So in the spirit of conciliation, here are three essential points that I hope can form the basis of a more productive discussion in the days, weeks and months ahead. It is important to make clear that I fully understand the extraordinarily difficult position that foreign journalists in Thailand find themselves in. In particular, as the debate of the past few days has shown, there is no way foreign journalists and the FCCT can avoid taking a position on Article 112. If the FCCT had condemned Somyot’s sentence this would have provoked an angry reaction from some ultra-royalists, but failing to condemn the sentence is not a “neutral” stance – not making a statement is in itself a statement, and it has provoked a highly critical response from a great many people, including me. Similarly, failing to report the central role of the monarchy in Thailand’s contemporary political conflicts is not a “neutral” stance, it is a highly partisan and politicized stance. But accurately reporting key issues involving the palace and succession is against the law. It is a very difficult dilemma, and I fully acknowledge that.
Given the precarious situation foreign journalists face, here are my three suggestions for moving forward.
Firstly, I think it is now overwhelmingly recognized that it was a terrible mistake for the FCCT to duck its responsibility by failing to issue a robust statement on the jailing of Somyot Pruksakasemsuk. The main goal of the club is to protect and promote press freedom in Thailand and beyond. I recognize the role played by the FCCT in hosting debates on Article 112 and providing a platform for opponents of the lèse majesté law to share their views. But this cannot become a substitute for taking a clear stance on media freedom and condemning the jailing of journalists – Thai or foreign. A carefully worded statement would not break any Thai law, and while it would naturally attract some unpleasant criticism and protest, that is the price that has to be paid for taking a principled stance.
What’s done is done: there is little point in the FCCT condemning Somyot’s sentence now. But unfortunately, given the way events in Thailand are unfolding, it is extremely likely that Somyot will not be the last journalist to be arrested and jailed under Article 112. It is essential that if this happens, the FCCT makes a clear statement that as journalists we do not believe fellow journalists should be jailed for doing their job. Panel discussions on Article 112 are welcome and should continue, but the FCCT should never again send a signal that the basic human rights of journalists are up for debate.
Secondly, I would like to restate one of the suggestions I made in my original article: I believe the only practical way for foreign journalists to report on Thai political developments in an ethical way without risking falling foul of Article 112 is to preface reports or broadcasts with a health warning something like this: “This report was compiled under the restrictions imposed by Thailand’s lèse majesté law, which criminalizes open discussion of the monarchy.”
There is extensive precedent for taking this approach: it was used for many years by British media including the BBC in reporting from apartheid South Africa, and the BBC’s official position remains that viewers should be informed whenever censorship infringes on its journalists’ ability to impartially report the news. The impact of censorship is routinely mentioned by numerous news organizations in reporting from Syria or North Korea, to give two contemporary examples. Particularly in the online era, when consumers of news are increasingly demanding full transparency in how reports are compiled, it is basic good practice for stories impacted by censorship to include a disclaimer saying so.
Adopting such a code of practice in Thailand would be a voluntary step taken by individual news organizations. It is something that needs to be deployed intelligently – clearly there is no need for it in reports on crimes in Pattaya or drug smuggling on the Myanmar border, for example. But journalists know very well when they are censoring themselves in a story, and in these cases, they need to say so.
It makes obvious sense for major news organizations to talk to each other about adopting such a code of practice in Thailand, rather than doing it in an ad hoc and piecemeal way, and while these discussions do not have to be conducted under the auspices of the FCCT, it surely makes sense for the FCCT to play a role.
In this way, foreign journalists can remain true to their professional ethics and obligations while also avoiding a possible breach of Article 112. It is also a robust but not unduly provocative way of pressuring the Thai authorities to allow journalists to work unimpeded by overly harsh enforcement of the law of lèse majesté.
Thirdly, the reason it is so important now for the international media in Thailand to agree on some basic principles and staunchly defend them is that, as we all know, a seismic change is coming in Thailand’s political landscape, and when it comes foreign journalists will be in a far more perilous and precarious position even than the dangerous and difficult conditions they face today. From private conversations with a large number of foreign correspondents in Thailand, I know that major international media organizations are actively drawing up plans for how they will cover the royal succession. I also know that there has been very limited formal coordination or discussion among foreign media about how they will cope with the unique challenges of reporting on the succession in an environment where Article 112 may be strictly enforced, and I fear that this is a grave mistake that means journalists will face significant additional risk.
One of the excellent points made by David Streckfuss at the FCCT panel discussion on lèse majesté on January 31 is that everybody is afraid of crossing the line, and nobody knows where the line is. That will be all the more true, and all the more dangerous, when King Bhumibol’s reign comes to an end. If the FCCT achieves some clarity and consensus about its basic principles now, this will be invaluable preparation for the hazardous days ahead.
I welcome debate on all three of these points, and I’ll do my best to conduct my side of the debate in a less combative manner.
No I don’t suggest that it should be ignored. I suggest that rather than alienate the institution where most open, public dialogue around 112 occurs (that doesn’t resort to an unrealistic ethic of republicanism for Thailand), that it does not need to be alienated. You have jumped to conclusions based on your own feelings about how politics should be, as have many of the others as opposed to what can be achieved.
You seem to suggest that if every journalist, (I might add that I am not a journalist) should ignore this bad law that prohibits free, honest and open discussion and it will go away. If you understand anything about politics you will realise that when a state feels threatened it always resorts to draconian methods of suppression. LM is just one tool of a reppressive regime that no one in authority dare challenge.
Since SteveCM mentioned it, perhaps he could clarify what exactly is SteveCM’s “view of Thaksin’s misdeeds or their context.” That would certainly help instead of his obvious embarrassments at ‘coughing’ some incoherent posters here in there describing his ‘obvious’ displeasures at one Vichai N.
AMM, Sam Deedes, Tom Hoy, Mark Pearson etc – Has anyone bothered picking up on what AW concluded this piece with? Or did you all just ignore that to spout off your own myopic positions?
The cultural foundation of the lèse majesté law is the toleration of intolerance. Some anti-royalist commentators seem determined to keep that cultural foundation intact.
Don’t you see you may be giving those with power in Thailand reason to keep 112 as rigorously enforced as it is. For it not to relax. For the situation to become increasingly fractured. For there to be chaos. I guess that’s what ex Reuters journos want — conflict! Or is it?
Also, I think it’s good that NM is not just the anti-112 ship, though that’s all you may come here for… It would be quite a limited, boring site if it were.
Indeed a cacophony of buyer remorse by one and continued vieled hatred by another the O&M (Ohn and Moe Aung) show at New Mandala.
Still in the circular firing suad mode of self degradation despite the editor of New Mandala own objective guarded hope:
“But from where I sit, which this afternoon is a useful vantage, there are too many contradictions to endorse your great confidence that “nothing…is changed”.
This is the first time since 1948 when th 3 historical elements that will bring Myanmar into are now inplaced.
1)A strong central Military
2)A growing Hlutthaw
3)An econmy not stifffled by the West
Yet the O&M show choose to bemoan every conquences of the historic legacies that are still reverberating to this presenr day Myanmat.
No Vichai, however [cough] “obvious” to your mindset, neither “happy” nor even “content” – but certainly unsurprised and recognising the reality of what is. Neither do you have any insight into my view of Thaksin’s misdeeds or their context. As to setting out to “convince” you of anything, that’s a task that I’ve long regarded as fruitless.
“On further reflection, I remain astonished by the fact that Andrew Walker made no public comment condemning the 11-year jail sentence for Somyot, but has leapt to the defense of the bruised egos of the FCCT board after they suffered the indignity of some critical remarks on my website.”
I have no such astonishment, though I am as disappointed as any. New Mandala has become increasingly reluctant to criticise the performance of Thailand in human rights, perhaps especially since they (ironically) took charge of the UN Committee (though this may now have finished, I don’t know), the whole thing had the stench of humbug.
it is possible that the heavy presence of the Thai Embassy in Australia has yet again been trying to influence NM, perhaps once more with the incentive of money and the disincentive of no money, or perhaps just the threat of future visa problems who knows? But the increasing bias in what AW and NM opine has been noticeable to the point that I rarely even bother to look at NM any more.
Sad, and of course it will be vehemently denied, but I got that opinion somehow and it came from somewhere. If it wasn’t from NM then I don’t know whence it came.
Perhaps all commentators should be ware of saying anything contrary to the fascist regime headed by the palace in Thailand, who knows if the ship may begin to leak email and IP addresses?
“While this might not be the most appropriate place to do this, I want to state that I condemn the dehumanising treatment meted out to Somyot during his long detention and I condemn the sentence. It is a significant blow to human rights in Thailand.
Perhaps other academics might like to add their views?”
As an academic working in Thailand, I’d like to completely endorse Kevin’s comments.
I also think that Andrew McGregor Marshall’s criticism of the FCCT was perfectly well-founded given the complete and clear contradiction between the statements on their website and the board’s position that Nirmal Ghosh (who, like Andrew Walker, I also think of as a fine journalist) put in regards to their lack of a statement on the terrible treatment and sentencing of Somyot.
But the trouble is that no matter how good a journalist one is, it is impossible to clearly talk about lese majeste unless one wants to get kicked out of Thailand or spend time in prison. The judgement on Somyot contained some very, very, very arguable propositions which living in Thailand as I do, I am not allowed to publicly disagree with. The courts stated what was the allowable truth of the matter and any argument against that truth, no matter how solid, cannot be true.
I’m probably not even allowed to imply what these propositions might be because speaking in riddles and euphemisms seems now to constitute lese majeste given that Somyot was convicted on the basis of the implicit rather than explicit meaning of the articles that he published. So I’m probably not even allowed to think it.
So I also think AMM is absolutely spot-on when he says that every report on lese majeste and royal matters coming from Thailand should carry a “health warning” saying that these reports are inherently unreliable because of the restrictions on free speech. Many journalists already do this of course but it should be clarified and emphasized. Academics should probably put the health warning in too because despite all the guff about “fair and academic” criticism being allowed, when popular speech and journalism is stifled academics like myself censor their work or choose less tricky topics.
Obviously SteveCM is content (happy even?) that Thailand Yingluck’s regime is a puppet government with strings being pulled by a convicted corrupt fugitive politician. I don’t think SteveCM had even endured even a hiccup, much less any stomach upsets, from the past and present antics of fugitive convicted corrupt Thaksin Shinawatra.
But my warning stands. Yingluck’s puppet government is very vulnerable because Yingluck’s regime is a charade … because the real leader or ‘shadow’ Prime Minister is Thaksin Shinawatra running the Thai government, and all the unseen shady sleazy profitable multi-billion deals the old Thaksin-cum-Potjaman were notorious for (the 30% under-the-table-cuts remember?).
Or maybe Chat is right … that somehow Yingluck could be able to complete her term and get reelected, despite all the Thaksin behind-the-scenes sleaze and shady deals. In Thailand’s murky politics anything is possible. But neither Chat or SteveCM could be able to convince me that under puppet Yingluck S., Thailand is a functional or functioning democracy.
Although I mostly support him, I think Andrew M lost some credibility when he presented his own theory of Ananda’s death as if there were no doubt about it. It is not at all clear what happened.
My favourite theory, for what it is worth, is that the assassination was done by a descendant of Rama V (plenty of leeway there) in connection with the military. The pages were silenced by a threat that they and their families would be tortured to death. The assassination was carried out because it had become known that Ananda, educated in the home of candour and republicanism, loathed the slimy, cruel, lying, crawling courtiers, and had every intention of marrying his Swiss sweetheart. Without an alliance with a powerful Thai military family, the monarchy may not have survived. That would have suited Ananda who would have been much happier in a real job like his father. With the extinction of the monarchy, the horde of Rama V’s descendants who have done so well out of it would have had to face the unthinkable: going out and finding real jobs for themselves.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Tolerating intolerance
Indo Ojek: Your latest question really goes to the heart of this debate: “How is anyone distorting the past and hiding what the state does?”
If you genuinely don’t believe that there are vast underreported or misreported areas of Thai history and contemporary politics, then with all due respect, you need to educate yourself.
Here are a few numbers to get you started: 1946, 1955, 1975, 2006, 2008, 2010.
Tolerating intolerance
You know that I cannot respond to your nonesense as I would break the 112 law. Your history cannot be told accurately whilst 112 is on the statute books.I suppose now you will quote the rubbish of Thainess. It is not a question of culture but suppression of free speech.
Thailand’s Mekong water grab
I think Matthews is totally wrong on this. First of all, these maps show indicative planning – the lists of all possible dam sites, most of which were identified in the 60s, and many of which are mutually exclusive.
More importantly, watergrabbing is a faulty concept. There is no comprehensive attempt to assert ownership over water resources in the Mekong Basin, even if there are struggles over who gets to use certain resources for different purposes. In fact, there is no debate over water ownership in Laos.
Just as important (and a correlative), there is no legal attempt to hold hydro operators responsible for damage caused by power station outflows. Authority over a resource implies responsibility for damages, no? Consider water buffalos. yet for hydro it’s simply not a legal issue.
The term water grabbing is faulty at base because it just tries to apply a concept from land-based legal regimes, with all the assumptions about territorial & legal sovereignty, to hydraulic contexts.
Time to start over.
Tolerating intolerance
How is anyone distorting the past and hiding what the state does? It’s all laid out in the open. The 112 law is attacked all the time, by a fantastic student protest most recently. Your attack here reflects an insensitive, bludgeoning, and a culturally condescending line that achieves nothing but an tendency for hyper reaction from Thai authorities.
Tolerating intolerance
baffled:
The Niti Raat group regularly holds public seminar on 112 with attendance at least five times bigger than what FCCT ever hosted. Have you ever heard about this group of seven law professors from TU?
Tolerating intolerance
[…] or not this is enough is another question (for some it is not, but then again never will be) – but it also begs the question that if a statement by the FCCT was made, it would be […]
Tolerating intolerance
I am not an academic either. I fight against 112 and the computer crimes act 2007 because they are unjust laws. My agenda is not for a republic as you suggest. I just want your history books to reflect honesty about the royal institution. Absolutely nothing can be achieved by distorting your past and hiding anything the state does not like.Please tell me what you believe can be achieved by not attacking these unjust laws.
Tolerating intolerance
In the spirit of zen, here is my latest post on the subject on my website, an effort to find some common ground and have a more productive discussion:
http://www.zenjournalist.org/2013/02/04/the-foreign-media-are-failing-thailand-finding-common-ground/
It’s no secret that I have long been critical of most foreign media coverage of Thailand. On February 1, I wrote an article setting out my views, in considerable anger and disgust, after the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand failed to make any statement on the 11-year jail sentence handed to Thai editor Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, the gravest blow to Thai media freedom since the 1970s.
My tone was aggressive and provocative, and in turn it drew some melodramatic responses – the usually mild-mannered Andrew Walker accused me of being a virulent anti-royal fundamentalist, and FCCT board member Jim Pollard spectacularly imploded on Facebook.
I’m very glad that the issue of how foreign journalists should cover Thailand is now being robustly debated, and I am particularly glad that the debate is starting to be covered by Thai-language media – it is an extremely important issue that needs to be discussed.
Several FCCT members and foreign journalists in Thailand contacted me privately to say that while they thought my arguments were valid, my tone was excessively condemnatory. That’s a fair point. They also asked me what I would do in their position. That’s a fair question. Both deserve a considered response.
So in the spirit of conciliation, here are three essential points that I hope can form the basis of a more productive discussion in the days, weeks and months ahead. It is important to make clear that I fully understand the extraordinarily difficult position that foreign journalists in Thailand find themselves in. In particular, as the debate of the past few days has shown, there is no way foreign journalists and the FCCT can avoid taking a position on Article 112. If the FCCT had condemned Somyot’s sentence this would have provoked an angry reaction from some ultra-royalists, but failing to condemn the sentence is not a “neutral” stance – not making a statement is in itself a statement, and it has provoked a highly critical response from a great many people, including me. Similarly, failing to report the central role of the monarchy in Thailand’s contemporary political conflicts is not a “neutral” stance, it is a highly partisan and politicized stance. But accurately reporting key issues involving the palace and succession is against the law. It is a very difficult dilemma, and I fully acknowledge that.
Given the precarious situation foreign journalists face, here are my three suggestions for moving forward.
Firstly, I think it is now overwhelmingly recognized that it was a terrible mistake for the FCCT to duck its responsibility by failing to issue a robust statement on the jailing of Somyot Pruksakasemsuk. The main goal of the club is to protect and promote press freedom in Thailand and beyond. I recognize the role played by the FCCT in hosting debates on Article 112 and providing a platform for opponents of the lèse majesté law to share their views. But this cannot become a substitute for taking a clear stance on media freedom and condemning the jailing of journalists – Thai or foreign. A carefully worded statement would not break any Thai law, and while it would naturally attract some unpleasant criticism and protest, that is the price that has to be paid for taking a principled stance.
What’s done is done: there is little point in the FCCT condemning Somyot’s sentence now. But unfortunately, given the way events in Thailand are unfolding, it is extremely likely that Somyot will not be the last journalist to be arrested and jailed under Article 112. It is essential that if this happens, the FCCT makes a clear statement that as journalists we do not believe fellow journalists should be jailed for doing their job. Panel discussions on Article 112 are welcome and should continue, but the FCCT should never again send a signal that the basic human rights of journalists are up for debate.
Secondly, I would like to restate one of the suggestions I made in my original article: I believe the only practical way for foreign journalists to report on Thai political developments in an ethical way without risking falling foul of Article 112 is to preface reports or broadcasts with a health warning something like this: “This report was compiled under the restrictions imposed by Thailand’s lèse majesté law, which criminalizes open discussion of the monarchy.”
There is extensive precedent for taking this approach: it was used for many years by British media including the BBC in reporting from apartheid South Africa, and the BBC’s official position remains that viewers should be informed whenever censorship infringes on its journalists’ ability to impartially report the news. The impact of censorship is routinely mentioned by numerous news organizations in reporting from Syria or North Korea, to give two contemporary examples. Particularly in the online era, when consumers of news are increasingly demanding full transparency in how reports are compiled, it is basic good practice for stories impacted by censorship to include a disclaimer saying so.
Adopting such a code of practice in Thailand would be a voluntary step taken by individual news organizations. It is something that needs to be deployed intelligently – clearly there is no need for it in reports on crimes in Pattaya or drug smuggling on the Myanmar border, for example. But journalists know very well when they are censoring themselves in a story, and in these cases, they need to say so.
It makes obvious sense for major news organizations to talk to each other about adopting such a code of practice in Thailand, rather than doing it in an ad hoc and piecemeal way, and while these discussions do not have to be conducted under the auspices of the FCCT, it surely makes sense for the FCCT to play a role.
In this way, foreign journalists can remain true to their professional ethics and obligations while also avoiding a possible breach of Article 112. It is also a robust but not unduly provocative way of pressuring the Thai authorities to allow journalists to work unimpeded by overly harsh enforcement of the law of lèse majesté.
Thirdly, the reason it is so important now for the international media in Thailand to agree on some basic principles and staunchly defend them is that, as we all know, a seismic change is coming in Thailand’s political landscape, and when it comes foreign journalists will be in a far more perilous and precarious position even than the dangerous and difficult conditions they face today. From private conversations with a large number of foreign correspondents in Thailand, I know that major international media organizations are actively drawing up plans for how they will cover the royal succession. I also know that there has been very limited formal coordination or discussion among foreign media about how they will cope with the unique challenges of reporting on the succession in an environment where Article 112 may be strictly enforced, and I fear that this is a grave mistake that means journalists will face significant additional risk.
One of the excellent points made by David Streckfuss at the FCCT panel discussion on lèse majesté on January 31 is that everybody is afraid of crossing the line, and nobody knows where the line is. That will be all the more true, and all the more dangerous, when King Bhumibol’s reign comes to an end. If the FCCT achieves some clarity and consensus about its basic principles now, this will be invaluable preparation for the hazardous days ahead.
I welcome debate on all three of these points, and I’ll do my best to conduct my side of the debate in a less combative manner.
Tolerating intolerance
No I don’t suggest that it should be ignored. I suggest that rather than alienate the institution where most open, public dialogue around 112 occurs (that doesn’t resort to an unrealistic ethic of republicanism for Thailand), that it does not need to be alienated. You have jumped to conclusions based on your own feelings about how politics should be, as have many of the others as opposed to what can be achieved.
Tolerating intolerance
You seem to suggest that if every journalist, (I might add that I am not a journalist) should ignore this bad law that prohibits free, honest and open discussion and it will go away. If you understand anything about politics you will realise that when a state feels threatened it always resorts to draconian methods of suppression. LM is just one tool of a reppressive regime that no one in authority dare challenge.
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
Since SteveCM mentioned it, perhaps he could clarify what exactly is SteveCM’s “view of Thaksin’s misdeeds or their context.” That would certainly help instead of his obvious embarrassments at ‘coughing’ some incoherent posters here in there describing his ‘obvious’ displeasures at one Vichai N.
Tolerating intolerance
AMM, Sam Deedes, Tom Hoy, Mark Pearson etc – Has anyone bothered picking up on what AW concluded this piece with? Or did you all just ignore that to spout off your own myopic positions?
The cultural foundation of the lèse majesté law is the toleration of intolerance. Some anti-royalist commentators seem determined to keep that cultural foundation intact.
Don’t you see you may be giving those with power in Thailand reason to keep 112 as rigorously enforced as it is. For it not to relax. For the situation to become increasingly fractured. For there to be chaos. I guess that’s what ex Reuters journos want — conflict! Or is it?
Also, I think it’s good that NM is not just the anti-112 ship, though that’s all you may come here for… It would be quite a limited, boring site if it were.
The Kachin and war
Indeed a cacophony of buyer remorse by one and continued vieled hatred by another the O&M (Ohn and Moe Aung) show at New Mandala.
Still in the circular firing suad mode of self degradation despite the editor of New Mandala own objective guarded hope:
“But from where I sit, which this afternoon is a useful vantage, there are too many contradictions to endorse your great confidence that “nothing…is changed”.
This is the first time since 1948 when th 3 historical elements that will bring Myanmar into are now inplaced.
1)A strong central Military
2)A growing Hlutthaw
3)An econmy not stifffled by the West
Yet the O&M show choose to bemoan every conquences of the historic legacies that are still reverberating to this presenr day Myanmat.
A short sightedness that is against the history.
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
No Vichai, however [cough] “obvious” to your mindset, neither “happy” nor even “content” – but certainly unsurprised and recognising the reality of what is. Neither do you have any insight into my view of Thaksin’s misdeeds or their context. As to setting out to “convince” you of anything, that’s a task that I’ve long regarded as fruitless.
Tolerating intolerance
Those who can read Thai may be interested to see this article on Thai E-News about the ongoing debate over the FCCT’s stance on 112 and Somyot.
http://thaienews.blogspot.com/2013/02/blog-post_5723.html
Tolerating intolerance
Andrew MacGregor Marshall wrote:
“On further reflection, I remain astonished by the fact that Andrew Walker made no public comment condemning the 11-year jail sentence for Somyot, but has leapt to the defense of the bruised egos of the FCCT board after they suffered the indignity of some critical remarks on my website.”
I have no such astonishment, though I am as disappointed as any. New Mandala has become increasingly reluctant to criticise the performance of Thailand in human rights, perhaps especially since they (ironically) took charge of the UN Committee (though this may now have finished, I don’t know), the whole thing had the stench of humbug.
it is possible that the heavy presence of the Thai Embassy in Australia has yet again been trying to influence NM, perhaps once more with the incentive of money and the disincentive of no money, or perhaps just the threat of future visa problems who knows? But the increasing bias in what AW and NM opine has been noticeable to the point that I rarely even bother to look at NM any more.
Sad, and of course it will be vehemently denied, but I got that opinion somehow and it came from somewhere. If it wasn’t from NM then I don’t know whence it came.
Perhaps all commentators should be ware of saying anything contrary to the fascist regime headed by the palace in Thailand, who knows if the ship may begin to leak email and IP addresses?
Mark
Tolerating intolerance
Kevin Hewison comment. 10.1
“While this might not be the most appropriate place to do this, I want to state that I condemn the dehumanising treatment meted out to Somyot during his long detention and I condemn the sentence. It is a significant blow to human rights in Thailand.
Perhaps other academics might like to add their views?”
As an academic working in Thailand, I’d like to completely endorse Kevin’s comments.
I also think that Andrew McGregor Marshall’s criticism of the FCCT was perfectly well-founded given the complete and clear contradiction between the statements on their website and the board’s position that Nirmal Ghosh (who, like Andrew Walker, I also think of as a fine journalist) put in regards to their lack of a statement on the terrible treatment and sentencing of Somyot.
But the trouble is that no matter how good a journalist one is, it is impossible to clearly talk about lese majeste unless one wants to get kicked out of Thailand or spend time in prison. The judgement on Somyot contained some very, very, very arguable propositions which living in Thailand as I do, I am not allowed to publicly disagree with. The courts stated what was the allowable truth of the matter and any argument against that truth, no matter how solid, cannot be true.
I’m probably not even allowed to imply what these propositions might be because speaking in riddles and euphemisms seems now to constitute lese majeste given that Somyot was convicted on the basis of the implicit rather than explicit meaning of the articles that he published. So I’m probably not even allowed to think it.
So I also think AMM is absolutely spot-on when he says that every report on lese majeste and royal matters coming from Thailand should carry a “health warning” saying that these reports are inherently unreliable because of the restrictions on free speech. Many journalists already do this of course but it should be clarified and emphasized. Academics should probably put the health warning in too because despite all the guff about “fair and academic” criticism being allowed, when popular speech and journalism is stifled academics like myself censor their work or choose less tricky topics.
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
Obviously SteveCM is content (happy even?) that Thailand Yingluck’s regime is a puppet government with strings being pulled by a convicted corrupt fugitive politician. I don’t think SteveCM had even endured even a hiccup, much less any stomach upsets, from the past and present antics of fugitive convicted corrupt Thaksin Shinawatra.
But my warning stands. Yingluck’s puppet government is very vulnerable because Yingluck’s regime is a charade … because the real leader or ‘shadow’ Prime Minister is Thaksin Shinawatra running the Thai government, and all the unseen shady sleazy profitable multi-billion deals the old Thaksin-cum-Potjaman were notorious for (the 30% under-the-table-cuts remember?).
Or maybe Chat is right … that somehow Yingluck could be able to complete her term and get reelected, despite all the Thaksin behind-the-scenes sleaze and shady deals. In Thailand’s murky politics anything is possible. But neither Chat or SteveCM could be able to convince me that under puppet Yingluck S., Thailand is a functional or functioning democracy.
Tolerating intolerance
If this post was intellectually flawed, it wouldn’t have provoked the reaction it has.
Tolerating intolerance
Although I mostly support him, I think Andrew M lost some credibility when he presented his own theory of Ananda’s death as if there were no doubt about it. It is not at all clear what happened.
My favourite theory, for what it is worth, is that the assassination was done by a descendant of Rama V (plenty of leeway there) in connection with the military. The pages were silenced by a threat that they and their families would be tortured to death. The assassination was carried out because it had become known that Ananda, educated in the home of candour and republicanism, loathed the slimy, cruel, lying, crawling courtiers, and had every intention of marrying his Swiss sweetheart. Without an alliance with a powerful Thai military family, the monarchy may not have survived. That would have suited Ananda who would have been much happier in a real job like his father. With the extinction of the monarchy, the horde of Rama V’s descendants who have done so well out of it would have had to face the unthinkable: going out and finding real jobs for themselves.