hrk: I’m glad you mention the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes.
If the current crop of foreign correspondents in Thailand suddenly found themselves in this parable, some would write news reports lavishly praising the glorious costume the Emperor was wearing, and hurriedly publish a glossy hardback book extolling His Majesty’s sartorial genius throughout his life.
Most would tactfully omit to mention the fact the Emperor was naked, thus leaving a rather vast gap in their coverage. They would feel uncomfortable about this but tell themselves they had no choice.
Bloggers who reported that the Emperor actually was naked would be dismissed as extremists with an agenda and virulent anti-royal fundamentalists.
Such is the fairytale world of 21st century Thailand.
Journalists have to report on what can be sold. They have to adress a kind of virtual audience usually residing somewhere else. In addition they hardly have the time to really study what they are reporting about. This all leads to ignorance as a necessity of the job.
The other problem are, as Kevin H. notes scholars who forget about their job, which is provide information and “enlightenment”.
Perhaos some know the story of the kings new clothes. I gues, just saying the truth is insufficient today, but it might help to de-construct ideologies without producing new ideologies.
The key “complexity” is getting into Thailand or managing to stay there in order to make reports, without being incarcerated or worse. One cannot expect to write honestly on the general aspects of Thai governance and be able to do those things. One way to get around the problem and retain one’s reputation is to get in and work quietly, get out, and then dump on the place as Andrew M did. Another way is to report only particular events as they occurred: collect and publish data, especially photographs, and largely steer clear of the big picture, as Nick Nostitz did. I think that Nick’s work, in terms of historical usefulness, is worth ten times what all the FCCT members have produced. When we combine Nick’s facts with the self-incriminating garbage put out by the Thai military and monarchists we have pretty much everything we need to get the big picture right.
I don’t think the main reason why most foreign journalists in Thailand have censored themselves on the topic of the monarchy and lese majeste is because they have “self-doubt” as to the “extraordinarily difficult lèse majesté issue”.
There are issues out there that are more “politically complex” than the issue of lese majeste, and yet most foreign journalists in Thailand have never been so silent and cautious about them.
Of course, those journalists might have different “tactical judgements” than those that Andrew MacGregor Marshall has. But that is beside the point. Andrew Marshall was criticising most journalists not on the point that their “tactic” of being silent about lese majeste is a bad tactic to push for reform, strategically speaking, (although that could be the case too). Rather, he is criticising them on the point that they lack the courage to tell the truth, and that they fail their own promise (i.e. the promise to protect freedom of speech).
[…] Thai and foreign commentators have hotly debated whether, and how, to alter or abolish the law. On New Mandala, there is a lively discussion of whether the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand–which itself […]
Mr. Hunter’s post-Colonialist jeremiad ignores the fact that the popularity of Western paradigms in S.E. Asian business schools is due to their success in the marketplace. As Hunter points out, many American business practices have their origin within the managerial culture of Japan (e.g. 5S methodology, lean manufacturing, just-in-time logistics, etc.); why should the business cultures of S.E. Asia be any different? Why are they prohibited from engaging in the global marketplace of ideas and incorporating successful concepts, regardless of their cultural origin?
Indeed, Hunter mentions the need for developing native paradigms. Except for a reflexive anti-Western bias, this makes little sense. What is the utility of incorporating Confucian thought into business culture, when Confucius taught that merchants were lowest level of society; a necessary evil tolerated so that farmers could spend more time growing their crops and the scholar-gentry wouldn’t have to deal with the “dirty work” of supporting themselves with a livelihood that generated value. What Business school on Earth would choose that as a founding ideology?
Yes, culture matters. And yes, there is a dark side to Globalization. However, it is the responsibility of a Business school to teach its students about how the world is, as much as it ought to be, and there is no justification for this stentorian intellectual mau-mauing, especially from the very model of a modern-day “foreign expert”.
2) A growing Hluttaw I grant you is interesting, perhaps an unwitting agent of change however rigged, coopted or manipulated. Not all uniformed or uniform in their voices and votes which help toward the broader struggle necessarily partly and more importantly outside the ‘debating’ chambers of Naypyidaw.
3) An econmy not stifffled by the West (take your time, there’s no rush) but stifled by the ruling military clique for as long as two generations can remember. Barking up the wrong tree your favorite past time, History Man?
The problem with Thai Journalism is that they will report the offical storyline and not the truth. Lies and opinions are often pawned off to the people as ‘truth’.
Stories that really warrant investigation are not followed up.
And I agree with Marshal, that instead of reading that all Thais love the Head of State, many don’t, or don’t care, or are afraid to express alternative views for fear of social sanctions, loss of jobs, danger of imprisonment on some obscure violation if not 112, and that instead of saying the head is loved perhaps, say that it is difficult to understand the exact relationship between the people and the Head of State, due to draconian laws and stifled speech.
QUOTE(Andrew Walker):”One of the unpleasant side effects of Thailand’s hyper-royalism is that is produces a virulent anti-royal fundamentalism.”
Well in defence of Andrew Marshall may I please re-iterate that:
1. Somyos was not the author of the alleged anti-Royalist material he published in his magazine.
2. The material contained no direct references – by name – to any individuals.
3. He was unfairly denied bail and therefore severely hindered in his attempts to provide a proper defence.
4. He was unnecessarily moved from one province to another – the length and breadth of the country – time and time again – during the court proceedings.
5. The Criminal Court arbitarily and unfairly decided the location of court hearings – leading up to his conviction – according to where the next witness(witnesses) was registered as his/her hometown. (This did not take into account that most of the witnesses were now living and working in Bangkok.)
6. During these arduous and lengthy transfers Somyos was forced to stand in shackles for the entire duration of the journey which is in itself a demeaning and humiliating and painful experience for any self-respecting human being.
And you say Andrew:”But I am disturbed by his fundamentalism which assumes that there is only one morally desirable approach to be taken to the extraordinarily difficult lèse majesté issue.” Sorry to disappoint you but if the FCCT was worth anything at all it would have immediately come out with a firm and vigorous rebuttal after the sentence was made public. But it didn’t. It wasn’t prepared to comment at all on a case – a case so truly shocking and of such gross unfairness and injustice – that has caused so many decent and law-abiding people both in Thailand and the world over to be up in arms.
Clever and tactical play with words attacking Andrew Marshall’s sincere stance on this matter – obfuscation and a wishy-washy defence of the indefensible – looks very lame to the majority of concerned LM observers – myself included.
It is quite strange that Andrew Walker refuse to respond to the excellent argues of Andrew Mc Gregor Marshall. Does he have anything to say after writing his hateful article ???
“Everyone in the FCCT likely abhors the prosecution of Somyot.”
‘Likelihood’ doesn’t come into this. We now KNOW certain things, from Jim Pollard’s explicit statement, and we can infer others.
We know that the board of FCC discussed whether or not to defend Somyot. We know Jim Pollard was against doing so, because he doesn’t agree with Somyot’s political views.
Given the outcome, we can extrapolate that the majority sided with him.
So we know that Jim Pollard doesn’t abhor the prosecution of Somyot. And we can infer that the majority of the board don’t abhor it either.
Indo Ojek: Find me one article written by a current member of the FCCT setting out in credible detail the fact that monarchy’s central role in Thailand’s political crisis.
While there seems to be an obsessive focus on the LM laws on this website, there seems to be little objective perpective.
The LM laws IMO are a symptom rather than a cause of problems in Thailand.
As there are a lot of talk about journalistic freedom here, I remember quite distinctively that previous to the start of Thaksin’s election the press here was heralded as being the freest in SE asia. Am I wrong?
The problem with rushing in to mess around with the LM laws is if they are amended then there is a strong possibility something even more oppressive will be put in its place. As evidenced by many countries in SE asia and remember the computer crimes act the generals put in?
Far more is wrong in thailand than LM laws and it could easily become worse rther than better if these laws are amended hastily.
Where I say “hiding your past”, I was actually referring to your state and not individuals. If you misunderstood me I hope this clarifies That point. I have not got the figures with me but the prosecutions of 112 offences that are currently taking place were started under the last govt. I am quite sure that under the YL govt the numbers have gone down dramatically. In Somyot’s case the FCCT’s silence was and still is a mistake. By expressing disapproval the FCCT would have stood up and been counted.
Andrew, ‘anyone’ as in anyone from New Mandala or the FCCT. That’s where the locus of this barrage is aimed, and not at repression throughout Thai history. Responding with dates from Thai history highlights how determined you are to make a blinkered and polarized case that your line of argument is correct. This doesn’t go beyond really what the institutions of power in Thailand do themselves. Tit for tat only goes so far, surely?
Roy Anderson, re anyone I mean – how is anyone on New Mandala or the FCCT hiding it? Are you saying by not condemning it, as NM/FCCT has condemned these cases again and again, we are for his prosecution? What the Thai state does is fairly obvious to all paying attention re 112. Everyone in the FCCT likely abhors the prosecution of Somyot. What has expressing this achieved? Expressing discontent has actually coincided with a situation where 112 cases are more frequently prosecuted.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Tolerating intolerance
hrk: I’m glad you mention the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes.
If the current crop of foreign correspondents in Thailand suddenly found themselves in this parable, some would write news reports lavishly praising the glorious costume the Emperor was wearing, and hurriedly publish a glossy hardback book extolling His Majesty’s sartorial genius throughout his life.
Most would tactfully omit to mention the fact the Emperor was naked, thus leaving a rather vast gap in their coverage. They would feel uncomfortable about this but tell themselves they had no choice.
Bloggers who reported that the Emperor actually was naked would be dismissed as extremists with an agenda and virulent anti-royal fundamentalists.
Such is the fairytale world of 21st century Thailand.
Tolerating intolerance
Journalists have to report on what can be sold. They have to adress a kind of virtual audience usually residing somewhere else. In addition they hardly have the time to really study what they are reporting about. This all leads to ignorance as a necessity of the job.
The other problem are, as Kevin H. notes scholars who forget about their job, which is provide information and “enlightenment”.
Perhaos some know the story of the kings new clothes. I gues, just saying the truth is insufficient today, but it might help to de-construct ideologies without producing new ideologies.
Tolerating intolerance
The key “complexity” is getting into Thailand or managing to stay there in order to make reports, without being incarcerated or worse. One cannot expect to write honestly on the general aspects of Thai governance and be able to do those things. One way to get around the problem and retain one’s reputation is to get in and work quietly, get out, and then dump on the place as Andrew M did. Another way is to report only particular events as they occurred: collect and publish data, especially photographs, and largely steer clear of the big picture, as Nick Nostitz did. I think that Nick’s work, in terms of historical usefulness, is worth ten times what all the FCCT members have produced. When we combine Nick’s facts with the self-incriminating garbage put out by the Thai military and monarchists we have pretty much everything we need to get the big picture right.
Tolerating intolerance
I don’t think the main reason why most foreign journalists in Thailand have censored themselves on the topic of the monarchy and lese majeste is because they have “self-doubt” as to the “extraordinarily difficult lèse majesté issue”.
There are issues out there that are more “politically complex” than the issue of lese majeste, and yet most foreign journalists in Thailand have never been so silent and cautious about them.
Of course, those journalists might have different “tactical judgements” than those that Andrew MacGregor Marshall has. But that is beside the point. Andrew Marshall was criticising most journalists not on the point that their “tactic” of being silent about lese majeste is a bad tactic to push for reform, strategically speaking, (although that could be the case too). Rather, he is criticising them on the point that they lack the courage to tell the truth, and that they fail their own promise (i.e. the promise to protect freedom of speech).
Thailand’s Mekong water grab
Hi Paul,
I believe it’s available through Proquest. However, I can recommend this peer reviewed paper as a clearer & more concise statement of its primary arguments: http://www.academia.edu/1376585/Institutional_Condition_of_Contested_Hydropower_The_Theun_Hinboun_-_International_Rivers_Collaboration_Whitington_
Tolerating intolerance
[…] Thai and foreign commentators have hotly debated whether, and how, to alter or abolish the law. On New Mandala, there is a lively discussion of whether the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand–which itself […]
ASEAN’s western management infatuation
Mr. Hunter’s post-Colonialist jeremiad ignores the fact that the popularity of Western paradigms in S.E. Asian business schools is due to their success in the marketplace. As Hunter points out, many American business practices have their origin within the managerial culture of Japan (e.g. 5S methodology, lean manufacturing, just-in-time logistics, etc.); why should the business cultures of S.E. Asia be any different? Why are they prohibited from engaging in the global marketplace of ideas and incorporating successful concepts, regardless of their cultural origin?
Indeed, Hunter mentions the need for developing native paradigms. Except for a reflexive anti-Western bias, this makes little sense. What is the utility of incorporating Confucian thought into business culture, when Confucius taught that merchants were lowest level of society; a necessary evil tolerated so that farmers could spend more time growing their crops and the scholar-gentry wouldn’t have to deal with the “dirty work” of supporting themselves with a livelihood that generated value. What Business school on Earth would choose that as a founding ideology?
Yes, culture matters. And yes, there is a dark side to Globalization. However, it is the responsibility of a Business school to teach its students about how the world is, as much as it ought to be, and there is no justification for this stentorian intellectual mau-mauing, especially from the very model of a modern-day “foreign expert”.
The Kachin and war
1) Dare I ask a strong military for whom?
2) A growing Hluttaw I grant you is interesting, perhaps an unwitting agent of change however rigged, coopted or manipulated. Not all uniformed or uniform in their voices and votes which help toward the broader struggle necessarily partly and more importantly outside the ‘debating’ chambers of Naypyidaw.
3) An econmy not stifffled by the West (take your time, there’s no rush) but stifled by the ruling military clique for as long as two generations can remember. Barking up the wrong tree your favorite past time, History Man?
Thailand’s Mekong water grab
Dr. Whitington, is your PhD available for public download? I found a link to it but it was broken.
Regards,
Paul
Tolerating intolerance
The problem with Thai Journalism is that they will report the offical storyline and not the truth. Lies and opinions are often pawned off to the people as ‘truth’.
Stories that really warrant investigation are not followed up.
And I agree with Marshal, that instead of reading that all Thais love the Head of State, many don’t, or don’t care, or are afraid to express alternative views for fear of social sanctions, loss of jobs, danger of imprisonment on some obscure violation if not 112, and that instead of saying the head is loved perhaps, say that it is difficult to understand the exact relationship between the people and the Head of State, due to draconian laws and stifled speech.
Tolerating intolerance
QUOTE(Andrew Walker):”One of the unpleasant side effects of Thailand’s hyper-royalism is that is produces a virulent anti-royal fundamentalism.”
Well in defence of Andrew Marshall may I please re-iterate that:
1. Somyos was not the author of the alleged anti-Royalist material he published in his magazine.
2. The material contained no direct references – by name – to any individuals.
3. He was unfairly denied bail and therefore severely hindered in his attempts to provide a proper defence.
4. He was unnecessarily moved from one province to another – the length and breadth of the country – time and time again – during the court proceedings.
5. The Criminal Court arbitarily and unfairly decided the location of court hearings – leading up to his conviction – according to where the next witness(witnesses) was registered as his/her hometown. (This did not take into account that most of the witnesses were now living and working in Bangkok.)
6. During these arduous and lengthy transfers Somyos was forced to stand in shackles for the entire duration of the journey which is in itself a demeaning and humiliating and painful experience for any self-respecting human being.
And you say Andrew:”But I am disturbed by his fundamentalism which assumes that there is only one morally desirable approach to be taken to the extraordinarily difficult lèse majesté issue.” Sorry to disappoint you but if the FCCT was worth anything at all it would have immediately come out with a firm and vigorous rebuttal after the sentence was made public. But it didn’t. It wasn’t prepared to comment at all on a case – a case so truly shocking and of such gross unfairness and injustice – that has caused so many decent and law-abiding people both in Thailand and the world over to be up in arms.
Clever and tactical play with words attacking Andrew Marshall’s sincere stance on this matter – obfuscation and a wishy-washy defence of the indefensible – looks very lame to the majority of concerned LM observers – myself included.
Tolerating intolerance
It is quite strange that Andrew Walker refuse to respond to the excellent argues of Andrew Mc Gregor Marshall. Does he have anything to say after writing his hateful article ???
Tolerating intolerance
“Everyone in the FCCT likely abhors the prosecution of Somyot.”
‘Likelihood’ doesn’t come into this. We now KNOW certain things, from Jim Pollard’s explicit statement, and we can infer others.
We know that the board of FCC discussed whether or not to defend Somyot. We know Jim Pollard was against doing so, because he doesn’t agree with Somyot’s political views.
Given the outcome, we can extrapolate that the majority sided with him.
So we know that Jim Pollard doesn’t abhor the prosecution of Somyot. And we can infer that the majority of the board don’t abhor it either.
Tolerating intolerance
Indo Ojek: Find me one article written by a current member of the FCCT setting out in credible detail the fact that monarchy’s central role in Thailand’s political crisis.
Shouldn’t be so hard.
Should it?
Tolerating intolerance
While there seems to be an obsessive focus on the LM laws on this website, there seems to be little objective perpective.
The LM laws IMO are a symptom rather than a cause of problems in Thailand.
As there are a lot of talk about journalistic freedom here, I remember quite distinctively that previous to the start of Thaksin’s election the press here was heralded as being the freest in SE asia. Am I wrong?
The problem with rushing in to mess around with the LM laws is if they are amended then there is a strong possibility something even more oppressive will be put in its place. As evidenced by many countries in SE asia and remember the computer crimes act the generals put in?
Far more is wrong in thailand than LM laws and it could easily become worse rther than better if these laws are amended hastily.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Tolerating intolerance
Where I say “hiding your past”, I was actually referring to your state and not individuals. If you misunderstood me I hope this clarifies That point. I have not got the figures with me but the prosecutions of 112 offences that are currently taking place were started under the last govt. I am quite sure that under the YL govt the numbers have gone down dramatically. In Somyot’s case the FCCT’s silence was and still is a mistake. By expressing disapproval the FCCT would have stood up and been counted.
Tolerating intolerance
Andrew, ‘anyone’ as in anyone from New Mandala or the FCCT. That’s where the locus of this barrage is aimed, and not at repression throughout Thai history. Responding with dates from Thai history highlights how determined you are to make a blinkered and polarized case that your line of argument is correct. This doesn’t go beyond really what the institutions of power in Thailand do themselves. Tit for tat only goes so far, surely?
Tolerating intolerance
Roy Anderson, re anyone I mean – how is anyone on New Mandala or the FCCT hiding it? Are you saying by not condemning it, as NM/FCCT has condemned these cases again and again, we are for his prosecution? What the Thai state does is fairly obvious to all paying attention re 112. Everyone in the FCCT likely abhors the prosecution of Somyot. What has expressing this achieved? Expressing discontent has actually coincided with a situation where 112 cases are more frequently prosecuted.
Tolerating intolerance
Hard to argue with that.
Tolerating intolerance
(please change 1975 to 1976 in my previous comment. Thanks! and apols. Typing too fast)