Les, you are okay on this for me until you get to comparisons between the two reports. One reason for this is that (i) you don’t always compare like with like, (ii) you miss some very substantial agreements between the two reports and (iii) your critical eye deserts you for a moment in some of the quotes. Some illustrations of these points:
(i) On 2009 and like with like: the HRW report does talk about claims of other deaths, noting that they have not been substantiated (but this is on p. 42). In essence, while not stated in your quote from Amsterdam, he doesn’t do much more than that. The main difference is the statement about the floating bodies (and none of the press reports at the time mention “gangsters”, as you do, but I may have missed it) and that HRW adds a note about reporters being with advancing troops.
(ii) On agreement: Without going into huge detail, I believe that both reports agree on several fundamental points: (a) like you, both condemn the use of free fire zones and calculated assassinations and killings; (b) related, both HRW and Amsterdam conclude that unarmed protesters were likely killed by army snipers with high-velocity and scoped weapons; (c) Both seem to agree that the vast majority of red shirt protesters were unarmed; (d) that soldiers fired directly at protesters and others, causing death and injury; (e) that the deaths/some of the deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram were by shooting by soldiers; (f) security forces did not allow medics and ambulances into the area, possibly leading to the death of some of the already wounded; (g) the government adopted various measures that infringed fundamental human rights; and, we might add (h) following the clearance operation, the government embarked on a vast operation of repression that also infringed human rights.
(iii) Finally, a question is raised from the quote you have from the French journalist. I’ll edit down: “Olivier Sarbil … was behind army lines … when Black Shirts attacked soldiers with grenades and gunfire…”. Sarbil: “Then the soldiers started to shoot in the air, and then they got hit by a grenade. … The Black Shirts were ahead of them, attacking. … I was too far back to see the Black Shirts, but I could see their fire incoming at us. ” I agree that Amsterdam says almost nothing on MIB and it is clear that the army was attacked, but as Sarbil says, he couldn’t see who it was….
One might also go through the HRW report and note things they missed (e.g. violent attacks on red shirts in Pattaya in 2009 and after). My feeling is that a better way to critically read the reports is to use them together and try to see what can be drawn from them. There are at least two other reports coming, one from human rights groups in Thailand and one from Kanit’s committee, so they should add to a body of knowledge that tells us more.
How about Vote Democrat and get Newin? I’d have that down for my election slogan.
But will it Andrew Spooner? Let’s say for example that Bhun Jai has the numbers to decide which party forms the next government, would there be a bidding war? Is it totally outside your experience of Thai politics for that to be possible?
Now Chalerm is a very special case. Long before his boys were old enough to follow in his footsteps he had already showed himself to be the bogeyman of Thai politics. Find some friends who have been here a bit longer to recall some of the stories of Thonburi style election campaigning.
Couple of point I think you should be aware of about Thaksin era.
Thaksin is responsible for the death without trial of 2,500 so called ‘drug dealers’,
It was proven again and again that HRW get the number totally wrong that number was the “total number” of murdered case throughout feb-march. 1,100 of that were drug related, and about 78 cases of that were confirmed to be done by officer on duty.
the killings of 150 Muslims at Krue Se mosque and Tak Bai
Thaksin definitely protect the security force, should he be responsible for Tak bai? maybe, but on Krue Se I think he deserve some justice since the incident happened without Thaksin or Chaovalit consent, the security force just go on do their thing without telling their CO.
Taksin instigated the issue of a guarantee by the EXIM Bank so he could sell his telcoms equipment to the Burmese government.
The deal was specifically structured so that the Burmese Government use the money to “buy” Thai product to improve their “satellite” infrastructure, other than THCOM that is “thai” and dealing with “satellite” what other company fit the profile here??
Taksin manipulated a change in the law so that foreigners could own 49% of a Thai telco not 25%, the day before the share sale of Shin Group to Temasek,
If you know any better that law has been in the making since 2000, its even written in the constitution!
If mean we could go on and on with your grossly inaccurate facts but I’ve been doing that in NM for 3 years I felt like I didn’t want to do it anymore.
Furthermore, don’t mistaken me that I’m mr. T fan or anything, I’ve been critical of him as well. However, if Thaksin is to be judge then also the PM before and after him should be given the same treatment. People seems to be in the illusion that Thaksin was the first corrupted PM, guess what, he is not.
So what is the deeper meaning? Two regressive patronage networks vying against one another to enrich themselves at the expense of the freedom and prosperity of the nation. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait 30 years for an alternative.
Thank you for your thought-provoking contributions to this discussion. I have very little to add bar sentiment.
I fear it is all going to get a whole lot worse, before it gets worse.
Of course, this I fear for the immediate and medium-term futures, of most nations across the globe. So many run by invisible tyrants; pulling the strings of their puppets with their acerbic but silver tongues; ‘selected’ for the stage by virtue of the macabre sham of democratic ‘elections’. An election contested by participants who have been pre-selected from a mere single-digit in starters, culled ruthlessly by media wars of the sort which pretend to discuss, whilst they conduct the outrageous proceedings which serve as the effective trial-by-public-‘opinion’ for which there can only ever be the single, ultimately predictable, and very preordained ‘verdict’ – the one which is left standing when the noise and smoke is cleared.
Hypothetically, the sort of trial-by-public-‘opinion’ which might be conducted against a former Socialist front-running candidate, who held a 5 point lead over his right and far right odious opponents in an upcoming Presidential election he hadn’t even submitted his name in candidacy for.
The feared not-yet-candidate, scrubbed before the pre-race preparations, languishing in a US holding cell, awaiting a repetitively-delayed and stalled trial; to face charges stemming from scandalous allegations made by an unidentified and (allegedly existing) assailant, parroting a story so full of holes it’s positively dripping in vile. Truly beyond the pale. If and when she emerges to answer the glaring inconsistencies in her impossibly implausible claims, the damage will have long been done. Comprehensively and irrevocably, and shamelessly…done.
No doubt there will still be a fiercely debated election, between whichever candidates managed to scrape their way to the pre-race starting line. Candidates who represent the extreme shades of the political spectrum; the sort who wax lyrical from the poles, only to invariably rule from somewhere near the dead middle of the authoritarian ‘centre’. It’s ghastly stuff, really.
Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if Thailand’s future isn’t quite as bleak as it seems. But then of course I realise I am marking on an increasingly horrific curve.
If I am right about this fairly recent Thai history, to gesture to someone with a foot, even these days, is to treat him like a slave. This seems to me to be a better explanation of why foot gestures are resented than the usual one, that the foot is a low part of the body.
Thank you Sir, for this fascinating theory. I have often been left unconvinced by explanations for that cultural peculiarity.
This makes incomparably more sense, compared to the implausible and vague explanations I’ve received thus far (from Thai and farang academics).
Surely the #14 post should replace the article which generated the discussion. I don’t contribute much but I come to New Mandala to learn. I learn more from contributions that don’t floor me with incredulity. The author does his arguments a great disservice by suggesting (amongst others):
1. Thaksin’s 2006 snap election with the greatest majority in electoral history less than a year after winning that overwhelming mandate; was a “snap call” on a Democrat bluff. What were they bluffing with? Charges of corruption, treason? Seems a strong hand. Seems like snap-calling would have been to face due process in court, rather than call a “no confidence” snap election with the greatest electoral mandate in Thai political history? Seem like he knew the Democrats had a strong hand, and rather than call, unwilling to fold, he shoved his entire stack in over the top. The Democrats said “screw that” and boycotted and with the dealer forced to step in and announce the hand to be replayed, Thaksin agreed then disagreed, ignored the House Rules (rightly or wrongly), and the House security walked over and gently suggested he leave the premises. I think that would be a more faithful analogy no?
2. A central reality of a nation in the spectre of a military coup. Perhaps. And the spectre of a criminal fugitive from justice who has never faced the judiciary over his human rights abuses; extra-judicial executions of innocents and what-have-you, funding of domestic terrorism and other trivialities, a failed uprising which left Bangkok a ghastly picture of flames on fateful night etc. You know, as we drift towards the centre of reality…
3. “Everything they can” to neuter Thaksin’s power; example: “the conviction of Thaksin for one of his more trivial infractions”. If a student of mine submitted a contradiction as laughable as this, I’d be sorely tempted to fail the lad on sheer principle. I hope I don’t have to point out why the example obliterates the premise. This is the lecturer writing? Or a (poor) student ghost writing? I’m confused.
4. “Everything they can” to neuter Thaksin’s power; example: “the seizure of Thaksin’s assets as punishment for his success in contributing to a buoyant stock market” This is factually incorrect. It’s almost brazen. This essay must be resubmitted. There was a great deal of unaccounted for baht Thaksin lived on, whilst his domestic bank accounts were frozen pending High Court deliberations – I don’t think he struggled, pretty sure he bought a top-flight EPL football club whilst he awaited the verdict? Those don’t run cheap, you know. Then they returned almost half his many billions with that verdict, which was unjust – clearly. Even if Justice exacted the brazenly incorrect re-claiming of baht in the author’s example of “everything they (could)”, there would still be a very large invoice owed to the Thai people from the fugitive’s luxury digs in Dubai (where, as it stands, a banker faces trial for thieving a stupendous ‘fee’ from his thieving client – where is the honour among their kind?). There is a great deal more coin stuffed away in the globe’s stockings, accounts in the name of T. Shinawatra. Hard to wage an expensive war against one’s political enemies, penniless and exiled, no? I do believe retaining all your Parliamentary (and slightly-less-immune) employees is not cheap, when one has conceded control of the till. Not cheap, would be putting it rather…extra-correctly.
And oh-so-much more…
I like this forum for it’s (occasionally) educating and stimulating discussions. I feel very strongly that the errors in the article detract greatly from the potential educational enjoyment readers expecting to be stimulated, might reasonably expect in the future.
The #14 comment is a great deal more what readers would expect, from contributors I am assuming are aiming to ignite intelligent (?) and open debate.
Last but not least, the distraction posed by the forced focus on the fugitive takes the discussion away from the far more relevant – if somewhat more sensitive – discussion that should be taking place. I refer, of course, to the reality all-too-briefly mentioned in the author’s concluding paragraph.
The trouble with pinning Black Shirts with Red Shirts is that why none was killed or captured? If they’re such a pivotal presence in this event, then more effort must be made to go after them.
In the May crackdown, we’ve seen overwhelming numbers of soldiers used in the area. It boggles the mind to how the Blacks were able to get away with everything.
Although if you look at the numbers of military men who was convicted on that event – Zero , it’s not much of a stretch to lump them up with the army instead. They sure got the same treatment!
How about Vote Democrat and get Newin? I’d have that down for my election slogan.
What the (Non) Dems and their supporters don’t get is that Thaksin is far far more popular than Abhisit.
And, if it was straight race between Thaksin and Abhisit, with both being able to campaign openly, it would be a PT landslide.
Khun Aran.
Red mobs? You’re referring to the electorate there.
The only “mob” with any real power in Thailand is that in green, equipped with sniper rifles. And they are a tiny minority in alliance with another tiny minority and together they were prepared to kill up to 500 unarmed civilians last year to stay in power. It is only by some miracle that only 93 died.
Problem is that he elite has been in the background. If PT wins, they will pull out all the stops to keep the PT from being able to rule just as they did when PPP won in 2007.
Murder, LM charges, EC red cards, disbanding PT but yet again, False Flag (aka Black Flag) operations, agents provocateur—they will not allow the Shinawatra clan to actually rule.
Thaksin did his best to appease them with his 2007 selection of Samak, one of their members, who he thought that he would be able satisfy the royalist, the right-wingers, the militarists….. but we all know how that ended.
He is smart choosing a Family Member with brand recognition. All Thai politics seems to involve Thai/Chinese Godfather Family Businesses masquerading as a political parties anyway.
However, mark my words, if they win. They will not be allowed to rule. The octogenarian oligarchs will not recognize any mandate of the ‘people’. Only one that they write and can control.
If they ‘allow’ the PT to appear to take government, be assured that they will hobble it all along the way.
If the Democrats win, after stacking the deck against TRT/PPP/PT so many times and in so many ways, yes they will try to claim legitimacy. Yet the feeling will be that they really cheated and it will always taint them.
And at the end of the day, this whole political debacle probably boiled down to TRT buying cement from the wrong company, or granting a lucrative government monopoly at the airport to a rival family.
Myself, I think that this election will mark the end of Thailand’s legitimacy problem, but rather mark the end of the beginning.
For true democracy in Thailand, the Civil Government needs to get the military under its control.
The pink elephant in the room needs to be brought under the kind of controls that exist in Britain, Sweden, etc.
Corruption must be tackled and significant players need to be incarcerated.
Programs need to be people centered.
The country needs to be decentralized form Bangkok.
And I need to feel comfortable to sign my own name to my postings.
“I still feel great anxiety that Thaksin’s return will bring the same autocracy/press hostility/cronyism/power consolidation /patronage corruption that we saw from 2002-2006.
But on principle it is preferable to the current autocracy/press hostility/cronyism/power consolidation /patronage corruption of the unelected military and monarchist elite.”
But is it preferable? Why?
Thaksin is responsible for the death without trial of 2,500 so called ‘drug dealers’, and the killings of 150 Muslims at Krue Se mosque and Tak Bai. Taksin instigated the issue of a guarantee by the EXIM Bank so he could sell his telcoms equipment to the Burmese government. Taksin manipulated a change in the law so that foreigners could own 49% of a Thai telco not 25%, the day before the share sale of Shin Group to Temasek, and the issue of a tax exemption letter for the sale profit by the head of the Thai Revenue Department (since dismissed). Thaksin’s ne’er do well son (found guilty of cheating in his degree exams) was mysteriously awarded the advertising contract for all stations on the Underground line. A Thaksin employee assasinated in North Thailand, as he was about to spill the beans on Shin’s import duty avoidance scheme. Thaksin’s wife allowed to buy foreclosed commercial land at a fraction of real value. Thaksin’s lawyers jailed for attempted bribery of court officers. Thaksin’s wife implicated in the airport xray machine scam. Thaksin attempts to crush dissent and criticism by dismissal of employees at his TV station (staff ordered to be reinstated by the Supremet Court) and his libel action claiming 400 billion Baht against Suppinya Klangnarong. How many more examples?
And the Democrats? They signed off for military expenditure on German submarines, Russian helicopters, Ukrainian APCs, Swedish jets etc etc, showing who holds the real power in the land and who must be appeased accordingly. The approval at the last Cabinet meeting of hundreds of juicy public contracts without any debate, appeases the provincial godfathers. The announcement, after Parliament’s dissolution, that state banks will bail out credit card debtors at lower interest rates, and the bail revocation for Redshirt leaders, was designed to avoid any parliamentary criticism. Democrats? Don’t pull my leg.
They are as corrupt as Thaksin and his henchman Sanoh and Chalerm. Remember it was Chalerm who as Interior Minister signed off on many of Thaksin’s telecom concessions in the early 1990s. And Sanoh who orcestrated the Alpine Golf scam, when he too was Interior Minister (how come the authorities did not sue until the 10 year limitation period expired?)
The election result will either be a Democrat coalition or a Peua Thai one. And if the latter happens, probably another coup soon after.
But is there any difference between Red corruption and abuse of power, and that of the Yellows?
Is there any difference between a flea and a louse?
The best thing about this poster is that it shows the boundless stupidity and crude mentality of the PAD. They may have more money – or whatever it is that differentiates yellows from reds – but they certainly don’t have any more intelligence, sophistication or subtlety. Furthermore, by descending to such levels of vulgarity, just to get one up on your opponent, shows that you are no better than the implied profanities that these animals represent. It is not the animals that that are poor, it is the minds of the people that observe them . . .
There will be no election .
I am pretty sure something big will be staged/orchestrated/manipulated during Thursday’s red demonstration, giving the elites the all too obvious reason they have so desperately been looking for, not to have an election they know their pathetic puppet will lose .
As WLH and Don’s different experience of what is blocked and not blocked demonstrates, one of the major problems with the Thai censorship is that it is dishonest and capricious. The censors don’t have the courage of their own convictions. They do not say what has bveen censored or why.
I have been proposing that you switch from attacking the author to simply asking questions: I would prefer to see a little bit more of the Socratic elenchus and a little bit less of the ignoratio elenchi in your discourse. (Yes, I get e-mail requesting a new Latin phrase of the day…)
Alas, there’s been quite a lot of the latter in your attacks upon me: you assign a thesis to me that I do not, myself, maintain, and then presume to attack it, as if this made the article above invalid. Both your attacks ad rem and your attacks ad hominem very much suffer from this defect (i.e., the ignoratio elenchi for those who have a notepad in hand…).
Last things first, you have ascribed to me the hypothesis that "the Buddha is never depicted with physical abnormalities or supernatural characteristics in the canon". There are two halves to that statement, and, in fact, my essay only contests one of the two: I argue that the Buddha did not have "freakish physical abnormalities" –and, on the contrary, there are ancient texts (as quoted above) to demonstrate that he didn’t look significantly different from the other monks that surrounded him.
However, (i) I do not hold the hypothesis that there was nothing supernatural about the Buddha in the Pali canon (quite the contrary, see below), and, moreover, (ii) I do not agree with your contention that the 32 marks contradict my earlier stated hypothesis (scil., that the Buddha did not have freakish physical abnormalities –and I will say more on that below, also).
I do not know if you are misrepresenting my argument (repeatedly!) as an intentional ploy, or if you are sincerely confused about the point I’m pursuing here (the term ignoratio elenchi applies in either case, BTW) –but, as I’ve said before, it would really be more appropriate for you to just ask me questions, rather than presuming to “disprove” the essay through spurious arguments (and you’ve now offered several wildly different arguments, in several successive attempts to do so!).
Returning to point (i), I neither maintain in this essay nor in my other work that the Buddhism of the Pali canon lacks supernatural aspects –quite the contrary, I genuinely have never met (nor read the published work of) any more vociferous critic of that tendency than myself. I would refer you to my 2010 essay, “The Opposite of Buddhism (pt 1): European Colonialism and Interpretation” –but this is, currently, in the process of peer-review. If you had sent e-mail to me privately (as I invited you to do!) I could have sent you a PDF of this article prior to publication, and you’d see that I take an archly critical view of both "the German philological tradition ... [&] the Oxford text-historical tradition", as you call them. That essay tackles everyone from Max Muller to Rhys-Davids –however, it does so on the basis of very palpable, historical research. I do not write such essays merely to demonstrate that I’m capable of criticizing such authors, but to genuinely bring problems into the light that would otherwise be obscure (and, in this case, I was especially interested in the fact that strange biases in European research are now being “inherited” by a new generation of Asian scholars… who can read English more easily than Pali, and who are more influenced by secondary sources than by primary sources as a result).
Indeed, I go quite a bit further in my 2011 essay, subtitled “…Contrasting Therav─Бda Primary Sources to their European Proxies”, and I directly challenge the attempts of some current interpreters to minimize supernatural aspects of canonical Buddhism; however, in the same essay, I do also challenge some misinterpretations that would mystify things that are not at all otherworldly in the source text. I do not have an agenda one way or the other: I am not “pro-supernatural” –however, I am aware of very badly flawed arguments offered by some Europeans that would attempt to (e.g.) delete the existence of hell (or delete the entire Buddhist cosmology) from the Pali canon.
You will have to imagine, therefore, how far off the mark you are in ascribing these theses to me, that none of my work supports –and plenty of my (already-sent-to-press) work rejects (…the problem with academic publishing being that it takes time; I have no idea when those two peer reviewed papers will actually appear on paper!).
Now, if you were to re-phrase your insult as a question, and simply ask me "...do you mean to imply that there was nothing supernatural about the canonical Buddha?" my answer would be a resounding no. (a) The canonical Buddha sees ghosts, talks to gods and demons, and reportedly has the power to fly through the air, among other supernatural things. (b) However, the canonical Buddha did not have freakish physical abnormalities, and evidently did not look much different from other monks (including the shaven head). These two assertions (a & b)do not contradict each other: they are both features of the (most ancient part of) the Pali canon.
On the issue of the 32 marks of the Maha-Purisa, please start by seeing the entry in the D.P.P.N., and please keep in mind the warning quoted from Conze, 1975; this clarifies the point of departure in a way that the editors of the salient Wikipedia articles are (apparently) unaware of.
With this having been said, if I were to re-phrase your attack as a question, you might ask me, "...do these 32-marks contradict your thesis that the Buddha did not have freakish physical abnormalities?" My answer, to this unasked question, would again be a resounding no –and it does help to know rather a lot about the texts in question (if you want to understand why this is the case).
Leaving aside quite a number of important issues (already covered in a prolix academic literature on the 32-marks, as alluded to previously) allow me to point that if you were to interpret the statement that “the Buddha had legs like an antelope” literally, that would be a freakish physical deformity. However, in my opinion, that would be entirely wrong: the text does not suggest that the Buddha had an animal’s legs (like the Greek god pan) nor that he was something like a centaur. Correctly interpreted, both linguistically and culturally, “legs like an antelope” is simply a blandishment. It suggests nothing more than strength and beauty.
Likewise, “golden skin” could be a supernatural (or sickly) condition in some cultural context or another –but, here, it is really just a blandishment. Banerjea was among the scholars who did the pains-taking work of looking for usages of the more idiomatic blandishments in this list of 32 (including the roundness of the head likened to “a royal turban”), and explaining them in their cultural context (there are comparable usages in Jain Prakrit and Hindu Sanskrit literature, etc., and so, as I’ve said, this really is a subject for a separate essay).
More could be said (and much more has already been written about) the history of this particular list of blandishments, they are, for the purposes of this essay, no different from ...devotional poetry that simply provides effusive praise of [the Buddha] (without providing useful details) –as discussed (briefly) in my essay, above.
Indeed, there are many poetic passages of the Pali canon that suggest the Buddha was astoundingly handsome –but I regard these as merely poetic exaggeration, with an obviously devotional purpose. Do they “contradict” the more down-to-earth descriptions I’ve quoted above, from prose passages, that provide practical details? No, I think that would be overstating the case: simply, the Pali canon comprises more than one genre of literature, and devotional poems provide us with evidence of a kind very from the passages I have here quoted and put to good purpose. Similarly, poetic exaggerations about the world’s geography (and cosmology) do not “contradict” down-to-earth passages of prose that describe how the Buddha walked from one place to another (in ancient India); they are both evidence of cultural attitudes, but only one provides us with precise toponyms, and distances between them (etc.). Both deserve consideration, but one cannot be “refuted” with reference to the other.
Steve, you may re-read the article, you may read my other articles, and you may re-read your own sequence of insulting (and often incoherent) attacks upon me and my work. You made false assumptions, and you made them worse through acrimonious and unproductive words. Those words will remain here, permanently appended to the essay.
Perhaps I am wrong to expect so much politesse as can be found in discussions of ancient Greek philosophy –but, I would note, my no-less-provocative article on the history of the Cambodian border conflict received more thoughtful and balanced commentary from New Mandala readers (without such spurious attacks) –and that is an intensely political issue, about which (still to this day) the red hot bullets fly.
It seems that Phuea Thai will win the greatest number of seats but fall short of an absolute majority. We will then see the Red Shirt mobs pressuring the smaller parties to join a Phuea Thai – led coalition, and the ammataya pressuring them to join a Democrat – led one, with further political instability following either outcome. Perhaps a royal succession to further complicate matters.
Buddhadasa thought all humans could learn from animal wisdom.Let us not forget they are often in charge, although Siamese cats are clearly superior beings to poodles, and help make what we are human animals
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
HRW fires a few grenades
Les, you are okay on this for me until you get to comparisons between the two reports. One reason for this is that (i) you don’t always compare like with like, (ii) you miss some very substantial agreements between the two reports and (iii) your critical eye deserts you for a moment in some of the quotes. Some illustrations of these points:
(i) On 2009 and like with like: the HRW report does talk about claims of other deaths, noting that they have not been substantiated (but this is on p. 42). In essence, while not stated in your quote from Amsterdam, he doesn’t do much more than that. The main difference is the statement about the floating bodies (and none of the press reports at the time mention “gangsters”, as you do, but I may have missed it) and that HRW adds a note about reporters being with advancing troops.
(ii) On agreement: Without going into huge detail, I believe that both reports agree on several fundamental points: (a) like you, both condemn the use of free fire zones and calculated assassinations and killings; (b) related, both HRW and Amsterdam conclude that unarmed protesters were likely killed by army snipers with high-velocity and scoped weapons; (c) Both seem to agree that the vast majority of red shirt protesters were unarmed; (d) that soldiers fired directly at protesters and others, causing death and injury; (e) that the deaths/some of the deaths at Wat Pathum Wanaram were by shooting by soldiers; (f) security forces did not allow medics and ambulances into the area, possibly leading to the death of some of the already wounded; (g) the government adopted various measures that infringed fundamental human rights; and, we might add (h) following the clearance operation, the government embarked on a vast operation of repression that also infringed human rights.
(iii) Finally, a question is raised from the quote you have from the French journalist. I’ll edit down: “Olivier Sarbil … was behind army lines … when Black Shirts attacked soldiers with grenades and gunfire…”. Sarbil: “Then the soldiers started to shoot in the air, and then they got hit by a grenade. … The Black Shirts were ahead of them, attacking. … I was too far back to see the Black Shirts, but I could see their fire incoming at us. ” I agree that Amsterdam says almost nothing on MIB and it is clear that the army was attacked, but as Sarbil says, he couldn’t see who it was….
One might also go through the HRW report and note things they missed (e.g. violent attacks on red shirts in Pattaya in 2009 and after). My feeling is that a better way to critically read the reports is to use them together and try to see what can be drawn from them. There are at least two other reports coming, one from human rights groups in Thailand and one from Kanit’s committee, so they should add to a body of knowledge that tells us more.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
Andrew Spooner – 16
How about Vote Democrat and get Newin? I’d have that down for my election slogan.
But will it Andrew Spooner? Let’s say for example that Bhun Jai has the numbers to decide which party forms the next government, would there be a bidding war? Is it totally outside your experience of Thai politics for that to be possible?
Now Chalerm is a very special case. Long before his boys were old enough to follow in his footsteps he had already showed himself to be the bogeyman of Thai politics. Find some friends who have been here a bit longer to recall some of the stories of Thonburi style election campaigning.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
Erewhon – 14
Couple of point I think you should be aware of about Thaksin era.
Thaksin is responsible for the death without trial of 2,500 so called ‘drug dealers’,
It was proven again and again that HRW get the number totally wrong that number was the “total number” of murdered case throughout feb-march. 1,100 of that were drug related, and about 78 cases of that were confirmed to be done by officer on duty.
the killings of 150 Muslims at Krue Se mosque and Tak Bai
Thaksin definitely protect the security force, should he be responsible for Tak bai? maybe, but on Krue Se I think he deserve some justice since the incident happened without Thaksin or Chaovalit consent, the security force just go on do their thing without telling their CO.
Taksin instigated the issue of a guarantee by the EXIM Bank so he could sell his telcoms equipment to the Burmese government.
The deal was specifically structured so that the Burmese Government use the money to “buy” Thai product to improve their “satellite” infrastructure, other than THCOM that is “thai” and dealing with “satellite” what other company fit the profile here??
Taksin manipulated a change in the law so that foreigners could own 49% of a Thai telco not 25%, the day before the share sale of Shin Group to Temasek,
If you know any better that law has been in the making since 2000, its even written in the constitution!
If mean we could go on and on with your grossly inaccurate facts but I’ve been doing that in NM for 3 years I felt like I didn’t want to do it anymore.
Furthermore, don’t mistaken me that I’m mr. T fan or anything, I’ve been critical of him as well. However, if Thaksin is to be judge then also the PM before and after him should be given the same treatment. People seems to be in the illusion that Thaksin was the first corrupted PM, guess what, he is not.
Lese embassy!
Thank you for your thought-provoking contributions to this discussion. I have very little to add bar sentiment.
I fear it is all going to get a whole lot worse, before it gets worse.
Of course, this I fear for the immediate and medium-term futures, of most nations across the globe. So many run by invisible tyrants; pulling the strings of their puppets with their acerbic but silver tongues; ‘selected’ for the stage by virtue of the macabre sham of democratic ‘elections’. An election contested by participants who have been pre-selected from a mere single-digit in starters, culled ruthlessly by media wars of the sort which pretend to discuss, whilst they conduct the outrageous proceedings which serve as the effective trial-by-public-‘opinion’ for which there can only ever be the single, ultimately predictable, and very preordained ‘verdict’ – the one which is left standing when the noise and smoke is cleared.
Hypothetically, the sort of trial-by-public-‘opinion’ which might be conducted against a former Socialist front-running candidate, who held a 5 point lead over his right and far right odious opponents in an upcoming Presidential election he hadn’t even submitted his name in candidacy for.
The feared not-yet-candidate, scrubbed before the pre-race preparations, languishing in a US holding cell, awaiting a repetitively-delayed and stalled trial; to face charges stemming from scandalous allegations made by an unidentified and (allegedly existing) assailant, parroting a story so full of holes it’s positively dripping in vile. Truly beyond the pale. If and when she emerges to answer the glaring inconsistencies in her impossibly implausible claims, the damage will have long been done. Comprehensively and irrevocably, and shamelessly…done.
No doubt there will still be a fiercely debated election, between whichever candidates managed to scrape their way to the pre-race starting line. Candidates who represent the extreme shades of the political spectrum; the sort who wax lyrical from the poles, only to invariably rule from somewhere near the dead middle of the authoritarian ‘centre’. It’s ghastly stuff, really.
Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if Thailand’s future isn’t quite as bleak as it seems. But then of course I realise I am marking on an increasingly horrific curve.
Chulalongkorn abolished prostration
Thank you Sir, for this fascinating theory. I have often been left unconvinced by explanations for that cultural peculiarity.
This makes incomparably more sense, compared to the implausible and vague explanations I’ve received thus far (from Thai and farang academics).
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
Surely the #14 post should replace the article which generated the discussion. I don’t contribute much but I come to New Mandala to learn. I learn more from contributions that don’t floor me with incredulity. The author does his arguments a great disservice by suggesting (amongst others):
1. Thaksin’s 2006 snap election with the greatest majority in electoral history less than a year after winning that overwhelming mandate; was a “snap call” on a Democrat bluff. What were they bluffing with? Charges of corruption, treason? Seems a strong hand. Seems like snap-calling would have been to face due process in court, rather than call a “no confidence” snap election with the greatest electoral mandate in Thai political history? Seem like he knew the Democrats had a strong hand, and rather than call, unwilling to fold, he shoved his entire stack in over the top. The Democrats said “screw that” and boycotted and with the dealer forced to step in and announce the hand to be replayed, Thaksin agreed then disagreed, ignored the House Rules (rightly or wrongly), and the House security walked over and gently suggested he leave the premises. I think that would be a more faithful analogy no?
2. A central reality of a nation in the spectre of a military coup. Perhaps. And the spectre of a criminal fugitive from justice who has never faced the judiciary over his human rights abuses; extra-judicial executions of innocents and what-have-you, funding of domestic terrorism and other trivialities, a failed uprising which left Bangkok a ghastly picture of flames on fateful night etc. You know, as we drift towards the centre of reality…
3. “Everything they can” to neuter Thaksin’s power; example: “the conviction of Thaksin for one of his more trivial infractions”. If a student of mine submitted a contradiction as laughable as this, I’d be sorely tempted to fail the lad on sheer principle. I hope I don’t have to point out why the example obliterates the premise. This is the lecturer writing? Or a (poor) student ghost writing? I’m confused.
4. “Everything they can” to neuter Thaksin’s power; example: “the seizure of Thaksin’s assets as punishment for his success in contributing to a buoyant stock market” This is factually incorrect. It’s almost brazen. This essay must be resubmitted. There was a great deal of unaccounted for baht Thaksin lived on, whilst his domestic bank accounts were frozen pending High Court deliberations – I don’t think he struggled, pretty sure he bought a top-flight EPL football club whilst he awaited the verdict? Those don’t run cheap, you know. Then they returned almost half his many billions with that verdict, which was unjust – clearly. Even if Justice exacted the brazenly incorrect re-claiming of baht in the author’s example of “everything they (could)”, there would still be a very large invoice owed to the Thai people from the fugitive’s luxury digs in Dubai (where, as it stands, a banker faces trial for thieving a stupendous ‘fee’ from his thieving client – where is the honour among their kind?). There is a great deal more coin stuffed away in the globe’s stockings, accounts in the name of T. Shinawatra. Hard to wage an expensive war against one’s political enemies, penniless and exiled, no? I do believe retaining all your Parliamentary (and slightly-less-immune) employees is not cheap, when one has conceded control of the till. Not cheap, would be putting it rather…extra-correctly.
And oh-so-much more…
I like this forum for it’s (occasionally) educating and stimulating discussions. I feel very strongly that the errors in the article detract greatly from the potential educational enjoyment readers expecting to be stimulated, might reasonably expect in the future.
The #14 comment is a great deal more what readers would expect, from contributors I am assuming are aiming to ignite intelligent (?) and open debate.
Last but not least, the distraction posed by the forced focus on the fugitive takes the discussion away from the far more relevant – if somewhat more sensitive – discussion that should be taking place. I refer, of course, to the reality all-too-briefly mentioned in the author’s concluding paragraph.
HRW fires a few grenades
The trouble with pinning Black Shirts with Red Shirts is that why none was killed or captured? If they’re such a pivotal presence in this event, then more effort must be made to go after them.
In the May crackdown, we’ve seen overwhelming numbers of soldiers used in the area. It boggles the mind to how the Blacks were able to get away with everything.
Although if you look at the numbers of military men who was convicted on that event – Zero , it’s not much of a stretch to lump them up with the army instead. They sure got the same treatment!
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
Les Abbey,
How about Vote Democrat and get Newin? I’d have that down for my election slogan.
What the (Non) Dems and their supporters don’t get is that Thaksin is far far more popular than Abhisit.
And, if it was straight race between Thaksin and Abhisit, with both being able to campaign openly, it would be a PT landslide.
Khun Aran.
Red mobs? You’re referring to the electorate there.
The only “mob” with any real power in Thailand is that in green, equipped with sniper rifles. And they are a tiny minority in alliance with another tiny minority and together they were prepared to kill up to 500 unarmed civilians last year to stay in power. It is only by some miracle that only 93 died.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
Yes an election it definitely needed.
Problem is that he elite has been in the background. If PT wins, they will pull out all the stops to keep the PT from being able to rule just as they did when PPP won in 2007.
Murder, LM charges, EC red cards, disbanding PT but yet again, False Flag (aka Black Flag) operations, agents provocateur—they will not allow the Shinawatra clan to actually rule.
Thaksin did his best to appease them with his 2007 selection of Samak, one of their members, who he thought that he would be able satisfy the royalist, the right-wingers, the militarists….. but we all know how that ended.
He is smart choosing a Family Member with brand recognition. All Thai politics seems to involve Thai/Chinese Godfather Family Businesses masquerading as a political parties anyway.
However, mark my words, if they win. They will not be allowed to rule. The octogenarian oligarchs will not recognize any mandate of the ‘people’. Only one that they write and can control.
If they ‘allow’ the PT to appear to take government, be assured that they will hobble it all along the way.
If the Democrats win, after stacking the deck against TRT/PPP/PT so many times and in so many ways, yes they will try to claim legitimacy. Yet the feeling will be that they really cheated and it will always taint them.
And at the end of the day, this whole political debacle probably boiled down to TRT buying cement from the wrong company, or granting a lucrative government monopoly at the airport to a rival family.
Myself, I think that this election will mark the end of Thailand’s legitimacy problem, but rather mark the end of the beginning.
For true democracy in Thailand, the Civil Government needs to get the military under its control.
The pink elephant in the room needs to be brought under the kind of controls that exist in Britain, Sweden, etc.
Corruption must be tackled and significant players need to be incarcerated.
Programs need to be people centered.
The country needs to be decentralized form Bangkok.
And I need to feel comfortable to sign my own name to my postings.
Chulalongkorn abolished prostration
[…] the online discussions of the New Mandala article led to the question: Why is this “oppressive” practice still carried out today, 138 […]
Somsak’s open letter to the princess
Tonight the Prachatai article is not blocked for me. Yesterday it was.
Somsak’s open letter to the princess
People are bowing to the police and army, without which there would be very little bowing.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
May I refer to WLH’s comments:
“I still feel great anxiety that Thaksin’s return will bring the same autocracy/press hostility/cronyism/power consolidation /patronage corruption that we saw from 2002-2006.
But on principle it is preferable to the current autocracy/press hostility/cronyism/power consolidation /patronage corruption of the unelected military and monarchist elite.”
But is it preferable? Why?
Thaksin is responsible for the death without trial of 2,500 so called ‘drug dealers’, and the killings of 150 Muslims at Krue Se mosque and Tak Bai. Taksin instigated the issue of a guarantee by the EXIM Bank so he could sell his telcoms equipment to the Burmese government. Taksin manipulated a change in the law so that foreigners could own 49% of a Thai telco not 25%, the day before the share sale of Shin Group to Temasek, and the issue of a tax exemption letter for the sale profit by the head of the Thai Revenue Department (since dismissed). Thaksin’s ne’er do well son (found guilty of cheating in his degree exams) was mysteriously awarded the advertising contract for all stations on the Underground line. A Thaksin employee assasinated in North Thailand, as he was about to spill the beans on Shin’s import duty avoidance scheme. Thaksin’s wife allowed to buy foreclosed commercial land at a fraction of real value. Thaksin’s lawyers jailed for attempted bribery of court officers. Thaksin’s wife implicated in the airport xray machine scam. Thaksin attempts to crush dissent and criticism by dismissal of employees at his TV station (staff ordered to be reinstated by the Supremet Court) and his libel action claiming 400 billion Baht against Suppinya Klangnarong. How many more examples?
And the Democrats? They signed off for military expenditure on German submarines, Russian helicopters, Ukrainian APCs, Swedish jets etc etc, showing who holds the real power in the land and who must be appeased accordingly. The approval at the last Cabinet meeting of hundreds of juicy public contracts without any debate, appeases the provincial godfathers. The announcement, after Parliament’s dissolution, that state banks will bail out credit card debtors at lower interest rates, and the bail revocation for Redshirt leaders, was designed to avoid any parliamentary criticism. Democrats? Don’t pull my leg.
They are as corrupt as Thaksin and his henchman Sanoh and Chalerm. Remember it was Chalerm who as Interior Minister signed off on many of Thaksin’s telecom concessions in the early 1990s. And Sanoh who orcestrated the Alpine Golf scam, when he too was Interior Minister (how come the authorities did not sue until the 10 year limitation period expired?)
The election result will either be a Democrat coalition or a Peua Thai one. And if the latter happens, probably another coup soon after.
But is there any difference between Red corruption and abuse of power, and that of the Yellows?
Is there any difference between a flea and a louse?
Don’t let animals into parliament!
The best thing about this poster is that it shows the boundless stupidity and crude mentality of the PAD. They may have more money – or whatever it is that differentiates yellows from reds – but they certainly don’t have any more intelligence, sophistication or subtlety. Furthermore, by descending to such levels of vulgarity, just to get one up on your opponent, shows that you are no better than the implied profanities that these animals represent. It is not the animals that that are poor, it is the minds of the people that observe them . . .
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
There will be no election .
I am pretty sure something big will be staged/orchestrated/manipulated during Thursday’s red demonstration, giving the elites the all too obvious reason they have so desperately been looking for, not to have an election they know their pathetic puppet will lose .
Somsak’s open letter to the princess
As WLH and Don’s different experience of what is blocked and not blocked demonstrates, one of the major problems with the Thai censorship is that it is dishonest and capricious. The censors don’t have the courage of their own convictions. They do not say what has bveen censored or why.
The Buddha was bald
Steve,
I have been proposing that you switch from attacking the author to simply asking questions: I would prefer to see a little bit more of the Socratic elenchus and a little bit less of the ignoratio elenchi in your discourse. (Yes, I get e-mail requesting a new Latin phrase of the day…)
Alas, there’s been quite a lot of the latter in your attacks upon me: you assign a thesis to me that I do not, myself, maintain, and then presume to attack it, as if this made the article above invalid. Both your attacks ad rem and your attacks ad hominem very much suffer from this defect (i.e., the ignoratio elenchi for those who have a notepad in hand…).
Last things first, you have ascribed to me the hypothesis that
"the Buddha is never depicted with physical abnormalities or supernatural characteristics in the canon". There are two halves to that statement, and, in fact, my essay only contests one of the two: I argue that the Buddha did not have"freakish physical abnormalities"–and, on the contrary, there are ancient texts (as quoted above) to demonstrate that he didn’t look significantly different from the other monks that surrounded him.However, (i) I do not hold the hypothesis that there was nothing supernatural about the Buddha in the Pali canon (quite the contrary, see below), and, moreover, (ii) I do not agree with your contention that the 32 marks contradict my earlier stated hypothesis (scil., that the Buddha did not have freakish physical abnormalities –and I will say more on that below, also).
I do not know if you are misrepresenting my argument (repeatedly!) as an intentional ploy, or if you are sincerely confused about the point I’m pursuing here (the term ignoratio elenchi applies in either case, BTW) –but, as I’ve said before, it would really be more appropriate for you to just ask me questions, rather than presuming to “disprove” the essay through spurious arguments (and you’ve now offered several wildly different arguments, in several successive attempts to do so!).
Returning to point (i), I neither maintain in this essay nor in my other work that the Buddhism of the Pali canon lacks supernatural aspects –quite the contrary, I genuinely have never met (nor read the published work of) any more vociferous critic of that tendency than myself. I would refer you to my 2010 essay, “The Opposite of Buddhism (pt 1): European Colonialism and Interpretation” –but this is, currently, in the process of peer-review. If you had sent e-mail to me privately (as I invited you to do!) I could have sent you a PDF of this article prior to publication, and you’d see that I take an archly critical view of both
"the German philological tradition ... [&] the Oxford text-historical tradition", as you call them. That essay tackles everyone from Max Muller to Rhys-Davids –however, it does so on the basis of very palpable, historical research. I do not write such essays merely to demonstrate that I’m capable of criticizing such authors, but to genuinely bring problems into the light that would otherwise be obscure (and, in this case, I was especially interested in the fact that strange biases in European research are now being “inherited” by a new generation of Asian scholars… who can read English more easily than Pali, and who are more influenced by secondary sources than by primary sources as a result).Indeed, I go quite a bit further in my 2011 essay, subtitled “…Contrasting Therav─Бda Primary Sources to their European Proxies”, and I directly challenge the attempts of some current interpreters to minimize supernatural aspects of canonical Buddhism; however, in the same essay, I do also challenge some misinterpretations that would mystify things that are not at all otherworldly in the source text. I do not have an agenda one way or the other: I am not “pro-supernatural” –however, I am aware of very badly flawed arguments offered by some Europeans that would attempt to (e.g.) delete the existence of hell (or delete the entire Buddhist cosmology) from the Pali canon.
You will have to imagine, therefore, how far off the mark you are in ascribing these theses to me, that none of my work supports –and plenty of my (already-sent-to-press) work rejects (…the problem with academic publishing being that it takes time; I have no idea when those two peer reviewed papers will actually appear on paper!).
Now, if you were to re-phrase your insult as a question, and simply ask me
"...do you mean to imply that there was nothing supernatural about the canonical Buddha?"my answer would be a resounding no. (a) The canonical Buddha sees ghosts, talks to gods and demons, and reportedly has the power to fly through the air, among other supernatural things. (b) However, the canonical Buddha did not have freakish physical abnormalities, and evidently did not look much different from other monks (including the shaven head). These two assertions (a & b) do not contradict each other: they are both features of the (most ancient part of) the Pali canon.On the issue of the 32 marks of the Maha-Purisa, please start by seeing the entry in the D.P.P.N., and please keep in mind the warning quoted from Conze, 1975; this clarifies the point of departure in a way that the editors of the salient Wikipedia articles are (apparently) unaware of.
With this having been said, if I were to re-phrase your attack as a question, you might ask me,
"...do these 32-marks contradict your thesis that the Buddha did not have freakish physical abnormalities?"My answer, to this unasked question, would again be a resounding no –and it does help to know rather a lot about the texts in question (if you want to understand why this is the case).Leaving aside quite a number of important issues (already covered in a prolix academic literature on the 32-marks, as alluded to previously) allow me to point that if you were to interpret the statement that “the Buddha had legs like an antelope” literally, that would be a freakish physical deformity. However, in my opinion, that would be entirely wrong: the text does not suggest that the Buddha had an animal’s legs (like the Greek god pan) nor that he was something like a centaur. Correctly interpreted, both linguistically and culturally, “legs like an antelope” is simply a blandishment. It suggests nothing more than strength and beauty.
Likewise, “golden skin” could be a supernatural (or sickly) condition in some cultural context or another –but, here, it is really just a blandishment. Banerjea was among the scholars who did the pains-taking work of looking for usages of the more idiomatic blandishments in this list of 32 (including the roundness of the head likened to “a royal turban”), and explaining them in their cultural context (there are comparable usages in Jain Prakrit and Hindu Sanskrit literature, etc., and so, as I’ve said, this really is a subject for a separate essay).
More could be said (and much more has already been written about) the history of this particular list of blandishments, they are, for the purposes of this essay, no different from
...devotional poetry that simply provides effusive praise of [the Buddha] (without providing useful details)–as discussed (briefly) in my essay, above.Indeed, there are many poetic passages of the Pali canon that suggest the Buddha was astoundingly handsome –but I regard these as merely poetic exaggeration, with an obviously devotional purpose. Do they “contradict” the more down-to-earth descriptions I’ve quoted above, from prose passages, that provide practical details? No, I think that would be overstating the case: simply, the Pali canon comprises more than one genre of literature, and devotional poems provide us with evidence of a kind very from the passages I have here quoted and put to good purpose. Similarly, poetic exaggerations about the world’s geography (and cosmology) do not “contradict” down-to-earth passages of prose that describe how the Buddha walked from one place to another (in ancient India); they are both evidence of cultural attitudes, but only one provides us with precise toponyms, and distances between them (etc.). Both deserve consideration, but one cannot be “refuted” with reference to the other.
Steve, you may re-read the article, you may read my other articles, and you may re-read your own sequence of insulting (and often incoherent) attacks upon me and my work. You made false assumptions, and you made them worse through acrimonious and unproductive words. Those words will remain here, permanently appended to the essay.
Perhaps I am wrong to expect so much politesse as can be found in discussions of ancient Greek philosophy –but, I would note, my no-less-provocative article on the history of the Cambodian border conflict received more thoughtful and balanced commentary from New Mandala readers (without such spurious attacks) –and that is an intensely political issue, about which (still to this day) the red hot bullets fly.
News from northeast Thailand
ryan – 12
Ryan thanks for that. I have saved it and will read it later.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
It seems that Phuea Thai will win the greatest number of seats but fall short of an absolute majority. We will then see the Red Shirt mobs pressuring the smaller parties to join a Phuea Thai – led coalition, and the ammataya pressuring them to join a Democrat – led one, with further political instability following either outcome. Perhaps a royal succession to further complicate matters.
Don’t let animals into parliament!
Buddhadasa thought all humans could learn from animal wisdom.Let us not forget they are often in charge, although Siamese cats are clearly superior beings to poodles, and help make what we are human animals