Great! Please subtitle the others as well. I have recommended the first two to Thai friends already.
Also, I’d love to collect all six and put them on a DVD for easy home viewing and distribution. I think I can do this easily with video-grab software, but would it violate copyright?
The companies owned by the Crown Property Bureau, like Siam Cement, are also among Thailand’s strongest, setting standards in the country’s industrial development as well as employment practices.
Whereas South Korea grew to its present strength on the backs of gigantic Chaebol, conglomerates such as Samsung, Daewoo, Hyundai, Thailand impales itself on the simmering hatreds of a generation of left-leaning academics incorporated into society via the 1979 compromise.
Anyone who has worked as part of these two societies (as opposed to ivory-tower-entrenched hyper-specialized shielded-from-the-real-world cradle-to-grave-in-the-academy academics) knows that these large Chaebol employers have been the road to social equality in South Korea. How many young people who grew up in rural farming households catapulted themselves into corporate workplaces and the middle class through a career in a Korean Chaebol? So many that I remember, that I cannot count them.
So many Thais have been taught to have a knee jerk reaction against anything large and commercial like CP Group or Siam Cement, yet it is only within large corporations like this, that the “welfare state” left-leaning academics so much adore, can be established. Successful agriculture projects are also much more likely when conducted by these commercial for-profit enterprises, rather than the government, contract farming of fish being one notable example.
The quoted phrase is really logically perplexing. Take this logic: “…remains the world’s richest royal for the third year in a row, despite his country’s riots and turmoil…” What is that supposed to mean?
“The rioting…may irreparably damage the country’s tourism and investment markets,” and fish may rain from the sky in the Australian desert as they sometimes wont to do! What an idiotic “so what” sentence. This reminds me of how the Financial Times used to rely on Trotskyite Giles Ungpakorn as a source for political analysis. What utter rot.
Hard to add anything to the comments on the same subject made in 2008 and 2009 and that old Asia Sentinel article.
Overall CPB business practices seem to be generally beneficial to the country but that depends largely on their good will and there are no legal mechanisms to prevent abuse of all that wealth.
I’m not sure that introducing such mechanisms would be beneficial, though – if SPB opens their books and doors, who’ll come rushing in first and with what motives?
Most of the CPB’s properties in the Rattanakosin area are being rented out at below market value, or at least that’s the conventional wisdom. Every Thai seems to know someone who knows someone that knows a family that’s been renting the same shophouse near Chinatown since 1962 for Bt1200 a month, etc. So the Forbes number is possibly inflated because it’s using actual market value on the land. Then again, with no accountability or transparency, the CPB could kick out the tenants at any time and turn Rachdamnoen into Orchard Road II. That they haven’t yet suggests that someone up there isn’t entirely greedy. Of course, the head of the CPB will change eventually…
A brief history lesson for StanG (18).
In 1920-45 big business flirted with fascism out of fear of communism. That situation no longer exists.
The present situation in Thailand began as a conflict between personalities, which fanned the underlying, long-continuing conflict between absolutism and democracy. Thaksin was an unlikely champion of democracy because the majority of the Thai people (having been fed for years on monarchist propaganda) perceived him as an alternative monarch, more active and more benevolent than the King. This pressed the King’s jealousy button, inflamed his anti-democratic passions, and drove his régime into the arms of militarism and fascism. People suspected of not grovelling to the King are being rounded up and imprisoned without trial etc. etc..
I fully understand, StanG, that you are forbidden from uttering anything close to the truth, on pain of imprisonment or worse.
Thanks for your insights into this issue denyzofisarn.
While I’m cognizant of the strong influence that history has on any society, I am appealing to Malaysians of all persuasion that the Malaysia project can only be sustainable if there is a sense of fairness.
The Malay community can be assured of their dominant role in society but it cannot and should not come at the expense of fairness (and hence justice).
Therefore, if Art 153 was developed to ensure fairness to the Malays, then the Malays must also ensure fairness to all other citizens of Malaysia.
When I ask who’s in charge of Thainess, I mean it in the most rhetorical way possible, but I’d like to add on to your arguments:
When asked what is more important, getting your work done, or maintaining a good relationship given that you are in a conflicting situation and must choose between the two: 70% of Bkk office workers answered relationship. 61% of farmers said getting their work done. A typical Bangkokian will tell you that maintaining harmonious relationship is the ‘Thai” way, yet the majority of the country (the farmers) will tell you that getting their daily crop is more important and is the Thai way. I work with the Bangkok people and I hate it, but I love and respect the people who are willing to get the job done more.
It would be great if this government, or any government asked the question, “What is Thainess?” and allowed for a national civil discussion (not debate mind you) on what it means to be Thai because the the makeup of the Thai public has changed in these last 15-20 years. In Pahurat you’ve got your 3rd and 4th generation Thai-Indians, in Yaowarat your 5th and 6th generations Thai-Chinese, in the North, you have many ethnic and tribal minorities whose 2nd generations are now born and bred in Thailand, in the South-Central region (Kanchanaburi, Samut Sakorn, Ratchaburi) you’ve got 2nd generation of Thai-Burmese growing up here. The industrial areas have their own collection of blue-collar Thais, then of course you have the farmers, the “elite” Thai with ‘connections’, the land owners, the land lords, beauracrats, etc. etc. etc. What does it mean to be Thai? Do the ‘controllers’ of Thai culture actually have control any more?
There are many more voices, there are rumblings of a major wind of change, there are those who feel the time has come not to just change the “jockey” but to change the horse itself, and these people are like I mentioned above, a very influential elite, whose Yellow is now more like a public showing and a baby-like security blanket they aren’t willing to discard yet.
If you ask me why am I so worried about this elite when time and time again democratic elections has shown that the Thaksin parties, TRT, PPP, PT has (and probably win) elections again, I will ask you to think of the following:
in history, any time (even during democracries) when the elite (or a tiny (above 25% of them) did not back the winning candidate, they were able to use constitutional tools to totally deter the elected government from doing their jobs, these usually would come under ridiculous and frivilous law suits (the judiciary being key here, so I am topical), crazy investigations to nowhere, and no support of any government programs, making an elected government impotent.
When the elite fails at this, then you have someone like Senor Chavez of Venezuela (not to be confused with vuvuzela), and the country is then disjoined from the global conversation and economic investments is replaced by crazy populism causing the country to slide backwards as the leaders find ways to keep themselves in power under any democratic means possible. I am not saying that Thaksin is Chavez, we won’t know now, there was a coup in 2006. It probably would’ve been better not to have had a coup, and see what Thaksin would’ve done to subsequent PAD protests.
Instead, we have Abhisit Vejjajiva, a seemingly very smart man who gives excellent tv interviews. A man whom I know is actually very good natured and good hearted. He means well, but is genuinely not in charge of the country at all. He still does not realize that yet despite the mounting evidence. He prefers not to see it and live in the la-la land he’s developed in his own mind that he is in charge of things.
It seems that for Thailand, the road to hell is indeed full of good intentions.
At least the assets are safe in the Crown Property Bureau from the usual thai style distribution in different pockets of the ones who can. Imagine in any other place the funds would be ‘gone’ by now.
Goo_Stewart, I can’t really confirm or deny rumors, but those are the types of rumors you hear in a lot of developing country judicial systems. I might say two things. First, make sure you’re not confusing corrupt deals with something more akin to plea bargains. In a lot of civil law systems, prosecutors have more discretion as to whether a case has sufficient evidence. Also, it’s important to beware of rumors, especially in this field. Law is complex and there might be a lot of non-corrupt considerations (although, that’s certainly not to ignore the corruption that does exist).
I wonder whether the Forbes article is going to get any traction in Thai press. Is it a safe bet to say it won’t? Or maybe Forbes won’t be seen as a reputed source anymore?
StanG’s knowledge of “liberal democracies” appears extremely limited. Over the past 3 or more decades, there have been policies that have attempted to promote business involvement in a range of what had been state activities. These have been promoted under neo-liberal policies. But perhaps this is not what is meant? If not, and the issue is business influence over state policies, for example, then there has been an overt influence in, say, the US, through registered lobbying. If it is a merging of interests, think Eisenhower’s claim – and then academic research of – the military-industrial complex from the 1950s.
In Thailand, there are numerous studies available of business-state links that go back many years to Skinner. That Thaksin made it “open”, to use StanG’s terms, is less than accurate. That there was plenty under the table and out of view is shown by all the books that came out to reveal it (the ru thang Thaksin collections, for example).
The lack of transparency in business-state relations continues unabated in Thailand.
What this has to do with Fascism is all a bit debatable. The classic book on Fascism and big business was by Daniel Guerin (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/1938/10/fascism.htm). It looks at the relationship between Fascism in Italy and Gemany and its relationship with the big capitalist families and argues that industrial capitalists in heavy industry were in bed with the Fascist parties. Other capitalists were left out of the deal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_Big_Business
Thailand’s Fascism seems to be current rather than past and held together by royalist ideology, recalling that the royals are probably Thailand’s biggest capitalist group, with a major stake in the llargest industrial conglomerate.
“appeal to the judiciary to resolve the political crisis”
Sure it could be interpreted that way, if one wants to deflect the argument that the House was dismissed to avoid solving Thaksin’s personal problems with the law.
Then followed shameless April elections fraud which had to be addressed regardless of the vote outcome.
What we have here is an attempt to make oneself untouchable and outside the law by claiming electoral popularity.
So far the judiciary hasn’t caved in and withstood the assault.
Whilst I will concede that the judiciary is a highly respected institution, I remain adamant that it is as thoroughly corrupt as any branch of the Thai governmental framework. In criminal cases, it is notorious for being complicit in deals for acquittals/lesser sentences, in political cases it is certainly stacked and active in the political arena.
Ok, my belief can not be based in hard fact, but smoke and fire, eh? We hear rumours of far too many cases involving deals done between prosecution/judges and defence for there to be no truth behind them.
Having said that, I do believe that there is an openness and fairness in the traditional ‘civil’ areas of the Thai legal system. Tax, Labour and IP cases do seem to get resolved in a largely independent way. To hear of some of the judgements coming from the Labour Courts I sometimes cheer quietly to myself, it does some to be an arena for fairness, where the little guy can win fair judgements. Maybe there is hope for one of the Thai institutions.
Can a distinction be drawn between ‘anonymous’ allegations, of the type that Frank G Anderson describes, and publishing under a pen name?
In the Burma context, for instance, many of the names listed by Selth are not real in that they are not on the author’s passport. But they do attach to a particular identity. A pen name that is used consistently is still a pen name, to be sure, but biases become clear and, in some of those cases, one can easily contact the author – even meet face-to-face.
Is this enough to resolve many of the concerns raised?
StanG #19 :
“There are great many definitions of fascism and quite often the label itself gets meaningless when attached to anything on the Internet but you’d be surprised how TRT rule fits into many of the definitions almost perfectly, especially in the late years when the supporters and the enemies were defined and visions of the future were laid out.”
I don’t doubt that you are probably correct, but can you give some examples ?
Using pseudonym has advantages as well as pit falls.
1)Advabtages
Gender Neutral
Ethnicity neutral
Pseudonym define a Position taken on subjects
Protect ID from malicious sources.(TRUE)
2)Disadvantages
Gender Neutral
Ethnicity neutral
Pseudonym define a Position taken on subjects
Protect ID from malicious sources.(UNTRUE)
Every famous authors have written under multiple pseudonym so does many stone throwers, myriad of libelers and yellow journalism endeared ones.
As you all can see the major advantages are also disadvantages.
A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A ROSE.
The content of what is presented is still the most important.
As for labeling vs Name calling : label such Crusoe or Man Friday when absolutely appropriately used help “define” someone who is not a Rose masquerading as one.
Name calling “subjectively” intent only to put down recipient but nothing else.
Therefore showing others the recipient is anything but a Rose.
Without absolute proof however made the reverse is ascertained .
Name calling and labeling however rarely promote friendship but rather transform the recipient into an opposing entity permanently.
The line dividing the two stated is very thin indeed. However very well visible to those who read carefully.
As for defending any perceived wrong in New Mandala:
The limit of which is always at the mercy of the editorial staff. Defined pretty well above.
The Moderator is the right hand of GOD of that forum.
What he will not smite down shall be printed.
Being a Satan or a Lucifer, a Gabriel or an Archangel really does not matter much.
[…] A New Mandala blog post about the Thai judiciary system cites findings from The Asia Foundation’s “Survey of the Thai People,” which found that approximately two-thirds of Thais believe that the judiciary conforms to a high level of integrity and is generally unbiased. Read the full blog post: “Thai Institutions: Judiciary.” […]
There seems to be a consensus that the military have grown in power with recent events so perhaps it is time to counter them using the other favourite elite weapon – the courts.
Specifically charge military officers with lesse mageste.
Consider this example.
In a northern province a loyal commanding officer of one unit ordered the planting of around 8000 trees (later reduced) being 100 for each year of the King’s life (3 years ago).
Not only did he order the planting at the best time of year – beginning of the rainy season, but he also produced a plan for follow-up tending on auspicious royal days through the year.
Then once the project was starting to roll e.g trees were being specially procured, the CO was transferred. The subsequent CO followed through on the plan, but one might say, not as professionally as its initiator. Trees were planted but the maintenance program was only partly sustained.
After around 2 years CO No.2 was replaced by CO No.3 , who promptly dismissed some of the ground staff and refused to meet with community volunteers, this being in contravention of the constitution.
No tree maintenance was undertaken and rank weed growth took off. Nothing was done to reduce the fire risk from tall grass.
Then the fire season arrived in January and the area planted in honour of the King was burnt.
Not long after a military exercise was undertaken in the area and many bigger trees which had survived the fire were run over by tanks.
If anything constitutes a show of contempt for the royal institution surely this does.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Thailand in Crisis: Episode 2 (р╣Бр╕Ыр╕ер╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕ар╕▓р╕йр╕▓р╣Др╕Чр╕в)
Great! Please subtitle the others as well. I have recommended the first two to Thai friends already.
Also, I’d love to collect all six and put them on a DVD for easy home viewing and distribution. I think I can do this easily with video-grab software, but would it violate copyright?
Forbes on King Bhumibol’s billions
The companies owned by the Crown Property Bureau, like Siam Cement, are also among Thailand’s strongest, setting standards in the country’s industrial development as well as employment practices.
Whereas South Korea grew to its present strength on the backs of gigantic Chaebol, conglomerates such as Samsung, Daewoo, Hyundai, Thailand impales itself on the simmering hatreds of a generation of left-leaning academics incorporated into society via the 1979 compromise.
Anyone who has worked as part of these two societies (as opposed to ivory-tower-entrenched hyper-specialized shielded-from-the-real-world cradle-to-grave-in-the-academy academics) knows that these large Chaebol employers have been the road to social equality in South Korea. How many young people who grew up in rural farming households catapulted themselves into corporate workplaces and the middle class through a career in a Korean Chaebol? So many that I remember, that I cannot count them.
So many Thais have been taught to have a knee jerk reaction against anything large and commercial like CP Group or Siam Cement, yet it is only within large corporations like this, that the “welfare state” left-leaning academics so much adore, can be established. Successful agriculture projects are also much more likely when conducted by these commercial for-profit enterprises, rather than the government, contract farming of fish being one notable example.
The quoted phrase is really logically perplexing. Take this logic: “…remains the world’s richest royal for the third year in a row, despite his country’s riots and turmoil…” What is that supposed to mean?
“The rioting…may irreparably damage the country’s tourism and investment markets,” and fish may rain from the sky in the Australian desert as they sometimes wont to do! What an idiotic “so what” sentence. This reminds me of how the Financial Times used to rely on Trotskyite Giles Ungpakorn as a source for political analysis. What utter rot.
Forbes on King Bhumibol’s billions
Hard to add anything to the comments on the same subject made in 2008 and 2009 and that old Asia Sentinel article.
Overall CPB business practices seem to be generally beneficial to the country but that depends largely on their good will and there are no legal mechanisms to prevent abuse of all that wealth.
I’m not sure that introducing such mechanisms would be beneficial, though – if SPB opens their books and doors, who’ll come rushing in first and with what motives?
Forbes on King Bhumibol’s billions
Most of the CPB’s properties in the Rattanakosin area are being rented out at below market value, or at least that’s the conventional wisdom. Every Thai seems to know someone who knows someone that knows a family that’s been renting the same shophouse near Chinatown since 1962 for Bt1200 a month, etc. So the Forbes number is possibly inflated because it’s using actual market value on the land. Then again, with no accountability or transparency, the CPB could kick out the tenants at any time and turn Rachdamnoen into Orchard Road II. That they haven’t yet suggests that someone up there isn’t entirely greedy. Of course, the head of the CPB will change eventually…
Big questions for Thailand
A brief history lesson for StanG (18).
In 1920-45 big business flirted with fascism out of fear of communism. That situation no longer exists.
The present situation in Thailand began as a conflict between personalities, which fanned the underlying, long-continuing conflict between absolutism and democracy. Thaksin was an unlikely champion of democracy because the majority of the Thai people (having been fed for years on monarchist propaganda) perceived him as an alternative monarch, more active and more benevolent than the King. This pressed the King’s jealousy button, inflamed his anti-democratic passions, and drove his régime into the arms of militarism and fascism. People suspected of not grovelling to the King are being rounded up and imprisoned without trial etc. etc..
I fully understand, StanG, that you are forbidden from uttering anything close to the truth, on pain of imprisonment or worse.
Malays should not fear!
Thanks for your insights into this issue denyzofisarn.
While I’m cognizant of the strong influence that history has on any society, I am appealing to Malaysians of all persuasion that the Malaysia project can only be sustainable if there is a sense of fairness.
The Malay community can be assured of their dominant role in society but it cannot and should not come at the expense of fairness (and hence justice).
Therefore, if Art 153 was developed to ensure fairness to the Malays, then the Malays must also ensure fairness to all other citizens of Malaysia.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
David Brown #17:
When I ask who’s in charge of Thainess, I mean it in the most rhetorical way possible, but I’d like to add on to your arguments:
When asked what is more important, getting your work done, or maintaining a good relationship given that you are in a conflicting situation and must choose between the two: 70% of Bkk office workers answered relationship. 61% of farmers said getting their work done. A typical Bangkokian will tell you that maintaining harmonious relationship is the ‘Thai” way, yet the majority of the country (the farmers) will tell you that getting their daily crop is more important and is the Thai way. I work with the Bangkok people and I hate it, but I love and respect the people who are willing to get the job done more.
It would be great if this government, or any government asked the question, “What is Thainess?” and allowed for a national civil discussion (not debate mind you) on what it means to be Thai because the the makeup of the Thai public has changed in these last 15-20 years. In Pahurat you’ve got your 3rd and 4th generation Thai-Indians, in Yaowarat your 5th and 6th generations Thai-Chinese, in the North, you have many ethnic and tribal minorities whose 2nd generations are now born and bred in Thailand, in the South-Central region (Kanchanaburi, Samut Sakorn, Ratchaburi) you’ve got 2nd generation of Thai-Burmese growing up here. The industrial areas have their own collection of blue-collar Thais, then of course you have the farmers, the “elite” Thai with ‘connections’, the land owners, the land lords, beauracrats, etc. etc. etc. What does it mean to be Thai? Do the ‘controllers’ of Thai culture actually have control any more?
There are many more voices, there are rumblings of a major wind of change, there are those who feel the time has come not to just change the “jockey” but to change the horse itself, and these people are like I mentioned above, a very influential elite, whose Yellow is now more like a public showing and a baby-like security blanket they aren’t willing to discard yet.
If you ask me why am I so worried about this elite when time and time again democratic elections has shown that the Thaksin parties, TRT, PPP, PT has (and probably win) elections again, I will ask you to think of the following:
in history, any time (even during democracries) when the elite (or a tiny (above 25% of them) did not back the winning candidate, they were able to use constitutional tools to totally deter the elected government from doing their jobs, these usually would come under ridiculous and frivilous law suits (the judiciary being key here, so I am topical), crazy investigations to nowhere, and no support of any government programs, making an elected government impotent.
When the elite fails at this, then you have someone like Senor Chavez of Venezuela (not to be confused with vuvuzela), and the country is then disjoined from the global conversation and economic investments is replaced by crazy populism causing the country to slide backwards as the leaders find ways to keep themselves in power under any democratic means possible. I am not saying that Thaksin is Chavez, we won’t know now, there was a coup in 2006. It probably would’ve been better not to have had a coup, and see what Thaksin would’ve done to subsequent PAD protests.
Instead, we have Abhisit Vejjajiva, a seemingly very smart man who gives excellent tv interviews. A man whom I know is actually very good natured and good hearted. He means well, but is genuinely not in charge of the country at all. He still does not realize that yet despite the mounting evidence. He prefers not to see it and live in the la-la land he’s developed in his own mind that he is in charge of things.
It seems that for Thailand, the road to hell is indeed full of good intentions.
Forbes on King Bhumibol’s billions
At least the assets are safe in the Crown Property Bureau from the usual thai style distribution in different pockets of the ones who can. Imagine in any other place the funds would be ‘gone’ by now.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Goo_Stewart, I can’t really confirm or deny rumors, but those are the types of rumors you hear in a lot of developing country judicial systems. I might say two things. First, make sure you’re not confusing corrupt deals with something more akin to plea bargains. In a lot of civil law systems, prosecutors have more discretion as to whether a case has sufficient evidence. Also, it’s important to beware of rumors, especially in this field. Law is complex and there might be a lot of non-corrupt considerations (although, that’s certainly not to ignore the corruption that does exist).
Enemies, foreign and domestic
@Ozorro,
I’ve seen quite a number of pictures of dead people who were guilty of being shot. The photographers, like Nick, were obviously complicit.
Forbes on King Bhumibol’s billions
I wonder whether the Forbes article is going to get any traction in Thai press. Is it a safe bet to say it won’t? Or maybe Forbes won’t be seen as a reputed source anymore?
Big questions for Thailand
StanG’s knowledge of “liberal democracies” appears extremely limited. Over the past 3 or more decades, there have been policies that have attempted to promote business involvement in a range of what had been state activities. These have been promoted under neo-liberal policies. But perhaps this is not what is meant? If not, and the issue is business influence over state policies, for example, then there has been an overt influence in, say, the US, through registered lobbying. If it is a merging of interests, think Eisenhower’s claim – and then academic research of – the military-industrial complex from the 1950s.
In Thailand, there are numerous studies available of business-state links that go back many years to Skinner. That Thaksin made it “open”, to use StanG’s terms, is less than accurate. That there was plenty under the table and out of view is shown by all the books that came out to reveal it (the ru thang Thaksin collections, for example).
The lack of transparency in business-state relations continues unabated in Thailand.
What this has to do with Fascism is all a bit debatable. The classic book on Fascism and big business was by Daniel Guerin (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/1938/10/fascism.htm). It looks at the relationship between Fascism in Italy and Gemany and its relationship with the big capitalist families and argues that industrial capitalists in heavy industry were in bed with the Fascist parties. Other capitalists were left out of the deal. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_Big_Business
Thailand’s Fascism seems to be current rather than past and held together by royalist ideology, recalling that the royals are probably Thailand’s biggest capitalist group, with a major stake in the llargest industrial conglomerate.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
“appeal to the judiciary to resolve the political crisis”
Sure it could be interpreted that way, if one wants to deflect the argument that the House was dismissed to avoid solving Thaksin’s personal problems with the law.
Then followed shameless April elections fraud which had to be addressed regardless of the vote outcome.
What we have here is an attempt to make oneself untouchable and outside the law by claiming electoral popularity.
So far the judiciary hasn’t caved in and withstood the assault.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
Whilst I will concede that the judiciary is a highly respected institution, I remain adamant that it is as thoroughly corrupt as any branch of the Thai governmental framework. In criminal cases, it is notorious for being complicit in deals for acquittals/lesser sentences, in political cases it is certainly stacked and active in the political arena.
Ok, my belief can not be based in hard fact, but smoke and fire, eh? We hear rumours of far too many cases involving deals done between prosecution/judges and defence for there to be no truth behind them.
Having said that, I do believe that there is an openness and fairness in the traditional ‘civil’ areas of the Thai legal system. Tax, Labour and IP cases do seem to get resolved in a largely independent way. To hear of some of the judgements coming from the Labour Courts I sometimes cheer quietly to myself, it does some to be an arena for fairness, where the little guy can win fair judgements. Maybe there is hope for one of the Thai institutions.
Selth on anonymity in political analysis
Can a distinction be drawn between ‘anonymous’ allegations, of the type that Frank G Anderson describes, and publishing under a pen name?
In the Burma context, for instance, many of the names listed by Selth are not real in that they are not on the author’s passport. But they do attach to a particular identity. A pen name that is used consistently is still a pen name, to be sure, but biases become clear and, in some of those cases, one can easily contact the author – even meet face-to-face.
Is this enough to resolve many of the concerns raised?
Big questions for Thailand
StanG #19 :
“There are great many definitions of fascism and quite often the label itself gets meaningless when attached to anything on the Internet but you’d be surprised how TRT rule fits into many of the definitions almost perfectly, especially in the late years when the supporters and the enemies were defined and visions of the future were laid out.”
I don’t doubt that you are probably correct, but can you give some examples ?
Abhisit’s distinction
UK Reader #6
what happens in the UK if an “undesirable” party or group gets into power?
what do you think would happen if the UK army went on the streets to keep the government in or out of power?
why shouldnt Thailand have the same rules?
Selth on anonymity in political analysis
Using pseudonym has advantages as well as pit falls.
1)Advabtages
Gender Neutral
Ethnicity neutral
Pseudonym define a Position taken on subjects
Protect ID from malicious sources.(TRUE)
2)Disadvantages
Gender Neutral
Ethnicity neutral
Pseudonym define a Position taken on subjects
Protect ID from malicious sources.(UNTRUE)
Every famous authors have written under multiple pseudonym so does many stone throwers, myriad of libelers and yellow journalism endeared ones.
As you all can see the major advantages are also disadvantages.
A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A ROSE.
The content of what is presented is still the most important.
As for labeling vs Name calling : label such Crusoe or Man Friday when absolutely appropriately used help “define” someone who is not a Rose masquerading as one.
Name calling “subjectively” intent only to put down recipient but nothing else.
Therefore showing others the recipient is anything but a Rose.
Without absolute proof however made the reverse is ascertained .
Name calling and labeling however rarely promote friendship but rather transform the recipient into an opposing entity permanently.
The line dividing the two stated is very thin indeed. However very well visible to those who read carefully.
As for defending any perceived wrong in New Mandala:
The limit of which is always at the mercy of the editorial staff. Defined pretty well above.
The Moderator is the right hand of GOD of that forum.
What he will not smite down shall be printed.
Being a Satan or a Lucifer, a Gabriel or an Archangel really does not matter much.
Thai Institutions: Judiciary
[…] A New Mandala blog post about the Thai judiciary system cites findings from The Asia Foundation’s “Survey of the Thai People,” which found that approximately two-thirds of Thais believe that the judiciary conforms to a high level of integrity and is generally unbiased. Read the full blog post: “Thai Institutions: Judiciary.” […]
Big questions for Thailand
There seems to be a consensus that the military have grown in power with recent events so perhaps it is time to counter them using the other favourite elite weapon – the courts.
Specifically charge military officers with lesse mageste.
Consider this example.
In a northern province a loyal commanding officer of one unit ordered the planting of around 8000 trees (later reduced) being 100 for each year of the King’s life (3 years ago).
Not only did he order the planting at the best time of year – beginning of the rainy season, but he also produced a plan for follow-up tending on auspicious royal days through the year.
Then once the project was starting to roll e.g trees were being specially procured, the CO was transferred. The subsequent CO followed through on the plan, but one might say, not as professionally as its initiator. Trees were planted but the maintenance program was only partly sustained.
After around 2 years CO No.2 was replaced by CO No.3 , who promptly dismissed some of the ground staff and refused to meet with community volunteers, this being in contravention of the constitution.
No tree maintenance was undertaken and rank weed growth took off. Nothing was done to reduce the fire risk from tall grass.
Then the fire season arrived in January and the area planted in honour of the King was burnt.
Not long after a military exercise was undertaken in the area and many bigger trees which had survived the fire were run over by tanks.
If anything constitutes a show of contempt for the royal institution surely this does.
Who could lay charges without risk of revenge?