I appreciate the comment from the observer. One should definitely not judge a conference based on rumours, especially if it is not evident where they have been generated. Any larger scale conferences faces problems and difficulties. Of course, these should be addressed, but not with a kind of conspiracy theory in mind.
I am slightly surprised that the discussion focuses nearly entirely on issues related to monarchy. Haven’t there been several other panels dealing with other issues like the changes in the Mekong region or are these irrelevant?
The references to the own biography in some comments is annoying. Not because someone lives in Thailand since a few years, was born there etc. makes an argument strong, but the perspectives and data the argument is based on.
‘What’s that you say? The King has done more for the country? But what about Thaksin’s universal healthcare scheme, OTOP, village funds?’
Teth – I hope you’re not citing these 3 as evidence of Thaksin’s success. The healthcare scheme is a failure, due to the fact that the necessary sums weren’t done in advance. OTOP looks good (on the surface: nice packaging; good P.R.), but is, as yet, far from successsful, due to all the usual reasons. And as for the village funds…!
xAn observer: Since you have obviously been at the conference, why don’t you move beyond your complaints, and add a substantial comment on one or two of the panels that you attended? That would be beneficial to people such as me, who were prevented from taking part in the conference.
Perhaps this conference should have been called the international conference for those obsessed with debating the monarchy. I know this issue was always going to be the ‘big one’ but the extent to which the discussion of this conference on new mandala, and anywhere else, has obsessed about it is appalling. It was an international conference on thai studies for buddha’s sake. You should all be ashamed to call yourselves academics and researchers. You have all been sucked in by the very populism you seek to critique. There was a lot lot more to discuss and debate at the conference but it was simply a lost opportunity. You all seem to have forgotten that one of the great strengths of academic research is that it transcends the immediate issues of the day, those that are picked up by media, rumour and general public discouse. Where was the deeper intellectual discussion about Thai studies? I agree with the king, there is nothing to smile about.
A few people here seem like a shark who smells blood (of the organizers) even though the blood is only a rumor. They seem care only about how bad ane evil the organizers are romuored to be but not much discussion about the panels (its substance, its politics, and so on). Their interest seem to minimize any positive contributions and find whats’ wrong about the organizers and the panels. This is similar to Thai l anguage newspapers that only care about the danger of the panels, speakers and call the police to investigate. Their info are worng and never checked the open and available sources because all they care was to attack.
Distrust and biases have been so strong that even any little thing like the problem with late registration was interpreted as a political conspiracy. The fact that Thai media didn’t report the event was suggested as if it was the organizers’ false. Nidhi’s first half of presentation was on how Handley has put forward a new frame to understand the monarchy’s role in Thai politics and how scholars have failed to do what Handley does. Yet, nobody cares to discuss this point. Nidhi dismisses Nakharin’s book as nothing. Yet, some people on webboards reported the opposite, that Nidhi priases Nakharin’s book. Many here and on other webboards ridicule the speakers and dismiss them as saying nothing. I think they talked much more than what has been reported. They said a lot of things that are normally not said in public. Of course they cannot say everything as they wish. But not-so-stupid people realize immediately what they mean and what to think more. Why should we demand that they say exact words we want to hear? If so, we should first say those words on this webboard with real names. If we dare not to say those words even on a webboard with real names, who are we to demand those in a public forum to say what we want to hear.
When the panels were porposed, some dismissed them as impossible. When they are possible, the same people said they are smokescreen for evils and only nice things to be said about the monarchy. Now the panels proved to be very critical (repeat: much more than being reported, from the first panel to the end, perhaps except only one speaker out of ten), all that some people here care is to take advantage of the rumors to scold at the organizers and the event again.
Where is the discussion about the connections between the cult of King Chulalongkorn and the present king, as a paper in poanels one suggested?
Where is the disucssion about the Crown Prop Bureau and how it survived the 1997 crisis in mysterious ways as another paper on the first panel suggest?
Where is the discussion about the role of the privy councillor and the fatc that this paper was written by Handley (and this daring politics is not even mentioned except in a report by AP)?
Where is the discussion about the self-censorship among Thai media becausae of the lesxe majeste law as a paper in the secon dpanel suggested?
Where is the discussion about the four propositions about the lese majeste law that two other speakers of the second panel suggested? They suggest that Thai public should discuss the four proposals: 1)add the clause that an expression about the monarchy in the spirit of the constitution should be protected; 2) cut the category of “Doo Min” (not sure what legal language is) from the lese majeste law; 3) create a condition that the palace or its secretariat, as the injured, must approve a charge; and 4) abolish the lese majeste law. Are these strong and courageous enough to put in public at this time.
Where is the discussion about Nidhi’s endorsement of Handley’s book as a new frame for analysis that no other works have done before. He doesn’t say he totally supports it. But this is the same when most of us say a book is great, i.e. we are not required to agree with it. Given the fat that the book was banned and said to be dangerous to the monarchy, why isn’t this enough to appreciate what Nidhi does? Why do we only appreciate one only when he says the word we want to hear?
Where is the discussion about the politics of the whole panels, plus the Sufficientcy Econ and some other highly critical panels in the conference? Or do we only care to point out that they cannot say everything because of the lese majeste law 5555? Is it a proud victory to say so?
I do not expect that we must give praises and high acclaims to them. But in my opinion, distrust, biases, negetivity are rampant on the anti-roylaist webboards. They ignore the worthy opportunities to discuss the issues that have been raised by the panels. What we should do is to encourage more discussions in public as possible and as opportunity allows.
Some people only care to claim that they are true anti-royalist than others, pure and superior to others. Yet most of this kind of people rarely say anything in full with real names even on a webboard, let alone a public form. Some said an open form is the place for fame seeker. (The same person now blames the organizers, based on rumors, for not protecting the speakers.) Why can’t we credit whom and where deserve credits, and question and criticze whom and where deserve criticism?
In a country where the government has always maintained control over the electronic media, it would be very easy for it to start rolling back the monarchy’s ‘public space’ – and then there will be one less public intellectual (i.e. ‘trouble-maker”) for the powers-that-be to contend with. To quote Orwell from 1984:
“If the Party could reach back into the past and say of this or that event, ‘It ever happened’, how much worse was that than mere death and torture.”
You overestimate our government’s competence, Mr Lee. You also underestimate the complexity of “rolling the monarchy’s public space”. The consequences are not simple as publicity for the monarchy (or its cronies) could easily turn sour, take the case of the lese majeste amendment that tried to extend protection to privy councillors or the case of Mr Jufer.
Therefore the Palace and the conservative establishment tread carefully. But have you read any Thai history textbooks recently? It is almost Orwellian. Is it any wonder very few Thais know about 6 October or Pridi Banomyong? They are left ignorant by their own ministry of education.
Case in point: The first edition of the Bangkok Weekly (?) on the news stands following the king’s famous “The king can do wrong” (i.e. commit mistakes) leadership tutorial for that square-faced dullard who is no longer around, had on it’s cover a big recent photo of the king and and a counter message: “THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG”.
Of all your criticisms of Thaksin, one thing is certain, he is no dullard. I’m not a fan of Thaksin (and as I’ve stated, I am actually anti-Thaksin), but your statement was a beautiful illustration of the irrational fear and blind hatred that grips so many people when one brings up Thaksin. I say irrational because many people simply loathe Thaksin for his brash manner and arrogant style (oh, and a few corruption allegations that even a military government can’t seem to prove).
I remain unconvinced by your argument, mainly because the king DOES say regularly and often (albeit not as often these days – one gets the strong impression that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the more he gets to understand the nature of people, the more he prefers the company of dogs) that “the country will continue down the road to self-destruction” if, for example, the rule of law is not followed (e.g. ” Judges do your job – or get out ” loose quote, 2007) and “the biggest problem in this country is the double standard” (note: the BIGGEST).
Frank, let me summarize how you think for you: “I’m Frank, your local Thai expat, and I love the King. I’ve been reading and observing things for years and so that qualifies me to speak about this matter. I’ve also participated in much barbershop gossip so that also gives me an edge above all you fancy academics: I know and love the people of Thailand (or, only those middle class Bangkok folk who I mingle with at least). So I try my best to be a decent Thai and that means loving the King no matter what. I’ll interpret everything he says to keep up that positive image of the King, even though I’m actually supposed to review the evidence then conclude. And, not to forget, actions speak louder than words, but why, I’ll ignore what I wasn’t here to observe and just concentrate on the propaganda I did observe! So Long Live the King! P.S. I also write lengthy, intelligent letters to the Bangkok about Bangkok soi dogs.”
I am always willing to listen to people who were, unlike me, born and raised here. But you seem to see the hand of the king everywhere – yet the examples you provide seem weak to me.
Er, Frank, if you would kindly indulge me by reading my replies, you will see that I explicitly say the King cannot be held solely responsible for everything, but that his involvement is clear in many instances. The rhetorical questions I asked were merely to highlight the logical inconsistency of King worship: for him to be so wise and philosophical as to conclude “raising dogs is better than people” then surely he would not be so brash as to say a few deaths is a sacrifice that must be made in the drug war. But you have missed the point and continue to argue from the stance of “the King is good” rather than from the evidence. Obviously no one can be at fault for simply stating their opinions, but surely you must factor this in to your considerations, but oh wait, to you the King is go no matter what (unless Thai middle class opinion changes, maybe you’ll reluctantly follow too).
As many Thais would argue, though, that the King’s “small” imperfections do not detract from his overall sageliness, but if you look past the 1980s you will see the deeds of him and his henchmen in 6 October. You will see his willing cooperation with disgusting tyrants like Sarit, Thanom, Praphas, and Narong or generals like Prem, Suchinda, and now Sonthi, which brings me to my point about actions speaking louder than words. This is where my actual criticism of the King begins, not just of the brouhaha of King worship, but of his actions.
As a local, I well remember the king tutoring Thaksin on TV, to the effect that we all (Thais) know that Thailand is not a properly civilized country (yet) so he did not condemn Thaksin outright for his ruthess crackdown against the out-of-control ‘yah bah’ industry, but implored him that in the name of common decency and there should be a proper accouting of the victims and how they met their fate. Of course, Thaksin responded that the King’s advice was very wise and commonsense – and thought no more about it. Why? Because Thaksin can do no wrong: Tremble and obey, weaklings!
“Accounting” is nowhere near his urge for “rule of law.” So now common human decency it is then, ignore all that stuff about rule of law. But oh wait, he didn’t ask for rule of law, he just talked about being “just” which is surely something a three year old would also want from a judge. What about law enforcement and police, isn’t that part and parcel of the rule of law? No mention of that eh.
This is ironic because the King and Thaksin are so similar. Multibillionaires widely supported by the rural masses, great manipulators of PR, both pay lots of lip service to democracy, both have a large network of cronies, and both try to make themselves impenetrable to criticism, but one is clearly more successful than the other. What’s that you say? The King has done more for the country? But what about Thaksin’s universal healthcare scheme, OTOP, village funds? Oh wait, that’s harmful populism! But hang on, have the King’s projects been all successful? Or why is it that 60 years later Thailand is still a third world country? Surely 60 years of hardworking, long term strategies would have produced the result worthy of a genius.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming him for anything in the last paragraph, I’m just wondering out loud again how ridiculous King worship can be.
Lastly, Frank, if you don’t read anything from my post, or consider anything “worthy” of reply, just ask yourself whether you are looking at the King from an immovable opinion, or are you actually looking at things from the facts. I can tell you that as a real local, Thai born and bred, I used to look at things from the basis of “the King is good” before all the inconsistencies and the evidence piled on to the point where I could no longer look at things that way any longer without deluding myself.
An eye for an eye, Frank. I was only applying the same standards that you applied to me. Maybe convincing you isn’t worth the trouble after all, because you’ll simply refuse to see it and just ignore the truth. The truly mature and wise would have replied without further provocation, but you’re not the type, even though you would love to see yourself as one of those wise, all knowing “old hands.”
Once again, get off your high horse because the fall will certainly hurt.
Frodo, by the phrase “held this country together’, I assume Reynolds means that there would have been greater bloodshed and violence without such interventions at critical moments – but go ask Craig or read him yourself. Of course, foreign observers and perhaps Thais nursing a grudge may safely consider the end as justifying the means. Unfortunately, there are always alternative ends, but the powers that be rarely want you to think about that because that makes it so much harder to manipulate public opinion.
PS: As the debate has turned spitefully emotional, any further response to Teth would be pointless until he gets over his temper tantrum.
Correct!
In a country where the government has always maintained control over the electronic media, it would be very easy for it to start rolling back the monarchy’s ‘public space’ – and then there will be one less public intellectual (i.e. ‘trouble-maker”) for the powers-that-be to contend with. To quote Orwell from 1984:
“If the Party could reach back into the past and say of this or that event, ‘It ever happened’, how much worse was that than mere death and torture.”
Case in point: The first edition of the Bangkok Weekly (?) on the news stands following the king’s famous “The king can do wrong” (i.e. commit mistakes) leadership tutorial for that square-faced dullard who is no longer around, had on it’s cover a big recent photo of the king and and a counter message: “THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG”.
Clearly, it’s not easy being the king of Thailand.
I remain unconvinced by your argument, mainly because the king DOES say regularly and often (albeit not as often these days – one gets the strong impression that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the more he gets to understand the nature of people, the more he prefers the company of dogs) that “the country will continue down the road to self-destruction” if, for example, the rule of law is not followed (e.g. ” Judges do your job – or get out ” loose quote, 2007) and “the biggest problem in this country is the double standard” (note: the BIGGEST)
As a keen observer since the early eighties (when Michael Handley’s articles in the FEER were my best scource) and having worked in Bangkok since 1990, I am always willing to listen to people who were, unlike me, born and raised here. But you seem to see the hand of the king everywhere – yet the examples you provide seem weak to me. As a local, I well remember the king tutoring Thaksin on TV, to the effect that we all (Thais) know that Thailand is not a properly civilized country (yet) so he did not condemn Thaksin outright for his ruthess crackdown against the out-of-control ‘yah bah’ industry, but implored him that in the name of common decency and there should be a proper accouting of the victims and how they met their fate. Of course, Thaksin responded that the King’s advice was very wise and commonsense – and thought no more about it. Why? Because Thaksin can do no wrong: Tremble and obey, weaklings!
I used to hear about David when I helped on landmines issue. It would came out naturally like “Have you seen ampulation VDO from, David? ” and we know what David they refered to. Anyone has an idea or heard of him?
The news/rumors spread afterward that police asked for the tapes and/or confiscated the tapes.
Fact: As far as I know, the police have not asked for any tapes (yet?). I do not know if they are going to ask or not. At this point, I do not know how the rumors spread.
Conference paper now available in full on Prachatai site:
Memory and Power on Ratchadamnoen Avenue
by
Chatri Prakitnonthakan
Faculty of Architecture, Silpakorn University
Acharn Chatri Prakitnonthakan is known for his writings on the political history of Thai architecture and are of interest to students of Thai politics and history, as well as architecture. This paper was delivered to the 10th International Thai Studies Conference which was recently held at Thammasat University and is published with the author’s kind permission.
An American who fought in Burma alongside the KNLA is Thomas James Bleming.
He wrote a book about his experiences, “War in Karen Country”, available on Amazon.com.
Yes, The KNLA does accept foreign volunteers. Just don’t be a Sylvester Stallone wannabe
David W: Yes, often referred to as ‘funeral Buddhism.’ I think most of us were aware of that. But what seemed odd was that it was said in a rather blunt & confrontational way, in front of a Japanese monk, and at the end of a fairly scathing series of remarks on the state of Buddhism in Thailand. Not terribly ‘kreng jai,’ so a bit of a shock.
It seems that Sulak was pointing out that the Burmese sangha is taking its responsibility to the people much more seriously than others, by standing up & criticizing the junta. He made it fairly clear that he feels the Thai sangha should be doing likewise, i.e. not merely in solidarity with the Burmese, but also about the corrupt state of Thai society.
1) The moderator Prof Herzfeld of Harvard and organizer (Thai professor from U of Wisconsin, name escapes me) both told me afterwards that the video would not be given out. They were certainly aware of the situation and suspected police presence so we can at least trust that they will treat such an issue with some gravity.
2) The panel discussion on the book was disappointing but the point was simply to “open the dialogue” as Prof Herzfeld said. They must be given credit for doing this. I personally could not have imagined this when the book was released. The other panels were excellent, especially the one on lese majeste. It is a strong start overall, I think.
3) The panelists (three) on TKNS freely told me that they were wary of saying anything controversial and dodged questions to an extent. Can we blame them? Again, they wwere courageous to even show their faces and risk being banned.
Hmm — this is a microcosm of many international events I have gone to since 2001 and in decades since 1988. Between the sublime and the ridiculous.
Thank you, Land of Snarls writer.
New Mandala has a link to my blogsite.
I commend FCC for their work to reveal the Burmese junta’s atrocities.
Yes, the Movement is full of grandstanding people, but Sulak and many other Thai people have spoken up for Burmese rights.
The monks were absolutely right that “Saffron Revolution” is a term coined by the media, and it’s a revolution of the spirit and the psyche, which may be more important than one with physical weapons.
As for the clown calling himself a lawyer — wish you all could have chucked him to Avici Hell. (Ah Wi Si in Burmese)
I want to share with you one funny incident when in 2001 the Burmese demonstrators in DC apparently stole the overcoat of a leading junta apologist. (Clue — he was not Burmese but a Caucasian).
It was a very cold day in November and his teeth were chattering as he asked where he could buy a new coat.
In Japan in 2000, junta supporters physically roughed up the audience at a Burma talk — and the reporter managed to record sounds of the thumps.
Japanese Buddhism is often referred to as ‘funeral Buddhism’ because so much of its social role and significance is prominently (and sometimes only) at play during the need of families for funeral services. Some Japanese don’t even know what sect of Buddhism they belong to (and by extension, what temple their family is registered at) until a family member dies and they have to arrange for the services. Modern Japanese Buddhist sects are working hard to make themselves more relevant beyond funerals, but it has proven a difficult battle actually. I’m sure the Japanese Buddhist attending the event understood the reference, although most of the audience probably didn’t. Of course, why did Sulak even feel the need to make such a characterization given the topic of discussion? Presumably to show that Thai or Burmese Buddhism isn’t so narrowly constricted in its social role?
can anybody confirm, that the police confiscated the video-tapes of the conference?
If yes there would be a quite drastic answer from the German academic community I believe
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Thai studies conference open forum
I appreciate the comment from the observer. One should definitely not judge a conference based on rumours, especially if it is not evident where they have been generated. Any larger scale conferences faces problems and difficulties. Of course, these should be addressed, but not with a kind of conspiracy theory in mind.
I am slightly surprised that the discussion focuses nearly entirely on issues related to monarchy. Haven’t there been several other panels dealing with other issues like the changes in the Mekong region or are these irrelevant?
The references to the own biography in some comments is annoying. Not because someone lives in Thailand since a few years, was born there etc. makes an argument strong, but the perspectives and data the argument is based on.
Thai studies conference underway
‘What’s that you say? The King has done more for the country? But what about Thaksin’s universal healthcare scheme, OTOP, village funds?’
Teth – I hope you’re not citing these 3 as evidence of Thaksin’s success. The healthcare scheme is a failure, due to the fact that the necessary sums weren’t done in advance. OTOP looks good (on the surface: nice packaging; good P.R.), but is, as yet, far from successsful, due to all the usual reasons. And as for the village funds…!
Thai studies conference open forum
xAn observer: Since you have obviously been at the conference, why don’t you move beyond your complaints, and add a substantial comment on one or two of the panels that you attended? That would be beneficial to people such as me, who were prevented from taking part in the conference.
Thai studies conference open forum
Perhaps this conference should have been called the international conference for those obsessed with debating the monarchy. I know this issue was always going to be the ‘big one’ but the extent to which the discussion of this conference on new mandala, and anywhere else, has obsessed about it is appalling. It was an international conference on thai studies for buddha’s sake. You should all be ashamed to call yourselves academics and researchers. You have all been sucked in by the very populism you seek to critique. There was a lot lot more to discuss and debate at the conference but it was simply a lost opportunity. You all seem to have forgotten that one of the great strengths of academic research is that it transcends the immediate issues of the day, those that are picked up by media, rumour and general public discouse. Where was the deeper intellectual discussion about Thai studies? I agree with the king, there is nothing to smile about.
Thai studies conference open forum
A few people here seem like a shark who smells blood (of the organizers) even though the blood is only a rumor. They seem care only about how bad ane evil the organizers are romuored to be but not much discussion about the panels (its substance, its politics, and so on). Their interest seem to minimize any positive contributions and find whats’ wrong about the organizers and the panels. This is similar to Thai l anguage newspapers that only care about the danger of the panels, speakers and call the police to investigate. Their info are worng and never checked the open and available sources because all they care was to attack.
Distrust and biases have been so strong that even any little thing like the problem with late registration was interpreted as a political conspiracy. The fact that Thai media didn’t report the event was suggested as if it was the organizers’ false. Nidhi’s first half of presentation was on how Handley has put forward a new frame to understand the monarchy’s role in Thai politics and how scholars have failed to do what Handley does. Yet, nobody cares to discuss this point. Nidhi dismisses Nakharin’s book as nothing. Yet, some people on webboards reported the opposite, that Nidhi priases Nakharin’s book. Many here and on other webboards ridicule the speakers and dismiss them as saying nothing. I think they talked much more than what has been reported. They said a lot of things that are normally not said in public. Of course they cannot say everything as they wish. But not-so-stupid people realize immediately what they mean and what to think more. Why should we demand that they say exact words we want to hear? If so, we should first say those words on this webboard with real names. If we dare not to say those words even on a webboard with real names, who are we to demand those in a public forum to say what we want to hear.
When the panels were porposed, some dismissed them as impossible. When they are possible, the same people said they are smokescreen for evils and only nice things to be said about the monarchy. Now the panels proved to be very critical (repeat: much more than being reported, from the first panel to the end, perhaps except only one speaker out of ten), all that some people here care is to take advantage of the rumors to scold at the organizers and the event again.
Where is the discussion about the connections between the cult of King Chulalongkorn and the present king, as a paper in poanels one suggested?
Where is the disucssion about the Crown Prop Bureau and how it survived the 1997 crisis in mysterious ways as another paper on the first panel suggest?
Where is the discussion about the role of the privy councillor and the fatc that this paper was written by Handley (and this daring politics is not even mentioned except in a report by AP)?
Where is the discussion about the self-censorship among Thai media becausae of the lesxe majeste law as a paper in the secon dpanel suggested?
Where is the discussion about the four propositions about the lese majeste law that two other speakers of the second panel suggested? They suggest that Thai public should discuss the four proposals: 1)add the clause that an expression about the monarchy in the spirit of the constitution should be protected; 2) cut the category of “Doo Min” (not sure what legal language is) from the lese majeste law; 3) create a condition that the palace or its secretariat, as the injured, must approve a charge; and 4) abolish the lese majeste law. Are these strong and courageous enough to put in public at this time.
Where is the discussion about Nidhi’s endorsement of Handley’s book as a new frame for analysis that no other works have done before. He doesn’t say he totally supports it. But this is the same when most of us say a book is great, i.e. we are not required to agree with it. Given the fat that the book was banned and said to be dangerous to the monarchy, why isn’t this enough to appreciate what Nidhi does? Why do we only appreciate one only when he says the word we want to hear?
Where is the discussion about the politics of the whole panels, plus the Sufficientcy Econ and some other highly critical panels in the conference? Or do we only care to point out that they cannot say everything because of the lese majeste law 5555? Is it a proud victory to say so?
I do not expect that we must give praises and high acclaims to them. But in my opinion, distrust, biases, negetivity are rampant on the anti-roylaist webboards. They ignore the worthy opportunities to discuss the issues that have been raised by the panels. What we should do is to encourage more discussions in public as possible and as opportunity allows.
Some people only care to claim that they are true anti-royalist than others, pure and superior to others. Yet most of this kind of people rarely say anything in full with real names even on a webboard, let alone a public form. Some said an open form is the place for fame seeker. (The same person now blames the organizers, based on rumors, for not protecting the speakers.) Why can’t we credit whom and where deserve credits, and question and criticze whom and where deserve criticism?
Monarchy, monarchy, monarchy
You overestimate our government’s competence, Mr Lee. You also underestimate the complexity of “rolling the monarchy’s public space”. The consequences are not simple as publicity for the monarchy (or its cronies) could easily turn sour, take the case of the lese majeste amendment that tried to extend protection to privy councillors or the case of Mr Jufer.
Therefore the Palace and the conservative establishment tread carefully. But have you read any Thai history textbooks recently? It is almost Orwellian. Is it any wonder very few Thais know about 6 October or Pridi Banomyong? They are left ignorant by their own ministry of education.
Of all your criticisms of Thaksin, one thing is certain, he is no dullard. I’m not a fan of Thaksin (and as I’ve stated, I am actually anti-Thaksin), but your statement was a beautiful illustration of the irrational fear and blind hatred that grips so many people when one brings up Thaksin. I say irrational because many people simply loathe Thaksin for his brash manner and arrogant style (oh, and a few corruption allegations that even a military government can’t seem to prove).
Thai studies conference underway
Frank, let me summarize how you think for you: “I’m Frank, your local Thai expat, and I love the King. I’ve been reading and observing things for years and so that qualifies me to speak about this matter. I’ve also participated in much barbershop gossip so that also gives me an edge above all you fancy academics: I know and love the people of Thailand (or, only those middle class Bangkok folk who I mingle with at least). So I try my best to be a decent Thai and that means loving the King no matter what. I’ll interpret everything he says to keep up that positive image of the King, even though I’m actually supposed to review the evidence then conclude. And, not to forget, actions speak louder than words, but why, I’ll ignore what I wasn’t here to observe and just concentrate on the propaganda I did observe! So Long Live the King! P.S. I also write lengthy, intelligent letters to the Bangkok about Bangkok soi dogs.”
Er, Frank, if you would kindly indulge me by reading my replies, you will see that I explicitly say the King cannot be held solely responsible for everything, but that his involvement is clear in many instances. The rhetorical questions I asked were merely to highlight the logical inconsistency of King worship: for him to be so wise and philosophical as to conclude “raising dogs is better than people” then surely he would not be so brash as to say a few deaths is a sacrifice that must be made in the drug war. But you have missed the point and continue to argue from the stance of “the King is good” rather than from the evidence. Obviously no one can be at fault for simply stating their opinions, but surely you must factor this in to your considerations, but oh wait, to you the King is go no matter what (unless Thai middle class opinion changes, maybe you’ll reluctantly follow too).
As many Thais would argue, though, that the King’s “small” imperfections do not detract from his overall sageliness, but if you look past the 1980s you will see the deeds of him and his henchmen in 6 October. You will see his willing cooperation with disgusting tyrants like Sarit, Thanom, Praphas, and Narong or generals like Prem, Suchinda, and now Sonthi, which brings me to my point about actions speaking louder than words. This is where my actual criticism of the King begins, not just of the brouhaha of King worship, but of his actions.
“Accounting” is nowhere near his urge for “rule of law.” So now common human decency it is then, ignore all that stuff about rule of law. But oh wait, he didn’t ask for rule of law, he just talked about being “just” which is surely something a three year old would also want from a judge. What about law enforcement and police, isn’t that part and parcel of the rule of law? No mention of that eh.
This is ironic because the King and Thaksin are so similar. Multibillionaires widely supported by the rural masses, great manipulators of PR, both pay lots of lip service to democracy, both have a large network of cronies, and both try to make themselves impenetrable to criticism, but one is clearly more successful than the other. What’s that you say? The King has done more for the country? But what about Thaksin’s universal healthcare scheme, OTOP, village funds? Oh wait, that’s harmful populism! But hang on, have the King’s projects been all successful? Or why is it that 60 years later Thailand is still a third world country? Surely 60 years of hardworking, long term strategies would have produced the result worthy of a genius.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming him for anything in the last paragraph, I’m just wondering out loud again how ridiculous King worship can be.
Lastly, Frank, if you don’t read anything from my post, or consider anything “worthy” of reply, just ask yourself whether you are looking at the King from an immovable opinion, or are you actually looking at things from the facts. I can tell you that as a real local, Thai born and bred, I used to look at things from the basis of “the King is good” before all the inconsistencies and the evidence piled on to the point where I could no longer look at things that way any longer without deluding myself.
р╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Гр╕Щр╕кр╕┤р╣Ир╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щ р╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╕кр╕┤р╣Ир╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕н р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Фр╕╣р╣Ар╕лр╕Хр╕╕р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╕Хр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Щр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╕Ьр╣Йр╕▓ р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╣Ж р╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕в р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Фр╕╡ р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕бр╕┤р╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Бр╣Зр╕Хр╕Бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕лр╕вр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Вр╕Жр╕йр╕Ур╕▓р╕Кр╕зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ыр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з
р╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Цр╕Щр╕▓р╕Фр╕╡
Teth
P.S. Apologies for all the ad hominem there but, purposefully or not, you do know how to wind people up and I’m pretty sure I’ve done the same to you.
Time for academic frankness
Convenient isn’t it to simply refuse to reply.
An eye for an eye, Frank. I was only applying the same standards that you applied to me. Maybe convincing you isn’t worth the trouble after all, because you’ll simply refuse to see it and just ignore the truth. The truly mature and wise would have replied without further provocation, but you’re not the type, even though you would love to see yourself as one of those wise, all knowing “old hands.”
Once again, get off your high horse because the fall will certainly hurt.
Time for academic frankness
Frodo, by the phrase “held this country together’, I assume Reynolds means that there would have been greater bloodshed and violence without such interventions at critical moments – but go ask Craig or read him yourself. Of course, foreign observers and perhaps Thais nursing a grudge may safely consider the end as justifying the means. Unfortunately, there are always alternative ends, but the powers that be rarely want you to think about that because that makes it so much harder to manipulate public opinion.
PS: As the debate has turned spitefully emotional, any further response to Teth would be pointless until he gets over his temper tantrum.
Monarchy, monarchy, monarchy
Correct!
In a country where the government has always maintained control over the electronic media, it would be very easy for it to start rolling back the monarchy’s ‘public space’ – and then there will be one less public intellectual (i.e. ‘trouble-maker”) for the powers-that-be to contend with. To quote Orwell from 1984:
“If the Party could reach back into the past and say of this or that event, ‘It ever happened’, how much worse was that than mere death and torture.”
Case in point: The first edition of the Bangkok Weekly (?) on the news stands following the king’s famous “The king can do wrong” (i.e. commit mistakes) leadership tutorial for that square-faced dullard who is no longer around, had on it’s cover a big recent photo of the king and and a counter message: “THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG”.
Clearly, it’s not easy being the king of Thailand.
Frank Lee
Thai studies conference underway
Teth,
I remain unconvinced by your argument, mainly because the king DOES say regularly and often (albeit not as often these days – one gets the strong impression that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the more he gets to understand the nature of people, the more he prefers the company of dogs) that “the country will continue down the road to self-destruction” if, for example, the rule of law is not followed (e.g. ” Judges do your job – or get out ” loose quote, 2007) and “the biggest problem in this country is the double standard” (note: the BIGGEST)
As a keen observer since the early eighties (when Michael Handley’s articles in the FEER were my best scource) and having worked in Bangkok since 1990, I am always willing to listen to people who were, unlike me, born and raised here. But you seem to see the hand of the king everywhere – yet the examples you provide seem weak to me. As a local, I well remember the king tutoring Thaksin on TV, to the effect that we all (Thais) know that Thailand is not a properly civilized country (yet) so he did not condemn Thaksin outright for his ruthess crackdown against the out-of-control ‘yah bah’ industry, but implored him that in the name of common decency and there should be a proper accouting of the victims and how they met their fate. Of course, Thaksin responded that the King’s advice was very wise and commonsense – and thought no more about it. Why? Because Thaksin can do no wrong: Tremble and obey, weaklings!
Volunteering to fight in Burma
I used to hear about David when I helped on landmines issue. It would came out naturally like “Have you seen ampulation VDO from, David? ” and we know what David they refered to. Anyone has an idea or heard of him?
Thai studies conference open forum
The news/rumors spread afterward that police asked for the tapes and/or confiscated the tapes.
Fact: As far as I know, the police have not asked for any tapes (yet?). I do not know if they are going to ask or not. At this point, I do not know how the rumors spread.
Thanks for the genuine concerns.
Thai studies conference open forum
Conference paper now available in full on Prachatai site:
Memory and Power on Ratchadamnoen Avenue
by
Chatri Prakitnonthakan
Faculty of Architecture, Silpakorn University
Acharn Chatri Prakitnonthakan is known for his writings on the political history of Thai architecture and are of interest to students of Thai politics and history, as well as architecture. This paper was delivered to the 10th International Thai Studies Conference which was recently held at Thammasat University and is published with the author’s kind permission.
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=484
Volunteering to fight in Burma
An American who fought in Burma alongside the KNLA is Thomas James Bleming.
He wrote a book about his experiences, “War in Karen Country”, available on Amazon.com.
Yes, The KNLA does accept foreign volunteers. Just don’t be a Sylvester Stallone wannabe
Saffron revolution: unfinished business
David W: Yes, often referred to as ‘funeral Buddhism.’ I think most of us were aware of that. But what seemed odd was that it was said in a rather blunt & confrontational way, in front of a Japanese monk, and at the end of a fairly scathing series of remarks on the state of Buddhism in Thailand. Not terribly ‘kreng jai,’ so a bit of a shock.
It seems that Sulak was pointing out that the Burmese sangha is taking its responsibility to the people much more seriously than others, by standing up & criticizing the junta. He made it fairly clear that he feels the Thai sangha should be doing likewise, i.e. not merely in solidarity with the Burmese, but also about the corrupt state of Thai society.
Thai studies conference open forum
I attended the monarchy panels.
1) The moderator Prof Herzfeld of Harvard and organizer (Thai professor from U of Wisconsin, name escapes me) both told me afterwards that the video would not be given out. They were certainly aware of the situation and suspected police presence so we can at least trust that they will treat such an issue with some gravity.
2) The panel discussion on the book was disappointing but the point was simply to “open the dialogue” as Prof Herzfeld said. They must be given credit for doing this. I personally could not have imagined this when the book was released. The other panels were excellent, especially the one on lese majeste. It is a strong start overall, I think.
3) The panelists (three) on TKNS freely told me that they were wary of saying anything controversial and dodged questions to an extent. Can we blame them? Again, they wwere courageous to even show their faces and risk being banned.
Saffron revolution: unfinished business
Hmm — this is a microcosm of many international events I have gone to since 2001 and in decades since 1988. Between the sublime and the ridiculous.
Thank you, Land of Snarls writer.
New Mandala has a link to my blogsite.
I commend FCC for their work to reveal the Burmese junta’s atrocities.
Yes, the Movement is full of grandstanding people, but Sulak and many other Thai people have spoken up for Burmese rights.
The monks were absolutely right that “Saffron Revolution” is a term coined by the media, and it’s a revolution of the spirit and the psyche, which may be more important than one with physical weapons.
As for the clown calling himself a lawyer — wish you all could have chucked him to Avici Hell. (Ah Wi Si in Burmese)
I want to share with you one funny incident when in 2001 the Burmese demonstrators in DC apparently stole the overcoat of a leading junta apologist. (Clue — he was not Burmese but a Caucasian).
It was a very cold day in November and his teeth were chattering as he asked where he could buy a new coat.
In Japan in 2000, junta supporters physically roughed up the audience at a Burma talk — and the reporter managed to record sounds of the thumps.
KMK
Saffron revolution: unfinished business
Land of Snarls,
Japanese Buddhism is often referred to as ‘funeral Buddhism’ because so much of its social role and significance is prominently (and sometimes only) at play during the need of families for funeral services. Some Japanese don’t even know what sect of Buddhism they belong to (and by extension, what temple their family is registered at) until a family member dies and they have to arrange for the services. Modern Japanese Buddhist sects are working hard to make themselves more relevant beyond funerals, but it has proven a difficult battle actually. I’m sure the Japanese Buddhist attending the event understood the reference, although most of the audience probably didn’t. Of course, why did Sulak even feel the need to make such a characterization given the topic of discussion? Presumably to show that Thai or Burmese Buddhism isn’t so narrowly constricted in its social role?
Thai studies conference open forum
can anybody confirm, that the police confiscated the video-tapes of the conference?
If yes there would be a quite drastic answer from the German academic community I believe