Reply to the points made in the “Thai Studies Boycott? An Update” posting:
1. I find it hard to understand how, in this age of email, internet newspapers and academic journals, blog sites, and cheap international travel, a boycott of this conference would “limit academic exchange and discussion”. One must be very deprived indeed if your only intellectual exchange with Thailand is attending the ITSC. The issue was not whether to boycott all relations with Thai academia, but whether it is ethical to attend a conference held for the main purpose of honouring the king (given the king’s support for the coup and current dictatorship), and at Thammasat University, whose Rector has bent over backwards to do the bidding of the military regime.
2. Of course a boycott would not have “any meaningful impact on the Thai political situation or on broader issues of intellectual freedom…” But it would have a significant effect on the image of the monarchy and Thammasat University in Thailand if the international Thai Studies community made a clear statement that it would not give its support to (let alone “honour”) a king who supports dictatorship, and a Rector who allows himself to be a tool of the dictatorship.
One simply has to understand the importance of the legitimizing function of international academic institutions for a developing country like Thailand. We know that the King is in the Guinness Book of Records for having the most honorary degrees. That is not an accident. Add to these the degrees that the other members of the royal family have been awarded. We know the rumours about how universities around the world have been approached to award honorary degrees to members of the Thai royal family, in return for favours. We know how they abuse their reputation for academic brilliance in Thailand, and how the whole higher education system suffers because of it. And we know how NONE OF THIS CAN BE SAID IN THAILAND BECAUSE OF LESE MAJESTE. In other words, acceptance by the international academic community is absolutely crucial to the position of the monarchy in Thailand. There is not a shadow of doubt that the ICTS will be milked for royalist propaganda purposes, as a statement of the “honour paid to the king by the leading scholars from around the world on the auspicious occasion of his 80th birthday”. Why allow oneself to be used in this way?
As for Thammasat, it has completely betrayed its tradition of being a bastion of liberal, critical, progressive thinking. Many of its most prominent social scientists joined the movement to overthrow a democratically elected government last year. Now its current Rector, former Rector, and assorted academics appear to have no qualms to serve a dictatorship – and to be paid handsomely for the honour. Why reward them with international academic credibility?
3. To the “very experienced Thai studies scholar”: it must be nice for you with your PhD and Ivy League professorship to have the liberty to present your papers on “provocative” and “sensitive” topics at Thai Studies conferences. Well, for millions of Thai citizens (sorry, “subjects”) they are denied the right to even utter a word of criticism of the monarchy, even after their government has been stolen from them and while they are forced to swallow the sufficiency economy garbage. Yet you would “honour the king” by attending this conference; have I got that right?
4. “Some point out that, if the coup makers keep their word…” I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this one. What a sad comment on the quality of international Thai Studies scholarship when “scholars” actually believe what a military junta says. So these people trust a royalist dictatorship that has just stolen a democratically elected government at gunpoint (not to mention the trillion baht budget that the government controls – and they have the shamelessness to call Thaksin corrupt!) to keep its word?
But supposing we suspend our disbelief and trust the words of a military junta, the argument that Thailand might have a democratically elected government in Jan next year is in any case irrelevant. Thammasat is calling for papers NOW, under the conditions of a royalist dictatorship. The time to speak out is NOW. If anyone has the faintest understanding of the situation in Thailand now you would know that the regime is totally in control: of the military, the government, the mass media, and most ominously the Constitutional Drafting Panel. It is doing everything in its power to make sure that it entrenches its political position in the future under the guise of a “democratic” system. I ask again, why honour the king and Thammasat for this?
As regards the statement “I cannot recall any paper or panel at a conference held in Thailand being rejected because the topic was sensitive or too provocative” – it made me think back to the 8th ICTS in Nakhorn Phanom, which I attended when I was still a student. At one point I was talking to an anthropologist from the Netherlands. She told me that she had initially submitted a paper on the cult surrounding Rama V, but this subject had been deemed too controversial by the organizers of the 8th ICTS. As far as I remember,she told me that this was conveyed to her in rather veiled terms. The message, however, was clear: the paper would not be accepted. She subsequently changed her subject and submitted an entirely different paper on modern asceticism among the thai middle class.
‘ Thailand plans to write into the preamble of the interim constitution that is being written right now the principles of Sufficiency Economics. The official Thai definition of the economic model drawn up in 1999 describes it as “an approach to life and conduct applicable at every level from the individual through the family and community to the management and development of the nation”. ‘
The Chicago School used to claim that “free market” economics would bring about democracy. Well I guess that Pinochet was “the exception that proves the rule”.
I am at a loss to understand how the fundamentally anti-democratic principles of the Thai political system can possibly foster the profoundly democratic sufficiency economy.
And I am not referring to HM the King, demonstrably more democratic than any in the Thai political class.
Everything about the Thai idea of government is top-down. Everything about the sufficiency economy is bottom-up.
I remember reading a book about Daikong, named Lak Chang, by Yos Santasombat and chuckling, in a world-weary way, at his deadpan description of the centralized Chinese communists in Beijing deconstructing the local economy to teach the locals about collective farming. Of course the Tai peoples have come as far as they have on the back of collective farming. It is very nearly in their genes. And they will survive in Thailand the applied “wisdom” of the Chinese center from Bangkok as they have in Yunnan survived the Chinese in Beijing.
But a conscientious application of sufficiency economy principles must necessarily bring about the (re) democratization of Thailand. And I don’t think that’s what the present group of constitution writers has in mind.
[…] I haven t gotten through much of it myself, but it explores the relationship between Christianity and national identity among the Chin – an issue which I m sure has parallels among the other ethnic groups of Burma. – more – […]
That’s a great article but I don’t understand why they don’t just call it “The Thai development model under the leadership of the wise Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej” or something like that. It is the creation of a generalised “sufficiency economy” philosophy of development applicable to other situations that seems problematic.
One might consider the impediments that exist in transforming “sufficiency economy” into a lasting international school of Buddhist thought/philosophy applied to development economics that could develop freely on its own and thus do honour to HMK:
a. Obviously, lese majeste laws, the founding intellectual – thinker being HMK, one could not progress very far critically if intellectuals were afraid of violating these laws, and I’m not talking so much about public show trials like Jufer’s or Silak Sivaraksa’s but discrete deportations or black-listings or entry-barrings that never make the news.
b. Tendencies within the Thai and Burmese Sanghas themselves (Sri Lankan?) to stifle critical thought, the example that I am familiar with, being the frequent contributer to Bangkok Post Op-Ed pages Mettando Bhikku,who has addressed many issues in lay-life critically like euthanasia laws, but has measures taken against him for his political activities by the Sangha.
c. The tendency in Thai and Burmese public discourse for the Ajaan/Saya to lecture the “dek” nakseuksa/tabei-disciple, rhetorical moves such as the foreigners do not “understand” and that it needs to be “explained” to them, all of which merely perpetuates existing power-relations and snuffs out critical thought (Thaksin’s contribution of “learner-centered” education didn’t get too far)
I feel even raising these issues as a Farang, could lead to danger or hatred. Nevertheless, I’ll ask the question anyway.
What is ANU thinking? You might as well honour Pinochet or Robert Mugabe!
Lee Kuan Yew is a anti-democratic Authoritarian. This is the man who jailed Mr Chia Tye Poh, a political opponent for 26 years WITHOUT TRIAL. Only to ‘release’ him on house arrest 1 day before Nelson Mandela was release in South Africa. Tactical move so that he would not become the longest serving political prisoner in the world.
This is the man who was behind the infamous “Myanmar Fund” which used public moneys to bankroll the likes of super drug lords like Lo Hsing Han – http://www.singapore-window.org/1020naus.htm
This is the same ‘retired’ man who literally controls a countries judiciary (appoints his mates as top judges), controls public moneys via private investment agencies overseas thru his company Singapore Government Investment Corporation, who levered his eldest son into the PM’s job, and minister of finance position and also levered his daughter in law Ms Ho Ching into controlling the massive Singapore government owned corporation “Temasek Holdings” which now own Optus, Westin Hotel, Queen Victoria building, the failed Ansett, Australand, and the former ANA Hotel, just to name a few.
“Nearly four years after Congress pulled the plug on what critics assailed as an Orwellian scheme to spy on private citizens, Singapore is set to launch an even more ambitious incarnation of the Pentagon’s controversial Total Information Awareness program…The Singapore prototype of the system …was rolled out early this week at a conference in the Southeast Asia city-state. Retired U.S. Adm. John Poindexter, the architect of the original Pentagon program, traveled to Singapore to deliver a speech at the unveiling, while backers have already begun quietly touting the system to U.S. intelligence officials.”
“In 2003, plans for Total Information Awareness, or TIA, sparked outrage among privacy advocates. TIA was one of several programs run out of the Information Awareness Office at Darpa, the Pentagon’s advanced research projects agency. Fueling public indignation was news that Poindexter, President Reagan’s national security adviser and a key figure in the ’80s Iran-Contra scandal, was in charge of the office.”
“Facing an avalanche of bad publicity, Poindexter resigned in August 2003. Congress pulled funding for the program, and TIA and related programs were either terminated or moved to other agencies. The Information Awareness Office was closed.”
“But Poindexter’s vision never lost currency among advocates of data mining, particularly in Singapore, a country that mixes elements of democratic governance with authoritarian rule….” http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,73046-0.html
Given Singapore’s past history, this system could set a scary precedent. Sorry, you’re in the database, no work for you, would certainly stifle any critical thought.
Mmmmmm? He certainly has achieved a political and economic miracle here in Singapore but having lioved here for 4 years and being married to a Singaporean, I certainly do not approve of the things that go on here.
Imrisoning the opposition without charge? For 32 years! A record only beaten by Nelson Mandela. Temasek are raking it in and only today the PM has said that his ministers only get 1.2 m pa and it should be 2.2m pa! Yeah right, of course it should. To govern less 3m voters?
anon: That might very well be the case. Still, it is my impression that there are many Thai academics who are comparatively open in voicing their criticism. Yet, it is also true what an NGO worker some time back told me, “Thailand still is a rather closed society.” So the direction, scope, and strength of criticism certainly is limited.
I would apreciate if you could provide some examples, so that I might get a better idea of when this sort of warnings are used.
“The main argument will be ‘Yes he may not respect human rights, but look at how much cleaner and more modern we are compared to our neighbours.’” Well, that’s an understandable position. Even many foreign academics like working in Singapore, not just because they are well-paid, I guess.
‘Yes he may not respect human rights, but look at how much cleaner and more modern we are compared to our neighbours.’
Srithanonchai & Soci: There is also the ‘survivalism’ ideology, which is probably just as relevant today.
Of course ANU should not be giving LKY an honory law doctorate, but there is a fair chance that Singapore would be a much worse place without having had LKY in control.
I was reading some articles about the deep south on midnight university’s site a few days ago. Two Thai academics; Nidhi Eaosriwong and Thanet Arpornsuwan seem to be influenced by the ‘imagination school’ (if I can call it a school at all). I don’t think a constructivist argument is much use to explain the south, and the idea of ‘ancestral land’ may be more real than imagination. Umm, perhaps I can find time and appropriate posting for morediscussion on this.
[…] McKinley (in the ABC’s coverage), and on their personal blogs. Andrew Walker of the RSPAS at New Mandela has also posted a letter from Stephen Dobbs of the University of Western Australia which is well […]
[…] on their personal blogs. Andrew Walker of the RSPAS at New Mandela has also posted a letter from Stephen Dobbs of the University of Western Australia which is well worth a read. Andrew Leigh of the […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Lee Kuan who?
Did the law department have any say in Uncle LKY getting this degree?
Thai studies boycott? An update
Reply to the points made in the “Thai Studies Boycott? An Update” posting:
1. I find it hard to understand how, in this age of email, internet newspapers and academic journals, blog sites, and cheap international travel, a boycott of this conference would “limit academic exchange and discussion”. One must be very deprived indeed if your only intellectual exchange with Thailand is attending the ITSC. The issue was not whether to boycott all relations with Thai academia, but whether it is ethical to attend a conference held for the main purpose of honouring the king (given the king’s support for the coup and current dictatorship), and at Thammasat University, whose Rector has bent over backwards to do the bidding of the military regime.
2. Of course a boycott would not have “any meaningful impact on the Thai political situation or on broader issues of intellectual freedom…” But it would have a significant effect on the image of the monarchy and Thammasat University in Thailand if the international Thai Studies community made a clear statement that it would not give its support to (let alone “honour”) a king who supports dictatorship, and a Rector who allows himself to be a tool of the dictatorship.
One simply has to understand the importance of the legitimizing function of international academic institutions for a developing country like Thailand. We know that the King is in the Guinness Book of Records for having the most honorary degrees. That is not an accident. Add to these the degrees that the other members of the royal family have been awarded. We know the rumours about how universities around the world have been approached to award honorary degrees to members of the Thai royal family, in return for favours. We know how they abuse their reputation for academic brilliance in Thailand, and how the whole higher education system suffers because of it. And we know how NONE OF THIS CAN BE SAID IN THAILAND BECAUSE OF LESE MAJESTE. In other words, acceptance by the international academic community is absolutely crucial to the position of the monarchy in Thailand. There is not a shadow of doubt that the ICTS will be milked for royalist propaganda purposes, as a statement of the “honour paid to the king by the leading scholars from around the world on the auspicious occasion of his 80th birthday”. Why allow oneself to be used in this way?
As for Thammasat, it has completely betrayed its tradition of being a bastion of liberal, critical, progressive thinking. Many of its most prominent social scientists joined the movement to overthrow a democratically elected government last year. Now its current Rector, former Rector, and assorted academics appear to have no qualms to serve a dictatorship – and to be paid handsomely for the honour. Why reward them with international academic credibility?
3. To the “very experienced Thai studies scholar”: it must be nice for you with your PhD and Ivy League professorship to have the liberty to present your papers on “provocative” and “sensitive” topics at Thai Studies conferences. Well, for millions of Thai citizens (sorry, “subjects”) they are denied the right to even utter a word of criticism of the monarchy, even after their government has been stolen from them and while they are forced to swallow the sufficiency economy garbage. Yet you would “honour the king” by attending this conference; have I got that right?
4. “Some point out that, if the coup makers keep their word…” I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read this one. What a sad comment on the quality of international Thai Studies scholarship when “scholars” actually believe what a military junta says. So these people trust a royalist dictatorship that has just stolen a democratically elected government at gunpoint (not to mention the trillion baht budget that the government controls – and they have the shamelessness to call Thaksin corrupt!) to keep its word?
But supposing we suspend our disbelief and trust the words of a military junta, the argument that Thailand might have a democratically elected government in Jan next year is in any case irrelevant. Thammasat is calling for papers NOW, under the conditions of a royalist dictatorship. The time to speak out is NOW. If anyone has the faintest understanding of the situation in Thailand now you would know that the regime is totally in control: of the military, the government, the mass media, and most ominously the Constitutional Drafting Panel. It is doing everything in its power to make sure that it entrenches its political position in the future under the guise of a “democratic” system. I ask again, why honour the king and Thammasat for this?
Thai studies boycott? An update
As regards the statement “I cannot recall any paper or panel at a conference held in Thailand being rejected because the topic was sensitive or too provocative” – it made me think back to the 8th ICTS in Nakhorn Phanom, which I attended when I was still a student. At one point I was talking to an anthropologist from the Netherlands. She told me that she had initially submitted a paper on the cult surrounding Rama V, but this subject had been deemed too controversial by the organizers of the 8th ICTS. As far as I remember,she told me that this was conveyed to her in rather veiled terms. The message, however, was clear: the paper would not be accepted. She subsequently changed her subject and submitted an entirely different paper on modern asceticism among the thai middle class.
Sri Lankan article on Thai “sufficiency economy”
‘ Thailand plans to write into the preamble of the interim constitution that is being written right now the principles of Sufficiency Economics. The official Thai definition of the economic model drawn up in 1999 describes it as “an approach to life and conduct applicable at every level from the individual through the family and community to the management and development of the nation”. ‘
The Chicago School used to claim that “free market” economics would bring about democracy. Well I guess that Pinochet was “the exception that proves the rule”.
I am at a loss to understand how the fundamentally anti-democratic principles of the Thai political system can possibly foster the profoundly democratic sufficiency economy.
And I am not referring to HM the King, demonstrably more democratic than any in the Thai political class.
Everything about the Thai idea of government is top-down. Everything about the sufficiency economy is bottom-up.
I remember reading a book about Daikong, named Lak Chang, by Yos Santasombat and chuckling, in a world-weary way, at his deadpan description of the centralized Chinese communists in Beijing deconstructing the local economy to teach the locals about collective farming. Of course the Tai peoples have come as far as they have on the back of collective farming. It is very nearly in their genes. And they will survive in Thailand the applied “wisdom” of the Chinese center from Bangkok as they have in Yunnan survived the Chinese in Beijing.
But a conscientious application of sufficiency economy principles must necessarily bring about the (re) democratization of Thailand. And I don’t think that’s what the present group of constitution writers has in mind.
“Carrying the Cross”: Christians and Burma
[…] I haven t gotten through much of it myself, but it explores the relationship between Christianity and national identity among the Chin – an issue which I m sure has parallels among the other ethnic groups of Burma. – more – […]
Sri Lankan article on Thai “sufficiency economy”
That’s a great article but I don’t understand why they don’t just call it “The Thai development model under the leadership of the wise Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej” or something like that. It is the creation of a generalised “sufficiency economy” philosophy of development applicable to other situations that seems problematic.
One might consider the impediments that exist in transforming “sufficiency economy” into a lasting international school of Buddhist thought/philosophy applied to development economics that could develop freely on its own and thus do honour to HMK:
a. Obviously, lese majeste laws, the founding intellectual – thinker being HMK, one could not progress very far critically if intellectuals were afraid of violating these laws, and I’m not talking so much about public show trials like Jufer’s or Silak Sivaraksa’s but discrete deportations or black-listings or entry-barrings that never make the news.
b. Tendencies within the Thai and Burmese Sanghas themselves (Sri Lankan?) to stifle critical thought, the example that I am familiar with, being the frequent contributer to Bangkok Post Op-Ed pages Mettando Bhikku,who has addressed many issues in lay-life critically like euthanasia laws, but has measures taken against him for his political activities by the Sangha.
c. The tendency in Thai and Burmese public discourse for the Ajaan/Saya to lecture the “dek” nakseuksa/tabei-disciple, rhetorical moves such as the foreigners do not “understand” and that it needs to be “explained” to them, all of which merely perpetuates existing power-relations and snuffs out critical thought (Thaksin’s contribution of “learner-centered” education didn’t get too far)
I feel even raising these issues as a Farang, could lead to danger or hatred. Nevertheless, I’ll ask the question anyway.
Lee Kuan who?
What is ANU thinking? You might as well honour Pinochet or Robert Mugabe!
Lee Kuan Yew is a anti-democratic Authoritarian. This is the man who jailed Mr Chia Tye Poh, a political opponent for 26 years WITHOUT TRIAL. Only to ‘release’ him on house arrest 1 day before Nelson Mandela was release in South Africa. Tactical move so that he would not become the longest serving political prisoner in the world.
This is the man who was behind the infamous “Myanmar Fund” which used public moneys to bankroll the likes of super drug lords like Lo Hsing Han – http://www.singapore-window.org/1020naus.htm
This is the same ‘retired’ man who literally controls a countries judiciary (appoints his mates as top judges), controls public moneys via private investment agencies overseas thru his company Singapore Government Investment Corporation, who levered his eldest son into the PM’s job, and minister of finance position and also levered his daughter in law Ms Ho Ching into controlling the massive Singapore government owned corporation “Temasek Holdings” which now own Optus, Westin Hotel, Queen Victoria building, the failed Ansett, Australand, and the former ANA Hotel, just to name a few.
Lee Kuan who?
Yet a new innovation:
“Nearly four years after Congress pulled the plug on what critics assailed as an Orwellian scheme to spy on private citizens, Singapore is set to launch an even more ambitious incarnation of the Pentagon’s controversial Total Information Awareness program…The Singapore prototype of the system …was rolled out early this week at a conference in the Southeast Asia city-state. Retired U.S. Adm. John Poindexter, the architect of the original Pentagon program, traveled to Singapore to deliver a speech at the unveiling, while backers have already begun quietly touting the system to U.S. intelligence officials.”
“In 2003, plans for Total Information Awareness, or TIA, sparked outrage among privacy advocates. TIA was one of several programs run out of the Information Awareness Office at Darpa, the Pentagon’s advanced research projects agency. Fueling public indignation was news that Poindexter, President Reagan’s national security adviser and a key figure in the ’80s Iran-Contra scandal, was in charge of the office.”
“Facing an avalanche of bad publicity, Poindexter resigned in August 2003. Congress pulled funding for the program, and TIA and related programs were either terminated or moved to other agencies. The Information Awareness Office was closed.”
“But Poindexter’s vision never lost currency among advocates of data mining, particularly in Singapore, a country that mixes elements of democratic governance with authoritarian rule….”
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,73046-0.html
Given Singapore’s past history, this system could set a scary precedent. Sorry, you’re in the database, no work for you, would certainly stifle any critical thought.
ANU honours Lee Kuan Yew. Why?
Mmmmmm? He certainly has achieved a political and economic miracle here in Singapore but having lioved here for 4 years and being married to a Singaporean, I certainly do not approve of the things that go on here.
Imrisoning the opposition without charge? For 32 years! A record only beaten by Nelson Mandela. Temasek are raking it in and only today the PM has said that his ministers only get 1.2 m pa and it should be 2.2m pa! Yeah right, of course it should. To govern less 3m voters?
This reeks of a purely political move.
ANU honours Lee Kuan Yew. Why?
anon: That might very well be the case. Still, it is my impression that there are many Thai academics who are comparatively open in voicing their criticism. Yet, it is also true what an NGO worker some time back told me, “Thailand still is a rather closed society.” So the direction, scope, and strength of criticism certainly is limited.
I would apreciate if you could provide some examples, so that I might get a better idea of when this sort of warnings are used.
ANU honours Lee Kuan Yew. Why?
Srithanonchai: “BTW: where did YOU get your degree from?” Sorry you have lost me. I am a bit slow- what your point?
A Thai Studies boycott?
[…] our post of last week canvassing the issue of a boycott of the 10th International Conference of Thai Studies (ICTS) there […]
“Frankly very disturbing”
Soci: Thanks for this info.
“The main argument will be ‘Yes he may not respect human rights, but look at how much cleaner and more modern we are compared to our neighbours.’” Well, that’s an understandable position. Even many foreign academics like working in Singapore, not just because they are well-paid, I guess.
“Frankly very disturbing”
‘Yes he may not respect human rights, but look at how much cleaner and more modern we are compared to our neighbours.’
Srithanonchai & Soci: There is also the ‘survivalism’ ideology, which is probably just as relevant today.
Of course ANU should not be giving LKY an honory law doctorate, but there is a fair chance that Singapore would be a much worse place without having had LKY in control.
Populism!
‘Miss kun-na-tham’ will beat them all. Kunnatham is currently in vogue.
Isan in the north
I was reading some articles about the deep south on midnight university’s site a few days ago. Two Thai academics; Nidhi Eaosriwong and Thanet Arpornsuwan seem to be influenced by the ‘imagination school’ (if I can call it a school at all). I don’t think a constructivist argument is much use to explain the south, and the idea of ‘ancestral land’ may be more real than imagination. Umm, perhaps I can find time and appropriate posting for morediscussion on this.
ANU honours Lee Kuan Yew. Why?
Srithanonchai, that happens all the time in Thailand, except that the Rector or the Dean gives you a call, not the police.
Oliver Jufer, royal graffiti and global news
So in Cambodia, the royal family isn’t constitutionally inviolate, like in Thailand?
Lee Kuan who?
[…] McKinley (in the ABC’s coverage), and on their personal blogs. Andrew Walker of the RSPAS at New Mandela has also posted a letter from Stephen Dobbs of the University of Western Australia which is well […]
“Frankly very disturbing”
[…] on their personal blogs. Andrew Walker of the RSPAS at New Mandela has also posted a letter from Stephen Dobbs of the University of Western Australia which is well worth a read. Andrew Leigh of the […]