At Thammasat, you have a rector who called for a royally appointed prime minister only to be told subsequently by the king that this was illegal and undemocratic (mind you, this rector is a full professor of law!), and you have a vice rector (with a Dr jur from Germany!) who pretends to be a political progressive but thinks that selling condoms on campus endangers morality. And then both of them violate the personal rights of one of their students. After all, what business does Thammasat have with what its students do in their personal spheres: absolutely nothing!
Since the subject was politicians, I did not mention police, soldiers, or bureaucrats. For sure, they are no less corrupt than the politicians. Commissions, position buying, len phak len phuak are very widespread. That’s one of the reason why I find these people accusing politicians hypocritical. What members on the CDA or the CDC are entirely clean, I wonder?
NIcholas, thanks for the link for another “blog” worth bookmarking.
By the way, for those with such interests, the other night I watched a presentation of Milena Kaneva’s documentary film “Total Denial” which focuses upon both the Karen human rights activist Ka Hsaw Wa, as well as the lawsuit in the US brought against UNOCAL (now owned by Chevron) on behalf of the Karen living in the region of the UNOCAL pipeline through the border. Hopefully tihs film will be playing at a film festival wherever you are located in the near future and is certainly worth the price of admission.
On the contrary, most dishonest policemen and army officers are way richer than their politician counterparts. Did you take a look at the asset disclosures of the current government?
Civil servants and judges, making a little per month, somehow found a way to accumulate tremendous wealth over the decades.
What the Thammasat University Rector Suraphol Nitikraipot and Dep Rector of Student Affairs Parinya Thewanarumitkul did to her was misogynistic and dumb.
She’s a grown adult, she can marry, she can drink, she can get married, she can vote (if only we had elections). She broke no law, but they still demeaned her in public and punished her, as if she were a drunk driver or a criminal.
When Chula students compete in the Miss Thailand competition, they get praised as being shining examples for Thai ladies.
When daughters of high-society aristocrats get caught on cell phone home porn, people still wai and bow to them.
When students younger than Amy wear even less than her in fashion shoots, movies, or music videos, they get praised for their talent.
So really, what is the rationale for Thammasat’s punishment of her?
If it wants to take a hard line against all sexy dress, it should formally do it. Ban all Thammasat students from appearing in magazines or media of any type. Ban them from competing in beauty pagents. Ban them from wearing low pants, short skirts, tight shirts, showing their belly buttons, g-strings, or for that matter, no underwear, at any time or place.
And since the issue is “inappropriate” actions and the institution’s good name, why don’t they ban all students from engaging in any political activities at any time as well?
Unfortunately, many politicians have contributed substantially to the negative perception of them. However, I don’t necessarily see the “Thai people” as a collective being weary of politicians. This perspective seems to be distributed very unevenly in the Thai polity. Fort example, I don’t see the people of Supanburi being weary of democracy.
Anyway, what is the alternative? What we see on the occasion of the current constitution-drafting exercise is that the royalist-military-bureaucratic elite, under the leadership of Charan (CDC, sub-committee on political institutions) tries to weaken politics, politicians, political parties and the government, meaning that power will move back to the remnants of the “bureaucratic polity,” to which some strong royalist elements have been added. Of course, this also means that the people, i.e. the voters, will be disempowered, compared to the constitution of 1997 (elimination of the party list system, introduction of single non-transferable vote, appointed senate).
In short, one of the questions is whether one can strengthen politics by institutionally weakening it. And it is being weakened not in the name of the “national good”, but in order for the conservative forces to regain what they had lost in 1997. In other words, this is a power game.
Thai people weary of democracy perhaps because they see the same dishonest politicians return to power over and over again.
It is the curse of Thai democracy that many who seek elected office feel they could make substantially more dishonest baht by being a dishonest MP or a dishonest minister, than by remaining a dishonest businessman or a dishonest policeman. Remind you someone doesn’t it?
[…] cultural spokeswoman for the Surayud-CNS government. Rumous had been sparked by the appointment of Thaksinomic guru Somkid Jatusripitak as regime spokesman on sufficiency economy. A regime insider allegedly told New Mandala: “if […]
I agree that there are more elements in “true democracy” (or its many different appearances) that merely non-acceptance of the military. “Better politicians” is tricky, partly because it might reflect the elite discourse running down “nakluaktang.” Also, before people can elect better politicians, there must be better politicians as options, which brings us to consider the issue of political recruitment. The politicians, after all, are not morally bad as such, but rather reflect the structural neccessities of the Thai political system. As for the output side of policies, yes, but one of the most important reasons for favoring a democratic system is that it might lead to better outputs. However, if it is not democratic, this output cannot be expected. So, the situation is a little complex. Alternatively, we might put our hope in the appearance of an enlightened leader. Perhaps, the experience with Thaksin would bring us to be skeptical re this possibility.
The longer version of the Thaksin interview aired this AM on Asia Pacific Focus on the ABC. The extrajudicial killings and the heavy handed southern policy were covered, but the answers were inadequate as expected, and not challenged. For example the extrajudicial killings were justified on the basis of the subsequent landslide election win.
There was also quite a thorough lead-in piece on the airport’s problems.
Taxi Driver said : “Thailand will only have true democracy when the generals and their tanks are not accepted by the people.”
Until people elect better politicians, I dont care about ‘true democracy’.
I think basic human rights, equitable & transparent laws, access to health care, access to education etc are more important.
I stand by my previous assertions, which to my mind you haven’t directly addressed, much less refuted, but merely dissmissed.
1) There is no single scientific method as an applied technique of data collection and as a method of practice, irregardless of how unified the scientific method may be as a general ontological and epistemological standpoint.
2) This diversity is reflected by the fact that the ontology, epistemology and methodology of the natural and social sciences differ. Those adjectives are significant after all. The most prominent distinction in their respective objects of study lies in whether the objects under investigation possess consciousness or not.
3) There exists valued and valuable social scientific methods beyond the quantitative and the statistical. These include but are not limited to case study methods. These various methods are also subject to evaluation according to generally accepted standards concerning proper sampling techniques, data collection and analysis.
4) Predictability of research results is much easier to achieve and much more likely in the case of the hard sciences than the social sciences. This is an issue quite separate from matters of “complexity”. In a controlled lab one can run experiments over and over and potentially achieve identical and predictable results regarding chemical reactions, etc. Such experiments are much more difficult, if not impossible, with regards to social interactions. Humans have consciousness, and therefore by extension can learn and modify their behavior, thus rendering predictability dubious. Neutrons, chemical complexes and alfala plants do not have that capacity.
5) The above four statements – which you presumably don’t agree with (I can’t tell quite honestly) – would be deemed reasonable by the major professionals social scientific associations of most modern nations (i.e. the American Sociological Association, the American Anthropological Associatioin, the American Political Science Association, etc, for example). An interesting question then becomes how it is that your individual wisdom is so much greater than their collective understanding?
Just for the record: While I am not an expert in the history, epistemology and methodology of science in general or even social science in particular, I am also not uninformed on these topics. I have a general familiarity with many of the current ideas and thinkers on these subjects. I think I shall continue to rely on their monographs for my understanding of the debates at hand rather than Wikipedia.
In addition, I actually very much share your concern for greater care and higher standards in the research techniques, data collection and data analysis of the social sciences. What I cannot agree with you on, however, is your basic presumptions about THE scientific method, which betrays to my eyes a basic misunderstanding of the complexity of the current debates on these matters and the legitimate methodological pluralism that flourishes within social scientific disciplines.
And finally, I’d appreciate it if you could cool your rhetoric and resort to less loaded and pejorative terms for describing others positions and stances. Unless that is you aren’t insterested in a conversation and a debate but merely want to enjoy the pleasure of dismissing others in an anonymous forum. Would you use the same rhetoric and arguments if you were talking to me face to face, or if this conversation were occuring at say an academic or professional conference? I suspect not. At least, I certainly hope not.
clearly you must be lacking intellectual engagement – all the way out there wherever you are….
your comments are becomming a tad predictable. of course you may consider that the posts from students at the ANU, Oxford and wherever else predictable and less than the standard that you set yourself, but vindictive slander only highlights the sadness of your situation as opposed to confirming your prowess. with the language you use, it appears that you would rather challenge intellectual elitism than really write comments on SEA development.
have you read ‘a handful of dust’ by evelyn waugh? maybe you would like that.
Ngarn, even if elections were held in 2550 and a new government formed, do you really think Thailand will have “democracy”?
Having elections does not mean you have democracy if the elected government is subjugated to a junta/military that “hovers” above the government and may step in to remove it at any time. Again, just take a look at Iraq as an example. Elections were held there in late 2005 but no one would claim Iraq today is a democracy. Thailand will only have true democracy when the generals and their tanks are not accepted by the people.
HP: Hm, now you lower your intellectual level even to that of the old “Night Owl” of Bangkok Post (who was at least measured fun to read, and who had a much more relaxed approach than you have)? That explains why you seem to need a crash course in “Research Methodology 101.” But since you already have admitted in another post that you are an ignorant non-professional, I won’t volunteer.
Just in case you can bring youself to adopt a productive position, the Thai Studies Conference in January 2008 at Thammasat University will have a panel of “Research Methodology for Thai Studies in a Transnationalized World.” That might very well be the appropriate place for you to present your findings and suggestions, and make “science felt”. And there is sufficient time, I think, for studying things a little bit more so that you won’t be ashamed of youself in the academic public. Here is the web site of the conference for your information and constructive attention: http://www.thaiconference.tu.ac.th/themes.html
The basic methodology has been around since the ancient greeks and egyptians. It’s been eye-opening to realize how few people involved with Thailand-related subjects are aware of this, but it sure does explain a lot.
I’m not sure about denying “collective terms” because I don’t know what that means. I suppose if you got a group of people to accept that 2+3=7, then among that population that would be true; but it wouldn’t help them very much in practical applications of mathematics, such as predicting the seasons or planning health care spending.
Mr. HP: So, you admit to being a non-professional with no experience or knowledge–but at the same time you claim that you are much smarter than everybody else who has done substantial work in the field of Thai studies over the past decades and thus can easily detect all their mistakes. Not a position that makes you look more credible, to say the least. Maybe, you should rely less on the popular press and web boards, and instead start visiting libraries? I also would not expect to see anything very substantial in those places you obviously prefer as sources of understanding.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Sufficiency economy = populism?
[…] to Nich Farrelly’s previous post, Chang Noi has a fascinating article in todays Nation about political thinker (and failed […]
In sufficient clothing
At Thammasat, you have a rector who called for a royally appointed prime minister only to be told subsequently by the king that this was illegal and undemocratic (mind you, this rector is a full professor of law!), and you have a vice rector (with a Dr jur from Germany!) who pretends to be a political progressive but thinks that selling condoms on campus endangers morality. And then both of them violate the personal rights of one of their students. After all, what business does Thammasat have with what its students do in their personal spheres: absolutely nothing!
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
Since the subject was politicians, I did not mention police, soldiers, or bureaucrats. For sure, they are no less corrupt than the politicians. Commissions, position buying, len phak len phuak are very widespread. That’s one of the reason why I find these people accusing politicians hypocritical. What members on the CDA or the CDC are entirely clean, I wonder?
In sufficient clothing
There is only one rational response concerning this situation:
*wolf whistle*
New border blog: the crooked line
NIcholas, thanks for the link for another “blog” worth bookmarking.
By the way, for those with such interests, the other night I watched a presentation of Milena Kaneva’s documentary film “Total Denial” which focuses upon both the Karen human rights activist Ka Hsaw Wa, as well as the lawsuit in the US brought against UNOCAL (now owned by Chevron) on behalf of the Karen living in the region of the UNOCAL pipeline through the border. Hopefully tihs film will be playing at a film festival wherever you are located in the near future and is certainly worth the price of admission.
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
On the contrary, most dishonest policemen and army officers are way richer than their politician counterparts. Did you take a look at the asset disclosures of the current government?
Civil servants and judges, making a little per month, somehow found a way to accumulate tremendous wealth over the decades.
In sufficient clothing
What the Thammasat University Rector Suraphol Nitikraipot and Dep Rector of Student Affairs Parinya Thewanarumitkul did to her was misogynistic and dumb.
She’s a grown adult, she can marry, she can drink, she can get married, she can vote (if only we had elections). She broke no law, but they still demeaned her in public and punished her, as if she were a drunk driver or a criminal.
When Chula students compete in the Miss Thailand competition, they get praised as being shining examples for Thai ladies.
When daughters of high-society aristocrats get caught on cell phone home porn, people still wai and bow to them.
When students younger than Amy wear even less than her in fashion shoots, movies, or music videos, they get praised for their talent.
So really, what is the rationale for Thammasat’s punishment of her?
If it wants to take a hard line against all sexy dress, it should formally do it. Ban all Thammasat students from appearing in magazines or media of any type. Ban them from competing in beauty pagents. Ban them from wearing low pants, short skirts, tight shirts, showing their belly buttons, g-strings, or for that matter, no underwear, at any time or place.
And since the issue is “inappropriate” actions and the institution’s good name, why don’t they ban all students from engaging in any political activities at any time as well?
I’m ashamed to be a Thammasat man.
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
Unfortunately, many politicians have contributed substantially to the negative perception of them. However, I don’t necessarily see the “Thai people” as a collective being weary of politicians. This perspective seems to be distributed very unevenly in the Thai polity. Fort example, I don’t see the people of Supanburi being weary of democracy.
Anyway, what is the alternative? What we see on the occasion of the current constitution-drafting exercise is that the royalist-military-bureaucratic elite, under the leadership of Charan (CDC, sub-committee on political institutions) tries to weaken politics, politicians, political parties and the government, meaning that power will move back to the remnants of the “bureaucratic polity,” to which some strong royalist elements have been added. Of course, this also means that the people, i.e. the voters, will be disempowered, compared to the constitution of 1997 (elimination of the party list system, introduction of single non-transferable vote, appointed senate).
In short, one of the questions is whether one can strengthen politics by institutionally weakening it. And it is being weakened not in the name of the “national good”, but in order for the conservative forces to regain what they had lost in 1997. In other words, this is a power game.
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
Thai people weary of democracy perhaps because they see the same dishonest politicians return to power over and over again.
It is the curse of Thai democracy that many who seek elected office feel they could make substantially more dishonest baht by being a dishonest MP or a dishonest minister, than by remaining a dishonest businessman or a dishonest policeman. Remind you someone doesn’t it?
Nothing to do with politics
[…] cultural spokeswoman for the Surayud-CNS government. Rumous had been sparked by the appointment of Thaksinomic guru Somkid Jatusripitak as regime spokesman on sufficiency economy. A regime insider allegedly told New Mandala: “if […]
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
I agree that there are more elements in “true democracy” (or its many different appearances) that merely non-acceptance of the military. “Better politicians” is tricky, partly because it might reflect the elite discourse running down “nakluaktang.” Also, before people can elect better politicians, there must be better politicians as options, which brings us to consider the issue of political recruitment. The politicians, after all, are not morally bad as such, but rather reflect the structural neccessities of the Thai political system. As for the output side of policies, yes, but one of the most important reasons for favoring a democratic system is that it might lead to better outputs. However, if it is not democratic, this output cannot be expected. So, the situation is a little complex. Alternatively, we might put our hope in the appearance of an enlightened leader. Perhaps, the experience with Thaksin would bring us to be skeptical re this possibility.
Thaksin’s Aussie interview a dud!
The longer version of the Thaksin interview aired this AM on Asia Pacific Focus on the ABC. The extrajudicial killings and the heavy handed southern policy were covered, but the answers were inadequate as expected, and not challenged. For example the extrajudicial killings were justified on the basis of the subsequent landslide election win.
There was also quite a thorough lead-in piece on the airport’s problems.
Maybe the transcipt will apear here:
http://www.australianetwork.com/focus/
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
Taxi Driver said : “Thailand will only have true democracy when the generals and their tanks are not accepted by the people.”
Until people elect better politicians, I dont care about ‘true democracy’.
I think basic human rights, equitable & transparent laws, access to health care, access to education etc are more important.
From the archives: funding funerals
Mr. Boothe,
I stand by my previous assertions, which to my mind you haven’t directly addressed, much less refuted, but merely dissmissed.
1) There is no single scientific method as an applied technique of data collection and as a method of practice, irregardless of how unified the scientific method may be as a general ontological and epistemological standpoint.
2) This diversity is reflected by the fact that the ontology, epistemology and methodology of the natural and social sciences differ. Those adjectives are significant after all. The most prominent distinction in their respective objects of study lies in whether the objects under investigation possess consciousness or not.
3) There exists valued and valuable social scientific methods beyond the quantitative and the statistical. These include but are not limited to case study methods. These various methods are also subject to evaluation according to generally accepted standards concerning proper sampling techniques, data collection and analysis.
4) Predictability of research results is much easier to achieve and much more likely in the case of the hard sciences than the social sciences. This is an issue quite separate from matters of “complexity”. In a controlled lab one can run experiments over and over and potentially achieve identical and predictable results regarding chemical reactions, etc. Such experiments are much more difficult, if not impossible, with regards to social interactions. Humans have consciousness, and therefore by extension can learn and modify their behavior, thus rendering predictability dubious. Neutrons, chemical complexes and alfala plants do not have that capacity.
5) The above four statements – which you presumably don’t agree with (I can’t tell quite honestly) – would be deemed reasonable by the major professionals social scientific associations of most modern nations (i.e. the American Sociological Association, the American Anthropological Associatioin, the American Political Science Association, etc, for example). An interesting question then becomes how it is that your individual wisdom is so much greater than their collective understanding?
Just for the record: While I am not an expert in the history, epistemology and methodology of science in general or even social science in particular, I am also not uninformed on these topics. I have a general familiarity with many of the current ideas and thinkers on these subjects. I think I shall continue to rely on their monographs for my understanding of the debates at hand rather than Wikipedia.
In addition, I actually very much share your concern for greater care and higher standards in the research techniques, data collection and data analysis of the social sciences. What I cannot agree with you on, however, is your basic presumptions about THE scientific method, which betrays to my eyes a basic misunderstanding of the complexity of the current debates on these matters and the legitimate methodological pluralism that flourishes within social scientific disciplines.
And finally, I’d appreciate it if you could cool your rhetoric and resort to less loaded and pejorative terms for describing others positions and stances. Unless that is you aren’t insterested in a conversation and a debate but merely want to enjoy the pleasure of dismissing others in an anonymous forum. Would you use the same rhetoric and arguments if you were talking to me face to face, or if this conversation were occuring at say an academic or professional conference? I suspect not. At least, I certainly hope not.
Cheers,
David
From the archives: funding funerals
hpboothe…
clearly you must be lacking intellectual engagement – all the way out there wherever you are….
your comments are becomming a tad predictable. of course you may consider that the posts from students at the ANU, Oxford and wherever else predictable and less than the standard that you set yourself, but vindictive slander only highlights the sadness of your situation as opposed to confirming your prowess. with the language you use, it appears that you would rather challenge intellectual elitism than really write comments on SEA development.
have you read ‘a handful of dust’ by evelyn waugh? maybe you would like that.
Gong Xi Fa Chai!
The Nation’s innovative Thaksin debate
Ngarn, even if elections were held in 2550 and a new government formed, do you really think Thailand will have “democracy”?
Having elections does not mean you have democracy if the elected government is subjugated to a junta/military that “hovers” above the government and may step in to remove it at any time. Again, just take a look at Iraq as an example. Elections were held there in late 2005 but no one would claim Iraq today is a democracy. Thailand will only have true democracy when the generals and their tanks are not accepted by the people.
From the archives: funding funerals
HP: Wow – you are reaching ever higher intellectual levels!
The poor stay poor, the rich stay rich
HP: Hm, now you lower your intellectual level even to that of the old “Night Owl” of Bangkok Post (who was at least measured fun to read, and who had a much more relaxed approach than you have)? That explains why you seem to need a crash course in “Research Methodology 101.” But since you already have admitted in another post that you are an ignorant non-professional, I won’t volunteer.
Just in case you can bring youself to adopt a productive position, the Thai Studies Conference in January 2008 at Thammasat University will have a panel of “Research Methodology for Thai Studies in a Transnationalized World.” That might very well be the appropriate place for you to present your findings and suggestions, and make “science felt”. And there is sufficient time, I think, for studying things a little bit more so that you won’t be ashamed of youself in the academic public. Here is the web site of the conference for your information and constructive attention: http://www.thaiconference.tu.ac.th/themes.html
From the archives: funding funerals
Srithanonchai: Wikipedia has a nice article on scientific method you might enjoy perusing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The basic methodology has been around since the ancient greeks and egyptians. It’s been eye-opening to realize how few people involved with Thailand-related subjects are aware of this, but it sure does explain a lot.
I’m not sure about denying “collective terms” because I don’t know what that means. I suppose if you got a group of people to accept that 2+3=7, then among that population that would be true; but it wouldn’t help them very much in practical applications of mathematics, such as predicting the seasons or planning health care spending.
Best regards,
HP Boothe
Sufficiency economy, insufficient money
Mr. HP: So, you admit to being a non-professional with no experience or knowledge–but at the same time you claim that you are much smarter than everybody else who has done substantial work in the field of Thai studies over the past decades and thus can easily detect all their mistakes. Not a position that makes you look more credible, to say the least. Maybe, you should rely less on the popular press and web boards, and instead start visiting libraries? I also would not expect to see anything very substantial in those places you obviously prefer as sources of understanding.