I don’t think there’s anything suspicious about bone sampling, at least from the level of looking at second hand reporting in the popular press anyway. I doubt you can really comment on the technicality without reading the actual scientific manuscript. In any case, it’s not a good practice to talk about preliminary results especially to the press before the work has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. This is not strictly adhered to in Thailand, regrettably. We tend to hear a lot of sensational “discoveries” first in the local press.
That said, the result of the bone mtDNA is not at all surprising. In all likelihood, the myth that Thais migrated from China 700 years ago is bogus. 700 years may be a long time in Thai history, but it’s relatively recent in Chinese history. Plenty of records from that era are available. I don’t recall any that support these theories.
Talking about 1930 Thai fascists, I recently ran into a republished work of vijit-vadakan on phrenology in local bookstore. Very fascinating. In the bio sketch, quite a few decorations from the fuhrer and il duce are proudly listed. Someone should put this in the wikipedia article.
[…] New Mandala readers who can t get enough news and views on Burma may be keen to … Burma Digest covers events both inside and outside Burma and is currently … For anybody interested in Burma – and particularly its current period of … – more – […]
Oh Republican you will make a wonderful used car salesman. You cajole, you intimidate then you insult just to lure a buyer to your worthless second hand car.
Were all your education to come from Handley or Walker, is that enough to get you convinced all other academics are not so worthy?
Thanks for your post, Nicholas. I spent some time with an Christian Akha family around 2003 and found in that village some of the most kind and wonderful people I have ever met. A wonderful Japanese woman who I don’t have to name was the intermediary. They are facing some of the same challenges that a lot of Thai rural people are facing, including large-scale migration of the young to Bangkok and the central provinces. But that didn’t detract from their fundamnetal decency. They were some of the kindest people I have ever met.
What I didn’t see reflected in the interview was the diversity of the Akha people. From my discussions with the people, I gathered that there was a lot of things that I wasn’t seeing – differences in religion, world view, relationship to the Thai state, etc. The diversity of man is what makes it so wonderful. McDaniel is a honest and integral individual, and I wish him the best in his activism.
The bone sampling is interesting, but I’m not sure I buy the conclusions.
1) Contamination. Work like this always has the risk of contamination with modern DNA, even when run in the best of labs.
2) The article doesn’t really tell us anything. They compared the bone-derived mtDNA with that from DNA of people from Southeast Asia and eastern China, and found that they were similar. But that doesn’t really tell us anything. The DNA could have been “similar” to bones found in European sites; heck, it could have been
similar” to chimps – the key is how similar, and how similar compared to what other racial group.
We know little about the language used by people of that era, making liguistic analysis difficult. Genetic studies are critical in opening a window into the past.
It also helps put a date to the various waves of migration that hae occured in Sundaland/Southeast Asia. The vast diversity of language and race within Southeast Asia gives a hint at the complex migration of people into the region over the past million years. First came Java Man (H. erectus), then came Perak Man and the Indonesian Hobbits (H. floresiensis), then came the Sakai/Melanesian/Negrito/Orang Asli/Borneo humans, then came the Malay, then came the Chinese. Each with their own technology, language, culture, and genes. Where did the Baan Chiang bronze-age people fit in?
I’m suspicious of how the Thai are going to spin it, that doesn’t take away from the fact that this is fascinating work. Ignore the fact that the scientists doing the work are framing their conclusions on the intellectual legacy of the Thai fascists of the 1930’s. Today, scientists have tools that they couldn’t have imagined 20 years ago. This enables a whole new frontier in scientific work.
For a contrasting rhetoric, compare attempts to show that the Turkish Khazar gene pool had in some way diluted the genes of Eastern European Jews. Such attempts were labeled “anti-semite” despite Zionist Arthur Koestler being a major source of these ideas:
(I found Arthur Koestler’s book on The Khazars at a used bookstore on Sukhumvit this weekend. That’s why this example is fresh in my mind.)
My point is, that this undercurrent exists in most societies. I was always shocked when people talked of the importance of the purity of their familys’ blood in South Korea when I lived and worked there. I believe that the horrible experiences of World War II led to a western revulsion to this sentiment, but I wouldn’t naturally assume that this revulsion exists in other cultures.
I’ve seen Asian youth use things for the purposes of “rebelling against the status quo” that probably no one in the west would expect to be used for such purposes, such as evangelical christianity or wearing nazi decorations. Of course, as a western teacher, I would get upset with swastika’s on everything, but that’s exactly why they put there in the first place, to get me upset.
Interesting, as Patiwat pointed out to me, that there was no DNA sampling in the northeast of Thailand (a bit too Lao for comfort?). Perhaps there is sufficient northeastern DNA floating around in Bangkok already.
I am sure there are many Thai academics and other observers that agree with Olivier Evrard’s comments. But, at the same time, I do think there is a persistent streak of primordialism in a lot of Thai social science, especially when it comes to the Thai/Tai world.
Call me old fashioned, but on an academic website (especially hosted by as prestigious an institution as the ANU) I expect people who talk about books or articles to actually have read them. And if they haven’t then I would want a better excuse than “laziness”. But there you have it: the product of the Thai education system. And these are the same people saying that the villagers are not educated enough to have the right to vote for their own government!
Whilst I agree with most of your comment, Oliver, I think HMK’s views on the ‘sufficiency economy’ are an attempt at moral leadership particularly in relation to greed & corruption.
I see the rampant corruption at virtually every level of society as the major problem.
On a grand scale you have the politicians, military & royal clique all not setting a very good example for the lower officials, but from from my obserations it is the police that cause the biggest problem to the average (non connected) thai.
There are a number of things holding back progress in Thailand, and I concede the monachy has to share in some of the blame, however I would be reluctant to have the institution removed until the police, military, politicians & other officials prove they have integrity – Unfortunately that still seems a long way off.
It seems people like Republican thinks things cannot improve until the monarchy is gone, but HMK is hardly the main cheerleader for the corrupt practices.
This is hardly a peculiarly Thai obsession, as Olivier Evrard points out. The ultimately hopeless quest for authenticity is at the heart of the national project. Race and history are key cultural battlefields upon which people compete to define themselves as authentic and ‘others within and without’ as less authentic in belonging to the national place. That contemporary Thai nationalism takes this form is no surprise. What is surprising is the lack of critique from Thais themselves. Surely there are Thai academics who would agree with Olivier Evrard. Where are their voices being heard? Why does the Bangkok Post have a special place for the new eugenics?
” Whereas I thought Thailand was only 300 years behind the developed world, nganadit and friends want Thailand to go back 800 years”
HMK also want this…cf his favorite sentence “one step backward and two step forward”…or his support for a “sufficiency economy”…or his obsession with old royal rituals and decorum.
I don’t see HMK as the “devil instigator” behind every aspect of Thai politics. But he is nevertheless a moral leader….which means that his position (often implicitly) influences a lot the conceptual framework through which politicians and Thai citizens along are trying to imagine a “Thai style democracy”, or whatever form of a “good” political system for Thailand.
In this respect HMK has a lot of responsability in the current intellectual and political paralysis (we could even speak of regression) and deserves to be criticized : himself said one day that the monarchy could accept critic !.
[…] : there is nothing to be afraid of. He was happy to tell me these stories of reunification and reconciliation: the enemy had through this process become friend . … – more – […]
[…] Books for Burma is a project to bring educational resources to the people who need them – refugees and exiled activists from Burma who for political and financial … Books for Burma gives individuals a chance to help their cause by … – more – […]
Intellectually shallow – thanks for the compliment, Republican.
Unlike you, I am not on a witch-hunt against anyone who fails to support your beloved ‘elected leader’.
Aside from the blind hatred mentioned in the posts above, you also show blind faith in politicians & ‘democracy’.
Instead of pushing the theory that the king does not want democracy, you would be better served addressing why the politicians don’t do the right thing.
Don’t you believe the king when he says ‘politics is boring’ ?
Intellectually shallow I may be, but all I am trying to do is offer an alternative viewpoint to your vitriol, hence my summary post in commentry #42 above.
(please ignore the names mentioned in that post because it was wrong to lump individual posters into a particular camp, as obviously there are many grey areas in between)
Republican, I refused to be pulled into your whirlpool of negativity.
It might be true that the King’s actions as of late haven’t been very supportive of democratic development, but it is a comic exageration to say that he is the root of all that is evil in Thailand. Not that you ever said that – Nganadirek more or less put those words into your mouth (and into my mouth as well).
I make fun of Vichai for his blind hatred of Thaksin. But if you demonstrate blind hatred of the King, I’ll make fun of you too! :-p
As noone seems willing or able to offer an explanation as to why Thongchai changed the title of his November 18 presentation at SOAS from “Thailand’s Coup: A Step Forward in a Dangerous Direction”, to “Thailand’s September Coup: One Step Backward to Restart Democracy or One Step Forward in a Wrong Direction?” let me offer a hypothesis (as for the title of the talk I would add that in the dire circumstances that Thailand finds itself at the present one would have hoped for a less ambiguous statement of where Thongchai stood on the coup).
Johpa is on the right track: like many academics Thongchai could not make up his mind whether the coup overall was a good thing or not (ie. well, at least it had got rid of Thaksin – a “Step Forward”). The change of the title of Thongchai’s SOAS talk betrays this uncertainty, as does his statement to the junta (signed, “respectfully yours”), published directly after the crisis NOT condemning the coup but expressing “regret” and “concern” and “urging” the “authorities” not to harm protesters(http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=146) (I wonder how many of Thongchai’s many diatribes in the media against the democratically-elected Thaksin ended with, “respectfully yours”?). Somsak Jiamthirasakul has already pointed out this type of academic hypocrisy, where in their campaign to oust Thaksin the academics joined the PAD’s rallying cry of “р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕Ур╕нр╕нр╕Бр╣Др╕Ы!”, but in the case of the royalist-military coup the language had changed to mere expressions of “regret” and “concern” (at best!). Mind you, Thongchai was in good company. Ten days after the coup Kasien, another staunch anti-Thaksinist, in his Matichon column merely expressed his hope that the new regime would ensure more freedoms than had existed under Thaksin (http://www.matichon.co.th/matichon/matichon_detail.php?s_tag=01act01290949&day=2006/09/29); again, no condemnation. There were many others. In fact Thongchai has been “flip flopping” continually since the beginning of the current political crisis in late 2005, which is why his 8 November article on the “pragmatism” of Thai intellectuals published in Krungthep Thurakit (http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/level3/news_119333.jsp) had the whiff of hypocrisy about it. What’s the expression? р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╕▓ р╕нр╕┤р╣Ар╕лр╕Щр╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕З.
Prior to the April 2006 election for many months Thongchai was firmly in the camp of the group that Somsak calls the “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” for their irrational logic; that is, “р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕У р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕нр╕╖р╣Ир╕Щр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╣Бр╕Чр╕Щ/р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕г (ie. royal intervention)”. Of course, as everyone knew that Thaksin was always going to the win the election the only way that he was ever going to be got rid of was through royal intervention. The “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” camp had given its support (through newspaper columns, р╣Бр╕Цр╕ер╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣М and suchlike) to the PAD in its campaign to oust Thaksin through non-electoral means, at least up until it called for the use of Article 7 (of the former Constitution), by which the King could constitutionally dismiss the PM and unilaterally appoint a new one.
In his rambling birthday speech of December 4, 2005, the King sent a clear signal that he did not support lèse majesté lawsuits filed by Thaksin or his supporters (the so-called “King can do wrong” statement). While the gullible saw this as a sign of the King’s “liberalism”, anyone who knows how the birthday speech works would have understood that the real intention was to give a green light to the media to criticize Thaksin, invoking the King if necessary. This is the most cowardly form of political attack because one can not defend oneself against it without risking lèse majesté – as Thaksin did with his famous р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╕Ър╕▓р╕гр╕бр╕╡ speech. Within a short time Thaksin’s lèse majesté lawsuit against Sondhi, who had been using the monarchy shamelessly to attack him, was lifted and most of the media began to swing against Thaksin. Thus from December 4 it became clear that that the King had given his full support to the anti-Thaksin movement. What this means is that at this stage support given to the PAD in its campaign to oust Thaksin by any means was effectively to support a non-electoral outcome to the crisis. Yet Thongchai in numerous press articles continued to condemn Thaksin and express support for the PAD, up until it called for the use of Article 7 in March.
I’m not sure how much is Nicholas’ paraphrasing or whether Thongchai actually made this statement “… democracies need to be defended even when they produce what some people consider to be “immoral” results…” If Thongchai had been as firmly committed to democracy as he makes out here, in early 2006 he would have been strongly defending Thaksin, a democratically-elected Prime Minister, in his our of dire need against a likely royal intervention. But he could not bring himself to do it. But this of course is “history”. It is much easier (and noble) to be pro-democracy now with Thaksin out of the way and a royalist-military regime in power.
The Handley book is not that bad or evil or one-sided as those who never read it proclaim to be. It is after all published by the reputable Yale Press. I’m sure they take their reputation seriously there. Like it or not, it is now entering all the libraries and will be a required reading for anyone studying anything about Thailand for years to come.
If you don’t like the book, well, it’s not like there’s any choice in the market. Either TKNS or the Stephenson’s book, which is definitely not better than TKNS. Maybe those truly loyal academics should put their pen where their mouths are and write a better book and get it published by a reputable academic press. That will be a truer measure of their scholarship and loyalty.
Over the last day it has been widely reported that the 4th King of Bhutan has relinquished his position and just recently there is news that the Crown Prince has been crowned as the 5th King of the dynasty.
Thanks for alerting me to this breaking news. I have updated elements of my original post to reflect his change of position. I imagine the Thai media will have a field day heralding the new King of Bhutan.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Nationalism and genetics: Thai obsession with race
You go the name and publication details of that book?
Nationalism and genetics: Thai obsession with race
I don’t think there’s anything suspicious about bone sampling, at least from the level of looking at second hand reporting in the popular press anyway. I doubt you can really comment on the technicality without reading the actual scientific manuscript. In any case, it’s not a good practice to talk about preliminary results especially to the press before the work has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. This is not strictly adhered to in Thailand, regrettably. We tend to hear a lot of sensational “discoveries” first in the local press.
That said, the result of the bone mtDNA is not at all surprising. In all likelihood, the myth that Thais migrated from China 700 years ago is bogus. 700 years may be a long time in Thai history, but it’s relatively recent in Chinese history. Plenty of records from that era are available. I don’t recall any that support these theories.
Talking about 1930 Thai fascists, I recently ran into a republished work of vijit-vadakan on phrenology in local bookstore. Very fascinating. In the bio sketch, quite a few decorations from the fuhrer and il duce are proudly listed. Someone should put this in the wikipedia article.
Burma Digest
[…] New Mandala readers who can t get enough news and views on Burma may be keen to … Burma Digest covers events both inside and outside Burma and is currently … For anybody interested in Burma – and particularly its current period of … – more – […]
Against the grain?
Oh Republican you will make a wonderful used car salesman. You cajole, you intimidate then you insult just to lure a buyer to your worthless second hand car.
Were all your education to come from Handley or Walker, is that enough to get you convinced all other academics are not so worthy?
Special interview: Matthew McDaniel, pro-Akha activist
Thanks for your post, Nicholas. I spent some time with an Christian Akha family around 2003 and found in that village some of the most kind and wonderful people I have ever met. A wonderful Japanese woman who I don’t have to name was the intermediary. They are facing some of the same challenges that a lot of Thai rural people are facing, including large-scale migration of the young to Bangkok and the central provinces. But that didn’t detract from their fundamnetal decency. They were some of the kindest people I have ever met.
What I didn’t see reflected in the interview was the diversity of the Akha people. From my discussions with the people, I gathered that there was a lot of things that I wasn’t seeing – differences in religion, world view, relationship to the Thai state, etc. The diversity of man is what makes it so wonderful. McDaniel is a honest and integral individual, and I wish him the best in his activism.
Nationalism and genetics: Thai obsession with race
The bone sampling is interesting, but I’m not sure I buy the conclusions.
1) Contamination. Work like this always has the risk of contamination with modern DNA, even when run in the best of labs.
2) The article doesn’t really tell us anything. They compared the bone-derived mtDNA with that from DNA of people from Southeast Asia and eastern China, and found that they were similar. But that doesn’t really tell us anything. The DNA could have been “similar” to bones found in European sites; heck, it could have been
similar” to chimps – the key is how similar, and how similar compared to what other racial group.
We know little about the language used by people of that era, making liguistic analysis difficult. Genetic studies are critical in opening a window into the past.
It also helps put a date to the various waves of migration that hae occured in Sundaland/Southeast Asia. The vast diversity of language and race within Southeast Asia gives a hint at the complex migration of people into the region over the past million years. First came Java Man (H. erectus), then came Perak Man and the Indonesian Hobbits (H. floresiensis), then came the Sakai/Melanesian/Negrito/Orang Asli/Borneo humans, then came the Malay, then came the Chinese. Each with their own technology, language, culture, and genes. Where did the Baan Chiang bronze-age people fit in?
I’m suspicious of how the Thai are going to spin it, that doesn’t take away from the fact that this is fascinating work. Ignore the fact that the scientists doing the work are framing their conclusions on the intellectual legacy of the Thai fascists of the 1930’s. Today, scientists have tools that they couldn’t have imagined 20 years ago. This enables a whole new frontier in scientific work.
Nationalism and genetics: Thai obsession with race
For a contrasting rhetoric, compare attempts to show that the Turkish Khazar gene pool had in some way diluted the genes of Eastern European Jews. Such attempts were labeled “anti-semite” despite Zionist Arthur Koestler being a major source of these ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Alleged_Khazar_ancestry_of_Ashkenazim
(I found Arthur Koestler’s book on The Khazars at a used bookstore on Sukhumvit this weekend. That’s why this example is fresh in my mind.)
My point is, that this undercurrent exists in most societies. I was always shocked when people talked of the importance of the purity of their familys’ blood in South Korea when I lived and worked there. I believe that the horrible experiences of World War II led to a western revulsion to this sentiment, but I wouldn’t naturally assume that this revulsion exists in other cultures.
I’ve seen Asian youth use things for the purposes of “rebelling against the status quo” that probably no one in the west would expect to be used for such purposes, such as evangelical christianity or wearing nazi decorations. Of course, as a western teacher, I would get upset with swastika’s on everything, but that’s exactly why they put there in the first place, to get me upset.
Nationalism and genetics: Thai obsession with race
Another version of the second article Olivier refers to is available here:
http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/12/13/headlines/headlines_30021433.php
Interesting, as Patiwat pointed out to me, that there was no DNA sampling in the northeast of Thailand (a bit too Lao for comfort?). Perhaps there is sufficient northeastern DNA floating around in Bangkok already.
Nationalism and genetics: Thai obsession with race
I am sure there are many Thai academics and other observers that agree with Olivier Evrard’s comments. But, at the same time, I do think there is a persistent streak of primordialism in a lot of Thai social science, especially when it comes to the Thai/Tai world.
Against the grain?
Call me old fashioned, but on an academic website (especially hosted by as prestigious an institution as the ANU) I expect people who talk about books or articles to actually have read them. And if they haven’t then I would want a better excuse than “laziness”. But there you have it: the product of the Thai education system. And these are the same people saying that the villagers are not educated enough to have the right to vote for their own government!
Against the grain?
Whilst I agree with most of your comment, Oliver, I think HMK’s views on the ‘sufficiency economy’ are an attempt at moral leadership particularly in relation to greed & corruption.
I see the rampant corruption at virtually every level of society as the major problem.
On a grand scale you have the politicians, military & royal clique all not setting a very good example for the lower officials, but from from my obserations it is the police that cause the biggest problem to the average (non connected) thai.
There are a number of things holding back progress in Thailand, and I concede the monachy has to share in some of the blame, however I would be reluctant to have the institution removed until the police, military, politicians & other officials prove they have integrity – Unfortunately that still seems a long way off.
It seems people like Republican thinks things cannot improve until the monarchy is gone, but HMK is hardly the main cheerleader for the corrupt practices.
Nationalism and genetics: Thai obsession with race
This is hardly a peculiarly Thai obsession, as Olivier Evrard points out. The ultimately hopeless quest for authenticity is at the heart of the national project. Race and history are key cultural battlefields upon which people compete to define themselves as authentic and ‘others within and without’ as less authentic in belonging to the national place. That contemporary Thai nationalism takes this form is no surprise. What is surprising is the lack of critique from Thais themselves. Surely there are Thai academics who would agree with Olivier Evrard. Where are their voices being heard? Why does the Bangkok Post have a special place for the new eugenics?
Against the grain?
” Whereas I thought Thailand was only 300 years behind the developed world, nganadit and friends want Thailand to go back 800 years”
HMK also want this…cf his favorite sentence “one step backward and two step forward”…or his support for a “sufficiency economy”…or his obsession with old royal rituals and decorum.
I don’t see HMK as the “devil instigator” behind every aspect of Thai politics. But he is nevertheless a moral leader….which means that his position (often implicitly) influences a lot the conceptual framework through which politicians and Thai citizens along are trying to imagine a “Thai style democracy”, or whatever form of a “good” political system for Thailand.
In this respect HMK has a lot of responsability in the current intellectual and political paralysis (we could even speak of regression) and deserves to be criticized : himself said one day that the monarchy could accept critic !.
Seminar: tool of oppression or reunification?
[…] : there is nothing to be afraid of. He was happy to tell me these stories of reunification and reconciliation: the enemy had through this process become friend . … – more – […]
Books for Burma: readings for refugees
[…] Books for Burma is a project to bring educational resources to the people who need them – refugees and exiled activists from Burma who for political and financial … Books for Burma gives individuals a chance to help their cause by … – more – […]
Against the grain?
Intellectually shallow – thanks for the compliment, Republican.
Unlike you, I am not on a witch-hunt against anyone who fails to support your beloved ‘elected leader’.
Aside from the blind hatred mentioned in the posts above, you also show blind faith in politicians & ‘democracy’.
Instead of pushing the theory that the king does not want democracy, you would be better served addressing why the politicians don’t do the right thing.
Don’t you believe the king when he says ‘politics is boring’ ?
Intellectually shallow I may be, but all I am trying to do is offer an alternative viewpoint to your vitriol, hence my summary post in commentry #42 above.
(please ignore the names mentioned in that post because it was wrong to lump individual posters into a particular camp, as obviously there are many grey areas in between)
Against the grain?
Republican, I refused to be pulled into your whirlpool of negativity.
It might be true that the King’s actions as of late haven’t been very supportive of democratic development, but it is a comic exageration to say that he is the root of all that is evil in Thailand. Not that you ever said that – Nganadirek more or less put those words into your mouth (and into my mouth as well).
I make fun of Vichai for his blind hatred of Thaksin. But if you demonstrate blind hatred of the King, I’ll make fun of you too! :-p
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
As noone seems willing or able to offer an explanation as to why Thongchai changed the title of his November 18 presentation at SOAS from “Thailand’s Coup: A Step Forward in a Dangerous Direction”, to “Thailand’s September Coup: One Step Backward to Restart Democracy or One Step Forward in a Wrong Direction?” let me offer a hypothesis (as for the title of the talk I would add that in the dire circumstances that Thailand finds itself at the present one would have hoped for a less ambiguous statement of where Thongchai stood on the coup).
Johpa is on the right track: like many academics Thongchai could not make up his mind whether the coup overall was a good thing or not (ie. well, at least it had got rid of Thaksin – a “Step Forward”). The change of the title of Thongchai’s SOAS talk betrays this uncertainty, as does his statement to the junta (signed, “respectfully yours”), published directly after the crisis NOT condemning the coup but expressing “regret” and “concern” and “urging” the “authorities” not to harm protesters(http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=146) (I wonder how many of Thongchai’s many diatribes in the media against the democratically-elected Thaksin ended with, “respectfully yours”?). Somsak Jiamthirasakul has already pointed out this type of academic hypocrisy, where in their campaign to oust Thaksin the academics joined the PAD’s rallying cry of “р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕Ур╕нр╕нр╕Бр╣Др╕Ы!”, but in the case of the royalist-military coup the language had changed to mere expressions of “regret” and “concern” (at best!). Mind you, Thongchai was in good company. Ten days after the coup Kasien, another staunch anti-Thaksinist, in his Matichon column merely expressed his hope that the new regime would ensure more freedoms than had existed under Thaksin (http://www.matichon.co.th/matichon/matichon_detail.php?s_tag=01act01290949&day=2006/09/29); again, no condemnation. There were many others. In fact Thongchai has been “flip flopping” continually since the beginning of the current political crisis in late 2005, which is why his 8 November article on the “pragmatism” of Thai intellectuals published in Krungthep Thurakit (http://www.bangkokbiznews.com/level3/news_119333.jsp) had the whiff of hypocrisy about it. What’s the expression? р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╕▓ р╕нр╕┤р╣Ар╕лр╕Щр╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕З.
Prior to the April 2006 election for many months Thongchai was firmly in the camp of the group that Somsak calls the “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” for their irrational logic; that is, “р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕У р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓р╕нр╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Ир╕нр╕╖р╣Ир╕Щр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╣Бр╕Чр╕Щ/р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕г (ie. royal intervention)”. Of course, as everyone knew that Thaksin was always going to the win the election the only way that he was ever going to be got rid of was through royal intervention. The “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” camp had given its support (through newspaper columns, р╣Бр╕Цр╕ер╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣М and suchlike) to the PAD in its campaign to oust Thaksin through non-electoral means, at least up until it called for the use of Article 7 (of the former Constitution), by which the King could constitutionally dismiss the PM and unilaterally appoint a new one.
In his rambling birthday speech of December 4, 2005, the King sent a clear signal that he did not support lèse majesté lawsuits filed by Thaksin or his supporters (the so-called “King can do wrong” statement). While the gullible saw this as a sign of the King’s “liberalism”, anyone who knows how the birthday speech works would have understood that the real intention was to give a green light to the media to criticize Thaksin, invoking the King if necessary. This is the most cowardly form of political attack because one can not defend oneself against it without risking lèse majesté – as Thaksin did with his famous р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╕Ър╕▓р╕гр╕бр╕╡ speech. Within a short time Thaksin’s lèse majesté lawsuit against Sondhi, who had been using the monarchy shamelessly to attack him, was lifted and most of the media began to swing against Thaksin. Thus from December 4 it became clear that that the King had given his full support to the anti-Thaksin movement. What this means is that at this stage support given to the PAD in its campaign to oust Thaksin by any means was effectively to support a non-electoral outcome to the crisis. Yet Thongchai in numerous press articles continued to condemn Thaksin and express support for the PAD, up until it called for the use of Article 7 in March.
I’m not sure how much is Nicholas’ paraphrasing or whether Thongchai actually made this statement “… democracies need to be defended even when they produce what some people consider to be “immoral” results…” If Thongchai had been as firmly committed to democracy as he makes out here, in early 2006 he would have been strongly defending Thaksin, a democratically-elected Prime Minister, in his our of dire need against a likely royal intervention. But he could not bring himself to do it. But this of course is “history”. It is much easier (and noble) to be pro-democracy now with Thaksin out of the way and a royalist-military regime in power.
As I say, this is a hypothesis.
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
The Handley book is not that bad or evil or one-sided as those who never read it proclaim to be. It is after all published by the reputable Yale Press. I’m sure they take their reputation seriously there. Like it or not, it is now entering all the libraries and will be a required reading for anyone studying anything about Thailand for years to come.
If you don’t like the book, well, it’s not like there’s any choice in the market. Either TKNS or the Stephenson’s book, which is definitely not better than TKNS. Maybe those truly loyal academics should put their pen where their mouths are and write a better book and get it published by a reputable academic press. That will be a truer measure of their scholarship and loyalty.
King Jigme in the Oxford story
Thanks, Karmabhutan.
You make an excellent and accurate point.
Over the last day it has been widely reported that the 4th King of Bhutan has relinquished his position and just recently there is news that the Crown Prince has been crowned as the 5th King of the dynasty.
Thanks for alerting me to this breaking news. I have updated elements of my original post to reflect his change of position. I imagine the Thai media will have a field day heralding the new King of Bhutan.
Nicholas