Comments on: Don’t mention the coup! http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/ New perspectives on mainland Southeast Asia Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:28:26 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: New Mandala » Lessons from the Thaksin era http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/comment-page-1/#comment-28264 New Mandala » Lessons from the Thaksin era Mon, 05 Feb 2007 01:21:00 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/#comment-28264 [...] is a copy of the paper I presented at last week’s conference on Critical Transitions in the Mekong Region: Beyond the rural betrayal: lessons from the Thaksin era for the Mekong [...] [...] is a copy of the paper I presented at last week’s conference on Critical Transitions in the Mekong Region: Beyond the rural betrayal: lessons from the Thaksin era for the Mekong [...]

]]> By: polo http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/comment-page-1/#comment-26689 polo Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:18:58 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/#comment-26689 You wroter: "the abrogation of electoral rights seems to have had limited impact on academic blood pressure." I don't think this should be surprising nor offensive: it is a recognition that, far from being out of the ordinary, the most recent coup was one of many that make up the pattern in Thai politics and was not substantially different from previous ones in motivation and intent. If people at a conference on the Mekong do not treat it as an extraordinary event changing the pattern of life in Thailand, that is perhaps because it is not an extraordinary change. I would go further to argue that, even when not holding power directly, the Thai military has a dominant role in Mekong-related policies, a role far more impactful that popular movements. If that is true, then, what has changed? What need one talk about? Is the Thai policy environment not consistent? You wroter: “the abrogation of electoral rights seems to have had limited impact on academic blood pressure.”

I don’t think this should be surprising nor offensive: it is a recognition that, far from being out of the ordinary, the most recent coup was one of many that make up the pattern in Thai politics and was not substantially different from previous ones in motivation and intent.

If people at a conference on the Mekong do not treat it as an extraordinary event changing the pattern of life in Thailand, that is perhaps because it is not an extraordinary change.

I would go further to argue that, even when not holding power directly, the Thai military has a dominant role in Mekong-related policies, a role far more impactful that popular movements.

If that is true, then, what has changed? What need one talk about? Is the Thai policy environment not consistent?

]]> By: Tosakan http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/comment-page-1/#comment-26620 Tosakan Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:42:04 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/#comment-26620 Andrew- I think this is an important blog post. Why is there a such limited paradigm when it comes to discussing development issues, especially in Thailand? Why is there no "criticism" in Thailand? Why are the political parameters of development talk decided by an out of touch elite that has no commitment to democracy and stifled by political taboo and/or forced to adopt Royalist or feudal socialist trends in its research? Why do Western scholars kow tow to the whims of Thais and sacrifice their academic integrity in order to get along? In terms of research, academic freedom and a commitment to liberal values, Thailand seems like a backwater. I can see how the Thais tolerate this, because it protects them professionally and politically, but Western/other Asian academics have no reasonable excuse to cave to the bullshit Andrew-

I think this is an important blog post.

Why is there a such limited paradigm when it comes to discussing development issues, especially in Thailand?

Why is there no “criticism” in Thailand?

Why are the political parameters of development talk decided by an out of touch elite that has no commitment to democracy and stifled by political taboo and/or forced to adopt Royalist or feudal socialist trends in its research?

Why do Western scholars kow tow to the whims of Thais and sacrifice their academic integrity in order to get along?

In terms of research, academic freedom and a commitment to liberal values, Thailand seems like a backwater. I can see how the Thais tolerate this, because it protects them professionally and politically, but Western/other Asian academics have no reasonable excuse to cave to the bullshit

]]> By: Diego http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/comment-page-1/#comment-26606 Diego Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:55:27 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/#comment-26606 Or i would add to Taxi Driver, an orange wrist band from Siam Commercial Bank.... Or i would add to Taxi Driver, an orange wrist band from Siam Commercial Bank….

]]> By: Srithanonchai http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/comment-page-1/#comment-26533 Srithanonchai Thu, 01 Feb 2007 06:29:49 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/#comment-26533 One of the problems with "Mekong region/countries" ist that they are very different in political terms. Sometimes, this leads to funny situations, for example when training courses for people from these countries are offered. Imagine a course for higher-level civil servants who spend four weeks on being familiarized with "public sector reform." Given the great political-administrative differences of these countries, this sort of thing can only mean very different things to people from Burma, Laos, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, and Thailand. What will participants from the first three countries think when you explain the approach of "democratic decentralization" to them by using Thailand as an example? One of the problems with “Mekong region/countries” ist that they are very different in political terms. Sometimes, this leads to funny situations, for example when training courses for people from these countries are offered. Imagine a course for higher-level civil servants who spend four weeks on being familiarized with “public sector reform.” Given the great political-administrative differences of these countries, this sort of thing can only mean very different things to people from Burma, Laos, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, and Thailand. What will participants from the first three countries think when you explain the approach of “democratic decentralization” to them by using Thailand as an example?

]]> By: Taxi Driver http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/comment-page-1/#comment-26530 Taxi Driver Thu, 01 Feb 2007 05:57:18 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/#comment-26530 Andrew...maybe you didn't notice that all the other conference participants were wearing yellow! Andrew…maybe you didn’t notice that all the other conference participants were wearing yellow!

]]> By: Republican http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/comment-page-1/#comment-26520 Republican Thu, 01 Feb 2007 05:19:18 +0000 http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2007/02/01/dont-mention-the-coup/#comment-26520 I would say this is indicative of two things: (i) the problem that most people have of criticizing the coup and the regime too strongly or openly, particularly in academic forums, given the support it has been given by the monarchy (the problem of lese majeste, once again); and (ii) the betrayal of the Thai electorate by the majority of Thai social science academics, whose support for the anti-Thaksin movement last year demonstrates their preference for a royalist-military dictatorship over an elected government. A Thai university seminar is not the place to expect a liberal critique of Thai politics. What you can expect to see are rantings and ravings about the evils of capitalism, Western culture, expessions of loyalty to the monarchy, and of course, deep concern for the plight of the poor rural folk. Just don't expect these academics to argue that the poor rural folk's right to elect their own representatives should be respected. After all, that would put these academics out of a job - the job they have given themselves of speaking for the poor! I would say this is indicative of two things: (i) the problem that most people have of criticizing the coup and the regime too strongly or openly, particularly in academic forums, given the support it has been given by the monarchy (the problem of lese majeste, once again); and (ii) the betrayal of the Thai electorate by the majority of Thai social science academics, whose support for the anti-Thaksin movement last year demonstrates their preference for a royalist-military dictatorship over an elected government. A Thai university seminar is not the place to expect a liberal critique of Thai politics. What you can expect to see are rantings and ravings about the evils of capitalism, Western culture, expessions of loyalty to the monarchy, and of course, deep concern for the plight of the poor rural folk. Just don’t expect these academics to argue that the poor rural folk’s right to elect their own representatives should be respected. After all, that would put these academics out of a job – the job they have given themselves of speaking for the poor!

]]>