New Mandala

54 responses so far ↓

• 1 anon // Mar 15, 2007 at 4:19 pm

  Don’t be absurd…

  Will academics be free to present “viewpoints and research findings” that are critical of the monarchy…?

  Since when have academics ever been free to present viewpoints critical of the monarchy? It’s illegal to criticize the monarchy. Period.

  Will free academic discussion at the conference be constrained by the lèse majesté law?

  What is it about academics that makes them think they are above the law? And foreigners haven’t had extraterritoriality rights in Thailand for the past 50 years.

• 2 Srithanonchai // Mar 15, 2007 at 4:25 pm

  Generally, an academic conference is an academic conference. It serves the exchange of knowledge. However, this idea might be seen as too “western” from a Thailand-based “Thai Studies” approach, especially under the prevailing political-ideological conditions. Thus, the theme of “globalization” versus “localism” is reproduced, and the illusion of a realized supra-national “scientific community” of “Thai Studies” exposed. Thai studies remains an essentially cross-cultural enterprise.

• 3 Srithanonchai // Mar 15, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  “It’s illegal to criticize the monarchy. Period.” The first part is correct, while the second part is not, since all positive law can be changed. Moreover, the political functions of any law can be discussed. This is what the journal Fa Diew Gun and others have been trying to do. However, you are right in saying that as long as the law is in effect (both on paper and in enforcement), academics cannot be excluded. The reference to “extraterritoriality” is a little cheap. Finally, “Since when have academics ever been free to present viewpoints critical of the monarchy?” Looking back, the reigns of King Vajiravudh and King Prajadhipok seem to have been considerably more liberal.

• 4 Sawarin // Mar 15, 2007 at 6:37 pm

  Now ‘non Thai scholars’ and ‘international experts* of Thai studies’ are curious of their future ethical stance. Can I ask you to look back at your role or re-asses the value of your studies, say of about 5-10 years ago. How many of you critical/liberal ‘men of the world’ did really engage in disclosing facts about the Thai monarchy. International community of scholars is as well inseparable to that notion of ‘network monarchy’.

  As for Thai academia, the question on freedom is not ‘Will academics be free?’ but ‘Why AREN’T they free?’ We’re talking about the culture of education; the role of education in shaping national consciousness here.

• 5 patiwat // Mar 15, 2007 at 7:10 pm

  As for Thai academia, the question on freedom is not ‘Will academics be free?’ but ‘Why AREN’T they free?’

  If the people aren’t free, then why should the elite academics be free? What makes them so special that they have the right to do what the normal man on the street can’t, unless if he wants to be dragged to the police station?

• 6 Sillyboycott // Mar 15, 2007 at 7:47 pm

  Perhaps it would be worth looking at the consequences of attending or not attending in a broader light. This is not just a conference being held to support the king and his junta. It is a serious attempt by a Thai university to organize an international event. Unless I have missed something, the organizers cannot all be involved in perpetuating, or even in agreement, with the current state of political affairs in Thailand. The most that a boycott could hope to achieve would be a dramatic reduction in the quality of the conference. This may prevent any grand claims about global scholars licking the shins and ankles of the junta, but it will only really hurt the few Thai scholars who are genuinely seeking an opportunity to participate in an international forum. Why not go and bloody well say what you want to say and see what happens? Why not use it as a forum to discuss politics. Form panels about the subject. Submit press releases to the media. Get the international media involved. Then if you get thrown into prison you will be making a brave moral point about the state of academic freedom in Thailand. I strongly doubt whether you are making one now by proposing a boycott. These days you have to be Swiss and drunk and in possession of a spray can to be charged with les majeste. Most academics do not fit this profile, at least during working hours. What of the ramifications for the study of other parts of the mainland? Thailand may think it exists in a bubble but research on it is a part of much broader regional studies. I understand you are not promoting a boycott on the study of Thailand, but where does this boycott on attending academic events stop and cooperation with local organizations start? Does this mean we should not be cooperating with research bodies in Burma, Laos and Vietnam because of the poor state of democracy in these countries? In academic affairs as in international affairs, sanctions don’t work. Be big, brave Aussie boys and go to the conference.

• 7 nganadeeleg // Mar 15, 2007 at 8:30 pm

  Actually, I expect being dragged off by the police for lese majeste would be the a better prospect than being scummed by an offended mob if things go too far.

• 8 Srithanonchai // Mar 15, 2007 at 8:51 pm

  As long as the organizers let the participants wear any color they want…

• 9 Jon Fernquest // Mar 15, 2007 at 9:14 pm

  In my native country the United States a while back a crazy man joked about having a bomb on his person and then ran away even before the plane had taken off. He was shot dead.

  The same year a crazy man attacked the Erawan shrine and destroyed it. Two guys chased him down and beat him to death and then were bailed out by a government official.

  Likewise desecrating the holy places of any religion is not a good idea. I remember when my little four year old brother suddenly got sick in the room in Topkapi palace where Mohammed’s sword is displayed and my father quite discretely quickly ushered him from the room.

  Every place and people holds some things as sacred, it’s not asking much to respect this, especially if it leads to peace in their society. I’m sure Thais would do the same for Australians and Americans. Wouldn’t they?

• 10 Jon Fernquest // Mar 15, 2007 at 11:20 pm

  After re-reading Vichai and company’s extremely good job at explaining why the “War On Drugs” sent shivers down peoples’ spines and waves of paranoia, in innocent people that is, who had never touched drugs in their whole life, like myself, all I can ask, is ***where was the boycott when all of this was happening?***

  http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2006/10/28/surayud-to-bring-love-harmony-and-virtue/

  I remember riding my bicycle back from the internet cafe along the main street in Maesai and encountering a crowd around the first of two dead bodies that night. Shot down in cold blood in front of their residence/shops.

  A wealthy Chinese friend explained that black-clothed special forces had carried out these executions. Vigellante justice is a scary and paranoia inducing thing, even for the innocent.

  Again hearsay was the only way to gain any idea of what happened.

• 11 Srithanonchai // Mar 16, 2007 at 12:03 am

  Jon: “Every place and people holds some things as sacred” and “Topkapi palace where Mohammed’s sword” > Does this imply that you think that the Thai king is equal to a god, and to Mohammed?

• 12 Srithanonchai // Mar 16, 2007 at 1:34 am

  “Why is that modern/overseas trainings have very little impact on the way in which majority Thai academics ‘understand’ their nation and their monarchy?” > Very true. Even six years of PhD studies seem to have little impact other than that those graduates can reproduce some of the western discourse in their respective fields of study. Moreover, things will remain at that level, without up-dating or further intellectual development along those lines.

• 13 New Mandala เสนอให้ boycott การประชุมไทยศึกษาครั้งที่ 10 ? « Academia Siamica // Mar 16, 2007 at 3:17 am

  [...] pm บล็อกทางด้านวิชาการสังคมศาสตร์� New Mandala เกี่ยวกับเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้� [...]

• 14 polo // Mar 16, 2007 at 3:49 am

  1. The conference is going to be used to extol the king whatever is said and whoever is there. The local press will ignore anything said that is critical of the king, whether it is his anniversary or not. So the extra propaganda value of the conference would be nil.

  2. In previous Thai Studies conferences there has not been much critical said about the king in papers, so why should this one be different? New coup, new junta, same old docile academics.

  3. So given #1 and #2, what would a boycott do (especially in the absence of an “alternative” conference)?

  Wouldn’t it be preferable that academics go to the conference and test the limits and bust the taboos?

• 15 david w // Mar 16, 2007 at 7:40 am

  It seems to me there are lots of distinct but related issues at hand here which threaten to collapse into each other in the emerging discussion. How constrained is academic freedom in Thailand, for local and foreign scholars in general? How constrained will it be at the conference per se? Will the censorship be self-imposed or instituted by adminstrators? What is the proper way to ensure and/ or maximize academic freedom? What good would a boycott do in the service of that end? How should one address the question of the political uses of academic scholarship in this particular case given the stated larger laudatory puropose of the conference? Is the conference supposed to be about making statements beyond academic communication, and if so, could it reasonably achieve any ends and if so, which ones?

  Linking all of this too easily and quickly up to the larger political issues of the moment and the wider questions of political socialization, the political role of the monarchy in contemporary Thai society and military rule, etc only leads to debates about those issues and away from the narrower ones focused on the conference, academic freedom, the legitimating uses of (foreign) academics and other questions that seem to me worth engaging more directly first.

• 16 Tosakan // Mar 16, 2007 at 8:07 am

  I think the original post and the reader’s statement says it all.

  It will be nothing but a festival of yellow and a conference of sycophants and sell outs who will do nothing but sing the king’s praises.

  I would hate to go as an “academic” but if there are any bomb throwers who will have the courage to rock the boat then that is something that shouldn’t be missed. It might be worth going just for that possibility.

  But my feeling is that it will be a sea of yellow shirts and the Thai conferees will do everything in their power to make sure that nobody will disrupt the lovefest.

  But a fun conference for me would be to have a panel made up
  of Sulak, Paul Handley, Duncan McCargo, Thongchai Winichaikul
  Giles Ungphakorn, Thaksin and Prem having a free wheeling discussion on the monarchy with audience participation.

  But I’m sure that would be the organizers worst nightmare.

  Old fashioned unofficial teach in anyone?

• 17 patiwat // Mar 16, 2007 at 5:27 pm

  Tosakan, if you can make it to Cornell on the 27th of March, you can see Handley, McCargo, and Kevin Hewison (of UNC) in a mini-symposium, one of the topics of which will be “THE THAI MONARCHY AND POLITICS: WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE DON’T”.

  McCargo will focus on the South, and Hewison will focus on constitutionalism.

• 18 Jon Fernquest // Mar 16, 2007 at 6:39 pm

  “Does this imply that you think that the Thai king is equal to a god, and to Mohammed?”

  Nowhere did I say that, or equate the examples of the sacred that I gave. They are, however, all examples of sacred institutions, practices, or figures.

  However, kingship in Southeast Asia, and this includes Burma and the ancient Mon kings as well, certainly has always had a sacred dimension to it.

  I reach this general conclusion based on having written many papers on the topic, and a near complete translation of the Burmese chronicle (c. 1350-1650) in which kingship as a sacred insitution is a prominent theme:

  Fernquest, Jon (2005). “The Flight of Lao War Captives From Burma Back to Laos in 1596: A Comparison of Historical Sources”, SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 2005, pp. 1-26. [http://web.soas.ac.uk/burma/pdf/Ferquist1.pdf]

  Fernquest, Jon (2005b). “Min-gyi-nyo, the Shan Invasions of Ava (1524-27), and the Beginnings of Expansionary Warfare in Toungoo Burma: 1486-1539,” SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, Autumn 2005
  [http://web.soas.ac.uk/burma/3.2files/02Mingyinyo2.pdf]

  Fernquest, Jon (2005c). “Addendum to Min-gyi-nyo, the Shan Invasions of Ava (1524-27), and the Beginnings of Expansionary Warfare in Toungoo Burma:
  1486-1539,” SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, Autumn 2005
  [http://web.soas.ac.uk/burma/3.2files/Addendum.pdf]

  Fernquest, Jon (2006). “Rajadhirat’s Mask of Command: Military Leadership in Burma (c. 1348-1421)”, SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2006. [http://web.soas.ac.uk/burma/4.1files/4.1fernquest.pdf]

  Fernquest, Jon (2006b). Banya Thau [Shin Saw Bu]. Wikipedia.

  Fernquest, Jon (2006c) “Crucible of War: Burma and the Ming in the Tai Frontier Zone (1382-1454) ,” SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2006.
  http://web.soas.ac.uk/burma/SBBR4.2/4.2Fernquest.pdf

  Furthermore, peace in Thailand seems to rely on the sacred institution of kingship. I’m not asserting this, merely proposing it as a hypothesis.

• 19 Jon Fernquest // Mar 16, 2007 at 7:09 pm

  At the university I worked at though, the president did style himself almost as a member of royalty though. There was a huge Versaille like garden and perched at the top of it all was the “Office of the President” There were annual “Tam Hua” ceremonies where all the university staff were required to formally kow-tow to him, there were “Brahmanistic” ceremonies with the sprinkling of water that the missionary teachers steadfastedly refused to participate in. Information from outside the university was suppressed and there were definitely no political events, except perhaps the proseltyzing of the western missionary teachers. Like the post-1988 Burmese universities, this university was located far away from the town in a remote and isolated place. The place seemed more of post-2000 Thaksin Thailand than the nearby Rajaphat which resembled the politically rambunctious 1980s more. Rajaphat had the fine arts and humanities. The university I taught at had neither and even lacked traditional stalwarts of a liberal arts education like a proper mathematics department.

  Overall, I would say that it would be members of the Thai elite who want to employ the longstanding sacred institutions of kingship to, in turn, make themselves sacred that is the real danger. This is also nothing new and can be seen in the 19th century Konbaung court culture of Burma, for instance, in Koenig’s classic study or Michael Charney’s recent book. Lese majeste laws do not apply to these elites, even though I’m sure they would like them to.

• 20 Srithanonchai // Mar 16, 2007 at 7:14 pm

  Jon: Thanks for your list of publications. I asked the question, because, to me, the implication was quite obvious. Also, we don’t talk here about any past religio-ideological constructions that ancient kings came up with to justify their claim to power and their suppression of the people, but about the political construction of the Thai Monarchy after 1932, especially with Sarit, and the implications this had for the possibility of developing an independent democratic citizenship.

  “Peace in Thailand seems to rely on the sacred institution of kingship” > I would appreciate if you could explain this a little further, because this hypothesis looks bizarre to me.

• 21 Tosakan // Mar 16, 2007 at 9:13 pm

  patiwat-

  I’m in Thailand, so I can’t make it.

  But I hope somebody videotapes that session and throws it up on You Tube.

• 22 Jon Fernquest // Mar 16, 2007 at 9:42 pm

  > “Peace in Thailand seems to rely on the sacred institution of kingship”

  People hold what HMK says and does as sacred and uncontestable, which makes HMK the perfect final arbiter of disputes, for example during the 1991-1992 political turmoil. What still seems exceptional to me is that in Bangkok during the political turmoil last year there was little if any violence.

• 23 Srithanonchai // Mar 17, 2007 at 12:30 am

  So “peace” soley refers to certain situations of extreme political conflict, with identifiable elite actors and their followings. Why should it be seen as exceptional that there was little violence last year? What did this have to do with the king? As far as the protestors from the NGO scene are concerned, they merely reproduced their “non-violence” approach that they had adopted in 1992 already. This is not based on the king’s prescriptions, but on a supra-national civic discourse on non-violent political action. People–many, not all–hold what the king says and does as uncontestable (remember lese majeste?), not as sacred. Chamlong, Suchinda, Sondhi Lim and the PAD, the courts simply did not dare contesting the king’s words given the prevaling conditions. As one royalist once remarked, if the king intervenes, he must be absolutely sure that those involved would abide by his decision. Otherwise, his position as king would get into trouble–phrabaramee cannot be employed indiscriminately. Most ordinary people certainly largely ignore what the king says. His phraboromoratchowat are ceremonial matters, while they don’t reach people’s daily lives. And why should it be otherwise, in practical terms? However, I sometimes wished that it could be otherwise, e.g. when we think about the king’s advice about keeping bad people away from public office (politicians, soldiers, bureaucrats, etc), or of not allowing corruption. But as things stand, society cannot be governed by an individual of superior status. Instead, it must develop its own structures.

• 24 anon // Mar 17, 2007 at 12:44 am

  > “Peace in Thailand seems to rely on the sacred institution of kingship”

  Wrong…. It didn’t help in 1976 at all. And in 1973, he only stepped in well after the violence had stopped.

  Besides, “kingship” is certainly not the thing – Bhumibol Adulyadej might be able to make peace, sometimes, if he so wishes. But it’s a joke to say that this is a general power of Kings. For instance, if Vajiralongkorn took sides, he would probably make any violence even worse.

• 25 me // Mar 17, 2007 at 3:29 am

  Jon: “HMK (is) the perfect final arbiter of disputes, for example during the 1991-1992 political turmoil.”

  But whenever he is part of turmoil himself, could he still be an arbiter? Or is he a perpetrator? Example: 1976 MASSACRE.

  Is there a way we can stop him from being an “arbiter” in case we do not want because he is not impartial? Examples: the 25 Apr 2006 intervention and the Sept 2006 coup.

  So much talking about him as an arbiter. So little about him as a crucial party in a conflict itself, let alone a perpetrator.

• 26 nganadeeleg // Mar 17, 2007 at 10:30 am

  me: What do you think was wrong with the HMK’s actions on 25 April 2006 ?
  http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/25/headlines/headlines_30002507.php

  Would you prefer if he had simply appointed a PM?

  I agree with Srithanonchai about people not listening to HMK:
  “………However, I sometimes wished that it could be otherwise, e.g. when we think about the king’s advice about keeping bad people away from public office (politicians, soldiers, bureaucrats, etc), or of not allowing corruption………”

• 27 aiontay // Mar 17, 2007 at 11:55 am

  I was in Thailand in 1992; I was at the protests in Chiang Mai, which as Srithanonchai notes, were non-violent affairs. They were pretty fun actually. In my personal view, it appeared to me that the military overestimated its public support and the public support of its attempt to suppress protests. Quite simply they overplayed their hand, and at best the King provided a face-saving way out for the Thai military. Again, that was my view at the time, based on what I knew at the time. I could be very wrong in my perceptions.

  The sacred institution of kingship may have worked fine in the past, but as noted post 1932, its record is a bit mixed, especially when grafted on to democratic institutions. And if you look at Ne Win, Saw Maung and the other would-be kings in Burma things look even worse.

• 28 Republican // Mar 17, 2007 at 10:54 pm

  1. Anyone who knows anything about the politics of international conferences in Thailand would be aware that the content of what is said at the conference is irrelevant; the most important thing is to get as many foreigners to the event as possible to demonstate the international credibility of the institution. In addition, in this case whether they know it or not foreign scholars will also be demonstrating their support for the monarch at a time of acute political crisis. An international boycott of such an event, on the other hand would be a dramatic statement that the international Thai Studies scholarly community has no confidence in the scholarly credibility of a university whose rector is willing to accept a political appointment from a military junta that has just overthrown a democratically elected government, and is unwilling to “honour” a king who has shown no regard for democratic principles.

  2. For a foreign scholar of course, the political situation in Thailand has not the slightest effect on their own well-being. Their books, articles and attendance at conferences are just more achievements to be recorded on their resumes. But one would hope they have some sympathy for their colleagues (and perhaps also for those still living under martial law) in Thailand who do not have the academic freedom that they enjoy – particular at this time of crisis.

  3. On whether the boycott of this conference in Thailand should be extended to boycotts of academic engagement with Laos, Cambodia, or Myanmar, the comparison is a false one. These three countries have a history of comparative isolation from the international scholarly community. Engaging academically with these countries is more likely to lead to an opening up; a boycott would have little effect. The opposite is the case with Thailand; it is a country that has long been open to the international scholarly community, perhaps the most open in SEA. A boycott would thus by a clear statement of concern on the part of the international scholarly community; participation, on the other hand, would be a vote of confidence for the regime.

  4. Probably not a good idea to present a list of your academic publications to give credibility to such an absurd “hypothesis” as, “peace in Thailand seems to rely on the sacred institution of kingship”. This is worthy of the head of the military junta. It’s as though nothing has changed for SEA kings and their subjects since the days of the Konbaung (or why not Sukhothai). As if no other country in the world had ever heard of sacred kingship! Have a look at Marc Bloch’s study of sacred kingship in Europe and then try to explain why the French Revolution happened. If the Thai monarchy is able to help keep the peace, apart from its “sacred powers” one would think it just might have something to do with the military dictatorships it has legitimized over the years, the Maoist style personality cult built around the king, the totalitarian control of the monarchy’s image thanks to modern media technologies, its support by the US during the Cold War, and the massive financial resources available to it.

• 29 Srithanonchai // Mar 18, 2007 at 12:33 am

  “A boycott would thus by a clear statement of concern on the part of the international scholarly community; participation, on the other hand, would be a vote of confidence for the regime.”

  Somebody seems to get carried away somewhat here. Moreover, at the time of the conference, we might probably have an election behind us. So, will a boycott be turned from being against the junta into being against the election and the elected government? Or should the participation of foreign scholars at that time not rather be seen as an encouragement for further democratization? Finally, Sukhothai hardly passes as “sacred kingship.”

  Anyway: jai yen yen dee kwa na khrap.

• 30 david w // Mar 18, 2007 at 4:34 am

  Glad to see the conversation thread has returned to the original topic raised. I have a question for Republican: Do we have any evidence anywhere else in the world of the effects of a boycott of an academic conference, or even the viability of executing such a boycott? And I have heard of boycotts for reasons of protest over the business practices of service industries involved in conferences, but not of the politics of the governments sponsoring the conferences. Again, is there any concrete examples of the latter and of the way these have played out? I remain skeptical that this will be anything other than a weak and inconsequential statement. What percentage of foreign scholars would have to boycott to obtain an effect? How would one even determine the percentage boycotting?

• 31 anon // Mar 18, 2007 at 4:52 am

  david w, the way academic politics usually plays out is that if there is a sufficiently large schism, one side just drops out and starts its own conference….

• 32 Jon Fernquest // Mar 18, 2007 at 11:20 am

  “A boycott would thus by a clear statement of concern on the part of the international scholarly community; participation, on the other hand, would be a vote of confidence for the regime.”

  “What percentage of foreign scholars would have to boycott to obtain an effect?”

  You assume that the international scholarly community is some unified mass that has one mind on this subject.

  What about China and India? Even among western scholars, you’d only get those who believe that boycotts can change things. The ineffectiveness of economic sanctions in Burma over the last 20 years has just caused Burma to rely more on China and SIngapore.

  I don’t know what the breakdown of participants will be, but a large fraction will probably be Thai. At international conferences contacts and friendships between international colleagues are renewed. A boycott would be cutting off these contacts and friendships. Stopping the discussions about how people feel about current political events.

  During periods of political tumult communication and international cross-border flows of ideas should be encouraged, not cut off.

  As for sacred kingship read Dr. Sunait Chutintaranond’s Cornell PhD dissertation or look at the numerous articles published in the Journal of the Siam Society over the last 100 years.

• 33 Republican // Mar 18, 2007 at 1:52 pm

  Reply to #31- shouldn’t the other question be asked: do we have any evidence that the monarchy makes use of international academic approval (eg. honorary doctorates, UNDP reports, etc) to legitimize its authority in Thailand, to the extent that the king can be acclaimed as a genius and his “theories” forced upon the population by the military regime without critical debate? You have to remember that this conference is being explcitly promoted as being held to honour the king. In the Thai version of the promotional blurb this is the primary reason for the workshop, academic reasons are secondary. This is the genius of the Thai system: to use foreigners for local agendas without their realization of being used.

  The question is not one of whether a boycott would be “effective”, but one of academic ethics (if such a thing exists anymore): is it right to attend such a conference when one knows (or should know) that one is being used for a domestic political agenda? As I said above, foreign academics don’t have to live under royalist dictatorships. But one would hope that they have some concern for those who do.

• 34 Srithanonchai // Mar 18, 2007 at 2:41 pm

  Republican: Can I download the Thai-language flyer somewhere? So far, I have only seen the English-language web site of the conference.

• 35 david w // Mar 19, 2007 at 6:34 am

  Republican,

  I respect an ethical stance that is not consequentialist in its argument. My question was designed in part to determine if that was in fact what you were arguing, as I suspected. I’m not sure I totally accept that general position, or its application in this context, but I appreciate your clarification.

  Regarding academic ethics, it seems to me that you are perhaps idealizing them far too much. Much academic ethics centers on the moral responsibility of academic as researchers to their informants and / or research subjects and as instructors to their consumers (i.e. students). It seems to me that academic ethics, as a formalized set of expectations, is much less explicit and clear regarding the uses others makes of academic products and participation. EXCEPT in the case of a direct use by authorities or other figures to infringe upon or violate very basic human or civil rights. You might be able to make that argument here in some respects, but it wouldn’t be a slam dunk. Which leads me to believe that you are basically appealing to a scholar’s individual ethical stance rather than an any institutional ethical obligation.

  I would also like to read the Thai language description you refer to. At the same time, isn’t it a fact that the conference was planned for Thailand before talk of honoring the King? Isn’t it part of a regular rotation of the conference between different global regions? While the Thai language version may argue that honoring the King is the primary reason for this conference, isn’t that simply opportunistic on the organizers part? Seems to me we are dealing with different explanations and justifications and goals being offered to different reading publics. Are the rules and practices of this Thai Studies Conference regarding choosing of topics, panels, papers and their reading going to be substantially different in execution than previous ones?

  I’m also not convinced that the Thai system has a particular genius for using foreigners for local agendas without their realization. That seems to me quite common. And moreover, many foreigners are (partially at least) aware of such possibilities and make their decisions accordingly or even despite that realization. They simply may not care because other ends or goals are just as or more important – ranging from cv padding to career advancement to wanting to connect with old friends to obligations felt to those asking them to join a panel, etc. Political ethics is not the only or even the most dominant ethical set of considerations at hand in such decisions, nor must it logically be so. You have to argue for that priority, and appealing to academic ethics doesn’t to my mind win that argument so easily.

• 36 A modern Phrai // Mar 20, 2007 at 2:55 am

  Is the king above the law? He himself once said he is not. But according to the law no one can have a lawsuit against him. Is this law illegal?, or simply nonsensical? Can there be such a concept of illegal law?

• 37 anon // Mar 20, 2007 at 2:28 pm

  To a modern Phrai:

  The constitution itself says that the King is inviolate. And if the King doesn’t like the constitution, he can rip it up, or ask his soliders to rip it up.

  Don’t forget: in Thailand, the palace would have you believe that kings bestow constitutions to their people, whereas in Europe, the people used constitutions to constrict kings.

• 38 New Mandala » Thai studies boycott? An update // Mar 23, 2007 at 12:36 pm

  [...] our post of last week canvassing the issue of a boycott of the 10th International Conference of Thai Studies (ICTS) there [...]

• 39 Historicus // Mar 29, 2007 at 11:46 pm

  Following the recent sentencing of the Swiss man, I do not believe that any foreign academic could feel safe presenting a serious analysis of the coup, the military of the monarchy at this conference.

• 40 Srithanonchai // Mar 30, 2007 at 12:25 am

  Even before this sentencing, any “serious analysis” of the coup, that is one that would include the role of Prem and the monarchy, would have been out of the question.

• 41 New Mandala » Boycotts and boundaries // Apr 2, 2007 at 7:46 am

  [...] International Thai Studies Conference. (For previous New Mandala discussion of this issue� see here and here.) The article concludes: A boycott may or may not be a good idea. But the call for this [...]

• 42 iriejay // Apr 2, 2007 at 6:11 pm

  Someone mentioned previously that it would be nice to make the Cornell conference available on Utube. I did a search but nothing was there. Kind of disappointing.

• 43 New Mandala » More on the 2008 Thai Studies conference // Apr 13, 2007 at 10:39 pm

  [...] readers will recall that back in March, Andrew and I made a post titled “A Thai Studies Boycott?” which asked some questions of the 2008 Thai Studies conference to be held at Thammasat [...]

• 44 WhiteElephant // Apr 17, 2007 at 6:04 am

  1) Thai studies is weak due to linguistic incompetence of the students

  2) If you want to kick the system in the teeth and write the “truth” as many of you yearn to do…ever hear of the Freedom of Information Act in the USA…dig for CIA data…or is the “Land of the Free” and its thugs too scary for you paper pushers?

  3) Got balls? Are you woman enough? Quit your whining, and word coinage ridden texts and collect data on the military junta.

  4) The monarchy is manipulated by EVERYONE..wake up! Thais are mistakenly continuing to support it for stability due to this junta—error!—

  5) real fighters are watching the fall 2007 election and any constitution…not bitching on a blog

  I am apalled by the direction of “Thai Studies”
  nothing but modern orientalism

• 45 AFREETHAI // Apr 28, 2007 at 8:05 pm

  It seems that talking MONARCHY is becoming prime focus for some ‘progressive’ inside and outside Thailand since the Coup.
  I would like to tell them that lese majeste crime means exactly to harm physically the royalties, or to instigate the regime change (removing the monarchy), or any kind of propaganda without any academic aspects.

  And I do really agree with the first comment on academics ‘privilege’.

  I’m not kind of royalist but i do not stand by one who deny right of people who respect the royals or holding kind of ‘royalism’.
  I’m for freedom of belief, religious or political as long as it’s not ‘tyranny’.

  For the Swiss man who was caught. Are you really OK with his conduct? Imagine what do you think if that guy destroy any public property such as telephone cabin, or religious items in any temples?
  Shouldwe give him a kiss, smile and say OK, very well done?

  And for the Swiss guy, he was pardoned by the King already; the Right guaranteed by Law.

• 46 Srithanonchai // Apr 28, 2007 at 10:56 pm

  You seem to have missed the point that nobody was against trying him for vandalism, just like any adolescent who vandalized a telephone booth. People objected to having him tried for lese majeste.

• 47 AFREETHAI // Apr 29, 2007 at 5:16 pm

  That is all about political bias then. Worth to discuss?

• 48 Srithanonchai // Apr 29, 2007 at 8:18 pm

  This is not about “political bias,” but about “political opinion.” Moreover, it is not about an issue of only marginal significance, but rather about a very important element of the Thai political discourse. If this is not worthy of discussion, then nothing is.

• 49 AFREETHAI // Apr 30, 2007 at 5:02 pm

  OK if you agree with these few notes; according to the constitutions from the past to present, Thailand is constitutional monarchy..then of coz criminal law and other rules must follow this notion. we allow the presence of the king and monarchy from the beginning of the new regime in 1932.
  That’s why there are articles related to royals in the criminal law. That’s the fact right?
  So what i’ve got from previous comments is that some also missed what i mentioned; laws.

  For the case of the Swiss guy charged of lese majeste, what he did was very ambiguous. don’t you think so?
  He could be charged on vandalism but also due to Thai legal notion, what he vandalised was not telephone booth or ads stuffs…but it was about the King; the King image.
  Imagine if that guy destroyed any religious in any temple, of coz he should be charged only on vandalism BUT we don’t have any significant ‘law’ on religion. The guy shouldn’t be charged except on vandalism. ( note that if we have ‘national religion’ from now on, what could happen next.)

  And the fact is b’coz of this amibiguity, he could be pardoned easily.
  Remember the S. Suwalaksa case before, finally he was not guilty.

  So, lese majeste case in the law was drafted traditionally and of coz then authority could charge anyone with it whearas it must be decided later by the court according to the law again.

• 50 Srithanonchai // Apr 30, 2007 at 8:28 pm

  Sorry, I am not sure about your point.

• 51 ANANTH // May 1, 2007 at 12:24 am

  Simply, i’d like to say, on the ground that lese majeste is mentioned in the criminal law with details. So it’s not unusual if there’s someone was charged on this case.
  But it depends also on judicial decision, and according to the law of coz.
  So, it’s about legal tradition we, MPs or approved by them, have chosen for almost 100 years.
  IF people do not want to hear the term ‘lese majeste, what they should do then?

• 52 ANANTH // May 1, 2007 at 12:30 am

  More, anyone could recall the case on Sor Siwalaksa case on lese majeste?

• 53 New Mandala » Harmony conference at Mahidol // May 14, 2007 at 8:12 pm

  [...] announcement’s stated approach will not surprise New Mandala readers who have followed the debate about the International Conference of Thai Studies that will be held in Bangkok in December.  Of [...]

• 54 New Mandala » Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference // Jul 16, 2007 at 9:27 pm

  [...] to this conversation (or hoping to refresh their memories) will find these two posts - 15 March and 13 April - particularly helpful.  At the time, there were many critical comments and [...]

Leave a Comment