New Mandala

36 responses so far ↓

• 1 thai news // Apr 5, 2007 at 9:12 pm

  Censorship is not the sign of a weak government?

• 2 Amateur // Apr 5, 2007 at 10:22 pm

  I don’t believe so. The Chinese government I would not consider as weak, but they are masters in internet censoring (http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/test/)
  Censorship is rather a sign that the ruling elite in Thailand (hence not just the junta – I want to emphasise this) have not been nurtured with democratic culture and freedom of expression.

• 3 jonfernquest // Apr 6, 2007 at 12:41 am

  Thailand’s university network mindlessly blocked all of Geocities that I (and many other teachers) share their teaching materials on. Chang Noi uses it to distribute old columns.

  IMHO blanket censorship of You-Tube probably also blocks educational lectures, etc.

  But I don’t believe there is a suggestion box.

• 4 Bystander // Apr 6, 2007 at 4:15 am

  I wouldn’t know such a clip exist without the action of the government! now that this becomes famous. well, what’s to prevent people from saving the clip and forward it by e-mail?

• 5 anon // Apr 6, 2007 at 4:38 am

  This was posted on Slashdot, an extremely popular science/technology/IT news and commentary site.

  Read the comments yourself – hundreds of them were posted. Lots of people are now insulting the King just to spite the law.

• 6 Thaiedup // Apr 6, 2007 at 6:36 am

  The offending video is still available at YouTube. Even though Reuters has reported that it has been pulled, it seems to have been reposted by someone calling him-/herself thaifreespeech.

• 7 nganadeeleg // Apr 6, 2007 at 10:03 am

  The clip itself is just childish and not particularly offensive in my eyes – what I find offensive is the motive behind posting such a clip when it would obviously offend many people, and could even inflame violence.
  Imagine if someone had a such a picture of the king on the street – how long would he last?
  (I’m not saying violence is justified, just that people get very passionate about their loved ones)

  I wonder what Thaksin would have done about the clip if he was in power?
  My bet is he would have done the same thing as the junta, and then boasted about how he had protected the king and defended the country against foreign inteference.

• 8 david w // Apr 6, 2007 at 2:57 pm

  It is a different video. Much less amateurish, and much more directly political. The message streaming over it directly links it;s statement to a protest over the lese majeste laws and the recent jailing of the Swiss man. The video can be found at the link below:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mUk-XyCgKI

• 9 observer // Apr 6, 2007 at 4:08 pm

  The article above implies that the ban was put into place after only 122 people had viewed it. How did the junta know the video was there that quickly?

  They don’t seem to be so tech savvy at other times. It doesn’t take a paranoid mind to think that the first 150 or so viewers might have a connection to the originator.

• 10 jonfernquest // Apr 6, 2007 at 4:29 pm

  Opportunism and sensationalism with the lese majeste was/is bound to happen, given the way they are currently
  dealing with the problem.

  Censorship, especially unthinking broad brush censorship of something as important nowadays as YouTube, only helps to build audience and traffic, and people will exploit this.

  iIn fact, it’s possible that the person who posted it had ***no political goals at all except for drawing attention to themselves***.

• 11 a nonymous // Apr 6, 2007 at 5:41 pm

  Hey! Tor downloads are also blocked!

• 12 Bystander // Apr 6, 2007 at 6:16 pm

  It’s all getting pretty pathetic:
  and yet another pathetic op-ed from thanong:
  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/06/opinion/opinion_30031242.php

  I guess this hysteria is a reflection of the siege mentality people are in. ‘The west, capitalism, globalization are out to get you!’ ‘Be afraid! Be very afraid! And do whatever your infinitely wise and benevolent leader tell you!’ Jeez.

  Now new copycat clips are popping up. While there are talks on banning google in Thailand.. well, might as well ban this whole internet thing, after all it’s just a series of tubes!

• 13 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 6:40 pm

  Maybe, one can put this “siege mentality” and the King together with Thai animism? If you feel threatened, you try to collect as many influential deities of all sorts as you can in order to feel safe in your life. In this context, the King might be seen by many people as the super deity with the by far greatest amount of influence impacting on their lives and their wellbeing. So, if he is threatened, this equates to a threat to people’s feeling of being safe in their lives. Thus the strong reactions.

  I got the link to Thanong’s article from a friend. This guy–unbelievable…

• 14 nganadeeleg // Apr 6, 2007 at 7:34 pm

  Re the link posted by David W – That youtuber has also posted another video which explains where he’s coming from:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq_YsYxb_bU&NR=1

  Whilst I do not agree with the monkey image, I do agree with his sentiments about lese majeste.

• 15 John Francis Lee // Apr 6, 2007 at 7:56 pm

  Opportunism and sensationalism with the lese majeste was/is bound to happen, given the way they are currently dealing with the problem.

  Exactly. I cannot help but think that it’s a military passion for control that makes such a fetish of the monarchy. In my view it has nothing to do with HM the King himself but with the military’s desire to have a refuge into which they may retreat where no discussion is allowed. The equivalent of a religion’s dogma. Their means of establishing such a refuge is to cast the beloved Bhumipol Adulyadej into the middle of it and then dare anyone to entire “HM the King’s” reserve. They can get away with it in the Thai media, they “own” most of Thai TV-land, can intimidate the print media, and jail you on the street, but they haven’t come to grips with the internet. Their only switch there is “on” or “off”. Right now it’s “off”.

  Maybe, one can put this “siege mentality” and the King together with Thai animism? If you feel threatened, you try to collect as many influential deities of all sorts as you can in order to feel safe in your life.

  I don’t think the military feels threatened. They have all the guns. This is just an opportunity to whip everyone into line…

  and yet another pathetic op-ed from thanong:

  …pathetic is right! The Nation has rolled over completely.

  Tor downloads (”The Onion Router” – open source anonymizing software) have been blocked for a month, anyway.

• 16 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 8:38 pm

  “I don’t think the military feels threatened. They have all the guns. This is just an opportunity to whip everyone into line…” Sure, but the people at large, like Thanong, have no guns (fortunately). But then, the military also isn’t that sure. Otherwise, why should they make trips to Chiang Mai to consult with their mo du?

• 17 jonfernquest // Apr 6, 2007 at 8:46 pm

  I have the utmost respect for HMK and the institution of kingship. I even spend a lot of time researching the history of kingship in Southeast Asia.

  But powerful people exploit the institution of kingship for their own selfish goals and they use it to make them invulnerable and instead of becoming humble, as one would expect if they really loved HMK, they become self-righteous and are not willing to consider any opinion other than their own because they “know” that they are “right” and are willing to “die” for HMK to do the “right” thing (e.g. Saprang is always expressing his “opinions” in these terms).

  IMHO this is just an excuse for not being humble, democratic, and considering other peoples’ opinions. (like Abhisit) The censorship of the Matichon reporting on a child prostitution ring at the university I worked at was, I suppose, suppressed because the name of the university was associated with royalty.

  There was also, reportedly, going to be an oath of loyalty soon. All of this buttressed the president’s autocratic power to control and micro-manage everything, to make promises and break them at will, with impunity. In my case, I was never paid a single baht for teaching 200+ students economics in two gigantic lecture classes without TAs! And then they led me down the garden path to prepare for more classes, that also turned out just to be a con-game and a lie. And meanwhile you can see the little van of deans and vice-presidents disembarking in front of the massage parlour downtown that they frequent. With perfect control of information, they are a law unto themselves, and I, a Farang, just a “guest” in “their” country, who should shut-up and behave himself.

  Under such a system, teachers are no longer teachers (no real faculty senate, they can’t vote him out) they are just little pawn robots in the president’s grandious vision that he has dreamed up in honour of HMK, but the institution of kingship here becomes a tool for self-aggrandizement. As the Thais at the institution used to say, he (the president) can crush you with one finger, farangs are non-entities without health insurance or tenure, so they could not interfere with this system of oppression, all of which really contradicts the very definition of “university” and academic excellence. The flip-side of treating farangs who do have reverence for your culture like trash, is that you will eventually attract exactly that, trash to the teaching profession, alcoholics, paedophiles, etc, all the sorts that Thailand has problems with, I suppose there is a little “Som Nam Na” element here, I really wish it was not the case.

• 18 Srithanonchai // Apr 6, 2007 at 10:27 pm

  Had the president of this “royally connected” university not also dreamt up something like a hotel project, and spent a lot of money on that, until the private sector was asked to join and promtly criticized that all this nonsense and spending had been done without any shred of planning and competence? Or is this a different university up north?

• 19 Historicus // Apr 7, 2007 at 12:03 am

  jonfernquest states: “But powerful people exploit the institution of kingship for their own selfish goals and they use it to make them invulnerable and instead of becoming humble, as one would expect if they really loved HMK, they become self-righteous and are not willing to consider any opinion other than their own because they “know” that they are “right” and are willing to “die” for HMK to do the “right” thing (e.g. Saprang is always expressing his “opinions” in these terms).” Very true. Everyone who has worked and lived in Thailand has come across this kind of thing.

  However, this should not deflect attention from the fact that the palace want laws that protect them and censor and threaten others. For example, if the king didn’t like the lese majeste law he could ask that it be removed. The palace has used the law for political purposes and continues to find it very useful that there is no easy or legal public scrutiny of any of its business, personal and political activities.

• 20 loong kit // Apr 7, 2007 at 3:13 am

  Thais would be a heck of a lot less obsessed with Lese Majeste if they did not have the current King as the role model for the monarchy. What if the monarchy was (or becomes) like court of Nepal’s King Gyanendra?

• 21 Bystander // Apr 7, 2007 at 4:16 am

  Yeah, Lese majeste is a law under which many parasites make a living. The monarch himself is as much a victim as the lay citizen. Taking away this law, and the monarchy will likely adapt and survive and thrive in a good way, having been rid of these self-serving morally-bankrupt syncophants.

• 22 Bystander // Apr 7, 2007 at 4:55 am

  Thailand is not alone. In fact, the Turks beat us in this game!

  http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/04/06/turkey.youtube.ap/index.html

• 23 Historicus // Apr 7, 2007 at 6:13 am

  Bystander’s view is the one that sees the monarchy used by others. I’d like to have it explained how, on the one hand, the king can be great at everything he turns his hand to, but on the other, he is used by slimy un-named others? Doesn’t work for me.

  That said, if the lese majeste laws were gone, then the monarchy would have to adapt. Of course, it probably would, but at least there might be some transparency and less sycophantic drivel about it.

• 24 amberwaves // Apr 7, 2007 at 7:06 am

  Leaving aside Khun Thanong’s conflating worship of the monarchy with the Buddhist religion – perhaps a trifle insensitive in view of the situation in the south – and his utter lack of courage in failing to mention the succession issue, I’m wondering about his use of the word ‘pagan.’ I’m no scholar, but the only people I am aware of who use the word nowadays are hard-core fundamantalist Christians and comedians who make fun of hard-core fundamentalist Christians. Can someone enlighten readers if the word is in fact used in serious political discourse? Anywhere?

• 25 Bystander // Apr 7, 2007 at 9:42 am

  To me, pagan is the term Christians used to refer to old Roman polytheistic religions. Classics scholars use it all the time. I guess these days it would also colloguially mean people outside of judeo-christian monotheistic faiths, e.g. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are not pagan (though they will call one another infidels, but that’s another category).
  So, I would think Buddhism and Hinduism and most other religious tradition would already be considered pagan. So, Thanong’s use of the term sounds kinda weird.

  Historicus: it’s not meant to be a statement about the monarch himself. I’m not clear about what you want to be explained, since that is not what I think I said.

• 26 Republican // Apr 7, 2007 at 1:31 pm

  I liked the comment on Fa DIo Kan: when it comes down to it Thais will have to make a choice: between the king and the internet (ie. between faith and reason).

• 27 Srithanonchai // Apr 7, 2007 at 6:33 pm

  Since when can you find reason on the internet? All right, there is some reason here and there, but there also is an incredible amount of trash. The clips certainly were not a sign of reason. But decency has a hard time on the web, and web boards are littered with nonsense.

• 28 John Francis Lee // Apr 7, 2007 at 6:46 pm

  historicus :

  For example, if the king didn’t like the lese majeste law he could ask that it be removed.

  HM the King hit the nail on the head on that one when the last PM was suing everyone who criticised him, Thaksin. HM the King said that the inability of anyone to criticize him, HM the King, robbed him of his humanity, and he didn’t like it.

  I definitely view HM the King as another victim of the people “In Control”.

  I do think that if he raised his voice on the issue of lese majeste, in the middle of the present constitutional convention, that it would have to be written out of the next constitution. I have no adequate theory to explain his inaction. I wish he’d name his successor as well. HM the King may yet do both of those things.

  Republican :

  Do you want to rethink your characterization of the internet as “reason”?

• 29 Dick England // Apr 7, 2007 at 7:36 pm

  There’s a 240-year-old story about Frederick the Great riding through Berlin, and coming across a crowd gawking at a highly unflattering cartoon poster of the King which had been placed high up on a building. He ordered a young officer to climb up and bring it down to a lower level so that the crowd could get a better look, and they cheered him.

• 30 Batman // Apr 7, 2007 at 8:21 pm

  If you want to see Thais embracing reason don’t come down to Nakhonsithammarat, the home of the Jatukam amulet. People here are getting severe neck pain by wearing 3 or 4. Go anywhere and the topic of conversation is their latest purchase of this hindu deity which every third shop is selling. if anyone on this blog wants one I would be willing to supply at a small fee.

• 31 amberwaves // Apr 7, 2007 at 9:01 pm

  I have been enlightened as to the meaning of ‘pagan’.’ It must refer to P.A.G.A.N.- People Against Goodness And Normalcy – the villains in the Dan Ackroyd movie version of ‘Dragnet.’
  That’s makes rather more sense in the context of Thanong’s column, I think.

• 32 Bystander // Apr 8, 2007 at 4:59 am

  Here’s the latest on the ‘tube saga:
  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/08/headlines/headlines_30031395.php

  The googler engineers must be rolling their eyes and shaking their heads at how incompetent the ICT staffs are:

  A democrat ex-MP, found that this is a golden opportunity to pander. He’s demanding that Google help them tracking down to culprit. He’s quite vague about how he will go about doing that though.

  To this, I say, Good luck.

  Why would he, or anyone in Thailand for that matter, think Google, a company that challenged (successfully) the US Department of Justice’s subpoena:
  http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/response-to-doj-motion.html (where others like MSN and Yahoo just meekly complied), would yield to a rather obscure country, and one with incompetent IT staffs at that, is beyond me? It’s not like we’re big and powerful like China. The Garuda letterhead isn’t very potent outside of the Kingdom, yo see, much less in Silicon Valley.

  So, when all is said and done:
  1. an obscure and trivial video clips is catapulted to instant fame, spawning many copycat clips, and thousands of page views.
  2. The ICT ministry are humiliated for their incompetence and powerlessness.
  3. People the world over now get a hint that all may not be so well behind the gleaming facade.
  4. This put Thailand firmly on the map of nation of concern…(it doesn’t help to go up against a highly regarded company with a ‘do no evil’ motto, people inevitably will think you are evil)

  Great work, ICT!
  With minions like these, who need enemies.

• 33 John Francis Lee // Apr 8, 2007 at 5:07 pm

  This put Thailand firmly on the map of nation of concern…(it doesn’t help to go up against a highly regarded company with a ‘do no evil’ motto, people inevitably will think you are evil) .

  Please. Google is an active participant in the Chinese censors’ program. They doctor search results to specification.

  It’s a question of market size.

  In fact it might be Google themselves who are putting up these videos.

  The bean counters may have figured it’s worth writing of this whole country in return for the fig leaf of standing up to censorship in Thailand to cover their turgid “anything for a buck” member exposed at the wink of China.

  Google subcontracts China’s censorship. They’re just relying on enthusiasts like yourself to forget that fact. Apparently you’ve helped hoist the fig leaf.

  “Anything for a buck” is of course their actual policy. As with any international corporation.

• 34 Bystander // Apr 9, 2007 at 4:24 am

  well, JFL, yeah, Re: google.. I’m just summarizing the sentiments of various corners of cyberspace that I’ve seen. I don’t have an illusion of them being the alternate deity to the ancient one we have in Thailand.

• 35 polo // Apr 10, 2007 at 7:14 am

  Republican: the internet as “Reason” ? Come off it. There’s more mythology on the internet than a dynasty of Chakris!

  (But at least there’s also more fun on the Net too.)

  Actually, I’m sure the palace just wants the internet to be a place of reason, which is why it insists on only positive depictions of HM. What could be more fact-based?

• 36 Republican // Apr 10, 2007 at 10:29 pm

  Those of you who are outraged that someone should dare suggest that the Internet might be considered a tool of reason will presumably go back to your precious old books and newspapers and ignore Mein Kamf, The Sun, and the mountains of “unreason” that has appeared over the centuries in printed form. I will stick with the Internet and hope not to be bothered by your irrational posts anymore.

Leave a Comment