New Mandala

31 responses so far ↓

• 1 polo // Jun 12, 2007 at 5:44 pm

  Hmm, any chance some brave souls might dare to talk about the monarchy?

  Naww, probably not — why start now after 60 years?

• 2 Andrew Walker // Jun 12, 2007 at 5:54 pm

  Let’s wait and see. Some good panels on the monarchy have been submitted.

• 3 Republican // Jun 12, 2007 at 9:45 pm

  You misunderstand how the system works. Of course there will be no problem for foreign academics talking about, even criticizing the monarchy at the ICTS. The conference will be a showcase of how benevolent and committed to free speech and the principles of academic inquiry the king is, especially for the foreign academics, to whom, after all, the king has much to be thankful, for all the support they have given his regime over the years, and especially over this past, difficult year. Thanks SOAS and U. Washington for hosting Sondhi Limthongkul and the CNS propaganda teams; thanks ANU and UNDP academics for giving international credibility to my sufficiency theory. Thanks all those who have highlighted my role as a democratizing institution in journal articles and media interviews. Thanks all you academics for demonizing Thaksin and his elected government over the last 5 years, and thanks for leaving my political and economic activities almost completely unexamined. Thanks for your silence after the coup and for making me appear invisible. After all you have done for me the least I can do is to allow you to let off some steam at the International Thai Studies gala festival. We Thais know well how you Western academics love to criticize our politics and our culture, but we are a tolerant people. That is part of our national uniqueness, you know. But hopefully this conference will help you foreigners to understand us a little better, in this most auspicious year.

  For all those foreign academics, grad. students and others attending the ICTS who may already be feeling that thrill of excitement at the prospect that you are going to transgress the biggest taboo of Thai Studies and somehow “make a difference”, forget it. You are being used, and the funniest thing is, you are paying them to use you.

  But if you can, as you deliver your transgressive-subversive paper, just spare a thought for the 60% of the Thai electorate whose government was stolen from them and whose party has been liquidated at the barrel of a gun, all in the name of the person in whose honor the ICTS is being organized. Unlike for you foreign academics, for them it is impossible to even hint at the things that you will be talking about in your papers.

• 4 jonfernquest // Jun 12, 2007 at 10:07 pm

  I would submit a paper, but it is not clear if it would fit in or not. My current research deals with political and cultural interaction in the Tai Frontier Zone between Ming China and Southeast Asia (c. 1350-1650), I’m currently looking specifically at precious stones and metals, contention over and extraction of these resources, their incorporation into religious and sumptuary objects at court, their role in court and religious ritual, using Burmese texts and inscriptions, which might be relevant to these topics:

  * Tai as Transnationalized Studies
  * Thai History in Global Contexts

  But then again, it might not.

• 5 jonfernquest // Jun 12, 2007 at 10:27 pm

  “You are being used, and the funniest thing is, you are paying them to use you.”

  Well, if that is the case, it is probably because Thailand is such a nice place to live. Market prices are determined by supply and demand. Yes, that is funny, but in a nice sort of way.

  How much does the conference cost anyway? That info is not on the site. I seem to remember 8,000 baht, definitely too high for someone working in Thailand.

• 6 Srithanonchai // Jun 13, 2007 at 12:08 am

  Jon: Can you confirm the registration fee? 8,000 baht would be well beyond my financial means.

• 7 Republican // Jun 13, 2007 at 12:29 am

  I was talking about attending an academic conference, not living in Thailand. But seeing that you raised the issue of the quality of life in Thailand, yes, if you’re a white man with a disposable, independent income it is a rather pleasant place to live – although I recall that you had some problems with a certain fascist educational establishment whose name you have yet to reveal. However if you are an agricutural or industrial worker or day labourer like the majority of the population, and especially a Thai Rak Thai voter right now, things might not be quite as “nice” as they are for you. If you are simply treating the conference as an excuse to “thiao” to a nice place for foreigners, where you can get value for money from the great market economy they have here then I would agree, although I think there are cheaper ways of “thiao” than attending the ICTS.

• 8 Republican // Jun 13, 2007 at 1:05 am

  Sri: Registration before 31 October:

  Foreign Scholars: US$250
  Thai Scholars: 4800 baht

  Registration after 31 October:

  Foreign Scholars: US$ 275
  Thai Scholars: 5000 baht

  I guess for this price foreigners can be confident of the superb international quality of the papers presented at the ICTS conference, because I understand that at this year’s AAS conference at Boston the registration fee for AAS members was $95 for members and $145 for non-members – no racial discrimination here. Or maybe Thailand’s market economy doesn’t work quite as well in the universities. Having already paid for an international airfare, hotel accommodation and almost double the registation fee paid by the Thai participants one would hope that one is getting one’s money’s worth.

• 9 Srithanonchai // Jun 13, 2007 at 1:27 am

  Well, on its web site, the ICTS (although it is supposed to be an academic, not a “thiao” conference) presents that “nice” cultural-historical image of Thailand — no reality, no industrial workers or day laborers, no sex tourists, etc.

• 10 Republican // Jun 13, 2007 at 3:01 am

  Not a “thiao” conference, Sri, really? hmmm … then all this time I was thinking …. note that these “nice” images on the website come to us courtesy of Thammasat, supposedly Thailand’s number 2 university, but number 1 in terms of its “progressive” politics: 555 – I think of all the Thammasat academics who cheered on the PAD, welcomed in the CNS, joined the military junta committees, wrote the media articles in Matichon about the dangers of “electocracy”, 555555. And what about Thammasat’s famous radical student body? Today they are being put to shame by … the Chula students … 555555.

  It’s a little difficult to take these things seriously – as one Thammasat academic who IS worthy of respect noted at a recent conference: as under the communist regimes of eastern Europe during the Cold War, the only rational stance in this type of situation is absolute cynicism.

  But while we are on the topic of conference registration fees, it seems to me that one sphere in which we must at least attempt to reject the clutches of the tentacles of the sufficiency octopus is academic quality. If Thammasat University is going to charge foreign academics 2-3 times the registration fee of the AAS conference, then they damn well ought to ensure that the quality of the conference, including the papers, is at least equal to if not superior to the quality of the AAS.

• 11 Thongchai // Jun 13, 2007 at 3:17 am

  Just a matter of fact:

  I, Thongchai Winichakul, also gave a talk about the coup at SOAS in November 2006, as reported on New Mandala as well. Given all the imperfect wording and ideas, I hope nobody, including Mr. Republican and the like, would say that my talk was a pro-royalist or pro-coup.

  I also gave talks against the royalist coup at New York University, Stanford University, LSE, Humboldt Unviersity, and to Thai students in Germany November 2006, and finally at University of Washington in Seattle in May 2007, and of course here in Madison and a few other places since the coup. I also gave interviews to more than a dozen local and international broadcasts in the US, UK, Japan, and Jamaica.

  The reason I state these fact is not to boast my anti-coup resume. (who knows if these records are assets or liability on my resume!). Rather, I would like to state these facts because the comment by Mr. Republican above can be turned another way that, “Thanks SOAS, LSE, Stanford, U. Washington, and several other institutions and international broadcasts, for hosting Thongchai Winichakul, for giving international credibility to the anti-royalist-coup people like him.”

  Sure, Sondhi and the propaganda team of the royalist coup have more resources to go further and more often with much larger audience (plus nicer food and hotels). But a political battle of this kind is never fair. We only have to fight as we can, when we can, and where we can. The efforts may be too little to fight the propaganda mechines and may be in vain, but it is unfair to put the blames on those hosts.

  I have to thank SOAS, U Washington, NYU, Stanford, Humboldt, Thai students in Germany and more, for their support to my talks. As far as I know, these host people do not favor the pro-coup propaganda at all. Far from it. ALL of them, as far as I know, do not support the coup. But they provided the forum and opportunites for all to take.

  As a matter of fact, in many cases, the coup propoganda team and/or Thai reps in those countries inititated the contacts, asking for a forum to speak. Once I learned about this, I initiated the contacts to some of those places, asking for the opportunity for my talk against the royalist coup. Those hosts welcomed me with open arms and with supports.

  I wish more anti-coup academics, including Mr. Republican and his famous fellows, try to create and/or take these possible opportunities to fight the royalist coup. At the least, please open your mind, eyes and ears, before putting blames on the wrong place. If one does not want to do anything beyond the webboards, that is fine too. But please tolerate people who are trying to do what they can but whose acts and words may not be exactly, precisely what you would like to hear and see.

  More on the Thai Studies Conference — I promise. But not today.

• 12 Jon Fernquest // Jun 13, 2007 at 3:23 am

  “I recall that you had some problems with a certain fascist educational establishment whose name you have yet to reveal.”

  I have a good employer now. I could go to South Korea or the Middle East and accumulate money like many Farang with Thai familes, who want to do well for their Thai familes, but Thailand is a very comfortable place to live in, so I don’t. I don’t “thiaw” I have a little house with a wife and a mother in law and eight dogs and I go to the Wat with them on “Wan Phra” and “Tham Boon”. They “pai ha het, naaw mai, nai pa” so we have a lot of bitter bamboo shoot curry which I’ve developed a taste for. (There are even special bamboo shoots from Sipsongpanna you can buy in Maesai market)

  “However if you are an agricutural or industrial worker or day labourer like the majority of the population, and especially a Thai Rak Thai voter right now,…”

  Our neighbors who probably all voted for Thaksin because it is Chiang Rai all seem to be weathering the events pretty well. They never say anything and their life doesn’t seem to have changed. I do know one rice miller whose business was disrupted for a while with subsidised rice prices that were very convoluted and difficult to figure out and bore no relation to market reality, that some made abnormally high returns off their rice of for a while. Better income distribution would be nice, but it probably has to come from doing something new of value like OTOP or developing the fashion industry (Thaksin entrepreneurship ideas), not dropping cash subsidies from helicopters.

  My mother-in-law is just glad the protests are not on TV anymore because it was giving her a bad case of “Jai Rawn” anyway she goes along with what people tell her, because she is so “Jai Yen” even more so than my boss so everything is fine, no major crises, the noral steady state of Thai society, I guess. Maybe, I have to visit another province or look harder, but I live literally in a village in Chiang Rai, next to the old airport, and it sure seems better than where I grew up in the states. People jogging around the lake and then down our road to the old airport (suan sukhapap) with their families. Lots of pragmatism and no major problems. It could be better. The Farang in Chiang Rai include former museum directors from European countries. computer entrepreneurs, former CEOs, all of these could be harnessed in the Thai educational system, but the forces that be are too conservative and will always give you the standard “this is the way we do it in Thailand” line, cooperation with some of those wise old Farang who could help make Thailand a better place. From reading this blog for a long time anyone would understand that there are many different “ways of doing it in Thailand” and that anyone who claims to have the final answer is probably just making a rhetorical power-assertion move over you.

  No conference for me, I’m a foreign scholar on a Thai income. That’s too much money.

• 13 Republican // Jun 13, 2007 at 6:21 am

  Reply to #11

  “… At the least, please open your mind, eyes and ears …”

  From a “closed” mind, a deaf and blind man:

  Perhaps for people who are living and enjoying democratic rights in prosperous Western countries it is very easy to be “tolerant”. It is very easy to be magnanimous and evenhanded and “fair”, especially in a university, and as a tenured academic. It is very easy to call for respect for different political opinions. Because whatever the political situation in Thailand, it has absolutely NO DIRECT EFFECT ON YOU WHATSOEVER. In fact, it may actually increase your social and academic status outside Thailand as someone who “speaks for” the “progressive” forces in Thailand. At the very least, a coup increases international interest in Thailand which, given the situation of Thai Studies programs internationally, automatically means that one gains status as a kind of “spokesperson for Thailand”. One gets interviewed by the media. One gets invited to present papers at prestigious academic institutions to “explain the situation” in Thailand. One writes articles that are accepted in academic journals, given the increased interest in Thailand. One gains an international reputation as a “progressive academic” who opposes the coup, with the added authenticity of being a national of Thailand, but without the risk of being a resident.

  For your academic colleagues in Thailand who may not support the coup (minority that they may be) it is not so easy. One can not say the things publicly that you say so easily in Wisconsin or SOAS or LSE or Stanford or New York. If one did say those things at seminars or to the media in Thailand one would risk a ruined career, a long jail term, or worse (which is why these things are said on webboards, which you clearly look down upon). In Thailand things are not as “fair” as in the international universities whom you contacted to host you to speak out against the coup.

  Which is why, when those Thai academics who do not support the coup or the CNS view the spectacle of international Thai Studies programs hosting apologists for a dictatorship, who have absolutely NO GENUINE ACADEMIC OBJECTIVE OTHER THAN TO CREATE INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE COUP, and who travel to these universities IN THE PAY OF THE DICTATORSHIP, the argument that these institutions are merely being “fair” and even-handed academically rubs a little thin. In fact it raises the question whether these programs really understand what is happening in Thailand, supposedly their area of expertise. It is comparable to the hypothetical situation where, in “fairness” to the military junta in Burma one were to give them the same opportunity to the junta to explain their case as one might give Aung San Suu Kyi – even though the junta is in total control politically.

  So the CNS propaganda teams initiated the contact with theses universities? And you are saying that the universities are obliged to accept, even though the function of these talks is nothing more than to provide a loudspeaker to give academic credibility to dictatorships? And you want to defend these Thai Studies programs for that?!

  I am astounded why, at this moment, after the CNS has crushed in the most outrageous way resistance to the regime, you should suddenly want to defend international Thai Studies programs for their even-handedness with representatives of the royalist-military junta, which is, as you say, so well financed, so politically dominant, which totally controls the Thai media, and which enjoys such strong royal support? Under these circumstances your “fairness” – IN THIS SPECIAL SITUATION OF A ROYALIST DICTATORSHIP – in my opinion effectively means lending support to the CNS, to the anti-democratic forces in Thailand, and to the CNS’s attempted eradication of the only possible anti-CNS force: Thai Rak Thai.

  “…But a political battle of this kind is never fair. We only have to fight as we can, when we can, and where we can …”

  If this is the case then all I can say is, you have your fight, I have mine.

  PS. Since you raised this issue in your post, some of us still wonder about the title for your talk at SOAS in November 2006: “Thailand’s September Coup: One Step Backward to Restart Democracy or One Step Forward in a Wrong Direction?”. We are wondering how a coup can be conceived of as an attempt to “restart democracy” (overthrowing a democratically elected government), or a “step forward”?

• 14 Thongchai // Jun 13, 2007 at 8:16 am

  “One Step Backward to Restart Democracy” was the common justification by the pro-coup intelligentsia. I also wonder how it could be, and strongly disagree with this justification. It put it up in the title and started the talk refering to it in order to offer a critique, that the coup is one step further or deeper, “Forward” in this sense, in a wrong direction, i.e. royalist demination. I wonder if the content of the talk was not enough for Mr Republican that I oppose the coup. Perhaps he already misinterprets that phrase in the title and already judged, regardless of the talk.

  I don’t understand why you put the “fair” in my mouth. I did not ask for it. I do think you put the blame in the wrong place. We may question and criticise the judgment of those hosts for allowing the propaganda team to speak. But I only want to inform that they also welcomed people like me to speak as well.

  I did not look down on webboards. Instead, I ask you not to look down on what other things other people are doing as they can, and urge that you can do it too instead of putting blames on the wrong place wrong people.

  All other ciriticsms about myself enjoy the privilieges of living outside Thailand, never having to suffer or take a risk for opposing the coup, gaining benefits and reputations for opposing the coup, so on and and so forth are irrelevant. Indeed, I am very disappointed and feel very sad when I read them.

  I wonder what they have to do with the points we are discussing. Nothing. Then, why doing this? Mr Republican should be smart enough to know that they are trash.

  If an anti-royalist like Mr. Republican wants to get some respect, please do not do this again, ever.

  Interestingly, those criticisms are along the same line as what the pro-coup intellectuals like Surin Maisrikrod and some others before him said to non-Thai academics who are critical to the coup, i.e. they never understand Thailand, never suffer under Thaksin, being neo-colonialist, etc. etc. Thai intellectuals in Thailand who oppose the coup also got the same reactions, i.e. being too farang, etc. I myself got almost exactly the same reactions from The Manager, a leading NGO activist who supported the coup, and some well known academic colleagues. They all said I oppose the coup because I live comfortably outside Thailand, never have to take any risk therefore can say anything I like to, enjoying being tenured professor, looking down on Thai intellectuals, etc. These are convenient but irrelevant reactions to the “outsiders” (either a Thai like me or non-Thais) who make a criticism to the “insider” (either those pro-coup or anti-coup, either royalist or anti-royalist).

  To make an argument along the inside/outside term, Mr Republican contrasts actions, risks, and so on between the inside and outside Thailand. There are differences for sure. But the contrasts only serve the inside/outside rhetorics with no substantive grounds.

  Just one example: It is not true that only people outside Thailand can speak openly opposing the coup while people in Thailand cannot. There are also many Thais inside Thailand who spoke up in public even more often than myself and stronger than myself. Therefore, it is no heroic act in doing this outside Thailand. Instead of claiming any credentials as Mr Republican suggests, I think it is some little contributions I could do. I never advertised my talks. I inform the readers here to make my point that the blame was put on the wrong gplace.

  By the way, it has been one and a half year already that my academic outputs have been suffered badly. Academic works are what I have been known for outside Thailand. My politics, ideology are never parts of my credentials as an academic. My colleagues don’t care and most don’t know. Engaging with Thai politics since the late 2005 has not been good for my career or reputation because I cannot concentrate on my writings. The next book has been long overdue. All of those trash criticisms are … (I lost the word — too disappointed to find an appropriate one).

• 15 nganadeeleg // Jun 13, 2007 at 9:16 am

  “I am astounded why, at this moment, after the CNS has crushed in the most outrageous way resistance to the regime…………”

  It looks to me that the CNS has been very soft as far as military regimes go, and they have even allowed Thaksin to get back on the front foot.

  Somehow I find extrajudicial killingss and ‘disappearances’ of opponents as more outrageous than a bit of media censorship.

  BTW, the only ‘disappearance’ I know of is Fonzi (Tosakan) from TJTS.

• 16 Srithanonchai // Jun 13, 2007 at 9:43 pm

  Rep: Thanks for the information. So, Thammasat really has adopted a two-tier pricing approach? Would Thongchai (whom you could have treated more fairly, IMO) or Surin count as (poor) Thai scholars and pay the Thai rate, while Jon or I,farang scholars living in Thailand on or on less than a local income, pay the rate for (rich) foreign scholars? Many of the Thai scholars, by the way, might well be able to get a refund from their educational institutions. As a matter of principle, I don’t support double-tier racist pricing of this sort, and never take part in it. It’s disgusting.

• 17 david w // Jun 14, 2007 at 10:47 am

  Republican,

  I have to say, I have found your criticisms of Ajaan Thongchai rather harsh. It is not as if anyone would mistake him as an apologist for the monarchy or the military. I wonder who actually could pass the test of purity and virtue in political intent and action against which you would seem to judge academics and public intellectuals.

  In fact, I wonder how you would hold up under scrutiny. Of course, we will never know since you only exist as a pen name on this website. Thus, we aren’t able to judge you by your actions and words out in the “real world” as you have judged Ajaan Thongchai. I understand, I think, why you post under a pen name. I do, however, think it worth pointing out the considerable asymmetry in the debate between you and Thongchai. He cannot possibly question you on the same issues and using the same criteria as you have applied to him. You are quite literally beyond criticism in this way due to the nature of this website and your decision about how to participate in it.

  Not that Thongchai is above criticism. I just find the asymmetry of the exchange in combination with the tone of uncompromising moral condemnation, a bit disturbing. You come across as presenting yourself as much more honest, clear-sighted and morally upright than Ajaan Thongchai. Alas, we will never know if that is the case.

• 18 Republican // Jun 15, 2007 at 2:30 am

  To my critics:

  1. I refer you to Thongchai’s original criticism of Republican in # 11: “…it is unfair to put the blames on those hosts…” Thongchai’s point was that my criticism of certain international Thai Studies programs and academics was “unfair” (#11) on the grounds that these programs had also hosted Thongchai (and others) speaking out against the coup. I stand by my original criticism that these programs ought to be censured for hosting politicians and ideologues like Kraisak and Sondhi and propaganda teams who are in the pay of the regime, seeking to create international legitimacy for the coup and the dictatorship back in Thailand. I’m scratching my head as to why my criticisms should be viewed as “harsh” or “unfair” or “intolerant”. I believe that these programs ought to be held accountable for what they do. It is a similar issue to that of the ANU’s awarding of an honorary doctorate in law to Lee Kuan Yew, which was widely criticized by many people on this blogsite and elsewhere. In my opinion Thongchai’s call for me to be “fair” is simply an attempt to defend these programs from criticism. What I would rather hear is the argument why these programs should give the oxygen of publicity to propagandists for a dictatorship. So far I have not heard one – except Thongchai’s argument that these programs provide forums and opportunities to all. I disagree. My position is that these programs should refuse to provide these people with a forum. But I would hasten to add that this refusal should never extend to genuine academics of whatever political persuasion whose purpose is purely academic, (and even under “normal” circumstances – ie. not in the aftermath of a coup, and not having been sent by a military junta – I could also accept the occasional politician or media proprietor).

  2. Thongchai warned Republican (#14) “If an anti-royalist like Mr. Republican wants to get some respect, please do not do this again, ever.” Leaving aside the fact that I do not accept warnings on a blogsite from anyone, for the record, I do NOT want respect. If I did I would not use a penname. But I do want to put forward arguments and criticisms of certain issues in Thai Studies, particularly in relation to the commentary on the coup and the aftermath, and am grateful to NM for giving me that opportunity. In my opinion this concern for “respect”, “tolerance” is a discourse designed to stifle criticism. This is a blogsite. Why do we need “respect” (apart from basic “web etiquette”)? It’s not as though we have to spend any time in each other’s company. An academic blogsite should be a place for a vigorous contest of ideas, not genteel appeals for “respect”. (I read contributors to this website accusing Andrew of all kinds of things (eg. being in the pay of Thaksin, etc.) in the most disrespectful way, but I don’t see him pleading for respect). In any case if (unlike Republican) Thongchai wants to teach others about “respect” then it is unwise for him to call other people’s criticisms “trash” (#14).

  3. David W. (#17) implies that Republican is trying to claim a morally “pure” or “virtuous” political intent. I have no interest in expressing a superior morality, which is one of the reasons I use a penname. (For the record, I am a very immoral person). I also have no interest in political action. My only interest on this blogsite is in academic discussion and criticism. But how can David W. say that I am “beyond criticism”? By all means criticize me on the weaknesses of my argument. Who’s stopping him? What I find surprising is that he accuses me of claiming moral superiority but has nothing to say about Thongchai’s expressions of his own “moral correctness” re. the coup. If you are going to hand out yellow cards for claiming moral correctness the referee should be fair to both teams. He also accuses me of presenting myself as “clear-sighted”, but says nothing of Thongchai’s condescending put-down that Republican needs to “open your mind, eyes and ears”. Again, I don’t mind this kind of criticism, but if he is going to make it it would be more convincing if it weren’t so selective.

  4. David W. also seems to imply that I accused Thongchai of being an “an apologist for the monarchy or the military”. This is a very serious accusation which I categorically reject. My point was that if Thongchai supports the stance that international Thai Studies programs should provide forums for propagandists for the dictatorship (because these programs “provide the forum and opportunites for all to take….” (#11)) and he rejects my criticism of this stance as, “unfair”, then under the present political conditions that effectively means supporting the dictatorship, because (i) such forums help the dictatorship get its message out internationally, with the imprimatur of a prestigious international university; and (ii) they help the dictatorship and its supporters with internal propaganda, eg. Sondhi Limthongkul’s heavy promotion in his media of his October 2006 SOAS talk. This seems to me to be irrefutable.

  5. Thongchai says that Republican’s criticisms make him feel “disappointed” and “very sad”. To me this is just really annoying. Instead of appealing for sympathy respond to the criticisms with a superior argument.

  6. Re. the “insider-outsider” issue. The relationship and differences between foreign and Thai scholars, international academic institutions and Thai academia, Thai and Western scholarship, are extremely important and very complex. It is one of the perennial debates in Thai Studies. As Thongchai says, these differences are often used by pro-coup “insiders” to discredit the criticisms of anti-coup “outsiders”, especially Westerners (the King is a particularly good example of this). But what I find unacceptable is that when Thongchai is himself criticized along these lines his response is to attempt to close down the debate (#14): “… All other criticisms about myself …. are irrelevant… ”; “… Mr Republican should be smart enough to know that they [the criticisms] are trash…”; “… please do not do this again, ever…”; “…the contrasts only serve the inside/outside rhetorics with no substantive grounds…”; “… All of those trash criticisms are …” My response is, defend yourself, and if you are going to teach “toleration” then tolerate the criticisms of others.

  7. Re. the use of a pen-name. It is absolutely true that the anonymity of a pen-name gives one the liberty of criticizing anything and anyone, without the responsibility. But in my opinion, in the staid, polite, kreng jai filled, seniority-based, taboo-infested backwater of Thai Studies the beautiful thing about the webblog and its anonymity is the free discussion and criticisms and original ideas that can be expressed by anyone, anywhere, without fear of censure, precisely because of the nature of the medium. In my opinion it’s far more intellectually satisfying than most seminar presentations. My view is, first let the ideas be expressed, debated, proved, disproved, discarded or endorsed; then comes the issue of responsibility. Then one can start on the work of expressing these ideas according to the normal academic conventions, with real names, seminar presentations, journal articles, books, media interviews, etc. through which these ideas will move into the world of action.

  8. Re. Republican’s “harshness”. I admit that some of my posts could be construed as “harsh”. Given that my colleagues on NM do not have to live or work with me (or even click on my posts) I can’t see that it is a major problem, but no doubt this attitude demonstrates my intolerance and lack of respect. But to anyone repelled by my harshness I offer the following justification: “a [coup] is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly.” My criticism of the coup, and the academic responses to it, is in the same vein, except without the tanks and guns.

• 19 nganadeeleg // Jun 15, 2007 at 9:13 am

  Republican: You need to learn that there is usually more than one side to any story.
  By all means complain about, & expose, royalist propaganda, but it’s a bit hypocritical to call for those with opposing views (to yours) to be censored.

• 20 Srithanonchai // Jun 15, 2007 at 7:47 pm

  Republican: In fact, cutting out distractions will make your case stronger.

• 21 Republican // Jun 16, 2007 at 2:13 am

  Back to business. While we are on the topic of royalist propoganda, for those of you living outside of Thailand you may not be aware of the extent of the propaganda situation within the country. Saraburian, who has posted some interesting comments on NM, has this one on Fa Dio Kan (http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=13702). Posted : 2007-06-14 21:22:59

  เพื่อนที่ธนาคารแห่งหนึ่ง ส่งมาให้

  เรียน เพื่อนพนักงานxxxx

  ตามที่ สำนักงานปลัดสำนักนายกรัฐมนตรี โดยคณะอนุกรรมการจัดทำเพลงเฉลิมพระเกียรติพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัว
  เนื่องในมหามงคลเฉลิมพระชนมพรรษา 80 พรรษา 5 ธันวาคม 2550 ได้จัดทำซีดีเพลง “พ่อแห่งแผ่นดิน” โดยกำหนดเป้าหมายให้
  ประชาชนชาวไทยทั้งในและต่างประเทศสามารถร้องเพลงนี้ได้ภายในวันที่ 5 ธันวาคม 2550 นั้น

  xxxxได้ให้ความร่วมมือในกิจกรรมเฉลิมพระเกียรติครั้งนี้ ด้วยการร่วมเปิดเพลง “พ่อแห่งแผ่นดิน” ทุกวัน เวลา 8.00 น. ผ่านระบบเสียงตามสายของอาคารสำนักงานใหญ่xxx และอาคารxxxx และเพื่อประชาสัมพันธ์เนื้อเพลงให้เป็นที่รู้จัก จึงได้แนบไฟล์เนื้อเพลงเพื่อให้เพื่อนพนักงานได้นำไปใช้ประโยชน์ต่อไป

• 22 New Mandala » Thai studies bargain! // Jun 16, 2007 at 1:25 pm

  [...] relation to the ongoing discussion of the 10th International Thai Studies Conference there has been some concern expressed about the [...]

• 23 Republican // Jun 16, 2007 at 6:24 pm

  Thai Republicanism: I don’t normally pay any attention to The Na-chua anymore, though I used to have a lot of respect for Sutthichai Yoon. But I noticed in today’s edition there was a downloadable audio interview with Jakraphop Penkair, the head of PTV and one of the leaders of the Sanam Luang demonstration. I’ve been having trouble accessing the audiocast of the demonstration and had been wanting to listen to what the speakers were saying so I clicked on the Jakraphop interview rather than trust the untrustworthy govt. and print media. At first I wondered why they had the interview in audio rather than transcript orsummarised form. But if you listen to the first 5 minutes you will immediately understand why. I have never heard someone with such a high profile public image express such direct, uncompromising criticism of the monarchy. It’s well worth a listen. Excerpts: “I see this not as a struggle, but as a war, against aristocracy”. I want to rid aristocrats and dictators who join hands in robbing the liberty and power of the people in the September 19 coup…” It’s available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/specials/sound/file/chak1.mp3 (this certainly makes NM’s Republican sound very mild in comparison)

  I’m not sure if he was tired or stressed (he mentioned that he had had death threats, and was ready to die in the fight for democracy) or even if the whole thing was made up (I doubt it – in any case, these sentiments are widely expressed now on political discussion websites). Compared to Jakraphop Thaksin’s speech last night sounded positively royalist, conciliatory, ready for compromise. The “good cop, bad cop” approach, maybe.

  On a related topic, the front cover of Matichon’s weekly magazine this week featured a soft lens, very homely photo of Thaksin and his family with the caption (sic) “Holocaust: The Killing of the Whole Clan” (recall the PAD’s and some of the media’s portrayal of Thaksin as “Hitler” before the coup). These things are designed deliberately to have more than one reading, but my reading of it was that it was sympathetic to Thaksin – haven’t had a chance yet to read the story. This would be interesting, as it would mean that at the same time as much of the mass media is turning against the CNS, some of the middle class media is starting to take a less anti-Thaksin line.

• 24 nganadeeleg // Jun 16, 2007 at 8:03 pm

  Jakrapop is spin merchant & hypocrite to boot.

  He can talk all he likes about fighting for democracy, but the reality is that he too is tainted because of his years serving Thaksin’s ‘policy corruption’ .

• 25 Republican // Jun 16, 2007 at 9:06 pm

  Another important, and maybe ominous piece of news from a post on Fa Dio Kan [http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=14316; see the Manager article at http://www.manager.co.th/Politics/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9500000069785&#Opinion. On Sondhi Limthongkul’s “Yam Fao Phaendin” program yesterday he announced that from Sunday 16th June a group calling itself the “Phalang ngiap rak phaendin” (Silent Power that Loves the Kingdom) will rally at the Equestrian Monument as a “show of strength of people who love the monarchy and the nation”.

• 26 Srithanonchai // Jun 16, 2007 at 9:39 pm

  It makes me sick seeing all these groups playing their political games.

• 27 jeru // Jun 16, 2007 at 10:41 pm

  Srithanonchai (#26) I must wonder how you sicken so easily . . . when you can endure Republican bloviate daily with such thunderous flatulence you have enough advance warning to escape the sickening stench to follow.

• 28 Srithanonchai // Jun 16, 2007 at 11:31 pm

  Jeru: Rep is harmless rhetoric, and of course I don’t read every detail of what he writes. On the other hand, Thai politics during the past few years have been rather real.

• 29 Republican // Jun 17, 2007 at 2:17 am

  #25: That of course should be *Saturday* 16th.

• 30 Doubtful but... // Jun 17, 2007 at 3:32 am

  Has anyone found anything referring to how Anand Panyarachun, Bowornsak Uwanno, and others in that phuak predict the Crown Prince’s ability to be a dhammaraja, adhere to the thotsaphit rajatham, use his pharatchamnat samrong, and generally display pharatcha baramee? The ‘Thaksin vs. Rama IX’ discussion is getting a little worn out now and it would be nice if it could turn to Rama X, even before ICTS.

• 31 Republican // Jun 18, 2007 at 3:46 am

  Reply to #30: It doesn’t answer your question, but one rather radical scenario that I have heard (I have no idea how widespread this view is, but the source quoted “inside military sources”) is that if the CP ever got into a position of being RX then there is a likelihood of him being “JFK-ed”, and the possibility of a republic sooner rather than later would be on the cards, given that, while most people are either neutral or sick of the institution, they retain respect for the current occupant. The propaganda around the personality is a lot more effective than the propaganda that promotes the institution.

  Re. Jakraphop’s views on the “war against the aristocracy” expressed in The Nation’s interview the other day: whatever one thinks of Jakraphop’s political views, it is significant that he is one of the leading figures in the PTV-Thai Rak Thai rallies at Sanam Luang – so one would assume that his views are not confined to Jakraphop alone. Obviously right now Thaksin has to play the statesman, loyal to the monarchy, ready for compromise and reconciliation, and that came across in his recorded address on Friday night. One would assume that negotiations at the highest levels are going on now, and that if anything, ironically Thaksin is negotiating from a position of power, given the way the CNS has enabled him to portray himself as a democratic figure internationally, and increasingly domestically. So far he has been careful not to touch the monarchy, but if the CNS is unwilling to concede, and they continue with their intention to wipe out Thai Rak Thai, it would not surprise me if there were public revelations designed to implicate the monarchy’s involvement in the coup, its support of the regime, and the many other skeletons that fill its closet. The irony is, despite the regime’s attempt to censor Thaksin and destroy his party, his influence now is greater than at any time since September 19.

  If it is a fight to the death, I can’t see Thaksin rolling over and letting the royalists destroy him in this way.

Leave a Comment