New Mandala

47 responses so far ↓

• 1 amberwaves // Jul 17, 2007 at 6:22 am

  If and when it happens, I’ll be breaking out the champagne. About time!

  I don’t know how it will turn out – perhaps badly – but God bless Thongchai for keeping his colleagues’ feet to the fire in the face of overwhelming hostility over the past 1 1/2 years.

• 2 Tosakan // Jul 17, 2007 at 8:34 am

  If everything that Dr. Thongchai wrote is true, then this is a progressive step in the right direction.

  But, this being Thailand, and not everything is what it seems to be, I have my doubts that this will be pulled off. One has to wonder what indirect but persuasive and forceful barriers will be put up by the powers at be to prevent these panels from happening at the last moment.

  I hope that there are written guarantees in place that no panelist or participant, Thai or foreigner, will prosecuted for lese majeste ( as well as economic and physical threats) for whatever views that he or she puts forth on any subject relating to the monarchy. And, I have to wonder if the “usual suspects” will be the only voices we get to hear. In other words, are we going to get to hear from the mavericks or from the same ancient quote meisters, like Sulak and Thinitan, who we hear in the media over and over again?

  I am also curious to know if there will be a media blackout on this event.

• 3 Srithanonchai // Jul 17, 2007 at 3:00 pm

  Thongchai’s post is very encouraging. Re the panel on Handley’s book, it was not mentioned whether Handley would be on this panel, too.

• 4 saraburian // Jul 18, 2007 at 1:08 am

  Is this kind of conference open for the public to attend?
  Re Handley speaking on this panel, i doubt that could happen. Understand he is persona non grata here in Thailand.

• 5 Republican // Jul 18, 2007 at 1:45 am

  Poseur Academia: My instinct upon reading Thongchai’s letter re. the preparations of the Thai Studies academic community to present papers critical of the monarchy at the ICTS is to reply that it is a pity that this “overt intention to challenge the repressive atmosphere in Thailand” by the academics has come a year too late. But this is Thai Studies and I have long ago grown used to being disappointed. Let me make a number of points:

  1. This is what I call “poseur” academia. When the critical and difficult time came to defend the democratically-elected Thai Rak Thai government against attack by the royalists Thongchai and most of the Thai academic establishment were silent. Show me one article penned by an academic prior to September 19 unreservedly defending the Thai Rak Thai government and openly condemning the royalists’ attempts to undermine it, including the role of the king. Many academics had joined either the royalists or the “song mai ao” camp. Most were secretly (or not so secretly) glad to see the end of Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin. But now Thongchai plays the anti-royalist academic fighting for democracy, leading an “overt challenge to the repressive atmosphere”. This is the game one sees so often in Thailand. The academic, displaying a fake earnest sense of moral self-righteousness, playing the role of the intellectual fighter for the just cause, but without any sense of responsibility or accountability. Having abandoned a democratically elected government last year they see no contradiction in now declaring their democratic principles (“…critical scholarship is what academics like us can wage against the anti-democratic tendency in Thailand…).

  Basically they want to seen as philosopher kings. And like kings – but unlike the politicians these academics love to hate – you can’t get rid of these tenured academics.

  2. I laugh at the naiveté of those who appear excited / encouraged at this so-called “progressive” step in the right direction taken by the organizers of the ICTS. Of course the universities (and the royalist regime) will let foreign academics say whatever they like now at international conferences: the regime has now secured close to total political control. A regime will only crack down on free speech if it is likely to impact on its political control. Do you honestly think anyone in Thailand is going to pay the slightest attention to foreign academics (or Thai academics with US citizenship) criticizing the monarchy for a day at an international conference held in English? All Thais know that “foreigners don’t understand Thailand anyway”; it’s hardly surprising they don’t understand the unique role of our monarchy. And everyone knows how impolite the foreigners are. Let them criticize in order to demonstrate Thailand’s democratic openness under the new order. Re. the Thai papers, I will reserve my judgment, but one wonders what can be said that Fa Diow Kan has not already published – in Thai – under much more difficult circumstances.

  3. What the Thai Studies academics should be organizing panels around is not the monarchy, about which we all know so much already, and which academics from around the world and in Thailand can already freely discuss on New Mandala, and about which they can publish their learned articles in any number of well-known and accessible journals, but about the role of Thai academia in helping pave the way for the September 19 coup – thought their thalaengkans, their newspaper columns, their joining the PAD rallies, their interviews to the media, etc. So what we need to discuss is Thai academia as an obstacle to democratization. What should be addressed is the investment of the academics in the royalist ratchakan state system, as well as their resistance to real democratization and fear of the market. Now, if someone were to organize such a panel that would truly by an “overt challenge to the repressive atmosphere” – of Thai academia.

  4. As to the question whether academic freedom is going to be guaranteed for those attending the conference and giving papers, which would allow them to openly criticize the monarchy, let us be clear what the issue is about here: you are calling for the academics – both Thai and Western – to be allowed the freedom of speech which is denied to Thai citizens who actually have to live under the royalist regime. Where is the rationale why academics should be allowed this privilege when ordinary Thais are not?

  5. By all means give your papers on the monarchy but do not crow about your fight against “anti-democratic tendency” or pretend you are making any “overt challenge”. You abandoned that fight before September 19.

• 6 amberwaves // Jul 18, 2007 at 6:04 am

  “Republican” is dead wrong in his comments about Thongchai, and should apologize.

  Thongchai in fact warned about the dangers of the anti-Thaksin royalist current in late 2005 well before Sondhi L’s rallies really caught on (in an unpublished letter to The Nation, reprinted however in the journal October and I believe also posted on the Midnight University web site).

  He engaged in very strong polemics with his (ex-) comrades about the danger of joining the PAD very early on _ practically alone in his position, I might add _ and took a lot of flak for his efforts.

  He of course was proved absolutely right, and circulated the first harsh critique of the coup a day or two (as I recall) after the event, when his (ex-) comrades still remained in denial about the matter.

  A lot of this was documented on this blog, should anyone care to look.

  I can’t make the same defense for many other Thai academics and activists, but on the other hand, I find “Republican’s” post a fine example of negativity that leads nowhere. Or to characterize it another way: pretentious know-nothingness.

• 7 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 18, 2007 at 12:22 pm

  Re: amberwaves
  “He engaged in very strong polemics with his (ex-) comrades about the danger of joining the PAD very early on _ practically alone in his position, I might add _ and took a lot of flak for his efforts.”

  Having read a lot of Thongchai’s comments during the pre-coup crises, I’d love to know WHERE and WHEN he engaged in such “strong polemics”. True, he wrote that he was against using the monarchy route and also made criticism against some of the PAD tactics, but where were his “strong polemics” against “JOINING the PAD”, both in the sense of actually joining it organizationally and (this is even more important) POLITICALLY? The fact is Thongchai and others who shouted the “2 NOs” slogan (No to Thaksin, No to Royal PM.) did JOIN the PAD politcally, i.e. demand the toppling of Thaksin, an elected PM even though Thongchai claimed to adhere to the principle of elected PM.

• 8 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 18, 2007 at 12:35 pm

  After the coup, Thongchai tried to justify his call for Thaksin’s toppling by saying that he simply followed the ‘democratic principle’, i.e. ‘the right of citizen to call for the resignation of leaders’.

  Now this is disingeneous of him and all the “2 Nos” people. Where was he (or them) when the event of 25 April 2006 happened, a blatant, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, anti-democratic action? Where was his call for RESIGNATION of ALL those involved?

• 9 New Mandala » Academic freedom? // Jul 18, 2007 at 2:30 pm

  [...] debate about the International Conference on Thai Studies often refers to the extent, or otherwise, of [...]

• 10 jonfernquest // Jul 18, 2007 at 3:28 pm

  I think it’s great that these panels have been organised. Discussion will generate thought, more discussion, and eventually change. It will prove how resilient, adaptive to change, and able to deal with any curve balls the west throws at them, Thailand truly is.

  IMHO the sanctity of the institution of Kingship, of course, won’t be negotiable among Thai scholars because it has long been tied to the very identity of being Thai, but the use of the institution of Kingship by powerful third party elites to shield themselves from criticism and scrutiny, something I’ve experienced firsthand, surely eventually will be, and IMHO maybe that’s where the payback will be.

• 11 amberwaves // Jul 18, 2007 at 4:31 pm

  Ajarn Somsak:

  First, I’d like to apologize for not noting that you also played a useful role in highlighting the dangers of the anti-Thaksin movement.

  I’ll respond briefly to a few of your points, because really all I wished to do was set straight what I believed were misrepresentations by “Republican.”

  The polemics referred to were contained in series of e-mails that were sent back and forth privately among a group of interested people – activists and scholars – including a number of your colleagues. I assume you’ve seen these, so it becomes a matter of interpretation as to their significance. If the dictionary definition of polemics is that they have to be public, I stand corrected in my use of the term.

  Re: the event of 25 April 2006, I really don’t know what Ajarn Thongchai’s reaction was, but with so many battles being fought that year, I’m not sure why this is the litmus test. Personally, I agree that it was “a blatant, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, anti-democratic action.” I’m not sure whose resignations you were seeking, though.

  My problem with your general position is this: you seem to be posing a strict either/or proposition. EITHER you back Thaksin all the way down the line, OR you are against democracy.

  My position is that there were constitutional processes to remove a prime minister, and it would have been legitimate to follow them. Perhaps you believe that would be a misguided point of view in a nascent democracy – he wrong spirit, so to speak – but that would be a fair matter to debate.

  I’ll leave the matter at that. It isn’t Ajarn Thonghai we should be debating about, after all.

• 12 somon // Jul 18, 2007 at 8:37 pm

  อ.ธงชัย ช่างเป็นคนที่มีความกล้าหาญทางจริยธรรมอย่างยิ่ง หึ หึ เพราะ [For my part, I have organized three panels on the monarchy under the proposal titled, “On the Monarchy: Accessories, Lese Majesty and One Book,” with overt intention to challenge the repressive atmosphere in Thailand] โดยเฉพาะ [with overt intention to challenge the repressive atmosphere in Thailand]

  ปล. ภาษาอังกฤษผมไม่แข็งแรง

• 13 Nicholas Farrelly // Jul 18, 2007 at 9:29 pm

  Re: Saraburian #4 -
  “Is this kind of conference open for the public to attend?”

  In my limited experience, at big international conferences (such as this) opportunities for members of “the public” to attend are highly variable. Non-academics who pay their registration fee, or who are approved members of the press, may (at some similiar events) be given unhindered access.

  Under normal circumstances my feeling has often been that interested members of the general public are very welcome to pay the conference fee, attend sessions and ask questions at big international conferences.

  At “this kind of conference” I am, however, not sure. There is currently no information on the conference website that helps to clarify an answer. In an effort to better understand the situation, I will write to the organisers and pose your question to them.

  Best wishes to all,

  Nich

• 14 wordwallah // Jul 18, 2007 at 9:30 pm

  jonfernquest:

  “It will prove how resilient, adaptive to change, and able to deal with any curve balls the west throws at them, Thailand truly is.”

  I find this puzzling; precisely which curveballs have recently been thrown at Thailand, and by which “west”?

  Are you suggesting that democratic ideals, constitutionalism and freedom of thought and expression are “curveballs” thrown at Thailand by some strange aggregate notion called “the west”? and thus denying the possibility of any or all of these ideas having a home in Thailand?

  And just what do you mean by “long” when you say “the sanctity of the institution of Kingship … has long been tied to the very identity of being Thai”? This might appear to suggest that from at least 1932 until, say, 1957 Thais were stumbling around identity-less.

  Or maybe you just mean for 50 years or so.

  Or do you want to suggest that the present defensive hysteria around “Thainess” and Kingly sanctity has characterized the Thai identity from the beginning, wherever you locate that?

• 15 Republican // Jul 19, 2007 at 10:12 pm

  Further to the issue of Thai academics as a major obstacle to Thailand’s democratization: those academics appointed and paid by the junta to work in the Cabinet, the Legislative Council, the Constitutional Drafting Committee and all the other bodies that have been set up following the coup, are only one part of the problem. The other side of the same coin are those academics who posture as being critical of the regime.

  One example: a couple of weeks ago Nidhi was interviewed on Channel 9’s “The Icon” [there is a link to the interview at http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=17800 ] where he came out with this remarkable revelation: Thais have actually had democracy for “hundreds and thousands” of years (เป็นร้อยเป็นพันปี) (?!). Quite amazing that a historian of Nidhi’s stature could say such a thing – and on national television: he obviously wanted to get the message out to as broad an audience as possible. He followed this up with his oft-repeated argument that elections are only a minor part of democracy.

  Now it’s not difficult to follow the logical conclusion to this point of view. If elections are only a minor element of democracy (which Thais in any case have had for a “thousand years”), then it follows that the democratic legitimacy of a government does not come from the mandate of the electorate. This was precisely the intellectual argument that was needed by the anti-Thaksin academics (including Nidhi and the Midnight University network) in order to justify their campaign to overthrow the popular leader of a democratically elected government that they could not accept. In other words, Nidhi’s view is merely a more sophisticated version of the argument popularised by The Manager media, among others, that the villagers were not educated enough to elect “คนดี”, and that in any case, the villagers sell their votes. Another example is the famous episode when a number of academics compared Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai with Hitler and the Nazis – both had come to power through democratic elections.

  The aim of all these discourses is to destroy the legitimacy of a government whose mandate comes from democratic elections. And how effective this argument has been. It has paved the way for the return of ratchakan democracy – which is not democracy at all. And now the same academics write their articles railing against the bureaucratic polity! In the world of international scholarship they would be crucified, but in the dark, authoritarian mafia world of Thai language academia they can get away it. (No wonder there is such resistance in the Thai universities to corporatization and international benchmarking. And how lucky the academics are that the English language skills of the students are so weak: the poor students have no option but to read this kind of rubbish. On this point, one can understand why the ratchakan has been so resistant to the wider adoption of English – Thais probably have the worst English proficiency in Asia – and why they continue with their ludicrous campaigns to promote the Thai language, as if the Thai language was in any danger! They have great control over Thai language discourse through the state education system and the state controlled media, and this discursive control inevitably leads to the ratchakan’s political hegemony (to which the academics are crucial) because it acts as a wall that keeps out foreign ideas for all but that small elite who can read and understand English language discourse.)

  One could even go further and say that the academics’ resistance to accepting the principle that democratic legitimacy comes primarily from elections is based on pure self-interest, since such a political order would inevitably lead to the decline of the ratchakan state and therefore the political influence of the academics. This was already happening under Thaksin, who was famous for not listening to the academics. Now they have their revenge.

  None of these academics who did so much to destroy the legitimacy of the Thai Rak Thai government before September 19 has ever shown any responsibility for what they did. And they expect us to take them seriously this time around.

  When it comes to the crunch, academics associated with the so-called “ภาคประชาชน” ultimately do not trust the Thai people to govern themselves. That is the real reason for their betrayal last year of those they purported to represent. For them, the people need the intellectual and moral leadership of the academics. So all their debate about democracy, the bureaucratic polity and even the monarchy is really a smokescreen. The real issue is the right of the academics to exercise intellectual and political leadership: the philosopher king.

• 16 kissmellon // Jul 20, 2007 at 7:18 am

  I must admit that I was rather shocked by Nidthi’s reaction of the coup last year when he said what was done (staging the coup) was done! For my impression, he welcomed the coup in the beginning.

  However, he appeares to change his position now. He gave a good interview on T.V. this time me think. But Republican took Nidthi ’s words out of its context and did not do justice to this interview. The interviewer asked : We have heard a view that democracy is unsuitable for Thai people. Do you think democracy is a suitable political model for Thai people? He answered positively. Yes! He defined democracy broadly as the capacity to manage resources. He then compared that villagers the past were able to manage their resources, a land, in the village to some extent; while nowadays under karatchakarn system, the official authority has absolute power to manage resources, such as the constructin of power plants. In my view, he affirmed positively that democracy is suitable for Thai by focusing on “the capacity” of villagers to resolve social conflicts in a democratic way, that is, by also taking claims of the new villagers into account, not rejecting to them all.

  ( Of course, he “forgot” to mention about a tradition of chasing dissent villagers by claiming that they were ghosts, and also about slave. But they are irrelevant to the question being asked as accusing other of being ghosts are not considered as a valid disapprovment in public anymore; and slave is also unacceptable.)

  He also defended grassroots people who were charged of wrongly borrowing a village fund (a project during Thaksin Govt.) to buy prodigal commodities, such as mobile phones and motorcycles. He urged middle class to think in a grassrot point of view: Motorcyle enhances opportunity to get a job in a remote area, while mobile phone enables communication with the family members who work faraway from home.

• 17 nganadeeleg // Jul 20, 2007 at 9:04 am

  Republican said: “…academics who did so much to destroy the legitimacy of the Thai Rak Thai government…”

  You still don’t get it do you – It wasn’t the academics who destroyed the legitimacy of the TRT government, it was the greed & arrogance of Thaksin and his TRT cronies who went along with it.

  If Thaksin had changed slightly, it is very unlikely that a coup would have been accepted (welcomed with flowers).
  Ultimately the tax free Shin-Temasek deal was Thaksin’s crowning glory, but it was also the final nail in his coffin.

  It is because those ‘peasants’ & TRT ‘bend-overs’ still supported Thaksin after all his wrongdoings, that their choice has now been narrowed.

• 18 jonfernquest // Jul 20, 2007 at 7:13 pm

  “Democracy” is certainly a loaded term that allows one to push all the right emotional buttons and play certain people like a Bach fugue on an organ.

  Certainly there was no “electoral democracy” hundreds of years ago. Peasant mobility (voting with their feet) was possible, just as it wasn’t possible in Russia under the serf system, see Domar’s discussion:
  http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001447.html

  Grabowsky cites some cases of voluntary migration in Lan Na, but forced migration as the result of military action was a lot more common. During periods of state breakdown when elites lost control, there was a lot of voluntary migration also, that I documented in a paper. Insofar as manpower recruitment or outright capture for war or building projects goes, there is a lot of evidence that things were not democratic at all.

  There are Burmese royal orders from Thalun about 1638 that clearly show that it was illegal for commoners to even enter within the city walls of the capital without permission. Actions of commoners were pretty narrowly circumscribed, but that of elite were also. Thalun takes great pains to see that the property rights of “peasants” along the marching path of the military expedition to Yunnan were respected, but if the harsh and often arbitary punishments meted out in the Royal Orders of Burma are any indication of the state of things in villages hundreds of years ago, I would say there wasn’t much democracy at all. People will always create their imaginary golden ages if you give them a blank sheet of paper.

• 19 Srithanonchai // Jul 20, 2007 at 11:35 pm

  Actually, the Shin corp sale was not “the last nail,” but by far the most important one. Before that event, even The Nation or Thirayut Boonmee thought that Sondhi had by far insufficient evidence against Thaksin and should rather stop his actions. One cannot write the history of the toppling of Thaksin in a straightforward manner, such as “he was obviously bad — he had to go.” That’s retrospective rationalization to justify one’s own actions. The toppling has a lot to do with discourses getting out of hand, with opportunities opening up, with free riders, etc. Don’t fall into the trap of using some more or less convincing results from the AEC investigations as if those “data” had motivated the protestors against Thaksin.

• 20 Mr. MacGregor from Kyauktada // Jul 21, 2007 at 12:16 am

  Republican, ‘poseur academia’? It takes one to know one!

  Earl Grey and a scone please,
  Macgregor.

• 21 nganadeeleg // Jul 21, 2007 at 10:39 am

  The toppling has a lot to do with discourses getting out of hand, with opportunities opening up, with free riders, etc.

  But lets not forget that Thaksin’s own actions contributed significantly to his downfall.

  I wont bother to regurgitate the list now (unless you want me to), but lets just say that obvious policy corruption combined with arrogance, ego, greed, stubbornness, superstition, and an autocratic style proved a fatal combination.

  Blaming academics or journalists for undermining the legitimacy of TRT is a cop out – TRT left themselves wide open, and their own actions undermined their legitimacy.

  BTW, plenty of academics/journalists called for proper investigations or for Thaksin to resign, but who was calling for a coup?

• 22 Srithanonchai // Jul 21, 2007 at 8:42 pm

  Obviously, Thaksin and TRT opened themselves up for attacks. But arrogance, ego, stubbornness, superstition, autocratic style are hardly reasons to call for a nayok phraratchathan, much less for welcoming a coup and joining its plotters. I mentioned the positions of The Nation and Thirayut. Anyway, I am not very interested in politically or personally motivated myth building, from whichever side. Rather, I prefer critical academic analysis, regarding which a great deal more still needs to be done.

• 23 Thongchai Winichakul // Jul 22, 2007 at 8:01 am

  - As we know, Handley’s book is banned in Thailand. But Handley’s article that has not been written yet cannot be banned. So, he is part of the monarchy panels. He will have a paper, but not about his book or on that panel. Let people talk about his book openly at the conference. He doesn’t have to respond.
  - But is Handley a person non grata? Nobody knows. I am not going to ask him to take a risk finding it out at an airport. His paper will be read by somebody else at the conference. His name and paper title is in the proposal that has been approved.
  - No, Sulak and Thitinan are not on the monarchy panels. Details of the progam (all accepted panels/papers) should be on the Conference web site in Aug, according to the organiser whom I asked. We (including me) will get a better sense of all panels by then.

  If Republican, Somsak and else believe that I am a royalist under cloak or that I support the coup, it is not my problem to explain. Problems are in their own views, politics, and judgments.
  -

• 24 nganadeeleg // Jul 22, 2007 at 10:18 am

  Srithanonchai: Hopefully that critical academic analysis will not overlook the actions of Thaksin & TRT in their own demise.

  When the history is written, I will be interested in how the democratic legitimacy given to Thaksin by the electorate will be reconciled with his kleptocratic tendencies.

• 25 Srithanonchai // Jul 22, 2007 at 2:30 pm

  Thongchai: Your efforts are much appreciated. As for the organizers of the conference, adopting a more transparent approach from the beginning would have been helpful. Only very recently, they announced who is on the committee.

  nganadeeleg: Critical academic analysis will certainly not overlook Thaksin’s deeds, good or bad. It will put them into perspective. Your point of view will enter into the analysis as belonging to one set of elements in the overall complex of communications about Thaksin, the protests, and the coup.

• 26 Republican // Jul 22, 2007 at 5:25 pm

  If you read my posts carefully nowhere did I accuse you of royalism. My “problem”, to use your words, is that for me, your declared anti-royalism today lacks principle and credibility, given your failure to support more strongly the democratically-elected Thai Rak Thai government in the face of the royalist-manipulated anti-Thaksin movement before September 19. Your repeated insistence, expressed in numerous columns and web blogs that the PAD had the right to express their political views in effect played into the hands of the royalists. Of course the PAD had the right to express their political views (even if they were, in fact, part of a larger plot to “topple” Thaksin), but then was not the time for anti-royalist academics to argue for the right to express those views, when it was forbidden (due to lèse majesté) to express one’s views against the royalists. By that time royalist discourse had taken hold of much of the media and the academic commentary. For those academics who choose to be politically active in the media, and who define themselves as anti-royalist, this was the time to stand firmly behind the beleaguered democratically-elected government, because the only way that Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai could have been overthrown, given their large majority in the National Assembly, was through royal intervention of some sort. But you – as well as Nidhi, Kasien, and many others – did not do that, which is why it is hard to take these academics’ democratic pronouncements seriously now. I wonder why you did not put more of your energies, at this particular time of political struggle, into insisting on the right of others to express their criticism of the king’s political interventions. Standing in the middle – declaring one’s opposition to royal intervention while insisting on the right of the PAD to express the views – was, as Somsak points out, disingenuous.

  So either bad judgment, or bad tactics. You would be more credible if you admitted it.

• 27 Grasshopper // Jul 22, 2007 at 9:41 pm

  Republican, don’t you see the response is not about whether or not he is a monarchist, but more to do with the language you’re using which has attempted to pigeon-hole a succession of people. In this, you are just as guilty as the people you are protesting against and you will not win any argument by virtue of being the other side of the polemic. Also, I wonder for my own indulgence, were you educated in America? I do like being vindictive about fascist liberals!

• 28 amberwaves // Jul 23, 2007 at 12:09 am

  So Thongchai failed “to support more strongly the democratically-elected Thai Rak Thai government in the face of the royalist-manipulated anti-Thaksin movement before September 19?”

  Correct. He chose to support constitutional processes instead. That’s known as a principled position.

  Republican’s arguments strongly remind me of the “more radical than thou” brickbats the Maoists used to toss at the Trots and others back in my college days.

  As Republican notes, Thongchai’s positions are publicly available “in numerous columns and web blogs,” so people can judge for themselves.

  Which – I can’t resist taking the cheap shot here – they cannot do for pseudonymous Republican, (or me, for that matter).

• 29 david w // Jul 23, 2007 at 7:07 am

  Amberwaves,

  Your comment about the discrepant public visibility of Thongchai and Republican’s political stances and arguments is not, in my opinion and as I’ve stated previously on this site, a cheap shot. Especially given the personalized rhetoric that Republican likes to employ to bludgeon his opponents into silence (for as Grasshopper points out, it clearly isn’t designed to persuade or conjole). It is certainly not an unfair question, I believe, to ask Republican what exactly he or she was arguing publicly and identifiably in the public realm before the Sept 19 putsch given his or her holier-than-thou moral-cum-political stance. I just wonder how large are the windows in the glass house he or she lives in….

• 30 Thongchai Winichakul // Jul 23, 2007 at 3:16 pm

  I have drafted two page response to Republican, Somsak and the like-minded who have been attacking me and some others for months on Thai webboards. There are two main issues:
  1) There was a difference between A. standing behind democracy and the democratic process, and B. standing behind Thaksin-as-the-only-defense-of-democracy. All the accusations are based on the B. view, therefore seeing everybody else as royalist opportunist, assisting the royalist, anti-democratic, etc. Even the fact that many who are under attacks from the B view were the main critics of the royalists in public, that doesn’t matter.
  2) But the attacks are applicable to some of the 2NOs. The problem is that the “2NOs” category is a misleading, false category that lumps many stances together, from the not-pro-thaksin but anti-royalist, to the Thaksin-haters, the Thaksinophobics, who were not anti-royalist. The “2NOs” is a strawman for the sole purpose of the B view to attack its opponents, but serves no other useful purposes.

  Given the clash in Bangkok a few hours ago, however, I felt it is a bad taste to post two page argument now.

  I hope that by using a real name jumping in the middle of the polarized politics is in itself an invitation to being scrutinized. It won’t get much fame but get bruises and dirty. And lose lots of friends too. It doesn’t need a PhD or a veteran to know this even before the jump. But there are good criticism and bad criticism, based on a variety of criteria. I never and will never call for a censorship of any bad criticism. But it is my choice and my rights to read or not to read, to dismiss those criticsm or to respond. If I choose to ignore it, it is not to avoid being scrutinized. On the contrary, it allows even a bad criticism to survive.

• 31 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 23, 2007 at 4:30 pm

  re Sawarin>Academics have no need to apologise for their consciences (be it Marxist or royalist).

  Marxist or royalist? Are these are the only two ideological choices we have?
  Oh dear, it seems Thomas Paine was right when he wrote: “Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her.”

• 32 Republican // Jul 24, 2007 at 2:26 am

  To Grasshopper (#27): well your post was mostly nonsensical. I wish you people would read more carefully. If you read the last paragraph of Thongchai’s post (#23) you would see that the issue IS about whether or not I had accused Thongchai of being a royalist (or, in your words, a “monarchist”). I denied the accusation, and explained why. And by the way, if you can’t tell the difference between a fascist and a liberal then you ought to go back and take Politics 100 again.

  To amberwaves (#28): not a cheap shot at all. Unlike Republican, Thongchai and numerous other academics do not confine themselves to academic blogs but write for the media, with the obvious intention of influencing political discourse. If one wishes to be politically active (unlike me) then one of course should expect criticism. And the public (at least in a democracy) has the right to expect accountability. But political accountability is a concept that many academics in Thailand appear to be unfamiliar with. They love to pronounce from on high (the philosopher king) but when they are implicated in something unpleasant (eg. a coup) they refuse to accept any responsibility. Instead of calling on God to bless Thongchai you ought to be a little less starry-eyed.

  To David W. (#30): I had to laugh reading your post. Republican “bludgeons his opponents into silence” …. what, on a webblog!!!??? Assuming that I am so terrifying that I intimidate people from tapping on their keyboard and pressing “send” then these people are obviously in the wrong place if they are unwilling to engage in vigorous academic debate. You say I use “personalized rhetoric”. Please tell me one instance where I have attacked the person and not the person’s political or academic stance? This is an academic website! If you prefer something more chummy and congenial then there are plenty of sites for expats to compare their Thailand stories. But if you are here to debate then quit whining about the terrifying Republican and defend your position.

  Your position (with amberwaves) re. the “cheap shot” (…“discrepant public visibility”…) is absurd. As I said before, if you are active in the media then you should expect criticism because your actions will potentially influence the hundreds of thousands of people who read your columns – which is presumably why the politically-minded academics choose to write them. Republican writes occasionally on NM, for whom? … a few dozen academics and people interested in Thai Studies. Whose writings do you think are going to affect more people, and therefore whose writings are more in need of being held accountable? You are implying that because I did not write for the media before September 19 it is hypocritical that I criticize Thongchai now? What kind of ridiculous argument is that?

• 33 david w // Jul 24, 2007 at 4:21 am

  Republican,

  I guess I’ll try to make myself a bit clearer, although I doubt it will change anything. So here goes.

  I actually find your comments and opinions interesting actually, Republican. Useful to think with, even if I don’t always agree with them. You are clearly informed and intelligent, and have a position you vigorously present. It’s your attitude and ‘voice’ that I find annoying, distracting and ultimately detrimental to the substance of your arguments. You come across in your language and rhetoric as holier-than-thou, as far smarter than the rest of us, and as not particularly interested in or impressed by the thoughts of others. I’m not sure I can ever recall you changing your mind on a subject or acknowledging the value of someone else’s comments or perspective (unless it confirms your own ideas or arguments – i.e. your recent comments on Thongchai agreeing with you). You also have never, to my memory, acknowledged that you misunderstood what someone else was claiming or arguing previously, and thus have to adjust your position accordingly. You also never ask anyone for clarification regarding their position or stance; rather, you clarify their position for them, since you obviously understand it all already and don’t need to actually enquire any further. And you enjoy tossing around highly charged and polarizing adjectives and adverbs in your (often rather dubious and debatable) descriptions of others opinons and statement. Which is to say, you pontificate and lecture well, but as far as engaging in a discussion, I’m not so impressed. But then, as I’ve stated, you don’t seem very interested in changing anyone’s mind through persusasion. You debate well, if one restricts the sense of debate to dueling, but not so well if one imagines that means a calm, mutually informative dialogue of contrasting opinions and arguments.

  I find it ironic that you appeal to an academic code of ettiquette, because your language, style, rhetoric and attitude would not – I believe – be particularly welcome in an academic conference, workshop or seminar room. Rather, it represents a style of presentation most academics would prefer to stop engaging with since the interactions are so uproductive. But there is a big difference – obviously – between an academic website of anonymously exchanged comments mediated by technology and an academic conference room of living, co-present people trying to hold a discussion.

  And for the record (and as an example of the above):
  1) I don’t find you terrifying. I find your language and rhetoric annoying and insulting.
  2) I don’t think you intimidate people; I think you alienate them.
  3) I thoroughly enjoy vigorous and opinionated debate. I just don’t see you actually doing that (but again, there are different styles of debate for different environments and venues…)
  4) By “personalized rhetoric” I didn’t mean ad hominen attacks, I meant insulting characterizations (see #6 below). I wasn’t very clear there.
  5) I’m not an expat, I’m an academic (and I obviously think your style of ‘academic’ exchange leaves much to be desired)
  6) I’m not whining, I’m criticizing. Do you often accuse your fellow academic peers of whining to their face? Do you really have so little respect or consideration for them? Again, though, I don’t particularly see your communicative style or rhetoric as academic. They conform rather to the typical bombastic style and rhetoric of opinionated pontificators on weblogs and websites all around the world. I doubt you would use such language in either a live academic forum or in a published journal or essay. At least I presume you wouldn’t.

• 34 amberwaves // Jul 24, 2007 at 7:32 am

  This debate really seems to be at a dead end, with Republican’s comment that “They love to pronounce from on high (the philosopher king) but when they are implicated in something unpleasant (eg. a coup) they refuse to accept any “responsibility.”

  “implcated in the coup?” — You keep coming around to the same black and white paradigm.

  My summary of the situation is this: The PAD folks, in defense of – well, that was never too clear, but let’s say democracy _-insisted it was neceassary to get rid of Thaksin at any cost. (A position not quite shared by all the old comrades, but surprsingly widespread despite some lip service against royal intervention by some.) A surpriisng example of this case was made by Perry Anderson, in a communication I’m sure not a few readers have seen.

  Other folks now say they believe it was necessary _ and more clearly and cogently, for the sake of democarcy _ to defend Thaksin at all costs.

  Thongchai, who made it publicly clear he stood in neither camp, got it in the neck from both sides.

  I’d like to recall part of Republican’s initial comment:

  “But now Thongchai plays the anti-royalist academic fighting for democracy, leading an “overt challenge to the repressive atmosphere”. This is the game one sees so often in Thailand. The academic, displaying a fake earnest sense of moral self-righteousness, playing the role of the intellectual fighter for the just cause, but without any sense of responsibility or accountability.”

  (”Fake earnest sense,” eh? Sweet. Is this a carefully documented analytical judgement?)

  Anyway, you are truly ingenuous, if not downright dishonest, in at least two respects.

  First of all, Thongchai is not “now” playing the anti-royalist academic, as you well know _ and basically admit in later comments _ and as anyone can look up. He has had the same position for years.

  Second – and here your convoluted explanations to the contrary absolutely elude me – he has shown a “sense of responsibility or accountability” by attaching his name to his commentaries and positions. And though he lives and works abroad, he has spent plenty of time in Thailand in the past two years, lest you accuse him of grandtstanding from a safe haven.

  In fact, this thread was about his efforts to get the subject of the monarchy on the Thai studies conference agenda. Should he get any cred for that? If not, why not?

  I think I detect the whiff of an old and personal feud in this whole matter.

  Let’s move on, shall we?.

• 35 Srithanonchai // Jul 24, 2007 at 4:03 pm

  Anyway, who in Thailand cares for these debates? It is a very much isolated exchange of, shall I say, “arguments.” Most Thai people could not care less for the concerns of the “Octobrists.”

• 36 Tosakan // Jul 24, 2007 at 5:31 pm

  I find it amusing that a David W, a farang, is criticizing Republican, a Thai, over his style rather than his substance.

  I think Republican is probably the most articulate writer on this blog. And we need more critics like him or her instead of the let’s hold hands and sing Kumbaya and not hurt anybody’s feelings academics who sold us out. I can’t think of any crime worse than to punish 65 million people for the alleged behavior of one individual. But I guess that Republican’s style is a far bigger offense than the academics who have sold us out in the defense of their feudal privileges and big shot status.

  What the junta did was outrageous and inexcusable, and any academic worthy of the name should be ashamed of backing the coup.

  But I guess coups don’t happen in David W’s country, where his political rights are still intact and he is free to do whatever he wants in whatever style he chooses, which is a privilege and a luxury Thais don’t have because of military dictators and their royalist allies. it must be nice to be in David W’s shoes, where he can criticize the style of people who have been under the feet of the Thai military for the last 75 years.

  Even if Republican is perceived to be “annoying and insulting”, so what? Does that take away from the substance or analysis?

  Personally, I find Republican’s style refreshing, especially with all the mealy mouthed bullshit out there. David W cares that Republican doesn’t speak in Orwellian Academic-Speak. Who gives a shit? I certainly don’t.

  In the final analysis. I don’t know if Republican is being fair to Thongchai or not, because only Thongchai knows what is true in his own heart about his personal political positions, but I think Republican has the right to call Thongchai out if he perceives that Thongchai was being a hypocrite concerning his pre and post-coup positions.

• 37 nganadeeleg // Jul 24, 2007 at 7:11 pm

  a farang, is criticizing Republican, a Thai

  By the way ‘he’ writes about HMK, I’m surprised to be informed that Republican is a Thai – I’d always pictured him as a Paul Handley type (not that I know what Handley actually looks like).

  I’ll now have to adjust my mental picture of him to something like a Jakrapob.
  http://manager.co.th/imageupload/images/550000009551313.JPEG

• 38 Sawarin // Jul 24, 2007 at 7:19 pm

  #32

  FYI, I belong to neither of those traditions. ‘Value pluralism’ is a familiar word amongst the liberals. And thanks for quoting my senior alumnus, though I don’t know what for….

• 39 amberwaves // Jul 24, 2007 at 8:02 pm

  re: #37: Fair enough, except that Republican misrepresents Thongchai’s positions and tries to bluster instead of present a cogent argument.

  I actually think it is not so hard to figure out whether Republican is being fair or not, by going and looking at what Thongchai has written. This has nothing to do with what is or isn’t “true in his own heart.”

  (Tosakan said: In the final analysis. I don’t know if Republican is being fair to Thongchai or not, because only Thongchai knows what is true in his own heart about his personal political positions, but I think Republican has the right to call Thongchai out if he perceives that Thongchai was being a hypocrite concerning his pre and post-coup positions.)

  All that said, it is still edifying to read everyone’s contributions, wherever they stand. except maybe that guy who pops up now and then to take a gratuitous shot at the site’s hosts.

• 40 Grasshopper // Jul 24, 2007 at 8:31 pm

  Republican, a fascist liberal is someone who insists upon the adoption of liberalism. Obviously it is an oxymoron. Why aren’t you out in the jungle leading your guerrilla forces on a siege of Bangkok to impose freedom on the masses? The CIA could sponsor you!

• 41 ESL Teacher // Jul 24, 2007 at 9:22 pm

  Republican a Thai? I wish I could be as articulate as that. I have never met a second language speaker that good. Maybe Thai mother.

• 42 somon // Jul 24, 2007 at 9:57 pm

  ผมเขียนภาษาอังกฤษไม่ได้ แต่อ่าน Grasshopper อดไม่ได้ต้องบอกว่า ตลกดี

• 43 wordwallah // Jul 24, 2007 at 10:09 pm

  #31

  “1) There was a difference between A. standing behind democracy and the democratic process, and B. standing behind Thaksin-as-the-only-defense-of-democracy.”

  The “difference” here is more apparent than real, more rhetorical than actual, and more slippery than many a slope I can think of.

  Because when you consider that Thaksin and the TRT were the only democratically elected government in evidence at the time, “standing behind democracy and the democratic process” would have necessarily involved standing behind that government– not as “the-only-defense-of-democracy”, but rather as the only democratically elected government to defend against military-royalist anti-constitutional interference.

  That, it appears to me, is a real “difference”. And one that genuine democrats could be expected to discern and act on, albeit holding their noses the whole time.

• 44 Grasshopper // Jul 24, 2007 at 10:30 pm

  somon, khor thot, obviously mai wai poot pa sa tai mor som

• 45 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 25, 2007 at 1:39 am

  re Sawarin> From your original comment, it seemed as if you believed Thai academics only belonged to Marxist or royalist camps. If that were true, I used the Paine quote to comment that either of those ideologies are not to friendly to personal liberty.

  Nevertheless, as a liberal of the Lockean, Georgist, and Austrian school traditions (i.e. a Libertarian), I can’t say that I’m too fond of “value pluralism.’ It seems to me that a system of governance that doesn’t protect the basic human rights of its subjects cannot claim a valid mandate to rule that is recognized by its people and the international community at large; as such, free nations are only required to respect the sovereignty of such a nation as suits the free nation’s self-interest.

  However, I will admit value pluralism is valuable in that it makes us question just what those basic human rights are.

• 46 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 25, 2007 at 4:27 am

  As someone who studies cross-cultural pragmatics, I am fascinated by this particular thread of comments. Looking at who takes offense at what is extremely interesting considering the various linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the interlocutors.

  I wonder how Republican’s tone (and people’s response to it) if he or she were writing in Thai? Would it come across just as aggressive as certain people feel it is when Republican writes in English, or would the pragmatics of Thai force Republican to use different rhetorical and pragmatic devices? Would there be a vast difference in how native Thai speakers interpret Republican’s tone as compared to non-native speakers?

  Perhaps what we are seeing here is merely a case of cross-cultural pragmatic failure; that is, since we are all communicating in the medium of English (for the most part), certain pragmatic nuances are misinterpreted due to 1st language interference.

  So many questions, so little time….and even less funding!

• 47 Nicholas Farrelly // Jul 25, 2007 at 8:09 pm

  Re: Numbers 4 and 13:

  For the information of interested New Mandala readers, today I received the following reply from the conference organisers:

  “Dear Mr.Farrelly,

  The conference is open to the public. Anybody who wishes to participate in the conference must register. The preliminary program and registration information will be available on website soon.

  Yours sincerely,
  ICTS10 organizer”

  Best wishes to all.

Leave a Comment