On Wednesday I will be attending the International Conference of Thai Studies being held at Thammasat University in Bangkok. I attend the conference with considerable mixed feelings. Many readers may be aware that in March 2007 New Mandala raised the issue of a boycott of the conference. In that post we reproduced the following statement from a regular New Mandala reader and contributor:
As was recently announced, the up-coming 10th International Thai Studies Conference is to be held at Thammasat University 9-11 January 2008, “to celebrate the auspicious occasion of the 80th birth anniversary of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej in recognition of His Majesty’s great benevolence and life-long work for the well-being of the Thai people”.
This conference raises very important ethical questions for foreign scholars of Thai Studies: should they be supporting a conference held in honour of the King, who has endorsed the overthrow of a democratically elected government and has given his strong support to the royalist-military junta which seized power? Should they attend a conference held at a university whose Rector has accepted a position in a national legislature appointed by the junta?
This conference announcement has been made at a time when large parts of the country are still under martial law; the military has been granted greatly augmented powers of control over the country under the guise of national security; the mass media has been cowed; academic websites have been intimidated; deep concerns are being expressed about the proposed new constitution being drawn up by a constitutional drafting panel appointed by the military junta and headed by a former military intelligence officer; and the regime is heavily promoting the King’s “sufficiency economy” theory – which is protected from any open criticism by the lèse majesté law – as the country’s economic blueprint. At every opportunity the royalist-military regime is using the monarchy to give legitimacy to the destruction of democracy in Thailand.
It is very unlikely that issues relating to the monarchy’s role in the coup and its support for the current regime could be freely discussed at the conference. In fact, scholars who presented papers on such themes could potentially risk being charged with lèse majesté, which carries a maximum imprisonment term of 15 years. Participation in a conference censored of critical references to the monarchy would be a betrayal of the standards of international academic scholarship.
Foreign scholars of Thai Studies should also consider the financial implications of their attendance. ‘Non-Thai’ Thai Studies scholars will, in effect, be subsidizing the royalist-military junta’s propaganda in celebrating the King’s 80th birthday.
It is not hard to imagine the likely coverage of the conference by Thailand’s controlled media: “100s of foreign scholars from the world’s most prestigious universities gather in Thailand to honour the King”. Not only will you be greatly assisting the junta by giving an international academic imprimatur to their propaganda, but you will also be helping it pay the bill.
Thai scholars are not at liberty to protest against the complicity of the monarchy in the undermining of democracy in Thailand because of the lèse majesté law. But this does not apply to foreign scholars.
I urge you to consider carefully your decision whether or not to attend this conference.
At the time I was substantially in agreement with the call for a boycott. But subsequent events have persuaded me to attend. The key events have been the organisation of a series of panels in which the Thai monarchy will be subject to concerted academic scrutiny. As far as I know this public scrutiny is a first for Thailand (if not the world). Given the acceptance of these panels I felt inclined to support both the specific panel organisers and the conference organisers more generally by attending the conference. I will be presenting a paper which critiques the misrepresentation of rural livelihoods in the royal sufficiency economy philosophy.
But my mixed feelings remain. It was hoped by many attending that the conference would take place under a new, democratically elected, government. This has not come to pass, and the current coup by stealth being attempted in Bangkok is an ominous sign for the future of democratic rule.
It is also clear that, the panels on the monarch notwithstanding, that the conference will be used by the formidable royal public relations machine to promote the international academic credentials of the monarchy. This public relations benefit for a monarchy that has been a key supporter of the 2006 coup and remains silent on the current attempt to subvert the electoral process, was highlighted in the original call for a boycott of the conference.
At this stage, I can only hope that panellists at the conference deliver on the free, open and academically critical discussion that has been promised. I have little doubt that there are some nervous panellists who are considering reimposing the long-standing self-censorship on so-called “sensitive” issues that has bedevilled Thai studies. While the recent action taken against the outspoken website Fa Diawkan may have compounded their nervousness it should, in fact, embolden them. As in international scholarly community we should be clearly indicating that we support free academic discussion and that we stand side-by-side with those who attempt to promote open political and social discussion within Thailand.
33 responses so far ↓
1 polo // Jan 8, 2008 at 1:53 am
Why boycott something that will, after the last two years’ events, be a great place to observe behavior and write a thesis on “dancing with eyes averted around the elephant in the room”?
Instead, maybe participants and observers — you too, Somsak — cold go with bright red ribbons on their (black) sleeves printed with “Fah Diawkan” on it.
I would hope, Andrew and Nicolas, that at least a public statement is made in defense of Fah Diawkan. Hell, just to stir things up bit.
2 ChrisIPS // Jan 8, 2008 at 10:32 am
The conference seems interesting and there will be lots of chance to network and exchange ideas informally……….
But it would appear that any scholar or person with serious academic and research interests in Thailand would be taking an almost impossible risk to present non-pc or heretical ideas, thoughts and/or words at the conference which might well lead to them being barred from future visits and research in Thailand, thus jeopardizing their careers and livelihoods………..
So ritual protocol, etiquette and kow-towing will in all probability be the order of the day, leading to a lot of unspoken thoughts and words left stuck inside people’s minds…….
3 nganadeeleg // Jan 8, 2008 at 11:03 am
“This public relations benefit for a monarchy that has been a key supporter of the 2006 coup…..”
A different view:
The country was in crisis, a coup occurred and with stability a high priority, the palace was drawn into the fray and rightly or wrongly (subjective) they decided to endorse the coup as at the time it seemed to them to be the best way to resolve the crisis.
“……and remains silent on the current attempt to subvert the electoral process”
A different view:
The palace does not wish to interfere in politics or the courts.
(Andrew: Are you suggesting they should interfere?)
4 Andrew Walker // Jan 8, 2008 at 11:12 am
To ChrisIPS: personally I think it very unlikely that Thailand would ban international scholars from visiting, teaching or conducting research in Thailand. Some international scholars have given them plenty of reason to do so and they have made no attempt.
5 ChrisIPS // Jan 8, 2008 at 11:23 am
……would Paul Handley be allowed to visit Thailand and freely present a paper at this academic conference? Or another writer/journalist/scholar delving into the same subject area………………an area that would seem to be at the center of many Thai trends that we are presently witnessing…………
6 Andrew Walker // Jan 8, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Handley’s situation is not clear. Here is an extract from New Mandala’s interview with him:
The more commentators who speak out, and publish, on these issues, the more improbable a ban becomes.
7 ChrisIPS // Jan 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm
………the point I am trying to make, Andrew, is that at present there is a 10,000 pound elephant standing in the middle of the room in the Thai studies area, especially in regard to the present political situation and the history of political life in Thailand for the past 50 years.
………it would certainly liven the conference up if Handley (or someone else who has researched and written about the same subject) were to be invited to the conference to present a paper based on parts of his book and to distribute that paper and/or the book at the conference.
…….but would the organizers of the conference actually allow Handley or anyone else devoted to the same subject to be there presenting a paper on that subject and opening up a free and wide-ranging discussion in and around that subject which is so crucial to actually understanding and analyzing what is going on in Thailand at the moment?
…….remember, you will all be wearing the mandatory black clothing, listening to the mandatory ceremonial speeches and you will be in a country which, while permitting total freedom in certain areas, at the same time, shuts down internet sites, blogs and chat rooms that touch on the subject at hand as well as forbidding the sale and distribution of certain books about the subject at hand (as well as other rather harmless books such as Bangkok Inside Out based on the idiosyncratic whims of the Culture Minister!). Not to speak of all those scenes that need to be cut out of movies distributed in theaters and all those youtube.com and other videos that have to be blocked.
……given all that, it is hard to believe that those attending the conference will be formally presenting or discussing a whole lot of material concerning the 10,000 pound elephant.
……and if that subject is off limits, then isn’t there a big hole in the content of the entire conference and doesn’t the whole thing become a sort of intellectual charade?
8 VL // Jan 8, 2008 at 3:56 pm
From Thai Studies Conference Website, http://www.thaiconference.tu.ac.th/index.html
Title: Thailand in Mourning
Dear Participants
Thailand is currently in mourning for Her Royal Highness Princess Galayani
Vadhana (the King’s elder sister) who passed away on Wednesday 2nd January 2008.
The princess at one time was a Thammasat University permanent faculty member.
At the moment, the government has officially called for 15 days of mourning and has
asked the public to wear black during this period.
In this regard, we would like to ask for your understanding. We respectfully request
that all participants wear black or dark clothing for the duration of our conference.
Thank you for your kind co-operation.
Anucha Thirakanont
Director of the Thai Khadi Research Institute
Thammasat University
9 Tosakan // Jan 8, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I just took at look at the program for Thaifest 2008, or the International Conference of Thai Studies.
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.
After reading the program, I know for certain that Thailand has definitely jumped the shark. Well, at least Thai Studies has.
I suggest my fellow NM regulars go take a looksy over at what is being presented in the program–that is, if you can understand what has been written.
Seriously, how can foreign scholars have their ideas butchered like that?
And, if they wrote the synopses themselves, they should be ashamed, because they can’t write worth a damn. Is the program really going to go out like that with countless spelling and grammatical errors? And many of the synopses are incomprehensible. I can’t tell if it is bad writing or incomprehensible post-modern rubbish.
Identity politics reigns supreme. The program is dominated by race, class and gender post-modern bullshit. I think the world of tertiary education would shrivel up and die if the word “discourse” was eliminated from the lexicon.
But hey, guess what, a major conference on Thailand and nothing on the military and the coup, as if the coup didn’t happen at all. Maybe these professors and graduate students have deconstructed the military right out of existence.
No discourse on the multi-million dollar assets of Thai generals.
No discourse on martial law being implemented(in pro-Thaksin areas) during a vote for a constitution and an election for parliament.
No discourse on military generals in charge of major state corporate assets.
No discourse on how the military handpicked the courts and committees to go after their political enemies.
No critical discourse about how General Sonthi, the head of the junta, became the civilian deputy prime minister in charge of the election.
No discourse on military procurement.
No discourse on massive corruption in the bureaucracy.
No discourse on how the Thai media rolled over for the coup.
No discourse on how the top brass, the capitalist billionaires, the bureaucratic elite and the remnants of the ancien regime are never accountable to rule of law for fleecing the state while the poor and powerless rot in jail for petty crimes.
No discourse on the mafia-like police force.
No discourse on how the Thai media and the academy ignore the corrupt power structures at the top so that they can protect their own power and feudal privileges.
No discourse on why the Thai public school system is a national disgrace.
No problem, just have 5 more seminars on queers and katoeys to make up for the lack of discourse on real issues that affect real people.
And the seminars on the monarchy are a joke.
This is my prediction: Handley’s book will be nitpicked for insignificant factual errors in order to discredit the entire thesis. And the monarchy’s role in politics will not be discussed the way it should be discussed.
Everybody will be dressed in black and bow down to the emperor who has no clothes.
And it is shocking that there will be no clear and comprehensible discussion about a post-Bhumibol Thailand. His passing will have enormous repercussions on Thailand, which will impact all Thais in the future. You would think that a Thai Studies conference would have that topic up for discussion. Nope. Ignore the pink elephant standing the middle of the room. That is the responsible thing to do.
I wish I was there, I really do. I would have done a Hunter S Thompson live blogging of the conference.
10 Andrew Walker // Jan 8, 2008 at 8:26 pm
From the Bangkok Post online:
Monarchy debate defies traditional deference
A debate on the hitherto taboo subject of the role of the monarchy in Thailand starts behind closed doors Tuesday at Bangkok’s Thammasat University, at a time of great political uncertainty and an outpouring of national devotion for the revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
The prestigious International Conference on Thai Studies, held every three years, has included several potentially explosive seminars that plainly deal with the role and future of the palace in Thai society – a discussion that normally only takes place privately in Thailand for fear of legal and social sanction.
The boldest – in Thai terms – discussion could take place when a panel of foreign and Thai professors debate the merits of a generally hostile and highly controversial recent biography of King Bhumibol, The King Never Smiles, that is banned in Thailand.
The book views the monarchy as an anachronism. The author, a former correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, trashes the king’s life to the extent of criticising his painting and saxophone playing.
The American author of the book, Paul Handley, who may never again be allowed into Thailand, will nevertheless present a paper about the powerful Privy Council at the conference, read in absentia by the chair.
The role of the Privy Council in Thailand is delicate because its chief, retired general and former prime minister Prem Tinsulanonda, is thought by many Thai analysts to be the main instigator behind a September 2006 coup that ousted controversial prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Another presentation will consider abolishing the century-old lese majeste laws that are used to squash debate about the role of monarchy and have frequently been used as weapons in political squabbles.
These debates will take place over three days during the mourning period of the king’s respected elder sister Princess Galayani, who died last week, reminding the nation that the late princess’s brother is also an increasingly frail 80 years old.
The king is widely seen in Thailand as having played a vital restraining, correcting role for most of the time since his coronation in 1950. His son and heir, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, is said by analysts to have little of his father’s popularity, experience or dedication in the eyes of ordinary Thais.
This extraordinary examination of the role of the monarchy comes after some foreign academics proposed last year a boycott of the conference if its organisers rejected any papers that grappled with Thailand’s contemporary political problems, alluding to a military and older elite contending for power with a ruthless and allegedly corrupt former telecommunications tycoon Thaksin.
This year’s conference is officially themed around transnationalism and the erosion of borders in the modern world. Chris Baker, a Thai-based historian, wrote recently of the conference “One border that may be swept away is the thick black line between what can be said inside the country, and what already is being said outside it.”
The boycott call appears to have fizzled out and popular Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn is scheduled to open the conference. All participants have been requested to wear black in memory of Princess Galayani. dpa
11 Srithanonchai // Jan 8, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Slightly surreal that a Thai newspaper needs to speak through the Deutsche Presse Agentur, but nevertheless…
12 Happy New Year! // Jan 9, 2008 at 2:35 am
An awful lot of those reports you read in the bangkok English rags have the letters DPA underneath. Likewise with the shooting in Pai. The Nation had to use an Andrew Drummond special report to get some balance on the subject. I sort of guess many local reporters were shit-scared of digging too deeply.
13 ChrisIPS // Jan 9, 2008 at 3:38 am
…………well, the Handley paper being presented is certainly an interesting new development as reported in the Bangkok Post today. But will it be presented in a closed session or open session and if it is presented in a so-called closed session, what does that mean in the middle of an academic forum/conference and what kind of example is that for such a conference to set……………to be so fearful of free and open discourse that such discourse needs to take place only behind closed doors……
………..if conference participants dare to openly present and discuss the real subjects that are being left undiscussed or tiptoed around at the moment, then that would certainly spark controversy and create an interesting conference that will be cited for years to come as a turning point in Thai academic and intellectual discourse…..
…..it might also might serve as a stimulus for Thai academics to get off their timid, pedantic and politically correct horses as well as bring a breath of fresh air to the idea that a free and open exchange of views is useful and necessary in order to identify and solve problems in complex, modern societies……
………I include Thailand on the list of complex, modern societies in contrast to some more pessimistic people who assume Thailand is headed backwards towards becoming a kind of large and friendly banana republic destined to be forever ruled by generals and large landowners…………
………but it seems to me that the fear of reprisal will never be far from the hearts and minds the Thai conference participants and also the foreign participants who will be naturally and instinctively worried about who is noting their words and thoughts and what the personal consequences to them might be should their words and thoughts stray into the various danger zones or end up on the wrong Thai websites……………
………..anyone who knows anything about Thailand knows that should such reprisals come, they will be delivered in an unspoken, opaque manner by an invisible hand and there will be no recourse………….
14 Andrew Walker // Jan 9, 2008 at 10:20 am
The Bangkok Post report reference to “behind closed doors” is odd. This is an international academic conference and what is said or presented is in the public domain. As normal, participants are expected to register but that does not make it a closed door event. I am sure there will be plenty of interest in the various papers on the monarchy (including the one by Handley).
15 ChrisIPS // Jan 9, 2008 at 11:13 am
………well, I wish you the best at the conference, Andrew. If you feel full of moxie, you and a few other daring souls could turn it into something full of controversy and interest and perhaps establish a new energy and reach in the ongoing Thai discussion………..
…..and, by the way, even if you don’t manage to create any sparks at the conference, in a way, New Mandala is a pretty good conference on Thai Affairs and always very informative for those of us with an ongoing interest in the Thai peoples and their extremely unique, complex and interesting country and culture……..
16 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jan 11, 2008 at 8:06 am
Well, from looking at the program, it seems that while people may be tip-toeing around the 10,000 pound elephant, they aren’t ignoring the 5,000 pound gorilla in the room, i.e. Islam and the Southern insurgency. In particular, Hishasi Ogawa
’s paper concerning the “Re-Islamisation” of villagers in Trang…a very interesting choice of words, if you ask me. Also, I am eager to read Laura Godtfredsen’s thoughts on COIN strategy.
It’s nice to see that some scholars are taking a look at the possible relationship between mainstream Arab-locus Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir and ta’wil) and the ideology driving the events in the South, and are not just dragging out the old tired neo-Marxist “ethno/socio-economic struggle” rhetoric.
Long may study of the Southern conflict continue without interference from MESA and its ilk!
17 Frank Lee // Jan 11, 2008 at 11:53 pm
First, I think the opinion of Craig J. Reynolds re King Bhumipol bear repeating: i.e. the king has held the country together time after time during periods of crisis – or words to that effect.
Second, from the considerable drop in scope and intensity of his public addresses in general over the past 12 months, it seems quite apparent that the king’s physical/intellectual powers are seriously on the wane.
Third, as he has made no undue effort to conceal his steady decline, the people seem reasonably well prepared as possible psychologically for his eventual demise – of which, the recent death of his sister has been an indelible reminder.
Fourth, the quietitude inculcated by Thai buddhism will, as always, have a strong calming effect once this dedicated servant of the public is laid to rest: As they say, ‘life goes on’.
Fifth, I would guess therefore that the initial shock of his passing (and it will be a shock to nearly all we locals) will be felt for about a week, official rites not withstanding, because most of us cannot financially afford to indulge in prolonged grieving .
Sixth, the country would seem to be well prepared for the event politically as any successor would be very unlikely to have morethan a small aprt of the barramee/standing that the present monarch has built up.
Finally, I am struck by the dissonance between the views contributed by many of the ‘unsympathetic to the king’ ilk and my own which have been gathered in academia in Australia as well as living exclusively with Thai communities here in Bangkok for almost half of the last three decades and having worked for several top Thai organizations here. It seems that some contributors are overenamored with the revisionist deconstruction/destruction of over-intellectualizing frenchmen such as Lacan and Derrida – of whom Voltaire would perhaps have said, “It’s a pity that the gentlemen didn’t take the time to write shorter books”.
Frank Lee / Bangkok.
18 Srithanonchai // Jan 12, 2008 at 10:34 pm
FL: “Sixth, the country would seem to be well prepared for the event politically as any successor would be very unlikely to have more than a small part of the baramee/standing that the present monarch has built up.” >> Normally, this is seen as a problematic point, both in political terms and as far as the role of the monarchy is concerned. This latter issue concers both the crown prince and his eventual successor.
19 Teth // Jan 13, 2008 at 2:46 am
May I ask what the definition of “holding the country together” means? Have there not been rebel armies and Malay insurgents? Because in my view, with or without the King, the country would be held together. Secondly, the King’s method of problem solving has thus far involved sweeping the problem under the carpet. How has education (which everyone also factors in as a “problem” with Thai democracy) improved? How has the civil service improved? How has public accountability improved? How has the military improved? The answer to all of these is: not very adequately. And what improvement there has been has mostly been confined to Thailand’s fantastic economic growth in the late 80s and 90s.
Is this quietitude the same quietitude we can see via the amulet trade, fortune telling monks, and royal Brahmin rituals?
I sincerely doubt the Thai people’s preparedness for his death mainly because there is so much propaganda surrounding the King. To put it bluntly, the propaganda machine will label his death as “the most tragic event in the history of Thailand.” After all, how else will you mourn someone who’s life has always been portrayed with over the top propaganda? Why, they’ll do it over the top, of course. I’m rather confident that such a big opportunity will not be passed off by the propaganda machine and we will probably we in for a year-long memorial (as we have been in year-long celebrations), the erection of a hundred statues, the renaming of a few provinces, and the creation of a thousand museums and institutes. Oh wait, I think some of that has already happened.
Once again I dispute your assertion that the country is well prepared, but I agree that we all anticipate political chaos in the short term. Hopefully, that political chaos will result in a democratic, equitable, republican government being established, if someone can stop the royal propaganda machine and the royalists, of course. I see no more legitimate reason (ie popular “love” of the current monarch) to continue such a feudal, hereditary system. It should be a good symbolic moment for Thailand that we will abolish the old to embrace republican values of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
That is the problem, sir. Living in Thailand, working with Thai people, you tend to absorb what they think and what they believe. If your only valid criticism of us UTKI (unsympathetic to the King ilk) is of our “revisionist deconstruction” and “over-intellectualizing” ideas, that tells me you have been thoroughly brainwashed. For your information, this last paragraph makes you sound as if your integration into Thai society is now complete: you find it unacceptable (”struck”, in fact) that anyone would disagree with your stance on the King and that those who have หลงผิด are laughably over-intellectualizing or “revisionist deconstructionist”.
Of course, I may be wrong, but I am willing to personally convince you of why I believe my stance is not over-intellectualizing or deconstructionist. It is merely simple history that is taught and studied the world over (except in N. Korea perhaps).
20 Teth // Jan 13, 2008 at 2:48 am
Note about my first paragraph: I do not mean to suggest that all responsibility for the country’s development should be shoved upon the King’s shoulders. But to credit him for “holding the country together” or any other thing, one needs to also put those “milestones” into perspective (ie. as constitutional monarch, has he been impartial?, has he been democratic?, has he been too involved?, has he taken responsibility for his mistakes?).
21 Frank Lee // Jan 13, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Unlike any of it’s neighbours, I have always found myself able to express my views as forthrightly ion public among Thais in Bangkok as I have in Australia. Compare this to Georgetown in our politically ’stable’ wealthy neighbour Malaysia, where the populace consider public talk concerning politics to be too dangerous. So, having dashed off an opening salvo in this forum last Friday, I took the opportunity to get my usual trim and ‘barber shop review’ re the state of the nation here in Minburi. I have found it to be an invaluable way of double checking the validity of my own opinions. The denoument came in the form of the manager ( a Thai-Chinese former Thaksin supporter) pointing with pride to the King’s picture hanging over her desk.
So, to the task at hand i.e. responding to my critic(s).
First, I would note that Teth assumes the position of academics in seeking to define/redefine terms. So One may well assume that Teth is a professional academic striving to preserve or improve his/her standing against ‘amateur’ interlopers. I would therefore refer Teth to Craig Reynolds himself on this point.
Second, the King does not have the power to make governmental reforms, but he has consistently and doggedly used precious political capital to provide Thais with pointed criticism of Thaksin’s ways and means as well as seeking to shame Thaksin into understanding that if “the king can do wrong” then so can Thaksin. Unfortunately, Thaksin is not the messiah, he’s just a very naughty boy with too much dodgy money and a dodgy education and the philistine attitude that comes to politicians of that type. To quote losely from the king’s birthday address of 3-4 years ago) “Mr. Thaksin, your ears don’t hear too good, your eyes don’t see too well, and you are always drawn humourously by one local cartoonist with a satellite spinning around his head.” Inshort the king has tried to educate all Thais including Thaksin about Thaksin’s shortcomings for Thaksin’s own good. Unfortunately, precisely because the king is NOT a ‘god king’ he hasn’t the luxury of being self-critical very often in public.
Third, all I will say further is that the effect of the king’s passing is unlikely to draw comparison to that of the King of Rock and Roll, Elvis Presley, which one wag summed up in three words:
“Smart career move”.
Fourth, as far as I know, I was the first farang to seriously attend the anti-thaksin rallies at Lumpini Park, and ‘quietitude’ didn’t stop numbers at subsequent protests swelling to the hundreds of thousands – including dozens of farang like me. This and The protagonist’s intransigence ultimately presented the king with what muct have been a galling dilema: risk a replay of the ‘92 massacre with the government using Border Patrol killers to clear the streets or give the green light for a pre-emptive coup.
Fifth: as the incorrigible critic Bernard Trink would say, any further comment would be superflous.
Sixth, Sir you assume too much. I have spent ONLY HALF my time here in Bangkok and I did not have my contracts extended at NIDA, KPI or PGC/TDO precisely because I refuse to adopt the sort of self-serving/ self-delusional uncritical “brainwashed” careerist attitude so commonly encountered here – as I believe my suit against King Prajadhipok’s (sic) Institute and Sec. Gen. Noranit Sethabutr (Central Administrative Court – Case # 889/47) and my regular writings in the local english language press adequately attest to.
Finally, as to my criticism of ‘over-intellectualizing’. This was largely in response to the kind of attitude perhaps most famously expressed in the book title, “The King Never Smiles”. Actually, if you take the time to study him, he smiles and jokes regularly and often (for a king), if not all the time. Is that wrong/ Is this Hollywood? To my mind he clearly stands with the enlightened/reformist minded of Thailand’s contending elites as well as those of the middle class and the poor- in ideas and morals, if not in political allegiance.
Seems to me, some people can’t see the forest for the trees: the king is far better understood by your average than than your average foreign academic, but you’d have to establish trust at places like barbershops and soi cafe’s and with your neighbours to really understand that. Otherwise, it’s all too easy to make offhand allegations of brainwashing and excuses like “Thailand defies rational analysis”.
Frank Lee/ Bangkok
22 Frank Lee // Jan 13, 2008 at 2:18 pm
PS: By the way, as an educator having worked extensively in both govt. and private sector schools here as well as working as holsing posts as a researcher, administrator and editor, I understand well the schooling of students to be good, obedient, little Thais rather than to be mature adults capable of developing their own opinions. Thus, for most Thai’s, their real education starts only AFTER they leave the formal education sector and enter the university of life – where experience is the best teacher. In my own case, while I managed to give the defendant Noranit, his lawyer Bowornsak, and the Court itself all a black eye, I the plaintiff i.e. the injured party consequently had his career prospects destroyed both in Thailand and Australia by the influence of the governmental elites in those countries and ultimately had my day in Court only for it to apply a clear double standard by ’shifting the goal posts’ . But you wouldn’t know that because of the defacto gov’t media ban on reporting the case due to it’s political nature i.e. the jusiciary playing politics by using my case as a pretext to go on a fishing expedition at a royally-named, government-funded “political think-tank” and political training centre.
23 Teth // Jan 14, 2008 at 3:24 am
Oh how I laugh, Frank (ironic how they call Thaksin that now). You should realize that I am a firmly middle class barbershop Thai you talk about. How it must feel good to be one of ‘us’, eh, Frank!
So I see that you have based on argument on witty one liners and amateur observations rather than giving me the privilege of discussing evidence, historical or anecdotal.
So shall I relate my own on the field observations with you (and engage at your level–since it is the barbershop level which you so seem to embrace and love and use to denigrate other viewpoints). I know a couple of students (now many years my senior) who were protesting the return of FM Thanom back in 1976. They certain don’t point to the picture on the wall with praise. In fact they refuse to wear yellow shirts for fear of it tainting them! Why, it was because they saw this figure visit Thanom on his return, they heard no condemnation against the former dictator, instead, they only received the barbarous treatment of Village Scouts, Border Patrol Police, and other rightist yobs. Any word of protest from the Palace? Any condemnation or justice? But that’s not the least of it. When they had to flee into the jungles, they realized who was behind it all: who gave patronage to the Border Patrol Police, who gave patronage to the Village Scouts.
Maybe you should change your barbershop, Frank. All your court cases and all your years in Bangkok nor all your letters to the Bangkok Post or your presence in Suan Lum means that you are enlightened in the least.
If anything, I was also there at Suan Lum listening to Sonthi: good assumptions you make, Frank. So much for your bottomless pool of expertise and so much for criticizing my assumptions.
Oh, and do actually read the book, I’m sure you know know the phrase about books and their covers (in this case, titles).
ปล. คุณว่าแค่คุณไปสุงสิงอยู่กับคนไทยธรรมดาคุณจะกลายเป็นผู้รอบรู้ไปทุกเรื่องงั้นหรือ? คุณด่า “นักวิชาการ” โดยที่ไม่หันมาดูเหตุผลของเขาก่อน พูดง่ายๆ คือคุณเห็นอะไรไม่ตรงกับที่คุณคิดคุณก็จะหาเรื่องดิสเครดิตแล้วใช่มั้ย? ผมไม่เคยบอกเลยว่าการที่ผมเป็นคนไทยมันทำให้ผมรู้จักเมืองไทยมากกว่าฝรั่งหรือคนอื่นๆ บนเว็บไซท์นี้ ในทางกลับกัน ผมอ่านเว็บนี้เพื่อหาความรู้ใหม่เพิ่มเติมจากทุกๆ คนไม่ว่าเขาจะเป็นใครมาจากไหน แต่ผมช่างน้ำหนักคำพูดของคนตามเหตุ ผล หลักฐาน และ ข้อมูลที่เขาสามารถนำเสนอได้ และเพื่อสนธนาถกข้อคิดกับคนอื่นๆ ที่นี้
24 Frodo // Jan 14, 2008 at 11:51 am
“…the opinion of Craig J. Reynolds re King Bhumipol bear repeating: i.e. the king has held the country together time after time during periods of crisis – or words to that effect…”
I would think this is very unlikely – it sounds more like the opinion of Bhumipol himself. Can anyone who attended confirm whether this is actually true?
25 Bangkok Pundit // Jan 16, 2008 at 2:26 am
LSS and anyone else: If you are aware of an electronic copy of those papers on the South please post a link to them.
26 Sawarin // Jan 16, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Genuine questions:
1. How many people attended this conference? Can anyone estimate the ‘total number’ of participants throughout the entire programme for me?
2. Did any Thai paper report on it?
Cheers.
27 Frank Lee // Jan 19, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Frodo, by the phrase “held this country together’, I assume Reynolds means that there would have been greater bloodshed and violence without such interventions at critical moments – but go ask Craig or read him yourself. Of course, foreign observers and perhaps Thais nursing a grudge may safely consider the end as justifying the means. Unfortunately, there are always alternative ends, but the powers that be rarely want you to think about that because that makes it so much harder to manipulate public opinion.
PS: As the debate has turned spitefully emotional, any further response to Teth would be pointless until he gets over his temper tantrum.
28 Teth // Jan 20, 2008 at 12:35 am
Convenient isn’t it to simply refuse to reply.
An eye for an eye, Frank. I was only applying the same standards that you applied to me. Maybe convincing you isn’t worth the trouble after all, because you’ll simply refuse to see it and just ignore the truth. The truly mature and wise would have replied without further provocation, but you’re not the type, even though you would love to see yourself as one of those wise, all knowing “old hands.”
Once again, get off your high horse because the fall will certainly hurt.
29 Land of Snarls // Jan 23, 2008 at 12:05 am
Frankly, Frank Lee – I don’t know the details about your case, but I’m interested. Is there somewhere I can read about it?
30 fall // Jan 24, 2008 at 5:10 pm
A little off topic, but I found this interview article (Thai).
Very good to read whole.
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/10967
31 Srithanonchai // Jan 25, 2008 at 8:54 pm
fall: Thanks for the link. Worachet probably is the sharpest mind in the area of public and constitutional law in Thailand right now. Much different from of his legal-political Srithanchai colleagues at Thammasat, such as Somkhit or Suraphol. Hope, Worachet will stay this way…
32 Frank Lee // Jan 27, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Reply to Land of Snarls:
No. There is nowhere I know of where you can read about my case because there was a de facto media ban by the government on reporting about it. Hence, local fat cats such as Shawn Crispin followed the likes of Matichon in closing their eyes about a clear and important instance of the Thai judiciary being caught playing politics by invoking the same regulation to both accept my complaint AND reject my case i.e. it suited them to go fishing, not to land any fish. If you contact the Central Administrative Court for details on Case# 889/47 you will either get stonewalled or just the bare bones i.e. no meat. However, I have an email address at one_tuf_hombre@yahoo.com.au so i may be able to provide some case notes.
BTW: As I come from the same town as Downer and Hicks, the Howard government went along for the ride too(Downer was in a very shaky electoral seat) , so my career in Australia is screwed too because my colleagues at Flinders University were coerced into not replying to any of my dozens of letters/emails, so no referalls or references for jobs in Oz either.
As Orwell said: “If the party could reach back into the past, and say of this or that event, ‘It never happened’, how much more terrifying was that than mere death or torture.”
33 Frank Lee // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Of course, you could always try the Central Administrative Court, Case # 889/47. But if they couldn’t/wouldn’t provide me the plaintiff with some details (e.g. the full defence argument by Bowornsak) then I don’t know how much help it will be.
BTW most Thai friends I have suggested this to have shuddered at the thought of doing this as if (for them, at least) it would be committing career suicide).
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.