New Mandala

60 responses so far ↓

• 1 Sidh S. // Jul 2, 2008 at 7:59 pm

  And I support your commendable ideals Ajarn Ji. It is certainly a worthwhile goal/future for Thai society/democracy.

  However, the realities in parliament and in the streets are very far from those ideals – and capitalist gangsters deserve right-wing, ultra-assertive ‘mobs’ (in the Thai sense). It is our working system of ‘checks-and-balances’ unfortunately while your (and in many cases my) left-leaning language is foriegn to the Thai masses… How much media coverage did your 2007 raid of the parliament achieved compared to the prominence of PAD’s raid?

  I argue that the case of Khao Pra Vihear (and I intentionally mix Thai-Khmer English transliterations) is far more complex than the selective historical “facts” you stated. There is also the critical colonial overtone and the issue of ‘mapping/maps’ – and also the obvious natural topography (which is a huge barrier to access from Cambodia). For me, an ideal solution here is a joint application between the two countries for World Heritage listing. However, it is another ideal and the two countries (or at least their politicians) are not that mature as yet (but will be, with time – it is the issue of patience here).

  And this case illustrates my ‘Thai checks-and-balances’ perfectly. The PPP government clearly bungled the KPV case. It was handled opaquely and with suspicion without the broader participation as I understand is required by Thai law (?) in a case like this. The PAD on the street and Democrats in parliament naturally reacted to this government mishandling and made the most of what it’s worth… I know that if it is up to AjarnJi, he’ll just hand the temple to Cambodia as it “belongs to them” – but I don’t think it is up to him, PMSamak, FMNopodol, or PMThaksin/PMHunsen, for that matter, to make that decision… There are many more stakeholders here on both sides of the border. In the ideal future, with less patriotic insecurities, the temple just might belong to ‘us…

• 2 ThaiCrisis // Jul 2, 2008 at 9:23 pm

  I think this text is brillant. I’m not usually a big fan of Giles… I’m honest I don’t like labels “intellectuals” and “socialists” they’ve done enough damages in the world…

  But he’s very talented the summarize the -totally blocked- situation and to give a real name to “objects” : infantil chauvinism, gangsters, crypto-fascists etc.

  However… I think he makes some mistakes… Particularily regarding the causes, the deep causes : he speaks about “lack of independence among Peoples’ Organisations, N.G.O. networks and Social Movements. ”

  And he doesn’t explain why : “Repeated demonstrations, a coup, a court inspired dissolution of Thai Rak Thai and a military Constitution, all failed to dent the electorate’s support for the (PPP).”

  People are voting, indeed, and with enthousiasm, for “gangsters and sleazy politicians”“.

  Strange…

  Giles is like a few other thais… when they manage to see through the “curtain”… they fail to go one step further. It’s the missing step, the most important.

  I mean to call for the creation of a large “left party” in Thailand is a joke… in the current (60 years) political system, with a very strong monarchy… that mold the whole political game and more importantly, the minds and eventually the people themselves.

  Left (with a “gilian” meaning) and such active monarchy (I’m not satisfied with this expression) are just 2 concepts that can’t coexist together !

  In a way, Giles is a dreamer.

  But any sane people would have to agree with his motto : “ building an independent class position… which rejects the P.A.D. and the government.”

  Good luck…

• 3 Elli Woollard // Jul 2, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  Are ‘nation, religion and king’ really ‘ultra right-wing slogans’, or is the problem more that they have been appropriated by the right-wing, thus giving right-wingers a tool with which to villify anyone who doesn’t agree with their political beliefs. I cannot see anything right-wing per se in loving one’s nation, religion or even king (although I suspect a Marxist might disagree at least on the last one) – the problem surely lies in right-wingers labelling anyone to their left as unpatriotic, secular and anti-monarchist, and thus dangerous for the cohesion of Thai society. I would argue that it is the duty of those on the left to show that one can love one’s nation without, for instance, making ridiculous claims over Preah Vihear, to love one’s religion while accepting people of other or no faith, and to love one’s King while continuing to ensure the rule of law and democracy.
  But otherwise a very refreshing article. Thank goodness someone in Thailand is talking a bit of sense.

• 4 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 3, 2008 at 1:19 am

  Yet the P.A.D. demands were thoroughly reactionary. We could not join them, yet we were far too small to influence the thousands that did.

  Ji still refuses to accept his share of responsibility for his wrong-headed ’song mai aw’ stance before the coup. In fact, look at the record of his group (or, for that matter, virtually ALL those ‘on the left’ of Thai political activism during the pre-coup crises: If the PAD was thoroughly reactionary (indeed it was), what was Ji doing then? The record would show that he still concentrated his fire on Thaksin! In fact, even after the coup, while claiming that he ‘opposed the coup’, Ji still shouted ‘Thaksin Out’. Now wasn’t this ‘inconsistent/incoherent? If you really opposed the coup, should you not have demanded Thaksin’s re-instalement, since what the coup had done, and what you should mean when you said you opposed it, was this very fact of the topple of Thaksin by the coup? Instead what Ji’s stance amounted to was acceptance of this central act of the coup.

  Ji claims heritage of Leninism and the October Revolution, but has learned nothing from the history of the Bolsheviks’ highly flexible tactics. E.g. their position when face with the choice between Karensky and Kornilov. cf. Trotsky’s telling, in My Life of Aurora sailors visiting him in jail during the Kornilov coup to ask whether they should finish off both Kerensky and Kornilov at the same time (or even Kerensky first). And remember how strong the Bolsheviks were at that time, compare to Ji’s group!

  One of the ‘thoroughly reactionary’ traits of the PAD since before the coup, was its refusal to accept that Thaksin had won the elections. And this is the very thing that Ji shared with the PAD. Ji’s (and virtually all the Thai ‘left’s) stubborn refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Thaksin’s popular support through successive general elections victory played right into the hands of the PAD and all the reactionary forces behind it.

• 5 SomsakJeamteerasakul // Jul 3, 2008 at 2:55 am

  Let me re-iterate once again why the ’song mai aw’ stance was utterly mistaken before the coup with example from one crucial, turning point in the pre-coup crises.

  Ji and other claimed (or thought) that they were opposed to bothThaksin and the PAD (and those behind it).

  But when the King launched the so-called ‘Judiciary Revolution’ with his speech of 25 April 2006, where was Ji? In fact where were all the ’song mai aw’ activists?

  Nowhere! They were all in complete silence!

  I am not saying that they could have done something. Even myself was too scared to say anything at the time (or now).

  On the other hand, when it came to matters relating to Thaksin, was Ji holding anything back?

  Even disregarding the fact that, during the crises, Ji and all the other Thai activists undeniably focused their fire on Thaksin anyway, the episode shows beyond doubt why the ’song mai aw’ were only effective when contributing to the anti-Thaksin wave led by the PAD and its backers but ‘powerless’ when they were ‘opposing’ the latter.

  As I repeatedly said during the crises, the “fundamental political mathematics” was that: given the still very strong electoral support for Thaksin and the TRT, the only way to bring them down, was to “activate” (to bring to the fore) all those reactionary, extra-parliamentary forces. Or to put the matter even more bruntly, the only way to overthrow Thaksin at the time was the use of Royal Power. And this was exactly what happened in 2006 (the coup, especially). All those ’song mai aw’ activists including Ji helped pave the way for this.

• 6 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 3, 2008 at 7:12 am

  I wonder when Comrade Ji will finally collect all of his writings and publish them in a handy, red-cover-bound book. I look forward to the day when I can rise twice a day, at 8:00 am and 6:00 pm, with my copy of 黄主席语录 ( Ungpakorn zhuxi yulu, if I’m not mistaken) and shout “The sunlight of Ji Ungpakorn Thought illuminates the road of the Thai People’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution!”

  Criticize the reactionary thought of Qiu Daxin and John Maynard Keynes, firmly walk with the workers and peasants on the road of unity!

  Hold high the great red banner of Ji Ungpakorn Thought; thoroughly smash the reactionary line of Lin Mingda and Lu Jinhe!

• 7 Thomas Hoy // Jul 3, 2008 at 7:29 am

  As I see it, there have been three distinct matters on which Thaksin and the so-called nominee administration have been opposed.

  Two are matters of principle and the other is not.

  Thaksin’s administration clearly presided over numerous human rights abuses – Tak bai, kru sae and the war on drugs. For these crimes, they should be held accountable. These should be matters that should be – but no doubt won’t – be dealt with by the courts. Maybe at some future date. This should be the most important point of criticism – lots of people were killed.

  Second, is the matter of corruption. Also a subject for the courts. they don’t seem to be doing too much which may mean there is a more fundamental problem than Thaksin.

  But the PAD has not concentrated on clear issues such as this. They have focused on vague issues of economic mismanagement and economic envy – villagers getting bribed with mobile phones and motorbikes – petrol prices, nationalistic diversions such as Preah Vihar, all of which are matters for the electorate to pass judgement on. Yes, even the uneducated, stupid ones who don’t have bachelor’s degrees.

  Somsak points to strategic mistakes in Gi Ungpakhorn’s approach to things. Maybe he did make such mistakes. But of all the commentators I have read, he is one of the very few who has been able to separate the matters of defining principle from the incidental politics of the situations and he deserves congratulations for this. He has a set of priorities.

• 8 nganadeeleg // Jul 3, 2008 at 9:54 am

  No need to worry, it’s in the stars that everything is gonna be alright after July 2, so from today things get better.

  Hopefully, for Thailand’s sake, song mai ow will be the ‘winning’ position.

• 9 SomsakJeamteerasakul // Jul 3, 2008 at 10:47 am

  Thaksin’s administration clearly presided over numerous human rights abuses – Tak bai, kru sae and the war on drugs. For these crimes, they should be held accountable. These should be matters that should be – but no doubt won’t – be dealt with by the courts. Maybe at some future date. This should be the most important point of criticism – lots of people were killed.

  The number of Iraqi killed because of the Bush-Blare’s policy far exceeded anything said above. Is anybody in the two administrations prosecuted for ‘human rights violations’?

  I an NOT saying that the above incidents under Thaksin’s admin and the Iraq war were good things. They are not. But unless we see ourselves as God whose opinions always amount to TRUTH no matter what, we must accept that :

  1. many instances we see as ‘human rights violations’, many people – often more numerous than us – see as justified or justifiable.

  2. if we accept that government should come from open elections, there will always be governments whose public policy we dislike or see as violating human rights or some other sins, but still many, many more people see as good governments. (cf. Thaksin’s ‘war on drug’ which was very popular).

  3. if we disagree with such governments, we can of course campaign to win over the mind of voters so they will get rid of them in the next elections.

  Now, the campaign to oust Thaksin in 2006 was completely different from this. It was, from the beginning, the campaign to ‘activate’ (or to create the situations which activated) all the extra-parliamentary forces to overthrow Thaksin by non-electoral means (since everybody knew Thaksin still commanded popular support in general elections).

  Ji’s decision to join such campaign was not only a mistake strategically, it’s also an arrogant disregard for the clear support of the real people (not the imaginary one he often invokes) for Thaksin – the arrogance he shared with all the aristocratic supporters of the PAD.

• 10 Sidh S. // Jul 3, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  Is Ajarn Somsak VS Ajarn Ji superheavyweight bout an example of infighting amongst lefties? Hence right-wingers always hold the title?(As in anywhere else e.g. Bush’s USA, those on the left are just too complex to put out an easy coherent position for the voting masses)

  “The number of Iraqi killed because of the Bush-Blare’s policy far exceeded anything said above. Is anybody in the two administrations prosecuted for ‘human rights violations’?”

  I am utterly shocked and taken aback by this statement coming from Ajarn Somsak… Ajarn Somsak, who I understand wants justice for 1976, seemingly endorsing human rights violations as a means that justifies specific ends… If AjarnSomsak wants to take a relativist position (which I admittedly fall into occasionally myself), millions (both combatants and mainly civilians) have died in Southeast Asia during the war on Communism in the 1960s-1970s. I hope I have not misunderstood AjarnSomsak’s statements….

• 11 hello // Jul 3, 2008 at 4:10 pm

  So he has weaknesses. Such a huge deal! He probably is never going to be PM anyway.

  It is perhaps worth noting that there is an absolute political vacuum between Ji and the current worm burden of parasites who monopolize Thai politics. It is not much of a local trait to spend years trying to forge an alternative political force with carefully thought-out policies. Folks are into short-term political fixes. No one wants to back a short-term loser. Just short-term winners that usually drop dead just over the finish line.Thaksin’s policies were something akin to Cargo Cult. The sky will open up and shower you all with goodies, just so long as you remember the TRT/PPP mumbo-jumbo. Nothing new there! The local monarchy and monarchists have been selling us all that hocus-pocus for decades.

  Rich people are good at making themselves rich. They are overqualified to represent the real needs of the rest of us. The same probably goes for Ji too, for that matter.

  I would like to suggest that some of the “I told you so” brand of professional political pundits ( that this site seems to attract in droves) would be far better investing in some REAL political alternatives rather than always trying to back a short-term winner. Or perhaps, even better still, sit down, shut up and let ordinary locals figure it out for themselves. And no quick fix. That’s actually what is so wrong with Thaksinism. it is yet another over-privileged person’s attempt to subvert people’s desires and needs for personal enrichment.

• 12 nganadeeleg // Jul 3, 2008 at 7:45 pm

  Somsak J said:“if we disagree with such governments, we can of course campaign to win over the mind of voters so they will get rid of them in the next elections”

  A few questions for you:

  - Did (do) you disagree with such governments?

  - If the answer to the first question was YES, then what have you done to ‘win over the mind’ of the voters to get rid of them?

  - If the answer to the first question was NO, then why do you find such violations as acceptable?

• 13 Chris Fry // Jul 3, 2008 at 11:00 pm

  Samuel Schwartz’s comment on Ji’s need to issue a little red book is misplaced.If there is a concern about out of control personality cults and associated half baked philosophy in Thailand, it has nothing to do with Acharn Ji.

• 14 fall // Jul 4, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  That is why the P.A.D. have now suggested that parliamentary elections be scrapped for 70% of M.P.s.
  A key stone to PAD’s state of mind that few media and academic are willing to attack.

  I wonder when Comrade Ji will finally collect all of his writings and publish them in a handy, red-cover-bound book…
  This is Thailand, so the book gotta be yellow-cover-bound and have some word concerning “Sufficiency (etc)” on cover. (remind me of earlier Rule of Lord blog’s picture).
  Also, it will be band, again, and gotta be sale underground, again.

• 15 Taxi Driver // Jul 4, 2008 at 9:15 pm

  re Somsak’s #9:

  “But unless we see ourselves as God whose opinions always amount to TRUTH no matter what, we must accept that :

  1. many instances we see as �human rights violations�, many people – often more numerous than us – see as justified or justifiable.”

  If we are to accept this in relation to Tak Bai and other Thaksin-era atrocities, then what about October 6?

  The double standard is astounding.

• 16 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 5, 2008 at 10:31 am

  re Somsak’s #9:

  “But unless we see ourselves as God whose opinions always amount to TRUTH no matter what, we must accept that :

  1. many instances we see as �human rights violations�, many people – often more numerous than us – see as justified or justifiable.”

  If we are to accept this in relation to Tak Bai and other Thaksin-era atrocities, then what about October 6?

  The double standard is astounding.

  This is a true story.

  When I wrote those lines, I kinda thought “was anyone will be stupid enough to ‘turn’ them against me, citing the 6 Tula events”?

  What am I discussing in those lines? And this is in fact the core of my political intervention during these current crises, which center fundamentally around the issue of Royal Power and the electoral politics.

  Since when those behind 6 Tula stand for general elections? In fact, since when had they been subjected to the kind of open politics the politicians are oblighed to do? Since when had you been able to hurl all kind of criticism, not to say abuse, including criticism like “[e.g. Thaksin] had blood on his hands in Tak bai, etc”? [Plese substitute Thaksin's name with YOU KNOW WHO and Tak bai with 6 Tula]

  In fact, since when had they NOT been the subject of 24-7 state-propaganda of worship, eulogy?

  Pleas, Mr. (pretended, pretentiuos) Taxi Driver, could you please ask them, or, better still, campaign to have them, subjected to those kind of open electoral politics as above?

  After that, suppose they commit PUBLIC POLICY [i.e. policy that had to be openly discussed, criticized in media, in general elections, etc.] that would result in lost of life, etc. say, “6 Tula”, then if they sitll won elections, I would have said, “too bad people wouldn’t take those bad policy that resulted in blood-letting seriously, etc.

  In fact, this imaginary scenario is very improbably, and this again goes to the heart of my arguments: What, do yo think, was 6 Tula anyway? Was it the same kind of incidents resulting from public policy, like the so-called ‘war on drug’ or ‘war on terrerism’? How could it happen in such that way and not in other any other incident with lost of life, like eg. Tak bai? Wasn’t it because of aledged insults to NON-elective institution that was elevated to sacred status? Can you imagine any elective politicians beign so elevated? Can you imagine anyone would commit the kind of 6 Tula massacre if efugy of Thaksin was being hanged from a tree?

  The stupidity is astounding.

• 17 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 5, 2008 at 10:51 am

  Those who are stupid enough to compare Tak bai with 6 Tula never really study history and “6 Tula” is just a kind of slogan to be used whenever there are many lost of lives involving the “state”.

  (Ji is a perfect example: he’s fond of lumping together “6 Tula” and other incidents including Tak Bai as “State Crime”. In fact as I asked many times – to both Ji and Thongchai who is in fact the first to use the slogan “6 Tula is a State Crime” – that: if it was a state crime, how would we regard people like Seni or Surin Matsadit? They had many failing as politicians, but can they be regarded as ‘criminal’ in 6 Tula? But they were Minister and Prime Minister, position which would be normally considered important part of ‘State’. Should they be said to be the number one resposible for the massacre then?

• 18 nganadeeleg // Jul 5, 2008 at 8:21 pm

  Tak Bai cannot be compared to 6 October because at least 78 people died in the Tak Bai incident, but I have it on good authority (from the current PM no less), that only 1 person died in the 6 October incident.

  But of course, we should not forget that I also have it on good authority the 78 at Tak Bai died because they were fasting.

• 19 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 6, 2008 at 3:32 am

  Re: #18

  The real difference is that whereas you can debate, criticise, condemn, etc. elected politicians about Tak bai (as the above) , and feel self-righteous about it (and often bragged about it), on 6 Tula you pretend to be dump and blind and actually urge people to prostrate and worship in front of merderer and don’t feel any shame about it.

• 20 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 6, 2008 at 3:37 am

  Oh! by the way, after condeming them etc. you can vote politicians you thought responsible for incidents like Tak bai out of office too (and urge people to de the same).

  Of course, on 6 Tula you must continue to act (as #18 above) like slave, a mute one.

• 21 fed-up observer // Jul 6, 2008 at 4:39 am

  1. For Somsak, the “state” = the government.
  But the Thai “state” is much more than the government. In 1976, an elected government was probably not even the most powerful element of the Thai state. Somsak should know this better than other people. State’s crime = the crime committed by those elements of the Thai “state” that are often more powerful than a government. In 1976, it included the military and the monarchy.
  Or Somsak still thinks we can understand the Thai state as the government only without taking the … as part of the “state”.

  2. Somsak seems to argue that an elected government can be judged only by an election. To him, a public policy is exempt from legal accountability.
  Have Australian govts, the White House, and British govts ever faced legal actions for their alleged legal violations or they are held accountable only by elections?
  A policy and political decision must be held accountable by an election.
  But legal violation, esp. the criminal ones, must be dealt with by the court. (Not by public opinion or street demonstration or by a coup either.)
  Very often, when the line between thew two is not clear, the first step is to sort out by judicial and/or parliamentary mechanism. Whatever results that we may or may not like, such as Bush so far got away from so many legal charges, this means an elected govt, even in the presidential system, can and must face legal accountability.
  Of course this becomes the approach of the royalist reactionaries in Thailand to derail democracy, i.e. Tulakarnphiwat. But to fight the royalists, we do not need to go so far as Somsak’s view. We must expose and fight the Tulakarnphiwat because it is the abuses of judicial authority. But we need not go as far as to say that a govt is free from legal accountability.

  3. The fact that people do not hold the monarchy accountable by the same standard as they do to politicians means biases and blindedness are still strong. To deal with this bias and blindedness, should we give an elected govt a free ride and exempt from legal accountability and from criticism unless the monarchy is equally criticised?
  Often times, Somsak argues that if we cannot criticise the monarchy the same words we do to politicians, we should not attack the elected ones. This is a good warning to all. But it is often taken literally, as he often does in criticism of other people. It is not clear why the actions to politicans and to the monarchy have to be the same, by the same words. Can we criticise or question the monarchy in ways that we do not do to politicians? Many people have done so — more than Somsak knows.

  4. He often judges people by what they did not do, such as did not say or write about the king’s interventions, about the court, and so on. For Somsak, not doing x = “fail to do x because of their wrong political views.” The fact is simple: “not doing = did not do, for various reasons” (including too busy with works to engage a webboard argument). People should be judged primarily by what they said and did. We should not assume that other people “fail to do” too easily, esp. about their political views because they did not express otherwise. It becomes a judgment on the basis of “guilty until proven otherwise”. The fact is also that many people under his criticism did many things against the royalist coup more than he knows, but they didn’t do it in the media or the webboards Somsak read or and did not notify Somsak for what they did (why do they have to?). Once he doesn’t know, it means those actions did not exist and those people “failed to do” because of their incorrect political views. Even if they did not say or write anything at all, how/why should we jump to a conclusion about their political views for what they did not do. It is true that sometimes silence is an expression. But we should not abuse this notion to discredit other people too easily. The burden of prove that they “fail to do something because of their political views” should be high and should be on Somsak. He never shows one. For him, as long as those people do not prove their innocent, he considers them guilty as he assumes.

• 22 nganadeeleg // Jul 6, 2008 at 5:47 am

  In case Somsak & others are wondering what’s the point of my posts #12 and #18 above: – It is not to back one side over the other, but actually to show that the ’song mai ow’ position can be seen as acceptable to some, because the alternative of backing one side over the other is just too unpalatable.

  I also have another question (which will probably go unanswered like all the others), but here goes:

  Regarding the ‘Judiciary Revolution’ the King launched with his speech of 25 April 2006, what exactly do you see is so wrong with the speech?

  I have not seen a full transcript of the speech, but I understand it was in response to calls for him to royally appoint a PM – didn’t he say that would would be undemocratic and instead he called on the judiciary to solve the mess?
  (was it one speech, or am I confusing 2 separate speeches?)

  As for thinking the ’song mai ow’ people only really criticize one side, I think you have not read enough of Giles’ work.

  btw, criticizing Giles for not criticizing the King is not really criticism IMO.

• 23 nganadeeleg // Jul 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm

  feel self-righteous about it (and often bragged about it), on 6 Tula you pretend to be dump and blind and actually urge people to prostrate and worship in front of merderer and don’t feel any shame about it.

  Presumably you are talking about Samak, not moi?

• 24 Taxi Driver // Jul 6, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  This is also true, really. I’ve just collected on my bet that my #15 will elicit a verbal vomit from Somsak. The recipe is simple: just mention 6 Tula but do so without condemning YOU KNOW WHO, then sit back and watch the cat go nuts. meoooowwww!!!

  As I have said before, you need to audit your thinking. You objectivity is lost due to your high emotional conviction to 6 Tula. You also alienate potential collaborators and unwittingly serve a useful purpose to the other side. Its not very smart.

  After trying to decipher your #16 (you sometimes do tend to ramble incoherently like your beloved YOU KNOW WHO), I still see no defense that refutes the double standard you ARE accused of.

  Fed-up-observer has already done a good job on this point. But I’ll simply repeat that Somsak is effectively saying we have to accept human rights violations because “many people, often more numerous than us – see as as justified…”

  No, Somsak…whether it be Tak Bai or 6 Tula, they are NEVER acceptable.

  Try saying what you say to a Tak Bai mother. See if she thinks its acceptable.

  p.s. No, my charming Somsak, I am not a real taxi driver (I declared that before in another thread). My moniker was first used in a long-ago thread to respond to someone accusing taxi drivers of being stupid. Deja vu.

• 25 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 7, 2008 at 12:14 am

  I’ve just got home from a day-long seminar, on 6 Tula and the arts (there’s going to be exibition by 4 artists on 6 Tula next month, prompted, perhaps more than any other cause, Samak’s remark on the number of dead.) I haven’t had time to read all the above. So let me just make a few quick responses.

  Begining with the silliest one.

  The pretended ‘grass root- lower class’ person, otherwise known as “Taxi Driver”

  This is also true, really. I’ve just collected on my bet that my #15 will elicit a verbal vomit from Somsak. The recipe is simple: just mention 6 Tula but do so without condemning YOU KNOW WHO, then sit back and watch the cat go nuts. meoooowwww!!!

  Actually I feel vindicated that you really are stupid. After all these years and at this level of discussion, to “mention 6 Tula but do so without condemning YOU KNOW WHO” and you think this should not be a cause for outrage? Only a person of shamelessness and stupidity could think of this as something to apologise for or “audit thinking”. I really have nothing to add to such person. Such person will be, in all likelyhood, unable to distinquish between grass and rice anyway. So a rational argument or moral outrage is beyond reach for him. (Btw. does anyone notice that the key point that I said previously about the similarity/differnce between such incidents as Tak bai and 6 Tula goes unanswered by this person. The only thing he cable of is to put something I DIDN’T SAY at all in my mouth: Please just cite dierectly where I said “we have to accept human rights violations because “many people, often more numerous than us – see as as justified…” Well, if you cannot argue the point without lying what I said, perhaps you should stop writing lies?

  When does “to accept outcome of general elections, i.e., democratic decision arrived at by majority of people who don’t share your view”, become “to accept incidents like Tak bai”? Umm.. perhaps, when one couldn’t distinquish between grass and rice? (Lucky for me, I still can so distinquish!)

  Also anyone who can only shouts slogan like “we don’t accept either 6 Tula or Tak bai”, but could not make a historical analysis of the differentia specifica of each, perhaps should stay on grass?

  To “Fed Up”:

  I really don’t understand why you feel you have to write under names other than your real one, since I know, and I presume many here know, who you are.

  Anyway, you write such a long comment and I’m too tired to response to all the points at the moment. So let me just pick one at ramdom. This is the one you’ve made many, many times already:
  (I’ll break up your passage here and put (a) and (b) to them for convenience of my response, even though they are closely realted.)

  (a)The fact is also that many people under his criticism did many things against the royalist coup more than he knows, but they didn’t do it in the media or the webboards Somsak read or and did not notify Somsak for what they did (why do they have to?). Once he doesn’t know, it means those actions did not exist and those people “failed to do” because of their incorrect political views.

  (b)Even if they did not say or write anything at all, how/why should we jump to a conclusion about their political views for what they did not do. It is true that sometimes silence is an expression. But we should not abuse this notion to discredit other people too easily.

  Perhaps it is I who should be ‘fed up’ with this repeated ‘argument’

  (a) PLEAE, FOR ONCE, give example of people who “did many things against the royalist coup” that I didn’t know and criticize unfairly. Please.

  (b) I never, as far as I can remember, criticize/discredit people simply they didn’t say or write anything about the royalist coup. I’m surprised that with your ability, you should still make such silly retort. I said a number of times, but even if I didn’t say it you should well know, that my close family, relatives, virtually all of my departmental colleagues didn’t say anything about the coup. Did I ever criticise them? But, yes, I criticize (or “discredit” in your words) people who didn’t say anything about the royalist coup if they

  (1) over the years often came out to criticise elective government/ politicians in harshest possible terms and a lot of time basing their criticism on royalist politics Rangsan Thanaphornphan comes to mind with his “นักการเมืองอัปรีย์” and “ฉันทามติกรุงเทพ”

  (2) more importantly I criticise (”discridit”) people who just few months ago were so eager to topple Thaksin, with big claims like ‘democracy’, etc.

  I make no apology in either case. In fact it is you, in my view, who still have a case to answer : why are you so keen to provide a defence for these people, quite often “better-looking” defence than they could themselve offer!? (The latest one being a defence of Nakkharin to the effect that he was constrained by the LM law he produced such garbage as his book on the monarchy. If he really felt so constrained, with his status and ability, couldn’t he said so himself? Is there anywhere that he ever express his opinion that LM should be abolished? (or even reform?)

  To be continued…

• 26 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 7, 2008 at 12:28 am

  P.S. I couldn’t resist a few words on this:

  Try saying what you say to a Tak Bai mother. See if she thinks its acceptable.

  Where did you learn reasoning and arguing politics? From FOX News? Such cliche!

  More seriously, as I said above and you’re unable to reply:

  Just ask, or better still, campaign, for the people behind 6 Tula to be subjected to the same kind of rules, practices, elective politicians have to (and without state propaganda of their supposed greatness, etc.). Then if they can win general elections, I’ll be the first to say “too bad…” (and continue campaign for their removal in next general elections).

  btw. a ‘related’ case, I met wife of Somchai Nilaphijit not long ago in a seminar and had arguments with her, not different in substance, but certainly less cliche, than your ’suggestion’ above, that her problems with Thaksin cannont justify her support of royalist coup to topple Thaksin. etc.

• 27 karmablues // Jul 7, 2008 at 4:51 am

  re #9

  many instances we see as ‘human rights violations’, many people – often more numerous than us – see as justified or justifiable.

  May I ask how the government’s actions in the Tak Bai incident is seen by the “more numerous” people as justified?
  Thaksin and Samak have already justified it by saying that it was the protesters’ own fault for having fasted.
  I guess another justification could be that these protesters were just a bunch of Muslim villagers and therefore don’t deserve proper and humane treatment by the authorities. Even if 78 die as a result of such treatment, it is justified.
  Care to share with us any other justifications for human rights violations against the minority which the “more numerous” people may have?

  And you also suggest that the Tak Bai victims and their surviving families and friends only deserve to have their ordeal remedied by the polls? And if the people/criminals who are responsible for the atrocities get acquitted by the “more numerous” voters, then that should be the end of the story? This is what you call justice?

  The fact that Thaksin and Co. have not been made accountable for Tak Bai, Kru Sae, war on drugs, and have gotten away with corruption, abuse of power, tax evasion, etc is overwhelming evidence of a democracy that wasn’t functioning. But that isn’t surprising given that government’s dedication to dismantling of checks and balances within the system. It is therefore not surprising either that many people supported the coup as it seemed to be the only way of bringing these criminals to justice.

• 28 Sidh S. // Jul 7, 2008 at 4:07 pm

  AjarnSomsak, 6 Tula 1976 is historically enmeshed in the United State’s global “containment” policy against Communism and the Thai State is formally backed by US intelligence (of whatever quality) and military aid in this war (as was the then South Vietnam government, Suharto etc.). As we know, millions have perished in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia etc. (I don’t know how many died in Thailand but as you compared Takbai etc. with Iraq, it probably pales in comparison to the broader war). In fact, monarchies (tied to their respective ’state’) in Laos and Cambodia were dismantled as a result of this war. The Thai State (tied in with her own the monarchy) survived this war – clearly to your disappointment (and many others who devised the “Domino Theory” – but one only to delve into South East Asia’s colonial history, and the effects of “divide-and-rule” policy, to understand why).

  Hence, my position that 1973, 1976, 1992, War on Drugs, Kruesue, Takbai, Sabah-Yoi are all state abuses, albeit under different and specific historical, political contexts . They are all injustices and it is hoped they are all redressed in some way in the present-future.

  I understand that 6 Tula holds a very special place for you tied closely with your republican objectives for Thailand. From those analytical frames, everyone elses’ views is obviously “stupid”. Admittedly my views are framed by my own un-networked critical monarchist mindset.

• 29 Sidh S. // Jul 7, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  “We must expose and fight the Tulakarnphiwat because it is the abuses of judicial authority. But we need not go as far as to say that a govt is free from legal accountability.”

  fed-up observer, if PMSamak (a right-wing royalist) laments against Tulakarnphiwat, it could be a good thing.

  “Samak frets about judicial meddling” in:
  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/07/07/politics/politics_30077436.php

  ‘สมัคร’อ้างนักวิชาการ เป็นห่วง อํานาจฝ่ายตุลาการ in:
  http://www.thairath.co.th/offline.php?section=hotnews&content=96111

  I say let Tulakarnphiwat run its full course. From the current low base, minimal accountability and rule of law, it may not be the right time to fight it yet. Keep tabs on it, yes. If it becomes blatantly abusive and corrupt (e.g. when the bribes are raised from 2 million to billions), a PAD-style civic ultra-assertiveness must be on the cards.

• 30 Taxi Driver // Jul 7, 2008 at 11:35 pm

  Actually I prefer the image of Robert DeNiro’s Travis Bickle (”you looking at me?”) than a ‘grassroot – lower class’ person.

  I’ve never planted rice, but does mun sumparang qualify me as a prole?

  But while we’re on the subject of taxi drivers, and a more serious note, I’ve always believed Nuamthong Praiwan deserves to be remembered forever for what he did (the initial ’stupid’ act that got him noticed, that is).

  Now back to the catnip.

  Fox news cliche or not (I don’t know because I’ve watched so very little Fox News but enough to know to never watch it again), my point still stands.

  So stupid Tak Bai mother has to campaign for people to vote for, ummm, the Democrats? Does she have to travel from her home to Isan and the North to do this too? I guess in your world, she just HAS to accept that since the majority think its no big deal, all she can do is campaign to change people’s vote at the next elections…She should not expect equal access to justice under the law.

  So, if Les Majeste was abolished, all YOU would do is to educate the stupid ignorant masses (and I reckon you really do think of them as so) of 6 Tula and other abuses and then call for a referendum on the King? You would not try to seek justice through the justice system? I guess not, from your logic.

• 31 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 8, 2008 at 11:34 am

  re: Chris Fry, et al.

  My given name is “Lleij,” and, for the future, I kindly ask you to use it (or Mr. Schwartz if you’re more comfortable with that) when addressing me. Thank you.

  Secondly, as for Tak Bai vs. Oct 6th, 1976, while I find Prof. Somsak Jeamteerasakul’s tone to be distasteful, I share his concern against the trend for moral equivalency that is quite common in Thai political discource. (Thaksin = Hitler, anyone?)

  I think that we can all agree with Sidh that the events at Thammasat, Tak Bai, Kru Sae, ect. were abuses of state power; the question is to what degree? To borrow terminology from common law (yes, I know Thailand follows civil law), we must determine the mens rea of each event before we can declare them equivalent. From what I know of each event, I would classify Thammasat (6/Oct/76) as first degree murder, i.e. the premeditated and malicious killing of human beings. Tak Bai, on the other hand, I would classify as negligent manslaughter, that is, there was no intent to kill but death occured from extreme negligence and/or recklessness.

  Krue Sae, in case anyone was wondering, would be the totally justified, albeit unpopular, killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as recognized by all conventions of international law.

  So the question remains, what degree of murder justifies the military overthrow of a civil government?

• 32 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 8, 2008 at 4:54 pm

  (Sorry, no time for long response. got to go, having class in a minute.)

  I guess in your world, she just HAS to accept that since the majority think its no big deal, all she can do is campaign to change people’s vote at the next elections…She should not expect equal access to justice under the law.

  WHERE did I say that?

  Again, should not lie when you can’t find evidence.

  The Tak bai incident is being considered in court. WHERE did I write that i am against that case in court?

  And..

  Did I not write “PUBLIC POLICY”?

  The issues of War on Drug and War on Terrerism are issues of public policy that have, ultimately, to be decided in elections.

  So, if Les Majeste was abolished, all YOU would do is to educate the stupid ignorant masses (and I reckon you really do think of them as so) of 6 Tula and other abuses and then call for a referendum on the King? You would not try to seek justice through the justice system? I guess not, from your logic.

  This just shows how stupid or innept you are.

  Because the opposite of what you think is a critique-sarcasm of my view here would be that:

  The kind of change effecting form of state, i.e. the removal of a King (especially in the context of the history of a country like, say Thailand, imagine how BIG the change) – - can or should be decided through court?

  Are you crazy?

  Referendum (a form of popular vote as in general elections), it requires! Exactly.

  The fact that Thaksin and Co. have not been made accountable for Tak Bai, Kru Sae, war on drugs, and have gotten away with corruption, abuse of power, tax evasion, etc is overwhelming evidence of a democracy that wasn’t functioning.

  So the fact that since Johnson, Nixon ,etc no president was ever brought to justice for the Vietnam war, and numerous wars after, is “overwhelming evidence of a democracy that wasn’t functioning”?

  PERHAPS, it is. (This is not ironic statement.)

  But then you have to show WHERE and IN WHAT WAY that it’s functioning, since by this criteria there seems to be no “functioning democracy” anywhere in the world. (This is exactly the position of the PAD)

  Or, you could say that, as in cases all over world democracy, you try again to “seek justice” of your view (and ALL the incidents you cite are your view that is NOT share by a great number of people), ultimately through democratic process of general elections (e.g. elect new parliament/government that would enact new laws, new rules, new practices that would have satisfied your view of how conducts of leaders should be dealt with.)

• 33 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 8, 2008 at 6:14 pm

  the stupid ignorant masses (and I reckon you really do think of them as so

  Did I not write that we should accept THEIR decision, democratically arrived at through elections?

  If I did write that, how could you “reckon” I think them “stupid ignorant”?

  But it’s the pretentious middle-class people like you who, I certainly insist, are stupid ignorant.

  Even straight logical reasoning like this case you cannot make. So pathetic!

• 34 Taxi Driver // Jul 9, 2008 at 3:18 am

  No matter how often you call your antagonists stupid, it does not make your arguments any smarter.

  You still stubbornly refuse to admit what you proposed in #9 and subsequent posts.

  Let me cite another example (very hypothetical, but serves to illustrate the point) that might bring home what Somsak is really proposing.

  Say Party Z campaigned in an election (NOT a referendum) on a policy to exterminate all persons born on Saturdays, and distribute their estate/belongings to the rest of the population.

  If Party Z was elected (and they well might since 6 out of every 7 person might be incentivized enough to vote for it) and carried out its PUBLIC POLICY, all Somsak would say is “too bad”.

  And it seems that it wouldn’t matter to Somsak whether Party Z carried out its policy pre- or post changing the law to legalize its action, because legitimacy had already been gained from the majority via the ballot box. The question of legality (let alone morality) of the action does not appear to come into it at all.

  —

  Re removal of King: you miss my point, showing your lack of lucidity. The King may be inviolate but there is no rule in the constitution that says the incumbent can only be removed from the role of monarch via a plebiscite (in fact I believe the constitution is complete silent on this). Nepal’s Dipendra conveniently died so we did not get to see an example of how the Nepalese would have worked it out, but likely the legislative branch would have to do it. I’m amazed you’d go the referendum route, risking the vote going the other way, when other avenues (which I loosely called judicial) were available.

  —-

  Re Nixon/Vietnam & Bush/Iraq = democracy malfunction. There is a key difference between Tak Bai and these examples. Vietnamese and Iraqis are not American citizens protected under the American ‘democratic’ system, therefore the fact that they were/are bombed & killed by the Americans says nothing about how well or badly the America ‘democracy’ is functioning. The American system is not there to protect the interests of non-Americans. But the American system IS there for Americans (as the Thai system should be there for Thais). If Nixon or Bush were found to have been personally responsible for >70 African Americans dying from suffocating in the back of a national guard truck somewhere in the US Deep South, sure as hell they’ll be prosecuted. And if Thaksin was found personally to be responsible for Tak Bai or War on Drugs (which I doubt he was), he should be prosecuted as well. And the same applies to the King, or the Privy Councilor, the General, and even the mun samparang farmer.

• 35 Thomas Hoy // Jul 9, 2008 at 3:30 am

  Somsak says that “The issues of War on Drug and War on Terrerism are issues of public policy that have, ultimately, to be decided in elections.” This is true to the extent that both “wars” are conducted in accordance with the law. In an earlier post, I mentioned the War on Drugs framing it , as it is commonly understood, as a series of unsolved and essentially uninvestigated crimes. I also mentioned Tak Bai, a part of the war on terrorism which was equally criminal. (And despite Somsak’s assertion in a later post I don’t see a genuine investigation happening – has anybody been charged for anything let alone convicted? I’d be pleased if he could enlighten me. It happened quite a while ago now.) As many other posters are asking, I would also ask: “If a criminal act (regardless of the perceived morality of its intended outcomes) wins popular approval, does it become less criminal?”

  Neither should it be said that criminal acts are perpetrated all the time and in many places so why should they be prosecuted here when they’re not prosecuted elsewhere. These acts are criminal acts under the laws of Thailand. It is bad that bad things are done in other parts of the world but generally irrelevant to this discussion.These are good laws and Thailand has many good laws. They should be used.

  Can people vote to legalize crimes? Yes, if a political party or candidate stands up for office and says that certain categories of murder will retrospectively become allowable if I win office. I don’t think anyone has explicitly proposed this.

  If there was a law that said anyone who is merely suspected of drug taking or drug trafficking can legitimately be executed without trial by the forces of the state, I could accept the logic. If there was a law that stated that disarmed and arrested protesters – no matter what their previous behaviour is supposed to have been – can be stacked in trucks in such a way that death or cripplement is inevitable, I could accept that logic.

  Maybe such a law would be popular. I went to the protest against Tak Bai in Bangkok. A couple of hundred people in a city of how many millions.

  But there is no such law that I am aware of. These actions are lawless but are increasingly seen as normalized and OK because people have accepted them. “We’re cleaning up the house, getting rid of the cockroaches”, as a couple of Bangkok Thais explained the war on drugs to me when it was in full swing. When humans are casually redefined as cockroaches we know what follows. Pesticide.

  The actions that defined the war on drugs and those that continue to define the war on terrorism (see the shocking report in another blog where reportedly a young man was left for dead with his eyes put out) are so similar to those of the war on Communism where in the South of Thailand people were reportedly (I don’t have the references for either of these events at the moment but they’re not hard to find) boiled in oil drums or thrown out of planes. I guess that’s OK because the fall of the Berlin Wall has proved that communism was unpopular and never worked.

  None of this means that the Thaksin Government did not have political legitimacy. Immediately after the coup, these issues were raised as part of the barrage and just as quickly dropped in favour of economic mismanagement issues which are legitimate political and electoral issues not coup-making issues. If the economy’s not working the way you want, vote for X or Y or Z. But when murder is committed, find those who are guilty and punish them.

  Obviously, this is not easy and I’m not somebody who is called on to do the finding or the punishment but the issue seems clear to me.

• 36 karmablues // Jul 9, 2008 at 5:00 am

  Re: Somask

  Since you seem to be in love with USA so much, let me share with you US democratic principles:

  From American Declaration of Independence:

  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

  Thomas Jefferson put forth the fundamental principle that governments in a democracy do not grant the fundamental freedoms; governments are created and are under a duty to protect those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his or her existence (and not by virtue of constitutions or laws).

  Therefore, violations of these fundamental rights are always wrong and can never be justified.

  All of this also means, if you don’t believe in the theory of inalienable human rights (i.e. you still think that the question of human rights is one of opinion or “view” or something to be decided by elections) then you cannot be said to believe in democracy

  As for the proposition that public policies (which are decisions made by human beings which have real effects on other human beings and therefore I would argue are inherently also questions of moral) should always ultimately be judged/decided by elections, I am surprised that you seem to put faith on there being a benevolent electorate who would as a matter of course always vote for the public good rather than self interest

  Again to satisfy your love for USA, let me quote from another founding father, James Madison who recognised that voters may lack virtue and wisdom and so he did not place all his trust on them:

  “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

  “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people [voters] is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

  Now with voters which you naturally can’t always trust to make the right decisions, and with the “auxiliary precautions” (i.e. checks and balances) which the government had dedicated to subvert and eliminate, what happened? The fundamental rights of the citizens were being violated by the government with impunity.

  James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would call Thailand’s democracy dsyfunctional.

• 37 Frank G Anderson // Jul 9, 2008 at 11:00 am

  Thailand has never had a democracy, nor should it. A republic might better satisfy its needs.
  ‘Consent of the governed’ indeed… how about ‘informed concent?’

  Here in the LOS, everyone wants to be top dog, or the leader, or ‘the man.’ Few will knowingly submerse themselves into a real democratic working group to achieve a solid political platform and then build on it for the benefit of the country. Lots of lip service, but little service.

• 38 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 9, 2008 at 1:10 pm

  What’s wrong with this kind of argument? and why I regard it as irrelevant to my argument?

  “If a criminal act (regardless of the perceived morality of its intended outcomes) wins popular approval, does it become less criminal?”

  WHO ARE YOU to insist that certain actions – or, as I’d prefer, Public Policy – is “criminal act”?

  Your premise assumes that you’re GOD that every one MUST consider that action “criminal” as you do.

  Since I won’t be crazy enough to accept your premise, the rest is irrelevant.

  The so-called War on Drug is very popular. I never say it’s right or good. But if you consider it “criminal”, by all means campaign for changes e.g. (as I suggest above) elect new parliament, new gov that would enact new policy, new regulations, etc.

  (p.s. this applied to #36 too: who are you to consider what action / policy constitutes “oppression..etc.” as mentioned in the founding fathers’ documents?

  Say Party Z campaigned in an election (NOT a referendum) on a policy to exterminate all persons born on Saturdays, and distribute their estate/belongings to the rest of the population.

  This again shows, well, your stupidity. Do any elections law, not to speak of the Constitution, allow such silly scenario (”eliminate all persons…)? Did I EVER say or imply that “elections” of any kind whatsoever? North Korea has elections too, so does Cuba and all former Communist states. Was there anywhere in my discussion that implies I includes all these?

  About the US and all those war. Again this shows how, well, thoughtless you are. The American State is party to all the International Laws and Conventions that prevent such things as the conduct of the Vietnam War and many of the subsequences ones (this is my opinion of course that these wars constitute violation).

  So it’s not simply the protection of domestic nationals that presidents, etc. are subjected to by law. You Silly!

  (Actually, even US domestic law, as I undertand it, there are provisions that could be interpreted as criminal the conducts of those wars.)

• 39 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jul 9, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  Re removal of King: you miss my point, showing your lack of lucidity. The King may be inviolate but there is no rule in the constitution that says the incumbent can only be removed from the role of monarch via a plebiscite (in fact I believe the constitution is complete silent on this). … I’m amazed you’d go the referendum route, risking the vote going the other way, when other avenues (which I loosely called judicial) were available.

  Since this is pure imaginary scenario from the begining, the issue of whether there’s any provision in the constitution is irrevant.

  But yes, a change of this magnitude definitely would require a great consensus of the poplution which can in no way obtained except through popular referendum (a kind of elctions). So the fact that you can even think that such scenario could be used against my arguments in favor of elections show how, pardon my repeat, thoughtLESS you are.

• 40 Srithanonchai // Jul 11, 2008 at 8:03 pm

  #31 “Tak Bai, on the other hand, I would classify as negligent manslaughter, that is, there was no intent to kill but death occured from extreme negligence and/or recklessness.” > This is quite right, I think. It was not an outcome of public policy (the “iron fist” Thaksin is often said to have had re measures in the South).

  “Krue Sae, in case anyone was wondering, would be the totally justified, albeit unpopular, killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as recognized by all conventions of international law.” > This seems to be well below your usual level of reflexion.

• 41 Frank G Anderson // Jul 11, 2008 at 8:44 pm

  11 July 2008
  A bit lost in all of this back and forth jibberish on what constitutes criminal actions and who has a right or not to call an act criminal. Anyone who thinks that TakBai was negligent manslaughter will probably also rush to justify the 6 October 1976 massacre, the earlier one on 14 October 1973, and the later in May 1992. And there have been others.
  Takbai was an intentional misteatment of prisoners and protesters that resulted in the deaths of many dozens. Par for the course in the Thai justice system, by the way. This idea of things being criminal – Thailand is certainly criminally negligent for many hundreds of lives lost in the tsunami, but what does Thailand do about it? It refuses to issue a report or accept responsibility.
  Watching Takbai videos and video of the 6 October 1976 bloodbath, one need not play guessing games about what Thai society in general feels about what is criminal and what is not. The general approach is that if it shuts people up, restores so-called order and can silence dissent, then it’s not criminal, or if it is criminal, we don’t need to pursue charges.
  In terms of general issues, including lese majeste by the way, Thai society as a whole is criminally negligent. And the sad aspect of this is that the negligence is not an ordinary kind of negligence, but one inculcated and enforced by what Thak Chaloemtiarana has called, in his book, despotic paternalism.
  Throwing immature comments at others about their playing God is tantamount to putting your head back under the sand and ignoring reality for another century or two while more and more bodies pile up.

• 42 Frank G Anderson // Jul 11, 2008 at 8:48 pm

  11 July 2008
  To underscore some of the so-called elite’s approach to the human misery equation, let me paste here a translation I did of Seri Pramoj’s interview a couple of years after 6 October 1976 regarding the amnesty given to those killed and those who killed. I was disappointed in his handling of important issues like accountability and punishment, but again, that’s too often the Thai way – forget everything until next time.

  Question: There are people who have suggested this amnesty was an acquittal.
  M.R. Pramoj: That they’ve said ‘acquittal’ are people who don’t know what they are talking about. An ‘acquittal’ means that a court has acquitted. How can the government order the courts, when the power of the judiciary is one of the three highest [in the land].

  Question: Is it true or not that if the court has decided fault, that an amnesty can be given?
  M.R. Pramoj: It’s not true. That is a pardon. The court has ruled [defendant] at fault and His Majesty has pardoned them. But in this amnesty there was no penalty…well it was cleansing the blemish just as if no wrongdoing was committed. It’s much different. As to other methods, if we were to have the prosecutor dismiss charges, after they are withdrawn they could be refiled. There is no protection from being imprisoned again. If the court were instructed to dismiss the case, it would mean that administrative power overlaps that of the bench. So there was only amnesty left which can be deemed to be a decisive weapon.

  Question: Some people say that this amnesty this time is a bid for popularity by the prime minister.
  M.R. Pramoj: If it were, I would support it, I agree. Why seek revenge? I have said that there were a lot of worn-out charges inserted, [they are] communists, sloppy [charges]. I only issued one charge – lese majeste, which I had suspected would be contrived.

  Question: An amnesty – does it mean that there would be no counter-charges?
  M.R. Pramoj: In an amnesty there is no proving of fault or no fault. As to those who need to counter-file, I say they are not all there. It’s over it’s over.

  Question: The relatives of those who died on that day…can they file or not?
  M.R. Pramoj: Died because of who? What people did the police shoot? Go ahead and take pictures. Photographing when [anyone] was shot, there are no [such photos]. Assume that you file against the police, the police will say they were doing their duty. If it’s the people, well they can file, but don’t forget – this amnesty applies to everyone. The law on amnesty, the wrote it well. It covers everything. The students and police.

  Question: That the publication New World published photos of those who died that day was ordered seized…the truth is the truth and should be revealed.
  M.R. Pramoj: Not all of the truth need be told. There are many kinds of truths. Truth that causes hatred doesn’t need to be told. Why isn’t something in the past left in the past?

  Question: But the feelings of fathers and mothers, friends of those who had anything to do with the incident…?
  M.R. Pramoj: It depends on how deep passions run. If they run deep then there’s no end. Just let it go. Whether or not [filing charges] would be good or not, next time there will be more blood. For this time only prison. Getting serious and interfering will become messy. The military are still in control.

  Question: Forgetting the 6 October incident isn’t a matter of desire?
  M.R. Pramoj: Old matters – the issue of desire or human passion can’t be of any help. Those who don’t forget, well don’t forget. But the important point is that they are in a quandary. Just hanging on and not forgetting. They don’t have to earn a living, then…

  Question: What’s right ought be what’s right.
  M.R. Pramoj: Correct. There are many kinds of right and wrong. I got to the bathroom, it’s not necessary that I tell you. These days there are many people who are not getting justice in society. Not just the students. Therefore, one must struggle often. Some people use intelligence.

  Question: Going to court will uncover truths that will cause some groups to lose advantage.
  M.R. Pramoj: Truths can be uncovered anywhere. Go ahead and uncover them if you really have enough nerve. Why uncover them in court to have [underlings] end up with a record? You can uncover them outside court. I believe that [the subordinates] didn’t do anything wrong.

  Question: In your opinion, were the nineteen accused innocent?
  M.R. Pramoj: I issued one accusation, that of lese majeste, which I did not believe to be true, it was contrived but looking at the [situation] I had to handle it. I did not believe the picture to very closely resemble HRH the Crown Prince. It would be easy to make up. Just cut out a photo of HRH and paste it in and there he is. How could it not be similar? …There were two papers that published the photos….Dao Siam and the Bangkok Post. But when a photo has appeared then the matter has to be dealt with. I issued only one accusation. As to other accusations, the following government issued them.

  Question: It shows that the publication of the prince’s photo was a doctored photo.
  M.R. Pramoj: Doctoring a photo is done very easily. Bring in someone, enact a hanging, take a photo, blow it up, remove the head and stick on his photo in place. Take the photo once more [copy the fake], anyone can do this. It’s not difficult.

  Question: In this matter, if there’s proof…?
  M.R. Pramoj: It’s not this matter. There are many matters [resulting] in accusations. It was a plan by seditionists to create unrest. Only one case? There were many accusations, with punishments up to execution. The charge of lese majeste would only result in a maximum of twelve years in prison.

  Question: Was it really a plan by seditionists?
  M.R. Pramoj: I believe so.

  Question: And the return of Field Marshal Thanom, was that also a plan or not?
  M.R. Pramoj: I don’t know. Thanom and Prapas came back. Thanom’s father was ill. Prapas coming back…he probably wanted his properties back.

  Question: What purpose would faking the photo have?
  M.R. Pramoj: I don’t know who did it. Newspaper editors could say the photo came from anywhere.

  Question: Arising out of the 6 October incident, it has caused people to say that a democratic government is ineffective, that it’s unable to control situations.

  M.R. Pramoj: Tell me first what effectiveness is. Is it guns? Is that what you want? Bring out the guns and see if they settle things. And don’t be a democracy…plodding along headless…go ahead in a frenzy and shoot! I am democracy but others aren’t. Democracy is shrewdly winning with reason, not with spears and swords. Democracy is able to exist by compromise, not through reasons. Because reasons and justice for each person are not the same. The use of force is action that is said to be mad.

  Question: Who is it that then uses force?
  M.R. Pramoj: Whoever. You know.
  Question: According to your view, is 6 October over yet?
  M.R. Pramoj: No, it’s not over. Ginger is still strong even when you break off its roots, and grows back again. And what have you gained from it? You should continue studying, start anew.

  Question: And those the nineteen accused that Maj. General Sutsai Hatdin warned not to act up anymore even before they got out of prison?

  M.R. Pramoj: Don’t listen to him. Why listen to him? Everyone knows it’s just wind in the ear.

  Question: That there’s been news that the Democrat Party was supporting the Red Gaurs…?
  M.R. Pramoj: Well, then this group had surrounded me and said they were taking care of my safety. And they took photos. They then went and said they were wearing the same glasses [as I was]. What Red Gaurs? I am not familiar with the Red Gaurs.

  Question: Did some members of the Democrat party support the Red Gaurs?
  M.R. Pramoj: There may be some members of the party involved but I won’t name them.

  Question: And the party doesn’t have any policy toward that group?
  M.R. Pramoj: It has, but they don’t go along with it. Well, even monks can be shameless.

  Question: What is your view of the Red Gaurs?
  M.R. Pramoj: [They are] wrong. Using force was wrong. You have to act with cause.

  Question: What can Thailand take from all of this? Because since 1932 there have been coups constantly. How would you phrase it?
  M.R. Pramoj: Well, constant coups and guns…As long as the military engages in politics…what do they want? And saying that effectiveness is missing. They can’t protect anything. Heck, it’s all been taken already. Fighting them you die needlessly.

  Question: Prime Minister Kriengsak said that the military these days is not the same as before. What do you think?

  M.R. Pramoj: I don’t know anything about military matters. And the military, who are they? How many quarters, how many corps? I have only been Defense Minister for a month…would I know?

  Question: What is your view of the military?
  M.R. Pramoj: I can’t say. They hold the guns. You can’t say when they will or will not rob. I can’t tell you.

  Question: When do you think that Thailand will become a true democracy?
  M.R. Pramoj: It depends on Thailand. How can I know when? It will be when it will be. It will begin when it begins.
  Question: I means that Thailand does not have a democratic future.
  M.R. Pramoj: The next elections might be a point of beginning. But then they’ll fold once again. Another coup will occur. We should travel the Middle Path. That is, democracy with victory by show of hands [voting]. Where there’s a lot of people it’s natural that there will be differences.

  Source: Thawatchai Sujarittuankul, Historical Cases, the 6 October Case, Book 2, Bangkok, Baphitkarnphim, 1979, page 426-432, citing Student Magazine 29 June 1978, pages 13-15

• 43 Frank G Anderson // Jul 11, 2008 at 8:52 pm

  Typo correction with apologies…

  Question: When do you think that Thailand will become a true democracy?
  M.R. Pramoj: It depends on Thailand. How can I know when? It will be when it will be. It will begin when it begins.
  Question: [It] means that Thailand does not have a democratic future.

• 44 Srithanonchai // Jul 12, 2008 at 7:31 pm

  #41 Why should we employ reasoning when we have FGA? “Takbai was an intentional mistreatment of prisoners and protesters that resulted in the deaths of many dozens.” I do not doubt that the mistreatment was intended to a certain extent, based on the worldview of the military, i.e. their lack of care for “the enemy” (negligence), etc. But do you think that the deaths were intended as well? Finally, to suggests that people who try to see Tak Bai realistically are “probably” also apologists of the Ocober events is plainly rubbish. By the way, I watched videos of all these events.

• 45 Frank G Anderson // Jul 12, 2008 at 8:08 pm

  12 July 2008
  When you use words like “rubbish,” it kind of prejudices a response, but I will try.
  Don’t now say that people who try to see Takbai realistically are being called apologists. That ignores the earlier comment. The thrust was that trying to rationalize the intended hatred and resultant violence at Takbai by commenting that a realistic look would somehow magically reveal that the intentions were not deadly is sticking your head in the sand.
  I imagine Chalerm’s son didn’t mean to kill that cop in the club, either?
  Death here in Thailand is an unfortunate price tag for legitimate protests, and strangely so in a nation that wrongfully prides itself on being Buddhist. While the country may claim to be Buddhist, its overall social practices are anything but.Lots of show and lip service, little real commitment on the streets, so to speak.
  The disregard for life goes beyond being an apologist. An apologist is aware of the difference between right and wrong but feels some misdirected need to find an excuse for someone else’s mean streaks. When you aren’t even aware of the difference between right and wrong, being an apologist takes on quite a different connotation.

• 46 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 13, 2008 at 3:53 am

  re: Srithanonchai

  “Krue Sae, in case anyone was wondering, would be the totally justified, albeit unpopular, killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as recognized by all conventions of international law.” > This seems to be well below your usual level of reflexion.

  I think you misunderstand; allow me to clarify. In my previous post, in my murder/manslaughter metaphor I was looking at the events from how they would be viewed in a strict legal sense. That is, if those involved in the events were tried in a court of law. I already stated that I agree with Sidh, that Oct. 6, Tak Bai, Krue Sae, and the War on Drugs are all examples of egregious abuse of state power.

  All I was trying to get at is that the soliders involved in the attack on Krue Sae would, at worse, be charged with insubordination for violating a direct order from the Defence Minister. We cannot expect soliders attacking armed militants to be charged with murder or manslaughter.

• 47 Grasshopper // Jul 13, 2008 at 10:40 am

  1) If a soldier is charged with insubordination, the soldier is open to all other charges – so at worse, they’re open to being charged with murder.
  2) Recognized by all conventions of international law? Enemy combatants … What? Is this law and order law?
  3) ‘Enemy combatants’ has yet to be fully defined in international laws. It’s a term recently used and as you should have seen, not very effective in relation to it’s motive.
  4) I can expect that state prompted murder is still murder, and that those in control of the state are dealt with accordingly for being murderers.
  5) I cannot expect that soldiers who are being ordered to carry out the supposed will of the people, are burdened with more guilt than they already have.
  6) The events at Krue Se were hardly the last resort and may have been given precedent by your government.
  7) Maybe for you, the state is above the law? Is this American-international law we’re talking of?

  As Srithanonchai says, this is well bellow your usual standard of commenting?

• 48 Grasshopper // Jul 13, 2008 at 11:00 am

  LSS, http://www.anu.edu.au/discoveranu/content/podcasts/us_military_commissions/

  & apologies for my poorly worded response, but my sentiment is the same. You cannot predict a ruling in a court of law, so I’m not sure what your trying to do by predicting an outcome.

• 49 Srithanonchai // Jul 13, 2008 at 7:50 pm

  SSM: Ok. Sorry, I did not read the entire thread.
  FGA: I’m lovin’ it!

• 50 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 14, 2008 at 3:45 am

  re: Grasshopper

  1.)If a soldier is charged with insubordination, the soldier is open to all other charges – so at worse, they’re open to being charged with murder.

  I think you and Srithanonchai are taking a small part of what I said and misinterpreting it. I don’t deny that soldiers acting in wartime can be charged with murder, if the circumstances of the act are deemed unlawful. What I was trying to do is point out that, from a legal standpoint, there is a difference is culpability between a homocide that resulted from a purposeful and knowing act and one that resulted from recklessness and negligence. I’m not trying to predict any outcome, just trying to construct a metaphor to frame my arguments.

  I brought up the example of Krue Sae to highlight a difference between what happened there and what happened at Thammasat and Tak Bai. That is, the victims of Oct. 6th and of Tak Bai were civilians, whereas, the victims of Krue Sae were combatants. Also, you are a bit confused in your second and third points. The terms “enemy combatant” and “non-combatant” were used in both the Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions; however the term “unprivileged combatant” or “unlawful combatant,” which I think you are referring to, in American law, dates back to a Supreme Court decision in 1942, recent as far as the Hague and Geneva Conventions go.

  As for whether the victims of Krue Sae where unlawful combatants or non-combatants, and whether your fourth and fifth points, which I agree with, apply to the events at Krue Sae, that is a valid mode of debate; however, I would like to reiterate that was not the main point of my previous argument. I think there is a good amount of evidence to support classifying the victims of Krue Sae as some sort of combatant, due to the fact that they were armed and were fleeing after having just performed an act of guerilla warfare.

  Points six and seven reek of argumentum ad hominem terpem americensis, or the “Ugly American Fallacy,” i.e. “You’re American, therefore your argument is invalid.” Nor, do I assert that the raid on the mosque was the only option available. Indeed, I said the commanders of the raid could be charged with insubordination as the Defence Minister ordered them not to raid the mosque. However, I do feel some sympathy for the commanders, as they were conducting the seige, they were being surrounded by a hostile crowd, growing even more hostile by the minute. All in all, the whole incident is filled with the messiness and legal uncertanity that characterize these kinds of conflicts. If this ever did went to court or court-martial, I wouldn’t envy any lawyer in this case.

  Anyway, thanks for the link to the podcast. I look forward to listening to it when I get the chance.

• 51 Frank G Anderson // Jul 26, 2008 at 6:56 pm

  See Fascism Thai Style here…
  http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/07/25/fascism_thai_style/3854/

• 52 karmablues // Jul 27, 2008 at 10:37 am

  Re# 51

  Frank, thanks for the wonderful article which exposes the true nature of these Thaksin supporters, which I have no doubt would apply to the other provinces also which have formed local Barbaric Red Armies.

  You point out a key difference between PAD and the pro-Thaksin Reds well here:

  Both the PAD and anti-PAD supporters were carrying national flags and swearing national allegiance, but only one side was peaceful – the PAD

  I have been very impressed with PAD’s commitment to non-violence from the. Kuson had made the observation in the “Time to go home” thread, that she had noticed from their behaviour in Bangkok that the pro-Thaksins were by nature very violent, whereas the PAD protesters are not the violent type. Throughout all these many months of protests, I think she has been proven correct.

  Right in the early days, the pro-Thaksins have shown their inclination towards barbarism. They would throw faeces, fermented fish, bags of urine, shoot slingshots, hurl rocks, bottles, at the PAD protesters. All along, the PADs have also complained about police indifference to this harrassment.

  The intolerance for differences of view by the pro-Thaksins has now culminated into unforgivable, organized violence. This organized violence is no doubt a concerted effort of the TRT/PPP party throughout all their stronghold provinces. It just shows the real insecurities that they have, ie. what if our electorate start asking questions like, why are so many PADs protesting against Thaksin/PPP? Are the PAD’s claims about TRT/PPP criminality and corruption true?

  Those kinds of questions are of course the ones the TRT/PPP have to ensure that the voters in their stronghold provinces do not ask.
  They are so afraid, that it has become necessary to use violence and brutality to silence the critics. Of course, here in NM where people are less barbaric, these insecurities of the Thaksinites manifests itself in name-calling, such as ‘PADs are royalists!” “PADs are crazy nationalists!” “PADs are militarists!”

  It is shocking to see the special treatment that the Barbaric Red Army is getting from these NM Thaksinites, ie. they continue to point the finger at the failings of the PAD to divert attention away from the unforgivable brutality of the Barbaric Red Armies. To be honest, I am not surprised though and have come to expect no better than this from the NM Thaksinites.

  Apart from being so desparately afraid as to have to resort to violence in order to silence critics, I also suspect that Thaksin and his Henchmen have a grander plan with the new policy of organized brutality. I have mentioned this on another thread already, and would like to hear what others have to say (the Thaksinites of course can continue to blame the PAD for everything as usual, it is quite amusing really).

• 53 Reg Varney // Jul 28, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  karmablues: “Thaksinites of course can continue to blame the PAD for everything as usual, it is quite amusing really.” The shoe seems to fit both sides, of which your post is an example. Both sides seem content to blame each other and ignore the failings of their own. Fascism exists in huge mounds in Thailand, and both sides are dipping into that rich lode.

  Is it true that there wasn’t a death in Udon? Was this statement about a death really an attempt by Chamlong to stir more violence along with his reported claim that there is an assassination plot against Sondhi Lim? Did the press report this claim without investigate the claim before rushing to print?

• 54 karmablues // Jul 29, 2008 at 1:53 am

  You ask: Is it true that there wasn’t a death in Udon? Was this statement about a death really an attempt by Chamlong to stir more violence along with his reported claim that there is an assassination plot against Sondhi Lim? Did the press report this claim without investigate the claim before rushing to print?

  I ask: Is it true that the corpse of the man who was killed had been taken away and destroyed by police? Was the indifference shown by PM Samak and Chalerm to the violent incident an attempt to stir angry reaction by the PAD along with the foot-dragging by police in taking action against the perpetrators? Did the officials deny that there were no deaths in Udon without investigating whether a corpse had been destroyed as many has claimed?

  So I guess we can both agree that many questions can be asked.

• 55 Reg Varney // Jul 29, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  karmablues: Get the rabies shots now. I asked a question that was a real one. Some blogs reported that there was no death and had links to press reports. Apparently, at least according to some press reports yesterday, no one was killed. You now say that a body was destroyed by the police. Any reports of this anywhere? Or are you making this up? I have no way of knowing. See if you can limit your rage a little and just provide the links/references.

• 56 karmablues // Jul 30, 2008 at 2:42 am

  Re#55

  You now say that a body was destroyed by the police

  ummm, Kuson, does this remind you of anything? (you know, the reading deficiency syndrome)

  Anyways, Reg, the PAD have made the claim about the possible destruction of the corpse. Of course, it’s just a claim, which I never proposed that it should be believed on face value, but that is exactly why I phrased it as a is-it-true question . (i.e maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not)

  But I’m not sure about why you would propose that your is-it-true question is a “real” one simply because of the existence of some press reports (and some bloggers linking to these).

  May I ask how these press reporters u mentioned knew about the non-existence of death? Let me take a couple of guesses:

  1. They hired some ghost doctors to scan the area and the ghost doctors confirmed to them that there were definitely no PAD spirits in the area.

  or

  2. They did some investigative reporting and interviewed some policemen:

  Reporter: P1, are you aware of any deaths on that day?

  P1: Oh, definitely not! I was there on duty that day and the 700 or so reds, though they were carrying axes, machetes, knives and iron bars, they were mostly quite civil in the way they utilized those weapons as far as I can tell.

  Rep: Really, but video footage shows that many of them acted in a very uncontrolled manner.

  P2 (intervening): No, I can confirm what P1 said. I was there that day on duty too. We let them run past through us because they seemed like they weren’t asking for that much trouble really, despite all the sharp weapons they were carrying. In fact I know a few of them since we hang out at the same local bar along with Kwanchai quite often. They’re quite nice people. They love Udon very much. I love Udon too.

  Rep: ummm, but video footage actually shows many PAD supporters were “beaten to near death” (in the words of Human Rights Watch)

  P2: Oh really, I never saw that footage, but anyways in the particular area where I was on duty it was quite peaceful. In any case, I am just absolutely certain there was no death. All my police friends on duty that day say the same thing. They saw no killing as simple as that.

  Rep: But, in all the chaos and with more than 700 armed and angry Reds running around wild and the extreme brutality that actually happened as taped on video, don’t you think there might be some possibility that someone got killed.

  P1: Look, like I’ve said before. No one died ok? Anyways, I never saw that footage you mention. Are you making it up? Show me the video!

  Reporter: Well, since you insist that you and all your police friends that day saw no killing, ok, I believe you and will report this in the paper.

  Now, how does the “press reports” make your question more “real” than mine? Or is the crucial factor the fact that some bloggers made links to these reports? I don’t know, maybe I do have rabies and can’t think properly anymore.

• 57 karmablues // Jul 30, 2008 at 3:14 am

  Re #55

  “Get the rabies shots now”

  On second thoughts, I might do just that, since although I haven’t been posting that long here at NM, it does seem I have already been “bitten” quite a few times whenever certain “academics” fail to (in your words) “limit their rage”.

  Also, having read Franks article on Facism Thai Style, I am suddenly reminded of Kwanchai’s words along the lines of: “Udon belongs to us! Other people should stay out of here!”

  Here, the line seems to be: “NM belongs to us (academics)! Other people (infantile, dumb, unintelligent, royalist, elitist, proto-facist, nationalists, etc.) should stay out of here!”

• 58 Srithanonchai // Jul 30, 2008 at 11:54 pm

  # 57 Since when does being dogmatically pro-PAD make you a saint who must never be contradicted?

• 59 karmablues // Jul 31, 2008 at 11:30 am

  Re# 58

  So it happens again. I remember that after having only posted a few comments in NM, I think I was accused of being “God” or something (by another “academic” if I remember correctly), and that really reminded me of my early high school days. And now being called a “Saint”! Sends me back once again to my high school days, when in fact during those days it was me mostly who was the one pointing the finger at others calling them “God” and “Saint” (which would also be accompanied by at least 4-5 annoying bowing motions, hehehehe). My usual targets would of course get quite annoyed at me!

  Anyhows, it’s good to see that some “academics” are trying to keep that inner child alive. I like to keep mine alive too, but I choose a different type of behaviour, like playing video games and stuff. To each his own i suppose.

• 60 Srithanonchai // Jul 31, 2008 at 2:40 pm

  # 59 That’s a great combination to keep in contact with reality — video games (non-violent ones, I assume) and PAD!

Leave a Comment