Bangkok Pundit has a very nice little post that, among other things, points to one royal reaction to the ongoing People’s Alliance for Democracy protests in Bangkok. Well worth a read. Anyone with an interest in what Andrew and I wrote on the topic will find this old material instructive.
On royal silence
October 11th, 2008 by Nicholas Farrelly · 7 Comments
Tags: Thailand
7 responses so far ↓
1 Thai TV // Oct 11, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I don’t know if this fits in your new comment policy, anyway:
Please put more emphasis on this article! Would be even great if you could quote the princess directly!
Maybe it will help to spread the word in Thailand!
PAD leaders are mostly acting for themselves indeed, even the Princess acknowledges that!
2 songtham tawinwang // Oct 14, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Anyone with an ounce of brain cannot help agreeing with Her Royal Highness. Long may She prosper.
3 rookie // Oct 20, 2008 at 3:52 am
So far only one Thai-language magazine, namely Prachathat, in its latest issue (with photo of Gen. Salang on the cover) carries the Princess’ remarks about PAD on pages 16, 17.
4 Srithanonchai // Oct 21, 2008 at 3:59 pm
In Matichon of October 21, staunch old royalist Khun Visit tries to “translate” the Princess’ remarks, based on the element “on behalf of.” He stresses that this meant “as a representative,” or as somebody who had been “assigned” by the monarchy to perform certain actions. Thus, the princess had only said that the monarchy had not assigned the PAD to do what they have been doing, or that they did not act as a representative of the monarchy.
Visit does not mention that “on behalf of” also meant “for the benefit of somebody” or “to help somebody.” In fact, nobody had ever assumed that the monarchy assignd the PAD to do certain actions, etc. The question was clearly contextualized by the constant claim of the PAD that they wanted to help the monarchy to be strong, to defend the monarchy against threats, i.e. to benefit it, etc. This was the point of reference of “on behalf of.”
5 doctorJ // Oct 21, 2008 at 6:06 pm
K. Srithanonchai
Your comment is straightforward and crystal clear!
Can anybody forward your comment to K.Sondhi
6 songtham tawinwang // Oct 21, 2008 at 6:51 pm
The name of the writer in Matichon is “Wasit”. Through his numerous writings, Wasit has shown himself to be a fair-minded man. What he is trying to do here is probably to moderate a ‘turbulent sea’.
7 Srithanonchai // Oct 22, 2008 at 12:19 am
Songtham:
Sorry for the misspelling. I mixed the name up with that of a friend of mine whose name is Visit. I agree with you that his column is rather more political than linguistic in nature. However, his attempt is flawed, because he systematically edited out relevant meanings and references.
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.