Comments on: End of the royal taboo?

By: Mariner

Mariner — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:37:02 +0000

Perhaps it is the end of the Royal Taboo. Perhaps in this, the information age, with an ever more educated populace and expanding middle class people are indeed beginning to reflect critically on traditional institutions and their role in a modern world.
But the monarchy is not the only institution off limits to discussion; the other is the military. I have never heard, and bet I never will hear, Aphisit (or any other current aspiring politician for that matter) talk seriously about reigning in the generals and placing the army (in particular) more directly under elected civilian jurisdiction. As in the past, a self perpetuating, self serving, clique of generals continues to prevent Thailand evolving into a modern democratic state.

By: Land of Snarls

Land of Snarls — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:28:57 +0000

Nation has come out with a response: “Foreign Media coverage of our crisis is distorted,” (Sat. 12th Dec.) @ http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/12/opinion/opinion_30090774.php

By: MikeM

MikeM — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:49:31 +0000

Did you pick up the editorial and report in The Economist last week, very critical of the King’s role, although strangely unspecific as to exactly what they were criticising, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12724832 and http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12724800

By: BB

BB — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:08:33 +0000

I am Thai and still live in Bangkok. I know what’s going on and what’s wrong with PAD’s action. I just can’t deny that the-past-month action should have great effect to the monarch in long run. It seems that the monarch institue has put impropriate intervene in the situation which will lead to internationally issue not just local issue any more.

I feel very sorry for the fool of people to shut down the airport and much more trouble in my feeling that government CANNOT DO any thing to end the trouble. Can’t imagine how bad it’s if PAD not come out for another week.

HOWEVER, I think the root of problem are
1. Politician’s behave. Things would not be very serious if they have just little good heart to rule their countries.

2. Thai people has very very lack of responsibility on democracy. Most of them in sub urban area sell their vote for just couple hundred buck. Then, we have bad and greedy politicians in government.

So, to cure this political crisis, not only who will become the Prime Minister but the education of rights and effect of picking up wrong guys is the must also. This process should take long time 5, 7, or even 10 years to educate people to know their rights but it worth in long run.

Whist, the Monarch is still very important for Thai social system. In the trouble time, when we can’t find the way out, the Monarch still be the last answer. it’s like A FATHER oand the SPIRIT of Nation which we should protect at all cost.

BR for all comments

By: polo

polo — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 13:05:40 +0000

Is the genie really out of the bottle? Even in offshore blogs? Can we not mention here Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn negatively, even mildly so? Of course NM needs to be cautious at times, but also to be straightforward about that. In its “New Mandala encourages vigorous debate…” note, perhaps it needs a line saying “We too must remain cautious about what is said here about the royal family of Thailand.”

By: Land of Snarls

Land of Snarls — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:30:09 +0000

RK @ 25: You are begging the question. My comments, as I have stated in all 3 posts, were related to to 2 specific reports that you labelled as ” uninformed and un-informing.” (@#20) No need to go to earlier reports in order to discuss them – they are not even referred to in the 2 reports in question, so they are irrelevant.

Many of the participants on NM give evidence to support their arguments. Joy is a case in point: by her own admission she is not a Political Science academic. However, she draws from Thai literature (refreshing & broadening) & her own experience of living as a Thai through recent Thai history to support her contributions. She’s following the basic rules of argument. This makes for a more reasonable discussion in a situation where there could be a tendency towards bigotry & emotionalism (i.e. not a real debate). And it gives her arguments an authority that is equal to those of the academics.This results in a higher standard of (and broader) argument than would otherwise be the case in a discussion involving both academics & ‘lay’ observers.

re. “the excellent BBC “: I stated that as my personal opinion, with no intention of inferring that it was yours. Perhaps I was going a bit over the top, but in terms of journalistic integrity in a situation where the facts are often very difficult to get hold of, and diplomacy is often a big issue (LM, other forms of censorship), IMO they do an excellent job. “My nitpicking ” was not referring to this issue. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to my refusal to bow out of an argument (re. the 2 reports) in which you were bending the rules by exceeding the parameters.

That’s all.

By: Ralph Kramden

Ralph Kramden — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:22:17 +0000

I don’t want to keep this small debate going longer. If I go back to the transcripts and earlier reports and pick through them, that will only take this side debate further than it needs to at this point. I maintain that the reports were uninformed. By this I mean that they do not provide the information and especially do not provide the context that I have come to expect from the ABC sans Bangkok. Indeed, that’s what is usually expected from AM and PM. I agree that you are overly nitpicky on the comment on the BBC. As I said, if you find her comments informed, fine, you like her reports; I want more from the ABC in Bangkok.

By: Land of Snarls

Land of Snarls — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:13:12 +0000

RK @ 22: My observations are limited to the 2 AM reports you specifically cited as “uninformed” etc. They are clearly not. I didn’t say I like her (irrelevant). I questioned your criticism of those 2 reports, which I believe was unfair. Nor did I say that you said the BBC is excellent – I didn’t use quotes. Actually, it was I who said “…the excellent BBC…”

My nitpicking is the result of frustration, caused by seeing the degeneration of a blogsite that has often been way above the level of those others that are usually choked with poorly argued & often quite unreasonable postings by muddled farang retirees, quoting the opinions of their Buriram in-laws, as they work their way through 6-packs of Chang & desperately cling to their delusions of ‘understanding’ (and loving!) Thai culture. The 2 major English-language newspapers here are prime examples, & there are lots of others.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:19:59 +0000

The Times (Dec.3) also has a piece, by Richard Lloyd Parry , which is in line with the general thrust of this blog. It’s online:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5274383.ece

By: Ralph Kramden

Ralph Kramden — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:14:34 +0000

LOS: we’ll disagree. Her reports on Thailand over the past few years have been sadly incompetent. And that includes her longer reports in other parts of the ABC. As a regular listener of AM and PM for many years, and one who has had contact with ABC journalists in Thailand and other parts of Asia for a long time, I know they can do better than this. But you like her and that’s fine. Didn’t say the BBC was excellent, just better.