From The Guardian:
A leading Bangkok-based professor who has joint British and Thai nationality fled Thailand at the weekend in the face of a lengthy sentence under the country’s draconian lese-majesty laws, which forbid criticism of the king.He is the latest person to face prosecution under the laws, seen as an attempt by the government to stifle dissent.
Giles Ji Ungpakorn, 54, arrived in England at the weekend after being charged under the laws. He had been due to present himself to the police in Bangkok today and could have faced 15 years in jail if found guilty.
“I did not believe I would receive a fair trial,” said Ungpakorn, an associate professor of political science at Chulalongkom University and a contributor to the New Statesman and Asian Sentinel.”
Ungpakorn, who has an English mother and son, and who studied at Sussex and Durham universities and the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, is the author of A Coup for the Rich, in which he criticises the 2006 military coup.
He said that the charges arose out of eight paragraphs in the first chapter deemed insulting to King Bhumibol. He claimed that the director of a university bookshop stocking his book had informed the special branch that it “insulted the monarchy”. The offending paragraphs deal with incidents around the coup.
“It is clear that the charge is really about preventing any discussion about the relationship between the military junta and the monarchy,” Ungpakorn said. “This is in order to protect the military’s sole claim to legitimacy: that it acted in the interests of the monarchy.”
He said a website had been set up so people could inform on anyone alleged to have violated the law. “There is a climate of fear,” he said.
47 responses so far ↓
1 Ajarn // Feb 9, 2009 at 8:05 pm
It is a shame, I have a pdf copy of Coup for the rich, intersting take on the situation. In the long run, Thailand will be harmed by eliminating thoughtful political dialogue. Ajarn Ungpakorn’s flight from Thailand is justified, hopefully he will continue to press for the the truth ans someday will be welcomed back to Thailand.
In general, Ajarn Ungpakorn’s views seems too far leftist for my tastes, but I totally disagree with the attempts to silence him.
The “Democrats” in Thailand are showing their true colors by persecuting all who do not tow the political line.
Sad.
2 Chris // Feb 9, 2009 at 8:57 pm
What a sad day for Thailand and where does Chulalongkom, Thailand’s version of Harvard, stand on the issue of one of it’s leading academics being treated in such a manner, much less in light of the circumstance that one of Chulalongkom’s own employees, the Manager of the university bookstore, instigated the charges and arrest.
Is this the path that the creative, highly intelligent and traditionally free-spirited Thais really want to follow, towards darkness, repression and finally a silent, self-imposed ignorance………………..
3 Srithanonchai // Feb 9, 2009 at 9:49 pm
It does not take anything away from Giles to say that he was a “leading socialist activist” (whatever this might mean in the Thai socio-political context), but certainly not a “leading academic.” I guess that people at Chula are more than happy having him removed from their institution. “In general, Ajarn Ungpakorn’s views seem too far leftist for my tastes, but I totally disagree with the attempts to silence him” > exactly.
4 Teeranai Charuvastra // Feb 9, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I’m surprised that it was actually the officials in Chulalongkorn that turned him over to the police in the first place. Now, the only one question remains, how will the high-ranking royalists (I mean those military and Democrats) react to this? It’s the first time that an alleged lese majeste offender actually openly declares that, yes, he’s certainly against the king and will not take his offensive words back.
The palace must have been alerted by now. I’m afraid its next step to crush down its opposition will be harsher than ever, before this whole anti-monarchy sentiment can gain momentum.
5 BKK lawyer // Feb 9, 2009 at 10:37 pm
And today Giles’s website was blocked by the MICT.
6 David Brown // Feb 9, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Srithanonchai
I am curious, do you actually support the use of lese majeste to remove academics from their posts?
or
do you think that Giles was an impediment to the Thai military’s control of Thai politics and their suppression of the people in their towns and villages so the use of lase majeste was appropriate?
and the relief of the Chulalongkorn U is just an incidental happy by-product?
7 Fred Sh. // Feb 9, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Reading Ji’s farewell to Thailand – his ‘Red Siam’ manifesto (available at http://thaipoliticalprisoners.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/red-siam2.pdf) – I don’t regard his views as ‘too far leftist’. To the contrary, he remains realistic and admits that, if at all, a socialist society can only be a long-term goal and that, for the time being, a common platform has to be build on the following goals:
These are reasonable ideas based on universal social-democratic, pacifistic, egalitarian and ecological ideals. Nowhere he calls for collectivization, a socialist revolution, or on people to take up arms and fight the ruling classes. Dismissing Ji as an unreasonable leftist means falling into the trap of the Thai elite who has always tried to marginalize anti-establishment voices.
8 Susie Wong // Feb 9, 2009 at 11:57 pm
The ability to think and reason is a divine gift.
Ms. Da Torpedo, Jakrapob Penkair, and Giles Ji Ungpakorn, have two characteristics in common. They have knowledge deeper than average Thais about Thai politics and are very passionate about moving Thai society toward progress. Their intention and ability have made them leaders in their own right.
When I listened to Da Torpedo I was stunned about the detailed knowledge she has about Thai political history from 1932 to present. When I read Jakrapob’s paper, I appreciated his search to understand the historical context and an attempt to analyze the root cause of its underdevelopment. When I read Giles Ji’s papers, I admired the depth and breath of his analysis, the creativity and the heavy-weight of his intellect. Their standards motivate me to upgrade myself. Indeed, they are the treasure of Siam.
As for Harry’s book, I think his bonding to Thai society must have motivated his desire to contribute to its progress. It is unconscionable to hold him in Thai prison for his divine gift of reasoning.
9 Colum Graham // Feb 10, 2009 at 12:06 am
I think this..
‘However, it is also clear that the Thai King is more comfortable with military dictatorships than with elected governments. This explains why the Monarchy backed the 19th September coup.’
would likely be one of the more offensive sections of Giles Ji Ungpakorn’s eight paragraphs under scrutiny.
I think I should say something in the name of not knowing, and then writing something as though you do know certainly. It’s done all the time – why do people do it? Is it for the glamour of being creative, highly intelligent and traditionally free? Being renowned as a leading academic? Surely leading academics don’t make things up. Creative, highly intelligent people don’t need to become vain martyrs for Thai civil liberties because they’re highly intelligent and would have thought of more creative ways to undermine the status-quo if that was their aim. Perhaps people who are ‘traditionally free’ don’t care too much about what others are doing to get caught up in this drama?
Nothing is clear. Is Giles Ji Ungpakorn now a figure for provocative assumptions kicking against a conservative beast? Is the use of Lese Majeste against him a measure for truth in his assumptions? Maybe he wanted to spend time in England for a while and had booked the flight well in advance? In the same vogue as Giles, I assume draconian Lese Majeste laws will never be challenged by Thais discussing his effigy.
10 Ralph Kramden // Feb 10, 2009 at 12:56 am
Srithanonchai should tell us more about Chula. Why do his colleagues want him out?
On whether he is a leading academic, that is a matter of judgment. Measured against others in the same department at Chula, he looks reasonably good in terms of publications. But, then, maybe that is not a great department? In my view, while I disagree with many of his perceptions and his analysis, I value his work. He certainly ranks up there with other Thai intellectuals for his capacity to bring important issues into the public arena.
Coincidentally, Reporters Without Borders released a report entitled “His Untouchable Majesty”. Can be downloaded from their site. They have also called for a cyber-demonstration on 9 February to call for the release of Harry Nicolaides. The cyberdemonstration link is at the RWB site – http://www.rsf.org/freeharry/index.php?id=21
11 Chris // Feb 10, 2009 at 1:51 am
Well, Teeranai, if Chula has no commitment to academic freedom and is completely unwilling to defend its own faculty’s right to academic freedom, then I guess Chula is not really the “Harvard of Thailand” after all.
I find it almost impossible to believe that a people so intelligent, worldly and historically inter-connected as the Thai people, would really have any interest or desire whatsoever in following the path of the pathetic, isolated, impoverished and failed nation of North Korea in becoming a fearful, informant-centric society where idiosyncratic, creative, curious individuals with robust and free opinions and views, and a sense of their own individual rights are no longer valued.
12 Sam Brother // Feb 10, 2009 at 2:01 am
The Prachatipat Party (Their English name is Democrat, but they’re truely group of royalist and right wing businessmen), and the army are preparing to arrest Giles Ungparkorn while he reports himself to the police and jail him for questioning. He’s been informed before hand by those officers who disagree with this lousy policy. The same inform source has also indicated that Jakrapob Penkhae will be the coming victim soon.
13 Ian // Feb 10, 2009 at 2:51 am
Very sorry to hear this sad news. Giles will be very welcome in the UK and I hope his voice continues to be heard from here.
14 nganadeeleg // Feb 10, 2009 at 10:57 am
Ji’s manifesto is OK, but here’s something better: http://khikwai.com/blog/2009/02/09/thailands-orange-revolution/
15 Susie Wong // Feb 10, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I have a question for Chris, David Brown, and Sam Brother.
Who is responsible for the way Thailand is right now? Is Australia in part responsible for the way the situation is right now?
I mean after World War II, the Allied inside Thailand has been completely destroyed. The latest is Giles Ji Ungpakorn.
Meanwhile, the Axis is here 24/7 like Srithanonchai, Teerachai, Ralph, etc. The Thai media is dominated by the Axis i.e. The Manager, The Nation, Kom Chad Luek, The Bangkok Post, etc. The academics in Thailand and Australia are dominated by the Axis like ChaiAnan Samudvanit, Michael Conners, etc.
I think it is time to reform the Australian Intelligence. What do you think?
16 David Brown // Feb 10, 2009 at 1:10 pm
For those that are politically active and wish to support true representative democracy in Thailsnd the manifesto is an excellent statement. It gives good and strong background for anyone wishing to understand the basis for the issues of social inequality and the undemocratic and unrepresentative nature of most Thai governments.
However, given the intensive PR surrounding the royals, I think many Thais will find the references to the history of royal political involvement shocking and hard for them to assimilate and accept.
This will make it difficult for these people to focus on the real vision of the manifesto.
Further, unfortunately, I think the military and elites will use these references to attack the vision and, worse, anyone associated with the manifesto and Giles.
17 Ralph Kramden // Feb 10, 2009 at 2:01 pm
nganadeeleg – why is the khikwai one the best thing written, as you say on your blog, but don’t explain?
18 Book Zone // Feb 10, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Well done Ji! Good Luck with the rest of your life!
Please don’t drag Jakkraphob Penkair into this. The man doesn’t have an honest bone in his body. He’s yet another freeloader on a worthy cause.
10) Freedom from brazen exploiters like Thaksin and his greedy family and mafia cohorts.
19 nganadeeleg // Feb 10, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Thanks for your interest Ralph.
Firstly, I am a little surprised that you cannot see what an exccellent summary the blogger gave of the situation.
Further, unlike most blogs, it is without bias (or being beholden to any side), and it also has a message (suggestion) of hope in these dark times.
Lastly, I presume you have read the piece, but in any case I suggest you read it again (without blinkers)
20 David Brown // Feb 10, 2009 at 7:41 pm
nganadeeleg
suggest you read my comment on the article at
http://khikwai.com/blog/2009/02/09/thailands-orange-revolution/#comment-188
to get some idea why I think some people unfairly copy some myths put out about Thaksin and keep throwing the odd statement around apparently without thought
it rather spoils the fairness and objectivity that you admire
21 nganadeeleg // Feb 10, 2009 at 10:32 pm
David Brown: I’d hoped we could move beyond Thaksin by now, but since you asked:
I agree that the PM often has little control over things on the ground, however Thaksin’s various statements regarding the drug war, Tak Bai etc are a matter of record.
(also, I’m curious why you expect more of Abhisit than you do of Thaksin in this regard)
Also, I very much doubt it was the military forcing Thaksin to use tax havens & other artificial structures such as nominee maids etc.
Even if you are prepared to turn a blind eye to Thaksin’s many wrongdoings (unethical, if not clearly proven illegal), surely you can see that he is simply too divisive a figure to ever again be PM.
also, have you ever considered that he is actually holding back your cause, and his continued prominence provides ready ammunition for those wishing to hang on to control of the country?
22 Frederick // Feb 10, 2009 at 11:48 pm
> Chulalongkom, Thailand’s version of Harvard
Maybe in Thai eyes. But last time I looked it up in the TES world university rankings a few years back it came in at something like 191. Harvard was in the top half dozen.
23 David // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:02 am
One of the most disturbing aspects of this story is its virtual absence from the Thai press. As far as I know, only the Nation is carrying a (somewhat anodyne) account of events. At least one well-known expat website has been deleting threads and posts relating to Giles’ flight to the UK. Together with news of a new Thai wesbite which invites citizens to inform on others guilty of lese majeste, this is making the current Thai government look very unattractive vis-a-vis freedom of expression.
24 Regular Reader // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:04 am
David Brown – you completley miss nganadeeleg’s point.
Instead, as usual,you go on “boosting” Thaksin .
Although Khi Kwai makes a couple of comments about your man, the thrust of his piece is more focused on Thailand, the Thai people and the future. Your man is only a part of the game, right now.
Khi Kwai knows what he is is talking about – do you ?
25 Ralph Kramden // Feb 11, 2009 at 3:14 am
nganadeeleg makes too many assumptions. I was simply asking why it is to be considered the best thing written? It is a cry and a plea that many will find resonates, me included.
It seems to me that there is much in it that reflects the feelings and frustrations of many educated observers of Thai politics, but it does feel a little like the “song mai aw” position writ large. Not cynicism, but we can do better by rejecting what we have.
Surrounded by devils, dinosaurs and vultures, a pox on all of them and move the undifferentiated “Thai people” forward (Thaksinite populism?) to something that is “real” such as Thai-style democracy (whatever that might be? Wasn’t that a PAD idea also?). Surrounded by devils, dinosaurs and vultures we seek to draw on (better?) royal examples from the past.
Surrounded by devils, dinosaurs and vultures we have to move forward in a way that is democratic, respects human rights etc. Well, yes, of course! But as FreeThai said at the KK web site, How? That’s the question that bedevils all good thinking people (or is it people thinking good things?). It partly accounts for why PAD had so much early support from NGOs, social movements, human rights groups, etc.
So the goal might be clear, but what is the strategy? More compromise with the great and good (Prawase, Anand and their ilk)? How many times can the rules be revamped? The revolution favoured by Ji? But where is party or movement? What is the way forward? How do the poor and disenfranchised get a voice?
I was just hoping for some thoughtful commentary on an interesting piece.
26 Jessie // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:15 am
A while ago I spent some time at Chula and frankly, even then I did not understand how an eloquent and critical (+ left) scholar like Giles is tolerated by all the mediocre thai-ajaarns who are rather right-wing oriented with an unhealthy portion of nationalism.
Among a few other thai-ajaarns at Chula, Giles had the ability to introduce critical academic thoughts to graduate thai students – an ability which is tremendously needed in thai- social sciences. Because until now thai students, if not raised and educated abroad, take everything strait from the horses mouth.
Granted, Chula is an prestigious institution but good scholarship can not be find there, especially at the social sciences. The leaving of an excellent scholar, and here I am not refering to his political orientation, is not only regrettable for the academic debate inside Thailand, but also unfortunate for many graduate thai and foreign students at Chula.
27 Ecrit // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:15 am
I have read the preceding comments with interest. My understanding is that Ji is a revolutionary Communist, and therefore that he favors a dismantling of the capitalist system and the introduction of a “workers’ democracy”. Doesn’t this require revolutionary action, or at least a stand in the face of the threat of the curtailment of liberty?
For this reason, I feel quite surprised about Ji’s abscondment. Many people have mentioned that pressure is building towards at least some sort of change, and there is a feeling that Ji could have proved to have been something of a lightning rod if he had dug in his heels. He has some support from academics both locally and internationally, and he seems to have developed a relationship with Thaksin’s apparently still considerable power through his publicly declared solidarity with Jakrapob and the Redshirts. Even if this didn’t represent a safety net, the left needs its heroes. Ji shouting to the roof tops in the courts or in jail surely would have ratcheted up the temperature.
To sum up, I have to disagree with the tenor of the commentary above. To be sure, it’s easy for anonymous scribblers to suggest that public figures stand up and fight for their principles in the face of dire consequences, but a powerfully connected revolutionary such as Ji had the latitude to make his voice heard in an international forum. I really feel that Ji funked it, and eventually this may be a source of regret for him, and even for a few commentators on this board.
28 Susie Wong // Feb 11, 2009 at 8:57 am
Ecrit, your real intention is so clear. Giles’s intellect, integrity, and popularity frightens you!
Why don’t you volunteer for Harry’s place if you want to stand your ground? I am sure you wouldn’t dare.
29 nganadeeleg // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:05 am
Ralph Kramden: Thanks for the further explanation, and I apologize if my tone offended.
‘So the goal might be clear, but what is the strategy?‘
It takes education, and a gradual weaning off the notion that the solution lies in one person.
Prawase & Anand only tell one side of the story – they are still clinging to someoone’s coattails.
Likewise, Jakrapop, although obviously he is hanging off someone else’s coattails.
The same can be said for most of the other pundits, and if no,t their work is usually too highbrow for plebs like me.
Giles gets it better, but he’s too far out in left field, still fighting a war that’s already been lost.
Khikwai’s piece is not an instant fix, but it shows the way forward.
I hear you still asking: ‘How?’
Here’s a practical first step:
Translate Khi Kwai’s piece into Thai and distribute it as widely as you can – you might just be sowing the seeds for something good.
30 Craig J. Reynolds // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:39 am
I can understand why some observers find Ji’s views too extreme or leftist. In fact, his unalloyed commitment to socialist principles fashionable decades ago is unusual, perhaps even quaint. I suspect, however, that his socialism and Marxism form the wellspring that guides his thought and practice. His manifesto rings with historical allusions that enhance its power.
I read the Thai version of “Red Siam” Manifesto against the English version. How does he render one version into the other? I don’t know how he works, but these are not exact translations. I found some interesting differences.
Manifesto / thalaengkan The English immediately invokes Marx’s Communist Manifesto, but the Thai term simply means proclamation, announcement, communiqué. Edicts from the Sangha are called thalaengkan khana song, Sangha Announcements. With the Thai title, Ji’s statement has been normalized as if it were issued from a government department’s press office.
this king / kasat khon ni Thai kasat comes from Sanskrit ksatriya, the warrior, kingly caste in the ancient Indian hierarchy, but it is a common noun. In his The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today (1957), Jit Poumisak (1930-1966), the “political poet” imprisoned by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat in the late 1950s, also referred to the king as kasat, thereby avoiding the use of royal language or rachasap and rendering the monarch as an ordinary person. Referring to the king by a common noun, Ji can thus use the classifier for ordinary person, khon, rather than the classifier ong reserved for kings, Buddha images, and monks. I also note that the Thai version repeats “this king / kasat khon ni” six times, driving the linguistic point home.
The present exploitative society / sangkhom lalang patjuban Thai lalang means backward, un-modern. My sense is that the English is familiar jargon, while the Thai version with “backward” is insulting to a ruling class proud of its modernity.
Their time is finished [following his list of nine ideas] / thi kuan ja long thang khaya haeng prawattisat The Thai literally means that they should disappear into the dustbin / garbage can of history, a clear reference to Trotsky’s famous remark. The Thai version here has much more rhetorical flair than the English version.
The Thai language is being deployed in “The Red Siam” Manifesto to great effect, and in one significant instance, is being re-engineered.
31 Colum Graham // Feb 11, 2009 at 10:57 am
Susie, I don’t know what Ecrit’s intent is, but I don’t think he said Lese Majeste was defendable. I don’t think anything is going to be solved fervourusly demonising anybody.
Do you think that Giles fleeing to the UK has positioned him as a treacherous monster? Or is he an innocent being persecuted by the dastardly elites? That these are seemingly the only two conclusions being adopted by people, is itself, a pretty narrow way to look at the situation of censorship in Thailand. Censorship is cancerous because it polarises peoples emotions.. leading to greater reactions and so on and so on etc.
32 David Brown // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:21 pm
nganadeeleg and Regular Reader
thanks for responding to my comments, which I know are somewhat bucking the trend amongst many of you. I think that many that directly experienced the later time of the Thaksin governments while Sondhi Lim and his PAD were doing the dirty work for the Amart show the mental scars. Sondhi Lim is very persuasive because of his ability to continually obscure the bigger picture with ravings on trivialities.
“CIA” in article at http://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/jais-global-league/
points out that Thailand, in terms of its political and economic development could be classed with Malaysia and Singapore. His scheme envisaged three main grouping with Myanmar as the second and the Indo-china countries as the other. He believes Thailand has reverted to being classifiable with Myanmar.
The Chuan(?) and Thaksin governments raised Thailand but someone else said (sorry cant be bothered looking up the ref) Thailand is now “more strongly under military control that ever before”.
The glare of publicity that surrounds a democratic government, compare with the secret deals of the military controlled administrations, reveals all sorts of things about business and politics that are OK when you do not know about them but you now consider “unethical, if not clearly proven illegal”.
Because you have seen the real way politics and business works (strictly by majority vote and the letter of the law) you discard the one person that really worked to secure permanent democracy in Thailand!
Maybe you are more comfortable if deals are done in secret by military dictators?
Peaople are asking here how Khi Khwai excellent vision can be achieved. My advice for what it is worth… find a leader strong enough to bring the military under control of parliament and the government (all composed solely of fully elected members).
And, if you already know one, let him compete to take the job!
33 kjf // Feb 11, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Ralph Kramden: You raise good questions about my post on KhiKwai.com. Some of the ambiguities you pointed out were intentional. However, the post’s key points were:
1) The best hope for real democratization in Thailand is an alliance of the provincial masses and those urban middle income voters who have largely been on the fence over the past few years (applauding, perhaps, the case made in support of the coup but never particularly enthusiastic about either the PAD or military rule). Because of recent events, that alliance seems to me to be more workable now than it has been at any point in modern Thai history.
2) Generally speaking, real democratization is only achievable by effectively using discourse that is acceptable in current Thai society, as opposed to appear to want to burn the whole house down (which makes any “democratic movement” must easier to demonize and repress). Hence the references to (highly idealized) aspects of the Thai past that any such movement might be able to evoke for the purposes of mobilization. This, incidentally, is why I thought Giles’ statement (which I had not read prior to publishing the post) was in fact quite counterproductive. If the goal is “democracy,” I would argue that the way to achieve it is to make a case for its compatibility with Thai culture, as opposed to tainting the case with ideologies most people in Thailand find distasteful or downright heretical.
34 nganadeeleg // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm
David Brown: Are you finally admitting Thaksin did wrong?
If so, at least we now have something we can agree upon
Nowhere have I advocated that wrongdoings by anyone in government should go unpunsihed, irrespective of what color that government is.
The big picture here has always been about whether building Thaksin up to bring others down was the right way to achieve what most people here would agree is necessary for Thailand.
I’m still of the opinion that would just be replacing one tyranny with another, and it is because of the prevalence of people like you (unconditional, unwavering support & defence of Thaksin) that makes me think it would be an equally difficult struggle to remove the new tyrant.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I just cannot subscribe to the theory that the ultimate solution for the country will come from more unthinking, unconditional support of a white knight.
Sorry to Giles for hijacking this thread (about him), but I’m still prepared to argue for the song mai ow position, whether it is fashionable or not.
(I admire Giles for taking a stand, and, as I said on my blog, I fully support all his 9 platform discussion points, with the exception of the last sentence of point #4 – instead I would seek the abolishment of the Privy Council, and an amendment to the lese majeste laws such that only the palace can make the charge)
PS, I discarded Sondhi Lim around the same time I discarded Thaksin!
35 Susie Wong // Feb 11, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I think the debate centers on the wrong level of analysis.
Nga.. wrote “So the goal is clear, but what’s the strategy?”
It means
1) to destroy the reputation of Thaksin and Ji,
2) to eliminate the chance of the two forces be able to unite.
Ji Ungpakorn and Jakrapob Penkair together on stage addressed the Red Shirts crowd frightens the hegemonic challengers.
We should ask: What are the forces Thaksin, Ji, and Jakrapob represent that could threaten the the hegemonic challengers’ objectives in Thailand, the mainland Southeast Asia, and the Asia-Pacific Theatre?
We play into the enemy’s hand if we focus on the individual level of analysis, i.e. Thaksin’s capitalist ideology, Ji’s Marxist approach, Jakrapob’s progressive motivation.
At issue should be the link between domestic politics and the great powers strategic objective in the region.
36 Srithanonchai // Feb 11, 2009 at 5:38 pm
David: You don’t need to wonder. Just read my comment.
When reading Giles “manifesto” or “announcement,” in style and content, I was reminded of the first announcement of the People’s Party in 1932.
37 David Brown // Feb 11, 2009 at 6:29 pm
nganadeeleg
thanks for your considered response… I also am happy to try for joint understanding
with regard to Giles #4
I think some transition to full abolishment of lese majeste as special constitution and law provisions such as you propose would be helpful in gaining acceptance
I expect that the Monarch could be provided with some sort of secretariat function which perhaps could be called the privy council but without the powers it seems to currently possess and specifically not staffed by persons that retain linkage with the military, perhaps forbidden to hold any other posts or privileges
Briefly, it seemed to me that Thaksin was prepared to go back to the people when under threat and, I guess this was untested, was prepared to accept if the people voted him or his party down.
This is the test and accountability of democracy. As it stands I dont believe that could or would have ignored a negative vote by a majority of the people.
So your allegation that he was or would “practise tyranny” is not proved. In my judgement you should learn from our experiences in Australia and the USA where many, many people protested and objected to Howard and Bush but still accepted the majority vote through about 8 long years in each case!
Democracy is very simple and effective but requires committment and acceptance of the power of the ballot box to work!
Find and support a leader that can reduce the power of the army and everything else will fall into place!
If you find such a leader dont cruel his pitch just when he is getting organised!
38 Ralph Kramden // Feb 13, 2009 at 3:43 am
Thanks kjf for your response. Intentional ambiguities aside – which were they? – let me respond in a way that keeps the thread going on these issues.
kjf: The best hope for real democratization in Thailand is an alliance of the provincial masses and those urban middle income voters who have largely been on the fence over the past few years (applauding, perhaps, the case made in support of the coup but never particularly enthusiastic about either the PAD or military rule).
RK: Well it might be the best hope, I am not sure. It depends a bit on one’s reading of the politics of the urban middle class. Frankly, this class is rather too diverse to be able to detect a tendency. Sure, some sat on the fence, but others clearly didn’t. So an alliance is likely to result from some parts of the middle class (academics, intellectuals perhaps?) to elements of the vast, unorganised rural poor (which might those be?).
If one reads the Ji manifesto, it seems that he agrees and sees that he has a potential role. But where is the organisation? Ji seems to think it comes from the Red movment, if it breaks from the dominance of the “Thaksin will save us” perspective. Perhaps.
What do you see as a way to organise this cross-class alliance?
kjf: Because of recent events, that alliance seems to me to be more workable now than it has been at any point in modern Thai history.
RK: Ji seems to agree. But I still don’t see the mechanism for the alliance. How is it done?
kjf: Generally speaking, real democratization is only achievable by effectively using discourse that is acceptable in current Thai society
RK: A truism perhaps? But see the initial announcements of the khana ratsadon. Who would have claimed those as compatible with “Thai culture”?
kjf: as opposed to appear to want to burn the whole house down (which makes any “democratic movement” must easier to demonize and repress). Hence the references to (highly idealized) aspects of the Thai past that any such movement might be able to evoke for the purposes of mobilization. This, incidentally, is why I thought Giles’ statement (which I had not read prior to publishing the post) was in fact quite counterproductive. If the goal is “democracy,” I would argue that the way to achieve it is to make a case for its compatibility with Thai culture, as opposed to tainting the case with ideologies most people in Thailand find distasteful or downright heretical.
RK: How do you know what is acceptable and what isn’t? What constitutes “Thai culture”? It is clear that what you call “Thai culture” is a recent invention. No culture is unchanging. It would seem to me that a call to alternative political arrangements can be powerful in many societies that have languished under repressive and corrupt regimes. Why not Thailand? Why is Thailand different?
So I guess I am still asking, How?
39 Maitri // Feb 13, 2009 at 3:52 am
God help Thailand is people like Red Giles ever take power. We can look to our east or west to see what socialism does to any country that adopts this sickening ideology. Left-wing Westernizers like Giles, Taksin, and all their cohorts have lost touch with what it means to be a Thai. They would be more at home in Hollywood than in Bangkok.
Thailand is a Buddhist and the Thai people will never adopt the ideas of Giles Ungpakor with his advocacy of abortion, republicanism, and surrender to the Muslims of the south. Instead, we should return to what we are: the natural order of Thai civilization.
Look at Russia, After suffering under 70 years of Socialism, they are now returning to their historic and religious roots. We Thais should do the same. It is past time to undo the tragedy of 1932 and, once again, become officially the Buddhist Kingdom of Siam, wherein we can find the true spirit of being Thai.
40 Ralph Kramden // Feb 13, 2009 at 9:13 am
Oh great! Maitri is another royalist who doesn’t know the history of the place they hold dear. I don’t recall exactly when it was that Siam was officially a Buddhist kingdom? But is is good to see that the royalists are out of the closet on 1932 and openly proclaiming attributes that would be recognised by the extreme right in many parts of the world. Let’s bring back slavery as well.
41 kjf // Feb 13, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Ralph: I am not sure I have a particularly good answers to each of your questions, but here are some thoughts on the issues you have raised.
On the issue of the alliance between urban middle-class and rural masses, what I mean by urban middle class are the masses of middle-income voters (say, TB 10,000-100,000 a month) in Bangkok (not necessarily intellectuals). My point here is that while urban voters were almost single-handedly responsible for Suchinda’s removal in 1992, the fact that the movement was almost exclusively Bangkok-based prevented the events of Black May from resulting in even more sweeping change. This time, however, could well be different; *should* these urban voters rise up against the current government, the movement’s support is likely to have a much broader base of support in the provinces.
By the way, I am not saying this will happen or even that it’s likely to happen; large-scale mobilization is a decisively rare occurrence in any context. While I don’t really presume to have anything in the way of a workable action plan, I also think that the impetus for this kind of broad-based movement is most likely to come from the red camp. For it to be able to attract urban voters, however, I think it must do more to distance itself from Thaksin/TRT – that is, become more “orange” than “red.”
Good point about Khana Ratsadorn. However, remember that they came to power because they controlled a good chunk of the military and the bureaucracy, as opposed to broad-based popular support. In fact, they were so aware of being out of step with the rest of the country that they refused to allow the formation of political parties for the first 14 years of their rule. Any kind of “change from below” that seeks to displace the military-bureaucratic elites today needs the kind of mass support that Giles’ manifesto is guaranteed to alienate.
Finally, about Thai culture. It is precisely because Thai culture is such a flimsy, amorphous concept that proponents of democracy have a lot of room to maneuver within discursive frames that are acceptable in contemporary Thailand. The key here is to push for radical change in ways that don’t appear quite so radical. Successful dissidents are generally quite good at claiming “backward legitimacy” – that is, the consistency of reform with a country’s history and traditions (which, again, are so open to alternative interpretation as to allow for almost any such claim). My point is not that there is any such thing as a clearly definable “Thai culture,” but rather quite the opposite. It’s precisely because it is so hard to define that it is possible to ground in it even pretty subversive agendas.
42 Frank G Anderson // Feb 15, 2009 at 10:06 am
Colum Graham’s “Nothing is clear” is a fine basic introduction to logic, but stops at the introduction and doesn’t get to the issues – which is why, perhaps, “nothing is clear” – to him.
43 Colum Graham // Feb 15, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Frank,
Out of self-interest, the single issue for me is, where does Thailand go from here? What is it for you?
If someone was to gain some sort of objective clarity on Thai identity I am sure it would be a result of a careers work. Sure it’s easy for me to say “oh, it’s a great big tangled fishing line” between the monarchy’s reel and ending at the hook of the rural farmer, and leave it there because I don’t know enough. I don’t think many other people are clear beyond their self-interested opinions on the issues. Issues plural. The issues are not one dimensional, ‘Lese Majeste is wrong’ etc, but are multi-faceted and I think are at the crux of where Thai identity will continue to evolve from.
So for me, it is clear Lese Majeste is draconian. It is clear that some Thai people feel their ‘freedom’ is being obstructed and suppressed, and it is clear that for democracy to be more than simply a label for a voting process, Lese Majeste, the visible mole from the cancer lurking beneath, must be removed for further ‘treatment.’ However, I am sure there are Thais who are completely opposite and feel that the Lese Majeste protects what perhaps ‘provides’ freedom – the “benevolent” elites.
What I wrote as a response to Chris at the beginning, the ‘Chulalongkorn as Thailand’s Harvard’, ‘bright creative martyrs’ rubbish, was just to be antagonistic towards people who feel they do have an objective grasp on the situation. If you do have a grasp on it, I am envious! Posts like the ones from Craig Reynolds, ‘Ralph Kramden’ and ‘kjf’ don’t seem to be playing into the waiting hands of the cancerous debate which seemingly ends in a Thai room 101.
44 Frank G Anderson // Feb 15, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I know it’s being subjective in and of itself, but asking what’s in it for me, and thus implying that others only express what’s in it for them seems simplistic at best, perhaps overly academic.
There are certain directions Thailand has taken since 1932, and it seems we are back at the beginning. I am a bit uncertain about what objective clarity would be on the Thai identity. Any accurate clarity would have to be subjective.
45 Colum Graham // Feb 16, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Back at 1932? What is Thailand moving forward for you? Objective clarity would be knowing how the fishing line became tangled without having any particular leaning towards a democratic Thailand or an elite fascist one. If we are back at ‘the beginning’, we have only come full circle on being fools for thinking we had moved at all. People who are able to talk about this objectively (Craig Reynolds, Ralph Kramden, kjf) aren’t frothing at the mouth, supremely offended at every mention of their respective demon.
I never asked what’s in it for you, I told you that my motivation for knowing is to be able to see where Thailand can go from here. Seeing as you know what the issues are having accused me of not getting to them, I asked what an issue for you is…?
46 Frank G Anderson // Feb 17, 2009 at 9:08 am
What is it for you? is the question that I misreferenced. That seemed, and seems to me to be a bit wide open to the idea that each person has his or her own impression and there is no real valid analysis possible.
Sorry.
47 Colum Graham // Feb 17, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Don’t be sorry, I only want to know what your impression is (which I looked at in the Harry Nicolaides comments) — from many impressions it’s possible to make an analysis. The reason I refer to Craig Reynolds, kjf, Ralph Kramden, (also David Brown and nganadeeleg) as I look over this whole thread is that they are talking about this with distance, which is what I really should have said instead of referring to ‘objectivity’.. Even if you do have a leaning to one side or another, there doesn’t need to be a ‘the other team are wrong, buy up your hay bails and pitch forks now’, type response — which was the issue for me in the comments, not the content of the post itself. I am sorry for having bitten your response initially, but you see I am very bored and lonely at work, so being a tit comes easily.
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.