New Mandala

115 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jeffrey // Feb 27, 2009 at 2:19 pm

  A very good article, but it is well worth mentioning that those Thai “students” who were attending, would have come from the extreme wealthy in Thai society. Just the fact that they are students in the UK, demonstrates this.
  They are a long, long way (socially and financially) from the bulk of Thai population.

• 2 jonfernquest // Feb 27, 2009 at 2:20 pm

  “He also extended his analysis to the contemporary situation, which is obviously not covered in his book. Giles argued that neoliberalism had been enshrined in the new constitution by dint of the references to ‘fiscal discipline’, and that the king’s regressive concept of ‘sufficiency economy’ was likewise emphasised. Coupled with the precedent of the Democrats’ ideologically neoliberal response to the 1997 Asian financial crisis,…”

  Sounds like he’s using lese majeste to push his Trotskyite platform. That’ll do wonders for the Thai economy. A small open economy with public debt over the mandated 50%? And people at Oxford well-schooled in economics take this joker seriously?

  Mission accomplished for Giles.

  You Oxford types should stop theorizing and actually get into the field and help educate the rural poor.

• 3 Dudeist // Feb 27, 2009 at 6:45 pm

  Fernquest – you seem to pop up at various points making sanctimonious utterings and with some underlying belief that because you teach in the north of Thailand you understand ‘the people’.
  I find this tiresome interjection by many Thai-based ex-pats with their laboured claims of authenticity to be a complete diversion worthy only of derision.
  I personally don’t agree with some of what Giles says but his position is far more steeped in the kind of rational thinking, democratic values and belief in human rights than you’ll witness in many other places in Thailand. Including in the head of PM Abhisit.

• 4 Lee Jones // Feb 27, 2009 at 7:23 pm

  Jeffrey: of course. I ought to have drawn that distinction. It is difficult to tell what everyone else thinks. According to Giles, there is a republican strand among the redshirts.

  Johnfernquest: “Sounds like he’s using lese majeste to push his Trotskyite platform”. He was accused of lese majeste because of his “Trotskyite platform”. If you actually read his book, you will see that it is an extremely good analysis of Thai society, and all the better because it uses methods of historical materialism. For him – and I would agree – LM is bound up in current domestic power relations. It doesn’t exist just as some weird abberation on its own. So it does make sense for him to criticise the whole shebang.

  “You Oxford types should stop theorizing and actually get into the field and help educate the rural poor.” You sound almost like you want to expel the bespectacled professors from the cities into the paddyfields. That sort of thing hasn’t worked tremendously well in the past. There is a lot of bunk that goes on in universities. But good theory is an indispensible guide to action. Giles’s book, for example, is actually far harsher on the Thai left than the king, and that sort of criticism is useful in thinking about how you rebuild progressive politics. It’s not as if he hasn’t tried to do this, either. I would recommend you take a look at the book. It is available online.

• 5 A Thai student // Feb 27, 2009 at 10:40 pm

  (Having attended the talk myself). I was under an impression that many of my fellows (Thai students) agreed with Aj.Ji. After all, what he said was common knowledge everybody, if they care enough to listen and research, are aware of. I personally agreed with many of his points, but wasn’t brave enough to defend him or express my view.

  I guess I was too afraid the Embassy people could track me down and throw me in jail. Call me coward.. but I only have 1 Thai passport. Lese Majeste had been perfectly effective at shutting our mouths up all along. How couldn’t it be as effective then?

  Adding to the composition of attendees reported by Lee Jones, there were also at least 1 government official from the Thai Embassy in London, and 1 government official from Thailand whose job was to monitor and record the talk.

  I wish the feedback from the audiences could be less 1-sided. I wish I had more courage to say that I don’t agree with using “The Thai Way” as an excuse, that I think the Lese Majeste should be repealed, that I think the monarchy is hindering the development of democracy in Thailand. I wanted to explain all those things to my fellow Thai citizen. Alas, it’s a shame that the most I could do was to give a round of applaud to Aj.Ji at the end of the talk. I hope that day of free speech will come to us soon.

• 6 tettyan // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:01 am

  You Oxford types should stop theorizing and actually get into the field and help educate the rural poor.

  This is exactly what my advice to the PAD would have been ever since they started their movement. This advice should also apply to the current establishment of Thailand. And probably Ji’s audience at Oxford as well. Of course, the PAD types probably don’t think it’s worth their trouble to educate the rural, since the poor are supposedly too stupid anyways. It’s much easier to just take away their votes instead.

• 7 Susie Wong // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:02 am

  Thank you Giles Ungpakorn for speaking out for the majority of Thais who are so unhappy with the current situation of the country.
  We cannot continue with the existing system where calculative and opportunistic people get reward while good people have to fled the country.

  It is inevitable that Thailand is moving toward being the Republic of Siam where good people do not have to leave the country anymore. The country which the Ungpakorn has been contributing to its existence and progress.

  Even now, Thai intellectual society depends heavily on your elder brother’s newspaper Prachatai to discuss public affairs important to our well being and security. The name Ungpakorn is in the heart and mind of every Thais that Ungpakorn can be trust to always speak truth to us.

  You are up against what is called hegemonic challenge against the Hegemon. It is the highest level of difficulty situation. The other side is organized, planned, and well coordinated at every levels: individual, national, and international level. They have the capability of the 9/11 inside the US. Your leadership is critical.

  May God save the Ungpakorn!

• 8 Thorn // Feb 28, 2009 at 2:07 am

  I myself attended the talk. I agree that on the surface it looked like many of the Thais were there to defended their values, i.e. Thainess and King. These are people that spoke out after the talk, and were the group that Lee Jones probably noticed the most and reported here.

  However, I believe the way they were there doing just that made the talk even more worthwhile to many others ’silent’ Thai audience. Those that were probably half-agree and half dis-agree with Giles in the beginning. Those that were confusing because their support to social justice is still being bounded by the notion of being a ‘good Thai’. The opportunity to see the clash of arguments, or even clash of values, and use their rationality to critically evaluate who made more sense, is crucial for many of the ’silent Thais’ who attended the talk.

  After the talk many Thai students were noticably affected by the messages given by Giles, and the dogmatic counter-arguments made by some Thais. It is probably the first time they heard people discussing openly and critically in public about the role of monarchy in Thai politics. Most importantly, many started questioning some moral values they were taken for granted all along their lives. The process of re-evaluating moral value is slower than some would wish, but the effect is there and cannot be neglected.

  Therefore, overall, I believe what happened there was more positive than what Lee Jones described here.

• 9 prasit // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:35 am

  About the universal health care system,

  I have stated clearly that Taksin has adopted other policies as his credit and he also amended that for his own interest as the marketing policy. The problems are occuring in the practical level. That goverment put the financial burden to the hospitals with non-reality data on people demand.

  People demand increases abruptly disproportionate to the real health problems as Gile’s idea. Co-payment is the way to balance the demand. Progressive taxation system is only the part that I agree with Giles.

  I think that he did not clear himself for being Taksin’s supporter.
  And he didn’t said much about les majeste but he just criticize the king and praise the other side.

• 10 prasit // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:50 am

  And for answer Jeffrey,

  We are not always coming from the wealthy family. Most of thai students received goverment scholarships which paid for less than 8500 pounds a year. Some of us were working with the poorest people in Thailand and we see a lot of real world that some one who just sit, sleep and eat in their home country.

• 11 prasit // Feb 28, 2009 at 10:19 am

  For Susie
  I don’t think so that the majority of Thais are worry about these matters. Most of Thai people couldnot afford for enough foods and good health care service. So why they have to pay attention on these things.

  Thailand is inevitable evolved and changed from many good or bad people. Thai king and his royal family are existing and contributing for the development for very long time, not that unknown man.

  S. sivalak have been charged with lese majeste several times, but he never has been jailed or sentenced because he didn’t take any political side. He did everything for his academic freedom and sincere to Thais, while Giles has a doubtful background to join the red shirts. His own personality and behaviour are also not respectful and he always lacks evidences to support his own statements.

  When people attacks other personally, they don’t have reason to debate.!

• 12 Joy // Feb 28, 2009 at 10:23 am

  Dear Thai student,
  I’m a Thai student too although I’m not in the U.K. I fully understand yr position and sympathize with what u wrote above. It’s very difficult for Thai students to defend aj Giles openly and verbally when there are embassy people around and there is a certainty that these people could harm us and our families. Most Thai students do not have permanent residence (in a western country) let alone another passport that may allow us to flee to another country if we were to be under threat of prosecution from the Thai government.
  I’m very glad to see your view here (Thai student’s view) and I believe many Thais agree with and sympathize with Aj Giles.
  BTW, K Prasit, when will u drop Taksin and move on to something more important? Giels has stated from the very beginng that Taksin was no angel and he has pointed out lots of wrongs committed during the Taksin era (e.g. extrejudicial killing, Takbai and other violence , murders, abuses in the South). I think the point of this thread is to defend democracy , freedom of speech and very little to do with Taksin.

• 13 Yuwi // Feb 28, 2009 at 10:57 am

  Prasit: At the talk, Aj.Ji mentioned about Thaksin’s corruption, the Takbi’s incident as well as other controversial issues that took place during Thaksin’s term of PM. In his red manifesto, he urges red-shirt people to stop waiting for the return of Thaksin and focus more on democracy. (I think it would be superb if they can do this).

  Anyway, I don’t think I’m convinced that Aj.Ji is a supporter of Thaksin. By saying that he believes Thaksin’s policies made him popular among the poor doesn’t mean that he supports the man. There is a clear line between “Thaksin” and “Thaksin’s policies”. What he said could arguably be a praise for the success of the policies as well as political campaigns. Yet, I don’t think it was a praise for Thaksin himself. In other words, if Mr.P offered the same policies as Thaksin, he could have become as popular, etc.

• 14 Nudi Samsao // Feb 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm

  Bravo for Giles, a sensible Thai with a sensible voice. I am glad he spoke at Oxford. This should make some Oxford alumni–you know who–see the light.

• 15 Fonzi // Feb 28, 2009 at 4:10 pm

  One of the greatest things about Ajarn Jai’s outspokenness is that he can’t be dismissed as a Thaksin flunky, because he was always a Thaksin critic. One of the PAD/The Nation’s tactics has been to accuse anybody who disagrees with their positions as being a paid prostitute of Thaksin and his empire–even The Economist is in Thaksin’s back pocket!

  Unfortunately, I think this makes life more difficult for Jai, ironically enough. The worst thing in the world for the fascist yellows and the Democrats is to have independent voices opposing them that aren’t linked to Thaksin, which will only make their propaganda machine much more vehement and their fascist tactics more violent and nasty against anybody who dares to challenge them.

  One has to ponder what will happen in the next two years. Thailand looks like it is facing an economic and political crisis (as well as a succession crisis) not seen since the 1930s. People seem to forget that it was really the Great Depression that brought down the Absolute Monarchy. Also, the same ideological and proxy political wars are still being fought. I know I will get flack for this, because I don’t want to equate Thaksin with Pridi, but a lot of the charges that are being leveled at Thaksin were leveled at Pridi, everything from lese majeste and republicanism to redistribution of wealth from the aristocrats to the poor and anti-democratic policies against the opposition.

• 16 Joy // Feb 28, 2009 at 4:11 pm

  To Prasit: I doubt if u are well-informed about what is going on and I don’t think u have read any of Giles’s writing. The following quote from yr own post applies to yrself more than others. Your uninformed comment outrages me and I think u have no right to speak for other Thais but yrself. How do u know that other Thais are indifferent about the draconian law and are as complacent as yrself??? Don’t make easy assumption. It will create wrong impression that all Thais are as insular as u!BTW, I’m Thai.

  Quote from Prasit: “When people attacks other personally, they don’t have reason to debate.!…”

• 17 Susie Wong // Feb 28, 2009 at 9:08 pm

  I am so grateful for Giles’ intellectual strength, sincere passion and devotion to the development and national security of Siam and beyond. Thai people dare not speak out in public for fear of lese majeste charge. Thailand has a NAZI control system inside and outside the country!

  I have a few questions and observation.

  1. The Axis academic research has strategic aims. Whereas the Allied academic research intends for public goods such as Giles’ research purpose is to improve the poor and the voiceless. This imbalance has made the Allied in an disadvantage position and vunerable to be attacked. For example, Michael Connors has been researching about Pridi Banomyong, Dr. Puey Ungpakorn and Giles because these people are the Allied strategic elites and the Axis’ intention is to destroy them. However, the Allied does not realize this fact.

  2. The Axis sent in the non-state actors right after destroying Giles’s dad in 1976. For example, the Nation newspaper was established after Dr. Puey was in exile. Suthichai Yoon, a South Korean migrated to Thailand has been writing with one objective, destroying the Allied inside Thailand. The NGO and the media in Thailand have been dominated by the Axis. Yet the Allied has no intelligence of this fact.

  I look at how Lee Jones’ approach in international relations in comparison to Michael Conners, it is black and white. This is the reason why the Axis can make an offensive move. They have multinational researchers, NGO, and media as their tools for an attack, the Allied only have public goods intention.

  2.

• 18 Lee Jones // Mar 1, 2009 at 8:50 am

  Thanks everyone for your feedback on the report. I’m glad to hear from some of the attendees that many people were pleased to be able to attend and at least able to debate among themselves later on. The comments here challenge those on the SOAS post claiming that such events have no impact. Incidentally, it wasn’t my intention to portray the event negatively – just accurately, based on what was actually said, without editorialising too much and presuming what people might be thinking. LM naturally has a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech.

  It is also interesting (but unsurprising) to learn that two Thai government officials were in attendance.

  Incidentally, if there are Thai students in Oxford who would like to follow up this event with more discussions and perhaps readings on Thai politics, do please get in touch, and maybe we can put our heads together.

• 19 prasit // Mar 1, 2009 at 12:36 pm

  Joy, I think I didn’t make any assumption for any other as you wrote. So I don’t know what you are talking about and you can’t simply assume that I or any one read your most interesting book from just a few paragraphs.

  Anyway, that quote came from Ji in that talk why he just did the thing that he said for attack the yellow young man.

  And I don’t claim anything for Thai. So can you just post your idea, the argument for that and try not to give the impression to force other to think or beleive like you have done?

  Ji started the talk with critic Taksin and he always said that he are not Taksin supporter but why he change to become a part of red shirts? As his manifesto, he argued that he just want to use some part of this people who believe in democracy and not for the political point.
  I think it might be clearer for himself if he didn’t use this people from the red shirts and then so he don’t have to said that he is not the Taksin’ s supporter as the same time that he is not the PAD supporter too.

  To Yuwi, if giles did research on the problems of universal health care system correctly, and unbiased, he might notice and pick up a lot of problems on these amended policies of Taksin for his own interest. But he just look at the matter circumferentially and grab a picture that it is good. So it is very doubtful. I don’t know exactly as Yuwi don’t know too that what is the explaination for that. One of the explanation, which might be wrong or right, is gile change his mind to support Taksin for his own interest.

  The campaign success for people to vote for Taksin, but there were hundreds of hospital closed for the financial burden, the quality of service drops from the increasing demand and anyway, the person who need real help could not access the service because it is not the matter of payment but the availability and accessibility itself.

• 20 Fred Nerk // Mar 1, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  @Fonzi:

  I don’t think it was particularly the great depression that brought down the monarchy… no doubt it helped, but seems to me that the major factors were:

  1) VI had made a complete fool of himself and dragged the monarchy into massive disrepute by being a screaming queer (as opposed to batting for both sides in the approved dignified aristocratic Thai manner) and promoting his numerous catamites over more qualified members of the official class.

  2) Thailand had reached the point where it had two (and sometimes three) generations of modern style ‘white uniform + tin medals’ official families – of course mostly descended from royals and the aristocracy… This ‘nomenklatura class’ was now big enough to have its own interests and these were not necessarily the same as those of the monarchy and the monarch’s immediate family.

• 21 Joy // Mar 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm

  Prasit, you did make assumption for other Thais when u said that most Thai won’t bother abt certain political issue that much because they have to make ends meet. Your post leargely aims to defend the ideology forced on Thai people and by doing so u join hands with the powers-that-be in Thai society to suppress and silence difference and
  critical thinking. All yr attack of Ji relies on the assumption that he is closely related to Thaksin and is a Thaksin supporter. This sort of argument is the mainstay of Manager Online ( a highly biased news/information source) and it has been overused until it is no longer effective (well, maybe it has never been effective).
  Also, yr argument clearly doesn’t show that u have read widely on Thai political history (esp from sources which are not controlled by the Thai establishment).You simply repeat what Thai primary school children have been taught from Day one and are supposed to believe in that all their life.
  Well, Ji’s book may not be perfect , but many things he raises in A Coup for the Rich and in his other works in fact correspond with what many researchers, both Thai and foreigners, have been suggesting before. These reseachers and scholars may not say exactly the same thing as Ji, but their arguments go along the same line. You could look up books by people like Scot Barme, Thak Chaloemtiarana, pasuk and Baker, Craig Reynolds, and even Peter A Jackson (whose works are not abt Thai politics but he did touch on a number of points Ji mentions in his works e.g the Sarit , Thanom, prapat era and how this impacts on the status of the Thai monarchy).

• 22 Susie Wong // Mar 1, 2009 at 4:21 pm

  I was just read an article, “Criticizing Malaysia’s Royals” in the AsiaSentinel, Feb 16th 2009. Malaysia Mamakthir had created a rule to allow Malaysians to criticize the Sultans without fear of the Sedition Act.

  Mamakthir addressed the parliament that “the people could no longer accept a system that only gives power to the Rajas and the people are not given any role in the country’s politics.”

  In the comment section, Malaysia thanks Mamakthir’s program to decrease the Royal’s power and abuse. It said, “Thanks Mamakthir for showing us the way to hammer these leeches and parasites.”

  In Thailand, Harry wrote a few sentences that most of the whole world have never read it, he got shackled in jails for months. Without the influence of Australia, he’ll be there for 3 years. So many Thai political prisoners are still being shackled in jail for wanting democracy, social justice, liberty, and human dignity.

  We don’t know where to cry out! Even people of Giles’ status had to flee the country. No one can do anything!

• 23 Lee Jones // Mar 1, 2009 at 8:45 pm

  “I look at how Lee Jones’ approach in international relations in comparison to Michael Conners, it is black and white. This is the reason why the Axis can make an offensive move.”

  I don’t really follow what you mean here.

• 24 Dhammanusari // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:10 am

  Giles made an interesting remark about Thai cultural values and the way social hierarchy (and in particular the monarchy) is supported by using Buddhist concepts, which is going back to the Traiphum text and its ideology (adopted strongly by Rama I). Now Giles as a professed Marxist probably does not consider himself a Buddhist, yet he knows about the history of Buddhism and he indicated that quite a different social ethic could just as well be justified on this basis. For historical reasons, the Cakkavatti-raja (righteous king) concept has become the prominent one in SE Asia, even though the Buddha himself seems to have preferred the republican way of government, which is the system of administration he set up for the monastic Sangha (democratic decision-making governed by the rules of Vinaya). Such a system, though, requires a certain education of its members (unfortunately no longer practised in the monastic Sangha where a similar hierarchy has been adopted as in the secular administration). It is a system which is harder to maintain, no doubt, but it could well be argued that is much more appropriate for the modern society of the 21st century with higher standards of education.

  Compare:

  The Sakyans had a council (sabha) that was made up of warriors of the tribe respected for their military prowess or wisdom. The council met regularly in Kapilavatthu’s assembly hall (sala) to discuss the running of the state [ N2 ] The council would have also settled disputes and acted as a law court. … The Sakyans’ clannishness and pride eventually led to their downfall. Although the Sakyans were free to run their own affairs, they were controlled to some degree by their powerful neighbour to the west, Kosala. By the Buddha’s time, Kosala had so much say in Sakyans’ affairs that once he actually described his homeland as being a part of Kosala. “Now the Sakyans are vassals of the king of Kosala. They offer him service and salute him, stand for him, do him honour and give him deference.”[ N4 ] The Buddha’s love of personal freedom and independence was probably influenced by his Sakyan upbringing and there is no doubt that he sympathised with the small tribal republics in their struggles to keep their independence from the authoritarian monarchies that were emerging at the time. When he heard that King Ajatasattu was preparing to invade the Vajjian republic, he asked Ananda: “Have you heard that the Vajjians hold regular and frequent assemblies, that they meet in harmony, conduct business in harmony, and adjure in harmony, that they abide by the decisions they have made in accordance with tradition, that they honour, respect, revere and salute their elders and listen to their advice, that they do not abduct others’ wives or daughters and compel them to live with them, that they honour, respect, revere, and salute the Vajjian shrines at home and abroad, and do not withdraw the support given to them and that proper provisions and protection are given to holy men so that they can dwell there in comfort and more will come in the future?” Ananda replied that the Vajjians did do all these things and the Buddha said: “For as long as they do these things, the Vajjians may be expected to prosper and not decline.”
  http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/disciples04.htm

  If the Vajji people could do it, why not the Thai people?

• 25 Joy // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:44 am

  Dhammanusari ’s points are very interesting (Giels’s comment abt the political role of Buddhism in Thailand). Peter A Jackson also discusses this in detail in his 1989 book: “Buddhism, Legitimation, and Conflict: The Political Functions of Urban Thai Buddhism”.

• 26 prasit // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:33 am

  To Joy
  I think you should behave yourself by stoping critics others people by assuming on other people’s thought.

  I wouldn’t bother to make any comment on your idea any more after these because you don’t understand anything and don’t have any point to discuss so you just attack other as I quote from Jile’s word by word.

  I think you should pay attention more on your duties instead read manager online which I never pay any interst on and many books written by Jile. I will do my job that is the health problems as I am a doctor. I discussed on the misunderstanding problem sabout universal health system, the most involving topics from this talk. And left the political things for pesudopolitician like you who knows everythings from the others book but don’t do anything else.

• 27 Joy // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:51 am

  Prasit, I admit that in some parts of my post, it sounds like I’m attacking u as an individual and if this makes u feel bad, I sincerely apologize. The thing is I think it is crucial for all Thais to be well-informed and read widely so that their judgement will be less biased as possible, and they won’t be easily manipulated by anyone. I know that in Thailand, many people don’t care much abt reading or research, and tend to dismiss this sort of stuff as unrelated to real life. The acquisition of knowledge abt one’s society and others’ should not be viewed in this light or else it is impossible for a society to develop intellectually. Of course I admire those who work hard (physically) but at the same time one should not dismiss reading and the enthusiasm to keep oneself well-informed as a waste of time.In fact, one can be ‘hard-workining’ (in yr sense of the word) and keep oneself well-informed abt what ’s going on around us at the same time. I wish u continue to post yr comments here. I apologize if my posts have offended u.

• 28 prasit // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:52 am

  Giles and many researchers make much efforts to present’ there own views even that is accepted by other or not. Although giles evidence is quite weak and he is not clear himself from conflict of interest but that is very much better than someone here that read many books but they couldn’t think anything but just believe without showing their evidence or reason why they believe or do not believe in that.

  Fung mai dai sub jub ma kra dead is the Thai proverb match with these people.

  Anyway, Giles can not give us any evidence about Thai’s lese majeste how is it bad? He just repeat the idea that it has been abusively used by political powers.

  There are many forms of insult laws to the figure heads or head of the states around the world. Penalties for insult head of states varied but in many case it is not so much difference from general people defaming or insulting laws. We should discuss that who can accuse for this law. Should it be criminal laws or civil laws only? How to protect the king or head of states from violation especially non sense, not true or lack of evidence?
  If there were not such these laws, could the country or democracy be evolved better than the present situation?

• 29 Joy // Mar 2, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  Well, having read yr latest post, I have to say I’m very disappointed with yr attitude abt research. I also have nothing more to say to u. Of course, anyone who reads enough will be able to see both the strengths and weaknesses of Giles’s writing. No book is perfect. That;s why one needs to read a lot and research so as to get a balanced picture of things. I also have nothing more to say to u. it’s up to u whether u want to continue posting yr comment here or not.

• 30 prasit // Mar 2, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  I am not sure that everyone who read will see the weak or strangth of the reading because you don’t show that as I have said from the very beginning post.

  I will accept if anyone can show their thought or views from their reading or critical thinking but as far as I know you don’t do that.

  I post the last one before you admit yourself for offend other people on individual. I appreciate that but I will repeat that you don’t say what your balance of view of that pictures in your head. So this is the last time I will look at posting on your name unless you start comment and show constructive arguments and evidences that are not personally believe or just say I believe because I have read that.

  Discussion more on Ji’s idea.
  I don’t agree with the idea about King and royal family’s projects and charities activities comparing with goverment works.

  Government, cabinets and MPs are elected with the social contract to work and solve the country problem by administrative power and legislative power under the constitution. But the king is the figure head, the representative of the power and the nations. But the king and the royal family do more than their functions.

  The royal projects helps a lot of people especially the poorest people who lack opportunities to use any resource developed from government. It is the complementary and the good for constitutional monarchy.

  Volunteer doctor foundation under the royal patronage of Kings mother that pass to King sister and now under the support from HRH PRincess Mahajakri Sirinthorn is the example. Volunteer doctors who participate in the projects reach out to the farthest and poorest areas of the countries which start decades before the universal health system.

  Royal projects in the Norther part of Thailand change the hill tribes people from opium growers to produce high quality food products.

  Traffic projects, antiflood projects, artificial rains projects and so on are the royal projects actively help loads of Thai people.

  Goverment do their works, the king and royal family is also do their work.

  Just the political sides that try to discredit the other side by abusing the laws and that is also not good for the king.

  I partially agree with the imperfect part of the use of lese majeste laws. But it is the separated issue from criticizing king without evidence in order to defaming, insulting. This question has been raised in the talk, and he tried to forget and he didn’t answer this important question.

• 31 Joy // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  The weakness and strengths of Ji’s manifesto have been discussed here and in other sites ages ago by many NM participants. The downside of the manifesto is that it will make it so convenient for Ji’s enemy to label him as the traitor of the Thai state and ‘the establishment’. The strength of this manifesto is that it shows the author’s courage to speak openly against the ‘untouchable’ in Thailand. All people residing in Thailand and even overseas are well aware of the ‘great things’ about ‘the institution’ mentioned by the poster above me because of the intensive, 24 hrs PR campaign on Thai TVs and other state-santioned discourses. What we want to know is the balanced picture of things as they actually are, not the mindless celebration and elevation, as if ‘they’ are not mere human beings, but deities!

• 32 nganadeeleg // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:29 pm

  Prasit: You have raised some intereting points regarding the Thai health system, and also regarding Royal projects.

  Regarding lese majeste laws and the King:

  - How do you reconcile the King’s 2005 speech with lese majeste charges against academics and journalists?

  - What do you think is a more serious crime: Not standing for the anthem, or conducting violence in the name of the King?

  - In the light of the Kings 2005 speech, should people who bring frivolous lese majeste charges, be themselves charged with lese majeste (for disrespecting the King)?

  also, here’s a more general question:
  Should someone remain silent whilst violence, including killings, are done in his or her name, or do you think they have an obligation to do all that they can to mitigate such violence?

• 33 Joy // Mar 2, 2009 at 2:50 pm

  Thank u so much for yr post hobby. Your post help to draw the discussion back on track (away from personal attacks) and from now on I will take the role of silent obsever, instead of posting rather unprofessional comment (of my own).

• 34 doctorJ // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:42 pm

  Regarding Thaksin’s universal healthcare project:

  Though the idea of (almost) free healthcare for all was warmly welcomed by all from the very beginning. The project itself posed a lot of headache,heartbreaking for doctors , healthcare professions. While Thaksin kept on campaigning the BEST quality service for everyone at only 30 baht! The increasing workloads added more burden on the(age old) inadequate fiscal support.People started expecting premium services. Treatment errors seemed to be unacceptable. Unbearable pressure were put on these doctors, along with lawsuits suing these docs for even the tiniest complications, not to mention the malpractice. This’s the reason why Thaksin was loathed by these docs. The project itself still had so many flaws to be fixed, ironically, it was carried over by the Dem-led governmet who’s so keen to accuse every bit of Thaksin regime.

• 35 doctorJ // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:26 pm

  Regarding Prasit’s comments on lesse majeste:

  Somsak Jeamteerasakul had made abundant rational arguements regarding lesse majeste. Have a look for yourself at the sameskybooks website. ( as I presume Prasit is a Thai)

• 36 nganadeeleg // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:04 pm

  No worries Joy.

  btw, my last question is not a call for political intervention by HMK (in case you got the wrong impression AW), but rather a call to stop mindless violence, and it can apply equally to the leaders on all sides of the current conflict, including those in exile.

• 37 Alex // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:09 pm

  Dear Prasit, whereas I agree that everyone should mostly focus on the things he/she knows best (in your case, the healthcare system, which is of course an extremely sensitive issue), I can’t help shivering at the though of a nation in which everyone exclusively thinks and cares of his own business, oblivious of the rest. We are all political individuals, and we live in societies, it is therefore our duty to do our best in order to make our society a better one. Thailand is a monarchy, we all know that, and we know it’s not the only monarchy in the world with L.M laws. We all know how many great things HM the King did for his country, and we are grateful to you for explaining this to us once again. Nevertheless, we have to agree that L.M. laws in Thailand are particularly fierce and, especially because they’ve been used innumerable times as a weapon to silence political opponents (and it’s not true that Ji’s failed on giving evidence, as he and many other journalists and scholars talked about that in details so many times) they represent a real threat to the kingdom’s development. As written by Nganadeeleg “What do you think is a more serious crime: not standing for the anthem, or conducting violence in the name of the King?”. We would like to know your stance regarding this. I would even push it a bit further. Don’t you think using HM the King’s name to perpetrate or promote violence is intrinsically deeply offensive to HM the King himself?
  Pretend that your staff at the hospital suddenly start doing things in your name which you never told them to do, and these things are meant to earn them money or power within the hospital. You never told them to do those things, and by doing them they create troubles in the clinic, but they keep acting that way, and claim that they do it to protect you. Wouldn’t that feel offensive to your professional integrity?
  Also: when you blame Ji Ungpakorn of being a Thaksin supporter, you are forgetting that all the criticism against Thaksin that we read today is nothing compared to Ji’s criticism back in the times when Sondhi was one Thaksin’s staunchest supporters and Chamlong his mentor. In other words, back in the times when criticism against Thaksin was badly needed (not conveniently too late, when there’s no risk involved, like now), and when most people were openly agreeing with just about anything Thaksin came up with. Even more importantly, Ji’s criticism was focused on very important issues such as human rights abuses, the handling on the situation in the South etc. As a doctor, you should be particularly sensitive to these issues, so I have to assume you were publicly agreeing with Ji Ungpakorn when he harshly criticized the War on Drugs or the tough stance against southern insurgents. And I guess you must have solemnly criticized the PAD and your colleagues at Chulalongkorn Hospital when they refused to treat policemen last year’s October after the PAD-police riots. The fact that none of Thaksin critics of today were criticizing him during his greatest political mistakes reeks of vested interests, and undermine their credibility.
  Lastly: I agree that Thaksin’s healthcare policies were controversial, but I truly think Thailand desperately needs a healthcare system (at the moment only the rich can enjoy a decent treatment, and that’s wrong, I hope you agree on that), but I am not a doctor, nor am I an expert on that field, therefore I would like to read some ideas/proposals from you.

• 38 prasit // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:43 am

  Nganadeeleg raised points that have been discussed somewhere else but anyway quite bias from opposite sites.
  I will discuss in term of laws and academic point of view. Obviously, I am not the red shirts nor the PAD lover because I think that their head T and S are the same kind of people. As a matter of fact, they were very closed friend who eventually had conflict between their business. So why the country should be depend on those two.

  There are many cases accused for the lese majeste from very different contexts and some show the weak point of this laws that I agree with. But we should separate it and analyse from the point who use that laws.

  Firstly, obviously, HM the king is not very happy with this laws especially when it is abusively used.

  Secondly, the political power that use this laws for their own interest to against the opposite side. I totally agree that there are always double standards for this purposes. Not only for this governments or the previous claim to be popular government or even back to the very beginning when this laws first included into the constitution. This is the weak point of this laws and that is why it should have been amended. That was the most silly thing to do with this laws when T and S accuse each other for the charge of the lese majeste rules.

  Thirdly, this laws has no limit for anyone who can accuse others because the logical back bround of this laws is the king and royal family are not in the position to defense themself. This will bring some probblem for many cases like the case of a man who did not stand for the royal anthem in the cinema has been charged by the police. As the general rules for the criminal laws, the intention has to be include for the account for complete the components of guilty. So the judge should create some of the standards for such cases and the interpretation of the laws should be restricted as much as possible as the general rules for the criminal laws.
  Like this case, I am quite indifferent for people who choose not to standing for the royal anthem in the cinema as far as they don’t do anything intended to defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent. So I agree that disrespectful is not the same as insult.

  This story is totally different for the abusively use of this laws by the political powers and so I understand why many people have signed for Ji petition or those man ( I couldn’t remember his name) who didn’t stand in the cinema for the view that this laws should be abandoned even they might not be Taksin supporter or the red shirts party. But there are many many one try to merge these cases into the same story.

• 39 prasit // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:07 am

  continue from the last post:

  The third components is the intention of the people who have been charged for breaking this laws.

  As I have said in the previous post that S. Sivalak is another Thai acadmics who always critic the royal family and the constituional monarchy. But his critical is upon the system not to attack the king and royal family so I do not surprise that he have not been sentenced guilty.

  For Jakrapop case, there are some comflict of interest and the political issues behind that so it is not worth enough to cry out before the end of the story in the jurisdiction process.

  For foreign’s journalists case, there is no exemption for not knowing that the laws exist, the texts attacks personally issue that intended to defamed and insult explicitly. But the generosity and kindness of the king, the writer has been pardoned and freed.

  ANd as I convinced that criticize the kings and royal family should be separate from the discussion about the laws.

  The critics of the royal family from Ji is vague and difficult to proove. He said that he don’t love the king so he have the right to say. It will create lot of problems to himself like to defame the other parents which has not been tolerated for any people. In other word, insulting others will create liability to the laws of defaming for general people. This is the general accepted laws for many countries in the world, so even lese majeste was excluding, Ji is still liable to be charged by the general laws. It breaks other people’ s right to be standing in the society with their dignity. So to be liberalism, one should considerate others people right. If there is no such limitation of righteous use, the community will bring into chaos and disruption soon.

• 40 prasit // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:13 am

  In conclusion, I and lots of people agree that lese majeste caused some problems in our society. But if this is for the case of Jiles, I don’t think that it should be adapted for interest for his view.

  Optimistically, academical stand points of view and ethical report on the media can be accepted and can be tolerate for Thais who love the kings but the unproove or difficult to proove, personal issues in order to defame and insult like Jiles case will not be easily accepted.

  I think he is too coward to be response for the charge and proove himself so he fleed here in UK. And as he is not clear for the politics, his talks are not judge to be academic as it should be.

• 41 prasit // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:26 am

  The other point I would like to raise from the talk is the nationalist, thainess and any terms in similar meaning.

  I do not agree with the young yellow shirt man to put these things into the talk. I am not the nationalist and I am quite indifferent to different cultures and different background eventhough I still not happy to sit among people with very different historical and cultural back ground as many people feel. But I try not to judge other people from their cultural and traditional believes.

  Jiles said something that should be ad hominem as much as that young yellow shirt man.
  I can easily tolerate for the British or westerners who use their feet as their hands to point out or use as other functions. This kind of practice is quite unacceptable in many culture including Thais. I am not sure that Jiles has been taught about Thai manner and culture enough while he said something disgusting like “the British are very polite, if you are in Thailand, other people will slam the door to you. And clawing on the floor is the animal behaviour”. This is unacceptable and non academic point of view and he should admit for this.

  I as a Thais proud that thai manner and thai cultures are beautiful, we show respect to the elder and we have never slammed the doors to any others if they has been taught enough Thais manner. But I have never call the different culture barbarian or out of date.

• 42 Geoff // Mar 3, 2009 at 4:26 am

  In your report of the meeting, Lee, you say: “What is Thailand if not a space/people defined by fealty to the king and Buddhism? Isn’t the crucial thing not so much institutions but Thailand’s ‘political culture’ and the king’s centrality as a ‘value-concept’?”

  This seems to relate to something I said at the meeting. But not very well. May I clarify?

  When we speak of a monarch, we may refer to a person and/or to an institution. Then there is also another usage that relates not so much to a feature of the world as to people’s experience of being part of their society.

  Every society projects a sense of its value-system upon complex terms/images (like: Communism, Democracy or Monarchy; Churchill or Lenin; or Karl Marx, Adam Smith or the Buddha). Some negative attitudes and values (submissiveness, hysteria or whatever) are commonly involved. The patterns of cognitive behaviour that emerge from the usage of such broad value-terms are always a bit of a mixed bag.

  By the same token, much positive affect (to do with social solidarity) can be bound up with this type of projection. That surely applies also to the way Thai people speak and think about Buddhism, for instance. It presumably also applies to that other value-term which is central to the experience of modernisation in many Thai people’s lives, namely monarchy.

  [ This is nothing to do with 'fealty', nor with abstract notions of a country as a 'space' that is in some way 'defined'. It's just that people do think and talk about their Thai-ness, for instance when society is in crisis -- and in such discussions the monarchy does crop up. ]

  Of course modernisation processes are generally fairly brutal, and it is not too helpful to disguise this reality. Equally, impulses that have contributed to solidarity are dismissed at some risk.

  Okay, people (and peoples) do run away from uncomfortable perceptions and choices. Still, it must make sense to achieve necessary change with as little conflict as may be possible.

  Of course you are quite right, Lee, that the drive to polarisation was much in evidence all round at our meeting. All the more need, perhaps, to find a middle way.

  I once heard a psychiatrist of Jewish descent talk about his work in re-educating young German prisoners at the end of World War II. He said his breakthrough came when he realised that the most convinced Nazis among them were the ‘best people’ in their group. His first task was to connect with and validate their positive impulses. Then he could help them find a better way forward.

  The Buddha is continually shown as doing this. He is no mean polemicist, but he always starts by finding some way to agree with his interlocutors, along the lines of “I see — broadly you’re starting from a wish to endorse [motherhood and apple pie] and from there you’re going on to the thought that perhaps [dominance and submission is the beginning of wisdom]. Well, now — isn’t there a better way to endorse [motherhood and apple pie?]”

  Again, consider the way Thai people relate to Buddhism. Some may do so in feudal terms. Equally, some influential Thai Buddhists have been freethinkers — Buddhadasa for one. He sought to revalidate the Buddhist tradition in terms of its best and truest aspects. Since it is unlikely that Thais’ involvement with the tradition will come to an abrupt end, this approach would seem to have some merit even from a perspective that is unsympathetic to Buddhism.

  Something similar may apply in respect of the monarchy. It is clearly a significant element in the lives of many Thai people. There must be something positive in this phenomenon. In which case: how to build on the positive?

  Incidentally, Thai people do distinguish monarchy from monarch. They separate the way the monarchical system is used and abused politically from the person of the current King. More than one told me on Friday that they endorsed much of what was said about the situation in the country but felt deeply discomfited at what they took to be animadversions against the person of the King. This may be a relevant consideration for those who wish to build a broad coalition in favour of democratic change. (Also, it is perhaps worth noting that numbers of people with nothing to gain from it seem to have found admirable personal qualities in the King.)

  Incidentally, Comment No. 1 above is not from me.

• 43 prasit // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:49 am

  I am quite disappointin that another one who try to assume and offend other are redisappearing again by the very closed name as the previous one.

  I am not appreciate for some one who recommend me the book they have read except they show what emerge in their mind after they read that book.

  Thank you for give reader the clearer pictures about damn- univeral health policies amended by Taksin. It is easily understand that the any government after these to carry on the project unless they will lose their vote within minutes. Popular show must go one. So it is pointless.

• 44 prasit // Mar 3, 2009 at 10:15 am

  Thanks alex for the long discussion.

  I have admitted already that lese majeste cause some problem. You might have not read that before you post because today, my post await for moderation for ten hours. And HM the king have show his concern on those use lese majeste for their own interest and claim that is the protection for himself but it is instead discredit and offense him. It is worthless to give an example on my profession.

  I and manyone who listened to Ji have already receive his ideas that he said that he is not Taksin supporter and he have never vote for him. But I put the question that I doubt that why he have to go into that red shirts with big shadow from Taksin and why he dig the evil health policy of that Taksin’s goverment to show how modernization should be. He have never tried to give any answer.

  I myself totally do not agree with doctors who use their profession for any non medical issues especially when it create the conflict with ethics. As a doctor, we can not refuse to give treatment unless we are not in the ready status. In this case, if any doctors have strong emotions against someone, they should do the basic life support and send patients to other doctors who can care the patients after that and they must suppress their emotion at least during the patients are under their supervision.

  The health care system before the universal health system has evolved for a long period. parts of the populations has some kinds or welfare system, but there are also lots of people who cannot afford for any health service and don’t have any kinds of insurance.

  But as our scarcity of health resources, doctors and health personnels and budgets for running the projects, we have to build health infrastructure and personnel to support the system and co-payment that use in every country of the world is one of the best way to limit unnecessary use of health service .
  Universal health system like Taksin’s policy will create the vicious cycle and will end up with poor service, financial disruption.
  Education and health promotion will ameriolate the problems.
  Not every events of illness need doctors or hospital care.

  ANyway, everyone should do their function and their duty first. I understand that you might think that I don’t take serious on the politics. That’s not true. I agree that everyone are in politics but politics is not to offense other people’s idea or try to assume other thought from their understanding. Critical thinking is not to critic other.

• 45 Ralph Kramden // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:54 am

  Prasit is quite wrong on S. Sivarak. Sulak has been specifically critical of specific kings, including the present one. He is not critical of the monarchy as an institution.

• 46 Susie Wong // Mar 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  Lee Jones, thanks for asking me to clarify my point.

  Scholars use evidences and theories to explain political phenomena and add their principles and values into the argument in order to shape and better the society that they observed. Giles and you did just that.

  However, Michael Connors’ works is different. His analysis is solely to lay the ground work for Germany-Japan conquest of Southeast Asia. In order to advance Germany-Japan strategic objectives in the Asia-Pacific, the geo-strategic Thailand must be an alliance of the Axis power. Thus, the strategic Allied Forces elite Giles Ungpakorn must be eliminated from Thailand. Why? Giles is the direct descendant of the most respected Allied Forces in Thailand. Second, his left ideology has made him connected to the mass base in the urban and rural areas. His intellect and integrity will strengthen its leadership. The mass base under the Allied Forces direct descendant is a threat to Japan-Germany post-Cold War territorial expansion objectives. The control of Southeast Asia is critical to its forward posture to control the Middle East in its quest to challenge the US hegemony.

  If you analyze Michael Connors’ research, teaching, book reviews, by using all three levels of analysis and strategic studies, you will then understand my point. As E.H.Carr said, “Analysis and purpose were inextricably blended.”

  I hope to talk to you and Giles soon!

• 47 amberwaves // Mar 3, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  >’”…And clawing on the floor is the animal behaviour”. This is unacceptable and non academic point of view and he should admit for this.’

  Well, it is a non-academic point of view. So what?

  On two occasions, around New Year’s and a few days later, Thai TV – I believe I was watching MCOT – showed something I have not seen in the media before or since. The first occasion was the Crown Prince’s son being taken to give food to some monks, the second some exhibition at Muang Thong Thani or another large hall.

  Members of the royal entourage could be glimpsed, for just a few seconds, walking on their knees to follow the royal family members. In the first case it was a woman who was in a nurse’s uniform, who I assume was the son’s nursemaid, the second case I don’t clearly recall.

  These were not people coming and going for a royal audience, these were people doing their daily work in (more or less) public.

  It’s only a guess, but I suspect these fully-grown adults were supposed to be showing that they were lower than the toddler son.

  So my question for Prasit is: what would be your academic and non academic reactions to such behavior?

• 48 Alex // Mar 3, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  Thanks Prasit for your response. Unfortunately (coincidence!) I am off to the hospital for surgery today, so I will be back here in a couple of days (well, hopefully!) and try to post more.

• 49 doctorJ // Mar 3, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  Giles had made his stance clear enough in his “red siam” manifesto. He also did mention his appearance on the UDD stage, was simply an expression of his disapprovals to the military and the influential figures behind the scenes with all their “undemocratic” manipulation in the current political turmoil. I’m well aware that it might not convince everyone, but I’d rather concern more on his opinions/expression than his motivation. You can accuse any one who’s against the LM as Thaksin’s lackey. Without solid evidence,this kind of stereotype accusation also sounds prejudice. It’s the rationale and relevacny of his opinions that concerned me. Though I can’t really say I agree with all in his manifesto, I do support his opinion about the LM. And admire his courage to express his thought, with the cost of all the accusations made on him.

• 50 prasit // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:47 pm

  Ralph Kramden has no evidence on S Sivalak critical on the King and the last time that he was charged is doutfully because he said something about Taksin and it turn to be political issue.
  It is again show that any goverment or political power groups abusively used the laws and I agree that this law has to be amended

  However, it is no point to defend wheter S. Sivalak criticize king specifically as Jiles or not. Jiles still specifically critics the king personally and also the domestic royal house holds that do not relevant to his ideas that lese majeste is the problem. So I think he is the problem himself. He makes every attempt to dissolve the laws for his freedom from unbearbale, untolerable illogical manifesto.
  Excluding from doubtful about he is taksin supporter or not. His manifesto still breaks the insult laws in general . It’s not about lese majeste.

  Freedom is limited, if we can do anything in the society, we will return back to animal society.

  Any way, human has evolved from animals million years ago. LEt’s cerebrate 200 years of Charles Darwin, father of evolution.
  .

• 51 prasit // Mar 4, 2009 at 9:42 am

  To amberwaves

  So what?
  I don’t have any reaction on what were you written.
  Culture is the social phenomenon which has been evolved on different background. It should not be consider superior or inferior. Lee Jones, chair of this talk should know best what I have said and he should know and can judge that what Jiles talked about Thai compare to other’s culture emotionally, ironically is nowhere in academic.
  So so what?

  I think that some people try to build the wrong association between LM and red shirts or Taksin supporter. As I have said that it is acceptable and clear that LM cause problems. But Jiles don’t think about LM until he got into trouble because he decided to go into Taksin supporter group. He critics royal family which is not acceptable even for the general people. Is it necessary to say or write everything about their privacy life? He want to own the gossip magazines? Is it worth for social and political development?

  Insult laws for general people let the people who have been defamed to accuse, but LM aims for protection of the king who are not in the position to accuse or defense by himself and many countries has insult laws to prevent head of the state from insulting. Jiles activity raise the important point that at least LM should be continued to prevent such that people like jiles. But as I convinced many times that it also has to be amended but not for interest of this son of one of the most respectful civil servant of Thailand, Dr Puay.

• 52 prasit // Mar 4, 2009 at 9:45 am

  Get well soon ALex

• 53 Yudhisathira // Mar 4, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  Dear Mr Prasit

  I’ m a medical student in Thailand, and I want to point out some misunderstanding.

  1. In Thailand budget 2009, The budget for National health security fund (The fund which is paid for Ministry of public health and used for supporting universal healthcare[UC] or “30 Baht”project ) is 80,597.7 million baht (about 1600 million pound) which serve for almost all of Thai citizen (about 60 million people), whereas Government healthcare fund (The fund which is used for providing health care for civil servants, military officers and their relatives) is about 48,700 million Baht (about 9,760 million pound) and is served for only about 2-3 million people . So, The most inefficient healthcare system in Thailand is not UC, but the government healthcare fund system.

  2. For The change in relationship between Doctors and patients in Thailand, It has nothing to do with “30 Baht” project. Sueing doctors for malpractice was started from the cases in private hospitals, which appeared before “30 Baht” Project. Yes, it is right that the salary of healthcare professionals working just for the government only might not be enough, and the condition is quite not so good. So, we usually take an “extra” jobs in private hospitals or clinics, but in taking extra jobs mean you must accept that you are posing yourself as a merchant who offer an “alternative” to the normal health care system (which include you yourself in the system too!), not the savior who save the patient anymore, and you are creating inequality among the rich and the poor too. When everybody in the society percieve doctors as a merchant (even some of them might not do “extra” jobs in their lifetime, not the savior as it used to be, how can you expect them to respect you? So, that is why sueing is quite widespread nowadays in Thailand.

  3. It is quite surprising that even during economic recession, Royal Thai army is planning to buy more Mi-17 helicoptors and BTR armoured fighting vehicles from Russia, and Royal Thai air force is planning to buy more JAS-39 Grippen fighters! (I’m not going to count the money used for covert operation to stabilize the “old system” ). Can you imagine if we siphon these money how much more we could spend on both curbing economic recession and improving our healthcare system?

• 54 amberwaves // Mar 4, 2009 at 4:15 pm

  >”…It (culture) should not be consider superior or inferior.”

  You are setting up a false argument here. No one is judging a culture superior or inferior.

  Ji’s manifesto, if I recall correctly, noted five specific cases of royal action/inaction which he deplored (one concerned 1976).

  His argument, which is pretty clear, is that the LM law is used as a shield for injustice. Calling for a republic is an extension of that argument.

  At a stretch, you might say that Ji is opposing the prevailing norms of society (perhaps), but that’s a good thing, IMHO.

  Just because he has different political views than you (or, if it is the case, the majority of Thai society) doesn’t make him a lesser guardian of Thai culture.

  Certainly no less than anyone who uses their land to put up Western style luxury shopping malls, magnets for kids with K-Pop haircuts to attend hip-hop concerts. Now there’s a cultural issue.

• 55 Joy // Mar 4, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  Quote from amberwave: ” ….Just because he has different political views than you (or, if it is the case, the majority of Thai society) doesn’t make him a lesser guardian of Thai culture….”

  Judging from comments posted in Thai in Prachathai site, quite a significant number of Thai people nowadays sympathise with Ji’s line of thoughts, although they may not agree with everything he said in his manifesto. Prachai is not a mainstream media, but I think it attracts Thai people who are interested in social, political and cultural issues from all walks of life so IMHO views expressed by Thai posters via Prachathai Thai Version can’t be easily dismissed. Lately, I’ve seen lots of intelligent comments and insights from Prachathai Thai Version and I’m really glad abt this because it shows that more and more Thai people are interested in what’s going on around them and start to question existing verities /status quo.

• 56 prasit // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:02 pm

  Dear Yudhi (may be you are one of my student)

  Thank you for intersting figure you have shown here. However, it is quite misleading and when you have finish your study and get into real trouble you will see the picture clearer.

  For your first assumption, you are interpreting effectiveness just in term of money per capita. It doesn’t reflect any quality at all. The calculation for the sum of fund was based on non realistic data. After, UHC system has launched, demand and chaos was increasing. hhere is nowhere of such quality in today health system. For the goverment health fund, it is irrelevant to the thing discuss here. However, medical reimbursment for civil servant system has been reform recently and you will get more idea about these after you go into practice life.

  About doctor-patient relationship and medical liability, you quite wrong about these point, it is too complicate than your understanding. Many factors are involved and can be claimed for such downturn of your future career. You are quite lucky as I to be a doctor in Thailand, patients are usually nice and pay respect to doctor. You will have some good impression when Khun Ta, Khun Yay, nod and praise you when they get into your surgery ( it means like clinics or examination room). UHC system might be one of the factor that creates more and more expectation pressuring the health care providers and lead the doctors to medical liability due to imbalance of demand and supply of th system. The best way to deal with this is you should realize the quote from King’s father
  “Let consideration of personal gain
  Take secondplace
  To the overall benefit of Mankind
  Prestige and riches
  Are the natural rewards”
  His Royal Highness Prince Mahidol of Songkla

  The third assumption is quite offense and you make the association with some bias. I think you should give more attention on study in epidemiology and you will find the answer under the association study methodology. I suggest after you will finish your MD sometime,, wou could participate for the volunteer doctors project under the royal patronage and you will get more idea about health care system in Thailand.

• 57 prasit // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:12 pm

  ” no one is judging a culture superior or inferior”
  But jiles did. Listen to the tape of this talk and you will understand.
  He said that ma ra yard thai or Thai good mannerism is inferior to his british politeness. As Jiles state that he is not Thai, oppsoing any other cultures or norms is not his duty and I will appreciate if Thais who have been educate about ma ra yard Thai enough before say that what has to be adapted in the present era.

  Again, I convince that LM create problem, but to insult or defame other espcially the privacy or the culture of other people is not accounted for that false. Giles should stop his quote that interfere many Thais and if he is sincere for the social development in his father home country, he have to strictly discuss the pros and cons of LM more acadmically than propaganda and outlier debate.

• 58 prasit // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm

  Some point about the good of the old system.

  Lots of people in Thailand donate their money for the charity and activities under the royasl patronage or the name of HMK HMQ and the royal family. Nowadays, these very large sum of money turn into comprehensive health care complexes in many medical schools, regional hospital and again, the volunteer doctor projects.

  There is no such people who can be the central of Thais if we don’t have the old system and the money use to protect the system will go into the pockets of the hungry politicians and it will never give back to the poor people.

• 59 amberwaves // Mar 4, 2009 at 10:30 pm

  >Lots of people in Thailand donate their money for the charity and activities under the royasl patronage or the name of HMK HMQ and the royal family. Nowadays, these very large sum of money turn into comprehensive health care complexes in many medical schools, regional hospital and again, the volunteer doctor projects.

  Just out of curiosity, does anyone know:
  -whether this very large sum of money is audited in any meaningful way,
  -whether the figures on such accounts are publicly available,
  -whether and how anyone is held accountable for how it is spent, and
  -whether the effectiveness of these projects is independently scrutinized?

• 60 Alex // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:40 am

  Hi everyone, I’m back from the hospital (in my country, Italy, where the public system is slowly being “sold out”), and I must say that the level, at least here in the north-east, is still very high. About Thailand, I found Yudhisathira’ comment really elucidating. Those are things I was vaguely aware of, and some I could just guess but I wasn’t sure. For example, whereas I agree that Bangkok’s private hospitals offer great premises and often well-prepared English speaking staff, I can’t help opposing – very radically – this common practice that doctors from private hospitals have: forcing the patients to buy medications/drugs at the ultra-overpriced hospital’s pharmacy. It’s obvious they get commissions on them, so it’s also obvious that some of them will tend to give you drugs you don’t need. Mostly, they’ll give you paracetamol (although you have tons of boxes waiting to be used at home), which is annoying but not dangerous, but sometimes they’ll go as far as to give you antibiotics to cure a viral sickness (now, although I’m not a doctor, I know that’s WRONG). My point here is: I prefer a higher doctor’s fee and no stupid unneeded drugs. How unprofessional is that! I would like to hear Prasit’s ideas about this too.
  About what Prasit wrote on charity: we all agree charity is a good thing, of course, but are we sure that a country should – albeit only partially – rely on charity to deal with seminal issues as public health? In my opinion, the best hospitals in a good country should be the public ones (the same should be true with schools and university), so as to give everyone a chance to be treated seriously, in case of serious illnesses. It’s a long and winding road, I know, but if they achieved something quite close to that even in communist, dilapidated Cuba, why can’t comparatively rich Thailand make it too?

• 61 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:23 am

  Thanks Alex,
  Yes for the private hospital doctors as you have mentioned, it is called defensive medicine which are quite popular in US where doctors are the most liable to the lawsuit.
  I am not agree with that practice though because it usually lead to over investigate, over prescribe like your exmaple.

  I think one of the problem in practice is the patients are not always educate about that enough to understand and sometime they push the doctors to give them the drugs they should not ge given like antibiotics. These situations are not limited to Thailand which creates antibiotic resistance bacteria spreading around the world.

  You might have to notice that in Thailand, three biggest university hospital are heavily support with charity activities especially under the royal patronage of the King and family. Chulalongkorn university under the Thai red cross society which HM the Queen is the president, Siriraj Hospital which King Rama V built and is the first medical school in Thailand, and Ramathibodhi hospital which now gathering money for the excellence centre under the name of HRH Princess maha jakri sirinthorn.

• 62 Joy // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:26 am

  As an ordinary Thai citizen, I think amberwave’s questions are crucial and if we could get answers to them, it would be lovely. However, I’m sure that if this is a mainstream Thai site, simply asking these questions will lead to one’s access to the site being banned or worse, being condemned as a traitor and ungrateful, or even worse being sued for insulting ‘the institution’.
  Mainstream Thai sites allows no room for such a discussion.
  I also agree with Alex (the poster above me) that a citizen has a ‘right’ to access proper healthcare service and why should s/he has to rely on charity?? Charity is a great thing alright, but when one has to depend on it in time of illness, I think it is not quite right at all.

• 63 Joy // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:43 am

  Regarding Giles’ attitude abt Thai culture or way of life, I don’t recall any insults that he intends at Thai culture. I only remember him praising a number of Thai students he met/taught at Chula as intelligent and enthusiastic to learn. Compliments or priases about one’s culture are often embraced by most locals but criticisms are often met with hostility, even if they are highly constructive.
  Concerning, Thai people being polite and having good manners, I think this is partly true and in fact they don’t even have to be ‘well-educated’ to be so. However, it is not easy to judge whether this or that individual has good or bad manner because things like manner are culturally specific, and i don’t recall Giles being judgemental reagrding this issue.
  The cliche abt Thai people being ‘polite and good mannered’ takes an ironic turn when one takes a quick look at mainstream Thai sites or blogs or forums and notice the violence, sexism and racism embedded in the language used by so many Thais (who also see themselves as ‘well-educated’).

• 64 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:49 am

  Unfortunately, Thai health care system really depends on charity.

• 65 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 9:58 am

  To expand the idea,

  The farthest out reach areas are covered by Volunteer doctor projects under the King Mother or PRincess mother medical volunteer.
  The best three university hospital are heavily support by the charities as described before.
  There are many more hospitals using the name of crown prince and King sister for establish.
  Life for life foundation for epilepsy (LIFE) under the royal patronage of HRH Princess Chulabhorn.
  Kidney disease foundation of Thailand under the royal patronage of HRH PRincess Kalyaniwattana.
  And so on.

• 66 Lee Jones // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:01 am

  Prasit/ Joy: Giles did criticise some aspects of Thai culture. But he did not say Thai culture was “inferior” to “his” British culture tout court. That is, (a) he never said he was not Thai – quite the opposite – this is a slur applied to him by his political opponents, a very tiresome way the right has always tried to discredit the left by associating its representatives with alien forces; (b) he said some aspects of Thai culture were superior to British culture and vice-versa. For example, he praised the way Thai people look after their elderly parents, but he criticised the hierarchical system of Thai manners that emphasises deference to the “big people”, and said something quite incidental about Thais not holding doors open for each other. So let’s be clear about exactly what was said, and what was not said, Prasit. That’s the only basis for a rational discussion.

  BTW, the moderators might think about recruiting a bit of extra help to cut down the 12hr time lags between comments being submitted and approved.

• 67 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:04 am

  The father of modern medicine is His royal highness prince songhla. He is the son of King Rama the fifth and the father of King Bhumipol.
  He studied medicine at harvards university and after that he went back to be the honorary lecture at Siriraj Hospital.

  With collaboration of Rockey Fellor Foundation, he can reorganize and improve the syllabus for medical training and change Thai medical service into modern medicine.

  Princess mother is his wife was the professional nurse and after his son crowned to be the king, she founded the Princess mother medical volunteer to help people in the far out reach of our country for more than forty years.

• 68 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:12 am

  Again I will say it again Fung mai Dai Sub Jub Ma Kra Deard for the one who did not listen to the audio from Jiles last talk yet.

• 69 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:16 am

  Thanks lee
  “and said something quite incidental about Thais not holding doors open for each other” that is not true as I have discussed.

  So it is not quite a rational discussion and the judgement for any culture superior or inferior (so Amberwave will clearly understand now what was going on in the talk) should not be encourage in academic discussion as equal as nationality that yellow shirt man raised.

• 70 nganadeeleg // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:19 am

  “In my opinion, the best hospitals in a good country should be the public ones (the same should be true with schools and university), so as to give everyone a chance to be treated seriously, in case of serious illnesses.It’s a long and winding road, I know, but if they achieved something quite close to that even in communist, dilapidated Cuba, why can’t comparatively rich Thailand make it too?”

  Not only Thailand, Alex, but also most of the first world, including USA!

  As for inferior or superior cultures, I think the main issue Giles had was the practice of crawling – for those of us who think all men are (or should be) created equal, it is very hard to accept such practices.

  Also in defence of Giles he did not run down Thai culture in general, and made specific mention of positives such as how the young and elderly are treated in Thailand.

  As for Giles discussion of a particular person’s private life and rumors and photo’s – I din’t think it was intended as an insult, but rather to highlight the difference between the public propoganda and the private reality.

  As for LM, I still think a reasonable compromise, instead of abolishment (which is too divisive), would be to make changes to the law to limit who can make the charge – preferably only the palace.

• 71 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:21 am

  In other words, culture difference should not be judge inferior or superior.
  There is more things to discuss about LM and he and also Lee didn’t attempt to lead the talk in the track as the title announced.

• 72 Joy // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:22 am

  Thanks, Lee, for your clarification, and thanks to Prasit and Yudhisathira for providing in-depth details abt the structure of the Thai health care system.

• 73 Joy // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:26 am

  I totally agree with Nganadeeleg’s proposal regarding the change that only the palace can make the charge against the person they feel has insulted them. I don’t think it’s possible to abolish LM law at the moment.

• 74 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:31 am

  I agree with nganadeeleg about LM as I have discussed since the beginning.

  I am not quite sure that said something about other private life and rumor is not defamed other. It look like he want to be a gossip journalist that usually unethical involve with celebrity’s life and will anyone OK that head of state have been rumored like some country.

  Crawing on the floor is the same practice in some house to the head of the house or elderly even in the chinese culture that Thais are base on, so it is no any resistance to do that and it is easily accepted.

  About the culture, I have already mention in the pevious comment.

• 75 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 10:33 am

  Yeah at last we came to quite the same and keep on the track again that LM should be amended. That’s the point.

  Nothing else to do with Jiles case, I convince.

• 76 Yudhisathira // Mar 5, 2009 at 12:42 pm

  Der Mr Prasit

  I am going to discuss some of the points:

  1. The overwhelming amount of the patients coming to hospitals after UC projects has been initiated is not the false of UC project itself. The difference between numbers of the patients who visit hospitals before and after the initiation of UC project reflects how poor our country’s healthcare system were because it showed that so many patients had been neglected because they could not offer more than 30 Bahts for their crippled health, and I had experience cases whom their relatives would had to loan from illegal sources (Sure, interest rate is about 20% per month) or the hospital had to pay from their own budget in order to pay for their medication and/or surgery [These cases are not Thai citizen, though]. In the case I had experienced myself, without their relatives present, Staffs of the hospital decide to let them die even the patient became comatosed due to uremia only because they did not know who would pay for his dialysis [He is not Thai citizen too!]. I dare not to imagine that these could be happened to our fellow Thai citizen too if UC project does not exist.

  2. Yes, it is the culture in our country that people (esp. in lower socioeconomic class) show much respect to Doctors because our forerunner, especially Prince Songkhla Nakarin or “Prince Father” [He is the father of King Rama VIII and IX] had done great jobs, but if you can remember his biography, he always stressed egalitarian value of doctors and patients ( More correctly, in every citizen, as he had let student who recieved his scholarship sleep on the bed whereas he sleep on the floor when he travelled to America together because “We are in Democratic country”). When he graduated MD cum laude from Harvard and returned to Thailand, He could not practice freely in Siriraj hospital due to his royal status and the pressure from those in the palace during that time. So he had to practice in a missionary hospital in Chiang Mai instead. If we had Prince father in our mind, we must erase our feudalistic thought as the “Savior”, and start to think that the poor owe us everything directly in the form of Tax and VAT [the Source of our salary]which is the most important revenue of Thailand (as the poor pay most of the VAT) and indirectly in the form of money of the rich paid for us because they exploited much of their fortune from the poor.

  3. We don’t have to use any epidemiology to assess our military budget, we can use a common sense that during an economic recession (from internal factors likes political turmoil and capturing Suvarnabhumi airport and external factors), should arm forces double their spending about double fold (from about 80,000 million baht in 2006 to 160,000 million baht in 2009) when there is no conceivable major threat? (If you are going to count Southern insurgency, it is actually the political war not the military war, you cannot win this war without trust from people in the area, not weapons.)

• 77 Joy // Mar 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm

  Yudhisathira, I only want to say that I’m very grateful for yr very professional, rational and balanced views. Many thanks, and I look forward to see more of yrs and Prasit’s exchange of views.

• 78 doctorJ // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  Totally agree with Yudhisathira. At least one evidence of “proper” education can be seen here! Congratulation.

  Loads of evidence about the charities given to the underprivileged in remote areas can be seen televised daily. Is anyone aware that large part of the funds given, came from the government budgets. For the volunteer doctor projects, it’s originally aimed to be a part of the anticommunist propaganda in the cold war period. It’s mainly a psychological strategy. Imagine , a doctor versus one or two hundred patients in a half day period! That’s impossibly considered a proper medical service, though came out of a good intention. Ask any one who had first hand experience in the project, you will get the same pictures.

• 79 Susie Wong // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm

  I have just read the article Red Siam Manisfesto by Giles Ungpakorn. He is definitely a home grown Siamese with great insight.

  Read Siam Manisfesto is so similar to the US Democrat Party or even the Republican Party platform. It is also similar to the UK and Australian Labor Party platform.

  Thai people have been oppressed for too long. We want change!
  We stand up for our rights, liberty and freedom, just like citizens in other countries.

  I follow Giles’ leadership!

• 80 doctorJ // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:35 pm

  The overwhelmed responses from the underprevileged to the volunteer doctor project simply reveal the “inaccessibility” to healthcare services. That’s the reason why Thaksin’s “universal healthcare” was so much welcomed by all. Even the Democrat and Prasit can deny it. Yet there’re plenty flaws in the prgram need to be fixed. Just like other political conflicts created by Thaksin, that need amendments. One thing for sure, the coup and the”undemocratic” ways like PAD, was sure NOT the cure for this country. It’s a curse!

• 81 Chatchanok // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:21 pm

  ถึงคนไทยและคนไทย

  ใจร่มร่ม

  แยกแยะข้อความของแต่ละท่านให้ดี ไม่รู้ว่าเหล่าผู้คอมเมนต์ แสดงความคิดเห็นเป็นคนที่ใส่ใจประเทศไทยหรือเปล่าหรือแค่ขอให้ได้พิมพ์ มีกี่คนที่อยู่เมืองไทย เป็นคนไทย ได้ผลกระทบจากสิ่งที่พิมพ์ ไม่ทำงานการหรือได้เงินจ้างมาพิมพ์ ข่าวสารบ้านเมืองตัวเองรู้รึเปล่าแม้กระทั่งที่พัฒนาแล้วก็กำลังจะพังกันเห็นๆ คนไทยโปรดเขียนเพื่อสร้างสรรค์ หรือหยุดเพื่อชัยชนะของประเทศ

  ถึงสัญชาติอื่น

  โคตรexpertเลยข่าวบ้านกู

  ขอโทษที่ใช้คำไม่สุภาพ

  and ขอบคุณคุณ prasit

• 82 Sunflower // Mar 5, 2009 at 3:43 pm

  Red Siam Manifesto

  “We must have freedom of expression and the freedom to choose our own government without repression and fear.”

  Just google “Red Siam Manifesto” then the article will come up.
  Read it! It is good for our brain!

• 83 doctorJ // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:05 pm

  Chatchanok:

  You’re welcome to voice out your dissent about the other’s comments. But make it more relevant and comprehensible please.

  Or just another stooge of the………..

• 84 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:36 pm

  Thanks Yud to bring us out of the track again but I am very happy to educate young medical students.

  First of all that show that you are not have any idea on UC at all is about the coverage of UC. From your case experience (but should be aware when you are going into the examination because the examiner will be not interested in how many cases you have experienced), dialysis is not coverage by universal health care system by Taksin.

  Anyway, many patients are rescued with the support from the foundation of kidney disease Thailand under the royal patronage of HRH PRincess Kalyaniwattana and the peritoneal dialysis is under consideration of the health system team.

  And about your assumption, about increasing demand after UC has launched reflect the real pictures of scarcity is far from the truth. They donot worry about payment anymore. The patients go to hospital for minor illness and increase such work loads to hospitals.

  In your tiny case experiences that they have to loan from illegal source, it should not be worry even before UC becuase we have the system for the poor or very poor person call Sor Por Ror, I think you might come across these project before.

  To sum up and to stop your false idea about UC is UC is not everything for health and money per capita from this project can not do anything with patients in term of quality care, drug quality is reduced, high cost treament has been not coverage.

  In regards to Prince Mahidol Songkhla, thanks you to show his egalitarian style. That’s the other point that we praised him as the father of medicine. But as you talk about the time when Thailand are still under absolute monarchy at the very beginning of his medical career, so he is in the very difficult position to be the Prince doctor and he choose to practice in the missionary hospital that show his good mind to help people. So again thank you that you show another good point from his royal biography. About taxpayer, I am not convince that poor pay more tax (may be Taksin can know these) and I am not convince again about rich exploited their fortune (some one work hard, some one use their political or political business opportunity for their own interest). Hope you bacome a good doctor and understand the real picture of health care system in Thailand soon.

  For the last point, I admit that I miss the information because you lable royal that should be carefull and so, I agree with you that military budget should not increase without any reasonable situation now. But I convince you should go deep in epidemiology and look for the association study and you will understand more about causal relationship and association is not the same. For the example, if the military increase the budget before the recession and just success in budget sharing in time of economic recession, it doesn’t mean that economic recession will be more downturn from the military budget share or military budget is the cause of economic recession.

  OK, that’s not about LM and I think we might have another comments on health care system somewhereelse if the moderator happy with these.

  PS the Princess mother medical volunteer reflect the inaccessibility of health care system but UC by Taksin do nothing with solving inaccessibility problem and create more problem for the patients who really nead health care because the que and waiting list from those unnecessary use. So J can deny this truth also but it is the fact.

  And fortunately, I have first hand experience about the Princess mother medical voulnteer, so I can guarantee the good intention and result of this project.

  Surprisingly, Jiles copy manifesto from other country, or it is incidentally.? That’s why a people from that talk ask that why do we have to copy or change or modernize follow the western world?

• 85 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:56 pm

  สมเด็จพระมหิตลาธิเบศร์อดุลยเดชวิกรม พระบรมราชชนก

  พระราชประวัติตอนหนึ่ง

  ในมหาวิทยาลัยฮาร์วาร์ด ก็ทรงเป็นเพียงนักเรียนแพทย์ผู้หนึ่งที่ไม่ใช่เจ้านาย ในพระนามบัตรก็มีว่า “มิสเตอร์มหิดล สงขลา” ใน เวลาที่ประทับอยู่ในประเทศที่ไม่มีเจ้านาย พระองค์ท่านก็ไม่ใช่เจ้านาย เราถือว่าการที่วางพระองค์เช่นนี้ เป็นการให้เกียรติยศอันแท้จริงแก่ประเทศของเราและสมกับพระลักษณะของการเป็นเจ้านายที่แท้จริง

• 86 Lee Jones // Mar 5, 2009 at 7:57 pm

  “There is more things to discuss about LM and he and also Lee didn’t attempt to lead the talk in the track as the title announced”

  Sorry you didn’t think my chairing was up to much, Prasit. I could probably have done better. However, as was made clear earlier, it was quite difficult to encourage people to speak up about LM when two government officials were in the room spying on everyone.

• 87 prasit // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:05 pm

  สมเด็จพระศรีนครินทราบรมราชชนนี หรือ “สมเด็จย่า” เสด็จสวรรคตที่โรงพยาบาลศิริราช รวมพระชนม์มายุ 95 พรรษา สมเด็จย่าเสด็จพระราชสมภพเมื่อวันที่ 21 ตุลาคม 2443 ทรงเป็นบุตรคนที่ 3 ใน พระชนกชู และ พระชนนีคำ พระนามเดิมคือ สังวาลย์ ตะละภัฏ ในวัยประมาณ 7-8 ขวบ ครอบครัวได้นำพระองค์ไปฝาก คุณจันทร์ แสงชูโต ซึ่งเป็นพระพี่เลี้ยงในพระบรมวงศานุวงศ์หลายพระองค์ ทรงเข้าเรียนมัธยมที่โรงเรียนสตรีวิทยา จากนั้นเข้าโรงเรียนแพทย์ผดุงครรภ์ และหญิงพยาบาลแห่งศิริราช หลังจากสำเร็จการศึกษา ระหว่างที่เรียนอยู่ปี 1 ได้ทรงพบกับ สมเด็จเจ้าฟ้าฯ กรมขุนสงขลานครินทร์ (พระบรมราชชนก) ซึงได้ทรงถูกพระทัย และขอพระราชทานพระราชานุญาตหมั้นกับ นางสาวสังวาลย์ จากนั้นทรงได้รับการคัดเลือกให้ไปทรงศึกษาวิชาพยาบาลต่อที่โรงเรียนแพทย์มหาวิทยาลัยฮาร์วาร์ด สหรัฐอเมริกา ทรงมีพิธีอภิเษกสมรสกับ สมเด็จพระมหิตลาธิเบศร อดุลยเดชวิกรม พระบรมราชชนก ที่วังสระปทุมเมื่อวันที่ 10 กันยายน 2463 ทรงมีพระมหากรุณาธิคุณต่อประชาชนไทยเป็นอย่างมาก โดยเฉพาะด้านการแพทย์ ทรงจัดตั้งหน่วยแพทย์อาสาเดินทางไปรักษาผู้ป่วยในถิ่นทุรกันดารทั่วประเทศ ทรงตั้งมูลนิธิขาเทียมออกจัดทำขาเทียมให้ผู้พิการ นอกจากนั้นยังมีโครงการพัฒนาด้านการเกษตรและสิ่งแวดล้อมมากมายอาทิโคงการเกษตรหลวงดอยตุง จังหวัดเชียงราย สวรรคตวันที่ 18 กรกฎาคม 2538 พระชนม์มายุ 95 พรรษา ต่อมาได้มีการกำหนดให้วันที่ 21 ตุลาคมของทุกปีเป็น “วันพยาบาลแห่งชาติ”, “วันสังคมสงเคราะห์แห่งชาติ”, “วันทันตสาธารณสุขแห่งชาติ”, “วันรักต้นไม้แห่งชาติ” และ “วันอาสาสมัครไทย”

• 88 Alex // Mar 5, 2009 at 8:34 pm

  I like this thread, as this is finally about something substantial: health care. I can also notice that almost everyone has something constructive to add. Despite the different beliefs and ideologies behind our thoughts, I think everyone here is trying to yield to practical things rather than political preconceptions, which is a very good thing, given the fact that many posters here are Thai. Hope this is a sign that the bogus Yellow/Red civil war is only a state of mind, and its days are counted.
  Back to LM laws: I tend to agree that there should be changes, rather than outright elimination. Creating more divisions within Thai society wouldn’t help this cause at all. Most monarchies have some mild forms of LM laws (mostly, though, hardly ever enforced), and even republican states have laws to defend the most important institutions (the President, the Premier…). These laws become dangerous when ordinary people can accuse each other of having offended an institution, as this clearly promotes shady “calculated” moves aimed at discrediting other individuals. These accusations are often completely baseless, and so far the false accusers didn’t have to face any punishment, as far as I know. Also, the jail terms are way too long, totally out of proportion.
  One more thing: the international community seems to focus mostly on the foreigners who get jail terms for LM, but are rather oblivious of the fact that some Thais are in jail for the same reasons. This sounds a bit unfair to me. Do we foreigners only care about other foreigners?

• 89 prasit // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:01 am

  That’s not true Lee as Chalongwan one of the Thai scholars said in the talk and as I have discussed before that LM is not about criticize the king, so if he and you are sincere as other international scholar who call for the reform of Thailand Lese Majeste, he and you should lead the talk and dicuss on the strenght and drawback (if you want to give rational discussion) of LM itself not about talk to criticize the king and lead misunderstanding on the topics that the speaker didnot understand well enough like ma ra yard thai or Thai good mannerism or Thai health care system which is not involve with LM at all.

  And again I have notice that Lee or others who support Jiles might have more rapid moderation of comment as I have three more comments left before Lee’s latest comment.

• 90 prasit // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:03 am

  Thanks Yud to bring us out of the track again but I am very happy to educate young medical students.

  First of all that show that you are not have any idea on UC at all is about the coverage of UC. From your case experience (but should be aware when you are going into the examination because the examiner will be not interested in how many cases you have experienced), dialysis is not coverage by universal health care system by Taksin.

  Anyway, many patients are rescued with the support from the foundation of kidney disease Thailand under the royal patronage of HRH PRincess Kalyaniwattana and the peritoneal dialysis is under consideration of the health system team.

  And about your assumption, about increasing demand after UC has launched reflect the real pictures of scarcity is far from the truth. They donot worry about payment anymore. The patients go to hospital for minor illness and increase such work loads to hospitals.

  In your tiny case experiences that they have to loan from illegal source, it should not be worry even before UC becuase we have the system for the poor or very poor person call Sor Por Ror, I think you might come across these project before.

  To sum up and to stop your false idea about UC is UC is not everything for health and money per capita from this project can not do anything with patients in term of quality care, drug quality is reduced, high cost treament has been not coverage.

  In regards to Prince Mahidol Songkhla, thanks you to show his egalitarian style. That’s the other point that we praised him as the father of medicine. But as you talk about the time when Thailand are still under absolute monarchy at the very beginning of his medical career, so he is in the very difficult position to be the Prince doctor and he choose to practice in the missionary hospital that show his good mind to help people. So again thank you that you show another good point from his royal biography. About taxpayer, I am not convince that poor pay more tax (may be Taksin can know these) and I am not convince again about rich exploited their fortune (some one work hard, some one use their political or political business opportunity for their own interest). Hope you bacome a good doctor and understand the real picture of health care system in Thailand soon.

  For the last point, I admit that I miss the information because you lable royal that should be carefull and so, I agree with you that military budget should not increase without any reasonable situation now. But I convince you should go deep in epidemiology and look for the association study and you will understand more about causal relationship and association is not the same. For the example, if the military increase the budget before the recession and just success in budget sharing in time of economic recession, it doesn’t mean that economic recession will be more downturn from the military budget share or military budget is the cause of economic recession.

  OK, that’s not about LM and I think we might have another comments on health care system somewhereelse if the moderator happy with these.

  PS the Princess mother medical volunteer reflect the inaccessibility of health care system but UC by Taksin do nothing with solving inaccessibility problem and create more problem for the patients who really nead health care because the que and waiting list from those unnecessary use. So J can deny this truth also but it is the fact.

  And fortunately, I have first hand experience about the Princess mother medical voulnteer, so I can guarantee the good intention and result of this project.

  Surprisingly, Jiles copy manifesto from other country, or it is incidentally.? That’s why a people from that talk ask that why do we have to copy or change or modernize follow the western world?

• 91 Lee Jones // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:25 am

  “That’s not true Lee as Chalongwan one of the Thai scholars said in the talk and as I have discussed before that LM is not about criticize the king, so if he and you are sincere as other international scholar who call for the reform of Thailand Lese Majeste, he and you should lead the talk and dicuss on the strenght and drawback”

  You are either extremely naiive, or you are just being deliberately disingenuous — probably the latter.

  As someone who was there, you know full well that I tried to encourage as many people as possible to speak up and only intervened to stop people making ad hominem attacks. I did try – gently, I will admit, which was a response to what I perceived as reticence – to draw people’s political thoughts out, but people were generally unwilling to tackle LM directly. My mere observation of this in my original article drew criticism on the grounds that people did not think it safe to speak up. You say criticising LM is not about criticising the king — well, the distinction is a very fine one. It is perfectly obvious that all LM prosecutions are politically motivated. And two government officials were in the room, monitoring the talk and everyone else. It is hardly surprising that the discussion took a rather circuitous route. Moreover, a number of people turned up specifically to defend the personage of the king, so they clearly thought that’s what the session was about.

  As for pro-Giles comments getting moderated before anti-Giles ones, I think that is just a silly accusation to level at the site managers.

  The healthcare debate is an interesting one. In the UK, we do have a major phenomenon now of the “worried well” who use the National Health Service when they really have no reason to. But that is because the government has made it a central means by which to re-legitimise itself and reconnect with a very disaffected and apathetic public (generally public policy and elite-mass engagement here revolves around articulations of fear, including public health scares). I don’t really know enough about Thai society to say whether that applies in Thailand, but my hunch is, not, or at least not in the same way, even given the centrality of the 30 baht scheme to TRT’s platform.

  There are doubtless good criticisms to be made about Thaksin’s profiteering from his private hospitals while the poor get bad-quality massified healthcare. These are valid concerns. But so far I’ve not seen any good arguments here for not providing universal healthcare of a high quality through progressive taxation. The levels of wealth at the top of Thai society are astounding and easily enough to finance a decent level of public services.

  However, the level of debate on healthcare hasn’t yet exceeded an anecdotal one where Prasit offers his insights to ‘educate’ his juniors who lack ‘experience’. What is needed is some sort of objective data like the stuff posted earlier about how much is spent on mass vs. elite healthcare, such as, number of completed hospital episodes, cases people present with, etc, in order to really judge why people came to hospital and what they were actually treated for.

• 92 Nephrologist // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:28 am

  ถึงผู้ที่กล่าวถึงผู้ป่วยโรคไตและการรักษา,

  เนื่องจากเห็นหลายท่านในที่นี้กล่าวถึงการรักษาผู้ป่วยโรคไตในประเทศไทยโดยไม่ได้มีความเข้าใจและความรู้เท่าที่ควร ผมจึงขอโอกาสเล่าถึงเกร็ดเล็กน้อยในการดูแลผู้ป่วยภายใต้ระบบ 30 บาทให้ฟัง

  เมื่อ 1 ปีก่อนผมเคยพบกับผู้ป่วยหญิงอายุมากในโรงพยาบาลรัฐแห่งหนึ่ง ท่านมาตรวจเพื่อขอรับการฟอกไต ผมจึงถามเกี่ยวกับศถานะทางการเงินของท่าน ผู้ป่วยกลับตอบว่าก็ “30บาทรักษาทุกโรคไม่ใช่หรือ??” ผมได้แต่อึ้งไป ซึ่งในขณะนั้นภายใต้การดูแลของรัฐบาลขณะนั้น 30 บาทไม่สามารถฟอกไต หรือปลูกถ่ายไตได้ แต่กลับมีโฆษณาลวงโลกทุกวันบอกว่า 30 บาทรักษาทุกโรค ผมย้อนกลับถามผู้ป่วยว่า แล้วเดิมเป็นเบาหวานอยู่รักษาอย่างไร ถ้ารักษาดีก็ไม่ต้องฟอกไต ผู้ป่วยกลับตอบว่าก็ตอนนั้นคิดว่า 30 บาทก็รักษาได้ทุกโรค
  นี่เป็นตัวอย่างหนึ่ง ตัวอย่างที่เกิดขึ้นจริงภายใต้การหลอกลวงประชาชน อีกทั้งทำให้อย่างน้อยผู้ป่วยท่านหนึ่งท่านนี้ต้องเผชิญกับโรคภัยที่จริงๆแล้วตัวเองมีทางป้องกันถ้ารักษาตั้งแต่เนิ่นๆ
  นอกจากนี้ยังมีผู้ป่วยต่างจังหวัดอีกไม่น้อยที่ได้รับการฟอกไตโดยเป็นผู้ป่วยในพระบรมฯ ถ้า 30 บาทดีจริง คงไม่มีความจำเป็นที่ผู้ป่วยและศูนย์ฟอกไตหลายๆแห่งจะต้องส่งผู้ป่วยที่ไม่มีฐานะเพื่อมาขอเป็นผู้ป่วยในพระบรมฯ

  ถึงขณะนี้ปีนี้โครงการหลักประกันสุขภาพถ้วนหน้าได้เดินหน้ามาถึงจุดที่ 30 บาทจะสามารถฟอกไตหรือปลูกถ่ายไตได้แล้ว อย่างไรก็ตามโรงพยาบาลที่สามารถรับผู้ป่วยได้ยังอาจมีไม่มาก แต่ขอบอกในที่นี้ว่ารัฐบาลในยุคที่triggerให้ 30 บาทสามารถฟอกหรือปลูกไตได้นั้นคือรัฐบาลที่ไม่ได้มาจากรัฐบาลที่เอาเงินแจกประชาชนแบบหลอกๆ หรือโฆษณาหลอกลวงประชาชนจนทำให้ผู้ป่วยบางรายต้องขายที่ขายนาเพื่อมารักษาตัวเพราะคำว่า “30 บาทรักษาทุกโรค” แบบปลอมๆหรือแบบมีข้อแม้เงื่อนไข แต่กลับเป็นรัฐบาลชุดที่ถูกหาว่าเป็นเผด็จการและเป็นรัฐบาลชุดที่ถูกเอามาอ้างมาว่า เอามาเป็นตัวชนวนประท้วงขอคนบางกลุ่ม และความหมายของประโยคนี้”30 บาทรักษาทุกโรค” ของแต่ละรัฐบาลก็ไม่ได้เหมือนกัน

  ผมอาจจะมาคุยผิดที่ผิดสนาม แต่ผมถือว่าผมได้ทำหน้าที่ของผมอย่างดีแล้ว ในฐานะของแพทย์โรคไตและประชาชนคนไทย คนที่ได้ปฏบัติงานจริง ผมคงไม่มีเวลามาอ่านหรือมาเขียนได้บ่อยๆ แต่สิ่งที่ผมเขียนผมหวังว่าจะส่งผลต่อผู้อ่านที่เป็นคนรักประเทศรักแผ่นดินและเป็นผู้ที่มีความคิดรับข้อมูลด้วยการไตร่ตรอง สำหรับท่านที่กู่ไม่กลับแล้วซึ่งคงมีอยู่จำนวนมากในสนามแห่งนี้ ผมไม่ได้หวังอะไรจากท่าน…ผมแค่มาทำหน้าที่ของผมให้ดีที่สุดเท่านั้น

• 93 Joy // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:14 am

  I’m eagerly awaiting Yudhisathira ’s further views on healthcare as her/his posts reflect unbiased and well-informed line of thoughts. Thus I agree with Lee Jones when she remarks that :
  “What is needed is some sort of objective data like the stuff posted earlier about how much is spent on mass vs. elite healthcare, such as, number of completed hospital episodes, cases people present with, etc, in order to really judge why people came to hospital and what they were actually treated for.”

  I also want to stress that acessibility to high-quality and adequate healthcare should the basic right of all Thai citizens, NOT something that they need to beg from ‘highly benevolent’ figures.The status quo in Thai society, feudal mentality and related “Pooyai-Poo noi” attitude do more harm than good to democratic values in Thai society. Why do Thais have to be reminded repeatedly to be “grateful and humble” when they should instead be encouraged to establish civic virtues, respect for everyone as an equal, and responsibility toward society as a whole. Thais should be encouraged to see themselves as a citizen who has all the potential to contribute to society, not as ‘children’ who always have to be obedient and grateful to their parents or other “poo yai”? Showing respect to other people is one thing, being submissive, subservient is another matter.

• 94 prasit // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:15 am

  I think you are disingenious more than I think because the talk start with Giles first and he did not bother to give talk about LM at all but he criticize the king with his anecdotal evidence and he deny that he is not Taksin supporter while he join the red shirts party. So it is expectedly that many one in the floor have to defend for theie beloved, revered king instead pay attention to the LM itself and you hardly tried to get people in the track while I state that that young man and Giles were both ad hominems equally but you were not able to control your speaker’s stance.

  “But so far I’ve not seen any good arguments here for not providing universal healthcare of a high quality through progressive taxation.”
  This show your disincretion or your careless to read through the discussion at all because I have state that already that I agree with these but it should not give back any credit to that ex-PM at all.

  And I don’t have to give anymore objective data while the data given before is irrelevant to quality of health care and mislead and civil servants is a very broad group range from very basic function worker not just for Elite only. And case presented there is also the misunderstanding about coverage of UC at all, so it is not count for the good evidence. Accuracy is important for education and I think I have made clear cut between criticism and give the correction about the fact.

  I think we come to the good track when ALex has mentioned until you come out for defend for your chair position, that I think it should problaby much better if only you are sincere enough and talk to your friend before the speech. I was expecting the good talk about the laws itself, but it is a bit disappointing when the speaker did not try to and so did the chair.

• 95 prasit // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:30 am

  This is one of the research about the quality of heath care project.
  A small mirror for poor planning before launch program.

  The purposes of this research were to study and compare the doctors’ and nurses’ in Prachin Buri province on the effectiveness of Thirty Baht Cure All Project classified by the doctors’ and nurses’ backgrounds. The method of the study was carried through a surveying technique. The questionnaire with 0.86 reliability was used for data collection. Data were analyzed by using percentage, mean, standard deviation, t-test and F-test. The finding revealed that the sample consisted of 257 doctors and nurses. Majority were nurses, age under 30 years, working experience 11-20 years with Prachinburi Provice as hometown. Doctors’ and Nurses’ opinions on the effectiveness of Thirty Baht Cure-All Project considered as a whole was at middle level regarding quality and service, readiness and adjustment, capacity and efficiency as well as attitude and satisfaction. While the opinions on support and development was at low level. There was a difference opinions on project effectineness among those with different duties where as the doctors’ opinions on project effectiveness was at low level while the nurses’ was at middle level. There was also a difference opinions on project effectiveness among those with different job characters between nursing group and supporting group where as the nursing group’s was lower than the supporting group’s. There was a difference opinions on project effectiveness among those whose hometown were Prachin Buri and other provinces where as the Prachin Buri Province group was at middle level while the other provinces group was at low level. All aspects comparison was significantly different at 0.05 level. There was no different among those with different age and service year. The important obstacles to job performing were insufficient budget and the misunderstanding about right and project benefit both the people and the officers. The doctors’ and the nurses’ suggestions were the gold card service (Thirty Baht) provided to those low and middle income only and the public relation provided correct right usage to the people.

• 96 Joy // Mar 6, 2009 at 11:30 am

  Nephrologist, I do appraciate yr post and comment. Many thanks. Honestly, I’m no fan of Thaksin and never want him to return to be Thai PM, and I don’t think I’m among the red-shirted people coz I don’t trust many of their leaders. I’m also aware of the numerous problems arising from the so-called ‘30 baht project’, and many of Mr T’s ‘initiatives’ e.g. loans to rural villages etc. I’m also aware of Mr T’s authoritarianism and ruthless suppression of those suspected of being drug dealer. In short, I think Mr T is not suitable to be Thai PM.
  Please do not feel that most people here support Thaksin or see what he did during his reign as justifiable. In fact, many posters here are severely against Thaksin and are very critical of his ’superficial’ and ‘populist’ projects.
  This thread, however, is in fact about Giles, and in my opinion, his right to speak out as an academic should be protected. People may not agree with everything he says, but I think he has the right to say it . Using the draconian law to shut up an academic or ordinary citizen to speak out is wrong. The respect and love for the Thai king should be respected but the draconian law will damage rather than enhance the prestige of the institution.

• 97 prasit // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  I agree with Joy that someone speak out as academic should be protected but I convince that Jiles did not do the academic work at all from listening to his last talk as the title of this work.

  So you, I and many one from this thread agree in principle that this laws should be changed for prevent from abusively use of this laws.

  But in my opinion, that’s not true that anyone could say anything without limitation until attack, defamed or insult others. We have freedome rights and we also have the responsibility not to affect other prople’s right too.

  Therefore we should not raise giles to be the center of this themes or in other words, he is not worth enough as he can not give any better ideas about this laws than just say what he want without any respect to other people’s right not to bother with their country and dignity of royal family as general persons or as the head of the state by talking about domestic household things like gossip. (what a repetition)

  I agree that LM should be reform because it is abusively use.

  I do not agree that Taksin have any credit for the defective health system that he claim. UC is howver not involve with LM.

  I do not agree that Giles have that right to say everything as he want because responsibility to the integrity of the community. He also have no right to evaluate difference culture in such non academic way.

• 98 prasit // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  Thai consitution

  A person can invoke human dignity or exercise his or her rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to this Constitution or good morals.

  A person whose rights and liberties recognised by this Constitution are violated can invoke the provisions of this Constitution to bring a lawsuit or to defend himself or herself in the court

  And also the criminal law about the defame or insult law for general people.

  LM is just expanded from the constitution and criminal law in too broad sense, that’s why we have to think about its changing.

  But violation to others as Giles case should not be protect by any values, morals, constitution or any laws.

• 99 prasit // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:33 pm

  another section of Thai constitution

  A person’s family rights, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy shall be protected.

  The assertion or circulation of a statement or picture in any manner whatsoever to the public, which violates or affects a person’s family rights, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy, shall not be made except for the case which is beneficial to the public.

  That’s why Giles can say that he do not love our king but he has no right to violate and affect HM dignity, reputation and privacy which has no benefits to our public at all.

• 100 Susie Wong // Mar 6, 2009 at 12:41 pm

  “The Enemy of Democracy: Lese Majeste in Thailand”

  I have two questions:

  1. Ananda Mahidol and Pridi Banomyong were working to pave the way for a democratic society in Siam. Ananda Mahidol suddenly was killed on June 9, 1946. Seeing the comments here, mostly trying to divert the issue to something else. I then ask whether time could change any intention. From the evidences, I do not see any possibility. Now in 2009, the military, the politicians, the bureaucrats, and the PAD activists, all are on the side of the monarchy. The concentration of power is really absolute sixty three years later. So when the intention is to concentrate the power, I don’t see any reason why power would eliminate a convenient tool like the lese majeste law.

  2. When Sonthi Limthongkul said Phumipon Adulyadet should resign (can be seen on YouTube video), he did not get any lese majeste charge. When Giles Ungpakorn asked an academic question about the monarchy and the coup, he received the charge. Does Sonthi Limthongkul know something we do not know that made him hold a trump card to the point that power is afraid to touch him? I think Sondhi is untouchable beyond the connection to the queen. He must have held an important secret, he fears no one in Thailand. Sondhi’s newspaper “The Manager” severely attacked Giles Ungpakorn more than any other newspaper. Now Sondhi is going to form a political party, I don’t know where the country is heading to.

• 101 prasit // Mar 6, 2009 at 1:06 pm

  The regression equation of demand for
  outpatient services :
  = 4.688 +2.033 (had health insuance)
  +1.678 (age > 60 years) +1.431 (age <
  12 years)+1.738(residence in zone9) -
  0.009 (travelling time) +1.264 (chronic
  illness)-1.375 (long aitingtime)+2.526
  (marital status: widowed/separated divorced)
  -0.147 (years of education) +1.747
  (housewife or jobless)

  This is the equation of demand of health service from one hospital which show that health insurance is the independent factor positively correlate with demand for health service, whereas severity is not the independent factor so it is not include in the equation.

  There are another figure about the increase of inpatient is insignificant when compare with increase of outpaitents (Year report of universal health system).

  If the increase of patients reflect the underlying public health problem than just shift the worried well out to see the doctor, severity of illness should relate to the increase and inpatients should increase proportionately.

  It might be argued that patients come out to see patients from the very early phase of disease so treament is more effective and the number of inpatient has not change much.

  But increase of 11% of outpatient use after UC has been launched, it is nearly impossible for deliver quality health care to prevent hospitalization due to budget and personnel shortage. So it is assumed that the number of inpatient doesn’t increase much because the increase of outpatients mainly come from the minor illness or worried well groups which do not need hospitalization or any health care at all.

  However, prospective study about the reason of the patients come to see doctor should be conducted to address the problem clearly.

• 102 Joy // Mar 6, 2009 at 2:13 pm

  I’m glad we have come to some conclusion, and very pleased that Prasit agrees with the proposal that LM laws should be reformed. Sorry to be repetitive, but I tend to agree with Nganadeeleg’s proposal that only the palace or perhaps the royal family should have the right to sue lese majeste charge against people deemed as insulting them. I wonder if Prasit and others have any further suggestions abt how LM laws can be reformed to ensure that it wouldn’t abused by politicians or anyone with ill intentions?? I agree that perhaps it’s also good to move on from Giles’s case to concentrate on the LM law itself , at least for the moment. I’d love to hear suggestions from people as to how this LM law can be amended to ensure justice and fair trial for those charged with violating it.

• 103 Lek Sydney // Mar 6, 2009 at 6:59 pm

  Why would LM laws must be reformed?

  My opinions are

  1. This law is opened widely for benefit to unauthorized person use as their own interest.

  2.This law is prevented people can tell the true.

  3. This law is helping Thailand not going to be democracy.

  4. It will help the monarchy more strenght and respectful.

• 104 doctorJ // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:39 pm

  Some irony about the Thaksin loathers. I can’t help but noticed that these T loathers kept saying the necessity of UHC system, but never give a credit to the one who implimented it in the first place. I know you guys , are doctors , so you must be well aware that the idea of UHC came from some experts in the public health ministry years ago. It was first propose to the Dem government at that time( around 1997) , but PM Chuan turned down the proposal. So they kept it to themselves, and sold the idea again to Thaksin who’s smart enough to bought it and turn it to a propaganda for the election in 2001.

  I’m not Mr. T supporter, but also would like to be realistic about things we’re discussing.

• 105 prasit // Mar 6, 2009 at 7:48 pm

  Thanks Joy, at last we come to the very practical point that how should LM be reformed?

  Susie might give us one of the most practical idea (we all know this fact actually) that there is a lot of resistance from the political power body in order to protect their power. But she again keen to move our interest to the PAD and its leader that are not really give any benefit for intellectual discussion here. That should be abandon in the academic forum that I am not sure whether she understand.

  The international scholars signed for recall the transform the LM is a good sign that how should real academic do, whereas Giles done the opposite with his manifesto and activity ( I am sorry to bring back to Giles a bit but it is necessary to show the contrast between good academic discussion and just non-realistic, non beneficial one side announcement).

  Actually, recommendation about who can accuse for LM is not new and has been discussed in a limited group of interest for a while.

  Although the oxonian PM said that he plan to talk with commander of the national police about compulsion of this law and find out what the law underline this, we are not expecting that his talk will make anything change quickly and so far abolish or elimination of this laws is quite impossible as he convince.

  Wide spread interest and more understanding of political mechanism underline this laws will bring heavy pressure to the power body to aware of use it for their own interest and this is the job of academics to discuss and disseminate true understanding to the community to stop abusive use of this laws in an acedmic style which is obviously not that siam red manifesto style.

• 106 Joy // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:54 pm

  Lek Sydney, you mean the law should not be reformed? do u support the repeal of LM law altogether, or do u prefer to keep it the way it is now without any changes? Look forward to yr clarification and thanks!

• 107 amberwaves // Mar 6, 2009 at 9:06 pm

  Prasit said:: A person’s family rights, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy shall be protected.

  The assertion or circulation of a statement or picture in any manner whatsoever to the public, which violates or affects a person’s family rights, dignity, reputation or the right of privacy, shall not be made except for the case which is beneficial to the public..
  ——————————————————————————-
  Apparently then, Manager and its online version, which contain more personal attacks and slanders in a week than Ji could possibly manage in a lifetime, are violating the constitution every day.

  Agreed?

• 108 BuaLoy // Mar 7, 2009 at 3:43 pm

  “Lese Majeste Law: The Enemy of Democracy”

  Ananda Mahidol’s death was directly related to the word “Democracy”
  and the Lese Majeste Law was exactly intertwined with the death.

  Scholars attempt to discuss about political development, freedom of expression, and modernization of the developing country. But the law was created because of Ananda Mahidol’s death. There is something important to hide, so the 24/7 monarchy diverting team needs to divert attention to something else unrelated to the topic.

• 109 Lek Sydney // Mar 8, 2009 at 4:09 am

  Thanks Joy,

  LM laws actually need not to be reform at all. I have seen lese majeste law caused alot of problems in our society. So, scrape it out ,that all i want to see.

• 110 Aborigin supporter // Mar 9, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  To: Giles, John and Western Media
  I would suggest that if Thai Monachy makes you uncomfotable, it is your choice to leave in China, Vietnam, or Russia thoese do not have monachy to be your shortcut.

  If you have a problem with Monachy in general, go ahead and try British or Saudi Monachy. You can get promotion to be a hero overnight.

  I do not think that you have any hidden agenda on this issue and please do not try to work harder to prove I am wrong.

• 111 a Siamese // Mar 10, 2009 at 9:02 pm

  To Comrade Ji, Wasn’t you who say “I’m pround of not being Thai (Chinese Father + English Mom)”????

  You’re not worth to live in my beloved country…..

  Do you think only your Marxist theory right? The others are wrong!!! Please beware it is just your Dithi….

  Whoso dose not know dhamma (the universal truth) – must be as you are today.

• 112 Susie Wong // Mar 11, 2009 at 1:41 pm

  “Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people” by Anonymous.

  “…the trails you encounter will introduce you to your strengths. Remain steadfast…and you will build something that endures; something worthy of your potential.” Epictetus 55-135 A.D.

  Thank you Jon and Giles Ungpakorn! I stand by you.

• 113 amberwaves // Mar 13, 2009 at 3:35 am

  a Siamese said: “To Comrade Ji, Wasn’t you who say “I’m pround of not being Thai (Chinese Father + English Mom)”????”

  Did Ji ever actually say anything like this? Can the person citing it (that means you, ‘a Siamese’) – or anyone else – please provide the source for the quote and its context?

  I’m a little surprised to hear Ji’s father, Dr. Puey, described as Chinese, but anyway, I’d guess that both Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang, sons of Chinese immigrant fathers, might agree that you should give the race card a break.

• 114 nganadeeleg // Mar 13, 2009 at 11:36 am

  Did Ji ever actually say anything like this? Can the person citing it (that means you, ‘a Siamese’) – or anyone else – please provide the source for the quote and its context?

  I suspect it came from the audio of the Oxford talk.
  http://www.4shared.com/account/file/89296532/b1dcb0b1/Giles_Ji_Ungpakorn_-_Lese_Majeste.html

  Have a listen from the 59 minute point, where there is an exchange that goes something like this:

  Question from the floor: If you are born in Thai (or are Thai), why do you speak like that of our king…….

  Interjection by someone (possibly the Chair?): ‘He says he’s not Thai, he’s Chinese English’

  Giles: ‘I was born in Thailand but the King of Thailand was not born in Thailand, of course’

  Have a listen for yourself and form your own opinion.

  My opinion is that it just sad that the debate has got down to such a low level!

• 115 Susie Wong // Mar 14, 2009 at 6:42 am

  I thank Giles for revolting against the authoritarianism of current abusive lese majeste law. The abusive lese majeste law must be stopped. It is loud and clear throughout Thailand and across the globe that we will not put up with the injustice law. In addition, we want to see more good people like Giles leads the country. I trust the moral code of Giles. Majority of Thai people want to see change. Thank you Giles for leading us!

  I admire Ji’s intellectual strength in applying logic to his argument. I appreciate his values and worldviews, he always adheres to self-respect, dignity, and morality in relation to himself and when he deals with other people. I would not allow anyone to walk all over me. It is a basic human rights to self defense when someone intentionally hurt your emotion or to attack your reputation.

  Majority of Thai people is proud of Giles Ungpakorn.

Leave a Comment