New Mandala

23 responses so far ↓

• 1 ThaiCrisis // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:40 pm

  I think he would… do exactly like the same.

  For several reasons :

  -Thaksin is a control freak. His years as PM showed this.

  -If Thaksin come back, you can be sure that he will be very upset… against many people… therefore repression would be widespread. Lese-majeste would be of course one of the repression’s tools available to him. Clear cut, cheap and efficient.

  -I don’t buy all the “republic” non sense… Thaksin wants power. And for that matter, he’d prefer a weak monarchy… a mere symbol… symbols are always good for people… Give them bread and symbols…
  Thaksin would use a weak king. For his own advantage. So he would keep the lese-majeste law.

• 2 Frank G Anderson // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:59 pm

  Quote:
  “Would a Red Shirt government take a manifestly different approach to lese majeste prosecutions? Would it likely maintain the current spirit of the lese majeste provisions? Has much changed since the Red Shirt protests explicitly targeted the Privy Councillors earlier in the month? Are there now new rules? Or would a Red Shirt government, whether Thaksin was back in charge or not, now seek to use lese majeste to batter its own opponents? Is lese majeste too powerful a weapon for any government to give up? What does this mean for a campaign calling for the reform of this law?”
  Unquote
  Reply –
  It is likely that because the target of Red Shirt lese majeste claims would in many cases change – from Red Shirt violators to non Red Shirt violators – that the number of cases would initially decrease.
  As to any change of spirit, it seems as if there would be a reduced number of cases.
  What has changed is the fact that several issues bothering Thai people are out in the open and many quarters are publicly demanding that those issues be properly addressed. whether such demands are valid or not is in a sense beside the point.
  The lese majeste law is Thailand’s WMD, and it’s nice to be behind the wheel when it is applied.

• 3 Frank G Anderson // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:17 pm

  Anyone know what happened on FACT? The site main page when downloaded shows last entry on 15 April.

• 4 Ron J. // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:34 pm

  The idea that the yellow and red teams are in any way different is ridiculous. Both are controlled by elites and they will be the only ones that will benefit from all the pain and suffering of the past few years.

• 5 WLH // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:44 pm

  Thaksin hated the free press, so LM would be a convenient weapon for censorship with the bonus of reassuring Thai moderates that he’s no republican.

  However, there’s a very strong anti-patronage sentiment running through the reds and Thaksin would alienate them at his peril. I think he’d prefer to pay lip service to the monarchy while slowly pushing them out of public life. Remember, the pomp and poof of the current royals was built out of nothing by guys like Sarit. It can be dismantled too.

  Thaksin’s main concerns would be the Privies, the Army, and the remaining yellow die-hards. On balance he’d probably be better off reforming LM to make it harder for any of those three to use against him. So I’d guess that he’s weaken LM and stick to the old strategy of suing journalists who say that his tie wasn’t on straight.

  Thaksin’s a pragmatist; LM is radioactive.

• 6 Frank G Anderson // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:40 pm

  Then call me ridiculous. Red and Yellow are different, and saying they are not is a demonstration of not knowing.

• 7 Colum Graham // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:19 am

  Well Portman’s hypothetical situation is ridiculous because prosecuting commentators on a national academic website would create a hilarious legal precedent and a significant diplomatic situation.

  A government under the red auspice must pursue a liberal democratic mandate, if they don’t then their pretense and position in protesting for Thaksin’s wrongful ousting would be undermined amongst the general populous – and the movements reason for being would subside.

  A liberal democratic mandate would be constructive towards relaxing the security surrounding Thai identity and subsequently, relaxing the use of Lese Majeste. There is no need to secure what is already secure in Thais, (or any other nationality for that matter.) If the reds don’t pursue liberal democratic reform, then, if they or a proxy party ever got into government, the use of the Lese Majeste law would be applied much the same as it is now. If Thaksin returns to power, surely, it will only be with a coup of his own.

  I think asking ‘how likely is Thaksin rising to power once more?’ would be a more pertinent question. My two cents is that it is totally implausible because he is embroiled in the rigamarole which has produced the mess. The angle he seems to be taking is towards liberal democracy and he doesn’t have a particularly good record of accountability with the previous attempt. This would be taken note of by significant persons backing any strong push for reform and so he’d never find himself the face of the new movement if it were to be considered seriously.

  If Thaksin is to be the face of a concerted effort for change, the only way it could happen would be for media to report Thaksin’s ‘new push’ in the style of a Hanryu drama. This way people at home would roll about on the floor in hysterics and Thailand would have an original revolution through laughter. Indeed, it’s about as likely as New Mandala and it’s users being persecuted in a Stalinist purge….

• 8 truadtra // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:45 am

  “One of the first acts of new Thaksin government might be to block New Mandala”

  Somehow I don’t think NM is that high on Thaksin’s agenda.

• 9 hrk // Apr 23, 2009 at 9:00 am

  Don’t overestimate the political relevance of blogs and new mandala.
  As demonstrated in Malaysia, Singapore or Indonesia there is no need to have a LM law to control dissenting views. ISA is in fact far more effecient (might be the reason why Malaysia and Singapore are more advanced) As an authoritarian person Thaksin certainly will follow what he did before that is quitening any dissenting views. Even though it might be difficult to comprehend: the problem in Thailand is not who is the ruler, but how rule is institutionalized. Thus, the question is whether Thaksin as president (or founder of a new dynasty?) will differ from former elites or not. During his time as PM he provided little indication that he might favour a democratic regime.
  P.s.: This does not imply that I favour the yellows, but that political change in Thailand is not a question of fashion or of favouring colours for t-shirts.

• 10 Ron J. // Apr 23, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  well Frank, how are they different?

  both represent the elites just under different colors and using different sectors of society to do their dirty work.

  Red is controlled by Thaksin and his friends for their agenda to seize power/money over the yellow side, not for the benefit of the poor that are dying in vain. the reds have fooled the poor that their enemy is the yellow side, when in fact thaksin and Co. are no less corrupt, no less oppressive. etc…..

  Yellow is controlled by blue bloods, old money, and generals using a cult personality to smash their opponents. this side has tricked the middle class that the reds are the (only) ones that are dangerous and must be stopped.

  in the end what’s the difference and how will either make life better for the average Thai?

• 11 Frank G Anderson // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  1. No difference in level of violence?
  2. No difference in the mentality, personal outlook and manners of supporters in general?
  3. One used its media to incite violence, and I mean “Kill Prem,” etc. while the other incited activism you call violence but which is force in many instances. force and violence are not the same. Or are they?
  4. No difference in harm they do to the country and people? This is a sticking point because many will maintain that yes, that is exactly it, that they both harm in the same way and degree. But unless you and I have listened to different versions of UDD broadcasts and those form ASTV, etc., it is abundantly clear that the Red shirts incite and support the incitement of clear physical violence. “Prem, if you don’t resign, I will kill you!” This is one reason D-TV was taken off the air.
  5. Both sides, however, as almost equally misunderstood by expats. Their organizations and objectives are oversimplified and apparent similarities are interpreted as likenesses.

• 12 Susan Winton // Apr 23, 2009 at 1:35 pm

  Thaksin and his friends (who, specifically?) are as powerful, rich and revered as the old elite?

  I see.

• 13 Ron J. // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:50 pm

  frank, you do realize that the yellow side used violence, murder and intimidation too, right? interesting that you have difficulty seeing through both sides.

  susan, don’t forget that Thaksin at one point had many of the old elite on his side. samak is as old elite as they come too. in this battle we see people quickly changing sides as the need arises. this shows that this really has little to do with ideology and more about a grab for power.

  in terms of the military, Thaksin was not far away from controlling it too with his cronies almost within reach of the ultimate prize. it sure would be a different story if that had happened.

• 14 Fed up with Posers // Apr 23, 2009 at 3:44 pm

  “Well Portman’s hypothetical situation is ridiculous because prosecuting commentators on a national academic website would create a hilarious legal precedent and a significant diplomatic situation.”

  And a myriad of other events and prosecutions in the past 6 years, including Thaksin’s appointment as Ambassador of Nicaragua along with innapropriate political remarks by the Nicaraguan govt are not equally ridiculous and therefore did not happen? Nice use of selective logic and selective memory which is really the overall problem with New Mandela contributors from both sides.

• 15 Colum Graham // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  Fed up with posers, how is it selective logic? Where did I say Thaksin being a Nicaraguan ambassador is not ridiculous? I think you are projecting an issue you feel strongly about onto a completely different hypothetical situation which revolves around this website and the Lese Majeste law. This website is not hosted in Thailand.

  Australian and Thai relations would be significantly soured if Thaksin persecuted this website. This would not be a logical thing for Thailand to do, but if Thaksin is Stalin resurrected… oh wait, was that your point?

• 16 Portman // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:43 pm

  Colum Graham #7

  I don’t understand why you think that prosecuting commentators on a national academic website of another country would be impossible. The Thai government blocked Youtube, owned by one of the US’s largest corporations, and has recently imprisoned one of its own citizens for posting on it. I think they would care much less about an Australian university’s website. The Thai authorities are free to prosecute anyone in their territory or to refuse entry to any one who isn’t. Anyone can initiate prosecutions under the LM laws which are extraterritorial since they deemed to relate to national security.

  I sincerely hope that nothing like this happens to New Mandala or its contributors under any government but my point was that I am extremely doubtful that a restoration of Thaksin would reduce LM prosecutions or result in any reform in the law. I don’t think it’s possible to rule out a return of Thaksin either. I believe the royal family deserves legal protections against defamation but that the application of the current law has degenerated to the extent it actually damages their image. Therefore it is in urgent need of reform precisely to protect the royal family.

• 17 nganadeeleg // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:28 pm

  Ron J: You forgot the Santi Asoke people on the yellow side in your analysis – the moral crusaders???

• 18 Colum Graham // Apr 23, 2009 at 11:26 pm

  Portman, I don’t think it would be impossible, I said I think it would be ridiculous. Prosecuting ‘offenders’ in absentia would sour relations between Australia and Thailand. Youtube is a corporation, not a nation. Blocking NM would not be good for Australian public opinion. Furthermore, in regards to Australia, I present the usual arguments. It would damage the Thai economy through the tourism industry. Even with our relatively few tourists, Australia’s ‘Western’ significance may see knock on effects to bigger international players – and I wouldn’t think this would be the time on the international stage to be flaunting with employment figures if you wish to be elected or remain elected (tourism being such a big employment sector in Thailand). It would hamper reciprocity in relation to Thais traveling or immigrating to Australia, (perhaps Thaksin would advise them to migrate to Nicaragua instead!) — and I’m sure trade issues would emerge. Can you imagine the Thai embassy in Canberra requesting that the ANU delete New Mandala or face the ANUs site, or just NM, being blocked in Thailand? Haha, it would be great. A site for understanding, furthering dialogue, and new perspectives instead (inadvertently or intentionally?!) becomes an agent of dastardly political ‘reform’! Also I think the ANU is the only university in Australia which has a Thai programme(?), so there might be diplomats who might have been through the ANU system working in DFAT that would, I presume, take offense – or it may at least put them in an awkward position personally. In regards to this, I don’t think Thailand, with it’s recent blunder in regards to hosting foreign officials, can afford to be petulant again with regional economic players if economic development is seriously on the agenda. Maybe Thaksin on this hypothetical return to feet kissing would forget economic development and rural empowerment this time so he could continue to hold onto the reins? I simply picked up on the quote of yours that was made in this post.

  How would Thais view a sour relationship with Australia? Would it provoke a siege mentality?

  It would be picked up by various media if someone from this site was arrested for Lese Majeste irrespective of their nationality. This would make the whole issue of the role of the monarchy boil again, which I would think, is something those privy would wish to avoid, and as you said – it would further highlight the need for LM reform through mockery of the monarchy internationally. I agree, I don’t see Thaksin, if he does return to power, changing the law for better or worse. I commented initially because I understood you to be saying that the situation would become more draconian as he or the reds try to make up for previous misnomers.

  In regards to Nich’s questions, I think a red government would do what it had to do, and if that meant using Lese Majeste to batter it’s opponents then it would do so. Perhaps it would do so in the name of reform for protection? Though this would just be a good facade for maintaining legitimacy. There are no new rules in politics, only new ways of expressing the rules. The Lese Majeste law should not be a weapon. A government that uses legal weapons against it’s opponents is a weak government because it should not need to resort to laws which brings LM into politics for the upper hand in inter-party squabbling. Crying to mum to fix it isn’t going to work in the long run…

  I don’t know.

• 19 Colum Graham // Apr 24, 2009 at 9:19 am

  I have written this as though blocking NM would mean the Thai-Australia relationship would collapse! Of course not, but it would become part of the culmination of negatively geared media about the situation in Australia… leading to some of those things I’ve blustered above.

• 20 Portman // Apr 26, 2009 at 7:25 pm

  Colum Graham #18

  Continuing with the hypothetical situation of LM accusations against New Mandala authors, you wouldn’t see prosecutions entirely “in absentia”. That is not possible under Thai law, even though offenses committed overseas that affect national security can be prosecuted in Thailand. The defendant must be in court in Thailand to hear the charges and plead before the trial can commence. The risk to individuals would be that those in Thailand could be prosecuted and those in other countries could be charged in absentia and/or declared persona non grata. The Thai authorities would probably argue, with some logic, that a Thai studies academic, who is an expert on Thai society and culture and posted articles deemed insulting to the monarchy while residing in Thailand was deliberately asking for trouble and they had no choice but to prosecute, if some one complained. Harry Nicholaedis’ defence of ignorance and stupidity would certainly not apply and the fact that a knowledgeable academic had knowingly and willingly committed the offence would probably dampen public sympathy in Australia somewhat. It is unlikely that the Thai authorities would make a fuss about any one living overseas but they might be arrested, if they arrived in Thailand, or just declared persona non grata and put back on the plane.

  Thailand was quite happy to ask Yale University Press not to publish Paul Handley’s book and then to block part of its website when they refused. I am sure they wouldn’t hesitate to ask ANU to tone down criticism of the monarchy on its website or to block the offending part of it in Thailand, if they felt it was necessary.

  You talk as if you believe that being affiliated with ANU can give provide people with immunity from Thai laws when they are in Thailand. Obviously the authorities are not looking for a fight, as New Mandala is not blocked and any bonehead working in the cyber suppression division can find it by plugging a few words to do with the monarchy or banned publications into a search engine. But I don’t see how a prosecutor would be able to consider all the trivial detail you raise about Thai studies in Australia and the training of Australian diplomats etc, as justification not to proceed with a solid LM case which might make him guilty of LM. He would look only at the evidence in front of him. I think you are deluding yourself. At the end of the day I don’t think that ANU would be regarded as more significant than Google in Thailand. It is just a university and Australia is a country with a rather small population. Australian and Thai companies would still be happy to trade with each other and Australian tourists would probably still come to Thailand. If they didn’t, it wouldn’t make much difference to the Thai economy anyway.

• 21 Colum Graham // Apr 27, 2009 at 2:32 am

  Portman – I have not had much sleep, so I apologize if some of this is not coherent.

  Thanks for clarifying about how people can be prosecuted.

  I feel your second point would be thoroughly illogical, as prosecuting the academic who studies Thailand would bring attention to Lese Majeste in a negative light internationally – once again plunging Thailand into a siege mentality regarding the monarchy’s image. Surely, the Thai authorities wouldn’t take the bait so naively creating martyrs for our media to lap up in turn highlighting the issue for Australian politicians to be making populist responses to.

  I don’t think it’s about the stature of the ANU or Australia as buildings or land or population size. It’s about the influence that the people in these institutions wield as part of the ‘West’. Google, youtube, are corporate entities. They do not represent vast groups of people.

  Australia is a middle power regionally. I am not under any illusion that we alone would make a great dent in the Thai tourism industry. But Australia does have much stronger links to countries with more entrenched liberal democratic values than Thailand. Those countries economies and population sizes are much larger and much more significant to Thai tourism.

  Furthermore, from what I understand, the TAFTA has more practical benefit to Australia than Thailand at the moment. However, I’d argue that it wouldn’t be unpopular if Australia disbanded importing cheaper Thai produce in relation to promoting local produce and the all important ‘job creation’ phrase. Especially in these trying economic times, a disengaged Thailand would not bode well for an Asia-Pacific multilateral future, but would instead be more suggestive of a future receding into protectionism.

  Sure people would still travel, but there would be many people hesitant to go and feel safe in a country they were not able to speak their minds in – that otherwise, at the moment, don’t even consider it before going. Would you think having a negative image of Lese Majeste more prominent than a beach on Koh Chang a good thing for Thai tourism?

  If I imply affiliation with the ANU means immunity, then I apologize for my arrogance. I just question whether making an example of someone from any academic institution in a Western country is a good idea with loaded petitions floating about and a volatile global economic ’system’.

  Portman, the way you’ve posited this issue though, that New Mandala is a political entity rather than an academic one, is fightin’ talk for me.

  I am talking out of my arse. Sorry if you are not.

  Maybe I’ve delusions and assumptions about the legal aspects of LM in a Thai court, but I am not sure how suggesting and asking questions regarding possible responses to Thailand if LM was to be used against New Mandala or other academics is being delusional. I feel my hypothetical situations can only be as delusional as the hypothesis originally suggested.

• 22 Colum Graham // Apr 27, 2009 at 2:40 am

  … and in relation to your Yale University Press point, regarding The King Never Smiles being blocked – it was blocked in Thailand, nothing happened for anyone else trying to access it. I don’t feel that asking diplomats here to censor the offending section for Australians would work… although maybe DFAT has a license to do what is necessary to prevent Australians accessing information freely so the TAFTA can prosper!

• 23 Portman // Apr 28, 2009 at 4:59 pm

  Colum

  I hope you are right and certainly intelligent Thai government officials would take some or all of of your points into consideration, if they were given the opportunity. But we will only know for sure, if some one puts it to the test by registering a complaint. The authorities seem to have discretion only in the decisions to grant bail and to go slow on the prosecution, as in the cases of Jakrophob and Sondhi. A police captain in a small police station who receives a complaint is not going to be thinking about the ramifications for Thai studies in Australia or whether other Western nations might be sympathetic towards Australia or not. He is going to be worrying about who is actually behind the complaint and whether he might be accused of LM, if he refuses to accept it. Remember the British FCCT member, named Khan, who initiated the LM case against Jakrophod. He just walked into Bang Mod police station on the outskirts of Bangkok, saying he was motivated purely out of love for the king. The law and its application are flaky which makes it unpredictable, as well as failing to protect the monarchy as it is supposed to do.

Leave a Comment