New Mandala

58 responses so far ↓

• 1 Susie Wong // Jul 6, 2009 at 3:56 pm

  Thailand’s lese majeste law is incompatible with the basic codes and canons of journalism. The acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public cannot be done in the atmosphere of intimidation.

• 2 Philip S. Robertson Jr. // Jul 6, 2009 at 5:59 pm

  Good that the other foreign press clubs are speaking out against this travesty! This is the kind of pressure that should be brought to bear so that the Thai Police and other officials have a clear idea on how much damage would be done to Thailand’s reputation by proceeding with such a ridiculous case. Yet another good example on why the lese majeste law needs to be reformed.

• 3 Flashman // Jul 6, 2009 at 5:59 pm

  Yet again, Thailand demonstrates its seemingly unquenchable desire, having blown its feet off, to continue blasting away its own legs.

  I’d like to congratulate the person who filed these charges, they have just rallied the world’s press in an attack on the country they must so sincerely claim to love.

• 4 brainface // Jul 6, 2009 at 6:00 pm

  In total agreement with Susie – and the very interesting thing is that a British (wannabe) journalist is behind most of this. Someone called Akbar Khan – a British Asian who speaks Thai and has lived in Thailand for many years. He also has the youtube channel “cyberak”.

  His level of resentment towards the FCCT is very strange and appears almost pathological. He was also behind Jonathan Head’s and Jakrapob Penkair’s LM charges.

  This person now needs to be completely exposed – you can find him on both Facebook and Linked In. His Linked In page lists his work but the company websites of whom he claims to work for are dead. He seems to be a bit of a fantasist. Some of his youtube stuff is very odd indeed – particularly the comments he makes on each vid.

• 5 Very Funny // Jul 6, 2009 at 6:08 pm

  Just found this on Khan –

  http://whoisakbarkhaninbangkok.blogspot.com/

  seems like some people are really fed up with him now – they are also asking for any info anyone has on him.

• 6 Alex // Jul 6, 2009 at 6:28 pm

  Brainface… why oh why did you post about his youtube website? I had a look and now I am so depressed! Anyway, that guy is seriously sick: has anyone read his comment about Thaksin being the reincarnation of Lucifer and Obama being either the reincarnation of Jesus Christ or the Antichrist? There’s no hint of irony or sarcasm in there. I shudder to think such a person is taken seriously, and apparently many Thais like his professed “love for the country”, and his ways of showing it.

• 7 jonfernquest // Jul 6, 2009 at 7:49 pm

  When hard working truth seeking Thai journalists are shot in the head by vote-buying local godfathers เจ้าพ่อ , not newsworthy for New Mandala.

  But when the freedom of speech rights of western journalists and academics are threated with the FCCT case…..different story…

  Likewise, Thaksin’s bloody hands (~3,000 extrajudicial executions during “Drug War” , Tak Bai, Krue Se Mosque) are washed conviently clean in the short spans of the memories of academics or blamed entirely on PM Abhisit when official inquiries can’t get the will power to implicate relevant ผู้มีอิทธิพล

  When will you guys pull your head out of the “realm of images” and enter the “realm of (life or death) reality” ?

• 8 Andrew Walker // Jul 6, 2009 at 9:14 pm

  Jon, send us the details of the Thai journalists who were shot and we will feature them. AW

• 9 dudeist // Jul 6, 2009 at 9:38 pm

  Fernquest

  So now we’re not allowed to defend freedom of speech because of Thaksin’s war on drugs? Seems a bit of a bizarre and odd tangent to take.

  You also might find that the same journalists in the firing line now are the same ones in the firing line when Thaksin was in power. They are also the ones who’ve been working hard to defend the rights of Thai journalists as well.

  Your memory is obviously selective and short. Or you were too busy being sanctimonious to notice I guess.

• 10 Steve // Jul 7, 2009 at 3:32 pm

  At the risk of driving the tireless JonFernquest to apoplexy, I’d like to draw his (and others’) attention to a well-written, bitingly funny and wickedly accurate take on the subject to be found at Prachatai English: http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1287

  A faint hope but, with more articles like this, the current form of LM laws just might be on the way to being mocked into well-deserved extinction. Plainly, anyone expecting Abhisit to actually DO anything to live up to his words to the fellows at Oxford is in for a very long wait………..

• 11 Ralph Kramden // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:14 pm

  jonfernquest is fond of making accusations with no evidence. The war on drugs had considerable coverage here and at a range of other sites. I think this is downright dishonest to ignore the academic study of and blog commentary on these and related issues.

  The unsolved murders of 10’s of farmers in the 1970s has recently been taken up in Critical Asian Studies etc. etc. South in Askew and McCargo. Academic support to Crisis Group and HRW when they examine these issues and so on.

  What jonfernquest seems more to imply by his negative statements is to deny non-Thai journalists the fundamental right to free expression. At the same time, he is ignoring that the FCCT has Thai members including on the executive committee.

  I disagree with Phil Robertson. The LM law does not need reform. It needs to be abolished.

• 12 jonfernquest // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 am

  No, (person whose pseudonym is Ralph Kramden) that is simply not true. Every element of the argument can be backed up with evidence.
  Rather, once again it is not clear what you are talking about.

  Thaksin goaded people on to do the killing and then people died. The evidence is abundant in newspapers from the time, from Pasuk and Baker’s biography.

  It was truly nauseating afterwards to listen to taxi drivers explain to you that this mass slaughter and goading on of people to kill was somehow a good and effective policy in a Buddhist nation.

  There is (duh) a causal relationship between encouraging people to kill and then when they kill, the deaths that happen. The mechanics in between are not clear and may never be because many hands were bloodied in the process. The itiphon meud side of Thai society has not been adequately explained yet. Thaksin lost his legitimacy completely at this point and even more so when supposedly Buddhist taxi drivers were explaining to their passengers that this was a good policy (in a Buddhist nation).

  That someone who miss used his power as much as Thaksin could still be re-elected democratically due to some mass amnesia of what happened and lack of understanding of the significance of what happened is besides the point.

  Thailand has a moral leader in His Majesty the King and PM Abhisit, not just a populist give the people whatever they want, even if it is morally wrong leader like Thaksin, and I would wager that no matter how many signatures the red shirts get, Thaksin will never be pardoned. There are some things that are beyond mere votes and bread and circuses.

  The red shirts should really stick to the main issue which is righting rural economic inequalities.

• 13 jonfernquest // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:32 am

  “What jonfernquest seems more to imply by his negative statements is to deny non-Thai journalists the fundamental right to free expression.”

  Why should they be completely free? Singapore limits what they can say and after Jakrapop’s little Black Songkran attempt at a revolution, it would only be natural that limits be imposed.

  Thailand is the only place where there seems to be a complete free for all. One should really be thankful that the conflict is taking place at this war of words level. In a Tianamen like situation FCCT really becomes irrelevant.

• 14 Ralph Kramden // Jul 8, 2009 at 10:52 am

  jonfernquest misses the point at #12: My comment was not about the war on drugs, but your undocumented accusation that “Likewise, Thaksin’s bloody hands (~3,000 extrajudicial executions during “Drug War” , Tak Bai, Krue Se Mosque) are washed conviently clean in the short spans of the memories of academics or blamed entirely on PM Abhisit…”. This is unfounded nonsense. That you dislike Thaksin and love the king and Abhisit as so-called moral leaders is quite another point.

  At #13, you do realise that your comment fits nicely with Thaksin’s own views on Singapore and the media? That aside, your view that Thailand is a media “free for all” is also nonsense and ignores LM laws, self censorship, your own point about the failure to investigate murders of local journalists (in the domestic press) and so on. There is nothing “natural” about controlling free expression. It is a deliberate act.

• 15 Steve // Jul 8, 2009 at 6:33 pm

  Got to wonder why jonfernquest presents Singapore as a beacon of anything to do with freedoms…….. As Ralph Kramden (oh, I really couldn’t care less if that’s a pseudonym – I suspect that Susie Wong, dudeist, brainface, Very Funny etc may also be pseudonyms……. what do you think?) points out, the tirade in #12 completely ignores the point made in #11.

  Confining my comment about “moral leader” to just Abhisit (for reasons that should be obvious even to jonfernquest) – just what has he actually DONE to qualify for that title? Slick, well-oiled words to the fellows at Oxford and in multiple interviews – and what action? You don’t have to be a fan of “Yes, Minister” to know that setting up a panel to review the LM law and its application is almost invariably about kicking another ball into the long grass: cf. the Rohingya “investigation” – what a triumph of “transparency” and thoroughness that was………

  Same old game, slicker PR than his predecessors – and still a captive of the people who put him where he is.

  And the notion that “Thailand is the only place where there seems to be a complete free for all” ? Bizarre………. In addition to the valid (and obvious to most – but not to jonfernquest) examples raised by Ralph Kramden – just a couple more: how many websites has the ICT blocked and how many issues of The Economist have not been distributed? Not “free for all” – just free for the chosen few to crank out distortions and a tightly restricted selection of what’s deemed allowable. Others get jumped on from a great height or self-censor to avoid exactly that.

• 16 Nick Nostitz // Jul 8, 2009 at 6:38 pm

  “jonfernquest”…

  …is comically wrong in his analyzes on the drug war, and in particular regarding the killings, and its relevance to the ouster of Thaksin.
  The drug war killings had no relevance whatsoever in the rise of the PAD or the military coup. On the contrary – the military was an active partner in the drug war (as was the civil service, and all other institutions of the state). A PAD leader such as Sondhi Limthongkul has during the killings actively supported the drug war killings through favorable reporting. He has even accused Thaksin during the first Royal Plaza meeting that he has lately been too easy on drug dealers (this photographer here has listened carefully to Sondhi’s speech at the time). Also Chamlong Srimuang has not uttered one word against the killings at the time they happened. And neither do i remember any other PAD having been protesting against the drug war killings at the time.

  “Taxi drivers” and most other Thais have supported the drug war not just out of “lack of understanding of the significance”, but because their communities were directly affected by a drug problem that was way out of hand, and not to a small part because the previous Democrat government has done nothing to stop the rise of drugs other than holding speeches of good intent.
  Maybe “jonfernquest” lacks understanding of the significance of the drug problem in the communities. The drug war, and the killings, are a far too complex matter to just simplify them for the sake of a personal political agenda. Of course there are human rights issues involved, no doubt about that. But there are also the human rights issues to consider of the many Thais whose families got destroyed by drugs.

  Additionally, may i point “jonfernquest” to a speech of H.M. the King, given on Dec. 4th 2003, quoted from the Bangkok Post transalation:

  Quote begin:

  ““Victory in the war on drugs is good. They may blame the crackdown for more than 2,500 deaths, but this is a small price to pay. If the prime minister failed to curb [the drugs trade], over the years the number of deaths would easily surpass this toll. The lives of many officials are lost in working to bring the drug trade under control. These figures are often not counted, but it could be as high as the number of victims in the war on drugs.
  They blame the prime minister for the drug deaths. Not all the deaths have been counted, but most of victims were killed by those involved in the drugs trade. There may be only a few deaths for which authorities must take responsibility, so we have to classify those who were killed by fellow dealers, buyers and addicts, and those killed by authorities. ”

  Quote end.

  Where “jonfernquest” may have a point is the lack of attention by the international media. The reason however is not so much the foreign correspondents based here he accuses of having ignored the problem, but that the drug war happened at the same time the Iraq war began. There simply was no space in foreign publications or interest by its editorial offices.
  This photographer here, for example, has in fact spent much time and own funds on photographing and investing the drug war killings, and to his great distress was at the time not able to get any image published anywhere (this photographer here nearly gave up his profession because of this, and has for more than 6 months after the drug war not touched his cameras). Only more than 3 years after the end of the drug war has this photographer been able to sell images of the drug war killings to numerous publications.
  Journalists do not live from love and fresh air alone – also journalists need money to pay their bills and feed their families, which is difficult enough.

  In “jonfernquest’s” rants against journalists, the FCCT, and anybody who does not share his views, he betrays a multitude of strange personal grudges, and a complete lack of understanding of the workings of the international media, and uses expert sophistry to defend the indefensible. Yet he is completely missing the issue at hand – that the lese majeste accusations against the FCCT are possibly the worst abuse of the lese majeste laws so far, and are most damaging to the institution these accusers pretend to protect.

• 17 Billy K. Roland // Jul 8, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  Ralph Kramden suggests that the LM law be abolished. Easy to say, harder to do. The issue right now is how to prevent it from being abused by the likes of Akbar Khan, or political elites with grudges against other political elites, or yellows vs. reds. Reform is what can be done, and this is what political will should be mustered to do. Ralph, let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good

• 18 Ralph Kramden // Jul 9, 2009 at 10:45 am

  Billy, if there is no LM law it can’t be abused. Reform by royalists is unlikely to bring meaningful change. The law is there because it suits the palace just fine. It also suits conservatives. When the political going gets tough they use the law against opponents. They have done so several times. Data suggests that the law has been most used in 1976-77 and now, since 2005.

• 19 Sidh S // Jul 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm

  Jonfernquest #7, #12, #13 – I appreciate your point, but you should know as well as anyone here that Thai Les Majeste law is a pet fetish of NM and, as you will notice, gets highly disproportional responses and feedbacks. A mere comparison with Aung San Suu Kyi’s plight and the attention she gets here and you get a sharp picture of misplaced priority…

  And for the many who would like the law to be reformed or abolished, please do let the Thais decide – don’t forget it’s their country and their law. If they want laws changed they’ll pressure their politicians to do so. We in NM (predominantly foreigners I understand) can’t order PMAbhisit to reform/abolish the law while demanding a more robust Thai democracy – or can we?

  Moreover, let’s not get overboard again and equate Thai freedom of expression with the right to criticize the Thai monarchy. If we do that then can we equate Western freedom of expression with the restricted freedom, media self-censorship and extra-civic surveillance that come as a result of the War on Terrorism? What about the laws against Holocaust denial in many Western society?

  On that note, I don’t agree with the Police’s case against FCCT – but on the other hand it’s a good chance to set precedents and clarify the law. Let’s see if the court accepts the case or throws it out. If they accept, let’s see how it is tried.

  I also agree with Jonfernquest – Thai society is too free. People can take over international airports or attack an international summit with foreign dignitaries or the country’s own prime minister. If that happens to PresidentObama in the US, the assailant will likely be in the receiving end of a few bullets…

• 20 fall // Jul 9, 2009 at 10:29 pm

  Nick Nostitz #16

  Ouch…

• 21 tum|bler // Jul 10, 2009 at 12:54 am

  jonfernquest, I guess you were absolutely elated when Thaksin restricted press freedom and made Thailand slip far down the world ranking in this regard?

• 22 tum|bler // Jul 10, 2009 at 1:01 am

  “Thailand has a moral leader in His Majesty the King and PM Abhisit”

  I’m sorry for posting twice, but do I need to remind jonfernquest what his moral leader HMTK said about the war on drugs in one of his birthday speeches?

• 23 landofsnarls // Jul 10, 2009 at 5:12 am

  Sidh #19: freedom of expression confers the right to criticise ANYTHING. Those of us who believe in it don’t have to faff around, specifying Catholic, Islamic, Orstralian or “Thai freedom of expression”. Either one believes that everyone should have the right to think about whatever irks them & discuss it as vigorously as they please, or one doesn’t. You apparently don’t. That means that to people who think as I do, you are dysfunctional, as is the Thai society. In a dysfunctional individual, family or society, when certain ‘taboo’ issues are raised, the discussion is filtered through a whole lot of sick mental processes, wherein meanings are altered and facts are changed (‘little white lies’),according to the conspiracy, and the result is as fake and as useless as the much-lauded smiles of the Thai people. I used to think Swift wrote Thailand. Now I think it was Kafka.

  Yes, every other society has elements of dysfunctionality, but this discussion is about Thailand. I’ve noticed that you beg the question by frequently alluding to the faults of other countries, when justifying the faults of Thailand, often getting the facts muddled. Why do you do this? Do you think everyone’s going to say, e.g., “Oh, the U.K. has LM laws, so it’s all alright;” or “ Some British MPs have been fiddling their expense accounts, so it’s OK that the entire public sector of Thailand is filching 30-35% (or whatever monstrous figure it is at present) of the annual budget”?

  On that score, you say, “What about the laws against Holocaust denial in many Western society ?” MANY Western societies? Really? Where are they? I was, quite annoyed when the Australian Government denied a visa to David Irving a few years ago. I regard holocaust deniers as loonies, like ‘flat-earthers,’ (this is based on the concrete & well-documented evidence that there was an attempt at genocide of the proportions generally given) but I would have been interested to see who came out of the woodwork to support him, i.e. how big the problem is. (There is no law against holocaust denial in Oz, BTW.) Your assertion is incorrect, but to bring such a huge and important issue into the discussion of a triviality like Thailand’s pathetically silly LM law is ridiculous.

  Your comment re. discussion of Aung San Suu Kyi is equally silly, not to say rather bitchy. The Burmese issues have had reasonable coverage on NM, although as a blogsite, it does reflect the major interests (in some cases professional expertise) of its contributors, some of whose names I have seen on the older & very well-established sites dedicated solely to the Burmese discussion.

  You mention “the right to criticize the Thai monarchy” as if Thai people do not have that right. I would have thought that they had it. Human rights are things that we have as essential parts of our identity. But, as you seem to be unable to conceive of something like a right to think freely & express our thoughts being an ‘inalienable’ part of being born into humanity, & you seem to need such freedoms to be given by someone: in his Birthday Speech in 2005, the King invited etc., etc.. Everyone from the very dysfunctional PM to Giles Ji is agreed that that is what he said, & it’s quoted all the time; we all know it by heart. That’s why I didn’t have to repeat it. We have that right. But we are being denied it. Isn’t that LM, an insult to the King?

• 24 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 10, 2009 at 6:34 am

  re: Sidh

  Moreover, let’s not get overboard again and equate Thai freedom of expression with the right to criticize the Thai monarchy. If we do that then can we equate Western freedom of expression with the restricted freedom, media self-censorship and extra-civic surveillance that come as a result of the War on Terrorism? What about the laws against Holocaust denial in many Western society?

  In short,

  First question: Yes.
  Second question: They are incompatible with a free society.

• 25 Ralph Kramden // Jul 10, 2009 at 10:24 am

  I agree with most of the other criticisms made of Sidh’s post above. One point to add: “I don’t agree with the Police’s case against FCCT – but on the other hand it’s a good chance to set precedents and clarify the law. Let’s see if the court accepts the case or throws it out. If they accept, let’s see how it is tried.”

  LM is being used extensively at present. I can count some 45 allegations in complaints to police just in the past month or so. This means you have some 70+ cases in various states of process and investigation at present. So you’ll have lots of precedents. But precedents would only matter if the cases were in public, were published, and actually went to court for trial prior to forced guilty pleas. In most cases one or more of these important items is missing.

• 26 Sidh S // Jul 10, 2009 at 2:27 pm

  Land of Snarls#23
  If you put it into this context “freedom of expression confers the right to criticise ANYTHING” then I cannot disagree with you.
  But the harsh reality is, as you have pointed out, THE WORLD IS “DYSFUNCTIONAL” and still very full of ‘little white lies’ and hypocrisies. I simply accept it as it is and hope that it could be better – in fact, at the very least, I am certain Thai Democracy have significantly progressed over the past 70 years and will be better but will remain dysfunctional.

  On LM law, I will maintain that it is up to the Thai people. If you are Australian, then it is your right to “… come out of the woodwork” to support David Irving’s freedom of speech or if you are German, to demand the German government to abolish laws against Holocaust denial.

  I am also a pragmatist here. LM laws will change if and only if the Thai people view a future monarch as abusing his/her ‘power’ (which, in Thai society, can only be accumulated anyway). Otherwise, you are right Thais – at every level – talk about the monarchy but in private. They also have their favorites (which directly conflicts with the thesis that rumors benefit the monarchy – they are actually highly selective). If a foreigner would like to publicly criticize the monarchy in Thailand, you are breaking the law – fair and simple. You can do it anywhere else in the world. I understand children anywhere are still taught to respect the local culture and norms.

  Good points on precedents Ralph#25. At least the Thai courts and the police would have gained from these practices. I don’t think it would be too hard for those who would like to commit LM to know the possible consequences.

• 27 Nganadeeleg // Jul 11, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  Can we assume the silence on this LM circus from the institution means they are happy with it?

  If the answer is YES, then IMO that says a lot about the institution.

  If the answer is NO, then IMO that says a lot about the institution.

• 28 R. N. England // Jul 11, 2009 at 3:26 pm

  Given that Thaksin’s enemies have long and loudly proclaimed the King as their leader, and that Thaksin’s electoral support appears to remain solid, what does that say about the real popularity of the King? It is absolutely normal for people to say one thing to stay out of prison, and in their hearts believe another. The lèse majesté laws and associated repressive political baggage have the potential to stoke the fire and keep it hidden till the monarchy disappears in a final deflagration. If you want to stay out of prison, you would, of course, deny this possibility.

• 29 michael // Jul 11, 2009 at 10:35 pm

  Good point Ralph @ #25. In fact, I don’t think the idea of precedents applies at all in relation to LM ‘trials,’ because a lawyer who quoted from evidence & judgements in previous cases, even if there were transcripts & they were accessible, would be himself committing LM.

  Re. Sidh #19 agreeing with JFQ, who used the expression ‘free for all’: a free-for-all does not imply freedom in the sense we are discussing it in this conversation; it implies disorder, lawlessness, irresponsible action, chaos even. Yes, Thailand has laws, but they are not adhered to, especially by those whose responsibility it is to enforce them – quite the opposite in fact. I don’t think I need to bore everyone by citing yet again recent cases in many areas of law where this is clearly & shockingly evident. Perhaps Sidh should have said, “I also agree with Jonfernquest – Thai society is too much of a free-for-all.” I would agree with that.

  I must say that I find Sidh’s statement re. the LM abuse issue being ” a pet fetish of NM and, as you will notice, (getting) highly disproportional responses and feedbacks” rather baffling. LM abuse is symptomatic of the appalling lack of justice, consistency and fair-play in Thailand. It’s part of a whole unethical social system. The amount of space given to it shows just how concerned NM participants are about this whole system. If you think it’s a waste of space, why do you add your lengthy and confused arguments to it? And BTW, let me reiterate, it’s not “the LM law,” it’s the abuse of that law which most discussion is about.

• 30 michael // Jul 12, 2009 at 6:31 am

  Now it’s shaping up to be a 3-ring circus! Luksna Kornsilpa has distributed a Press Release & article, in which it appears that she is laying charges on absolutely EVERYBODY & his dog. Well, almost everybody & not THAT dog…yet.

  It is also a sort of disordered CV-cum self-promotional doc. , containing stuff like,” Ms. Luksna Kornsilpa, 57 years of age; an analyst, management system auditor, industrial sector consultant and hazard analysis specialist having an engineering education with a solid management background shall file the charges against all conspirators identified herein and hereafter.

  “Presently she is working on her doctoral research in visualization (forming correct and twisted perceptions, understandings and misunderstandings through graphical and textual information)

  “Ms Luksna has researched, detected, analyzed and documented evidences of numerous acts of treason and treachery using sound academic principles.

  “Extensive scrutiny of Ms Luksna’s meticulous reports clearly reveals and proves without a shadow of a doubt that there is an organized underground movement that aims to destabilize and overthrow Thailand’s Monarchical Democracy.”

  Monarchical Democracy indeed. Well, I for one, will not be employing her as a translator. (I must say when I first read the release, I read that as ‘maniacal democracy’. )

  Further evidence of her most interesting state of mind may be had from the fact that she very seriously asserts that expressions like
  ‘ “Brothel of Criminals” which when defined by judges equates to a “Den of Conspirators” ‘ are contained in Thailand’s criminal code. She designates FCCT a Brothel of Criminals.

  Read it@ http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1296 A classic!
  BTW, one of the comments is by a ‘Michael.’ It’s absolutely NOT ME!

  Interesting that a Thai university is apparently accepting this stuff as doctoral research. I wonder which one? Curiouser & curiouser !

• 31 Sidh S // Jul 13, 2009 at 4:19 pm

  Michael #29 “… implies disorder, lawlessness, irresponsible action, chaos even” – not exactly the characteristic of a society with a high level of suppression of freedom of expression and action!!! Arguably the extreme opposite in fact – which is my point exactly (and, don’t get, me wrong, I am not proud of it – it’s just the way it is). Nothing “confused” about my arguments on LM here. If most Thais, or a large enough critical mass, are very unhappy with LM laws, it will be abolished. The politicians are the best litmus test here (for they also have the power to change the laws) – if it is a popular, vote-getter, we will see the end of LM laws – this I am certain. In the current context, it is pure political suicide and don’t expect Thai politicians of any color to go for it.

  To help you understand my point of view in greater clarity – go to the streets of Bangkok or rural villages in the provinces and ask respondents to list what they would want their politicians, governments to do most for them/the country. I wonder where ‘reform/abolish’ LM laws would be? PMThaksin seem to have the pulse of many Thai voters (whether instinctively or through sophisticated demographic studies) – if he hasn’t promised LM law change in any of his phone-ins, it probably does not register much at all…

  Of course, it is a different matter if you are a foreigner who would like to say anything you want anywhere and at anytime. Nothing “confused” in my arguments here as well – in fact, it is very practical. Simply respect the law of the country you are in and it does not have to be Thailand.

• 32 Ralph Kramden // Jul 13, 2009 at 7:20 pm

  Sidh, it is pleasing to see that you at least consider yourself unconfused and correct on everything. Rather than practical I would have said that you are wonderfully naive. Go out and ask. Statistical sampling a problem perhaps? So not practical. But there are polling agencies that do this. I wonder why they don’t ask about LM. You imply it is somehow a popular law. Not sure how to label that…

  What do you make of stand up straight royalists who are now having doubts? From PoliticalPrisoners in Thailand: “Sumet [Jumsai]’s letter is interesting for the fact that he acknowledges that republicans exist in Thailand and adding that he doesn’t mind ’so long as we are not taken to the guillotine…’. He also adds, tellingly, that the ’spirit of the age, of the new generation who spurn the 19th century hangover…’ and is ‘tempted to agree, seeing that our monarchist role model England has moved on, while we are marking time’. Interesting thoughts from a staunch royalist.”

  What about monarchist Sulak Sivarak? They’re not foreigners “who would like to say anything you want anywhere and at anytime. ” And I could list more.

  The point is that you might want to give up on the lazy habit of blaming foreigners for making this an issue. Doing that puts in close to the space inhabited by Laksana.

  Try blaming the Democrats and all the others who use the law for political purposes. Try blaming those who keep the law exactly for the purpose of narrowing the political space.

• 33 Sidh S // Jul 13, 2009 at 9:01 pm

  Ralph#32, we agree there. I’ve always maintained that let the Thais deal with LM (and I am certain they will deal with the law at the right time of their own choosing) and my position, as another Thai and self-defined ‘critical monarchist’, is generally consistent with AjarnSumet’s and AjarnSulak’s. If you are a foreigner Ralph, you have your freedom in websites such as this or in your own country to criticize Thailand’s monarchy to your heart’s content. However if you go to Thailand, you are expected to respect the law as it stands – as you would for any other country, even if you don’t like it. If that is not practical, what is? I will not be “wonderfully naive” and be clear with you here Ralph – LM laws will not be “abolished” at once at your whim. I have said many times before, if and when the Thais don’t like LM law or any other law, they will deal with it – and evidences from the Yellows and Reds suggest that they are more than capable of it.

  And what narrowing down of Thai political space? Are we following events in the same country? Thai political space has never been as wide as it is today! My point here is not about “blaming foreigners for making this an issue” and just asking why would you want to impose such a rigid, extremely narrow framework of LM on yourselves to read Thai politics? I find it amusing that you accuse me of being “lazy” here as I always thought it was the other way round (a Rashomon moment I suppose)! On the other hand, Ralph, I never consider myself “correct on everything” and I’ve learnt too much from the numerous times (to count) that I am wrong.

• 34 Ralph Kramden // Jul 14, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  Sidh: And what narrowing down of Thai political space? Are we following events in the same country?

  Ralph: Presumably. But you read me incorrectly. I said: “Try blaming those who keep the law exactly for the purpose of narrowing the political space.” I wasn’t talking about the present but the historical use of LM. You can look at the statistics on this in the well-circulated Streckfuss and Thanapol article. That said, I do not think that political space is expanding in Thailand just now, but that’s a separate debate.

  Sidh: Ralph#32, we agree there. I’ve always maintained that let the Thais deal with LM (and I am certain they will deal with the law at the right time of their own choosing)…

  Ralph: That wasn’t the point. Yes, Thais can deal with it, eventually, but if the free and open discussion of the LM law and of the monarchy is not permitted, then as has been the case for quite some time, foreign interest and political space is useful and, arguably, necessary.

  Sidh: I will not be “wonderfully naive” and be clear with you here Ralph – LM laws will not be “abolished” at once at your whim.

  Ralph: No such point was made.

  Sidh: … why would you want to impose such a rigid, extremely narrow framework of LM on yourselves to read Thai politics?

  Ralph: Not sure what this means. For too long, analysts of Thai politics left out the monarchy and LM. Bringing it back in makes analysis more complete than it has been in the past. Thai scholars remain heavily constrained in what they can write and say on these topics.

• 35 Sidh S // Jul 14, 2009 at 10:57 pm

  Ralph: Presumably. But you read me incorrectly. I said: “Try blaming those who keep the law exactly for the purpose of narrowing the political space.” I wasn’t talking about the present but the historical use of LM. You can look at the statistics on this in the well-circulated Streckfuss and Thanapol article. That said, I do not think that political space is expanding in Thailand just now, but that’s a separate debate.

  Sidh: Historically, whether LM law is active or not, Thai political space has always expanded. We are no longer in 1932, nor 1973, 1976, 1992, even 2006 when the military realized that they are ill-suited for modern government. Why not debate this here?

  Ralph: That wasn’t the point. Yes, Thais can deal with it, eventually, but if the free and open discussion of the LM law and of the monarchy is not permitted, then as has been the case for quite some time, foreign interest and political space is useful and, arguably, necessary.

  Sidh: Are you Thai, Ralph? Or are you as fluent in Thai as the locals and has gained enough trust from them to privately discuss the monarchy? If not, you need healthy doses of Thai worldviews. You will also be surprised by what is discussed. No, foreign intellectual capacity and talent is unnecessary here and could be applied elsewhere to much greater benefits to the Thais and mainland Southeast Asians.

  Ralph: No such point was made.

  Sidh: Ah, but you have said that it should be “abolished” in #11 – a rather wonderfully naive proposition considering current realities and complexities. I would like to know how you propose it could be abolished?

  Ralph: Not sure what this means. For too long, analysts of Thai politics left out the monarchy and LM. Bringing it back in makes analysis more complete than it has been in the past. Thai scholars remain heavily constrained in what they can write and say on these topics.

  Sidh: Until I see an analysis here that is actually complete, I have to disagree.

• 36 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:59 am

  re: Sidh

  Ralph#32, we agree there. I’ve always maintained that let the Thais deal with LM (and I am certain they will deal with the law at the right time of their own choosing) and my position, as another Thai and self-defined ‘critical monarchist’, is generally consistent with AjarnSumet’s and AjarnSulak’s. If you are a foreigner Ralph, you have your freedom in websites such as this or in your own country to criticize Thailand’s monarchy to your heart’s content. However if you go to Thailand, you are expected to respect the law as it stands – as you would for any other country, even if you don’t like it.

  I can’t tell if you’re being willfully mendacious or just ignorant on this point. Considering after l’affaire YouTube, the Thai legislature had the hubris to claim world-wide jurisdiction with their various leges maiestates, you don’t have the luxury to defend the Thai lèse majesté laws with a “เข้าเมืองตาหลิ่ว ต้องหลิ่วตาตาม” (”When in Rome…”) argument. And trust me, given the fanatical nature of many Thais concerning this topic, if the Thai government had the resources, they would send agents abroad to hunt down and capture serial monarch-criticizers, Elie Wiesel-style.

  So, no Sidh, we foreigners involved in the academic study of the Thai language, people, politics, and culture cannot just sit on our hands, when a off-hand comment, a serious discussion or even an academic paper presented in our home institutions, however truthful, can lead to imprisionment when we visit family and friends in Thailand.

  To be honest, Sidh, I’ve always gotten a sour taste in my mouth from you, as you sit in Australia, taking advantage of the long heritage of individual freedom, equality of opportunity, and material wealth that generations of inhabitants of the Anglosphere have struggled, fought, and died for; while you defend those who would deny the same advantages to your own kinsmen that do not have the ability or desire to emigrate to another country in order to pursue their own happiness, as you have done.

• 37 Ralph Kramden // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:45 am

  Sidh: And, you have gone in a circle. Back to the foreign/Thai dichotomy and you say “If not, you need healthy doses of Thai worldviews. You will also be surprised by what is discussed. No, foreign intellectual capacity and talent is unnecessary here and could be applied elsewhere to much greater benefits to the Thais and mainland Southeast Asians.” That is a remarkable statement for a range of reasons. Another example of what LSS refers to as your mendacity. I’d just repeat that you are inhabiting the space of Laksana and uber-nationalists of similar ilk. It is an unpleasant space. LSS is right about sitting on hands and it is undeniable that international solidarity movements make a difference in political struggles.

• 38 Sidh S // Jul 15, 2009 at 3:28 pm

  LSS#36, agree with you on most points – except that I must stress my kinsmen can defend for themselves. It is rather arrogant to say that foreigners need to/could do it for them. Let’s not forget to mark a recent foreign dignitary’s death with similar/parallel attitude – ‘gotta save the Southeast Asians from Communism’ Robert McNamara. Well meaning? With hindsight and the millions of deaths in Southeast Asia, I can’t even give him the benefit of the doubt.

  It is also highly arrogant to assume that I don’t have those freedoms and benefits you mentioned back in Thailand. I am part of the privileged, Thai middleclass who’s lifestyle does not differ much from developed country’s middleclass – safe for the horrendous traffic and hot-humid weather, the very clear pluses of being in Melbourne. LSS, do remember that I am Thai and LM law punishes Thais more severely – contrary to Westerners who fall foul of the law who can whine to their governments out in little time. Even then, I do not feel limited nor suppressed as you like to assume Thais feel (from observations here, it seem to afflict the foreigner disproportionally). I write here as I would write in Thailand without the need to flirt with an existing law.

  And lets have some humility here and not overestimate our navel gazing on LM in NM as a “political struggle” with “international solidarity” as Ralph#37 claims it to be. Thailand hardly registers in the global media nor in discussions of global strategic geopolitics – only an occasional rare article such as from some of us in NM in Australia or a couple from international one like the Economist. When my Australian colleagues/friends who, like most foreigners hardly know anything about Thailand, browses these articles and ask me if we are still ruled by a monarchy, I know who to hold responsible for such extreme misrepresentations – which is unhelpful and does more harm than good.

  Finally, LSS, apart from the inhabitants of the Anglosphere, let’s also acknowledge the indigenous and colored populations that arguably sacrificed as much, if not more, for those freedoms and opportunities. It is great credit to the Siamese/Thai monarchy/elite that Siam/Thailand did not have to, historically, suffer as much. I am deeply indebted and thankful to both traditions. Sorry, I cannot help remove the sour taste from your mouth – I can only try.

• 39 Sidh S // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:03 pm

  Ralph #37, ready to debate whether Thai political space has expanded or not? And is that your answer to my question in #35 that you are thinking of an “international solidarity movements make a difference in political struggles” to abolish LM laws? May I ask to what specific ends and for whom?

  For Thai Democracy? Will abolishing LM law make democracy work better in Thailand overnight? Will it influence Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam along the path to democracy? For the Thai urban and rural poor? To end the endemic corruption that is a major barrier to their betterment in life? I strongly doubt it and I see democracy as so much more messier and complex. States such as California or New York are struggling to find a more workable system and the same applies for Thailand. Let’s advocate for the clauses in the constitution that empowers and protects the rights of the poor and the marginalized. It is a much more direct and immensely more beneficial path.

  Otherwise if the objective of abolishing LM laws is for foreigners, foreign academic to say anything the want anywhere and at anytime in the world – then it is your right and I respect that. Just don’t misrepresent it with altruism and claim that it is for the “brainwashed” and ignorant Thais. It is not as they are clearly much better paths if altruism is the real objective.

• 40 Ralph Kramden // Jul 17, 2009 at 3:25 pm

  Sidh asks: “Ralph #37, ready to debate whether Thai political space has expanded or not?”

  Yes, go ahead and make your claims, with adequate justification and so on, and I’ll try to respond.

  Sidh also asks: “And is that your answer to my question in #35 that you are thinking of an “international solidarity movements make a difference in political struggles” to abolish LM laws? May I ask to what specific ends and for whom?” You answer yourself in the next paragraph. Just take out the question mark.

  Sidh (the second S is for so many rhetorical questions, right?): “Will abolishing LM law make democracy work better in Thailand overnight?”

  Yes.

• 41 Ralph Kramden // Jul 17, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  Without internet access for the past day or so, I decided to take Sidh’s advice, provided above, and go out and ask Thais what they think of LM and the monarchy. As I said above, I consider this approach statistically unsound and better done by an organisation that does this task professionally. But I had some time, so a quick and dirty “survey” seemed like fun.

  I used structured questions rather than the open-ended “What’s your beef?” Here are the results for 4 questions, in gross numbers, for a small sample of 12 people:

  1. Should Thailand reform its LM law?
  Result: Yes (8*) No (1) No answer or don’t know (4)

  2. Is the monarchy involved in politics?
  Result: Yes (7) No (2) No answer or don’t know (3)

  3. Should Prem resign?
  Result: Yes (5) No (5) No answer or don’t know (2)

  4. Will the king die at some time in the future?
  Result: Yes (4) No (6) No answer or don’t know (2)

  Analysis: The people surveyed were 4 taxi drivers, a counterfeit watch vendor, a policeman, a non-commissioned army officer, a bank clerk, 2 university professors, and 2 retail workers.

  There were meant to be 14 in the survey. The businessman I was to interview withdrew when I refused to take a bribe to answer the questions for him. A politician said that the questions were complicated and so he needed to consult his astrologer before responding.

  The “No answer or don’t know” are occupied by the soldier and the policeman in all cases except Q. 4, and joined by a professor in Q’s 1 and 2. The policeman said that he couldn’t answer any question because if he answered truthfully, he’d have to arrest himself. The soldier refused to answer because he was from the Lopburi special warfare unit and involved in plots to assassinate political figures on all sides and felt that answering would have been a conflict of interest.

  Q. 1 adds to more than 12 because one of the taxi drivers answered that reform was not enough and that the law and the people it protects should be done away with. I thought that was worth 2 Yes answers.

  For Q. 4, the 2 “No answer or don’t know” responses were from the professors.

• 42 michael // Jul 19, 2009 at 12:50 am

  Sidh #38: ” I do not feel limited nor suppressed as you like to assume Thais feel (from observations here, it seem to afflict the foreigner disproportionally). I write here as I would write in Thailand without the need to flirt with an existing law.” Well, yes, of course! But try & imagine what it would be like if you were not dysfunctional, if you hadn’t been brainwashed into believing the elite know what is best for the Great Unwashed. What if you wanted to stand up & really criticise the people who are obstructing the passage of Thailand into the 21st C?

  ” Let’s advocate for the clauses in the constitution that empowers and protects the rights of the poor and the marginalized. It is a much more direct and immensely more beneficial path.” What clauses are they? What the ” poor and the marginalized” need is the right to vote and the right to sit in parliament, which would be ” a much more direct and immensely more beneficial path” than relying on the patronage of people like you, who frankly wouldn’t have a clue what their needs are, and are not, in the main, motivated to supply them anyway.

  And, regarding the statement about your “Australian colleagues/friends who, like most foreigners hardly know anything about Thailand, browses these articles and ask me if we are still ruled by a monarchy, I know who to hold responsible for such extreme misrepresentations – which is unhelpful and does more harm than good.” Well, yes, it’s obvious – it’s the LM abusers, the accusers, who are responsible. When people read about LM charges & the incredibly overblown prison sentences, it would only be logical for them to assume that a monarch rules. They would assume that Thailand is back in the dark ages. This is why I believe that the real perpetrators of LM are the accusers.

  ” Will abolishing LM law make democracy work better in Thailand overnight? ” Let me answer with another 2 questions: Why is it that in Thailand there has not yet been a political party with a coherent (or actually ANY) policy to establish a workable, equal-opportunity, democracy? Is it because there’s something (a small & powerful section of society, perhaps) stopping them from talking about fundamental issues that need to be attended to?

  LM, of itself, is not the issue; it’s the way the LM law is used by vested interests to keep things the way they have always been.

• 43 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 19, 2009 at 12:46 pm

  re: Sidh

  Oh Sidh, do you ever get tired of constructing straw men to battle? No where in my post did I argue that “foreigners need to/could [abolish leges maiestates for [Thais].” I merely stated that if the Thai legislature is going to have the chutzpah to claim world-wide jurisdicition with their LM laws, then foreigners would might be affected by consequences of such laws have the moral authority to have their voices heard in the conversation concerning LM.

  Of course, the implementation of LM reform rests entirely in the hands of the Thai people; however, this does not mean that the impetus for such reform need come from purely internal sources. Indeed, the Japanese have a word for such ‘external pressure,’ gaiatsu. Unfortunately, the current Thai culture animus, as you are a prime example of, views any manifestation of gaiatsu as affront to their national sovereignty.

  As for the late Robert McNamara, I would assume that a member of the “privileged, Thai middleclass” would have more sympathy for the man who kept you and your parents from laboring in a Khmer Rouge-style reeducation camp run by Chulanont’s พคท/CPT.

• 44 michael // Jul 19, 2009 at 4:28 pm

  Hot news! Luksna has an outstanding arrest warrant for making a false accusation. BP tells us: “… it was discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant against Luksana dated May 21, 2008. It related to false accusations against Asian Institute of Technology and a professor there (ศาสตราจารย์ซาอิด อิวานตุส – Said Iwantus ???) that they took advantage and made students find money for them.” http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/

  It seems that she trotted off to Lumpini, the Police Station of her choice (lucky chaps!), to register yet another accusation against Jakraphob & the FCCT board, & while the police were processing all the paper-work, someone discovered the outstanding warrant. Are they trying to tell her something?

  An interesting fact – It looks like she’s doing her PhD @ Asian Institute of Technology…imagine being her supervisor! Scary. It’s apparently in Engineering.

• 45 tom hoy // Jul 20, 2009 at 6:16 am

  Sidh,

  I’m referring to an earlier comment of yours and I would like you to to clarify it for me.

  “LSS, do remember that I am Thai and LM law punishes Thais more severely – contrary to Westerners who fall foul of the law who can whine to their governments out in little time.”

  Is this fair? Why should foreigners get it so easy? Is this what the lawbooks say? Is this perhaps arbitrary and injust? Is the Thai justice system so easily corrupted by foreign governments?

  As far as I can recall, Harry Nicolaides and Olivier Jufer and maybe others were pardoned by the King. I do not know what has happened to Thais who have been found guilty of the same crimes. Can you point me to the legal statutes which differentiate between Thais and foreigners?

  I hope and pray that the King extends the same mercy to Suwicha Tahkor and Da Torpedo as He did to Harry Nicolaides and Olivier Jufer.

• 46 Sidh S // Jul 20, 2009 at 4:09 pm

  Ralph #40, I’ll start simply with:

  In the 12 years since the passage of the 1997 Constitution which manifests the post-Black May middle-class aspirations for democratic Thailand, Thai political space and power has expanded and today includes, in the general population: the urban middle-class, the urban and rural poor; in the bureaucracy: the military, the police, the judiciary; amongst the moneyed elite: the business men and women – both urban and province based; the Privy Council and the palace (working together or working depend which color shades Thais view it). Pre-Thaksin, the military were being marginalized and the poor were generally indifferent to national politics, credit to him he bought activated urban middle-class activism via Yellows; urban and rural poor via Reds; the Police through institutional favoritism, the Judiciary via the political gridlock pre-coup and the military via the coup.

  Thai political space has never been, historically, this wide and open. The critical problem is that each stakeholder often dwell in their own self-affirming silos (TV stations, community radios, newspapers, websites etc.) and needs a ‘common space’ where differences and aspirations can be negotiated.

  Over to you Ralph and I thank and commend you on your survey attempts on #41. I am sure you will come up with more interesting findings for us (and I see you have access to military officers from the special warfare unit and is privy to many of the subtle intrigues. If it does not endanger you, perhaps you can share them with us?).

• 47 Sidh S // Jul 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  Michael #42 “What if you wanted to stand up & really criticise the people who are obstructing the passage of Thailand into the 21st C?”

  Thais do it all the time very publicly and occasionally vehemently/violently against the PUBLIC powers that be such as corrupt elected politicians, businessmen, police, military and other bureaucracies etc. If these powers that be and the Thai public can’t take Thailand into the 21st C, no one can. Private critique deals with more discreet powers which actually works quite effectively in the past in determining power succession outcomes (of increasingly less consequence to Thai political future it is argued).

  “What the ” poor and the marginalized” need is the right to vote and the right to sit in parliament”

  Strongly agree with this and have stated so in past posts. Yes, I am not qualified to represent the aspirations of the poor ONLY THEY ARE (arguably filthy rich tycoons like PMThaksin even less so). I am clear here, I represent the much more privileged middle class.

  “Well, yes, it’s obvious – it’s the LM abusers, the accusers, who are responsible.”

  Agree there, but let’s look at the broad cycles too. LM abuse is more intense in times of deep political conflicts. This is such a time and the question posed is – what is worth conveying to the world at large, especially for other aspiring democracies – the details of corruption, conflicts-of-interests and socio-economic class struggles that underpin the conflict and the ways they are addressed, for good and for bad, in Thai society or one law that totally misrepresents Thai democracy for the gaze of Western democracies?

  “Why is it that in Thailand there has not yet been a political party with a coherent (or actually ANY) policy to establish a workable, equal-opportunity, democracy? Is it because there’s something (a small & powerful section of society, perhaps) stopping them from talking about fundamental issues that need to be attended to?”

  The main aspiration provided with ‘roadmap’ in the 1997 Constitution. PMChuan’s Democrats were slow in implementation but consistently played by the rules 1997-2000. ThaiRakThai came closest so far in fulfilling that roadmap in its first 2-3 years in government. The rest is history.

• 48 Sidh S // Jul 20, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  LSS#43. My apologies for misreading your comments.

  “Unfortunately, the current Thai culture animus, as you are a prime example of, views any manifestation of gaiatsu as affront to their national sovereignty.”

  No need to construct straw men to do battle too LSS. Siam/Thailand is one of the most globalized country in the region and consistently experiences external pressures and dealt with them throughout her history. The latest being economic effects that originated from the unfathomable greed of US-based ‘Masters of the Universe’ and, interestingly, from a globe-trotting Nicaraguan PMThaksin…

  “As for the late Robert McNamara, I would assume that a member of the “privileged, Thai middleclass” would have more sympathy for the man who kept you and your parents from laboring in a Khmer Rouge-style reeducation camp run by Chulanont’s พคท/CPT.”

  It is a possible alternative scenario that never materialized. If it happened, maybe I would be part of the numerical statistics of the million+ deaths or form part of the exodus, like the South Vietnamese, to the US and Australia.

  No, I can’t have sympathy for McNamara as I don’t for the Bush-Cheney presidency or the Wall Street fat cats that caused untold damage and suffering worldwide.

  What does the path of the Bodhisattva tell you in these events, LSS?

• 49 Sidh S // Jul 20, 2009 at 5:32 pm

  Tom Hoy #45

  “Is this fair? Why should foreigners get it so easy? Is this what the lawbooks say? Is this perhaps arbitrary and injust? Is the Thai justice system so easily corrupted by foreign governments?”

  Big questions that is quite beyond me. However, I think Srithanonchai’s most recent post “Prasert Nasakul: RIP” provides some glimpse/insights into the workings of Thai law at the highest levels.

  On the other hand, we have Annice Smoel, an Australian tourist, who partied too hard in Phuket, clearly broke the law (written and cultural) and got arrested – and got a slap on the wrist after pressure from the Australian government.

  From both extremes (and many other samples of Reds & Yellows transgressions), a strong rule of law culture is still lacking – a critical missing ingredient for a more vibrant Thai democracy especially to deal with corruption which is the major Achilles heels to Thai democracy.

• 50 michael // Jul 21, 2009 at 1:05 pm

  Sidh #47: ” Thais do it all the time very publicly and occasionally vehemently/violently …” Oh, so Thailand is an outstanding example of free speech. I must have got it wrong. The blocking of internet sites & the ’self-censorship’ of the media are really not repression, they’re the expression of love for the nation. Sorry…

  “LM abuse is more intense in times of deep political conflicts.” Yes, that’s the whole point: the convenience of this one law as an instrument of repression when ” corruption, conflicts-of-interests and socio-economic class struggles that underpin the conflict and the ways they are addressed” become intolerable & start to cause loud discussion & civil unrest, & the powers that be need to manufacture ‘evidence’ of an underground conspiracy that threatens national security, in order to get the ’subversives’ under the thumb again.

  ” ThaiRakThai came closest so far in fulfilling that roadmap in its first 2-3 years in government.” The ‘3 Wars’ of TRT (Drugs;Poverty; Corruption), while presenting a clever and easily identifiable pseudo-platform, did not represent a ‘coherent… policy to establish a workable, equal-opportunity, democracy.’ In hindsight it can be seen that it was an opportunistic advertising campaign to win the people over by saying TRT was going to solve 3 major problems of great concern to the electorate. Look at the way they conducted the wars, and the results.

  And, as far as the Democrats go, I can only refer you to ” Democrats Celebrate 25th Anniversary of Non-Platform” in Not the Nation: “Democratic Party leaders and about 200 senior officers sat down to a gala dinner evening filled with keynote speeches expounding and praising Thailand’s oldest political party, and attributing its longevity to its consistent absence of opinions, positions, or remotely distinguishable ideas.” http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=183
  (Once again satire tells the truth with searing clarity.)

  A very short “road-map” to a perpetual turning-circle is not a workable policy.

• 51 Steve // Jul 21, 2009 at 2:58 pm

  Michael #50

  Good to see that Not The Nation piece again (dated December 10 2007). And such foresight they showed: ‘He [Abhisit] vowed that the party would soon take control of Parliament, “as long as it was okay with the CNS. And Prem.” ‘

  As we now know, a year almost to the day later it was MORE than just “okay” with them…………..

• 52 Sidh S // Jul 21, 2009 at 9:06 pm

  Michael#49:

  “Oh, so Thailand is an outstanding example of free speech. I must have got it wrong. The blocking of internet sites & the ’self-censorship’ of the media are really not repression, they’re the expression of love for the nation. Sorry…” and “need to manufacture ‘evidence’ of an underground conspiracy that threatens national security, in order to get the ’subversives’ under the thumb again.”

  Listen to Red community radios nationwide, go to Red rallies, read the Red publications (latest “Voice of Thaksin”) surf the too-wide-to-censor Thai internet world – you don’t have to believe me, consume these yourself and you will likely find a different picture of Thai free speech.

  Also read my comment#50. The enforcement of Thai law is carried out by the very popular Thai police – and is pretty much like the enforcement of traffic laws. Once a month after pay day. It is literally 25-29 days of freedom out of 30-31 days of each month (and it is tied to ‘pay’, I must stress probably more than love of order or of the nation)!!!

  Yes, websites can be banned, pirated CDs can be burnt, prostitution can be cracked down – you get the picture? What is ‘not allowed’ actually happens all the time…

  Steve#51, add ‘more than OK with Mr.Newin’ and a little less ok with PAD and the picture becomes more complete and I am beginning to hear this more often that don’t discount a Democrat-Thaksin (PheuThai) coalition!!! I agree Michael, there’s still many turning-circles to do, unfortunately…

• 53 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jul 25, 2009 at 3:41 am

  re: Sidh

  Why is it that whenever we get into this conversation, you invariably degrade it to a silly tu quoque argument?

  You’ve asked me what the path of the Bodhisattva tells me? It is simple, to show compassion to all beings and work to end their suffering. One of the greatest causes of suffering in our samsaric existence is the denial of our fellow being’s physical, mental, and spiritual liberty. As, I have told you in comment #24, I object to all unjust limitations on liberty, be it in America, Europe, Asia, or anywhere else. As such, I believe my moral world-view concerning this topic is fairly consistent; as opposed to yours, for reasons I explicated on in comment #36.

  Since you are wont to view all things on a “East-West” axis, I would recommend to you to explore the writings of such men as Laozi, especially his poem “Governing a Nation Is Like Cooking a Small Fish” in the Tao Te Ching, and Zhuangzi and his philosophy of spontaneous order.

• 54 Ralph Kramden // Jul 25, 2009 at 1:01 pm

  Sidh: I have been away from internet for some days and have sporadic access now. I am replying to 46 above. As you recall, I said that I was happy to talk about the expansion and contraction of political space in Thailand and that if you made ” your claims, with adequate justification and so on,” then I would try to respond. Recall also that this was related to a comment of mine: “Try blaming those who keep the law exactly for the purpose of narrowing the political space.” To that you responded: “And what narrowing down of Thai political space?… Thai political space has never been as wide as it is today! ”

  To that I responded: “Presumably. But you read me incorrectly. I said: “Try blaming those who keep the law exactly for the purpose of narrowing the political space.” I wasn’t talking about the present but the historical use of LM. You can look at the statistics on this in the well-circulated Streckfuss and Thanapol article. That said, I do not think that political space is expanding in Thailand just now, but that’s a separate debate.

  Now you want to debate a period since 1992. I thought we were discussing the current period? My claim is “I do not think that political space is expanding in Thailand just now…”. Is that the issue or something else?

• 55 maverick263 // Jul 26, 2009 at 4:06 am

  

  sometimes new mandala shows off the great great wisdom of western academic intelligentsia… well, dear editors… you know best whose voices just… go away, na

  *

  here’s a guy called Lleij Samuel Schwartz , saying:

  “As such, I believe my moral world-view concerning this topic is fairly consistent; as opposed to yours, for reasons I explicated on in comment #36″

  ei ei ei… i’d say dear boddhisattava lss… na, i guess you know… from literature this saying… that a spoon does not experience taste, chai mai?

  *

  & there’s ralph kramden again…

  uiih, it must be a small pub that is new mandala… where like minded guys meet… to sniff at each others traits… who’s me?

• 56 tell it how it is // Jul 26, 2009 at 5:50 am

  I am loathe to adopt an ad hominem posture but having read all of the above, without really having any investment in either side and whilst maintaining a modicum of knowledge about Thai politics, can only summarise that Sidh is talking out of his rear end.

  Now as an evil farang dog I know there are many things I do not understand – god forbid – nor will I ever be able to.

  But what is apparent is that Thailand is in series effing meltdown.

  Maybe we should just leave the Sidhs of this world to decline into the blood-soaked obscurity that Thailand seems to be heading towards?

  I mean, this dude’s supposedly educated yet he can’t even sustain a rational argument.

• 57 Ralph Kramden // Jul 26, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  Maverick: as before, I have no idea what your post means. I tried Google Translate, but came up with nothing that made sense in several languages. Any chance you can be clear?

• 58 Steve // Jul 27, 2009 at 4:39 pm

  RK, while not wanting to over-personalise and appear to be attacking the messenger rather than the message (if only one could actually FIND the message), I have to agree with you about Maverick263’s “input”. While others at least try to actually communicate a point of view and give reasons for holding that view, some seem intent on merely appearing to “know better”…….. except that it seems really too much effort – a waste of their great intellectual prowess and wisdom – to do more than sprinkle their consciously “enigmatic” musings with a few “na’s” and actually make (rather than score) a point.

  It reminds me very much of Kasit’s style – and, as so often with an excess of style/form, it’s the substance that suffers. I have no time for foreigners who present themselves as innately superior in their insights – and the same applies to indigenous populations.

  To attempt to portray New Mandala (I could add Bangkok Pundit and others) as just a club for like-minded westerners to agree with each other rings patently hollow. A glance at the comments section of most topics (including this one) demonstrates just the opposite. Speaking for myself (and, I suspect, most other readers), I would not bother to read them let alone post if the accusation were remotely accurate. To put it plainly, the accusation is just insulting – and appears to spring from needing a substitute for having anything of any substance to express as a counter to what others have said. I notice that a common trait with such input is that the author changes the subject or just disappears when tackled directly on what they have posted. I would welcome being proved wrong about this – or, at least, seeing an exception to that trait………..

Leave a Comment