There have been a few comments on New Mandala over the past few days about Professor Stephen Young. Today there is the first part of a long interview with him in The Nation. It’s hard to know what to say about this sort of “royalist twaddle”, to quote one reader. So I won’t say anything. Over to you.
30 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Sep 9, 2009 at 3:37 pm
“Lost for words” is a most appropriate headline for this post!!
2 Observer // Sep 9, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Professor Young provides a clear case study in which a stylized elite view of Thailand has been disseminated by a cleverly cultivated group of useful idiots. Hosted by the King, friends with Sarit, carefully spoon fed stories by the Ongamontri and other agents, then doubtlessly rewarded for their complacency.
I think it is urgent that this type of lazy propagandist academia be exposed and mocked.
Kudos to Paul Handley, Nick Nositz and others who actually seek to form their owns views and take the risks that that entails.
3 dantampa // Sep 9, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Unfortunately, Stephen Young’s personal experiences as a young man, rubbing elbows with Thailand’s royals, swells and dictators, seems to have left him with a perspective on modern Thailand that is divorced from reality.
His pro-royalist sentiments and blatant anti-Thaksin bias remove the slightest hint of objectivity in his comments. He is a relic of pre-1932 Thailand, trapped in a world of paternalists, kings and dictators “who were tough guys who loved the people.”
His attempt to blame Thailand’s current political ills on the ambitions of one man, Thaksin, is astonishing, especially his pathetic attempt to tar Thaksin’s character as more Chinese than “Thai Thai.”
He simply doesn’t realise that Thaksin is a symptom, not cause, of what really ails this country: a national psychosis trying to achieve a populist democracy while preserving the symbol of national unity – the king – an autocrat whose followers have spent the better part of the last 75 years trying to undo 1932. The result has been a dysfunctional political system that defies prognosis.
4 jonfernquest // Sep 9, 2009 at 10:11 pm
It would actually do this blog good to get a real opponent for a debate.
This is a professor who doesn’t use footnotes or citations?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19556383/Young-2
He just seems to be rehashing the information or arguments of other people without citing sources, i.e. plagiarism.
Not a good example for Thai students.
5 Steve // Sep 9, 2009 at 10:21 pm
This interview and – strike me – another instalment yet to come will have the tunnel-vision “it’s all because of the great Satan” zealots over on the ThaiVisa forum drooling in a feeding frenzy. Oh, the quotes to be lifted and embellished upon – no matter if the facts are wrong. And, hey did you see this Young character is actually a Professor? He must know what he’s talking about – even in ermmm (where’s he from?)……… Minnesota. Nice state – isn’t that where they shot the “Fargo” movie?
The forum’s anti-Thaksin denizens have been rather starved of fodder lately and, despite logical contortions that must be the envy of even the most accomplished Chinese acrobat, it’s been increasingly difficult for them to divert attention from all that this government is doing (much of it straight out of the Thaksin playbook – but let’s skip that part). No such problems for The Nation’s bedmate now.
6 David // Sep 9, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Line the up the prof for his go on the Guillotine. I will catch his wig from the green. It’s hilarious if it were not so frightening that he and his buds are so out of touch with the feelings on the ground. The people will have their way eventually.
7 shoo // Sep 9, 2009 at 11:32 pm
is he still in Ban Chiang era??
8 macca // Sep 9, 2009 at 11:57 pm
“Rural people in their communities have always had their patrons. They can always have some influence in this group and that group. I have my view, my patron. I look up to you, you take care of me. You are at the provincial level and you reach the Bangkok level, so I can get it to the Bangkok level only through you. This has been true for a long time.”
A clearer, more outright expression of the patriarchal and static royalist view on Thailand’s rural constituency is hard to come by. For that I thank professor Young . Many thanks for the link
9 Ralph Kramden // Sep 10, 2009 at 12:26 am
Thanks to jonfernquest for the link. At that location there are also versions of various constitutions that might prove useful to NM readers also.
My feeling is that Young was CIA and the links of US intelligence with the palace are hard to research because released CIA documents seem to delete a lot about the king and palace. But I haven’t done a thorough study of these as they become available. Anyone have any information?
10 jonfernquest // Sep 10, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Based on the bio provided elsewhere in New Mandala by Ralph (link) Stephen Young is clearly an conservative academic from the US who has a well-formulated philosophy developed over many years about the nature of Asian politics. Maybe he is ex-CIA too.
It is a sad fact that you have to find out his bio and background in the comments to New Mandala. This certainly has the appearance of hiding something.
It is also a sad fact that most Farang who have written on or engaged with Thailand intellectually have done so through their affiliation with some highly partisan organisation, whether it be mostly NGOs nowadays or the CIA and US military presence in Southeast Asia during Vietnam war. The only scholar that seems able to be objective is the Pasuk & Baker transnational team/intellectual entity.
11 Les Abbey // Sep 10, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Ha-ha, there’s nobody quite as royalist as an American royalist.
More surprising was him bringing up the subject of ethnicity, which has been a bit of an elephant in the room everyone has tried to ignore, mainly as it crosses through the present political spectrum, especially the leaderships of all sides.
12 Philippe Piette // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:23 pm
This is an amazing piece of propaganda. I am sure the man believes what he is saying and some of it is quite correct. Thaksin belongs to the Chinese diaspora in Thailand. But it is a very simplistic view of the situation. Hitler also did some very nice things for the people, like autobahns, etc. So when you bring electricity and water the people need to be thankful and revere you? Actually this is quite a “Confucian” view of things especially in respect to the power relation. Am I misunderstanding? Was this not what he accused the previous government of doing. Incomprehensible.
13 tettyan // Sep 11, 2009 at 12:45 am
More surprising was him bringing up the subject of ethnicity, which has been a bit of an elephant in the room everyone has tried to ignore,
That’s a very nice way of putting it. Look, I don’t like Thaksin. But Young’s analysis is blatantly racist and is deeply offensive to anyone of Chinese extraction. That doesn’t make his characterization of “Thai Thais” any better – portraying them has nice, sweet, innocent passive types plays directly off of Western stereotypes of Asians that the late Edward Said so passionately denounced.
Young’s speech should be offensive to all Thais, no matter their ethnic extraction.
14 macca // Sep 11, 2009 at 2:55 am
The second part of the interview is as of today published on The Nation
Can someone explain the meaning of “Ammat” discussed in the last question?
SY: “Ammat” (Top royal advisers).
PY: Well, who has more ammats? He has more. He’s the man of ammat. He’s not a man of clout. He has good fortune but doesn’t have clout. Well, when I say he doesn’t have clout, I use the word in an old-fashioned way. The true meaning is that the person must have good education, a moral foundation, a past life of a good person – and you have moral authority, moral legitimacy that comes from self-control and respect for others. So Thaksin doesn’t have clout [baramee]; but he has vassana [good fortune], so he uses power. He has got to take power away from the people
15 Martin // Sep 11, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Seriously Clueless
I was amazed by the gross stereotypes included in Stephen Young’s comments. The CIA closely guards any documentation relating to Thailand, especially links to the upper elite. They as much as Sarit built up the modern cults that typify the Thai establishment’s worldview. The anti-Chinese comments are certainly offensive, considering that a large percentage of the Bangkok population is Sino-Thai. Most of the road improvements that took place in Isan were the work of US contractors during the Vietnam War and Chawalit who like Barnhan was milking favours for votes. Young fails to remember figures such as Thongin Phuriphat and Tiang Sirikhan who began the struggle for social justice in Thailand. He fails to realize that Gen. Phao was a beast created by the CIA.
16 Steve // Sep 11, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Seek no more – the dependable “Not The Nation” has found the words in a delicious response headlined “Patronizing White Man With Degree Reassures Thai Elites With Unexamined Rhetoric”.
Much too good to quote just an extract – read and enjoy in full.
17 Les Abbey // Sep 11, 2009 at 9:04 pm
tettyan -
That’s a very nice way of putting it. Look, I don’t like Thaksin. But Young’s analysis is blatantly racist and is deeply offensive to anyone of Chinese extraction.
What surprised me most by the speech was once you start using ethnicity you have to look at all sides, Thaksin’s people, PAD and the present government which in various ratios have the same cross-ethnic mix. Once you attack Thaksin on this, where does it leave Sondhi?
Thaksin is an easy target for Young’s complaint, coming from a Chinese tax-farming family. Many of us have probably done business with Thai-Chinese who think ethnic Thais are the ‘younger brothers’ of the Chinese (Hans I guess they mean), whatever that relationship means. Didn’t Lee Kuan Yew boast the Somchai government could hold cabinet meetings in whatever Chinese dialect? (I’m a bit vague on this, maybe someone can confirm what the old man actually said and why.)
Of course what we have to remember is that there is more than one elite in Thailand. There is the old aristocracy and there is the Thai-Chinese business community. At the moment the latter is fairly fractured but Young is definitely speaking for the former.
18 Les Abbey // Sep 11, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Far more interesting than the Young interview is the article by Umberto Eco on Berlusconi. I know many on both sides of the Thai argument see similarities between Thaksin and Berlusconi, so I think it’s worth reading. The link is below.
Daily Telegraph UK
19 Srithanonchai // Sep 11, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Young also got the front page of Nation Weekend. Inside, his interview and some additional biographical data are in Thai translation. All this makes one wonder about political-journalistic backroom dealings…
20 Ralph Kramden // Sep 12, 2009 at 1:54 am
Les: ethnicity of the old elite? I guess Abhisit is their representative in government; he’s of Chinese ethnicity. At the top end, wasn’t the king’s mum Chinese? I agree that the ethnic card is a difficult one at this level. What is interesting is consider why it is that no one has really tried to use that card to unite pro-Thaksin people (maybe because he is Chinese?) against the ones they oppose. There is certainly an ethnic and class distinction if one looks at who attends yellow and red rallies.
21 Srithanonchai // Sep 12, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Even “Not The Nation” had some problems with this interview:
http://www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=822.html
In fact, the PAD played the Chinese card to oppose Thaksin.
22 Les Abbey // Sep 12, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Ralph -
What is interesting is consider why it is that no one has really tried to use that card to unite pro-Thaksin people (maybe because he is Chinese?)
Yes Ralph I guess you would need the red shirts to dump Thaksin… and…
23 Ralph Kramden // Sep 13, 2009 at 1:05 am
Les: Maybe not. Just redefine Thaksin as truly Thai in the same way as the king and his mother were converted into symbols of Thai-ness.
24 KonThai // Sep 14, 2009 at 2:32 pm
What a joke! A very polarised, narrow-minded individual. Why should anyone listen to him? He didn’t give us any worthwhile opinions or suggestions. A lot of his comments show his ignorance.
25 Frank G Anderson // Sep 14, 2009 at 5:39 pm
14 September 2009
Ah,, another “Thaksin’s the problem” man, and a well-educated one to boot!
Suthichai Yoon is to be commended for his personal achievements and perseverance all along no matter what criticism I offer him. But this interview reminds me the time Suthichai interviewed American ambassador to Thailand, I believe it was Hecklinger, and the ambassador gave a rather long analysis of problems Thailand was having and how the US was reacting toward them. At the end of the speech, Suthichai asked Hecklinger, “Well,…how do you expect me to explain this to the Thai people?”
And the ease in which Hecklinger replied was legion: “The same way I just explained it to you.”
Coming back to the Young interview then, that point going past both Young and Yoon’s heads was the point about things here being much more than just a matter of Thaksin having gotten away with too much. The core apparatus is rotten from within, and while I personally believe Thaksin should get what is coming to him, interviews like this that gloss over major murdering by former leaders and their corruption by somehow saying they all either left or never got off the hook is a lie. Many of them were given royal pardons across the board, particularly in the aftermath of was it 1973 when both victim and state perpetrator were forgiven as if blood had never been shed.
We don’t need pseudo-academics that are really apologists for maintaining the status quo to be interviewed. We need change. Thai and expat alike.
26 Frank G Anderson // Sep 14, 2009 at 5:43 pm
As to the northeast, where I have spent the vast majority of my forty years in and out of Thailand, let’s not belittle the gulf between it and Bangkok. The authorities are still under orders not to let Isaan people bother those in Bangkok, and techniques used to keep these people roped in are much different than those in Bangkok.
27 khon ngai ngai // Sep 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Do you think the imperial US (where the imperial Thaksin obtained his PhD) has already a contingency plan for “regime change” in Thailand when HM will come to pass? For one, if this country becomes unstable, and the economy turns into a downward spiral, that would be a slap on the faces of the proponents of the Washington Consensus, and serve as fuel to the likes of Hugo Chavez who criticize that the liberal model of economic development in Thailand (once the darling of the WB and IMF in the late 80s and early 90s) is simply untenable.
28 Frank G Anderson // Sep 16, 2009 at 11:50 am
Actually, use of the word ‘imperial’ also describes Siam/Thailand in the extreme in the past, and Laos is merely one ruins to attest to the fact.
I wish I could write Thai even 10% as well as your English is, and apologize in advance for correcting a phrase you used…”HM will come to pass” as the phrase should be “HM passes on.” the phrase “Come to pass” means to occur, or to happen.
As to your point, however, regarding slapping Washington consensus gurus in the face and so on, Thailand already has a plethora of Hugo Chavez’s and hardly needs another.
As to contingency plans by the US, I believe that history has proven either that they don’t work or are misengineered at the very begining of what many rightfully see as American-instigated contingencies. The Middle East morass is a major exclamation point in this regard, and it seems as if no amount of reason, common sense, appeal to human rights or civil sensibilities will ever convince Washington to stay out of places it does not belong. But, that also holds true for Thailand and every single other country in the world, all of whom pay lip service to non-interference but who practice, by desire and necessity, the opposite from time to time.
29 Chris Beale // Sep 29, 2009 at 1:19 am
It is worthwhile finding here some mention of the Isaan / Bangkok
divide.
There’s far too little mention of this both in Thai and international media. But it’s at the heart of Thailand’s current impasse.
Two factors make this divide now fundamentally different from what it has been before :
1) Thaksin’s empowerment of Lao-speaking Isaan.
2) The fact that for the first time in more than 300 years there is now a viable Lao state on the 0ther side of the Mekong.
While Thailand’s elite, – almost exclusively non-Lao Isaan – might like to patronisingly think of Laos as Thailand’s “little brother”, Lao I’ve spoken to look to China as their big brother protector – possibly against Thailand. In the event of a breakaway anti-Bangkok uprising in Lao-majority Isaan, it would be difficult for La0s and China not to become involved.
30 Frank G Anderson // Sep 29, 2009 at 8:49 am
Any Isaan-China axis against the elites has the proverbial snowball in Hell chance of occurring. We should not forget China has its own elite who support Thailand’s elite.
The idea that northeasterners in this region that I live in would actually rebel on the one hand and that the central government would allow this or be so incompetent to prevent it is also incredulous. The overall subject of elites vs. northeasterners, however, is ripe for discussion. some of the machinations that went into solidifying the northeast’s current ties with the central authorities is evident in histories and accounts of the final Lao war, preparations and aftermath, against Thailand during 1826-27.
Not quite sure how empowered the Isaan people were before or after Thaksin, however. Well before him they were generally cultivated to help win elections, and have been a major element in national elections, major economic policy decisions and more.
Speaking to Laotians who might fancy China stepping in is not the way to purview political developments as they might possibly unfold. Sort of like t he payanak fable.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.