New Mandala

11 responses so far ↓

• 1 Chris Beale // Nov 12, 2009 at 8:47 am

  While its’ grab so much media attention, is n’t Thaksin’s interview really something of a side-show ?
  Surely the real issue now facing Thailand is who holds the barrel of every gun ?
  The pro-Thaksin police seem to be refusing to be replaced according to Abhisit’s plan.
  And what has happened to the annual military re-shuffle, supposedly completed every October ?
  Not a word about that on the Internet, at least. It looks like
  Abhisit dare n’t dismiss pro-Thaksin military officers.
  And, anyhow each annual military re-shuffle has to be approved by a King who has been gravely ill for more than three weeks.

• 2 WLH // Nov 12, 2009 at 2:44 pm

  Interesting that Liberal Thai isn’t blocked. The MICT usually goes after Thai-language sites much more aggressively than English ones.

  Then again, these are the people that blocked The Times’ interview excerpt article but not the full interview. Incompetent or deceptive.

• 3 Susie Wong // Nov 12, 2009 at 2:55 pm

  I’ve just read an article in a Thai intellectual newspaper, Prachatai, and would like to share its fruit of thought about the issue of Thaksin and the monarchy.

  The article argues that our main objectives should be focusing on important issues: political democracy, jobs, political transparency, economic democracy and social fairness, etc. The issue of Thaksin or no-Thaksin, monarchy or no-monarchy, should not be argue in an absolute term. Rather, the argument should be based on facts and reasons. Arguing in an absolute term with an assumption that pro-monarchy is absolutely right and anti-monarchy is absolutely wrong is incorrect. The correct approach should be how Thaksin or no-Thaksin, monarchy or no-monarchy response to the real issues: political democracy, jobs, transparency in politics, economic democracy and social fairness, etc.

  In our modern day time, we cannot keep the monarchy institution if it reduces the status of democracy. We can save it by reforming the monarchy institution to the universal cultural norms of democracy which is based on an acceptance and respect of liberty, equality, justice, and the sovereignty power of its people.

  “เราควรยึดเอา “เป้าเหมายอันแท้จริง” มาเป็นศูนย์กลางของปัญหา เรื่องเอา-ไม่เอาทักษิณ หรือเอา-ไม่เอาสถาบันต้องไม่ทำให้เป็นความเชื่อแบบหัวชนฝา แต่ต้องทำให้เป็นเรื่องที่นำมาถกเถียงกันได้ด้วยข้อเท็จจริงและเหตุผล” นักปรัชญาชายขอบ

  ในโลกยุคใหม่เราไม่อาจรักษาสถาบันเอาไว้ได้ด้วยการลดทอนความเป็น ประชาธิปไตย แต่อาจรักษาไว้ได้ด้วยการทำให้สถาบันปรับตัวตามวัฒนธรรมประชาธิปไตยสากล คือการยอมรับและเคารพเสรีภาพ ความเสมอภาค ความเป็นธรรม และอำนาจอธิปไตยของประชาชน

• 4 Leah Hoyt // Nov 12, 2009 at 4:35 pm

  The linked article in The Nation states that:

  “Residents in Thailand can still access the newspaper’s articles as well as the interview’s full transcript. ”

  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/11/12/politics/politics_30116422.php

  This seems to be an odd quote in any case, but odder considering that WLH and I both found the article blocked yesterday. I wonder if The Nation coordinated with MICT to ensure it was unblocked before publication, or if they are just saying, as usual, what they want people to think rather than the truth.

  @Chris Beale:

  The idea that the battle over the police is between Aphisit and Thaksin is probably appealing to those who want to make the storyline simplistic and Orwellian. But there is a lot more going on in Thailand than Thaksin despite all of the powerfully-backed efforts to make it appear that way. I had thought that everyone knew who the players in the police struggle were and that the frequent references to Germany cast a shining light on who was the on the other side of the squabble.

• 5 pco // Nov 12, 2009 at 5:06 pm

  Susie- Just to clarify, is that last paragraph your thoughts, or a continuation of your summary of the article? Thank you for the translation, by the way.

• 6 BKK lawyer // Nov 12, 2009 at 9:31 pm

  pco: It appears to be a continuation of her summary; it tracks the second Thai paragraph.

• 7 Chris Beale // Nov 12, 2009 at 11:23 pm

  Leah Hoyt – thanks for that infromation, of which I had no
  inkling. What incredibly complex, subtle culture and politics Thailand has – I can hardly make sense of it all !!

• 8 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Nov 12, 2009 at 11:34 pm

  The articel Susy Wong cites (from Prachatai) is intellectually shallow, half-baked. See some of my comments (in Thai) on the comment page of that article.

  In this country, there’re no such things as issues of ‘demo-cracy, people’s welfare, freedom that can be set up (as the author suggests) as the ‘real’ or ‘main’ targets in separation from the issue of monarchy.

  Without resolving the monarchy issue, there are not even the demos – or more accuarately, citizens – to speak of, let alone ‘their’ welfare, ‘their’ freedom. The status of the monarchy is the same issue of whether there will even be ‘people’ or ‘citizens’ in this country (or just ‘loyal subject’ as is now), and of course, wihout ‘people/citizen’ there cannot be any question of ‘their’ welfare’, freedom, and so on.

  The argument of that article is an old one, that has dominated the thinking, and acted as the excuse, of most social activists (ngos, academics, etc.) for the past decade. It’s simply intellectual cowardice dressed up as ’sensible’ thinking.

• 9 Jim Taylor // Nov 13, 2009 at 12:27 am

  The full transcript has been blocked in the Thai media (what’s new about one-sided reporting in Thailand?)

• 10 Susie Wong // Nov 13, 2009 at 3:56 am

  It came from the news article titled, “Move Beyond the Period of the Monarchy Institution As the Center of Political Conflicts,” in Prachatai Webboard, November 12th 2009.

  ข้ามให้พ้นยุคสถาบันเป็นศูนย์กลางของความขัดแย้งทางการเมือง

  Thu, 2009-11-12 05:06

  นักปรัชญาชายขอบ

  Thanks BKK lawyer for explaining it to pco.
  Leah, I guess you are right that the deeper conflict is the succession issue, that is, the struggling forces between those in favor of Sirinthorn versus Vachilalongkorn.

• 11 pff123 // Nov 13, 2009 at 12:59 pm

  Leah-
  What I can’t make sense of was the follow-up commentary (at the time) that the Abhisit side of the debate was receiving equally strong, if not stronger, signals from some Other party in the power struggle you’re referring to.

  There are two obvious Higher parties who could have trumped Germany. One is supposedly no longer active in these sorts of conversations, the other has previously visibly thrown support behind the the main pro-Patheep advocates. But my understanding was that she and Germany saw eye-to-eye.

  So, I guess my question is: was Someone, before his most unfortunate incident on September 15, more active than is being acknowledged; or, was the police battle an indication of an inter-generational split; or, or was the Other party intra-generational to Germany?

Leave a Comment