Received by email:
The manager of Prachatai, Jiranut Premjaiporn, has been arrested at Bangkok airport after returning from Hungary. She was attending the “Internet Liberty 2010″ conference.
Here is a brief news report (in Thai).
Review of Ideal ManNew Mandala book review editor Michael Montesano reviews this new work on a key figure in Southeast Asian history.
Read More
Review of MisallianceKeith Weller Taylor argues that this new book is thoughtful, lucid, original, analytical, and readable
Read More
Review of Thailand’s Hidden WorkforceInga Gruß reviews a book about the work conditions of Myanmar migrant workers in Thailand at this time of immense change.
Read More
Review of Gender, Emotions and Labour MarketsSri Ranjani Mei Hua reviews a book dealing with experiences of women in Southeast Asia.
Read More
Review of Authority of InfluenceScholarly treatments of gender in Myanmar, past or present, remain scarce. Jessica Harriden’s book thus fills a gap in our understanding of an important and controversial topic.
Read More
Review of The King in ExileDonald M. Seekins argues that this book is the story of a dynasty that belongs truly to Burma’s past.
Read More
Review of Buddhist FuryThis book explores the relationship between religion and violence in far southern Thailand, where Buddhist monks are a marginalized local minority.
Read More
Review of Revisiting Rural PlacesRevisiting Rural Places should become an essential reference text for researchers who work on social, cultural, political and economic change in Asia.
Read More
Review of The Institutional ImperativeDe-agrarianisation often isn’t very pretty, but economic disparity may well be the price to be paid for pursuing it as slowly as Thailand has over the past 50 years.
Read More
Review of Imagining Gay ParadiseThe creation of make-shift, idiosyncratic queer paradises provides shelter, community, and belonging for many who have refused to fit into standard narratives of Southeast Asia.
Read More
Review of The Fate of Rural HellThe models of eroticism and faith in the Hell Garden have been left behind by the robust urban bourgeois consumerist culture increasingly prominent across contemporary Thai society.
Read More
Review of Revolution InterruptedQuestioning received notions of revolution, this book offers a passionate and rigorous reconsideration of the period in Thailand between October 1973 and October 1976.
Read More
Review of Land and LoyaltyRead More
Review of The Lovelorn Ghost and the Magical MonkRead More
Review of Saying the UnsayableRead More
Wow, using false charges to detain her twice, before using the Com-munist… *cough* sorry, Computer law to arrest her.
This is a new low for the Loony bin they called a state.
Quality comment or not?
23 
4
Well, isn’t that just wonderful, Thailand is up there with Burundi on these two consecutive tweets from the Media Legal Defence Initiative. Tough competition, but our boys are surely up to it!
Earlier today, #Prachatai director Chiranug Premchaiporn was arrested at Bangkok airport on new lese majeste charges. Still in detention now
41 minutes ago via web
Reply Retweet
Burundian journalist Jean-Claude Kavumbagu has been in detention since July 17 for criticising the army. The… http://fb.me/y9Dzclgo
about 18 hours ago via Facebook
Quality comment or not?
10 
4
How have things got so wrong that some of us believe that trying to shut people up and ignore them instead of listening to them and incorporating their concerns is the foundation for political stability? Isn’t it stark ravingly obvious that the opposite is the case? Why can’t these people see that? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Quality comment or not?
21 
3
I’m going to go out on a limb here – and anyone who doubts my objectivity can refer me to the censors for speaking my mind – and reiterate my previously stated opinion that, from what (limited) understanding I have of the Prachatai case, arresting its director simply has to be a misapplication of lese majeste of the exact kind I fear is not only unreasonable, but seemingly unjust (at least on the face of it), and surely, if nothing else, simply an example of the kind that will be tragically and gleefully seized upon by those who have anything but Thailand’s best interests at heart.
I’ve stated on forums my opposition to those who would claim a political message board has a duty to moderate political discussion. I don’t know all the pertinent facts, but from what I understand of the case, she was expected to be the sharp end of the regulator’s spear in terms of fulfilling a requirement to actively monitor and censor political discussion? If that’s the case, it’s a tragic scenario.
If she refused to cooperate with a police investigation, that’s a crime. If she withheld or deleted evidence, or protected the identities of those who broke the law (ignoring whether or not one agrees with that law or not), she would be culpable. But merely refusing to censor? I cannot understand how arresting her is in the spirit of lese majeste, or can possibly be in the best interests of Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
19 
10
For some background on Jiew and Pratchatai, watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajEqGEg-rHU&sns=em by Digital Democracy.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
In Thailand, only the Orwellians prevail.
In ‘double speak’, ‘reconciliation’ means ‘shut the hell up or get busted’.
Quality comment or not?
22 
2
That’s a lovely phrase you coin Jonny, “the spirit of lese majeste”. Fills my heart with joy.
Quality comment or not?
5 
2
Jonny, I think you can rest easy. I don’t think anyone here will be dobbing you into the censors for your brave stance.
Speak your mind by all means . Go out on that limb. If only everyone could.
Quality comment or not?
9 
2
RWB are reporting on their website that “Prachatai editor Chiranuch Premchaipoen has been released after paying a 200 000 bahts (about 4800 euros).”
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The charge stems from an extended interview with Chotisak Onsoong published at Prachatai on 21 April 2008. Chotisak was of course himself charged with LM for not standing up during the play of Royal Anthem. Here’s the interview:
http://prachatai.com/journal/2008/04/16466
But the interview itself is not what got Khun Jiranut charged this time. It’s the comments from online readers:
http://prachatai.com/node/16466/talk#comment-90260
(anyone wanting to keep this page for future study is advised to save, I think it could be deleted soon)
Now the person (or persons, I’m not sure) who filed the LM charge allege that among the 285 comments, 5 of them violate LM law.
I won’t give NM readers which specific comments, but have a look yourself. The first 4 comments in question are among the first 70 comments, the last one is among the first 135 comments.
All these details became clear to Khun Jiranut herself and her colleagues only when they arrived at the KhonKaen Police HQ.
The police claimed that they didn’t intended to arrest her yesterday under such circumstances, but when she arrived at the Suwannaphum Airport, her name came up in the Immigration Police’s computer at the airport. The outstanding warrant for her arrest was issue in September last year. (Why she wasn’t arrested when she boarded the plane to Europe isn’t clear. Some said her name did came up then too, but the police let her go for the time being.)
Quality comment or not?
13 
0
I provided ‘live’ report of Khun Jiranut’s journey to the KhonKaen Police HQ last night.
http://weareallhuman2.info/index.php?showtopic=49507&s=ee1312f0974745fe6331b680d972682b
When I finally went to bed last at shortly after 2 am. Khun Jiranut was already freed on bail, but the paper work of her initial testimony to police wasn’t done yet. She and her colleagues had to drive back all the way to BKK. The ordeal was surly very tiring for them.
Quality comment or not?
11 
0
Interesting that they arrested her after, rather than before the ‘Internet Liberty 2010′ conference. The fact that she was returning from an international conference on these issues when she was arrested makes it more newsworthy, especially on the web. Is somebody in the police network onside? I should imagine, given the evidence of police sympathies during the recent protest events, that this could well be the case. I sincerely hope so!
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
I had a chat about the Prachatai example with a friend of mine in the US who runs a small political discussion forum – I have to admit I’m a bit conflicted on the issue after speaking with him about how he approaches ‘illegal’ or ‘inflammatory’ content posted by users on his forum.
I was under the – perhaps naive – impression that “Unmoderated” labels on political forums around the world actually = no moderation. My friend scoffed at this; explaining that heavy moderation of illegal* posting has to be conducted by any webmaster or else a discussion board would basically be an exploitable avenue to broadcast (insert illegal message here).
*nb. Illegal = used in the literal sense, i.e. against the law (as legislated, proclaimed and / or enforced by the ruling powers of the day)
I’m still trying to reconcile this confronting counter-argument…but if we ignore ‘validity’ of the law (that is another debate altogether), I believe it may have just dawned upon me that there is nothing about the Thai authorities’ actions here that would not be replicated in almost any first world nation?!
I’m going to pick an arbitrary ‘comparative’ (I just know I’m gonna regret using that word) example – please accept that I am in no way comparing Holocaust revisionist theory with lese majeste aside from the tenuous connection in that they are both controversial and illegal in some countries. And both have their ardent critics who would pose the question of legitimacy (irrelevant as far as moderation of public debate is concerned). I was grossly clueless until about an hour ago.
In Germany and Australia and I’m sure a number of other countries where legislation has been enacted to prohibit Holocaust deniers from discussing their (odious) beliefs in the public domain – a German or Australian forum owner who allowed such content to remain unmoderated would be guilty of a crime. No ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’ about it.
As far as the law is concerned, a German forum owner who allowed Holocaust ‘revisionist’ theory to remain uncensored would likely be treated far harsher than the Prachatai moderators who allowed lese majeste content to stand uncensored indefinitely.
Now, yall can debate the validity or otherwise of various laws regarding free speech at your leisure. I will likely abstain as my views on the matter haven’t changed – but, rightly or wrongly (and I concede that 99% of this forum’s readers would surely tick the rightly box), Jiranut Premjaiporn was breaking the law and I’m not sure I realised that until an hour ago because I’m a moran.
You all will no doubt consider her a patriot for her refusal to subscribe to what she considers to be an ‘unjust’ law. I will abstain from that debate. But I can’t help but notice the apparent contractions – there are laws against free speech in every first world nation which are just as debatable as the law Khun Jiranut knowingly chose to ignore. I guess it seems to me that you can opine between yourselves whether or not you personally believe that particular law is ‘valid’ or not – but the fact is it’s as valid in Thailand as US laws prohibiting the posting of public threats against the President or German laws prohibiting Holocaust debate and so on and so forth.
I think you all – and I as well, in my post above – have been perhaps a bit guilty of some blatant hypocrisy in our outrage at what really amounts to nothing more than mere due process.
Don’t you agree? Or am I missing something about the nature of her activism which somehow makes her arrest by the local authorities…’outrageous’ or ‘villainous’ (in ways the Secret Service would not be similarly ‘enraging’ or ‘abhorrent’…in a comparable US scenario)?
Quality comment or not?
4 
26
Then it is similar to third party liability issues, you should look at this landmark case http://bit.ly/9F0L0Q from Singapore. See how Singapore is handling it very, very differently, that is, as an issue of civil law. These are not criminal offenses at any stretch of imagination.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
Human Rights watch says there could close to 1,000 red shirts in prison. Sunai is usually pretty reasonable. This is terrifying.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/09/25/politics/Rights-activists-questions-&039;secret&039;-red-sh-30138679.html
“The issue, Sunai warned, could lead to the problem of forced disappearances. When asked to speculate on the number, Sunai said he could not be entirely sure but suspected that the number of red-shirt protesters detained across the Kingdom was close to 1,000. The only list of detainees released so far are those of key members and red-shirt leaders who face terrorism charges. ”
Unless, of course like Jonny, you just want to say Thaksin is the worst thing ever to happen to Thailand (and the UNIVERSE), I plead with you to obsess about this to the exclusion of everything else over and over again.
Quality comment or not?
15 
2
Jonny said: “As far as the law is concerned, a German forum owner who allowed Holocaust ‘revisionist’ theory to remain uncensored would likely be treated far harsher than the Prachatai moderators who allowed lese majeste content to stand uncensored indefinitely.”
As far as I can see there are at least two thing wrong in that statement. The contemporary reports, at least of Chiranuch’s first ‘offenses,” said that the comments were taken down, but just after several days, not immediately. And from what I was able to Google, regarding German Holocaust denial law (according to Deutsche Welle), “Now, anyone who publicly endorses, denies or plays down the genocide against the Jews faces a maximum penalty of five years in jail and no less than the imposition of a fine.”
Chiranuch of course faces 10X5 years (Total: 50 years) on the old set of charges, and could face 15 years for lese majeste if charged and convicted.
If I have either of these points wrong, I stand happy to be corrected.
Of course Jonny also entirely misses the point that political crimes such as Chiranuch is charged with are very much a subjective matter, with the “evidence” open to interpretation. If he bothered to read the criticisms, he would see that that is the main point critics make — that these catch-all laws are unfair. And what better way to make the point than to protest their application?
So Jonny, Its a cop-out to say you “abstain from that debate” about whether the laws are unfair. Since you brought up German law, you surely know that in another era Jews were tossed into concentration camps according to the law. Presumably you would have pointed out that legal procedure was being f9llowed, so what’s the fuss.
Quality comment or not?
13 
1
Due process involves no issue of summons perhaps for jonny, who repeats all the government’s arguments on lese majeste – which are well publicized – as if they are his own. Plagiarism is not a crime, but indicates motivation very well.
Quality comment or not?
7 
1
@jonny
Let’s keep the two issues seperate. First there is the limitation of free speach by law, as is the case with Holocaust Denial in Germany or lèse majesté in Thailand. The latter is already very disputable in itself due to its broad (possible) application.
Then there is the liability issue of the person running an open web forum. The person or company running a forum is just a telecommunications provider and thus cannot be made liable for other person’s statements. The liability is with the person who made the statement in the first place!
Take an example from the old analogue world – a supermarket bulletin board. Somebody puts up a swastika (or anything else that illegal in the respective country) on the board. When should the store owner become liable for this act? Certainly not the second it has been put up! He won’t be liable until after has been informed and refuses to remove it in due time.
In the online world, a forum owner is only responsible for injunctive relief, too. Once he or she is made aware of illegal information, they have to be removed immediately. He is not responsible for checking each and every comment for possible legal issues! Anything else would effectively ban any forum, blog, Facebook, engines …
While this reflects the legal situation in Germany*, I believe the law is not much different in most of the western world.
It is already a practical issues – each and every post, comment in any forum, blog … would have to be read and approved by a human otherwise. In case of prachatai.com, there are some 300 comments under this single article alone – a court would have to prove that the Prachatai manager, as a third party, has been aware of the illegal comments and did not remove them.
*http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forenhaftung (sorry German only, I can provide a translation on request)
Quality comment or not?
5 
1
Somsak#11:
would it be possible for NM, or anyone else, to give us a translation of the second link that you provide ?
I.e. where you say :
“But the interview itself is not what got Khun Jiranut charged this time. It’s the comments from online readers:
http://prachatai.com/node/16466/talk#comment-90260“
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Police didn’t need a summons “because the offence carries a severe penalty.”
In other news, police general charged with murder is promoted.
Quality comment or not?
12 
0
Media is the most powerful tool of communication. It gives a real exposure to the mass audience about what is right or wrong.
Today we are bounded in the barriers of loads of problems and issues. Media like Prachatai has a constructive role to play in bringing to our attention important cases and issues and in providing justice to people. Prachatai has been helping promoting right things on right time.
The Thai corrupted politicians and bureaucrats have been putting the Thai patriotic leaders in jail and in exile. We must not allow the continuity of this abuse by letting them hiding behind lese majesty and computer law. Thailand does not belong to only the Thai network monarchy. Now, the time has arrived, when we need to re-think and sought out about the role of the Thai State in its suppression of human rights of the Thai citizens for the benefits of the Thai network monarchy.
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
In the words of Jim Morrison : ” This is the end “
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
jonny # 14
“As far as the law is concerned, a German forum owner who allowed Holocaust ‘revisionist’ theory to remain uncensored would likely be treated far harsher than the Prachatai moderators who allowed lese majeste content to stand uncensored indefinitely.”
You don’t seem to know much about the German situation… As for Thailand, unlike Germany, even correct information and legitimate opinions are subject to lese majesty.
Quality comment or not?
11 
1
chris beale #20
The link leads to readers’ comments on Chotisak’s interview. There are altogether 285 comments.
Five of these are specified by police (in the warrant for Jiranut’s arrest) as violating LM law.
I know which of them are, but if I or anyone else were to translate or transcribe them, we would be in danger of being charged with LM too. This is how this particular law works.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
All those criticising – on good grounds – Shawn Crispin last week, should congratulate him for standing up now against the Prachatai manager’s arrest :
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/198222/political-website-director-released-on-bail
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
To bring it (almost) home, I’ll substitute ‘Myanmar’ for ‘Thailand’ in Jonny’s comment and, voila, we have what amounts to the standard junta apologist’s excuse for putting away some poor blogger.
“I guess it seems to me that you can opine between yourselves whether or not you personally believe that particular law is ‘valid’ or not – but the fact is it’s as valid in Myanmar as US laws prohibiting the posting of public threats against the President or German laws prohibiting Holocaust debate and so on and so forth.
“I think you all – and I as well, in my post above – have been perhaps a bit guilty of some blatant hypocrisy in our outrage at what really amounts to nothing more than mere due process….”
I for one would be curious as to whether Jonny also finds outrage over the arrests of NLD and Burmese netizen lawbreakers a matter of ‘blatant hypocrisy.’
Quality comment or not?
5 
1
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@ moderators. You’d be well-advised to cease and desist. Screenshots are a wonderful invention. Who needs that kind of embarrassment when one is criticising censorship and suppression of dissenting opinion? Who wishes to retain a modicum of respect in the academic community? Who wishes to continue to be able to claim the moral high ground?
1. Publish all ‘pending’ comments.
2. Or kindly email me with the reasons why you prefer not to.
There is no 3rd option available. Not any that are…advised. I am pragmatic – to a fault. But I do not stand for censorship without decency. Your reasons don’t even need to be valid. It’s mere etiquette that I demand. Nothing more.
Quality comment or not?
2 
20
@ Jonny. Hi Jonny, over the past few days you have had a VERY good run on New Mandala. Time for some other voices to come through. We encourage diverse and varied discussion. Andrew Walker
Quality comment or not?
14 
3
Since Saul was on the road to Damascus, the world has undoubtedly encountered no conversion comparable to Jonny’s: in just one day, through his own diligent striving for liberation, Jonny has been born again.
On 24 September, he was fearful of going out on a limb, terrified that the regulator’s sharp spear might be used to puncture the spirit of lèse majesté and embolden those who wished ill of Thailand. On 25 September, his American friend enlightened him: we do not provoke the flame and spear! Take precautions first!
And then, to drive home the message, he imagined how Holocaust deniers might be treated in Germany and Australia. We can almost feel the spirit of Him lurking nearby, ready to declare the discussion ended.
Well done, wise and brave Jonny!
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
Jonny, you’ll be happy to hear that I’ve just given you a thumbs-up for your comment #28. This is because it helps clarify where you stand on free speech:
-you absolutely support it
-you don’t support it if there are laws restricting it
-you absolutely support it for you
Look, it’s only a web board. If you want to write at length, do what the much-maligned StanG does, keep a light hand in here, but put your extended thoughts on your own blog. It’s not difficult.
Quality comment or not?
12 
1
Jonny’s right in that free speech has known restrictions in almost every state: laws against public threat, libel, defamation, incitement, and in a few places, historical revisionism and lese majeste. Oh, and blasphemy in some places.
But those restrictions all tend to rough categories:
1) Technically clear, transparently enforced, vigorously debated in legal and academic circles. I’d put most free speech laws in developed democratic societies here, including holocaust denial in states other than Germany.
2) Technically clear, transparently enforced, rarely debated. Holocaust denial in Germany, which most Germans don’t wanna talk about. But trials for breaking that law in Germany are still on public record.
3) Technically clear, rarely enforced, generally forgotten. LM Laws in Norway, for example.
4) Technically clear, murkily enforced, vigorously debated. Nationalist laws in Turkey, libel in Singapore, and maybe religious issues in semi-free states like Malaysia.
5) )Technically murky (or changing), opportunistically enforced, vigorously debated. States where control is divided and the opposition is active, such as Venezuela, or Thailand’s libel laws that elites use against each other so frequently.
6)Technically murky, opportunistically enforced, non-debated due to cultural and/or legal repression. This would include Thailand’s LM, religious laws in states the lack freedom of religion like Saudi or Iran, and totalitarian states like China, Burma, and North Korea.
To say that the press is hypocritical for not treating category 1 as it does category 6 seems to grossly oversimplify important variables in the complex evaluation of free speech. If Thailand has LM laws like Norway, I think the press would react similarly. But anyone following the LM arrests in the last ten years here in Thailand can see that it is being used in ways that more resemble China’s treatment of democracy talk. And there are probably 10x more press writings on Chinese democracy than on Thai LM, so I son’t see the hypocrisy.
And yes, my categories are totally off the top of my head and leave room for improvement. But surely there is a proper gradient of some kind using three or four salient variables.
Quality comment or not?
17 
0
super anonymous,
Good point. I think all Jonny needs is a StanG’s relentlessness and he could be equally maligned.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
It turns out Jonny(#14) was misinformed about legal liability in the United States for comments posted on a website. For a detailed examination, see:
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/05/cda-protects-newspapers-from-liability-for-libelous-comments132.html
The crux of the matter:
“In Collins v. Purdue University, 2010 WL 1250916 (N.D. Ind. March 24, 2010), a federal court held that under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, the newspaper could not be held liable for the online comments posted by third parties.”
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Hi superanonymous, I’m currently being censored on New Mandala even though none of my posts have – in any way – warranted censorship. I’m being censored because the questions I wish to ask are questions which they’re much rather not answer – despite of (or due to) their inherently obvious validity.
But the plus side is I get lots of interesting screenshots.
—————–
Thank you for the link to the well-known Section 230 case which was a valuable Win for Sanity in ways that have (so far) eluded Sanity’s grasp in the rest of the first world. It is important for website owners to be protected from frivolous civil lawsuits. Whilst it’s perfectly understandable that a layperson could get confused (the wording of Section 230 implies a relevance that does not exist); I assure you that it’s a great deal more complex than it appears. In any case, the CDA and Section 230 are irrelevant to this discussion.
You found a ruling which was an important one for US website owners, as a precedent which sets a base level of immunity from exposure to civil concerns.
Section 230 does not provide protection for online criminal acts, infringement, or violations of electronic privacy laws. This discussion on New Mandala involves criminal law – it has nothing to do with defamation or civil law.
Very few of us would argue in favour of the law itself. But that’s a different discussion. My point was – regardless of your opinion on the law itself, the simple fact is that very serious crimes in Thailand have been broken by the Prachatai owners. And no matter if you’re in Thailand or US, or Australia, or Japan, or the UK or Europe…in any nation where there is rule of law (for true freedom, hurry to Somalia)…the law….is. the. law. And if you break it knowingly as this lady has done (in flamboyantly outspoken activist manner), you do so at your own peril and risk being subjected to due process – which would only be a curiosity or a surprise if it did not occur.
I think 80% of laws are stupid. But what I think about the governments writing laws seeking to further impose their will onto my inalienable rights….doesn’t mean squat. Because if I break the laws I know are unjust, no matter how unfair or immoral or unjust the law/s I break are – I know if I do, I’m going to risk interaction with that nation’s due process. This is true whether I am in the US or Australia or the UK or Thailand.
This discussion – before my posts were censored in cowardly fashion – was heading in that direction. If in the US, I started posting death threats directed at President Obama on a forum, any webmaster who believes Section 230 protects him is going to be very unpleasantly surprised. If I’m in Europe and posting against the law (in contempt of court or defaming someone or breaking UK’s laws) and an activist webmaster refused to remove my posts, he would be treated far harsher than Jiranut. This is fact.
I’m living in Thailand and my freedoms here – even to the point where I could be accused of lese majeste – are not being trampled on. Almost no one’s freedoms are – anyone who is telling you otherwise is spinning nonsense for invested agenda purposes.
There are people in prison sure. You can call them political prisoners if you want. I don’t much care so long as they are kept away from their bombs and Molotov cocktails and out of throwing range of my home and family. There is evidence on YouTube showing them making speeches which incite violence and riots and revolution. They are criminals and terrorists.
There are publications being forced to close, sure. When their content is invariably extremist and violent and misrepresenting of reality (for dishonourable means). As Abhisit explained to the US media last week, “I’m not sure you’d allow an Al-Qaeda TV station or newspaper here….”
That’s the largely accurate comparison. Whether you care for it or not. I can provide New Mandala readers with millions of words ruthlessly lambasting the government and even outright criticism of lese majeste – millions of words published recently here in Bangkok in every newspaper and posted on every online portal. Unsuppressed. Free. By authors who don’t even realise the irony of their freely published and false rhetoric.
Don’t fall for the spin. You only accede the moral high ground if you compromise yourself by first wading through the mud. An example of which might be censoring corrections to completely incorrect posts; on a blog which claims no bias but which has, so far, been remarkably convincing in it’s portrayal as a one-sided mouthpiece for the enemy of democracy, of decency….of Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
0 
12
WLH # 32 :
You should change your initials to VLH – Verbose Long Harangue.
Any chance you could say ALL that in just a couple of sentences?
I’ve always thought – if you can n’t sumarise into a few short sentences, it’s probably not worth saying !!
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
Looks like we’re back to law. Try this for a discussion of relevance: R. E. Allen, “Law and Justice in Plato’s Crito,” The Journal of Philosophy
Vol. 69, 1972, just for a starter. Then the loud shouting above pales into insignificance. At least that would be my view.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Whoops. Pales in the above, although there’s pales of other stuff. And, I forgot to thank superanonymous for a link that is indeed relevant to the situation of internet publishing.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Chris #37:
I’ll happily admit to verbosity if you’ll admit that your insistence that the king had already passed was premature.
Unless, of course, you think the cover-up includes a look-alike in a tuxedo attending a concert.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Jonny: I’m sorry I didn’t address you directly before, but I was not sure you would come back to this forum. I think the problem that many of us have with your position is that we don’t believe you can ignore the question of whether the law is unjust, as you explicitly state you are doing. Protesting Chiranuch’s arrest is a manner of protesting the law. I don’t quite see why you have any problem with that.
Re Section 230, your pointing out the contrast between civil and criminal law underlines the more philosophical point at issue: what is covered by civil law in the US is criminalized in Thailand.
One point you really have to be called out on is when you say: “As Abhisit explained to the US media last week, “I’m not sure you’d allow an Al-Qaeda TV station or newspaper here….”…That’s the largely accurate comparison.” In the context of a discussion about Prachatai, that’s an outrageously inaccurate comparison, and demeans your argument.
And while I don’t see it being very productive to get into a long debate about the nature of law, I think it is dead wrong to state “the law….is. the. law,” because what is largely at issue is the application of law, which is subjective and ever-shifting. Not a few people might wonder whether constitutional guarantees of free speech – the law – override the provisions of the computer crime act – also the law. Why apply the latter and not the former?
Quality comment or not?
13 
0
Jonny – 36
the law….is. the. law
I am not law expert but I want to point out an article in Thailand 2007 constitution (I think its no.14) that guarantee the freedom of speech and expression for every Thailand citizen or people in the kingdom. Now that we are talking about article 112 of the criminal law, its pretty obvious that the article is against the constitution so which one is the higher law?
Anyway, I want to leave quotes by Edmund Burke
Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous.
Quality comment or not?
10 
0
I’d like to address a few points:
First, let me say that nothing is more pathetic than a reader who cries out against moderation when (s)he tries to post a comment on a website, as though a website administrator is under some obligation to publish every word and every thought of every reader who taps on his keyboard, without regard to any other considerations.
For many years I published my own blog. It is gone now, but for a number of years it was moderately popular with a certain group of readers and I am unequivocal in my conviction that there is no quicker or surer way to destroy a website than for the administrator to abandon responsibility for controlling the discussion in the comments section. The administrator has an obligation to herself, as well as her readers, to manage the site.
I would have to second the advice given by superanonymous (31) to Jonny above; if you want to have completely unfettered ability to say whatever you want, set up your own blog. I did it, and so can you. It’s easy and it’s free and no one (aside from, perhaps the Thai government) is going to stop you from saying anything and everything you want to say. But it’s childish to throw a tantrum because the administrators of another website won’t allow you to run freely through their comments printing any stream-of-consciousness string of thoughts that you manage to cobble together.
Secondly, I personally find threats from a commenter towards the administrator to be, not only unbecoming and uncalled-for, but… well… comic and sad as well.
Here, I’m thinking specifically of Jonny’s (#28) ultimatum that the administrators publish his moderated comments or email him to explain their reasons for not doing so. “There is no 3rd option available. Not any that are…advised.”
Ridiculous posturing.
Finally, I feel compelled to step in with my own two-satang’s worth about “the law… is.the.law“.
I take it that Jonny would have everyone accept that there is no such thing as a bad law, or that, if there is, there is no justification for complaining about its application; that once a parliment, or congress, or central committee, or junta has promulgated a law it cannot be challenged — only adhered to.
In Jonny’s world if someone is arrested under a bad law, that arrest can’t be criticized because the law… is.the.law.
Balderdash.
This is the “I only made the trains run on time” defense.
Like Jonny, I don’t seek to equate lese majeste with the wholesale slaughter of millions of people, but since the subject of the Holocaust is on the table, please let me remind Jonny that in Hitler’s Germany there was a similar unquestioning obedience to laws and orders; the law… was.the.law and an order… was.an.order.
History shows that the civilized people of the world do not accept that idea. There are illegal orders, and they should not be followed. There are bad laws, and they should be protested and changed. There are unnecessary comments, and they should be moderated.
Quality comment or not?
15 
0
@ werewolf. What makes you think tantrums are being thrown? You appear to believe you can adjudicate a response to censorship, when you are incapable of viewing the censored content? That’s a little unfair old boy. And you’ll -quite literally – have to take my word for it.
My efforts here are driven by ethics. I cannot stay silent whilst the situation in Thailand is being gleefully misrepresented.
New Mandala is tarring Thailand with a garishly one-sided brush; ostensibly with honourable intent. I’m here to try and present – as a resident of the country in question – a case for why the especially bright paint is uncalled for. When the New Mandala censors do not allow that case to be made, I’m then compelled to collect evidence of the duplicity. I have already raised eyebrows with the evidence acquired thus far. Any genuine academic would be appalled.
It’s shameful that an Australian blog hosted by a taxpayer-subsidised university is being utilised for such an un-academic pursuit. Ignoring evidence which lies contrary to one’s opinion is one thing. When the ignoring becomes suppression, that gives rise to questions of motive.
I have always been outspoken against misapplication of lese majeste laws; to the point where I have been quite vocal in my opinion Thailand’s best interests are not being served by the law’s very existence. Abuse is inevitable. And Westerners are quite right to be appalled at the potential for abuse. Quite wrong to feign aghast at suppression of free speech whilst censoring evidence which would prove the situation on the ground is nothing like the one they’re attempting to…what exactly? Sell? I’m living in Thailand. Criticising lese majeste. I’m currently being censored in oppressive fashion, and it’s not by Thailand’s monarchy or the current government.
Do the maths.
I’m attempting to show – nay, prove – that the brush tarring Thailand is being dipped into paint far too garish. And I’m being censored for it. By academics who are not interested in evidence I am attempting to provide.
Why? I really don’t care all that much – but if it continues, I may be compelled to determined exactly why. As a matter of due process.
Quality comment or not?
0 
15
Thanks Jonny,
You are not the first and you will not be the last who cries foul at New Mandala ‘s supposed “censorship”. Insofar as I can help, I expect our many previous statements on the same topic will be sufficient to clarify why some of your comments are not published on our website.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
Jonny@44
Where are you being censored? Seems to me you are standing very firm on your soap box and having a good shout.
On Al-Qaeda @ 36. Al- Qaeda are anti American foreigners. The Red Shirts and their supporters are not anti Thai they are in the most part good Thai people in their own country, their only grumble is with the present regime.
Quality comment or not?
11 
0
jonny – 44
Living in Thailand does not make you more credible in your argument, and if you want to raise that point here I’m sure that there are many Thai people here who would genuinely disagree with you. Moreover, I think we have enough government’s propaganda who repeat exactly what you said here in ASTV, channel 3 5 7 9 NBT, and most of the news paper except “maybe” Matichon group. We are more than aware of the point you made because we see it everyday so maybe you should be listening to us rather than project another government’s propaganda to the already small number of website that are willing to show the other side of the story?
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
Jonny: I suspect you would not be welcome to fly down to ANU and walk into any classes taught by Nich and Andrew and start lecturing their students, just because you feel like it. However, I believe you could rent a hall on campus, put up posters advertising your talk, and speak to your heart’s content to whoever shows up.
And really, you should cool the hyperbole. “I’m currently being censored in oppressive fashion.” Chiranuch is facing 50 years or more in jail, but she’s supposed to suck it in and not complain, while you are facing… umm, what, exactly? Your perspective on oppression is a little strange.
Quality comment or not?
11 
0
@jonny:
Not at all.
You can easily show me, and the world, all your “censored content” — everything that has your knickers in a knot.
You don’t need to rely on the administrators of this site to give you access to me, or to the world.
As previously stated, you can easily — literally, in a matter of minutes — set up your own blog and say everything you want to say without interference.
You have gotten confused, thinking that your belief in your right to free speech equates another person’s obligation to publish your ideas.
It doesn’t.
If you want unfettered free speech on the internet you can create your blog, forum or website. Post all your ideas. Send me an email at werewolfs_lair@yahoo.com giving me your URL and I promise to personally read your website content, at least for the first month.
Give yourself a voice! It’s not hard. In fact, I’ll bet starting your own website would take less time than typing one more comment about how you’re being “oppressed” and “censored” here.
If your ideas are compelling and well-presented then you can expect to develop a world-wide following. You can become a leader in the fight against lese majeste or any other cause you believe in.
Shout your ideas to the world on your own website! Scream it at the top of your lungs in a forum that you control. It’s never been easier or cheaper to reach an audience.
Take a positive action, driven by your convictions!
…or, just keep typing plaintive comments on this website about your unfair treatment and hoping that somebody cares.
Up to you.
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
@harry 48: Think about your question. Seriously.
@nicholas 49: Many comments? I count a single comment: “You’ve had a good run”. When I emailed politely requesting clarification, I was ignored. Kindly direct my attentions to these “many comments”.
If others have posted about your censorship, that should tell you something. Here’s an idea worth considering: Don’t CENSOR. Oh my. It’s so simple!
Alternatively, you can censor. But remove your comment claiming you encourage vigorous debate.
@tarrin 50: My pleasure, Sir. I will listen to you. Kindly talk to me and let me know:
Who or what do you support in Thailand, and why?
When you or anyone have answered this, I will read it, listen to what you’re saying – and then politely ask some follow-up questions. I am genuinely interested in hearing your arguments.
@superanonymous 51: Please don’t avoid the questions I’ve politely asked of you. Kindly explain why you are not wringing your hands over US forums censoring Al-Queda hate rhetoric and threats directed at the US President.
@werewolf 52: Your logic is fallacious. I am merely asking valid questions, which are either censored or ignored if they are not. I have no interest in the things you appear to desire, I’m merely interested in why an academic website claiming to have an interest in vigorous debate on Thai politics is publishing articles by Robert Amsterdam and censoring or ignoring polite questions asked in response.
I know free speech doesn’t exist on the Internet. That is my point. You concede the point, yet have no interest in explaining why the owner of Prachatai being arrested 2 years after breaking the law…is anything other than very delayed due process?
Quality comment or not?
0 
7
Thanks Jonny,
Sorry. You received a polite e-mail response from Andrew where he explained our comments policies, and you then returned fire with 1200 words. Is it any surprise you didn’t receive a further “cute” e-mail from our end.
These meta-chats about NM comments policies and our “censorship” are a distraction. We have always been especially open to critical voices (of whatever persuasion). We just don’t want them to dominate every last conversation, and suck all the oxygen from other potential comments. Many of your fellow commentators understand the reasons for this.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
Hi Nicholas, I received an email from Andrew which only repeated your claim that you encourage diverse viewpoints. If that was true, perhaps you could explain why – finally – I’ve been able to ask a simple question:
Who – or what – do you support in Thailand? And why?
Do you support amnesty for Thaksin? If you do, please explain why? In light of the his crimes against humanity etc.
Do you support the Red Shirts’ violent dissent? If you believe they are not violent, what is your opinion on the YouTube speeches which quite clearly show Nattawut and Arisaman inciting large Red crowds to burn Bangkok? I’ve looked all over your website and it seems you have “no comment” – is that correct or have I missed your articles on terrorism being a valid means to an end?
Do you support a Thai monarchy that is not protected by the Constitution, modelled on the UK setup – or do you believe Thailand should rid themselves of the institution? Do you have any hard data from polls conducted to gauge the level of support Thais have for their monarch?
I am genuinely interested in hearing your opinions argued in an academic fashion. It is quite apparent to me from the nature of the censorship on New Mandala that you’re uncomfortable with defending your positions.
I hope you prove me wrong. Because I’m genuinely interested in understanding those who appear willing to ignore the indefensible – whilst crying foul at a government which takes drastic action to restore law and order.
Quality comment or not?
0 
5
Jonny,
There are many words on New Mandala (and elsewhere…) that should give you a general sense of where I (and Andrew) stand on some of these issues. On the others I think you’ll find that I don’t have especially strong or partisan views. Prescriptions for Thai society are not usually interesting to me. My analytical/conceptual positions, for what they’re worth, are on the public record signed under my own full name.
So, to cut a very long story short, we are hardly uncomfortable defending our positions: New Mandala, since June 2006…
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
So a claim that your positions have been outlined many times, in lieu of outlining them.
The last time you made that claim, I read through surely 2/3rds of the entire website including the comments – hundreds of thousands of words – and I was unable to find your positions on the topics I’ve raised.
Actually, the silence was quite deafening.
I would beg you to direct me to where you have justified New Mandala’s support of Thaksin by publishing his employee’s spin? If you have not, you’ll forgive my surprise at your oversight – and you’ll surely rush to qualify your continued support for a convicted criminal and killer of thousands of innocents (or do you believe he is innocent?). If you do, you’ll surely link me to your articles which criticise the extensive work undertaken by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, who labelled Thaksin “a human rights abuser of the worst kind”.
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2004/07/07/not-enough-graves-0
Or perhaps you’ll explain why “no comment” is acceptable? Or why you feel a justifying / qualifying article addressing Thaksin’s human rights abuses and Red Shirt terrorism is not necessary? Whilst you support them by publishing the lies (provably so) of Thaksin’s million-$ shill whilst simultaneously waxing lyrical about the tragic nature of Thailand’s due process?
You claim no interest in Thailand, but I’m watching interviews you’ve conducted where you speak with authority on issues you now say you have no interest in – you quite clearly position yourself as an authority on Thailand’s political situation here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NWjb5iiHhs
I also know nothing about things I’m disinterested in.
Quality comment or not?
0 
6
Thanks Jonny,
We publish views from lots of people — including you. Over the years our open-ness to different shades of opinion is well documented. And the beauty of the medium is that you can tell us what you think. I delight in learning from the collective experience, information and insight of the New Mandala readership.
And I have much interest in Thailand. Its just that I have few prescriptions. That’s a clear distinction.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
jonny #52 – re. “Who – or what – do you support in Thailand? And why?”: Nich & Andrew are academics, & NM is an extension of their academic work, all the more valuable because it has opened up an avenue of discussion which non-academics interested in mainland SEA may participate in. Academics are under no obligation to “support” anything except the emergence of facts & the free discussion of those facts in order to give them meaning. The worst kind of academic becomes partisan, obsessively aligned to one side in the presentation of facts, especially in relation to political situations. This may cause them to leave out inconvenient truths from their analyses, and even to be ‘revisionist’. Obviously analysis & interpretation will be informed with the commentators’ sense of what is ‘right’ in a moral sense, and especially what the world considers is right, as evidenced in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, legal decisions in various countries, and the publications of academic ‘experts’. I can’t see that Nich or Andrew have exceeded the boundaries of normal academic discussion in their own contributions, and in fact they’ve given ample opportunities for all sides to air their views, including articles from at least one non-Thai SEA academic who is distinctly partisan & puts forward unsubstantiated ‘facts’, in order to foster discussion.
Good academics are not ‘supporters’, they are observers & commentators. Your questions are inappropriate.
Quality comment or not?
11 
0
Jonny: This is the last comment I plan on wasting on you. You have asked me no question about “US forums censoring Al-Queda hate rhetoric and threats directed at the US President.” Or any other question, that I can see. In any event, the point is irrelevant to the issue at hand, the Thai state’s suppression of free speech through liberal but selective application of law. You’ve moved far afield from that, and now do nothing but rant. You meanwhile throw around terms like oppression and censorship with no apparent understanding about what they mean outside of your own fevered brain. You are incredibly unresponsive to the points other people have raised. Perhaps in your self-absorption, you missed my analogy pointing out that you have no more legal or moral right to go rabbiting on with your convoluted opinions on New Mandala than you do barging into a ANU classroom and lecturing the students. However, as several people have pointed out, you can easily start your own blog and it will be accessible to all the people who read New Mandala. There you can raise all these questions you have now brought up in bold type for which you are demanding answers.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
Jonny – 52
Who or what do you support in Thailand, and why?
Well of cause as a Thai I am supporting a proper and well functioning democratic system which unfortunately is not present here in Thailand. Why am I supporting democracy? I think every Thai citizen, regardless of poor they are or how little education they’ve got, should be able to decide the direction the country is heading and that a small group of the establishment shouldn’t be the one with the do it.
I don’t particularly support “who” in this case since my only opponent is the out dated and corrupted governing system. Is that a satisfactory answer to your simple question?
Quality comment or not?
11 
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
(RussiaToday news clip of Red Shirts violence)
This is the guys you support. Firing rockets and small arms fire at soldiers tasked with ensuring the safety of the public and restoring Bangkok’s CBD to the 20 million Bangkok residents after your guys hijacked our city and set up barricades to do what they do in this video.
You claim they’re not terrorists. Please post your definition of what constitutes a terrorist. I will post evidence matching your definition.
Dr Walker has been outspoken in his support for terrorists (sponsored by the ANU), saying Thailand was ‘provoking’ when they laid charges against Thaksin for funding terrorism. He said this after they burned Bangkok. After this video footage was filmed.
I’m sorry? New Mandala’s position is that violence is legitimate? But responding to violence with due process is ‘provocation’?
It’s no wonder you believe censorship trumps academic debate. Academics? Are you sure? I’ve never met a genuine academic who was frightened of debate to the point they censor their YouTube video comments.
Quality comment or not?
2 
5
@michael c58: There is no academic process evident on New Mandala. There is one-sided propaganda for a convicted criminal who is wanted on charges of funding terrorism. Mr Farrelly and Dr Walker are well aware of that – this is why they stifle academic debate by censoring valid / polite questions, or ignore them when they’re published.
But you are 100% correct on one point:
If the free discussion of facts is allowed from this point, I will have no opportunity to collect (more) evidence that there is nothing academic about the propaganda machine funded by Thaksin, in which New Mandala is a part of (for reasons I have no interest in…yet).
Academics are required to defend their positions when presented with evidence. Farrelly and Walker have taken an extremist position (to support a mass murderer and convicted criminal) – the least they can do is proffer their justifications for why.
And for why they validate Red Shirt violence and arson as “legitimate dissent”, yet bemoan due process when the government charges terrorists with their crimes or arrests the owner of Prachatai (there is nothing journalistic about their published propaganda) two years after she’s been charged with a crime.
These are valid questions. INCREDIBLY VALID. Andrew and Nicholas will answer them when they are politely asked, or they will answer them when they are compelled. The choice is theirs.
And they will publish this censored question immediately.
http://i.imgur.com/zdMbx.jpg
The link to the news footage which was censored is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
STOP CENSORING THE EVIDENCE I SUBMIT. I WILL NOT ASK YOU POLITELY AGAIN.
nb. I will respond to others including to Tarrin’s kind answer (the only one who did so), once the Gestapo stop censoring valid questions.
Quality comment or not?
0 
5
Thanks Jonny,
For the final time – I have no interest in “censoring” you. And now we are funded by Thaksin? And Andrew Walker supports “terrorists”? Amazing that we allow such things to be published, really. But we do.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
jonny is not what he claims. He asserts the right to academic debate but reserves for himself nothing like that. Instead, he engages in personal attack. In essence he is a fraud, engaging in what is essentially thuggish behaviour (if that is an appropriate description of offensive and threatening posting). I don’t recall anything like this in the past, but maybe my memory is short when it comes to the inappropriate.
Quality comment or not?
12 
0
Jonny is tedious. He reminds of these creationists who think the world is 6000 years old. He uses their techniques to make his “case”. Boooring!
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
The incredible irritant going by the name of Jonny drags me back to the fray.
Let’s consider one of Jonny’s early demands (see #28) “1. Publish all ‘pending’ comments. 2. Or kindly email me with the reasons why you prefer not to.” (That’s the one followed up with the ominous comment “There is no 3rd option available. Not any that are…advised.”) Andrew did indeed e-mail him as requested (see #52) so it seems to me that the NM folks have more than met his desires (#28:”It’s mere etiquette that I demand. Nothing more.”) NB: “Nothing more.”
I would be more interested in Jonny’s comments if he would get back on track about the topic he brought up, “due process.” Here’s an easy question: Do you have the same scorn for the endless PAD attempts to avoid due process (from 2008 until this past week) that you have for supporters of Chiranuch? If not, please explain the distinction.
P.S. Frankly, I think Jonny has overlooked some very damning evidence of a Red Shirt conspiracy. Surely you’ve noticed that you can’t spell “Chiranuch” without ‘ANU.’ More proof of Walker-Farrelly perfidy!
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
On another thread, New Mandala invited suggestions for topics. Here’s one: call it say, “Jonny’s stuff” – and our not-so-friendly neighbourhood paranoiac can vent his obsessive spleen ad nauseam there….. along with more threats of whatever retaliation he has in mind. Maybe it’ll emerge whether that’s legal action, hacking the website, putting out a contract on Messrs Farrelly and Walker – or just to “skweem and skweem and skweem”…..
That way, Jonny gets his gun – sorry, fun – while the rest of us can choose to avoid having to wade through his turgid diatribes to get on to rational discussion of issues, exchange of views etc. You know – normal stuff…..
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Firstly, thank you Nicholas and Andrew for publishing both those last two comments. I am actually extremely pragmatic, and I understand positions can be firmly held over a long period of time, so long one’s view of things can be skewed quite understandably. One man’s “freedom fighter” is another man’s “terrorist” and all that…whilst it is a tall order, I intend on – at least – triggering a discussion on what is acceptable and what isn’t (valid tactics for political dissent, and where is the line drawn – you can rest assured children as human shields is over the my line – apparently fine with most of you, which we need to discuss), the fragmented nature of the Red Shirts, their funding, etc.
I am most certainly aware there are very honourable elements in the Red Shirt movement, perhaps even the majority – but when they resort to violence and arson, or hijack megamalls for ransom, it’s simply inappropriate for Dr Walker to say “they’re being vilified due to some extremist elements”.
That’s not really true. They’re vilified because they allowed themselves to be ledby the extremist elements, and brought little mobile human shields to the fray (here is a real life example: http://i.imgur.com/04FIC.jpg), hundreds of which remained right up until the moment of fake surrender (when TIME.com asked Nattawut why the leaders refused to clear all children from their barricades, he said “That’s the government’s job” – like, seriously? When you have leaders like that, I don’t care how moderate you think you are, you are extremist and, quite frankly, a war criminal). In any case, even the passive non-violent Reds hijacked Bangkok’s CBD and the economy as hostage to their ransom demands. That’s…never valid political dissent. It’s thuggery, and criminal, and incredibly, incredibly selfish.
Just quickly to Tarrin, who was the sole person to answer my innocent and valid question – rather than respond with personal attacks in lieu of answers – perhaps because he can defend his answers hmm?
Not only is it valid, it’s the perfect answer. Although I’m not Thai, I support literally every single thing you do. And I’m all too aware of the rich v poor gap, which must be brought closer to parity.
I have a few questions which I promise are genuine and not leading in any way.
1. Do you believe democracy is still democracy when it is purchased? Honestly, I’m not really 100% on this myself. The idealist in me says “not a chance”, the realist cynic says “$ makes the world go round, what’s the difference between outright vote-buying, or buying votes with ‘honourable’ welfare programs – one is criminal, the other is applauded”. I’m simplifying it, of course, the difference is one is selfish and exclusive, the other altruistic and inclusive – but I think the sentiment has more validity than I’d like to admit.
2. Do you believe the willingness of Thai’s to embrace corruption, to the point where I often wonder if Abhisit’s reputation for probity is a disadvantage in Thai politics, gives an air of inevitability to a ‘corruption’ of the democratic process? Where politics is just endless auctioneering – MP 437 do I have 110, can I get 110, 108, going once at 108, twice, gone to the lucky billionaire on the right…auctions for loyalties of provincial village heads, auctions for generals in the army and police (3 stars go for xxx, 2 stars for yyy, etc), auctions for judges (those who can afford it have some on retainer, but freelance types can be contracted out on a case-by-case basis), and so on. I really suspect until the entire culture can be changed….I mean, is there anyone who really disputes the fact that Thaksin is probably the most brilliant / corrupt politician in Thai history (bit like having the blondest hair in Sweden)…and yet I freely concede probably half the country is happy for him to come back if it means a return to “the good times” of booming economics (which I have some theories about, but that can wait for another day). The point being, if Thais are willing to be that pragmatic, “Don’t mind if he’s corrupt so long as he doles out loans which will be inevitably forgiven, as long as some of the spoils trickle down to me, I don’t mind him stashing billions overseas…” – I can’t see the long journey to what you (and I) desire – true democracy – happening in our lifetimes.
That’s probably long enough for now, so I’ll leave it there. I probably won’t respond to personal attacks, but anyone wishing to ask me direct questions, on my honour I will respond to every one sooner or later – and defend every position I hold, or if I cannot, I will change my position. And I’m not even an academic, ahem.
Quality comment or not?
0 
6
I am quite happy Jonny is back on track discussing real issues, but he still should clean up his act a bit.
He writes that the Red Shirts “brought little mobile human shields to the fray (here is a real life example: http://i.imgur.com/04FIC.jpg), hundreds of which remained right up until the moment of fake surrender (when TIME.com asked Nattawut why the leaders refused to clear all children from their barricades, he said “That’s the government’s job” – like, seriously?”
I’m not sure why he doesn’t provide the link to the time.com story, but here it is:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1989543,00.html
And the relevant paragraphs say:
“”Yes, I know it is dangerous, and I know there are children here,” said Nattawut Saikua, one of the leaders of the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship, the anti-government group more commonly known as the Red Shirts. “We have privately asked their parents to take them and leave, but they insist they want to stay,” he told TIME…
“Nattawut, speaking to TIME, strongly denied accusations that Red Shirt leaders wanted women and children present to deter soldiers from using force against their protest. “I guarantee you we will never use children or women as human shields,” Nattawut insisted. Asked why Red Shirt leaders had not made an announcement from their rally stage telling parents with children to leave because of the danger, he said that was the job of the government.”
There are some other interesting comments from the parents themselves, which probably should be taken into consideration unless one dismisses Red Shirt followers as sheep. But the point here is that Nattawut’s reported position is misrepresented by Jonny. (Anticipating a rejoinder, one should point out that Nattawut’s sincerity is another matter. )
I have no question for Jonny, but want to set the record straight. Well, ok, one question: What do you mean by ‘the moment of fake surrender’? I’m sure I am not the only one puzzled by the phrase.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Jonny:
Wow, you are tiring. In a previous post Leah Hoyt accused you of being an American, but with your spelling of “whilst” giving you away, I’m afraid we can’t claim you unfortunately.
If there is any reason for editors and censorship your responses are it. Perhaps we have too much free speech.
Jonny, your views are not censored in the wider media. Your views are well established state propaganda that can be found everywhere in Thailand. Your views can be published anywhere you want here in Thailand.
Nothing you have said has brought anything new to the table that I have not already seen or heard time and time again here—the Thaksin-great-evil-man-who-controls-the-universe-and-whose- followers-are-a-paid-mob-who-are-a- bunch-of-idiots theory.
I don’t know how much time you spent at these protests because your description of these protesters is woefully incorrect. You sound like your opinion is based on “reporting” from the BKK Post and The Nation and Youtube (all state controlled).
Your argument is reductionist reducing vast complexities to easy currency. You’ve reduced a very successful protest, the first of its kind in the history of Thailand, to human shields, violence, and ransom. This shows your horrific ignorance of these protests. I was there day after day for the entire protest, unlike, I am sure, you, and I can tell you that human shields, violence, and holding a mall ransom were the least of what happened for these two months. What you don’t understand because you are too busy youtubing, is that tens of thousands of rural people who have been written out of the political process for generations came to Bangkok and shut it down and made their masters listen to them. THAT’S what happened. They were organized and peaceful for the vast majority of the time they protested and they stood up to the military and yes, they spoke, however vulgar they were, on stage all day and all night whether the master class liked it or not. In the end the leadership fell apart; violence erupted by means of a para military group; anarchy and arson reigned at the end because these voiceless people were angry and frustrated.
Was I surprised? No.
And please stop with your “they were purchased” argument. We are all purchased one way or the other and 500 baht-1000 baht is damn well cheap compared to what constituencies are paid in my home country.
And finally, for the record, I think Thaksin has been the best thing to happen to this country in a long, long time. If it took a devil to disrupt the centuries old entrenched status quo in Thailand than so be it.
I also say to Andrew and Nicholas that unless this guy has something new and intelligent to say, CENSOR him! He’s taking up too much space.
Jonny, some facts for you in a response to a previous post:
Jonny:
Thaksin is so hated because he became a threat to the status quo. The Democrats got crushed by Thai Ruk Thai. He was the first Thai Prime Minister to serve a full term getting elected with more seats in parliament than any other party previously and then was reelected with the highest voter turnout in Thai history.The monarchists and the elite threw out Thaksin using the judiciary, the military, and lese majeste because they couldn’t beat him.
Was he corrupt? Of course. The difference he made was that the poor now had their corrupt leader to standup to the corrupt military, the corrupt elite, and the corrupt monarchists.
What he also had, unlike the Democrats, were ideas, and lots of them that were good.
Under Thaksin GDP grew 31% and income in Isan rose 46% through programs like his microcredit program, low-interest agricultural loans, village development funds, and his OTOP program. Under Thaksin poverty was cut in half.
How ironic that Muhammad Yunus won a Nobel for using small loans (with a 98% repayment rate) to help poor families, a model also used in 100 other countries. Thaksin used this idea and it’s a “populist policy pandering to the unprincipled wants and needs of the masses.”
Thaksin’s biggest mistake was his success among the poor. While the King, the wealthiest monarch in the world, preached sufficiency and moderation atop $30 billion, Thaksin set in motion programs for the poor to help themselves. OTOP and microcredit to help farmers and small business people was sound policy and did more to liberate the poor than a thousand photographs of the King’s holy beneficence to submissive subjects unable to do for themselves.
This of course doesn’t take away from the many positive Royal gestures for the poor during Bumiphol’s reign for the past 60 years. As monarchs go he’s has been a hell of a lot better than most.
BTW: Thaksin didn’t become rich over night. Shin Corp was founded in 1983, AIS in 1990, Thaicom in 1991. Between 2001 and 2006 the SET rose 161% while Shin rose 168%. Thaksin became a lot wealthier along with many other people/companies including the Crown Property Bureau.
Massive changes are underway in Thailand that go far beyond Thaksin and this is why 50,000 websites are blocked, why there is a 300 agent task force set up by the DSI to investigate threats to the monarchy, why there was a coup, why political parties and politicians have been banned, why newspapers and radios have been shut down.
But it’s much easier to crucify Thaksin because he is so corrupt, and so anti monarchy. It’s so much easier to simply write off votes and elections because these voters are all bought off (is there a constituency on the planet that isn’t bought off either directly or indirectly?) and illiterate. It’s too frightening to face the idea that those unwashed out there on the street are going to get a place at the table.
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
nb. response to superanon take 2
Balanced coverage doesn’t mean a dozen individual usernames on one side can can post 12 x that allowed by a single username on the other. As I would like to respond to every direct question and/or non-juvenile comment, as the only voice ? on the opposing side, I request some generous leeway.
@superanonymous c59: You had actually already addressed my echoing Abhisit explaining Al-Qaeda & Prachatai were comparative (c44). Except you didn’t. You merely opined they were not comparative, which isn’t actually an argument. I’m tempted to counter with “They are too!” – but instead I will explain why they are comparative, with old-fashioned supporting argument.
Free speech is not suppressed in Thailand. If you live in Thailand, you are lying. If you do not, you are grossly misinformed. Every day, hundreds or thousands of vitriolic attacks are launched at the current government, the monarchy and the military – many on online discussion boards where the owners pay mere lip service to moderation concerns one would expect would be paramount if one makes the mistake of listening to Prachatai spin.
Fascinated with your very correct description of application of the law as “selective” – which it is, in ways that let literally 99% of lese majeste breaches slide – I was determined to solve the puzzle for why Prachatai was being “picked on”.
Solving the ‘puzzle’ did not take long. The first thing to consider is Prachatai’s editorial policy, which is blatant Amsterdam-like spin. That’s not journalism, even FOX News would raise their eyebrows. They only present footage which they believe depicts the UDD in a favourable light (who cares about truth, when one is a purveyor of propaganda rather than news) – the UDD is “peaceful”, singing, happy-go-lucky types. Contrast that with the PAD. If you listened to Prachatai, they’re violent criminals – why, they even have a video of the PAD attacking villagers and police -according to the YouTube title – as it’s on your channel on repeat, I figure I’ll catch it one of the next 200 times it’s posted – but only after they actually post a single UDD video depicting the nature of their ‘peaceful’ protesting – something a bit like the YouTube link I posted twice which you are all ignoring. Let’s see it again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
You cannot just ignore the facts, and hope they’ll go away. If you did, you’d be no better than Prachatai.
Actually, you would. Here is where Prachatai instantly lost my sympathy: They don’t have a problem with censoring. Oh no, they love censorship. They censor routinely, as editorial policy & on their discussion board!
This is fraud. Indisputable, irrefutable, despicable fraud. They cry foul at delayed due process for Jin, whilst she jets around the globe (however could she afford it?), bathing in her new role as ‘courageous’ activist refusing to censor in the name of free speech, and perhaps after she returns from this international conference, who knows – she might one day get picked up. Such courage.
In conclusion, the two examples are inherently comparable. The comparability lies in the similarities between Al-Qaeda and Prachatai:
- Both advocate violence as legitimate political dissent.
- Both advocate terror as valid tactics to achieve political aims.
- Both are extremist (Prachatai arguably less representative than Al-Qaeda – % support for Red Shirt terrorism and / or the republican movement in Thailand are both low single digit numbers)
- Both are fringe organisations which refuse to consider opposing opinion. Only Prachatai practices such blatant duplicity, however – some nerve waxing lyrical about government suppression of free speech, accepting invitations to speak at global forums as a mini-celebrity, whilst they surreptitiously / blatantly censor opposing opinion which does not fit with their spin propaganda campaign. Pls do let me know if you require evidence. I have lots.
Now, either you care about free speech – or you are only pretending to care, as it’s an exploitability you believe you can traction with. If you care, you will furiously criticise Prachatai for their one-sided propaganda & playing the “poor me” card, lamenting the loss of free speech whilst secretly / brazenly censoring dissenting opinion.
Otherwise, that would prove that – like Prachatai – free speech, censorship, ethics, decency…none of these words mean a thing to you. To cry about Jin finally being processed as she returned from yet another international guest speaker offer, 2 years after being charged with very serious (yet selectively enforced) crimes – whilst she has been one of the worst offenders, censoring untold content whilst she sculpts the truth into her desired model – is an indefensible position. You either care about “free speech”, or you’re don’t. If you don’t, your criticism of the Thai government is shameful & you immediately reside in the mud, irrelevant & compromised & despised – by everyone who remained on the moral high ground, & everyone who didn’t dive head first into that mud.
So which is it? Are you for free speech or are you shamelessly slinging mud? Question directed at anyone who has lamented Prachatai’s singling out, who now stands at the crossroads of Truth, forced to choose a path.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
jonny – 66
I’m trying to response to everyone including you and LesAbbey in the most non-insulting way since I do like NM to be more about exchange of idea and prospective and of cause in and humain way, I do hope everyone here should do that also.
Anyway, I want to response to some of your point.
In any case, even the passive non-violent Reds hijacked Bangkok’s CBD and the economy as hostage to their ransom demands. That’s…never valid political dissent. It’s thuggery, and criminal, and incredibly, incredibly selfish.
I beg you to read and study more about other countries’ democratic (0r even the socialist) movement and how they came about. You inferred that it is wrong for the red to, supposedly, occupied the street in front of the shopping mall (which the maximum penalty would be a Baht 10,000 fine and a month jail term) is an act of hostage taken, then please do condemn the PAD for closing down the airport and the government house because I think closing down the air port is a much more severe act of terrorism and thuggery.
Moreover, if an act of protest in front of a shopping mall is considered as thuggery, criminal, and incredibly selfish then how do you explain Lech Walesa? the prominent anti-communist activist and the leader of Solidarity trade union? Walesa staged many strike at the sea port at Gdansk? later on the strike at Gdansk transpire into a nation wide general strike which hold the economy of Poland a hostage and cost the country an untold amount of damage? is that not an act of thuggery, criminal, and incredibly selfish?
Those who believe that a democratic struggle can always follow the Ghandi method is simply a utopian and that I want to leave a famous quote (which I have done a couple of times here in NM) from JFK”
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 – 1963)
Do you agree with JFK?
Lastly, I disagree that vote buying and corruption are the obstruction to democracy (if that’s what you are trying to say)
Corruption is the by-product of bad governing system and vote buying is just an excuse by the establishment to discredit democracy. Do you know “how” people actually buy a vote? do you know why vote buying is a major concern in the 80s but quite frankly a non-issue in the 2000s?
Thaksin does not hold exclusive right to corruption and I’m darn sure that the Abhisit government is equally, if not, more corrupted than Thaksin, check http://transparency.org/ if you don’t believe me.
However, I do agreed that the MP auctioneer is a bit of concern here so I’m with you on that, but it is not my ultimate concern.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
This can replace the temporarily censored comment – I’ve left out questions more appropriate to pose to Dr Walker when he returns.
You will post this. It contains evidence. I was under the impression we had an understanding. You can remove these first two sentences before posting if you wish.
@Nicholas c62: You can’t claim to have “no prescriptions” when you’re filling scripts non-stop on NM. These questions aren’t complex. You didn’t think Thaksin’s HR record was ever going to come up – when you published Amsterdam’s creative fantasy of fiction?
I was a Red Shirt sympathiser. Until they wanted their children to die with them (superanonymous knows what I’m referring to). In April this year. I saw a thousand Red Shirt kids laughing and playing with their parents in the CBD, festive atmosphere, kids in revolutionary fashion, peaceful protest, it was great. All happy for the media. Cute.
When the fighting broke out (provoked by Reds and we all know it – stop ignoring the evidence I submit); the first thing I thought was “If there is even one child left…”
Hundreds remained, right up to the final day of conspiracy. You know exactly what I mean, superanonymous.
fake surrender: pretending to cease hostilities to deceive, then continuing the fight after surrendering; pretending to return home but moving to preplanned positions throughout a capital who’d been through a 2 month ordeal already because of those criminals; claiming surrender then stabbing Thailand / Bangkok in the back and setting the city on fire as planned. There is evidence for all of this – why are you ignoring it?
Are you all a single person? I’m struggling to come up with a theory to explain why all of you could have a reason to ignore evidence of criminal action, and continue on with your support. For a bunch of academics, why has only one person answered a single one of my questions? Nicholas has never answered a single one.
You apparently have no interest in evidence and facts, you have no opinions to proffer when confronted with horrific crimes – human shields, people – children!, you ignore evidence of rockets being fired by criminals trying to provoke soldiers, from guys hiding behind a barricade in the middle of the CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT of Bangkok, kids playing near the shells! Whilst Amsterdam tries to spin them as peaceful. What is wrong with you all?
Any country – in the world – It’s ridiculous. Pull up some barb wire on Times Square and start letting it rip at soldiers? How will you make out? Why not hijack a mall on Champs-Elysées? Let the children play whilst you throw firebombs at soldiers staring at you doing nothing, unable to return fire. Back home in Sydney – build a fortified camp in Star City and boat in thousands of litres of fuel to drench it in, before surrendering only to then set it alight.
I have presented evidence. You will respond. That is the academic debate process. You will counter with your own evidence, or you will challenge the veracity of the examples I’ve submitted, you will give your opinions or not, but you WILL DEFEND YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE TERRORISTS. Or you will explain why you will not justify supporting them in light of the evidence that they are terrorists.
TIME.com: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1987118,00.html
I was there. I saw all the horrors, all the messed up tragedy the media didn’t cover. Everyone in Bangkok did! Who doesn’t report on human shields that look like this? http://i.imgur.com/04FIC.jpg In the barricades! These children were there the entire ordeal, bullets flying around, bombs exploding, there’s a boy in this video here with you’re all pretending you haven’t noticed yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiQGgFndS4
Nicholas, and everyone, you cannot watch that video – and stay silent. What is wrong with you? These are the people you fervently support. I’m showing you irrefutable evidence that most of what is published on your site is grossly disassociated from truth – and your reaction is silence, unprovoked juvenile attacks, and superanonymous can’t read and doesn’t realise I’ve quoted the Red terrorist accurately. (which I didn’t link to because links > censorship; and I was saving that one for later lol) – but you’ve read it now, the parents need to go to prison, you agree (the whole world agrees the parents should hang), and you don’t want to talk about it?
How about a mock trial. I will prosecute the Reds in front of a jury on charges of (the works). Amsterdam or you or both can defend them. Can you see an acquittal happening? How about I prosecute NM in front of a jury. How will your responses so far play out. I think they’re a bit irregular, leading to suspicious concern, warranting further investigation. Don’t you?
Why does evidence disinterest you?
Why do innocuous polite questions make you uncomfortable
Andrew Walker:
Nicholas Farrelly:
Excuse me, but…what debate?
Everyone must address and comment on the evidence I have submitted here, because I got oh so much more coming. And also, it’s not cool to support terrorism. And then say “no comment”. It’s just not…cricket.
Quality comment or not?
0 
14
Jonny, I have just returned from leave. The threatening emails you have sent me are unacceptable. You are no longer welcome on this forum.
Andrew Walker
Quality comment or not?
17 
0