The Thai Studies conferences are academic gatherings of international Thai Scholars held every three years. The 10th was held at Thammasat University in 2008.
This year’s Conference, sponsored by Mahidol University and attended by 700+ academics from dozens of countries, for this reviewer, saw the ethereal world of Thai studies to be a cold and airless realm.
The 89 sessions convened 342 panels presenting research into Thai history, ethnography, linguistics, sociology, anthropology, architecture and numerous other academic disciplines. However, the Conference seemed to this reviewer to be much like a gathering of collectors of antique music boxes or paperweights constantly examining their minutiae rather than creating new ones.
Thai scholars have chosen Thailand as their career path. I cannot imagine anyone choosing such a career without passion for Thailand. Yet this Conference was nearly bloodless.
Numerous international Thai scholars boycotted the Conference, perhaps most notably the Australian contingent at New Mandala. This was done partly in protest against Thai government’s draconian prosecutions of academic freedom and free expression and a very real possibility that Thai govt might arrest them while here for reportage or opinions expressed abroad.
The result was a conference devoid of controversy. There was precious little conviviality and (heavens!) certainly no conspiracy among participants. There were no heated discussions or solidarity. None of these scholars even appears to drink wine, or at least invited me!
Yes, of course, there were panels on Redshirts, Preah Vihear and even lèse majesté. While interesting, they lacked deep feeling or understanding.
We academics have chosen to be educators, I hope, because we think we can make a difference in the world. The lack of strong emotion here was most disappointing.
In contrast to the 2008 Thammasat conference where several panels on lèse majesté and the monarchy gathered the greatest attendance and were well attended by Thai police, there was scant discussion or interest in academic freedom and censorship this year.
Was the difference this year the Conference sponsors; is Mahidol more conservative academically than Thammasat? Or was there less energy at a hotel venue rather than a university? The sad truth was the high points to look forward to were the vegetarian lunches.
I commandeered a display table for FACT swag the first morning and made sure FACT stickers were available to all Conference attendees. FACT also had buttons and tee-shirts available by donation.
FACT’s table went largely unmanned as I attended presentations. However, only a handful of participants even talked to me about FACT or rampant Thai govt censorship.
Although there were a few FACT signers participating, not one new person signed FACT’s online petition and not one person signed our petition in support of Bradley Manning, accused WiliLeaks whistleblower.
We sold no buttons and the singular scholar who took a FACT tee-shirt never came back to pay for it. (You know who you are!)
The sole redeeming panel was the final one, Perspectives on the Current Crisis in Thailand”, chaired by SUNY academic Dr. Peter F. Bell. Panelists included Redshirt linguist Dr. Suda Rangkupan on social media and Red women, Thammasat University economist Dr. Pichit Likitkijsomboon on class struggle, and the Chulalongkorn University academic infamously accused of lèse majesté on the Thai military’s ‘lom chao’ conspiracy chart, historian Dr. Suthachai Yimprasert.
Finally, an academic had the courage to point out 33 lèse majesté cases in 2005 has grown to 476 in 2010. Ajarn Suthachai pointed out, “All 112 victims are innocent. Not some, all.”
Suthachai pointed out that Thai revolutionist Pridi Banomyong was the first modern victim of lèse majesté and that three innocent Royal servants were executed for the regicide of King Ananda. He had the courage to name them: Chit Singhaseni, Bhut Pathamasarin and Chaleo Pathumros.
The review above should not be viewed as any personal sour-grapes attitude on my part. These are merely observations as I saw things.
An ‘alternative’ Thai studies conference took place this month in Melbourne. I think it would be a great loss to divide the international Thai academic community into those of us who are social activists and those who are not. Perhaps there is some uncomfortable truth that such conferences in English make us all cultural imperialists. In any case, the 12th ICTS will take place in Sydney.
Thailand is such a wonderful place. But at least these particular Thai scholars seem to have lost the wonder that brought us here.
We’re sure these fine academics have opinions and feelings. They must speak up if Thailand, the place we love and honour, is to evolve into democracy.
Thank you for this input concerning the 11th Thai studies Conference. Differences in perspectives aside, I was puzzled by the absence of any coverage, of some sort, of this important event on the NM Blog. I likewise appreciated hearing about the Thai studies conference in Melbourne on the Aug 15 post on this Blog.
As in the case of these two said conferences, I will be unable to attend the The 4th International Conference on Human Rights & Human Development entitled ‘Critical Connections: Human Rights, Human Development and Human Security’, which will occur this Aug 18-19 at Chulalongkorn. I think it would be make for a great blog entry if someone who attends this conference could contribute a summary of highlights or points that caught their attention there. Off hand, one aspect of the conference that looks to be of interest from a Burma perspective, so I’m told, is that present at the conference will be panel contributions both from an ‘ethnic minority’ group as well as from ‘Myanmese government-tied’ representatives—if this in fact turns out to be the case, it might make for a dynamic range of perspectives on Human R/D/S in Burma.
Thanks,
Tony
Quality comment or not?
6 
2
Good recollection. Like that you expressed your frustrations! Wonder if it would have had the same atmosphere if it was held at Chiang Mai University? How permeated is Bangkok by 112 compared to other cities? I mean, how many of the 476 arrests in 2010 (btw do those 476 include the 33 in 2005, and arrests in subsequent years?) occurred in Bangkok versus other demographics? Could weight populations for a more accurate distribution.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
To be shallow, if I may, the one sentence that surprises me in your synopsis is this:
“The sad truth was the high points to look forward to were the vegetarian lunches.”
I’ve attended Buddhist Studies conferences in Thailand where there was not a single vegetarian dish to be had! The Buddhist monks and white academics alike sat there, doling out and chewing the flesh of dead animals, while I attempted to speak Lao to the hotel staff, asking them to make something (anything) that was vegetarian.
They put me on the phone to the manager (who apparently understood my Lao brogue very well) as I explained that this was a Buddhist event, and that there should be something vegetarian on offer accordingly; he agreed with me, and ordered the cook to make something especially for me, but none of the other scholars or monks attending seemed to be interested in the slightest.
The lack of interest in the content of the presentations is endemic to the milieu: yes, there are Buddhist studies conferences where you can hardly find a single person interested in Buddhism, and there are Thai studies conferences where you can hardly find a person interested in Thailand. The main barrier to access is funding: attendance is neither based on talent, nor on publications, nor on original contributions to offer to the field… it is simply based on the ability to pay. The budget to cover transport and lodging, or the ability to convince some institution to pay for it on your behalf, are the real criteria.
People enroll in Thai studies for a wide variety of motives: I think you should take an empirical attitude (i.e., ask people at the conference why they’re there, and draw your conclusions from the results of the survey) rather than a prescriptive one (i.e., why assume that people share your passion for the subject as you define it?). Certainly, it is quite false to suppose that someone studying Thailand is inclined to criticize authorities of/on Thailand; as with any other ethnos, quite the opposite is true.
In the west, people enroll in English literature to uncritically worship authorities (more often than the reverse), and they enroll in the history of the British Empire, likewise, all-too-often, with the same uncritical and worshipful attitudes that Thai Nationalism is famous for.*
* [Have you ever seen The Cambridge History of the British Empire? It's as bad or worse than anything the Thai Department of Fine Arts ever published in the category of propaganda as history...]
With all this having been said, Hinke, do you sincerely think that you would have been less disappointed at the conference in Melbourne? I think you’d encounter many of the same problems and… rather less vegetarian food.
By all means, correct me if I’m wrong; I’d be interested in seeing a similar criticism (on NM) of the outcomes of the Melbourne conference (or anti-conference), too.
Quality comment or not?
5 
3
@ Eisel Mazard #3
What hope do academics have of expressing an opinion about Thailand and its convoluted history when draconian laws hang over their head if they should happen to say the wrong thing? And with deputy rectors monitoring conversations, lectures and blogs for just the slightest of infringement; eg a student posting a link to a site, so they can swear out a complaint with the police, what hope do academics have of saying what they find is wrong?
Even sane friends in the street whisper when talking about certain happenings/events for fear of being carted off to jail for 15 years, after a trial held in secret, of course.
And you complain about the type of food, even though you could have lunched elsewhere, which is what the academics who have the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads; mostly did in protest, for fear of that 15+ years.
I’d be much more clearer/lucid/expressive, but I live in Thailand and I’m old, having served in Malaya, Borneo and Vietnam, and as I have no wish to die in a Thai gaol, I’ll leave it to you to look into the reasons and it certainly isn’t about food and money.
Quality comment or not?
10 
0
…saw the ethereal world of Thai studies to be a cold and airless realm…
…We academics have chosen to be educators, I hope, because we think we can make a difference in the world. The lack of strong emotion here was most disappointing…
When I first saw the program of this Conference, I felt surreal, as in a dream. Sure, there’re perhaps one, or two, or three topics of some interest or relevancy, but overall the Conference looked like being done by people who lived in dream-land. It’s hard to believe that the Conference was taking place virtually at the same time as the largest-ever number of people had just been killed for political reasons on the streets in the same city of the Conference.
Khun Hinke’s account as well as some verbal reports from people I know only confirm that my feeling is sadly correct.
Quality comment or not?
16 
1
I attended both conference and I must admit, although the Melbourne conference is much smaller, it has more academic vibe and much more interesting than Mahidol’s conference.
The speakers and subject matters at Melbourne focus on the contemporary issues in Thailand and the future of the kingdom. To be honest, Mahidol’s conference was just another gathering for historians or political scientists who can’t find a descent job so they decide to teach and do research on Thailand where they can feel important anytime they visit the country.
and I am not talking about ANU scholars who are interested in Thai studies.
Quality comment or not?
9 
2
Is the Melbourne one an “alternative”? In what sense? Alternative to what? Definitely not in the sense that it is more for social activists — that’s not what the Thai Ambassador saw it or wanted it to be for sure. According to the Ambassador, it was alternative to ANU/ Canberra. Is it alternative to Thai Studies at ANU too?
An international conf like the ICTS doesn’t have a fixed character. It depends on the host and participants each time. In a way it reflects the broad arrays of scholars who work on Thailand. I don’t think we can make it the way we like every time. It will be up and down in different ways, both politically and academically. And typically it would include a wide range of interests, politics and ideologies — which reflect the field of Thai studies and people in that field.
By the way, the ICTS at Thammasat in 2008 might be seen by some as a “down” one. (I wonder if such is a reason for another one that is relatively more “friendly” to Thailand.)
When some people call for “scholars of Thai studies” to do this and that, I wonder if they think the community of Thai studies is a homogeneous, like-minded, and coherently organized that can make a collective decision one way or another as a single group. We can and should make appeals, comments, criticisms, and so on to colleagues. But we cannot expect those individuals to make a collective actions as a single group. Scholars of Thai studies are diverse individuals like academics in a university — perhaps even less organized. We cannot expect or demand them to move in one direction or participate in an international conference with similar agenda in minds.
But we can participate or take actions to make our voices heard and our views known.
Quality comment or not?
13 
6
Thai scholars are like bugs flitting about a streetlight, the closer they get, the more likely to get burned.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Dear Thongchai,
As the convenor of the conference, I have addressed our intention to organise this conference from the beginning that we need to promote contemporary research about Thailand to academics in this part of the world. No need to mention my point that we have established a team of academics to work on the peer-review process and academic mentor. We do not mean to be an alternative of any other Thai studies conference. For positive thinkers like us, the more dissemination about our country, the better for young, novice researchers and the public to understand various issues in Thailand.
To me, your questions have painted our conference and those who organised Thai studies in Melbourne as the competitor to ANU. I am very concerned about this kind of message because it neither promote development of the field nor collaboration among academic institutions.
I don’t see the relationship between the role of the Thai ambassador and our conference, as you pointed. In fact, you should have attended the Melbourne conference.
Quality comment or not?
3 
5
First of all, apology for a long quote. Thongchai writes (emphases mine):
When some people call for “scholars of Thai studies” to do this and that, I wonder if they think the community of Thai studies is a homogeneous, like-minded, and coherently organized that can make a collective decision one way or another as a single group. We can and should make appeals, comments, criticisms, and so on to colleagues. But we cannot expect those individuals to make a collective actions as a single group. Scholars of Thai studies are diverse individuals like academics in a university — perhaps even less organized. We cannot expect or demand them to move in one direction or participate in an international conference with similar agenda in minds.
I read this paragraph several times and still cannot get the point.
I don’t see anyone, myself included, when making criticism of academics, make any assumption that those academics are “homogeneous, like-minded…”
But, more importantly, I cannot see why, recognizing the heterogeneity of any particular groups has to prevent us from making criticism or demand of that group as a group. We all make such criticism and demand to doctors, reporters, media personnel, and so on, as a group all the times. Nothing wrong with that. We demand that people in the media, for instance, should try to be politically-neutral in their presentations of news and not playing politics, etc.
Or, by this logic, should we stop making criticism or demand to “Thai society” as a whole, because it’s so heterogeneous, etc? Should we stop, for instance, demanding that Thai Buddhists should show more understanding and toleration towards Muslims minority, because that would mean demanding so heterogeneous a group to “move in one direction” ? Of course not. When we make such demands, I think we are all realist enough to know that there would be more than a few Buddhists who continue to show bigotry, intolerance, etc. But making demands or appeals to them as a group is a legitimate exercise. Why?
Thongchai, strangely enough, when criticism of academics either individually or as a group, seems to regard such exercise as exclusively a private conversation with that persons or that group of people. But such exercises are social undertaking, or, to put a matter in a more political language, an ideological-political struggle, a matter of “cultural politics”, which involve people more than that persons or that particular group of people (their readers, their students, and the status of health of a culture of society “as a whole”, etc).
By the way, let’s suppose – God forbids – that an academic of high stature in Thai studies community like Thongchai got arrested for political reasons, would it not permissible to demand that, say, an international gathering of academics of Thai studies, no matter how “heterogeneous…” the participants, should “make a collective decision” to issue a statement of condemnation of the arrest? Would it be totally inconceivable that such a “collective decision” could actually happen? (Even if, in such hypothetical scenario, there could not be an agreement among the participants to issue the statement, I still cannot see why one cannot make such a demand to them, and criticizing them strongly as a group for failing to do so.) My point is, while we are realist enough to know that, as in other professions (journalists, doctors, Buddhists, etc.), academics rarely move in one direction collectively, it’s not totally inconceivable either that there could be cases that an overwhelming majority of them do. But more importantly, this is not the reason why demands to a group of profession should not be made. (When we demand or appeal that Thai Buddhists should show toleration towards Muslims, do any of us ever think that every Thai Buddhist would do so? Of course not. But can and should we continue to demand, and hope and expect that at least the majority of them would one day do so? I cannot see why not.
Quality comment or not?
18 
1
Sorry for the error.
The first sentence of the next to last paragraph should be “Thongchai, strangely enough, when there has been strong public criticism of academics either individually or as a group, seems to regard such exercise
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Here is what I wrote for Rels-tlc Digest, Vol 25, Issue 38 (31 July ’11)
I was asked why I am not at the international Thai studies conference. To answer that I ask: is there any “objectivity” remaining in Thai studies? The last 5 years have shown an enormous and unbridgeable chasm which is hard to fix. People are intractably fixated in their positions even though I can see a shift past twelve months among some Thai academics and they can no longer hold
out against mounting evidence of post-coup state abuse and centre fabrication. The problem is that most academics of Thai studies etched out careers (particularly but not exclusively political scientists) bagging poor-rich Thaksin because: (a) he was rich (!) and these scholars were in any case anti-capitalist, anti-neoliberals-even partially claiming Marx without reading what he had to say, and (b) relying on intellectual partnerships with their elite Thai national yellow academic pals, so they were not happy that Thaksin who had
upset the traditional elites/aristocracy and exposed (almost by accident) their fallacy of centre network power and dominance.
So much of what we assumed of Thai history was rewritten in the blood which ran down the intersection at Rachaprasong last year. Does anyone care except a few Thai academics who had to either flee the country, or stay and put their careers on the line? (I can think of a few at Chulalongkorn U. and Thammasat University). Some people refused to see that blood or to connect it to a wider conspiracy.
These academics were (and remain) in a dilemma: Arab Spring…and Thai Summer? [where were the academic outcries post April-May '10? even the so-called "peace-maker" Sulak Sivaraksa never once critised the blood letting of innocent protestors]. Democracy was taking shape once again as many academics, exposed to propaganda for a long time, bleatingly tried to put one foot in both camps and/or shades thereof in between. Though in fact all middle ground has been annihilated since 19 September 2006. At least that way they could remain both anti-Thaksin (and keep their academic credibility) and “pro-democracy”, shifting camps quickly (from yellow to…an invented “non-colour”), while completely ignoring an analysis of the mass movement outside. Why? because they never bothered to talk to people on the streets, in the demonstrations and villages OR LISTEN TO THEM…But still, to many academics,
much of what we assumed about modern Thai history over the past 60 years had to be rethought as it was the “angel of history” mocking back at us in order to legitimate the continued dominance of the ruling elites. And what did we do? Write about it? No, many continued to try and detract attention from the centre
summit and elite monopolistic and propagandistic interests. My reflective ethnography over 12 months into the red shirt movement, from villages outwards, those inside and outside prison, how people think, feel and act on the world around them, was roundly muted by colleagues as it ran the gauntlet of the yellow academic peer review process. (At best I was offered a spot in one journal
as “research note” for sometime next year!). It is not the right time for an academic audience with “eyes open” (taa sawaang) as contrary many academics, most small-farmers and ordinary folk have achieved that already. That’s why I am not attending the Thai studies conference. I have kept the ludicrous and ill-informed referees comments for prosperity as they indicated that (a) I sided
with the red shirts (as if that were not “good anthropology”!) and did not criticize them (I revealed separately online for instance how the arson of CW was fabricated and a state plot), (b) defended the indefensible by actually mentioning Thaksin’s grassroots policies, which led to individual and community empowerment (and if we look at the many programs and the consequences which I
did while working under the Ministry of Interior’s CDD before and after TRT, and later as academic). As a referee commented about a draft for publication at a Hamburg-based journal, where I mention the changes taking place at the grassroots between 2001-5, QUOTE “Moreover, in the whole literature on Thailand, there is hardly any reference to the Thaksin-regime as ‘embryonic
democracy’, where grassroots organizations were strengthened” (!) What? A baffling statement: So what if there is not! Because no one has been able to write about this given the yellow shirt presence on most journal editorial committees and siphoning out other voices, does not make this argument fallacious. There is clear evidence to all but the politically blind and biased that during Thaksin’s time this grassroots’ democratisation happened, the only question is whether this was intentional, or coincidental. We can argue about that. Are yellow academics so insecure that they have to protect their interests against mounting contrary evidence? Blah! Seems so; so maybe, just maybe, the many ethnographic papers written past two years will be resubmitted in a few years when academics start to become more open-minded, “taa sawaang”, and prepared to actually listen to other voices. A paradigmatic shift is needed in Thai studies as new realities emerge, and just who is going to do that?
Quality comment or not?
7 
7
Reading the commentary on the ICTS11 one might be forgiven for thinking that it is the International Conference on Thai Political Studies. Those of us with interests in other areas of Thai Studies also have reason for disappointment over the content of this year’s conference. In my own fields of interest, which include health, social change, and the environment, I had hoped that Mahidol University, which has been prominent in these areas, might organize a conference that highlighted this content. I thought that perhaps issues related to Thai adolescents, such as drug use, road accidents, violence among vocational school students, and the massive destruction that is being wrought on the natural environment of Thailand and its neighbors might have merited special panels. Unfortunately, we were treated to the same old blancmange (taw hu if you prefer) that seems to have been the standard fare for the last few conferences. Do we always have to go offshore before we get an interesting ICTS?
Quality comment or not?
5 
1
Forgive me for another quote. Mahamekian writes (my emphasis):
Reading the commentary on the ICTS11 one might be forgiven for thinking that it is the International Conference on Thai Political Studies. Those of us with interests in other areas of Thai Studies also have reason for disappointment over the content of this year’s conference. In my own fields of interest, which include health, social change, and the environment
Who, among the critical commentators of the Conference, ever said that a concern for what’s going on has to be “Political”??
Haven’t you heard that most of the tens of thousands of the Red Shirts who came to protest, risking their lives and well-being in the process, are among the most disadvantaged people in the country, including in the areas of “health (care)”, area you claim to be of your interest? And “social change”?? One would have thought that what happened in the past five years reflected a most profound “social change” ever seen in this country for a generation.
Of course, it’s your right to be ignorant or oblivion to such profound “social change” and continue to focus exclusively on your narrow field of interest. (One has to wonder, though, what “social change” are you talking about?) But even in case one continues to do research on one’s own narrow filed, it’s still a sad commentary on your part not to feel that a Conference that was being organized virtually at the same time that hundred of your countrymen were being killed in the middle of the same city of the Conference, couldn’t get more attention from yourself and your fellow ‘academics’ of Thai Studies.
Quality comment or not?
11 
7
Sorry to say, I was not able to attend the Thai Studies conference at Mahidol. I appreciate hearing the first-hand reports. But am I alone in seeing sad parallels to many, many years of Burma Studies conferences, in which all hints of controversy are suppressed and focus is trained on any aspect of that country and its cultures excepting those which actually affect the daily lives of its peoples?
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
Well, I just want to add some points that came to my mind while reading some authors’ wailing on these pages…
1. The quality of the conference largely depends on the individual papers presented. Judging from the repeated extension of the application deadline there were probably not so many presenters willing to go to Nakhon Pathom and selecting the “better ones” would have been an encroachment on freedom of expression – one of those core values people on NM frequently claim to defend. (Even though some presentations necessitated a great deal of stamina for sure – we should consider that as a form of occupational hazard…)
2. May I remind people around that Thai Studies comprises all fields of research? Who are you to decide that let’s say the cargo of a 400 year old shipwreck should be less important in the long run for the discipline in general than just another heated argument on shirt-colours and royalty, which adds nothing new anyway? Public uproar and noise might be useful in discussions in Anglophone societies, but they are definitively inappropriate at an academic conference that is meant to cover all aspects of Thai and Southeast Asian Cultures… Trumpeting is not a mode of conversation – especially not in the host country and definitively not efficient in influencing public opinion positively anywhere else too.
3. I agree with Roger on every point he made and his assessment of matters important and those of irrelevance.
4. The staff of Mahidol University has worked hard for the success of the conference; we should indeed be thankful that a famous university accepted the responsibility to organize such an event and to offer this kind of forum for a great variety of panels – well done.
Quality comment or not?
7 
4
I am delighted my observations have generated a far more interesting discussion than any had at ICTS!
And I think I missed the boat: There should have serious lobbying of the 700+ participants to issue a statement on behalf of ICTS in support of academics charged for political crimes, notably Ajarn Somsak.
It has been my lifelong view as an educator that our job is to change the world for the better no matter where we happen to be.
Quality comment or not?
6 
3
I am a relative newbie, not a specialist, just interested and this was my first International Thai Studies Conference so I have nothing to compare it to.
So given that perspective, and assuming the debate has room for all levels of experience, here are a few positive things I learned from the conference:
There is a link between killing with impunity and invulnerability practices in Thailand through amulets, tattoos etc
The red shirts’ use of English slogans was a natural process and not a mindless repetition of messages dictated from without
The explosion of international schools in Thailand may well have a racist agenda underpinning it
As a label, the word tribes as in “hill tribes” is giving way to “indigenous people”
Thailand was a regional colonial power and not a wronged victim of western aggression
Cultural diversity should not fall victim to the “straitjacket of packaged Thainess”. It should encompass cultural freedom which means the freedom to choose your culture.
One idea I want to follow up is that of “ethnographic seduction” by Antonias Robben – a concept initially developed in the context of Argentina but which goes a long way to explaining the realities behind the Thai smile.
These points were made by Thais and non-Thais. I found some Thai presentations soft, subtle yet with a sting in the tail.
The best example of this was a presentation by a very mild mannered lady Thai educator, at the end of which she invited us to reconsider the trope “Nation, Religion, King.” Perhaps, she said, we should consider the nation less as the home of the Thai race and more as a multicultural identity. Religion should not be so overwhelmingly Buddhist – more room should be made for all religions. And King? Well, perhaps that should be replaced by “benevolent ruler”.
The conference was interesting to me within in the limitations outlined in the various comments. I go along with CJ Hinke and will be happy to assist him in the production of mass leaflets for distribution outside the next suitable venue. Anyone else?
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
I’m not really a Tai/Thai studies person, though I dabble in it. I attended this conference because I happened to be in BKK with nothing better to do. But yes, as it turns out, there were a lot of better things which I could have done with my time. . .
I mainly went to history panels. I saw a widespread lack of imagination. So we can blame politics to some extent, but I observed plenty of scholars who just were making no effort to think of anything new to say. That was very disheartening.
On the other hand, I don’t think anyone here has mentioned Craig Reynold’s opening keynote address. I thought he gave a fabulous talk which went right to the jugular, but did so in an extremely professional and thought-provoking manner. His talk was about a policeman from the south, and to grossly simplify a sophisticated and nuanced talk, he linked ideas of magical invulnerability to belief in impunity before the law. He left the implications of this connection to the listeners to figure out, but it wasn’t very hard to figure out. And one person who asked a question afterwards basically explicitly connected the dots to contemporary Thai society. And after that there was nothing but deafening silence. . .
So I agree that this was a despressingly boring conference, but credit is due to at least one person for trying to spice things up. I also agree with the comments here about the lack of academic freedom in Thailand, but at the same time, premodern historians can still do a lot which is new without getting in trouble, so I encourage them to start using their brains a bit more, because for the life of me I did not see much cerebral activity going down at their panels. Just the same old same old.
Quality comment or not?
6 
1
Dear friends: You should know by now that in Thailand we just “pretend”. So don’t be surprised at an academic conference that is not academic at all except its pretension of being academic.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
I have attended both the 2008 and 2011 conferences and would like to make a short comment.
In my memory the 2008 conference was much more interesting. However, I am not convinced that this was entirely due to the ‘passion of the academics’.
1. Much of the potential of the 2011 conference was not utilized. Interesting papers that would have been relevant for each other and could have resulted in vibrant discussions seemed to have been deliberately put into different panels. Nearly all political panels have been in the same time slot so that people had to decide to which one of them to go. Panels likely to attract high numbers of people have been put into the smallest room.
2. Academic conferences have the purpose to give people the opportunity to get their thoughts out there no matter what the topic or the stage of the project. This naturally results in many not so good or for you irrelevant presentations. But isn’t it part of academic freedom to pursue project you deem as unimportant?
3. Some irrelevant papers could have been avoided by more selection. At least the really brilliant presentation about Kenya could have been redirected to an African Studies conference.
Finally, personally I understand that censorship and political violence are important topics and I am thankful to those who work on these issues. But you cannot expect that ever scholar working on Thailand and even Thai politics has to cover these issues in their academic work. That does not make them less passionate. They simply have a passion you don’t share.
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
I merely wish to clear up a misconception by commentators #15 and #16. The ICTS was sponsored by Mahidol U., but was not held at Mahidol U.’s main campus in Salaya, Nakhon Pathom. Rather, it was held at the luxurious and rather expensive Siam City Hotel in central Bangkok. I for one would prefer to see such conferences held at University venues, but there is (yet) no hotel or conference center in Salaya that could accomodate 700 guests. I also suspect that preserving Thai “face” was rather important in the choice of hotel venues as well.
I did not attend because I got the advance word that there did not seem to be anything enticing enough to make it worth my while or worth the expense. I gather from the comments above that my early intelligence gathering was more or less correct.
Quality comment or not?
2 
2