Are We Living In Thailand In An Invisible Prison?

[Emptyset]

I'd also point people back to this: 'David Streckfuss, a Thai-based academic and author of a book on the country's defamation laws, says human rights organisation have "only touched the tip of the iceberg" on the number of lese majeste cases in the kingdom.

He says that while there were on average five to 10 cases heard by the courts every year between 1995 and 2004, this rose dramatically after 2006 to more than 100 every year.

The peak was 2009, with 164 cases tried, 80 of which resulted in convictions.'

80 convictions in just one year? Nobody actually knows how many are in jail because of the LM law. I'm sure the numbers don't match those jailed for political speech/writings in some countries like China and NK, but it seems pretty serious to me. A pretty serious barrier to free speech at least.

[Beetlejuice]

Too much worldly education is not always a good thing.

The more people know, the more people want and then the more chances of unrest and discontentment setting in.

As anyone one heard the saying; Ignorance is bliss? There is a lot of truth in that saying.

As the wise man says; look into anything too deeply and you are going to be disappointed. Better to pacify the masses in a shroud of ignorance then to open them up to the perils of Western influences.

All through history, Thailand has had a more stable society than any it`s neighboring countries and the present system works well for Thai people even through to some powers in the West, it may seem backward in it`s approach to democracy.

I still feel safer and more secure in my home and walking in the streets of most areas of Thailand then I ever did in America and England.

So why try to change things?

I believe that the do gooders and interferers should keep they`re noses out of Thailand`s internal affairs and concentrate more on the problems of their own countries.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

So press freedom and censorship are not worth discussing then? Thailand is 153rd in the press freedom rankings... but that's OK because it doesn't affect the majority? First, you're wrong to suggest that free speech is only an important issue for a presumably educated few (which is what you implicitly suggest). Second, it's got implications for "quality" education as it affects the way text books are written, how history is taught and a host of other things. Greater freedom of speech in the widest sense would benefit everyone because teaching people to think critically is difficult in an environment of stifling self-censorship.

With the possible exception of maybe a couple Scandinavian nations, there is no such thing as free speech in the media. Censorship is widely practised across all forms of media by Editors who have to make decisions on the fly in pressure situations (say, purely hypothetically, if their building is stormed by violent mobs who threaten to burn and kill them unless they stop the 'biased' coverage)...or by Editors who have the luxury of working under far more predictable conditions (News Limited or Fox News etc).

Your gratuitous acceptance of the "press freedom ranking" attributed to Thailand by (? or isn't the source or their methodology important?)...as an accurate measurement of Thai press freedoms...I mean, I'd like to look at the justifications used to score Thailand 153rd in press freedoms. And if that ranking isn't strongly reflective of the decreased freedoms due to violent threats and violent action from one side, then anyone who quotes that ranking gives away their agenda right there.

I detest censorship, don't get me wrong. But when my innocent and valid comments are censored on Huffington Post and New Mandala and all these places in league with guys like Pravit and Thaksin and Amsterdam...who are all simultaneously bleating concerted cries demanding the end of the repressive Thai media censorship (whilst they ruthlessly censor the portals on which their cries are published)....well, I think it's probably evident these are not the people who have any legitimacy to be making what might well be an (otherwise) valid argument.

I admit to feeling a small measure of contempt when people attempt to frame Prachatai as Thailand's Jyllands-Posten. It's a bit of an insult to the "free (and responsible) press" and cheapens the courageous efforts of those who have heroically fought for press freedoms.

He says that while there were on average five to 10 cases heard by the courts every year between 1995 and 2004, this rose dramatically after 2006 to more than 100 every year.

Strange that the eminent Professor can't rassle up that humongous brain of his and make a connection between the political events of 2006 and the instant huge rise in insults directed at the monarchy, don't you think? I mean, don't think for one second I'm suggesting anyone was - paid - to publish / post breaches of lese majeste. That would be borderline slanderous, for I have no proof except the Bleeding Obvious (which might not even qualify as 'circumstantial' in Thailand's tricky defamation proceedings - I'd hate to be the [xxxth] person sued by Mr Jutaporn, Member of Parliament). ahem.

A pretty serious barrier to free speech at least.

There are many kinds of barriers to free speech. I mean, purely hypothetically, if I had hundreds of billions of baht generated from activities and/or events or enterprise/s whilst I was moonlighting as a CEO PM, a huge personal fortune which I had fortuitously transferred offshore without the hassle of paying pesky income taxes on much, if any, of it...I mean, I'm making up a hypothetical as I go along here, but you could perhaps see how there could be the potential for me and my money to start exerting some serious influence on maybe even the Editorial policies of mainstream media sources, right? Particularly if I had some violent types running around loose to deliver the ruckus element of my honey/stick technique of persuasion (just thinking out loud, of course)...perhaps we'd come to some kind of compromise, maybe a former Cabinet Minister of mine might get his own regular column or something, I dunno, I'm just spit-balling...maybe I could shift the entire editorial slant? Who knows what you might achieve with a lot of honey and a little stick in such a hypothetical...

I like free speech.

I don't like it when people who clearly detest free speech are bleating for the end of 'repressive' censorship. You cannot wage principled warfare from the gutter.

It's not even that I am all that comfortable with the other side, but I figure the guys who don't censor the endless misrepresentation's and bleating have got to be a safer bet than the guys bleating about 'repressive' censorship whilst ruthlessly and surreptitiously censoring anything they can control...surely? For now, at least...?

'Moderated' comment (one of dozens) on ANU's New Mandala blog Oct 2010 - this one actually got me banned for good, I was furious at their heavy selective censoring of any comments containing evidence / footage of Red Shirt violence (understandably awkward for them, when they're trying to sell the "peaceful protest ruthlessly crushed by military killers" line), and I wrote furious emails to the 'academics' who shape the discussion with heavy censorship. I drunkenly 'ordered' them to cease and desist and was initially ignored (lol). I think I worried Nick into making it visible briefly a day or two later (albeit way up the discussion where it would be missed by all) after I caught him fiddling with the Quality Comment scores whilst it was being restricted from view in the "Moderation Queue" for days (infantile corrupting of "Quality Comment" scores by NM mods - green thumbs-up option taken away) and I naively thought I'd finagled ethics out of them. But then Dr Walker returned and banned me for life, posting a slanderous claim that I sent him "threatening" emails sigh. These aren't people with any moral legitimacy to call for the end of 'repressive regime censorship'.

Censored comment on Robert Amsterdam's blog on Huffington Post Sept 2010 - same conniving strategy being practised there, any comments with evidence in the form of links to respected sources instantly deleted, but borderline insulting comments I submitted in subsequent fury telling him to "dance monkey, dance" were visible almost instantly and remain uncensored. Robert Amsterdam is quite cheekily crafty (if it's even him, of course) but again, not exactly the type who spends much time on the moral high ground and has no legitimacy to call for the end of 'ruthless regime censorship' either.

Edited December 30, 2010 by cdnvic
Removed links to uncredited material, and reinserted revised comment/links.

[Siam Simon]

Too much worldly education is not always a good thing.

The more people know, the more people want and then the more chances of unrest and discontentment setting in.

As anyone one heard the saying; Ignorance is bliss? There is a lot of truth in that saying.

As the wise man says; look into anything too deeply and you are going to be disappointed. Better to pacify the masses in a shroud of ignorance then to open them up to the perils of Western influences.

All through history, Thailand has had a more stable society than any it`s neighboring countries and the present system works well for Thai people even through to some powers in the West, it may seem backward in it`s approach to democracy.

I still feel safer and more secure in my home and walking in the streets of most areas of Thailand then I ever did in America and England.

So why try to change things?

I believe that the do gooders and interferers should keep they`re noses out of Thailand`s internal affairs and concentrate more on the problems of their own countries.

Well, at least you're being honest.

[housepainter]

Too much worldly education is not always a good thing.

The more people know, the more people want and then the more chances of unrest and discontentment setting in.

As anyone one heard the saying; Ignorance is bliss? There is a lot of truth in that saying.

As the wise man says; look into anything too deeply and you are going to be disappointed. Better to pacify the masses in a shroud of ignorance then to open them up to the perils of Western influences.

All through history, Thailand has had a more stable society than any it`s neighboring countries and the present system works well for Thai people even through to some powers in the West, it may seem backward in it`s approach to democracy.

I still feel safer and more secure in my home and walking in the streets of most areas of Thailand then I ever did in America and England.

So why try to change things?

I believe that the do gooders and interferers should keep they`re noses out of Thailand`s internal affairs and concentrate more on the problems of their own countries.

Well, at least you're being honest.

He's not being honest. he's being ignorant.

The Swiss. A thousand years of civilisation and what have they produced? Chocolate and the cuckoo clock, and if I update that, a cyclist and a tennis player. A pacifist people that sat by sided with Hitler by way of remaining neutral, something the Thais eventually opted for, as long as they didn't have to contemplate what was going on, issues of right and wrong, hello .... halocaust here!

The Malaysians and Singaporeans, Hong Kong, emerging Vietnam, all out stripping Thailand by light years as they were colonised, had an occupying enemy of influence [uSA] were forced by a foreign presence to have English as a second if not third language. All of this foreign influence has proven benefiical in the longer term. Those people were by environment able to consider this foreign influence and to think. To actually get outisde of the box and to think.

Even Burma will explode at the same progressive rate as Vietnam and they do have a head start with English over the Thais.

Ignorance is bliss. Ignorance is a place at the back of the class. The world class - something Thais and Thailand isn't. Ignorance is the dumb kid being picked on, missing out, coming last. Cut it any way you like ignorance is p155 not bliss.

Perils of western influence? Where do you think the cures for most of the world's diseases came from and advancement in hygiene, life expectancy, infant mortality rates, life expectancy, quality of life et cetc came from? Or would you prefer we roll that up into a ball and toss it into the trash can, go back into the trees and enjoy these wonderful tasty Thai bananas you feel so safe walking amongst?

Ok. II'l make an exception. In your case - ignorance really is bliss. Try reading books and not colouring them.

Next.

[mccw]

I'd say Thai people have more freedom in their day to day lives than those living in england for sure.

[yellow1red1]

Are you starving to death? Can you leave the country if you want? Yes, because this is not North Korea. Thailand is not most democratic country on earth, but no way can anyone rationally compare it to North Korea.

N Korea , Burma, Thailand, not same/same Singapore, Canada, Australia in Corruption, no 'rational' comparison.

can't compare bar girl / lady boy? both same work

Thailand, Burma, N koera,,, near SAME corruption..

Thailand has 'lady boy' political system. elections are like fake boobies

OP must have read my Posts for months,, at least N Korea is not fake it, democracy!

Burma moving to copy Thailand,, the 'dirty suits' are already visiting, now they had 'elections'

cannot 'rationally' put Thailand, democracy , free speech,, good future in same brain wave...

2011, will be worse than 2010 SURE

even top powers in Thailand know 'wikileaks - Privy Council' < bing it

South, North, middle. red/yellow , Cambodia - happy new year

wotta MESS

[lungmi]

Charlie Chaplin movies on youtube are blocked too.

[Prapoj]

It is best to remove this discussion, before anyone gets into trouble. The LM must not be taken lightly. Just because Nation publish it, it does not mean TV should debate about it.

[yellow1red1]

Excellent article and some of the best posts I have read on TVF in sometime.

talking about being able to talk ... a good first 1/2 step

democracy is where honourable people can disagree, honourably..

free speech is NOT wild speech, not hate speech, not inciting

rights of association and assembly should not mean trampling others' freedoms...

airport take overs ,,, business occupations ---- = nOT democracy

[Bakseedaa]

Thailand's prison is culturally self-imposed. Most Thais are uninterested in anything outside the borders of their own country. The vast majority have never left the country and have no real interest in doing so. Many are brainwashed by their education system to believe Thailand is superior to the rest of the world, so there is no need to learn of other cultures. To some extent, Thailand is a paradise, and there is little reason to leave. However, travel abroad is important for personal self-development. When I lived in Hawaii I saw the same thing. A beautiful place, and many of the native-born inhabitants never had left the islands (and those that did only traveled to Vegas). While there is some censorship of the press and internet, it is of little consequence. There is a lot of freedom and democratic spirit in Thailand, but many of the Thais simply aren't curious or sufficiently interested to exploit those freedoms.

Oops, for a moment there ,I thought we were talking about Australia..... sounded like it..!!

[jayjay0]

the writer is a paranoid nutcase. go spend time in North Korea and report all the similarities you find. i could list several other countries for you to visit too.

Thailand is a free and easy place to live - well if you have a job and/or some money. not so nice for the poor, but that's only because they want the best of everything. a result of media infiltration (what the govt is trying to moderate). 100 years ago was a far simpler and happier time for Thailand's people..

I doubt this is a "burning issue" for the majority of people in this country and, compared to many other countries in Asia or elsewhere, Thailand is very free. Comparing it to North Korea is just juvenile sensationalism.

Equal access to quality education, equal opportunity for dignified employment and a reduction in the economic disparity between the classes would better qualify as burning issues, but as countries in the supposedly advanced West are realizing, those are burning issues just about everywhere including the US and Western Europe.

This article sounds like a high school essay written by someone who wishes to sound like an outspoken crusader but discovered that all the actual burning issues were already taken.

So press freedom and censorship are not worth discussing then? Thailand is 153rd in the press freedom rankings... but that's OK because it doesn't affect the majority? First, you're wrong to suggest that free speech is only an important issue for a presumably educated few (which is what you implicitly suggest). Second, it's got implications for "quality" education as it affects the way text books are written, how history is taught and a host of other things. Greater freedom of speech in the widest sense would benefit everyone because teaching people to think critically is difficult in an environment of stifling self-censorship.

But you're right that the "majority" probably isn't interested when what they want to talk about isn't being censored. But if you judge it on that basis, then censorship isn't really a problem anywhere. How do you know that the majority of North Koreans want to criticize their regime? They probably don't. They've internalized the fact that the regime is perfect in every way and can't conceive of how it could be bettered. Pravit's main point is that the most effective control mechanisms are the ones we're not aware of... and so we're back to the quality education point, teaching people to be aware of the political structures that govern their lives & think critically about them, which of course also has implications for the "economic disparity between the classes" point you raise. It's all entangled, free speech is vital, not only for democracy but for equality too.

Well you certainly brought up some interesting points.

But as you know there is your point of view my point of view and the reality.

The way I see it the lack of freedom of the press is definitely there. How ever you drop the laws against speaking about a certain well known institution and I am quite sure Thailand Would rise up quite a bit on the charts. I was not aware that you could not say any thing about the Government here in fact I am sure that is wrong. But that is the type of reporting I expect from the Nation. I see nothing wrong with banning news papers and TV stations whose only purpose is to spread lies and create disunity and violence.

Actually I personal am fed up with all you whiners about free speech. What about my right to here the truth. When and if I am interested.

I whole hardheartedly agree with you on the education. I would differ from you in that I believe there is a lot more important things to be taught. Understanding politics is a Four year college course and if you want to really know it you can go on for further degrees.

Instead of wasting time teaching them what they really are not interested in one would do better to teach them that they are the ones who elect there leaders and if there leaders are not doing what they want they can elect new ones. In my opinion if you can not instill in them the sense of responsibility that comes with electing some one you are wasting your time with any thing else.

As for free speech yes it is vital. How ever Thailand like every country in the world is by and by not that interested. To a small minority (in my opinion) it is vital. but where to get it?

Do you really think the press is going to print it. They are in the business to make money and droning on and on and on about politics will close there doors in a year. People are not interested. Look at Thai Visa they use the Nation as there main source of information. Why? Because the inept attempt at reporting is what the English speaking people in Thailand want. If they didn't want it they wouldn't buy it and slow as the Nation is in the b____s department they would get the message and change there message.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

This is the most persuasive and valid argument that I have ever read on ThaiVisa. Callmescooter has it all in a nutshell. Congratulation on such a well argued and presented case against Thaksin and colleagues.

cheers. I just like to ramble though, if it comes out more or less coherent then woot. Sometimes, we're not that lucky sigh.

The really sad part is that he had a golden opportunity to go down in Thai history as the most progressive and reformist Prime Minister ever but, due to his greed and shortsightedness he blew it sky-high. What a sad waste.

It is really tragic. I genuinely believe he's brilliant in ways I can't even fathom. And I don't think he was Evil Incarnate when he served as PM. I am quite certain he genuinely believed/s his vision for Thailand is in the (long-term) best interests of the nation - but I suspect he's too certain of his beliefs. To the point where he is willing to accept unspeakable horrors in irrational and unforgivable trade-offs (thousands of drug killings to 'fight' a war that can NEVER be 'won' until they figure out how to recode DNA, for example) and, once brusquely whipped aside, appears willing to risk or perhaps even actively conspire to instigate an all-out Civil War / Revolution isna desperate bid to regain power (for the 'good' of Thailand, I'm sure is how he sees it in his mind).

But if he does believe that, and this is pure speculation of course, but if he really did believe that...well, eh...the last few guys that were prepared to sacrifice that kind of body count really wreaked some horrors onto the areas of the world they attempted to mold to suit their 'vision'.

No, for all the ills (real and perceived) in Thai society, he simply cannot be seriously considered to represent the (or an) answer to any of them. He's solely manufactured a couple of Thailand's biggest issues; sources of conflict which will haunt Thailand for decades yet. And yet the sheer level at which he is supported has sporadically led me to believe I must be missing some huge piece/s of the puzzle; so I have (on numerous occasion) proactively requested his supporters explain to me what I'm (seemingly) failing to understand. I no longer believe there is something about him or the situation which I'm failing to grasp. If there was, someone would have explained it by now - but all I get is nonsense or unwarranted evasiveness when I go searching for the reasons why he enjoys that support. I strongly suspect anyone intelligent who supports his return is either compromised, or perhaps vastly more likely, just feels so strongly on certain sensitive issues related to the nature of statehood, they're willing to just ignore the laundry list of his crimes in the hope (or belief) that he's better than the alternative. I cannot possibly see how they've managed to rationalise it out in such a way..but it would seem they've managed it somehow. They're far less successful in their attempts to vocalise that rationalisation or justify their position/s with any logic - if at all.

If I'm missing anything, of course I beg anyone to correct my assumptions regarding their position. As always.

Thailand has some serious questions and issues it needs to resolve as a society over time, but Thaksin isn't interested in contributing to the debate. He's only interested in controlling the debate, or manufacturing non-existent debates, in order to rewrite recent history, in order to deceive and misrepresent and sow discourse and animosity and division. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would have disassociated / disentangled himself from the mess...for the good of Thailand.

But that's probably asking too much from a man who casually forfeited his Thai citizenship when warned of the consequences should he accept a cabinet position from Hun Sen for no apparent reason/s at all except maybe just sheer malice / pettiness / yearning for revenge, etc. This isn't (traditionally) how patriots behave. I think there is another label for that kind of behaviour, actually.

I feel it's a valid question to ask of people like Pravit and 'alternative' media portals like Prachatai...to ask them to justify / explain their unquestioning support of him. Unsurprisingly, they haven't been all that comfortable with the idea of providing an answer to that particular question. Leads a hyperactive mind to predictable assumed and unsubstantiated conclusions, of course...but I should probably leave it there.

[cdnvic]

I removed some posts debating Lese Magestie laws. These are not up for debate here.

And before anyone gets on their soapbox about it:

- Get your own website/blog

- Publish your opinions about LM on it.

- Include your full name and address in Thailand.

At that point you will be in the same position as Thaivisa.

[Emptyset]

With the possible exception of maybe a couple Scandinavian nations, there is no such thing as free speech in the media. Censorship is widely practised across all forms of media by Editors who have to make decisions on the fly in pressure situations (say, purely hypothetically, if their building is stormed by violent mobs who threaten to burn and kill them unless they stop the 'biased' coverage)...or by Editors who have the luxury of working under far more predictable conditions (News Limited or Fox News etc).

Your gratuitous acceptance of the "press freedom ranking" attributed to Thailand by (? or isn't the source or their methodology important?)...as an accurate measurement of Thai press freedoms...I mean, I'd like to look at the justifications used to score Thailand 153rd in press freedoms. And if that ranking isn't strongly reflective of the decreased freedoms due to violent threats and violent action from one side, then anyone who quotes that ranking gives away their agenda right there.

I detest censorship, don't get me wrong. But when my innocent and valid comments are censored on Huffington Post and New Mandala and all these places in league with guys like Pravit and Thaksin and Amsterdam...who are all simultaneously bleating concerted cries demanding the end of the repressive Thai media censorship (whilst they ruthlessly censor the portals on which their cries are published)....well, I think it's probably evident these are not the people who have any legitimacy to be making what might well be an (otherwise) valid argument.

I admit to feeling a small measure of contempt when people attempt to frame Prachatai as Thailand's Jyllands-Posten. It's a bit of an insult to the "free (and responsible) press" and cheapens the courageous efforts of those who have heroically fought for press freedoms.

Strange that the eminent Professor can't rassle up that humongous brain of his and make a connection between the political events of 2006 and the instant huge rise in insults directed at the monarchy, don't you think? I mean, don't think for one second I'm suggesting anyone was - paid - to publish / post breaches of lese majeste. That would be borderline slanderous, for I have no proof except the Bleeding Obvious (which might not even qualify as 'circumstantial' in Thailand's tricky defamation proceedings - I'd hate to be the [xxxth] person sued by Mr Jutaporn, Member of Parliament). ahem.

Actually, Thailand was 130 in the press freedom rankings in 2009 (from 59th in 2004). It's a rule of thumb that's indicative of censorship trends generally. No more than that. Obviously there are reasons why censorship has increased. I'm sure people here are capable of deciding for themselves whether it's justified or not.

I don't know about Huffington Post, I generally avoid Amsterdam's polemics. There's actually only one article I like on his site (http://robertamsterd...thailand/?p=175) and it was written by a friend of mine, a Thai who could definitely be classed as "amaat". Your conflation of Pravit & New Mandala with Thaksin & Amsterdam and suggestion that they're "in league" is so ridiculous it's hardly worth dealing with. Anyone familiar with these people will reject your assertion out of hand. On one side you've got one of the bravest journalists in Thailand & an academic forum which has published pieces from all sides of the debate, on the other a paid propagandist and his entirely self-serving employer... it just goes to show that you don't think there can be any criticism of the Thai establishment which isn't also pro-Thaksin. For you, any criticism of the status quo must be paid for by Thaksin and any critic is surely "in league" with him. Sounds like you can't get past the same old tropes & arguments that've been done to death and most of the smart people have already moved on from. But if it were Thaksin wholly driving the anti-establishment forces & resentment (which obviously I don't think it is, things are far more complex than that), then I might become a Thaksin fan, after all, he's only one person, easy to deal with eventually, whilst on the other side you've got the system as things stand. Much harder to bring down the system, if that's what you're seeking to do, than deal with one person.

I think you should read some pieces by Pravit and other "red" academics published by Prachatai. I think you'll find they've already considered the issues you bring up in a far more nuanced, less pompous and insightful way. (Removed links critical of the Monarchy)

Obviously there's a connection between the increase in comment on the institution and the 2006 coup, plus the events of 2008. The rest of this paragraph about people being paid is so ridiculous it isn't really worth responding to.

There are many kinds of barriers to free speech. I mean, purely hypothetically, if I had hundreds of billions of baht generated from activities and/or events or enterprise/s whilst I was moonlighting as a CEO PM, a huge personal fortune which I had fortuitously transferred offshore without the hassle of paying pesky income taxes on much, if any, of it...I mean, I'm making up a hypothetical as I go along here, but you could perhaps see how there could be the potential for me and my money to start exerting some serious influence on maybe even the Editorial policies of mainstream media sources, right? Particularly if I had some violent types running around loose to deliver the ruckus element of my honey/stick technique of persuasion (just thinking out loud, of course)...perhaps we'd come to some kind of compromise, maybe a former Cabinet Minister of mine might get his own regular column or something, I dunno, I'm just spit-balling...maybe I could shift the entire editorial slant? Who knows what you might achieve with a lot of honey and a little stick in such a hypothetical...

I like free speech.

I don't like it when people who clearly detest free speech are bleating for the end of 'repressive' censorship. You cannot wage principled warfare from the gutter.

It's not even that I am all that comfortable with the other side, but I figure the guys who don't censor the endless misrepresentation's and bleating have got to be a safer bet than the guys bleating about 'repressive' censorship whilst ruthlessly and surreptitiously censoring anything they can control...surely? For now, at least...?

First paragraph is once again about Thaksin. I'm sure most people here know Thaksin was no friend to free speech and we need no constant reminders. But Thaksin is gone now... he's not the issue at hand. I agree there are hypocrites, Thaksin is certainly one, Amsterdam might be, but his views are hardly his own anyway, he discredits regimes for money. Just because he's paid to do it doesn't necessarily mean they don't deserve discrediting, however. His job isn't to discuss Thaksin, it's to make Abhisit's government look bad. Once again, I fail to see how he's relevant to the topic. You seem to see things only in binary terms, as I noted above. Anything is fine as long as it's done by the good people who aren't trying to destroy Thailand etc... do you have any arguments other than that? Why don't we just judge each issue on its merits? If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter who's responsible for it.

As for the screenshot of a comment on New Mandala that you posted before which you claimed was censored, you can clearly see that your comment isn't censored: http://asiapacific.a...#comment-717426 but even if it had been, you accused the academic (Dr Andrew Walker) that runs the site of being "outspoken" in his support for "terrorists", a statement which I've seen no evidence for and it's an unnecessary personal attack imo. Yet it was still published. And after a quick read of the thread it looks to me it's you who's "bleating" about censorship whilst thinking charges against a woman who faces 50 years in jail for NOT censoring comments are absolutely fine. I'm surprised they didn't "censor" more of the overly verbose, pompous and repetitive comments on that thread. However, I'm glad they didn't because it was an interesting debate & read, thanks for posting.

Edited December 30, 2010 by cdnvic
Removed links critical of the Monarchy

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Actually, Thailand was 130 in the press freedom rankings in 2009 (from 59th in 2004). It's a rule of thumb that's indicative of censorship trends generally. No more than that.

Another rule of thumb - an actual rule of thumb as opposed to your claimed one - is to post a reference to material being referenced. This is for purposes of verification. Which are largely unnecessary, as I've already established the score is meaningless if violent threats and/or bribes are being paid to affect editorial policy and this powerful form of censorship and lack of press freedom is not even considered or reflected in the 'rankings'.

There is also a pretty massive difference between the freedom to blast ridiculous propaganda and the freedom to publish with journalistic integrity. If the rankings aren't measuring actual press freedoms (i.e. freedom to write / report balanced / objective / ethical news), why would anyone who isn't a propagandist consider the rankings worthy of anything but derision or dismissal?

Are you a propagandist, Emptyset? You like quoting meaningless yet 'favourable' data (unreferenced, twice now) to support your claims. I see that a lot, in propaganda.

There's actually only one article I like on his site (http://robertamsterd...thailand/?p=175) and it was written by a friend of mine...

Ah, I see you've already answered the above question, in the affirmative. You link to a laughable piece of propaganda which contains only references to essays which contain no references (I mean, seriously? any respectable propagandist would ridicule such an amateur effort); it's a poorly written and quite frankly criminal (and very rightly so) essay which makes provably false and slanderous allegations of the murdering of 'civilians'; there are some unsupported claims (the single referenced essay authored in the 1980's quite clearly claims the opposite of what the author falsely asserts; the existence of an alleged "very strict feudal structure"*) seeking to make the astounding and scandalous claim that - gasp - families with wealth were involved in politics and exerted political power, gasp! shock! horror! wait...what? how is this an interesting topic worth discussing? just FYI, money = power, in every nation on the planet; but that doesn't stop your friend from pointing out what schoolchildren would not consider to be an interesting 'observation', but somehow it's deemed scandalous because these wealthy families are apparently a ruthless yet very mysterious nobility that I'm yet to see any evidence of (I've never once come across a single sign of the amataya's existence outside the hallmarks and trappings of a Constitutional Monarchy); and blah-blah-blah endless other grade school hack essay writing fails and ridiculousness too extensive and worthless to continue to ridicule.

*"It was not clear that class consciousness had developed among the power elites or upper middle-level bureaucrats by the 1980s, in spite of their shared views and aspirations. Nevertheless, as social mobility diminished, which it had begun to do in the early 1980s, and as each category or section increasingly generated its own replacements, distinct status groups might emerge."

Your conflation of Pravit & New Mandala with Thaksin & Amsterdam and suggestion that they're "in league" is so ridiculous it's hardly worth dealing with.

You can reject the assertion out of hand, because that is all you can do. It is quite easily proven, but you're the one who needs to support your rejection of the assertion. I'll make it easy for you. Simply post a single article authored by Pravit or published on New Mandala or Prachatai that addresses Thaksin's crimes (even to counter the laundry list of them all). This is a man described by HRW as "a human rights abuser of the worst kind", his career is littered with corruption (mountains of evidence in the public domain which is irrefutable), he ferreted hundreds of billions of baht out of the country (this is fact, unless you are claiming he bought ManC FC with IOUs?) which he did not declare the possession of, the earning of, and most certainly did not pay tax on, and thousands of extra-judicial killings directly attributed to his orders by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and so on and so on....I mean, he's a pretty well-documented kind of character...present a single article which even addresses the endless controversies and unexplained discrepancies or seeks to address / counter the mountain of allegations levied against him (for which there is mountains of supporting evidence).

Shouldn't such 'esteemed' / 'objective' / 'balanced' experts on Thailand's ongoing political crisis at least reference Thaksin's controversial conduct? Rather than just simply ignore it whilst they launch baseless and provably false attacks against the only PM Thailand has been lucky enough to get who behaves with impeccable probity in his personal conduct?

Oh, when you cannot do this, you'll certainly have the dignity and decency to return and admit the fact that Pravit / New Mandala / Amsterdam / Prachatai and many more are all dancing in sync to the beat of Thaksin's drum...right? You wouldn't weasel away, and just ignore the fact, would you? Would you? lol.

On one side you've got one of the bravest journalists in Thailand & an academic forum which has published pieces from all sides of the debate, on the other a paid propagandist and his entirely self-serving employer

Pravit is brave, I will concede the truth of your statement. But his bravery is most evident when he quite clearly attempts to present himself as representative of public sentiment, whilst he's trying frantically to influence public sentiment. His bravery is quite noticeable when he magically comes up with high-placed sources in the strangest of locations which conveniently quote amazing sound-bytes for Pravit's agenda-biased OpEds. His courage in a decade of ranting against the ruthless crackdown on dissent (of the very kind he's been authoring without sanction for a decade) is a bit confusing, however - for what I would hope are rather obvious reasons; namely, if he's not actually just lying, then he should be long since silenced, imprisoned or killed by the ruthless regime. And yet he is not. Hmm. Confusing, no?

There is NOTHING academic about New Mandala. They are a ridiculous one-sided propaganda vehicle that doesn't even attempt to do what you falsely assert above. Almost the entire sum total of published pieces are anti-monarchist, pro-Red Shirt, pro-UDD, pro-Thaksin, anti-Abhisit, anti-truth Apr/May violence, pro-lies Apr/May violence, and rabidly Republican.

When any fools like me believe it's worth requesting they publish an article written (and full of supporting evidence destroying their spin) by the other side of the 'debate', articles from such worthless sources like TIME.com etc...blanket refusal. Evidence which lies counter to their propaganda is ruthlessly censored, posters who persist are banned and slandered.

We agree on Amsterdam being a paid propagandist and Thaksin being self-serving. Have a look on New Mandala for how they treat Amsterdam's spin? Note all the non-existent published counter-arguments to Amsterdam's published propaganda.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I think you should read some pieces by Pravit and other "red" academics published by Prachatai. One at random: http://www.prachatai...glish/node/1768 - in fact Somsak Jeamteerasakul, a professor of history at Thammasat (who is a red shirt himself), nails the red shirt leaders and their failings much better than you ever could: http://asiapacific.a...#comment-695680 (see his comments all the way through the thread).

I've read a great deal of Pravit's propaganda and you've 'randomly' selected arguably his single 'best' article. Which is still something of a strange contradiction, of course...because he spends an entire article doing what he claims is simply impossible to do. It's actually a bit ludicrous, that endless contradiction in Pravit's OpEds, but there are hints of salient points made by him in that article - you would likely be surprised at what I would rail against were I not distracted by the greater threat presented by those who rail (without moral legitimacy) against the 'regime'.

Here's a Pravit article which is more clearly ludicrous, in every possible way (please don't hesitate to request a specific list of ridiculing - I will be happy to oblige if you are unable to 'detect' the ludicrousness): http://www.prachatai...glish/node/2074

I agree there are hypocrites, Thaksin is certainly one, Amsterdam might be, but his views are hardly his own anyway, he discredits regimes for money. Just because he's paid to do it doesn't necessarily mean they don't deserve discrediting, however.

Actually, that's kind of the cute reality of Spin Doctors - they're hired to...spin. When simple facts aren't enough, or aren't 'cooperative'.

Here are some more hypocrites for you:

Prachatai: 2008 Editorial 'Stand' 180 degree reversal and Editors refuse to respond to questions pointing out the contradiction

Pravit: Pretty much every single article he's ever written but an example that is actually randomly selected Pravit's TOTAL refusal to report on Red Shirts budget of hundreds of millions for leaders, NOTHING to bail the peons

New Mandala: pick an article, anything, for an example of their redefinition of hypocrisy

You: For repeatedly claiming "it's not about Thaksin" when it remains ALL ABOUT THAKSIN, or perhaps you would like to update us on the PTP Platform they are running with for 2011 Elections lol

Every Red 'academic': yes, including your Somsak. Just because he's a rare Red 'academic' who doesn't continue to lie in the face of irrefutable evidence does not bestow upon him some form of legitimacy; it merely means he's not as despicable as those that continue to lie in the face of irrefutable evidence. This is Somsak's idea of addressing the complexity presented by the fact that armed terrorists were shooting up Bangkok CBD, which kind of demands the use of force from security personnel of course:

instead of arguing based on 'present standard democratic practice' ('democratic gov wouldn't use troops' / 'no democracy would allow occupation of CBD for 2 moths') which I see as futile on both sides, we should look at what happened in Bangkok recently as a kind of modern-day version of the city uprising, street-fighting, barricade-fighting a-la 19th century Europe (e.g.1848)

LOL!

1. Every democratic government on the planet wouldn't hesitate to use troops to combat armed and violent terrorism in their CBDs. There is nothing futile about the argument on the side which points out the obvious. The Reds have a total monopoly on futility, which is why Somsak suggests (lol)....

2. Let's not use 2010 to defend the indefensible terrorist violence which required the use of force in response. Let's use....1848!

ARE. YOU. KIDDING. ME? This would be hilarious, except it's a bit too ridiculous and serious to laugh at, right? This is not an academically-defensible position. If you cannot see that, I suggest you return to academia (at a very low level of book-learning).

As for the screenshot of a comment on New Mandala that you posted before which you claimed was censored, you can clearly see that your comment isn't censored: http://asiapacific.a...#comment-717426

Look at the time and date of my comment #60. Note the content of that comment. Note the frustrated and furious demands they stop censoring a particular comment. Now go back and look at the time and date of the comment which you claim was not censored (effectively calling me a liar when you make the false assertion).

Do you think you're in a debate with someone who lies. I do not lie. It is my curse. If I make mistakes, I correct them at first opportunity. I make few mistakes, very few. Don't ever accuse me of lying again, when I have a) clearly stated the nature of something accurately and concisely; and when the evidence proving the veracity of my claim is staring right back at you on the timestamps. It's quite offensive when people do that. I'm sure you appreciate my position.

I have a lot more evidence related to that particular example of censorship, of course. If you require it. Furious emails demanding for days that they stop censoring it, etc.

you accused the academic (Dr Andrew Walker) that runs the site of being "outspoken" in his support for "terrorists", a statement which I've seen no evidence for and it's an unnecessary personal attack imo.

Your opinion is not valid. Because I'm not 'accusing' or 'alleging' anything. I am not presenting my 'opinion' when I request he clarify his stated position on a very important issue. I'm referencing irrefutable facts of terrorism in the CBD which Dr Walker ruthlessly censors to enable him to promote the propaganda of outright lying about "peaceful protesting". I'm referencing Dr Walker's publicly stated position that the Thai government's decision to file charges requesting Thaksin defend himself in open court (the Thai government had all the corresponding evidence, mind...proving the paper trail of funding from Thaksin to terrorism, the Criminal Court refused to issue the warrant until they compiled it all) on charges of funding terrorism (i.e. due process) was nothing but "provocation". And that all the violence conducted by Red Shirts was overblown, and merely the inconsequential actions of an "extremist element"; which wasn't representative of the Red Shirts and whose actions couldn't fairly be attributed to the protesters themselves.

It's a ridiculous, indefensible position for an academic to argue.

Which is why every time I politely requested he address the evidence I would submit to him in my requests he clarify and/or restate his position (or revise it if he wishes) on Thaksin, he and Nick would blanket censor my incessant, persistent requests he respond in an academic fashion to my polite requests for clarification of Who - or What - does New Mandala Support in Thailand? And Why? (to date, never answered)

It's the exact opposite of an 'unnecessary' personal attack. Australian academics should not be using government funding to promote propaganda campaigns for a violent insurrectionist movement funded by a criminal fugitive from justice. Australian academics should not be promoting terrorism. Not with government funding, that's for certain.

Australian academics at the Australian National University should not be censoring and selectively 'moderating' and delaying and deleting evidence submitted...purely for the purposes of allowing their continued promotion of outright lies and misrepresentation and propaganda. That's really kind of legitimate cause for a "please explain, Dr..." comment...don't you think?

Oh sorry. Let me handle that for you. The thinking.

Yes, yes it really is.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

**double post**

Here's a funny quip from Jon Stewart:

"Religion. Giving people hope in a world torn apart by religion."

555

good night and god bless!

Edited December 30, 2010 by TheyCallmeScooter

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Every Red 'academic': yes, including your Somsak. Just because he's a rare Red 'academic' who doesn't continue to lie in the face of irrefutable evidence does not bestow upon him some form of legitimacy; it merely means he's not as despicable as those that continue to lie in the face of irrefutable evidence. This is Somsak's idea of addressing the complexity presented by the fact that armed terrorists were shooting up Bangkok CBD, which kind of demands the use of force from security personnel of course:

instead of arguing based on 'present standard democratic practice' ('democratic gov wouldn't use troops' / 'no democracy would allow occupation of CBD for 2 moths') which I see as futile on both sides, we should look at what happened in Bangkok recently as a kind of modern-day version of the city uprising, street-fighting, barricade-fighting a-la 19th century Europe (e.g.1848)

LOL!

1. Every democratic government on the planet wouldn't hesitate to use troops to combat armed and violent terrorism in their CBDs. There is nothing futile about the argument on the side which points out the obvious. The Reds have a total monopoly on futility, which is why Somsak suggests (lol)....

2. Let's not use 2010 to defend the indefensible terrorist violence which required the use of force in response. Let's use....1848!

ARE. YOU. KIDDING. ME? This would be hilarious, except it's a bit too ridiculous and serious to laugh at, right? This is not an academically-defensible position. If you cannot see that, I suggest you return to academia (at a very low level of book-learning).

Correcting my above position on this Somsak fellow. My points above remain inherently valid, but aside from that hilarious attempt to 'deal' with the indefensible, he is a rare voice of legitimacy on the Red side of the debate. Pretty random that the above 1848 comment was literally the first comment of his I read...glad I read on, this is the type of guy the Reds should be rallying around.

[dai ru55]

Who really has the power to stop and close web sites, who can listen to your phone calls and read your texts, and why the heck should/would they?

ANSWER:USA and UK

The difference in the USA and the UK is that the invasion of privacy has to meet multiple legal requirements. A court must still approve most "wiretaps"and there are restrictions placed. The US has a difficult time of shutting websites and curtailing the publication of questionable information because of something called the US Constitution and its 1st Amendment. You are paranoid if you think that the US government is listening in on your phone calls and reading your texts. Even in China where the internet is controlled, the Chinese government has a tough time doing that. The issue raised by the author is that even the most basic subjects are off limits in Thailand.

Anyone who has access to a tekelec, can monitor your GSM / PABX calls or sms messages... And as for the UK, all phone calls and emails or any other forms of electronic means of communication are ALL monitored... And no I'm not paranoid, I'm just an ex telecoms engineer. And it seems to me that if the UK are doing this, so is every other country.

[whybother]

Who really has the power to stop and close web sites, who can listen to your phone calls and read your texts, and why the heck should/would they?

ANSWER:USA and UK

The difference in the USA and the UK is that the invasion of privacy has to meet multiple legal requirements. A court must still approve most "wiretaps"and there are restrictions placed. The US has a difficult time of shutting websites and curtailing the publication of questionable information because of something called the US Constitution and its 1st Amendment. You are paranoid if you think that the US government is listening in on your phone calls and reading your texts. Even in China where the internet is controlled, the Chinese government has a tough time doing that. The issue raised by the author is that even the most basic subjects are off limits in Thailand.

Australia is trying to bring in laws to censor the internet. From what I understand, their planned methods are easy to get around, as is the internet censorship in Thailand.

[jayboy]

[/font] I detest censorship, don't get me wrong. But when my innocent and valid comments are censored on Huffington Post and New Mandala and all these places in league with guys like Pravit and Thaksin and Amsterdam...who are all simultaneously bleating concerted cries demanding the end of the repressive Thai media censorship (whilst they ruthlessly censor the portals on which their cries are published)....well, I think it's probably evident these are not the people who have any legitimacy to be making what might well be an (otherwise) valid argument.

So (considering the quoted extract from your last post) you have decided to abandon reasonable argument and joined the ranks of the crazies?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I detest censorship, don't get me wrong. But when my innocent and valid comments are censored on Huffington Post and New Mandala and all these places in league with guys like Pravit and Thaksin and Amsterdam...who are all simultaneously bleating concerted cries demanding the end of the repressive Thai media censorship (whilst they ruthlessly censor the portals on which their cries are published)....well, I think it's probably evident these are not the people who have any legitimacy to be making what might well be an (otherwise) valid argument.

So (considering the quoted extract from your last post) you have decided to abandon reasonable argument and joined the ranks of the crazies?

Yes Jay, that is correct.

I have thrown myself onto the altar of insanity when I refuse to accept as valid / legitimate, the coordinated bleating for the 'end' of oppressive censorship which isn't *really* existent (definitely not in any way they claim, that's for sure - and definitely never applied as unjustly as they (themselves) apply censorship to avoid having to respond to pesky considerations they're much rather just ignore.

I expect imminent sectioning and buxom nurses and delightful medication...one time.

[jayboy]

I detest censorship, don't get me wrong. But when my innocent and valid comments are censored on Huffington Post and New Mandala and all these places in league with guys like Pravit and Thaksin and Amsterdam...who are all simultaneously bleating concerted cries demanding the end of the repressive Thai media censorship (whilst they ruthlessly censor the portals on which their cries are published)....well, I think it's probably evident these are not the people who have any legitimacy to be making what might well be an (otherwise) valid argument.

So (considering the quoted extract from your last post) you have decided to abandon reasonable argument and joined the ranks of the crazies?

Yes Jay, that is correct.

I have thrown myself onto the altar of insanity when I refuse to accept as valid / legitimate, the coordinated bleating for the 'end' of oppressive censorship which isn't *really* existent (definitely not in any way they claim, that's for sure - and definitely never applied as unjustly as they (themselves) apply censorship to avoid having to respond to pesky considerations they're much rather just ignore.

I expect imminent sectioning and buxom nurses and delightful medication...one time.

Sectioning not appropriate really and I would suggest stick with the nurses and delightful medication.Happy New Year.

[ableguy]

Thailand's prison is culturally self-imposed. Most Thais are uninterested in anything outside the borders of their own country. The vast majority have never left the country and have no real interest in doing so. Many are brainwashed by their education system to believe Thailand is superior to the rest of the world, so there is no need to learn of other cultures. To some extent, Thailand is a paradise, and there is little reason to leave. However, travel abroad is important for personal self-development. When I lived in Hawaii I saw the same thing. A beautiful place, and many of the native-born inhabitants never had left the islands (and those that did only traveled to Vegas). While there is some censorship of the press and internet, it is of little consequence. There is a lot of freedom and democratic spirit in Thailand, but many of the Thais simply aren't curious or sufficiently interested to exploit those freedoms.

Most of the masses do not travel because they have no money to visit foreign lands, they cannot afford to take time off work, they probably dont own a suitcase, passport. Try offering to pay some persons way to the USA , they would snatch your hand off.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Sectioning not appropriate really and I would suggest stick with the nurses and delightful medication.Happy New Year.

And to you, Sir. May 2011 be far less interesting for Thailand. I will have to find a new way to waste time but it would be selfish of me to begrudge Thailand a peaceful and prosperous spell. They're certainly due for one...