Thaksin Willing To Stand Trial

[younghusband]

Least not forget that books we are asked to "study" represent minority dissent, ideology driven leftist view of Thailand, sometimes downright illegal.

I will hand it to you that Gilles Ungpakorn is a Marxist (he's not ashamed of that label, btw), and that both Colpyat and I find his dogmatism annoying at times. But no one can deny that he's not afraid to speak his conscience. The issues he raises, uncomfortable though they may be, have to be talked about at some time or another. If you don't want Marxists to monopolize discourse on the problems with institutions, then non-Marxists should have the courage to offer reasoned rebuttals, not simply discredit the speaker just because he's a Marxist.

The distinguishing characteristic of Giles Ungpakorn is courage.Incidentally Marxist analysis is often used to useful effect by historians who have no truck with the bag and baggage of communism.

[Grover]

The first lesson in psychology is that you can't make distance analyzes - that would be highly unprofessional.

Again, I don't agree.

Usually a definition of the subject matter followed by historical developments are the basis for the first few lessons. Analysis and therapy is normally considered an intermediate/advanced subject one reason is because of the responsibilities involved, and thus is introduced later.

sorry to go slightly off topic, just wanted to clear that up.

[Plus]

Chris Baker was on the faculty at the Univeristy of Cambridge for many years before joining his wife Ajarn Pasuk, who's at Chula. Now, I'll grant it to you that Pasuk may be a little nutty, but word has it that Baker does much of the heavy lifting on their joint books, and judging from my one encounter with them, I'm not surprised.

Baker is quoted selectively by Colpyat, passed through his own, leftist sensorship.

I will hand it to you that Gilles Ungpakorn is a Marxist (he's not ashamed of that label, btw), and that both Colpyat and I find his dogmatism annoying at times.

I find it hard to believe given how jealously Colpyat defends him.

Take his latest "recommended reading" book - "Coup for the rich".

When Thaksin entered politics he was the richest man in Thailand, the entire wealth of the current govt is less than some of Thaksin's ministers. Nearly every richest Thai was connected to his govt in one way or another. Wasn't it Baker himself who wrote a book that Thaksin really represented the richest capitalists in the country?

And now we have this nonsensical title - coup for the rich. Did they stage a coup against themselves and threw their man, Thaksin, out? Or is the book about ten years late - when the capitalists decided to enter the politics by subverting populist policies?

[John K]

The first lesson in psychology is that you can't make distance analyzes - that would be highly unprofessional.

Again, I don't agree.

Usually a definition of the subject matter followed by historical developments are the basis for the first few lessons. Analysis and therapy is normally considered an intermediate/advanced subject one reason is because of the responsibilities involved, and thus is introduced later.

sorry to go slightly off topic, just wanted to clear that up.

Actually to add to what Grover says they teach it in law enforcement. It is called Criminal profiling. The police don’t go to the criminals house and ask them what crime they will do next because they don’t know who it is. I even think there was a movie on this recently.

[tettyan]

Baker is quoted selectively by Colpyat, passed through his own, leftist sensorship.

I don't really see how recommending his books and articles is "selective" quoting. Besides, while it's very clear that Baker despises Thaksin, he's also very critical of the junta. He also had much praise for Handley's book (interlaced with some criticism), which many people here dismiss out of hand just because it touches on uncomfortable issues.

I will hand it to you that Gilles Ungpakorn is a Marxist (he's not ashamed of that label, btw), and that both Colpyat and I find his dogmatism annoying at times.

I find it hard to believe given how jealously Colpyat defends him.

Take his latest "recommended reading" book - "Coup for the rich".

When Thaksin entered politics he was the richest man in Thailand, the entire wealth of the current govt is less than some of Thaksin's ministers. Nearly every richest Thai was connected to his govt in one way or another. Wasn't it Baker himself who wrote a book that Thaksin really represented the richest capitalists in the country?

And now we have this nonsensical title - coup for the rich. Did they stage a coup against themselves and threw their man, Thaksin, out? Or is the book about ten years late - when the capitalists decided to enter the politics by subverting populist policies?

I havn't read "coup for the rich" yet, though I plan to the next time I'm in BKK. I'd hate to pass judgment on the book without reading it first, but I would say that I somewhat disagree with the title. I think a more appropriate title is "A Coup for the Elites" or "A Coup for Old Money." That's really what the whole current conflict is about - the rise of new-money folks like Thaksin (yes, many of whom cheated their way to wealth), posing a threat to the priveleges of the old-money elite - including big-name army families and aristocrats (all those people with fancy titles like M.R., M.L. and their descendents). There seems to be a preference for the old-moneyed elite on this board, but I have no illusions about them. Though I share their contempt for Thaksin, I do not share their arrogant attitude toward everyone in Thai society who doesn't hang out at the Royal Bangkok Sports Club. And their contempt for the democratic process is appalling.

Thaksin is ultimately responsible for his own sins, but the old elite share the blame for letting him come to power in the first place. Thaksin's divide-and-conquer games would have never been possible had the elites not maintained a rigid, archaic class structure in the first place.

[Plus]

Colpyat dismisses Baker's views when they don't align with his leftist ideology, like on Thaksin's corruption.

Giles book is available online - http://www.pcpthai.org/autopagev3/fileuplo...07-14-45-11.pdf

"impossible to understand Thai society and politics without a class

struggle perspective. The 1997 economic crisis cannot be explained

without looking at the competition to exploit labour, the fight for

increased wages and the over-production in capitalism."

Yeah, right - eploited labour, wages, and over-production as causes of 1997 crisis. I can't take this seriously. Then he says that the current govt is staffed with neo-liberals (?!?!) who want to privatise everything and sign up all free trade agreements but then bangs on about Sufficiency economy. You can't have neoliberals preaching sufficiency economy, but it's obviously not a problem for Giles.

In other parts it reads like diatribes not worth "letters to the editors page", not an academic work.

"The latter [interim consitution] was a worthless piece of scrap paper which basically said that anything the junta decreed must be law."

I bet he lifted it from some prolific TV posters.

Enough already.

>>>>>>>

Though the book was recommended by Colpyat as essential reading to understand Thailand, Giles himeself admits that his views are not mainstream. He offers an alternative to mainstream.

"Revolutionary King" is not on Colpyat list, too mainstream for his socialist liking, and forget about "The Royal Powers" - he even called it fascist. Never mind that they reflect and resonate with Thai society far better than books on his list.

McCargo and Handley are offered instead because they substantiate leftist claims that the traditional system is corrupt and needs to be replaced.

>>>>>

Bottom line - I'm not against reading any of these books, my initial objection was that they DO NOT reflect the actual state of Thai society but selected to serve narrow, Marxist interests.

[Siripon]

Baker is quoted selectively by Colpyat, passed through his own, leftist sensorship.

I don't really see how recommending his books and articles is "selective" quoting. Besides, while it's very clear that Baker despises Thaksin, he's also very critical of the junta. He also had much praise for Handley's book (interlaced with some criticism), which many people here dismiss out of hand just because it touches on uncomfortable issues.

I will hand it to you that Gilles Ungpakorn is a Marxist (he's not ashamed of that label, btw), and that both Colpyat and I find his dogmatism annoying at times.

I find it hard to believe given how jealously Colpyat defends him.

Take his latest "recommended reading" book - "Coup for the rich".

When Thaksin entered politics he was the richest man in Thailand, the entire wealth of the current govt is less than some of Thaksin's ministers. Nearly every richest Thai was connected to his govt in one way or another. Wasn't it Baker himself who wrote a book that Thaksin really represented the richest capitalists in the country?

And now we have this nonsensical title - coup for the rich. Did they stage a coup against themselves and threw their man, Thaksin, out? Or is the book about ten years late - when the capitalists decided to enter the politics by subverting populist policies?

I havn't read "coup for the rich" yet, though I plan to the next time I'm in BKK. I'd hate to pass judgment on the book without reading it first, but I would say that I somewhat disagree with the title. I think a more appropriate title is "A Coup for the Elites" or "A Coup for Old Money." That's really what the whole current conflict is about - the rise of new-money folks like Thaksin (yes, many of whom cheated their way to wealth), posing a threat to the priveleges of the old-money elite - including big-name army families and aristocrats (all those people with fancy titles like M.R., M.L. and their descendents). There seems to be a preference for the old-moneyed elite on this board, but I have no illusions about them. Though I share their contempt for Thaksin, I do not share their arrogant attitude toward everyone in Thai society who doesn't hang out at the Royal Bangkok Sports Club. And their contempt for the democratic process is appalling.

Thaksin is ultimately responsible for his own sins, but the old elite share the blame for letting him come to power in the first place. Thaksin's divide-and-conquer games would have never been possible had the elites not maintained a rigid, archaic class structure in the first place.

You're forgetting that amongst the supporters of the coup are plenty of ordinary decent people such as Chirmsak Pintong,( presently exposing the role of Wat Thammakai, a keen supporter of Thaksin, in its attempts to undermine the proposed constitution by paying monks to interrupt seminas on the constitution).

I agree with your view though that the elite, both old money and new, despise the peasants and it's because they both know correctly that the majority of Thais are uneducated and easily bought, either with money or superstition, look at the latest craze for Jatukham amulets.

Democracy can only work with an informed electorate, if the government has truly good intentions I believe that will be possible within 15 to 20 years.

But politics depends on the short term, idealism is so often thrown out of the window. Somsak Thepsutin, a leading TRT member has not been cited in any prosecution cases in spite of previous serious allegations.

Could it be because he's linked to the future political hopes of a certain general?

[younghusband]

I agree with your view though that the elite, both old money and new, despise the peasants and it's because they both know correctly that the majority of Thais are uneducated and easily bought, either with money or superstition, look at the latest craze for Jatukham amulets.

Democracy can only work with an informed electorate

Dealing with the silliness first, all Thais of whatever background tend to be superstitious.It's certainly not confined to the peasants.

On a more serious note (and this is a comment on the elite not the poster), the arrogance, combined with a pig headed lack of enlightened self interest, of the Thai elite is insufferable and short sighted.There is not one jot or iota of evidence that the Thai rural majority is more easily bought that the elite (feudalists,businessmen, senior officers and civil servants).In fact the greed and selfishness of the elite suggests the evidence runs the other way.Of course at elections there is undesirable behaviour of vote buying and selling, but the key point is that recent years have shown the rural majority -Thaksin being the rather unheroic catalyst- increasingly conscious of their political power.The elite is terrified by this because they know it heralds a major transfer of resources.

In no other country would a statement that the elite holds the majority in contempt be made so uncontroversially.It's a shameful and disgusting comment, more appropriate for eighteenth century France - and remember what happened there.No Indonesian, Chinese or Vietnamese leader would dream of describing or even thinking about their rural majorities in this way.

[tettyan]

"Revolutionary King" is not on Colpyat list, too mainstream for his socialist liking, and forget about "The Royal Powers" ... Never mind that they reflect and resonate with Thai society far better than books on his list.

I've read Revolutionary King several times. It's a sloppy piece of work, riddled with factual errors and selective use of facts. Obviously, discussing it in too much detail would be beyond the scope of this board. Look at the chapter on the 1990 coup and Black May, as well as the account of Sarit's coup of 1957. Stevenson is extremely selective in his use of facts, to the point where it distorts the bigger picture. PM me if you want specifics.

McCargo and Handley are offered instead because they substantiate leftist claims that the traditional system is corrupt and needs to be replaced.

Riight.... so Thailand is just as fine as it is, eh? Of course the traditional system is corrupt. These are not "traditional leftist claims." Look at the state of the country today! Huge inequalities of wealth, suffocating monopolies on prime real estate that would even put the Duke of Westminster to shame. People voted for Thaksin because they wanted a change in the status quo, although he really just wanted to keep the system in place as it is, with the only difference that he would be in charge.

Now that I have a little more time these days, I will take a look at Giles book.

Bottom line - I'm not against reading any of these books, my initial objection was that they DO NOT reflect the actual state of Thai society but selected to serve narrow, Marxist interests.

Rather than just dismissing these scholars as "Marxists" (and Giles is the ONLY one who is a Marxist), why don't you try addressing the merits of Handley's and McCargo's arguments?

And who the he|| reflects the "actual state of Thai society" anyway? The propaganda you see on Channel 5 at 8:00 pm? Or scholars who have spent their lives researching and writing about Thai history and political economy? Or journalists who have actually spent their lives living amongst ordinary people? I'm not saying one is more legitimate than the other, but it appears that you are.

[sriracha john]

====

Giles book is available online - http://www.pcpthai.org/autopagev3/fileuplo...07-14-45-11.pdf

"impossible to understand Thai society and politics without a class

struggle perspective. The 1997 economic crisis cannot be explained

without looking at the competition to exploit labour, the fight for

increased wages and the over-production in capitalism."

Yeah, right - eploited labour, wages, and over-production as causes of 1997 crisis. I can't take this seriously. Then he says that the current govt is staffed with neo-liberals (?!?!) who want to privatise everything and sign up all free trade agreements but then bangs on about Sufficiency economy. You can't have neoliberals preaching sufficiency economy, but it's obviously not a problem for Giles.

McCargo and Handley are offered instead because they substantiate leftist claims that the traditional system is corrupt and needs to be replaced.

>>>>>

Bottom line - I'm not against reading any of these books, my initial objection was that they DO NOT reflect the actual state of Thai society but selected to serve narrow, Marxist interests.

Thanks for the link on the free book. Makes it a lot easier than going out to get it... particularly when it sounds like it might not have been worth the trip. But I'll give it a read and see if I can find out what the Lieutenant finds so captivating about him.

Also, a least since now it's available free online, we should expect a reduction of future spamming ads for its promotion that seem to pop up on threads frequently.

Aside...

Handley's book, which is banned for sale here, was also available online in the past in short-ish samples. The ones I read were trashy and disrespectful and easily understood why this writing of his is forbidden.

Does he live in Thailand? I can't imagine he does.

Edit..... the host of that website with Giles book needs to reconsider the name of their organization as the acronym it creates is less than flattering.

Edited May 17, 2007 by sriracha john

[tettyan]

Handley's book, which is banned for sale here, was also available online in the past in short-ish samples. The ones I read were trashy and disrespectful and easily understood why this writing of his is forbidden.

Does he live in Thailand? I can't imagine he does.

"Trashy?" I think that's a more fitting description of Stevenson's "The Revolutionary King" than Handley's book. Apart from my criticisms above, Stevenson's book is lightly footnoted, offers little supporting evidence, and reads more like a romance novel than a serious piece of scholarship (and definitely not worthy of Yale University Press). Handley, whether you disagree with him or not (and I personally have several disagreements about his approach, but I won't go into them here, PM me if you wish), had spent a decade on the book. His knowledge of Thai history is solid, there are footnotes for almost every point he makes, and most of his assertions are well supported by other sources (some better than others). Naturally, I'm wary of the parts where he cites anonymous sources (though I can understand why), but I don't think that detracts from the overall quality of his scholarship. I know Chris Baker (whom many anti-Thaksin types like to quote) would agree (Google for his review of the Handley book yourselves, I'm not going to risk pasting the link up here).

"Disrespectful?" God forbid that a biography or piece of scholarship ever be disrespectful! So therefore, is a "disrespectful" biography of Mao Zedong or Richard Nixon not objective? I guess my prof in college should have flunked me for my paper on Douglas MacArthur, since some of the things I may have said may have appeared "disrespectful." You guys truly take political correctness to another level.

[sriracha john]

Handley's book, which is banned for sale here, was also available online in the past in short-ish samples. The ones I read were trashy and disrespectful and easily understood why this writing of his is forbidden.

Does he live in Thailand? I can't imagine he does.

"Disrespectful?" God forbid that a biography or piece of scholarship ever be disrespectful! So therefore, is a "disrespectful" biography of Mao Zedong or Richard Nixon not objective? I guess my prof in college should have flunked me for my paper on Douglas MacArthur, since some of the things I may have said may have appeared "disrespectful." You guys truly take political correctness to another level.

The entity that is the subject of his disrespectful comments is not a politician... and this easily accounts for his book being banned.

Due to the reason it's banned and in deference to forum rules, I won't say more. Besides, it's all

Perhaps a book-review discussion thread is more appropriate.

Edited May 17, 2007 by sriracha john

[tettyan]

Due to the reason it's banned and in deference to forum rules, I won't say more. Besides, it's all

Perhaps a book-review discussion thread is more appropriate.

Fair enough. My original post wasn't addressed to you, and I was a bit pleasantly surpised to hear a response from you, so I thought I would do the courtesy of reciprocating.

A book discussion thread would be great, but alas, if the moderators continue to stick to the current rules, that's their prerogative. Although I might note that Thais in the past year have become more comfortable discussing some issues that were previously thought to be taboo. Being a bit more flexible in interpreting the rules may help readers here keep apace with the times, but I'm respectful of the fact that it's a decision for neither you nor me to make.

[younghusband]

Nearly sixty years ago George Orwell had some difficulty in finding a publisher for "Animal Farm", now recognised as a work of genius.The reason was that the prevailing orthodoxy of the time among many British intellectuals was fellow travelling with Soviet totalitarianism and the book was of course a devastating attack on that system's cruelty, stupidity and inefficiency.Orwell noted at the time that when the book was finally published, the fellow travelling reviewers hardly ever addressed the book's message -because of course it could not be refuted- but preferred to attack the book for being "trashy" or badly written etc.(The book is actually beautifully written ).

Thus as regards Thailand politics some of the unfavourable reviews of Handley's book focus on its "trashy" style for the same reasons, namely the essential truth of its main propositions cannot be denied.

[Plus]

I think the book discussion is getting too detailed to fit the thread.

It's impossible to have ONE book that would accurately reflect the state of the Thai society, Channel 5 news and its faithful viewers is also part of it, btw.

I brought this diversion about only to say that selection offered by Colpyat reflected his narrow, marxist views. If one is to base his opinions expressed on TV on books and history and academic analisys, Colpyat's selection is seriously lacking.

He mentioned it to confront John K's psychological profiling, remember?

[astral]

But he has just said on the radio that he will not be returning to this region.............................

[tettyan]

He mentioned it to confront John K's psychological profiling, remember?

Of course I remember. Though I've been far too busy in the past year to take much part in discussions, I still do watch this forum from a distance.

As for the discussion with John K, I strongly disagree with pure, ahistorical analysis. There might be a role for profiling in political analysis, but it needs to be within context. And it's impossible to have the proper context without a decent knowledge of "the big picture," or Thai political history - the version of history that's not's spoonfed to you by TAT's propoganda brochures, or the version that most Thais discuss in public.

Almost every political player in Thailand has rats in their closets, from Thaksin, to the CNS, to both Sondhis, to the brother of the principal private secretary of a VERY important figure, and others higher up the food chain. I frankly am baffled as to why so many presumably educated people here would exhibit a strong preference for one self-serving power clique over another. Personally, I'd prefer neither. I'd prefer that whichever rotten apple prevails, it's the one chosen through election, and not the one chosen by the gun.

[Jai Dee]

Good to see you posting on the forum again tettyan.

[Plus]

As for the discussion with John K, I strongly disagree with pure, ahistorical analysis. There might be a role for profiling in political analysis, but it needs to be within context. And it's impossible to have the proper context without a decent knowledge of "the big picture," or Thai political history - the version of history that's not's spoonfed to you by TAT's propoganda brochures, or the version that most Thais discuss in public.

Even in private the majority of Thais do not share leftist views of Thailand. The big picture is far far bigger than that.

For example in Giles view vote buying doesn't play important role in Thai politics, people vote along their class lines.

That is not a proper context for ANY analysis, psychological or otherwise.

I believe John K is not that naive to ignore rather obvious relationships between the elite, the poor, the Chinese new money and so on.

Is there anything in those books that you won't be told on your first day at the local expat pub? Barring details and references, not very likely. Mccargo/Handley didn't INVENT the monarchy network, after all.

[tettyan]

Even in private the majority of Thais do not share leftist views of Thailand. The big picture is far far bigger than that.

For example in Giles view vote buying doesn't play important role in Thai politics, people vote along their class lines.

Thanks for sending me the link to Giles's book, btw, I've read most of it already.

As I said above, there are some things about Giles that I find annoying, and his fixation on class struggle

is one of them. On the other hand, even though flawed, I think his analysis (unintentionally) provides some useful insight. Whereas most analyses of recent events center narrowly on elite players, Giles's contribution to my understanding of the bigger picture is his description of the role of civil society in last year's events. The army and "charismatic figures" did not have the moral authority to act on their own - civil society sort of acted as the holder of the balance. A rather simple thesis, but one that's largely forgotten in today's reporting.

Conventional wisdom is that the left-wing of civil society is too weak, which is why they had to team up with right-wingers like Sondhi. Giles argues that the left-wing isn't too weak, but that many powerful left-wing leaders decided to sit out the protests as they were turned off by the growing prominence of Sondhi as the movement's leader. It's an interesting contrarian argument, one that calls for more debate and research, not a dismissive attitude.

That is not a proper context for ANY analysis, psychological or otherwise.

I believe John K is not that naive to ignore rather obvious relationships between the elite, the poor, the Chinese new money and so on.

Is there anything in those books that you won't be told on your first day at the local eI xpat pub? Barring details and references, not very likely. Mccargo/Handley didn't INVENT the monarchy network, after all.

I wouldn't know, I've never been in an expat pub. Yes, McCargo and Handley's overall arguments arn't completely original (few things in academia are, at least in the social sciences), they've been articulated in less sophisticated form by some left-leaning Thai academics before. I do hand them a bit more credibility, because unlike many Thai intellectuals, they are less idealogically drive and offer a more dispassionate analysis.

I do think though that there is much original research in their works that support concepts that previously were mere rumours. This is important because there are rumors for just about everything in Thailand, and it's hard for any intelligent person to know what or what not to believe.

There are also several points that were original, and eye-opening: such as the behind-the-scenes role a certain Privy Council member in a sensitive Constitutional Court case a few years back.

We're all familiar with the narrative - (1) great reforms of Rama V saved Thailand from colonization, set the stage for modernization; (2) coup of 1932 was in name of democracy, but was premature, as Thais just wern't ready for "democracy" yet; (3) b/c the people were too ignorant and not "ready" for democracy, it led to corruption, mismanagement, and a vicious cycle of coups; (4) the most charismatic figure has occasionally intervened in politics to set the country straight again onto the path of democratic development; (5) the charismatic figure and his ancestors have always been universally respected by the Thai people; (6) even today, the rural masses are still too uneducated to be trusted with the vote. Not only is Thailand unsuited for democracy, but democracy as conventionally defined might even be unsuited to the unique nature of Thai culture and society. We therefore need "Thai-style" democracy.

Yes, if this conventional wisdom is what you stick with, you will always get it wrong when it comes to analyzing anything that goes on here. Baker, Handley, McCargo and the Chang Noi column in The Nation (coincidentally, all oppose both Thaksin and the coup) are the most articulate challengers of this cconventional wisdom, whose works are well-researched. Their ideas, even if you disagree with them (I certainly disagree with some), have to be digested and debated for a fuller understanding of what's going on here.

[John K]

When I do look at profiling I do take into consideration as many things as possible, including history, money, and past politics. As someone put it, it is much further down the list, but not always. Placement on the list depends on the strength of any influence. The order of the list for Thaksin is very different from George Bush and so on. Bush cares about laws where Thaksin does not so that would be one item as an example.

As for Thaksin coming back, his radio appearance had a reason, but until I see what was said I can’t make a prediction. But for the moment it is looking more and more like a fault line storing up energy for a May 31 quake. At the moment it is counter productive for the TRT to say it will be a big event. Even the announcement of a rally is viewed on the subconscious level as an admission of guilt. Why would they plan a rally before knowing the verdict. Certainly one week afer the fact would make more sense and reflect a feel of uncertainty. At any rate the TRT ruling will set the direction for Thaksin’s next move.

Good post tettyan, very good point of view. I see it as a time of change for Thailand simply because they have had a taste of outside money complements of Thaksin. Because of that the desire for money will influence change. How much will depend on the educational attainment of each Thai. If the majority is undereducated expect a much slower turn.

[younghusband]

I think the book discussion is getting too detailed to fit the thread.

It's impossible to have ONE book that would accurately reflect the state of the Thai society, Channel 5 news and its faithful viewers is also part of it, btw.

I brought this diversion about only to say that selection offered by Colpyat reflected his narrow, marxist views. If one is to base his opinions expressed on TV on books and history and academic analisys, Colpyat's selection is seriously lacking.

He mentioned it to confront John K's psychological profiling, remember?

I agree and perhaps a separate section for books about Thailand would make sense.I would suggest it be limited to non-fiction as otherwise it would be swamped by fans of Stephen Leather and his even trashier imitators.

Incidentally I wonder whether you understand what a Marxist is, or do you just mean "liberal" in the sloppy way the American Right talks? Colpyat who obviously isn't a Marxist has made some interesting suggestions on books which I have certainly found useful.You have I think mentioned one publication (by Stephenson) which unfortunately is widely regarded as poorly written and second rate in terms of scholarship and research.If you have other suggestions, let's hear them as its important to have access to as wide a spectrum of opinion as possible.

Edited May 20, 2007 by younghusband

[sriracha john]

I think the book discussion is getting too detailed to fit the thread.

It's impossible to have ONE book that would accurately reflect the state of the Thai society, Channel 5 news and its faithful viewers is also part of it, btw.

I brought this diversion about only to say that selection offered by Colpyat reflected his narrow, marxist views. If one is to base his opinions expressed on TV on books and history and academic analisys, Colpyat's selection is seriously lacking.

He mentioned it to confront John K's psychological profiling, remember?

I agree and perhaps a separate section for books about Thailand would make sense.I would suggest it be limited to non-fiction as otherwise it would be swamped by fans of Stephen Leather and his even trashier imitators.

Incidentally I wonder whether you understand what a Marxist is, or do you just mean "liberal" in the sloppy way the American Right talks? Colpyat who obviously isn't a Marxist has made some interesting suggestions on books which I have certainly found useful.You have I think mentioned one publication (by Stephenson) which unfortunately is widely regarded as poorly written and second rate in terms of scholarship and research.If you have other suggestions, let's hear them as its important to have access to as wide a spectrum of opinion as possible.

I would have sworn I recall reading Colypat describe himself specifically as a Marxist in a thread before. But perhaps I'm mistaken. We can wait for him to clarify it himself when he returns....

[sriracha john]

Ousted PM prepared to return home to face charges

Thailand's ousted prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who has been living in exile in London, says he's now prepared to return to his homeland to face any potential corruption charges. He's also urging the military-installed government that ousted him to hold elections as quickly as possible.

Presenter/Interviewer: Rob Sharp

Speakers: Nopodom Pattama, the lawyer for ousted Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra

PATTAMA: Yes indeed, yeah, indeed the shutting down of the community radio station in Thailand is a ... yeah

SHARP: Is it a denial of free speech do you think?

PATTAMA: Yes it denies Thaksin's free speech and shows that the junta and the government is scared of the former prime minister.

SHARP: What are you saying they're scared of?

PATTAMA: They're scared of, we have to look at at the actual contents of his conversation, it is not political, it's just ... he was invited by a ... in London to talk to someone, but eventually it was broadcast live in a radio station. It wasn't his effort to conduct political manoeuvre in Thailand at all.

SHARP: Mr Thaksin did tell the radio stations that he was worried that some of his schemes for the rural poor had been scrapped by the military-installed government. Is that correct?

PATTAMA: I understand so, actually I haven't followed the whole conversation, but I think it's the mentioned by the former leader to talk about the quality and as you can understand in Australia anyone can talk about economics or social or political policies. But it's sad that this conversation and this view has been viewed as political manoeuvring.

SHARP: How is Mr Thaksin at the moment?

PATTAMA: He's fine, he's in eastern Europe now, he's fine. Actually I'm with him now.

SHARP: He is prepared to go back to Thailand to face any charges, any potential charges, is that correct?

PATTAMA: That's correct, yes, if the charge was formally filed against him in court he's required to return to Thailand yes to answer the charge. And he's prepared to do so.

SHARP: Is he fairly confident that he will be exonerated?

PATTAMA: He's confident he would be exonerated because the charge most of them or all of them are politically motivated, and a lawyer could look at evidence and could say that there is no substance or legal basis for the charge.

- Radio Australia

========================================

Listen to the audio of the above interview:

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/programs/m1391885.asx

Edited May 22, 2007 by sriracha john

[ColPyat]

I would have sworn I recall reading Colypat describe himself specifically as a Marxist in a thread before. But perhaps I'm mistaken. We can wait for him to clarify it himself when he returns....

Having been so rudely interrupted i our conversation i can finally answer you - no, i am not a Marxist. And i really would like you to find that alleged quote from me. I hope i don't need to write a whole novel why i am not a Marxist, and have to repeat that i am not a Marxist in every future post in order not to be misinterpreted.

In practical terms - I believe that the most humane form of government is 'Social Democracy'. I believe in the freedom of the individual, i believe in evolution rather than revolution, and enough regulation that freedoms of the individual can be protected against abuse of the powerful. And i do believe that all people are equal.

Nevertheless, Younghusband has asked an excellent question to Plus (yet unanswered). I would like to repeat that question, and extend it to you and the rest of my opponents here:

As you are so good in rubbishing me and the many books and papers i recommended (mostly not read by you or my opponents), what about your list of books and studies? Can you tell me please which books (not novels, only scholarly works ) your opinions are supported by, or are based upon, other than just your opinion?

Which books have you read on Thailand that you can bring up as reference material to support your position against mine?

I think that would make a much more constructive discussion than the usual tit for tat.

[Tony Clifton]

rudely interrupted = suspended ?

There used to be beach bullies, walking around and kicking sand in the faces of others.

The internet now has brought upon us a new breed, the book bully.

[hammered]

I wonder if this thread will ever get back on topic?

In the meantime a few general and hopefully neutral comments on some of the discussion above:

Marxism and its tenets can be useful as a political tool to analyse capitalism and its development in industrialised western nations. However, classical Marxism has always struggled when applied to systems that include a peasant (tied to the land) class rather than a working class. Marxism sees the development of the working class as necessary for revolution and betterment of the poor. Marxism would predict that the rise of industrialisation would have freed the peasants from the land. In many non-Western countries this never happened and Marxism ould not have predicted even China's revolution. In fact some may argue that the Chinese revolution was not a revolution.

There are further difficulties when trying to get information on or analyse Thailand. As someone previously mentioned who do you trust the information from: academics, journalists, elites? The truth is that none of these groups have any base in the majority of the country. Also anyone who has ever been involved in academic research will know that it is pretty limited in scope and relies on initial assumptions that could affect what comes later. All of which obviously makes an understanding of what is happening very difficult to reach, but then again it leaves us with endless potentialities to debate and argue about.

Peace.

[ColPyat]

The internet now has brought upon us a new breed, the book bully.

So we can the assume that you don't read books?

[younghusband]

rudely interrupted = suspended ?

There used to be beach bullies, walking around and kicking sand in the faces of others.

The internet now has brought upon us a new breed, the book bully.

It's certainly inconvenient when someone has read widely in the history,politics and culture of Thailand since that person may be seen to have an advantage in debate.I know, let's call him a "book bully".Better still, why don't we take a leaf out of the Middle Ages and start burning the books.The alternative I suppose is to bring ourselves up to speed and broaden our knowledge by some serious reading ourselves, so we can engage in a serious debate.No, on reflection that's too much trouble.Let's just call whoever intellectually intimidates us "a book bully".

Edited May 27, 2007 by younghusband

[Totster]

Why don't we all calm down and play nicely..

We don't want any more "rude interruptions" do we ?

totster