New Mandala

30 responses so far ↓

• 1 manning sawwinner // Aug 1, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  The way it looks now, Thaksin would have no way whatever of winning a case in any of the Thai courts, because of the bias of the judiciary against him. All his cases are predetermined and doomed. He’s better get out of Thailand fast while there’s still time. H should find another country to live out his, life.

• 2 nganadeeleg // Aug 2, 2008 at 10:22 am

  Sidh says: “I welcome your comments/analysis on the case (and the long line of cases pending).”

  Manning replies: “The verdicts are predetermined even before the judges sit down to pretend to deliberate on the cases”

  Why not just analyze each case on it’s merits.
  Manning, can you please outline what is the specific problem you have with the verdict in the Potjaman tax case?

  PS. I moved my comment to this thread, as it is a little more relevant here than over at the “I’m ready to fight the Thai’s’ thread where the exchange between Sidh & Manning took place.

• 3 Matty // Aug 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm

  Manning says: “The way it looks now, Thaksin would have no way whatever of winning a case in any of the Thai courts, because of the bias of the judiciary against him.”

  Thaksin the high-stakes gambler had always been the do-or-die optimist. And Thaksin had not given up because surely the celestial stars, not helpful nor bright to the Shinawatra clan lately, would again twinkle to his favor again (some powerful new shaman will help soon!).

  ‘Judiciary bias’ would also not discourage Thaksin. In 2001 Thaksin overcome judiciary bias by one vote . . . so Thaksin must appreciate that whenever there’s a will, there always be a way out for him, in Thailand (more sandwiches to the judges perhaps?)

• 4 jonfernquest // Aug 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm

  “All his [Thaksin's] cases are predetermined and doomed.”

  This response to the rulings is “predetermined.”
  He got away with it before. Now he doesn’t.
  Another way of looking at it.

• 5 karmablues // Aug 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm

  Some comments by Chris Baker about the tax fraud case (as quoted in the papers):

  “It’s very significant for both of them. Nobody doubts this was a family matter. It will reflect on all of them,” Bangkok-based analyst and Thaksin biographer Chris Baker said.

  “The courts here are often intimidated by people in power or who were in power and they are reluctant to convict. In this case that doesn’t seem to be operating.”

  “It will go on - they will use every possible means under the law, but their ability to use other methods to influence any decision now is highly limited,” he said.

  “I don’t think we need to take the (corruption) cases as a team effort, I think each one will be decided on its merits, ” he said.

  Mr Baker said it was a legal “milestone” for a Thai court to convict such a wealthy and powerful defendant as the former first lady. It is a precedent that Mr Thaksin will find deeply unsettling.

• 6 Chris Fry // Aug 2, 2008 at 2:32 pm

  Nganadeeleg’s point is well made.Though the severity of the sentence for Potjaman is a little surprising I can’t see there can be much dispute that this was not a fair trial or that a correct verdict was not reached.This does not mean that in a more general sense the court system is not being “directed” against Thaksin.

  I am intrigued to see whether Jonathan is being influenced or perhaps cowed by the lese majeste charge made against him, the warning shot across the bow theory.So far no evidence of this judging by this last report but it must be an uneasy tightrope for him.

• 7 R. N. England // Aug 2, 2008 at 2:51 pm

  The rule of law is very weak in Thailand. There is a long history of selective application, and corruption of laws by cases won by powerful people which should have been lost. The most lucrative work for lawyers consists in corrupting the law on behalf of the rich and powerful (not only in Thailand!). Some laws are a mere by-products of power struggles. Laws made by the military dictatorship were crafted to punish and frustrate the people’s representatives. But it is the representatives alone who can make laws that have the best chance of being widely respected.

  Because few take the laws seriously, almost all rich and powerful Thais have skeletons in their cupboards. If the laws were applied to all of them as they have been to Thaksin and his family, most of them would be in prison. Many of those calling for the laws, in their present state, to be enforced with rigour are humbugs. That includes every one of them who has supported both the sentence handed out to Thaksin’s wife, and the overthrow Constitution by the militarists in 2006.

• 8 HRK // Aug 2, 2008 at 7:32 pm

  That the “law” is hardly ever neutral, not only in Thailand, is well documented in the US and many other places. India might be an exception. While in the US the result of court cases is quite strongly determined by the ability to purchase well versed lawyers, in Thailand the political figuration and the positioning of those interpreting the law tends to play a significant role. Therefore, a change of such a figuration affects the outcome of those cases brought forward against potentially powerful and well connected persons like Chalerm (and his sons) as well as Thaksin and others. In the triangular relation of power differentials referred to in the title, currently those identified with Thaksin seem to be the weaker. But this is, I guess, just a temporary situation. The question is what are the dynamics within the political figuration and whether democratic alternatives to PPP, PAD etc. do exist. As long as such an alternative is absent, we just have shifts between the current two main poles and their supordinates, and the interpretation of the law following these shifts.

• 9 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Aug 2, 2008 at 11:01 pm

  Nganadeeleg:
  Why not just analyze each case on it’s merits.

  What merits?

  The whole case is premised on the 2006 coup, the single biggest law-breaking act in the past few years.

  Will anyone here, including Dr.Baker, accept, say, a conviction in a US court based on illegal procedure (eg. evidence obtained without search warrant, confession without the Milanda)?

  To speak of any of the court case against Thaksin and co now under way as some kind of ‘rule of law’ or ‘judicial’ process is perverted.

  (Also perverted is Michael Conners’ article in Asia Sentinel that characterizes what happens as ‘judicialization of Thai politics’, a kind of ‘bourgois revolution’. ‘Judicialization’? The whole judiciary must have been born or established yesterday. They ‘missed’ the law-breaking coup d’etat, the monarchy’s constitutionally ‘dubious’ intervention in politics, etc. Or Dr.Conners himself must have been born yesterday too.

  What really happens is, it should be obvious, the exact opposite: the politicization of the judiciary. In other words, the elimination of political competitor (of the monarchy) by ‘judicial’ means.

• 10 Michael Connors // Aug 3, 2008 at 4:13 am

  It intrigues me is that Dr Somsak continues to read Thai politics as a politics of monarchy versus capitalism. His Maoist past obviously means that he sees capitalism as progressive and therefore new-age globalised capitalism is seen as progressive because it is held to be removing the monarchy from the scene. The monarchy is seen as attached to feudalism or, in Thai terms, sakdina.

  In fact, the monarchy is now a capitalist agent in own its right. Furthermore, with the symbolic capital that comes from its investment in Thainess and virtue, it is one of Thailand’s most robust capitalist agents.

  The battle in Thailand has moved well beyond the imaginary battle of capitalism versus feudalism that occupies the Maoist imagination, a struggle from which Dr Somsak has yet to extricate himself. The current struggle is not about Thaksin and the monarchy. The simplistic reading of Thai politics that comes from a Stalinist politics (oddly echoed by the most pro-capitalist Western academics who have forged a perverse alliance with erstwhile re-incarnated Thai Maoists) fails to capture the struggle between capitalist elites over specific capitalistic interests and regime form.

  In recent years Thai politics held the promise of a significant shift to a political liberalism that would bring about some redress of political inequality and which would secure human rights. Instead, under the conditions of the 1997 constitution, that deliberately provided for strong executive rule, the Thaksin regime moved against liberal features on the pretext of his democrat mandate. This led to an unsavoury choice in the absence of mass struggle: limited forms of political liberalism – with all the arrogance of who gets to decide what virtue is – as against Thaksin’s populist electoral democracy (who gets to decide what people want in the conditions of structured inequality).

  Dr Somsak would have the entire Thai population accept the illiberal shift on the premise that Thaksin had a democratic mandate. It should be noted that Dr Somsak’s own politics (unless he has moved beyond them) would endorse a politics of Leninist democratic centralism and would eschew the kind of electoral democracy he is currently championing. In principle, he declares others morally bankrupt for not supporting electoral democracy, but if he is true to his Leninist past he believes well enough that such a system is questionable in terms of genuine democracy (perhaps I have missed his conversion to liberal democracy?). One can only assume in his “perverted” (to return the compliment) hierarchy of values, capitalist democracy has a premium: its faults are plenty but they are an advance on feudal monarchism. Well communists, as Marx declared, declare themselves. So what are Dr Somsak’s real thoughts on electoral democracy? Clearly, he is interested in the propaganda value of of Thaksin’s “mandate” , but I doubt that he thinks they are enough for genuine freedom. I am asking Dr Somsak to come out of his shell and explain why he supports Thaksin, beyond the naïve argument that Thaksin had a democratic mandate. As a socialist he needs to tell us more.

  I would argued that a position that holds that the monarchy is merely a feudalistic residue (as Thai Maoists and their liberal interlocutors do) misses the capitalist transformation of the Thai monarchy, and the way in which liberal capitalism and its organic intellectuals have attached to it (opportunistically and without varied success).

  In historical terms, Somsak’s willingness to excuse many things that the capitalist government of Thaksin did (including the massacres in the South) is premised not on particular right on wrong but on a historical teleology of historical progress. The rights and wrongs of particular events are merely the debris of history that need not concern a person interested in the objective march of history (unless he happened to be involved in them – October 1976).

  Does Dr Somsak want to offer some commentary on the
  the Stalinist and Maoist experiments and the millions of people that fell victim to them? These, too, continue to be justified by the kind of false historicism that is employed in the current Thai situation.

  Perhaps Dr Somsak would like to share with us his politics, instead of merely repeating the mantra of Thaksin’s democratic mandate? He has been speaking about the principles of democracy for a long time now. What are his politics? What does he think about other episodes in history, where people have been sacrificed at the altar of objective history? How does that thinking inform his politics in Thailand? And by the way, this is not red-baiting, I am a socialist. I believe in the end of capitalism and the rise of a socialist democratic society that eradicates the aristocracy of birthright that comes with class.
  .

• 11 nganadeeleg // Aug 3, 2008 at 10:50 am

  Why not just analyze each case on it’s merits?
  What merits?
  The whole case is premised on the 2006 coup, the single biggest law-breaking act in the past few years.

  I’m glad you agree that these cases would never have seen the light of day if Thaksin had stayed in power.

  I did not call for a coup, but chose to accept it once it was fait accompli, however it’s unusual to see you providing justification for a coup.

  If Mugabe was overthrown by a coup, would all cases against him have to be thrown out due to illegal procedure?

  btw, it’s unusual to see you providing justification for a coup.

• 12 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Aug 3, 2008 at 11:34 am

  It intrigues me is that Dr Somsak continues to read Thai politics as a politics of monarchy versus capitalism.

  In fact, the monarchy is now a capitalist agent in own its right

  I NEVER made an analysis anywhere of the current conflicts in terms of CLASS. This has been a conscious decision. I have my reasons but it’s too complicated to explain here.

  But let’s deal with this issue, for it’s one of the keys to Connors’ stance as well as his friend, Ji’s (see Ji’s article on the monarchy a few months ago.)

  Let’s say I agree that BOTH the monarchy and Thaksin ARE thoroughly capitalistic.

  Does this entail the sort of politics Connors and Ji advocate, the song mai aw? Absolutely not. To say both are capitalistic, no where logically and theoretically entails that a socialist MUST oppose them at oncein all cases at all times

  It’s wrong to believe that there can be NO difference at all among members of the same class, or that any difference between them ‘means nothing’ to the people and thus (in Ji’s case) advocate the sort of politics that sees no difference between bourgeois parliamentary politics and bourgois dictatorship. Since they are both bourgeois, let oppose them both! (see that part of his article on two ‘types’ of bourgeois rules where it implies no difference).

  The kind of thinking characteristic of Connors’s is the same one - god forbid! - as Stalin’s infamous ‘Third Period’ that sees no differences between Hitler and all other kinds of capitalistic elites - differences that matter to the cause of the people and/or socialists.

  To say that the monarchy is as capitalistic as Thaksin doesn’t at all mean that in political terms they are ‘equally bad’. It’s logically coherent to argue that one is worse/better from the standpoint of democracy and ‘the people’. This has just recently been argued, not by myself but by Thongchai! (See his article on the ‘Left-Right Unite’ and a short comment he wrote under ‘pseudonym’ on an article by “Piyamit Lilatham” on FDK website.)

  It’s funny to see dogmatists like Conners or Ji hurl charge of Maoist/Stalinist historical telelogy at me. As I suggested before on this website, if you want to discuss things as socialists or (in Ji’s case) defender of the Bolshevik heritage, do make an effort to really study the history of the socialist/bolshevik movement. Even at the height of their strength the Bolsheviks, the classical example of intransigent left ofindependent political stance, did NOT advocate the blow to both the Kornilovs and the Kerenskys at once. To anylyse concrete situations concretely is the soul, the spirit of Marxism, as Lenin famously put it. To begin - like Connors - with the insistence that since both groups of elites are capitalistic (both are human-right violators, etc) one therefore always at all times and places oppose them both, is just thoughtless dogmatism.

• 13 Observer # 543 // Aug 3, 2008 at 12:02 pm

  The “politicization” of the Thai judiciary has been since … well… I don’t know its beginning… perhaps it has never been not-politicized.

  The judicialization of Thai politics seems to be the current “regime”, particularly advocated by all the anti-Thaksin camps since the king’s intervention in April 2006. It was the plan under the coup regime as well. The targets are: ending Thaksin, ending Thaksin’s political machines (party and etc.), and ending Thaksin mass base. Unfortuantely the coup govt failed to finish the job. What is happening now, in a way, is the continuation of the plan.

  The goal of the jusdiacialization of politics is — so to speak — the “coup by the judiciary”.

  To understand the court’s decisions nowadays, and treat them case by case on legal merits, as if the judiciary is working under “normal” circumstance, and without taking into account this bigger political picture, is rather naive.

  If any one thinks this is an overly politicization of court cases, it is; because the judiciary is doing exactly so.

• 14 nganageeleg // Aug 3, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  Observer: I say “analyze each case on it’s merits“, and you say that is “naive” and point to a “coup by judiciary“.

  Which of us is politicizing the courts?

• 15 jonfernquest // Aug 3, 2008 at 2:35 pm

  Michael Connors wrote: “Now, in one of those historical reversals that defy general theories of history, it would appear that one of Thailand’s most successful capitalists may well be the sacrificial lamb (innocent or guilty) on the altar of Thailand’s judicialisation of politics and the emergence of a potentially more robust rule of law.”
  http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1360&Itemid=31

  That would include murdered journalists, such as the Matichon journalist below, searching for the truth.

  Ironically the evidence can only be hinted at below and will probably will only ever exist as hearsay or gossip between those in the know. Murder once again seems to be an effective way of snuffing out the knowledge necessary for informed decisions by the public, no wonder there is public apathy about “rule of law”:

  Matichon reporter shot dead at home
  Journalist voiced concern over safety

  By Supapong Chaolan

  A reporter for Matichon newspaper was shot dead while cooking at his home on Friday in what the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) is calling a blatant attempt to silence the media. Athiwat Chainurat, 48, was alone when a gunman shot him in the head, back and stomach. The attack took place about 9pm…..

  ”He became extra careful recently due to a conflict with some local politicians over his reports. …

  Pol Lt-Gen Thani said police suspected the murder was related to news reports written by the victim, which caused conflicts with a high-ranking government officer in the district…

  He assigned his deputy Pol Maj-Gen Santhan Chayanont to handle the case, and added that the investigation had made good progress and a team was collecting evidence.

  But a source close to Athiwat disagreed.

  He said a high-profile politician who had always been unhappy with Athiwat’s reports might have used the victim’s conflict with the government officer to have him killed and put the blame on the officer.

  The TJA said the premeditated murder might be the work of an influential figure who has no fear of the law and the act was a case of serious intimidation against investigative journalists….

  http://bangkokpost.com/030808_News/03Aug2008_news09.php

• 16 Frank G Anderson // Aug 3, 2008 at 6:52 pm

  It WAS rather clever of those putting the 2007 constitution together to hog-tie the TRT aftermath. That Thaksin’s fate is ordained, one really should only blame him, the master of his fate, the captain of his soul. He wasn’t crying when he told Pojaman how to hide assets, but only when he was discovered.
  The Thai courts may lack finesse and refinement, but in general I have found they are reasonably good. The problem is with crooked society that accepts so much crap that gets recognized as truth or unavoidable circumstances.

• 17 Frank G Anderson // Aug 3, 2008 at 6:55 pm

  3 August 2008

  I had a question I had neglected to ask earlier - with the king saying he wants to be criticized as long as it is constructive and valid, just who are the courts to say they are above criticism? Is this legal?

• 18 Michael Connors // Aug 4, 2008 at 2:14 am

  I do not think the competing capitalist fractions in Thailand today (if that is what they are – the political economy of this is not fully clear, given overlapping interests) are equivalent in the sense that Somsak says I do. There are indeed competing agendas – and in the impasse of current politics each has manifested itself in quite virulent and reactionary ways.

  On Somsak’s point that different capitalist elites should be judged according to their politics and trajectories, I agree fully. I believe that the Thai-Rak-Thai government was taking Thai politics on an untravelled authoritarian road peculiar to its own style of leadership, but one that was in conformity with what has been called “competitive authoritarianism”. In 2006 Thailand was a long way from that situation, but the signals were there. Moreover, this road was being approached in a way that side-swiped rival elites (who have an equally authoritarian inclination). They came back onto the road with a tank.

  I can not share the idea that somehow Thaksin was representative of a progressive form of democracy and should be given unqualified support in the struggle against his rivals. The coup was wrong, yes. Thaksin should not have been overthrown in that manner, yes. But none of this makes him more than an accidental democrat. Before the coup very few people would have described Thaksin as having a “democratic morality” . Yes he stood for elections. That doesn’t make someone a democrat. In what sense is it democratic to launch a “war on drugs” that leads to significant death, pursue a repressive policy in the South and refuse to punish those involved in the events of 2004 in April and October, not to say anthing of the strangulation of liberal elements of the the 1997 constitution. The answer seems never to move beyond the argument that Thaksin had an electoral mandate. That is the beginning of a conversation on the nature of democracy, it’s not the answer as far as I can see.

  In offering seemingly unqualified support to Thaksin, Somsak can only read the court cases against Thaksin as illegitimate. The facts of the case do not concern him. In the most generalised sense he is right of course, without the coup it is hard to imagine these cases proceeding. What is interesting is that the coup group did not rush the cases through the courts while they remained in power. Decisions are being made in the post-coup climate with a pro-Thaksin government in power. All law is political of course, and so is a determination to act according to evidence in cases involving political elites (especially so when such an act is not in conformity with past traditions). I have an open mind on the current cases, but I recognise too (as outlined in my “perverse” article) the irregularities and coup-driven nature of the process. There is of course a solution to this. The current Attorney General of the elected government could review all the cases and determine whether to proceed. This has actually partly happened. I assume Somsak’s solution is for all the cases against Thaksin to be closed down.

  This is also the second time that Somsak has compared the current situation to the struggle between parliamentary democracy and fascism. I don’t think the reference describes the situation in Thailand at all.

  On another point, I apologise for saying that Somsak supported the massacres in the South; I should have written that he has defended them. I assume he does not support them, though I don’t think he has made a statement to that effect. Apologies, too, if I am wrong on that. However, were he to examine the facts he would see that there is reason to believe that acts of extra-judicial murder were committed. Those acts need to be examined every bit as much as the barbaric acts of October 1976.

• 19 Frank G Anderson // Aug 4, 2008 at 9:38 am

  4 August 2008
  I don’t want to be a spoil-sport for those who oppose Thaksin and his methods, but giving too much credit where it is not due may not serve needed reform’s purpose.
  The other elites who got together to remove Thaksin were not doing it for altruistic reasons or benevolence to their subjects. Getting him out was the result of a wrestling match between ego and power on the one side, and willpower and loyalties on the other. Thaksin possibly miscalculated, as do most people of such personal aura when they think they can accomplish what Alexander failed to do. Thailand is a bit of microcosm of the planet, and Thaksin might have misjudged how complex things were here (underestimated HM’s influence and willingness of most Thais to continue to live as subjects rather than citizens).
  Thaksin was, in short, ousted with a slap on the wrist because he went too far without lip-service to those who have also gone too far in their own ways and who won’t let power out of their hands.
  Since lese majeste charges and professions of loyalty to the monarchy seem to work so well under any circumstance, it was not that difficult for groups like Sondhi’s PAD to come up and help organize reactionary resistance to Thaksin’s ’system.’
  None of this makes things right or good, of course. Thais I have spoken with in private, who were willing to open up, have in fact indicated that perhaps a different kind of setup here, with a president instead of the existing parliament, would be good for Thailand.
  The PAD, to me, seems both an aberration and innovation. For the first time, a determined group of Thais are banding together to protest against corrupt government. The unfortunate part is that they are using the monarchy as the vanguard. It’s more unfortunate because it is necessary - how else to gain in your position other than to profess royal loyalty?
  Thousands of people literally living on the road surface, undergoing searing daytime heat and torrents of rain, listening to things that the Thai political process just won’t allow to occur in general public media, says a lot. That these people are by the vast majority not being paid for what they do is another testament to their behavior and mission.
  No, they are far from holy, but they are crusaders. I am for people who stand up and call a spade a spade. But will it get things done, inhibit or accelerate reform? That Thais need to think outside the shell has been evident for a long time. Even the King has said this, although those with the guns and those who order the shooting don’t seem to feel any rushing need to take the hint.

• 20 Frank G Anderson // Aug 4, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  Webmaster:
  I wonder if this item on editing et. al relates to my last comments or is a general reminder to all or is a CYA-type thing just to make sure bases are covered…
  No offense, just wondering.
  To the general readership, I am not an advocate of censorship-free publication or speech. Everyone should use discretion and steer clear of things that are going to drag others down - for example, posting child or other types of pornography on line - but I am also against censorship in general by regimes who are bound by law, ethics, morality etc. to permit free speech. Sometimes one man’s meat is another man’s poison. The ACLU, for example, advocates many unpopular causes that seem to go against the flow of traditional values, often mine. But I think the editing/rejecting of offensive, etc., material might not be a bad note to include because it reminds people on the one hand and is a statement of intent on the other.
  Thanks.
  FGA

• 21 Nicholas Farrelly // Aug 4, 2008 at 3:46 pm

  Frank,

  No, nothing to do with you…it is just a general (and gentle) reminder. And it is merely a reflection of the appoach we are taking to the large volume of comments that New Mandala receives. With countless different voices finding a forum on the site each week it makes sense to clarify our comments policy.

  As any regular reader would already know — we emphasise robust debate and conversation. We also want the focus to remain on the issues of the day, and not to be sidetracked to the point of distraction.

  Best wishes to all,

  Nich

• 22 Frank G Anderson // Aug 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm

  Skype invitation:
  I am going to reopen a skypecast on the LM subject today, Thai time around 21:00 hrs. (7 pm)
  Anyone who wishes to join please go to Skype On Now to find the Skypecast. go to On Now or Lese Majeste in Thailand. You should be able to get in right away.
  Just an idea in case anyone wants to literally discuss the issue…and is brave enough…
  Frank

• 23 karmablues // Aug 4, 2008 at 4:41 pm

  Re #21:

  Webmaster:

  I am rather intrigued by the new NM policy of censorship. Since the policy is stated in very broad terms it would be useful to have a better idea of what is allowed and what is no longer allowed.

  So could you please advise whether the following comments which I had previously posted in NM, would be subject to censorship or editing under the new regime:

  1. ok, so the Article is once again very “academically” (ie. here in NM means pro-Thaksin propoganda) written

  2. Just a few comments to gets things going (strange the “neutral” bloggers here don’t seem to think the tax case is big news… hmmm, anyways…)

  3. Here, the line seems to be: “NM belongs to us (academics)! Other people (infantile, dumb, unintelligent, royalist, elitist, proto-facist, nationalists, etc.) should stay out of here!”

  4. Not wanting to reveal oneself as a Thaksinite, is a case of well placed shame, I would say. But never mind, since you are not one anyways especially since Thaksin represents the “dark side” of the folk tale srinthanochai character, whereas you have attested to liking the “lighter side” version, yes, yes, so definitely you would not see Thaksin as your hero, since he is the “wrong” type of srinthanochai.

  Please advise individually on items 1 - 4 above whether those kind of comments would be allowed or not. I think it will help the readers have a better idea of the new policy also.

• 24 manning sawwinner // Aug 4, 2008 at 4:45 pm

  Thank you Observer #543. Your comment is very much to the point. Thaksin can never win in a Thai court. It would be best for him to reside outside Thailand for the time being.

• 25 Nicholas Farrelly // Aug 4, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  Thanks Karmablues,

  There will be no long and drawn-out debate about what you, quite incorrectly, call a “policy of censorship”.

  Just to clarify…if you discuss the issues, introduce interesting material, provide for thoughtful debate, write something a bit humorous, have a witty aside, defend a useful argument, or do anything else of value then I can, of course, almost guarantee your contribution will, as soon as possible, be posted to New Mandala. In all other cases — where the material is judged “offensive, irrelevant, overly repetitious or involves personal attack” — then all bets are off.

  This is hardly surprising. In fact, it is hardly a new policy at all.

  At this stage, the explicit statement alongside “please note” seems the best solution for a rapidly growing website like this. What we hope to avoid is a vapid, pointless site, populated by yes-men (and women), filled with boring rants and even more tiresome choruses of approval. We love the debate and discussion — we just want to make sure that we set a worthwhile standard for the site as a whole.

  Here at New Mandala we host lively and interesting discussions every day of the year. And right now, we are working towards making the site even better. With that in mind, we appreciate your interest and contributions.

  Best wishes to all,

  Nich

• 26 Frank G Anderson // Aug 4, 2008 at 6:01 pm

  See Witpedia’s http://censorship.wikia.com/wiki/Index

  I think some of the things to consider vis-a-vis censorship include whether material is constructive or destructive, whether it is good for the public or bad for the public, whether it is likely to become part of a lessening of the human condition more than a betterment thereof.
  There’s always those who challenge any kind of censorship by laying recrimination on censors by saying who is censoring the censors, etc.
  the central issue is not censorship per se but what people think, say and do in its partial absence, then in its total absence. That is, to have absolute freedom to first think, then say, then do. Obviously chaos would eventually ensue as some people, undoubtedly, are of the opinion that even if it means the end of the universe they should have the right to do what they feel is their right. This is a common sci-fi theme.
  Roget’s Thesaurus provides the follow synonyms for censor (n) reviewer, critic, faultfinder, watchdog - VT expurgate, delete, cut, edit, suppress, muzzle, silence. Other words can obviously be included such as condemn, erase, eliminate, control, filter, etc. The range of what censorship is, what it means and why it exists varies considerably, and in reality certainly more toward the site of those who oppress than those who would grant us freedom.
  On the other hand, and not to belabor the point, those who advocate total absence of censorship are placing themselves at the extreme supposition where such freedom would not cause needless harm to others - which it obviously would, and does even today. On Skype, for example, I censor my Skypecasts with a written warning not to use the F word or other crass swearing, cussing and insulting others. Anyone violating the censorship rules gets cut off and blocked. This is a microcosm example, but it illustrates a contract relationship among those who want information and those with it, and those who have the facilities and power to allow it to pass, as well as the power to edit, block or alter the information.
  The topic is so old and researched that Ph.D.s are awarded in the area and course in university are taught, etc. Censorship has changed over the years in different societies, under different circumstances and under different rules and demands for more open vs. more closed societies.
  That New Mandala has a censorship policy I believe is not quite accurate; it is more akin to an editorial policy that includes, as any editorial policy in any publication, the right and power to edit and censor. Not speaking on behalf of the Webmaster, it still seems that a word to the wise was what was intended. Now, who are the wise?

• 27 Sidh S. // Aug 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm

  Khun Manning, maybe you dismissed the Thai courts too easily. I have attached the judges reading in Thai for you to comb through and analyze in detail for judiciary bias:

  คำพิพากษา คดีภาษีหุ้นชินฯ in
  http://www.thairath.co.th/promote/lawsuit.php

  Besides you can also go into Jonathan Head’s original article and he states:

  “All the cases were quite technical, alleging the kind of business and political transgressions which some would regard as routine in Thailand.”

  It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong), an aim of the 1997 Constitution is to set new precedence and lessen these routine “business and political transgressions” in the set up of (the then) seemingly robust and rigourous checks-and-balances.

  In fact, the checks-and-balances actually worked very well for the first few years with relatively little “politicization” and laudable performances by the Electoral Commission, Counter Corruption Commission and Constitutional Court to name a few. We have to remember that the most powerful politician during the Chuan II government, MajGen.Sanan Krajornprasat was convicted (in 1999 I understand) of assets concealment, exactly the same allegations that PMThaksin was exonerated for in 2001 (the judiciary branch’s lowest point, I argue - and the begining of rampant “politicization” of the bureaucracies, including the military which, knowing its history, PMThaksin should have known better).

  We also have to remember that Kamnan Poh was highly influential in a previous Thaksin cabinet (his son held a high profile ministerial post) when he was convicted by the courts - as was Vatana Asavaheme when the courts accepted the Khlong Dan case.

  Where I am disappointed (as noted by many comments) is that all these people have (and will) manage to escape punishment. It is, again, the case of one rule for the elites/those with connections and another for all others (where’s justice for the many victims of the War on Drugs, grassroots activists like KhunCharoen Wataksorn or the recent Matichon reporter raised by Jonfernquest in #15). Remember that high profile political assasinations is extremely rare (so PMThaksin was never really under threat as he claimed - and he is probably quite aware of that). Although we have an unprecedented very high profile conviction, it is a safe bet that they won’t serve their jail term.

  I would say that the judiciary branch are now “doing their jobs” as they are expected to. I won’t go so far as Jonathan Head here who classified it as “royal backing” specifically to pursue PMThaksin. It is, however, a royal reminder - such as that received by PMSamak and his ministers when he sworn in or the recent expression of support by HMK. If only they “do their jobs” according to the written law of the day and for the best interests of all Thais…

• 28 matty // Aug 5, 2008 at 10:49 pm

  “In Thailand, even an immensely popular and wealthy politician like Thaksin Shinawatra cannot match the authority wielded by the king.”

  But of course that is stating the obvious. There is no man or woman in Thailand who could match the popularity and authority of HMK period.

  “If the courts are now showing unprecedented steadfastness in pursuing Mr Thaksin, it could well be because they believe they have royal backing.”

  The last sentence is the generally argued presumption on the matter of Thaksin/Potjaman’s and TRT’s past and ongoing judicial woes.

  Had there been no coup and Thaksin managed to cling to power (despite the already many known serious transgressions committed by Thaksin & gang), would the Thai courts still be bold, and yes with HMK’s encouragement and backing? I would say yes, but only with royal backing of course considering Thaksin’s paranormal abilities to influence judges.

  In a sense we can almost all agree that Thaksin still managed to cling to power up to now, despite the coup, because his nominee Samak is PM and his former TRT men continues to hold still the reins of power. There thus exist a tug of checks-and-balances that is working well and Thai justice is/was being served, therefore to Thaksin & cronies above.

  And there is no argument that Thaksin & cronies were tried by ‘kangaroo courts’. Of course not! The judicial processes were carried out religiously above board and people only have to read the many judiciary lengthy decisions on every Thaksin/crony case to get the impression that justice was served fairly without judicial bias.

  Now ask me in a few year’s time when Thailand has a new monarch whether or not the Thai judiciary could still be independent, fair and bold . . . But perhaps that is why the perciptible urgency NOW to complete all the many pending judicial cases against Thaksin & his cronies.

• 29 Not Ji's fan // Aug 6, 2008 at 6:03 am

  Somsak #12: “(Ji) advocate the sort of politics that sees no difference between bourgeois parliamentary politics and bourgois dictatorship. Since they are both bourgeois, let oppose them both! (see that part of his article on two ‘types’ of bourgeois rules where it implies no difference).”

  I don’t think this is a correct or fair characterisation of Ji’s political stance. He certainly sees the difference, as he has been among the loudest voices against dictatorship and for parliamentary politics. Evidence is plenty. Most people here know this well.

  Either Somsak misread or misrepresented Ji, I don’t know. But it is too convenient for Somsak to dismiss all other clear evidence of Ji’s opposition to dictatorship, but to rest his argument on “part of (Ji’s) article” that fits his mis-characterisation of Ji.

  This technique of debating seems common on many webboards these days.

  Whether or not we agree with Ji, we should be fair to him and we can respect his position without having to employ with this technique in making an argument.

• 30 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Aug 6, 2008 at 4:44 pm

  Reply to #29
  See Ji’s article on the monarchy, Thai version (the English version distributed here doesn’t contain the paragraphs I’m talking about) at:
  http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ID=11011&Key=HilightNews
  especially the last 6-7 paragraphs.

  Read in the context of the whole article which suggests (as his stance throughout 2006-8) that the two sides are the same, are equally bourgeois-capitalist. What’s remarkable in these passages is there’s no understanding the difference between different types of rule by the rulling elites or the different fractions among them. The emphases throughout, to put in bruntly, is “they are both equally bad, let oppose them both (at all times, places, in all cases).

  Also compared with Thongchai’s article I mentioned above that, though - like Ji - sees the monarchy as bourgeois-capitalist, reaches political conclusion vastly diffently.

  This technique of debating seems common on many webboards these days.
  

  Yes, indeed! You just provide a perfect example.

Leave a Comment