Showing posts with label Thai Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thai Media. Show all posts

Monday, March 15, 2010

Two polities, one ungovernable state


The Bangkok Post is reporting some simply bizarre protest numbers that the Ministry of Interior (MoI) is trying to flog.

46,377 in total with "23,569 red-shirts were from the Northeast, 11,127 from the North, 4,190 from the central region, 3,667 from the East, 2,990 from the West and 834 from the South."

While wildly low, they are also unbelievably detailed to the exact number and location.

While I would put my own first-hand estimate at 200,000+, I think the important thing to remember is that the MoI is probably not floating such imaginatively low numbers for the foreign media or for those who can literally see how absurd their estimate is, but they are likely using their apocryphal numbers for the blissfully ignorant Bangkok middle class.

Watching Thai television this evening, it is remarkable that while the streets are teeming with anti-government protesters, Thai TV is filled with soap operas and game shows.

The news and political talk shows are nearly void of images from the protest and completely void of representatives of the red shirts or dialog on issues fueling red shirt grievances.

Should middle class Bangkok residents chose either their ASTV or government/military media, they might simply remain ignorant of the storm brewing in their city.

Far removed from the soring high-rises, luxury cars, and pleasantly cooled shopping malls is a political movement sown in economic and judicial inequality and the out-right theft of citizens democratic franchise.

The reds are organized, they have an established ideology, and they are growing.

The MoI's hopeful and imaginative numbers are analogous to the hopeful and imaginative idea that the whole red shirt movement is simply a bunch of bumpkins duped and paid by Thaksin.

How long Bangkok will try to sweep the reds away with the trinity of the Military, the Judiciary, and the Democrats remains anyone's guess.

Currently, there is a clearly distinguishable failure of Bangkok based elites to come to grips with the morally questionable suppression of rural voters.


And until the power-brokers in Bangkok begin to negotiate and address the grievances that the reds have, Bangkok and Thailand will remain two very different polities within one ungovernable state.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

The Daily Dose



From Voice TV comes an English language news show called the Daily Dose. I particularly like the show's lead story on an Asia Times story Reds ready to rumble in Thailand which they describe as:

"Reds ready to rumble in Thailand By Nelson Rand and Chandler Vandergrift in Atimes.com had some keen insights into the army's (sic).

These are several key phrases from the article which is worth a read.The military effectively suppressed April's UDD protest, but questions are emerging about possible cracks in the chain of command. While Thailand's military has long been factionalized along graduating class
lines, it is now also believed to be divided among competing units, according to experts."


Monday, November 23, 2009

Simple lies by Anupong




View of Narathiwat from a Black Hawk helicopter. November 12, 2009.




(This post was originally called 'fisking Anupong' until it was brought to my attention that there is another definition for fisking...who knew?!)

I personally don’t like unpacking questionable statements and articles in the news because it is time consuming.

Yet sometimes, an article is so littered with politician’s blatant lies and journalistic incompetence that it simply begs to be deconstructed.

The Bangkok Post’s recent article Army takes a hard line with rebels is a case in point:

PATTANI : The army has shot down a call to negotiate with insurgents to end conflicts in the restive South.

Army chief Anupong Paojinda said no talks would be held with separatist groups during his tenure, which ends in September next year. "We won't negotiate with them. But we will take legal action against them," he told the Bangkok Post.

NS: Anupong is simply lying, negotiations have been an ongoing, but largely a secretive process, since Surayud was installed as Prime Minister.

"They have to be brought to trial for having murdered innocent people," said Gen Anupong, who accompanied Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban on a trip to inspect government development projects in Pattani and Narathiwat last week.

NS: In this context, the Royal Thai Army also needs to be “brought to trial for having murdered innocent people” considering the long list of victims in the Tak Bai incident or prominent cases like Iman Yapa.

Gen Anupong was reacting to calls by Puea Thai chairman Gen Chavalit Yongchaiyudh to negotiate with separatist groups to end the violence.

Gen Chavalit has also proposed an amnesty for militants in the three Muslim-dominated provinces.

Since violence resurfaced in the region six years ago, it has claimed almost 4,000 lives.

The Internal Security Operations Command believes 8,000-10,000 insurgents are active in the deep South. The insurgents took shelter in more than 200 villages in the so-called red zone and used pondok schools as a base to carry out attacks against civilians and state officials, it said.

"The insurgents want to separate our land and set up an autonomous area," the army chief said.

NS: This is a serious problem on two levels. If it is a translation problem then it is simply shoddy reporting by the Bangkok Post. But if it is what Anupong said, it is still shoddy reporting because he is clearly obfuscating issues and a professional journalist should have questioned this or at least qualified it by stating in the next sentence that Anupong was either confused or being purposely deceptive.

As for Anupong, and taking that he actually meant what he said, he is simply being a shifty liar. Separatism and autonomy are very different issues. Separatism would result in an independent state while an autonomous area would not violent the ‘one and unitary’ condition of the constitution, would not divide the nation (แบ่งชาติ), and would simply devolve local governance powers and decision making to the border provinces….much like Bangkok enjoys.

They carried out attacks to draw international attention to their "plight".

But the army leader said that the southern violence was a domestic issue that could be solved by the government alone.

NS: International attention is not exactly a major factor in southern militants’ tactics, but it is a major fear of Thai elites who are ever fearful that their prolonged incompetence in addressing the southern conflict will ultimately draw in the international community. But, this quote does allow Anupong to repeat the standard line that ‘conflict is a domestic issue’ and everyone should simply forget about it.

No other countries, including fellow members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, had offered themselves as brokers in talks between the government and the separatist groups.

NS: It is common knowledge that Malaysia (while not an honest broker as they are a stakeholder in the conflict) and Indonesia have offered to broker talks.

Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia plans to tour the three southernmost provinces with Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva early next month. The trip is intended as a show of Malaysian support for Thailand's efforts to tackle the violence.

NS: WTF?! Is this article an opinion piece from the self-deluded Nation or Manager? Malaysia might support the military’s declarations that they will not violent human rights but the Malaysian PM is certainly accountable to his own constituents who are critical of the Thai military’s heavy handed tactics. In addition, Razak floated the idea of autonomy which flip-flopper Abhisit initially supported but has since backtracked on. But really, the key point of the trip by Razak will be to show his constituents that he is pressuring Thailand to treat the Malay-Muslim minority in the Deep South with some dignity and respect for their rights and CERTAINLY NOT as a show of support.

Gen Anupong said no Asean members would interfere in the southern issue. NS: Yes, we got the message already, an internal issue. The army had no plan to withdraw troops from the area. There are 20,000 soldiers, 18,000 police and 40,000 defence volunteers providing security for two million people in the deep South.

NS: This is more complicated given the number of irregular troops.

As i understand it, it is higher and goes like this:

In addition to the 20,000 soldiers and 18,000 police there are 50, 000 village defence volunteers (ชรบ), 10,000 rangers (ทหานพราน), 20,000 defense corps (อรบ) and 6,000 Or Sor (อส which are well armed troops who are full time paid soldiers under command of the Ministry of Interior and the only ‘volunteer’ part of their work is that they are not conscripted). This total of armed state-sanctioned forces is at about 124,000 depending on a couple of variations. This rough works out to 1 state-armed person per 20 residents in the Deep South.

"We will not abandon people to live alone. Without us, how could they survive?" Gen Anupong said.

NS: Who is he abandoning and who would not survive? Clearly it is not the 80% Malay-Muslim population that he is talking about but the 20% Thai-Buddhist population and these kind of black and white comments are simply pandering to the nation by employing empty but emotional nationalist rhetoric.

He had told border officials to keep a close watch on people with dual Thai-Malaysian nationality as he believed many were involved in attacks in the deep South.

Security experts believe militants with dual nationality carry out attacks there, then flee to neighbouring Malaysia to avoid being caught.

NS: Case in point of the nonsense about Malaysian PM going to show ‘support for Thailand's efforts’. If Razak was supportive of Thai efforts then he would cooperate at the border on security issues and take action against suspected militants retreating into Malaysia.

The question of how to tackle assailants with dual Thai-Malaysian nationality will be tabled for talks between the two leaders when Mr Najib is visiting here, officials say.

Gen Anupong also criticised "the Pattani model" pushed by Gen Chavalit as a solution to the violence.

Gen Chavalit has proposed a form of elected self-government for the region, similar to the way Bangkok is run.

He says the government is deliberately misinterpreting his call as advocacy for an independent Pattani state, which he opposes.

NS: Yes, certainly. As Anupong did above and I mentioned here, it will be easy for the opposition to misrepresent what autonomy is.

He was not proposing separatism, just self-government. Gen Anupong, however, said the details were still unclear and had led to misunderstanding among southern residents.

" I don't understand exactly what Gen Chavalit is advocating. Further discussions are needed. I believe he has a hidden agenda," he said.

NS: More obfuscating the issues and simple lies by Anupong. ‘A hidden agenda’? Obviously it is a clear agenda to flummox Abhisit’s embattled and ineffective government. But what might be ‘hidden’ is potential long term solution to the intractable southern insurgency.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Thaksin on state media

Portraits of the evil one for sale outside Government House 2009.

From the Bangkok Post titled: Broadcaster broadsided for airing Thaksin interview

"State-run media company MCOT Plc is coming under fire after its radio station broadcast an interview with ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in which he said he was ready to negotiate with all sides of politics.

Thaksin gave the interview yesterday on the radio programme Exclusive by Chom (sic )Phetpradab which airs on MCOT's FM 100.5, upsetting Deputy Prime Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey, who is in charge of state media.

Mr Sathit questioned how Thaksin's interview was allowed to go to air on a state radio station".

While Mr Sathit is questioning how Thaksin's interview was on a state radio news program, I think the real question is; why has Thaksin NOT been on the state media?

I know the government and yellows like to make Thaksin out as the true evil one who seeks to destroy Thailand but that is, of course, political rhetoric.

What is a fact is that he is a legitimate news maker and it is a disgrace that the state media has barred him from the airwaves.

This is not a red or yellow issue, not a pro or anti-Thaksin issue, this is a press freedom issue.

Thaksin is the former Prime Minister, remains a political force, and is therefor a legitimate news maker.

I personally think Thaksin is a dirty lying scumbag, but if all dirty lying scumbags were barred from the news there would be almost no news from Government House and Parliament.

In the interview, the host asked Thaksin questions over his feelings towards the monarchy, over corruption, his unusual wealth, and whether he was concerned with harming the country by persisting in politics.

Considering these allegations are persistently leveled at Thaksin, this is legitimate news.

The radio host, Jom ("Chom" should really be spelled "Jom" as his name is จอม) Phetpradab, is not in the pro-Thaksin camp either. In fact, in next week's show - if not fired by then - he will be interviewing coup-maker Sonthi Boonyaratgalin.

Back in 2007, while working for TITV, Jom tried to air an interview with Thaksin for the same reasons. It was just after the elections and Thaksin's opinion on the PPP victory was legitimate news.

In 2007, Jom was fired for his efforts and it is likely to happen again.

And this highlights the sad reality of state controlled media, its not free or fair and only reports one side of the very complex political problems facing the country.




Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Gunman kill 11 in Mosque - Media and PM Lose the Plot

*All PHOTOS COPYRIGHT*

Solider at a mosque in Banang Sata District of Yala back in 2007.


Dramatic events with the mosque shooting in the South (BBC story here) and I am not sure if this should be a rant at the pitiful English-language Thai media, criticism over Abhisit's misguided optimism, or a general commentary about the abysmal situation in the Deep South so it will have to be all three.

On the Media:
Specifically the Bangkok Post's lame story Gunmen kill 11 at mosque: Updated

When 'Suspected militants' kill 11 and injure another 12 people it might be a good idea to question who the 'Suspected militants' are.

Are Buddhist militias to blame, is there factional fighting amongst insurgents like the RKK or BRN-C, are villagers striking back at militants, is it a blood feud, was it overzealous village defense volunteers, a business hit, or troops taking revenge for a previous militant attack in the area?

The point is there are a number of possibilities and it is important to get at the truth.

Instead of simply quoting the army spokesman (which i presume they mean 4th Army spokesman) saying "They are trying to make it look like the attackers are the authorities, because Muslims would apparently not shoot inside a mosque. But it's impossible that it is the work of the military,''

Why is it impossible that is it the work of the military? That might be a good starting point for the media to ask because one of the MOST LIKELY sources of well armed and highly mobile attackers who would shoot up a mosque would be some pissed off troops or those who receive weapons and support from the military!

How about ask the villagers, ask the victim's families, ask the bystanders, ask the village defense volunteers, ask other military units, hell, you might even ask the police!

(on a side note, I did call a local resident in Pattani who said villagers blame Thai-Buddhist militants and I tend to believe this theory which leads to the question of whether there will be revenge attacks on Buddhists in the next few weeks...but that is a whole other conversation.)

On PM Abhisit:
Specifically: PM visits Malaysia for talks on southern unrest

"We remain optimistic that things will get a lot better if we continue emphasizing economic development and giving them a better future," he said.

Yes, this was two days before the mosque shooting.

And what misguided whimsical fantasy did Abhisit base his optimism on?

"Let me reiterate that my government's approach is based on the belief that the key to peace and security is justice and opportunities," he said.

If he really believes that then Abhisit has lost the plot of the southern insurgency.

Justice is simply the lowest common denominator that most people can agree upon about the South. Really, who can really argue against justice?

Sure, justice and opportunities (presuming that these are the economic/development type of opportunities) are nice but that is not the southern storyline that the PM should be following.

How about political empowerment or a substantial devolution of state powers that gives southern residents the power to lead and develop their own communities as they see fit?

But I guess Abhisit is following the ultra-conservative military/royalist/bureaucratic fantasy which imagines that 'benevolent' and 'enlightened' leaders should be sent from central Thailand to rule over the 'backwards rural Muslims' and kindly giving them justice and opportunities. How kind of them.

That is an old Thai fantasy and recently appeared, albeit in a lite-version, with the National Reconciliation Commission's report in May 2006 and was most recently and heavily propagated by Surayud's ultimately useless efforts at addressing the southern conflict.

It is a fundamentally flawed fantasy and should no longer be told to the public as some sort of feel good bed-time-story where the situation is really not that bad and some good people will come along and sort this mess up.

On the Abysmal State of the Deep South:

If the Prime Minister doesn't seem to have a clue about the core grievances in the South and the Thai media are largely uninterested in investigating and reporting on events there then the abysmal state of the Deep South is rather implicit.

Yet what is not immediately implicit is that the authorities and the general public seem unprepared to admit the seriousness of the situation in the South and this is a serious harbinger of the future of the conflict.

If the media and the PM have lost the southern plot, then Thai society is years away from grappling with the social and political concessions needed to build a durable and lasting peace.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Local media no longer feeling the Southern Fire

*All Images Copyright*
Flying over Yala Province courtesy of a development project tour conducted by the 4th Army August 2008.


From the Bangkok Post titled 11 Militant strikes in Narathiwat:

"There were 11 incidents attributed to southern separatist militants in five districts of Narathiwat province on Sunday night, but there were no deaths or injuries. Police said on Monday that bombs were planted in two locations in Waeng district. In Joh Airong district, insurgents set fire to a school and planted bombs in four places. The militants set fire to two transmission posts for cell phones in Ra-ngae district. In Bacho, they destroyed a power plant, causing a blackout of the entire district. A transmission post for cell phones was also burnt down in Janae district, and cell phone signals were cut in some areas. Police and soldiers were deployed to inspect the affected areas."

While it is clear that the insurgency in the Southern Border Provinces is not going away, it is also clear that the local media have lost interest in the story.

Southern militants on Sunday night demonstrated their strength and logistical capabilities by launching 11 coordinated attacks across the province of Narathiwat.

Local media demonstrated their disinterest by dedicating a parsimonious 7 sentences to the event.

While the Thai press has always been Bangkok-centric, there used to be a considerable media presence in the Deep South in the early years of the insurgency (2004-6).

TV stations, like the old I-TV, used to have satellite trucks and reporters permanently camped out at the CS Pattani Hotel who reported daily on the southern crisis.

Now, news gathering is almost exclusively from local stringers whom simply collect the basic facts from military spokesmen and forward that info to Bangkok where it is hastily organized into simplistic stories like the one quoted above.

In depth reporting on the sources of grievance, the lives of residents, or interviews with militants have all disappeared and local media complain that there is 'nothing new to report on' in the South.

Long gone is the national debate on solutions for and goal of understanding the conflict. This was apparent by late 2006, after the recommendations of the National Reconciliation Commission drifted out of national discourse, local reporting on the south became little more than simple reports detailing violent incidents.

Disinterest in the southern insurgency might seem inevitable while Bangkok and whole country is caught in the tumultuous ebb and flow of the Red vs Yellow political conflict.

Yet there is now a slight lull in the national conflict and the Abhisit Government appears to have weathered the latest storm.

There is even some discussion on reforming Government policy on the South.

While the lull in national conflict and window of opportunity for policy change might not last long, it would be nice to see the local media revive their interest and begin to regenerate debate on solving the Southern conflict.

Otherwise, the conflict will perpetually simmer and 11 violent incidents will continue to earn a mere 7 sentences in the local press.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Citizen, journalist, or simply an plain-clothes soldier?

Both Thai Rath and Channel 3 were reporting a story of residents attacking a Red Shirt protester because they were enraged because protesters had hijacked and parked an LGP tanker outside their apartments.

Yet the photograph used to illustrate the Thai Rath story is highly questionable. Not only is the location wrong but the Thai Rath front page image had clearly been photoshopped removing the camera and camera bag to support the 'citizen' aspect. The Bangkok Pundit has a summary and Pantip has the pictures, as does Prachatai.

The photos on left show two unedited photos with the camera bag and camera visible while the bottom image, which was used on the front page of Thai Rath, the camera and bag have been edited out.

While Thai Rath's photo altering certainly supports accusations that they are providing biased reporting of the news to fit an anti-Red Shirt slant, I witness the event and dont believe it was a photographer or citizen.

The 'journalist' was likely not a journalist. He did have a camera - as did many people there - but he did not carry prominently placed ID that all Thai and international media display when working in such an environment. Two Thai journalists who also witnessed it also claimed that he was not a journalist.

But, he also did not appear to be a normal resident. He had merged into the crowd to confront the women by moving from behind the lines of troops, passing through the troops unobstructed and not from either side of the street which did have some citizens mingling about. When he attacked her, he dragged her by the hair back behind the lines of soldiers which parted on either side so he could pass freely behind military lines.

The image here shows the two Red Shirt women approaching the lines of troops and pictured at far left is myself.

This appears to me as a standard crowd control maneuver used to extract instigators seeking to escalate a protest. He certainly appeared to be working with complicit support from the troops.

The events unfolded very quickly and the journalist assembled would have been able to follow what happened next but the scuffle caused the opposing lines of Red Shirts to surge forward which caused the troops to start thumping their truncheons and shields, raise their weapons in the air, and it appear that the troops were on the cusp of a protest-breaking surge forward. The troops, the protesters, people on the sidelines, and the assembled media all turned their focus to what seemed like an impending large-scale clash rather following the fate of the unfortunate Red Shirt protester.

So, as I understand it, it was a simple but violent crowd control technique which then was unethically and inaccurate misrepresented by Thai Rath.

Friday, April 17, 2009

The first casualty is the truth

*All Photos Copyright*
Troops clearing the streets, and myself, close to Government House on the morning of Tuesday April 14th


Over at the Rule of Lords, Awzar Thi writes:

"What all this goes to show is not which side is to blame for the street blockades and bloodshed of the last few days, but how difficult it has become to believe Thailand’s media. Since 2006, when domestic news agencies and many overseas ones fell over each other to enthuse about the army’s latest power grab, the biases of newspapers, magazines and broadcasters have become more pronounced, their coverage more partisan, and their opinion-makers seemingly more sure of themselves even as things get less certain." ... "But instead of offering useful analysis, most newspaper space has been taken up with headlines jeering at the Red Shirts’ failed putsch accompanied by content-free commentary that has at best been infantile and at worst shameful."

How apt.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

PAD Thugs with Gun


In Thailand, the word 'mob' (ม็อบ) is often mistakenly used instead of the word 'protest' (ประท้วง).

I used to make a point to argue and correct this language use when friends and colleagues would mistakenly call a protest a mob. Especially so if they were reporters.

And there is good reason. A protest is a legitimate function of democracy while a mob is a crazed group of thugs bent on violence and destruction.

But when it is time to talk about the thoroughly anti-democratic People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), they are nothing short of an ugly mob of thugs bent on violence and destruction.

A mob is a mob, nothing more and everything less than democracy.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Vested Interests or Bad Journalism?



Its not exactly news that the press in Thailand has troubles.

Not only is the press severely curtailed by government manipulation and censorship but, a common complaint, is the obvious political bias.

The Thai press might see their role as a watch dog of public interest but the obvious question is; who owns the watch dog?

A logical answer to that question was proposed by academic Duncan McCargo who, in his book Politics and the Press in Thailand, wrote "...the Thai media is frequently the captive of various interests. Its trickiness derives not from its lack of loyalties, but from its multiple loyalties, the plurality of its obligations and the diversity of its stakeholders."

In addition, a lack of professionalism is also common in the press and, in particular, the English language press.

In what might be a combination of vested interests and sloppy work, The Nation offers its readers these contradictory side-by-side reports:


Apparently the Olympic torch relay was both 'trouble-free' as well as 'greeted with protest'.

Now, the question might be, is this simply a lack of professionalism or an attempt to placate diverse interests such as the paper's western readers and the Chinese business community?


Friday, March 7, 2008

"The following steps should NOT be taken"



Thanks to Not The Nation for the following helpful article on how to NOT bypass the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology's clumsy and ethically questionable attempts to censor the internet.

From Not The Nation:

The following steps should NOT be taken by those attempting to bypass the Ministry of Communication and Information’s blocking of websites

It is ILLEGAL to use this guide to quickly and easily access the world of free information on the internet. NTN provides this information in the public interest as a clear example of what not to do, right now.

  1. DO NOT log onto to www.torproject.org
  2. DO NOT download the latest package on this page: http://torproject.org/download.html.en.
  3. DO NOT open the file, which will automatically install all the software you need.
  4. DO NOT notice that a small icon now appears in your system tray, shaped like a small onion.
  5. DO NOT right-click the onion and select “Start” from the pop-up menu.
  6. DO NOT use the same menu to select “Message List” to see the Tor system slowly develop an anonymizing network.
  7. Once its tells you “A circuit has been built” DO NOT then enjoy safe, censorship-free surfing to banned sites such as YouTube and MindightUniversity.
  8. For even greater convenience, DO NOT download Mozilla Firefox, a superior web browser program available free at http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/ , and DO NOT then download an add-on called “Tor Button” here at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2275 that allows you to switch Tor on and off easily while browsing.
  9. If you do successfully download Tor, DO NOT keep a copy of the downloaded installation file which can be easily emailed as an attachment to all your friends or distributed on a CD-ROM or flash keychain drive.
  10. If the Tor download page is blocked, DO NOT seek out other similar services and software such as these: http://freenetproject.org/ or http://www.freehaven.net/ or http://marabunta.laotracara.com/english.php.
  11. If these services are not available, DO NOT do a Google Search for “anonymizer” or anonymity networks” and DO NOT learn more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anonymity_networks.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Dogs Don’t Give Birth to Humans, Coups Don’t Give Birth to Democracy


Immediately after the September 19th coup d'etat a considerable number of foreign journalists and academics in Bangkok showered praise upon the new military leaders.

Thaksin’s divisive and failing policies coupled with his grotesque arrogance were too much for most and anything, even the strong arm of the military toppling a democratically elected government, was deemed preferable to his prolonged tenure.

One of the few initial, and rather vocal, voices opposing the junta was Professor Giles Ungpakorn of Chulalongkorn University.

About a week after the coup Giles gave a particularly spirited attack against the junta while it was still unfashionable to do so.

While Bangkok's residents were still lining up to have their pictures taken with the flower draped soldiers Giles was at the Foreign Correspondents Club Thailand reprimanding the assembled foreign media and pro-junta academics.

Supporters of the coup were ‘tank liberals’ he claimed and rhetorically questioned whether academics that supported the coup would “all burn their Comparative Politics books and scrap all courses on ‘democratization’ in favor of teaching military science and tank maintenance?”

Giles’ academic wrath has now been focused into valuable new book titled A Coup for the Rich – Thailand’s Political Crisis.

The book is certainly ‘hot of the press’ but it’s not exactly for sale. It seems that Thailand’s supposedly prestigious Chulalongkorn University has opted for self-censorship and the school’s bookstore will not be selling the book.

What makes the book particularly worth reading is both the fact that its banning reflects the pathetic state of press freedom in Thailand as well as its blunt and open critique of Thai politics.

Giles lashes insightful criticism on almost everyone. The military, the pu yai (upper class), and even the monarchy are fair game.

Such criticism is not just refreshing in a country where open political discussion is extremely curtailed but it is essential if Thailand is to solve the on-going political crisis.

What Giles does best though is bring a clever, spirited, and serious challenge to Thailand’s increasingly confined political space.

His unprecedented questioning of the monarchy is nothing short of breath-taking.

In a climate of fear where any rational questioning of the monarchy has the very real possibility of leading to a prison term it is important to have an academic brave enough to raise important issues that are essential elements to resolving Thailand’s political quagmire.

The book does have flaws though. Giles follows a rather strict socialist ideology that tends to lionize the poor as free from the bigoted villainy of the upper class. Unfortunately, humanity's capacity for bad behavior spans all classes so poverty doesn't automatically result in higher morals values as the book often suggests.

But such criticism is limited. Not only has Giles initiated essential political dialogue that Thailand is starving for, but he initiates dialogue with a comedic flare that is often absent in the academic world.

While scolding the international media for our lackadaisical challenge to military rule he gave a wily smile and reminded us that dogs don’t give birth to humans, should we expect coups to give birth to democracy?

_________________________________

*As far as I know the only place to buy Giles' book is still from his office in the faculty of political science at Chulalongkorn. If anyone know's another source, please leave a comment and let us know.