The Conflict and the Farang

[Guest tdperhs]

"The time has come" the Walrus said,

"To speak of many things.

Of sailing ships and sealing wax,

Of cabbages and kings,

And why the sea is boiling hot,

And whether pigs have wings."

L. Carroll

 

I think it is time to begin taking this insurrection seriously in terms of how it effects us. Many people are expressing opinions on this forum that can get it in serious trouble.

 

I live in the northeast and I can tell you, these people are serious. The planting season is imminent and there is concern over whether or not there will be enough workers available for the new crops. That means that many people who normally work in the fields expect to be preoccupied, whatever that means in this context. And you know the government is not going to waive any limitations on the number of Lao or Cambodian workers to fill the void.

 

I don't believe anyone wants to involve farang in this conflict; but, when it comes down to it, opinions expressed by farang on any forum, and especially expressing the facts to support those opinions, can bring the wrath of God, Buddha, and the government down on us as individuals and as a forum. Those of us who live in Thailand will need this forum more as the conflict progresses to keep us up to date on the events that effect the farang community. The gay web sites are the best sources of information because gay people are more intelligent and intuitive when expressing and sharing their ideas (except, of course, when they disagree with me). Whatever anyone thinks of GB, and there are as many opinions as there are posters, there is more than ample evidence of his dedication to keeping us informed of matters that we need to know about. And there are many others: Fountainhall, z909, khortose, mauRICE,... just to name a few. But at some point we have to come to the realization that the government is not going to tolerate dissenting opinions from visitors. That means that, until the conflict is resolved, we should consider acting under some more stringent rules or build a second forum with those rules.

 

I choke on those words as I write them. Free expression is more sacrosanct to me than sex or breathing (not necessarily in that order). I have lost three jobs and got booted from one college for things I have written. Nobody ever accused me of lying or being obscene. Only incitement. But losing a job is not quite so bad as imprisonment or personna non grata. One personnel manager said to me,

[Gaybutton]

Can you be specific? I don't see any posts that I would think would bother the powers-that-be. Which posts do you have in mind?

[Guest]

Thank you tdperhs for the wonderful post. I do greatly appreciate it. If ever we cross a line, please let us know. We would be most appreciative.

[Guest Hedda]

But at some point we have to come to the realization that the government is not going to tolerate dissenting opinions from visitors. That means that, until the conflict is resolved, we should consider acting under some more stringent rules or build a second forum with those rules.

Sorry, but that kind of thinking really does aid and encourage governments to behave more like police states than striving democracies. It reinforces the climate of fear and intimidation on which authoritarian governments have thrived in this country for generations.

 

Obviously, we all have to choose for ourselves whether to publicly voice political opinions which clash with the propaganda that passes for news these days. The choice is a personal one, but one that can also expose a website to arbitrary government action. That's why I don't post here on Thai politics any more, given the fact that the "more stringent rules" your suggest are already being followed here.

 

The problem with censorship, voluntary or imposed, is that political discussions end up not much different than the party line you get from most Thai journalists or the talking heads on Thai TV. Indeed, when you rely on these biased sources for facts, you become nothing more than an extension of state-controlled propaganda, which is what some of the farangs on this board have become, perhaps without even realizing it.

 

I understand and respect this board's right to censor posts to avoid the chance of punitive government action, although I think that threat is vastly overstated by a few nervous nellies. But let's not kid ourselves; anyone who values free speech as the indispensable prerequisite for democracy, should know that any debate under such conditions can become a farce.

 

Consider this: The more that Thai governments are able to deprive their own citizens of their civil liberties with impunity, the more exposure we foreigners may face arbitrary government action. Living in a police state is far more dangerous than living in a state which has some sense of what due process means. If Thais can't trust the judicial system to dispense justice, where does that put us ?

 

There are over 140 Thais of some stature who have just had their bank accounts frozen because of their alleged complicity in financing terrorism. If the people running things think they can do that to men like former PM Chavalit, what makes you think some local politico with his eye on your business or property can't arrange to have it done to you too ? Silence never saved any lamb from a devil with designs.

[Guest fountainhall]

But let's not kid ourselves; anyone who values free speech as the indispensable prerequisite for democracy, should know that any debate under such conditions can become a farce.

I agree with much of Hedda's post. But I am somewhat concerned about the implications of the above suggestion. It smacks of long-established western ideas of democracy and democratic values. However, as we all know, there is no one democratic model, and here in Asia there is a variety of "democracies" which are treated as such by many in the international community but which do not bear much resemblance to those in the west and which, whilst paying lip service to free speech, do little more than just that.

 

There's Singapore. The peoples' wealth and general well-being have increased out of all recognition since independence, but is it democratic? Well, it holds regular elections. Sadly it has, I think, only one MP not belonging to the ruling party, and those who stand against that party are routinely harassed, often through the courts. Speak out against the ruling party and you get the same treatment. as many in the media have discovered to their cost. To all intents and purposes, it is a right wing dictatorship. Do the vast majority of Singaporeans care? Definitely not.

 

Or there's Hong Kong. Allegedly, all its freedoms are guaranteed by the Sino-British Declaration on the future of Hong Kong for 50 years after 1997. Are it's elections free and fair? Some, but not all. Can its people speak out on any issue? In theory, yes; in practice, no. But as with Singapore, only a tiny fraction of the population care. The Foreign Correspondent's Club, of which I happen to be a member. routinely argues for greater freedom of speech and the rights of journalists in the whole of China. When it comes to issues on the mainland, though, it rarely has any success.

 

This lack of completely free speech may upset some of us. But I do suggest that, no matter what our principles, we should always remember that we choose to live in Thailand (or other countries which are outside what I might generally term western-style democracies). No-one forces us to live here. So it is, I further suggest, wrong to think that our 'democratic' values have to be imposed on other peoples.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Amen to that.

[KhorTose]

Silence never saved any lamb from a devil with designs.

 

Well said by both Hedda and Tdperhs. Hedda while I agree with you and love your last line. (Reminds me of the old English expression, "One might as well be hung for sheep, then a lamb.") I feel I must take some exception to talking about the one subject you think we should talk about. Like it or not we are guest in this country, and we should obey the laws that are enforced. Like you, I do not like it at all, but at some point reality should kick in, and the reality is we are living in a country where this law is enforced. While we cannot talk about that subject, we can and should direct others to articles in the economist or other news sources that can talk about it.

[Gaybutton]

I further suggest, wrong to think that our 'democratic' values have to be imposed on other peoples.

I agree. You have all the free speech you want in Thailand. Free speech means you are entitled to voice criticism of the government without fear of penalty. But under Thai law it is a serious violation, a very serious violation to voice criticism of the monarchy. Thailand also has libel laws that differ from the libel laws of most western countries. Those kinds of posts are what we object to and will not permit.

 

What we are being asked by some to do is to permit this board to operate in violation of Thai law, thus placing the board owner and moderators at legal risk. That is something I absolutely refuse to do. If that makes me a "nervous nellie," then I'm a nervous nellie. I don't know anyone who posts on these boards qualified to interpret Thai law for me.

 

I've said it before and I'll repeat it now - there is no way I will tolerate being placed in legal jeopardy for the sake of message board posts. I have yet to ever see anything so profoundly important that it just cries out to be placed on a message board despite placing the board owners and moderators at risk.

 

If we are being asked to permit the envelope to be pushed so that political discussions don't have to be "farcical," then either don't have those kinds of discussions on this board or start your own board and you be the one who places yourself at risk. For some strange reason, I don't see very many of the critics starting their own boards.

 

I think it is quite well known that I have the greatest respect for Hedda, but I really don't think it will be very much help to me if the police come knocking at my door when I tell them, "But Hedda said it's ok." If such a thing ever happens, I'm sure the police will listen intently to my arguments - all the way downtown.

[Guest globalwanderer]

I value free speech, but recognize that you have to conform to the laws of the country you choose as your home. If you can't abide by the laws you want to live in then move on. The board owners and moderators have to ensure the board keeps within Thai law and survives. It offers a sure channel of information.

[Guest]

There's Singapore......

Or there's Hong Kong.

 

If we are looking for undemocratic democracies, what about the UK?

 

In the recent general election, the Conservatives failed to get a majority. Had Labour got the same percentage of the vote, they would have had a 120 seat majority.

This is the effect of not having all the seats the same size.

[Guest tdperhs]

You have all the free speech you want in Thailand. Free speech means you are entitled to voice criticism of the government without fear of penalty.

 

Didn't you used to have a web site w/forum? Whom did you offend?

 

This is not a good time for the guest to be criticizing the host. At such times as these, there is a greater sensitivity to criticism and we may find our right to free speech trumped by persona non grata. Furthermore, the current parliament is balanced so that the free speech clause could, if parliamenr so desired, be wiped right out of the constitution in a matter of hours.

 

You may think these cited comments relatively innocent, but how many times has a relatively innocent criticism spawned fierce arguments between members of this forum. It is not the thinking of the person doing the expressing that matters, it is the object of the criticism who must be dealt with, especially when he has absolute power.

 

Here are a few of the examples that GB asked for. They are preceded by a brief thought as to why they might be considered offensive. No names.

 

It is okay to publish that the Red Shirts are incompetent, but, when the power is trying to gain support for its actions, you take great risk by calling it incompetent.

I blame the government and the army as much as I do the hard core that is left of the protest movement. I believe what has happened in the last couple of days was bound to happen, given the constant flip flops and lack of leadership shown by everyone. It could - and should - have been anticipated, and measures put in place to counter it. All share the blame equally in my book. The vital factor now is that law and order have to be restored at the utmost speed. Only then can the inquests begin and those responsible have the book thrown at them.

 

L

[Bob]

While I can understand the serious concerns expressed here, there's also no need to overstate the importance to falang who live or visit here. Sure, it could theoretically get to the point where we're more directly involved but, so far, it's my view that the "situation" won't affect my decision to live and play in Thailand for most of the year.

 

And, no, I personally am not staying up late at night wondering if or when the Thai government is going to block or ban websites such as this one.

[Gaybutton]

Didn't you used to have a web site w/forum? Whom did you offend?

Everybody.

 

I don't see it the way you do at all. I see nothing problematic about any of the posts you cited, although I do agree that one of them is questionable.

 

Regarding my old board, I removed it when the powers-that-were suddenly started blocking web sites. For whatever reason, mine was the first one blocked. At the time, no one had any idea why my site was blocked. Then, next thing we knew the other gay web sites started getting blocked. Even my Thai attorney was unable to find out why these sites were blocked or who blocked them. To this very day we still don't know. Without knowing what was going on or why, I decided not to take any chances. Right or wrong, good idea or bad idea, that was my decision at the time, a decision I'm not so sure I would repeat today.

 

However, regarding the posts you cite I'm whistling in the wind. It's not my decision to make. GT owns this board. He is where the buck stops. He'll be the one to decide whether to agree with you or not and he'll be the one who decides whether to let those posts stand or whether to remove them. I'm not going to remove them because I don't see them as dangerous posts.

 

Don't forget, GT is looking for "a few good men" to join us as moderators. If you feel strongly about those posts, I would be delighted if you wish to join us as a moderator.

[Guest Hedda]

Unfortunately, some of the posts in this thread are like ships passing in a moonless night. One wonders if some of the responses were also typed in the dark.

 

To the folks whose stock answer to criticism of Thai democracy is to suggest that imposing the "western model" may not suit Thailand: No one is urging the government to do anything more than honor and enforce the Thai Constitution, composed by and for Thais. They're all in there, if you've bothered to read it, guarantees of free speech, free press and the right to assembly, signed and sealed by the King. Is it asking too much that the people who took an oath to enforce this constitution start doing just that ?

 

As for thperhs' call for more self-censorship,let's be clear that no one is suggesting that posters violate the Thai laws against lese majeste, which is limited by its terms to a few select royals. The concern I expressed in my post was that thperh's was suggesting what amounts to a de facto extension of lese majeste by stifling criticism of the Thai government because "at some point...the government is not going to tolerate dissenting opinions from visitors."

 

This call for censorship beyond the narrow limits of lese majeste is confirmed in thperhs' second post, which suggests that calling the government incompetent or refusing to label Thaksin a terrorist are dangerous things to do because it could offend some bureaucrat and get you banned or punished. In other words, it's fine to call the government's opponents any names you went, but zip your lip when it comes to criticizing Abhisit & Company.

 

The net results of this approach, of course, is to transform these farang posting boards into propaganda clones of the Thai media, devoid of ethical standards or intellectual honesty. Why bother to post at all about Thai politics if that's the end result ?

 

If integrity in posting means anything, is it not more appropriate to say and post nothing than to become a collaborator and mouthpiece for a government that millions of Thais regard as illegitimate ?

[Guest fountainhall]

If we are looking for undemocratic democracies, what about the UK?

 

In the recent general election, the Conservatives failed to get a majority. Had Labour got the same percentage of the vote, they would have had a 120 seat majority.

This is the effect of not having all the seats the same size.

I am not sure what your point is, as it is a fact that Labour failed to get the votes and the seats. The official results in terms of voting numbers are -

 

Conservative: votes - 10,706,647 / % of votes cast - 36.1% / seats - 306

Labour votes: 8,604,358 / % of votes cast - 29% / seats - 258

Liberal Democrat votes - 6,827,938 / % of votes cast - 23% / seats - 57

 

The idiotic result of the first past the post system is that it does not reflect the will of the majority, as the above results show (although the resultant coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats does represent a vast majority of voters). Plus we all know that George Bush in 2000 won with a minority of overall votes.

 

The fact is that many countries use the 'first past the post' system which means a President or Prime Minister is usually elected by well under 50% of the total population. And in some countries like the USA, 40% - 50% of the population do not even bother to vote.

 

If there is one good thing to come out of the British election, it is that the Liberal Democrats have exerted their influence to ensure there will soon be a referendum on changing the system to proportional representation.

[Guest]

The point I am making is the Conservatives need a much higher share of the vote than Labour to get the same number of seats. This is due to uneven sized constituencies, with boundaries drawn to suit Labour.

First past the post is perfectly reasonable. However what we had in England at the the previous 2005 election was "second past the post", where the Conservative party got more votes and something like 90 fewer seats. This time around, Labour would have a 120 seat majority if they were the ones with 36%. A dreadful thought, the IMF would already be discussing the bail out if that had happened.

PR means the Liberals would be in every government for the foreseeable future, which would be undemocratic.

 

 

 

As for Thai free speech, well there is one area where freedom of speech is clearly restricted. So Thais do not have all the free speech they want.

[Bob]

As for Thai free speech, well there is one area where freedom of speech is clearly restricted. So Thais do not have all the free speech they want.

 

 

I think you're wrong there, i.e., the vast majority (95%+) of Thais have all the free speech they want. While what they have may not pass the muster of western sensibilities, the vast majority of Thai citizens (just my view, I didn't take a poll) have neither the desire nor inclination to sling criticism at the King.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

I started coming here in 1995 and have lived here permanently since 2004 and I have NEVER heard a Thai make a negative comment of the King.

[Guest Hedda]

I started coming here in 1995 and have lived here permanently since 2004 and I have NEVER heard a Thai make a negative comment of the King.

 

I've been here a lot longer than that and I can say that I have rarely heard a Thai say anything negative about Thailand or anything Thai to any farang. Criticism of the country or "Kon Thai" is just not done in front of foreigners. If they have negative feelings, they just keep them to themselves. You can bet that, if they had anything negative to say about the monarch, they would not share it with any farang.

 

As for the free speech guaranteed by the Thai Constitution,the test of free speech is not whether most Thais love the monarch and don't care to criticize him. The test is whether a minority, however small, who have contrary opinions, are prevented from expressing them by risking imprisonment.

[Guest fountainhall]

The point I am making is the Conservatives need a much higher share of the vote than Labour to get the same number of seats. This is due to uneven sized constituencies, with boundaries drawn to suit Labour . . . PR means the Liberals would be in every government for the foreseeable future, which would be undemocratic

Sorry I misunderstood your earlier post. But what is wrong with PR? Several countries now adopt it - or something akin to it. Indeed, I believe it is used for a smallish number of Thailand's parliamentary seats. If the point of elections is to ensure the majority rule, surely PR is the only accurate judge of that?

[Guest fountainhall]

The test is whether a minority, however small, who have contrary opinions, are prevented from expressing them by risking imprisonment.

But surely rules are rules - however much you like or dislike them? In Singapore you will be heavily fined if you chew gum. I am sure a lot of people don't like this rule, but as one who has had gum stick to his pants as a result of a wad being left on the seat of a subway train, I can tell you I'm totally in favour. Same with free speech. In Singapore you risk quite severe penalties if you talk out openly on certain subjects. I have no scientific proof, but my guess is that 98% or more of the population are perfectly happy with this. So what right do we, as non-Singaporeans and therefore non-voters, have to criticise this? If we enjoy the hospitality of a country which is not our own, I suggest we have no right to meddle openly in the laws and practices of our host - no matter how much we may dislike them. What we do out of the public gaze is our own affair, but we are then totally responsible for the result of our actions.

[Guest Hedda]

But surely rules are rules - however much you like or dislike them?

I guess that means you support the imprisonment of that gay couple in Malawi for 14 years for the crime of being gay. Same goes for the death sentence in Saudi Arabia if you blaspheme the prophet. What would you think of a law that provided for castration of any man caught paying a Thai man for sex ? After all, rules are rules.

 

As for the notion that farangs are interfering in Thailand's internal matters by criticizing its government, Thailand is a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of which says:

 

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

 

Every time the current military government prevents me from accessing a web site by blocking it, it violates my rights under Article 19.I resent that and think it should stop. After all, rules are rules,and that includes Article 19.

[Guest fountainhall]

I guess that means you support the imprisonment of that gay couple in Malawi for 14 years for the crime of being gay. Same goes for the death sentence in Saudi Arabia if you blaspheme the prophet. What would you think of a law that provided for castration of any man caught paying a Thai man for sex ?

Come on! 'Rules are rules' does not necessarily mean you like them or support them. Personally, I detest both the above cases. Because of these laws, I would never live in Malawi or Saudi Arabia. End of discussion. But if it so happened that I did, whether I liked it or not, I would take a great deal of care in my sexual life.

 

I have not read the history of this Malawi case and so should not comment further on it. I will say one thing, though. I spent 11 years living in Hong Kong which then had a roughly similar colonial law on the statute books - although almost certainly more tolerant judges. Every year or two, someone would be given a jail term for 'sodomy'. Yet that did not stop many tens of thousands (o more) of men meeting each other for sex, many of whom also formed meaningful relationships. Sure, they would be taking a risk if they openly claimed to have enacted sodomy (which was the act to which that colonial law specifically referred). I am sure Malawi is a less forgiving place than Hong Kong in the 1980s, but it does not alter the fact that if you live in a country and then deliberately flout its laws, like it or not you are deliberately taking a risk.

 

As for Saudi Arabia, who in their right mind would even think of blaspheming the prophet? That would be totally insane and just asking for trouble. If anyone living there does not realise that, they are, frankly, mad! The same would be true of paying for sex with a Thai guy there - and getting caught. I just would not even consider it.

 

Every time the current military government prevents me from accessing a web site by blocking it, it violates my rights under Article 19.I resent that and think it should stop. After all, rules are rules,and that includes Article 19.

Whilst I do not accept Thailand has a military government, I resent it too and I also think it should stop. But there is no way I am going to go out on a limb and accuse my host country of violating my rights - at least my rights as defined by the UN. Let's face it. The UN passes all sorts of resolutions which conveniently fall by the wayside in many countries, including some who have signed them.

 

You can dislike and resent what the government of the country you are living in may be doing in flouting what you believe are your rights. You can even go public about it and try to make it see reason. But if it decides to do nothing about your 'reason', what are you going to do about it? As I see it, you can either take it or leave it - or, if so inclined, you can take the bull by the horns and become more active in promoting your rights. In that case, all I can say is "good luck!"

[Guest voldemar]

I post here very rarely. I noticed though that the initiator of the thread quoted one of my posts as unacceptable. By the way, I do not mean to jeopordize owners or moderators.

Thus, feel free to delete my quoted post if you feel it threatens the well-being of the message board. However, I do have a question to the initiator of this thread. Are your fears are based on anything beyond your own paranoia? Just yesterday, the Thai recipient

of highest award in Cannes publicly said that his country is ruled by mafia. It was published in BKKpost and Thaivisa message forum and probably by many other newspapers.On the website of Nation there is a poll which ask people what would they say if they could talk to PM. One of the possible choices is: you are murderer...

I could continue with examples. Thus, I challenge chicken little Tdperhs to explain what are the sources of his fears...

[Gaybutton]

I challenge chicken little Tdperhs to explain what are the sources of his fears...

And I challenge you to post without name calling.