Swiss man jailed for Thai insult

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:16 pm

Gilliatt wrote:@Fable, you are right, I should have been more precise. I don't really know if it is encouraged by the government administrations, but it is very well seen by the shareholders of companies and the business magazines. I should also have precised that it is not really about moving your entire business, but some departments in foreign coutries. That is what Nike, Levi's, etc. did. Oil companies do it in Congo, and coal companies do it in China.

Thanks for clarifying that. Your previous remarks could have been taken as the usual "the US is responsible for everything horrible in the world" slam. Truth is, every nation, when it's on top, does the same. There is no active encouragement as official policy of moving manufacturing to poor third world nations, but that has always happened. France has quite a few corporations in Francophone Africa doing this; China has recently lined up similar deals. It is sad, but the only way to prevent it is by having third world nations themselves legislate against it. And the ruling class in those nations won't, because it means annoying the ruling class in the wealthy nations that send them aid--which gets pocketed by their elite.

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:29 pm

Yes, I was just about to edit my post to say that governments do not encourage it since it takes away jobs from their citizens to give them to foreigners. It was not at all an attack on the US, it was just a mere exemple. Colonialism is not the exclusivity of North America, in fact, NA used to be a colony. My first taught was to use the slave trade as an exemple of a culturally accepted abomination, but I thaught that one was more actual.

xxslainxx · Post by **xxslainxx** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:40 pm

@Mah

A small correction in order considering this is a cultural debate.

The word "firang" and not "farang" comes from the Hindi word "Firangi" meaning "Outsider" or "Foreigner".

As far the whole issue is concerned. I can see why most western cultures fail to understand the love of the people for a monarch. However, the idea that they were brain washed is ridiculous and more so because of the current head of the state both in the UK and US. Isn't that what they have been doing now for almost a decade?

Gilliatt · Post by **Gilliatt** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:58 pm

xxslainxx wrote:@Mah

A small correction in order considering this is a cultural debate.

The word "firang" and not "farang" comes from the Hindi word "Firangi" meaning "Outsider" or "Foreigner".

As far the whole issue is concerned. I can see why most western cultures fail to understand the love of the people for a monarch. However, the idea that they were brain washed is ridiculous and more so because of the current head of the state both in the UK and US. Isn't that what they have been doing now for almost a decade?

Brainwashing is not the exclusivity of the Occidentals. It exists pretty much also in the Oriental World. That is why it is the first question that comes to mind. I don't know much about Thailand, so I believe it when you say there is no brainwashing there. But asking the question was certainly not ridiculous.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:09 pm

Personally, I feel Thailand is well within their right to consider the defacing of any likeness of their king to be a crime. My only issue is with the severity and type of the punishment involved in this case. 10 years in prison is in my eyes excessive.

I really don't think most Westerners fail to understand a country's love for their monarch...at least, those who endeavor to learn a little about Thailand. I think I can safely use the term "benevolent monarch" in relation to this man. I think most would take issue with the imprisonment of someone who defaces his likeness, insults him, etc. That is pretty much the kind of thing that takes place in totalitarian systems found the world over, and the kind of thing that usually warrants international condemnation. Perhaps I am way off base here, but that's the issue as far as I perceive it. It's a human rights issue, not a matter of Thailand's sovereign right to make and enforce their own laws.

xxslainxx · Post by **xxslainxx** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:34 pm

The paradigm followed in many south east asian countries is that of deterrence and not punishment. If one person has his hands cut off for drug smuggling or beating his wife, then others will learn from it. It is extreme, but it has worked for them. Look at Singapore, one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Of course, the fact that they also have one of the highest paid police departments in the world has something to do with it.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:56 pm

Oh hey I thought of a fitting analogy.

Jesus was a very nice person who, like the King of Thailand, I highly respect. I believe that regardless of people's specific religious views, most would agree that Jesus possessed a lot of the same qualities that make the Thai king so popular with his followers - selflessness, helping the less fortunate and all that. Let's assume that his followers love him for the same reason that Thais love their king i.e. not because they're brainwashed. For the record, I believe this to be true.

In a few years Texas, a place where I've heard lots of religious Jesus-loving folk live, enacts a law according to which they can jail any individual who disrespects Jesus for up to ten years. How would you feel about such a law, its actual viability due to the current judicial system and political climate aside?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:27 pm

Vicsun wrote:Oh hey I thought of a fitting analogy...

It's not a fit analogy, because Texas is part of the US, and such a law would be in violation of the US Constitution. It wouldn't even have to go to the US Supreme Court. It would be the equivalent of passing a law in any given state that allowed only baptized Protestants to vote.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:34 pm

fable wrote:It's not a fit analogy, because Texas is part of the US, and such a law would be in violation of the US Constitution. It wouldn't even have to go to the US Supreme Court. It would be the equivalent of passing a law in any given state that allowed only baptized Protestants to vote.

Not only do I know this, I also expected that response which is why I added "actual viability due to the judicial system... aside" to the end of my post.

If you wish, instead of a state law, make it an amendment to the constitution. Or a law of a fictional, very Christian country. Or, like my post suggested, ignore the fact that such a law would realistically never exist in the States.

I'm trying to apply the principle of putting people in jail for disrespecting a popular figure to another situation and see if people still agree with it.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:53 pm

Vicsun wrote:Oh hey I thought of a fitting analogy.

Jesus was a very nice person who, like the King of Thailand, I highly respect. I believe that regardless of people's specific religious views, most would agree that Jesus possessed a lot of the same qualities that make the Thai king so popular with his followers - selflessness, helping the less fortunate and all that. Let's assume that his followers love him for the same reason that Thais love their king...

i don't think the followers of Jesus love him for "selflessness" and "helping the less fortunate". I am not going into religious explanations concerning Christian beliefs (I am not good at it anyway, you should ask Mah).
Besides, with all due respect, Thai King is not a God, even if he is worshiped.
You analogy is invalid.

Vicsun wrote: In a few years Texas, a place where I've heard lots of religious Jesus-loving folk live, enacts a law according to which they can jail any individual who disrespects Jesus for up to ten years. How would you feel about such a law, its actual viability due to the current judicial system and political climate aside?

:laugh: Wow, IN A FEW YEARS... That is one of the funniest rumors I've heard recently. I hope you do not really believe it.
When Bush was Governor of Texas, he proclaimed June 10 "Jesus Day"...

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:45 pm

Vicsun wrote:Not only do I know this, I also expected that response which is why I added "actual viability due to the judicial system... aside" to the end of my post.

And that's why we all call you Nostradamus Vicsunus. But if the analogy is severely flawed, I don't think it can serve as an example; and I think this analogy was severely flawed. Putting people in jail for disrespect to a ruler's commercial image just isn't something easily envisioned as happening in Western Europe or North America, at least not since the fall of Fascism in Germany, Italy and Spain. So it's doesn't provide the kind of lever you want.

I'm trying to apply the principle of putting people in jail for disrespecting a popular figure to another situation and see if people still agree with it.

The man jailed in Thailand didn't show a lack of respect to its king; he showed a lack of respect to its king through defacing his image on commercial displays in public locations, if I recall correctly. The latter part is pretty important as a series of qualifiers that offer context to the incident. We might assume he could get away with showing disrespect to the monarch verbally, or that he could deface an image in private. I'm not saying this is the case; but it's possible, and if so, it kills the iidea of Thailand as a totalitarian state that enforces a pattern of rigid respect for the king in private, or in any other fashion that isn't visual.

Regardless, I don't know that any of us in this thread actually agree with the idea of jailing a person for 10 years for defacing an image of a ruler. Every comment I've seen that doesn't condemn the Thais out of hand appears to consider the man as an idiot who should have known better, and deserves some punishment for having gotten himself in a very obvious mess that was waiting for him underneath the equivalent of a bunch of blinking neon signs stating "BACK OFF, DIRTY BIG MESS AHEAD, CHARLEY."

Personally, I wouldn't mind him spending 30 days in jail then getting sent back to Switzerland (if they want him). But if he does spend a lot more time in jail, he only has himself to blame. You simply don't ignore the obvious, flouting national culture and its laws in this fashion without expecting to be on the receiving end of a very large, heavy, anvil-shaped karma.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:34 pm

xxslainxx wrote:@Mah

A small correction in order considering this is a cultural debate.

The word "firang" and not "farang" comes from the Hindi word "Firangi" meaning "Outsider" or "Foreigner".

I appreciate the FYI but "farang" is the THAI word for "foreigner." This was taken from the word "Francais" for "French." It was the French whom King Rama V (King Chulalongkorn) and the Kingdom of Thailand first had an extensive relationship with a Western foreign country. King Rama V was the first Thai king to travel to a western country. "Farang" was likely the way the locals pronounce "Francais" in reference to "white foreigners." The Thais won't refer me as a farang (unless they just hear me over the phone

) because I'm not white

. They would call me "Asian."

@Chanak: A point of view worth pondering on. 10 years for defacing a nation leader or monarch would seem excessive if you take away the name and the face of the leader in question. Too excessive to me and even ridiculous if the leader in question is our Philippine President. But knowing the Thai king makes this apparent excessive punishment more acceptable to digest for me.

As I said, that's just me.

I understand your point tho. But I don't think that the locals in Thailand were remiss in reminding expats of rules such as this. I remember well that when I first came to Thailand, my local friends, co-workers, and employers would tell me this thing right away.

Draconian, no doubt, just like Singapore with its fines and canings. But then, I personally feel that there is nothing to worry about if you know that you haven't done anything wrong. I guess what is needed here is to know through your embassy what are the things that you have to be very wary about in your host country.

kathycf · Post by **kathycf** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:48 am

Well, I hope it is ok if I express my opinion on a few things here.

I am not clear on if the man in question here had been drinking when he commited this crime. I understand he was angry at not being able to buy alcohol on a particular day, but didn't find any reference to his state at the time he commited the vandalism. If he was indeed intoxicated, that might give a clue to his mental state. Please understand, I am not making an excuse for his behavior, whether drunk or sober he is accountable for his actions, as are we all.

One could rightly expect an individual who has lived abroad for 10 years to be well aware of laws and customs in his host country, and indeed this Swiss man should have known better...the term "use your common sense" springs to mind. However,through volunteer work I have seen a lot of drunk people and the expectation that "drunk" and "common sense" are two things that naturally go together is sort of odd to me. Once a person becomes intoxicated expecting him or her to "know better" is akin to expecting a toddler to compose a symphony.

Once again, let me please emphasize, I am NOT condoning this behavior. While I think the sentence given to him is harsh, it is well within the rights of a nation to punish individuals who commit crimes.

Maharlika]You must understand that laws of other countries may not conform with that of yours because culture is also involved. [/quote] This is an excellent point wrote:This is my thinking: I think that the farang (Thai for 'foreigner') deserves the sentence. Som nam na. (Thai: 'Serves him right.') But if it was the crown prince turned king, I think a few months in prison coupled with community service will do. And I think most Thais wouldn't give much attention to it.

Again, I am trying to take into account my own limitations in understanding here. To me, justice should be applied based on the crime itself, not the choice of victim.

Minerva]And wrote:
I'm sorry, but I really feel this is an unfair statement. Despite later comments that this was a remark soley intended for clarification, I disagree. By saying "I suspect the answer is 'no', you seem to make it clear that you already know the answer and that Galrean only made a big deal about this because the man in the incident was a western European, as if to strongly imply that he would not care if the person involved was anything but a westerner. With all due respect, I don't know Galrean and I don't know you, so I personally would not feel qualified to make such a statement.

Ok, well that is it for me. I hope I didn't make people angry.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:39 pm

Looks like someone else took offense at the Thai law regarding the defacement of images of their King, as this brief article shows.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:52 pm

fable wrote:Looks like someone else took offense at the Thai law regarding the defacement of images of their King, as this brief article shows.

Although I agree with the sentiment that everybody has a right to express opinion, criticise etc. I find this particular clip tastless, stupid, and not funny. I think Google should reconsider its position.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:01 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:Although I agree with the sentiment that everybody has a right to express opinion, criticise etc. I find this particular clip tastless, stupid, and not funny. I think Google should reconsider its position.

I agree completely, but unfortunately, that's not unusual for Youtube. It has some good stuff on it, but an awful lot of dross as well.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:29 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:Although I agree with the sentiment that everybody has a right to express opinion, criticise etc. I find this particular clip tastless, stupid, and not funny. I think Google should reconsider its position.

Agreed. But I think we can both also agree that this will never happen.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:49 pm

fable wrote:Agreed. But I think we can both also agree that this will never happen.

They did a deal with the Chinese government, so why don't you think they wont do one with Thailand?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:20 am

galraen wrote:They did a deal with the Chinese government, so why don't you think they wont do one with Thailand?

Because they desperately wanted into China, and were willing to abide by a host of conditions to get there; and because they cut no deals to get into Thailand.

xxslainxx · Post by **xxslainxx** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:10 am

fable wrote:Because they desperately wanted into China, and were willing to abide by a host of conditions to get there; and because they cut no deals to get into Thailand.

I agree.
Consider the number of people in China with access to the internet over Thailand.