Why it’s taking so long | 29.10.05

Professor Chidchanok Rahimmula objects to the media coverage of the coordinated raids of 60 locations that resulted in a surplus of 90 firearms for southern insurgents: (Matichon, October 29)

น.ส. ชิดชนก ราฮิมมูลา อาจารย์คณะรัฐศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยสงขลานครินทร์ วิทยาเขตปัตตานี เปิดเผยว่า ไม่อยากเรียกเหตุการณ์เกิดขึ้นว่าเป็นการปล้นปืน แต่น่าจะเป็นการช่วงชิงปืน เพราะมีการยอมจำนน และการดูแลปืนของรัฐอาจไม่รัดกุม

Miss [sic] Chidchanok Rahummula, professor at the Political Science faculty of Prince Songkhla University (Pattani campus), revealed that [she] doesn’t want to call the incident gun robberies , but that [it] should be instead an gun snatches because there were surrenders and the state’s supervision of the firearms may not be secure.

And the raiders also didn’t inhale.

* * *

Normally a blog post could’ve just ended there. Since this is Thailand, however, you probably haven’t heard much about the raids in question. And even if you had, the detail is murky and what little that the Bangkok Post provides doesn’t seem all that violent. Of course, neither lack of violence nor anything that the good professor cited is inconsistent with the “robbery” characterization, but I hate to leave open any possibilities, even theoretical, that she may be right.

So I had to dig this up from Matichon

ทั้งนี้ การบุกปล้นปืนยะลาเมื่อค่ำวันที่ 26 ตุลาคม มีผู้เสียชีวิต 6 ราย บาดเจ็บ 5 ราย โดยพื้นที่ อ.สุไหงปาดี เกิดเหตุ 4 ราย คือ นายยูนะ มะปิเยาะ อายุ 54 ปี ผู้ใหญ่บ้านหมู่ 6 ต.กาวะ และนายกามารูเด็ง บุตรชาย ถูกคนร้ายยิงเสียชีวิตทั้งคู่ พร้อมกับปล้นปืนลูกซองยาว ชรบ.ไป 2 กระบอก

นางกามาลอ อามิง อายุ 60 ปี บ้านเลขที่ 47/1 หมู่ 3 ต.ริโก๋ ถูกคนร้ายยิงบาดเจ็บสาหัสหน้าบ้านพัก ขณะกลับจากดื่มน้ำชาในร้านค้าในหมู่บ้าน นายการียา มิงสะแปอิง อายุ 49 ปี เลขที่ 86/53 หมู่ 6 ต.กาวะ ถูกยิงบาดเจ็บสาหัส พร้อมยึดปืนลูกซองไป 1 กระบอก นายอูเซ็ง ปุโรง ผู้ช่วยผู้ใหญ่บ้าน หมู่ 6 ต.กาวะ ถูกยิงที่หน้าบ้าน บาดเจ็บสาหัส

ที่ อ.รือเสาะ คนร้ายยิงนายดอรอแม สาแม ชาวบ้านชุด ชรบ.เสียชีวิต ที่หน้าบ้านเลขที่ 129/1 หมู่ 5 ต.รือเสาะ และปล้นปืนลูกซองยาวไป 1 กระบอก อ.จะแนะ ปล้นปืน 4 จุด ได้ปืนลูกซองยาว 2 กระบอก

อ.บาเจาะ เกิดเหตุ 6 ราย คือ คนร้ายลอบวางเพลิงตู้โทรศัพท์สาธารณะริมถนนบ้านจือแร หมู่ 5 ต.บาเระเหนือ คนร้ายบุกปล้นบ้านนายรอนิง แซแอ อายุ 43 ปี อยู่ ต.บาเร๊ะใต้ ได้ปืนลูกซองยาว 2 กระบอก ปล้นบ้านนายอิสมาแอ มาหามะ อายุ 32 ปี สมาชิก อบต.บ้านตันหยง หมู่ 4 ต.บาเร๊ะใต้ ได้ปืนลูกซอง 1 กระบอก ปล้นบ้านนายดอเลาะ ปิน ผู้ช่วยผู้ใหญ่บ้าน หมู่ 4 ต.บาเร๊ะใต้ ได้ปืนลูกซองยาว 1 กระบอก ปล้นบ้านนายวายะ ยูโซ๊ะ ชาวบ้านชุด ชรบ.หมู่ 3 ต.บาเร๊ะเหนือ ได้ปืน 1 กระบอก และ นายสุชาติ ยุดบุษย์จาร์ อส.อ.บาเจาะ ถูกคนร้ายกราดยิงด้วยปืนสงคราม บาดเจ็บสาหัส

อ.ศรีสาคร คนร้ายใช้ปืนสงครามยิงนายสะการียา ดาราโอ๊ะ อายุ 45 ปี ชรบ. บ้านไอกาแซ หมู่ 6 ต.ศรีสาคร ขณะขับรถจักรยานยนต์ไปเข้าเวรเสียชีวิต และยึดปืนลูกซองยาวไปด้วย 1 กระบอก

Alright, “dig up” is an exaggeration. User-unfriendly though Matichon’s website is, the article was published only yesterday and hence is unusually easy to locate. With that checked, now comes my favorite part: translation. While I’m proud to say to have at least two or three non-Thai readers who can and do read Thai, most of my readers are probably not so unlucky. And it is in fact the latter group that I need to reach out to.

(I meant it when I said “unlucky”. The ability to read Thai gives you nothing but the possibility of judging the almost intelligible Thai press and the almost unintelligible Thai culture by yourself instead of relying on absurd accounts from the manipulable and/or manipulative international media. Sure, it felt good in the beginning to be more better-informed about Thailand than the all the members of Thailand’s Foreign Correspondents Club combined, but after a while you become a prisoner of your own knowledge and need to blog or comment just to keep yourself sane. In vain, I may add for myself.)

And so translate I will have to, however much it offends my compositional aesthetics:

[In] the gun robberies in the night of October 26, [there] were six dead, five injured, with Sungaipadee district taking four, namely Mr. Yoona Mapiayaw, aged 54, village head of Village No. 6, Kawa Sub-district and his son Mr. Kamarudent, who were both shot dead by the perpetrators, taking two VSU [Village Security Unit] issued shotguns in the process.

Mrs. Kamalau Aming, aged 60, No. 47/1 Moo 3, Riko Sub-district, was shot and critically injured by the perpetrator as she was returning from drinking tea in the village’s shop. Mrs. Kareya Minsapaeing, aged 49, No. 86/53 Moo 6, Kawa Sub-district, was shot and critically injured, in the process seizing one shotgun….

The death certificate, I mean news article, continues in this monotonous, unstructured, participle-dangling vain (which is curious, since the Thai language doesn’t even have participles). This post is just an example so I’ll not put myself to restless sleep by translating the rest of it as I normally have to.

With the actual violence established and threats of violence presumable, we can now agree that “robberies” are indeed the right word to describe some incidents of the Thursday night. (I cannot rule out the possibility that some are thefts.) Still, to be fastidiously factual, Khun Chidchanok was not objecting to the English word “robbery”, but the Thai word “ปล้น”. For those who don’t speak or read Thai, they might as well mean two different things and the professor might actually have a point about the latter’s unsuitability for describing the incidents.

This entry from Longdo online dictionary should settle the issue for many people:

ปล้น [V] rob, See also: plunder; pillage; loot; burgle, Syn. ปล้นทรัพย์, ชิงทรัพย์, Example: โจนปล้นธนาคารเมื่อวานนี้

Since semantics is the essence here, however, one may prudently require a more authoritative source. My first thought goes to the Royal Institute, whose name and purported functions somewhat evoke the Académie française. Sounds good? Okay, then, here’s the definition for “ปล้น” from the institute’s online dictionary:

ใช้กำลังลอบมาหักโหมแย่งชิงเอาโดยไม่รู้ตัว เช่น ปล้นเมือง.

To use force furtively to wrestle and snatch without knowing, as in rob city.

Huh? How do one wrestle furtively? How can one use possibly force against people without letting them know? Or do the institutors actually mean the force users doesn’t know what they’re doing? Now that would be weird. And rob city? It’s not the first time I’ve heard it — more like the third — by why set the bar so high for robbery? “ปล้น” certainly doesn’t have to mean “to pillage”. That’ll be ปล้นสะดม

Before I know it, I’ve just gotten myself into another one of my dozen pet peeves: the Royal Institute, which by divine right publishes the authoritative Thai dictionary, stinks!

But how do I prove that? One may say it’s my translation of that definition that’s at fault. Of course it isn’t, but how do you convince the skeptics?

Wouldn’t all this be easier just to say Professor Chidchanok is the wife of Perayot Rahimmula, the academic-turned-Democrat-MP who theorized that CIA operatives under guises of the Ph.D. students were behind the April 6 bombings in Hat Yai city? But then that’s just snarky and fallacious. Just because the husband is a wacko doesn’t mean the wife has to be one, too. I’ll find some way to mention the relationship anyway, though…

I hope all of the above helps you appreciate the glory and agony of trying to debunk the entire Thailand and what the whole world thinks about it. I have to build every single case by myself from scratch. While there are a lot of materials on the internet — too many, really — they’re almost always like lab specimens for me to dissect, and never like textbooks to cite. No journalist, no blogger, no forum member comes close to doing what I’m doing. That’s what keeps you coming back, gentle reader, and, more importantly, that’s what keeps me writing. So please, I ask you, bear with me. All this time is being spent for a reason.

PS Phew! That’ll buy me a couple of weeks. I mean, days, people. Days.

16:39 ▪ announcement, politics

« Progress report | Main | Crushing blow for journalism »

1

post staffer 30.10.05

You could try breaking this 15-page monster into pieces, Tom. Or serialise it, like a Thai soap.

If you serialise it, you’ll have to give us an exciting bit at the end of each piece, to keep us coming back the next day. Preferably it will have plenty of action, such as theft…oops, robberies…er, pillaging…whatever.

I have been reading your piece on Anand’s speech to the Foreign Correspondents Club again. As a journalist it’s hard to write anything decent from the bones of a speech, even if there were questions and answers afterwards. And Hermes attempted to cover it in a feature, which is much more ambitious than a mere news story.

I think he thought about it too much. He should not have bothered.

I doubt even the most westernised Thai would be prepared for the harsh way in which some western journalists treat the people they write about. People aren’t merely thrown a few awkward questions, they are almost mauled.

I don’t think the Bangkok Post is ready for that either, hence the fawning way in which some stories are written. It can’t be by accident…it’s just not the way the paper does things. We’re respectable, and in this culture, that pays dividends.

Where the media does attempt criticism, it does so in semi-articulate, stagey ways - comments which refer obliquely to the head of a telecommunications empire being corrupt, or whatever. No names mentioned.

Defamation laws provide more protection than such coyness would suggest. We can always challenge Thaksin’s decisions based on the issues. No need for such bland character assassination.

Let people make up their own minds, and treat the reader with respect. The media here is too keen to allow itself to be used as a mere mouthpiece.

Then we get the moaning and whinging about suppression of dissent, and attacks on democracy, which the handwringers seem to wheel out at almost every opportunity, like a willful child brings out his favourite toys to annoy, whenever he sees grown-ups in seated position.

Open a story about, er, the BBC Thai service getting axed (a decision made from London), and we get academics reminiscing not about BBC Thai in its glory days but moaning about Thaksin rolling back democracy. Yet another story hijacked. It’s miserable, uninspiring stuff.

As I say, whatever happened to coverage and criticism based on the issues? That, tempered with a little more bravery on the journalist’s
part, to call a crock a crock, a whinger a whinger, cut out the chaff and show a little more irreverence to all these people who claim the right to tell us what to do and think.

Hermes did tell us that Anand tried to evade questions, which was useful (though I would have like to have known what the questions were that he found so painful or irritating). But then we get all the stuff about language riffs and apple blossom trees which is so exasperating. All this reverence based on a mere hour-long encounter at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club, listening to what sounds like a pontificating after-dinner speech, an old guy propped up behind a microphone, whom he barely knows?

Not an assignment I would have taken on. But then if you are a Luce scholar, maybe you feel obliged to dazzle with your eloquence and profound insights into a place in which you are barely a part, do not understand and do not belong (and such would always be the case, I suspect, no matter how long a westerner lives in this kingdom).

Observing Hermes from afar, I thought he was smart, talented but young. When you are starting out in journalism, being bright and enthusiastic is no bad thing. Good things can happen to you. Over time you learn when is an suitable time to inflict yourself on readers, and when is a good time to say, No thanks, I’m not up to covering that assignment…then hide in a dark corner of the office, and hope the chief reporter can’t find you when he comes looking you, his reporter with the sharpest pen.

2

JW 30.10.05

Just a quick post as I busy at the moment.

​ปล้น​ as you say involves the use of force.

​การช่วงชิง​ by its very nature to me doesn’t involve the use of force. I would even say you could use ‘grab’ instead of ‘snatch’

So the question in issue is whether force was used? The answer seems that force was used, and deadly force in some circumstances as well.

I don’t get the logic of her argument that the guns were somehow surrended. If I “surrender” my ATM card and my PIN after someone holds a gun to my head that would constitute ​ปล้น​. However, if someone was take my ATM card out of wallet when I wasn’t looking then what would be ​การช่วงชิง​. If the government had left a pile of guns on the back of track and they had been taken without the use of force then you could use ​การช่วงชิง​, but as Tom has pointed out this is not what has happened. In at least a number of cases, deadly force was used.

Her implied argument against using ​ปล้น​ is that it is emotive. However, the irony is that she wants to use ​การช่วงชิง​ instead. ​การช่วงชิง​ is equally emotive as it conveys the incorrect image that force was not used. Why didn’t she go for the more neutral word of ลักทรัพย์ (theft)? Well, I think we know why.

I’ll post later on the Thai Criminal Code as it specifically uses ​ชิงทรัพย์​ and ​ปล้นทรัพย์​.

From a brief glance section 340 provides that:

​มาตรา​ 340 ​ผู้​ใด​ชิงทรัพย์​โดย​ร่วม​กัน​กระทำ​ความ​ผิด​ด้วย​กัน​ตั้งแต่​ ​สามคนขึ้นไป​ ​ผู้​นั้น​กระทำ​ความ​ผิดฐานปล้นทรัพย์​

Quick translation.

A person who grabs/snatches by acting in concert with at least 3 persons [then] that person has committed the act of robbery.

3

Tom Vamvanij 30.10.05

JW:

Great legal perspective as always. Thank you especially for the clause that you fish out from Section 340. I look forward to hearing what more you have to say about the matter.

Indeed, this is the continuation of what I was trying to illustrate in the post. It probably took Khun Chidchanok four milliseconds and two of her five brain cells to figure that “ช่วงชิง” makes the perpetrators look a tad less bad than “ปล้น” and hence should be used regardless of the truth. We serious people, on the other hand, can’t keep ourselves from delving into the facts, the linguistics, the law, and the logic. Wise man’s burden, I guess.

Post Staffer:

You could try breaking this 15-page monster into pieces, Tom. Or serialise it, like a Thai soap.

Your metaphor may be stronger than you realize. Not only Thai soap operas are serialized, but the novels on which they’re based usually are as well. These novelists basically make things up as they go along, and not just in one work but several that are published weekly in women’s magazines (usually the less glossy and risqué kind that people buy for the text instead of the pictures). If you’re wondering how great literature can be produced that way, you’ve just answered your own question.

No, I’d rather not imitate them, thank you.

That nonetheless brings us to the side issue in my post that I was sort of hoping you guys would jump on:

The ability to read Thai gives you nothing but the possibility of judging the almost intelligible Thai press and the almost unintelligible Thai culture by yourself instead of relying on absurd accounts from the manipulable and/or manipulative international media.

Besides that and perhaps work-related uses, there’s really no benefit, is there? (I’m thinking about books, literature, and the intrinsic joy of using and learning the language.)

4

JW 30.10.05

Besides that and perhaps work-related uses, there’s really no benefit, is there?

You are correct to a certain extent. I remember doing the ​ป​ 6 exam (Grade 6 Thai language test which Thai students sit before entering High School) a number of years ago. I studied for a couple of weeks before the test and then never wrote anything in Thai for the next 5 years. I would say that writing in Thai has very little use for me, although last year I did learn to type Thai for a paper I was writing. I never write anything down on paper though.

Ok, back on topic a little bit, I initially learned to read Thai as it would help with pronounciation - I don’t want to learn phonetics! It is also useful in expanding your vocab and really understanding sentence structure. I think it would be very hard it pick up a good comprehension of Thai unless you were able to read it. The ability to read signs is probably the most important though, how could you possibly catch a Bangkok bus (which in pre-skytrain days was necessary) or read some ticket without it. The same could go with signing something. Reading Thai can also have some more personal benefits.

-Reading Thai used to be useful for chatting with girls on ICQ and then MSN.

-It was handy to write a note in Thai and pass it to the waiter to pass it to a girl in a bar/beer garden.

I’ll look at s340 and that part of the Criminal Code tomorrow.

5

KCUS KCID 31.10.05

Like ‘campaigning’ translates to ‘populist’ in english?
–I couldn’t find the term ‘populist’ in an online thai dictionary.

BTW: Whats up with thai websites these days? First it was Bangkokpost censoring people wanting to post comments on their message boards, then The Nation, now I just found out ManagerOnline does it too! Jeez, can’t post comments anymore these days!

6

Tom Vamvanij 31.10.05

KCUS KCID:

Like ‘campaigning’ translates to ‘populist’ in english?

You mean Thaksin’s campaigning. The international media’s stylebooks mandate that the slur be used always to describe Thaksin and never the Democrats.

I have something that I think you’ll like coming up really soon.

I couldn’t find the term ‘populist’ in an online thai dictionary.

ประชานิยม is the Thai loan translation for “populism” and “populist” that was lifted right off the international media’s coverage of Thaksin’s election campaign in 2000. Yet to make it to the dictionaries (which will undoubtedly screw up the definition), it is now used in Thailand as a general insult by, er, real populists.

BTW: Whats up with thai websites these days? First it was Bangkokpost censoring people wanting to post comments on their message boards, then The Nation, now I just found out ManagerOnline does it too! Jeez, can’t post comments anymore these days!

I stay as far away as far as possible from those websites, but what you say doesn’t surprise me in the least. Anyway, you’re more than welcome to post comments here.

PS In case any of you are interested to read, KCUS KCID also post a comment in the previous entry.

7

JW 31.10.05

BTW: Whats up with thai websites these days? First it was Bangkokpost censoring people wanting to post comments on their message boards, then The Nation, now I just found out ManagerOnline does it too! Jeez, can’t post comments anymore these days!

It depends why were views removed? If the comment was defamatory etc. A website can be liable for libel if something is published on their website. It is hardly suprising that a private enteprise would want to restrict their liability.

8

JW 1.11.05

NOTE: This is quick analysis of the Criminal Code provisions dealing with theft and should not be seen as a comphrensive analysis.

First, section s339 sets out what constitutes an act of snatching. Importantly it states

​มาตรา​ 339 ​ผู้​ใด​ลักทรัพย์​โดย​ใช้​กำ​ลังประทุษร้าย​ …. ​ผู้​นั้น​กระทำ​ความ​ผิดฐานชิงทรัพย์​

Quick translation: A person who steals by using violence/assault …. [in here are the rest of the elements of the offence] then that person has committed the act of snatching.

Uhmm. This seems surprising for me and the legal definition of ​ชิงทรัพย์​ means more than a snatch/grab in English.

Basically, you start of with the lowest ​ลักทรัพย์​ (theft), then if you meet the elements for ​ลักทรัพย์​ (theft) + have the aggravated element of the use of violence/ assault (amongst other elements listed in s339) this makes it ​ชิงทรัพย์​ (snatching). Then if you have ​ชิงทรัพย์​ (snatching) + the additional aggravated element of acting in concert with at least 3 other persons you have ​ปล้นทรัพย​ (robbery).

Now, at these coordinated raids something has been stolen, so we clearly have ​ลักทรัพย์​ (theft), force has been used in many instances, so we also have ​ชิงทรัพย์​ (snatching). Therefore, it all comes down to whether we have the additional aggravated element of ​โดย​​​​​ร่วม​​​​​กัน​​​​​กระทำ​​​​​ความ​​​​​ผิด​​​​​ด้วย​​​​​กัน​​​​​ตั้งแต่​​​ ​​​สามคนขึ้นไป​​​ (by acting in concert with at least 3 persons)?

Now, my understanding of “by acting in concert with at least 3 persons ” would be that the 3 persons would have to be acting in concert for a single theft (so when a gun was stolen from one place there would need to be at least 3 “robbers” there) as opposed to 3 different people stealing guns from three different places at the same time. If that is the correct interpretation and there were no single robbery with at least 3 persons then the MP certainly has a point. However, it is certainly possible that there were 3 persons at each robbery - usually acting in concert allows the person/persons who drive/are in the getaway car, or motorcycle as would be the likely case here (as long as they are not too far away) to be included. Also, it is possible that multiple thefts by different people took place in the same street then the close promoxity could mean that all the robbers are acting in concert. Overall, it seems unclear so I would say that either ชิงทรัพย (snatching) or ปล้นทรัพย​ (robbery) could be used to describe the events which took place.

My analysis also assumes that the Thai media was using ​ปล้นทรัพย​ (robbery) in its legal sense as opposed to its colloquial sense. I have heard ​ปล้นทรัพย​ (robbery) used before both in verbal and written form and it certainly didn’t require 3 persons to be acting together in concert. Does that sound right to you, Tom?

I still think what Tom said and I said above holds true, she was making a emotive argument as she believes ‘one man’s snatcher, is another man’s robber’. I wonder what she would have said if the Thai media called them murderers - given people were killed in the different robberies it certainly doesn’t seem to be an incorrect. Perhaps, she would want a new committee set up to investigate the terms used by the Thai media?

Finally, Tom, you are the native speaker, would you think that ordinary, non-legal meaning of ​ชิงทรัพย์​ requires the use of force or would mean a simple snatch and grab? I mean heaven’s above ​ชิง​ means to win something as well.

9

Tom Vamvanij 2.11.05

JW:

My analysis also assumes that the Thai media was using ​ปล้นทรัพย​​(robbery) in its legal sense as opposed to its colloquial sense. I have heard ​ปล้นทรัพย​​(robbery) used before both in verbal and written form and it certainly didn’t require 3 persons to be acting together in concert. Does that sound right to you, Tom?

Strictly no, but you have the right idea. ปล้นทรัพย์ (literally “rob property) is indeed a legal term, and thus has to mean whatever the law says it does. However, ปล้นทรัพย์ does not appear anywhere in the linked Matichon article. ปล้น (rob) does. And this common word is used exactly the same way “rob” is in English, that is to say, with no requirement on the number of perpetrators.

Finally, Tom, you are the native speaker, would you think that ordinary, non-legal meaning of ​ชิงทรัพย์ ​​requires the use of force or would mean a simple snatch and grab? I mean heaven’s above ​ชิง​​means to win something as well.

In an exact parallel, ชิงทรัพย์ is a legal term like ปล้นทรัพย์, but ชิง is a common term and thus means what people use it to mean. I’d say ชิง and ช่วงชิง imply a certain exertion and may very well involve a scuffle. However one does not normally ชิง something that clearly belongs to someone else’s, one ขโมย (steals) or ปล้น (robs) if from him. ชิง is, as you shrewdly pointed out, very apt for describing a contention or a competition, as in ชิงเหรียญทอง (vie for the gold medal) ชิงรางวัล (compete for the prize). Extending that logic, one can say:

• The police ชิงตัวประกัน (rescued the hostage, though of course ช่วยเหลือ would work, too)
• Unknown men ชิงตัวผู้ต้องหา (hijacked the accused) on his way to court.

Between the two cases, one ชิง is obviously good and the other obviously bad. But in either case, the object of ชิง does not strictly belong to any party.

ชิงปืน, I must admit, does have a pretty nice ring to it, but it doesn’t apply in at least some of the gun cases in question. I can imagine using that term in the instance of prisoners overpowering their guards in a transport bus and making of with their firearms. (นักโทษ… ชิงปืนไปได้ 3 กระบอก.) With that, you get a sense that the prisoners had to exert themselves to get the guns (which makes sense, as the guards after all are supposed to have superior force.)

Ironically, the surrenders that Khun Chidchanok cited are in fact another reason for using the word “robbery”.

Let me end by quoting what I said earlier:

It probably took Khun Chidchanok four milliseconds and two of her five brain cells to figure that “ช่วงชิง​” makes the perpetrators look a tad less bad than “ปล้น​” and hence should be used regardless of the truth. We serious people, on the other hand, can’t keep ourselves from delving into the facts, the linguistics, the law, and the logic.