Bigots against FTA | 18.01.06
May be claiming their first victim.
On January 11, they played the wife card:
นายสุริยัน ทองหนูเอียด ที่ปรึกษา 11 เครือข่ายฯ [เครือข่ายต่อต้านการเปิดการค้าเสรีและแปรรูปประเทศไทย 11 องค์กร] ได้กล่าวเชิญชวนให้ผู้ชุมนุมทั้งหมดช่วยกันขับไล่นายนิตย์ พิบูลสงคราม หัวหน้าคณะเจรจาเอฟทีเอฝ่ายไทย โดยระบุว่า นายนิตย์ไม่มีความชอบธรรมที่จะเป็นตัวแทนของคนไทย เพราะมีภรรยาเป็นชาวอเมริกัน มีบ้านอยู่สหรัฐอเมริกา จะเข้าใจหัวอกคนไทยผู้ยากจนได้อย่างไร
Mr. Suriyan Thongnoo-iad, advisor to the Eleven Network [network of eleven anti-trade liberalization and privatization organizations] invited all the protesters to join forces to boot out Mr. Nitya Pibulsonggram, Thailand’s chief FTA negotiator, by pointing out that Mr. Nithy has no legitimacy to be Thai people’s representative because he has an American wife and a house in the United States. How can he possibly understand the lives of poor Thai people? [Translated by yours truly.]
Is that why Dr. Puey Ungpakorn1 had to exile in the United Kingdom? Well, his sons Jon and Giles have been back and very active in the NGO circuit, including but not limited to this anti-FTA craze, and nobody is complaining about their half-Englishness.
And certainly nobody has burned their mock coffins, draped with the Union Jack (or better yet, the Hammer and Sickle), and dumped the remains in the river. Who knows, maybe our side of the debate (consisting mainly of my father and me) is more civil, even though “civil society” is already a de facto registered trademark of Khun Suriyan and his ilk.
Matichon, a newspaper whose “reputation for integrity, and incisive analysis” is vouched for by no less then than the Financial Times, introduced the above snippet with this decorous and penetrating mini-headline: “Booting out head of Thai negotiation team, exposing missus2 is American” (“ไล่หน.ทีมเจรจาไทยแฉเมียเป็นอเมริกัน”).
Footnotes
1 Although it is often noted, even touted, that he studied with “the famous professor Friedrich von Hayek” at the LSE, Dr. Puey himself certainly wasn’t very Hayekian. And the cultists who co-opt Puey’s name without ever reading his works even less so. Indeed they would hemorrhage if they ever found out what Hayek stands for.
2 The Thai word mia (เมีย) in fact sounds much worse than the English “missus”, which after all can be an honorific. There’s no easy way to explain this, since mia is the authentic Thai world for “wife”, just as pua is for “husband”. Yet both have come to sound very coarse in most civil conversations (pua even more so than mia). Which is why we usually see those words in newspaper headlines.
The Sanskrit-derived Paraya (ภารยา) is the preferred word in more formal occasions and sounds really nice. Too nice, in fact, for everyday conversation. So many people opt to refer to their spouses with the English-inspired fan (แฟน), which means either “boyfriend” or “girlfriend”, ridiculous though that often sounds to me.
23:59 ▪ politics
« Dr. Prawese Wasi, senile citizen | Main | How about four? »
- 1
- Naphat 19.01.06
I wonder how many anti-FTA protesters would support Mr. Suriyan’s misguided attack on Mr. Nitya’s integrity. Is this a case of a few isolated hyper-nationalists or does this kind of personal attack represent the sentiments of the movement?
Boot out head of Thai negotiation team, expose missus is American
The translation of the Matichon header can be more precise if you bring back the dropped subject (Mr. Suriya?). As it stands, it sounds like a sentence in the imperative mood. Surely Matichon is not calling for its readers to oust Mr. Nitya.
- 2
- Tom Vamvanij 19.01.06
Naphat:
The translation of the Matichon header can be more precise if you bring back the dropped subject (Mr. Suriya?).
For the sake of clarity, it is Matichon who chose to drop the subject from the header, not me. Naphat is right that it is not an imperative — this is after all a news report, not an editorial — but it is hardly neutral. “แฉ” (which I translate roughly as “expose”) is a sensational word that implies not only that the allegation is indeed true but also that the alleged fact is truly damning and probably even has been actively covered up. Naturally, one gets a sense that the newspaper sides with those who “แฉ”, and as opposed to, say, those who “อ้าง” (claim).
- 3
- Tom Vamvanij 19.01.06
Naphat:
I wonder how many anti-FTA protesters would support Mr. Suriyan’s misguided attack on Mr. Nitya’s integrity. Is this a case of a few isolated hyper-nationalists or does this kind of personal attack represent the sentiments of the movement?
If you need to ask, then you haven’t been paying attention. Read “Populism and Nationalism in Thailand”, particularly the parts about the “academics” and the “People Sector™”. If you’re pressed for time, it suffices just to look the graphics I collected from FTA Watch, an outfit that has been cited and recommended countless times in the mainstream press including the Bangkok Post.
- 4
- JW 19.01.06
Thaksin has confirmed that Nitya has resigned.
I have done some digging on Suriyan over at my blog. Suriyan is a long-time activist.
- 5
- Naphat 20.01.06
Tom:
It’s quite clear that the FTA Watch gang appeal to the masses with their nationalist rhetoric. I just don’t think Mr. Suriyan’s tactic of personal attacks are representative of their movement.
For the sake of clarity, it is Matichon who chose to drop the subject from the header, not me
I was reading your translation philosophy about Thai being a pro-drop and thought you usually add a “bracketed pronoun” in cases like this. Sorry to nitpick.
With Mr. Suriyan roundly condemned, may we could move on to a more substantial debate - at least one where free trade is accepted a common good. I came across this paper via fringer.org - looks like a good starting point.
Even the FTA Watch site, once you get past the propoganda posters, is more than just nationalist diatribe. For example, details on drug patents and “data exclusivity” are raise as issues. Pity all the attention goes to the people who make the loudest noise and most sensational comments protesting.
- 6
- Tom Vamvanij 20.01.06
Naphat:
I have responded partly in a comment (in Thai) under Fringer’s post, which you can read if and when she deems it worthy of being read (it is “awaiting moderation”).
Otherwise, a post with similar content should appear soon on this blog (both English and Thai versions).
- 7
- JW 20.01.06
Naphat
The paper by Razeen Sally is interesting. I have had a quick read through it. I generally agree with most of the economics of what he says. However, he ignores the politics of the situation though and the foreign policy benefits - he does mention the foreign policy benefits but such benefits are difficult to quantify so I don’t expect much from him here. His suggestion on some FTAs (ie with Australia and NZ) is that they don’t go far enough. Well, they are at least a start. FTAs can always be renegotiated or improved on in the future.
It would be nice if the WTO was making good progress on multilateral trade agreements, but it isn’t. Multilateral agreements are hard to negotiate as well. From memory, one of the most recent UN Conventions the Law of the Sea - which has very little effect on domestic politics - took 10 years to negotiate. You have a choice of incremental advances on multilateral agreements, which are often country-country anyway, or bilateral/regional FTAs. I personally only see bilateral FTAs as a means to ends from an economic perspective, but as Sally mentions but doesn’t expand on they have greater foreign policy benefits and non-economic benefits (ie the working holiday visas for Thais with the FTA with Australia).
Both the US and Thailand have negotiating positions regarding the FTA. There is no final deal, people shouldn’t take negotiating positions as being the final deal. Neither country is going to get everything that they want. Just saying take IP out of the FTA, as FTAWatch do, isn’t the most helpful suggestion. If the US said, we will take agriculture out of the FTA, well what would Thailand’s response be? Reaching an agreement on such senstitive bilateral agreements is hard enough, but is even harder on multilateral agreements.
Sure, there can be disagreement about the IP aspects of a FTA and IP generally. Should there be data exclusivity? Should we extend the patent beyond 20 years? Should we even have patents in the first place? FTAWatch’s and many other NGOs seem to take the position that Intellectual Property and patents are bad as they allow evil multinational/transnational corporations to exploit poor Thais. It does take funding to actually pay for research to develop drugs? Isn’t there a reason why most drugs have come from developed countries with strong IP protections? Yes, because they have money to pay scientists.
- 8
- Tom Vamvanij 24.01.06
Naphat:
I’ve replaced the infinitives in my translation of Matichon’s header with participles (or gerunds?). Now the phrase can no longer be misconstrued as an imperative. Do you like it better? I know I do.
- 9
- Naphat 24.01.06
Tom:
I do like it better, thanks.
I saw that your comment on fringer.org got passed moderation and has been replied too. I have to say that I disagree with both you and fringer! Will join in the fray there soon.