Maybe a nice individual and certainly revered but the head of a monarchy which aggressively attacked any criticism of the royal family and also tacitly supported the negation of democracy in the country because the urban elites lost elections to the rural poor. Are you a Thai national Stevil? That would explain the whitewashing - wouldn't want to end up in court, right?

If repressing free speech and democracy is an enlightened legacy, have I got a presidential candidate for you...

Sometimes repressing free

By anon on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 11:41am.

Sometimes repressing free speech and democracy is the lesser of two evils, if the alternative is chaos and instability and war.

To be clear

By anon on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 12:38pm.

We're not talking about free speech in general. We're talking about the fact that someone got 10 years in prison for making an insulting photo of the royal family. 10 years!

This isn't some sort of Thai Infowars being suppressed here.

Showing A Jodi Foster Movie Can Result In The Death Penalty

By Elmer on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 2:34pm.

Those caught organising public viewings of the film face far stiffer penalties. The feudal law of “lese majeste” is still on the books in Thailand, making it a treasonable offense to criticise or show disrespect for the monarchy. Those found guilty can be sentenced to stiff prison terms and even to death.

You try being king for a day

By Stevil on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 12:08pm.

You might change your tune pretty quickly.

Democracy comes in many forms - and we all make compromises. As much as I love Thailand (no personal connection other than I've been there about 2 dz times - mostly for work), it's a very tenuous situation with a fine balance between the military, the wealthy and the general population. We often try to instill our brand of democracy on the world - and in many cases that doesn't work or it's not what people want. You could put the same label on Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore - but it works for them and hard to argue with success there or in Thailand.

This is just demonstrably false though

By anon on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 12:28pm.

Try visiting Amsterdam if you want to go to a country with a monarchy which doesn't take people to court for saying anything critical. Defending lese majeste as 'what the people want' is like saying slavery was cool in the South due to popular demand.

And just look at your own statement - 'a fine balance between the military, wealthy and the general population' but seeing as he sided with the wealthy and military, that's cool because he got two out of three right or something? You can apply the same reasoning to conclude that folks running Saudi Arabia are a-ok also.

Success meaning 'not as bad as Cambodia' is pretty faint praise.

Slavery was cool in the south

By Stevil on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 8:48pm.

It never was - but let's be realistic - the reality was even people like Washington and Jefferson lived in a time and a place where you weren't going to change it - and they knew it. They also knew that the time and place would eventually come. And it did.

To everything, turn, turn, turn - a time for every purpose under heaven.

I don't believe it was the monarchy that was doing this

By Neal on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 2:18pm.

But the current military government of Thailand instead. As King, he was not involved with the political affairs of state. The King himself stated in 2005 that it is perfectly okay to criticize him.

http://www.nationmultimedia

By Andreas on Fri, 10/14/2016 - 4:22am.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2005/12/05/headlines/data/headlines_1933...

Interesting fact about his birth and the US Constitution

By adamg on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 10:46am.

Been a lot of talk over the past couple of years about how you automatically become a US citizen if you're born here. But that didn't apply to him, because the 14th amendment includes the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and children of foreign sovereigns are not subject to US jurisdiction (and for the same reasons they have diplomatic immunity).

That goes for Embassy areas, too

By anon on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 1:35pm.

My grandfather was born on the grounds of an embassy, and was, therefore, not born in the US but in Canada.

But he was born in Thailand

By tachometer on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 11:03am.

Technically at least.

the US Government declared that Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge was in the territory of Thailand for the duration of his birth, allowing him to claim that he was born on Thai soil.

classy

By Scumquistador on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 11:09am.

gesture

Very cool

By Stevil on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 11:17am.

N/T

True though?

By Bobby on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 12:53pm.

I'd love to believe that's true but I can't find anything other than that site making that claim. Any other sources?

Yes and no

By tachometer on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 1:57pm.

If you search you will see the same thing stated in a variety of sites with his biography. I didn't find anything citing a specific act or proclamation but I also didn't dig too deep. Canada definitely did the same thing for Dutch Princess Margriet's birth during WWII though so it seems possible at least.

Cuts both ways

By Tim McCormack on Fri, 10/14/2016 - 10:15am.

Wouldn't that mean a few other babies born at the same time were also born in Thailand? :-)

Cambridge native dies in Thailand

Comments

Support Universal Hub

In other Cambridge news