From Wikipedia:

The crime of apartheid is defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as inhumane acts of a character similar to other crimes against humanity "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

On 30 November 1973, the United Nations General Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA)[1] It defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

In my view, Malaysia's policies that provide different educational and job opportunities based on race clearly constitute inhumane policies in the context of an institutionalized and systematic attempt to preserve the primacy of one race.

Enough said.

I think that requires extraordinarily broad readings of 'inhuman acts' and especially 'systematic oppression.' If the word can be used to describe both the National Party and Black Economic Empowerment, it's not really too useful, certainly not with the baggage that comes with it.

The word is so strongly associated with the worst and most pervasive excesses of such a system, and has such opprobrium attached to it, that using it to describe even as elaborate an affirmative action system as Malaysia's is irresponsible and misleading.

I think that requires extraordinarily broad readings of 'inhuman acts' and especially 'systematic oppression.' If the word can be used to describe both the National Party and Black Economic Empowerment, it's not really too useful, certainly not with the baggage that comes with it.

The word is so strongly associated with the worst and most pervasive excesses of such a system, and has such opprobrium attached to it, that using it to describe even as elaborate an affirmative action system as Malaysia's is irresponsible and misleading.

Well, I guess it depends on what you think is inhumane. To me, it is inhumane that a child of one race should have worse access to education than a child of another race, on a systematic basis. But we can agree to disagree. I would hope that you can at least see that I hold a valid view - even if yours differs - and that it does not undermine the credibility of my reporting on Thailand. Best wishes.

That's quite fair yes. Like I said in my original post, the system is racist and it should be (for everyone's sake, including the Bumiputera's) abolished. Just to me that system and apartheid, commonly perceived as it was practised in South Africa, are of such different orders of magnitude as to be incomparable.

But you're right, reasonable people can certainly disagree on this. I apologize for my overblown first comment, it was undeserved. What you did with the Thai documents required courage and will hopefully speed that country's progress towards a healthy political system. As you well stated, Thailand gets a free pass too often simply because it has been for decades the most functional of a dysfunctional bunch.

Andrew got a good start comparing Thailand with her neighboring countries. But he misrepresented a few facts & chose to blame the Royal Palace as the force behind the scene that has been against Thaksin & his followers as well as against the progress in democracy. He also blamed the lese majestic law as the primary reason that causes national ill and that stifles people’s freedom of expression & information. Andrew’s article is not a constructive but has a destructive intent.

As the long term resident reporter in Thailand for 15 years, I questioned his knowledge on Thailand & his motive on this article. Whatever the actual content of the cable written by the US diplomat(s) in Thailand that sent to the US Dept was, the views expressed there are just opinions that are not necessary correct and/or factual entirely.

From the start Andres misapplied the word “Rowdy” to Royals instead of the Red Shirts who are Thaksin’s blind followers, who have no respect to the rules of law & no hesitation to resort to violence. It’ll be better if Andrew would explain & specifically give the examples of what the Royals has done that represented ROWDY acts. What the crown prince’s wife did walking around naked in their residence to celebrate their pet’s birthday is their personal matter. It’s the choice they made; they have to live with their misdeeds & poor judgment. You criticized them just like the majority of Thais who deemed this as inappropriate because you & most Thais expected the couple to behave like the royalty but forgot that they, just like us, are humane and not perfect.
Andrew failed to realize that according to Thai constitution, Thai armed forces are required to protect the country & the Royal institution as well as to be loyal to the king in the similar manner that U.S. citizens pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag & the nation. When members of associations and students of schools in the US & other countries are not condemned to pledge their loyalty to the organization, it should be more than acceptable for Thais whether civilians or uniformed officers to be loyal to their King who has devoted his life working for Thai people & Thailand. In the US & other countries, there are laws against graffiti on public & private properties. There are also laws to protect individuals from being baselessly defamed & from being threatened. Being subject to such wicked acts, victims are given the right to take legal actions to defend & protect themselves. But in Thailand, we don’t want our King, Queen, members of royal family and members of the regency council to appear in court spending time & resources to defend & protect themselves from hostile acts & evil intent against them by Thais or foreigners. These are the primary reasons we have the lese majestic law. But just like what has happened in America & other countries around the world, the administrative & judicial branches are not perfect in prosecuting & punishing the accused wrongdoers. It’s not uncommon that facts & evidence on legal cases are distorted or overlooked while rules of law are misinterpreted; thus innocent people have been wrongly punished. Yes, the law has been misused by people & politicians against others with hidden agenda. But it’s very irresponsible to blame the law itself instead of people & officials involving the administrative & judicial functions of the law.

I and majority of Thai people wonder why foreigners have to be so overly concerned & outwardly advocate to destroy this lese majesty law if the majority of Thai people accept it and happy to live with it? What give the foreigners the right to meddle in the internal affairs, customs or traditions, and culture of another independent nation?

Near the end of his 3rd paragraph, I don’t see the need or relevance for Andrew to add the adjective word “estranged” in bold to Queen Siritkit as the wife of our beloved king. If there is any separation at all, we Thais understand because His Majesty has been in the hospital for a few years already due to frail health. Whether the separation is real, we do not see it a problem or the reason that caused the political crisis or social chaos. We know that our King & Queen are human, have family and have to deal with the family affairs just like other human beings. Yes, as human being, nothing is perfect; our beloved king has family problems too, but they are his private matter that HM has to deal with. Nonetheless, the separate whether true or not did not occur when they were young. Both our beloved King & Queen have appeared together in informal & formal functions as old and frail as they are in recent times. Again, I question Andrew’s motive in using the word “estranged” wife for Queen Siritkit here!
When Andrew said that he had to give up his employment with Reuters & left Thailand to write this article because he fears the lese majestic law will be applied on his questionable article, he also has implied that freedom of information is nowhere to be found in Thailand and that there is no open debate in Thai society for issues confronting the nation and/or affecting the future of the country. His statement and/or implication are absolutely not true but purely fabricated lie. Compared to the periods during Thaksin’s time as the country PM and those before him, there are more newspapers, media & magazines. While in power, Thaksin monopolized the nation’s satellite TV & telecommunication. Today, there are over 60 licensed independent satellite TV operators in the country. The press & media have much more freedom to publish & broadcast their stories. Reporters from competing press & media have reached out to Thai people in all corners of the country to stage interview & organize community debates on issues affecting their locality. The cyber surfers in Thailand have enjoyed faster speed of service when they get on the Internet. The number people suing Internet and cell phones to communicate & get information via social networking & websites have undoubtedly increased.
It is undeniable that freedom has limitation and comes with the responsibility. This is why there is libel suit against baseless defamation. This is why there are rules and regulations for passengers to follow from the check-in procedure passing through the security inspection to on board the aircraft that flies them to distant destinations. Therefore, it is not a secret at all that from time to time, govt officials have to exercise their authority to apply the pertinent laws to ensure people will be responsible in freedom of expression and information they disseminate.

In this modern day & age, Thai society has also evolved with time & changes occurring around the world. Like most developing nations under the capitalism & free market economic systems, the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider and wider. With the proliferation of democracy and education, other than the 2009 military coup, the military’s roles & influence in Thailand politics & society are not as dominant as the past 2 decades and before. Military personnel are members in the society. Top military brasses are educated people & many are trained in the US. Therefore, they have to be more aware of public sentiment and global reaction or objection as well as condemnation if they resort to use military force to interfere with civilian rule & democratic process. Thus, they have shown restraint despite being provoked by the rowdy red shirt armed guards and their violent acts, and despite repeated provocations by the intruding Cambodian soldiers along the dispute border. Yes, Andrew is correct that credit should also be given to Thaksin in neutralizing the power of Thai armed forces on interfering with governmental affairs. But Andrew should tell the reader that Thaksin did it by buying them out in the same fashion as he bought out most of the small opposing parties to win his first general election.

Andrew did a disservice to the reader by suggesting that Thaksin’s popularity & populist policy are the threat to the palace and His Majesty. At his age and with his poor health and status in addition to his Buddhist faith, there is no good reason for King Bhumibol to personally envy Thaksin’s success. HM’s focus has always been on well-being of Thai people and the progress as well as stability and peace of Thailand since his early days as the young monarch. The King’s primary palace in Bangkok is much smaller than mansions belonged to the rich in Thailand, in the US and other countries. This is why HM has advocated sufficiency economy. That’s why HM has worked hard traveling to all corners of the country by all means to be in touch with Thai people whether there’s paved road or not. If Andrew has any fairness and honesty at all, he should tell his reader that our beloved king has often emphasized the need to be ethical and diligent as well as harmonious for officials and Thai people to work together for the progress, peace, stability and happiness of the nation. HM also has publicly promoted democracy and stressed the importance for having democratic process. There is no doubt that Thailand is an open society and in many aspects, Thailand has more freedom that most nations in the world including the U.S. But still, there are plenty of rooms for improvement especially in the area of ethics, transparency, check & balance system, quality of live, etc.

As the patriarch and head of the household, when the crisis hit the family, it should be acceptable for the head of the family to express concern & constructive suggestion to right the wrong and to find the best possible ways to resolve the crisis/conflct. Is it wrong in the process to say things in black & white or right & wrong? When the children in the household have a fight among themselves and tried to destroy the house or set the house on fire, should the head of household do nothing or say nothing? When the nation’s capital city was attacked & set on fire by members of the family, is it wrong for the patriarch (HM in this case) to express his sorrow to see the tragic incident incurred in front of his in his time?

I wish Andrew and other foreigners who have the same negative view will have the decency to stop blaming our beloved King who we regard as the father & soul of our country for the conflict and what has gone wrong in our country. Blaming the all ill in Thai society particularly the lack of freedom in expression and information solely on the lese majestic law is the mark of tunnel vision. Ignoring other factors especially wide spread corruption contributing to the political & social problems equates to being narrow minded. If Andrew really loves and cares about Thailand, and if Andrew has nothing to hide, he should have honestly & truthfully provided more constructive comments and ideas instead of promoting the destruction of the single law, the lese majesty.

For Andres and other similar minded people (Thai & foreigner) who hate this law so much, they behave like those thieves, criminals and wrongdoers who hate the laws and procedures enacted to catch them and punish them for preventing them from carrying out & attempting to get away with their wrongdoing.

It's clear from the cables that since 2005, the Thai establishment has been trying to undermine Thaksin and his allies however possible. The leaked cables only go up to the spring of 2010 so they do not offer comment on Sunday's election; however, there is no reason to believe things will be much different now.

If your characterization of the last five years is "muddling along" then I agree Thailand may well have more of the same. I would say the situation is much worse than a muddle.

For example, the World Factbook reports an estimated 1.2% unemployment rate and a 7.8% real GDP growth rate for 2010. It has $176 billion in gold and foreign currency reserves which is ranked 12th in the world.

It is certainly possible that the various Thai interest groups fail to reach a compromise solution, and violence breaks out, but I just put the odds at less than 50% where the author seems to estimate it at over 50%.

I'm surely agree with you.
That fact is really acute and actual right atm coz people think too good about their leaders whilst they do everything right on the contrary.
------------------------------------------------------------
????????? ???????? ? ?????? ??????? ?????