I have just finished reading Paul Handley’s biography of Thailand’s King Bhumiphol. The book is banned in Thailand and there are even reports that access to the web site of the book’s publisher has been blocked by Thai internet service providers. There is certainly much in the book that would cause grave offence to Thais, especially given the current outpouring of love and respect that has marked the sixtieth anniversary of the King’s reign. I have heard some Thais here in Australia dismiss the book as “biased” or as containing a lot of “gossip”. Handley is, no doubt, critical of what he sees as the persistently anti-democratic tendencies of the monarchy in Thailand. And there is a sprinkling of salacious gossip about the royal family. But the criticisms are placed in the context of a detailed political history of Thailand since the early decades of the twentieth century. This political history strikes me as an important contribution to Thai scholarship and, while there is much room for debate about specific findings, there are many insights which contribute to an understanding of Thailand’s current political mess. And, yes, there is some gossip (though most of Handley’s material seems to come from well documented sources). But, from an Australian perspective, this seems rather mild, especially when compared to the extraordinary dissection of our own royal family’s woes.
Over the past few months in Thailand there has been much discussion about the importance of democratic institutions beyond the electoral process. Should those institutions cater for free publication of political opinion, even if that opinion involves criticism of a figure as revered as the King? What role do lèse-majesté laws have to play in a modern democracy? To me it is clear that there is enormous respect for the King throughout Thailand. Banning an informed, if critical, political commentary on his reign seems to involve an underestimation of the strength and resilience of this sentiment.
Where can I buy this book ?
Thanks to anyone who can provide me the information where to buy.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
what would u do if
1- u were appointed as a young naive boy
2 – trying to survive
3 – alone. not really a thai or a westerner
4 – surrounded yourself with groups that would make u survives …1st the military and etc.
face the facts, my man.
history will judge u soon.
it is even now doing so.
Quality comment or not?
2 
4
Can you pls advise where The Kind Never Smiles by Paul Handley can be purchased in Melbourne
Thk you
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I do not know Handley, although I am familiar with a couple of pieces he did earlier in FEER. I will not debate specific issues as this is not my intention although it would appear that is exactly what Handley would like. I have extensive experience on Thailand professionally (state department) and personally (lived there 18 years) and have PhDs in law and economics.
Anyone interested in understanding Thailand and Thai culture I urge you please do your own homework. There is well researched scholarly work and analysis available that would qualify for refereed journals. Handley’s book does not fit that category. That doesn’t matter much. It has far different purposes. (I did not say “don’t buy this book.”) All of the controversy following the publication is the reward Handley sought and has now achieved. My initial reaction was hostility and desire to have at it face off with Handley. But then this is not even ideology when you look at in perspective. Getting into in a debate in print is what Handley wants. A hint of a modus operandi. Google on Handley And “king never smiles” and look at the “history” tab, did Handley make nearly all of these entries. Look at the links and find cross references to other Wikipedia entries. (there is a basic problem with Wikipedia – that is, it is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can make entry’s for publication without any editorial review. My god, take look at Handley’s repartee in this month’s (Nov 06) FEER http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/ 0611/free/p006.html.
If parts of this book appear well researched and documented but others appear as opinion and gossip (as the lead-in to this blog suggests, then proceed with caution because dear Hobbes you are not told which parts are self serving commere pejoratif and which are not. I can without risk of persecution say that “in my opinion” U.S. president an incompetent stupid ass. There is no “in my opinion” here but declarative style meaning to appear authorative, “this is fact.” In today’s world anyone can say things about anyone but the risk in a country like Thailand is of becoming a persona non grata. Which Mr. Handley now is.
Quality comment or not?
0 
2
Please let we live in our own way..And please do not touch our beloved King
Quality comment or not?
3 
10
I might read Mr Handley’s book, but only if I see it at a library as I am not inclined to pay him for it.
The King may not smile, but he is human, and admits that he can make mistakes.
It is clear from his actions that the King has the best interests of his country at heart, but one has to wonder at the intentions of those who choose to criticise the King.
Why is it that the academics at this site choose to criticise the king, the coup and the urban elite, but generally leave Thaksin alone just because he won a majority of the votes?
Have a look at Andrew’s response the the following questions posed by Thai in Seattle:
Do you know how Thaksin & his cronies had manipulated Thai Constitution, laws (election & others) & annual budget for their personal & political party gains? THIS IS A COMPLEX ISSUE!
Do you think Thaksin did not engage in monopolistic business practices? MONOPOLISTIC? I DON’T THINK SO. BUT, AGAIN, NEW MANDALA WOULD WELCOME A POST ON THESE BUSINESS ISSUES.
Do you think it is right and fair to exempt Thaksin from paying capital gain tax from his $1.7 billion sales of assets while the agents of the Dept of Revenue were sent to count the numbers of bowl of noodle sold in the noodle shops? RIGHT? FAIR? LEGAL? MORAL? THESE ARE ALL RATHER DIFFERENT ISSUES. BUT, I AGREE, BOWLS OF NOODLES SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!
I’m just waiting to James Haughton to chime in and tell me I have all the maturity of a fourteen year old.
Quality comment or not?
1 
10
It’s not your maturity that’s the problem – it’s your sad hold on the truth.
For the thousandth time….. Thailand doesn’t have a capital gains tax for individual asset sales in the stock market. It’s not just Thaksin – nobody has to pay this tax.
Sales of noodles aren’t charged a capital gains tax either – they get a VAT or a corporate income tax. These have nothing to do with capital gains.
Quality comment or not?
5 
1
I’ve posted on this topic before – you are looking at the wrong transaction.
You need to look at the Ample Rich transactions – there was an obvious scheme to avoid tax.
So you think using tax haven companies, nominees/maids etc to avoid tax (and scrutiny) is acceptable behaviour for a prime minister?
All this from a so called champion of the rural poor!
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
What’s wrong with the author ‘s brain and his eyes.
I’ve always see my beloved king smile.
He’s never ask anyone to love him but
all Thai people love him because all things he did to our country.
If you don’t know the true or do the good research before write
the book , you should not write.
Are you the author or just write it down and print without using brain or common sense.
Quality comment or not?
2 
13
Did the Author who wrote The King Never Smile?
Had met the King? Did he make personel interview with King?
If, Not why? and How can this book named a King Biography??
All contents might be a full true facts!
This is not Fair to the King!!
Do you agree??
====================
Every Year Dec 5, the King Birthday, he got the chance to
speak to public only once a year.
Why the Book Author go to meet the King and have
personel interview with him.
This is Fair to him!!
=========================
Quality comment or not?
0 
12
Handley requested a personal royal interview, but was denied.
I wish that people who criticize the book actually read it. It’s a very factually correct biography, and the analysis is very interesting. I don’t agree with all the points, but if you’re interested in Thai politics and the King’s role, it’s a must read.
Quality comment or not?
10 
0
If you’re really love the king ,you have to let him out of the politics. The king never protect Thai’s democracy but he protect his family and his conservative system as he did when Prem was the priminister. Thai people should learn to live with the principle of democracy ,not this beloved king .Don’t forget he can’t live forever. You have to develop yourself to live with the next King also.
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
Talking about being factually correct, on the first page of the book, Handley already got it wrong. King Bhumibol was born at the Mt. Auburn Hospital in Cambridge Mass., not in Brookline. …. Need I say more…..
Quality comment or not?
0 
6
Kasumo, while technically true, that’s like saying that somebody born in Siriraj Hospital wasn’t born in Bangkok. The town of Brookline is opposite the Charles River from the city of Cambridge. Mt. Auburn Hospital itself is right next to the river.
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
=)
Let us move on to the second page of the book concerning HRH the Princess Mother. Handley wrote that “A commoner, part Chinese, Sangwal was born to a poor parents in 1900 just across the Chaophraya River from the Grand Palace.”
Also wrong !
HRH the Princess Mother was born in Nonthaburi Province according to the book “My Mother Told Me” by Princess Galyani Vadhana, her owed daughter.
HRH the Princess Mother’s grandfather lived across the Chaophraya River from the Grand Palace as Handley understood, but her father and mother moved to Nonthaburi before she was born. This is why HRH the Princess Mother actually born in Nonthaburi not just across the Chaophraya River from the Grand Palace. In fact, many websites got this fact wrong. So, was Handley.
If I have more time, I will point out to you further on Handley’s other mistakes on page 2. There are several more. And I can tell you, since his book has around 500 pages, there are plenty of other mistakes within the book and it shows how careful and how well research the author has been with his subject.
Well should I say any more….. =)
Quality comment or not?
0 
7
The King is very rich. Thai Baht 3,000,000,000 is also tax-free.
It’s a real pity for poor Thai people. The rich keeps telling us to follow the Sufficient Economic Policy. Between the line is that the rich doesn’t want poor people to have more economic power.
“Let the people be poor and uneducated, they will be very obedient and easy to be controlled.” That’s the unspoken opinion from the blue blood and the anti-Taksin groups.
Quality comment or not?
9 
1
Kasumo wrote:
“Well should I say any more….. =)”
If you do Kasumo, please point out any errors on important facts, rather than trivial details.
That would actually be interesting.
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
The king never smile because a privy councillor, king representative, esp. Mr.Paem is bigger than the king and force him to sign everything. His family is under controlled. If the king has conflict to these group of people, they will kill him.
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
yes Kazumo or anyone else out there. Can we have some information about any important factual errors about the King’s constant repressive use of power. that might raise the level of debate or are the lese majeste laws in place here
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
Who is Paul Handley? What book is his master peace before the King never smiles?
I do not want to spend money for this book but might rent from library to know what did he say. If nothing is interesting in 50 pages, it is waste time to read.
Media usually annouces both truth and lies. Hope all readers use your vision and understand Thai culture. Time will help us to know the truth.
As my opinion, I had seen only his work hard&resposibility for all Thai people since I was born. Nobody who is in similar position, has done as Thai King. 60 years of his responsibility represents his heart and great kindness.
The value of human is measured by performance. Anyone wants to get rich or famous by blaming or taking advantage of others. Should we support?
Quality comment or not?
1 
7
I am very late to this page and the comments. There are some minor factual errors in the book, but nothing major, so Kasumo’s points are about trivial items. In any case, if Kasumo is to demand accuracy about trivial things, get your own facts right. Kasumo says, “on the first page of the book, Handley already got it wrong. King Bhumibol was born at the Mt. Auburn Hospital in Cambridge Mass., not in Brookline.” The fact is that this item does NOT appear on page 1. It is on page 12. But really, how trivial is the point? Brookline is where the family lived, and the Cambridge hospital is spitting distance away. Come up with some substantive criticism instead of this silly and disingenuous trash.
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
Dancan McCargo writes a review of this book in the latest issue of New Left Review.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ian Buruma just published another review of Handley’s The King Never Smiles, in the March 1, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
nganadeeleg: keep waiting
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Further to #17 above, I have just finished reading Handley’s book.
BTW, I stuck to my principles and borrowed rather than purchased the book, however having read the book, I now do not begrudge Handley receiving financial reward for what was obviously years of research.
Overall it is a great read, particularly if one is aware of the spin.
The book is clearly well researched, and with my limited knowledge of Thai history I am in no position to dispute any historical facts.
There are enough side comments in the book that lead me to doubt Handley’s declaration in the preface:
“I have never had any purpose but to satisfy my own curiosity and then to tell a more complete story of Bhumibol’s life and tenure on the throne”
Just the title of the book gives some indication of where Handley is coming from.
In his defence, I suppose from a commercial viewpoint it was necessary to have a more controversial theme, because merely regurgitating the 60th anniversary commemoration literature was unlikely to be a best seller even in Thailand, let alone outside.
No pictures are very unusual for a biography of this type – was copyright a factor ? I am sure Handley could have chosen some interesting photo’s of the various players if he had wanted to – has Handley offered any explanation for the lack of pictures in the book?
Handley wants us to accept that the King never smiles as part of the overall grand scheme, but with constant political bickering and people still suffering, why would the monarch want to be seen smiling – It would actually be offensive if the king went about his public duties smiling away, while his countries problems had yet to be alleviated.
We must also remember that the king lost both his father and his brother early in his life, and those events together with having to become monarch would surely have an influence – I imagine being a monarch would be quite a burden.
Another theme in the book is that the image of the king has been carefully cultivated during his reign via an orchestrated propaganda campaign to increase popularity of the monarchy. There may be some truth in that assertion, however in my opinion Handley has overplayed this matter.
He contends that the royal rituals and ceremonies are all part of this grand plan, but rituals are what royals do everywhere around the world (that’s just what they do – always have, probably always will).
For example Handley makes note of the various ceremonies after the death of Ananda as though they were also part of the grand plan, and in doing so he discounts or ignores the possibility that the family & the people felt a genuine sense of loss – in particular it would have been very hard for Bhumibol losing his brother and closest companion/friend.
It is also clear that the royals still had widespread popularity even before Bhumibol’s ascension to the throne – Handley even documents the large street gatherings to greet the young Mahidol’s during their first visit to Thailand, and the large gatherings for Ananda’s funeral ceremonies.
So rather than some grand plan, I think it can more properly be characterized as giving the people what they want – they expect rituals, they want the king to be considered a great man, a musician, sportsman, scientist, inventor, composer – it makes them feel good.
The royal charity works are also characterized as being part of the grand plan, but an alternative view is that the King genuinely wants to improve the situation in the country (the book documents the constant theme in the kings speeches and his preoccupation with droughts, floods, cooperative farming and sufficiency – rather than being a sinister way of advancing himself, I think it is clear that Bhumibol is trying to improve things)
Handley does a good job documenting the political events since 1932 together with the shortcomings of the leading politicians over that time.
Given the various flaws in most of the politicians, it is my opinion Handley has not made a strong case that things would have been any better without having Bhumibol on the scene, and it is fairly obvious that things could have been much worse.
The book also seems to imply that Western style democracy/capitalism is the best system for Thailand, without really making the case as to how things would be any better under that system and whether it would successfully translate to the Thai situation.
In my opinion Handley has failed to negate the King’s vision of unity being better than conflict, and communal work & moderation being better than capitalistic individual desires.
Handley offers some positive suggestions (in the last chapter) regarding the need for the monarchy to adapt and remake itself to ensure its survival.
It is obvious that the succession situation needs to be resolved and preferably before Bhumibol passes.
Here’s my suggestion: – Having acquired wisdom with maturity, the prince recognizes that his past actions make him unsuitable to be king and he withdraws in favor of his sister. Brother and sister work together to groom the prince’s children for the role after the princess’s reign ends.
OK that solves the succession issue, now let’s write a new constitution.
Quality comment or not?
1 
3
por favor, dejenos en paz. nuestro querido rey ha hecho mucha buena cosa para que tailandia pase los putos criticos que povocan por los putos politicos.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Nganadeeleg, photograph copyright shouldn’t have been too much of an issue. The Royal Household licenses all photographs that it takes of the King and his family with a very progressive Creative Commons license.
Note that you can read a translation of chapters 1 and 15 of the book (the title of which is translated to สวรรค์ในอก นรกในใจ) at TKNSthai.googlepages.com.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
to Nganadeeleg! I thought we suppose to criticize the book..why did u just start mentioning about Thaksin? …I thought the Thailand Security and Exchange commission investigated the transactions! Anyways, just want to tell you that we should not be out of topic.. and don’t be too emotional!!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
to Chama: My review is at post #33 (no mention of Thaksin as far as I can see ! )
The previous comments regarding Thaksin date back to early December when there were several discussions, across a number of threads, regarding the merits or otherwise of Thaksin and also why he still had support, including from Andrew.
I have also been involved in an ongoing discussion with Patiwat regarding the Ample Rich transactions, nominees and tax havens etc over several threads on New Mandala and also over at Bankgkok Pundit’s site and Fonzi’s (Tosakan’s) site, Thailand Jumped the Shark.
As for being too emotional, don’t worry about that – it’s only a hobby to me!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
absolutely i love land of thailand ,i love smile of thai people ,culture and my king. i invite you live in thailand for long year ,will understand thai culture.
Quality comment or not?
0 
6
I think your book destroy smile of thai people if you don’t know thai culture and not thai people. Please do not touch our beloved King. and I will tell you my king’s smile is smile of his people.
Quality comment or not?
1 
7
Like many tourists, I noted the extraordinary number of pictures and posters of King Bhumibol all over Bangkok. I was sceptical about the apparently universal popularity of the King and about the respect the Royal Family has in Thailand. I cannot comment on the book as I have not read it, but I have seen plenty of photographs in which the King is smiling. I have seen no signs that the affection Thais appear to have for him is coerced or indoctrinated, although I am sure that since it is very bad form to criticise the King (as one Australian recently discovered) there may be some attempt on the part of authorities to encourage a cult. Even if this were true, however, it does not mean that the King encourages such behaviour, and indeed his sensible decision about the Australian lese-majeste seems to indicate quite the opposite. His political interventions, at least from what I read, seem equally sensible. That a country holds its Royal Family in respect or even reverence does not strike me as a bad thing, as long as the Royal Family in question deserves that respect; the recent humiliation of King Gyanendra in Nepal shows that people will not tolerate a ruler who acts arbitrarily and stupidly. Since the time of Rama I the Thai monarchy has shown itself flexible and progressive (if we take Rama IV and V as examples), and whilst governments like Prem’s come and go, the King is always there. That’s why monarchies, in the right hands, work. An idiot President like George Bush does much more damage to a country than an inept constitutional monarch, partly because there is no antidote to idiot Presidents and no “higher” authority. In my own country (Britain) the monarchy is not doing so well, and many of its members deserve the scorn people feel for them. The Thais are fortunate in their monarchy. Let them decide whether they want to keep it or not, and let’s stop applying our western notions of what governments should be like to Asian countries.
Quality comment or not?
0 
5
John Butler, you cannot compare Gyanendra to Bhumibol because Gyanendra was not in direct line to the throne. When he assumed power he was already disliked by not only the (then fewer) Maoists but the majority of citizens who felt that he were corrupt due instances of him not paying taxes whilst being a major stakeholder in significant South Asian corporations (like Tata and Suriya). Furthermore, many Chetri and Brahmin did not recognize him as a true King from the beginning of his reign because of his suspected involvement in the massacre itself. Therefore, the divinity of Gyanendra has always been in question whereas Bhumibol’s has never and consequently your notion of tolerance of bad governance is myopic!
Don’t you think that the only flexibility that the Thai monarchs show is the image they want to portrait of themselves rather than what is really not so fortunate for Thai people.This is not some Western conception of what government should be like, its simply highlighting a lie. Or do you think that Queen Sirikit wearing makeup gives her right to tell everyone she is 21?
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Wow, this topic surely brings out people’s emotions. As those of us in country can not run down to the local bookstore and pick up a copy of the book, I can not comment on the books contents.
But the topic does raise some questions about how those of us from the outside living in the country deal with this topic. On the one hand, coming from a “democratic tradition” one feels entitled to express one’s feelings and opinions on any topic; on the other hand, local sensibilities need to be considered if one intends to live in this country. I have had to bite my tongue at times while working and living here on several occasions. To any scholar or objective individual, the concept of any person actually be infallible is not aligned with reality. On the other hand, the “image” of the monarchy is obviously a source of pride and solidarity for the Thai people. But, how does a monarchy fit into a democratic country? “All men are created equal?” How does a country move forward while clinging to institutions that are more aligned with conditions in the 18th century than the 21st?
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Dear thaiboy: It is nice that you love your country and your king. But the idea that every Thai shares your view is just silly. I have lived in Thailand for years and have known Thailand for 4 decades, and I can affirm that there are plenty of Thais who do not accept the nationalist ideology you subscribe to. There are also many who do not accept the infallibility of the current king.
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
If the king do not like Thaksin, he can ask him to resign. But he did not. He waited for the military coup and he straightaway supported the coup. Why? Becos the coup always refer the king and has full respect for him. Will the furture PM and his cabinet in the next election be less corrupted? The new constitution limit the power of the PM. But will it prevent the next govt the abuse of power and corruption? I do think so. In the end, who benefits? The king and his family. Who suffers? The people.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
If the king can ask the PM and his cabinet to resign, then the king is having power above the constitution! The king should not involve in politics.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
I am Thai and have read the book for free in a book store in the US.
Based on the claims and info in the book, the book talks about rumours rather than well-researched info.
Personally, I love HM the king Bhumibol as much as most thais do or more. Respects of the Thai towards the King does not hold back democracy development in Thailand, if that is the concern here.
Thaksin (the worst prime minister of thailand
) had been protested by hundreds of thousands of Thais on street for more than 6 months. How could a prime minister changed the laws or used internal information in his favour ???? It did not happen once. It happened many times. I am a citizen of Thailand. I did not allow that but we couldn’t touch Thaksin … why …?? Because of the election, Thaksin could win any election because he could buy politicians. This is the real issue of destroying democratic system in Thailand. !!!
Quality comment or not?
0 
5
who can smile all the time? no one!
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
oo,
“Personally, I love HM the king Bhumibol as much as most thais do or more.”
Thanks for your love story and other assertions. Where is the analysis? Come on, this is a serious discussion – or should be. Enough of the assertion and more factual and intelligent discussion.
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
A few month ago, my husband had talked with the soldier who has a high rand and is working in the northern part which people has very income.He said that about 30 years ago when our king was on helicopter, he noticed a temple with is not in a map.The king wanted to kow , how the monks and people nearby lived, then he asked the pilot to land on a field. He travelled with quee Sirikit and maj.gen prem.Our king and queen were waiting in helicopter while Mr. Prem walked across the field to find a car. Would you who touch our king do this.We did’nt have a concret road at that time,and is hard to walk across the field. He can stay in a palace , does’t need to see with his eyes how his people live.Everyone is not perfect.His project has developped faster than the government do. So Do Not TOUCH him anymore.
Quality comment or not?
0 
8
“So Do Not TOUCH him anymore.” >> Why would you want to go farther than the King himself? If you were really loyal to him, you should follow the King’s famous statement, “I can be criticized.”
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
Nattha : Nice try. You mean no-one else has ever walked into a village. Yeah, right, only a king could do that. Very silly posting.
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
I hate this book. Hate since the title is ABSOLUTELY AND ALWAYS UNTRUE. Paul Handley, you have no respect to our culture and our most beloved person. I WISH YOU IN CURSE FOREVER ASSHOLE
Quality comment or not?
0 
8
เป็นหนังสือที่ดีที่สุดเล่มหนึ่งเกี่ยวกับกษัตริย์ที่หลอกลวงประเทศนี้มานาน
ออกจากกะลาได้แล้ว khun kon thai
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
For a farang, the fact that you can type Thai is very flattering.
Nice reply as well. The post by the “Khon Thai” clearly shows the Thai mentality and the reason why we are a backwards state. So much for Buddhist and gentle Thailand hahahahah.
(กูก็คนไทย แต่ออกจากกะลาแล้ว)
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
ku khon thai is, I think, the first person to use a profanity on this blog. That is a great shame, especially as s/he has nothing to say of any worth.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
oo: “Because of the election, Thaksin could win any election because he could buy politicians. This is the real issue of destroying democratic system in Thailand.”
In my opinion, the media and middle class are obsessed with petty issues that technocrats and bureaucrats like to talk about. If you really care about democracy, instead of dwelling on issues like ‘buying votes’ you should start asking more serious questions. What stops Thailand from implementing progressive tax system, agrarian reform, universal health care, free education, etc.? Is Thailand affluent enough to be in that position?
Nattha: “He can stay in a palace , does’t need to see with his eyes how his people live.Everyone is not perfect.His project has developped faster than the government do.”
Very good point. Should a king only stay in a palace? What do we, Thai citizens, really want from the monarchy? In a democratic nation-state such as Thailand, what should be a king’s role really? Can he do business? Can he accumulate wealth through Crown Property Bureau? Should he and his family pay tax? Should royal projects support organic and sustainable farming instead of commercial cash crops?
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Very good point. Should a king only stay in a palace? What do we, Thai citizens, really want from the monarchy? In a democratic nation-state such as Thailand, what should be a king’s role really? Can he do business? Can he accumulate wealth through Crown Property Bureau? Should he and his family pay tax? Should royal projects support organic and sustainable farming instead of commercial cash crops?
I would retroactive audit his books and tax him. Let him and his family keep their inherited wealth, but I would strip them of all political powers, whether reserve or otherwise. Basically, I would declare a republic and appoint Phra Thep as President for life after which we would elect our Presidents. Of course, this scheme is not the most Republican one available, but for the sake of legitimacy as well as continuity and avoiding the need for any Charles and Olivers, it sounds good.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
I am in interested in your republic idea, but Phra Thep for President? For life? These people live a long time! So we have the Presidential Palace at Siam Paragon?! No. We shouldn’t make the same mistake Pridi did.
On the meaning of the republic, I understand that the original meaning of ประชาธิปไตย during the คณะราษฏร era was in fact, “republic”.
Since 14th October we’ve had to settle for the ประชาธิปไตยอันมีพะมหากษัตริย์ทรงเป็นประมุข
Time to go back to the original meaning.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
leave every counties alone let it be in thier own way
earth is geting warmer,share love to everyone stop criticize
every one will suffer,we live in same planet
westerner ,asian,
civilized westerner whom cause green house effect with civilized brain.
barbarian asian whom always were outwited from who claim to be civilized specimen.
about this book
feed oneself with criticize other people by tring to apply western culture
which is one claimed to be universal culture to Asian.
why one feel concern of other people personal feeling or affection.
how to do feel if one criticize your wife mom or dad.
I personally love this king and no one force me to love him
just only love, no other reason
It’s non of other people business.
some say Iam stupid /yes am I
some say king has good tactics to make most of stupid Thais love him.
/yes I love him
This blog just only for make money to Pual fuckinghand ly
Quality comment or not?
0 
6
Pui: Thanks for your love story. Some mothers and fathers deserve criticism, especially if they do bad things. A monarchy is everyone’s business. You haven’t read the book, have you? Otherwise you wouldn’t post this thoughtless stuff.
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
Pui: You say, “This blog just only for make money to Pual fuckinghand ly” which is silly, so I have to you agree with your own assessment of yourself: “some say I am stupid /yes am I.” You also need to clean up your language. People on this blog do not usually use profanities.
Quality comment or not?
5 
1
I am in interested in your republic idea, but Phra Thep for President? For life? These people live a long time! So we have the Presidential Palace at Siam Paragon?! No. We shouldn’t make the same mistake Pridi did.
But does Thailand really need an Oliver Cromwell to behead Charles? There will never be a peaceful transition into a Republican system unless we get rid of the royals and I suppose putting one up as a puppet is probably the best way. No need for bloodshed and we strip away the stupidity that surrounds monarchy whilst giving a job for a popular royal.
After that royal’s death, which as you say would be in a long time (long enough for everybody to forget their royalism and conservative lunacy and long enough for the new generation to be sufficiently “educated” in republican values), we elect a figurehead President and resume our Parliamentary republic system properly.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Talking about bloodshed, one of the events that was not dealt with in great detail in “The King Never Smiles” (an issue that was raised on NM) was the shooting death of the king’s brother, King Rama VIII.
Read the second installment of Somsak’s research into this history-turning event, “ปริศนากรณีสวรรคต ตอนที่ 2 : ในหลวงอานันท์ยิงพระองค์เอง หรือถูกผู้อื่นยิง” by following the links from Fa Dio Kan: http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?showtopic=4137
This is ESSENTIAL reading.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
KhunPui, I understand your sentiments – and they are already well expressed without the need for profanities.
Teth, we are already in a relatively peaceful transition to a ‘constitutional monarchy’ which, in time, will be more akin to the Japanese than British model. It has been marked by the very sad, tragic violent events of 1973, 1976 and 1992 that Thais should and must not forget – and lets hope Thai students of the future gets a more accurate account of events in even-handed perspectives and relative to the contexts that they occured.
Relative to other societies, Thais have argubly paid a less painful price towards ‘democracy’. As Jonfernquest has stated in another topic, Thais are living the price of societal ‘stability’ (regardless of coups and changes of governments). Was it worth it? We’ll have to ask our fellow Thais and immigrants from unstable societies who settled in Thailand and their descendents (and also those who used/is using Siam/Thailand as a stable political base to affect changes at home).
Moreover, it will be extremely hard – if not possible – for any future Thai monarch to replicate HMK’s popularity, which is a product of specific times, places and events. Thai culture and society is already very different, unrecognizable from where it was in 1947 when HMK ascended the throne. Let’s see what we’ll be discussing in New Mandala in, say, 10 years…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Regardless, there is no need for monarchy: it is an archaic and useless institution that has no democratic grounding. How can all wo/men be equal when one is “above criticism and above the law”? Plus, it will remain an anchor for the conservative and hypocritical sections of Thai society who refuse change.
In the case of the British one, there is a balance between pragmatism and principle. The only reason the British monarchy is still there is because people reckon a figurehead President will mean nothing and cost no less than a Royal Family. (And probably a few sentimental issues). But the fact remains is that the Thai one should be abolished.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Republican, I’m REALLY keen to read the first, as well as the second installment of Somsak’s research…but I’m illiterate: I can’t read Thai. Is it available anywhere in English.
I must say that the 2 main theories I’ve heard of and read so far are both highly improbable : (1)who would have wanted the job in preference to a nice safe life in Europe, and what other motive could there have been? & (2) Stevenson’s theory in his vapid extended P.R. release is ridiculously contrived, and has absolutely no evidence to support it, as well as considerable opposition from scholars of the Japanese spook.
I’m not surprised that Handley dealt with it so briefly. In the absence of evidence, he could have only speculated, as Stevenson did.That would have dropped the standards of what is really a pretty good piece of work, researched & written, I would think, with a fair degree of difficulty, considering that revisionism and bare-faced lies are such an integral part of Thai culture – so necessary for pulling the wool over the eyes of the people.
BTW, speaking of b.s., and I know this is way off topic – I was looking again last night at the letter sent by 7 Ambassadors to the govt 0n 22nd Nov.2006, asking for an audit of some 60 million baht given by their governments (to which a senior prat in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs reacted by stating that if they were so intent on listening to rumours, the appropriate thing to do would be to write to the government, stating their concerns…! Very Mad-Hatter’s Tea Party!), & wondering if anything ever came of it. Has anyone any news? If so, please just give me a reference. Don’t want to interrupt the flow of this discussion.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth, the British took centuries (and a lot of blood) to really make sense of a working parliament and a monarchy. Membership of the House of Lords was traditionally limited to the nobility and is still by appointment only. On that aspect, we have already gone further with a partially elected Senate. And even so, the British have kept their royal family as have the Japanese. However irrelevant the monarchy is to Australia, Queen Elizabeth II is still the head of state. Thailand will become much more ‘democratic’ that is certain, but the monarchy will be around, as part of Thai society in an evolving capacity, for a very long time to come.
The only way to abolish the monarchy is through violence, as the British did to the Burmese nobility – or the French through their own revolution. Both the British and the French had their chances to do the same to Siam’s in the 19th century – maybe that is an alternative history you prefer and we might be conversing in French (or much better English)!
Some argued AjarnPridi and FMPibul had their chances. I will say that they never had. Had King Prajadhipok chose to fight, he would have a decent chance at quelling the ‘revolution’ as the army was mostly in the nobility’s hands (and FMPibul was only a low ranked officer). Instead he chose to negotiate as it is known that the King has been entertaining the idea of a constitution and an elected parliament for quite a while himself. Was it a far-sighted act to guarantee the survival of the monarchy or was it because he believed in democracy? Personally, as a ‘critical royalist’, I suspect both.
While Handley’s book has its merits, I would urge you to read as many books on Siamese-Thai history as is possible. David Wyatt is a good easy to read start. AjarnChris and AjarnPasuk’s is highly recommended too as well as B.J. Terwiel’s. AjarnThongchai’s “Siam Mapped” was ‘paradigm changing’ for me. From a material history point of view, Clarence Aasen’s “Architecture of Siam” is brilliant. There are many others addressing specific eras in both Thai and English worth sorting out.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Sidh, I understand that the British have been through much bloodshed, hence my references to Charles and Oliver. Regardless, the British arrangement on monarchy, as with many of its other eccentricities of government, is a pragmatic (and perhaps a little sentimental) one: it simply works. The monarch is nothing but a figurehead, the Lords is clearly not as powerful as the Commons, and an unwritten Constitution can have “constitutional experts”. So in that sense, you cannot even begin to compare our new partially elected Senate to the Lords.
Sidh, when you say:
I assume you are defending monarchy as an essential element of some countries? Like I said, the only reason for the survival of monarchy is pragmatic and sentimental. There is no other logical explanation for their existence. They hark from an age of mysticism. Tell me how a King is any different from a President (as a figurehead) or why any human being should be born with the right to rule over any other. Not by merit nor by work, but by birth?
As I have re-iterated, unless you find a pragmatic reason for their existence, monarchies should not exist. What is the pragmatic reason for the existence of the Thai monarchy? Conservatism, meddling in politics, military coups, vague economic theories, image-building visits to rural places, killing students (sorry, Communists), appointing prime ministers, disposing of enemies brutally, and superstitious Brahmin rituals?
Most European monarchies have earned their right for survival and its damn time for the Thai one to do the same. Uphold democracy like Juan Carlos, be duty bound as Elizabeth II, be progressive like Margrethe II, or else be abolished. Last time I checked, the US was a republic, so is France, and these are some of the most powerful countries in the world…
You forget that there were nearly 100 people involved in the Khana Ratsadorn and at the time of the coup, important princes and important elements of the government were placed under arrest. That is how a coup is done.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Sidh S: If you think that Wyatt’s book is the best place to begin understanding Thai history, you need to do some more critical reading. Might as well have recommended WAR Wood.
Besides, where do you get off recommending texts to others? What qualifications do you have and what makes you consider Teth uneducated in these matters?
Your reading of monarchies elsewhere (if indeed you have done some reading) seems rather limited to me. At least based on your trite statements here.
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
Sidh S says, “I will say that they never had. Had King Prajadhipok chose to fight, he would have a decent chance at quelling the ‘revolution’ as the army was mostly in the nobility’s hands (and FMPibul was only a low ranked officer). Instead he chose to negotiate as it is known that the King has been entertaining the idea of a constitution and an elected parliament for quite a while himself. Was it a far-sighted act to guarantee the survival of the monarchy or was it because he believed in democracy?”
This is nothing more than the high school textbook line on Prajadhipok. It is also the royalist’s standard version of history. Can you provide the evidence for this view outside of P’s self-serving abdication letter or the half-hearted view he took on maybe expanding the privy council? I’d be interested to see it.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
My point is pragmatic and simple, Teth. Despite all the bloodshed and irrelevence, many societies retained their monarchys. Another pragmatic and simple point I made was that most societies who got rid of the monarchy was through violence – such as America and France, “some of the most powerful countries in the world” as you pointed out (is that Thailand’s aspirations too?). Again, I was not advocating for one (even as a ‘critical’ royalist), just making a plain statement.
And to take pragmatism further, I went back into history (two centuries) exploring the times when Siamese-Thai monarchy was most threatened – and I thought during the height of 19th century colonialism and during the 1932 coup. Restorationist thinks I took a high school textbook line here – it is up to him/her. But we can conveniently choose our interpretations, selections of history. Maybe this is a subtle point in history worth investigating, whether at the time of the coup, who had more control of the armed forces and its key personnels? In the scenario is 50:50, then my point is proven that King Prajadhipok had that choice to fight but did not take it.
In the end, a Thai compromised was struck, the monarchy was significantly weakened – at the very least it no longer governs the country. Under HMK, the monarchy is resuscitated again, enjoying high respect and popularity amongst the Thai populace (this is also Paul Handley’s view and some NM commentators will beg to differ)… At this point in time what is the ‘pragmatic’ way of abolishing the monarchy?
Democratus, I have had previous exchanges with Teth and he has once admitted that his main source of Thai political history was from Paul Handley’s book. Otherwise, as a historian I am certain he is more qualified than me.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Restorationist-
There is a lot of evidence to support King Prajadhipok.
You can start with Benjamin Bateson here http://seapdatapapers.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=seap;idno=seap095
King Prajadhipok may not have been a Jeffersonian democrat, but the intent to transform the political system was definitely there.
Most of his close advisors, including his foreign ones, advised him against liberal democracy, because they thought the people were too uneducated to make informed political decisions.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Most of his close advisors, including his foreign ones, advised him against liberal democracy, because they thought the people were too uneducated to make informed political decisions
They should have advised him to start doing some educating.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Somsak has brilliantly destroyed the ridiculous royalist propaganda that the last absolute monarch was ever interested in democracy, based on the historical evidence. See his ประวัติศาสตร์ที่เพิ่งสร้าง – I think it’s chapter 2 or 3 (my copy is at home).
You would have to be an idiot to believe that an absolute monarch, and all the aristocratic and noble political and economic interests that surround the monarchy, would ever have willingly wanted to surrender that power to their enemies. It’s a total joke. Why on earth did the Bowaradet rebellion take place?
You have to understand that all this mythologizing about R7′s democratic credentials was built up in the era in which the royalists had regained control over the Thai state after the defeat of the Peoples Party, and especially after October 1973, when the monarchy, after 16 years of staunch support for a military dictatorship, had to rebrand itself as “democratic”.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
To Landofsnarls: No, the article on the death of the R8 is not available in English. But I strongly recommend have a friend translate it for you.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Tosakan: The Batson selection of documents is insufficient in my view, precisely because it is a selection and Batson was very selective indeed. If you read Batson’s book, you see that his thesis is that P was a democrat. However, if you read more widely, I do not believe that this thesis is nearly so strong. The king’s main idea was to expand the privy council and establish a constitution that maintained the monarchy, but this did not amount to a constitutional democracy (of the modern variety). After he was overthrown, he complained that his advisers should have convinced him to go ahead with his plan. Post-1932, there is ample evidence that he only supported elements of democratic reform if this got the royalists more power (e.g. he only supported political parties when he thought royalists could benefit. He opposed this when he was certain that the revolutionists would gain more. This is hardly a case for him being the great democrat of royalist propaganda.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
The case of Prajadhipok is one of hindsight. He clearly wanted reform, but what his intentions were, I think we cannot fully deduce neutrally. What is certain is Prajadhipok did not choose to fight, was he in a position to fight is certainly a good question to ask. Did he not learn about the coup d’etat via Pridi’s declaration rather than any of his senior advisors/ministers, who presumably were put under arrest?
My point is pragmatic and simple, Teth. Despite all the bloodshed and irrelevence, many societies retained their monarchys. Another pragmatic and simple point I made was that most societies who got rid of the monarchy was through violence – such as America and France, “some of the most powerful countries in the world” as you pointed out (is that Thailand’s aspirations too?). Again, I was not advocating for one (even as a ‘critical’ royalist), just making a plain statement.
Sidh, you and I either have different definitions for pragmatic or else you still believe the King is a force for good in this country. Since I do not think he is, I believe it is better for the country to not be burdened with a monarchy. That is what I believe is pragmatic: abolish the monarchy and its negative influence.
Considering the opportunity cost with regards to abolishing/not abolishing the monarchy, I still see it as a worthy path to tread towards. If there is no lese majeste, no idiotic clause in the Constitution that subvert the rule of law (ie. the King is above the law), there should be a proper investigation as to the wrongdoings of the monarch (or heir) and punish them according to the law applied to all commoners. Wasn’t the rule of law one of the many things anti-Thaksinites claim was subverted? Heed Israel’s example and convict a head-of-state or an heir.
The pragmatic way to abolish the monarchy: abolish it via a decree or constitutional amendment; put them on trial; banish/exile/imprison them. Of course, the matter of the King’s popularity is an issue that needs to be reversed. Focus on the unpopularity of the heir and perhaps exploit Phra Thep as president. That’s my “pragmatic” view, really.
Sadly, I still feel that it is unlikely, because the Thai “establishment” and network monarchy is so entrenched that change is unlikely. I also feel that the work of HMK would not be undone even after his death: too many will still continue to pursue his ruthless agendas and already they are well prepared for a smooth succession.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth, the Khmer Rouge would argued that they were ‘pragmatic’ – and so would Hitler in imposing his vision for (‘Aryan’) German/European/World society. I think you are talking ‘pragmatism’ framed by ideology here than anything else – you want Thailand to become a republic ASAP (yet acknowledging it is not possible?). No one can predict the future and I would say it may be possible. It is for future generations to decide and the only scenario that this is possible is for the monarchy to be highly unpopular which is again only possible through blatant misbehaviour (a modern example of Nepal – how just one generation may lead to the abolishment of the monarchy).
In my line of thinking, the most likely scenario is that Thailand will mature democratically and the monarchy will also become increasingly ceremonial, like Japanese and European royalties.
I would also argue that at a historical-cultural level, the Siamese-Thai monarchy has been a much more integral to Thai society. Moreover, Thais have the notion of “boonkhun”, “boonbaramee” that is very deep rooted and kings of the past still command deep emotional affection (even cultic following) to today (modern Japan seems to display some of these traits too). You can argue ‘re-education’ and negative media would do the job – but it will require the abolishing or deep rooted cultural practices. It requires every Jatukam worshippers and all those who believe the sacredness of the amulets they wear – whether of the Buddha, Hindu Gods, King Chulalongkorn…etc. to renege their their beliefs. It is ideological deep and it requires conversion (by persuasion and by force?).
On a personal level, we differ significantly as I see (supplied with much the same evidences as you) HMK and Siamese-Thai monarchs of the past as very positive influences in their respective societies. As we can’t predict the future, I don’t know what the future holds – but judging from the past to the present, that is my assessment. This was also borne out of considering ‘alternative histories’. What would Thailand be like without the monarchy? Being practical, there’s two possible times (and they maybe more) in the past two centuries when that could have occured – 1893, a total French takeover of the capital and eventual settlement with the British to divide Siam along the ChaoPhraya River into British west and French east. The second in 1932, if the radical elements in the People’s Party held sway and a bloody Siamese civil war breaks out (with a possibility of foriegn intervention lurking in the background?). In those scenarios which democratic/development path would Siam have taken amongst ‘comparable’ neighbours – Malaysia/Singapore? Myanmar/Laos/Cambodia? Vietnam? Indonesia? Will Thailand do better or worse? Without the monarchy, which institution(s) will most likely take over (an easier question, where would FMPibul, GenSarit etal with ‘absolute’ power take the country)?
Here, I also strongly agree with Jonfernquest’s apt assessment – that the monarchy is Thailand’s price for “stability”. Other commentators may beg to differ, but many Thais will agree with me that the price was more than worth it – and this is, arguably, a cultural preference. I will admit to once seriously entertaining ideas such as ‘why can’t we be more like the Europeans’? It is only after living outside of Thailand continuously for 10 years that the thought ‘I am not European (which is not as ‘perfect’ as seen from inside Thailand anyway)’ and ‘Thailand is making positive progress at its preferred rate and in its own way’ occured and then everything made perfect sense… Yes, it is full of imperfections – but generally they are not too harmful, even charming (pardon my partisanship!). Immigrants from the region over the past century+ and tourists from around the world seem to think so too… (but many commentators here will refuse to credit HMK and the monarchy with any of the positives – only everything they see and perceive as negative and wrong!)
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Like I said, our definitions of pragmatic are different. Perhaps utilitarian would be a better word to describe my view of the situation, that is, monarchy has more harm than good for this country, and, its abolishment will produce more good than harm. Therefore, my conclusion is that we abolish it. It will be very difficult, but I still see the outcome as worth the attempt. Obviously, you disagree.
Blasphemy! Isn’t HMK already ceremonial and non-political?!?!??
The way I see it, the monarchic cult machine will continue running for a long time whether in history books or in the media. And how will Thailand mature democratically when so far 75 years after the democratic revolution, there has been yet another coup d’etat? Maybe because there’s been people who have tried to hamper that development?
Trust me, there will be no stopping the royal propaganda machine. See how they’re trying to give the mantle to the heir even now.
Is that so? So harking back to the Kings of Ayutthaya, who lived in splendor, ruthlessly killed each other, didn’t bother giving a rat’s ass about the country, employed slaves, enforced corvee labor, gave titles and positions away to family members (aka cronyism), etc etc etc, you think Thai monarchs are “very positive influences”? What makes you think the Kings of Chakri are any different? Are they not usurpers, monopolists, slavers, wealthy patricians who cared little about the people, and ruthless rulers, except maybe one or two of them? But I trust you will excuse them by telling me not to judge them by modern standards, which is similar to what you are doing.
The problem is, with monarchy, you didn’t have the choice, did you?
There is no such thing as Thailand’s preferred rate of positive progress. Where did you dream that from? That suddenly all Thai citizens decided to cast a ballot detailing what percentage economic/social/political growth they wanted? Sorry, but there is no such thing. Simply put, there are people taking Thailand forwards and those dragging us back. To explain those dragging us back as “Thailand’s preferred rate” is absolute nonsense, its as if you excuse corrupt politicians as agents of Thailand’s “preferred rate”, after all, those politicians can be charming, can’t they? Or did you mean our military leaders who now dictate this “preferred rate”. How Orwellian that sounds.
And why anybody would want positive progress at a slow rate is beyond me. Maybe they are listening too much to HMK, who said Thailand didn’t need to develop much because if we became a leading nation, the only way to go from there is down. (As opposed to staying down all our lives). And, I do not understand how and why you are attributing national charm to HMK as in this quote:
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Very interesting comments Teth – beginning with the introduction of another scary word “utilitarian”!!!
Ah, another socio-cultural ‘engineer’ I assume! For me it is unfortunate that you see and is apparently extremely frustrated by only the ‘dark side’ of Thai culture. From your response, you are obviously ashamed of your own culture, your own skin and centuries of Tai-Siamese-Thai history. On the other hand, you have very high ambitions, Thailand without the monarchy (which should have been abolished since the Ayutthaya period?!), would have already become a “leading nation” on par with France or America. By your “modern standards”, Thailand seemed to have achieved nothing in its long history!
That is fine by me – I have close Thai friends and respected colleagues who also thinks that way (one going as far as saying Thailand would have done better if it has been colonized!). It has made for many lively and enjoyable conversations through the years – and always confirmed to me that, whatever form of government – democratic, pseudo-democratic, dictatorship the Thai mind is always free (and very critical). Things not said loudly in public is discussed widely in private… “Choices”? Really, who has? We didn’t have much choice to begin with, you and I are born Thai? Some others are born Pakistani, American, Japanese… The majority of Australians want to be a republic but is still not… And politically, how different is John Howard from Kevin Rudd? How different is the Republican from the Democrats? How different is McDonalds from KFC? When the Greens have a decent chance to win an election, then we have real ‘choice’…
But anyway, that’s besides the point. I probably dwell a very different ‘Thai’ world from you Teth. I get frustrated with the dark sides but I also do enjoy the positive sides immensely (over-indulgence will be more accurate). When I was new in Australia, many of my foriegn colleagues (Aussie and fellow SEAsians) observed that Thais are “very proud people” – something I did not understood then, as I always assumed everyone is proud of their cultures/countries. In fact, I have so many bad things to say literally coming off the 1997 Asian economic crisis. But through the years, being outside of the Thai fish tank and looking in and having numerous opportunities to observe Thai behaviour in a foriegn context. Regardless of Penek’s stereotype of Thais in the hilarious film “6ixty9″ that “Thai men are drug-dealers and Thai women are prostitutes”, yes I discern that element of proudness (that few apart from the Thais themselves understand) often associated with HMK, Buddhism, FOOD, “never colonized”, Thai language, Muay Thai, Luk thung, TV advertisments, PMThaksin (not me here)… and a hosts of generic and specific things. Another statement which caught me is an observation by a Thai designer who has worked abroad that “Thais are very talented, but not ambitious” – which had a strange ring of truth for me. I’ve seen many very talented Thais come through the educational system here with the majority choosing to return home (unlike the less talented like myself. I suspect you have that ‘choice’ too Teth, if you despise the country and its culture so much). Ofcourse, while it hasn’t suffered too much ‘brain drain’, the Thai system seem to not fully utilize those talents (on the other hand, they might just want to enjoy life, time with friends/family outside of the utilitarian. I have heard the Thais being compared with the Italians and Spanish too in their attitude to life).
Am I attributing the “national charm” to HMK? In this NM context, where many kept attributing all Thailand’s ills to HMK, it is a fair call. Obviously both reductivist, fundamentalist thinking are false. The reality must be somewhere in the middle – and the extremely complex entity that is ‘Thailand’ (that no one can really fully comprehend), all institutions, all the people in it, past and present, contributed to and are responsible for its charms and its ills (credit to the many foriegners who had a critical hand too – from the Portuguese sailors who introduced chilli to Thailand – to the Mons, Khmers, Chinese, Persians, Malays, Vietnamese, Burmese…etc…etc…, who bought their wonderful cultures to this charming mix. Why are they here – and, more often than not, free to retain their cultural practices and religious believes (something relatively quite recent in the Western world)? Why did they assimilate? Add “stability” to the ingredient provided by the Siamese-Thai kings and we have the package we have today…
“Multi-culturalism”, “Fusion food”, “Tolerance for other races/religion” – relatively ‘new’ concepts in the West, openly and proudly practiced for centuries in Siam (pardon my partisanship again – here, I maintain that everyone is proud, and rightly so, of their cultures/beliefs as long as it does not promote hate/prejudice). To end this rambling, Teth, I respect and accept your views. We are all just “conditioned” differently (and do keep this going!).
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
re: Sidh> To paraphrase that great statesman, Cicero,Quo usque tandem abutere, Sidh S., patientia nostra?
Indeed, for how long will you abuse our patience? In past discussions on this board, you categorically denied my charge that you harbor, consciously or unconsciously, racist beliefs. However, when you employ slimy rhetorical tricks like, in your response to Teth, “From your response, you are obviously ashamed of your own culture, your own skin and centuries of Tai-Siamese-Thai history, ” I can only conclude that you are indeed the worst kind of racist. How dare you engage in this faux-psychoanalysis when the only “crime” the man has committed is disagreeing with you. And after that you have the chutzpah to write ” Teth, I respect and accept your views”?
O tempora, o mores!
Perhaps, being a cosmopolitan by philosophy, I am being too harsh. Yet, time and time again, you defend your points through an appeal of chauvinistic nationalism and patriotism. You state that none can criticize you unless they possess Thai DNA and/or experience living abroad. You claim to be a non-dualist, yet you constantly pit Siam/Thailand versus a monolithic “West”. You introduce yourself to this board as a “devaraja worshipper” and then claim to be a “critical royalist” when painted into a corner. Make no mistake, concerning you, Sidh, Senatus haec intellegit. Consul videt; hic tamen vivit.
You state to be proud that you were indoctrinated with an ethnocentric and paternalistic (complete with the almost incestuous motherhood-cult that pervades Thai culture) world view through the educational system of a dictatorship? Of that, I can only feel pity. Perhaps if you received an education that encouraged critical thought and exploration of other cultures you would know that “Multi-culturalism”, “Fusion food”, “Tolerance for other races/religion” – relatively ‘new’ concepts in the West, openly and proudly practiced for centuries in Siam” is complete and absolute Occidentialist stercum tauri.
Perhaps it would do you some good to read up on Ancient Rome, especially the time of the res publica. You will learn of concepts like “tolerantia universa,” that is the policy universal tolerance of religion and culture that was practiced by Rome. (Although, the tolerance had its limits, as the Judeans found out. Nevertheless, the Romans always dealt with the Judeans as a people as opposed to a religion). You would learn of the many “fusion” foods the Romans enjoyed. You might also learn about the fact that after a certain time, Roman citizenship was open to people of any race or nation.
And all of this occurred while the “Siamese” were still barely a Bronze-age tribe living in the far South of China.
Vale,
Lleij Samuel Schwartz/Numerius Cassius Niger
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I agree with you on Rome, Lleij Samuel Schwartz – until Christianity came into the picture, as you mentioned, let’s not forget. Let’s also not forget when Siam came in the picture a millenia or so later, Europe was in the midst of the Inquisition (and a Christian civil war too?)… Give the poor Siamese some credit mate – I plead of you!
And mate, the only crime I committed for being accused of being “the worse kind of racist” was also disagreeing with you! More patience please, why accuse anyone of racism so casually, so easily?? I would expect much more of a person who has ‘entered the path’ of the Bodhisattva (my apologies if I remember wrongly). But you’ll tell me you haven’t lost your patience, nor do you intend to offend! I am beginning to have serious doubts…
I think it is only fair that you let Teth explain himself why, as a Thai, he sees Thai history in such extreme negative light. There’s no need to be over-dramatic here. I am trying to be transparent about my thinking, I am curious what life events lay behind Teth’s transformation from being once a ‘royalist’ to becoming a ‘republican’.
“Perhaps, being a cosmopolitan by philosophy, I am being too harsh. Yet, time and time again, you defend your points through an appeal of chauvinistic nationalism and patriotism. You state that none can criticize you unless they possess Thai DNA and/or experience living abroad. You claim to be a non-dualist, yet you constantly pit Siam/Thailand versus a monolithic “West”. You introduce yourself to this board as a “devaraja worshipper” and then claim to be a “critical royalist” when painted into a corner. Make no mistake, concerning you, Sidh, Senatus haec intellegit. Consul videt; hic tamen vivit.”
It’s also not very nice to selectively refer to my writings way, way out of context. Please go back and read each of my comments you refered to very carefully and also see what they were responding to! You are a genius linguist/philosopher Lleij Samuel Schwartz who has mastered English, Thai, Latin (which I don’t understand – pity me!) amongst others – we all know and accept that. But please have some courtesy.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Crosby (1945, pp. 77) noted: “At the very outset of his reign he [Prajadhipok] consented to a departure from the prudent policy of his two immediate predecessors [Kings Chulalongkorn and Vajiravudh] in permitting commoners to share with the Royal Family a good proportion of the high offices of state… [They became] a monopoly of the princely caste, and the great resentment created thereby amongst the educated class was not only a contributory factor to what occurred subsequently [the coup of 1932], but had the further regrettable effect of making the Royal House very unpopular.”
Crosby (p. 111) bemoanes that King Prajadhipok did not follow “his own superior instinct anf judgement” but yielded to the “reactionary influence” (p. 77) of his royal relatives.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“You are a genius linguist/philosopher Lleij Samuel Schwartz who has mastered English, Thai, Latin (which I don’t understand – pity me!) amongst others – we all know and accept that.” >> That’s a nicely sarcastic ego-deflation.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
P.S.: Erare humanum est! (or something like this)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Re: Sidh>
Ah yes, Christianity, that Oriential cult, which now defines the “West”. My comments were merely putting things in historical perspective, not denigrating how Tai/Siamese/Thai civilization evolved. It is not fair claim the mythical “West” does not possess certain values, when civilizations that possessed such values existed before your example even existed. Save your Said-esque mythopoeisis for impressing undergraduates in their first literary crit. class.
As for “racism,” let me clarify. I acknowledge that you state your opposition to bigotry and prejudice; however, “racism”, to me and many others, is thinking along racial/ethnic national lines. This thinking may contain aspects that are hateful or xenphobic, but not necessarily. “Race” and “Nationality,” are social constructs with no true meaningful existance. Thusly, I do not call you a racist because you merely disagreed with me, I call you a racist due to the fact that a consistant theme of your commentary is the uniqueness of Thais, which leads to a political and cultural (and moral/ethical?) exceptionalism.
Furthermore, you buttress these arguments by contrasting supposed “Western” values (of which you focus on what you perceived to be the negative aspects them more often than not) to “Eastern” values, which the Thais share by merely existing in Eastern Asia. (Even though the average Thai wouldn’t know a K’ung-fu-tzu from a Okakura Kakuzō.) For a through de-bunking of “Asian Values” I would recommend one to the work of Amartya Sen, Francis Fukuyama [the only thing he's ever been correct about], and Xiaorong Li.
I don’t claim to have entered the path of the Bodhisattva, I’m currently trying to clear the woods before me so I can find the path! I never mean to offend (although I’m still human), I just call things as I see them. Until you drop your “partisanship,” I feel within my rights to acknowledge that your thinking is racist. [and yes, does have the potential to lead to hate].
You write, “I am trying to be transparent about my thinking, I am curious what life events lay behind Teth’s transformation from being once a ‘royalist’ to becoming a ‘republican’.” Again, you claim that a Thai must, ab origine be a royalist and that some horrific event must cause his or her fall to the degenerated state known as “republicanism”. What mystical property does Thai DNA possess to cause a person to be born with a preference for a certain system of goverance? Are Thais like the humble ant, who is born into a certain caste and gives her entire life for the good of the collective? Privy Councilor Ampol Senanarong seems to think so. If I understand your thinking correctly, it is racial/ethnic exceptionalism.
Finally, I don’t believe I have intentionally misrepresented what you have wrote. If you have a specific complaint, please elucidate by providing the proper context. And I would courteously ask that next time, when listing my many accomplishments, you would add “passionate lover” and “possess excellent sartorial sense” as well. Thank you.
BTW… stercum tauri means “waste of the bull,” you can figure it out from there.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
What’s the Latin word for ‘intellectual wanker’ ?
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Sidh S.
You’ve gotta be kidding with this statement:
“to the Mons, Khmers, Chinese, Persians, Malays, Vietnamese, Burmese…etc…etc…, who bought their wonderful cultures to this charming mix. Why are they here – and, more often than not, free to retain their cultural practices and religious believes (something relatively quite recent in the Western world)? Why did they assimilate? Add “stability” to the ingredient provided by the Siamese-Thai kings and we have the package we have today…”
What history books have you read? Sounds very “royal-centric” history like the way they taught me in school! You have to look at migration and assimilation in a specific time and place. Have you ever read anything by G. William Skinner?
What you call “stability” in the Siamese period up until 100 years ago was in fact “slavery, corvee labor, and taxes”.
Now I have a question for you, what do you think of Thai Nationalism ideology = Nation + Religion + King
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
re: nganadeeleg>
I humbly apologize for my polyglottery; being a linguist, it is an occupational hazard. Nevertheless, I feel it necessary to point out that it was Sidh, who claim I had “mastered” Latin and Thai, not myself.
Nevertheless, in honor of your ad hominem attack, I dedicate this to you:
[with apologies to Catullus....]
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
Sidh pathice et cinaede Nganadeeleg,
qui me ex versiculis meis putastis,
quod sunt molliculi, parum pudicum.
Nam castum esse decet pium philologum
ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est;
qui tum denique habent salem ac leporem,
si sunt molliculi ac parum pudici,
et quod pruriat incitare possunt,
non dico pueris , sed his hominibus Thaienibus pilosis
qui duros nequeunt movere lumbos.
Vos, quod milia multa basiorum
legistis, male me marem putatis?
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
I do not view Thai history in any extreme negative light. Show me instances where the so-called “extreme negative light” can be repudiated by actual facts instead of your perception that I am a disloyal, unpatriotic Thai. Even if I am, does it matter?
In fact, I am proud of my country and its distinctiveness that borders on the “think along nationalistic/racist” line put forward by LSS, but I do realize its faults and that Thailand is not particularly exceptional in many ways. But the fact remains that you have never been able to adequately address the points I raise and instead choose to focus on my patriotic credentials. I do not need to explain to anyone why I view Thai history in your so-called negative light because the facts in which I raise have never been disputed. Unless, of course, you want to prove my “negative light” wrong. This is not just a case of viewpoints, it is a case of you failing to address what I raise but trivializing it and instead focusing on your own fairy tale beliefs about Thailand. Fairy tale beliefs which have been exposed again and again for lack of clear-cut evidence.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
LSS: You have a sick mind, but that is understandable to some extent because being a child with such a name would not have been easy.
Hopefully the virtual world of the internet is sufficient release for you, and you don’t need to act out your fantasy’s in real life.
As a non Thai, I prefer not to interfere in serious discussions between Thais, and therefore think it better to let Sidh & Teth sort out their differences themselves, but I’m happy to call you a wanker whenever the cap fits.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
“Why did they assimilate?” > What, the Chines assmiliated to the “Thais” (Lao, Siamese, or whatever), or the “Thais” assimilated to the Chinese? What is Thai about Buddhism, and what does the practice of Thai Buddhism has to to with Buddhist teachings, etc., etc.? It is largely hopeless to argue against myths and segmented layers of ideological historiography. Bringing in a classical humanistic education might then end up as overdosed and wordy elaborations.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
LSS, Teth & Sidh S,
How do you have an identity without a ‘culture’ (which at least now includes nationality)? Especially when individual economic progress depends greatly on national growth. The main problem that I have with Sidh S and Teth’s rationality though does concern ‘pride’. What is a culture to be proud of? Maybe it is ok (and not so universally damaging) for one to be proud of merit they have achieved within a culture, but culture itself only allows for individuals to choose options which eventually define a life. It’s like me now saying “I am proud that I have achieved all of these options simply by sitting on the beach, wearing a Batik shirt and sipping from an ice tea.” Pride is only there to be wounded.
However, LSS, maybe Thailand and many other countries developing their capacity for greed need an overarching pride to define themselves (just as those in Rome, or revolutionary America and France) amongst this international rat race so as to economically progress to a point where citizens are able to enter post material deconstructionalism with suede mochisans, lima beans, avocado wallpaper and Steve Jobs? Wait! An Idea! I think Bhumibol has tried to implement Sufficiency Economy to stave off this need for economic equilibrium with the ‘West’ so as to promote multiculturalism and being able to afford post materialism without the former bigotry prerequisite. Wow. LSS, did you know Bhumibol is really an agent of your cosmopolitanism!? If only people would get off his back there would be no need for group rights and silly exceptionalism which creates this cascading essentialism… *regains consciousness* Oh yes, that’s right… nobody is really on Bhumibol’s back. Back to my iced tea…
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Honestly, it is not very difficult to be popular if the papers, the radio the TV and every other variety of mass media is censored to the extent that criticism of a figure, or figures, is punishable with imprisonment. You only have to look a t Mao, and Stalin and the north Korean leadership to see how an astonishing personality cult can arise when you control what people can read and hear. The king is not actually popular if you take a pragmatic view: the ‘icon’ is popular.
What do Thais really know about the king other than what has been carefully fed to them?
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
“What do Thais really know about the king other than what has been carefully fed to them?” >> The first sentence of Niklas Luhmann’s book on “The Reality of the Mass Media” reads, “Whatever we know about our society, or indeed about the world in which we live, we know through the mass media.”
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Thanks for the elaboration Lleij Samuel Schwartz. However, I maintain that either you intentionally misprepresented or misunderstood my writings. You can go back to all my posts for their proper context – which were in response to, relationship with their respective topics and discussions.
Not being able to understand ‘Latin’ may be a good thing, for I am spared of your jibes (which Nganadeeleg seemed to find unfavorable)…
Teth,
“…your perception that I am a disloyal, unpatriotic Thai. Even if I am, does it matter?”
My apologies if that thought occured to you, I will admit being irresponsible with my wordings/intents there. Your response answered my curiousity.
“…I do not need to explain to anyone why I view Thai history in your so-called negative light because the facts in which I raise have never been disputed…”
We have the same “facts” in hand – just that we are conditioned to interpret them differently as I mentioned. It is quite relative really and many of our fellow ‘patriotic’ Thais’ will probably brand me disloyal and unpatriotic for engaging in NM! You may notice I place high importance on ‘context’. I’ve talked about alternative histories. Let’s imagine a hundred years from now and the Thai monarchy resembles the Japanese in practice or Thailand becomes a republic. A thought may occur amongst NM commentators in the year 3007 “Those Thais in the end of the 20th, early 21st century lived under a tyrannical, violent regime”. They might assume we are suppressed, frustrated people – and probably very unhappy. Thai life expectancy might be 120 years by then – so we in 2007 who are expected to live to 70ish must also be “unhealthy”… We inescapably interpret, judge the past from our ‘modern’ standpoint. We can try to empathize, but it is only possible ‘textually’ – never through experience as a person who lived in those times and places who we assumed lived “horrible, short lives”.
“Times and places” also leads me to Tip’s point:
“What you call “stability” in the Siamese period up until 100 years ago was in fact “slavery, corvee labor, and taxes”.
Now I have a question for you, what do you think of Thai Nationalism ideology = Nation + Religion + King”
I think Tip has already answered her question in terms of the tranformation of Siamese-Thai “stability”. I’ve mentioned in previous posts that “democracy” is next mode of stability and ‘progress’ has been made (regardless of who/what is ‘holding’ Thai democracy back and who/what is pushing it forward).
And going back to LSS’s and Grasshopper’s points (as I understand), there may be nothing exceptional and this characterizes any ‘modernizing’ society/culture past/present. The difference is merely defined by time lags in modernization. Europe/America/Japan has ‘modernized’, countries like Thailand are just ‘developing’. Maybe this will further dilute “racial/ethnic exceptionalism” – constructed “fairly tales” (to borrow from Teth), which will in an ideal future, be only expressed in democratic elections, sports fields and not coups and violent wars? But will it?
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Nationality shouldn’t be a factor, nganadeeleg, as long as you are knowledgeable, reasonable, and open-minded. Generally you would think someone Thai would be more qualified to discuss matters concerning Thailand, but this is clearly not always the case, so please don’t let us stifle what you have to say. (And going back to the points raised by Lleij concerning nationalism and what not).
No we don’t. Its not just a matter of different interpretation, its a matter of selectivity of facts to fit a pre-existing view, but mostly from you. Enclosing the word facts in apostrophes already shows your disdain for it and how they are irrelevant to your relativistic view of history and your favor for “context”, which to me sounds more like “excuse”.
Not only is that speculative, but it is awfully bad history and bad logic. Firstly, we can never live through the experience of any other individual, past or present or future, so your point is utter nonsense. Second, your view of what historians do is dated and ridiculous. Certainly historians are much more nuanced than yourself and probably do not assume as much. Third, don’t be a science fiction writer.
There is no denial that context is important in order to understand and study history, after all, the setting of a play allows us to understand the dialogue. That much is obvious. But when you try to “view the world through their eyes” as in your little trip to the future, it enters into speculative territory. That sort of history is more suitable for historical novels. Mind you, these modern values by which we judge those in the past were cultivated from their own views and values. To you, the cultural and moral relativist, what are your view on cannibal tribes in Papua New Guinea? Are there any fundamental, universal human rights? Or are they merely a new set of views that can be ignored for the sake of stability, or, for the sake or respecting tradition and history? Should justice, fairness, liberty, respect not belong to all people?
All in all, what is clear to me is that Thai kings have not been entirely benevolent nor suitable to rule, in both distant and recent past. Undeniably, some have been benevolent, but as you always seem to evoke your your “I’d-do-the-same-if-I-were-in-their-place” contextualism and relativism to defend them, it smacks of naivety and a desperate desire to defend them.
Sorry, what progress? The unstoppable progression of time? Or the unfurling ‘progress’ of Thailand, a story in which you believe will end up in Thailand joining the ranks of Europe and Japan? Is that your definition of progress? No matter how the plot develops you know it will all end well?
Once again, you are excusing Thailand: because the Europeans have been through it, it must be OK! Its the next mode of stability, OK!
P.S. Please stop repeating your “I’d-do-the-same-if-I-were-in-their-place” defense whislt labeling it as “I place great importance on context”. But do correct me if I’m wrong here.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Re: ngandeeleg, Sidh, et al. (Whoops, there goes the Latin again!)
I come home from a restful Loy Krathong weekend visiting my wife’s family in Nong Khai, far away from the dull hum of computer screens, only to return to the most bitter invective spat at me for the crime of quoting Cicero and Catullus in the original Latin. Considering the fact that such usually reserved for a fevered Jeru dithyramb or a stentorian Republican jeremiad, I should feel a bit tickled that the “pretentious LSS allocution” has earned enough infamy to be recognized as a trope in this forum.
I will admit that at times my writing style can be unnecessarily sesquipedalian; however, despite appearances, there is relatively little artifice in my writing style as I speak like this in my daily life as well. Perhaps, this is the reason why my wife never listens to me. Nevertheless, I will, for the remainder of this post, attempt to express myself in only the clearest, monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon.
Concerning my recent comments in this post, allow me to present the following points:
1. My purpose in quoting the beginning of Cicero’s Oratio in Catilinam Prima in Senatu Habita was not some attempt to show off Classical erudition, as ngandeeleg and Sidh seem to believe. As I was responding to Sidh’s mendacious charge that “tolerance” and “multiculturalism” are new concepts to Western civilization as compared to the East, as personified by old Siam. I exposed Sidh’s gross oversimplification by giving the example of Ancient Rome, one of the cornerstones of “Western” civilization, and its extremely globalized, tolerant, and multicultural society that existed well before the founding of his idealized Siam. The Ciceronian quotes served two rhetorical purposes: Firstly, to anyone familiar with the context in which the first Catiline Oration was given (and that should be anyone with a good Liberal Arts education) they reinforced the theme of republican Rome and its contributions to the West’s traditions of multiculturalism and tolerance. Secondly, if Sidh was not familiar with the quotes, then such a fact only highlights his ignorance of Western history and cultural idiom, and thusly, expose the weakness in his arguments through his misrepresentation of Western history and culture. [The irony is that making allusion to classical poems and idoms is found primarily in Asian rhetorical styles, of which I'm sure Sidh will claim to be superior by default, most notably the baguwen or "8-legged essay" used by Chinese students for passing imperial civil service examinations.]
2. My second point is that my comments were in the tradition of learned wit and sarcasm that exist in amongst this forum’s community. Again, quoting the opening lines of the first Catiline Oration, where Cicero called out his opponent right on the Senate floor with such rhetorical force that the other senators present actually shunned Catiline, causing him to feel the Senate in disgrace…and comparing that with how Sidh’s comments, too, were “abusing my patience,” humorously invokes the idea that my comments will possess the same rhetorical force.
In the online discussions I have had with several posters in this forum, most notably, Jeru, ngandeeleg, Republican, and Grasshopper, both interlocutors have often employed such intellectual joking to make our points more effectively and enjoy such jokes with an audience that can ostensibly appreciate it. Not surprisingly, a sense of community has evolved in our online culture that allows for a speech genre that is similar to the Australian speech act known as “chiacking” (See the work of Anna Wierzbicka for more on the pragmatics of many Australian speech acts, including “chiack”). A similar speech genre is the Italian-American concept known as “bustin’ balls”. (See the work of HBO’s The Sopranos for more about “bustin’ balls”). This is why I’m particularly disappointed with ngandeeleg’s recent personal attacks that I feel violate the pragmatics of such speech genres. Ngandeeleg and I have agreed and disagreed in the past, and both of us have poked fun at the other. However, paraphrasing Catullus 16, and inserting a screen name into one of the most well-known poems of Classical Latin, is not a threat to rape; just as it wasn’t one when Catullus wrote the stanzas 2,000 years ago. If ngandeeleg knew about the context of the poem, he would have known it was a hyperbolic response to prudishness concerning his Lesbia poems; just as mine was a hyperbolic response to his anti-intellectualism in calling me a “wanker” just because I can decline the noun dies in the singular and plural and he cannot. Furthermore, I feel it certainly doesn’t warrant the patently offensive pseudo-psychological analysis that ngandeeleg engages in #91, and it most certainly doesn’t warrant making fun of my name -especially from someone hiding behind a pseudonym. [So I take it the whole "Sheikh Abu Hamaar Nganadeeleg ibn Abd’malik al-Siam/Abu Tarikh Usama ibn Warraq al-Amriki" went way over your head.]
Well, it seems that despite my best efforts, this comment has once again turned into a pretentious, unnecessarily sesquipedalian allocution. Therefore, in summary, I would ask that when we do bust balls here, let’s not cross the line into attacking someone’s ethnicity, religious belief or lack there of, cultural naming traditions, or patriotism or lack there of. All such topics are slimy rhetorical invocations, and the thrust of my original posting in this topic was an appeal to Sidh to stop such behavior, which is neither constructive or acceptable in this online forum.
Always with metta,
Lleij Samuel Schwartz
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
LSS: It will again take me a while to decipher your latest post, however I admit my comments were ‘below the belt’.
The first comment #87 was in response to your preceding posts, and looking back it would have been better to just ask if it was possible for you to write in ‘plain English’ so at least I could read it without having to have a dictionary & translator at the ready.
(I value my time, and although interested in the topic, I am not particularly interested in learning Latin or expanding my vocabulary to include a number of words that, if I used them regularly, would risk my acquaintances calling me a wanker)
The second comment #91 was posted in disgust at having to read a rough translation of your post #89
Irrespective of your or Catullus’s intentions, it must be the prude in me that considers the mere mention of the actions in that poem as way more offensive than my anti-intellectual remark.
Teth: Out of the three tests (knowledgeable, reasonable, and open-minded), the only one that I am confident I pass is ‘reasonable’.
I can see both sides of the argument in your discussion with Sidh, but as a non-Thai, non-intellectual, non-resident of Thailand, it is only a hobby to me, and despite the impression we might get from New Mandala, it is not just Thailand & Burma that have problems.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
One of the reasons the publication of “The King Never Smiles” has been so controversial is that the lèse majesté law has prevented open criticism of the monarchy for so long.
So it was with some surprise that I read Thongchai Winichakul’s piece on the proposed amendment to the lèse majesté law published in The Nation on October 11 2007 [http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/10/11/opinion/opinion_30052054.php]. The article has also been translated into Thai on Prachatai [http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=9886&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&System_Session_Language=Thai]
As we know, this proposed amendment has already been withdrawn.
But what I was shocked about was the logic of Thongchai’s argument against the proposed amendment. For someone who markets himself on his anti-monarchy credentials I believe that Thongchai’s position on the monarchy and lèse majesté should be held up to close scrutiny.
I have extracted a number of passages from the article, with my comments below:
THONGCHAI: “…The more serious problem for years, moreover, is the continuing abuse of this law for political purposes because the law allows anybody to accuse anybody else of violating the lèse majesté principle…”
So, the “more serious” problem of the lèse majesté law for Thongchai is that it allows different parties to accuse each other of lèse majesté. Interestingly Thongchai neglects to mention that the basic, fundamental problem of the lèse majesté law, which is the huge obstacle to democratization in Thailand, is that it prevents the MONARCHY itself, which is an active political player in Thai politics, from being criticized.
THONGCHAI: “…Secondly, in doing the above, not only does this mean that some citizens may become legally elevated above others, but it also grants a few people the privileges and status of near-royalty. This is a blunt affront to the monarchy, to tradition and to every known modern and democratic tenet….”
So Thongchai’s argument is, the proposed amendment is wrong because it is a “blunt affront” to the monarchy – because it grants some people the status of “near-royalty”. The monarchy affronts the citizens of Thailand on a daily basis, but Thongchai is worried that the monarchy may be affronted?!
THONGCHAI: “…The amendment bill may be in breach of lèse majesté itself…”
So Thongchai’s argument is, the proposed amendment is wrong because it would violate lèse majesté. This argument can only be valid if Thongchai accepts the validity of lèse majesté.
THONGCHAI: “…Imagine if such a person did something that injured the reputation and status of the monarchy, he would still be protected by the amended lèse majesté law. In other words, his violation of lèse majesté could not be punished, thanks to the amended lèse majesté law…”
So Thongchai’s argument is, the proposed amendment is wrong because it would mean that violators of lèse majesté could not be punished. This argument can only be valid if Thongchai believes that violators of lèse majesté should be punished (!)
THONGCHAI: “…Last but not least, the intention of the amendment this time itself is also an abuse of the lèse majesté law, namely in providing protection to particular individuals in the current political conflict. It is a bad legal amendment from the start….”
So Thongchai’s argument is that the proposed amendment is wrong because it is an abuse of the lèse majesté law (“Last but not least” – so this is an important point for Thongchai). This argument can only be valid if Thongchai accepts the legitimacy of the existing lèse majesté law, that the law should not be “abused”.
THONGCHAI: “…In the end, if the amendment bill is passed, the revised lèse majesté law will certainly increase the number of violations, the number of political cheap shots. Similarly, the number of court cases will put the monarchical institution in the spotlights even more…”
So Thongchai’s argument is that the proposed amendment is wrong because it “will put the monarchical institution in the spotlights even more”. This argument can only be valid if Thongchai believes that the monarchy should NOT be “put in the spotlight”.
THONGCHAI: “…It will result in special privileges for many people, including non-royals, who act above the public interests and who do not deserve special protection above the law…”
This statement is somewhat illogical, but Thongchai’s argument appears to be that special privileges should not be granted to “non-royals”. The unstated subtext, based on Thongchai’s logic above, is that it IS acceptable for “royals” to have “special protection above the law” courtesy of the lèse majesté law.
THONGCHAI: “…Yet they cannot be punished, even when they do harm to the monarchy….”
Well, this is very surprising. Thongchai actually bases his argument on the principle that those who do harm to the monarchy must be punished … (!)
THONGCHAI: “…The lèse majesté law has done more harm than good to the monarchy. The amended one would do even more harm…”
So Thongchai’s argument is that the proposed amendment is wrong because it would harm the monarchy. For Thongchai’s argument to be valid it follows that he wants no harm to come to the monarchy.
Based on Thongchai’s reasoning in this article one can only conclude that,
Either,
(i) Thongchai believes in the validity of the lèse majesté law;
(ii) Thongchai believes that violators of the lèse majesté law must be punished;
(iii) Thongchai is a royalist; and
(iv) Thongchai is willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column.
Or,
(iv) His arguments above are logically invalid.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican, you are either being silly or just plain thick. Thongchai is arguing the case in the standard Thai (royalist) context, not in the one you want him to argue. Get real, man. He’s not writing for you.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Hey Republican,
You seem to be “surprised” everytime some famous academic, etc. does not challenge the institution of the monarchy in public.
So I ask you:
What are you doing to challenge the institution of Monarchy in public?
Forget the public, you won’t even leave your real name on the board. Damn, you won’t take any risks, but you want someone to do it on prachatai and the nation?
Calling it like it is. You’re a hypocrite. And a bigger one too because you claim to be ‘exposing’ other academics for their hypocrisy.
Secondly, you’re a chicken shit because you won’t even leave your real name, who you are, or what you do, for the world to know.
I would’ve respected you for being consistent with your beliefs that Thailand should be a Republic state. A notion I highly disagree with, but can respect. But you’re just another belittling coward.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Let me ask you why you disagree with the notion of Thailand as a republic?
Royalist propaganda got to you before Handley did?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican, are you smiling? As this post is about a King that doesn’t smile and since in a Republic all are king, perhaps you can explain why the King never smiles? Wouldn’t you find the lese majeste law convenient now?
When I look in the mirror I see Julia Gillard (Kevin Rudd is basically Gaia). I suppose this diffuses any testosterone fueled quest to establish myself as a King and allows instead for surreal affirmations of myself emasculated and realising that this whole everyman is a King thing is too much a rams butting heads on the mountain top to be taken seriously.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Polo: You say that Thongchai is “arguing the case in the standard Thai (royalist) context”. Isn’t that exactly what I said in part (iv) of my conclusion? So I take it you agree with me. Thanks for your support. Republican 1, Thongchai-Royalists 0.
Reply to Dickie Simpkins: one of the interesting things your could do in your spare time would be to trawl through the various Thai academic and political blogs where you would find criticism of the Thai king and the monarchy many times stronger than mild old Republican’s.
Another thing you would find is that the royalists’ criticisms of their opponents in the blogs are full of abuse, foul language, and threats of violence. They seem intellectually incapable to mount any rational counter-arguments to the cases presented against the monarchy. In fact, similar to your post above. Given that you are unable to counter my argument against Thongchai I take it you also agree with me. Republican 2, Thongchai-Royalists 0.
Maybe it’s time to bring on your interchange players.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Re: Grasshopper>
I don’t know if I would define a republic as you do. I think a more accurate definition would be is that in a republic “every man is not king.”
I think this is an important distinction to make as it is through this apophasis [are Greek terms pretentious also?] that such “sheepish” head-butting is avoided.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
This reminds me a bit of the debates that Trotskyists have. What is most important is having doctrinal rigor rather than anything else. But the true problem/issues/people get let off the hook because there is always an internal battle to fight. I think Thongchai has said enough and taken enough swipes at the institution to deserve credit.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I will have to agree with Republican. All my criticisms of Republican are full of abuse, foul language, and threats of violence. I seem to beintellectually incapable of mounting any rational counter-arguments to the cases presented against the monarchy.
I must warn you Republican . . . if next week I don’t see you in full yellow uniform, I will not be restrained from heaping further abuse, foul language and threats of violence against your person.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Spot on.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Historicus: I don’t see what this has to do with Trotsky. This is NOT a question of doctrinal rigour but of logical argumentation. Call me old fashioned but I believe that the argumentation of academics should be held up to scrutiny – more so than others whom we don’t expect to follow the laws of logic and reason as closely. Read the Thongchai article, read my critique, and tell me if I am right or wrong in arguing that Thongchai’s argument against the amendment to the lese majeste law in his article is based on his public acceptance of the legitimacy of the current lese majeste law. This is a question of logic and argumentation, which I would have thought has a place on an academic website.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
LSS, maybe in a communist republic? But surely in a liberal republic, the will of a person is always geared to be top of the pile. Mill’s “always to better oneself” principal for instance. Of course, not everyone betters themselves; but usually if you question these people about their beliefs they are vindictive and volatile – like hot air that has been trapped under a rock and failed to rise. Also, sure you can say that if one is truly bettering themselves they would not need to be top of the pile, but this acknowledgment of unnecessary desire is itself a desire of righteousness, of which all King’s share.
Republican, replying to your reply to Dickie Simpkins – I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Is Thongchai the leader of a revolutionary army that has decided to overthrow the monarchy? No?!, so how can you be dissapointed? He is an academic whose analysis is important to many peoples interpretations; maybe in this context he was sensible enough to not be convicted of lese majeste himself for desiring that the monarchy be harmed. If this isn’t sensible; then I eagerly await your appearance on BBC worldwide when you have overthrown the monarchy with your moderate republicanism.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican,
Your “reply” to me wasn’t really a reply but a statement to go check web sites regarding anti-monarchic sentiment.
Your statement has no relationship with mine. For that, you scored an own goal Dickie 1, Republican 0.
I was referring solely to your “surprise” at Thongchai for not openly declaring war on the monarchic institution by a simple need of survival or being a martyr. Now I don’t know whether Thongchai is pro or anti monarchic, my only argument was that you don’t care about the anti-monarchic cause enough to be martyred or bring it out to the public arena. For you not to have a reply to that, I assume you agree with my logic: Dickie 2, Republican 0.
I was very nicely pointing your hypocrisy via feigning ‘surprise’ at Thongchai and totally kept away at your ideology of Republic vs. Constitutional monarchy, a notion I prefer to agree to disagree rather than argue till we have both lost our voices. I had no interest in arguing the benefits of a constitutional democracy in my above post, we can do it on another date or another thread. To state that I argued for that is a second own goal. Dickie 3, Republican 0.
Finally, you remain a chicken shit for not using your real name or wanting to challenge the monarchy in the public domain and your hypocrisy that Thongchai should have done. That is enough for making it Dickie 4, Republican 0.
The foul language. The abuse. The horror.
Don’t feel too victimized by my post.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth, I haven’t thought that far – in fact I wouldn’t do the same “…if-I-were-in-their-place” because:
“…we can never live through the experience of any other individual, past or present or future…” which is precisely the point I was trying to make.
Each person in history are conditioned by their specific times/places/events which determines their thoughts and actions. I am a ‘modern’ person and if (another speculation – it is a habit as a designer) I am transported back in time would ask the question of those ‘babaric’ pasts that you asked “Should justice, fairness, liberty, respect not belong to all people?”… But would they appreciate and understand me? Would I be able to lay the seeds of 20th, 21st century modern beliefs/realities many that we already take for granted in 16th century Siam?
So I will accept that I am using “… contextualism and relativism to defend them…” which “… smacks of naivety and a desperate desire to defend them”. If only they could defend themselves in this ‘court’ of history!? (it’s to big a responsbility to be judge, jury, prosecutor, executioner all rolled into one – especially when ALWAYS dealing with selective histories. Teth, you may be confident that you have a very comprehensive knowledge of every aspect of Siamese-Thai history to make those judgments. I will readily admit, anytime, that I don’t)
This also leads me to Lleij Samuel Schwartz’s entertaining post which ends:
“…Therefore, in summary, I would ask that when we do bust balls here, let’s not cross the line into attacking someone’s ethnicity, religious belief or lack there of, cultural naming traditions, or patriotism or lack there of. All such topics are slimy rhetorical invocations, and the thrust of my original posting in this topic was an appeal to Sidh to stop such behavior, which is neither constructive or acceptable in this online forum.”
I will stop if LSS writes a formal letter to the ‘higher authority’ (who or whatever that is here) to ban me for the crime of merely expressing my views, as politely as I can, in NM (or are you the higher authority LSS – not satisfied with being the superior intellect? More metta please for lesser beings like me). I have read many things here that would offend millions of Thais, including myself. I’ve never asked them to stop. It is with Teth’s principle of “justice, fairness, liberty” and always with “respect” that I “naively” and “desperately” defend the people I love and the cultures/country I hold dear.
Living in ultra-patriotic yellow/pink/green/etc. Thailand with this attitude must be great suffering LSS.
Also with metta.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Grasshopper: “I’m not sure what you are trying to prove” … Hmmm, it’s written in black and white so I don’t know what part it is that you’re not sure about. Thongchai is arguing in public (The Nation) that the existing lese majeste law is valid.
You say “He is an academic whose analysis is important to many peoples interpretations”. Yes, absolutely. That is why it matters if he takes a royalist stance in public.
Thongchai lives and works in the US, and is a major figure in Thai Studies. So I don’t see how why he should worry about being convicted of lese majeste.
If ever BBC World was far-sighted enough to want to interview me, and I was beyond the long hand of the Thai police, I would certainly tell the world of the Thai king’s implication in the overthrow of a democratically-elected government, and the king’s long-standing support for military dictatorship in Thailand. I also eagerly await an academic who does not live in Thailand to say such things on BBC or CNN, and am surprised that so far no-one has done so.
I am not asking for a revolutionary uprising or overthrow of anything, just for academics who do not have to fear for their safety to state the truth about the Thai monarchy in public.
Instead we have academics like Thongchai publically expressing support for lese majeste and the monarchy after it has given its full support to the overthrow of a democratically-elected government.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
But lese majeste is a valid law. Where do you think laws come from? Constitutions written on paper? Just because you don’t agree with a public law doesn’t make it invalid. If it were the case that you could invalidate the law through your will you would be equally ridiculous as Bhumibol and his impressive ram horns sitting atop the mountain.
Public truth is subjective, this is your truth against Bhumibol’s. Thongchai shares in Bhumibol’s truth. I don’t know what your trying to prove other than your own loss.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Sidh:
No, what you are saying is that you would do what they did if you were completely in their place, their culture, their values, their society. That is what I meant, not time travel.
Once again, you are bellowing out a simplistic view of things: I am judging them and I am judging their values. You may continue with the line of thought that a human being is merely the result of his environment and therefore should not be faulted for any actions. If that is the case, I wonder how the ideas of fairness, justice, liberty, respect ever came about as you seem to believe people from a past age would be unable to understand such values. Are you saying murder was morally correct, in their time? Regardless of what virtues we hold in the modern day, I believe there is no such thing as moral relativism. Sure, there are nuances in real life that should be reflected in our understanding of morality, but that moral standard does not change, and no, the ends do not justify the means. Therefore, I judge Siamese kings of the past as ruthless, vile, and self-serving.
When you ask “would they appreciate modern beliefs/realities many that we take for granted?” The answer is unequivocally yes. They are human beings and surely understand the concept of liberty, justice, and respect: you are too contemptuous towards members of your own species. Perhaps they may not understand our lifestyle and the inanities/vestigial practices that have evolved, but surely they will understand such a fundamental concept as justice.
I’m pretty sure Buddhism was introduced in Siam long before the 21st century and certainly there are elements of the 21st century values laid out in Buddhism…
Your courtroom analogy completely falls short of the real situation. How, do tell, am I being the executioner when I am merely an observer in the court who turns around to tell the person next to him what he thinks of the whole issue. There is no court but in the minds of those who write history. Therefore, your honourable feat of defending those you cannot defend themselves is no feat neither is it honourable.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thanks, Historicus. I hope people read your comment and realize what Republican has been doing.
Logical argument is OK. But logical argument alone is always flawed. We can have an exercise of logics that turns black into white and many more absurd solutions. As a matter of fact, a very good logical argument often lead to an inconclusive outcome. (That’s why mathematicians cannot solve many questions and some lasts for centuries. Many are finally solved only when they add new “dimensions” to the question.)
An abuse of logical argument for a specific outcome is known in all political world. Anbody can do that. It is not a magic; it is a child play. If anyone is only satisfied at doing that, it is his choice. But if anybody or an intellectual community is trapped by such abuses, it is sad. If anybody lives his political life just making logical argument to discredit others, he is hopeless.
A historian who only picks on particular words and makes superficial interpretations based on the pick-on words but ignoring other facts, other dimensions, or contexts cannot make a good interpretation, no matter how logical it is. We call misleading interpretations, at the very least.
Meanwhile, I wish people with lots of brain energy can write more (even once) to fight the lese majeste law. But if he chooses to fight people who fight the lese majeste law, a very logical implication is that he is supporting the lese majeste law. Based on the posting by Republican above, and not knowing who he is or what he has written any other places or before this posting, he must be supporting the amendment by attacking those who are against the amendment. (Does it sound familiar — anybody who does not support Thaksin = a royalist?)
But we don’t reach such an absurd conclusion because we know Republican from previous posting or from his real person, because we bring in other facts, factor, other dimensions into our understanding. Somehow, it is hard for the abuser of logical argument to bring in other facts, factors, dimensions into his argument. Why is it hard? because the purpose is not a good argument or a good discussion, because the purpose is not even to make a good logical argumentation, but the purpose is to discredit the target even by an abuse of logical argument.
In fact, I can show that the logical argument by Republican above is not logical at all if I bring in other facts and factors. In fact the above accusation of me being a royalist is not even logical if taking out Republican’s hidden agenda, implicit ideology and biases. It only works and sounds convincing if the reader is equipped with the same bias, agenda and ideology as Republican.
The fact that I am in the US seems to bother Republican so much. I’m not sure why. The fact is that I am still a Thai citizen. It has never been revoked, as far as I know. Only me and my own family are in the US. My father, siblings, and relatives are all in Thailand. The fact is I am SCARED of the lese majeste law too. In fact for a foreigner like Republican, the worst that ever happens is to be deported. But for a Thai like me — a jail term, plus whatever to my parents and extended family inThailand.
Even so, I have been doing my job and whatever I think as decently as I can here. I don’t understand why doing it as I can, much or less as I can, is wrong, or worth a bashing, or worthless for an anti-royalist like Republican? Can you, Republican, provide a logical argument for your own act? Only a logical argument, please.
Please, Republican, do not hide behind a cheap and very dishonest reason that an acdemic desrves scrutiny. Academics deserve that, I agree. But I know that it is not the real reason for your action. Even you do not want to use real name, at least please be honest and do not hide behind such a pseudo-reasoning.
More questions as exercises of logical arguments:
Why does speaking out straightforwardly against the monarchy on BBC is a higher accomplishment or a better, more heroic thing to do than many other acts? Can you provide a logical argument to support that?
Why are a writing, many writings plus other acts, worth less points than a BBC interview, or a posting with the name Republican?
Can you also provide a logical argument why bashing academics (of course who deserve being scrutinized) should be a higher mission than fighting the royalists themselves?
Why do the ones that are not royalists deserve more attacks even more than the royalists or any other academics for that matter?
By labelling me a royalist, does it help your anti-royalist cause? Does it help much? How much?
Please – logical argument only for all the questions above; please do not bring in any other kinds of reasoning or interpretive factors into your argument.
Last but not least, it is a serious offense for a non-Western person to be called a Nazi. I am so disappointed at your, Republican’s, behavior of labelling me a royalist. It may be fun to you to play this game. It may be important to you to declare me a royalist (for whatever purpose I am not sure). It is not a laughing matter to me, given all the past events that come to my mind right now (you can guess what they are). And you did this to me more than once. Last time you denied that you did it to me. This time it is so obvious.
Just let you, Republicn, know that you should think twice before calling any farang a Nazi.
I am glad that at least unlike an anti-roylaist person I know, I am not working at a university that is named after a princess, thus everytime people menting my affiliation it is not a promotion of the not-so-popular princess. Had I been in such situation, I would have felt a dilemma and it would have made me either resign from that university or stop bragging my anti-royalism because it is utterly illogical to my narrow-mindedness.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
By the way, another anti-roylaist whom I know, probably #1 in the country if he is happy to be honored as such, did receive the degree from the hand of the King?
Is he a hypocrite? If we apply a logical argument to his act, he must be a royalist too. Calling him a royalist could be one of the most serious offenses he ever got in his life.
Any sane people know that he had to do it, otherwise his head could be marked.
Lessons from this sotry:
1. Logical argument often doesn’t work, esp even when an anti-royalist applies it to others.
2. An anti-roylaist should be humble too, like verybody else. Be tolerate, because nobody can be the full extent one wishes to be.
3. Not every act is doctrinal and should not be evaluated from a doctrinal postion. Doing so is illogical.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican,
If I draft a doctrine of anti-royalism, but I don’t want to get in jail, how can I do it? Please advise.
A solution is to not use my real name. But if I do so, how could you know it is me?
Then, how do you know that I had not done it already? How do you know that I have not done anything else that you don’t know?
But I know that you have done nothing else that helps the cause that you advocate. Nothing at all.
What are other options here?
- Try to do as one think one can even though it may or may not satisfy Mr Republican. But that is a sin according to the judgment of Republican and the like.
- I think I can apply logical argument to some passages of Handley’s book, regardless of the whole book and other things he does. Does that make him a royalist too?
By the way, Somsak, your idol, always wrote articles about the royals with good Rachasap (royal vocab). I cannot match him on that because I am not interested in making any efforts to do that. Is that an evidence that he endorses the ideology that the royals are higher than others? By using those words, is it a reproduction of the royalist ideology? Is writing in the same discourse that the royalists always do and demand people to so make him a royalist? Why don’t you apply the same rigorous logical argument to the act of using Rachasap by him? Is he a hypocrite? Is he a royalist?
If I apply the same approach you do to Somsak, focusing only on the use of Rachasap, just only one instance, namely, refering to the king every time by his feet only — prabat somdet…– because he is so hig above the speaker that we are allow only to talk to his feet, I think he is a royalist for sure 100%. If he is not, why should he bother refering to the king by only talking to his feet? Is it an ultimate surrender to royalism — talking to the feet of the king every time you mention him in public?
By the way, to Historicus, had the kind of Republican and his idol have power in Thailand, I am sure that I’ll be among the first to ask for permanent asylum in another country. They are as scary as the royalists.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Based on your long, rather hysterical series of posts I understand that you are affirming that you are not a royalist, and consequently that the argumentation in your article was indeed illogical. That is, exactly my conclusion in post #100. So I take it you agree with my post.
First, it is rather surprising that an academic like you should have such an ambivalent stance towards the use of logic: “Logical argument is OK. But logical argument alone is always flawed”. I am no expert in this field but I would think there might be some philosophy professors, not to mention economists and most of the modern field of academic endeavour who would beg to differ. But the aim in your posts is clearly to downplay the importance of logical argument. Why?
Secondly, in my view it is very damaging for high profile academics to be writing articles in the national Thai media, read by hundreds of thousands of people, based on the logic that the lese majeste law is valid and that violaters should be punished: “Imagine if such a person did something that injured the reputation and status of the monarchy, he would still be protected by the amended lèse majesté law. In other words, his violation of lèse majesté could not be punished, thanks to the amended lèse majesté law…”
What are you saying here? That violaters of lese majeste should be punished. And then you get all hysterical when someone points out that this is a royalist stance.
I repeat, your argument against the amendment to the lese majeste law is based on the validity of the existing lese majeste law. Worse, you do not write this just in an academic journal read by a few dozen people, but to a general readership of hundreds of thousands. Very damaging in my opinion and deserving of criticism on an academic webblog (read by perhaps 100 people daily (Webmaster?), compared to the far larger numbers of people who read your article). Believe it or not, I do sincerely believe that you should be scrutinized – all the more so if you choose to write in the national media which is far more influential than a journal article – let alone a blog!
Thirdly, I wonder why an academic like you should be writing illogical arguments in a national newspaper. There are plenty of journalists, politicians and other political commentators who we do not expect to follow the rules of reason or logic. But academics have a certain status in society precisely because they at least attempt to follow these rules.
Finally, you have done everything possible in your posts to give away my identity without actually mentioning my name, knowing what the likely consequences would be for me if that identity became publicly known. Why?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“No, what you are saying is that you would do what they did if you were completely in their place, their culture, their values, their society.”
Can I be someone else that is not me? Can I be you, Teth? This is a rather problematic statement and I don’t understand what you are suggesting here…
And Teth, you have made your judgment aloud and with great confidence in this very public blog. You are not a mere “observer” as you claim to be (in which case you will only whisper privately to your friend next to you):
“… Therefore, I judge Siamese kings of the past as ruthless, vile, and self-serving.”
And I maintain that this based on highly selective history (unless you are confident that you have comprehensive knowledge of Siamese-Thai histories) which privileges modern standards applying it retroactively.
The notion of “honor”, “honorable” haven’t occured to me – so I suppose you believe your judgment to be “honorable”? What do you tying to get at?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I find AjarnThongchai’s post fascinating read. It does reveal a very basic truth if I may say so that ‘royalists’ don’t necessary see eye to eye with each other and the same applies to ‘anti-royalists’. The next basic truth I deduce is that a ‘royalist’ like myself can have the utmost respect for AjarnThongchai, who obviously isn’t one, as an academic. Royalist/republican are merely one of the many identities we consciously or subconsciously dwell and it is important that we try no to hate, maim and kill over it – nor judge each other too harshly base on it. I may hate PMThaksin as head of government, but I do have a soft spot for ManCity (I am a Kop) since he took over and did a decent job so far (but that may be a bad example here).
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Prof Thongchai,
Thank you for your post and clarification albeit long-wided and completely unexpected.
First I would like to confirm that based on the article in ‘the nation’, one cannot make the firm conclusion that you are indeed a Royalist (as Republican put it) but more that you are against the latest Lese Majeste law proposal. If one really reads your methodology of answering, one could make the assumption that you are only using your examples as ‘straw men’ so as not to break any law yourself. Smart tactic as the lese majeste laws have been used against people for much less.
My question for you is this though: while you say you are not a ‘royalist’ (i take this meaning from your 3 posts), do you take it as far as wanting thailand to be a republic? Or do you look at the monarchy as an institution that should evolve like the one in England, Norway, Denmark, and the likes? Naturally, this evolution will have to come past the current reign as it is not going to be a realistic notion during. IE: Is it possible to not be a Royalist, and still want the monarchic institution to be around, albeit not as politically involved as the current role?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican said:
“Finally, you have done everything possible in your posts to give away my identity without actually mentioning my name, knowing what the likely consequences would be for me if that identity became publicly known. Why?”
My dear Republican. You want Prof. Thongchai to openly state he is against all forms of lese majeste laws and commit lese majeste publicly (hence endangering himself) while totally being in fear when he gives a couple of hints as to your identity. Will your hypocrisy never end? and stop with this self-victimization. Its gotta be like 5-0 at this point.
Prof Thongchai, as a clarification, my questions are based on your opinion, and thus I would like to know what your definition of Royalism is.
Taking it a step further, there has been one poster consistent in NM saying the only amendment needed on the lese majeste law is to add one line ‘only by the consent of the king, or affected party (ie the royal to whom the lese majeste is occuring against).’ Hence, the State, the PM, nor any official (military or otherwise) can move on a Lese Majeste law without “explicit” notice (or else it would be unlawful) from the royal.
–> I would like to know your opinion on such an amendment.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
It’s true that he never smiles !
http://www.bkkapt.com/find-apartment/visit-thai-king-website-thailand-kings-birthday-long-live-king-all-thai-people-love-king.html
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“And Teth, you have made your judgment aloud and with great confidence in this very public blog. You are not a mere “observer” as you claim to be (in which case you will only whisper privately to your friend next to you)”
But am I a judge, executioner, jury, all rolled in one as you said? Ridiculous how when faced with rational argument you retreat into these minute disputable details when clearly you are wrong.
“And I maintain that this based on highly selective history (unless you are confident that you have comprehensive knowledge of Siamese-Thai histories) which privileges modern standards applying it retroactively.”
You “maintain”, even when faced with facts. Spot bleating and actually mention what it is that makes you think like you do. Are you not being “selective” yourself? Are you not being judgmental yourself? The difference is that I use “modern values” by which I judge, whereas your foundation is the assumption that Siamese-Thai kings must be benevolent in general.
Perhaps the facts I refer to are “selective”, but are they false? I do give considerations for context which explain relevant events, but do they then excuse someone?
“The notion of “honor”, “honorable” haven’t occured to me – so I suppose you believe your judgment to be “honorable”? What do you tying to get at?”
I’m trying to say your relativism is nonsense. At the very least admit that murder is wrong and that Siamese kings of the past were very complicit in it. Or perhaps greed for power was not something the Buddha preached about. Surely the Buddha’s teachings had existed back then and is not merely my ‘modern’ judgment. Surely you understand the concept of right and wrong, Sidh. You cannot claim the ‘ignorance’ defense when it is so clear what is brutal and unjust.
Perhaps your so-called “modern values” are not so modern after all. Refer to LSS’s replies.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
After the present King, there will be a 30-40 decline in the significance of the monarchy, perhaps somewhat lessened by a post-Bhumipol cult. So, be happy, or be sad, depending on your inclination.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“a 30-40 year decline”, of course, sorry.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican says: I don’t see what this has to do with Trotsky. This is NOT a question of doctrinal rigour but of logical argumentation.
My response was to the silly comment you made by keeping score and the label “Thongchai-Royalists”. As I sais it reminds me of Trostskyists fighting each other, even when they all fir in a telephone booth. I think you are fighting the wrong fight on this one.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Can anybody tell me a non-offensive Thai expression for “royalists”, i.e. not something like “fai niyom jao”?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican,
I see you are both thick and silly. The lese majeste exists in Thailand. The monarchy exists. Prem exists. These are facts of life. If one cannot reduce or eliminate them and their power, one can at least try and do something to prevent that power from expanding. That in no way means one supports them. (Whereas using rachasap in writing, if not tongue in cheek, is supportive.)
So I in no way confirmed your point # 4, and Thongchai is not at all what you say he is. He is faulty in one aspect: by following your past history on this website, he should have recognized you as simply a producer of flames, just to stir up shit. We should ignore those who flame us.
So, no points to you, no points to me, none to Thongchai and only a quarter point to the turgid historicuss. The one who gets the points is Prem because he has the broader pro-democracy movement fighting itself.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Polo (#131): you say I was “flaming” (Thongchai says I was “bashing” him). I’m a bit surprised because in my post #100 I thought that I was merely examining the logical basis of Thongchai’s argument in his article in The Nation against the amendment to the lese majeste law, which is based on the validity of the existing lese majeste law.
Thongchai could have argued in the same article that the existing lese majeste law should be abolished, but he didn’t. Arguing that lese majeste should be abolished is not a lese majeste offense, nor any other kind of offense. People argue all the time for laws to be changed. Even if one does not want to “make waves” by calling for the law to be abolished, is it necessary to show such public support for the existing law?
So far no-one on this blog, not even Thongchai himself, has demonstrated that my argument is wrong: either Thongchai is taking a royalist stance in arguing for the validity of the existing lese majeste law (“…The amendment bill may be in breach of lèse majesté itself…”; “…Yet they cannot be punished, even when they do harm to the monarchy…” + all the other examples that I list in my post), OR his argumentation is faulty.
(In his reply Thongchai seems to be retreating to the latter position by arguing that logic is not important – I wonder what his students think of this position).
Whatever you think of me, of my “past history”, of my lack of intelligence, etc., I ask you to consider the validity of my criticism of Thongchai’s article in post #100. Is Thongchai’s argumentation for the amendment to the lese majeste law based on the validity of the existing law? Yes or No.
If an academic publicly accepts and indeed bases his argument upon the validity of the existing lese majeste law, then it is hard to escape the accusation of royalism.
In my opinion if one wishes to get rid of the existing lese majeste law leading academics should not be arguing in national newspapers based on its validity. That is all I am saying.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Historicus (#129): Re. your point: “… I think you are fighting the wrong fight on this one….”
So you are implying that if I’m “fighting” the military junta I can question their logic, but that it is the “wrong fight” to hold leading academics to the same standards?
I ask you again (see #110), please point out where I have got it wrong in post #100.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I am a wholehearted supporter of employing logic in debates and always emphasize it in my teaching. However, as many grade schoolers and undergrad students probably realize, logic with false premises can carry one as far as one wants to go. In my opinion, this thread has provided such a good example.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican,
I have debated with you before about the ethics and hypocrisy of you attacking others for not taking public stances critical of the monarchy while you write from behind an alias. I do, however, recognize why you must use an alias and respect that decision.
I do not, however, understand how you can think that Thongchai is free of such dangers, as he himself has made clear. He is still a Thai citizen, he still no doubt wishes to return to the country, and he does still have family there. He himself raised these issues, but you have failed to address them directly. So please, do so. Why and how exactly does he have less to fear than you do?
And for that matter, why does any non-Thai citizen academic, if they ever wish to return to Thailand and carry out more research? Or is the need to abolish the monarchy more important than sustaining an academic career? Because if that is the case, then why don’t you leave Thailand, publish a sustained attack on the monarchy, and resign yourself never to set foot in Thailand again? If you aren’t willing to do that (as your own previous post indicates), then why do you think others should be braver than you?
By the way, I think others fail to address the logical content of your attack on Thongchai because your abusive, dissmissive language becomes the more obvious target of response. But I’ve ‘argued’ this with you before, so I won’t do so again, either.
Please don’t attack my intelligence, integrity or logic. Just answer my questions.
Thanks.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican: I thought your enemy was the monarchy? Wouldn’t it be better to attack that enemy? On your logic in attacking a single newspaper article, you detach it from its context. That is poor form – I don’t call it “scholarship” because this is a blog and you are attacking a newspaper article. That is why, as others have explained, you ain’t getting the yes/no answers you crave.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican,
You made reference to my book in #100 in setting up your attack on Khun Thongchai. For the record, I find Thongchai’s work and his willingness to push barriers admirable, while I find your sniping at him and others for not going as far as you would like tedious and unmerited. Even as I pointed out in my book that few academics and activists had dared take public their criticisms of the monarchy, I have never cast judgement on them for their decisions. Everyone has their reasons — you included, whoever you are.
Thongchai’s article on the proposed expansion of the lese majeste law brought the attention of myself and others to it. So far in your comments you have yet to offer any news or insight into current events, to what is happening in Thailand and with the monarchy. Such information and insight might be more useful than sniping and “scoring points”.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth, let us both stop “bleating”.
I will agree to disagree here as my relativism and your notion of ‘one standard across time’ can never be reconciled. It’s comparable to debates I’ve heard between pro- and anti- capital punishment or even for and against vegetarianism (extending the notion of “murder” to animal rights). Here people often forget there are many who don’t necessary take either stance for it is not something they see as important – or they take the relativist position for they find both sides of the argument ‘logical’. This is possible as I believe in the rationality of my comments while finding yours rational. But no, you don’t have to agree with me on that! I am ok with you branding me as having ‘not very modern values’ – as I am never quite sure what it really is.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Well it looks like I’ve got the Thongchai fan-club against me today. Allow me some replies.
Reply to Paul Handley: “… So far in your comments you have yet to offer any news or insight into current events …” You may be right. But that has never been the reason for my postings on this site. My objective, as anyone following my posts could clearly see, has been academic criticism. The big question for me is why most Thai academics, and perhaps also most non-Thai academics in Thai Studies, failed to support a democratically-elected government last year, with large numbers of them supporting either openly or in private the September 19 coup. Almost all my posts follow from this problem. Why have so many Thai academics willingly served on the junta-appointed NLC, CDA and other bodies? Why did SOAS and ANU host propaganda teams sent by the junta, and not from Thai Rak Thai? Why are so many academics, both Thai and non-Thai, helping the regime’s propaganda by their enthusiasm for sufficiency economy? Why are academics like Thongchai writing newspaper articles basing their argument on the validity of the lese majeste law when arguing that the existing lese majeste law should be abolished is not against the law? Everyone knows the immense status that academics have in Thai society. Unlike you (#137), yes, I do cast judgment on these academics’ decisions. I believe they should be judged. Why not? They are people of the world like you and me with desires and weaknesses. And on an academic website! I’m surprised that there should be such shock when I merely criticize an argument presented by an academic.
Reply to David W.: thank you for pointing out that “others fail to address the logical content of your attack.” But can you point out where in this series of posts I have used “abusive, dismissive language”?
For my part I have been called “thick”, “silly”, “chickenshit”, and Thongchai has called me or my argument: “child’s play”, “sad”, “hopeless”, “abuse”, “superficial”, “absurd”, “pseudo-reasoning”, “bashing”, “narrow-minded”, “hypocrite”, “scary”. Now I don’t mind being called names, but to be consistent will you also say that that these posters have also been using “abusive dismissive language”?
In reply to your question, I am not asking Thongchai to commit lese majeste and endanger himself and his family. But I am questioning why in public he presents arguments that in effect support the validity of the lese majeste law; ie. we should reject the amendments to the lese majeste law because it would mean that “violation of lèse majesté could not be punished”. In my opinion this is a dangerous argument to make in public. Dangerous for me too!
By all means criticize the amendment to lese majeste! I support Thongchai 100% in that. But just don’t base your argument on the legitimacy of the existing lese majeste law. What that means is that the hundreds of thousands of people who read Thongchai’s article will think, yes, we should reject this amendment because it will mean that those terrible people who criticize the monarchy can not be punished. In effect it reinforces the legitimacy of the existing law.
Reply to Historicus: I’m not quite clear what you mean, but I think I already answered this point in #133. Re. attacking newspaper articles written by academics, in my opinion these should be attacked all the more strongly because the readership is much greater than for a journal article, its political effects much more immediate, and the readership sometimes less familiar with the complexity of the issue.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“For my part I have been called “thick”, “silly”, “chickenshit”, and Thongchai has called me or my argument: “child’s play”, “sad”, “hopeless”, “abuse”, “superficial”, “absurd”, “pseudo-reasoning”, “bashing”, “narrow-minded”, “hypocrite”, “scary”. Now I don’t mind being called names, but to be consistent will you also say that that these posters have also been using “abusive dismissive language”?”
My Dear ‘woe is me’ Republican,
If the weather is bad, and I call it a sh!t weather, and another guy calls it a f___ed up weather, and a 3rd guy calls hell or whatever. The result of the subjective opinions is based on objective fact, that the weather is bad.
That no one argues with your ‘logical argument’ is because even though your argument is based on logic (wherein you add 1+1 to get 2), it was not the right fight to pick.
That you get the names, that is because it seems that people here see through your blatant attempt at ‘scoring points’ as Paul Handley put it. Not because there has been a cabal of sorts between Prof. Thongchai and the rest.
That Prof. Thongchai used the current lese majeste law to justify the stance against the new one. It is in his rights to do so and in a “thang aom” (as Thai people like to put it) way of being against Lese Majeste as well. The reason is that if someone, even the Privy Councillor is to attack the Princess or whoever verbally, the Royal has the right to dismiss the Privy Councillor, hence removing them from the protection of lese majeste and lese majeste would be punished, not go unpunished as Thongchai put it.
Stating just that much, Thongchai is already on the border of committing Lese Majeste. Asking or ‘putting him under scrutiny’ for not going further is just a false attempt at trying to be ideologically pure.
don’t cry.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The reverence for the current Thai King Bhumibhol, with or without lese majeste laws, would stay standing . . . as is . . . as to where that reverent standing is exactly right now.
That is NOT the point of Thailand’s lese majeste laws. The real purpose of the lese majeste laws is AFTER the current Thai King Bhumibhol.
But that would all be futile isn’t it? The people of the land will only tolerate obsolete laws if such laws do not “disturb” them. If the person representing the institution is NOT up to it, no laws will be able to protect that person.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I don’t understand if we believe in our king what wrong ?
if we not what wrong ? it can destroy other country ?
our king make us happy and smile it make other country sadness ?
if not stop it and let’s us love him untill we die.
I never read this book but if I have a chance to read it ,I’ll love my king less than now ? NO it can’t becoz he stay for us more than 60th years and I know and see what he do for us , the one book use less time to write can’t discredit him any more .
I don’t know who is Paul Handley if I can miss him I’ll ask him you ever kiss your mom and do good for her ? you ever make your family sleep well and smile ? if not back to your home and do that and write the new book “My mom Smile and sleep well” I think that good for you ^^ if it hard please your time to see the garden and some boy and girl in the park . I hope you will have happiness and success in your job .
LOVE FROM KHON THAI that you never know in REAL!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican,
Of course it is valid to point out that people supported the coup with sometimes astounding hypocrisy. But as many have noted here, abandoning support for Thaksin was not the same as endorsing the coup. Nor was it the same as abandoning democracy. You seem to depart from that in picking your targets, and hence these discussions get into pointless hair-splitting.
For the record, U Wisconsin’s SE Asia department invited me to speak there almost immediately after the book came out — that is, before the coup — and I understand the Thai government made its unhappiness about this apparent. People are taking risks in many ways even when you personally aren’t aware of it.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I feel that “thick” is the right term. Whether you are deliberately being thick for the sake of argument, I don’t know. I’m joining the Thongchai fan club on this one because you simply refuse to look at Thongchai’s long record on this issue and refuse to read his article in the context in which it has appeared. Bloodymindedness is something I associate with the Colonel and others of his ilk, and you are effectively doing their work for them.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican,
Yes, it is of course true that not only you have employed ‘abusive, dissmissive language’ in these posts. Unfortunately, again as I have stated previously, this is a common rhetorical ploy at weblogs, especially those that facilitate anonymous posting. It doesn’t matter whether they are academic or not in nature or focus. Discussions on weblogs have a dynamic of their own that is unlike, say, a public academic presentation or conference.
Regarding your language, you start your response to Thongchai with: “Based on your long, rather hysterical series of posts I understand that …”. I don’t know how callings someone’s opinions hysterical can be seen as anything other than a sweepingly dismissive framing of the other viewpoint right out of the gate.
As others have pointed out, Thongchai’s statements are obviously strategic in nature, and different folks disagree on how wise or consistent or valuable any particular strategic move may be. I would note, however, that your post #139 is decidely less provocative in its rhetoric. I just wonder why you couldn’t state your opinion from the start in those terms, rather than load it up with so many charged adjectives of judgement that others inevitably respond to the invective rather than the content. The same dynamic of response to your language, tone and style occurs over and over again on this site. It doesn’t seem to help your persuasiveness….
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Historicus (#144) and Dickie Simpkins (#140): You two are either dyslexic or from the Thongchai school of logical reasoning. I don’t know what you are doing on an academic blog. I don’t care what you call me, thick, thin, chickenshit or whatever. Be my guest. What I was asking for in #139 was for your friend in the Thongchai fanclub, David W., to show where I had used “abusive dismissive language” in this series of posts and to be consistent in criticizing others who did use this language.
Reply to Paul Handley: I do know that record – your talk at Wisconsin-Madison. But what is your point? I’ve praised your book and your willingness to say such things and risk not being allowed to return to Thailand, or worse. I totally agree that you have put yourself at risk far more than others, especially me. And it is entirely right that UW should host a seminar on the book. So? It seems like you are saying that because of this, I should not criticize the reasoning in Thongchai’s article in The Nation, which as I’ve said many times, I find dangerous and wrong. On this point I disagree.
Re. your first point, this raises the “song mai ao” problem, and the ethical question of academics criticising Thaksin but remaining silent on the royalists (because of the lese majeste law) who were undermining his democratically-elected government. Unlike you and most others I do not absolve these academics of at least partial responsibility for paving the way for the coup by their demonization of Thaksin, which critically weakened his democratic government. They played entirely into the hands of the royalists. Academics are meant to be smarter than the rest of us, especially those who “play politics”; ie. writing newspaper columns, thalaengkans, speaking at rallies, etc. in the hope of influencing public opinion. They should be judged by the results of their political activism: the September 19 coup and the royalist dictatorship we have now. In a corporation the CEO would have had to fall on his/her sword by now to show responsibility to the stockholders for their actions, but in the Thai Studies academic world what do they do? They very “na dan” quickly switch their target to the military regime (not the monarchy) and they continue their struggle for democracy, making themselves out to be heroes of the people, taking great risks to themselves, as if nobody remembers what they did before the coup. Because unlike the politicians they despise they are not responsible to anyone. Even a little criticism on academic blogs makes them boil with anger. They have tenure and it doesn’t matter what they say; they will receive their monthly salaries for the rest of their lives. I’ve discussed these issues at length on this blog so I won’t bore readers again.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Colonel, you are wrong. Imagine what would happen if books like The King Never Smile were allowed to be freely published in Thailand? You may attribute the King’s popularity more to the royalist propaganda machine than to the lese majeste law, but note that even with the lese majeste law, there are still people who dare voice their opposition to the monarchy in slight, subtle, and reasonable ways. I trust that if they were allowed to apply the full might of their rhetorical prowess without fear of retribution whether by laws or by uncivilized royalist mobs the King’s popularity would surely wane. I myself was persuaded by Handley’s book (and before any of you spring on to it as a vile, rumor-mongering book, I did verify the important historical facts, and shockingly found that his thesis was very much supported by sound research) obtained in a foreign country where lese majeste did not apply. Surely that offers some proof with regards to the effect of lese majeste upon the King’s popularity.
BTW, Khon Thai, I pity you and your “ignorance is bliss” argument. Enjoy living in your delusion.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican, you may revel in being in the minority of one in this exchange. Your bloodymindedness on this one is staggering. That you fail to understand or don’t want to understand the points being made in response, by a whole range of usually reasonable respondents, should tell you something. You can decide that they are all wrong, dyslexic or whatever, but being the only correct person can be a decidedly lonely position. As I’ve said several times, my preference is that you return to attacking the real enemies. That is, unless you really do think that a few public intellectuals are your real enemies. My view is that the military with their guns, acting as the puppets of the palace, is the place to focus. So do forgive me, but I will leave this tirade of yours to others.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Let me try to answer Dickie Simpkins #123-124, but I will do it up to the line that would not put me in trouble. (After all, a weblog is also a public space, and I am using my real name.)
Re: the lese majeste law: I think it should be abolished. The suggestion that the law should be amended that only the palace people (whoever on the K’s behalf) can file a suit as the injured party is possibly an acceptable compromise. I am not a legal expert, and need to learn more about this option, or it needs more discussion to understand its virtue and pitfalls better.
What matters most are:
1) The law has been a legal mechanism that absolves the monarch from accountibility and responsibility. Good citizens who care about the country but have different views about the monarchy have been victims of LM. Crimes, abuses and unfair business practices have been practically absolved because they cannot be brought to public knowledge. The further the monarchy is from reality and becomes more devine, the stronger dose of LM and more often of it, is needed to sustain the divinity of the institution.
2) The fact is also that it has been used in ways that has nothing to do with protecting the monarchy but to destroy opponents and people of different opinions.
Will or how the compromise option above solve the above 2 problems? Perhaps it solves #2. But not sure about #1.
What do I think about a republic Thailand?
Let put it this way — Those who have power (official and unofficial, legally-sanctioned or politically so) must be accountable. Be the person a king, a queen, a president, a prime minister, a chairman, etc. etc.
If a Thai king (I am talking theoretically, not about any king in particular, let alone the present one), truly has no power and never exercises it (because having none), thus nothing to be accountable, a republic or not wouldn’t have been an issue. If nobody use and abuse power in the name of the monarchy (such as killing other people to protect the monarchy), a republic or not wouldn’t be much as issue. But if a monarchy does exercise power in whatever forms, does being part of the political system and actively involved even without legal validity, the monarch should not receive a blanket impunity. He must be accountable and responsible for the right and wrong he did. In that situation, a republic or not becomes a crucial public issue.
The fact is also that the Thai monarchists (plural, i.e. including x y z of course) have been hindrance to democracy (power of poeple) throughout modern Thai history. Of coursem theyhave done so in the name of the monarchy. By being part of politics (i.e. power relations), all the monarchists must be accountable like every other citizens.
To me, republic or not republic is not a question in itself.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
When Thongchai’s piece came out, I was quite annoyed with the way he framed his objection to the proposed amendments. Why? Writing articles for newspapers should be about enlightening, educating people, not adding to their prejudices, wrong opinions, et. To pick just one example (already high-lighted by Republican):
“The lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy.”
Of course, Thongchai knows very well that, say, in 6 Tula, the lese majeste law was extremely, shall we say, “benefitial” to the monarchy, for it helped eliminate the entire political movement that had been challenging the institution. (Besides, suppose it’s true that the law did more harm than good to the monarchy, why would we care anyway? Are we monarchists?)
Is it necessary, I mean, as a ‘tactic’?
Absolutely not, in my view. In fact, I was quite surprised to find Thongchai using this kind of argument. I accept and even support that in specific circumstances, e.g. fighting an actual court case of less majeste, one can use certain “tactical” argument that otherwise one wouldn’t be using in writing articles about the law. To give a recent example, the FaDiewKan people have cited HM’s own speech (“King can do wrong” speech) to fight off the less majeste charge already laid at them. But even in this case, to cite HM’s speech isn’t the same as using the above “more harm than good to the monarhy” argument. (The latter simply isn’t true to begin with.) And if I was to write an article about the speech itself in other circumstances I wouldn’t use it as my supporting argument either without very heavy qualification (HM never gave similar speech, say, in 1975-1977 when it would have been truly helpful.)
But Thongchai isn’t fighting a court case. Even if he were, I’m not sure the kind of argument he uses would be necessary. In sum, Thongchai’s argument in the article is not true, unnecessary and simply bad. Unless, of course, one is a royalsit.
When the proposed amendment became known, I was preparing to write an article opposing it too (unfortunately I couldn’t finish it in time). I thought I could proceed in either of the two ways, or both combined, namely a sarcastic “send-up” (“why stop here? let’s bring back the absolute monarchy”) or a stright-forward argument (“the law had already been instrumental in Sarit’s dictatorship and in increasing royal power beyond what is normal in modern constitutional monarchy, etc.”) As I said I was very surprised to read Thongchai’s piece, appearing in the Nation (no less) where it has already cowardly used the same less majeste accusation againt Thaksin.
Re: Paul Handley “abandoning support for Thaksin was not the same ….. as abandoning democracy.”
No one among the left-wing academics (myself included) ever suggested that abandoning Thaksin equal abandoning DEMOCRACY. But that fact didn’t prevent Thongchai from mis-representing me, or academics of similar standpoint, as suggesting it, (in a piece he said he’s writing a few months ago), and you’re implying the same here.
But does abandoning Thaksin (in last year circumstances) violate certain democratic PRINCIPLE, e.g. “PM must come from election”? Absolutely. Those who use this kind of argument – the “song mai ao” people were fond of using it : “Democracy isn’t election” “prachathippatai mai chai kan lueg thang” – simply try to divert attention from, or cover up, their own shameless, actual violation/disrespect of certain democratic principle.
(some right-wing royalists, when confronted with my argument would reply “but the elections were a sham”. But Thongchai never was so silly as saying that, in fact he wrote an article against the “clean elections” argument himself. How, then, would one justify not supporting an elected PM in face of royalist assualt?)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth (#147) said “I trust that if they were allowed to apply the full might of their rhetorical prowess without fear of retribution whether by laws or by uncivilized royalist mobs the King’s popularity would surely wane. ”
Now who would “they” be? Republican perhaps? Do you sincerely believe Republican’s fully weighted “rhetorical prowess” could hurt the Thai monarchy?
(The unimaginative and dull me descends into deeper hibernation at every Republican’s lengthy prose.)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
See, you are once again blinded by your royalist propaganda. Not everyone in the country loves the King, as you are told. And untold numbers are much more reasonable than Republican.
Once again, you yourself offer more proof that it is in fact lese majeste that keeps people in the dark and reinforces the effect of royalist propaganda.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Then again, people may choose to remain ignorant like you. Yet it is undeniable that without lese majeste, there will be more enlightened people.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“How, then, would one justify not supporting an elected PM in face of royalist assualt?”
Should the actions of that elected PM have no bearing on matters?
I would have thought taxpayer’s would have reason to not support a PM who contrives things to avoid paying taxes.
Likewise, a relative of a victim extra-judicially killed in the drug war would be well justified in not supporting the PM who encouraged such killings.
BTW, wasn’t the coup just part of Thaksin’s brilliant strategic master plan anyway, so why would he need support from academics?
Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.
It’s easy for me to say these things sitting outside of Thailand, but in any case, I wonder whether LM would be applicable to the following statements, which IMO should be repeated as far and wide as possible over the next 60 years:
HMK is a wonderful benevolent person who would surely not claim all his vast wealth as personal, but rather would consider it belongs to the state for the benefit of the Thai people
or
The LM law should be amended so that only the monarch can make the charge, and we would then know it would never be misused because the monarch is such a wise and benevolent person
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
There are moments when ignorance can be bliss and rewarding Teth. And certain books by my own free choice I can afford NOT to read just to keep my ignorant bliss going.
But it is the personality of the man behind the institution that keeps the faith. And HMK’s personality had been around for so long that his every imperfection or flaw, however well concealed by lese majeste or royal protectors, would all be known by now . . . and they are! And yet HMK’s spiritual father figure to the Nation gains more strength even as HMK physically weakens each year.
Will the Thai monarchy endure after HMK Bhumibhol? I sincerely cannot answer with conviction that it will.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I would have thought taxpayer’s would have reason to not support a PM who contrives things to avoid paying taxes.
If you would care to know, Siam Commercial Bank played a large part in the brokerage of that deal. In fact, they were the ones who loaned a large sum of money for Temasek (who did not actually need cash, did they) and one very close deputy private secratary to the King was involved.
Surely who don’t mean to implicate… But oh wait, surely his name was misused, but then such a misuse on a grand scale would surely require his intervention, wouldn’t it?
Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.
What a convenient way to avoid the argument. So where is that case of yours to back up those two ridiculous statements in italics? Consult Patiwat if you want enlightenment regarding the Crown Property Bureau, something which you clearly need.
How those vast capitalist companies have benefited the Thai people must be publicized far and wide! Even state enterprises pay tax, and I am sure those royal enterprises must as well. But why is it the royal family itself is not taxed? They should damn well be.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“How, then, would one justify not supporting an elected PM in face of royalist assault?”
I don’t think anyone has argued the “song mai ao” argument very well, but here’s a little thought on it: when one sees the democratic system being undermined from within (Thaksin) one can seek out another force that one thinks will be a better protector of the system (the monarchy). This is a logical response if one believes/concludes that the monarchy accepts and protects its co-existence with the elected parliament and government. TKNS of course argues this is not the case, but most people in Thailand have not been privy to its conclusions, and they are more likely to accept the throne as a defender of democracy. They just get a little shock when they remember too late that it all involves the military.
So perhaps there is blame to be put on people’s weak thinking when they turn back to the throne to counter a possible-dictator. A real “song mai ao” position doesn’t solve the problem — it just hangs in the middle, waiting for someone (the army) to act.
Then, unlike Somsak and Republican who focus on academics, I would pin the real blame on folks like the Democrats for conceding the fight with their lame boycott rather than doing the hard work of working the public and fighting through elections to prove the system can work. In a democracy, politicians, even in the opposition, have to provide leadership. The Wimpocrats folded, and are now waiting for the hand of Prem to make Aphisit PM.
As for academics who criticize, I don’t understand why they — say, unlike Kraisak Choonhavan — don’t take the plunge into politics on this point, to help make things clear to the public.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
That last point on Kraisak was unclear — it is meant to say that at least he has made the effort to fight in politics, if others don’t.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I don’t know why people here keep picking on Republican, especially for his style or personality, when that has no bearing on his post concerning Thongchai’s lese majeste article in The Nation.
From my perspective, I think there is some faulty reasoning in the article. Also, it was a sloppily written piece, especially in lieu of the clarifications Thongchai has written in his last post here, which I totally agree with.
With that being said, I don’t subscribe to Republican’s “you are either with us or against us” reasoning.
I don’t think it is fair to attack others just because they are not radical. The reality is that if Thai academics were as radical and as outspoken in public as Republican is online their lives would be in danger. I don’t think this threat is imaginary. The fact that this threat exists in 2007 is sad and pathetic. And maybe Thai academics should do more to alleviate the threat rather than cowing to it. Since it is a matter of life and death, however, I am sympathetic, especially when so many Thai intellectuals have been slaughtered, jailed and exiled over the last 75 years in the name of protecting the monarchy.
Yet, I think it is fair to criticize Thai academics for hypocrisy, selfishness, bad writing and poorly made arguments.
And an academic who hides behind lese majeste because he is a “bad” scholar for producing shoddy work should be criticized!
I think if a Thai academic writes a piece for a newspaper, or whatever, then the argument should be clear and defensible.
If a critic like Republican doesn’t believe that the article is clear and defensible, I see no problems with him pointing that out, and I think it is absurd for attacking him for just being a critic or his style of criticism. In a democratic society, a critic should not be given a litmus test for criticism other than his own words. In other words, just because Republican writes anonymously or has less than a charming personality, does that mean what he writes isn’t valid? Conversely, Thongchai has the right to refute Republican’s criticism. Shouldn’t political discourse be judged by the arguments being made and the policies that result from them rather than by the personalities who are making them?
I don’t agree with everything Republican writes or some of his conclusions, but I support his right to criticize and push the boundaries, even if that makes people uneasy or pisses them off. I say, more power to him.
I don’t think his intent is to score points; I think his intent is to wake people up. Hell, if only 10,000 Thais had the same passion and commitment as he does to Thailand’s democratic development, the country would be far better off.
Lastly, I don’t blame Republican for being just a little angry and bitter when a military cabal overthrew the government with full backing from the palace, capriciously disenfranchising 65 million Thai people, while most of the Thai academy put on their yellow shirts, defended the coup and actually sought professional benefits for supporting it.
I don’t think Thongchai is part of this group, but I think there is certain complacency about lese majeste (even a reformed version), which prevents historians, political scientists, journalists from doing any real work on analyzing the monarchy, especially the 9th reign, and the impact it has had on Thailand’s democratic development.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
nganadeeleg states: “Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.”
As I understand it, a case can and has been made in the Thai courts a number of times. The problem is that several courts have made several contradictory decisions effectively meaning that the Crown Property Bureau is neither state enterprise nor private enterprise. This legal disarray means that nothing is clear.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth: So, if you or I had shares in SCB, would we be aiding and abetting Thaksin to avoid tax ?
I also suggest you re-read the ‘ridiculous statements’ I made in italics, bearing in mind one of the main propositions of Handley’s book, and also the fact that I preceded the statements with the following:
“……..the following statements, which IMO should be repeated as far and wide as possible over the next 60 years“
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I suggest a “thought-experiment”. Read Thongchai’s article without thinking it’s Thongchai’s. And ask yourself whether such phrases/sentences are valid from the standpoint of non- or anti- royalism:
“This is a blunt affront to the monarchy, to tradition…”
“…The amendment bill may be in breach of l?se majest? itself…”
“…Imagine if such a person did something that injured the reputation and status of the monarchy, he would still be protected by the amended l?se majest? law. In other words, his violation of l?se majest? could not be punished, …”
“…Yet they cannot be punished, even when they do harm to the monarchy….”
“…The l?se majest? law has done more harm than good to the monarchy.…”
etc.
To me, such phrases/sentences make sense if they come from someone who wants to PROTECT the monarchy from abuses by those surrounding it (Prem?) or acting in its name, someone like Sulak Sivalak, for instance. But from non- or anti- royalist standpoint, they are, first of all, untrue, and more importantly, unneccessary and harmful. Why would a non- or anti- royalist care if there’s an affront to the monarchy anyway? Why would s/he care that violators of less majesty law could not be punished!? Shouldn’t a non- or anti- royalist point out HOW GOOD the law has been to the monarchy instead?
Now Thongchai isn’t a royalist. I NEVER said he is. (His continued charge that I did is quite bizarre.) Nor did Republican, as far as I ever read his writings. But what Republican in this case points out is Thongchai, for some unknown reason, uses the same kind of arguments a liberal Royalist (like Sulak) wold use. Such arguments, again from the standpoint of non- or anti- royalism, are untrue, unnecessary and harmful (appearing in The Nation for all places!).
Tosakan : “I don’t subscribe to Republican’s “you are either with us or against us” reasoning.”
While I ageee with much of what Tosakan writes, I disagree with such attribution to Repulican’s reasoning. For me it shoud be something like “If you are against them, why on earth did you use argument in their favour, or similiar to theirs?”
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Chiming in on nganadeeleg’s: “Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.”
You can make that case, but is the administration of it strong enough to keep it that way? In the hands of the next sovereign, will it be run for the state or his/her person? Will the soveriegn choose who runs Siam Cement or Siam Commercial Bank, or will someone else? (That doesn’t mean I believe the finance ministry necessarily does a great job.) The fact is, the administrative structure does not ensure it is the state’s. Like Queen Elizabeth II’s Mansion burning with million’s worth of paintings: who takes the loss? Who was responsible?
As long as it is not clear, and based on the 1997 bailout, I think you have to say, it is the palace’s asset and the state’s liability.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Too much energy, emotion and perhaps goodwill has been spent by many on this thread criticising or defending each other’s anti-royalist credentials or logical reasoning on LM. It is very frustruating that much discussion by people who otherwise have much to contribute to the debate still involves looking in the rear vision mirror (what happened, what should have happended, who should or shouldn’t have done or said what), rather than looking out the windscreen to debate positively about what should or could be done in anticipation of (or even shape) future events.
In my humble opinion, LM is a red herring. Debating too much about it is a waste of time. Whilst I rarely agree with what the Colonel says, his #155 reflects the faith/belief of the overwhelming majority of Thais which is unlikely to change anytime soon – even if LM is abolished tomorrow – and will likely outlive Bhumipol himself. Anti-royalists (of all shades of radicalism) may not like it, but they have to stop banging their heads against this particular wall. The Reward/Effort ratio is well below 1.00 and they might want to ask themselves if there’re more important issues to debate/expose.
I’m not arguing that LM does not matter or should not be abolished. But I really believe it is a second order issue. Rama IX has outgrown his need for LM, and while Rama X may crave to have LM permanently in the constitution, it won’t really protect him for any length of time – unless, of couse, you believe that the Thai people (urgan and rural) are stupid and easily fooled all of the time.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Refering to Ngandeeleg’s comment on another topic, it is quite amusing and so sad too that three weeks from one of the most important elections (maybe in Thai democratic history!), the hottest topic in NM, occupying all these amazing intellectual minds, is ‘lese majeste’ laws.
If we just turned on Thai TV (or internetTV) over the past few days, what is being discussed here is ‘of the past’… If HM the King was ever directly influential in the country’s political directions, it was during the eight years of PMPrem’s government. If we believe the assumption that HMK and PMPrem are inseparable (which I actually don’t subscribe to), then they both retired in 1988 and for most of the past two decades, Thailand was ‘on her own’ with the paternalistic figures watching in the background, engaged mainly in their favourite hobbies (like most people past their 60s). On the 4th, like every 4th Dec before, Thais of all backgrounds pay their visit and respects to their Father. “You are fighting” he admonished, “just don’t burn the house down” he warns… But like every other time, Father’s good intentions is forgotten the following week (so much for ‘soft power’)…
This coming election and Thailand’s present and future democracy is all down to one man, still wielding great influence from London, Hong Kong or whereever he is (modern technology makes him omni-present). Contrary to HMK and PMPrem, now both in the 80s – he is still in his 50s – young, strapping and ultra-ambitious (rubbing shoulders with his rich mates in Europe and Asia just vets his appetite for more) and has a very long career ahead of him. Sooner or later he will be back to take the reins. The rules of the game has been changed, he will have to give more to get less – but his sharp, fast mind has already spotted the weak points, with plans ready to exploit it… We in NM might be missing the scoop here!
All these talks of deluded Thais under royalist propoganda pales in the face of “hard power” in the form of hard currency and slick, modern marketing. We are talking ‘Ngarn Wat’ (temple fairs) while missing the preludes to the ‘Mega-Party’ at Suvarnabhumi (the theme of “Thaksin, the Return”)…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I am a Thai, and I haven’t read Paul Handley’s book about my king. Actually, I don’t think I will. I may be ignorant, but there are lots of better things for me to do. I’d rather go fishing. It’s simply more enjoyable than pretending to be an intellectual who knows all.
Joe
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ignorance is bliss, eh? And non of us here “pretend” to be intellectuals. In fact, I admit that I am not one.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“Now Thongchai isn’t a royalist. … Nor did Republican, as far as I ever read his writings.”
From Republican 105 above: “Republican 1, Thongchai-Royalists 0.” Might not say he’s royalist, but the implication is clear.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
One more thing, I love how the delusional come on here to insist they aren’t bothered when they actually are.
Some would rather not wake up from their royal matrix, which is a real shame.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Restorationist : From Republican 105 above: “Republican 1, Thongchai-Royalists 0.” Might not say he’s royalist, but the implication is clear.
์Not quite sure why you think “the implication is clear”? That Republican called Thongchai “royalist”?
For me the quote actually says that Thongchai ‘s position in this case is similar to the royalists (and that theirs lost).
Since I must confess I didn’t read much of the royalists’ posting here (the above included), I cannot say for sure if Thongchai’s position in his defense of the article is similar to theirs defense of his.
But in the article itself, as I maintain above, Thongchai’s argument is indeed similar to the position a liberal royalist like Sulak would be happy to use.
I’m amazed that Thongchai or others could think that the original criticism of Republican says Thongchai is royalist. Republican put the matter in the clearest possible way : either your reasoning is invalid or you’re a royalist.
Meaning: since you’re not a royalist, why on earth did you use argument similar to theirs, or in their favour?
or : From a non- or anti- royalist standpoint, your argument is invalid.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth,
Of course, ignorance is not a bliss. Yet I prefer going fishing to reading the book. By the way, should it be “non” of us, or “none” of us? I’m no longer certain how the word is spelled. I believe, however, that I understand what you mean. Furthermore, when I said “pretending to be an intellectual,” I was referring to myself, certainly not anyone else. So there is no need for defence.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
What about “full intelligence misery syndrome” or FIMS?
Lots of NM bloggers seem to suffer FIMS . . . Republican for one!
Fully informed of Thaksin’s blatant crimes and constitutional abuses but hooked still to that Thaksin charisma.
I wonder if Republican and many of the others would still be belligently blogging for “A Republic for Thailand”, had Thaksin Shinawatra still been Thai PM . . .
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
It is supposed to be “none”. Reading a book won’t turn you into an Intellectual Pretender. For me at least, it was the beginning of seeing the other side of the coin, a side which, in Thailand, is guarded by law.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Restorationist (#168): If I had said Thongchai was a royalist the score would have been: Republican 1, Royalists 0.
I had originally decided to say no more on this topic, but yesterday I noticed that instead of replying to me here on NM Thongchai has been continuing his criticisms of me and Somsak with numerous posts on the Fa Dio Kan webboard [eg. “A few days ago on New Mandala, I was accused for being royalist by Mr. Republican who admires Somsak like an idol and speaks like Somsak on almost every issue….” etc. etc. at
http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?s=cc6c600994f90003e3594be9c6e4a2fc&showtopic=4376
, and http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?showtopic=4317&st=20
Thongchai would have more credibility if he faced up to me and answered my questions here on NM where the original debate took place, instead of going behind my back on another webboard. So I would like to exercise my right of reply, here on NM.
I emphasise that ALL of my comments on this topic relate to Thongchai’s article on the amendment to the lese majeste law that he published in the pro-royalist newspaper, The Nation, and not to his other work. Therefore all of our debate on this issue should refer to this particular article. Notice that in his 4 postings on this thread on NM nowhere does Thongchai make any mention of this article. This suggests to me that Thongchai knows that he can not defend what his has written.
There is no question that in his article in The Nation Thongchai presented royalist arguments, as I have explained in detail above. Read the article for yourself.
Does this mean Thongchai is a royalist? I did not say that. What I said was that based on the argumentation in his Nation article EITHER ………. OR ……… (see final paragraph of #100)
CONCLUSION: The moral of this story is that if academics are worried about being misrepresented in public as royalists it is best not to make royalist arguments in pro-royalist newspapers.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
So just to sum up, what’s your answer:
Either,
(i) Thongchai believes in the validity of the lèse majesté law;
(ii) Thongchai believes that violators of the lèse majesté law must be punished;
(iii) Thongchai is a royalist; and
(iv) Thongchai is willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column.
Or,
(v) His arguments above are logically invalid.
Presumably after all of this debate you are going to say (iv), because you do not say that Thongchai is a royalist, and (i) through (iv) are linked by the use of “either”. Might have been easier if you’d just said that instead of allowing implications to be drawn by other readers.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Sorry doing this again as the numbering in post 100 was mixed up:
So just to sum up, what’s your answer:
Either,
(i) Thongchai believes in the validity of the lèse majesté law;
(ii) Thongchai believes that violators of the lèse majesté law must be punished;
(iii) Thongchai is a royalist; and
(iv) Thongchai is willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column.
Or,
(v) His arguments above are logically invalid.
Presumably after all of this debate you are going to say (v), because you do not say that Thongchai is a royalist, and (i) through (iv) are linked by the use of “either”. Might have been easier if you’d just said that instead of allowing implications to be drawn by other readers.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The card-carrying royalists must be laughing and rubbing their hands in glee at the sight of people they consider enemies attacking each other.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to #176: You missed out, “Based on Thongchai’s reasoning in this article one can only conclude that… etc.”
Answer: Well, if we take into account Thongchai’s responses in this thread it has to be your (v) “His arguments are logically invalid” (in #100 I numbered it as another (iv) – sorry), since he presents statements that are either not true (“The lèse majesté law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”) or he doesn’t believe in the premises on which his argument is based (that violators of lèse majesté should be punished).
Thongchai indicated as much in his #117, where he tried to downplay the importance of logical argument.
But actually I think my original set of choices to describe Thongchai’s position based on this article was not quite right. It is possible to be both (iv) “willing to be recognized publicly as a royalist by presenting such arguments in a newspaper column”; and (v) “His arguments are logically invalid”, at the same time.
Re. your comment, “…Might have been easier if you’d just said that instead of allowing implications to be drawn by other readers…” I’m not in a position to “allow” or “not allow” implications to be drawn by readers. I gave the reference to Thongchai’s article. I urged people to read the article for themselves. If I have misrepresented Thongchai’s article, which may have led to a reader making some “implication”, please point it out to me.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
This is like a merry-go-round. The implication throughout the thread is that Thongchai is a royalist. I know, you didn’t say that, but it is the implication that I would draw and that many others have as well. A clear statement by you acknowledged that Thongchai was NOT considered by you to be a royalist would have engendered debate on things other than the implication. That insinuation was (for me as a reader) too clear.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to #179: I can’t think of what more I can add which I haven’t already said above. To repeat, the “implication” is something YOU draw. In my first post I concluded,” either … or…” Nowhere did I say that Thongchai was a royalist, as you admit. I asked you if I had misrepresented Thongchai’s article, which, since you did not reply, I assume you accept I did not. Your argument about “implication” and “insinuation” appears to me to be an attempt to absolve Thongchai of responsibility for what he himself has written, and to blame me for simply pointing out the logical implication of what he has written. And if you want to “engender debate” on something else then by all means do it!
Re. people drawing “implications” – what implications do you think non-academics reading Thongchai’s article in The Nation, who do not know Thongchai, would draw? That is, an academic who works at a leading North American university (and so with considerable intellectual authority), using royalist arguments, including accepting the validity of the lese majeste law? Do you think that this would strengthen or weaken the case against the original lese majeste law in their minds?
As a political tactic (and if academics want to be politically active then I believe they deserve special scrutiny) to oppose the lese majeste amendment then I believe that you lose more than you gain by making arguments like this, especially for academics (we don’t hold politicians to the same standards). In fact, for those who want to see an end to the lese majeste law it may have been better to let the amendment pass, because, as Thongchai argued (here I agree with him) it would have led to all kinds of abuses (even more than under the existing law). I think it would have been terrible publicity for the Palace and the royalists generally, likely to have damaged their popularity, and would have fed into greater support for PPP/TRT. I suspect that it was for this reason that the amendment was dropped.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The sun won’t disappear if Thongchai was a royalist, and it would also not disappear if he wasn’t one. Looks as if some people enjoyed paddling their intellectual boats in a coconut bowl.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Absolutely my last comment on the debate in this coconut bowl.
Republican (180): of course the implication is something I draw. How could it be otherwise? I am pleased to accept that you do not think that Thongchai is a royalist and that you feel that this particular article in the Nation was logically flawed. I can agree with those basic points. I now look forward to your new articles in newspapers and journals that provide a detailed and trenchant critique of the lese majeste law. Do let us know when they appear!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Nice attempt at a put-down Srithanonchai (#181). So unlike me you are commanding your intellectual cruise liner on the world’s oceans, right?
As I said above, I would have let this subject drop way back, but (i) Thongchai attacked me on another webboard instead of debating me here, and (ii) some posters on this blog had some questions about my argument.
Where I come from it’s good manners to reply when questioned.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to #182: Oh that’s great. Declare it’s your last comment “in the coconut bowl” (ie. how ignorant, unworldy and petty I am) then attack me with a sarcastic comment like this.
My position:
If an academic is going to write in a newspaper then DON’T use royalist arguments that will indirectly help legitimize the existing law.
(An example: Just imagine a first-year student reading Thongchai’s article in The Nation. He comes across the statement that one of the problems with the amendment is that “violation of lèse majesté could not be punished”, or “the lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”. He puts this in a term paper, and, because Thongchai is a leading authority in the field, the marker can hardly say he’s wrong. (Who has said he’s wrong, except Republican and Somsak paddling in their coconut bowl?). The student gets an A. The royalist stance receives some more legitimacy. Now think of the thousands of people who may have read the article.)
If academics can not write in the newspapers without making royalist arguments then better not to write in them at all. Unless of course if they are royalists.
If an academic does use royalist arguments in a newspaper then he and others should not be outraged that people question why he should be willing to be seen as a royalist, and criticised for the reasons given above.
In reply to your sarcastic “looking forward”: I have written enough trenchant critiques of lese majeste and other matters here on NM. Why would I want to write in the newspapers?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I’ve got something that really want to ask both “Mr.Republican’s side” and “Pro.Thongchai’s side”.
Questioning Pro.Thongchai:
- Why you have to use the “royalist-argument” while you “lebelling” yourself as anti-royalist?
- You may say that, it’s not safe to use the “extremely anti-royalist arguement” in Thailand, eventhough it’s still not reasonable enough to use the “royalist-arguement”.
So can you accept my words that; The way you had done (esp. in this case), “has done more harm than good to The Anti-Royalists”? (at least, it extends “royalist” power on using “these kind of arguement”.)
- You said that, “The lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”
Is this sentense really “what you think”?
In the society that even “Doraemon” is not allow to be screened on the “YELLOW t-shirt” which has the “King Symbol”? Really think so?
———
Questioning Mr.Republican:
I am quite agree with your logic that countered Pro.Thongchai’s article.
But I have to question you the same question as others had asked you.
- Why you do not show your REAL IDENTITY in the public (at least in the webboard)? While you asking someone’s bravery to “insult” the lese majeste law in the “ought-to-be way”, you still hide yourself cowardly?
Is that the “ought-to-be way” to ask for some one’s bravery?
———
With Respect.
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. I must be apologize if my english (esp. grammar) annoy you, I am not good in English at all.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
On the contrary Kritdikorn, your English is really good.
You say: Why you have to use the “royalist-argument” while you “lebelling” yourself as anti-royalist?
I think this is because many of the people making comments here think that Republican does not counter the royalist argument well enough to really argue for a Thailand with a less powerful monarchy, or even a republic. So they throw the pro royalist argument back at him or her to see the holes in the argument.
So can you accept my words that; The way you had done (esp. in this case), “has done more harm than good to The Anti-Royalists”? (at least, it extends “royalist” power on using “these kind of arguement”.)
Yes. Haha, people picking on each others faults will not lead to an amicable solution.
- You said that, “The lese majeste law has done more harm than good to the monarchy”
Is this sentense really “what you think”?
In the society that even “Doraemon” is not allow to be screened on the “YELLOW t-shirt” which has the “King Symbol”? Really think so?
I think you direct this toward Thongchai, but I do think that the law has done more harm than good for the monarchy because lese majeste allows for this kind of discussion which is not doing the King’s reputation good on New Mandala. How can a law protecting Royals like this be construed as something other than unjust to people on this site with liberal educations? However, in lots of international media, because of the King’s popularity, the lese majeste law is treated lightly as it is (at least recently) written that the King lets offenders off and deports them-which is not as bad as spending 10-15 years in prison. There seems to be a ‘oh, it is crazy Thailand where there are beautiful beaches and as long as the tourists don’t have to leave’ attitude from these journalists. So maybe if you ask BBC or CNN believers these questions you will get a different answer.
And yes, Republican says “Why would I want to write in the newspapers?” To see your views actualised?! To see many people start thinking about the position of the King? If you don’t really believe in this republican movement Republican, why have you carried this on for over a hundred comments? Or maybe you do believe in it, but are too cowardly to confront it. Would you like someone else to confront the King for you?
I agree with pratjoe. It is much better to go fishing.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to fallingangels #185: Thanks for your comment, the first that actually addresses the problem I raised in #100.
The reason that I do not show my real identity is that if I did I would not be able to say the things that I want to say. I guess you can call that “cowardly”. I just want to write the things that I believe, whether they are right or wrong, and luckily NM and other academic blogs give me a forum to do this, as well as to receive comments and criticisms in return. If you gave me the choice to write in a national newspaper, but I had to use royalist arguments, then I would simply refuse, because I think it is unnecessary and in fact has bad “side-effects”, eg. indirectly giving legitimacy to the lese majeste law and the monarchy. Especially after September 19.
But I don’t accept the argument that if I do not write for the newspapers then I have no right to criticize those who do because I’m not “brave” enough (to write in newspapers using my real name). The problem with the many academics who write for the newspapers and who wield considerable intellectual influence is that in the newspaper medium there is virtually no possibility of their being criticized, apart from a letter to the newspaper which no-one reads anyway. In the seminar room or lecture theatre hardly anyone will dare to criticize the big-name academics, even when they write or say “idiot” things. More criticism of these people is needed, especially when they “play politics”, and that is why the webboards are so important now.
Re. your question “….While you asking someone’s bravery to “insult” the lese majeste law in the “ought-to-be way”, you still hide yourself cowardly?…” Well, I have admitted that I am a coward on this. In #114 I said that *IF* I was beyond the reach of the Thai authorities I would have criticized the role of the monarchy in the coup, and I hoped that other academics who were in a similar position, ie. who did not “have to fear for their safety”, could do so (therefore, not a question of “bravery”). In terms of criticizing the monarchy Handley, McCargo and some others have shown a good example. I hope there are more. And I hope they speak to the “big media” at some stage. But right now I can not.
I think we should accept that most academics are complicit in the monarchy’s abuse of the Thai political system since we know the long list of political abuses and crimes and violations of human rights, but we are too “cowardly” to speak out (me too), because we fear the consequences if we did speak out. There are varying degrees of complicitness; I guess my criticism of Thongchai is that I believe that he went too far in that article.
What annoys me, and Somsak has made this point so many times, is that the academics had no such fear of criticizing Thaksin and his democratically-elected government, hence destabilizing it and paving the way for the royalist coup. That is, they criticized Thaksin because they had nothing to fear, but they were silent on the king, because of their own fear. So thanks to the academics the king retains his false status as morally pure and Thaksin is the demon; ie. the royalists’ discourse. Yet so many of these academics portray themselves as “democrats” and “defenders of the people”, etc. etc. I think that this is a worse hyprocrisy than the hypocrisy of knowing about the monarchy’s abuses but remaining silent.
Reply to Grasshopper # 186. If my views are published on NM then in my view they are already “actualized”, and in the purest form.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican: “So unlike me you are commanding your intellectual cruise liner on the world’s oceans, right?” >> No, my coconut shell floats rudderless in the imaginative universe if academic “discourses.” Ha!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican,
Re: Your criticism of Prof. Thongchai:
I always got it. You are castigating him here because you felt that he gave a ‘Royalist Spin’ on the case against the new Lese-Majeste law when you felt that he should’ve or could’ve gone further in analysing LM or being against the LM amendment without using the Royalist version of things. In other words, you state that reading the nation article, one could conclude that Thongchai is Royalist. To his defence, Thongchai stated he used this logic because of the immediate goal of being against the LM amendment.
I don’t think I, or any other poster here is really gone against that logic per se. You never really got to answering the issues in my #102. You nitpicked an issue pretty much for scoring points: ie, you criticised without any offer of an alternative (as grasshoper stated above), and you criticised anonymously inside an academic post slating an academic for not being held to a ‘higher standard’.
Unlike Somsak,
1. You don’t use your real name.
2. You didn’t give a definitive alternative to your criticism. Any food with a keyboard can just type, to prove your “elite academic worthiness” you should’ve followed through your criticism and conclusion with ‘how Thongchai could’ve framed the argument to steer clear of the current LM law, and still be against the amendment.
3. Stating more recently that the best way to be against LM in the long run was to be ‘for’ the expanding powers. I don’t think you had this idea in #100 or you would’ve said it: having said that, it is an interesting concept…
4. Somsak was never attacked while defending you because the premise of the attack against you has been your unfair attack on Thongchai asking him to get to the borderline or committing LM while hiding behind an alias. Somsak however provided concise points, though I disagree, but was a better way for an anti-royalist to attack an anti-royalist than your proud “Oh I found a flaw!” argument.
Thats why my post #102 I avoided discussion of pro or anti-royalist, because that was never my point, and should never have ventured in that direction.
Grasshopper’s second last paragraph says what I want to say, and I wish to join him, pratjoe, srithanonchai fishing.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
in my post #189 – any ‘food’ with a keyboard = any ‘fool’ with a keyboard.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Republican: But it is not actualised in Thai, is it?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Re: Grassshopper comment 186
First of all, thanks for answering my question.
I still got some problem with one of your answer, hence I would like to ask you a bit more. (If youplease…)
“…I do think that the law has done more harm than good for the monarchy because lese majeste allows for this kind of discussion which is not doing the King’s reputation good on New Mandala. How can a law protecting Royals like this be construed as something other than unjust to people on this site with liberal educations? However, in lots of international media, because of the King’s popularity, the lese majeste law is treated lightly as it is (at least recently) written that the King lets offenders off and deports them-which is not as bad as spending 10-15 years in prison. There seems to be a ‘oh, it is crazy Thailand where there are beautiful beaches and as long as the tourists don’t have to leave’ attitude from these journalists. So maybe if you ask BBC or CNN believers these questions you will get a different answer.”
I’m not sure whether you got the recent information or not (because I am extremely newbie in this webboard). “Two famous webboard players in Prachatai” had been arrested and put in jail for several days because they had “insulting monarchy” on webboard.
You may says that it’s just “several days”, at least, much more better than 10-15 years in jail. But, for statistic, how many cases in Thai History that “anyone” has been sentensed to be jailed 10-15 years?
For me, the lese majeste law is written to “promote” monarchy, and do good more than harm to the king.
This law jails people who insult the king, then (several days) the king will smile and say; “It’s all right, I do not care, etc. etc. ….. (at last) Please free them.”
Don’t you see the “Power of Propaganda” from this law? You say that it do more “harm than good”? I still do not talk about how it prevents the king and originates the “UNTOUCHABLE ANGEL!!!”.
Thus, really want to ask you again that: Do you still insist your words?
R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9
Re: Republican comment 187
Also thanks for your answer.
Your answer really touch me, indeed, esp. this sentense:
“…If you gave me the choice to write in a national newspaper, but I had to use royalist arguments, then I would simply refuse, because I think it is unnecessary and in fact has bad “side-effects”…”
Anyway, as I have said I am an extremely newbie in this board, so I have not so much chance to read your opinion or work further than in this issue.
Hence, I do not have enough information that what you have said, so far, is “stronger” and “do more harm to the monarch” than whatever Ajarn Somsak have done or not.
If the answer is YES, then I have no more question because I think you may need “more protection than Ajarn Somsak”.
If the answer is NO, then I would like to ask you a bit more.
(Actually, just like what Dickie Simpkins had said)
- Ajarn Somsak also said that he is a coward, he isn’t brave enough to insult the monarch “directly”, etc etc. (You may find out many times esp. in his replies to “Choatisak’s Case” in the old-sameskybooks webboard)
Then, why can’t you do the same thing that Ajarn Somsak do, use real identity?
R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9
With Respect
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. I think I should tell you (Republican) that I am (also?) “Ajarn Somsak fanclub”.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
RE 192. “Two famous webboard players in Prachatai” had been arrested and put in jail for several days because they had “insulting monarchy” on webboard.
You may says that it’s just “several days”, at least, much more better than 10-15 years in jail. But, for statistic, how many cases in Thai History that “anyone” has been sentensed to be jailed 10-15 years?
No I hadn’t heard about this, stupidly, I was only thinking of Oliver Jufer, the Swiss man acquitted earlier in 2007.
Don’t you see the “Power of Propaganda” from this law? You say that it do more “harm than good”? I still do not talk about how it prevents the king and originates the “UNTOUCHABLE ANGEL!!!”.
Yes I see
, that’s why I mentioned people like myself who watch the BBC and see the King forgive so its all nice and friendly, which helps the King’s popularity as he can be supposedly virtuous with mercy.
But my opinion about the process which sees people needing to be forgiven would only reflect one which believes that power should be restrained and capped for the well being and growth of all people, and this view, because of my environment, bares no legitimacy to people who potentially have to deal with facing lese majeste like “Republican”??, who won’t watch Braveheart and lead Thailand to Freedom… Embrace Mel Gibson/William Wallace, Republican, embrace his spirit!!! I will flash my kilt baring my buttocks to the tanks along any thanon you wish to begin the rebellion!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to #192: Well I guess that I am not quite sure how to “play the game”, so it is safer for me to use a different name. I told you already, maybe I’m a bigger “coward” than him.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Just turning the argument on its head, why doesn’t Thongchai use a pseudonym instead of his real name? Thailand has a long history of seditious intellectuals using pseudonyms. Then he could attack the monarchy on webboards as strongly as he likes and he wouldn’t have to worry about lese majeste. My guess would be that more academics and students in Thai Studies would read NM and Fa Dio Kan than The Nation (well, I hope so at least, otherwise it would be very sad), so he would be reaching a receptive and well-informed audience. He wouldn’t have to censor himself or use royalist arguments out of fear of lese majeste. Isn’t that better than using a real name and having to falsify oneself?
I’ve never had a problem with people using pseudonyms because I think it’s just important for the arguments to be publically articulated. This has been the real problem with lese majeste, in the era before blogs and webboards. Now we can make the arguments publically so much more easily than before, why hinder our ability to articulate them by using real names?
(Also, pseudonyms are kind of democratic; you never know whether you’re debating with a Cornell professor or a first year Asian Studies major, or even someone really smart, like a taxi-driver.)
Of course, the verification process is another matter, when the “author function” becomes part of the way that academic institutions declare what is true or false, a la Foucault. But that can come later. First, let’s make the arguments.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I think I’m beginning to get what Republican has been trying to say. (Though I haven’t read EVERY single post here–what a long discussion!)
Most Thai academics are silent on the subject of the king/monarchy/royal family (is it self-censorship? is it LM law?). Heck, it wasn’t even critically discussed in a Nation and Nationalism graduate class in an anthropology department! Whenever we do see their articles, they seem to soften the argument – to the point where most readers wouldn’t even question whether they are criticizing the monarchy or not. The only way you can mention the king and monarchy in public is to praise them!
It is obvious that the monarchy plays an important role in Thai politics, pulling every string and mobilizing every resource they have to produce and reproduce their power AND accumulate their wealth.
I think the king and family should transfer all their wealth and assets to the nation, and let the government manage it. In fact, this budget should be allocated for universal health care and free education. They can keep their palaces (1 family is allowed 2 palaces only– hey everybody deserves holiday home!). Apart from the palaces, all assets and property should be turned into state property.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Good idea, imagine the Ministry of Finance owning Siam Cement or possibly selling its stake, raising billions with which we can develop the country with. Imagine an auctioning off of all prime Crown Property Bureau land, the wealth could be put to immense use of the nation.
I’m sure that wealth would be enough to finance all the King’s royal projects and expand its scope. If that is what he actually cares about rather than spending the government’s money, using government officials, but receiving all the praise.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to #193: Your exhortation in the last sentence is lighthearted, but it raises an issue (while I have political views I’ve never been interested in direct political activity; academic blogs are enough for me):
Would you be willing to lead, or even call for, a demonstration of the kind you describe above (lightheartedly) or, more seriously, against the CNS-royalists? And if the demonstrators were gunned down in the streets would you feel responsible? And given the lese majeste law, would it be possible for you or me to state publicly who was behind the massacre, and who ultimately gained politically from the massacre?
Think of all the massacres that the royalists and the military have committed over the last 35 years; have any of the perpetrators of the massacres ever been brought to justice? Thanom was actually given a royally-sponsored cremation a few months ago. Suchinda was there. Surayudh too, the commander of the force that shot to death unarmed pro-democracy protesters at the Royal Hotel on Ratchadamnoen Ave. in May ’92, who is now Prime Minister (formerly privy counsellor), and even praised in the international media as a “career soldier”. You can understand why these people are so loyal to the throne, because apart from rewarding them so well it is the only thing that protects them.
Anyone who considers political activity in Thailand, especially at the present, has to consider these questions. When their power is threatened the royalists have shown time and time again that they are willing to use deadly violence. And they have never been brought to justice.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The King never smiles because he made a vow when his older brother was killed by an accidental gun shot (possibly shot by the King himself) that he would never smile as long as he lived. I believe he may have softened that vow to allow himself to smile in private but I have actually only seen one picture of him purporting to be smiling. That picture is when he looking down at an old Thai lady and saying something to her. I personally don’t think it’s a smile but the point is that if he is honoring his vow to his brother who was king before him and sticking to his vow, that shows another side of the merit of this great person in history. Many Thais do not know about this vow and some refuse to believe he ever made it but it has been published in histories of the King and in at least two public newspapers I have read about him while living here in Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I understand #199 is meant as a joke, right? Unfortunately it’s a bad one.
…because he made a vow when his older brother was killed by an accidental gun shot (possibly shot by the King himself)…sticking to his vow, that shows another side of the merit of this great person in history.
the King Anan’s Death Case (as it’s common called) caused 3 innocent lives besides that of Anan himself (and not to mention other negative impacts). If it were true as #199 says, one can hardly talk of ‘great person in history’ here.
(btw. I’ve never read this joke-tale about the ‘vow’)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ask Ajarn Somsak
(If you do not want to answer just skip it.)
I have heard some rumours (but I cannot remember whoever told me) that “King Anan’s Death Case” is the cooperative plan by King’s mom and Ka-Na-Raat-Sa-Dorn, together.
I’m not sure that I can believe this rumour or not, but if it’s true. For me, it really make sense for this case. I do not think it was “an accident” but R9 WAS just a naive boy at that time. Hence, in my view, it should be some kind of order/demand from some one that cannot reject.
By the way, I didn’t mean that King’s mom demand directly but use some “sense of mother way” to order.
What I want to ask Ajarn is:
- Is this rumour has a chance to be true?
- I also have heard that Ka-Na-Raat-Sa-Dorn and Mom-Sangwal were fellows. Is it the truth?
R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9
With Respect.
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. As I have already said; I am sorry if my English annoy you. (I am really not good at it, unlike Sa-Hai-Dork-Ya)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
What’s HMK got to smile about?
(other than a Yim sao smile)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Sorry, never heard this rumor.
I cannot see any possibility of the Princess Mother’s involvement in the shooting whatsoever.
The original members of the People’s Party and the Princess Mother were exact contemporary. Pridi, for instance, was born the same year (1900) as the Princess. During Prince Songkhla’s stay in Europe in the 1920s, it’s reported that he actually visited one of the ‘student camps’ Pridi and his friends set up during summer holidays with the veiled aim of stimulating political awareness among fellow students, and was quite impressed with the students’ solidarity, patrioticsim, etc. But I don’t know of any connection, relationship between the People’s Party and the Mahidol Family (and I don’t think there was any), apart from that in their respective official capacities.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
For anyone who understand Thai language.
The strongest arguement against monarchy I have ever heard. By “Ajarn Cheep Chuchai” (I am not sure for the spelling of his name in English).
Download from this link:
http://www.uploadtoday.com/download/?4b17df2b28c01befd164810aa3027303
“Caution” : It is really really strong, indeed.
With Respect.
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. There are a lot of his arguements that I do not agree, but many of them also really interesting.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I recently obtained a copy of the book, i wont say where, but i did. khun paul handley is obviously very very biased against monarchies in general (the more powerful they are, the stronger his hate for them) He does bring up many good points, i think. i personally view the current monarchy with high regard, and i do not think that this book has really changed my opinion that much, i kept reminding myself the whole time of the authors bias.
does anybody know where i might be able to obtain a copy of the book:
The devils discus, by rayne kruger?
feel free to e-mail me.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
When you say you keep reminding yourself of the author’s bias the whole time, did you ever tell yourself about your own?
Look at the evidence, my friend, and make your own judgment.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
King’s speech – Unlikely there will be another coup just yet:
I see that the king gave another speech on Friday 21st December at a loyalty oath-swearing ceremony for military and police generals, where he appeared again to signal that a coup was not the best way out of the difficulty the royalists find themselves in right now (see my earlier post on this topic: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2007/12/18/table-46/#comment-277404) . (By the way, was this ceremony deliberately scheduled 2 days before the election, or is it held this time every year; does someone know?)
…ท่านเป็นทหารไม่ได้หมายความว่า ท่านจะต้องประหัตประหารใช้อาวุธยุทโธปกรณ์ แต่ว่าท่านจะต้องทำคำ [ปัฏิญาณตน] ให้ศักดิ์สิทธิ์ และถ้าทำด้วยมีความเข้มแข็ง … [http://www.hi-thaksin.org/contentdetail.php?ParamID=76217]
As I said in the earlier post, I think another coup would be extremely damaging for the king and the royalists, maybe fatal, and they will do everything they can to avoid it. So, this may mean that PPP will play the game a little harder, given that the royalists will be loth to play the coup card. Maybe this explains why Samak didn’t waste any time after the election re-confirming his intention to seek an amnesty for the 111 TRT executives if he became PM.
Whether they form the government or not (my guess is not), PPP is in a position of strength right now.
If they form the government no doubt they will once again be destabilized by the king and the royalists. In the longer term this will work in the PPP’s favour. The more the PPP can draw the king and the royalists out into the open, expose their constant political interference in the democratic process (while all the time declaring their loyalty to the throne), the greater the electoral gain for the PPP. If they can manage the amnesty for the 111 TRT execs, start the process of amending or abandoning the 2007 Constitution, then dissolve parliament and call another election, they will be in an even stronger position.
But my feeling is that, given the royalist regime’s destruction of TRT, they will be terrified that in government PPP will take their revenge and retake control of the levers of power (for example, after everything that Samak has said one would think that if PPP were in government Prem would have to be neutralized at some stage). For this reason the royalists will need the king’s assistance to engineer a Democrat-led government.
But in opposition it will be very easy for PPP to itself destabilize the Democrat-led government given their numbers. And if the economic situation continues to deteriorate all they have to do is to point to the TRT’s better record on the economy. Similar outcome: it is unlikely the government could last. A new election would be called in which PPP would likely do even better, given the failure of the Democrat-led government. PPP forms the new government, the 111 TRT execs are pardoned, moves are made to amend the Constitution, especially to get rid of the 74 appointed Senators, the most glaring anti-democratic aspect of an anti-democratic Constititution. So it’s almost back to pre-September 19 2006, and close to a total failure for the royalists.
Such an outcome would be maybe the most important step in the political neutralization of the monarchy in 50 years, and a big step forward for Thai democracy.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
If they form the government no doubt they will once again be destabilized by the king and the royalists
If you took your blinkers off Republican, you might see that TRT destabilized itself, and the same thing is likely to happen to a PPP government once they show their true colors.
(Tax havens, Nominees, Extra-judicial killings, Tax avoidance, Policy Corruption, Arrogance etc – put it all together and you get destabilization)
PS. Merry Xmas to all at New Mandala.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Re-Pub:
For the sake of the argument (and maybe Andrew can put this all on a new subject/thread), I’m not sure Thaksin/PPP have the upper hand in the short-medium term, even if in the long run it seems inevitable the palace cedes power to politicians.
I think the military-palace alliance signalled where the line is and where they think Thaksin went too far. Their threat is still out there, whatever the king’s words — which he has said in the past (“we have to not use our arms but work together with the people in unity” he always says).
Thaksin and the “hotheads” around him — those that the military regards as “communists,” Chang Noi told us — are probably itching more than ever for revenge. But the military has also made clear it won’t be toyed with.
Moreover, in the past year Thaksin’s men have been pushed out of key positions in the military, while Prem-palace allies have come up. It would take Thaksin several years to wrest back control, and the first thing he would have to do — ironically — would be to approve the military’s massive wishlist, which would just strengthen their position vis-a-vis civilian politicians.
So while we can say that the election was a message from the people to the military to not think it can control the country, the past 15 months was this message from the military to the people and politicians: “don’t f**k with us or our mates in the palace.”
In short: don’t make the mistake of ruling out any more coups.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Polo: actually I did’t rule out another coup, but I just think they would be very reluctant to do it any time soon, and it would be a very last resort (unless riots broke out or there were some other emergency – which is not beyond the realms of possiblity). So those speeches by the king could be seen as giving morale to the troops, who must be very demoralized right now. He might even have needed to calm those “hotheads” who might be tempted to think of a coup in order to stop Thaksin coming back. That would be a disaster for the Palace.
The king himself has suffered a loss of face, given the strong public support he gave to the coup and the regime it installed. So he has to try to show to the military that he is still in control. A little pathetic, really. His birthday speech giving his support for military acquisitions was another example of how pathetic he has become: support me and I will reward you with military largesse. Basically you have a situation where the king is promising riches to the military and “sufficiency” to the poor (with the approval of lots of Thai and Western academics!), while Thaksin and PPP are promising an economy in which the poor can benefit, and which at the same time follows modern globalized, economically liberal norms (unlike, say, Chavez’s Venezuela). In a country with a free media the king and his supporters would be publicly ridiculed for saying such things. In Thailand you have academics presenting learned papers at international conferences on the king’s contribution to economic theory.
You seem to see “the military” as united (eg. “…But the military has also made clear it won’t be toyed with…”; “…the past 15 months was this message from the military to the people…”). The last 15 months have actually brought the military to a new low in terms of public opinion. Not only have they failed to destroy a political movement like Thaksin and TRT/PPP when they have had almost total political control and the king behind them, but they can not end a separatist insurgency in the south fought by people who make bombs out of fertilizer. (It’s tempting to ask what the Thai military is in fact good for, except defending the monarchy?) As someone on the Se Daeng blog said, the problem with the military now is that they are run by golfers, not professional officers, who somehow manage to amass huge multi-million baht fortunes when the ordinary rank and file soldiers are struggling. This kind of sentiment in the military would be ideal territory for the PPP to exploit. We know that Thaksin has support in the military. If PPP forms government then one would expect that they will retake control of the key positions in the military by replacing the royalist officers with their own people. This will of course be very controversial, but what will the royalists do? Carry out another coup? Tie the yellow ribbons to the tank turrets and their M16s again? Perhaps actually shoot people in the streets? There would be huge international condemnation, a strong possibility of international media criticism of the Thai monarchy, and comparisons with Nepal. The economy goes from bad to worse. How is that going to help the royalists’ cause?
“…the past 15 months was this message from the military to the people and politicians…” This sentence suggests you’ve misunderstood what happened on 19 September and after. The military were never in control. They were merely the instrument of a royalist alliance, headed by the Palace, the Privy Council, royalist officers with patronage links to Prem, the judiciary and academics. All this linked together by a neo-feudal ideology and some residual Marxist nationalism that still animates the academics and NGOs. The days when the military could call the shots are long gone. The reason for the misunderstanding (shared by many in the media)? Lese majeste, which means we can’t say in public that the king interferes in politics. Instead we blame it on the military.
So to me another coup is not a “threat”, because it would merely hasten the decline in the political fortunes of the royalists and feed into more support for PPP.
It seems quite clear to me that the PPP has the “upper-hand”, at least for now.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“No no no my dear General, a coup now is too risky. But assasination, lets give that a thought shall we?”, says one (retired) general to another (serving) general.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Yes, assassination would have to be a possibility (I assume you mean Thaksin); the hatred of him among the royalists is so intense. They have overthrown his government, dissolved his party, banned him from politics, seized his assets, censored the media from reporting him, used martial law and other measures to intimidate his voter base, rigged the constitution against him, and he still comes back. So assassination may be the only way to destroy him and the movement he leads.
If they killed Thaksin what would be the likely result? PPP would indeed probably fall apart. At least it would not be the force it is now with Thaksin as de facto leader. Without PPP you remove the biggest threat to the royalists’ hold on power. So that would have to make assassination an attractive option to them.
But the repercussions of an assassination would be huge. Given the way that the anti-Thaksin movement has received such support from the Palace it would be hard for them to escape at least some of the blame. The price of overthrowing Thaksin in 2006 is that the Palace and its allies have had to be much more visible in their political interventions than they would ideally have liked. What would be the result if PPP voters learnt that the Palace was involved in the assassination of their beloved leader? A pretty dangerous scenario for the future of the monarchy. After this king goes, the royalists still need the monarchy to endure to ensure their own political and economic interests. But the more the monarchy is politicized, the more it is revealed as an anti-democratic force, the lesser chance it has of survival. So an assassination might actually accelerate the political defeat of the royalists, not avoid it.
And Thaksin must surely have an insurance policy against assassination. That is, he would have to have made it clear to those who might be entertaining such an idea that the costs to them if he were to be killed would be too great for them to actually carry it out.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican,
I honestly don’t follow your argument that the military was never in control and are simply an instrumental tool of a royalist network alliance during and since the Sept 19 coup. Are you arguing that the military as an institution, even a divided and fragmented institution, has no collective self-interest, autonomy or goals independent of its supposed royalist masters? And doesn’t the new Internal Security Act, which makes the military essentially a privileged security state within the official bureaucratic state, further clarify and reinforce their ability to unilaterally and definitively control, regulate and shape both the bureaucratic state and civil society in the pursuit of their own collective self-interest?
I simply don’t follow the logic or the evidence of your assertion. Please explain.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Taxi Driver & Republican: To continue on your morbid theme – Wouldn’t any assassination attempt be more likely to come from a relative of a victim of one of the massacres under Thaksin’s watch? (eg drug war or Tak Bai)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to David W: The issue is, who is “in control”, not whether the the military has “collective self-interest”. Of course the military has collective self-interest. I never said it didn’t. It (or rather, certain elements within the military) pursues that self-interest by allying itself with the monarchy, which is untouchable. This alliance augments the powers of the military.
But that does not mean the military itself is “in control”.
Evidence?
The mastermind behind the coup – chairman of the Privy Council. The PM – a privy counsellor.
Look at the Cabinet – most appointments were based on connections NOT to the military but to the monarchy.
Look at the NLA. Military appointments made up only a small proportion of the membership.
Look at the instruments used to destroy the TRT – the Constitutional Tribunal, the AEC, and the other “independent bodies” – these are not military.
The new Constitution is designed to keep political parties weak to ensure the survival of the network monarchy system of governance – the best description that I can think of for something quite complex – much more than it is to enhance the power of the military.
This is why I regard the military an instrument of the royalist alliance – an important instrument to be sure, but not “in control”, as you seem to think.
Re. the ISA, it suits the royalists very well to have a powerful Internal Security Act – this will help them defend themselves from any democratic-based challenge like TRT-PPP. Having a strong ISA doesn’t mean that the military are in control in Thailand, any more than it does with the ISA in Malaysia or Singapore. Note that this Act was passed not by the decree of a military dictator but by a vote of the NLA which is overwhelmingly not military but royalist.
The reason this is an important point to make is that if we keep dwelling on the military, saying that the military is ultimately “in control”, it diverts attention from the monarchy, which is the real obstacle to Thailand’s democratization. This suits the monarchy very well. It preserves the pretence that it is “above” politics. What we need to be saying in academic discourse and in the media is that the monarchy is in fact constantly interfering in politics to defend itself and its royalist allies. Academics and journalists should continually be trying to reveal its manipulations, especially when lese majeste means that Thais can not do so without great risk to themselves.
I will say for the 1000th time, I can understand in Thailand why people can not mention the monarchy, but I am continually astounded why people beyond the reach of lese majeste can not or choose not to point out the monarchy’s continual anti-democratic manipulation of Thai politics.
As for your claim that the ISA enables the military to “clarify and reinforce their ability to unilaterally and definitively control, regulate and shape both the bureaucratic state and civil society in the pursuit of their own collective self-interest”, well, that is as laughable as it is prolix. Unilaterally? You are saying they don’t need the king’s approval?!!!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ngarn I think its infinitely more likely to come from rogue elements in the military than a vengeful relative. Certainly more likely to be successful too. I’m sure Thaksin has beefed up his own security in recent weeks.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican:
You argue that the palace is at this moment by far the most powerful political actor, standing on its own without the military. But you also focus on Prem. Prem is both military and royalist, and has relied on his military connections to maintain royal power. Despite efforts toward this direction, Prem does not have his own royal barami, is not royal blood, and so by himself cannot wield royal power. He fronts royal power and only does so successfully by keeping up army ties. Those “most appointments” to the NLA and cabinet, were they to the “royal Prem” or to the “military Prem”? You cannot separate the two.
What that really means is that the generals have their own power, including a certain amount leverage over the throne. For instance, the throne cannot implement the ISA, that takes the military. You yourself pointed out the weakness of the throne in this regard: “Basically you have a situation where the king is promising riches to the military” to keep them on side.
With that one phrase you really undermine your arguments that the military is weakened. Just remove that one key element — Prem — and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, nothing changes.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
If Thaksin does make a comeback, it is reassuring to at least know a royalist will be at the helm:)
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/read.php?newsid=30060559
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
You make a valid point, david, that the military is a fractured organization consisting of not only a collective greed, but also of factional ones. Yet this point, I think, fits into Republican’s analysis: that such a fragmented organization has so far acted “united” in implementing the coup and generally keeping dissent unheard of seems odd, unless, of course, the fault lines within the military were to be instantly healed, or some greater manipulation were to be at work.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Gentlepersons,
I have been reading this blog for the last hour and a half. With great respect I have to suggest that a moderator is needed. From a useful discussion about a biography the thread deteriorated into pseudo-intellectual claptrap, abuse and point scoring. Such a waste of energy and time.
Of all the participants nganadeeleg seems to be trying desperately to provide some sense of stability.
New though I am to the blog, I am not uninformed about the subject, and I would like to see the original topic dealt with appropriately, ie a reasonable critique of Mr Handley’s book.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thanks, Ian – presumably you were not referring to my comment #87
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Well, I have to agree that the use of latin did stimulate similar thoughts in me!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
re: Ian
Futue te ipsum! And the same goes for your mother as well.
Quite frankly, there is nothing more obnoxious than someone who enters into a rather emotional discussion late, sneers at the contributions with a supercilious and haughty disdain, and then claims they would contribute to the conversation if and only if his fellow interlocutors weren’t beneath him with their tawdry displays.
So, Ian, since you aren’t “uninformed” about this subject, inform us. Why don’t you be the one to provide a reasonable critique of Handley’s work? Perhaps, to wax poetic in a Behanian mode, similar to both critics and eunuchs, you are incapable of doing that which you observe daily.
In short, your lack of a decent education in the Liberal Arts, should not in any fashion inhibit the application of my knowledge. Indeed, an interesting comparision could be draw between recent events in Thai politics and the political battles between Catiline and Cicero. Unfortunately, the conversation could never go down that route due to the anti-intellectual, Tall Poppy Syndrome browbeating that seems to have infected this thread via certain posters.
That having been said, welcome to New Mandala and I look forward to your appropriate reasonable critique soon.
P.S. Forgive the conspiracy theory, but, Ian:nganadeeleg:: Vichai:Jeru?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Re: LLS
I was expecting a response of the kind you exhibit in #223. Proves my point. And no, there is no conspiracy, so you can think again.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
LSS: Andrew or Nich should be able to address your conspiracy theory
(a denial by me would be pointless)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
To paraphrase and augment Polo’s #217, if I may:
“Just remove that one key element — Bhumipol — and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, it becomes supreme.”
Rama IX has been no force for democratization, but as I’ve argued before, the real obtacle to Thailand’s democratization has always been, and will continue to be after Rama IX’s passing, the military.
After Rama IX’s (and Prem’s) passing, the power of the throne will greatly diminish, and be at risk of being pushed aside by ambitious generals. The survival of the throne may be under greater threat under military dictatorship than under a parliamentary system (which would be very ironic for Republican
). Post Prem and his cabal of coutier-generals, who’s to say the next generation of generals have any particular allegience to the throne (particularly if held by Vachiralongkorn)? Does Rama X fear the emergence of a new Jormpol Por.?… At least under a parliamentary system with elected governments, its hard to see a political party winning votes campaigning on a platform of abolishing the monarchy, lest majeste or not.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
re: Ian & nganadeeleg:
nganadeeleg, the postscript on my last post was intended to be humorous.
Ian, I too was expecting a pompous and hypocritical response of the kind you exhibit in #224. Indeed, as of three posts by you in this thread, you have yet to provide any on-topic commentary or criticism of Handley’s book; rather, you and nganadeeleg seem content to act like sophmoric schoolboys, sitting in the back of the classroom and sniggering at their instructor because he wrote the Latin phrase taper cum anus on the blackboard.
Furthermore, just what was is your “point” you claim I prove, anyway? You enter the discussion (and this online community) with an admonishment not to engage in “abuse and point scoring,” and then, unprovked, you attempt to abuse and point score off of me with a snide remark concerning my contribution to a discussion, of which, you weren’t originally even involved .
So again, I ask you, why don’t you provide “a reasonable critique of Handley’s work”? Or have you, like Lucifer Lightbringer, have fallen with us into this wretched fallen state of only providing “abuse and point scoring,” which you describe as “such a waste of energy and time”.
Once you are able to overcome your urge to respond to my comments without engaging in abuse or point scoring, I will look forward to your thoughts on Handley’s biography.
Just as an aside, I believe the answer to nganadeeleg’s query in #87 might be something similar to “Homo ineptus imitator vel affectator.” In my defense, I applied such soraismus in my diction for a particular rhetorical effect, i.e. to highlight Sidh’s ignorance of Western history; however, I see no such artifice behind Ian’s and nganadeeleg’s constant employment of aschematiston.
Sincerely,
Lleij Samuel Schwartz
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ian, some think the book is a bit shifty. Others think that the book should trigger the end of the monarchy. There you go.
Why start participating in petty soap box intellectualising if you are above it? Booyakasha!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Reply to Polo: please don’t misrepresent what I wrote – for your own sake, as anyone can go back and read my posts and see for themselves.
I never said or argued that the monarchy was “standing on its own without the military”. And I never said that the military did not have any power of its own.
The point that we are arguing is who is ultimately “in control”. I reject the argument that is continually repeated in the media and academia that it is the military that is “in control”. In THIS era there is nothing the military can do “unilaterally” (to use david w’s words); it needs the approval of the Palace – through Prem (since the king has to keep up the pretence that he’s a constitutional monarch and not be seen to directly interfere in politics). The power that Prem wields today is not based on any official position in the military (there are dozens of former army commanders running around who have no power over the military), but on his position as Chairman of the Privy Council. That is, his real power today comes from the king. That power is exercised through the military and other bodies and institutions.
That is why so many non-military people (including the royalist-oriented parties like the Democrats, Chat Thai, Phuea Phaendin) are trying so hard to defend Prem. If Prem were removed it would be a crippling blow to the royalist alliance AND to the military element within that alliance. The military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the elected government. The only way it is able today to defy the authority of the elected government is by calling on the legitimacy of the monarchy, which it relied upon so heavily in the September 19 coup and after. So if Prem were removed it would certainly not be a case of “nothing changes” to military power, as you argued.
The palace is the lynchpin in an anti-democratic “royalist alliance”, or using McCargo’s terms, “network monarchy”. This system of governance is sui generis and rendered partially invisible by lese majeste, which is why it is so misunderstood. Thailand is not like Myanmar or Pakistan or Indonesia during the New Order where there is nothing above the military (better comparisons would be with Iran before 1979, or Nepal today, although in these cases there are obvious differences as well).
In my opinion it is very important that we analyse the situation correctly, which means recognizing that it is not the military that is the obstacle to democracy in Thailand, but the monarchy.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
LSS: Lets not go over old ground.
FWIW, my review of the book is at post #33 above – I’ll stick to aschematiston and and leave the periergia to you.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I look forward to Handley’s paper at the ICTS, on the Privy Council. By the way, the Bangkok Post advertises the conference as an academic conference and an “event to celebrate the 80th birthday of His Majesty the King.”
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Republican, I argue that the military was able to defy the authority of the elected government in Sept-06 because the ‘millions in yellow’ was on its side, not because the King was on its side.
Without the yellow protests leading up to Sept-06, a coup would have been impossible even if it had the blessing of the King (and I doubt the King would have dared support a coup if the yellow people weren’t in the streets). What the military fears most is a repeat of May-92, its most humiliating defeat.
Furthermore, as I posted earlier, after Rama 9, the king’s blessing may even become unnecessary.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Interesting take on the argument with a ‘lesser of two evils’ argument, which is perfectly embodied by the seizure of power of FM Pibulsonggram from the civilians–namely Pridi–within the People’s Party.
However, I personally think this argument falls apart in the period of time in between 1973 and 1976, where there was a sizable leftist movement and heightened awareness of democracy from the populace itself, rather than any from an elite. This force was, of course, put out with the 1976 massacre, and it was the monarchy who played the biggest role in legitimizing the massacre. If it was only military action, there would only be a repeat of October 1973 and in that instance, the military was forced back into the barracks.
Keep in mind that within the military itself, there are progressive commanders, ambitious generals, and what not. The military would fall apart if it were not for the palace. Remember how Pridi attempted a coup against Pibulsonggram or the Manhattan rebellion against Pibul. The one thing that has allowed the military to act effectively is the monarchy.
Therefore, “just remove that one key element — Bhumipol — and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, it fractures and becomes ineffective against the forces of democracy and against its own ranks.”
There is a higher likelihood that a Sarit will arise out of the situation than there is for a Franco. But then again, in this day and age, what is the possibility of the military ruling Thailand ever again? Very little. If they try, they will be driven out not only by international pressure, but by public opinion and by those within their own ranks. The chances of Thailand turning into Burma are very slim.
P.S. For your information, Ian, these comment boards are regulated.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Repub:
You consistently argue that the palace is the key factor, the key barrier to democratization; that the military is split, almost completely lost the respect of the people, politically impotent as shown by the PPP victory, and is a mere tool of the royalist alliance.
So, no, I don’t stand corrected.
But lets get on: Prem is not powerful because he is the privy council president. His power is the same as it was when he was prime minister: it comes from (1) a superior handling (clumsy as it has been) of military and bureaucratic powers and staffing, and (2) his personal relationship with Bhumibol. I think that the basis for (2) is (1), and not the other way around.
So the difference between our views — your erroneous one and my correct one!!
— can be seen clearly in a reconstruction of your own sentence:
You say: ” The palace is the lynchpin in an anti-democratic ‘royalist alliance’, or using McCargo’s terms, ‘network monarchy’.”
I say: “The military is the lynchpin in an anti-democratic ‘royalist alliance’, or using McCargo’s terms, ‘network monarchy’. ”
I would add that the military sees the palace as its tool, too (like Sarit and Suchinda saw it), and in that sense, the loyalty issue is not easily managed by Prem.
Your points are reasonable to point out that there is no monolithic power in Thailand today and things are very precarious — to which I would add, because the “balance of power” is not governed by any rule of law.
But your key conclusion — that in the absence of Prem, “The military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the elected government” — is a howler.
Does that that mean that you think Democratisation and rule of law have progressed so far in Thailand to never be turned back? Does that mean you think that the pressure from Washington and Canberra is enough to prevent another military takeover? I heard those arguments in Thailand in 1990. Good joke. Funny in Manila too.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Oh yeah: Ian: if you don’t like our “pseudo-intellectual claptrap” and are simply impressed by flourishes of the dead language of Rome, you can buzz off to http://www.latinblog.org, where they have a talk about “Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum”.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Re: ngandeeleg
You said, “LSS: Lets not go over old ground.”
In response, all I have to say is that Prince Inao has nothing on you, Mr. ngandeeleg.
I have already read your post #33, and I thought it was well-written. My request for a comment on Handley was directed toward Ian, who, after his his original expression of censure, has yet to contribute anything to this discussion concerning The King Never Smiles.
Getting back to your original request, yes, let us not go over old ground. If you, or someone else, wishes to continue to attack either my choice of diction or my first name (which happens with a disturbing regularity on this forum), you are most welcome to do so in a more private channel. As for discussion on the issues that Handley raises in his book, I am most willing to discuss them here; however, I think Grasshopper’s laconic comments in #228 say all that is needed to be said for the time being.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thanks Teth for your 233# post.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth, I guess you and I both have a “lesser of two evils” argument – we just have a different take on who is the “lesser evil”, right?
I don’t see how Oct-76 invalidates my argument. I never argued that the palace is pro-democracy. You say the palace played the biggest role legitimizing the massacre. My response is: So? Who else could have “legitimized” the massacre? Certainly not the military itself! Who did (most of the) the killing? I recall scenes of soldiers shooting at students, I recall scenes of soldiers in boots threading on semi-naked women lying prone on the ground at Thammasart. Thailand in the period after the fall of Saigon was very, very tense. Everyone was fearing a red under their bed, and a vietnamese tank at their front gate in the morning – the palace included.
You also brought up a comparison with 1973. In fact does not 1973 (and May-92) support my argument?
The military will not fall apart without the palace. I would certainly like to hear your reasons why you think it will. With or without the palace, the rivalry among generals will be as intense as ever. Sure, the rivalry game may be played very differently and possibly in a more violent fashion if there was no Bhumipol, but there is just no reason why the military as an institution will fall apart. How the Tat Ma Daw sorts out its leadership issue is probably a good example.
What is the possibility in this day and age of the military ruling Thailand ever again?! I’m surprised you ask this question. Who has ruled Thailand over the past 15 months? The expanded powers of the ISOC also give the military immense power going forward.
The military holds all the real cards in the game against democracy. It controls the arms, tanks, and communications + propaganda infrastructure (include all those radio & TV stations). Sep-06 just proved once again that the soldiers think they have a manifest destiny to rule the country in order to “protect” it.
The Handley book, useful as it is, may have driven too many people to focus exclusively on the monarchy (and perhaps give the reader the impression that the military is now just a tool at the King’s disposal). Nothing could be further from the truth.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Taxi Driver writes:
Who did (most of the) the killing? I recall scenes of soldiers shooting at students, I recall scenes of soldiers in boots threading on semi-naked women lying prone on the ground at Thammasart.
It’s very sad to see such an intelligent person so ignorant of history.
There was NO SINGLE soldier “doing the killing”, “shooting at students” in Thammasat on the morning of October 6, 1976.
It’s no wonder you’re so navie about the role of the monarchy.
(Actually, when I read your #226 and 232 posts above, I did wonder. Now I can see why.)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Military influence will be great, granted, but nothing like Burma. The military did not rule for the last 15 months, the bureaucracy was ruling itself, which, of course, led to drastic results. The reason the military had to appoint a ‘civilian’ government and the reason Sonthi stood down from the post of premier himself is because the Army is not desirable.
I don’t deny that, but the soldiers also believe they have a manifest destiny to be the big boys, to command but not obey and to plunder the national treasury to buy toys.
Yet, the only way such a risky and selfish power grabbing move as a coup could have taken place was with the consent of the Palace (in light of the built up popularity of HMK).
I do not have a lesser of two evils argument, except, of course, you meant to say that we both see two big evils in Thailand with only a difference in ranking them. While you are absolutely correct that the military trumps the palace in the days of Pibul, but once Sarit and the Cold War took the fore, that relationship changed and the two Octobers completely changed the scene with regards to what the military can do. There will be no more Sarits or Thanoms or Pibuls, although there were still military coups. From that point, the only “strongman” of the army was the man who was previously used as an instrument by Sarit–it was this man who stood for his dictators, visited Thanom when he returned into Thailand via the monkhood and at the very least, stood by while his Village Scouts (Under Royal Patronage) and navapol massacred students.
Looking towards the future, however, the military as an institution is a greater threat than the monarchy as an institution. But looking back, I can only see two synergistic entities manipulating and advancing their own cause. One which started out stronger than the other, only to end up subservient to the other. That is the situation now and it is clear the Sept 06 coup was for the benefit of whom.
The military may hold the tanks, but can it withstand protests, civil unrest and vitally, the economic doldrums that accompany such a putsch? The military does not own factories nor do they control the livelihood of the people, and this fact will topple them, just like how the Surayud government’s popularity is very low because of their economic ineptitude. But most importantly, the military does not hold the prestige and moral authority HMK holds in the hearts and minds of the people. I emphasize that it is a personal authority, not an institutional one and I perfectly agree that the biggest institutional hindrance towards democracy in the future (after the succession) will be the military, and following closely in its heels, the conservative bureaucracy.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I must add, even with Bhumibol, the rivalries in the army are intense: remember the coup attempts against Prem, but it was also Bhumibol who played the decisive role in Prem’s victory at that time.
The military as an institution will not fall apart, but infighting will severely cripple the effectiveness of its dictatorial rule. Perhaps some soldiers might actually be democratic.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Wow talk about nickpicking on a choice of word in a sentence not central to the argument, which is left unrebutted save for snide, small minded comments about intelligence and navie [sic]. Okay okay so they weren’t strictly Royal Thai Military ‘soldiers’, but paramilitary units armed, trained, and commanded by soldiers/ex-soldiers with strong links to ISOC…. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…geez you say its not a duck!
Do I hear you say “but these guys were acting for the palace not the generals”? I hope not. We know your position re the monarchy. But you’re not an apologist for the military, are you?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
ขออภัย ผมไม่มีเวลา เขียนเป็นภาษาอังกฤษ
คนทีผมเกลียดมากที่สุด คือพวกดีดจริต ที่คิดว่าตัวเองรู้อะไรแต่จริงๆแล้วไม่รู้เลย
Okay okay so they weren’t strictly Royal Thai Military ’soldiers’, but paramilitary units armed, trained, and commanded by soldiers/ex-soldiers with strong links to ISOC…. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…geez you say its not a duck!
ผิด ผิด และ ผิด
คุณเอง อ้างเรื่อง 6 ตุลา ขึ้นมา เพื่อสนับสนุน argument ที่ว่า military สำคัญกว่า monarchy แล้วก็ยกเรื่อง ทหาร ทำการฆ่า นศ. ในเช้าวันนั้น ผมก็ชี้ให้เห็นว่า ตัวอย่าง 6 ตุลา ใช้สนบสนุน argument นั้นไม่ได้ เพราะ จริงๆแล้ว ไม่มีทหารแม้แต่คนเดียวที่ทำการที่ธรรมศาสตร์ ในเช้านั้น
คุณก็ยังดัดจริต ทำเป็นอวดรู้ พูดอะไรที่ผิดๆออกมาอีก
ใครที่ไม่ดัดจริต และใช้เวลาศึกษาเรื่อง 6 ตุลา บ้าง ก็ต้องรู้ว่า ประเด็นว่า ใครคือคนเข้าไปฆ่า นศ. ทหาร หรือ พวกอื่น เป็นประเด็นสำคัญ (คุณเอง ก็ยังอ้างเรื่องทหาร ใน 6 ่ตุลา เพื่อเอามาสนับสนุน ความสำคัญของทหาร)
ความจริงคือ กำลังติดอาวุธที่เข้าไปฆ่า นักศึกษา ที่ ธรรมศาสตร์ ไม่ใช่ ทหาร แต่เป็นกำลังที่ควบคุมโดย palace (ไม่ใช่ กอ.รมน. อะไรที่วามาด้วย) ประโยคท้ายๆ ที่เขียนว่า I hope not แสดงว่า ไม่รู้เรื่องอะไรเลย ตชด.พลร่ม พิเศษ ไม่ได้อยู่ในการควบคุมของทหาร (ตำรวจคอมมานโด ก็ไม่ใช่)
ก่อนจะดีดจริตพูดอะไรเรื่องนี้ หัดศึกษาเสียก่อนครับ
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Mai pen rai. Phom arn pasa Thai dai mae phom bpen khon dudjarit.
“ใครคือคนเข้าไปฆ่า นศ. ทหาร หรือ พวกอื่น เป็นประเด็นสำคัญ”
You are a better man than most if you can objectively separate the blame between the players and absolve the military of all responsiblity/complicity for Oct-76. I guess I just ไม่รู้เรื่องอะไรเลย but maybe I’m in good company (because you are the only one with the true knowledge right?): from wikipedia’s entry about Oct 6th (initiated by Patiwat): “The Village Scouts were closely tied to the Border Patrol Police and was under Royal patronage. Other more extreme, underground rightist movements also grew. This included the Red Gaur and Navapol, the violent arm of the ultra-right, which were organized and trained by the Internal Security Operations Command”….. “Various army-controlled radio stations claimed the students were also planning to assault the palace and Wat Bovornives, encouraging Village Scouts, Red Gaur, and Navapol to kill the “communists”….In the dawn of 6 October 1976, the rightists began to fire into the University campus using military weapons. Although the students pleaded for a ceasefire, the then police chief authorized a free fire…”
So you are an apologist for the military AND the police now? Everything must be blamed on the palace and never on anyone else, eh?
Sometimes an otherwise lucid thinker loses his objectivity due to the high conviction he holds in an idea. In my line of work I audit my own thinking processes everynow and then. Do you?
p.s. one day I might tell you the stories told to me by my uncle who rotted in jail for several years during the 70s-early 80s for being a leader of the CPT, and other stories told to me by another (even closer) immediate relative who used to sail in international regatta with a certain HRH. I am not uninformed of the events and the players, my friend.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Once again, my apology for those who cannot read Thai.
ผมชอบนัก สั่งสอนคนที่ชอบอวดรู้ดัดจริตนี่แหละ
อันที่จริง หลังจาก “หน้าแตก” ด้วยการพูดว่า “I recall scenes of soldiers shooting at students, I recall scenes of soldiers in boots threading on semi-naked women lying prone on the ground at Thammasart.
แล้วถูกทักว่า ความจริง ไม่มีทหารแม้แต่คนเดียวทำการอย่างที่ว่าในเช้าวันนั้น (ให้คุณได้มีความจำนั้น “recall”) ก็สมควรได้คิด
ยังดันทุรังเถียงแบบข้างๆคูๆ
(ข้อความใน wikipedia ที่ยกมา นอกจากมีบางตอนที่ทำให้เข้าใจผิดได้แล้ว – เกี่ยวกับการอนุญาติให้ยิงได้ของ อตร.ศรีสุข – ยังแสดงว่า คนยกไม่เข้าใจการเมืองในขณะนั้นโดยทั่วไป และกรณี 6 โดยเฉพาะ จริงๆ และที่สำคัญ ส่วนที่ยกมา ใช้สนับสนุนเรื่อง “ทหาร” ของคุณได้ตรงไหนไม่ทราบ?)
ประเด็นว่า กองกำลังอะไรคือกองกำลังที่เข้าไปฆ่าหมู่ในธรรมศาสตร์ในเช้าวันนั้น และกองกำลังดังกล่าว มีความสัมพันธ์ หรืออยู่ภายใต้การบัญชากลุ่มใดในหมู่ชนชั้นปกครองขณะนั้น ก่อนอื่นที่สุด เป็น ประเด็นในเชิง ข้อเท็จจริง
ถ้าข้อเสนอของผม ตรงกับข้อเท็จจริง ก็ไม่จำเป็นต้องพูดเรื่อง “lose objectivity” ใดๆทั้งสิ้น
ในทางกลับกัน ถ้าใครพูดอะไรแบบมั่วๆมา โดยไม่รู้ข้อเท็จจริง นั่นแหละสะท้อนให้เห็นการสูญเสีย objectivity หรือความดัดจริต ดื้อด้าน ไม่ยอมรับความจริง โดยแท้
กำลังที่บุกเข้าไปในธรรมศาสตร์ในเช้าวันที่ 6 ตุลา ประกอบด้วย 2 ประเภท คือ (1) เจ้าหน้าที่ในเครื่องแบบติดอาวุธ (armed uniformed officers) และ (2) สมาชิกของแก๊งค์การเมือง ที่สำคัญคือ ลูกเสือชาวบ้าน และ กระทิงแดง
ในขณะที่งานเขียนที่รู้จักกันดีจำนวนหนึ่ง focus ที่กลุ่มที่สอง (เช่น งานของ Ben Anderson) ในความเป็นจริง ลำพังคนกลุ่มนี้ ไม่สามารถจะบุกทะลายแนวต้านทานของ”พวกเรา”เข้าไปได้
(Yes we’re armed too, but only lightly. Or, I should say, enough to resist those largely civilian political thugs. As a leading member of our security team put it to me when we’re in jail together and I asked whether we underestimated the attacker, whether we should have prepared more arms, he said: “It’s not the problem of underestimation, but of different kind of attack [or different kind of attackers - somsak] from those we’d been facing up to then. We’re never prepared to face the heavily armed police. we only had enough fire power for the Krathing Daeng and the like”)
กลุ่มที่เป็นตัวชี้ขาดจริงๆ ที่ทำให้เกิดการฆาตรกรรมหมู่ได้ คือกลุ่มแรก
กลุ่มแรก ที่ผมเรียกว่า armed uniformed officers คือใครบ้าง?
ที่แน่นอน (และมีนัยยะที่จะกล่าวข้างหน้า) ไม่ใช่ทหาร แต่คือกำลัง 3 กลุ่ม ของตำรวจ (ที่ไม่ได้อยู่ใต้บัญชาการของ อธิบดีตำรวจ) ได้แก่
ก. ตำรวจพลร่ม ตะเวนชายแดน จากค่ายหัวหิน
ข. กำลังตำรวจคอมมานโด ภายใต้การนำของ สล้าง บุนนาค
ค. กำลังตำรวจนครบาล ภายใต้การนำของ ชุมพล โลหะชาละ
ทั้ง 3 กำลังนี้ ล้วนอยู่ใต้บัญชาการของคนที่อยู่ใกล้ชิดกับวัง ไม่ใช่ทหาร
ชุมพล เป็นหนึ่งใน ครม.ชุด “พระราชทาน” สัญญา ธรรมศักดิ์ เขาถูกตั้ง “กระโดด” ข้าม จาก ผช.อตร.ให้เป็น รมช.มท. ซึ่งเท่ากับ กลายเป็น “นาย” ของ “นายตัวเอง” หลังจากหมดสมัยสัญญา ก็กลับไปเป็น ผช.อตร.อย่างเดิม (และถ้าผมจำไม่ผิด ชุมพลเคยเป็น badminton playing partner ของในหลวงด้วยซ้ำในสมัยหนึ่ง)
สล้าง ผมเชื่อว่า เป็นสมาชิกของนวพล (ดูข้างหน้า) และที่สำคัญ กิจกรรมของสล้างในช่วงไม่กี่วันนั้น แสดงให้เห็นว่า เขาไม่เพียงแต่ไม่ใช่อยู่ในกลุ่มทหาร แต่ไม่อยู่ในการบัญชาของ “เจ้านาย” ที่เป็นทางการ คือ อตร. ด้วยซ้ำ
ส่วน ตชด.นั้น อยู่ใต้การนำของคนอย่าง สมควร หริกุล (ผู้ให้กำเนิดลูกเสือชาวบ้าน) และ เจริญฤทธิ์ จำรัสโรมรัน ทั้งสองคนนี้ และกำลัง ตชด.โดยทั่วไป ได้กลายมาเป็น “แขนขาของวัง” หลังจาก สฤษดิ์ แยกสลายมาจาก เผ่า
เรื่องพวกนี้ ความจริง ผมได้นำเสนออย่างยาวตั้งแต่เมื่อ 5-6 ปี ก่อน ใครสนใจของให้ดูบทความในหนังสือ “ประวัติศาสตร์ที่เพิ่งสร้าง” ของผม
การลงมือปฏิบัติของ 3 กองกำลังนี้ ไม่ได้รับคำสั่งจากรัฐบาล หรือ จาก อธิบดีกรมตำรวจ (ดูรายละเอียดการสัมภาษณ์ ศรีสุข หลังเหตุการณ์ เห็นได้ชัดว่า ศรีสุข “มาเมื่อเกิดเรื่องไปแล้ว” และการให้ “ไฟเขียว” ของศรีสุข เป็นเพียงเรื่อง “ตรายาง” เท่านั้น)
ให้ผมย้อนกลับไปที่ กลุ่มการเมือง กระทิงแดง นวพล ลูกเสือชาวบ้าน ที่ยกมาข้างต้นเล็กน้อยก็ยังได้ ลูกเสือชาวบ้าน อยู่ใต้การบัญชาของ ตชด. ซึ่งดังที่กล่าวไว้ข้างบนแล้ว อยู่ในแวดวงของวัง ไม่ใช่ของทหาร นวพล แม้จะตั้งโดยคำสั่ง กอ.รมน. แต่คนที่ทำหน้าที่ดูแลจริง คือ สำราญ แพทยกุล ซึ่งเป็นทหาร ที่ตั้งแต่ช่วง 14 ตุลา ก็ไม่ได้อยู่ในกลุ่มของถนอม-ประภาส แต่อยู่ใกล้ชิดกับวัง หลังเกษียณอายุ ได้รับแต่งตั้งให้เป็น องคมนตรี)
ทีนี้ ปัญหาการเข้าใจเรื่องใครคือคนบุกเข้าไปในธรรมศาสตร์ ในเช้าวันนั้น เกี่ยวพันถึงการเข้าใจเกี่ยวกับการเมืองไทยในวงกว้างขณะนั้น (และบทบาทของวัง เมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับ ทหาร ซึ่งเป็นประเด็นเริ่มต้นของการเขียนนี้)
ดูจดหมายสุรินทร์ มาศดิษถ์
ดูข้อเท็จจริง เรื่องกองกำลังติดอาวุธที่กล่าวข้างต้น
ดูที่สงัด ชลออยู่มาเปิดเผยภายหลังว่า “อีกกลุ่มหนึ่งเตรียมยึดอำนาจตอน 2 ทุ่ม” (ดูข้างล่างประกอบ)
และพยายามศึกษาการเมืองในช่วงนั้นให้ดีๆ (ไม่มีประโยชน์เรื่องที่ “ทิ้ง” คำคุยเรื่องรู้จักใครต่อใครไว้)
กล่าวอย่างสรุปสั้นๆ ที่เกี่ยวพันถึง 6 ตุลา และบทบาทของ วัง / ทหาร ในเหตุการณ์นั้น :
(1) กำลังติดอาวุธทีเข้าไปปฏิบัติการฆาตกรรมในธรรมศาสตร์ เป็นกองกำลังในแวดวงของ วัง ไม่ใช่ของ faction ของทหาร
(ถ้าไม่เข้าใจเรื่องนี้ จะไม่เข้าใจเลยว่า ทำไม เหตุการณ์ในเช้านั้น จึงต่างกับกรณี 14 ่ตุลา หรือ 17 พฤษภา ที่ทหารเป็นหลักในการปราบปราม… แม้แต่ 14 ตุลา เอง เหตุการณ์ที่ สวนจิตร ซึ่งมีแต่ตำรวจ ไม่ใช่ทหาร ก็เป็นสิ่งบอกการรับผิดชอบของวัง ที่ทำให้เกิดการปะทะ ไม่ใช่ทหาร – เรื่องนี้มีรายละเอียดที่ผมได้อธิบายไว้ในที่อื่น)
(2) ขณะเดียวกัน พวกนี้ ในเช้าวันนั้น ได้เป็นพันธมิตร กับพวกชาติไทย ซึ่งขณะนั้น ไม่ได้เป็นผู้กุมกำลังกองทัพโดยตรง แต่มี ทหารกลุ่มหนึ่งที่ชาติไทย มีความสัมพันธ์ด้วย คือ กลุ่มของ ฉลาด หิรัญศิริ (ประมาณ อดิเรกสาร ตั้งให้เป็น ผช.ผบ.ทบ. เป็น “ระเบิดเวลา” ที่ตอน ปชป.ขึ้นเป็น รัฐบาล ต้องมา “ถอดชนวน”) นี่คือกลุ่ม ที่สงัด ระบุว่า เตรียมวางแผนจะยึดอำนาจ “ตอน 2 ทุ่ม คืนนั้น” กล่มของ สงัด ชลออยู่ จึงชิงยึดก่อนเมื่อ 6 โมงเย็น คนของพวกนี้ (วัง+ชาติไทย) 3 คน ได้แก่ ชาติชาย-ประมาณ-เจริญฤทธิ์ คือคนที่เข้าไปในที่ประชุม ครม. เสนอให้ “บดขยี้” นักศึกษา
(3) ในขณะที่กลุ่มคนในข้อ 1 และ 2 เป็นผู้ช่วงชิง ทำการ “บดขยี้” นักศึกษาจริงๆในเช้าวันนั้น กลุ่มที่ทำ รปห.ยึดอำนาจไปได้จริงๆ ในช่วงเย็น กลับเป็นกลุ่มของทหาร ที่รู้จักกันในนาม “กลุ่มสี่เสาเทเวศร์” คือ กลุ่มที่สืบต่อมาจาก สฤษดิ์-ถนอม-กฤษณ์ แต่ขณะนั้น มีผุ้นำคือ บุญชัย-เสริม-เปรม-เกรียงศักดิ์)
หลัง รปห. กลุ่มที่ (3) จึงรีบทำการ “ปลด” ฉลาด หิรัญศิริ โดยด่วน ฉลาด ต้อง “ไปบวช” (แต่ในที่สุด ก็กลับมาพยายามทำ รปห.เมื่อ 26 มีนาคม 2520)
ถึงปี 2518-2519 ชนชั้นปกครองทุกกลุ่ม ทุก faction ต้องการจะ crush ขบวนการนักศึกษา แต่คนที่ช่วงชิงลงมือทำจริงๆในเช้าวันนั้น คือ กลุ่มที่อยู่ใน “แวดวง ของ วัง”
นี่เป็นข้อเท็จจริง ที่ไม่อาจปฏิเสธได้ การยกกรณี 6 ่ตุลาขึ้นมา เพื่อบอกว่า เป็นตัวอย่างแสดงให้เห็นความสำคัญมากกว่าของทหาร เมื่อเปรียบเทียบกับ วัง จึงเป็นเพียงการแสดงภูมิแบบไม่รู้จริง
ให้ผมพูดแบบไม่เกรงใจว่า ส่วนที่ “ประชด” ผมมาว่า “because you are the only one with the true knowledge right? นั้น
ผมไม่ได้รู้เรื่อง 6 ตุลา คนเดียวแน่ๆ แต่น่าจะ รู้มากกว่าคุณเยอะมากๆๆครับ
(เรื่องอื่นๆที่เกี่ยวกบการเมืองในหมู่ชนชั้นปกครอง ช่วงนั้น ผมก็เชื่อว่าคงรู้เยอะกว่าคุณมาก โดยผมไม่จำเป็นต้องมีความสัมพันธ์ใกล้ชิดกับ “สหายนำ” หรือ “ข้าราชบริพาร” ที่ไหนด้วยครับ)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Why do you people keep on frustrating about things that really don’t matter to your life-death situation? I mean the Thais (Ok I cannot speak for all of them but at least me and LOTS of the people I know) could careless about this shit in our daily lives. Ignorance one might argue, I say yes, you’re damn right! As this kind of ignorance doesn’t make me feel any stupids as one might say or feel inferior to anybody as I have a decent job to do, a decent family to live with , a decent education, and a decent country where I’ll stay here for the rest of my life (may be not a decent English language skill).
Anyway folks, open you eyes: People are dying in Pakistan, Bush vs Iran, N.Korea and the Nuke, Clash of civilizations, etc. These things worth your academic intellectulal discussion threads as it’s the REAL thing that will affect all of you people by any means I can gaurantee. So I hope you guys can devote your logic, reasoning, intellectual skill to help the world we all have stake on , or at least help your own’s butt to survive in your daily lives. If you can’t, then shut up.
When you’re in Rome, do what the Romans do. Otherwise, just get the hell out of it.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Siam, who are you to tell me what to debate, what to think, or what to consider as important? Who are you?
Don’t you think we among us here have decent families, decent lives, decent jobs as well? It is not our right to debate these issues? Furthermore, is understanding the history and the future course of the country not an important issue?
We can very much survive in real life, thank you very much. I don’t know what it is that makes you royalist (fanatics) always spout the same old rubbish. You speak with no evidence and no reason at all, but that is not surprising. You always assume we either are degenerate or are the bumbling, absent-minded professors, but no, we are normal people with lives, jobs, families, and our own interests and hobbies, of which this is one.
Stay ignorant as you wish. And once again, who the hell are you to tell me to get our of my country? I own it as much as you do.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Dear Republican,
You say: “In my opinion it is very important that we analyse the situation correctly, which means recognizing that it is not the military that is the obstacle to democracy in Thailand, but the monarchy.”
Do you mean by this statement that the military is not an obstacle to democracy, or that it is not AS MUCH of an obstacle as the monarchy? I have no problem accepting the following statement by you: “What we need to be saying in academic discourse and in the media is that the monarchy is in fact constantly interfering in politics to defend itself and its royalist allies.” Clearly the military and the palace are obstacles to a maturing of liberal constitutional democracy in Thailand. The debate seems to be over their relative control and effectiveness as obstacles, both in the short term and the long term.
I basically take a more institutional approach to social power, and from this perspective, it is obvious why these two institutions frequently collude in their obstruction. While the palace possesses considerable (and in the case of the present monarch, unassailable) moral legitimacy in the eyes of most of the Thai public to intervene in Thai politics, precisely because of the ideology that it is above politics, it must do so either covertly and / or by acting through other public, institutional intermediaries such as the courts, the bureaucracy, the military, etc. This is a considerable weakness for it as an institutional actor. The military claim to any such clear moral legitimacy to intervene in politics is usually much more complicated and more ambiguous (see the coup of ’06 and its changing perception), yet it can act publicly and directly, and doesn’t have to rely on other intermediaries (certainly, at least not to the same degree). Moreover, the military – unlike the palace – can resort to relatively public coercive and violent force to back up its interventions, if necessary. Another considerable advantage as an institutional actor in enforcing its vision and interests in society, especially vis-a-vis the social power of the palace.
So I agree with others here who argue it can be a bit like splitting hairs as to which one is more powerful or in control at the moment, BUT after the passing of the king, the palace’s social power and influence will be on the decline (although certainly not a steep and inevitable decline as the palace machinery will work overtime on instensifying and expanding the passing king’s moral authority and the cult around it), while the military’s institutional (and legally legitimated) advantages will persist, even as it seeks other sources of moral and political legitimacy to butress its goal of continuing to obstruct democracy, while still holding onto the royalist card / claim.
But really, shouldn’t good republicans like yourself be seeking strategies to neutralize them BOTH, both ideologically and institutionally. Why fixate on WHICH one is in control at the moment? They both have staying power and they both will do everything in their power to prevent the maturing of a liberal constitutional democratic order in Thailand. It frankly seems to me that the real dilemma for democrats in Thailand is precisely this dilemma – what strategy will and can neutralize both of these institutional actors SIMULTANEOUSLY so that a democratic project built on the political parties and a constitutional legal order can emerge, institutionally develop, gain dominant political legitimacy as the BEST form of political leadership, and gain pragmatic institutional dominance as well in its ability to shape, regulate and structure the political order of the state bureaucracy?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth, Don’t say you own the country as I never did. Actually what you can claim you own is the little tiny space in this blog where i’m typing to answer your call and that’s it. When you mentioned “my country” I feel sicked. What you did for her is just showing off your seem-to-be-smart ideas and blah blah blah. Nothing constructive for her indeed and you call her “my country”?? The fact is nobody will halt you from turning away from something you don’t feel like it, literally. Show some respect to the country who gives away her peaceful land for you to live a happy life, having good friends and families. มือไม่พายก็อย่าเอาเท้ารานํา
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Somsak,
Thanks for all your work and clarification. I think you were a little rough on Taxi driver: everyone recalls the photos of people in military fatigues and carrying war weaponsin and around Thammasat. There’s no reason why not to call these guys “soldiers” even if they weren’t in the army. Indeed, the border patrol police and special police units were trained not as law enforcers but as soldiers.
And of course that is one problem in Thailand even today, separating what is war-fighting/national defence duties and capabilities and from law enforcement. And actually, the real “soldiers” — the army — aren’t very hot on defense, if that little 1987 war with Laos is any indicator.
But anyway, you’ve made clear that it was not the core army leadership behind the massacre but paramilitary units tied mainly to the police and, for Navapol, the palace. (Again, Border Patrol Police were hardly paramilitary — they were military, as the CIA helped set them up to fight with the KMT.)
But since you mentioned the military role on Oct 14 and May 1992 by comparison, I would just like to point out that in 1992 the police were set out in front, and set out to fail, so that the military could intervene. Since they already controlled the government a coup wasn’t useful so they followed up with a brutal crackdown.
Was that not similar in Oct 14 1973? And was there not a parallel in Oct 6: the police and their agents were allowed to completely screw things up so someone else had an excuse to step in?
I’ll accept that there was a lot of chaos and multiple groups looking to seize power. But I can’t accept that the army did/does not know what is going on, especially with the police, or that its leaders did not make a decision to let things happen to further their own goals.
By the way I thing it was Salang Bunnag who was in charge of the blatant execution in ?Saraburi? in 1996 of 6 men who had already been arrested and secured.
Hmm, I wonder where he was during Thaksin’s “drug dealer” purge/murder.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
To replay to David’s last point, my belief is that what Thaksin was doing seriously undermined both institutions, however, it was not done for the sake of progressing democracy. The truth is that we must rely on increased globalization and the economic enfranchisement of the rural poor as the best method of bringing democracy. With economic change will come gradual social changes and then perhaps an attitude change in the bureaucracy. I certainly believe they will not be able to stand for much longer.
As for ways to accelerate the fall (or decline of influence) of both institutions, the creation of a political party machine dominating parliament a la TRT seems to be the strongest vehicle, but that runs the risk of an undemocratic leader simply replacing another. At the very least, Thaksin was not covered by any lese majeste law.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Good points Teth, and I might add that although a Thaksin is not covered by lese majeste, he would also not be subject to the ‘moral legitimacy’ constraints mentioned by David W.
We’ve seen what the military can do when it’s on the side of the monarchy, just think what it would be capable of under another kind of leader.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
‘Republicans’ should really be disappointed in Thaksin, because even if the monarchy was out to get him, it was only made possible by Thaksin’s winner take all greed and arrogance.
(unless of course they think it was all part of his master plan, lose a battle to win the war, and they are just crying crocodile tears over ‘democracy’ as another part of the battle strategy)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
everyone recalls the photos of people in military fatigues and carrying war weaponsin and around Thammasat. There’s no reason why not to call these guys “soldiers” even if they weren’t in the army. Indeed, the border patrol police and special police units were trained not as law enforcers but as soldiers.
It’s important, if one wants to really understand recent Thai political history and the role of key factions within the rulling class, to understnad exactly what the difference between the Border Patrol Police as a politcial force and the army.
The BPP, especially its most letal unit, the Parashut, that went into Thammasat on the morning of October 6, originally was set up by Phao in the 1950s as a political instrument to compete with his great rival, Sarit who controled the army (apparently with the backing of the CIA, as against the backing of the Pentagon of Sarit).
After the 1958 coup Sarit dismantled the unit, but later Thanom resurrected it. The king came into contact with the unit in the 1960s as part of his activity of fighting communsit insurgency. The most important and visible fruit of their “union” was, of course, the Village Scout, set up under the supervision of the BPP and the King’s patronage.
In political terms, the BPP and its civilian arms, the Village Scouts, had become, in effect, the King’s private army.
Now, in the 1970s, the Thai rulling elite were EXTREMELY fractionalised and this fractionalism had a great bearing on the struggle between the elite and the emergence left-wing urban movement led by the students, as well as on their own internal struggle for power
In both the October 14 and the October 6, the fractionalisation of the ruling elite played a vital role in deciding the outcome (I had no time to go into details here). Also important is the ideological propagation about the events afterward (the king was the savior of 14 October, the “Three Tyrants” were the culprits in the crash in the early morning near Jitladda Palace, and so on).
Now, to argue, as Taxi Driver does, that the role of “soldiers” in the Thammasat massacre is evendence in support of his naive view that the military was more important than the monarhcy is just plain wrong. Because there was no soldiers in the massacre which means that the army factions were not the one reposible for the killing at Thammasat that morning.And in direct contradiction to his argument, this fact about the role of the BPP in the killing means that the Palace played far more important role in the events of October 6 (as Khun Teth originally argued). Hence the important to understand who exactly entered Thammasat and did the killing that morning.
P.S. I’m not arguing that, since the Palace was the dominant player in the October 6 events, it is also the dominant player in all the other events before and after (Oct 14, May 92, Sep 19). But as regard its role in the latest coup, I agree with Republican that it’s the more dominant factor than the military. Without the palace, there would be no Prem to plot and direct the coup in the first place. (Not that Prem can be viewed as “military” in any meaningful sense either.)
P.S.(2) It’s true that “everyone recalls the photos of people in military fatigues …” . In other word, there is a widespread MIS-understanding of the fact about the role of the miliatary and more importantly, the palace in the events that morning. This happened among the Thai activists of this generation too. In fact, there was such widespread confusion at the time of the 20th anniversary of the events on precisely this point, that one of the reasons I wrote an article titled “Who’s who in the 6 October events” was to correct this confusion. I’d say that since then there has been general acceptance among the activists of this fact (that there’s NO soldiers doing the killing, but “someone else’s” armed power base) .
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth #250,
“The truth is that we must rely on increased globalization and the economic enfranchisement of the rural poor as the best method of bringing democracy.”
I would add to that significant improvements in education standards. Social change does come through economic enfranchisement, but needs an educated poor to ensure it’s direction is fair.
Thaksin, as we know, wasn’t interested in debate, just power, both economic and political.
Siam #246,
Unfortunately this debate is about life and death, and the fact that the contributors are passionate about the future of Thailand does not make them any less passionate about other issues in world politics.
Ian
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth,
Thanks for adding aditional clarification and nuance. As you point out, authoritarian (nationalist) populist parties / leaders are, like a politicized military, common threats to the emergence and consolidation of a liberal consitutional democratic order during transition periods. And clearly Thaksin is a good example of the former. Thailand’s democratic transition is even more complicated than many other regimes’ transitions precisely because in its case there is also a third obstacle that most other polities don’t have – a viable, popular, influential (and absurdly rich) royal institution (and network). Neutralizing all three obstacles simultaneously is a serious challenge.
I would be interested if anyone has a comparative sense of comparable situations regarding other countries’ democratic transitions. Is there any historical examples of a polity successfully navigating these three obstacles without (at least temporarily) relying on any one of them at early moments in the transitions to push back against the other institutional obstructions? Which is to say, should one temporarily concede the necessity of authoritarian, nationalist populism to weaken the military and the palace, only to later push strenously for the deepening democratization and rule of law that will lower the potential for authoritarian populism?
It seems to me that many critics who have argued for a third option between Thaksin and the coup are in many ways implicitly arguing for that staged process of democratization I outlined above. Better to let the democratic political party system and rule of law slowly, eventually corral and undermine authoritarian populism (i.e. Thaksin) – suffering corruption, injustice and administrative dysfunction in the short term – than to reset the whole political system by appealing to extra-legal, extra-parliamentary actors to “solve” the problem. Because the latter option deeply undemines the long-term viability of the whole political project of democratization itself.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
David W
Wasn’t Mugabe elected and then did he not use populism against the white elites to maintain power? This example of democratically elected corruption being left to fester has not worked to produce a stable democracy.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ladyboy,
Unfortunately, I know basically nothing about African political history, so I can’t comment on the comparison in any informed way. But I would say that historically no democratic regime has been able to avoid corruption, nepotism, patronage networks, machine politics, etc, in general, and particularly at the early stages of a transition. It would be foolish to imagine Thailand could be any different. The trick is to establish, deepen and expand the rule of law, constitutional checks and balances, a political party system and a strong civil society that can keep political parties and the state bureaucracy in check – amongst a range of other political developments. Lots of democratic transitions fail, stall or sputter out. Democratization projects aren’t like self-directing or perpetual motion machines after all.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ladyboy and David W, you both bring up interesting points about possible methods of progress into a proper liberal democracy. That Mugabe’s populism has ruined Zimbabwe should not make up forget the ills and injustice of a minority White government.
In my opinion, the best way to proceed forward is a way that abides by the liberal democratic principles with which we hope to achieve, changing by example. Otherwise we would be guilty of endorsing the very things we despise: authoritarian “democrats”, despotic militaries, and ancient monarchies.
In an ideal world, there should be a (passionate) campaign to educate and change the thoughts and minds of the people: an attitude change in the media and a change in the classroom.
If the bureaucratic-minded education system is changed to promote critical thinking, academic curiosity, freedom of speech, and a well-read populace, then a new generation of Thais will be geared towards liberal democracy.
If the general attitude of the press can be changed to one that demands responsibility from political leaders impartially, are not afraid (and are free) to expose hypocrisy and corruption, I believe that governance in Thailand would improve dramatically as a result.
Could these two things, as fantastic as they sound, ever happen? That’s why I’m hedging my bets for economic enfranchisement gradually bringing these things. Currently, Thai liberals are devoid of a charismatic, passionate leader who can inspire such change . . . if only another Pridi were in today’s Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth #258,
Doesn’t this argument mean that transparency is key? If so then a charismatic leader is probably not the answer. We have already seen what charisma can do to embolden the elites, rather than to humble them.
Ian
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth,
I am not excusing the white government’s atrocities – where does that come in to my post.
Your ways of establishing a liberal democracy are probably the best we can come up with but too many times it is too difficult to achieve because of ethno tension populism when democracy happens. usually the downtrodden rise up against an elite through a popular demagogue and mayhem occurs. Zimbabwe,Iraq & Indonesia are 3 examples.I would argue that democracy is not always the best solution.
As for thailand, a popular demagogue had used the downtrodden (although same ethnicity) to gain power. He was not encouraging democratic practices and the elite used that to get back in. However the King and his cronies will not encourage democracy. So where does that leave Thailand. I agree with you:
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth. My last point is I agree with you :
That’s why I’m hedging my bets for economic enfranchisement gradually bringing these things.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The Fa Dio Kan website has just been shut down (last night), apparently after its internet service provider closed its host server on the grounds that the webboard contained material that was in violation of lese majeste (according to the report on Prachatai – http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/10786). Yesterday there was a very interesting discussion of the death of the king’s brother in 1946. I guess that was the catalyst.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Just received this update on the closure of Fa Dio Kan in an email circulated from the editor:
เรียนทุกท่าน
ตั้งแต่เมื่อคืน (๔ มกราคม๒๕๕๐) เว็บไซต์ฟ้าเดียวกันwww.sameskybooks.org*
ถูกไอซีทีสั่งปิดโดยอ้างว่ามีเนื้อหาที่”หมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ”
โดยกระบวนการดังนี้
๑. ไอซีทีแจ้งไปยังโฮสติ้งที่ฟ้าเดียวกันใช้บริการอยู่ว่ามีเว็บไซต์ที่หมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพมาเช่าบริการ
๒. ไอซีทีปิดบริการโอสติ้งดังกล่าวพร้อมยื่นเงื่อนไขว่าต้องยกเลิกบริการเว็บไซต์ฟ้าเดียวกัน
๓. ทางโฮสติ้งยกเลิกบริการเว็บไซต์ฟ้าเดียวกัน
ในกรณีนี้ไอซีทีไม่ได้ใช้อำนาจสั่งปิดมาที่เว็บไซต์ฟ้าเดียวกันโดยตรงแต่กดดันไปยังบริษัทเอกชนอีกต่อหนึ่งและยังไม่มีการแจ้งความเรื่องหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพแก่ผู้เกี่ยวข้อง (แต่อนาคตไม่แน่) แต่เป็นการเซ็นเซอร์ที่แนบเนียนกว่า
ก่อนหน้านี้การเตือนจากไอซีทีมีบ้างให้ลบเป็นบางกระทู้และฟ้าเดียวกันก็ให้ความร่วมมือมาโดยตลอด
ธนาพล อิ๋วสกุล
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ian, I explicitly state that there is a need for self-proclaimed liberals to stick to their principles and that applies to my “ideal” charismatic leader: a character who embodies the “our” principles. Currently the Thai left is merely a mismatch of academics and armchair liberals except for maybe Giles, but even he has more of a tendency to split opinion with radical views rather than forge solidarity.
Ladybody, I apologize if I came off as accusing. I was merely pointing out the fact that minority White government was also far from ideal and that we should not consider the situation in Zimbabwe on an either/or basis.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Teth and Ladyboy,
I agree with your suggestions about what changes need to occur. As usual, the dilemma is how – in practical and a policy sense – to push those projects forward. I would also add another important development / long-term institutional project: the development and deepening of the rule of law (vs. patronage, etc). Again though, given the increasingly politicized state of the judiciary, the royalist and military’s willingness and ability to use the judiciary to their advantage, and the perpetual stalling of reform of the police, etc. one wonders as well how to expand the reach, efficacy and transparency of the rule of law in Thailand. It would be useful to explore how other countries in a democratic transition were able to successfully advance the rule of law, because this development would pay multiple benefits across the board regarding the parlimentary system, patronage networks, civil and economic enfranchisement, transparency in state bureaucracy, a decline in the appeal of monarchic benevolence and military power, etc. It isn’t only politicians and the political system that has been stigmatized as inept through 75 years of repeated coups, after all.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Fa Dio Kan is back up at a temporary website: http://www.getmorestudio.com/samesky/index.php?showforum=2
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Responding to Somsak’s #245 (haven’t had the time to sit in front of a keyboard for days).
In your glee to “สั่งสอนนที่ชอบอวดรู้ดัดจริต” on your high-conviction topic you have tripped up on your own logic and are coming off as an apologist for the military. Remember that this particular thread was originally about whether one considers the military or the palace who holds the real power to be a greater obstacle to democratization. Let me make a few observations:
1. Who was it who seized power against in Oct-76? It was the military. This fundamental point alone is probably enough end the argument about who holds real power in the game against democracy with a ‘QED’. But let me go on.
2. It was a faction of the military who seized power in competition with another ‘group’ which included and relied heavily upon the resources of another faction of military, led a former commander of Thai forces in South Vietnam no less. I believe that if this other ‘group’ had succeeded in seizing power instead of the Sangad/Kriengsak group, the real power and leadership would have gone to Chalard.
3. Sure the carnage of the morning of Oct 6 may have been carried out by paramilitaries not under the formal command of the military, but I view that morning as the tragic culmination of the power rivalries and fears among various factions of the Thai ruling elite, under intense geopolitical stresses of the time. I am not absolving the ‘palace’ of blame for what they did in the days/months/years leading up to and including Oct 6, but I say that to focus exclusively on the palace and ignore the role of the military is wrong, wrong, wrong.
P.S. On a slightly different issue, what exactly do you mean by “กลุ่มที่อยู่ในแวดวง ของ วัง”? I see this euphemism used often (by others as well not only you) but I have never been satisfied with what it exactly means. Perhaps LM laws make it difficult to be more direct, but I ask this question in sincerity. Does it mean people taking orders directly from the palace (very difficult to prove I agree and perhaps impossible to state due to LM laws), or does it mean people who use their connections and status with the palace (and in this paragrapgh by “palace” I mean the King/Queen/CP/PrivyCouncillors acting on order from King) to further their own factional agenda? Who pays their salaries and provided them with avenues to gain pecuniary benefits, so to speak?
P.P.S. I will be away again for a few days so there will be a delay in my response again if Somsak or anyone else cares to respond to this.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Who is Mr.Paul Handley?
How could he touch our beloved KING and ROYAL FAMILY?
Thai people all love our king so much,and you can’t touch them,OK?
Mr.Paul Handley,I hope you to noticed that all thai people don’t like this book and don’t want to spend any money for it.
And if you have met the king before please tell us so we can know that you are saying the truth,
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Who made vorapat the spokesperson for all Thais? How arrogant. Do read something, anything on this long, long debate before making your silly comments. Did you notice the 268 posts before your comment. Did you think about them before beating on the keyboard? And, did you read the book, which is available at many websites in Thai?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Back to the subject. The King can smile:
http://absolutelybangkok.com/photos/index.php?showimage=56
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
พวกนรก เลวระยำ ฝรั่งชั่วกล้าแต่งเรื่องโกหกมาทำร้ายในหลวงและพระราชวงศ์ต่ำทรามจริง
ทรงพระเจริญ
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I think the author of the book merely wants to create his opportunity or fame by making up evidence/story to damage others. He simply has no ethics nor right mind. He is dubious with fake and self-interpreted evidence. His work will eventually become a self-destruction. The only advantage he has is a command of English language that he can use it to spread what he wants to believe. When it is controversial and debated, it is good for the business of his book.
Most persons with ignorance like him cannot resist unethical thinking, wrong behaviour and wicked action.They cannot appreciate good persons or good things. They have no ability to see nor understand nor judge what is good or bad. They cannot make distinction between good and bad. I sympathize for his weakness, his lack of mind intelligence and his misfortune in the future. I hope one day he can develop his mind to become ethical and wisdom-based. I hope he will not be classified as the lotus under the water, caught by aqua plant and eaten by reptiles with no chance to see the light and bloom above the water.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Atama. You said he makes up evidence. Yet in your own little tirade you give no new evidence. You are only able to resort to ad hominem attacks, which shows your own intellectual development. ที่คุณพูดมาทั้งหมด มันเข้าตัวรู้ไหมครับ เพราะผมมั่นใจ 80% ว่าคุณเองคงยังไม่ได้อ่านหนังสือเล่มนี้หรอก
ส่วนคุณ ขอเป็นข้าพระบาททุกชาติไป ก็เป็นขี้ข้าเขาไปทุกชาติล่ะกันครับ ผมไม่ได้ห้าม แต่ผมก็ค่อนข้างแน่ใจว่าคุณไม่ใช่ชาวพุทธ เพราะคุณท่าทางจะไม่รู้จักคำสอนของพระพุทธเจ้าเช่นกาลามสูตรดีพอ คุณไม่ใช้สติ ไม่ใช้เหตุผล ใช้อารมณ์ความโกรธแค้น ด่าทอนผู้อื่น ตามสบายเลยครับ รักชาติ กษัตริย์ แต่ลืมศาสน์ไปเสียแล้ว
แต่ผมไม่ขอเป็นไพร่ เป็นทาสเหมือนคุณก็แล้วกัน
If you are Buddhists, begin to use your critical thinking to examine the evidence. Otherwise don’t begin to say you love “Nation, Religion, King”.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
To all people who were born in Thailand and have spent most of your life there, well better be more than 13 years
The more you talk about him and this book, the more popular he can be. Lets not talk about him and his book anymore.
You know what, STOP POSTING YOUR COMMENTS. Please don’t fall into this publication traps. No one will hear nothing if it never has been mentioned or never worth mentioned.
Believe me, we’re better off to spend our time reaading good books. Lots of them out there waiting for us.
As Thai people always do, we admire people by heart. Actions speak louder than words.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Khon Thai: Your comments are stupid and narrow-minded. Not all Thais take such a crude position. Many are pleased to finally see someone producing a good and critical work on the king. Read it and learn something.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I use to live in Thailand. I never met a person who said they didn’t like the king, although many don’t like the son. I have had the book for 6 months and not been inclined to read it yet. Skimming a few pages it seems to have more gossip value than academic value. Not a book to be taken too seriously and although I haven’t read other books on the king I would say most of them would be subjective and not to be taken too seriously.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Jamie: You are full of crap. Frankly, I think you are making your post up out of thin air. Plenty of Thais don’t like the king but often they aren’t willing to say so to any old dope who asks them. How on earth can you make judgments about a book you haven’t read yet and you proclaim that you haven’t read anything else on the king either. What a pile of rubbish you peddle.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Jamie, thanks for being forthright, but you really have to read the book, otherwise your input into this debate is meaningless. I will vouch that it has got the academic values and did shatter my views as a previously King-loving Thai.
By the way, people in Thailand will not admit readily that they don’t like the King. If you haven’t noticed, its taboo, and, for your own safety and well being…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
So Sorry Everybody ,Paul Handley is Taksin Slave,Please Don’t Worry About His Article. He Just Know a bit Asia Legend.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
And who are you?
Presumably the real Joe Sydney can write properly English without capitalizing the beginning of every word.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Joe Sydney is a palace stooge who knows absolutely nothing. This allegation of Handley being a Thaksin man is an old one and a false one. How much do you get paid for this silly stuff Moron Joe?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Hey Khon Thai,are you kidding?
You are really stupid ๆๆๆๆๆๆๆๆๆๆๆ
I don’t know about Handley’s background.
But,after I read the book.
90% คือสิ่งที่ I รู้ I เห็น (หลายคนก็คงรู้และเห็นเหมือน I) แต่พูดไม่ได้
10% I เกิดไม่ทันเห็น แต่รู้บ้าง แต่ไม่อยากสรุป
I ยกย่อง Faraday , Edison, etc. และคนธรรมดาอีกหลายๆคนที่ทำประโยชน์ให้กับชาวโลกมากกว่า.
Thanks Somsak Jeamteerasakul ,for new knowledge.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Hi there,
Can you please tell me where “The Kind Never Smiles” by Paul M.Handley can be buy in Phnom Penh (Cambodia).
Thanks,
Rasey
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The debate between Thongchai and Republican (and their various supporters) captures everything that’s right and wrong about contemporary “progressive” intellectual activity in/about Thailand. It reminds me of Fanon’s observation in *The Wretched of the Earth* that before the colonized can direct their energies against the colonizers, they first attack each other with such violence….
Republican, I don’t know who you are but can deduce from the posts that you are a non-Thai intellectual teaching at a University in Thailand (with the princess’ name?), and Thongchai, I know your work, especially *Siam Mapped.” So that’s my familiarity with each of you.
Once you remove all the ad hominem attacks and invectives based on (typically academic) oversized egos, doesn’t this discussion come down a disagreement over strategies and tactics?
Surely Ajarns Thongchai, Republican, and Somsak–were they able to get over their obvious personal animosities for each other–would agree that *at least in the broad outlines* they are in agreement about what needs to be accomplished in order to create space for a truly more democratic and free Thailand. But within this broad agreement, there will always be (heated and passionate and important) disagreements about the tactics and strategies needed to make that space more of a reality.
Ajarn Thongchai, writing in the context of a specific and immediate political situation surrounding the LM amendment, chose to use a strategy of employing a dominant discourse (LM) in order to refute its expansion. There’s nothing new about this tactic, and students of power in history will recognize it as a time-honored strategy and tactics based approach to change. Those, like Republican, who seem to insist on absolute ideological purity and orthodoxy in every specific tactical maneouver and encounter really need to consider a more pragmatic approach to change.
Since you are all academics, let me suggest four disparate resources that have really informed my own thinking on this (I must admit that like Republican, I have purist proclivities when it comes to advocating change–especially from behind the safety of a pseudonym on an academic blog where I am risking very little): First is Max Weber’s discussion of the problem of “dirty hands” in politics. Weber distinguishes between idealists (like Republican, at least in the context of this debate) who take an “all or nothing” approach to realizing their goals, and those who are “responsible,” who recognize that purist approaches to political and social change often lead to paralysis and non-involvement and who are willing to have “dirty hands” in order to create change. Second is Michel Foucault’s approach to power in Discipline and Punish, Power/Knowledge and other key texts. Since Republican himself (I’m guessing he’s a man) cites Foucault, perhaps he can outline how Foucault’s approach to power and discourse would inform a normative evaluation of Ajarn Thongchai’s article in “The Nation.” Third is James C. Scott’s book, *Weapons of the Weak,* which carries a pretty strong argument against “purist” approaches to power and resistance. One of the main lessons of that book–based on two years of careful ethnography in a Malaysian village–is that EVERY IDEOLOGY CONTAINS THE ELEMENTS FOR ITS OWN CRITIQUE and that to demand that “true” resistance step completely outside the discourse of the hegemony or ideology that it opposes is a particular conceit of academics and self-styled revolutionaries who often end up screwing the very “people” they purport to be “in solidarity” with. Finally, and this is an unlikely resource for this debate, is Bent Flyvbjerg’s book “Rationality and Power” which is a study of a political fight over the location of a bus depot in the Danish town of Aalborg. Flyvbjerg draws on Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Foucault to show that the powerful always define rationality in terms that are beneficial to them, and that it is *ALMOST ALWAYS* to the advantage of the weak to negotiate social change *within* that framework of biased rationality rather than provoke open confrontation with the powerful when the imbalance of power is too high. Flyvbjerg lists 10 lessons about rationality and power in his conclusion that might be of interest to those who share the broad aims of Ajarn Thongchai, Republican, and Somsak (sorry guys, but I really do see you as *all being on the same side,* your passionate attacks against each other notwithstanding).
Republican’s position–ideological purity and orthodoxy–is seductive, and all attempts at change need their radicals (although, how radical is it really to sit behind a pseudonym and attack others who dare to engage these issues using their real names in forums where the consequences of their words are likely to go much further than bruised egos and good excuses for further procrastination), so I don’t want to side too strongly with Thongchai. But I think that in adopting the strategy that he did in this particular LM situation, Thongchai may at the end of the day prove the more astute student of power…..
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
A book like this will never hit the shelves because the Thai population is brainwashed, indoctrinated with nationalistic concepts from childhood that say that ‘nothing the country can do is wrong’ ‘nothing the government can do is wrong’ ‘stopping to sing the national anthem and pledging allegiance to the king makes for a better nation’ ‘the king really cares about how you’ll improve yourself this year, send postcards to him’ ‘blah blah blah blah…’
There are really few places that I can think of where the head of state’s face is plastered to billboards, posters, pictures in people’s houses, and all over TV: Cuba, North Korea, Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, etc.
I am saying this as a Thai citizen. The general Thai population is taught from an early age extremely nationalistic concepts and they grow to be narrow-minded individuals with no grasp of their own history and politics let alone anything else that goes on in the rest of the world.
Do they know of the 1992 coup and subsequent massacre? What about the 1976 Thammasat massacre? What about the once-powerful communist presence in the jungles?
Hell, most Thais at around the age of 20 don’t know about the 1997 economic collapse other than that the baht devalued and sent them into debt. They don’t know why.
Thais are told what to do and they follow. It doesn’t matter who is in charge, they’ll just be f###d over while following who is in charge. They don’t know how to think for themselves.
This is all good though. It gives those of us who pay attention to what goes on around us an advantage; it makes for a nice society of 60 million that are just barely intelligent enough to work machinery and plow fields without making too much of a fuss.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
After I have read most comments, which post by Thai people, I just realize that , why my be loving country not develop as much as it should be, that’s because you all just keep told that;” LEAVE US ALONE”, “It’s our business”, or “don’t mess with our king”; you all never listen to the outsider, just keep watch only in your point of view, if compare to Thai ancient proverb, it just like; “Frog in the coconut shell”.
I didn’t try to convince you to believe it. But I just recommend you to use your intelligence to analyze it first, not just reject without any consideration.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I’m Thai (born and raised here) but i cant lie that I dont like the book.
It’s not that all Thais have the same mentality toward the king (and i didnt use capital k)
I wish i could (for im afraid i could be arrested for lase-majesty) say more about our monarchy that leaves little room for us to speak out – actually NO ROOM AT ALL!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Handley is just a foreigner who’s trying to get smart about other nation’s business. We love our King , this is our way of living. Please mind your own social structure & political issues. May be you want to deal with your own problems in USA first. USA is not the WORLD. Do you really have to stick your bossy nose in every country’s business?? PATHETIC.
And all those Thais who disapprove the King, you can just live and die elsewhere but NOT in Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
>Do you really have to stick your bossy nose in every country’s business?? PATHETIC.
>And all those Thais who disapprove the King, you can just live and die elsewhere but NOT in Thailand.
Yes, right.
And let’s also get rid of all those foreign inventions that culturally enslave Thailand, like cars and elevators and air conditioners, and then assemble a great army of elephant cavalry to take back what the Burmese, Cambodians and Lao stole from us so we can restore our mighty empire!
We know how to deal with those treacherous Thais who don’t support our nation-building plans, yes?
That’s what you really want to say, isn’t it, Prae?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Well done Prae, very fascist of you. Hope you are down there with the PAD boys and girls ready to attack the nasty foreigners and Thais who are not real Thais.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I think Paul Handley’s ,He doesn’t know too much like Thai people.
How can he marked this book and call it as “biography of Thailand’s King Bhumiphol”.In fact, He never interview my King or talking with my King by him self before .So,please don’t!!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Kickster: where have you been for the last 2-3 years. Please read previous posts before adding such trifling and sad comments. By the way TKNS seems to be circulating in Thai versions, so you can read, learn and enjoy!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Yes . your Book I have read it and it was true. You only one who’s tell the true. I am a real thai 100% from Ayutaya
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Who does Paul Handley think he is? He doesn’t know much what’s really going on in my country. Thaksin Shinawatra, the previous Thai P.M. who fled away from Thailand. He spent a large amount of money on 2 american lobbyists. He believes in his own propaganda. There are many obvious signs that he wants to destroy monarchy.Those lobbyists are behind all these to spread the bad influence and discredit Thai monarchy and People Alliance for Democracy(P.A.D.)
I beleive that sooner or later all the medias Thaksin are trying to buy by his corrupted money will bounce back and destroy him.I’m pround to be thai. The land that never been colonised. And the authour should be ashamed to be a part of this propaganda.Shame to you. and whoever involved. Our King is not like any others. He’s done a lot for our country, not just sitting on luxury paid by our tax.
This book is such an ungly distortion.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
>Pround(sic)ToBeThai said: Who does Paul Handley think he is? He doesn’t know much what’s really going on in my country.
Sigh. Since the comment fails to address the content of the book at all, we seem to be dealing with yet another person who hasn’t bothered to read it.
The book, you should know, is about the king and not about Thaksin. Work on it began long before Thaksin became prime minister.
If my assumption that you did not read it is incorrect, could you please cite some particulars that make it “such an ungly (sic) distortion?”
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
ProudToBeThai: let me engage in the same kind of silly thinking displayed in your post: are you one of the military people who has been ordered by Anupong to counter negative stories about the monarchy? If you are, then surely your leaders and paymasters would expect more from you? You are writing about issues which are current and have been raised in recent political debates, and trying to link them with Handley’s book from more than two years ago. This is intellectually corrupt. More, to suggest that this book is somehow linked to Thaksin is merely repeating some of the concocted stories (read “lies”) that Sondhi Lim made when the book came out. So you are late, lacking in originality, spreading bankrupt ideas and engaging in idle abuse. At the same time, there is no evidence from your post that you have even read the book or the hundreds of posts that went before you at this blog. So your efforts at creating untruths are insulting to the people who have written before you.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Proud to be Thai? I’m not proud. There are too many social , political , moral wrongs in Thailand for me to be proud. Feel free to repect whoever u want, but do not try to shut up other people from criticizing those whom u respect. They are not a baby that needs protection.Let them speak for themselves. Is it something to be proud of when one’s country has a set of medieval laws that is often used as a tool for oppression and maintaining cultural hegemony and status quo?????????????????(Not to mention the violence and babarism of 14 and 6 October 1973, 1976)
The thing I’m proud of is that great monk and thinker, Buddhadasa, is a Thai, but his wisdom and insights are hardly incoporated into Thai life. Thailand lags behind other countries because there are only few people who truly study Buddhadasa’s thoughts and apply them to their life.
I’m Thai.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I read this book before the PAD became so militant and aggressive and at that time, I didn’t pay much attention to it bec. other books (which are somewhat more academic)also touch on similar issue and launch more or less similar critique of ‘the institution’ and its close realtionship with authoritarianism.. I guess among these works are Thak Chaloemtiaratana(spelling?)’s thesis .. But now after so much political injustice, unfairness and all that < i think this book(The King Never SM) deserves greater attention than I have previously accorded it.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
You can buy The King Never Smiles on Amazon.com for about $26.
Personally, I like the fact that this kind of book was published.
Open discussion on the Thai monarchy is important and long overdue. It will be more useful to talk about how to improve the roles of the royal establishment, than to advocate for its outright abolition.
A national referendum should be organized to determine the fate of this establishment, which may have outlived its relevance to the Thai society.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Joy: Here is Thak’s reference, with correct spelling.
Frank
http://lrc.cornell.edu/asian/faculty/bios/chaloemtiarana
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Frank: Many thankssss! I have just checked out the link. Those references are all useful to me!:-)
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
For a recent review of Thak’s republished book, see: http://www.bangkokpost.com/230808_Outlook/23Aug2008_out49.php
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I have his book, The Politics of Despotic Paternalism, and it’s a good historical read especially on the Sarit regime and how the military is such an intrinsic part of Thai culture.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Another but short interesting book I bought a while back, after reading it at Tilleke & Gibbins where I used to work, is Corruption and Democracy in Thailand by Pasuk Phongpaichit and Sungsidh Piriyarangsan. Pg. 135 of the book has a small table describing the six levels of good will to corruption as practiced here in Thailand. Gift of good will, for example, being sin nam jai, and others on through to bribery, extortion and finally corruption. Strange how they work their way up to a transliterated finale!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I ‘ll try to get hold of Thak’ latest book . I have read his 1974 thesis on Sarit Thanarat, and also Pasuk and Sungsidh’s ‘Democracy and Corruption in Thailand’. Yes, it’s a great analysis of the culture and history of corruption in Thailand. Our library also hosts a number of other works by Pasuk (co-authored with Baker) e.g ‘A History of Thailand”, “Thaksin : the business of politics in Thailand “, “Thailand’s crisis ” etc.
Thank you for the link to the review of Thak’s book. I’ll check it out!
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thak’s recently reissued book has little that is different from the earlier version (from Thai Khadi). A few neat pictures and a couple of vaguely related essays, but the substance of the book is still in his thesis material.
This thread is about Handley’s book. It will continue to be the classic study of this reign. All of the other works mentioned above are good, solid and so on but Handley’s work is an eye-popper because he is a journalist who did what no acknowledged scholar of Thailand had done previously (despite claims by others such as Reynolds on another NM thread about the 10th ICTS).
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Quote: This thread is about Handley’s book. It will continue to be the classic study of this reign. All of the other works mentioned above are good, solid and so on but Handley’s work is an eye-popper because he is a journalist who did what no acknowledged scholar of Thailand had done previously (despite claims by others such as Reynolds on another NM thread about the 10th ICTS).
Are u suggesting that because this thread is about Handley’s book, people should not praise other works above his? Well, i think it’s much easier for Handley to write a book on this subject partly because he is not Thai. Everyone knows the strength of lese majeste laws in Thailand so it is not quite fair to claim that no Thai scholar has produced a work as ‘shining’ as Handley’s.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
IMO no matter how ‘great a work ‘ is, it is important to rely on more than a single source of information to avoid bias and prejedice. Also, when talking about a particular work, isn’t it more eye-opening to point out boths its merits and flaws? If this thread is about Handley’s book and the rule is that his work should not be compared to what other researhers have previously explored, then I don’t think it is such an ‘eye-opening’ thread. Maybe the thread should be renamed “specifically for praises of Handley’s work” so that people won;t dare to mention other works which touch on the same subject and may even have greater merits.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Loosen up Joy and read carefully. I said “acknowledged scholar of Thailand”, which is not the same as “Thai”. All of the items you raise have been raised elsewhere at NM and higher up this thread. I was merely bringing my comment back to the topic of this long thread.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Joy:
I think the Handley comments still stand as a singular book that has no parallel. Handley himself has paid a huge price for producing this book – he can’t come back here safely. He admits as much.
Regarding locally-based Thais, most although qualified to translate and express their opinions professionally refuse to because they have been ‘conditioned’ into believing that criticizing certain things here is not ‘the Thai way.’ Sort of how the old phrase ‘un-American’ used to be used.
Not to oversimplify matters relating to lese majeste here, but to me in some aspects it’s like Blacks trying tok obtain the legitimate right to vote back in the old days Stateside. There then and here in Thailand now, important issues and just rights are blasted out of the way through nationalist, xenophobic and other wrongful reasons. It’s prejudice, and as it relates to the monarchy here, it’s a cultured prejudice.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“Farang” or the western foreigner will never understand Thai and our heart to beloved King.
His majesty the King Bhumipol, the Great, is the heart of Thai people. In my life I have never seen anyone who devotes himself to the people without any expecting return. The King, he only wants to see his people to live the better life. More than 60 years he has spent to improve our quality of lives, I wonder if this guy, Handley, can do that. Handley can only write the articles that discredit our royal family according to the order of his payer.
Not only King Bhumipol, our country has survived any crisis because our kings from the past until now, have devoted their abilities and strength to save our land.
That’s why we have never been the western world’s colony.
This book was written from the only one side of informations which want to destroy our monarchy. Instead of studying of our king’s contributions and learning why Thais love and respect their king so much. But he choose to listen to the gossip which was released from the rebel gang who want to demolish our monarchy and exotic culture.
The corruptions in Thailand are caused by the politician, especially Handley’s employer who paid for this article, not the King.
This book is far from the good book, and the author is deserved what he did now.
Quality comment or not?
0 
2
Oh dear, another stooge writing for NM. Thaneeya makes claims without having read the book and reproduces old and discredited accusations. And then tops it off by being racist. How low can you go?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thaneeya,
Does love or respect for someone also mean that u should never ever think about criticizing them? if u see a person as a fully-realized human being rather than god, does it mean that u want to insult that person? Thailand has never been ‘formally colonized’ and that seems to give a number of Thais a sense of pride, but if u read just a bit more u will know that things are more complicated than that and other countries hardly see Thailand as a ‘free country’ during the era of western colonialism. I think cultural sensitivity is important and western hegemony must be resisted but this thread hardly has anything to do with that. it’s everything to do with basic human rights and the freedom to be a thinking, articulate individual, and this is not limited to any national in particular. Isn’t a Thai (like me for example) has a right to be a thinking, critically-minded individual, and at the same time has respect for a particular personage? I have a question for u: why people who bring up arguments like yours always assume that everyone who does not agree with u must be on Thaksin or ‘some dark/evil figure’s pay roll?????
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
I think the following is not the case anymore. Things are changing now. More and more thais refuse to be ‘conditioned’. Now the main thing that prevent these Thais from artculating their thoughts out loud is the legal issue.
Quote: “Regarding locally-based Thais, most although qualified to translate and express their opinions professionally refuse to because they have been ‘conditioned’ into believing that criticizing certain things here is not ‘the Thai way.’ Sort of how the old phrase ‘un-American’ used to be used”
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
to support my point: The majority of posters in Prachathai (Thai version) who post in Thai often criticize the establishment harshly. It does not seem to me that they allow themselves to be ‘conditioned’ ,or believe that what they say are ‘un-Thai’. The stereotype of Thai people as being conformist and ‘programmed’ to hold back their view needs to be stabilized. But I’m not saying that all Thais are now very articulate and bold in voicing their opinion. I just want to point out that things are changing (as opposed to the view given by Frank G. Anderson which seems to suggest that most Thais have internalized submissiveness and conformity).
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thailand is a great country led by a great King with Buddhism and the Nation following. Although it has its problems in the polictical realm, and some people may be tricky, the majority of people are so pleasant and compassionate and are lovely to be around if you are the same. Although the King is very rich and powerful he still lives a human life with a Buddhist philosophy and the military to back him up if the nation looks like its headed for trouble. There is a lot of suffering in the world and Thailand has had its problems in the past, as well as its neighbours. With Taksin gone and a new government formed, now corruption hopefully will decrease and the nation grow to be a better more posporous place than it already is. Sometimes corruption can be good but in most cases is not. Karmic law should follow anyhow. Anyone found guilty of les majeste should be tried under Thai law with the crime fitting the sentence, as the King and his family are the face of the country and the majority of Thais love their King.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Sidd: Your post suggests you haven’t done so already, so can I respectfully make a suggestion – Please read the book that this thread is about.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
To Sidd,
You defence of Thailand seems to be repeated many times before by people who prefer to leave status quo intact like u. Better off come up with something more original, sophisticated and convincing.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Proud to be Thai:
Never colonized? Do the years 1941 to 1945 not count?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Mango:
It would be interesting to know what part the Thai Military and Bureaucracy played in the enslavement and murder of tens of thousands of poor Thais by their allies, the Japanese, in 1941-45.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I love Thailand
I love MY King
I respect MY King
I respect other King
I don’t care what they say,
I LOVE MY KING
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Thailand has been colonized, permanently, by ethnic Chinese. Of that there is no question.
As to rights versus right to enforce national laws et. al, as a human being, no matter where on this planet we are, is it not just that we ask for, that we demand, that we achieve equal rights, freedom of speech and democracy over and above the ignorant and uncaring who do not want these things for the rest of us?
We are enslaved by images and illusion, and the enslavement has been so effective that some seem to enjoy it.
This is planet Earth.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Thai Citizen,
Fair enough. BTW, I wonder what u think are the weaknesses or strengths of this book? Have u read it yet? Do u want to relate the book’s main argument to the current Thai political situation and the recent debate on lese majeste law?The book mentions something abt the develoment of Thai democracy in relation to the institution of the monarchy. Do u mind making some comments on that?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
@thai citizen
I love Thailand
I love MY King
I respect MY King
I respect other King
I don’t care what they say,
I LOVE MY KING
One simple question.
When you say that you love the King, do you mean the man who is the King now?
Will you love the next King as much as you love the current King?
Just curious…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Being Thai and growing up in the US.
I believe Democracy is not for everyone (country).
Currently, there is just too much democracy in Thailand.
Monarchy is best system for Thailand as Communism is good for China. Socialism is good for Europe. Thailand should be under Monarchy system where the king rule like many century ago. To understand what I meant, we have to sit down for many hours for this discussion. You have to understand the culture and the people.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Wiphu: Thanks for that comment. You obviously have no knowledge of the topic. Why not read something on the topic before stating such silly things. Discussion based on no knowledge of the topic – say democratization – is a waste of time. There’s been tons of stuff published on this topic, but my guess would be that you don’t care.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0