Comments on: A royal Grant

By: Mariner

Mariner — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:10:40 +0000

Not content with exposing workers to lethal amounts of chrysotile asbestos dust, and local residents to an extended period low level exposure during the construction of various housing estates in the Nawong Rd. area, the ex-minister of commerce has now started on a new housing estate project in the same area.

Needless to say the asbestos products incorporated into the house designs serve a purely decorative function. Workers will not be supplied with adequate protection and local residents who have been exposed (and will now be re-exposed) will, presumably, not be alerted to the dangers -they weren’t in the past.

To put things in perspective: cutting ’shera’ with a hand held grinding disc releases up to 250 times the maximum amount of fibers permitted under USA law and 5 times the amount permitted under Thai law.

So what is to be done? No point in sending e-mails to the ex minister of commerce. He doesn’t seem to reply. Go to the local ampur? No luck their either.

I’m open to suggestions but also wary as to how this gentleman is going to act, now that he has been all but exposed.

By: New Mandala » The deva-raja

New Mandala » The deva-raja — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 03:31:20 +0000

[...] An interesting seminar this morning at ANU by historian Peter Jackson on the deva-raja (god-king) in Thailand. Too late for NewMandala readers to go to the seminar but the circulated abstract makes interesting reading in the light of some of our earlier discussion: God-King as Commodity: Thailand’s King Bhumiphol as a “Virtual Deity”. In this work-in-progress seminar I will discuss the re-emergence of the discourse of “deva-raja” (god-king) around the present King of Thailand, Bhumiphol. Historically the legitimacy of monarchical rule in Thailand drew both on Buddhist notions of “dhamma-raja” (righteous monarch) and Brahmanical notions of “deva-raja” (god-king). There was never a clearly formulated resolution of the tension between these different conceptions of kingship, with the alternative Buddhist and Brahmanical symbolisms of royal rule rising and falling in prominence in different periods. In the modern period, ideas of Buddhist kingship have generally been more popular and linked with notions of modernity, scientific rationality, and progressive democratic rule. In contrast, Brahmanical symbolisms have at times been critiqued for their historical association with “irrational” beliefs and “dictatorial” government. However, in the past couple of decades the notion of Thailand’s king as a “deva-raja” or “god-king” has begun to reappear in nationalist discourse, even if in the somewhat ironic idiom of a “virtual god-king” (sammuti deva-raja). [...]

By: Bangkok Pundit

Bangkok Pundit — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:07:47 +0000

Evans seems to downplay the monarchy’s role in politics, Evans is talking about the 50s and 60s and then in the same paragraph says that “[a]t no time was the palace in a position to challenge the successive military regimes itself”. I don’t doubt Evans is correct about the 50s and 60s time period – after the monarchy’s power had waned between 1932-1957. However, by the early 70s, the monarchy had regained a lot of power and had become very popular – largely due to the rituals reintroduced during Sarit’s rule and development projects which also (from memory) started during Sarit’s rule.

Evans briefly talks about the military’s role in 1973 and and then 1976, he largely ignores the rest of the 70s, 80s, and 90s (disclaimer: I haven’t read Handley’s book so it might be because of this). I wonder because of Evans lack of mention of events after 1976, does Evans now think that the monarchy was now in a position to challenge the successive military regimes?

Evans also states “[t]ypically Mr. Handley overestimates the political power of the monarchy. But as in all constitutional monarchies, the Thai King is strictly constrained”. According to the Constitution, yes, the King’s power is strictly constrained, but I think Evans seriously underestimates the political power of the monarchy if he is to think the Constitution reflects the King’s actual role in Thai society and influence in politics. Handley is not the first person to examine the role of the monarchy in Thai politics. McCargo’s recent article in the Pacific Review, “Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand”, also looks at the monarchy’s behind the scenes role – largely through Gen. Prem – in politics.

Btw, a few years ago, Evans also reviewed Bowie’s “Rituals of National Loyalty.”