One of the interesting features of the London seminar by Sondhi Limthongkul and Kraisak Choonhavan was their comments on the role of the monarchy in contemporary Thai politics. (The following is based on my handwritten notes, a full recording of the seminar is available online.)
Sondhi, accepting that some might regard him as an “old romantic fool”, made it clear that he strongly supports “the role of this king” (his emphasis). He proposed that the king holds a “very, very, special place” in Thai democracy and that only the king can get people “the things they deserve”. The king is working to improve society and working with the masses on various development projects (”teaching people to fish, not giving them fish”).
While he acknowledged that there may be some specific problems with some aspects of royal operation (such as some of the activities of the Crown Property Bureau and the Royal Project Foundation) Sondhi suggested that these should be regarded as small matters for the crown to deal with rather than problems of general concern. Sondhi stated that in his long reign the king has done some things wrong but many things right. Ultimately the king is a father figure – “The king is your dad. Though shalt not criticise dad.” There is no comparison, Sondhi argued, between Thaksin and the king. The king has ruled for 60 years, Thaksin only for 6.
Kraisak argued that it is ridiculous to suggest that the monarchy is on the rise in Thailand and said that any suggestions that the king was behind the coup are “absolutely false”. He suggested that the idea of a god-king (deva-raja) is contrary to democratic ideology. Like Sondhi he emphasised the positive role of this king. He referred to the role of the king in protecting people in the violent crises of both 1973 and 1992. He applauded the king for speaking out against Thaksin’s bloodthirsty war on drugs. Like Sondhi, Kraisak also emphased the role of the king in welfare provision: many of the minorities in the north of Thailand would still be very poor if it wasn’t for the king’s projects (whereas Thaksin, he claimed, had annulled the citizenship of many uplanders and, through the free trade agreement with China, destroyed the opium substitution initiatives of the Royal Project Foundation). And, Kraisak argued, prior to the Thaksin era, the “network monarchy” had played an important role in easing tensions in the south.
Many interesting comments. Perhaps most interesting of all was Sondhi’s suggestion that the king himself wants to reform the monarchy. What might this mean?
11 responses so far ↓
1 polo // Oct 19, 2006 at 2:13 am
1. Sondhi would not have any idea whether the king wants to reform the monarchy — he doesn’t talk to the king and no one around the king talks to Sondhi. It might be true but it’s hearsay at best. Mostly dreaming, for a guy who has fed the mythologization of Rama V while speculating big time in Rama V amulets and mementos.
2. The king spoke out about Thaksin’s “bloodthirsty war on drugs” 2-3 months after it began, meaning months after global human rights groups said anything, after foreign embassies raised questions, well after more than 1,000 were killed and probably after it already was winding down. And his comments were hardly unequivocal. Nor did they mention rule of law.
2 patiwat // Oct 19, 2006 at 5:27 am
Let me clarify things for people reading polo’s comments – the King *praised* the war on drugs. In his 2003 birthday speech, here’s what he said: “ไอ้การชัยชนะของการปราบไอ้ยาเสพติดนี่ ดีที่ปราบ แล้วก็ที่เขาตำหนิบอกว่า เอ้ย คนตาย ตั้ง ๒,๕๐๐ คน อะไรนั่น เรื่องเล็ก ๒,๕๐๐ คน ถ้านายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ นายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ ทุกปี ๆ จดไว้นะ มีมากกว่า ๒,๕๐๐ คนที่ตาย ที่ตายทั้งคนที่เสพติด แล้วก็ขึ้นไป ฆ่าคน หรือทำอะไร เผาอะไรต่าง ๆ รวมทั้งเจ้าหน้าที่ที่ต้องไปปราบปกติ ก็ตายมากเหมือนกัน”
In english: “The victory of the supression of drugs – it’s good that we supressed drugs. As for criticisms that ‘hey, 2,500 people died!’ – 2,500, that’s really nothing. If the PM didn’t do it, he didn’t do it. Remember, every year more than 2,500 people die. Those that take drugs due, but they’ll kill people and do stuff like that – burning stuff. And then there’s the plenty of officials that get killed while supressing them.”
3 patiwat // Oct 19, 2006 at 7:02 am
Andrew, when you say that Sondhi and Kraigsak emphasized the *this* in “the role of *this* king,” how did they actually do that? It was a speech, right – not written.
Sondhi was also in New York City last week, and the talk he gave to the PAD NYC also made several mentions of the King. Probably because he wasn’t in front of any academics or media (and because 90% of the people attending were wearing yellow), he was much more forceful in his comments about the King, even claiming that if it weren’t for Sonthi’s coup, Thaksin would have surrounded the palace with tanks.
Nothing new of course: “Pridi killed the King” and “The students lynched the a mock-up of Crown Prince” were used to justify coups in 1947 and 1976.
I’ll send you my notes from the talk.
4 hammer // Oct 20, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Patiwat, you make me laugh. No, the king did not praise the “war on drugs,” he more likely condemned it. Your translation is not quite correct. Here are mine:
Thai:
ไอ้การชัยชนะของการปราบไอ้ยาเสพติดนี่ ดีที่ปราบ แล้วก็ที่เขาตำหนิบอกว่า เอ้ย คนตาย ตั้ง ๒,๕๐๐ คน อะไรนั่น เรื่องเล็ก ๒,๕๐๐ คน ถ้านายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ นายกฯ ไม่ได้ทำ ทุกปี ๆ จดไว้นะ มีมากกว่า ๒,๕๐๐ คนที่ตาย ที่ตายทั้งคนที่เสพติด แล้วก็ขึ้นไป ฆ่าคน หรือทำอะไร เผาอะไรต่าง ๆ รวมทั้งเจ้าหน้าที่ที่ต้องไปปราบปกติ ก็ตายมากเหมือนกัน แต่ไม่พูดเท่านั้นเอง ไม่ไปนับ แต่นี้เขาก็นับไปชี้ ชี้ ชี้นับ พวกที่ค้า พวกที่ทำ ก็ตายเยอะเหมือนกัน ก่อนนี้ แต่ไม่พูดถึง เชื่อว่าพอๆ กับที่ได้จดว่า มีผู้ที่ตายในการสงครามต่อสู้ยาเสพติด ที่ทราบว่าคนตาย เพราะยาเสพติดนี่ มากมาย
English translation:
The victory of the drug suppression – good to have suppressed it – and those criticisms (about the drug suppression), “Hey! 2,500 people died! 2,500 people? That’s nothing (no big deal), if the PM didn’t do it, he didn’t do it every year.” Mark it down that there were 2,500 deaths including those who were addicts. And they (meaning the authorities) went up to kill people or do something (meaning some violent acts), burning things including those officers who routinely suppress drugs, they died too but nothing was said about them, they didn’t count. But they point, point, point! And count those drugs dealers, many of whom died too before this, but were never mentioned. It is the same as marking down those who died in the drug war are many.
แล้วที่บอก ๒,๕๐๐ คน นี่ก็ไม่เชื่อ มีมากกว่า ที่เขาตายแต่เราไม่รู้ แล้วก็พวกที่ทางเจ้าหน้าที่ได้สังหาร ไม่ใช่ ๒,๕๐๐ นี่เขาสังหารกันเอง แล้วนี่เราจะรับผิดชอบได้อย่างไร เขาด่าว่า นายกฯ ทำสงคราม ทำให้คนตาย ๒,๕๐๐ คน ความจริงไม่ใช่อย่างนั้น ๒,๕๐๐ คน มันหมดทั้งหมด เขานับแต่ว่า พวกที่ตายเป็นส่วนใหญ่ เป็นพวกที่เขาฆ่ากันเอง พวกที่ค้า พวกที่ผลิต เขาฆ่ากันเอง จำนวนมาก ที่ทางราชการจะรับผิดชอบ ก็อาจจะมีจำนวนหนึ่ง ก็ลองถามทางผู้บัญชาการตำรวจแห่งชาติ ไปแยก จำแนกเป็นเท่าไร ก็เชื่อว่าใน ๒,๕๐๐ นี่ มากที่เขาฆ่ากันเอง แล้วก็ความผิดของเขา มาโยนความผิดให้ท่านซูเปอร์นายกฯ
And what was said of 2,500 deaths, (I) don’t believe this. There were more deaths but I don’t know and those that the officers executed were not 2,500, they (the drug dealers or drug warlords, drug addicts) were killing each other, so how could we (the drug suppression authorities) take responsibility. They criticized that the PM started the war on drugs and caused 2,500 people to die. Really it wasn’t like that all 2,500 people, they counted that only the majority of those who died were those who killed each other … those who deal, those who produced … they killed each other … many of them. The authorities took the responsibility for some of the deaths. Just go and ask the National Police Chief to separate and sort out how many. It is believed that in 2,500 deaths, mostly killed each other and the blame were thrown at the super PM.
You see, you misinterpreted the “ดีที่ปราบ” part thinking that he praised the war on drug. Incidentally, he merely said in agreement on this part only, the rest were not even praises. Most of what he said shunned Thaksin and the “War on Drugs.” In a way he used a third person narration to describe the “War on Drugs” just to make a point. Most people misinterpreted what he said in his speech because they don’t get the message he was trying to conveyed. He avoided commenting directly and that is why people don’t understand what he was saying. This is an extremely intelligent and multi-talented man who excelled far more than normal people, including the so-called intellectuals or academics who posted in this forum. He has done great feat in his lifetime, more than you can even do in one life. What have you contributed to society so far? Have you and the academic scholars contributed anything but making negative comments about a man who has done many good things for his people and his nation. If you were in his shoe, would you have done better? How good a Thai are you, anyway?
5 Bystander // Oct 21, 2006 at 4:32 am
“How good a Thai are you, anyway? ” I think you’re taking this way too personally. I think most of us have good intention and wants Thailand to be a better place. We may disagree when it comes to which directions we think Thailand should head toward, but that’s why we talk about it. If you start down the path of condemning those who disagree with you, I don’t think that will be productive, to say the least. And don’t you think you are not a little hypocritical, as His Majesty himself said he should not be above criticism either?
6 patiwat // Oct 21, 2006 at 5:53 am
hammer, I’m not making negative comments about him, and its laughable that you are questioning whether I’m a “good Thai” or not.
Your interpretation of his speech is also questionable. I mean, read it. The guy is literally saying that it doesn’t matter how many people died, because they would have died anyway. But as you noted, the King’s genius is in making comments that anybody can interpret any way they want – quite literally, the King can do no wrong.
7 nganadeeleg // Oct 21, 2006 at 10:19 am
Bystander has raised a few good points:
“I think most of us have good intention and wants Thailand to be a better place. We may disagree when it comes to which directions we think Thailand should head toward, but that’s why we talk about it.”
– What defines a better place?
– Is it a US style democracy (or what)?
“And don’t you think you are not a little hypocritical, as His Majesty himself said he should not be above criticism either?”
-The King has said he would no longer take lese majeste charges seriously anymore – is it feasible to have the lese majeste laws taken off the books to stop them being used by politicians as a threat and smokescreen?
Any other suggestions for the new constitution?
For those who like to criticise the King:
– How would Thailand be a better place without him?
Can academics only criticise, or is it possible to make positive suggestions?
8 polo // Oct 21, 2006 at 1:30 pm
What’s most interesting about interpretations of the king’s speech is that neither of you shows the king clearly and absolutely condemning extrajudicial murders. If he isn’t clear on that, then what does he stand for?
9 hammer // Oct 26, 2006 at 4:37 pm
To everyone concern,
I think you all made justifiable comments and I can accept that. I apologize to Pathiwat for my questioning of being “a good Thai” and I agree with Bystander and, especially nganadeeleg about HM in this comment:
“And don’t you think you are not a little hypocritical, as His Majesty himself said he should not be above criticism either?”
“-The King has said he would no longer take lese majeste charges seriously anymore – is it feasible to have the lese majeste laws taken off the books to stop them being used by politicians as a threat and smokescreen?”
We all have to balance our views together here. I admit that I love and admire the king greatly. But he is only human and we all know human have flaws, the king knows that too. But for criticizing a man who has helped Thai people through crisis after crisis, that is wrong. Some people wanted to paint him as a BAD king who wants absolute monarchy, that is not true. He doesn’t want that at all.
He is respected by most Thai who are loyal to this nation. Remember how much he has donated from his own pocket to help people in need? All the sacrifices he gave without being selfish, especially the tsunami crisis.
I care what people say about the king because he doesn’t deserve to be criticized so harsh. About his speech, I did read it. My English translation were quite close to what he said in his speech. Some part may be misleading because there are words and phrases that cannot be translated correctly in English. But may be we understood differently, I won’t argue about that. In conclusion, my friends, I do respect everyone’s opinions and I hope we will try to resolve our differences in all arguments on this subject or subjects related.
By the way, a few years back, in one of his speeches, the king did admit that some failed projects (he mentioned one in Prachuab Kiri Khan) were his fault entirely and that he was not perfect but people expected him to be perfect because he is the king. I haven’t been able to find that part of the speech and at the moment I am trying to trace all of his speeches in the last 10 years and read them, hopefully I can find that part and share it with you.
10 guddie // Nov 7, 2006 at 7:48 pm
We THAIS are like A GLASS FULL OF WATER.I wish our monarchy would learn some good pionts from English Monarchy.Also we THAIS should be able to participate (like the Japanese) in the selection of the next King or Queen.We Thais especiaaly Bangkok people are rather BLANK lot but very jelous .The easiest trend to destroy one another is cry out nation,religion and king
11 New Mandala » Sign of the last days of the Thaksin government // Nov 17, 2006 at 1:52 am
[...] The sign was endorsed by a provincial level law enforcement centre during the much debated “war on drugs“. [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.