An interesting article by anthropologist Grant Evans calling for reform of Thailand’s lèse-majesté law is available from the International Herald Tribune. One brief extract:
With the prestige of the Thai monarchy at its zenith and with an interim government that is unmistakably royalist, conditions are perfect for the reform or even repeal of the law of lèse- majesté.
I will leave it to others to comment on Evans’ opening statement that “the aim of the Sept. 19 coup in Thailand was to set the constitutional monarchy back on track.”
15 responses so far ↓
1 Curious // Oct 21, 2006 at 10:04 pm
It seems that such talk is becoming less stifled by the day (outside Thailand at least). See this interesting post on the ฟ้าเดียวกัน webboard (http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=325):
How could Thailand could have a real democracy?
การที่จะทำให้ประเทศไทย เป็นประเทศที่ปกครองในระบอบประชาธิปไตยจริงๆได้นั้น อันดับแรกต้องให้คนทั้ง ๒ ฝ่ายหยุดการโกหก และหยุดการเล่นละครกันก่อน และหันมาพูดปัญหาที่จริงๆกัน นั่นก็ คือ
๑ ประเทศไทยเราจะปกครองในระบอบประชาธิปไตย หรือจะปกครองระบอบ Monarchy ต้องเลือกทางใดทางหนึ่ง หรืออย่างน้อยก็ต้องให้ทางใดทางหนึ่งใหญ่กว่า เพราะในความเป็นจริงประชาธิปไตยกับ Monarchy นั้นไปด้วยกันไม่ได้ ประชาธิปไตยคือ ความเสมอภาค ของทุกคน แต่ Monarchy คือความไม่เสมอภาค พวก Monarch เป็นพวกที่ต้องพิเศษกว่า ซึ่งในเรื่องนี้นั้น ทั้ง ๒ ฝ่ายก็รู้ปัญหาว่า โดยความเป็นจริงแล้วเข้ากันไม่ได้เลย แต่ไม่ยอมพูดความจริงกัน เพราะฝ่ายประชาธิปไตยก็กลัวฝ่าย Monarch เพราะฝ่าย Monarch มีทหารเป็นลูกน้อง และฝ่าย Monarch ก็ไม่กล้าพูดความจริง เพราะกลัวฝ่ายประชาชนเหมือนกัน เพราะประชาชนมีพวกมาก
๒ ณ ปัจจุบันประชาชนส่วนใหญ่ มีความรู้ว่าประเทศไทยเป็นของทุกคนตามระบบประชาธิปไตย แต่พวก Monarchy ก็มีความคิดว่าประเทศไทยเป็นของพวกตน ในเรื่องนี้ก็เป็นอีกเรื่องหนึ่งที่ ทั้ง ๒ ฝ่ายไม่กล้าพูดความจริงในสิ่งที่ฝ่ายตนคิด เพราะกลัวจะไปกระทบกับอีกฝ่ายหนึ่งแล้วอาจจะเกิดปัญหากันได้
๓ ทหาร อยู่ภายใต้อำนาจของประชาชน หรืออยู่ภายใต้อำนาจของ Monarch กันแน่ เรื่องนี้ก็ยังไม่มีการตัดสินความถูกต้องกันให้ชัดเจน เพราะทหารก็ใช้เงินของประชาชน แต่ทหารก็เคยเป็นลูกน้อง ของ Monarch มาก่อน
วิธีแก้ปัญหา คือ จะต้องมีการหาข้อยุติใน ๓ ประเด็นนี้ให้ชัดเจนก่อน คือ
๑ ประเทศเราจะปกครองในระบอบอะไรกันแน่ หรือจะให้ใครใหญ่กว่ากันให้ชัดเจน ระหว่างประชาธิปไตย กับ Monarch
๒ ประเทศไทยนี้เป็นของประชาชนจริงหรือไม่ หรือเป็นของ Monarch ให้ชัดเจนกันไปเลย
๓ ทหารเป็นของประชาชนหรือเป็นของ Monarch ให้ชัดเจน
วิธีหาข้อยุติมี ๒ วิธี คือ
๑ ใช้กำลังเข้าต่อสู้กัน ถ้าฝ่ายใดชนะ ก็เป็นที่แน่นอนว่าฝ่ายนั้นเป็นใหญ่กว่าอีกฝ่ายหนึ่ง
๒ ใช้การตั้งตัวแทน ของ ทั้ง ๒ ฝ่าย มาร่วมเจรจาหาข้อยุติกันบนโต๊ะ
แต่ ณ ปัจจุบัน ฝ่าย Monarch ได้เปรียบฝ่ายประชาธิปไตยอยู่ ดังนั้นฝ่าย Monarch คงยังไม่ต้องการเจรจา แต่ผมคาดว่าอีก ไม่เกิน ๓ เดือนข้างหน้าฝ่าย Monarch จะเสียเปรียบ เพราะฝ่ายประชาชนเริ่มรวมตัวกันต่อสู้แล้ว
ประจิณ ฐานังกรณ์
ประธานกลุ่มธรรมาธิปไตย
ถือหลักธรรมเป็นหลักการ
๐๑๓๓๓๙๒๑๖
2 Curious // Oct 22, 2006 at 12:17 am
One would have to feel heartened that this issue is at last getting the broader coverage and debate that it deserves. But I think that Evans is still far too soft on the king. I really can’t understand this reticence to condemn what must be condemned, particularly amongst Western academics who are not subject to lese majeste. I would certainly not characterize the 2005 birthday speech as one of “grace” and “charm” and it was not “gentle”. The aim of the speech was firstly to give Thaksin a very public dressing down with no right of reply (in my opinion a disgraceful thing to do to a democratically elected Prime Minister). Secondly, it was designed to pressure Thaksin to lift the libel cases on Suphinya and Sondhi – not out of any liberal sentiment but in the interest of “network monarchy’s” battle with Thaksin. And the speech had almost immediate effect as the cases were indeed withdrawn soon after. Sondhi went on to demonize Thaksin in his media on a daily basis, now free to trumpet the whole time that his actions were to defend the monarchy against Thaksin – and Thaksin was helpless to do anything about it! Soon most of the media had joined in the feeding frenzy because they knew that the king had given them the green light and Thaksin was defenceless. The rest is history. (Now it is “check bin” time: I notice that three journalists from the Manager Media group were appointed to the royalist dictatorship’s puppet National Assembly. Who knows what other rewards Sondhi has waiting for him for all his good work. But I don’t think his work is done yet).
So it is naive to accept the king’s birthday comments regarding lese majeste at face value. Over the last 10 months the king (sometimes directly, sometimes through the network) was pulling out every trick in the book to cripple Thaksin (eg. summoning the judges to have the elections annulled; replacing government-appointed military officers with palace loyalists, having the electoral commissioners charged and then jailed, etc.) and Thaksin could not say a thing! This is the background to Thaksin’s “phu mi barami” comments, uttered maybe out of frustration, but more likely out of the desire to let people know, at least in coded form, that the “network” was interfering politically with a democratically elected government.
The king has sycophants “in his sights”? Then why endorse the coup masterminded by one of them (Prem – Chairman of the Privy Council and “State Hero”), carried out by another (Gen. Sondhi – a Prem loyalist), then appoint another as Prime Minister (Surayudh – another Privy Counsellor), and stack the Cabinet and National Assembly full of them?
If one is to believe that the king had issued a “call for criticism” then why was Prem so down on the Handley book (as reported by New Mandala)? Why is the book banned in Thailand? If we are to believe that the king truly “welcomed criticism” then one would think that the king himself would have jumped at the chance of having his subjects read the book and find out a bit more about his personal history.
The way to read the king’s comments is therefore not to take seriously their literal meaning but to look at their intended political effect – in this case, the political weakening of Thaksin. I really am baffled at why the article wants to paint the king as the good guy in all of this. Again we see the immense power of the royalist discourse of the virtuous, selfless king, above the dirt and corruption of the politicians (ie. the elected representatives of the people), dispensing wisdom and righteousness.
And I’m sorry, but it is naive in the extreme to think that the royalists would ever even contemplate lifting lese majeste. Why throw away the only weapon that can defend an illegitimate, royalist-appointed government – and indeed the monarchy itself – against the criticism and scrutiny of a disenfranchised electorate? It is lese majeste that stands between the royalist control of politics, usually subtle but now unashamed, and true democracy. Because even before the coup Thailand was never a “Constitutional Democracy”, but a “Democracy with the Great King as Head of State”, the literal translation of the Thai phrase. And the royalists will do whatever it takes to keep it that way.
3 Bangkok Pundit // Oct 22, 2006 at 2:39 am
Talking of Fah Diew Kan, they interviewed (PDF) David Streckfuss – who wrote his dissertation on lese majeste law in Thailand. It is certainly worth a read particularly as his dissertation and an earlier journal article were written in the 90s. He has same interesting statistics on lese majeste cases in the last 10 years. 22 cases and everyone was found guilty and in 21 of the cases the person was sentenced to jail.
(via Naphat)
4 nganadeeleg // Oct 22, 2006 at 9:52 am
Curious said “It is lese majeste that stands between the royalist control of politics, usually subtle but now unashamed, and true democracy.”
Can you please outline what ‘true democracy’ is, and give a few examples of countries where it exists?
It might be helpful so we can understand the continious criticism of the King that prevails amongst certain academics.
5 Ant // Oct 22, 2006 at 1:29 pm
“Thailand was never a constitutional democracy”, rather “a Democracy with the Great King as Head of State” maintained by “lese majeste that stands between the royalist control of politics, usually subtle but now unashamed, and true democracy.”
What does this mean?
Your overstatement here of the power of lese majeste would stem from conflating “critic” with “iconoclast” and criticism of the king, no matter how good the spin doctors of the coup and its critics, is not a particularly effetive way to effect political change…assuming that is what you are looking for “curious”? The king is part of many powers thatform the state, he has no monopoly on power rather, he can rise into ascendancy for a while just like Thaksin…where is the discussion of those other rather influential institutions that also are part of the state and its power, namely the military and interior ministries…As sad as this may be for you tif it wwasn’t lese majeste it would be somethig else that would be utilised strategically to gain, maintain power…I would say anyway…the exoticism that you attribute the king and lese majeste with is just laughable.
6 Curious // Oct 22, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Just heard an interesting theory about the coup. I always wondered why, when political tension was so high, Thaksin went on such a long overseas trip. Through his advisers and sources he would of course have known if a coup was in the offing. The theory is that Thaksin deliberately let the coup happen in order to “lure the tiger out of the cave” where it has been hiding for most of the last year (lese majeste is the cave that hides and protects the tiger). Thaksin’s “phu mi barami” speech was like a whistle to the tiger. Now everyone can see the tiger – not only the international community but increasingly the Thai population. Not only is the tiger out of the cave now but it is harrassing the villagers. And everyone knows what happens to tigers when they find themselves out in the open…
7 Nganadeeleg // Oct 22, 2006 at 7:37 pm
This theory in The Nation sounds more plausible to me:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/search/page.news.php?clid=5&id=30016782
8 James Haughton // Oct 22, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Well, one prerequisite of “true democracy” (and democracy is something with many forms, not just one true one) is that the military stays out of politics.
9 nganadeeleg // Oct 23, 2006 at 9:17 am
Well, unfortunately sometimes the military are needed to help, and it’s probably better that they intefere in their own country’s affairs for the right reasons, than be like some other ‘democracies’ that use their military to interfere in other countries affairs for the wrong reasons.
I think Andrew Biggs says it best on his blog:
“We are entering a new era in Thai politics. I like to think of it as the sun coming up after a very dark and stormy night. If it means the military had to come in to help that sun up, then so be it.”
10 Curious // Oct 23, 2006 at 1:17 pm
“Self-coup”, eh. Well no-one could accuse The Nation of impartiality after a year demonizing Thaksin. They must be making themselves popular with the new royalist dictatorship. Some people might take seriously a limited circulation English language newspaper that supports royalist-military overthrows of democratically elected governments, but I don’t.
As for Andrew Biggs, I hope his Thai is good enough to explain to the villagers whose votes obviously mean nothing to Andrew why he believes in using tanks to rob them of their right to elect their own government. He would be crucified in his own country if he told an Australian that their vote meant nothing. But of course, we can’t compare Thailand to Australia because Thailand is unique, because of the mysterious Thai culture which means that a coup is actually a good thing, a bright “sunny” thing.
Yes, we are entering a new era, but not the one Andrew and others think. If he thinks the night was stormy, he hasn’t seen the huge monsoon clouds forming over the horizon.
11 nganadeeleg // Oct 23, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Curious – I hope you are wrong.
Your posts almost sound like you are hoping for trouble, which I find quite perverse.
I prefer to be pleased that the coup was bloodless, and hope for a better future.
12 Bangkok Pundit // Oct 23, 2006 at 9:07 pm
nganadeeleg: Why on earth would Thaksin stage a coup? Also, where are these 200 people that Thaksin planned to hire? Find one of them. Surely, the new government would be wheeling them out for all to see.
I much prefer Chang Noi’s take on the situation, also in The Nation.
13 Curious // Oct 23, 2006 at 9:55 pm
I’m wondering why Chang Noi can’t say the “r” word. Well I guess if you are publishing in a national newspaper there’s your answer – you can’t say it. In that case then why publish at all, when all you do is continue fuelling the misunderstanding surrounding the event that it was a “military” coup. Isn’t it obvious “who benefits the most from the coup”? Just look at the Prime Minister! Look at the Cabinet! Look at the National Assembly! It’s not the miltary that is at the centre of politics, it’s the royalists.
And “royalist” does not equal “conservative”.
Better to blog it and tell it like it is.
14 nganadeeleg // Oct 23, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Did Thaksin plan a ‘Self-coup’ or make a plan to “lure the tiger out of the cave” ? I would not have been surprised if he had some plan to smash the PAD demonstrations, which is another theory I have seem in The Nation.
Hopefully those opposed to the coup are also opposed to violence, but with Thaksin one never knows – at present he seems more concerned with what will happen to his assets and what charges he may face.
15 Maruti // Oct 24, 2006 at 6:10 am
The Thai monarchy, with all its real and perceived faults, is an important Thai institution and needs to be preserved for all time to come. The best way to preserve it by adhering strictly to the idea of a constitutional monarchy and not a extra-constitutional monarchy as appears to be the case in our country.
If Thailand does not have competent politicians and public leaders to run the country then we should merge with Cambodia or Burma which have ’strong leaders’. On the other hand if it does have leaders, who may not be world class but still competent, then democracy should be given a chance. ‘Rebooting’ democracy every time something goes ‘wrong’ is likely to send the computer of the nation into the dustbin of history.
While the current monarch of Thailand is still highly respected and acceptable to most Thai people what about the future?
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.