In a lengthy reply to Johpa’s statement that “Quite frankly, I thought that the comparison of the current coup leaders to Sarit to be at minimum a bit premature and, dare I say, perhaps politically naive”, regular New Mandala commentator Patiwat has put together a helpful summary that attempts to put this year’s events in a broader historical perspective.
Patiwat’s comment is well worth reading. I have pasted it into this new post in the hope it will be read more widely and that it might spark a fuller debate on the continuities and disjunctures of the coup in Thai history.
Patiwat wrote:
Johpa, on the contrary, the comparison of Sarit to Sonthi displays quite a bit of historical insight, even though there is a lot they’re not mentioning.
Sarit overthrew Marshal Por Phibulsongkhram. Marshal Por ruled at the expense of the palace. He sidelined the King and kept him a figurehead ruler, restricting his activities to harmless non-political roles. All those black and white photos you see of the King sailing, playing in jazz bands, partying with the Shah of Persia, meeting with Elvis, etc. – those are from the Por era. One of Por’s key allies was the police force, led by Phao Sriyanon. Por ruled under the 1952 Constitution, which was a copy of the 1932 Constitution: a relatively democratic instrument, allowing parliamentary elections, among other things. Por also ruled with strong support from the USA, which wanted Thailand’s support in the Cold War.
In 1957, right after parliamentary elections (which, as a footnote to history, Surayud’s father successfully contested), Sarit accused Por of lese majeste regarding Por’s management of the 2,500th anniversary of Buddhism. Por visited the King to seek support for his government – the King told him to resign to avoid a coup. Por resigned, and that evening Sarit seized power. Two hours after the coup, the King endorsed it and named Sarit “Champion of the Capital.” Por spent the rest of his life in exile in Japan.
Sarit ripped up the Constitution, declared martial law, and ruled via Revolutionary Council. He ruled with an iron fist, and even after he died, the Three Dictators continued his legacy. He replaced the democratic 1952 Constitution with the 1959 Charter – a travesty of constitutional law (it should have been called a รัฐ-อธรรม-นูญ “rule of the state with evil” instead of รัฐธรรมนูญ “rule of the state with dharma”). Sarit cracked down hard on all remnants of the “Por regime” (including Surayud’s father, who was hounded into the forest), branding anyone who contested his dictatorship a “communist.” Sarit also rebranded the King to the image which we are familiar with today: a development King who visits the provinces, a genius in all fields of knowledge, and a semi-holy man whose image is sacred. The royal image was boosted with a rebirth of tradition and ceremony: people again had to crawl before him during audiences (this was banned by R.5 as uncivilized), the royal barge procession was reinitiated for the first time in decades, etc. Sarit was also a very charming man – he had many many many wives. Sarit was a favorite of the King. After Sarit died, the King gave him the highest of honors during his funeral.
Where are the similarities between the Sarit and the current junta?
- Por Phibulsongkram = Thaksin Shinawatra
- Sidelining the King = “Finland Plot”
- Support from the US in the Cold War = Support from the US in the War on Terror
- Lese majeste accusastion over 2,500th anniversary of Buddhism = Lese majeste over caretaker committee for the Supreme Patriarch
- Por’s support from the police = Thaksin’s support from the police
- Phao Sriyanon’s death squads = Thaksin’s War on Drugs
- Sarit Thanarat = Sonthi/Prem/Surayud
- The 1957 Coup = The 2006 Coup
- Por’s exile in Japan = Thaksin’s exile in the UK
- Relatively democratic 1932/1957 Constitutions = Relatively democratic 1997 Constitution
- Undemocratic 1959 Charter = Undemocratic 2006 Constitution
- Sarit as a favorite of the King = Prem/Surayud as favorites of the King
- Sarit makes pomp and celebration of the King his no. 1 priority = Sonthi makes pomp and celebration of the King his no. 1 priority
- Sarit’s charm with the ladies = Surayud’s charm with the ladies
- “Communists” = “undercurrents”
17 responses so far ↓
1 polo // Nov 26, 2006 at 1:26 am
I think Patiwat has shown parallels between the framework/underlying philosophy of the Sarit and Sonthi coups without showing how the two men are alike. Indeed, Sonthi is hardly the strongman figure as was Sarit, and Surayuth has power independent from Sonthi, whereas Sarit was his own power. Johpa must be right that it is too early to draw parallels between their persons and means of keeping power.
BTW the king’s pictures with the Shah and elvis are from the Sarit period, when he traveled abroad. I think the sailing and jazz pix were before, during and after Sarit.
2 James Haughton // Nov 26, 2006 at 1:53 am
If Surayud has power independent from Sonthi then he hasn’t been able to show it, judging from the CNS’s continued meddling.
3 patiwat // Nov 26, 2006 at 6:03 am
polo, thanks for the corrections. The King jammed with Elvis during the filming of GI Blues – that might have been in his first trip abroad after the coup. And the party at Perseopolis with Pahlavi was in 1971. He’s had a long passion for sailing and jazz, but pretty much stopped major public displays of those passions after he stepped up to his Development King role, circia the 60’s/70’s – after the Sarit coup.
Also, a typo: “Relatively democratic 1932/1957 Constitutions” should be read “Relatively democratic 1932/1952 Constitutions”. There was no 1957 Constitution.
As for whether the similarities between Sarit and Prem/Surayud/Sonthi are only skin deep, I’ll let the reader (and history) decide. For me, the clincher isn’t the tiny details, but the structural similarity in the role of the network, its relationship to the military, and its 50 year distrust of constitutionalism.
4 Johpa // Nov 26, 2006 at 8:31 am
I can certainly see the similarities that Khun Patiwat sees between the current situation and the situation in1957, but I could also make a list of differences such as Phibulsongkram being a military dictator who was anti-Chinese and Thaksin being a business tycoon and very much a Sino-Thai.
It is true that Phibulsongkram may be portrayed as having ruled at the expense of the palace. But the best we can argue is that perhaps Thaksin was beginning to, or trying to lean in that direction. I certainly give this view, as articulated in the Handly interview, credence.
There is, in my mind, a significant difference between Phao Sriyanon’s death squads, which assassinated political rivals, and Thaksin’s War on Drugs, which assassinated low level drug dealers and local low-level rivalries. In-between, we have the death squads in the 1970s that assassinated local rural farm labor leaders up north and highlighted in the book Political Conflict in Thailand by Morrell and Chaianan.
And there are the constants that, as constants, show little, such as support of US policy, or I could even argue the constant of making lese majeste charges for purely political purposes. Clearly any successful coup leadership group will want to use, and must use, the symbol of the palace for legitimacy.
I confess I only know Sarit through books, yet I just don’t see much in similarity when it comes to personality between Sarit and the Sonthi/Prem/Surayud triumvirate. I just don’t see Prem and his clique as militarists in the vein of Sarit. I see the recent coup as being strictly anti-Thaksin, and not a coup for the military, less one individual, to attempt to take power in perpetuity. I should note that I cannot speak for His Majesty’s thoughts regarding his support for Sarit and now his support for this coup. I have some thoughts on the matter, but these are based upon the only conversation I have had with an individual who has known the Royal Family for decades, and those conversations are still confidential.
Thailand of today is not the Thailand of 1957 which is the number one reason I feel that the comparison of the current coup leaders to Sarit to be, at minimum, a bit premature. Certainly Thailand is still controlled by a small elite, but the larger society has changed drastically. Not only is there a much larger and thriving middle class than in 1957, but the lives of many of the rural folk have been brought closer into the mainstream, the result of quantum improvements in universal education and in infrastructure.
I may be wrong, but I just think it is still too early to compare the current situation with that of 1957, although the similarities shown by Patiwat should keep us all on guard and prevent us from becoming too complacent in our armchairs. I feel it is best to wait and see. If after a year we still have no elections and no return to the familiar, and somewhat deplorable, status quo (sans Thaksin and sans Sondhi as a PM) then I will gladly concede my point. And I apologize for the overstated view that the opposing viewpoint is naïve as Khun Rebel man’s (Patiwat) thoughts are worthy of appreciation.
5 nganadeeleg // Nov 26, 2006 at 9:24 am
‘Sarit Thanarat = Sonthi/Prem/Surayud’
Did he have a split personalty?
6 Thorn // Nov 26, 2006 at 10:58 am
Don’t forget, it’s 2006 Thai, not 1957 Thai…
Context change:
King’s nearly 80 years old, not 30 years old. He’s at the highest point of his reign? not the beginning!
Thai people experienced through many coup, and uprising.
Socio-economics condition changes vaguely….
Sarit had become PM himself and became probably the most powerful man in the country, What is it about Sonthi then? Do you think he himself acutally organied the coup? Do you think he’s so powerful right now?
It’d be just the smaill similarity, comparing Sarit and Sonthi…..if you look at these differents
Well, one similar thing here can be, “King” play some “__” role, and quite similar role…
7 Austin // Nov 26, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Wow, that is golden analysis. Worthy of an article. I had never connected the old black and white pictures to that time period. Funny too because I was just staring at them yesterday at Vinmanmek.
8 Vichai N. // Nov 27, 2006 at 12:49 am
Thanks Patiwat for the historical analogy.
While all along I thought Thaksin Shinawatra wanted to emulate/surpass Sarit. The revered monk Luang Pho Koon seemed to think so also when he praised Thaksin Shaniwatra for his extrajudicials:
“”It’s good you were born to become powerful and help the nation. If you did not exist, yaba [methamphetamines] would never be got rid of for sure . . . . Since the time of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, now it’s you who has appeared as someone important to save the nation at the right moment . . . . Don’t bother putting drug traders in jail . . . . The sin from killing a ya ba trader is the same as from killing one mosquito. Nothing to be afraid of”
(Matichon raiwan, 30 September 2003)
I wonder if they judicially try a monk for instigating mass murder? That should be a crime, isn’t it? Instigating somebody to commit a crime?
9 anon // Nov 27, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Vichai N notes that Luang Phor Khoon compared Thaksin to Sarit for his War on Drugs.
This is somewhat misrepresentative. Before Sarit, opium was legal. Sarit criminalized and cracked down on opium. And to this day, Sarit is fondly remembered by some Thais for ridding Thailand of opium.
Speed (Yaa Maa) has been around long before Thaksin – but it was used by truck drivers and the like. The authorities never really did anything about it. But increased supply from Burma and very cheap prices made addiction rates soar, and the public started realizing that this stuff was seriously bad. So when Thaksin put his foot down and started cracking down hard, practically everybody cheered him.
Vichai N asks why nobody is investigating Luang Phor Khoon for instigating the war on drugs.
Can’t do that. Buddhist monks are above criticism from people like you or me.
Don’t forget, during the 70’s, Phra Phawornawornkhun said that 30,000 left-wing students needed to be killed to properly clense Thai Buddhism.
And Kittiwutthi Bhikku said it wasn’t a sin to kill a communist – it was in fact the duty of all Buddhists. This was, in the middle of the war against communism. Kittiwutthi’s Chittipawan College is still around and is still very active in training monks.
10 fall // Nov 27, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Good comparison.
The only question remain: Are we learning from our history?
11 Thai in Seattle // Nov 27, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Khun Patiwat is quite cleaver comparing the past generals who were truly dictators to present day’s generals who have softer touches. It’s interesting & quite informative but a few comparisons are off the mark.
First, it’s ridiculous to compare one Sarit to three men, Surayuth+prem+sondhi. Gen. Sarit was a breed by himself, a ruthless man from the NE, an extremely ambitious man without sense of loyalty, a truly & most brutal dictator who were extremely capable of instilling fear to the entire population of the country. He ruled not with iron fist but with platinum (stronger than iron) hands. Not too many people could or would get close to him for he ruled with fear. His hands were tainted by blood. He was big, fat, ugly & an unequal womanizer who used his position of power & money to forcefully get or buy young beautiful women married or not to be his mistresses. He was rather loud with forceful tone & commanding voice. He was the marshal for all branches of arm-force and the police general. Democracy, freedom & rights for others were all alien, not in this world to him. Gen. Sarit was a Buddhist. At the age of 55, his life was consumed by those souls whom he had brutally killed during his time in power.
Gen. Sondhi, Gen. Prem & Gen. Surayud are all Muslim, from the South & north of the South. All three men are soft speakers, became national leader by situation not ambition. These 3 general have better education whose moral principles are in the opposite end than Gen. Sarit. They are adored & widely respected by peers, subordinates & civilians. They’re all gentlemen, not known for womanizer. They earned their rank as general only. With the absence of abuse & good support of ordinary family, they have lived good life longer than Gen. Sarit. To Gen. Sarit’s standard, these 3 soldiers would be too sissy.
Another not so good match up is the charm with ladies. As I described above, Gen. Sarit was not an attractive man. He used his power to get beautiful women whom he saw & wanted no matter what. His aides would also find young pretty women for him in order to build up favor. From what I heard growing up, he had several dozen mistresses at his pleasure but hardship for them & their parents. Gen. Surayud, Gen. Sondhi & even Gen. Prem are more handsome than Gen. Sarit. They have better personality. Gen. Surayud in particular is more charming. That’s why female report(s) and citizens were charmed by him after knowing him better. This is a comparison between sweet apple and sour plum.
Khun Patiwat put in good effort, made the good attempt but one should view it as infotainment.
12 Vichai N. // Nov 27, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Anon’s take about ‘Buddhist monks are above criticism from people like you or me’ doesn’t impress me. Many news had been written on transgressing monks – corruption, women and maybe drug trafficking. Many have been defrocked, but have any been judically tried or jailed?
Frankly I am at a total loss about how well these Thai monks police themselves or whether they are accountable to anybody. All those land and properties donated to the monastery I suspect (suspicions only mind you) could just easily end up as the head monk’s personal property. But I could be wrong of course.
Maybe these New Mandala academic researchers can clear up my suspicous minds or otherwise.
13 Nicholas Wood // Nov 28, 2006 at 1:56 am
More worrying is how unoriginal this whole thing really is.
If Thailand is to avoid a “groundhod day” experience, things will probably have to get worse before they get better.
14 Bangkok Pundit // Nov 28, 2006 at 4:30 am
“Gen. Sondhi, Gen. Prem & Gen. Surayud are all Muslim, from the South & north of the South.”
Gen Sonthi is a Muslim, but the other two are not – Gen Surayud’s official, Thai language, profile indicates he is a Buddhist. Is Gen Surayud from the South? Nothing in his biography makes mention of this.
15 Jon Fernquest // Nov 28, 2006 at 8:38 pm
I find it incomprehensible that you make no mention of the so-called “populist” economic policies ranging from rice price support-subsidies to the village funds. Does the current administration’s concerted efforts to end most of these, except for 30 baht healthcare, have any parallel from the past?
16 patiwat // Nov 29, 2006 at 9:02 am
Jon, I didn’t mention parallels between the the current populist-elitist transition and the Por-Sarit transition because I really see no simple or straight-forward parallels.
– Populism, in the modern sense of a coordinated series of policies specifically designed to benefit the rural poor rather than the economy as a whole, didn’t exist back then.
– Both Por and Sarit emphasized “development” in general, although I really don’t think they ever framed development in populist terms.
– That being said, the tyrants did help bring Thailand’s education level to reasonable levels and electrified most of the country.
– A major factor in the economy back then was US government aid. This certainly led to lots of infrastructure and economic development (particularly near US bases), but I wouldn’t really call that populism.
If anybody can better identify populist policies in the pre-1980s era or show a clear transition in economic policy between Por and Sarit, please do so.
17 Thai in Seattle // Nov 29, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Dear Bangkok Pundit (#14),
Thank you for correcting my error. You are right; only Gen. Sondhi is Muslim. Gen. Prem & Surayud are both Buddhist. Only Gen. Prem is from the South while Petchaburi is the hometown of Gen. Surayud is, and Patumthani is where Gen. Sondhi grew up.
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.