For an Australian contribution to royalist imagery, see the ABC’s transcript of The Royal Grain, presented by Tony Barrell:
Tony Barrell: In 2006 King Bhumiphon celebrated 60 years on the throne of Thailand. It was a major national event that seems to be continuing, because everywhere you go here in Bangkok there are huge portraits of the king on giant billboards and the whole sides of tall buildings. There are pictures taken throughout his six decades on the throne, some where he’s a young man of 20-odd, always a keen photographer, with a camera around his neck, or in recent years with Queen Sikrit, both dressed in ceremonial yellow robes. And there’s one there over the road on the side of a building, near a fly-over, and it’s got a slogan as well. It says: ‘Honour the king: live a self-sufficient life’. King Bhumiphon seems to exert a special kind of influence in Thailand. Not overtly political, but there’s power there, and a special kind of moral authority.
Kwanchai Gomez: The King is a typical Thai. He likes rice. And he’s called to rice as we all are. He loves farmers because he thinks the farmers are his poor children who need a bit more attention than some other people, maybe. So he spends a lot of effort and time to teach farmers certain principles of rice farming. He also has a lot of activities that really aim to help farmers. He does rice experiments in his palace. He grows rice. If you go to his palace you will see lots of rice fields. He has developed projects like Rice Bank, where he thinks that farmers should not pay loan sharks interest. And so if you want money, you bring rice to the Rice Bank, they give you money. When you have enough money after you sell your rice, you go back and then repay it. And any interest that they charge you, you pay it in rice.
Tony Barrell: Dr Kwanchai Gomez of the Thai Rice Foundation, which comes under royal patronage. She is one of Thailand’s best-known figures. She always looks elegant, stylish and cool. But every Monday, like millions of other Thais, she goes to work in a yellow shirt. It’s the King’s colour with the royal crest on the pocket. It’s part of the ongoing homage to His Majesty. And some people in the public service here, they wear their yellow shirts every day —it’s a kind of uniform.
57 responses so far ↓
1 Republican // Dec 12, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Well this is pretty near the bottom of the barrel for obsequious journalism. We have to thank you Andrew for highlighting it here, because this kind of Western support is essential for the mythology that justifies coups and royalist dictatorships.
After the statement, “….King Bhumiphon seems to exert a special kind of influence in Thailand. Not overtly political, but there’s power there, and a special kind of moral authority….” did Tony happen to mention lese majeste? or the monarchy’s control of the media? or the incessant, daily propaganda? or the monarchy’s endorsement of the miltary overthrow of a democratically elected government last September 19? What kind or “morality” justifies the disenfranchisement of the Thai electorate? And as for living a self-sufficient life, why doesn’t the royal family practise what it preaches?
As for the farmers being the King’s “poor children” why didn’t Tony ask why, after 60 years of effort, the farmers are still poor, and meanwhile the monarchy is super-rich? On the yellow shirt phenomenon, does Tony realise that the bureaucracy has been campaigning for months to force people to wear their yellow shirts?
And what about the budget spent on these celebrations. The birthday/jubilee celebrations of Queen of England, who presides over the remnants of one of the largest empires in the history of the world, last for no more than a couple of days at most in Britain, one of the world’s wealthiest countries. Why does a poor, developing country like Thailand, need to celebrate all year? Would not that budget be better spent on providing some real alternatives for the king’s “poor children”?
2 Republican // Dec 12, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Self-sufficient royal investments, Part 1, from Prachathai webboard(http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/board/showboard.php?QID=44680&TID=5)
[If this is what Kwanjai means by saying that "the King is a typical Thai" then we have nothing to worry about!]
มุมที่คนไม่ค่อยรู้จักและชื่นชมพระบารมีผู้ถือหุ้นรายใหญ่
SAMCO : บริษัท สัมมากร จำกัด (มหาชน)
1 พระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช 197,414,850 หุ้น 43.87%
2 สมเด็จพระเจ้าพี่นางเธอ เจ้าฟ้ากัลยาณิวัฒ 45,847,050 หุ้น 10.19 %
3 สมเด็จพระเทพรัตนราชสุดา ฯ สยามบรมราชกุมา 25,000,000หุ้น 5.56%
4 กองทุนเปิด อเบอร์ดีนโกรท 21,885,000 หุ้น 4.86%
5 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, FOR20,000,000 หุ้น4.44%
6 บริษัท ศรีปวิธ จำกัด 14,821,500 หุ้น3.29%
7 กองทุนรวม เพื่อธนาคารไทย 11,768,600 หุ้น 2.62%
8 นายศิรัตน์ ธำรงรัตน์ 11,700,000หุ้น 2.60%
9 SOMERS (U.K.) LIMITED 7,000,000 หุ้น1.56%
10 พล.ต.อ.เภา สารสิน 6,330,000 หุ้น1.41 %
11 นายพรเสก กาญจนจารี 6,000,000 หุ้น 1.33%
12 นายชูชาติ ชัยชูเกียรติ 5,058,500 หุ้น 1.12%
13 กองทุนเปิด อเบอร์ดีนเฟล็กซิเบิ้ลอินคัม 4,951,000 หุ้น 1.10%
14 พล.ร.ต. ม.ล.อัศนี ปราโมช 4,707,000 หุ้น1.05 %
15 คุณหญิงมาลินี สารสิน 4,220,000 หุ้น 0.94%
16 กองทุนเปิด อเบอร์ดีนสมอลแค็พ 3,971,000หุ้น 0.88%
17 กองทุนเปิด อเบอร์ดีนหุ้นระยะยาว 2,810,800 หุ้น 0.62%
18 ท่านผู้หญิงกุณฑี ไกรฤกษ์ 2,800,000 หุ้น 0.62%
19 นางอารยา วัฒนศิริสุข 2,500,000 หุ้น0.56%
20 นายศรัณย์ ธำรงรัตน์ 2,268,800หุ้น 0.50%
http://www.set.or.th/set/companyinfo.do
บริษัทนี้เป็นเจ้าของโครงการหมู่บ้านสัมมากร ซึ่งได้ชื่อว่าเป็นโครงการหมู่บ้านระดับคุณภาพ
3 Republican // Dec 12, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Self Sufficient Royal Investments, Part 2
“Living it up: the self-sufficient li(f)e”.
from the Prachathai webboard (http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/board/showboard.php?QID=44680&TID=5)
ผู้ถือหุ้นรายใหญ่ SCC : บริษัท ปูนซิเมนต์ไทย จำกัด(มหาชน)
1 สำนักงานทรัพย์สินส่วนพระมหากษัตริย์ 360,000,000 30.00
2 บริษัท ไทยเอ็นวีดีอาร์ จำกัด 111,287,182 9.27
3 CHASE NOMINEES LIMITED 42 30,993,933 2.58
4 LITTLEDOWN NOMINEES LIMITED 26,121,400 2.18
5 BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES LUXEMBOURG 23,654,200 1.97
6 บริษัท ทุนลดาวัลย์ จำกัด 23,202,000 1.93
7 CHASE NOMINEES LIMITED 1 16,601,700 1.38
8 สำนักงานพระคลังข้างที่ 15,473,000 1.29
9 บริษัท แรนเดอรีเบอรามาการ จำกัด 14,810,400 1.23
10 HSBC (SINGAPORE) NOMINEES PTE LTD 14,251,264 1.19
11 มูลนิธิซิเมนต์ไทย 13,294,300 1.11
12 กองทุน บำเหน็จบำนาญข้าราชการ 12,132,550 1.01
13 NORTRUST NOMINEES LTD. 12,124,234 1.01
14 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 11,356,511 0.95
15 LITTLEDOWN NOMINEES LIMITED 5 10,415,450 0.87
16 BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES, LONDON BRANCH 9,808,500 0.82
17 กองทุนรวม วายุภักษ์ หนึ่ง โดย บลจ.กรุงไทย 9,675,850 0.81
18 กองทุนรวม วายุภักษ์ หนึ่ง โดย บลจ.เอ็มเอฟซี 9,675,850 0.81
19 ธนาคาร ไทยพาณิชย์ จำกัด (มหาชน) 9,070,600 0.76
20 INVESTORS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 8,941,710 0.75
21 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY FOR AUSTRALIA, 8,043,966 0.67
22 HSBC BANK PLC-CLIENTS GENERAL A/C 7,758,286 0.65
23 มูลนิธินายห้างโรงปูนผู้หนึ่ง 7,647,800 0.64
24 THE BANK OF NEW YORK (NOMINEES) LIMITED 7,046,118 0.59
25 MELLON BANK,N.A. 7,031,496 0.59
26 บริษัท ศูนย์รับฝากหลักทรัพย์ (ประเทศไทย) จำกัด เพื่อผู้ฝาก 6,237,784 0.52
27 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, FOR LONDON 6,186,230 0.52
คงไม่มีใครไม่รู้จักเครือซิเมนต์ไทยที่ครอบคลุมไปแทบทุกธุรกิจ เป็นบริษัทใหญ่ระดับGLOBAL500หรอกนะครับ
4 Republican // Dec 12, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Self Sufficient Royal Investments, Part 3
Now, what exactly was the role of SCB in the Shin Corp-Temasek deal? How does the royal interest in this company fit in with the king’s overall self sufficiency economic strategy for the country?
Source: Stock Exchange of Thailand: http://www.set.or.th/set/companyinfo.do
SCB : THE SIAM COMMERCIAL BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED
Free Float Overview as of 15/03/2006
Minor Shareholders (Free float) 16,853 % Shares in Minor Shareholders (% Free float) 80.80
Overview Overview As of 18/04/2006 Rights Type : XD
Total Shareholders 18,102 % Shares in Scripless Holding 89.53
Rank Major Shareholders # Shares % Shares
1 CHASE NOMINEES LIMITED 42 115,138,476 6.09%
2 สำนักงานทรัพย์สินส่วนพระมหากษัตริย์ 100,265,685 5.30%
3 MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL-LONDON 100,261,145 5.30%
4 บริษัท ทุนลดาวัลย์ จำกัด 82,010,000 4.34%
5 บริษัท ไทยเอ็นวีดีอาร์ จำกัด 79,626,553 4.21%
6 HSBC (SINGAPORE) NOMINEES PTE LTD 76,704,987 4.06%
7 RBC DEXIA INVESTOR SERVICES TRUST 73,161,169 3.87%
8 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 57,729,704 3.05%
9 สำนักงานทรัพย์สินส่วนพระมหากษัตริย์ 50,000,000 2.65%
10 MELLON NOMINEES (UK) LIMITED 49,164,200 2.60%
11 DBS BANK A/C 316398-9-001 47,900,000 2.53%
12 MELLON BANK,N.A. 45,292,388 2.40%
13 UBS AG, LONDON BRANCH-ASIA EQUITY 37,307,866 1.97%
14 CHASE NOMINEES LIMITED 1 36,677,574 1.94%
15 CHASE NOMINEES LIMITED 30 36,652,400 1.94%
16 GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION C 32,851,700 1.74%
17 LITTLEDOWN NOMINEES LIMITED 31,162,000 1.65%
18 RBC DEXIA INVESTOR SERVICES TRUST A/C 1 29,951,100 1.58%
19 THE BANK OF NEW YORK (NOMINEES) LIMITED 26,628,340 1.41%
20 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, FOR LONDON 26,322,849 1.39%
21 LITTLEDOWN NOMINEES LIMITED 5 25,318,200 1.34%
22 MORGAN STANLEY & CO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 18,438,663 0.98%
23 HSBC BANK PLC-CLIENTS GENERAL A/C 17,207,700 0.91%
24 GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL 16,749,190 0.89%
25 สำนักงานประกันสังคม 16,543,100 0.88%
26 กองทุน บำเหน็จบำนาญข้าราชการ 16,105,050 0.85%
27 GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION H 15,753,500 0.83%
28 กระทรวงการคลัง 15,214,380 0.80%
29 NORTRUST NOMINEES LTD. 15,037,735 0.80%
30 INVESTORS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 14,341,861 0.76%
31 N.C.B.TRUST LIMITED-UBS AG LONDON BR-IPB CLIENT AC 12,844,200 0.68%
32 สำนักงานประกันสังคม 12,570,000 0.66%
33 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY FOR AUSTRALIA, 11,898,905 0.63%
34 CHASE C.S. CEBTRAL NOMINEES LIMITED 24 11,053,200 0.58%
35 THE BANK OF NEW YORK NOMINEES LTD. 10,226,300 0.54%
5 Republican // Dec 12, 2006 at 9:38 pm
It hardly needs to be said but with investments such as these (I will limit myself to just these three examples as I am conscious of not wanting to take up anymore of the New Mandala site’s precious memory allocation with more details of the monarchy’s prodigious investment portfolio) the Thai monarchy is nothing if not “self-sufficient’!
6 anonymous // Dec 12, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Here\’s the obvious explanation:
Shin Corp is one of Thailand\’s largest companies. When the founding shareholder of Shin Corp wanted to sell his majority share, there were few Thai investors who were rich enough to buy all the shares. Selling the shares in millions of small lots would take too much time and would depress the stock price.
But there was one investor who could buy all the shares. That investor was one of the richest men in Thailand, although the exact value of his wealth is unknown, because he didn’t have to report his income or pay any taxes.
Despite his great wealth, that individual didn\’t want to bear all the burden of buying Shin Corp at their current market price. You see, that investor believed that people should save money and he believed that actions speak louder than words. You might say that he was a supporter of self-sufficiency. So that individual got the Singaporean government\’s investment company, Temasek, to buy most of the shares, while that individual became a minor shareholder.
As everybody knows, Singaporeans are very gullible, and believe that any investments involving that very rich Thai individual are risk free and untouchable.
Little did they know that the sale of Shin Corp would cause a major controversy. That rich individual then got his military to stage a coup. One of the first tasks of the military junta was pressuring Temasek to sell its shares in Shin Corp.
But who could buy so many shares at such short notice, even if the price was reduced dramatically? Who else, but that very rich minor investor in Shin Corp. If that individual bought the shares, the controversy would end immediately.
Of course, that minor investor would make several tens of billions of baht in profit almost over-night from its purchase of Shin Corp shares at discounted fire-sale prices. That money wouldn’t go to waste. He would save some for himself, but most of it would go to his family, who have rather expensive habits.
Heck, with so much money made so quickly, he could probably give some crumbs to the poor farmers of Thailand. Nobody would loose any sleep, because net-net, Thailand would gain (at the loss of the Singaporean government and tax-payer). But who really cares about them anyway?
7 Republican // Dec 12, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Lastly (I didn’t mean to hog this topic, but the ideas are flowing) the other thing that occurs to me is that the phenomenal success of the Thai monarchy today is largely due its partial “invisibility”, made possible by that cloak of invisibility, lese majeste. What I mean is that if even 10% of the space devoted to covering Thaksin’s business dealings was spent on reporting the monarchy’s own investments then one would think that it would spark something of a public outcry. But of course that is impossible, because of lese majeste. That outcry today is therefore confined to a few websites and of course the gossip-rumour mill, which has no real public credibility because it is necessarily just that, unconfirmable rumour.
We could say the same for the monarchy’s “political invisibility”. The monarchy has been partially invisible as a political actor for most of the last 50 years. In English lang. scholarship Handley and McCargo and a few others have been working to change this situation. For Thai scholars it is harder because of lese majeste and the obvious career obstacles (to say the least) that such research would encounter. But nevertheless there are a few brave souls who dare. I would urge those interested to look at the extremely important debate now taking place on Fa Dio Kan (http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=539) about the publication of a book on the king and democracy published by Thammasat University where, among other things, the monarchy has essentially been written out of the 6 October 1976 massacre of students at Thammasat. If Thammasat University can publish fiction such as this, while its Rector is sitting in the junta’s appointed rubber stamp legislative council, one could be justified in asking oneself what hope is there for Thai academia.
But this cloak of invisibility is, of course, a ‘magical cloak’, because while the monarchy’s political and economic activities and interests are invisible, its “moral”, “religious”, and cultural activities are highly visible. Not only are they visible but they are magnified by the “state ideological apparatus”, as they used to call it, so that that is all that we, and people like Tony, actually see.
8 Vichai N. // Dec 12, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Republican you meant to hog and you are hogging the topic for sure. Is Thaksin Shinawatra himself feeding you all these financial data concerning the monarchy?
If only Republican you can get Thaksin Shinawatra to declare all his assets too in this forum, including every honest or dishonest mistakes, then we can evaluate who is the richest in Thailand.
Isn’t that the object of your posters?
9 saraburian // Dec 13, 2006 at 1:10 am
Somsak is truly a brave soul.
http://somsakj.blogspot.com
http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=539
And this book by the dean of TU’s political science faculty is a disgrace for its pretense to be an academic piece. This is a pure fiction!
10 polo // Dec 13, 2006 at 1:55 am
1. I would like to see the history of the Rice Bank, whether the king really started it, and how widespread and effective it is. It seems farmers are mostly pledging their crops to others — millers/middlmen dealer — for loans rather than handing over their surplus (what they must save for food and seeds) to any “Rice bank”.
2. I don’t think shareholder lists for Siam Cement and Sammakorn mean much. If I recall Sammakorn was developed as a low-profit modest housing community development at the start on land the royals owned already. I think more interesting is the number of “phuyai” who signed on as shareholders giving them access to the royal family. As far as Siam Cement goes, it has been pretty responsible in strategic as a “national company” whatever it returns to the family (and however it was bailed out in 1997-98).
11 patiwat // Dec 13, 2006 at 4:09 am
You don’t have to speculate too far with the conspiracy theories, Vichai, it’s quite well known that the King is the dominant shareholder in SCB, Siam Cement, Christiani & Nielsen, Thai Insurance, Sammakorn, and other giants of the Thai economy. Nothing new here…
On a related point: somebody commented on a different post that the Thai royal family is exempt from paying taxes. That seems quite extraordinary, given its massive wealth and income. Can somebody confirm that, please?
12 Republican // Dec 13, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Thank you, anonymous, for this fascinating story, and you have a nice way of telling it. More evidence of the cloak of invisibility. I am wondering if there is a slightly fuller version on the record somewhere to which we could refer those New Mandala readers interested in the self-sufficiency theory?
13 patiwat // Dec 13, 2006 at 5:21 pm
The anonymous theory is plausible, but ignores one significant factor: the massive appreciation of the Baht in the months following the coup.
When the junta seized power, the Baht was around 37.8/USD. For one reason or another, the Baht is now at around 35/USD, and the BOT has refused to intervene. Such a significant appreciation in such a short time is quite unprecedented, and the Baht is now stronger than it ever was since the 1997 devaluation.
Thus, if Temasek were forced to sell of it’s stake in Shin Corp at a nominal loss, it would still gain significantly from the Baht’s appreciation. Whether the appreciation is enough to put the deal in the black is pure speculation at this point.
The only loosers in this whole mess will probably end up being Thai export industries. But they’re run by greedy capitalists who refused to practice self-sufficiency
14 Suvimol // Dec 13, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Seems to me if foreigners have NO confidence in any government . . they’ll pull out all their foreign investments in that country IN A HURRY!
Surprising that the Thai Baht was the strongest performing currency since September, just after the coup.
Maybe foreigners have more confidence in General Sonthi than Patiwat has.
15 polo // Dec 14, 2006 at 2:23 am
1. The baht follows a basket and the dollar fell sharply since then against major currencies.
2. For months investors had been lowering exposure in Thailand because of all the turmoil around Thaksin and his opponents. Turmoil over (turmoil fomented by the military), they come back.
None of that means praise for the junta’s economic regime.
16 patiwat // Dec 14, 2006 at 7:15 am
1. Thailand doesn’t follow a basket any more. Besides, the appreciation of the USD hasn’t even been close to the appreciation of the THB.
2. In the months of 2006 prior to the coup, the THB had appreciated substantially, not depreciated. Things have just accelerated these past 3 months. With interest rates still high, the BOT sitting around doing nothing, and the junta giving the finger to exporters, there’s no sign that the Baht will be weakening soon.
17 nganadeeleg // Dec 14, 2006 at 8:50 am
Hopefully the BOT is doing more than just complaining about the speculators, and is quietly intervening to sell off THB to keep a lid on things – they should make a nice profit when things settle down.
I know they don’t telegraph such intervention, and maybe it is already ocurring but not on a sufficient scale to have an impact.
18 Republican // Dec 14, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Thai-style republicanism: Tony’s report seems to have missed the existence of such sentiment. An example from Prachatai [http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/board/showboard.php?QID=45449&TID=5]:
“ประกาศให้ทราบโดยทั่วกัน”
กูเบื่อพวกคุณเต็มทน ไอ้พวกศักดินา กูไม่เคารพพวกคุณแล้ว กูอยากบอกว่ากูเกลียดคุณ เลี้ยงเสียข้าวสุก ทรยศต่อประชาชน ที่แท้พวกคุณมันก็เห็นแก่ตัว ไม่เคยเห็นแก่ประชาชนจริงๆ ที่แท้ที่ผ่านมาพวกคุณเสแสร้งเป็นคนดี กูเกลียดพวกคุณทุกคน ไปนรกซะ
โดย : เกลียดพวกเสแสร้งดี [124.121.91.xxx]
วันที่ : 14/12/2549 14:50 เข้าชม : 34
แสดงความคิดเห็น :
See also the fascinating discussion at http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/board/showboard.php?QID=42192&TID=6
19 Republican // Dec 14, 2006 at 8:20 pm
In case I should be accused of bias, this devastating critique from a Constitutional Monarchist:
ความคิดเห็นที่ 57
นนท์
71.171.0.xxx
ตามรัฐธรรมนูญทุกฉบับ พระมหากษัตริย์ต้องอยู่ใต้รัฐธรรมนูญ ซึ่งถือเป็นกติกาสูงสุดในการปกครองประเทศ นี่เป็นหลักการ ซึ่งก็ไม่น่าจะขัดกับระบอบประชาธิปไตย อย่างไรก็ดี มีข้อกำหนดมากมายในรัฐธรรมนูญทุกฉบับว่าการแต่งตั้งโยกย้ายทุกตำแหน่งโดยเฉพาะตำแหน่งบริหารระดับสูงและตำแหน่งการเมือง พระมหากษัตริย์ต้องมีพระบรมราชโองการโปรดเกล้าฯ แม้จะมีธรรมเนียมว่าจะต้องมีผู้รับสนองฯ แต่ด้วยธรรมเนียมปฏิบัติถ้าพระองค์ไม่โปรดเกล้าฯ รัฐบาลจำเป็นต้องเปลี่ยนตัวบุคคล กรณีคุณหญิงยางมะตอยเป็นตัวอย่างที่เห็นชัดเจนว่าพระมหากษัตริย์เข้ามาก้าวก่ายการบริหารราชการแผ่นดินโดยตรง คุณหญิงยางมะตอยเป็นผู้ว่า สตง.โดยผิดกฎหมายแต่ก็ยืนยันตัวเองว่าเป็นได้เพราะมีพระบรมราชโองการ
ดังนั้นสถานภาพการอยู่ใต้รัฐธรรมนูญของพระมหากษัตริย์จึงไม่จริงในทางปฏิบัติ เพราะพระองค์มีบทบาทอย่างมากในการเข้าแทรกแซงการกระทำที่อาจไม่ถูกต้อง และประชาชนเห็นด้วย เช่นการเข้าเป็นคนกลางในอดีตที่ผ่านมาไม่ว่าจะเป็นกรณี 14 ต.ค. 6 ต.ค หรือพฤษภาทมิฬ ด้วยเหตุนี้แม้สถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์จะเข้าแทรกแซงการปกครองบ้านเมือง แต่ประชาชนก็ไม่ต่อต้าน ยังเห็นว่าเป็นพระมหากรุณาธิคุณด้วยซ้ำไป
กรณีรัฐประหาร 19 ก.ย. ดูเหมือนสถานการณ์จะแตกต่างกันออกไป เป็นเรื่องที่ประชาชนมีความเคลือบแคลงสงสัยว่าบุคคลในพระราชวงศ์จะเข้ามามีส่วนสนับสนุนการรัฐประหาร โดยมีประธานองคมนตรีเป็นตัวแทน ชื่อของคณะรัฐประหารก็ดูเหมือนจะย้ำเตือนความรู้สึกดังกล่าวแพร่ขยายไปทั่วโลก ที่สำคัญทีสุดคือการรัฐประหารครั้งนี้ เป็นการทำร้ายจิตใจประชาชน 3 กรณีสำคัญ คือ (1) คณะรัฐประหารฉีกรัฐธรรมนูญที่มาจากประชาชนซึ่งร่วมต่อสู้กันมาในเหตุการณ์พฤษภาทมิฬ และ (2) เป็นการขับไล่รัฐบาลที่ประชาชนส่วนใหญ่ให้การสนับสนุนอย่างท่วมท้น ไม่ใช่เป็นรัฐบาลผสมแบบเดิมที่คนไม่ต้องการ การล้มรัฐบาลของประชาชน (เน้นรัฐบาลของประชาชน) เท่ากับเป็นการยกเลิกนโยบายที่ประชาชนคนรากหญ้าคนยากคนจนชื่นชอบ และ (3) รัฐบาลที่พระมหากษัตริย์แต่งตั้งขึ้นมาแทน นอกจากจะยกเลิกนโยบายที่โดนใจประชาชนเท่านั้น ยังกำหนดนโยบายเศรษฐกิจพอเพียง ซึ่งประชาชนไม่เข้าใจและไม่มีใครทำให้เข้าใจได้ แต่ทึ่รู้สึกกันคือ นโยบายเศรษฐกิจพอเพียงให้ประโยชน์แก่คนขั้นสูงและราชวงศ์มากกว่า คือในขณะที่ประชาชนอยู่อย่างลำบากแสนสาหัส คนชั้นสูงและบุคคลในราชวงศ์กลับใช้ชีวิตอย่างฟุ่มเฟือย เช่น การใช้เครื่องบินพระที่นั่งเดินทางไปต่างประเทศนับครั้งไม่ถ้วน งานฉลองวาระครบรอบ60 ปี ว่ากันว่าใช้งบประมาณเป็นจำนวนไม่น้อย และการบริจาคต่างๆ ล้วนมาจากเงินประชาชนที่ถวาย เมื่อจำนวนสมาชิกในราชวงศ์ขยายตัวมากขึ้น และทุกพระองค์ต้องได้รับการดูแลอย่างดีเสมอกันหมดจนถึงระดับหลาน ว่ากันว่าใครไปเรียนต่างประเทศจะต้องมีบริการติดตามไปอย่างหนาแน่น เป็นต้น คือล้วนแต่ใช้เงินภาษีอากรจากประชาชนทั้งสิ้น
เหตุการณ์ที่กล่าวถึงล้วนทำให้ประชาชนจำนวนไม่น้อยเริ่มคิดว่า สถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์มีส่วนสนับสนุนการปกครองประชาธิปไตยจริงหรือไม่ ผู้เขียนไม่ได้มีเจตนาไม่ดีต่อสถาบัน ตัวเองและครอบครัวเป็น Royalist ด้วยซ้ำไป แต่อยากให้มีการปรับปรุงเปลี่ยนแปลง ที่สำคัญถ้าต้องการให้สถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์อยู่ใต้รัฐธรรมนูญจริงๆ ไม่ควรให้พระองค์เข้ามาเกี่ยวข้องกับการเมือง โดยเฉพาะไม่ควรมีธรรมเนียมการโปรดเกล้าอีกต่อไป เพราะนั่นเท่ากับทำให้พระองค์แปดเปื้อนความสกปรกทางการเมือง เมื่อการเมืองคือการเลือกข้าง พระองค์ก็จำเป็นต้องเลือกข้าง และนั่นคือสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ไม่เป็นกลางอีกต่อไป
วันที่ 22/11/2549 2:38
20 patiwat // Dec 14, 2006 at 9:57 pm
I’m curious – the junta’s chief reason for the coup was to “unprecedented rift in society.”
But does anybody actually believe that the rift has actually gotten any better since the coup? If anything, I think it has gotten worse.
Before, nobody would have ever posted a well reasoned critique of the monarchy, and nobody would have ever taken such a posting seriously. But today we see stuff like this in a variety of popular forums, as well as the expected displeased reaction from royalists.
If you believe the junta, the Thaksin-regime endangered the monarchy and polarized society. But the coup has endangered the monarchy even more and has polarized society to an unprecedented level.
21 Vichai N. // Dec 14, 2006 at 11:36 pm
The rift has healed quickly immediately after Thaksin was ousted Patiwat. Thaksin was a cancer. General Sonthi surgically removed the cancer and the whole body (society) had quickly recovered.
Well reasoned critique? That is a matter of opinion. I have always maintained that New Mandala (look at my first first post around Sept/06) is being financed by Thaksin and was deliberately created as an outlet for the spite and malice of Thaksin and his supporters against the monarchy and of course the junta.
So far not one of the pro-Thaksins in New Mandala including Andrew Walker, Republican, Anon, Patiwat, Jory, Jon and Fall have condemned Thaksin Shinawatra for any of his many abuses and crimes against the Thai people which provoked the coup in the first place. Why is that? Such loyalty to Thaksin must surely deserve handsome rewards this Christmas perhaps?
22 Republican // Dec 15, 2006 at 12:32 am
You are right Patiwat. The difference is, of course, that this unprecedented rift is harder to see. I hate to keep pointing out the obvious – but for so many people it is not obvious – the reason it is harder to see is simple: lese majeste. Sondhi Lim held rallies every week for a year cursing Thaksin, and was even hosted by Thai Studies centres around the world. Can you imagine an anti-royalist (ie. a true democrat) being able to give one such address without immediately being slapped with a lese majeste charge (or worse, as someone on this website warned us earlier)?
23 saraburian // Dec 15, 2006 at 2:31 am
To add to Patiwat’s comment, I must admit the book by Paul Handley turned my way of thinking (or more so unthinking) of the monarchy upside down.
I got the book in early September, read it within a week. Then came the coup.
The coup was just the final straw. I felt like I had been fooled my whole life. Now all the information is just popping up everywhere I look. In a way, the coup has been a disservice for its original cause.
24 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:21 am
Could it be that the effect of lese majeste laws in perpetuating the kings popularity are overstated?
Numerous rumours & scandals involving the palace have circulated widely throughout Thailand, and it would be hard to find anyone who is not aware of them.
Despite the lese majeste laws, it is my belief that the royal gossip is more widespread than is the knowledge of Thaksin’s mis-deeds.
I think there is genuine love/affection for the present king, regardless of the persons view of the monarchy in general.
Andrew is quick to tell us how the rural poor are not ignorant voters, so why does the love for the king have to be explained by lese majeste laws and royalist propaganda?
25 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:39 am
On the subject of the kings wealth and paying taxes:
In a previous discussion I contended that it was unrealistic to compare the wealth of the monachy with that of Thaksin, and some disagreed (Republican & Patiwat from memory).
In my opinion, the royal wealth is almost like the national reserve, which the politicians have been unable to plunder.
In Thailand private individuals build their wealth through various means (both legitimate & corrupt) and in most cases they retain that wealth (Thaksin, for example, but also many others).
Let’s say the monachy ceases (toppled, removed, abdicated, whatever) – what happens to the royal wealth?
I think most would end up with the state (CPB etc) which is a lot different than what happens when private individuals pass on or are toppled from power.
That aside, I probably would prefer if the king was taxed because it would would set a better example for the politicians.
26 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:48 am
The following is a quote from a Time article in 1999:
“For the most part, though, the King stays above Thailand’s messy political stage, preserving his rare elixir of mystique and power for use when it is absolutely necessary. “We keep in the middle, neutral, in peaceful coexistence with everybody,” he said in a rare interview with the BBC in 1979. “We could be crushed by both sides, but we are impartial. One day it will be very handy to have someone impartial.” ”
The last sentence is very telling.
Here is the article in full: http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/99/1206/thai1.king.html
I think its a good article looking at the dark side of Thailand but is balanced, unlike Handley’s obvious bias.
(also seems Handley’s book title was not very original)
Anyone know if the original 1979 BBC interview with HMK is available?
27 patiwat // Dec 15, 2006 at 11:00 am
Ngarnadirek, you might have misinterpreted my past posts – I don’t think I ever compared the wealth of the monarchy with that of Thaksin, besides the obvious fact that they are both multi-billionaires and the fact that their lack of transparency makes people speculate about them to no end.
It’s a bit speculative to say that the monarchy’s wealth would go to the state if the monarchy would for some reason cease to exist. On the contrary, there is the precedent of King Rama VII, who, after his Boworadej Rebellion failed to bring back the absolute monarchy, threatened to not only abdicate, but to sell out all of his assets in Thailand. I recall that this included the threatened sale of the Emerald Buddha (which then appears to be the property of the royal family, rather than the property of the Thai state). This implies that in extremis, there is a clear distinction between royal assets and state assets. Of course, he ended up not selling anything of significance.
The sale of personal assets of the current royal family is a different matter – there have been quite a couple high profile real estate sales over the past few years.
28 Republican // Dec 15, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Some may be gullible enough to take seriously a popular American magazine’s laughable analysis of Thai politics (written for an audience whose knowledge about Thailand probably starts and ends with the musical “The King and I”) along with partisan newspapers like phu jat kan and The Nation, but serious scholars among us will stick with the facts. Yes, it would have been “very handy to have someone impartial”. If only the king had ever been impartial, instead of continually siding with military dictatorships against his own people.
29 Vichai N. // Dec 15, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Republican you are repelled by Thai TV, Thai Newspapers, popular American magazines and most likely most other forms of popular media IF and WHEN those are negative on Thaksin and positive on the Thai monarchy. But you do get easily convinced by a certain Mr. Paul Handly, Andrew Walker and Dr. Jory.
Try Japanese cartoon . . . they are mostly entertaining.
30 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2006 at 1:30 pm
OK, I get it now – Time magazine is partisan, and Handley is an impartial scholar.
For all your criticisms & malice, Republican, you have yet to offer a better system than what I call the ‘white knight’ system that is currently in place.
To be relevant please point to an example in the region, not a European or US model.
31 Republican // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:06 pm
One small difference: The King Never Smiles is banned in Thailand whereas TIME has a very nice circulation thank you very much – and with articles like that one one hardly needs to ask why.
Well not just one difference. You guys may see a couple of paragraphs in a TIME magazine article as intellectually superior to a 500 page book researched by a journalist who has lived in the country for the best part of two decades, but no, I’m afraid don’t.
But don’t take my word for it, let’s allow the Thai people to decide. Now that Mr. Vichai has agreed to help us abolish lese majese perhaps we can ask him to use his influence to publiize Handley’s book in Thailand as a test case, so that Thai people will be able to choose for themselves whether to believe it or not. I mean, if he is serious about wanting to abolish lese majeste.
32 Vichai N. // Dec 15, 2006 at 7:47 pm
What has Paul Handley’s books have to do with scrapping of lese majeste.
To scrap lese majeste requires specific change in the Thai Constitution . . .and only the NPA can do that. Perhaps Patiwat, a former Palang Dharma if I recall correctly, can reignite his friendship with Chamlong Srimuang and ask Chamlong to spearhead the scrapping of lese majeste.
But surely Paul Handley can publish his book in the internet for FREE ACCESS. I won’t read his book any other way and I may not even read it even given free access. Why? Andrew Walker recommends the book highly, and, Republican too. I just don’t like the reading materials these two think intellectually stimulating . . .
33 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Have you got shares in the books publisher?
I’m all for having the book published in thai and made available in Thailand.
Thai’s are well aware of the rumours surrounding the royal family so there would be nothing new there.
I would prefer if the supporters of the palace openly addressed the main theory of the book, gave their point of view on the matters raised, and then left it up to the reader to judge the merits of the argument for themselves.
What I find a little disappointing is the promotion of the book and its main theory as factual, particularly on this ‘academic’ site.
Anyway, there is already plenty of discussion on the book and it’s theory on various Thai forums and blogs, and lese majeste laws do not seem to be holding back the comments.
I have also seen a ‘theory’ that Handley was paid handsomely by a certain (former) influential person in Thailand to produce his work – maybe that payment would be sufficient compensation for not being able to front up in Thailand ever again. Mind you, it’s only a rumour.
The following is from the review of the book on:
http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2514.cfm
“Handley concludes that Bhumibol essentially impedes Thailand’s transition from kingdom to a modern nation-state. He primes the public to taint democracy, secular laws, and constitutions so that the alternative of “dhammocracy” is the only option left. He obstructs political reform by nurturing mass cynicism for elected authorities and contributes to rising criminality by undermining the rule of law. With an uncertain dynastic succession in the prospects, the 79-year-old patriarch risks plunging the country into chronic instability once he is no longer at the helm. Such is the legacy of this cold-blooded Chakri king who always puts himself above the interests of his people.”
I will repeat my question from #30 above:
Please suggest a better system than what I call the ‘white knight’ system that is currently in place.
To be relevant please point to an example in the region, not a European or US model.
I have asked a similar question before on this site, bet I never get a direct response.
Here is an extract from a review of the book I found on Amazon.com:
“With regards to the major theme, that the king is a proponent of dhammocracy over democracy, I say “so what”? Mr. Handley’s other poorly hidden bias was that the reader was to accept that U.S. democracy is inherently better (better for the U.S. but not necessarily for Thailand, as a friend of mine used to say and as we are learning in the MiddleEast now) for all and that for some unexplained reason, the king’s support for dhammocracy is bad.”
34 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2006 at 8:59 pm
In case it is not clear, my last comment was in response to Republican, not Vichai.
35 Andrew Walker // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Why not just read the book!
36 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Are you going to send me a copy, Andrew?
I’ve had this discussion with Nirut before – I’m lazy and I just want concise conclusions/reasons without having to wade through everything – there are no end of reviews of the book available and most get to the crux of the matter.
Also I am practicing my own sufficiency economy, and have no wish to reward Mr Handley for his effort.
Did you read the review on Worldpress – I don’t think even Republican could have been any more scathing of the king or the palace.
37 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Andrew: You, too, are welcome to respond to my question.
After all it is only a hobby to me – you have my email.
38 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2006 at 9:17 pm
The question:
I will repeat my question from #30 & #33 above:
Please suggest a better system than what I call the ‘white knight’ system that is currently in place.
To be relevant please point to an example in the region, not a European or US model.
I have asked a similar question before on this site, bet I never get a direct response.
39 Republican // Dec 15, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Nganadeeleg refuses to read Handley because he is too lazy, Vichai because he doesn’t like it, and they both fulminate on how bad the book is! A perfect illustration of the total lack of reason in the royalists’ arguments. Go and read the book, come back to New Mandala and criticize it; then someone may take you two guys seriously.
40 Vichai N. // Dec 15, 2006 at 11:56 pm
I can vaguely recall Churchill’s quote on democracy being terrible but the alternatives being worse, or something like that.
Being terrible is about right – we had witnessed how those monsters Ferdinand Marcos, Suharto and now Thaksin Shinawatra could easily manipulate d-e-m-o-c-r-a-cy to enrich themselves and damn the consequences. It is not just Asia . . Latin America, African states, and now East Europe have seen clones of Marcos or Shinawatra posing as democratic leaders and with similar devastations to their national coffers and people’s aspirations.
Thailand’s recent ‘white knight system’ so described by nganadee looks too much fairy-taleish to gain any international credibility. And the catch is, just how ‘white’ must the knight be? I am hopeful Thailand will be seeing two such knights – PM Surayud and General Sonthi. Does Prem qualify as a ‘white knight’? In my book he does . . more of the Grand Jedi if I may suggest.
So perhaps nganadee’s ‘white knight system’ could really work – - we elevate the Privy Council to some kind of ‘Thai Knights in not so round Table’ and the Thai Constitution will clearly give them ‘powers’ to intervene, for King and Country, during ’states of national emergency’. I’ll leave it to the constitutional drafting body to define ‘national emergencies’.
41 nganadeeleg // Dec 16, 2006 at 12:05 am
There is no need for me to read the book as I am well aware of the main proposition – do you think Handley was the first one to come up with it?
I am not critical of the book – I am critical of the proposition.
By the way, I find it amusing that you call me a royalist.
So you are going to wave a magic want and give Thailand ‘democracy’.
And you are holding up Korea and Taiwan as your examples of the type of democracy you want for Thailand.
I’m glad to know there is no corruption, poverty, cronyism, and violence in Korea & Taiwan – HMK should abdicate immediately now that you have found the solution, and he will no longer be needed as a white knight.
(Might have to ease the Thai population into the longer working hours though.)
42 nganadeeleg // Dec 16, 2006 at 1:24 am
In summary:
In one corner we have the scholars Handley, Republican, Patiwat, Andrew etc and a few Thai scholars urging the rumour to be spread that HMK is the root of all evil in Thailand.
Some go so far as to say he is actively manipulating the political situation, deliberately keeping people poor, causing the people to to have mass cynicism for elected officials and holding back true democracy – all this is done so the monarchy and royal patronage system can continue.
In the other corner we have the alternative view (me, the royalist):
We believe HMK allows and encourages democracy, but people have flaws including his advisors, elected politicians, voters, police & the military. Along comes a very slick operator, wealthy, popular, but ultimately divisive and dangerous. The country is in a stalemate and instead of changing his ways slightly, the slick operator plays more games until things reach a crisis point.
The white knight, urges all players to sort things out, and does not want to intervene.
The slick operator still wants it all, money & power, and is prepared to bend the rules to get it.
Some other flawed individuals take matters into their own hands to resolve what they think is a dangerous situation.
They seek the approval of the white knight, who also is a flawed individual, but has his heart in the right place, and wants stability for the country.
I concede all is not right under the Thai system. It is disgusting that people are in poverty while there are so many super rich (including Thaksin & HMK/Royals)
However, such problems seem to be the way of the world and this thing ‘democracy’ combined with capitalism does not seem able to solve all the problems even in more wealthy countries.
Do we blame HMK for all the starving people in the world, also the millions in poverty in USA, the plight of the aborigines in Australia?
Do you really believe that HMK is the root of all evil in Thailand, or is he another flawed individual trying to do his best in a very difficult situation?
43 Vichai N. // Dec 16, 2006 at 2:51 am
Thaksin’s Machiavellian divisive bent will always search for ‘an enemy’. ‘An enemy’ was convenient diversion to the people while Thaksin continued on with his stealing, tax evasion, conflicted deals that enrich his family/cronies, and c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n.
The extrajudicial rampage during Y2003-05 was deliberately to pump up the people, keep them entertained and focused on the e-n-e-m-y that hero Thaksin disposed of with macho prowess on TV! Thaksin makes a repeat of same extrajudicial entertainment at the South . . those Muslim were e-n-e-m-y and Muslim thai prisoners repatriated by Malaysia were thus executed.
When things got hot for Thaksin, the urbans became the new e-n-e-m-y and Thaksin rabble roused his villagers-fans.
Now Thaksin had already ousted, Thaksin still creates an e-n-e-m-y, this time HMK, the institution of the monarchy.
44 patiwat // Dec 16, 2006 at 6:27 am
Nganaridirek, stop putting words in my mouth! I HAVE NEVER urged people to think that the King is the root of all evil in Thailand. I urge you to stop your libel. You (and people like Vichai and Sondhi) have to stop this urge from saying that whoever doesn’t think like you is an enemy of the King. Don’t lump me up with people like Republican. I’m a Thai – you might as well put a sign on me saying “shoot me”!
Your white knight idea is silly and displays a lack of any understanding of Thai political history. Sure, we’ve had marginally benign royally-sponsored white knights like Prem. But we’ve also had horrible royally-sponsored white knights, like Tanin, the Three Dictators, and Sarit. There’s no gene for goodness, unfortunately; no individual should be trusted. The people must be eternally vigilant and the constitution must provide strong checks if they wish to safeguard their rights.
45 nganadeeleg // Dec 16, 2006 at 9:25 am
Patiwat: My sincere apologies for the generalisation – I’m fighting so many battles that I try to cover as much as I can in the one post.
Yes, I concede the general thrust of your posts have been anti coup, pro democracy and I should not have lumped you in with Republican.
There are no perfect individuals or institutions, I just choose to believe that there is one individual who does want the best for his country and would be happy to see it progress and be fully democratic.
That individual wants to, & should, be above politics, but unfortunately he keeps getting dragged back into it due to the behaviour of others.
Some of those ‘others’ are his friends and some are not – but rather than walk away and leave them to sort it out, he does his best to stop the crisis escalating, again with the hope that the situation will improve.
Yes, the constitution is important, but I prefer that he chooses to stay and help, because knowing human nature, I doubt the ability of the others to put the country above their own personal desires.
46 Jon Fernquest // Dec 16, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Nganadeeleg’s figured it out. Post #42 above is the best concise description of what’s going on that I’ve seen.
47 polo // Dec 16, 2006 at 2:20 pm
It’s funny how you are fighting over the king or Thaksin, Thaksin or the king, but no one mentions strengthening the law so that a Thai person’s personal safety, his personal property etc, his human rights are not dependant on one person but a more permanent institution. ‘Course we all know that the military threw out the law.
C’mon, you can choose one — king, thaksin, law, army — but what happens when the king dies? Who ya gonna call?
48 Republican // Dec 17, 2006 at 5:01 am
Oh you disappoint me Patiwat, after such a promising start. When pushed to show some moral courage after being “lumped” into the anti-royalist corner along with the Republican bogeyman you fall back on the hoary, “I’m a Thai so don’t accuse me of disloyalty to my king”. Given the intellectual shallowness of Nganadit’s postings I am surprised you even feel the necessity to defend yourself. If you don’t have the courage to wear it you ought to get rid of that pretentious name.
49 Republican // Dec 18, 2006 at 1:17 am
The “white knight” theory is particularly appropriate for Thai intellectuals (OK, at least the posters on this website): a concept that, along with the Holy Grail belongs in the early middle ages, reinvented for the 21st century. Whereas I thought Thailand was only 300 years behind the developed world, nganadit and friends want Thailand to go back 800 years. Well, what can we say, but another advertisement for the wisdom gained from a Thai university education. You guys obviously missed Monty Python.
50 patiwat // Dec 18, 2006 at 6:39 am
Republican, I refused to be pulled into your whirlpool of negativity.
It might be true that the King’s actions as of late haven’t been very supportive of democratic development, but it is a comic exageration to say that he is the root of all that is evil in Thailand. Not that you ever said that – Nganadirek more or less put those words into your mouth (and into my mouth as well).
I make fun of Vichai for his blind hatred of Thaksin. But if you demonstrate blind hatred of the King, I’ll make fun of you too! :-p
51 nganadeeleg // Dec 18, 2006 at 9:11 am
Intellectually shallow – thanks for the compliment, Republican.
Unlike you, I am not on a witch-hunt against anyone who fails to support your beloved ‘elected leader’.
Aside from the blind hatred mentioned in the posts above, you also show blind faith in politicians & ‘democracy’.
Instead of pushing the theory that the king does not want democracy, you would be better served addressing why the politicians don’t do the right thing.
Don’t you believe the king when he says ‘politics is boring’ ?
Intellectually shallow I may be, but all I am trying to do is offer an alternative viewpoint to your vitriol, hence my summary post in commentry #42 above.
(please ignore the names mentioned in that post because it was wrong to lump individual posters into a particular camp, as obviously there are many grey areas in between)
52 Oliver // Dec 18, 2006 at 1:45 pm
” Whereas I thought Thailand was only 300 years behind the developed world, nganadit and friends want Thailand to go back 800 years”
HMK also want this…cf his favorite sentence “one step backward and two step forward”…or his support for a “sufficiency economy”…or his obsession with old royal rituals and decorum.
I don’t see HMK as the “devil instigator” behind every aspect of Thai politics. But he is nevertheless a moral leader….which means that his position (often implicitly) influences a lot the conceptual framework through which politicians and Thai citizens along are trying to imagine a “Thai style democracy”, or whatever form of a “good” political system for Thailand.
In this respect HMK has a lot of responsability in the current intellectual and political paralysis (we could even speak of regression) and deserves to be criticized : himself said one day that the monarchy could accept critic !.
53 nganadeeleg // Dec 18, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Whilst I agree with most of your comment, Oliver, I think HMK’s views on the ’sufficiency economy’ are an attempt at moral leadership particularly in relation to greed & corruption.
I see the rampant corruption at virtually every level of society as the major problem.
On a grand scale you have the politicians, military & royal clique all not setting a very good example for the lower officials, but from from my obserations it is the police that cause the biggest problem to the average (non connected) thai.
There are a number of things holding back progress in Thailand, and I concede the monachy has to share in some of the blame, however I would be reluctant to have the institution removed until the police, military, politicians & other officials prove they have integrity – Unfortunately that still seems a long way off.
It seems people like Republican thinks things cannot improve until the monarchy is gone, but HMK is hardly the main cheerleader for the corrupt practices.
54 Republican // Dec 18, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Call me old fashioned, but on an academic website (especially hosted by as prestigious an institution as the ANU) I expect people who talk about books or articles to actually have read them. And if they haven’t then I would want a better excuse than “laziness”. But there you have it: the product of the Thai education system. And these are the same people saying that the villagers are not educated enough to have the right to vote for their own government!
55 Vichai N. // Dec 19, 2006 at 12:50 am
Oh Republican you will make a wonderful used car salesman. You cajole, you intimidate then you insult just to lure a buyer to your worthless second hand car.
Were all your education to come from Handley or Walker, is that enough to get you convinced all other academics are not so worthy?
56 Republican // Dec 19, 2006 at 4:14 pm
You are right, perhaps I was a little harsh. In fact, thanks to New Mandala your real education has already begun. I was just in the middle of filling out your report card, which I will be sending home to your parents. I am a little worried what they might think so I’ll let you see it first:
ด. ช. Vichai N. (?)
WRITING: B
Good. Shows talent as a comedy writer.
READING: D
Appears to be able to read, but lacks comprehension. Refuses to read books assigned by his teacher. Prefers to watch TV and read popular magazines.
HISTORY: D+
Can’t separate historical fact from fiction. Seems to like historical romance about heroic kings. Failed the module on feudalism. Very weak on modern history.
POLITICS: F
Unable to grasp the basic concepts of democracy. Believes that royalist dictatorships are still a legitimate form of government in the 21st century. Shows an interest in absolutism.
ECONOMICS: F
Believes in pseudo-economic theories unaccepted by any school of economics. His former teacher must have been a cretin.
GEOGRAPHY: D
Has little conception of the world outside Thailand, and therefore cannot see how far Thailand lags behind developed countries.
ART: B
Has a vivid imagination. Should be encouraged. But needs to be able to separate the world of his imagination from the real world.
CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR: D
A rather aggressive boy who is always teasing the other boys in his class. Likes to gang up with the children of aristocrats and military generals to bully the other boys. Tends to avoid associating with the poorer boys. Once caught stealing the right to vote from them. Suspect that he is jealous of another more popular boy who was voted school head-boy.
GPA: 1.3
Status: pro.
OVERALL COMMENTS: I am very worried about young Vichai. I realize that he is at a disadvantage compared to the other boys because of the brainwashing he went through before he came here, but now that he is here he needs to show more application. I believe he has the potential, but he needs to think for himself more, rather than aping his former teachers. In particular he needs to concentrate more on his reading. Otherwise he will not be able to meet the high standards we expect of students at New Mandala school.
Teacher’s Signature:
Republican
………………………
57 Vichai N. // Dec 19, 2006 at 8:42 pm
That was not amusing Republican and your attempts at humour left me flat and least entertained.
Same with your attempts at book promotion or selling 2nd hand cars, those too were failures.
And your ridiculous attempt to resurrect that total disgrace Thaksin Shinawatra by your directed malice at the monarchy are so obvious as to be totally suspect and lacking of merit. The man responsible for the suspension of Thai democracy was Thaksin Shinawatra because of his runaway abuse, corruption and extrajudicial killings. All the other decent people responded to the Thaksin Shinawatra danger the only way they know how: THEY ALL OPPOSED HIM. And those that opposed him included the military, the Thai academica, the Thai intelligentsia, the monarchy, and yours truly Vichai N., your only student who failed (did not even bother to attend) your, Republican’s, democracy lessons.
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.