Today’s opinion from Chang Noi attacks the military and its assertion of a “unifying mandate”. From my considerable distance, I can almost smell the growing frustration with the Thai junta and its allies. Over the past month, it has become increasingly clear that much of the initial tolerance of the “transitional” regime has started to wane.
Chang Noi is worth reading in full, but the final cut goes closest to the bone:
The military doesn’t really have any idea how to “create unity”. It just knows that in the past it was successful in creating the sullen acceptance that gave a semblance of unity. But society is not the same as it was 30 years ago. The rise of elective politics has been truly empowering. The military cannot intimidate as easily as it could in the past. One of the most significant developments since September 19 has been that party politicians and local politicians have not meekly accepted the coup. They have been openly defiant, regularly calling for the return of parliament.
In a society as complex as modern Thailand, representative institutions, however flawed, are a much better way of managing the divisions and competing interests than authoritarianism wielding a myth of unity. Only people who live outside normal society, in something like the structured world of the military, can dream of unity.
The fear is that as the coup government’s policies fail, and their support dwindles, their natural instinct will be to do more of what they know best. Already that downward spiral has begun: the retention of martial law, the establishment of the special forces, restrictions on the media, and the order to airbrush Thaksin out of the media just like a totalitarian state.
Perhaps the coup government will eventually achieve unity – by uniting the country against themselves.
52 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Jan 23, 2007 at 12:15 am
Of course, the military, in doing its coup, acted on its own. Thus, we can put the blame solely on it. No need to involve Prem, or the royalists, or perhaps even the monarchy. But what could you expect from Chang Noi after the UNDP’s glorification of the sufficiency economy?
2 Taxi Driver // Jan 23, 2007 at 12:18 am
Has anyone thought about what may unfold if HMK suddenly passes away (sawanakot) tomorrow while this junta is still in power?
[I am sure various intel agencies domestic and foreign have performed this scenario analysis, but it is predictably absent from public discourse in Thailand. I guess its another example of how Les Majeste prevents public debate on a very important topic (one runs the risk of being accused of les majeste by discussing the death of the King...another irrational absurdity but sadly a fact of life in good ol' Thailand)].
3 saraburian // Jan 23, 2007 at 12:46 am
Taxi Driver
I believe there is a rumour, circulating in the thai stock market at least, on the possibility of abdication (similar to Bhutan).
Before this, it has never crossed my mind before. But come to think of it, this is probably the best option available for the Network to ensure continuity of its rule.
4 Republican // Jan 23, 2007 at 3:03 am
Interesting statement: “…representative institutions, HOWEVER FLAWED, are a much better way of managing the divisions and competing interests than authoritarianism wielding a myth of unity….”
If one is to take this logic to its natural conclusion then it seems to me that Chang Noi is making the argument that we have no choice but to support Thaksin, because “however flawed” he might be, the “representative institutions” which enabled him to rise to power are “much better” than “authoritarianism…” Otherwise, Chang Noi should have written: “…representative institutions … are a much better way of managing the divisions and competing interests …. except in the case when these institutions lead to the election of someone like Thaksin. In that case we should support the King and the military to use tanks and guns to overthrow a democratically elected government.” But he didn’t.
So by virtue of this uncomfortable logic we must support Thaksin. But we have come too far now not to know that supporting Thaksin means in effect opposing the King. This is the next step that is so hard for people to make, as in the case of Chang Noi’s taxi driver. 60 years of relentless propaganda, a personality cult which today has reached the limits of absurdity, the political weapon par excellence of lese majeste, and, we should never forget, the brutal, merciless suppression of anti-royalism, as in the case of the 6th October massacre, have made such a thing almost unthinkable.
But this is the corner into which the King, royalist officers in the military, and their ratchakan cronies whose status depends entirely upon the aura of the monarchy, have painted themselves: the King vs the People. If the monarchy endorses the overthrow of a democratically elected government, and then a little too enthusiastically gives its support to a regime increasingly hated even by those who supported the coup, one must accept the consequences.
It seems to me that we have entered the last days of the so-called “Democracy with the Great King as the Head of State”.
5 anon // Jan 23, 2007 at 5:08 am
Frankly, I think if the King died tomorrow, Prem would simply cover up the news.
Prem’s job is to preserve the monarchy. If the public knew that their beloved King were dead and that next in line to the throne were his hated son, the monarchy would fall apart.
A few years of good PR (marrying this new lady, having a “legitimate” son, piloting charity flights) can change perceptions built up over 30 years of naughtiness.
6 nganadeeleg // Jan 23, 2007 at 9:35 am
You are drawing a long bow in reaching your conclusion, Republican – “we have no choice but to support Thaksin”…… “supporting Thaksin means in effect opposing the King”…….”the King vs the People”
The King was not in the election.
Does your blind hatred make you forget that when asked to personally intervene in the stalemate, the King declined, and advised the politicians and courts to sort it out.
Call it a personality cult if you will, but what makes you think Thaksin was not pursuing a similar path?
Why did Thaksin have to go so far as to make it ‘him or the king’?
Once he stepped over that line, a coup was inevitable (sooner or later).
It was not necessary to take things so far if he was merely a champion of the poor, so he obviously had other, more sinister, plans.
I suspect Thaksin was banking on the King’s frailty and old age, but he miscalculated because those things would also have been factors for the military to ponder.
7 anonymous // Jan 23, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Since when did Thaksin ever make it a “Choose me or the King” situation? He never crossed that line.
His reference to the “charismatic individual wanting to overthrow” him was to Prem. The truth was revealed when Prem’s boys really did overthrow him…
8 fall // Jan 23, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I agree with Chang Noi here. There is just too much Hollywood coup romanticism. Coup all over the world cites 108-pretext and all ended up just another military regime. That’s why this coup from the start try to differentiate itself, that it is not an ordinary coup. It is a brave Aragon goes against the evil Mordon.
This coup might seem to be the revolution from “imperfect democracy” to “benevolent tyrant”. But the only thing that put in the word “benevolent” is *this* king. Like Cao Cao, he cited the king as pretext to enforce his unity. Now, for any afore mention reasons, try take *this* king involvement out and look at the meaning again.
9 Taxi Driver // Jan 23, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Republican you may have taken one logical step too far. I think Chang Noi was supporting democracy, not Thaksin or TRT. He said democracy is a better solution for modern Thailand than authoritarian rule (and providing a stinging attack on the CNS in the process).
There does not need to be an automatic extension from being anti-coup/pro-democracy to being pro-TRT. In fact I reckon that this is the “lightbulb” has not gone off in many/most Bangkokians (and a few on this blogsite). People who criticise the CNS are viewed as pro-TRT (and the junta is exploiting this failure to distinguish to its maximum).
10 Taxi Driver // Jan 23, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Back to the question of succession. Saraburian who does the stock market believe the King would abdicate in favour of? Vachiralongkorn or Sirindthorn? As to anon’s suggestion of a cover up, I just don’t see how that is feasible.
If the king passes away tomorrow, and Prem the next day (Prem is even older than the King) then what happens? Is civil war (between those supporting and opposing the crown prince) out of the question?
Has anyone ever come across decent analysis of the succession issue?
11 nganadeeleg // Jan 23, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Taxi Driver: The succession issue is very interesting, and I would be surprised if something was not already in place (hopefully within the family, but, if not, at least clear instructions from HMK)
Are you concerned about a civil war amongst the general population, or just amongst the military/elites?
IMHO, not much chance of a general civil war scenario if HMK has made his wishes known, but if he has done nothing then anything could happen.
anonymous said ‘Since when did Thaksin ever make it a “Choose me or the King” situation?’
Thaksin would not be so foolish as to make that declaration, but he clearly was not content to defer to the king and would not take his advice in relation to stepping aside for the sake of unity.
12 Taxi Driver // Jan 24, 2007 at 12:05 am
Lets paint a scenario: tomorrow morning we wake up to find out that the King had passed away in his sleep overnight. Prem announces on TV that HMK had previously selected Sirindthorn as his successor. But by the afternoon Prem is arrested by a military faction associated with Saprang who has formed an alliance with Vachiralongkorn & Thaksin (the alliance was one of convenience to enable (1) V. to be installed as the next King; (2) Saprang to be installed as CinC of the armed forces; and (3) Thaksin to be allowed to return to Thailand & retake government (i.e. a counter-coup to restore democracy! The West would love it). Army units from the same faction also put Sirindthorn under effective house arrest. Queen Sirikit goes on TV saying the King really wanted his son to be the next King but Prem & Sonthi were trying to usurp the throne by appointing Sirindthorn, who they thought they could control, as the next monarch instead. Sonthi moves in with tanks to arrest the military faction holding Prem & Sirindthorm. In the ensuing fighting Sirindthorn is killed by a stray bullet. Other units associated with Saprang, Vachiralongkorn and Thaksin move in from the North and heavy fighting ensues in Nakorn Sawan. The Queen manages to go on radio to say Sonthi killed Sirindthorn. Prem meanwhile had escaped with the help of Sonthi’s tanks and appears on TV5 to say he is the true caretaker of Bhumipol’s will. The populace is divided. One side believes the Queen, one side believes Prem/Sonthi….
Just a wild scenario…unlikely to unfold as depicted but not outside the realm of possibility….
13 saraburian // Jan 24, 2007 at 12:57 am
Does anyone have any good reason to believe certain military figures backing certain candidate to the throne when the time finally come?
I thought it’s pretty clear now, given certain roles (e.g. preside the NLA opening) and pr events (e.g. charter flight, Kru Ju Ling’s funeral, etc.) the Crown Prince has been taking up lately, that he’s going to be get it.
???
14 polo // Jan 24, 2007 at 3:02 am
One gossip scenario is that the prince has AIDS and it is advancing, effectively he is dying, so the king will abdicate, the throne goes to the prince’s son and Sirindhorn will be the regent. The prince agrees to this because he is dying anyway.
It’s a nice cozy scenario but does have its problems. First its only rumors that the prince has AIDS, he might look like he does naturally. But if he does and this idea is a real one, there are problems: as long as the prince lives would he really let his sister control his son? And would the prince’s current wife let Sirindhorn control her son?
But what’s nice about this is that if the prince and Sirindhorn are agreed then there would be no cause for an army split over succession.
15 anon // Jan 24, 2007 at 5:33 am
A much more probable scenario is if both Phra Thep and Sia O are killed by stray bullets. According to the Palace Law, the succession would then go to Sia O’s eldest legitimate son Theepankorn – who is still a baby.
Whoever happens to be in charge then appoints himself Phoo Samret Ratchakan Thaen (Regent) and rules the country for a looooong time until Theepangkorn turns 18.
16 hpboothe // Jan 24, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Can anyone name a scenario that DOESN’T completely divide the nation? A scenario where there WOULDN’T be a sizable fraction of the population angry enough to resort to violence? Remember, it only took 19 people to bring down the World Trade Center.
Plus, what do you suppose happens in the South if Bangkok starts getting chaotic?
The specifics of the scenario are impossible to guess, but the result is the same regardless – confusion, chaos, violence. I’ve been working on my exit strategy since the April elections – I’d advise everyone else in Thailand who can to think of the same.
HPB
17 Republican // Jan 24, 2007 at 9:27 pm
The King and Democracy:
“ […] The history of the present King […] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny […] To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world […]
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within […]
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
[...]
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever […]
[…] Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people … ”
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, JULY 4 1776
18 anon // Jan 24, 2007 at 9:48 pm
A scenario that doesn’t divide the Nation? Sure. The Crown Prince, his latest wife, his latest son all die in a car crash. His eldest daughter also conveniently dies. And his illegitimate sons from Mom Benz die as well.
Everybody will mourn and act sad, but in their hearts, they will be happy that the Princess will become the next monarch and we can expect the Chakri dynasty to survive for a few more decades.
19 Vichai N. // Jan 24, 2007 at 10:48 pm
You all assume that after HMK Bhumibhol, then the Prince inherits the crown.. Maybe not. Maybe it will pass to Princess Sirindhorn. That would an elegant solution, wouldn’t it?
If that solution looks so elegantly simple to me, why not to the Monarchy or to HMK or the Privy Council?
Let’s see how the new Constitution is rewritten on this delicate issue of succession.
20 Taxi Driver // Jan 24, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Heres a scenario that doesn’t divide the nation: Bhumipol passes away. V. is installed as new King. Populace docilely accepts it (so does Sirindthorn). Full stop. In fact, this is probably the most likely scenario.
BUT the problem emerges later: the new constitution promulgated by the CNS is soooo pro-military (e.g. senate to be appointed by CNS and have veto power over lower house, etc etc.). Politicians (led by Chavalit) and urbanites (this time not wearing yellow) take to the streets in protest. CNS cracks down and hundreds of people are shot dead along Rachadamneon. This time the people don’t have Bhumipol to call on. Will they call on King Vachiralongkorn to intervene? Will he? Can he? Which side will be align himself with?
The one thing I hope the CNS generals know and appreciate is this: Thailand is much more developed than Burma and any attempt by the CNS to enscone themselves in power indefinitely a la Burma’s SLORC / SPDC will cost many lives and ultimately fail.
21 saraburian // Jan 25, 2007 at 12:21 am
Exactly, Taxi Driver,
#20 is the most likely scenario – no serious immediate chaos/bloodshet but it is so fragile in the longer term, given a recent bad precedent set by the CNS. Should there be any future intervention, we will have non-violent exit. We Thais should learn how to live without the intervention of you-know-who.
22 saraburian // Jan 25, 2007 at 12:23 am
I meant to say:
Should there be any future intervention, we will have NO non-violent exit. We Thais should learn how to live without the intervention of you-know-who.
23 Taxi Driver // Jan 25, 2007 at 1:08 am
Thais should learn to not accept the military’s role in politics. The military is the real problem in Thailand.
24 anon // Jan 25, 2007 at 4:39 am
Vichai, you are living in a fantasy land. If S becomes the next monarch, do you think that V, who has been promised the crown for the past 30 years, will simply say “Congratulations!” and retire to a life of whoring? The only reason the King hasn’t appointed S as successor already is because if he did so, he would be signing a death sentence for his own daughter.
HMK Bhumibol Adulyadej has been a failure.
For all the love and respect that the Thai people have for him, he has failed to guarantee a succession that will not result in violence and chaos.
25 polo // Jan 25, 2007 at 6:54 am
Anon #18: That scenario doesn’t save the monarchy for decades. Sirindhor is 51 and quite fat. Overweightedness is a key factor to early death. So she might not have 20 years to go. Meanwhile, with the prince’s line gone, and Sirindhorn not having children/heirs, for the whole of her reign peole will be worrying, jockeying and perhaps fighting to see which of the thousands of King Mongkut descendants — and that’s alot of sleazy families — would get the throne. Or perhaps the Bunnags will get back together. Who knows? And therein lies the problem: uncertainty for the throne, in fact no future known beyond Sirindhorn, would generate havoc. What do you think brought Thaksin to Thailand.
As for taxi driver #20, it wouldn’t take the CNS and constitutions to start a problem. The first time the prince is pushed to intervene on one side or another would fuel a problem, for two reasons: his judgment is habitually bad, and secondly, there are people who would look for a chance to show how vulnerable he is by starting a fight.
26 anon // Jan 25, 2007 at 9:51 am
I think a lot of Thais are having wet dreams that she’ll marry the ever popular King Jigme of Nepal, adopt Ong Pa as her daughter, and start the first pan-asian self-sufficient national-happiness royal family
27 nganadeeleg // Jan 25, 2007 at 9:53 am
Taxi Driver has identified a major problem – the military.
It seems attending military academy is a prerequisite for being PM. There also seems to be some code that says if you get into a position of power, you have a duty to promote (enrich) others in the same Class (year) as you were.
Another major problem is corruption, not only the military, but in the police, bureaucracy and in business.
As for succession, the most important thing is that the next monarch has the respect of the general population.
That’s bad news for the prince, because even if he has reached a level of maturity and wisdom that makes him worthy of the position, his past actions and the thai ‘rumour mill’ have meant that he does not have the necessary respect in the community.
So, in the scenario that the princess was annointed as the next monarch:
- If the prince has attained maturity and wisdom, then he will understand the situation and there should be no problem from him, and hopefully he can control his backers.
- If he does take action then it would also prove that he was not worthy of being the monarch.
I would expect that such discussions should already have been held or are taking place now, and hopefully HMK can explain to the prince that he can still make a worthwhile contribution, without being the monarch.
There could still be trouble caused by one clique feeling they are missing out on power (and the loot), but that would just be ‘business as usual’ in Thailand.
At least now that Thaksin is no longer PM, he is available to be president should the need arise
28 Vichai N. // Jan 25, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Anon is disturbed that Princess Sarindhorn, instead of the Prince, will inherit the throne. I was expecting that. I am sure that very scenario would disturb Republican and a lot of these anti-monoarchy camp.
Because the Princiess is much loved by the Thai people and if she inherits could ensure that the Thai monarchy remain an institution maybe for another century.
I see it and if I see it, you can be sure that a lot of level-headed men around HMK could see that too.
I told you Republican that the monarchy would probably outlast our lifetimes and maybe that of our children and that to me will be good for Thailand.
29 hpboothe // Jan 25, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I must agree with polo & taxi driver – divisions and problems may not occur the day after the transition, but they will occur. We should remember that even Rama IX’s position was rather tenuous until the mid 50’s/early 60’s when he teamed up with Sarit to create the present Rama IX cult, helped along by massive US funding to thwart the supposedly advancing Communist threat. It’s unlikely that that sort of confluence of events and circumstances would be repeated – Thailand is not nearly in the same position regarding the “international terrorism threat” that it was in regarding the “Communist threat” – probably Jordan is in that position now.
Besides, V’s reputation is well ingrained, as opposed to IX in the 1950’s, when he was still new, relatively unknown & unsullied, and therefore could create his own repuation from scratch. Regardless of how many charity flights he pilots, I doubt people are going to forget about his past behavior.
S is simply not strong enough to stand up to the forces that are going to be pushing her around, IMHO.
I struggle to think of any smooth transition from a near-universally revered leader when the successor has not been clearly selected and accepted. Even when selected, it’s tough. Consider the aftermath of Mohammed’s death – it split the new Islamic faith between those who followed his family vs. those who followed his advisors. This is the orgin of the Sunni/Shiite split and they’re still fighting 1,500 years later.
Solving the succession issue isn’t about individuals, it’s about process and mechanism, in other words, stable political insitutions accepted by the people. Thailand’s efforts to create this have been as weak and shortsighted as Thaksin’s rural development programs – all window dressing to pleast the masses with little substance that ultimately becomes apparent and causes problems.
30 Taxi Driver // Jan 25, 2007 at 9:51 pm
So here we are, fretting about succession because we have allowed ourselves to become reliant on a one-person institution to be our saviour from potential tyrants. We, the entire country, the Thai nation, have let ourselves become hostage to “key man risk”. This is all the more diappointing given we all knew, and have known for decades, how unfit to reign the next “key man” is.
And here’s the rub: in 2006 we killed off the only other potential saviour that could have stepped into the shoes of the one-man institution to mitigate our exposure to key man risk: democracy. We cheered on the generals and their tanks, stupidly believing that we were getting rid of an unpopular prime minister. The truth is, we were giving away our only “saviour” – i.e. our own power – hard fought for over the decades since 1974. Now we can only “hope” that the generals will act not in self-interest but in the national interest. Ahhh, how trusting we Thais are in the virtue of our generals, despite a long history of treatment they dished out to us, and their grotesquely corrupt & immoral track record. Why do we keep on letting the generals take control? Why?
31 Vichai N. // Jan 25, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Taxi Driver your poster #30 was your best! I never imagine you Taxi Driver for such great sense of humour – - the first mention of ’saviour’ already got me giggling, by the second mention of ’saviour’ and Thaksin in the same breath, I was gasping for breath because I I could help nor stop myself from roaring with laughter for many minutes.
32 nganadeeleg // Jan 25, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Taxi Driver said: ‘Now we can only “hope” that the generals will act not in self-interest but in the national interest.’
Unfortunately that same “hope” was also placed in Thaksin, and it seems many still cannot see that he has already failed the self-interest test.
33 Taxi Driver // Jan 26, 2007 at 9:02 am
In #9 I said: “There does not need to be an automatic extension from being anti-coup/pro-democracy to being pro-TRT. In fact I reckon that this is “lightbulb” has not gone off in many/most Bangkokians (and a few on this blogsite). People who criticise the CNS are viewed as pro-TRT (and the junta is exploiting this failure to distinguish to its maximum).
Vichai, you need to switch that lightbulb on in your head.
Nganadeeleg: I do not claim Thaksin was good for the country. The difference between what you had before Sept 19 and after, is your freedom. Freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, freedom to vote for/against your leader. You don’t have that now, and you can only “hope” that the generals will give it back to you. Sure it was difficult to get rid of Thaksin before Sept 19, but to allow the generals, who have a much worse track record than Thaksin in every area, to re-take control is simply short sighted.
34 nganadeeleg // Jan 26, 2007 at 10:41 am
I think you are a little premature in writing off the current ‘reform’ process, Taxi Driver – you may ultimately be proven correct, but that judgement cannot be made until the end of the year.
Worst case scenario – The generals hold on to power by whatever means necessary (I think this is possible, but unlikely).
Best Case scenario – A better constitution (based on the 1997 constition) and new elections with a better informed electorate (I also think this is possible, but unlikely).
Most likely result is somewhere in between – New elections with either royalist generals or Thaksin loyalists holding the power, and the losing side continuing to create instability.
35 Vichai N. // Jan 26, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Short-sighted? We will soon learn by the end of this year whether my instincts was wrong and Taxi Driver’s fears was well placed.
But already PM Surayud says election could be held by Sept-07 and that tells me the interim government and the junta expect to be on schedule with the new constitution and the election.
But Thaksin we all knew had refused to step down while Thailand was on boil! With the lessons of the Philippines brought down by Marcos . . the military had and should step in. Democracy could be ‘reset’ but a severely fractured nation (deliberately Thaksin created) was a dangerous risk no Thai would accept.
36 hpboothe // Jan 26, 2007 at 4:26 pm
As long as the nation relies on ANY “savior”, there will always be key man risk. The only way to get rid of key man risk is to create systemic stability, which is characterized by peaceful transitions of power. Whether its the Chinese Communist Party or the US Constitution, both provide a stable, widely accepted system of governance & controls regardless of who specifically is in power. The public needs to believe that the system – not any specific person – will correct problems. When this faith is gone, chaos ensues.
Thailand has had 60 years to develop systemic stability and has thoroughly failed. Trying to create one on the fly during a major power transition is a serious challenge, and I have little confidence that the Thais will pull it off. I’m expecting years for chaos, we’ve only just begun.
37 nganadeeleg // Jan 26, 2007 at 7:56 pm
It’s better to have a “savior” than to not have one, so in that respect Thailand has been, and still is lucky.
For the system to be the “savior”, better quality politicians need to be elected – otherwise instead of systemic stability, all that will remain is systemic corruption.
38 New Mandala » Speculation on succession // Jan 26, 2007 at 9:53 pm
[...] An anonymous correspondent over at Asia Sentinel echoes a number of commentators here on New Mandala by probing the question: “What happens when the King of Thailand dies?” [...]
39 polo // Jan 27, 2007 at 1:45 am
Just remember that when the NPKC under Suchinda and Kaset promised electins, they formed one party, Sammakhtitham,and took over another, Chart Thai, to make sure they could win. And they wrote the constitution to make sure they controlled the Senate for years thence.
40 hpboothe // Jan 27, 2007 at 4:27 am
nganadeeleg said “It’s better to have a “savior” than to not have one” – two comments on this; first, this is a false choice – the issue is not savior yes/no, but why do we need a savior at all? Second, relying on a savior can actually impede development of stable processes, which in fact is the case in Thailand. Is the country really better off due to the cult of Rama IX? It’s arguable at best.
I’d also demur on the need for “quality politicians” for systemic stability. I’d offer that what it really takes is a responsible electorate committed to checks & balances, and civil rights. If you had that, quality politicians would emerge; if not, corruption thrives because the electorate essentially doesn’t care or relies on the savior for a rescue – a classic moral hazard.
Thailand seems to be unable to proceed to the far end of the J curve. I really can’t see any alternative to a prolonged period of instability.
41 nganadeelg // Jan 27, 2007 at 10:12 am
I agree with hpboothe about the need for a “responsible electorate committed to checks & balances, and civil rights”
If such an electorate existed, Thaksin could only ever have won one election (the first).
I would also contend that it is precisely because such an electorate does not exist, that Thailand is fortunate to have a “savior”.
42 Vichai N. // Jan 27, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Having ‘responsible electorate” is a wonderful thing hpboothe because more often than not those we elect quickly turn ‘irresponsible’ immediately upon assuming public office. And I resent hpboothe’s suggestion that HMK has anything at all to do with ‘impeding’ Thailand’s political development or obstruct the Thai electorate to blossom into ‘responsibility’.
I could easily imagine how Thailand could have coped with its political development had there been no HMK as counterbalance against both the irresponsible electeds and the irresponsible non-electeds! CATASPROPHE!
43 hpboothe // Jan 27, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Mr Vichai – I would argue that many that have been elected were irresponsible well before assuming public office! I understand your resentmen at my suggestion – the question is largely academic. One might wonder if the catastrophe (the bottom end of the J curve) is indeed what is needed to get to a more stable system. The US had it’s catastrophic Civil War, Europe had two catastrophic wars – the transition to stability from authority is never easy.
44 Vichai N. // Jan 28, 2007 at 2:06 am
You would be allowed to wonder ‘hpboothe’ but let blood not be spilt in Thailand to test your thesis. I prefer a ’saviour’ system if that will prevent civil wars . .
But I too wonder whether that man Thaksin Shinawatra was deliberately provoking a crisis . .. near civil war if you may, to get a Republican democracy get going in Thailand? Finland Plan comes to mind . . . . .
45 Vichai N. // Jan 28, 2007 at 3:28 am
I have this germ of an epiphany in my mind that perhaps ‘instabilities’ or ‘civil wars’ were NOT the ‘transitional agents’ (as suggested by hpboothe) that sparked ‘responsible democracies’ in the Western world, but simple economics . I think a certain ‘per capita income’ hurdle widely distributed among the population maybe predetermines political democratic maturity in aspiring nations. Not every time of course, but MOST of the time.
In Thailand we are probably nearing that ‘magic per capita income’ number but not yet. Not yet in the sense that very wide gap of incomes exist still of rurals vs. urbans, with disparity intuitively I suspect getting wider not narrower as Thailand grows economically (that in my book is Catasprophy unfolding).
The day I see Thailand rural mothers no longer selling their daughters into prostitution is the same exact day I forecast that a political mature and strong democracy had already not been reached but fully embedded in Thailand political culture, and, Kings or Generals would no longer be needed as saviors or knights to protect the people from its elected rulers.
46 hpboothe // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Mr Vichai – let me assure you that I am also in favor of non-violent solutions to any society’s problems. But then, if my personal viewpoints were decisive, then I’d be a savior – which I am clearly not!
Your comments regarding stability and income are part of an ongoing debate between cause and effect of the two – does high income cause stability, or does stabillity lead to high income? And of course there is the addition question of how democracy and stability are linked – and where is the balance in democracy between individual civil rights and majority rule? All good questions, all worthy of prolonged public debate – where are these debates going on in Thai society and what are we all doing to make sure these questions are being considered by all voters?
47 Bangkok Pundit // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:42 pm
” I think a certain ‘per capita income’ hurdle widely distributed among the population maybe predetermines political democratic maturity in aspiring nations.”
You mean like Saudia Arabia and Singapore. A higher per capita incomes doesn’t always mean a democracy. There is no magic per capita income. You seem also to have forgotten that per capita incomes rose under Thaksin and expectations are that growth will be lower this year than under Thaksin.
48 Taxi Driver // Jan 28, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Nganadeeleg said” I think you are a little premature in writing off the current ‘reform’ process, Taxi Driver – you may ultimately be proven correct, but that judgement cannot be made until the end of the year.”
Vichai said” Short-sighted? We will soon learn by the end of this year whether my instincts was wrong and Taxi Driver’s fears was well placed.”
I sincerely hope both of you prove to be correct. But lets not be too trusting of the generals in the meantime eh? Don’t just wait for them to serve up the new constitution for you to vote on in the referendum. Remember, in this unique referendum (only us Thais can come up with one like this), you can effectively only vote “yes” (voting “no” effectively gives the power back to the generals). Have you ever thought why it was designed that way?
49 Vichai N. // Jan 28, 2007 at 11:01 pm
And your point Bangkok Pundit is?
I did say NOT all the time but MOST of the time, didn’t I?
But Bangkok Pundit if you believe ‘higher income’ does not predispose a person to be more ‘democratically responsible’, then how can those uneducated very poor village hicks ever comprehend what the ‘VOTE’ truly stands for? I mean Bangkok Pundit, are you now suggesting that Thailand really really needs a ’savior’ system more than ever?
50 21Jan // Jan 29, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Mr Vichai (No.45): While some posters expressed their doubts that many rural mothers sell their daughters into prostitution (although I think there might be a lot of pressure in some families to support the parents and that may cause some girls taking the apparently easy way) would you please enlighten me what this has to do with democracy?
Maybe this:
1. The farmers/rural poor are in your eyes to greedy and they should learn from the kings sufficiency-economy where their place in society is.
or is it
2. The wealth of the nation has to be distributed equally so there is no need for immoral acts among the (now not anymore) poor people.
Anyway let me conclude with a modified sentence of yours:
The day I see the Thai middle-class calling for elections and not for royal intervention is the same exact day I forecast that a political mature and strong democracy had already not been reached but fully embedded in Thailand political culture.
51 Vichai N. // Jan 29, 2007 at 10:13 pm
‘21Jan’ (#50) – I am sure Bangkok Pundit (#47) would be able to educate you on the connection between ’sufficiency income’ and ‘responsible democracy’, and it has nothing to do with disrespecting the poor but recognizing their priorities.
52 Tikki // Nov 7, 2008 at 5:16 am
HRH Somdej Phra Debaratanarajasuda Chao Fa Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Rathasimagunakornpiyajat Sayamboromrajakumari for the throne any day! Open your eyes and see the light. Any reasonable person would see that Sirindhorn is the best choice, perhaps the only choice. Choose others and be prepared to regress.
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.