New Mandala

37 responses so far ↓

• 1 anonymous // Jan 26, 2007 at 10:14 pm

  The article reveals an interesting tidbit: it notes that nude pictures of the Prince’s latest wife Srirasmi have become widely available. So widely available that the palace actually had to warn the media not to aid in its distribution.

  Am I the only person who hasn’t seen these photos yet?

• 2 Vichai N. // Jan 26, 2007 at 11:03 pm

  I read the ‘Asia Sentinel’ article. Sounded very much like Andrew Walker writing anonymously And the first commentary by a guy named ANON was suggesting pornography, not politics.

• 3 polo // Jan 27, 2007 at 1:16 am

  Anonymous — yes, you must be! But I was wondering about an Asia Sentinel letter writer who mentioned some pictures of Princess Ubonrat’s daughter — what are these?

• 4 Srithanonchai // Jan 27, 2007 at 1:57 am

  Polo/Anon: No, Anon. is not the only one. I haven’t seen them either (although I’ve heard the rumor about certain photo sessions).

• 5 Republican // Jan 27, 2007 at 2:00 am

  I have a number of criticisms of the Asia Sentinel article, which shows a marked anti-democratic bias:

  (i) There is an important mistake regarding one crucial historical event:

  Recounting the October 6 massacre the author writes, “… The conservative generals soon pounced on the protestors for this terrible act of lese-majeste. Soldiers proceeded to rape, mutilate and kill hundreds…”

  In fact, the main instigator of the massacre and mutilation of students at Thammasat on October 6 was not the military but royalist paramiltaries: Village Scouts, Kratingdaeng, and Nawaphon, backed by police units. What this means is that the monarchy was directly implicated in the killings that took place that day. Normally the monarchy tries to hide its political interventions, but on this occasion its role in the incident was blatantly obvious. See Somsak Jiamthirasakul’s article on this at http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/10/6.html

  The problem with the author’s description of this event is that it portrays the military as the villains, while letting the monarchy get off scot free. The airbrushing of the present King’s active political role out of Thailand’s political history has been developed into a fine art in the Thai history textbooks (and even, unfortunately, by some political scientists – most recently, and disgracefully, by Thammasat’s own Nakharin Mektrairat). Following Handley Western journalists should know better. Moreover, unlike their Thai counterparts they are not prevented from writing the truth by the lese majeste law that operates in Thailand. Western cheerleading for the monarchy (by academic institutions, the UN and its various agencies, gullible journalists, etc.), all of whom seem oblivious to how the monarchy’s image is controlled via the lese majeste law) play a major role in the propaganda surrounding the monarchy. Hence they must bear partial responsibility for the democratic disenfranchisement of the Thai people. This cheerleading should stop.

  (ii) The author writes, “Ousting Thaksin ensures that he does not hold sway over the prince in the future… ”

  Given that Thaksin was elected on three successive occasions by an overwhelming majority, would it not be entirely in keeping with democratic principles if Thaksin were indeed to have held sway over the Crown Prince? Or are you implying that the leader of a democratically elected government should not “hold sway” of the King? Isn’t that precisely the problem that we are faced with today? But even if one gives no importance to democratic principle, surely SOMEONE needs to hold sway over the CP?

  (iii) The author writes, “Many democratic activists may have seen Thaksin as a threat—and rightfully so…”

  What kind of “democratic activist” can see the only politician who has gone to the electorate 3 times in succession, won overwhelmingly on each occasion, and largely delivered on his election promises as a “threat”? You mean the democratic activists associated with Sondhi Limthongkul’s “People’s Alliance for Democracy”, last seen carousing at a celebratory dinner with the CNS? And how on earth can such a view be “Rightfully so”?

  (iv) The author writes, “… Formal charges against Thaksin are expected soon. This is all good news for those who feared that a powerful Thaksin in a post-Bhumibol Thailand would prove much worse than any alternative scenario”

  So it is “good news” when a royalist-military dictatorship presses formal charges against the democratically elected Thaksin? Even the author himself admits that the judiciary is already under the control of the monarchy! How on earth can one expect justice? Who is this good news for? Why can’t the author bring himself to say that it is of course good news for the royalist-military dictatorship, but bad news for the majority of the electorate who voted for Thaksin?

  (v) “For some there is relief that the country is now under the control of the traditional elite rather than Thaksin’s business elites,” a diplomat said. “But how things will actually play out when the king dies is anyone’s guess.”

  Why include such a statement in the article? Of course “for some” it is a relief; but what about THE MAJORITY who voted for Thaksin, most of whom are now living under martial law, media censorship, and the threat of lese majeste if they were to criticize the coup makers too harshly – given that the only legitimacy the CNS has is the King’s endorsement. Why repeat this diplomat’s bias?

  If the best that the author’s diplomat source can do at predicting what happens regarding the succession is to say that it’s “anyone’s guess”, why bother even quoting him? (I am continually astounded as to why journalists give such credence to diplomats on a subject as opaque as the poliitical manoeuvrings of the royal family, when most diplomats’ knowledge of the subject does not extend beyond the gossip they have heard during their 3-4 year post in the country. )

• 6 jeplang // Jan 27, 2007 at 3:32 am

  According to David Elliott in ‘Thailand:Origins of Military Rule’ pp136-137 Nawapon was a rightist organization which had the direct support of ‘foreign powers’ i.e the CIA.[How Elliott determined this I have no idea.].
  The Red Gaurs consisted mostly of vocational students ,and the third paramilitary group was the Village Scouts ” sponsored by the king and queen” provided many of the actual troops to break up demonstrations and strikes and co-operating with these paramilitary groups were the Border Patrol Police and the Communist Suppression Operation Command.

• 7 anonymous // Jan 27, 2007 at 6:41 am

  Pictures of Ploy posing nude became public a few years ago. They seem to have been taken in her dorm room. She’s chubby.

• 8 Srithanonchai // Jan 27, 2007 at 2:28 pm

  Republican may have some points. Unfortunately, he defeats his own purpose by including a very simplistic defence of Thaksin, instead of, for example, having a paragraph that would in a differentiated way reflect on his impact on democratic institutions. One can be critical of the PAD, and the coup, without being uncritical of Thaksin.

• 9 Hew // Jan 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm

  The article states:
  “royalists have gone to great pains to deify the king, and the decades of work that went into restoring the once-peripheral Thai monarchy into a central pillar of political legitimacy will not be undone overnight”

  I don’t know Thailand intimately enough to know if this is true or not. If I have an opinion, it would be that this is not true. That is, the monarchy’s standing is attached entirely to the current King personally, and his children have few of his characteristics, and many that have discredited those children. So, might the monarchy’s standing indeed be “undone overnight” when the King dies ?

  Is Thailand heading for a monarchy that is peripheral to Thai society – like many other countries’ monarchies – rather than central to it ?

  Does Thailand need this to happen if it is ever to advance ?

• 10 hpboothe // Jan 27, 2007 at 4:14 pm

  The Asia Sentinel piece is by far the most sober discussion of the succession issue that I have yet seen. Whether one agrees with its assessments or not, it can’t be denied that this is one of the most critical issues in Thailand today which never sees the light of day. I certainly cannot be healthy for any democratic society for a subject of this magnitude not to have a public debate. It would be as if no one ever mentioned Iraq in the US, or if it was illegal to discuss Palestine in Israel. The deafening silence on this issue in Thai media, academia, or even word on the street is a better indication of the state of Thai democracy than Thaksin’s ouster or the discarded constitution.

  Thanks to Asia Sentinel and whoever wrote that piece, I hope they both get more constructive dialgue going beyond the ever fascinating and critically important issue of nudie pictures.

  Speaking of which, my friend told me they looked like a gynecology exam…

• 11 d. silang // Jan 28, 2007 at 1:53 am

  The problem of succession is surely an important issue in Thailand. And it seems to be magnified everyday with the king’s frail health condition. I am sure a lot of Thais worry about this. They just can’t show or state their opinions for fear of lese majeste or being judged anti-monarchy. Perhaps western scholars can help by enlivening the debate further. Participants should raise as much perspectives as possible so that those who are lurking, but nonetheless actively ruminating on the points raised, will gain something.

• 12 Republican // Jan 28, 2007 at 5:45 am

  Srithanonchai, where do you stand? Every day the Thai media is full of criticism of Thaksin’s “impact on democratic institutions”. Do you think I am unaware of that? At the same time the regime has been censoring anything Thaksin says in the media. That is, the regime does not trust the Thai people to make up their own minds about what Thaksin has to say. And you say I should add to this criticism of Thaksin when he has no right of reply? You may want to give your support to the current royalist-military dictatorship but I certainly do not. Why do you not criticize the hypocrisy of the royalists, who, unlike Thaksin, are protected by the lese majeste law? Thaksin was criticized in the media virtually every day over the last year; where is your criticism of the monarchy’s endorsement of the overthrow of the government elected by the majority of Thai citizens? Where do you stand, on the side of the democratically elected former Prime Minister, or the dictatorship? Or are you cowardly sitting on the fence?

• 13 Srithanonchai // Jan 28, 2007 at 1:56 pm

  Republican: Questions such as your “where do you stand,” or the closely related “are you cowardly sitting on the fence” have always bored me.

• 14 anonymous // Jan 28, 2007 at 9:18 pm

  The more I think about it, the more I realize the real reason for the coup. It had nothing to do with Thaksin, Sondhi, corruption, or lese majeste.

  The purpose of the coup was to get rid of the 1997 Constitution. The 1997 Constitution is the only legal instrument that governs the issue of succession, and it basically says that the Crown Prince will be the next King. The constitution that replaced it, the 2006 Interim Constitution, makes no mention of succession.

  Therefore, if the King dies at any time between now and the when next permanent constitution is signed-off, the Privy Council can suggest to the Parliament anybody they want. If my logic is correct, they’ll appoint the Princess as the next monarch.

  Given the recent back surgery, Prem and the King must have been really worried that the King might not survive the coming months. They needed to remove the possibility that the Crown Prince would use the 1997 Constitution to force his way to the throne.

  As usual, Surayud, Sonthi, Sondhi, Thaksin, and everybody else is just a pawn. This is like mortals fighting a proxy war for gods.

• 15 Vichai N. // Jan 28, 2007 at 11:05 pm

  Maybe Anonymous you should reread the 1997 Thai Constitution. I recall a specific clause thereat strongly suggesting that the Princess, or, The Prince are contenders to the throne.

• 16 saraburian // Jan 29, 2007 at 12:41 am

  anon #14,
  According to Piyabutr Saengkanokkul in this article http://www.onopen.com/2007/01/1437, the 1997 constitution has already given legal instrument for the King to appoint either one of the heirs.

• 17 Srithanonchai // Jan 29, 2007 at 1:36 am

  “Chang Noi”, in his column of December 12, 2006, also advanced the idea that the abolition of the constitution of 1997 was the second major purpose of the coup (the other being getting rid of Thaksin). However, he did not refer to the question of succession, but rather to military and bureaucratic self interest, summarized in the phrase “conservative hatred of the 1997 charter.”

• 18 Tosakan // Jan 29, 2007 at 1:51 am

  Right now we are entering the last days of the 9th reign of the Chakri dynasty. What we are witnessing is something that has been going on for close to 800 years: End of reign politicking. Almost every succession in Thai history has been contested. There has always been political manoveurs before and after a Thai king dies.

  Let us look at the Chakri dynasty:

  Rama 1- He and his brother, two generals during the Thonburi interregnum, murdered King Thaksin, with consent from the clergy. Was King Thaksin crazy or was he poisoned to make him crazy? No matter. The Chakri brothers had him dragged out of a temple and murdered.

  Rama 2-When Rama 2 came to power, he had to go on an unprecedented murdering binge to wipe out all his enemies. He killed brothers and cousins, and anybody who might challenge him.

  Rama 3-He usurped the throne from King Mongkut, the legitimate
  heir. King Mongkut had to go into the clergy in order not to get murdered by his own brother. King Mongkut’s younger brother, Prince Pin Klao, ran into the arms of the foreign community, learning engineering , the arts, languages, and martial sciences.

  Rama 4-Right before Rama 3 died, he tried to install his son as heir at the last minute, but King Mongkut,Rama 4, made a deal with the devil, Chao Phya Suriyawong/Bunnag family, and got himself installed in exchange for handing over all the finances and major ministries to the Bunnags. During his reign, Rama 4 had challenges from the conservatives, the liberals, the moderates, and his own brother, the 2nd King or Upparat, and Western powers who were quickly encroaching onto his kingdom.

  Rama 5-King Chulalongkorn was intended to be nothing but a puppet for the Bunnag family. King Mongkut thought he was too young to be king and thought he was going to be murdered right away. King Chulalongkorn, according to his own letters, also thought he wouldn’t last. When he tried to start reforms early in his reign, the Bunnags almost took him out and installed his cousin, Prince George Washington, the Upparat, as first king. The plan backfired and 2nd King George Washington started an international incident by seeking protection from the British consulate. Can you imagine a 2nd King of Thailand running to the farang for protection from the 1st King? I bring this up, because this is the reason why the law of succession changed. Passing the crown to the oldest son born by a full queen is a tradition that only really started after King Chulalongkorn’s reign, and that was because he got rid of the position of 2nd King or Upparat.

  Rama 6-The first Crown Prince was Prince Varunhis, but he died. He was born of Prince Mahidol’s mother, who was a queen and not a consort, but because all the sons in that line were dying out, King Chulalongkorn elevated Prince Vajirayudh’s mother to full queen, so he became the Crown Prince, but nobody knew he was gay until it was too late. So Prince Vajirayudh became King and was universally disliked because even though he was extremely well-educated, he was despised for his sexuality, his prodigious spending, and his horrible management and political skills. In other words, he destroyed everything that Rama 5 built up. The military tried to take him out, but they were unsuccessful.

  Rama 7-He came to power because there was nobody else left. All his brothers had died or had taken themselves out for one reason or another. Prince Mahidol couldn’t become king because he had married a Chinese commoner. Prince Chakrabongse couldn’t become king because he married a farang. Because King Vajirayudh had installed his gay lovers as his advisors, the country fell into disarray. So when King 7 ascended, he went back to the old princes, the sons of Rama 4, but the new bureaucracy, formed mostly from the commoner classes, didn’t like that, so they plotted to take the monarchy out and replace it with a lot of fascist/communist crap they had learned in Europe. Anyway, we know what happened to Rama 7. Pridi and Plaek took him out. And he spend his last days as British gardener in the English countryside.

  Rama 8- We know what happened to him. Pridi and Plaek picked him because they knew he was a boy they could control. Besides, he had no power. He was studying in Switzerland, and he didn’t come home for 11 years after he was chosen as successor. Pridi held all the power as regent.
  When King Ananda came home for a short spell before going back to Switzerland, he was murdered. Some say that King Bumibol murdered his brother. And that would be consistent with Thai politics and Thailand’s long history of fratricide and regicide. But even to me, an old cynic, that is hard to believe.
  And here are my reasons: 1. From what we know, King Bumibol was close to his brother and loved him very much. 2. Both King Ananda and King Bumibol grew up as farang in a farang country with very little exposure to Thailand and its politics for the first 20 years of their lives. They didn’t ask for the kingship; it was thrust upon them by political opportunists who wanted to use them.

  Rama 9-What we know of the early years is that Plaek kept him marginalized and disempowered. From 1946 to 1957, Thailand was run by 3 generals: Plaek Pibunsongkram, General Phao, and General Sarit Thanarat. During Plaek’s reign, he ran the country as if it didn’t have a king. And this pissed King Bumibol off. So he cut a deal with General Sarit, and they got rid of Plaek. So the reign of King Bumibol didn’t really begin until 1957.
  And this was when all the propaganda concerning the importance of kingship began, all the dhammaraj and devaraj stuff. It wasn’t until after 1957 and the military’s embrace of the monarchy that we began to see all the Orwellian propaganda surrounding the monarchy.

  Anyway, if we were to really examine Thai politics closely, one can see that Thailand really hasn’t changed that much in 800 years. Thailand has never been a peace loving Buddhist country that is portrayed in all the bullshit propaganda. Thailand is a vicious political society with a long history of factional politics, fratricide, and regicide. What we are witnessing today is more of the same.

  From where I am sitting, the coup, the dumping of Thaksin, the resurgence of the military is nothing but preparation for the end of the 9th reign. The writing is on the wall.

  There are many placing bets on the Crown Prince and the Dowager Queen and their military backers. There are many placing bets on the Chinese capitalists who control Thailand’s means of production and their military backers. And most are waiting to see where the winds will blow strongest.

• 19 anonymous // Jan 29, 2007 at 5:24 am

  The 1997 constitution allowed both Prince and Princess to be specifically appointed to the throne, but if and only if the King specifically said so.

  The 1997 constitution further said that If the King didn’t specifically appoint one of them, the throne would go by default to the Prince.

• 20 Republican // Jan 29, 2007 at 3:22 pm

  #13 Using a name like that it is not hard to understand why this question “bores” you. If you have no position or principle upon which your criiticisms or analyses on this academic blog are based, if your only aim is to deceive this blog’s readers (hence your name), then your postings should be understood by the readers as such.

• 21 hpboothe // Jan 29, 2007 at 5:56 pm

  Tosakan – thanks for that excellent historical recap. I hope others join in the dialogue since I don’t know enough about Thai history to either corroborate or disagree.

  However, I will point out one major difference between today’s situation and earlier succession battles – the involvement of non-elite sectors of society, from the middle classes to farmers. Whatever else one thinks of Thaksin, it’s undeniable that he has made grassroots Thais feel involved with politics for the first time. This is both a welcome and destabilizing development.

  Really hoping to see more discussion about this topic, I fully agree that all this is really about succession and consequently the future of Thailand’s polity.

• 22 Taz // Jan 29, 2007 at 7:22 pm

  But, the 1997 constitution has been torn down by the military junta.

• 23 Srithanonchai // Jan 29, 2007 at 8:38 pm

  To Republican (20): Apparently, you have the mind of a true “Democrat”, though somewhat too emotional and aggressive – - yaaawn jing jing (tae mai khoi sanuk thaorai).

• 24 Republican // Jan 29, 2007 at 10:53 pm

  #23: With a little “d”, please; don’t insult me with the big “D”. Is it too much to expect people posting on an academic website to argue, aggressively if necessary, from a position? Otherwise why bother posting here? Here Vichai and Nganadit et al at least have their positions. For you, overthrowing an elected government, censoring the media and suppressing opposition by keeping them under martial law might be “boring” and a bit of a “yaaawn”. No, not for me.

• 25 Srithanonchai // Jan 29, 2007 at 11:14 pm

  Republican: I have been quite patient with your personal attacks. However, since I don’t think that this exchange is intellectually satisfying, I will stop my part in it at this point. You being blessed with the mind you have, I trust that you won’t be able to withstand the temptation of having a final snipe at me. So, go ahead!

• 26 Tosakan // Jan 30, 2007 at 1:08 am

  hpboothe-

  There is a point I forgot to make in the last post. I knew it was going on too long, so I tried to cut some things out.

  The thing about Southeast Asia is that you have look at it as a whole and from a certain context. That means you have to look at it from a religious point of view and from a point of view that observes social and economic relations.

  Thailand is the last country of a long string of old empires in Southeast Asia that has really kept any semblance of its feudal traditions, at least related to a monarchy and state organization.

  Thais love to pretend that they are a modern country with liberal
  democratic values.

  Let us be honest: That is the furthest thing from the truth. There is no history of real democracy in Thailand or a movement towards liberal democracy. Before the farang arrived, there was no such thing as democratic consciousness. There is no evidence of democracy in the Thai language. In fact, the opposite is true. Thais automatically rank each other according to title/age/social status, etc. Anybody who doesn’t think that this is political in some respects is fooling himself. Social stratification is built into the Thai culture just like the notion of egalitarianism is built into liberal democratic countries.

  So even the notion that Thais have a democratic consciousness is a sad. pathetic joke, and whatever democratic consciousness they do have comes from the farang and liberal ideology coming from the farang.

  Why else do you think democracy in Thailand is a total failure?

  Of course, there are Thai democratic political theorists.

  You can count them on one hand. And do you think Thai democratic theory is disseminated to the masses? Or that they even care? Of course not.

  Democracy in Thailand is a facade to fool the farang into believing that Thailand is an advanced civilized country, which it is not. And the events of last year proves what I am saying in every respect.

  As for the monarchy, like all monarchies. it is trying to preserve its power and its privileges. The rest of the world is entering a post-modern age–economically and politically– and the Thai monarchy still acts like it is in the MIddle Ages while the Thai military has gone back to its fascist roots of the 30’s.

  Sure, the Thai middle classes want some liberal, Western freedoms, but the Thai middle classes at a microcosmic level are no different than the monarchy or the military in the way it treats its fellow citizens. The middle classes kow tow to the military and the monarchy like brainless yellow shirted zombies and they expect the peasantry to be their servants, feed them and kow tow at their feet. And so the Thai world turns.

  As for Thaksin, the notion that a corrupt Chinese businessmen
  is the vanguard of the Thai peasantry and working classes is absurd, and anybody who suggests it is just as absurd.

  The Thai peasantry lives like all peasantry of yore, in a superstitious stupor, easily led by the nose through effective marketing campaigns and propaganda by charismatic figures.

  Look at the all the ancient monuments spread throughout Southeast Asia. Those are testaments to ancient marketing.

  What is the symbology?

  You have giants penis everywhere, the stupas, lingum, chedi.

  You have temples that represent heaven on earth.

  And you have a God/King presiding over this world of gigantic cocks and little heavens.

  And the people are so enthralled, fooled, by these God/Kings that they are willing to enslave themselves to them for a little bit of the magic. And so it goes in Thailand, whether the God/King be a Buddhist/Hindu Chakri or capitalist Chinese Shinawatra, it doesn’t matter. The bullshit remains the same.

  I think one of the seminal texts on political theory I have read is The Grand Inquisitor by Fyodor Doestoyevsky.

  It is free on the internet.

  It goes to the question, the same as the one in the movie. The Matrix:

  Do you choose to be a deluded slave and have all your material and spiritual needs taken care for you or do you chose to be free from self-delusion and suffer knowing that one is responsible for his own life in every way?

  I think most Thais want to be deluded and be told what to do and have their material, spiritual and political needs taken care of by the elites, because all the evidence points in that direction.

  And because Thai’s love self-delusion and hate personal responsibility either for themselves or their country, Thailand will never be a democracy of any kind in the future.

  And all the marketing bullshit, sweet words, or crap they tell the West about democracy won’t make a difference, because Thailand like it has for the last 70 years or so will always implode from its own contradictions.

• 27 nganadeeleg // Jan 30, 2007 at 9:44 am

  Tosakan has raised some interesting points and I generally agree, however I reject the implication that the West is that much better and has the answers.

  ‘liberal democratic values’ and ‘egalitarianism’ are now just as elusive in many so called western democracies.
  Also, South East Asia is not the only region in the world that needs to be looked at from a religious point of view – I wonder if it is even possible for a ‘non believer’ to ever again be elected President of USA.

• 28 Vichai N. // Jan 30, 2007 at 12:21 pm

  I read Tosakan and he reads to me like a very angry man because Thailand had been way way short of ideal. it is nice to be idealistic but life is presented to us in its exact multi-colored flaws that actually make breathing a bit more special and challenging.

  I mean does any one in this world really dream of living in Eden where everything is idyllic, women are beautiful and naked, the fruits are there for the picking with but one snake (who looks like Thaksin btw) to steer clear of? In Eden it wass the SNAKE who was interesting and everything else was a bore, isn’t it? Come to think of it, had the snake Thaksin not slithered in to tempt nearly every one from the village hicks to the clean-cut general, the last 6 years would have been a big yawn in Thailand.

• 29 Tosakan // Jan 30, 2007 at 2:49 pm

  nganadeeleg-

  1. When did I ever say that the West is better? And how is saying that the West is better or not better have to do with Thailand?

  Personally, I think the problem with Thailand is that it thinks it is a liberal democracy when it is not. Thailand has a military dictatorship, and it has had one for most of the last 70 years, and underpinning all Thai social and economic relationships is a sakdina/feudal mentality, which is antithetical to liberal democracy and political freedom.

  I don’t want Thailand to copy the West, because it has demonstrated over the years that it has no respect for Western values or liberal democracy. Thailand should stick to Thai values. Singapore, China and Vietnam are Asian countries that have said no to liberal democracy, and they don’t care what the West thinks of them.

  2. As for the US, I always love it when another country is talked about, criticizing the US is considered a counter argument. What does the US have to do with Thailand?

  Regardless, with all its faults, the US is a strong liberal democracy with a high degree of political freedom. Unlike Thailand, the US has never embraced fascism or a military dictatorship, and unlike Thailand, it has a Constitution that it abides by and a healthy respect for the rule of law.

  Australia, Canada and New Zealand, with all their faults, have a high degree of political freedom.

  And the Scandinavian countries are Western liberal democracies with a high degree of both political freedom and economic egalitarianism.

  3. As for the religious bit, what is your point? This is a website about Southeast Asia, not about religion in the US.

  In Thailand, the people crawl on the ground like dogs before their religious and political superiors. They worship their king as if he were semi-divine. Nobody does that is the West, including the religious kooks in the US.

  In Thailand, people refer to themselves in relation to their king as dust on his august feet and call him a God/Buddha -Phraputtachao.

  In the US, people refer to their president as Mister.

  See the difference?

• 30 21Jan // Jan 30, 2007 at 3:34 pm

  I think on the long run Thailand has to take a more egalitarian and less hierarchical way, because with education as the most important resource of the 21th century and a population of only (at least compared to China and India) 65 Million you cannot rely only on the talents of a small elite, you have to encourage and assist high level education also and especially for the talented but poorer parts of the population.
  I also think that Tosakan has raised some points worthy of consideration and I tend to agree to a certain point, but I still hope that there is no general Thai inability for democracy.

• 31 Republican // Jan 30, 2007 at 5:42 pm

  #25: Not a “personal attack”, but an attack on your lack of position, or at least your unwillingness to declare it. If you criticize then you must be willing to defend your position – which was what I was seeking clarification of.

• 32 Republican // Jan 30, 2007 at 6:01 pm

  Just posted on ฟ้าเดียวกัน webboard: ด่วน!!! คมช โดนประจานไปทั่วโลกแล้ว

  live free or die Posted : 2007-01-30 03:43:03

  Open letter to the international community

  Plea for Democracy in Thailand

  As you are well aware, Thailand’s elected government, under the leadership of Thaksin Shinawatra, was overthrown by a faction of military elites last September.

  We, Thai people who love democracy, were embarrassed, frustrated and stunned as we had never expected that an obsolete coup d’ tat would take place again in our country in the 21st century.

  Thai people are currently living in desperation and under oppression by the military junta who has stripped us of our rights of speech, rights of access to information and the basic rights of human beings.

  The putsch has not only set back our relatively deep-rooted democracy to nothing, but also destroyed our economic strength, which was built up by former elected governments.

  The junta is trying to convince us that they would draft a new constitution and schedule a general election within a year. But we do not want the constitution handed to us by “a group of robbers in the disguise of army generals”. We want our 1992 Constitution to be reinstated as it is widely accepted as the best one in Thailand’s modern democratic history.

  We believe that the junta-drafted constitution would only legitimize their political gain allowing for the continuation of their presence in Thai politics.

  We seek military reform; a military that is akin to other civilized nations; a military without political influence.

  Thai people historically are opposed to a dictatorship, we believe that another protest resulting in bloodshed is inevitable if the military declines to step down. Thai people will not tolerate a military regime over the long term.

  We do not want to see history repeat itself, like the major popular uprising in 1973, 1976 and 1992, when thousands of unarmed civilians had to sacrifice their lives for the sake of democracy. In fact, the present military-appointed prime minister General Surayud Chulanont was the one who led a paramilitary troop to violently suppress protesters in the 1992 pro-democratic demonstration.

  To seize administrative power from an elected government is a criminal act according to the Thailand’s Criminal Law. We want to see those who have perpetrated this crime to be brought to justice so as to prevent this barbarous act from reoccurring in the future.

  In the present era of globalization, political and economic instability in one country or one region does affect the region and thus the global community. Hence, it is time for the world community to act in unity in eliminating an unjustifiable coup d’tat.

  Therefore;
  We call on the world communities to condemn and impose possible measures to punish these dictators.

  We call on the world communities to isolate the illegitimate government.

  We call on the governments around the world to freeze diplomatic relations with the junta-installed government.

  We call for an international forum wherein the political destitution of Thailand is addressed; wherein the Thai people are represented in a multi-lateral fashion.

  The Alliance of Pro-democracy Movements

  (คำแปล)

  ดังเป็นที่ทราบกันโดยทั่วไปแล้วว่า ได้มีกลุ่มทหารที่กระหายอำนาจกระทำการโค่นล้มรัฐบาลที่มากจากการเลือกตั้งโดยประชาชน เมื่อวันที่ 19 กันยายน พุทธศักราช 2549

  เราประชาชนคนไทยที่รักและหวงแหนการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตย รู้สึกชิงชังและอับอายเป็นอย่างยิ่งกับเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้น เพราะไม่คาดคิดมาก่อนว่าเหตุการณ์เช่นนี้จะอุบัติขึ้นอีกในประเทศอันเป็นที่รักของเรา

  พวกเราตอนนี้ตกอยู่ในสภาพสิ้นหวัง อึดอัดกับระบอบการปกครองทหารที่กีดกันเสรีภาพในการแสดงออก เสรีภาพในการรับรู้ข้อมูลข่าวสาร และเสรีภาพขั้นพื้นฐานต่าง ๆ ที่บุคคลซึ่งอยู่ภายในใต้การปกครองในระบอบประชาธิปไตยพึงมี

  การยึดอำนาจ นอกจากจะทำให้การปกครองในระบอบประชาธิปไตยต้องถอยหลังแล้ว ยังทำลายเสถียรภาพทางเศรษฐกิจ ซึ่งรัฐบาลที่มาจากการเลือกตั้งอุตส่าห์สร้างสมมาอย่างยากลำบาก

  กลุ่มเผด็จการทหารให้สัญญาว่าจะคืนอำนาจการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตยให้แก่ประชาชนชาวไทยภายในหนึ่งปีนับตั้งแต่วันที่ได้ทำการยึดอำนาจ แต่พวกเราจะไม่ยินยอมก้มหัวให้กับรัฐธรรมนูญที่หยิบยื่นให้โดย “กลุ่มโจรในคราบทหาร”

  เราต้องการให้นำรัฐธรรมนูญฉบับประชาชน ปีพุทธศักราช 2540 กลับมาใช้ตามเดิม

  เราเชื่อว่าร่างรัฐธรรมนูญฉบับทหารจะเปิดช่องให้มีการสืบทอดอำนาจกลุ่มผู้สนับสนุนได้มีอำนาจสืบต่อไปอีก

  เราต้องการให้มีการปรับรื้อโครงสร้างกองทัพ ให้เป็นกองทัพอาชีพดั่งเช่นนานาอารยะประเทศเป็นอยู่ เราไม่ต้องการให้กองทัพเข้ามายุ่งเกี่ยวกับการเมืองไม่ว่าจะในรูปแบบใดก็ตาม

  หากทหารยังไม่ยอมลงจากอำนาจโดยเร็วที่สุด เราเชื่อว่าเหตุการณ์นองเลือดจะกลับมาสู่ผืนแผ่นดินไทยอีกครั้ง ดังเช่นเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้นเมื่อวันที่ 14 ตุลาคม พุทธศักราช 2516 เหตุการณ์ 6 ตุลาคม พุทธศักราช 2519 และเหตุการณ์พฤษภาทมิฬ พุทธศักราช 2535 ซึ่งวีรชนหลายพันคนต้องพลีชีพเพื่อปกป้องประชาธิปไตย

  ภายใต้ประมวลกฎหมายอาญาของไทย การก่อการรัฐประหารเพี่อล้มล้างการปกครองระบอบประชาธิปไตยเป็นความผิดฐาน “กบฏ” เราจึงอยากให้ดำเนินคดีกับกลุ่มทหารที่กระทำการยึดอำนาจในครั้งนี้ เพื่อให้เป็นเยี่ยงอย่างแก่บุคคลหรือกลุ่มใด ๆ ที่คิดจะทำการปฏิวัติยึดอำนาจไม่ว่าจะด้วยเหตุผลใดก็ตาม

  ในยุคโลกาภิวัติ ความไม่มีเสถียรภาพทางการเมืองและเศรษฐกิจในประเทศใดประเทศหนึ่งหรือภูมิภาคใดภูมิภาคหนึ่ง ย่อมส่งผลกระทบทั้งทางตรงและทางอ้อมไปทั่วภูมิภาคนั้น ๆ และส่งผลลุกลามไปทั่วโลก

  จึงถึงเวลาแล้วที่ประชาคมโลกต้องร่วมมือเป็นอันหนึ่งอันเดียวกันเพื่อกำจัดการก่อการรัฐประหารให้สูญสิ้นไปจากโลกนี้โดยสิ้นเชิง

  ดังนั้น เราจึงขอเรียกร้อง
  ? ให้ประชาคมโลกประณามและดำเนินมาตรการลงโทษเผด็จการทหาร
  ? ให้ประชาคมโลกโดดเดียวรัฐบาลเถื่อนที่ไร้ความชอบธรรมในการบริหารประเทศ
  ? ให้รัฐบาลทั่วโลกระงับความสัมพันธ์ทางการทูตกับรัฐบาลหุ่นของคณะปฏิวัติ
  ? ให้เปิดเวทีนานาชาติเพื่อหารือสถานการณ์ของประเทศไทยและหาทางแก้ไขให้กลับสู่สภาวะปกติโดยเร็ว

  แนวร่วมขบวนการเพี่อประชาธิปไตย
  กลับไปด้านบน

  live free or die Posted: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:57:14 AM

  กลุ่ม: Newbie
  กลุ่ม: Member

  สมัครเมื่อ: 1/30/2007
  จำนวนความเห็น: 0

  ช่วยกันส่งไปตามลิสต์ที่ให้ไว้ข้างล่าง ขอบคุณครับ

  These are the address of sites and e-mails that the letter has been sent to:

  BBC
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4995300.stm***

  STATEWIDE (USA)

  NYTIMES
  oped@nytimes.com***

  opedcity@nytimes.com***
  opedli@nytimes.com***
  opedwest@nytimes.com***
  opednj@nytimes.com***
  opedct@nytimes.com***

  The New Yorker
  newsbreaks@newyorker.com***
  ***
  Boston Globe

  rgreene@globe.com***
  k_kaplan@globe.com***
  localnews@globe.com***

  LA Weekly

  http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_philaform&form_id=2&Itemid=1***

  San Francisco Weekly

  http://www.sfweekly.com/about/staff.php***

  LA Times

  http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-national-cf,0,3655408.customform***

  Chicago Tribune

  http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/site/chi-email-newstips,1,971890.customform?coll=chi-navrailservices-nav***

  TEXAS

  AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN

  http://www.statesman.com/search/content/feedback/printnationworld.html?http://www.statesman.com/***
  USA TODAY

  http://feedbackforms.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=12***

  Houston Chrไม่อนุญาตให้โฆษณาcle

  news@chron.com***

  The Oregไม่อนุญาตให้โฆษณาan

  miabush@news.oregไม่อนุญาตให้โฆษณาan.com***
  newsroom@news.oregไม่อนุญาตให้โฆษณาan.com***

  UN

  http://ochaonline.un.org/contactus.asp***
  inquiries@un.org***

  IndyMedia
  http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml***

  ASEAN

  suchela@aseansec.org***
  muce.mochtar@aseansec.org***
  dirjen-asean@deplu.go.id***
  aseancambodia@online.com.kh***
  songkane@venus.mofa.gov.la***
  myasean@kln.gov.my***
  asean@dfa.gov.ph***
  mfa_asean_singapore@mfa.gov.sg***
  asean.mfa@mofa.gov.vn***

  ARF
  mcabad@aseansec.org***
  ngoc@aseansec.org***
  retno.astrini@aseansec.org***

  EU

  name.surname@ec.europa.eu

  Anna.Banczyk@ec.europa.eu***
  Riccardo.Mosca@ec.europa.eu***

  IDEA

  g.fejic@idea.int***
  publications@idea.int***
  v.helgesen@idea.int***

  Dutch News
  dburly@wn.com***
  alexj@wn.com***

  Het
  groene@groene.nl***

  Spain
  Barcelonareporter.com***

  Portugal
  themadeiratimes
  http://www.themadeiratimes.com/contacts2.php***
  http://www.the-news.net/***

  Belgium

  http://www.euractiv.com/en/EmailToEditor?title=Contact%20justice%20content%20coordinator&toAdr=justice@euractiv.com***
  http://www.expatica.com/source/site_contact_form.asp?channel_id=3***
  gvabuitenland@concentra.be***

  switz
  verlag@20minuten.ch***
  redaktion@20minuten.ch***
  http://www.blick.ch/feedback/feedback#***

  Whitehouse

  comments@whitehouse.gov***
  vice_president@whitehouse.gov***

• 33 nganadeeleg // Jan 30, 2007 at 7:50 pm

  Tosakan: Thanks for the clarification – I accept that you did not specifically state that the West is better, and therefore will ignore what I perceived was implied in your post.

  The only reason I raised the USA was because it seems implicit in many comments (here and elsewhere), that the US system is some perfect model of a political system that should be aspired to.
  Apart from the healthy respect for the law in the USA (for it’s citizens at least), I think Thailand would be better served looking elsewhere to improve it’s political system.

  I agree there is no point discussing the merits/faults of the US political system on this site.

• 34 nganadeeleg // Jan 30, 2007 at 8:17 pm

  Republican: What a load of nonsense – ‘Live free or die – ‘desperation and oppression’ .
  Sounds more like some people have a vested interest, or are being paid to stir up trouble.

  At least the anti Thaksin protests were peaceful, but it looks increasingly like the desperate Thaksin doesn’t care about peace.

  Unfortunately, Thaksin cannot be believed when he says ‘enough is enough’, and it appears he would rather sacrifice the country than lose his wealth.
  A different personality would be satisfied with being slightly less richer and the chance to quietly return as a private citizen.

• 35 Vichai N. // Jan 30, 2007 at 11:19 pm

  nganadeeleg like you I wonder why so many guillible Thais remain still believeing in Beloved Leader.

  Take just the most recent case of Suvarnabhumi Airport, spanking cracking (pun intended) new now OFFICIALLY CERTIFIED UNSAFE, toilets not only leaking but flooding, and of course the runway cracks! Internationally more jokes have been cracked about Thailand’s Suvarnabhumi Airport we Thais can also just grin and bear it in disgrace.

  Late in 2005 Thaksin nearly shut down Bangkok Post with multi-billion lawsuit unless the newspaper retracted their article warning about glaring cracks at Suvarnabhumi runways! Bangkok Post did retract and fired two of their reporters to keep their newspaper open.

  Yeah . . . don’t tell me HONEST MISTAKES by Thaksin again.

• 36 Diego // Feb 1, 2007 at 1:08 am

  good discussion. despite all the rants and raving about the failure of liberal democracy in thailand, don’t people here wonder why thai people, elites, the masses, and all, (excepting perhaps those who are afflicted with western democractic ideals), bow down to their king with utmost respect and fealty? doesn’t it matter to these bloggers who claimed to be democrats how such throng of people numbering in millions are willing to subjugate their reasons for a belief which they “know” is manufactured for their consumption? how can the majority be so wrong, if we have to take the discussions earlier?

• 37 Tosakan // Feb 1, 2007 at 2:15 am

  Diego-

  Why don’t you just spit out your point?

  Because whatever point you are trying to make with your sarcasm and questions is not clear, at least to me.

  If the question is why throngs of yellow shirted Thais worship and deify their King, there are many answers for it.

  But since your post is dripping with sarcasm as if we all should know out in internetland, why don’t you contribute to the thread and answer the question yourself?

  Or maybe you don’t know the answer and you are just being a dick.

Leave a Comment