Surayud’s puppet regime has achieved a dubious first. Unlike any other recent Thai government they have subjected the king to widely publicised international ridicule. About two weeks ago, a juvenile and irreverent clip mocking the king was posted to the video sharing website YouTube. When New Mandala first saw the clip it had been viewed by only a handful of curious web explorers. But the Thai government was determined to change this, and after they blocked YouTube in Thailand views of the clip rocketed. A few days ago the clip was removed (whether by YouTube or by its creator is not completely clear). But now a spate of copycat clips have appeared on YouTube (and presumably elsewhere) and they are receiving considerable viewer interest and international media coverage.
If anyone needed convincing about the incompetence of the Surayud regime, then this episode must surely provide belated confirmation. A ham-fisted over reaction has turned an amateurish piece of internet graffiti into an international campaign for internet freedom. Activists in cyberspace are keen to mock the Thai government (and the government is now their target) by posting increasingly offensive and provocative images of the king.
There is no doubting the offensiveness of these clips to many Thais. But even the briefest survey of YouTube’s offerings will uncover even more offensive clips about, for example, Queen Elizabeth and Pope Benedict. By and large these clips are ignored by British royalists and international Catholics. They slip into internet oblivion, perhaps causing the occasional giggle and, no doubt, a little outrage along the way. By contrast the Thai government has ensured that the provocative juxtaposition of profanity with the king’s portrait may be the most memorable international images of Bhumipol’s 80th year.
But this is more than just an issue of the Thai government’s sadly outdated dealings with the internet. It is clear that the offensive clip campaign gains considerable energy, and even credibility, from the heavy handed sentencing of Oliver Jufer on lèse majesté charges. There is considerable juvenile mischief in this campaign, but there is also a legitimate sense of outrage that a country claiming to be modern and internationally connected can sentence someone to 10 years imprisonment for, at worst, an act of drunken vandalism. While this sentence stands, and while Surayud’s regime continues to adopt a paternalistic “we know best” attitude to diverse forms of cultural expression, forms of protest (rational and irrational) are likely to proliferate.
51 responses so far ↓
1 Johpa // Apr 8, 2007 at 10:25 am
Yep, one of the most incompetent moves yet by the Surayud regime. The original video was simply not worthy of a comment, even by the abysmally low standards of YouTube And if no government comment, not to mention action, had been made, the original offensive-to-Thai-mentality video would have quickly disappeared into the YouTube ether, forgotten by one and all. But now, international attention has been brought to an issue long ignored outside Thailand, and even more videos that would be considered blasphemous by most Thais are now available for public consumption.
By the way, wasn’t that Prem’s face superimposed upon HRM on the more recent video?
2 Bystander // Apr 8, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Well said, AW!
As I think more about this, the potential for this saga to blow things up further is not to be taken likely.
Right now, there’s basically a sign saying “Please dump on me!”, in front of the palace. The audience are all pumped up. The clips are getting more substantial, contentwise.
If the posters, whoever they are, want to go for the jugular, they can. There are seriously compromising digital contents out there, for sure. Those stuffs are gonna make the clips seen so far lookslike child’s play.
The irony is that the censor has just leveraged the royal family into a very vulnerable position.
Somehow I’m thinking of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Scandal in Bohemia”.
3 Srithanonchai // Apr 8, 2007 at 3:59 pm
“but there is also a legitimate sense of outrage that a country claiming to be modern and internationally connected can sentence someone to 10 years imprisonment for, at worst, an act of drunken vandalism.”
Exactly!
4 Srithanonchai // Apr 8, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I just read an article on the matter published by the online version of the most influential German weekly news magazine “Der Spiegel”:
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,476145,00.html
Very, very bad publicity for Thailand and, most regrettably, for the Thai King, I must say.
5 John Francis Lee // Apr 8, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Yes the results are, presumably, the opposite of what was sought.
At this point I’m thinking about the mindset of the attempted censors.
Ordering the internet shut down is not like ordering, I don’t know, a gambling den or a whorehouse shut down. Taking for granted that their first reaction is based on their own perceived ability to just overpower their “opponents”, what is it that made them think that their arms are long enough to box with the internet?
The problem seems first of all to be one of addressing every problem in terms of the tools at hand, i.e. since they are dictators, dictating a solution. That’s the way the miitary works. The people on top give orders to all those below and they follow them. Except of course that we in the larger society don’t when we know the orders are ultimately unenforceable. So the exercise merely undermines the imaginary, rigid hierarchy that empowered the dictators to begin with.
Secondly, how out of touch are these dictators? Did they think they could shut down the internet? Are they so unaware of the limitations of their power. People this far “out of it” are dangerous. Their reactions to the obviously unexpected results of their actions are going to be unpredictable.
6 Tosakan // Apr 8, 2007 at 6:08 pm
A lot of good threads the past week.
But may I offer an alternative view that I don’t necessarily agree with, but just thought of it as a possibility.
This whole Youtube drama may actually be a good thing for the junta.
What do governments do when they are in a politically weak position?
They play the patriotism “You are with us or against us” card.
In this case, “You are with the king or not with the king.” Most Thais, of course, will goose step in their yellow shirts behind whatever they have been brainwashed to believe about the monarchy, “and will defend it with their lives.”
Military dictatorships love to take advantage of this Manichean type of thinking.
So, from the outside, Thais look like right-wing narrow minded idiots, but internally, the junta is strengthening its hand by defending every thing it does in the name of defending the monarchy. Remember, they did this with sufficiency theory also.
And the Democrats and my friends a The Nation are willing to play into their hands, because this type of politics will wipe out the last remnants of the Thaksinistas, whom are their sworn mortal enemies.
People may disagree with about this, but I have a feeling there are many mainstream elements in the political and media spheres who are itching to violently wipe out the Thaksinistas once and for all in the name of an anti-lese majestie campaign.
And in typical Thai myopic thinking, these anti-Thaksin elements could care less about the consequences of this type of crackdown as long as they got what they wanted in the end, which is political power and control over what constitutes political debate in Thailand.
7 Chris Fry // Apr 8, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Thank you for making the excellent point, which I haven’t seen articulated elsewhere, that the illegal junta has through its own incompetence and heavy handed approach managed to bring the monarchy into generally unfavourable international scrutiny.Putting the delicious irony on one side, I suspect that future historians will see events of the last week as a small but significant step in the decline and fall of the Chakri dynasty.
8 Srithanonchai // Apr 8, 2007 at 7:25 pm
“So, from the outside, Thais look like right-wing narrow minded idiots, but internally, the junta is strengthening its hand…” This is indeed an important distinction. Most Thais, including the elite, don’t care that much about how foreigners see them. Chang Noi’s hope, then, that the boundary between the internal and the external might fall will have to wait for some more time.
9 John Francis Lee // Apr 8, 2007 at 7:55 pm
‘ And the Democrats and my friends a The Nation are willing to play into their hands, because this type of politics will wipe out the last remnants of the Thaksinistas, whom are their sworn mortal enemies. ‘
I think you have a point here. The Nation is showing itself to be much less than I, for one, had thought it was.
I’m working my way through A Coup for the Rich and the first chapter has nailed these guys dead on this score.
10 Bangkok Pundit // Apr 8, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Panthip’s political forum has been closed down for national security reasons. Here is the Bangkok Post:
ICT Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom said the popular Ratchadamnoen web chat room was “flooded with posts compromising national security”. He made the owners of discussion rooms responsible for all posts by all users.
Mr Sitthichai announced he has called a meeting at police headquarters on Thursday with the caretaker police chief, Pol Gen Seriphisut Temiyavej.
The subject will be how to catch and what to do with “netsurfers who post messages to create division in the country,” he said.
Effective immediately, the Panthip.com discussion room is closed. Mr Sitthichai said the closure is temporary, but gave no hint how long it would remain shut.
The minister said the entire website might be closed if it does not cooperate with the ministry.
He strongly warned others he might close them as well.
The ICT ministry issued so-called “warnings” to Prachathai.com and Mthai.com to monitor posts which might violate national security and lese majeste.
I wonder if the MICT defines national security as the security of the government.
11 John Francis Lee // Apr 9, 2007 at 12:29 am
That’s how all governments define “national security”.
This is my first coup. I’m beginning to think that there’s not going to be a civilian government in Bangkok in the foreseeable future.
12 Matt // Apr 9, 2007 at 2:33 am
Absolutely spot on.
13 The Lost Boy » Knee-jerk reaction creates needless drama // Apr 9, 2007 at 2:36 am
[...] Walker over at New Mandala has written an article criticizing the Surayud regime. I think he hits a few home truths here. The [...]
14 david w // Apr 9, 2007 at 3:28 am
I agree with most of Walker’s posting and the additional points in the comment thread, especially regarding how the junta has opened the monarchy up to greater vulnerability internationally while simultaneously entrenching it domestically, at least in the short-term.
What I am struck by, as others have noted, is the official AND popular attitude of Thais to the internet, its very liberal moral code and their ability, desired or presumed, to regulate the internet and / or manage international opinion. There is an undercurrent of inflamed hostility, righteousnes and even vindictiveness in the pursuit of stamping out these acts of hostility towards the monarchy. This isn’t so surprising, of coure. But comments by Thai politicians and bureaucrats that removing the offending videos is not enough, and that the authors should be pursued and punished is striking to me. Striking in part because either they have no clue how impossible such actions would be or how much grief they would receive, in addition to what has already arrived, should they succeed. Striking also in the sense that they seem to have no idea or little concern with how these comments could provoke others to take such matters into their own hands unofficially.
I would highly suggest that folks not only watch the videos but read the long comment threads attached to them. They are very revealing. Not just of stereotypes in both directions between Thais and non-Thais that typically lay just under the surface and rarely are expressed so openly. But also revealing of how mystified Thais are that the rest of the world simply does not revere their own King as much as they do or why so many others might find treating a man as a ‘god’ absurd or offensive on principle. Also revealing of their limited understanding of the distinction between national and international law and the limited reach of both. Many Thai comments are mystified as to why non-Thais simply can’t respect and follow Thai laws in the name of cultural sensitivity.
And to add to a point Andrew made, the most memorable image of the King might not be its juxtaposition with profanity, but rather one YouTube video slide-show that straightforwardly asserts that the King murdered his brother.
15 Historicus // Apr 9, 2007 at 3:45 am
Don’t just blame Surayud and his CNS masters alone. The palace demonstrates its incompetence as well. By openly supporting the coup and playing a major role in rallying the coup forces the palace gambled. They haven’t lost yet, but they look very bad at present.
Part of the reason why the junta and its government are reacting this way is that they have to defend the king and his palace. They are right when they fear that attacks on the king can shake up the whole country. So they must protect the palace.
The palace got the coup it wanted, its military and its government and yet Thailand is a complete mess now. That’s where the real incompetence and failure to understand the world after 1980 lies.
16 Matt Wheeler // Apr 9, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Read this story about how Thai officials in the US reacted to an advertisement for a Philadelphia restaurant that used an image of the King in 2002. It’s not pretty, and it’s not just the Surayud government.
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2616
17 Jon Fernquest // Apr 9, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“…read the long comment threads attached to them. They are very revealing. Not just of stereotypes in both directions between Thais and non-Thais that typically lay just under the surface and rarely are expressed so openly.”
The reaction is not so surprising, Thailand being such an open place with such a large flux of foreigners, the most visible often being the dregs of western society, like the big ape-like Farang creature who used to walk down Chiang Rai’s main downtown street a few years ago, in his gym shorts, shirtless with his hairy chest, barefoot, and intoxicated, leering at all the women, most people just laughed….or the French guy who would prance around on his deck overlooking the Maesai border in his bikini underpants in view of all, or the guy who was kicked out of Chiang Rai by the tourist police after attacking people with a Samurai sword…etc, etc
Luckily the thoughts expressed by the Thais in those comments have no expression in physical violence, as one might imagine they would in, let’s say, Iraq, or as they did a century ago in the Boxer Rebellion.
For all the textual or verbal aggression, for the last year since all this political turmoil began, apart from the south, there has been very little of the physical violence that the rest of the world is beset with.
Maybe that’s why the news reports never tell you exactly what the offending verbage exactly was (internet forums, defamation suits, lese majeste) in fear that it will beget even more aggression?
18 david w // Apr 10, 2007 at 7:36 am
The latest Nation editorial on the controversy, in refuting the comparison of the King with President Bush, describes him rather as “a religious icon” and “a spiritual leader”. In what sense exactly is this thought to be the case by Thais? And just how widely is it believed that he is a spiritual leader? And if he isn’t comparable to a president, then who or what is he comparable to such that he should be above criticism?
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/10/opinion/opinion_30031536.php
19 saraburian // Apr 10, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Spiritual leader is certainly the image that the authority want to portray for HMK. If you listen to the national radio program, the buddhist monks that preach on air always preach to people to do good in celebration of HMK’s 80th birthday.
In the past, I don’t think this practice has been as heavily used.
20 Srithanonchai // Apr 10, 2007 at 11:16 pm
No lese majeste for Thaksin:
Thaksin lese majeste charges dropped
(BangkokPost.com) – Public prosecutors decided Tuesday to drop three lese majeste charges against ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
According to the prosecutors office, Mr Thaksin had spoken impolitely, using inappropriate words that showed disrespect to His Majesty the King. However, the cases could not be considered lese majeste, they said.
The three cases were his December 2005 comments made before a rally for taxi drivers at Hua Mark Stadium, a controversial reference to the King during a radio speech, and the time when he was greeted by supporters who waved flags “Long Live the King” to welcome him.
The prosecutors are to forward their decision to Acting Police Chief Seripisuth Temiyavej for consideration. He can file the cases to the Office of the Attorney General if he disagrees and insists that the prosecution should go ahead.
Bangkok Post, Internet edition, April 10, 2007
21 Jon Fernquest // Apr 11, 2007 at 12:19 am
“And if he isn’t comparable to a president, then who or what is he comparable to such that he should be above criticism?”
I think that’s a good question. I think HMK is a spiritual leader, for sure. Take a look and read the books about HMK for both children and adults. HMK has the same status in Thailand that figures like the Dalai Lama or Aung Suu Kyi or the Pope have for westerners outside of Thailand and whom westerners would never think of making horrible pictures of. (Although if people did, kind-hearted laughter for the silly people who made them would probably be the only real response) As a spiritual leader HMK keeps the peace and settles disputes. Under his rule Thailand has certainly gone a lot further than Burma has under the Burmese Way to Socialism. Of course, during his long rule HMK could not prevent every bad thing in history from happening, like Handley would have liked, because HMK is human. YouTube should really intervene and delete the material that offends 60 million+ Thai people. They should think of how they felt when people were selling black tee-shirts and posters of Osama Bin Laden hovering over the twin towers in flames. Every culture has things they consider sacred.
22 Srithanonchai // Apr 11, 2007 at 1:37 am
Perhaps, this falls into the category of jokes about “over-adjusted farang who become more Thai than the Thais themselves.”
23 david w // Apr 11, 2007 at 6:08 am
I asked my question of who or what exactly the King is comparable to because it is clear, to my eyes, that he is NOT the equivalent of the Pope or the Dalai Lama. The former is the legal and charismatic head of the Catholic Church while the latter is the legal and charismatic head of the Gelupka order (and thus be extension, the political ruler of pre-Modern Tibet, since that sect was hegemonically dominant). Nobody turns to the King for legally or theologically binding rulings on Thai buddhist practice or doctrinal positions to my knowledge. And Aung San Suu Kyi is not, again to my eyes, considered a religious icon or spiritual leader. She is a political leader who is seen as very pious and even perhaps religious accomplished. But again, no formal or informal religious authority is invested in her. Which raises the question – just how exactly is the King a spiritual leader? Does he given teachings on Buddhist scripture? What other religious actors does he exert direct authority over, and how is this compared with the authority of the Supreme Patriarch or others? Which ceremonies does he officiate at?
People throw around the phrases “like a god” and “spiritual leader” all the time. But I’m wondering just what that means in specific terms – whether with regard to explicit ideologies or behavior on the ground.
24 Bystander // Apr 11, 2007 at 7:35 am
Talking about spiritual and moral matters, is it JUST to incarcerate a man for blasphemy under the influence of alcohol, which is what Jufer’s action really is all about? Specifically, do Buddhism or any , the supposed national religion, or any other faiths for that matter, condone such cruel and unusual punishment?
Getting ridiculed is nothing compared to being sent to the royal Gulag for what is very likely a life sentence.
I don’t contest the legality of this imprisonment. But it is hypocrisy for those who claim to protect the “moral” authority of Thailand to resort to immoral legal tools. This is moral bankruptcy, as far as I’m concerned.
I wonder if anybody here really thinks tthat that imprisonment is morally right and just? Mind you laid out for all to see what kind of logics you use to arrive at that conclusion?
25 nganadeeleg // Apr 11, 2007 at 8:57 am
David W: Read Handley – he explains it quite well.
26 John Francis Lee // Apr 11, 2007 at 10:49 am
Is it now time to discuss lese majeste law?
27 observer // Apr 11, 2007 at 3:30 pm
1) Jon Fernquest’s comparison to 911 and Osama Bin Laden are fairly apt here. I was born and grew up in New York City and am often hurt by the frequent depictions of Osama Bin Laden and was offended when almost immediately afterwards people seemed to react with glee. However, I don’t think You Tube should ban the seemingly absurd videos and presentations that claim that the whole thing was a conspiracy by the US to murder its own people. Is that more or less offensive than picturing the King with feet over his head?
2) What would happen if You Tube posted a mocking video of Kim Jung-il? Then, North Korean newspapers raged about how this offended the people of North Korea and ignored cultural sensibilities. After all the Great Leader and his father made that country what it is today and had a role as large as that of the Thai King (leaving aside the interesting sufficiency comparison). Wouldn’t arguments made by Khanthong in The Nation apply equally to this case?
28 Tosakan // Apr 11, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I think the seminal book on the spiritual authority and Thai kingship is World Conquerer, World Renouncer by Stanley Tambiah.
Also, another important book is Siamese State Ceremonies by
HG Quaritch Wales
29 Jon Fernquest // Apr 11, 2007 at 4:09 pm
David W: “I asked my question of who or what exactly the King is comparable to because it is clear, to my eyes, that he is NOT the equivalent of the Pope or the Dalai Lama.”
My point is only that *inside Thailand* he is.
“Nobody turns to the King for legally or theologically binding rulings on Thai buddhist practice or doctrinal positions to my knowledge.”
At the moral-ethical level he is very important in the **everyday lives** of people, which IMHO is probably more important than
arcane Vinaya interpretations.
For example, there are bedtime books to read children about HMK saturated with ethical lessons for children or little one-quote-a-day books that have a strong moral-ethical character, that you can buy at almost any 7-11.
“And Aung San Suu Kyi is not, again to my eyes, considered a religious icon or spiritual leader. She is a political leader who is seen as very pious and even perhaps religious accomplished. But again, no formal or informal religious authority is invested in her.”
I would argue that she is a spiritual leader and also has a status (vis-a-vis Burmese politics) among westerners much like HMK does in Thailand. She is really off-limits critically to any westerner writing on the topic of contemporary Burmese politics. For instance, someone might argue that her lack of flexibility in the approach she has advocated has led to a 20 year stalemate in Burmese economic and political development, but to do so would be to completely delegitimise your status as an intellectual in the west, you would reduce yourself to an audience of one, namely yourself, and some other wacko apologists for fascism.
“Which raises the question – just how exactly is the King a spiritual leader? Does he give teachings on Buddhist scripture?”
Actually yes, insofar as Jataka’s are Buddhist scriptures. (Will give references later)
“What other religious actors does he exert direct authority over, and how is this compared with the authority of the Supreme Patriarch or others? Which ceremonies does he officiate at?”
Take the evening news that millions watch everyday which stresses ceremonial correctness, the use of Ratcha-saab (Royal Language) and exact pronunciation, and often seems to have more ritual importance than strictly informational importance.
“People throw around the phrases “like a god” and “spiritual leader” all the time. But I’m wondering just what that means in specific terms – whether with regard to explicit ideologies or behavior on the ground.”
Walk into any house and you will find photographs of the Royal Family on the family altar. (Thai: To Buja) We have photographs of HMK from the 60th Anniversary Celebrations and also a big collage of photos of the Crown Prince’s young child. Some of these were gifts from neighbors, which might seem a little coercive at first, but actually could be interpreted as: “Here is a way that you can become one of us, we can share something
in common and be friends.” When my mother-in-law just lived in Maesai she only had a photograph of the very kind-hearted Chinese Bangkok gold shop owner who looked after her and her children for many years, on the family altar which she religiously put a little dish of sticky rice and some incense on every day.
Anyway, my point is HMK is very, very, very important in a religious sort of way in the everyday lives of most Thais.
IMHO being religous or sacred is not a binary, is or is not, sort of thing. In Asia they tend to show a religious type of reverence towards a much wider array of institutions or things than in the west. (Wittgenstein’s notion of family resemblances is probably more appropriate here than notions of strict equivalence)
30 Bystander // Apr 11, 2007 at 4:39 pm
The piece by Streckfus that JFL points to is a good one.
However, if even 10 % of the rumours we heard about the other members of the royal family hold any waters, that will be reason enough for the ancien regime to keep this law.
31 Pig Latin // Apr 11, 2007 at 5:15 pm
MATES, What were to happen if some bloody nitwit from Surrey Hills posted a video on youtube of someone stabbing an AFL football? I’d break down and cry till the offending material was removed and the Sydney Swans club anthem was the only remaining thing on the internet. That and the Tooheys website!
Why do some Americans on this site consistantly make insecure comparisons between Thailand and the US? It’s enducing paresthesia… and much more alarming symbolically than some offensive youtube incident.
32 Srithanonchai // Apr 11, 2007 at 6:24 pm
“At the moral-ethical level he is very important in the **everyday lives** of people.”
“Anyway, my point is HMK is very, very, very important in a religious sort of way in the everyday lives of most Thais.”
During many years of doing research and working in a diverse range of “everyday” situations in Thailand, these ideas never occurred to me. Rather, I could not fail but notice that most Thais merely pay lip-service, stress the ceremonial and symbolic side, but take care that, in everyday life, their self interest prevails over all moral demands (same goes for Buddhism). Or why are the phraboromoratchowat habitually ignored, I wonder?
33 John Francis Lee // Apr 11, 2007 at 6:45 pm
MATES… bloody nitwit from Surrey Hills… AFL football…the Sydney Swans club anthem… Tooheys website!
Americans?
34 John Francis Lee // Apr 11, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Srithanonchai:
Maybe it was just the crowd you hung out with?
35 observer // Apr 11, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Why do some Americans on this site consistantly make insecure comparisons between Thailand and the US? It’s enducing paresthesia… and much more alarming symbolically than some offensive youtube incident.
What are you talking about?
36 Srithanonchai // Apr 11, 2007 at 7:36 pm
JFL: I intentionally put in “during my years” and “diverse” to preemt a remark such as yours.
37 Pig Latin // Apr 11, 2007 at 8:59 pm
observer: I find it hard to fathom why there is a serious reference to Bin Laden on New Mandala.
jfl: I attempted to be a political victim in my native tongue — as Bush and Bin Laden are being referenced, I thought that this site being run by Australians ought to have representation…
38 observer // Apr 11, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Thank for the partial clarification. I still don’t know who it that you think “consistantly make(s) insecure comparisons between Thailand and the US”. Neither do I see why references to Osama Bin Laden should be unfathomable. It doesn’t seem important and you’re not trying very hard to explain yourself, so it will likely remain a mystery.
A comparison of who is offended by what certainly seems important. We can say that Thais should be so uptight about the King, but if we are equally uptight about our pet issues, it is hypocritical. The offense taken by Muslims at cartoons of the prophetis certainly apt. I think it is valuable for us to consider what would offend each of us if it appeared on Youtube. in this regard, OBL is germaine.
I did chuckle at your post and have enjoyed the unique viewpoint you bring to this discussion of Thailand.
39 Jon Fernquest // Apr 11, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Srithanonchai: “Rather, I could not fail but notice that most Thais merely pay lip-service, stress the ceremonial and symbolic side, but take care that, in everyday life, their self interest prevails over all moral demands (same goes for Buddhism).”
When I was making a similar argument regarding some country, I forget which, which I was currently burned out culturally with and dealing with intractable mindsets among the populace like lese majeste, an Australian colleague at the Korean University I was working at, pointed out that it could be a **function of economics**, namely **widespread poverty (less affluence)** is often accompanied by **predatory behaviour** (self-interest over morality) which gradually disappears as the burden of economics disappears.
IMHO if religions don’t go through periodic renewal and reform, young people start heading for the doors in dillusionment, I’ve seen a lot of intelligent young people/students in Thailand turning towards Christianity lately, some similar phenomenon was the topic of the Princeton Volunteer at the Far Eastern Economic Review in a recent article in that magazine. It will be interesting to see if Buddhism adapts. Like Catholicism, most Buddhists in Thailand don’t seem to directly read the Buddhist scriptures, but rely on second-hand interpretations by monks. Chanting Pali, like my wife does, leaves me cold, whereas reading a nice analogy in the scriptures of why such and such a moral act is good, may actually inspire me to do it…a lot of people seem to be listening to tapes with monks explaining Dhamma nowadays though, taxidrivers, coworkers. The discussion here has certainly inspired me to get Streckfusse’s dissertation at Thammasat and read Durkheim’s “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,” something to do over Songkran.
40 Srithanonchai // Apr 12, 2007 at 12:04 am
Jon:
On April 5, Sanitsuda Ekachai had a commentary in the Bangkok Post that ended as follows:
“If we are honest to ourselves, we should be able to answer if we have lost touch with the Buddhist teachings and if our Buddhism has been reduced to mere rites and rituals.
The Jatukam Ramathep phenomenon does not only reflect public insecurity from political uncertainties and terrorism threats, it also shows that we are basically animists.
Accept reality.
If we really need a national religion, animism should be the one. At least it can help us stop fooling ourselves that we are still Buddhists, and see who we really are.”
When the group of students I belonged to was introduced to Thailand by Niels Mulder (Everyday Life in Thailand, later called Inside Thai Society) way back in 1984, he related how he had come to Thailand about 20 years earlier with the idea of explaining Thai everyday behavior by reference to Buddhist teachings–after all, Thailand was said to be a Buddhist country! So he studied the scripts and tried his best to bring them together with the behavior he could observe everywhere.
In the end, he realized that this approach won’t work, simply because Thai everyday behavior was not informed by Buddhism but by Animism.
Enjoy reading Streckfuss and Durkheim. You might want to add the following two titles:
Pattana Kitiarsa. 2005. “Beyond Syncretism: Hybridization of Popular Religion in Contemporary Thailand.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 36 (3):461-487.
Terwiel, B. J.: Monks and Magic. An Analysis of Religious Ceremonies in Central Thailand. Lund: Studentlitteratur and London: Curzon Press, 1975 296 p.
(= Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series, No. 24) (New edition White Lotus Press Bangkok)
41 Taxi Driver // Apr 12, 2007 at 1:36 am
I wouldn’t describe the relationship that Thais have with Rama IX as a religious one. I for one have never thought of it in that way and I doubt that many comptemporary Thais do either. (maybe other Thai bloggers on this site would like to add their two cents worth on this issue).
IMHO, the relationship Thais have with their current King is an emotional one, and its a personal relationship – i.e. the feeling is attached to Bhumipol personally more so than the institution he represents. I think this is an important point that is often missed.
All the years of royalist propaganda may have succeeded in creating the genuine “love” Thais have for Rama IX, but it has been far less successful in creating “love” for the institution of monarchy. Prince Vachiralongkorn will know this well. The “love” Thais have for King Bhumipol grew of out respect, which over decades became “love”. V. still has to earn respect before he can hope of earning “love” of the people. It will take years of propaganda (and his own good behaviour) to achieve this.
42 david w // Apr 12, 2007 at 6:49 am
Nganadeeleg: I have read Handley. He is very good on explaining the official, public ideology of the King. But what he doesn’t really address, since its not his project and he isn’t approaching the topic in terms of on the ground fieldwork, is how groups beyond elites might envision the meaning and legitimacy of the monarchy. As other posts have indicated, it is evident that not everyone and perhaps sizeable segments of the public don’t in fact buy into the dominant ideology of kingship presented by the palace and its network. And it would be strange to presume that there is no diversity on this topic in Thai society. Also, there is essentially no documentation or study in a systematic manner of the details of how average Thais interact with the idea or presence of the monarchy on an everyday basis (rather than highly occassional moments of annual ceremonies). So our knowlege about what Thais really think about the monarchy in general is, I would argue, very limited to idealization and stereotypes. And regarding what contemporary Thais think about the monarchy and kingship in terms of its religious meaning and significance, we are essentially blind I would argue. Tosakan’s references to Wales and Tambiah are useful. But they are also extremely dated (30s and 70s, respectively). And again, they rely heavily on a reading of these issues from the perspective of official, dominant, elite understandings. There is little or no discussion of non-elite opinion or actual daily practice.
Jon Fernquest: I don’t deny that the King is treated “inside” Thailand as if he was the equivalent of the Dalai Lama or the Pope. But as analysts we should be clear that this is historically and religiously speaking a deeply confused fallacy. I also suspect it is a self-interested one on the part of the palace, for the power of their ideology about the role of the King as a religious icon and spiritual leader relies upon slippery metaphors and associations that are not, or cannot, be examined with precision. The same with the ambivalent manner in which he is described as “like a god”. Thus the King is both fully human and fully divine, since they want to preserve both of those options when positioning the King as a political and social actor. If he was restricted to either one of those options, his authority would be significantly impaired.
I also don’t deny that he is involved in lots of (state) ceremonial activity as reported on the news. But how much of that is specifically identified as “religious” or “Buddhist”? And in how much of the religious ceremony that does occur is he positioned as a religious leader or icon (vs the monks or other religious actors taking part) instead of as a devout lay patron? Are other patrons of Buddhist ritual marked as spiritual leaders by the Thai media (obviously the King is seen as the greatest patron and thus by extension the greatest lay devotee in official, orthodox terms). These are not academic questions. Orthodox Theravadin notions of kingship are clear that the living kings are subordinate to monks as a religious actor. Which is why it would be strange to see offerings made to the living King as if he was Rama 5, for instance, who is treated as a thep in a way that the living monarch could never be (again, from an orthodox perspective).
My point is that there is a lot about the religious identity, role and significance of the current monarch that we simply don’t really know about because it hasn’t been studied. And the reason why it hasn’t been studied is obvious, of course.
43 Sawarin // Apr 12, 2007 at 9:39 am
david w, you might want to check out some studies by phra Paisan Wisalo (he’s a Buddhist monk).
Anyone mystified of deity kingship shoud visit the site of ‘Fah Diew Kan’. They really ‘love him’ over there!
44 nganadeeleg // Apr 12, 2007 at 10:09 am
David W: I must have read Handley differently because IMO he does explain how the king has been positioned in respect of the religion.
As to how the majority of people feel about the king (as distinct from the monarchy), I think Taxi Driver has summed it up best in post #41 above.
45 Le Roi, youtube at la censure. Des Implications plus importantes qu'une simple perte de face « Blog de beton // Apr 12, 2007 at 1:31 pm
[...] New Mandala [...]
46 Timokl // Apr 13, 2007 at 3:17 pm
It’s very refreshing to have found a discussion about this topic that goes beyond the normal ranting.
I would like to point out that the Bangkok Post released on 11. April 2007 an interesting commentary on the lese majeste laws by David Streckfuss, who had earned a PhD on the issue of lese majeste and defamation in Thailand. Streckfuss – rightly, I think – argues that as this law is open to interpretation and can be used rather freely, it’s mostly used to attack political opponents. Streckfuss also suggests to add a clause that his law should only by applied “by order of the king of with his consent”.
47 Timokl // Apr 13, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Oh well, I just saw that Streckfuss’s article is also available here: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/streckfuss.doc
48 timokl.de // Apr 13, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Thailand blockt YouTube – Aktualisierung…
Translation of the discussion into German….
49 david w // Apr 14, 2007 at 5:12 am
An presentation at Australian National University in Sept 2006 that bears on the topic under discussion. Unfortunately, I didn’t hear it, but here is the description.
*Tuesday 26 September 2006*
*Peter Jackson – PAH*
*God-King as Commodity: Thailand’s King Bhumiphol as a “Virtual Deity”*
*Abstract *
In this work-in-progress seminar I will discuss the re-emergence of the
discourse of “deva-raja” (god-king) around the present King of Thailand,
Bhumiphol. Historically the legitimacy of monarchical rule in Thailand
drew both on Buddhist notions of “dhamma-raja” (righteous monarch) and
Brahmanical notions of “deva-raja” (god-king). There was never a clearly
formulated resolution of the tension between these different conceptions
of kingship, with the alternative Buddhist and Brahmanical symbolisms of
royal rule rising and falling in prominence in different periods. In the
modern period, ideas of Buddhist kingship have generally been more
popular and linked with notions of modernity, scientific rationality,
and progressive democratic rule. In contrast, Brahmanical symbolisms
have at times been critiqued for their historical association with
“irrational” beliefs and “dictatorial” government. However, in the past
couple of decades the notion of Thailand’s king as a “deva-raja” or
“god-king” has begun to reappear in nationalist discourse, even if in
the somewhat ironic idiom of a “virtual god-king” (sammuti deva-raja). I
will consider the partial rehabilitation of the discourse of “god-king”
in the context of the June 2006 celebrations of the 60th anniversary of
King Bhumipol’s accesion to the throne. I will reflect on the place of
“god-king” discourse in the current intense polarisation of Thai public
opinion around the rule of “interim prime minister” Thaksin Shinawatra
and the ways that royalist discourse constrains otherwise “rationalist”
Thais to voice public support for “supernatural” accounts of the place
of the King in contemporary Thai social and political life.**
50 New Mandala » YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: The saga continues // May 4, 2007 at 9:02 pm
[...] had thought that after a couple of weeks it would be in everybody’s best interest to simply ignore the provocative and childish videos that may, on occasion, cause offence in [...]
51 New Mandala » Censorship and Thai cinema // May 10, 2007 at 3:18 am
[...] reviews elsewhere). The current stalemate between the film-maker and the Thai officials has, unsurprisingly, also led to continuing global interest. If you want to read more about the issue from the [...]
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.