New Mandala

79 responses so far ↓

• 1 Srithanonchai // May 3, 2007 at 1:59 pm

  Besides contrafactually stating what “most Thai citizens” thought, the announcement also manages to include a phrase normally reserved for governments “installed” by the military. Maybe, somebody should tell the “M.L.” author, that Thaksin came to power in democratic (as far as this label applies in Thailand) elections, and that the Surayud government was “installed” by the military.

  One wonders whether this announcement reflects the Asia Foundation’s or Jim Klein’s position. In any case, it reflects poorly on them.

• 2 Jon Fernquest // May 3, 2007 at 2:27 pm

  Well, at least he’ll be acting as a counter-weight to the full page ads in the Wall Street journal sponsored by Big Pharma in the US that depict Thailand as “lurching towards Burma,” essentially Thailand bashing.

  It is not half as bad as some American PR experts would like to paint it, for their clients, of course.

  Under the next written constitution, the extent of military influence is certainly being contested, an you could well argue that it should be zero, but since HMK and the institution of kingship is probably what keeps the country from breaking into violent political anarchy, and pieces, and the institution of kingship involves the military (Pasuk and Baker’s History of Thailand expresses it best, perhaps), some military influence is going to exist. Like Royalists have argued Thailand has long had one over-riding constitution, that has lead to relative political stability and prosperity over the long-run.

  The New Mandala blog does a good job of depicting the opposition, in a plural society, in which power is contested by different groups. which is “good for Thai democracy.” Sorry for being Dr. Pangloss here. And I dare say the military has evolved also since 1992, with this non-violent coup, also probably due to the influence of HMK, and the notion of doing honour to one’s King.

• 3 Srithanonchai // May 3, 2007 at 4:32 pm

  All right, then. Let’s do away once and for all with this chimera “constitution, citizens, and democracy” and let’s reintroduce absoloute monarchy to Thailand right away. Let’s be daring and declare that 1932 was a grave mistake! All this, of course, in celebration of His Majesty the King’s 80ths birthday anniversary! I have already stocked up to good number of all sorts of yellow shirts, since this will be the official Thai color from now on. Dr. Pangloss will get the well-paid job of convincing all those farang who still have doubts. The incurable amongst them will be considered farang khi nok, close to lese majeste, a disgrace to Thai culture, and deported. We don’t want to be royalist Sissies any longer. Time has come to return to our roots! Chaiyo!

• 4 Tosakan // May 3, 2007 at 5:01 pm

  I absolutely agree with Srithanochai.

  If James Klein actually wrote that blurb, he really knows next to nothing about Thailand.

  John-

  How exactly does a pro-junta symposium act as a it counter-weight to full page ads in the Wall Street Journal?

  Symposium on Thai democracy and an ad by a non-profit advocating for protecting of US intellectual property are two different things

  By the way, Thailand has been ripping off US IP for decades. Go to any market, any street corner, and the evidence is staring you in the face, and the US ambassador even stated that this priority watch spat is about Hollywood movies more than about Big Pharma.

  But John, I do applaud you for your courageous stance, however, where you side with a feudal royalist elite and a military junta.

  What evidence is there that the monarchy is a force of stability in Thailand? Is decades of royalist propaganda evidence? As a social science, you should know better.

  In the last 75 years, countless coups, military dictatorships, and ripped up constitutions, with the monarchy right in the middle of the chaos most of the time mixing it up, and you call that stability?

  There has been violent political anarchy occurring non-stop during his reign(upcountry revolts, communist insurgencies, many political assassinations) and it is going on right now in the South. 166 school arsons and 2100 dead in a few short years is not a good record.

  Lastly, this king has been on the throne for sixty years. The fact that he is reigning while yet another coup happens during the twilight of his career should tell you that his reign has not been good for Thailand’s political stability or its democratic/political development.

• 5 Republican // May 3, 2007 at 5:48 pm

  I will refrain from repeating my criticism that is by now, no doubt, tedious to many readers on this blog about the support the anti-democratic monarchy receives both directly and indirectly from international academic institutions (The Asia Foundation now joins the list) and make just one basic, logical point (but this is Thai Studies, so one must take nothing for granted):

  If the coup that ousted Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai government was “welcomed by most citizens” then why stage a coup at all when a general election was only a month away? The obvious reason was that Thaksin actually had the support of “most citizens” and his government was going to be returned at the election. So a coup was the only way to get rid of him.

  How to make the coup look as if it was “welcomed”? Paint it in yellow, hang the King’s picture above the junta, and make sure you have a lese majeste law and a god-king cult.

  Sorry, can’t resist another point from the seminar blurb:

  “…Has the coup in fact been �good� for Thai democracy, and will the new constitution help ensure the coup�s promises of ending political divisiveness, corruption, and the violence in southern Thailand?…”

  Seriously, these are questions one must actually ask as if one didn’t already know the answer?!

  An “expert”, “with over 30 years’ experience in the country”, “widely published”?!

• 6 Jon Fernquest // May 3, 2007 at 6:35 pm

  Tosakan: “How exactly does a pro-junta symposium act as a it counter-weight to full page ads in the Wall Street Journal?”

  In an ideal world there would actually be scholars researching and teaching Southeast Asian history in western research universities.

  There is at ANU I know, but for instance at Stanford University University where I went to graduate school, there are none that I know of. Other universities, like nearby UC Berkeley, get obsessed with a particular country like Vietnam and seem to forget about all the other ones in Southeast Asia. University of Michigan and Cornell seem to be the only ones with balance in the United States.

  I admit the blurb for the talk at the Asia Society is pretty pitiful which brings up another issue, the pitiful publishing record, in general, of academics studying Southeast Asia. (Not Andrew Walker though whose name I now recognise everywhere) When I write my papers on Burma’s history I still have to refer to Harvey’s 1925 history of Burma which hasn’t been replaced in more than 80 years? Pitiful.

  As an expert with over 30 years in the country the speaker has absolutely nothing online that I can see, which is pretty pitiful also. One day this will change when a bunch of internet savvy young people become more active.

  There is a vast amount of ignorance in the west about Thailand and Burma and it was exploited during the last two weeks by powerful drug companies and their PR firms. The blurb isn’t really enough to tell what he actually talked about.

• 7 Jon Fernquest // May 3, 2007 at 6:48 pm

  “What evidence is there that the monarchy is a force of stability in Thailand?”

  That Thailand is not like Burma.

• 8 nganadeeleg // May 3, 2007 at 6:53 pm

  Was Thaksin ‘good for democracy’ ?

• 9 nganadeeleg // May 3, 2007 at 7:09 pm

  Tosakan said “What evidence is there that the monarchy is a force of stability in Thailand?”

  The king’s still on the throne, so that in itself is a form of stability (so far).

  Your a student of history so you should have quite a bit of knowledge about the behaviour of the politicians in Thailand – which ones provided stability?

  Are there any stable, truly democratic countries in the region?

• 10 Srithanonchai // May 3, 2007 at 8:15 pm

  For James Klein online see his overview on the 1997 constituion at

  http://www.asiafoundation.org/Publications/workingpapers.html#8

  Burma has been pretty stable over the past few decades–not the sort of stablity we like, though. Same for Singapore.

  Without clearly conceptualizing the issue of “stability” and determining what the dependent variable means and what the independent variables are, this will remain a ghost debate.

• 11 Srithanonchai // May 3, 2007 at 8:16 pm

  If the coup that ousted Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai government was “welcomed by most citizens” then why stage a coup at all when a general election was only a month away? The obvious reason was that Thaksin actually had the support of “most citizens” and his government was going to be returned at the election. So a coup was the only way to get rid of him.

  Exactly!

• 12 Jon Fernquest // May 3, 2007 at 9:36 pm

  Thanks Srithanonchai for the link to the working papers but they stop in 2002 and the one you pointed to was from 1998.

  Srithanonchai: “Without clearly conceptualizing the issue of “stability” and determining what the dependent variable means and what the independent variables are, this will remain a ghost debate.”

  Agreed that the stabilities of Myanmar or Singapore are not for Thailand, Bangkok is not an autonomous little city state like Singapore, it has a huge agricultural hinterland surounding it (culturally, socially, and economically fundamentally different), determining Bangkok’s destiny under electoral democracy, or at least that’s one way to look at it.

  Nor are the US subsidised and supported harsh military regime-strong states of South Korean development, that jump started steel, ship, and car industries without foreign joint ventures, as desirable as the ultimate outcomes were, and as horrible as the means of obtaining them were.

  Nor is the Burmese way to socialism through 40 years of isolation and pretending the outside world does not exist, and now dire poverty.

  Nor is the Nepalese experience of kingship where the Nepalese King intervened so excessively in politics that he ran the ship of state into a rock and sunk it, with himself.

  Elected or not, TRT was sucking the consitution and all power into its gigantic poltical vacuum machine. The military, for better or worse, flicked the off switch.

• 13 Srithanonchai // May 3, 2007 at 10:05 pm

  Jon: The direct link to the paper is
  http://www.asiafoundation.org/pdf/wp8.pdf

• 14 Taxi Driver // May 3, 2007 at 10:34 pm

  Jon, the “military flicking off the switch” was definitely for the worse.

  The military’s interference in politics is the real underlying problem in Thailand. The level of corruption, incompetence, nepotism, and even criminality that permeates that institution is far worse than anything civilian politicians have done, or what the monarchy is (now more overtly as seen on YouTube) accused of doing.

  Its the military’s continual interference in politics that has stunted the growth of democracy in Thailand and created constant instability. Its return to centre stage in May-06 was a major step backward for Thailand, particularly given the current monarch is approaching his twilight years (i.e. we only have a few more years of his “stability” and counter-weight to the excesses of the military).

  The Thaksin problem, if it indeed was a problem, should have been solved within the rule of law & the pre-existing constitution. If he was corrupt, then persecute him. If he was incompetent, then vote him out. If he was a demagogue, then let the other political parties expose him. These things may be hard to do, and may even take some time, but it is better than allowing a junta to take over.

  The saddest thing about all this is that the coup was accepted, and even cheered on, by many many people. If this is what the Thai people consider as an acceptable political solution, then the debate over the new constitution is a pointless exercise. No matter what is written in it, the enerals can always override it and pardon themselves.

  This blog and others often focus on Thaksin or the Royalists as being the protagonists. The real culprit is the Military.

• 15 Taxi Driver // May 3, 2007 at 10:37 pm

  I meant prosecute, not persecute. Generals not enerals.

• 16 jeru // May 3, 2007 at 11:24 pm

  Was Thaksin good or bad for Thai democracy?
  Answer: Thaksin was the worst thing to happen to Thailand’s democracy.

  Is Thailand’s King good or bad for Thai democracy?
  HMK Bhumibhol is good for Thai democracy …definitely.
  HMK was a counterbalance against abusive leaders, democratically elected or otherwise. But overall,
  HMK’s record to help Thai democracy flourish is positive.

  Has the recent coup been good or bad for Thai democracy?
  For removing Thaksin who was the danger to Thai democracy, VERY GOOD. But let’s wait. Let’s see how the junta handle the delicate redrafting of the Thai constitution and the election to follow after that.

• 17 Srithanonchai // May 3, 2007 at 11:29 pm

  Poor Labour Party in the UK had to wait for about 18 years for their return to power, during which they had to look helplessly how Maggy Thatcher tried to revolutionize the country. Did they ever think of getting Elizabeth and the military to do the job elections normally are devised for?

• 18 Tosakan // May 4, 2007 at 1:27 am

  >>Elected or not, TRT was sucking the consitution and all power into its gigantic poltical vacuum machine. The military, for better or worse, flicked the off switch.

• 19 anon // May 4, 2007 at 2:20 pm

  Queen Elizabeth can’t compare against our father. She and her family are the laughing stock of the English people. Mr. Bean is probably more popular than the Crown Prince. The Thai people are without exception are full of love and respect for our father.

  If, after the Poll Tax Riots, Thatcher had not resigned, and the Queen had instructed the British military to remove Thatcher, I’m sure that by now, England would be a republic. Don’t forget: despite the Riots, Thatcher was undefeated at the polls and was one of the longest-serving Prime Minister’s in UK history. She was about as popular as Thaksin was before the coup. If it had come to Thatcher vs. the Queen, the Queen would now be in exile in the Hague.

• 20 Andrew Walker // May 4, 2007 at 8:51 pm

  Anon, how dare you insult one our my culture’s most revered figures. I have often been compared to Mr Bean, and have always taken this as a great honour. To include him in the same sentence as our Clown Prince is profoundly culturally insensitive. I will do my utmost to ensure that your website is banned in my country!

• 21 AFREETHAI // May 5, 2007 at 4:23 am

  Anon…
  Im afraid that what you have heard and seen about the Q are from those antics. It sounds like a kind of belief and religion…one who are not, of coz become antics…those who cherish opposite, of coz…whatever they could be…nothing interesting AT ALL.
  Imagine IF there could be a referendum on this issue…what the result it could be, can you imagine?
  Or just ‘brand’ the royalist by ‘modernist’ view?

  I think now we should see Kingship in terms of culture too IF
  you still believe in cultural diversity.

• 22 AFREETHAI // May 5, 2007 at 4:35 am

  For Taxi Driver:

  Pls remember that who toppled the old regime in 1932?
  In fact it was military. Was that the overture of military influence in Thai politics?
  The solution is how to manage the profit between them and politician…where’s the people then?

• 23 Historicus // May 5, 2007 at 6:50 am

  “Was Thaksin good or bad for Thai democracy?
  Answer: Thaksin was the worst thing to happen to Thailand’s democracy.”

  Sure was. Plenty of evidence for that. But, he didn’t get rid of parliament completely, he didn’t get rid of free speech completely.

  “Is Thailand’s King good or bad for Thai democracy?
  HMK Bhumibhol is good for Thai democracy …definitely.”

  Evidence or faith-based? The only serious studies suggest otherwise….

  “HMK was a counterbalance against abusive leaders, democratically elected or otherwise.”

  And who counter-balances an abusive palace, crown property bureauen, crown prince, etc.?

  “But overall,
  HMK’s record to help Thai democracy flourish is positive.”

  What, like 1976 and 2006??

  Has the recent coup been good or bad for Thai democracy?
  For removing Thaksin who was the danger to Thai democracy, VERY GOOD. But let’s wait. Let’s see how the junta handle the delicate redrafting of the Thai constitution and the election to follow after that.”

  Thanks General, we await your verdict.

• 24 Historicus // May 5, 2007 at 7:08 am

  James Klein on the coup: “It’s always a danger and traditionally when there’s been a coup in Thailand and there are, this is now the 17th, since 1932, this would probably be the first time that there wasn’t some political agenda.”

  http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1749489.htm

  No political agenda.

• 25 jeru // May 5, 2007 at 12:07 pm

  To the Thai monarchy, it makes a lot of common sense to nurture constitutional democracy. A dictatorship is dangerous to the survival of the Thai monarchy . . . that is obvious isn’t it?

• 26 Vichai N // May 5, 2007 at 12:37 pm

  But Andrew Walker, have you NOT considered the thought that Mr. Bean would have been grievously insulted to be compared to you?

  Stick to fairy tales Andrew Walker . . .

• 27 Taxi Driver // May 5, 2007 at 1:03 pm

  AFREETHAI, the solution is not to manage the profit, but to eliminate the profit (i.e. corruption) altogether.

  In a democracy the people elect politicans to represent them. Do you think a general is a better representative of the people than a politician? Would you rather have a Junta in power than a politician? Remember, to remove a junta from power you often need to have lots of people die in the street and intervention from on-high; to remove a politician you only need to go to the election box. Which system would you rather have (and believe me you can’t have both).

  Would you accept a junta who took power without claiming “pra mahakasat phen pramuk”?

• 28 AFREETHAI // May 5, 2007 at 11:08 pm

  TAXI DRIVER
  OF coz in terms of the formality, i do not want junta.
  but for the recent years in Thailand, we have to think about kind of REALPOLITIK…to see what happened to

  I do not deny the excellence of election box – leader at all. Yes we SHOULD go that way.
  BUT i do not agree that we can let that kind of leader to do whatever he wants after he won the election even harassing the ideology of democratic state. Do not forget Hitler of Nazi Germany or Marcos of the Philippines, who was eventually toppled with the help of military…wrong style to make regime change, right?

  In Thai politics you should not be too NAIVE to think that Thai politicians are loyal to the democratic spirit and idealogy.
  There are many times that politicians cooperated with junta, such as in 1992…and even worse they agreed to crush the people . So you see not only military alone who did the worst thing.

  You also have to get real and consider that the situation in recent years was very different from before.
  and do not forget that in the course of 10 yrs there’s no coup in Thailand. DO consider and examine the events in ‘real time’.

  Do not be naive to see that only ‘royalists’ took part in anti-Thaksin movement. Or Thaksin, or former regime, did nothing to harm the democratic system…he is the “lord-protector of democracy’…

  In the course of almost 10 yrs Thai politics could manage its own problem without military intervention. But what happened to the former regime then?

  Surely, it’s quite great to cherish and talk of perfect ideology but do not forget the ‘fact’ or context which can harm ideology and not only a -solo- factor, who is the problem.

• 29 Srithanonchai // May 6, 2007 at 12:13 am

  Afreethai: The point is that Thaksin, whatever he might have done to democracy, was not toppled because people wanted to defend this system. This merely is an ex-post facto rationalization to make things look better. Or one might say that the pro-democracy effects, if any, are unintended side effects.

  One thing is for sure, the references to democracy come in handy for the scores of academics who have joined military-appointed bodies of various kinds. Thaksin had mostly excluded them from politics. Thus, they were quite hungry after having fasted for five years. In 1991, when NIDA’s Thinapan Nakata joined Suchinda, there was harsh criticism of him. Nowadays, very few people see anything problematic in intellectuals joining a military coup regime.

  Long time ago, Noam Chomsky had written a book on “The Responsibility of Intellectuals.” I wonder whether this is available in Thai university libraries.

• 30 Historicus // May 6, 2007 at 6:13 am

  Jeru says, “To the Thai monarchy, it makes a lot of common sense to nurture constitutional democracy. A dictatorship is dangerous to the survival of the Thai monarchy . . . that is obvious isn’t it?”

  Not obvious at all. A case could be made that a constitutional monarchy operating under a strong democratic system might be a good outcome for the monarchy as an institution. It might, for example, protect the monarchy from a mad or bad king.

  However, the preferred model for this king appears not to be a monarchy that knows its place. The palace propaganda is that it wants to be able to warn and advise, but this king goes way further than that. He and/or his men actively intervene in politics on a regular basis.

  The history of this monarchy suggests that it generally thrives under dictatorships. After Phibun was thrown out, Sarit promoted the monarchy (that’s accepted history even pre-Handley). The monarchy got back much under the military dicatorship of 1958-73. The palace put the right-wing Thanin in place and was in a huff when he was ditched as too dictatorial for even the military. They loved Prem – and still do. Under Prem, politics was managed, but it wasn’t a democracy.

  I think it is fair to say that dictatorships have been good to this palace and that they have been good to dictatorships.

  That said, they would probably be better served looking to European and Japanese models of constitutional monarchy. Problem might be getting the palace to actually like constitutions!

• 31 Blame Bhumibol // May 6, 2007 at 10:14 am

  Bhumibol’s rule has been detrimental to Thailand’s democratic development.

  Bhumibol effectively became King when his older brother was shot. King Ananda Mahidol ruled under the 1946 Constitution, which was enacted legally (not via coup). Both the House and the Senate were elected bodies. Civil servants and military officers were banned from the legislature. Fundamental freedoms were guaranteed.

  Fast forward 61 years. What has Bhumibol done over those years? The constitution he signed was thrust upon the people via tanks and guns. The legislature is completely appointed, and packed with civil servants and the military. Fundamental freedoms are trampled upon regularly. The next constitution calls for a Senate appointed by the military and the bureaucracy that will be packed by the military and the bureaucracy.

  I rest my case. Before Bhumibol, we had a democratic constitution and a forward looking government. Under Bhumibol, we have a despotic constitution and a brutal and ineffective junta.

• 32 nganadeeleg // May 6, 2007 at 10:35 am

  Republican & Historicus will be spitting on their breakfast today after reading the following in the Bangkok Post:
  Col Khunying Chitrawadee Chulanont, wife of the prime minister, was among seven ”khunying” title holders elevated to ”thanpuying” in a ceremony marking Coronation Day yesterday. The other six are Khunying Srinat Suriya, M.R. Prasarnsuwan Suwannarat, Khunying Wanida Poonsiri, Khunying Parani Lamsam, Col Khun Ni-orn Sanitwong na Ayutthaya and Khunying Tassaniya Suwannarat.
  They were awarded the Dame Grand Commander (Second Class) of the Most Illustrious Order of Chulachomklao decoration.
  Mom Kamala Yukol na Ayutthaya, wife of movie director M.C. Chatrichalerm, along with 17 other women, was made a Member of the Most Illustrious Order of Chulachomklao (Fourth Class), giving them the title of khunying.
  The 17 others are Noppakhun Yuchamnong, Supatra Jarujaron, M.L. Yuwanwaree Kittiyakorn, M.R. Thippawadee Dulalampa, M.R. Duenden Kittiyakorn, Dr Wanna Sombunwibun, Pattama Leesawattrakul, Ornsri Wangwiwat, Jongrak Sangprasit, Bang-orn Kemajaru, Maj-Gen Tassanee Patjusanont, M.R. Emjit Jittrapong, M.L. Hiranyika Wannamethi, Sukanya Burana, Col Warunee Amatayakul, Sasiwong Puengtrakul and Jintana Thupthong, who is HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn’s personal nurse.
  Fifty-three women and 54 men were bestowed royal decorations by His Majesty the King at the Grand Palace yesterday. Privy councillors Kasem Wattanachai and Palakorn Suwannarat were awarded the Knight Grand Cross (First Class) of the Most Illustrious Order of Chulachomklao decoration. Various classes of orders were established in 1873 by King Rama V.

  Was there a list of achievements published to show how they deserved these honors?

  Is Angkhana Neelaphaijit on the extended list?

• 33 jeru // May 6, 2007 at 1:49 pm

  Historicus said: “Problem might be getting the palace to actually like constitutions!”. I dispute that. HMK Bhumibhol had always been the foremost advocate of constitutional propriety . . HMK Bhumibhol had always been very careful to be seen as not violating his authority or prerogatives under the Thai constitution. It was the ex-PM Thaksin who did not observe constitutional rule of law.

  I still maintain that Thailand’s monarchy would NOT be served by a dictatorial government, military or otherwise. Look at world history. Most monarchies of the world quickly evaporated once a strongman, a dictator assumed power. Russia, China, etc. To a dictator, a monarch is a competitor which he would quickly eliminate.

• 34 Srithanonchai // May 6, 2007 at 3:01 pm

  “Before Bhumibol, we had a democratic constitution and a forward looking government. Under Bhumibol, we have a despotic constitution and a brutal and ineffective junta.” >> This is too simplistic. One can criticize the king for many things. However, King Bhumibol is just that — a king. He isn’t Superman or a super kneight in shining armor. He has merely been one (important) player in the total game of political development over the past decades.

• 35 nganadeeleg // May 6, 2007 at 4:23 pm

  It’s poor form, and intellectually weak, to blame Bhumibol for everything (ditto blaming Thaksin for everything).
  What were the politicians, academics, military, bureaucrats, police, journalists, foreign diplomats/businesmen and ‘the Thai people’ doing over all that time?
  If anything, many of the problems are not because of Bhumibol’s efforts, but in spite of his efforts.

  Thaksin could have made a difference but he turned out to be just like the rest, only smarter & greedier – such a disappointment!

• 36 Blame Bhumibol // May 6, 2007 at 7:18 pm

  Bhumibol’s support has made coups successful and dictators triumphant (witness Sarit, 1976, Prem, and Sonthi).

  His silence has made coups fall apart and dictators fall (witness 1972, 1981, 1985, Suchinda).

  He is much more than just a passive player in the game. He is the rule-maker himself. He is foremost to blame for the mess we’re in.

• 37 nganadeeleg // May 6, 2007 at 7:56 pm

  What would things have been like without HMK ?
  Look around the region, and then carry on with your blame game.

• 38 Blame Bhumibol // May 6, 2007 at 8:17 pm

  Without Bhumibol, Thailand might have ended up like Singapore, which is plagued with a regular schedule of democratic elections, has never had a coup, has racial and religious peace, and has an economy that is the envy of the world.

  Or Malaysia, which also has democratic elections, has never had a coup, has racial and religious peace, and has always been more prosperous than Thailand.

  But some of us would rather be ruled by a military government under the royal mandate, have little say in choosing their legislators, have soldiers in their television stations, and have absolutely no idea what will happen to their country once Bhumibol dies.

  As for me, I’d rather have a republic. Power to the people, for better or for worse.

• 39 Pig Latin // May 6, 2007 at 8:41 pm

  Democracy is only functional when everyone gives the system power. Only one person has had the authority to remove the peoples ability to give and take power and that person is Bhumibol.

  Are Thai’s better off? Yes. Without a public that truly understands the value of democracy – that public will find themselves in authority. Out of this very clear situation, it is possible for people to learn to respect an ideal that presently escapes them.

• 40 Republican // May 6, 2007 at 10:14 pm

  Nganadit, thanks so much for thinking of me and saving that news about the royal honours list. You finally seem to be beginning to come around to my point of view, thanks to your attendance at NM school. You see, I told you: once you actually start reading things for yourself, thinking for yourself – *daring* to think for yourself, in the Thai context – instead of believing in the edifice of infantile propaganda created around the monarchy, you can only come to one conclusion – that the monarchy has arrested Thailand’s democratic development by 50 years and turned the population into twenty-first century serfs controlled by their modern-day lords, the ratchakan.

  By the way, does anybody have a report on the seminar at the Asia Foundation?

• 41 nganadeeleg // May 6, 2007 at 11:40 pm

  Republican: I call it like I see it, and I am not so sure that I am coming around to your point, because I believe Thailand’s experiment with democracy would have been much worse without the stabilising effect of Bhumibol.
  You correctly pointed out that the population has been turned into twenty-first century serfs controlled by their modern-day lords, and the fact that they have allowed that to happen is ample evidence that things could have been much worse without Bhumibol.

  Blame: Singapore & Malaysia model democracies – you’ve got to be kidding, right?

• 42 Pig Latin // May 7, 2007 at 12:10 am

  Republican, surely this conclusion you give is just a result of loaded questions that are born from a desire of Thai modernity? I put it to you that this position is simply infantile propaganda of those already deemed modern. Hopefully thinking for yourself would inspire some originality!?

• 43 Srithanonchai // May 7, 2007 at 12:31 am

  “He is foremost to blame for the mess we’re in.”
  “the monarchy has arrested Thailand’s democratic development by 50 years”

  I wished there was less one-sided blame and more comprehensive analysis of political structures and their development over the past decades.

  Of course, blame is a lot easier to come up with…

• 44 Republican // May 7, 2007 at 8:56 am

  Well the seeds of republicanism germinate slowly, but I am hopeful that with the fertilizer we provide on this blog we will speed things up (not to mention with the help of the good political rains in Thailand over the last year, which are providing much needed moisture after the drought of the last 50 years). We should not forget that republicanism was the original meaning of “prachathipatai” as expressed in the “kham prakat khana rat” in 1932. Hence the need for the qualifier, “an mi phra maha kasat song pen pramuk” to describe the regime under Bhumibol (even in this qualifier we can detect the unwillingness of the king to yield sovereignty to the people.)

  Nganadit, you say that you “call it like you see it”, but in fact you do the opposite: you say that things “COULD” have been much worse without Bhumibol. Well perhaps, but we have no way of knowing. We DO know how bad things have been under him – mind you, not for the military, the ratchakan, and the crony business elite that pays its protection money annually to the monarchy just as gangsters do to the mafia boss (the difference is in Thailand it is no secret, it is actually broadcast on the 8pm royal news). We know all this despite all the royalist propaganda and indoctrination. One can only imagine what we DON’T know, that which has been covered up courtesy of the lese majeste regime of censorship.

  I just can’t agree with absolving the man from responsibility for the regime he heads, and that he has constructed over the last 50 years. Thailand’s 21st century feudalism is impossible without the king at the apex.

• 45 jeru // May 7, 2007 at 11:56 am

  Look around the immediate neighbors of Thailand and we would immediately appreciate the debt of gratitude we owe HMK Bhumibhol. Conclusion: Things surely would have been much much worse for Thailand without HMK Bhumibhol. (Could Thailand have ended up a Socialist state had there been no King Bhumibhol?)

  Farther away, we see how Philippines fared and this country were much more economically better off immediately after WWII and its Republican democratic system was actually an American clone sort of.

  It is NOT easy being a KING! We see how Cambodia’s Sihanouk failed and the Khmer Rouge bloody reign that followed.

  But of course it is obvious that the military always shielded their coups and grabs for power in the name of the King. It is very likely that after HMK Bhumibhol is gone, the military would think twice or thrice of using the monarchy. And again maybe not . . . a lot depends on whether or not Thailand’s future elected leaders would continue to be massively corrupt as Thaksin.

• 46 nganadeeleg // May 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm

  Repubican: “One can only imagine what we DON’T know, that which has been covered up courtesy of the lese majeste regime of censorship.”

  You have your imagination, and I have mine.

  I see how the politicians behave and how the people vote, and conclude that without Bhumibol’s moderating and stabilising influence things would have been worse.
  I also can see the situation in neighbouring countries.

  You imagine some conspiracy, but 50 years is a long time for a secret society to exist without at least one turncoat (informer).

  Bhumibol is not perfect, and I have similar concerns as you do about the military and palace cronyism, but to lay all of the blame on him is simplistic.
  The way I see it, the individual at the head of the apex could have been much worse than Bhumibol.

  Reading the king’s speeches and comparing his thoughts and wishes to the real situation in Thailand reminds me of reading the Buddha’s thoughts and comparing it to the way Buddhism is practiced in Thailand.
  Do you blame the Buddha for all of Buddhisms problems?

• 47 Republican // May 8, 2007 at 1:20 am

  “… would have been …”, “… could have been…”; where is the evidence? Let’s deal with what actually exists.

  1. No. I don’t imagine a conspiracy; lese majeste is a fact. Do you actually believe that we can know what really happens at the highest levels of Thai politics where the actions of the most important institution in the country are rendered invisible by this law? Since it is forbidden for us serfs to know we can only imagine. The reason you can see how politicians behave is because there is no law protecting them from criticism. This is very basic stuff, the reason why the king is seen as an icon of virtue while the politicians – the elected representatives of the people – are seen as “immoral”. Of course, this is one aspect of the feudal theory of virtue still so powerful here, where moral qualities can only exist among the “nobles” (in the Thai case, those with superior merit: jao, the ratchakan, the thanphuying, etc.) and be passed on amongst them, while the phrai are by definition of inferior virtue/merit. (Incidentally this theory is one of the most important impediments to developing a democratic ethos in Thailand). No wonder Bhumibol is so captured by the myth of the bodhisattva king: it proves his superior virtue and wisdom and the immorality and ignorance of the people. Just read his Mahachanok to understand his condescending view of the people and his exalted sense of his own excellence.

  Yes, imagination can take many forms. You can imagine how the system probably works (given what we do know, as well as who we know benefits from it) or you can imagine based on the propaganda spoon-fed to you by the ratchakan. Now, which one will you choose?

  2. Re. the myth of the king’s Buddhist qualities, Bhumibol wouldn’t be the first king to wrap himself in religion for political purposes. As for the political use of religion I am sure Bhumibol has read his Machiavelli – as you should too. But if the king’s musings make you think of the Buddha’s thoughts they remind me more of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book, or Kim Il Sung’s “Juche” philosophy: official, often very banal dogma, of which criticism was forbidden, and imposed on society by totalitarian means, through the bureaucracy and the state controlled education system and media. If free debate and criticism of the king’s thoughts were allowed, as they were in Buddha’s time, I might accord these “thoughts” some respect.

  As for Buddhism’s problems in Thailand (what remains of Buddhism, that is; right now Buddhism appears to have been hijacked by Bhumibolism), far be it for me to blame the Buddha. These must be blamed on the strangulation and corruption of the Sangha by the ratchakan since Sarit (legitimized by Bhumibol) and the way it has been transformed into a cynical propaganda vehicle for the monarchy. Buddhism, like every other institution in Thailand, needs to be democratized. Then it might be responsive to the needs of the people, instead of to the ratchakan, and ultimately to its head.

• 48 david w // May 8, 2007 at 7:27 am

  I have to agree that I also find the King’s “elaborations” upon Buddhist “philosophy” and teachings to be quite banal, conservative rehashings of the official, establishment, status-quo state Buddhist ideology. While he captures something of the spirit of moderation and ethos behind the virtue-orientated ethical vision of classical Indian mainstream Buddhism, it obviously conveys nothing of the subtlety, precision and even radicalness of the underlying philosophy as evident in canonical and commentarial teachings. Again, in this sense his public pronouncements don’t differ much from most other pronouncements by 90% of Thai monastics, except that the rhetoric of hierarchy contains a quite different moral tone when delivered by him given his strongly stressed quasi-divine status in the contemporary moment.

  I also find it difficult to deny that the corruptness, inadequacy and incapacity of politicians in Thailand is hightened in the public mind precisely because there exists a virtuous king who is seen as embodying a range of public (political) virtues such purity, competency, morality, unity and agency (a perception that can’t but be aided by lese majeste laws – this seems to me undeniable; even common “human” mistakes are seemingly ‘impossible’ for the king as excellence is the only register in which he acts). This alone would cause any politician headaches, but when you add in pragmatic meddling in political policy by the institution of the palace, then it is even more inevitable that Thai politicians will come out on the short end of the stick.

  Again, Handley does a nice job of exploring both of these points in his book. I wonder though, are there any careful critical readings out there by scholars or interested public intellectuals in the actual pronouncements on Buddhism – written or oral – by the King? A close reading would be quite useful and informative, I suspect.

• 49 nganadeeleg // May 8, 2007 at 8:14 am

  Republican: Yes, I’ve heard about lese majeste (and I dont like it).

  But, if Bhumibol is as bad as you make out, then you would think at least one insider would have turned informant after all these years despite the lese majeste laws. It is an incredible feat to not piss off anyone in the inside circle in over 50 years – it is hard to imagine that everyone can be bought off or that they were unable to escape the country to avoid the lese majeste laws.

  I agree that the institutions in Thailand need to be democratized, however to date, in my opinion, the majority of thai people have failed to live up to their responsibilities in a democracy:
  http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/citizen.htm

  You raise some good points (sometimes), but at other times your bitterness seems to cloud your judgement and that will not help your crusade.

  From the above link: “There is a saying in free societies: you get the government you deserve. For democracy to succeed, citizens must be active, not passive, because they know that the success or failure of the government is their responsibility, and no one else’s. In turn, government officials understand that all citizens should be treated equally and that bribery has no place in a democratic government.”

  The king cannot be blamed for everything.

• 50 Republican // May 8, 2007 at 12:47 pm

  Well at the moment he is blamed for nothing, so let’s just say I am restoring some balance.

• 51 Republican // May 8, 2007 at 2:55 pm

  Also, I’m not quite sure of the purpose of your quote from the State Dept. This is only relevant for “free societies” – not, as in the case of Thailand, for countries where governments are installed or manipulated by the military and bureaucracy – as has been the case in Thailand for most of the last 60 years. “For democracy to succeed, citizens must be active, not passive… ” Yes, of course. So why does your king keep on legitimizing coups and the regimes they impose which force the people to be politically passive? Hence the argument: the king is the major obstacle to Thailand’s democratization. Not bitterness, simple logic.

• 52 AFREETHAI // May 8, 2007 at 4:34 pm

  In recent years i’ve found that views on Thai politics and policy seemed at the interesting crossroad…

  when we need strong leadership and government we look for singaporean or malaysian style…
  while we don’t want ‘nationalist policy’ like mahathir’s.

  we call for the division of power and ’strong political party’, like american style, but we don’t want independent parliament like american…

• 53 LKY // May 8, 2007 at 6:31 pm

  What is wrong with being Singapore ? Why do you criticize and mock my country?

• 54 Srithanonchai // May 8, 2007 at 6:33 pm

  –So why does your king keep on legitimizing coups and the regimes they impose which force the people to be politically passive?–

  A different interpunctuation would reverse the causal connection, i.e. because people are politically passive, coups and royal interventions are still possible. Besides, it was the politically active people who invited the coup and joined the resultant governmental bodies.

  There is no straight logic here.

• 55 nganadeeleg // May 8, 2007 at 7:03 pm

  “I’m not quite sure of the purpose of your quote from the State Dept. This is only relevant for “free societies” – not, as in the case of Thailand…..”

  The king only has one vote, so he cannot take the blame for corrupt politicians being elected.
  It would be much harder to stage a succesful coup against a popularly elected, non-corrupt government.

• 56 Pig Latin // May 8, 2007 at 7:40 pm

  LKY,

  I think a lot of people who mock your country find that Singapore is a wonderful place once you forget your morals and embrace free market economics! Don’t take it to heart, be above it.

• 57 Srithanonchai // May 8, 2007 at 8:28 pm

  Ever saw the king putting his ballot in the box?

  But, yes, it would have been very interesting to see what would have happened, if Thaksin had not been so obsessed, and not sold Shin to Temasek — no coup!

• 58 Republican // May 8, 2007 at 9:24 pm

  #54: huh? Silly old me thought that the reason the people were “politically passive” after September 19 was because they had tanks and guns pointing at them and their god-king was ordering them to obey the coup leader. Before September 19, the three elections that Thai Rak Thai won overwhelmingly and the 18 million membership of the party (not to mention their enthusiasm for local elections) should be ample enough evidence to show that the people are willing to be “politically active” when they are not intimidated by the military waving yellow flags. Hence my point that the king and his political allies (the military and bureaucracy and their academic and media ideologues) fear the political activity of the people and will do everything possible to limit it. This is precisely the objective of the new draft constitution, and the reason why it is almost certain that Thai Rak Thai will be dissolved when the decision on the electoral fraud case is handed down at the end of the month.

  As for nganadeet, if you think the king’s influence over the political system is restricted to his one vote, then I’m afraid it’s back to Politics 100 for you. By the way, on the issue of corrupt politicians: do you think that the king’s strong support for the Surayudh regime which has stolen a trillion baht government budget at gun-point amounts to corruption? In this case the king would appear to be the most corrupt of them all: approving the theft of the taxpayers’ money and allowing it to be used by the military to enforce a dictatorship.

• 59 nganadeeleg // May 8, 2007 at 11:12 pm

  Repubican: I too fear the political activity of the people if the impact is corrupt politicians continuing to be elected.
  The best way to nullify the military and end the cycle of coups is to elect better politicians, and turf out the corrupt politicians as soon as they show their true colours – until the electorate can do that, further coups are inevitable (with or without a king, but probably bloodier without)

  Srithanonchai: I agree. No Shin sale = No coup.
  Major miscalculation by Thaksin IMO, although he might still have avoided a coup if he had paid tax on the deal.

• 60 Vichai N // May 8, 2007 at 11:44 pm

  \”When looking at the history of republics we find that most republics are established for one of three reasons, either because a particular monarch or royal house (as in France (three times), Italy, Greece, China , Russia, Austria, and Germany) is considered obnoxious, or an ex-colony desires an indigenous head of state (eg the republics of the Commonwealth and formerly in the Commonwealth, such as Ireland, Pakistan and South Africa) or because a colony seeks independence ( eg the United \”States, Finland , Indonesia, Burma and Zaire). \” (www.geocities.com/Heartland/6897/republic.html)

  Thailand was and is not a colony and the Thai King is revered by nearly all the Thais, with the exception of Thaksin and Republican.

  So I guess you are right to call yourself \’silly\’ Republican! Unless of course the next monarch become \’obnoxious\’, the Thai people would be hard pressed to find some motivation to be a Republic.

• 61 Srithanonchai // May 9, 2007 at 2:03 am

  #58 Sorry, I had given the words “regime” and “politically passive” a wider meaning, overlooking that, for once, you really put down a straightforward sentence.

• 62 Republican // May 9, 2007 at 11:37 am

  Ah Vichai N. welcome back. I’ve missed your posts, they certainly lighten up my day. And I’m very glad that you have been researching republicanism; obviously I am beginning to have an effect on you. But it is a pity that in that passage on republicanism you copied from that website you didn’t include the quote from Thomas Paine, which fits perfectly with Thailand today:
  All hereditary government is in its nature tyranny. A
  heritable crown or an heritable throne … have no other
  significant explanation than that mankind are heritable
  property. To inherit a government, is to inherit the people
  as if they were flocks or herds.

  How right Paine was.

• 63 Vichai N // May 9, 2007 at 1:14 pm

  I googled, it was the first of many websites comparing republicanism vsl constitutional monarchy, so I quoted the website as the source because the author was not mentioned. Now you cannot accuse me of plagiarism now, do you Mr. Repub-nant?

  But my contention is that HMK is hardly obnoxious nor would I categorize HMK’s reign as falling under tyranny. But you are entitled to feel oppressed Republican . . . most TRT members apparently start feeling paranoid these days.

  Inheritance is a serious matter Republican and most of the heirs usually have no choice on the matter. It is Thailand’s gift that HMK Bhumibhol took his legacy as monarch with the utmost of gravity and responsibility.

  Most elected leaders on the other hand, after usually having bought or intimidated their way into power, embrace the perks of their office and dismiss their responsibilities to the electorate. I said most, but not all. Thaksin and Marcos fall in that category of ‘most’ Republican.

  By the way Republican, still feel there is a remote chance that Thailand can turn Republican during your lifetime?

• 64 Zheng Chao // May 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm

  In my unscientific sampling of opinions from middle class educated Thais in Bangkok, the tossing out of Thaksin was indeed welcome, and no mention was made of the impact on democracy. The impact of the relatively strong baht on exports and overseas travel or study was of greater concern. There was also a strong cynical streak regarding all local governments, whether civil or military, given the long history of rotating corrupt factions through the halls of power.

  The King is widely venerated, as is the Crown Princess, but certain other select members of the royal family are persistently on the receiving end of scorn and jokes. Given the antipathy towards those members, there certainly is a possibility for Thailand to swing towards republicanism in the future. Setting aside the issue of the lese majeste law, do Thais revere the King or the institution more? I think this is an important question.

• 65 anonymous // May 9, 2007 at 3:50 pm

  I agree, Vichai – our monarch is certainly better than those corrupt and cruel elected politicians. HMK takes his legacy with gravity and responsibility. I, for one, can’t wait to see how well his son handles it.

• 66 Republican // May 9, 2007 at 6:14 pm

  “Repub-nant” ha ha, that’s brilliant! I always thought you would make a good comic writer Vichai N. No, I wasn’t accusing you of plagiarism; I know that all your ideas come from the 8pm propaganda news anyway. “Original thinking” and Vichai N. have never appeared on the same page. I was just excited that you are becoming interested in republicanism – even though I know you will be forced to deny it in order to save yourself from a lese majeste charge. I understand that very well.

  Yes, in fact I think that Thailand has a very good chance of turning republican – “prachathipatai” in Pridi’s sense – after R9 goes, the full extent of the corruption and abuse of the political system that occurs under the monarchy finally becomes more widely known, and the “herd” (as Paine puts it) is released to finally rule itself as a free people. Maybe then Thailand can wake up from its feudal slumber and catch up to the rest of Asia. At the moment it is the laughing stock of the region.

• 67 Republican // May 9, 2007 at 6:37 pm

  A question for legal and constitutional scholars: legally, can the king be (i) charged and/or (ii) convicted of corruption? What about other members of the royal family? (This is a genuine question; I have no legal background). Thanks.

• 68 Vichai N // May 9, 2007 at 10:17 pm

  Stupid question Republican . . . that means you have not fully researched how monarchies really end.

  When the population gets fed up with their King (Paine’s “obnoxious” understatement) is when monarchies get booted out. The action by the citizenry usually is extemporanous and angry . . . much like what happened to Thaksin but with more vehemence because monarchies reigned much much longer.

  But I don’t see that coming to the current reigning Thai King
  You are a presumptous prolix Republican. You presume you are the only knowledgeable on your favorite subject.

• 69 Srithanonchai // May 10, 2007 at 1:10 am

  #67: Section 8 of the 1997 Constitution says, “The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.”

  #64: You have really come across people who venerate the crown prince?

• 70 polo // May 10, 2007 at 2:01 am

  Sri.. Well, the prince does have good taste in women!

• 71 Republican // May 10, 2007 at 2:52 am

  #69: right, I think that article has been in every Constitution since the December 1932 one. So, my obvious next question would be, supposing the king did something “corrupt” then I assume that he is not prosecutable by law? Or to take a simpler example, if the king was speeding in his yellow Rolls Royce, could he be charged with speeding? This is the famous “King can do no wrong” principle?

• 72 Vichai N // May 10, 2007 at 12:22 pm

  I can now begin to appreciate how ‘oppressed’ you must really feel, Republican, that you have to suffer the indignity of having to pull out One Hundred Baht frequently for the corrupt traffic policeman because of minor traffic infractions. But the real tyranny begins to set in when the royal motorcade will speed by and that same traffic policeman will salute, instead of a speeding ticket you feel the royal driver deserves.

  Restrain the impulse to lodge a citizen’s complaint Republican, or, General Sondhi will just as surely lock you up for ‘lese stupidus’.

• 73 Srithanonchai // May 10, 2007 at 3:41 pm

  #71: Exactly. The King is untouchable. BTW: Royal motorcades always “speed,” while everybody else has to wait for them to pass. The constitution also says that everybody is equal before the law. However, this applies only to ordinary citizens–see article 8.

• 74 Republican // May 10, 2007 at 7:51 pm

  So, not only can one not criticize the king, but even if one had irrefutable evidence that he had done something “illegal” (like overthrow a democratically elected government), he could not, on constitutional grounds, be prosecuted? So he is by constitutional definition above the law. Is this standard for constitutional monarchies, or just Thailand? Weren’t some of the British royals charged with drunk driving and other minor offences?

• 75 jeru // May 10, 2007 at 8:16 pm

  Srithanonchai and Republican must be kidding right ? . . about speeding tickets to HMK? Lese stupidus indeed!

  Even in USA lowly governors break the speed limits . . Governor Corzine of NJ nearly killed himself recently with an overspeeding SUV (driven by a state trooper), maybe that is why on recovery he volunteered to pay the $46 speeding fine.

  But surely guys, every heads of state whether in Mars or Cuba speed up in motorcades. (’important meetings, what else!) Even lowly ministers and generals in Bangkok have one or two police cops on motorcycles in their own little motorcades!

• 76 Taxi Driver // May 10, 2007 at 10:38 pm

  #64, Thais revere Bhumipol, not the Institution. However, the “glow” from Bhumipol has rubbed onto the institution and this is what Vachiralongkorn is hoping to capitalise on (unless, of course, a queen regnant is appointed instead!).

  Republican/Srithanonchai, Bhumipol is definitely untouchable, regardless of what is written in a constitution. He is untouchable because he is revered by the people. How this reverence came about, of course, if subject to differing opinion (Propaganda? Cult of personality? Geniune leadership? probably a mix of all of these factors).

  The next monarch will not enjoy this status, and this is why I have always argued that the real problem facing Thai democracy is the military. Since 1932, they have been the ultimate “ruling force” (or Jao) in Thailand and they don’t have to rely on reverence from the people to maintain control – they have guns and tanks. Letting them back in power in Sept-06 was a major mistake. Genie back out of the bottle and it will take lots of spilt blood to put them back in.

• 77 New Mandala » An anti-coup coup // May 11, 2007 at 10:15 am

  [...] recent post on the Asia Foundation seminar on the Thai coup by James Klein has generated significant discussion. [...]

• 78 anon // May 11, 2007 at 12:27 pm

  Well, the crown prince is certainly guilty of adultery (which is a criminal offense in Thailand), and certainly nobody is going to successfully file charges against him…

• 79 nganadeeleg // May 11, 2007 at 1:05 pm

  Well, the crown prince is certainly guilty of adultery (which is a criminal offense in Thailand), and certainly nobody is going to successfully file charges against him…

  I dont think he is the only one – how many have been charged?

Leave a Comment