Over at Asia Sentinel, Daniel Ten Kate’s most recent article concludes that:
[Thailand's] new charter ensures a greater say for the courts and independent agencies, which have showed willingness over the past year to ignore accepted international legal standards in an effort to punish Thaksin and his supporters. With these institutions firmly in the grip of Bangkok’s royalist elite, leading ex-TRT figures and independent analysts openly speculate that the Election Commission could disqualify PPP candidates if Thaksin’s old party is too successful.
Still, the military-installed government hasn’t abandoned the illusion that it has made Thailand’s democracy better. This week the government scoffed at a European Union request to monitor the December polls, with the foreign minister saying: “I don’t think we need anybody to teach us how to vote.” Indeed, the act of voting doesn’t seem to be a problem. Respecting the outcome may be another story.
His full discussion of the re-emergence of “buffet democracy” is well worth a read.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Republican // Sep 3, 2007 at 9:22 pm
On the EU-MOU controversy: It seems to me that every time Prem, Prasong, Meechai, Surayudh or the King himself comes out with a public statement they “score an own goal” against the Thaksin side. The case of the rejection of the proposal by the EU to sign a memorandum to allow EU officials to monitor the up-coming election is a good example. What a disaster in international (and domestic) PR: how else can this be interpreted than as an attempt by the dictatorship to cover up their plans to rig the elections? Prasong the other day was even talking about postponing the December 23 election date that Surayudh had announced – presumably so that the dictatorship can solve the “Isan problem”. The international community will love that. The dictatorship doesn’t appear to realize that once the government of a country like Thailand which depends on global integration (unlike, say, North Korea or Burma), loses international confidence it is in very deep trouble.
This highlights one of the big problems for the network: it is run by a gerontocracy. They are just too old to compete with Thaksin’s younger, much more globalized team. Not only that but they are so entrenched in feudal ideology that they will never listen to advice by a subordinate which may actually be in their own political interest. Prem (87), the King himself (80), Prasong (79), were all born in the era of the Absolute Monarchy. Meechai at 69 is not far from it. Anand is in his 70s. The Privy Counsellors are mostly in their late 60s and above. The “old ginger” Cabinet looks like a retirement home. Surayudh in his mid-60s by comparison is a spring chicken but in any case does what he’s told. The so-called “social critics” who lined up against Thaksin and have demonstrated their support for the CNS (either directly or indirectly) like Sulak, Prawes, and Saneh are also well into their 70s. (The other day Sulak was talking about how free the media was under the military junta compared to the Thaksin era. A sad end to a talented man).
(Aphisit is what a certain great man would have referred to as a “young fogey” – young in years but already a very old man in his thinking)
I think that the network will increasingly resort to playing the nationalist card (“the last refuge of scoundrels”). But it will be a nationalism of the post-colonial, Cold War-era type, when these guys cut their teeth. Here the difference between the network’s nationalism and that of Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai is interesting. The network is constantly talking about Western interference in Thailand’s internal affairs, the precariousness of “Thai culture” and the Thai language, that Westerners want to make Thais “stupid” so as to take advantage of them, the hoary “nation, religion, king” mantra, sufficiency economy and the dangers of globalization, and even the survival of the nation – one of the king’s favourite themes. It’s interesting that “the West” and “farang” are still the bogey man for the network, when, one would think, in a globalized economy Thailand may actually have more to worry about from competitors like communist China, India, and other emerging economies, and when so-called “Western” values and systems like equality, democracy, human rights, market-economy capitalism, freedom of speech and expression, may actually be attractive to many if not most Thais today. Thaksin’s nationalism, on the other hand, is (dare I say it) a “populist” kind of nationalism which is more along the lines of, Thais can be comfortable with increased integration with the world, capitalism, and material accumulation (anathema for the network, the academics and NGOs), and that all Thais (not just the “king of kings”) can compete successfully and win in the globalized economy, and yet retain their Thai identity. To put it more simply, it’s the difference between Manchester City and the Royal Barge Procession.
2 observer // Sep 3, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I agree with your main points and do think the junta made fools of themselves by attacking a proposition that the EU has probably made to dozens of countries.
However, they may have had little choice. Even P-net accused the junta of trickery during the constitutional vote. The military’s 1992 election was reknowned as Thailand’s worst ever. Now the junta has their back against the wall. They are not going to have their hands tied now.
And if the EU caught them cheating that would be checkmate. An own goal is pretty easy to take compared to that.
As I mentioned eralier, I am waiting for the UDD to call on the junta to allow the EU in. It would be a precarious position to accuse the politicians of cheating, but blocking the light from shining on what is really happening.
3 Republican // Sep 3, 2007 at 10:09 pm
On the King’s Address to the Thai Ambassadors, 29th August:
I wrote this a few days ago and have been waiting for a suitable blog topic to come up to post it as a comment, but none have. So, in order that it doesn’t get out of date please forgive me if I post it here.
Thailand’s overseas Embassies are a crucial node of network monarchy because they represent the monarchy to the world. Anyone who has had anything to do with the Embassies will know that they are one of the strongest bastions of Thai feudalism. The aristocracy, elite families and cronies surrounding the Palace have a monopoly on the key positions. Hence the outcry from some Thai diplomats when early in his premiership Thaksin tried to place his people into important overseas missions. In fact, the Thai Embassies often appear to represent not so much the Thai people, but the Thai monarchy (this is the essential problem with the kha ratchakan system generally). One has to credit the Embassies with doing a brilliant job in managing the image of an anti-democratic, autocratic, feudal monarchy that has stood side-by-side with military dictatorship for much of the last 50 years, so that it appears to the international community as a successful “constitutional monarchy” and a benign, even “democratic” force that has played an important stabilizing role in “Thailand’s sometimes turbulent political and economic development”, etc. etc. etc. This is basically the discourse of Anand’s speech – and note that Anand himself is a former diplomat, married to minor royalty. The Embassies have played an important role in conveying to foreign governments and the international media the notion that the Thai king is “highly revered” by all Thai people (and so, in a way, “democratic”). But the current political crisis will be a hard test for even the most skilful PR team.
As I said in an earlier post, I think the King’s August 29th address was another significant speech. It was a big story on the radio and TV news and was reported prominently in the papers. But when I tried to look for the full text of the speech on the web I couldn’t find it anywhere. All I could find were shortened, edited versions of it. If someone could find and post the full text of the speech on NM I think it would be of value to NM readers. In fact, even the version I found on Matichon’s website on the morning of the 30th had disappeared by the evening. The versions I found elsewhere appear to have edited out certain crucial sections of the speech which I had read earlier and which were reported to me by sources who had listened to the speech on the radio and watched it on TV. A colleague told me that parts of the speech recorded in an audio file of the speech downloadable from Matichon’s website had clearly been cut. Which makes me wonder whether, after the speech had been reported in the media, Palace officials may have contacted the newspapers requesting them to edit out sections of the speech. This is admittedly conjecture, but we do know that the Palace does contact the media regularly. (Here we should again point out the hypocrisy where the morally self-righteous campaigners for media freedom in Thailand (and overseas) enthusiastically condemn the democratically-elected Thaksin’s attempts to control the media but seem to have no problem with the much more insidious manipulation of the media by network monarchy.)
So we may not know everything that the King actually said in the speech, but even what was reported should fill the more intelligent of the royalists with alarm, while Thaksin must be smiling in London. The fact that it was a speech to the Thai Ambassadors I think confirms that the network is now very worried that it is rapidly losing control of the monarchy’s international image. If you look at the last issue of The Economist (25th-31st August) the report on Thailand suggests that the referendum was marred by the junta’s “massive propaganda effort”, that the “royalist-military elite” staged the coup, and that Prem, the “chief advisor to King Bhumibol” was the “driving force behind the coup”. This is the strongest statement in any high-profile international news magazine that I have read of the monarchy’s implication in the coup and its support for the dictatorship. The story was featured prominently: it was the second story in the issue (after Putin’s “neo-KGB state” – intentional?), the first on Asia, and given a headline on the front cover. The Economist is very influential in international government circles, so the report should be a huge worry to the network. The story may encourage other media groups to follow The Economist’s lead. Up until quite recently the military has had to play the role of the scapegoat in the theatre choreographed by the network for the international community. Foreign reporters are used to reporting on “military coups”, but find it more difficult to understand the subtleties of Thailand’s “royalist” coups. Many Thais, on the other hand, do understand but are not at liberty to say because of lese majeste – not to mention the deep-seated and very rational fear that people have of the consequences of talking openly about the monarchy. As I have said before, the memory of the massacre of October 6 1976 is a very useful tool for the network to remind anyone of what happens to those who may entertain the thought of being publicly seen to be disloyal to the monarchy.
The King’s speech comes after similar high-profile speeches by key figures in the network which were prominently reported in the media: by Anand to the Foreign Correspondents Club eulogizing the “People’s King”; and by Chai Phattana’s Sumet Tantiwechakul on sufficiency economy (apparently some blog sites have been talking about Sumet as a possible future PM – seems possible to me, these people are capable of anything when pushed to the wall). It is remarkable that all of these speeches contain similar themes.
The King’s speeches usually appear rambling and incoherent. This last one was worse than usual. But I think he always has a clear political message that is directed to certain groups of people who are the targets of the speech. Often he will speak in a code that is only intelligible to those who are the target of the speech. In this case I think the King was telling the ambassadors that now “Thailand” (ie. the monarchy) was being attacked by the foreigners, and that it is your job to defend us (ie. me).
The theme of all the recent speeches is very similar: royalist nationalism with a strong anti-Western element. Let me comment on just a few of the speech’s highlights.
(i) The King’s emphasis of the importance of the Thai language:
The issue of the Thai language has for a very long time been very close to the King’s heart. Over the years he has given dozens of speeches on the subject. This is interesting for a number of reasons. I defer to the experts in Thai language on this matter, but it seems to me that the King himself speaks Thai very badly, and even has a bit of an accent. But also, anyone who has any experience with Thailand would have to wonder why the Thai language should be seen to be in danger and in need of the king’s support. Is there anywhere in Asia where English is more poorly spoken than in Thailand? But if one thinks about it it makes absolute sense that the King and the network should want to emphasize Thai and downplay English as much as possible (apart from among those who are ideologically pure). Thai is a discourse that the network can control, through its hold on the schools and the media. English, on the other hand, is a dangerous language because it gives Thais access to the world outside of the prison of Thai language discourse. This English language world contains many ideas that are potentially lethal to the monarchy – especially liberalism. I know a lot of Thai English language teachers who one would think would be the most globalized Thais, but who instead habitually dress in their dowdy Thai silk outfits and constantly warn their students of the importance of retaining their Thai identity when learning English. I think this discourse has an organic connection with the king’s speeches over the years. Is it any wonder the English-learning experience in Thailand is generally so unpleasant for Thai students.
(The subject of the network’s control of the Thai education system I will save for another post, but this has to count as one of its greatest achievements, because it literally allows the network to control – or at least set the limits to – the way Thai students think. This control was well demonstrated when the academics were mobilized to help bring down Thaksin in 2006, and then when many of them were brought in to serve the royalist-military dictatorship. Also, note the junta’s choice of Education Minister following the coup, the elderly Wichit Srisa-an, one of the Palace’s most loyal academic cronies (also a senior figure in the Democrats Party), who replaced the ex-lefty, republican-leaning Jaturon Chaisaeng. So the second step to creating a democratic Thailand (after gaining political control) should be to totally sever the links between the monarchy and Thailand’s education system).
(ii) That Thailand had developed language before the West, and that it was more “developed” than the West in the Middle Ages:
This was embarrassing. Even a school student could tell the King he is wrong on this count. But then, we have lese majeste, so technically speaking, telling the King that he has just rewritten the history of the world could land you with a 15-year jail sentence. Yes, “Amazing Thailand”. A perfect example of why any attempt to modernize Thailand’s education system (especially in the social sciences and humanities) is doomed to failure unless one deals with the monarchy first.
(iii) That he was worried that after going overseas for a few days the ambassadors might come back not being able to speak Thai:
At one level, again embarrassing for the idiocy of the remark, even if spoken in jest, but at another level I think it was a warning to the ambassadors: you should not forget that your job is to represent Thailand (ie. me and everything I stand for) abroad. Also, some of you (maybe the Thaksinists in the Embassies? Or maybe Thaksin himself?) seem to have forgotten what your job is. The King advised the Ambassadors to “brainwash” these people so they remembered that the Thais had language and culture and were civilized before many European countries.
(iv) That Thais were mindlessly praising (เห่อ) “farang”, which was making them “stupid” (โง่) and allowing the farang to take advantage of Thailand:
Sumet said a very similar thing in his speech. This section of the speech was actually the headline in the Matichon on-line report that I read on the morning of the 30th, but when I tried to find it in the evening it was gone. As I say, maybe there is another explanation, but it seems to me not beyond the realms of possibility that a Palace minder might not have wanted this section of the speech to receive international attention. The anti-Western tone of his remarks here was quite surprising, for a guy who has much to thank the West for politically.
4 nganadeeleg // Sep 4, 2007 at 10:01 am
Republican: I hope you haven’t got shares in the Thai nuclear industry:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/04/national/national_30047650.php
More great advice from HMK – It’s scary to think where the country would be without his guidance.
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.