The flexibility of the sufficiency economy concept took centre stage yesterday in the king’s annual birthday address. The latter sections of the king’s talk were devoted to proposals for the purchase of high-cost military hardware. The Thai military, not content with the 60 percent budget increase they have already received from their puppet government, are now lobbying for a massive 300 billion baht input of funds over the next 10 years. Their lobbying has obviously borne rich fruit. While the king expressed reservations about some proposed purchases (the coast guard vessel on order is not big enough and a submarine may not be appropriate) his overall message was that a cashed up Thai government should open its coffers to the army, navy and airforce:
Now we are rich. The baht is over priced. So lets use it, use it as we should. …. The government, the country, the people have lots of money. So lets use it. … Sufficiency – if you have money you have to use it. If you have money there is no need to be stingy. Just buy it. Boats or tanks, just buy them.
40 responses so far ↓
1 colonel jeru // Dec 5, 2007 at 8:07 pm
300 billion baht over 10 years averages out at Baht 30 billion a year. I thought that with the raging insurgency at the South that require absolute military attention AND funding, Baht 30 billion additional military funding for the immediate next year is way insufficient. (Goodness me . . . those Americans would readily spend millions of dollars to support ONE American soldier and still they’ve not succeeded at Iraq!)
But HMK got it right. It is how the money is spent, not saved, that would define whether a country, or its military, got its SUFFICIENCY credentials right.
2 Teth // Dec 5, 2007 at 9:30 pm
There are much better ways to spend that money: improving our railways, building motorways, improving mass transit in BKK, flood prevention, etc. Why waste it on tanks that will eventually go obsolete in 10, 20 years and will probably never see action in any actual war. Plus, the military has had 2 budget increases since taking over. Substantial increases.
How tanks and planes will quell a guerilla insurgency is beyond me. But perhaps such a ridiculous notion is not beyond our Colonel, nor, it seems another prominent figure who survived the Cold War. Our dear colonel may as well be an actual colonel in the Thai army: an army which has no Mossad, no elite unit, no brilliant tactician, no firebrand reformer, no commonsense, no tact, no professionalism. How anyone can believe that the Army is our saviour is beyond me.
If we want to solve the Southern insurgency, the number thing to fix is the Army and its idiocy, cronyism, and selfish myopia. Many a good and able soldier are simply allowed to rot in its bureaucratic mess while suckups and incompetent nutcases (from the same graduating Chulachomklao classes!) reign. I wonder if anybody else had a hand in this. Somebody whose influence with the military was supposed to rein in this sort of behaviour…
3 Teth // Dec 5, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Truth be told, most people are half asleep through that speech. And everyone focuses on the bits they like anyways. Most ignore the bits they don’t like, which is convenient. Its also good for the country.
4 Restorationist // Dec 5, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Well, it isn’t quite over 10 years, and most of the equipment is not for counterinsurgency. The report stated: “Thailand’s defence ministry said Monday it will seek 300 billion baht (8.8 billion US dollars) from the next government to buy 10 more fighter jets, a submarine and other weaponry.” That is, most of the spending is for the next government, in addition to the already massive budget increases granted by the military-appointed government. Fighters and submarines aren’t counterinsurgency kit. In fact, the king appears to have criticized these proposed purchases, while calling for even more spending for the military.
It is interesting that the king has returned to one of his oldest themes, support for the military. Remember when he was almost always dressed in a military uniform, pictured on shooting ranges, and claiming to be inventing weapons for the military?
5 Srithanonchai // Dec 6, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I guess that submarines and the aircraft carrier can be used quite well in fighting the southern insurgency… Something is strange here–when Thaksin spent money on policies, it was said that Thailand was poor and could not afford all those expenses. Now, it is said that the country is rich and should spend its money. Maybe, I have missed something here.
6 Johpa // Dec 7, 2007 at 2:37 am
As the global economy, as it now exists defined by the petrol dollar, teeters on collapse, watch vested interests attempt to spend or reallocate their assets sooner rather than later. The military leaders want to get in their contracts f0r military hardware now, not for the sake of the nation, (Chaiyo!) but to get their 20% commission in hand and into a safe asset while the Baat is relatively strong.
7 thaicrisis // Dec 7, 2007 at 9:47 am
Regarding the speech, it would be interesting to have a complete translation in english.
The reporting in BKK Post, TNA and Nation was absolutly awfull. Like always…
Translation issues… truncated quotes… different versions…
At that point, if you don’t read thai, it’s impossible to understand what really the King said…
Just a few comments, from the all the above sources :
-he spoke a lot about… weapons
-apparently he sent some “piques” to the military, especially on the submarine issue.
-but meanwhile, he gave some advice about which submarine would be better to buy !
“As for submarines, a Russian one may cost just half the price of a German-made or a US-made one, but if we bought one from Russia, the US, for instance, might be upset. However, Russian submarines are very good” (from Nation)
-was it… extreme irony… or for real ?
-and what to think about this other quote: “As for the planes from Sweden [the Air Force is planning to buy the Gripen], they might be outdated when delivered in the next two years. The Army is also planning to buy outdated tanks, but Thailand probably cannot use more advanced tanks because they’re too heavy for local soil.”
My impression : it’s extremely confusing !
Tell me if I’m wrong but I’ve got the feeling that often the King uses a “chinese style” in his speeches, with sentences that can have double or triple meanings…
Anyway. If some people could help us to understand….
8 Tosakan // Dec 7, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I think if the king was serious about military sufficiency, he would be calling for the entire restructuring of the armed forces.
But then, he would be upsetting the Praetorian Guard who sustain his power.
9 Taxi Driver // Dec 7, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Following on from Tosakan #8
…and restructuring of the armed forces is the key (more so than reforming the monarchy, stopping vote buying, etc. etc.). But how might this happen? What conditions must exist to enable this to occur?
We cannot expect the military to reform itself from within (there are simply no up and coming individuals or cliques in sight that has shown any serious inkling of being true reformers). Nor can we expect a reform push to come from the palace (as Tosakan pointed out).
So…that leaves potential reform push coming from a civilian government. While this is no where in sight — but I wonder how successful might a political party be if it campaigned on a platform of reforming the military?
10 fall // Dec 7, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Was not Russian submarine just…err… sunk?
May be the warning/supporting tone just imply that what ever you do, be moderate and a little transparent?
(In other word, dont over do the kick back)
11 Teth // Dec 7, 2007 at 11:52 pm
My impression : it’s extremely confusing !
Tell me if I’m wrong but I’ve got the feeling that often the King uses a “chinese style” in his speeches, with sentences that can have double or triple meanings…
See, that’s the thing. The King is always vague and ambiguous in his speeches, which, to be honest, does not help anybody! There will be those who are accused of “misusing” the King’s words, but why is he himself not bothered? Why is he causing a lack of unity with his speeches yet he always “urges unity” whilst giving no practical solution? He commands people to do this and that in his speeches, so why did he not play a more active role in resolving a constitutional crisis democratically? Why does he let people use his name, his image as a tool for division (aka Sondhi Lim)? Why does he, during the Thaksin crisis, not name a royally appointed Prime Minister and quell the protests before paving way for an election instead of endorsing a coup? I remember him saying a royally appointed PM would be “undemocratic”. Surely it is much more democratic than a coup, especially given that under a Parliamentary system, the electorate does not select a PM anyways!
Why is the King, a man graduating in political science with a previous interest in engineering suddenly have an opinion with regards to tanks. Surely he understands his position as constitutional head of state (who’s word is taken as law) and therefore should leave technical details about weaponry to those in the army?
Does one see any other constitutional monarch discuss the details of tank purchases (in such simplistic, general terms/understanding as well)?
12 nganadeeleg // Dec 8, 2007 at 7:52 pm
“Why does he, during the Thaksin crisis, not name a royally appointed Prime Minister……”
It sounds like a reasonable solution, but imagine the outcry from Republican, AW & co if he had done that – I’m surprised you think that way, Teth.
The whole crisis could probably have been avoided if Thaksin had either changed his ways slightly, paid full tax on the Shincorp sale, or resigned.
(or even if his TRT part members had stood up to him and smoothed his worst habits & excesses)
Instead, we are stuck with the current ‘winner take all’ scenario.
As for submarines & military hardware, I think the thrust of his comments were that now is as good a time as any to get the purchases, while the baht is strong (overvalued?)
13 Restorationist // Dec 10, 2007 at 1:49 am
“Why is the King, a man graduating in political science with a previous interest in engineering suddenly have an opinion with regards to tanks.”
I can find no evidence that he graduated in any subject, and certainly not political science.
14 Teth // Dec 10, 2007 at 10:50 am
Bhumibol then returned to Switzerland in order to complete his education, and his uncle, Rangsit, Prince of Chainat, was appointed Prince Regent. Bhumibol switched over his field of study to law and political science in order to prepare himself more effectively for his new position as ruler.
From wikipedia and from numerous sources I have read (but cannot cite right now). Perhaps he did not graduate but merely changed his course. However, I have heard (from Thai “documentaries”) that HMK returned to Switzerland to finish a degree in political science before becoming formally coronated.
Not to mention all the honorary titles he receives…
15 Sidh S. // Dec 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I would recommend reading the Thai transcript to get the whole picture of what the HMK said. If anyone would like to do the speech justice in English, then a word for word translation may work best.
Personally, I thought it was a very good speech covering a wide range of serious issues in a good humored manner: from issues of ‘unity’ (and the comparison to his uncoordinating right and left legs); floods, dams – pluses/minuses, relation to SE; SE and ‘profit’; colors; PMSurayud’s performance; his sister’s health; his time in hospital; energy issues and bio-diesel (”go for 100%”); military spending and military hardware (as well as the its usefulness of in times of environmental crisis; “build our own boats but not aircraft as they will fall”!). One of the many interesting remarks was about ’state secrets’ (when talking about military spending) being the ‘worse kept secrets’!
Teth thought the ambiguity leads to different interpretations and thus ‘disunity’. I think it is actually a skillful way in giving his opinion but at the same time to be seen as not taking sides. If there are reprimands (of which the military recieved its fair share this time), it is not delivered in a way that puts people down.
(Maybe to be more objective, NM could post military spending across the region – budget-wise, as percentage of GDP…etc. I am not asking NM to go as far as comparing capabilities like how does the Swedish Gripens bought by the airforce compares to MiG29’s ordered Myanmar… I personally don’t subscribe to excessive military spending – but I suspect it is a global condition. I remember reading an article a year or so ago that military spending worldwide has been on the increasing trend for a long time…)
Tosakan and Taxi-driver, PMChuan’s second government must be the first civilian government to try to ‘professionalize’ the military and take it away from politics (the first ‘military’ government to try to break the military from politics was PMPrem – otherwise, for one, GenChavalit will not become PM through party politics, but via a coup). He was the first civilian minister of defence who promoted GenSurayud, with 4-5 years before retiring to the top post, breaking with the army’s penchant for seniority. The civilian government that followed, a much more powerful one with a stronger mandate, had a chance to take reform much much further. PMThaksin instead meddled and politicized the security forces (both police and army), and with the ‘winner takes all’ attitude mentioned by Nganadeeleg, paid dearly for his karma (he is paying a lot now to get it all back, and this time had to use his own money to buy a Primier League team).
Teth, to continue from Nganadeeleg’s comments, if PMThaksin had resigned and install the very popular and capable Deputy PM Somkid – almost everyone would be happy. If he paid his taxes or contribute a sizable chunk to charity, almost everyone would be happy too. TRT members could have stood up to him as Nganadeeleg mentioned, but TRT is not a ‘public’ political party but functions as a ‘private’ political extension of ShinCorp business empire (many in NM might still disagree), that wasn’t possible.
Many in NM are confusing ’soft power’ (HMK) with ‘hard power’ (PMThaksin). I think that is hampering meaningful dialogue on Thai democracy. The closest HMK got to ‘hard power’ is when ParPrem was PM. Do a detail biography of PMPrem or just focus on his tenure as PM to track HMK’s indirect influence. On the other hand, that is all history now (still worth investigation nonetheless) – the major players today is a whole different generation (except for Samak!)…
16 Teth // Dec 10, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Discussion with you, Sidh, is always so exhausting because of the way you tiptoe around everything. So let me be straightforward and let’s discuss things point by point:
1) The King’s speech in Thai is even worse than the Nation’s English translation. He generalizes to the point of absurdity and ignorance, like planes falling. Our Air Force is capable of manufacturing training planes for itself and those aren’t falling. What’s happened to encouraging self-sufficiency then? Or is he just uninformed. I would feel terrible if the King whom I dearly love said the planes I build would fall out of the sky. Either that or admit he’s an old uninformed man. Or, make up an excuse to explain it all away (like the difference between training planes and fighter jets! even though I believe the King himself didn’t consider that).
2) The speech does cause disunity: skillful or not, he should not be expressing his opinion as a constitutional monarch. In your opinion, should he keep emphasizing unity when he himself does not help foster it? Has he ever suggested practical ways to reach unity? If no, his urges are worthless, like how every politician takes five minutes of their time to say, “I agree with the King. I urge for unity” before going off and continuing their campaigns (and rejecting the idea of a unity government).
3) Thaksin very well could have saved himself, but the point still remains that the King rejected a more democratic solution for the coup. Furthermore, why should a PM overwhelming popular with the population resign? On what basis should that happen?
4) The military should be reprimanded for staging the coup in the first place. Given all his soft power and his emphasis on democracy (see his speech to the justices around April of last year) that is what he should be doing. Yet he never mentions it. Truth be told, the title of maharaja should be endowed on King Juan Carlos II, not Bhumibol, who lavished praise on the junta’s government last year, even before they began to prove him monumentally wrong.
5) We here are not confusing hard power with soft power. But “we” know that a certain soft power has had a hand in setting up the present hard power. The way things are done through proxies (Prem, Sonthi) and “understandings” is no different from Thaksin’s dealings with money.
6) As for you considering the long winded, rambling speech to be excellent, no comment except that the King is no great orator. Otherwise they would’ve advertised his genius in speaking long ago.
17 Dickie Simpkins // Dec 11, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Teth,
Yes, Sidh can be very very around the issue. And while your point-by-point issue wasn’t for me, I couldn’t help but think about the answers for them.
1. The King has a point, we don’t have the industry to manufacture state-of-the-art planes that can be used for strategic defense. Now his ‘falling out of the sky’ has a point too, it is dangerous for our soldiers. And it is completely in the practice of sufficiency to do what you can do safely, and then use the funds to purchase what you can’t.
2. The speech is vague. The target audience didn’t seem to be journos but his rural constituency. This was his most direct speech I can remember regarding disunity. His analogy about the 2 legs was to the point. He wants some type of ‘compromise’ to be worked out, but the man in exile won’t go for it, hence the disunity. Thaksin sees he has a strong mandate from the poor, and is willing to fight on, not for them, but for his interests, and using them as pawns. Everywhere in the world politicians will succumb to some conservatism, even if that conservativeness is just 20-30% of the population, any ‘leader of the majority’ should respect the rights of the minority, for the sake of unity. Hence the onus and responsibility of unity should be on the popular political leader to clearly give up 1-2 issues and not be vague about them. Another point on majority rule, the majority of Americans liked segregation in the 60’s, but that didn’t make it right, or are you telling me it did?
3. I think I answered most of this in point 2 until the word ‘furthermore’. I agree, no popular PM needs to resign. Had Thaksin backed off in 1-2 of the issues, perhaps worked a compromise in the choice of a military general (as he did when sonthi came up) and gave some of the money from Shin-corp sale to charity, we could have avoided this mess.
4. The military should get a ’slap in the wrist’. The King should speak against coups whenever he gets an opportunity in the future to say that he asked the judges to take care of the mess, and the military came to spoil things. He can call what they did was an ‘honest mistake’ in the name of ’securing the country against division’; but allow them to be punished as a sign that we no longer accept coups ‘as a way out’ of political conflict. But mostly, I see your validity in point 4.
5. Its back to point 2 for me. The monarchy provides the country a constant figure. Without this figure, I believe that the country will end up being like most 3rd world nations, where we will end up with a Marcos, Suharto, or Mahatir who maybe good for the nation in the short-medium term, but terrible for long term progress. So the ‘understanding’ and the work from the proxies were there, but no concessions were made. What is difficult here is determining exactly what concessions were asked, but I really think it was to back off on the military, hence the speech about the military being the King’s horse, and the government just a jockey.
6. Well, his speeches are not intended to arouse public opinion or create a surge in polls.
18 Sidh S. // Dec 11, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Hehehe – Teth I’ve already explained earlier that we will always frustrate each other as I see things relative to time and place (almost a word play on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) while you see things in black and white. Let’s not “tiptoe” around this and I will directly address your points:
1) HMK clearly did refer to fighter jets. This was discussed in the context that the airforce have ordered the Swedish Gripen jets and not trainers that the Thai airforce have been able to make themselves for around two decades now – so HMK was definitely not uninformed.
2) That’s clearly your personal interpretation – and you have revealed the thinking behind that view, favoring PMThaksin’s proposed “unity government”. I think that is worth debating as an issue in NM whether this is consistent with the notion of ‘democracy’ (and if there are vested interests behind the idea). I wonder where you got “(HMK) should not be expressing his opinion as a constitutional monarch” – a few months ago King Juan Carlos I (your hero, who I also respect) told a president of another sovereign state, Hugo Chavez of Venezuella to “shut up”… (what would you like to say to HMK JC Teth?)
3) “… the King rejected a more democratic solution for the coup…” Teth, I expect a rational person like yourself to come up with much better line of logic. Since when is a ‘royally appointed prime minister’ more democratic than a coup?! And now you want HMK, as a constitutional monarch to “express his opinion” on the matter? You are contradicting yourself.
4) Time to revisit Spanish history 101. King Juan Carlos was Franco’s designated heir apparent and inherited Franco’s absolute power. I totally agree that what he then did with that power (AFTER Franco’s death) is to be highly commended. HMK, in contrast, was never in that position and in fact spent the early part of his career in the shadow of a Siamese ‘Franco’ of FMPibul and other ambitious military figures. Based on your strong sense of ‘fairness’, if you want to compare King Juan Carlos with a Chakri king, then it must be with HM King Prajadhipok, Thailand’s last absolute monarch not HMK.
5) Yes “we” are as we in NM are trying to put “soft power” in center stage when “hard power” was clearly on steriods since PMThaksin’s reign. This is not about “whispers” and “understanding”, it is DIRECT STATE POWER and MONEY (PMThaksin’s money was only used in setting up TRT party) combined. Remember that PMChuan took the initiative to try to remove the military from politics, PMThaksin not only meddled with the military, but also with the police, bringing it directly under his control. This meddling was also a crucial factor of today’s Southern unrest. Let’s give PMThaksin where credit is due (now he doesn’t want to take credit for it if you read a recent NM post!) as an artful “divider” not “uniter”.
6) The content is excellent and well balanced. It also says a lot about “they” – that they are, in fact, not over-advertising too much. There are certainly much more truth in HMK’s genius than many in NM are willing to give him credit for.
But, as I only recently begun reading and commenting on NM, may I ask if you are a PMThaksin-TRT fan? It will really help me understand your comments/views. Please don’t “tiptoe” around this one.
19 Teth // Dec 12, 2007 at 2:21 am
1. No, its quite simple really, he said if we built planes, it would fall out of the sky. I think I know why, because they weren’t “designed” by him unlike those T.991 ships, which of course will not sink because HMK had a hand. How Gripen Jets and 300 billion baht military purchases will help solve the biggest pressing concern of Thailand’s security situation is beyond me. Like I’ve said before, the forces need to become more compact and efficient (and spend money on basic training equipment and military welfare) before buying their toys.
You say the King has a point: yes he does. But his points are not always right nor should they always be a priority. Dickie and Sidh seem to always interpret as so, however.
2. You say Thaksin was fighting for his own interests, I say so is the palace. You say the popular leader should be gracious and give way, but I say the firm reconfirmation of the people’s mandate means it was Sondhi L who should give way. But their dismissal of the people’s mandate is evident in their eventual acceptance of the coup. We can go on forever about who should have backed off one step, but in the end, neither did and both are to blame, Sondhi L for not respecting the people’s voice and Thaksin for not respecting the rule of law.
Yes, majority rule is not always correct, but the US did resolve the segregation issue without a coup did it not.
Juan Carlos is clearly human and his actions are being debated in Spain. His image was burnt by Catalonian separatists. Whether he overstepped his role is being debated not only by Venezuelans but by Spainards. When you see this type of debate happening openly in Thailand, then I will condemn Juan Carlos for overstepping his duty in this case.
3. Let me ask you this question, what is the role of the constitutional monarch? To advise, warn, and be consulted? Or is it the right to perch on a throne publicly oblivious to a constitutional crisis, advising a solution before all of a sudden endorsing a coup? The King should have advised Thaksin to step down, if only momentarily, to defuse the crisis before a clean and fair election should dictate the direction the country could have gone. Alternatively, in the midst of the impasse and the potential for violence (according to the coup group) the King could have negotiated a settlement as he did with Suchinda and Chamlong: the apolitical arbiter, a force for unity who did not command, but advised as is well within his rights and duties. Why did it not happen or did he have to wait until there was violence again? Surely such a move would have done more for towards fostering national unity than a coup or rambling speeches could ever do. And, it would be well within the bounds of Article 7 of the Constitution. So much for the ever-wise King.
By the way, a royally appointed prime minister is very much a more democratic than a constitution-shredding, emergency-ruling, military-appointed government. That is not my preferred hypothetical way out of the anti-Thaksin crisis, but one of the ways that were better than a coup.
4. Prajadhipok is no constitutional monarch nor benevolent bestower of democracy. Plus, the accumulated soft power of Bhumibol and his popular position should be sufficient grounds for him reprimanding the coup.
My evidence regarding Prajadhipok? See how he meddled post-coup, how he blocked reform for the interest of his noble brothers before whisking away to England claiming he had protected the interest of democracy. There’s more if you care to know, but in the meantime, don’t be naive. For all your harping about “time and place” its all a construct to belie the fact that deep down inside, you’re still a fifth grader who believes everything his history teacher tells him.
I don’t want to seem pedantic or demagogic because historical figures are also humans with whom we could sympathise with to a certain extent, but viewpoints such as yours (Sidh) needs a nice vigorous destruction, by facts of course. I have conceded this point, surely we should not be locked in a Sondhi L-Thaksin impasse?
5. Thaksin was a right demagogue in the making, but with the increasing stupidity of the coup makers and government, they have managed to erode much of my disagreement with Thaksin. The other day I found myself arguing for Thaksin and against the coup before looking back to the ills he committed. It is still very clear that Thaksin committed much wrongdoing, but the coup was more divisive, more useless, and more harmful to Thailand than Thaksin in all his five years ever was.
But I do pray, tell me how different Thaksin’s HARD POWER is from the King’s soft power of PRESTIGE and UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY. What about his proxies, the political manoeuvres, palace favourites, and those acts done in his name?
As for Dickie’s point, monarch in principle is despicable compared to Republican forms of government. Constant figure or not, if you looked into the King’s role further than what they say on television or in Sidh’s school of thought, you’ll find that he indeed fits in with the likes of Marcos, Suharto, and Mahathir rather than the likes of Juan Carlos. Clearly, we are using a broad definition of “the likes”.
6. What genius? Talents, perhaps. But genius? No. A genius is someone who’s projects, over the past 30-40 years would have bought our country out of poverty instead of needing excuses like “its the Gov’t who are holding it back”. Neither would an actual genius need people on television calling him a genius every night , lest people forget the fact?
20 Sidh S. // Dec 12, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Thanks Dickie! I suppose it is my penchant for context and precedence in addressing any issue that makes me “very very around”!
Teth made me a “five year old” now while he is beginning to sound like a spoilt three year old who wants everything his way!
1. That is being sarcastic in the extreme Teth (or simplistic to the extreme – which I don’t associate with you) and I’m beginning to wonder if this is about HMK’s ego or yours.
I’ve called for context here and maintain that military spending is more often than not relative to regional/global spending which I know for a fact that is on the rise. For one, the F16s the RTAF has is considered not a match for the Russian MIG29 that the Myanmese have ordered. I’m also not a military specialist (unlike you) – although I remember Donald Rumsfeld, a ‘civilian specialist’, calling for similarly compact and efficient force to conquer and control Iraq against the advice of many senior generals in the US armed forces.
2. Let’s not tiptoe around this one Teth, in this point you raise the issue of “unity” and have not explained how your prefered “unity government” is democratic and will resolve Thai societal divide.
Please don’t tiptoe around your earlier statement “(HMK) should not be expressing his opinion as a constitutional monarch”. If King Juan Carlos could, as a constitutional monarch, then HMK could. Period. It is probably a basic, democratic right too – come to think of it and I don’t think you are against that.
3. “Let me ask you this question, what is the role of the constitutional monarch? To advise, warn, and be consulted?” That is already contradicting your point in ‘2′ already.
“…And, it would be well within the bounds of Article 7 of the Constitution” such bold statements when even legal experts debate this! Moreover, you talk as if you were in the middle of things, privy to all the “whispers” and “understandings” between the HMK, PMThaksin and the proxies. I’m with Dickie here:
“… So the ‘understanding’ and the work from the proxies were there, but no concessions were made. What is difficult here is determining exactly what concessions were asked…”
Make up your mind Teth, first you say HMK should not express his opinion, while in another context, you want HMK to do an extra-constitutional act in the appointment of a prime minister. Sounds like a relativist to me (and I welcome you with open arms).
Additionally you add: “That is not my preferred hypothetical way out of the anti-Thaksin crisis…”. What is? And who actually had the real and very legal power to make that decision? I’m with Dickie here, 1-2 steps back by PMThaksin would have made a world of difference – remember that saying along the line of “there are only two certainties in life – taxes and death”. It is the least any society can expect from its leader…
4. That’s a start Teth, it’s important put together all the facts. A comparative biography of King Prajadhipok and King Juan Carlos – before and after inheriting absolute power. I will argue the facts on time and place is critical too and must be considered in any assessment. Siam in the unstable inter-war, towards the end of European colonial period of SEAsia, Spain in the mid-70s – a relative stable period in Europe, post-war reconstruction mostly complete and the visioning a democratic united continent.
5. Make up your mind Teth, what HMK’s “UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY”??? Earlier you said:
“… If no, his urges are worthless, like how every politician takes five minutes of their time to say, “I agree with the King. I urge for unity” before going off and continuing their campaigns (and rejecting the idea of a unity government).”
Let’s not tiptoe around this it was PMThaksin’s HARD POWER and UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY (notice that the TRT dominated lower house and the rubber stamp Senate never stood up to him when it was clearly their legal role) that MEDDLED HEAVILY in the military/police forces; that led to the WAR ON DRUGS infringing on the most basic of human rights; that led to the SOUTHERN UNREST which not only divided Thai society but threatens to divide the country. “I am fully responsible” he proudly declared – “no, I issued the policy only”, now he says.
And you just keep mixing soft and hard power up “… you’ll find that he indeed fits in with the likes of Marcos, Suharto, and Mahathir rather than the likes of Juan Carlos”. And you also tiptoed around Dickie’s point – Marcos, Suharto and Mahathir “who maybe good for the nation in the short-medium term, but terrible for long term progress”. You also never answered the issue I raised in other posts – how could Thailand, with centuries old deeply embedded monarchic tradition, practically transform itself into a republic? Please stop the spoilt kid’s idealism and address the real issues on ground. By now, you should know full well the nature of our politicians who you will have to entrust this job to carry out democratically…
6. That is your point of view. I respect that and maybe you should learn to also respect contrary viewpoints. It is only democratic – thinking you are 100% right while others are “fifth graders” smells paternalistic and dictatorial…
“A genius is someone who’s projects, over the past 30-40 years would have bought our country out of poverty instead of needing excuses like “its the Gov’t who are holding it back””
At the end of the day, your blinding hate of the monarchy – and especially of HMK – is affecting your logic. You prefer to lay all Thailand’s ills on one person and one person only and any rational person knows that is clearly wrong (read Charles Keyes’s interview for instance – and this is based on 40 years of observation and research). We are discussing highly complex societies facing grave political, social, economical, environmental problems. We have multiple agencies, whether people or institutions tackling these issues, both successfully and unsuccessfully due to many factors. Last I am aware off, Thailand is not a failed state (why?). Ofcourse, the country could still become one – or it can do much better. The next election puts us at another cross-roads – where are we going from here?
21 Dickie Simpkins // Dec 12, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Teth,
I’ll try to make my points concise:
1. Use common sense, we are talking about military planes that are capable in defense. Framing the issue that we are discussing ‘flight training’ planes is off the mark and purposefully misleading.
2. Sondhi L is a nobody, and without Thaksin giving way in any issue he (Sondhi) got legitimized. I agree with you that ‘the palace’ is also looking after their own interests. I think everyone does, so it really is a moot point. I believe in this case that Thaksin should have conceded 1-2 issues. You seem to confuse majority rule with the legal one. In the end, segregation in the US was stopped because their Supreme court decided it, not because politicians pushed for it. Similarly, HMK advised judges that it was ‘their duty’ to get us over the political impasse. Let us also not forget these judges failed us when they cited ‘majority rule’ as their reason for letting Thaksin off his ‘honest mistake’ in asset declaration in 2001 meaning that one could argue the constitution had been torn up since then.
Also, notice Thaksin ‘took a break’ from politics after consulting HMK at ‘klaikangwon’, presumably with HMK advise, though like the Queen of England with her PM’s, we don’t know exactly what is said. Then, Thaksin suddenly returned from his break prior to the October election. That means that Thaksin either did not heed the advise of HMK, and the conflict was brought back front and center. Now, Royal advice, be it here, England, Norway, etc. is ALWAYS done behind closed doors. There is no precedent (not even in Spain) where they (the Royal) gives the advice in front of the media spotlight. Perhaps had Thaksin RESPECTED the advice back then none of this would’ve happened. As all precedent had been broken and the spirit of ‘Article 7′ been shredded by Thaksin and TRT (in that they didn’t go along with the precedent of behavior expected with the rule of law with the King as a head of state), the military jumped in to do it formally.
Either way, I feel that the constitution was already torn up prior to the coup.
3. Already answered in #2. I find these 2 points intertwined and can’t seem to be able to get to one without involving the other. Maybe it is just my inability to see each point clearly, if so, I apologize.
4. In this point, I conceded in my answer to you, and you conceded in your answer to Sidh, so calmer heads prevail
5. I disagree on the ‘despicability’ of monarchy. I ignore your comparison to those dictators because you seem to have really stretched your argument. Prior to getting to my point, what I say is this:
The modern monarch knows too well the power of political freedom and understands the risk to the monarchy should they curtail these freedoms. Also, the monarchy (especially here) has legitimized their social positions via Buddhism, meaning they have to alway be calm, serene, and non-violent. Dictators that I mentioned earlier are/were not bound by these expectations. Hence, the monarchy is not able to behave in a way that shows any vices ie: caught to behave in a way that portrays the image, always in public and almost always in privatre. I think till this point you agree.
If the monarch is not to behave under these imposed expectations and was different (especially in the vices), I believe strongly, despite any harsh LM law that these ‘truths’ would be made public. Apparently the harsh LM has never stopped “whispered rumors” about any the family, has it?
So my conclusion (whether you agree or not) that monarchy is preferable to a republic state is that the monarch too is limited by their public image. I reiterate again, should they fail to live up to their image (at the very least sincerely attempt to live to that image) they face what happens in Nepal, France, etc. and posters like our “republican” here in NM will be out on tv giving a Mel Gibson braveheart freedom speech… (thanks grasshopper for the metaphor).
Now, if you are still rooted in your belief, and I obviously am rooted in mine, then we should agree to disagree. As we are people without power, and have nothing to gain/lose from the political fights, we should continue our debates on other point-by-point issues.
Getting back to the point about hard and soft power here, they both needed to make some concessions. The ‘hard’ power “Suhartoness” felt they had a mandate from the people to ‘do whatever they wanted’, and didn’t concede. The soft power are power players and proxies who don’t like the media spotlight, so they took a big risk in the coup. In the end, they both lost, and created a terrible mess for the country in the process. My belief is had the hard power conceded (as advised) things would’ve worked out for the square face in the long run.
6. Since you didn’t reply to me, and I have no opinion on this matter, I consider it dropped. (between us, not you and Sidh).
22 Dickie Simpkins // Dec 12, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Teth,
In addition to your point 1 and mine:
1. You say that Sidh and Dickie say the King is “always right” and “give priority” to his statements.
Well, I consider HMK like a father to the country (maybe you can argue its the propaganda, but that is another story, lets not get there in this discussion)
like a ‘father’, I tend not to disagree openly with my parents when I think they are wrong, I just ignore or “don’t give priority” to their statement.
Likewise, I never say that HMK is ‘always right’, and “give priority” to all his statements.
I just don’t give any priority to the disagreements (unless they are major and infringe on human rights). Does that make me a naughty child? 555
23 Teth // Dec 13, 2007 at 9:43 pm
1. I still stand by my point. You are right that I was being intentionally misleading, but I intended to do so simply to show how absurd the King’s statements usually are without the necessary refinement of interpretation that you grant to it. Dickie, I still don’t understand how you hold him in such high esteem even when you realize he isn’t what the propaganda tells us he is. I would at least like to know why you think he is essentially benevolent because I see him as the wife-beating alcoholic father, figuratively, of course. But then again, breaking down the analogy, he did not give me life like my real father, he did not establish the country, and I do not owe to him anything. Call it blinding hate or whatever, but it really is more of an antithesis to the blinding love there is out there. I will take a step back from this stance if you royalists will take a step back and start to admit some things as truth as well. Like I said, dogmatically defending this position is tiring as it is also wrong, but I had hoped that it would at least extract some concessions from the other side. Now I think that if I stopped the Braveheart speeches, maybe Sidh will be less defensive.
2. Yes, Kings should have the democratic ability to express their opinions as long as those opinions can be criticized and as long as it remains a unifying figure for the country (but who defines this “unification” and what is to be done if the monarch steps out of bounds). And Sidh, for you to say that its a basic, democratic right for monarchs to express their opinion just shows the farce that is constitutional monarchy: how can one man, by merit of birth (or is it divine right), inherit political power over “subjects” with no virtue whatsoever? This man is also denied his basic democratic rights as a human being as well because, apparently, with power comes responsibility!
Monarchies are an oddity in political thinking: much like Ptolemic ideas of the solar system. Forever royalists will be adjusting the orbits of planets to fit in with reality, but the truth remains that monarchy essentially is in disagreement with democracy.
Dickie, your defense of monarchy in Thailand is essential one of the only arguments FOR monarchy: pragmatism. I contend that that is a valid point, but it still is not in line with democracy. In any case, Presidents also have to live up to their image.
3. Sidh, I raise my point by point questions in the hopes of attacking your arguments in several different hypothetical approaches. On one hand, I was asking based on different assumptions of “If he wants to meddle and if he’s as good as the propaganda why did he not do this…” and on another, “Why is he contradicting his own propaganda and public image?” Surely you understand that by doing that, I had hoped to bring in the inconsistencies that are clearly on display with regards to the monarchy.
My preferred hypothetical solution to the anti-Thaksin crisis (a la Britain’s monarchical advising) was outlined in my post above, point number 3. The apolitical arbiter in bold bit, one in which you gladly tiptoed from. Surely the all-wise Bhumibol could come up with a solution like that?
4. Its still my opinion, Sidh, that you are looking out to protect the monarchy instead of checking the facts. I also realize that I am looking out to the opposite, but that after being in the same camp as you for so long, I should be able to realize the folly of it.
5. Like I said, what is the difference between Thaksin’s acts and the King’s? Stop preaching to me about Thaksin’s evils, you’re preaching to the converted.
HMK’s unquestioned authority (aura) is evident everywhere. The yellow shirted throngs who prostrate when the royal motorcade passes by.
As for Dickie’s point regarding Marcos, Suharto, or Mahathir, his point is so wide ranging that I would rather not argue it. How all of these three men are even grouped into the same group is already startling. Malaysia, for instance, is doing much better than we are and surely Lee Kuan Yew is a suitable candidate for that short list as well? Seeing as the only common trait seems to be authoritarianism and I don’t think you, Sidh, can argue that in whatever time frame Singapore has done badly. Hope this addresses your point.
Here’s a practical solution, Sidh, appoint a Republican-minded member of the royal family (back in those days) as figurehead President for life until you deem Thailand is “ready” to elect her own Head of State. In the present, we could always appoint the various members of the royal family as figurehead President, Vice Presidents, etc, whose roles will be clearly dictated by the Constitution and whose positions will not be hereditary. No bloodshed there.
6. Sorry, but I don’t have to respect anybody’s point of view and surely that is my democratic right? Not that I don’t respect yours because you’ve typed all of that up, but the fact remains that I consider myself to have been in your shoes and as any zealous convert is, that is how I tend to come off as in the argument.
Once again, you do not answer my question but pile it on “point of view.” If you believe the propaganda surrounding HMK, then you would have believed he is our “Saviour” if only we returned to absolute monarchy. As a child, I always advocated absolute monarchy because every King, especially the present one, just seems so talented and wise and much more capable of ruling the country. And I always got angry that the politicians didn’t just return all their power back to the King.
Like I said, its the blinding propaganda I wanted to be an antithesis to. It is, of course, always wrong to blame a single man, but sometimes if that man is the keystone, you surely understand why those viewpoints would arise.
Sidh, don’t take my comments about your age personally as I am usually just so frustrated by Thailand’s political situation that I need somewhere to bring it all out on, especially THAT keystone. Accept my apologies for any inappropriate words used.
24 Sidh S. // Dec 14, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Thanks for making me the ‘hot head’ Dickie (but I’d concede ‘cool head’ to you for sure)!
And thanks for providing insights into your thinking Teth. ‘Propaganda’ can have the extreme opposite effects, if perceived to be ‘totally untrue’ – as we’ve learnt from your case. That is also the point of difference between my position and yours. Having had an American Vietnam veteran as a history teacher, I’ve learnt at a young age that much of what we hear (not just in Thailand he stressed) may be propoganda (personally, he is one of the best teachers I’ve had, one person who predicted since 1987 that GenChavalit will become PM. I suspect now he was thinking of a coup or direct succession to PMPrem…). Maybe because of that, I have been differentiating between ‘truths’, ‘half-truths’, ‘possibilities’, ‘advertising’ etc…etc… everytime I watch the Thai evening news.
Our contrasting experience is thus quite interesting and I would like to deconstruct this further. You went from ‘love’ to ‘hate’ as you learnt the ‘facts’ – my ‘love’ grew as I learnt and assimilated the ‘facts’… I’ve heard many commentators say one of the weak points of Thai democracy is the penchant for ‘heroes’. Possibly it is a historical weakpoint too and we have cults around various Kings of the past up to HMK and even PMThaksin. We know that, with careful study, the success or failure of any society depends on multiple, complex factors. If a society is ’successful’, we should expect that there are many heroes (celebrated, uncelebrated, unknown). For instance, most Thais may credit King Mongkut and King Chulalongkorn with negotiating Siam from being colonized – but in fact, many noblemen particularly from the Bunnag family also played very critical roles. This is also why I also credit King Prajadhipok as well as AjarnPridi and FM Pibul (and others) equally with initiating democracy in Thailand (while it must be noted ‘facism’ and ‘communism’ were becoming the flavor of the month in Europe and our neighbours were still under colonial dictatorships). This is not to discredit the great work of King Juan Carlos, of course, but the strong flavor of the month in Europe in the 1970s, 1980s was democracy (and the setting up of a democratic EU) – Socialist-Communism were clearly losing currency already by then (while violently gaining favor in SEAsia).
At the end of the day we are ‘victims’, ‘products’ of histories. If Thailand is not considered a ‘failed state’ as yet, there must be many factors why that is so. Some may sing praises, others may harshly criticize which reflects a functioning, generally open society (even with LM). In my view, it is actually always both collective ‘achievements’ and collective ‘failures’ of society, never one or another. Any society are always on cross-roads (and cycles?), we here may wish it to go certain directions – but it never does, despite the most researched predictions. Like you and Dickie, I can only (frustratingly) hope for the best on 23rd December and beyond…
25 Dickie Simpkins // Dec 15, 2007 at 4:02 am
Sidh,
I never meant to call you ‘hot head’ if I did, I apologize. I simply was referring to the point by Teth, and since I can’t speak for you (ie: I don’t know if you always give priority to HMK’s statements) I could only answer for myself. Any negative meaning from there would have been totally accidental.
Teth: since we are arguing semantics and going back and forth, I find that our difference comes down to the way we look at the monarchy, in particular your statement/question:
“I still don’t understand how you hold him in such high esteem even when you realize he isn’t what the propaganda tells us he is.”
I do because of many reasons. The first perhaps being the one repeated by most. That he could’ve easily lived a life of privilege within palace compounds, but he ‘chose’ not to, and went around working hard in social and infrastructural development. As such, the philanthropic endeavors were not all successful, and I would definitely prefer that society didn’t pretend it was so. Having said that, it is my view that the ‘role model’ image is much more positive than negative. Hence the high regard. I could write long and long stories to prove the point (from my perspective) but would rather not bore anyone.
The second is that I view he takes his job very seriously. I think HMK is burdened by the problems facing the nation, and always has. I wouldn’t consider it a privilege to be so high up with burden.
I could list more, but I think I’d only be preaching to the choir…
Anyway, before getting back to the 6 points above, let me finish by saying, HMK should be the last monarch we work with rachasap (royal language). As a society, we are definitely lagging behind other world countries in development. I like monarchies, provided they stay in limit to their constitutional role (I don’t think I could ‘accept’ another Royal stretching their power as I have with HMK) and live the life expected for citizens to be proud of them: ie, they should publicly portray that traits of ‘every good’ of the Thai people. This is a burden and a very heave responsibility.
Back to your 6 points.
1. In theory, does a monarch have the rights to talk about purchases of anything? The answer is no. The monarch reserves the right to be “commander in chief” of the armed forces, but it is governments that do the purchasing. At most, they can mention in their position as commander in chief that there is no adequate support for the military to protect us, etc., and not really get into the hardware type debates.
2. I still believe the King was right into the unity speech, and did the right thing by not talking about what steps needed to be made and what compromises were required.
3. Still think that Thaksin should’ve gotten the hint and backed off for a few months. I really don’t like this all or nothing game that has left the country hanging in the balance. Yes, I still think Thaksin should shoulder ‘most’ of the blame. Had Thaksin done just this 1 compromise, PAD and Sonthi would never have gained notoriety.
4. We both agree there should be some type of punishment for the coup makers. We only disagree on the severity of such, as I believe it should be a ’slap on the wrist’ type thing done by HMK himself, calling them guilty, then ‘forgiving’ them by saying it was for the security of the nation, but using them as an example that coups are not accepted.
5. There is a major major difference between hard power and soft power. In this case (again) I find Thaksin more ‘wrong’, and would fear a Thaksin-govt going unchecked at the rate it was. This argument I make based on the ’soft’ powers obsession with image, something recent history proves that ‘hard’ powers dont really care about.
6. Like you, I sleep through half the speeches. Unlike you, I understand I’m not the audience of the speech…
I hope I answered your question and gave a better understanding of ‘where I come from’ when discussing these matters.
26 Dickie Simpkins // Dec 15, 2007 at 4:07 am
Ajarn Somsak,
If you somehow read my post above in particular this paragraph:
“Anyway, before getting back to the 6 points above, let me finish by saying, HMK should be the last monarch we work with rachasap (royal language). As a society, we are definitely lagging behind other world countries in development. I like monarchies, provided they stay in limit to their constitutional role (I don’t think I could ‘accept’ another Royal stretching their power as I have with HMK) and live the life expected for citizens to be proud of them: ie, they should publicly portray that traits of ‘every good’ of the Thai people. This is a burden and a very heave responsibility.”
As I have been reading NM and find myself sometimes enamored by your answers and statements (though I disagree with your conclusions many times)
I would like to know your opinion on my opinion on a monarchic role in Thai society, ie: do you think it would work?
27 Teth // Dec 15, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Dearest Dickie and Sidh,
First of all, the only reason I am “going back and forth” is because you both seem to be unwilling to answer my points and what is salient in my argument. No one has been able to tell me where I’ve gone wrong with facts or otherwise, instead, in all the rebuttals I have read, and answered, it is simply summed up as “different viewpoints.” And we cannot agree to disagree because in my viewpoint, you are wrong. Dickie much less so because at least you are able to concede some points to me and answer me directly. But why you consider HMK to be worthy of rachasap is still beyond me while Sidh continues to dodge it all. At least tell me where I am wrong, because, let me reiterate, I have been through where you have been and probably know the anecdotes you were going to recite by heart as well.
So let me be pointed: have you read the King Never Smiles? What is your opinion of his involvement in politics, especially how his coterie has often manipulated him for their own wishes and how he himself allowed and at times took part in that sort of thing. Clearly involved, too. These things are documented.
Dickie, you say the King could have lived a life of luxury and leisure: has he not been building yachts, playing his saxophone, composing music, translating novels, writing epics, sailing, painting, sitting in lovely cream coloured Maybachs and photographing everything with expensive cameras? You also acknowledge that yes the Palace is oftentimes looking out for itself rather than for the country. Then, you acknowledge that most of what you hear is propaganda. But why still the reverence? Why do you still judge him as a capable, wise, deserving man when the only valid reason of you holding him in high esteem is “because of his role model image,” which is just that, an image. A reasonable and logically consistent man would say, I respect the King, but not to the point where I am dust under his feet. I do respect the King for his endurance and the fact that he does unity Thai people, but I still think he is “keystone” in many unforgivable atrocities.
And before you fall into the myths Thai people love saying about how the King could have simply done nothing, think about what other monarchs do that is simply not publicized as insanely as in Thailand. What about Prince Charles’ environmental projects? Here is a man who need not work to live a very privileged life, who is the richest man in Thailand, and has no real job description in his inherited role, would he at least not dab into some philanthropic issues? For goodness’ sake, he dabbled in them with government officials, government money, and received all the image and took no responsibility for failures (gosh, I feel like I’ve said this before, why does no one ever tell me where I go wrong? Or is it that I’ve always been right?) For all my opinions about politics, if I had the resources, I would try my best to better the country. Does that suddenly make me as praise-worthy as HMK? (Here I am, using Sidh morality, only as an attempt to expose what I believe is a fault in Dickie’s reasoning, of course! As I don’t actually believe in it. I believe some more technical minded people can call it arguing to absurdity.)
As for Sidh, I still await your reply to my points. It seems you all have conveniently forgotten to absolutely and vehemently deny my points. Or is it a case of convenient oversight? Pigs and pearls? Or is it too logically vigorous to argue? Too much fact-bending (sorry, interpretation) for you to do?
But before that, I shall give you a sample of Sidh’s defense, if he chooses to ever come close to the points I raise:
You have to look at it relatively. PM Thaksin believed that Singaporeans were more capable of managing Shin Corp than he was. Perhaps he was misguided, but the Singaporeans did have a good track record of management, what with SingTel. Had Shin Corp been better run, it would have been a great benefit to the country both in terms of market competition and innovation. The end consumer wins! In any case, when Shin Corp changed hands, Thaksin also did not want to burden the Revenue Department with his complicated shareholding (which was a result of his older, more thievish days which he has since renounced, like the honourable PM Surayud). After all, this is the man who has devoted all of his premiership to helping the poor: finding them capital, promoting local produce via OTOP, straightforwardly trying to fight poverty, tried his best to take out the “Influential Persons.” And above all, he tried to eliminate those evil drug dealers from our society, something which our Most Beloved Monarch (MBM) approvingly praised in his birthday speech going so far as to brush aside human rights issues. Such a loyal man did not deserve the betrayal of those damned soldiers.*
*disclaimer for Sidh: this is not what I actually believe. But hey! its all about viewpoints isn’t it?
28 nganadeeleg // Dec 15, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Teth: I would be interested to see the evidence you mention concerning your claims about HMK’s involvement in politics.
At this stage it looks to me like a conspiracy theory, without any proof.
I love conspiracy theories, but after 60 years, surely some insider would have spilled the beans if HMK was as actively involved as some make out – I’m still waiting for the evidence .
Generally I’m not a great fan of any royalty, think the King is nowhere near perfect, and there are lots of things about the Thai extended royalty that frankly give me the shits.
Yes, I concede things could be a lot better, but my gut feeling is that things would have been a lot worse without HMK around.
BTW, I have read The King Never Smiles, and thought it was well researched and a good read.
29 Restorationist // Dec 16, 2007 at 1:52 am
nganadeeleg : “I would be interested to see the evidence you mention concerning your claims about HMK’s involvement in politics. At this stage it looks to me like a conspiracy theory, without any proof.” This seems like one of those set-up questions. I would point to the most recent recent examples of his involvement around the the 1976 events, 1992 uprising, and 2006 coup. And, you will now come back and deny this was “involvement in politics”. But even the palace admits to involvement in times of crisis….
30 Teth // Dec 16, 2007 at 1:59 am
So basically, nganadeeleg, you choose the 6 October massacre over a hypothetical “Siamese Rogue”. What about the possibility of Lee Kuan Yew? If we are are judging HMK’s reign hypothetically, then I shall say HMK’s reign could have been much better if he actually were a super genius Buddha.
BTW, there has always been those who are spilling the beans, its just that they are censored, they self-censor, or disappear.
31 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Dec 16, 2007 at 11:30 am
Dear Khun Dickie Simpkins,
I just saw your question above (I don’t visit here everyday). Sorry not having enough time to response properly yet.
32 nganadeeleg // Dec 16, 2007 at 11:50 am
Teth: Is an LKY as good as it gets?
IMO it probably is, especially in a country where no one seems to be accountable for their actions.
You brought up 1976: How does it make you feel to see Samak as the PPP leader now?
Restorationist brought up 1992: Has Surayud been held to account for his involvement in those events?
Likewise Thaksin’s involvement in the war on drugs.
Thanom, Suchinda etc etc
My request for evidence was a serious question.
I know Handley does present a good case, and the fact that people like Samak, Surayud & Thaksin can be still be such large players is quite damning of not only the country, but also the king.
We all know that HMK gets involved in politics in times of crisis – the big question is whether he is forced into that involvement (for the sake of the country and stability) to compromise between competing elites , or whether he is an active participant helping one side.
I can only put the fact that no one is properly accountable for their actions to one of the following:
(a) deals have to be made to reach the compromise required for stability
(b) The palace makes sure their friends are not punished (even rewards them)
(b) TIT, and no one cares
Tosakan (Fonzi) on his Thailand Jumped the Shark site has a link to an Al Jazeera interview with Abhisit, Jakrapob and someone from The Nation.
IMO the country would be better off taking a chance on Abhisit, than unleashing the likes of Samak on the country, and quite frankly the fact that guys like Jakropob are in bed with people like Samak scares me.
Even if you, Handley & Republican are correct, I would like to know how the election of PPP under Samak (Thaksin) would make things better at this stage?
33 nganadeeleg // Dec 16, 2007 at 11:56 am
typo above – it should be:
(c) TIT, and no one cares (as long as they can get something for themselves)
34 Teth // Dec 16, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Nganadeeleg,
Like I said previously, it would be wrong to pin the blame on one person, and it is hard to prove the intent of a person as well. But to me, HMK has been a keystone to some events and has given quiet backing in others.
As for evidence, how about when the King visited Thanom when he attempted to return from exile? And the fact that Thanom was ordained at Wat Bovornives? Or his speeches, where he rebukes the students telling them to keep their heads down and study, leaving government to (ironically) the soldiers.
I suspect the Palace is forced overt interventions but not at times of national crises or national danger. Instead, palatial intervention seems to coincide to those times when the Palace’s image is threatened, or an opportunity for furthering the Palace’s barami arrives. Note in the May 1992 talk between Chamlong and Suchinda what the King actually says: I believe it fits into your point (b).
And the “Young Turk” coup? Did Gen Prem not flee into the welcoming arms of the royal family? And the Palace’s close relationship with Sarit?
An irony I would also like to point out: royalists will both say the King has dedicated his life to his country when he did not have to AND the King was forced to do this and do that, he actually didn’t do it! So what is it, did the King really sacrifice his life for his country, or is he a political meddler, or is he a coward who is easily forced to do things that HMK in his infinite wisdom and limitless sacrifice should easily stand up against? Or is he still good but misguided? Then why do you trust him so much?
35 nganadeeleg // Dec 17, 2007 at 9:15 am
So what is it, did the King really sacrifice his life for his country, or is he a political meddler, or is he a coward who is easily forced to do things that HMK in his infinite wisdom and limitless sacrifice should easily stand up against? Or is he still good but misguided? Then why do you trust him so much?
It’s all relative, as I don’t really trust anyone that I have not known personally over a number of years.
Should I trust a politician more?
Which one?
Yes, I do think HMK has sacrificed his life for his country
(would you want to be king?)
As for political meddler or coward, I think only those who personally know HMK have the truth, but from where I sit, the compromise for stability factor [point (a) in my previous post] seems to have been the dominant feature in recent decades.
No doubt the king is a conservative, and I do think the country needs a shake up, but was (is) Thaksin the right person to do it?
Jakrapob says it’s a war between PPP and the military, but I don’t think either side can provide the solution.
36 Sidh S. // Dec 17, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Teth, thanks for the complement, you are a ‘dodger’ par excellence yourself.
Anyway, you have revealed your heroes – King Juan Carlos and Lee Kuan Yew (and PMThaksin, to a certain extent, as a follower of LKY) – so I know, more or less, where you are coming from. And thanks for finally agreeing with me on this – the fundamental rationale for my arguments – in your post #34:
“Like I said previously, it would be wrong to pin the blame on one person, and it is hard to prove the intent of a person as well…”
Which makes me wonder what’s the point of playing this ‘black’ and ‘white’; ‘you are either with us or against us’; ‘Bush Vs Osama’ game with you:
“…It seems you all have conveniently forgotten to absolutely and vehemently deny my points…”
So no, I will never “absolutely” and “vehemently” deny your points. I will add more context to it for all our consideration like I did with a plausible comparison between King Prajadhipok and King Juan Carlos; like I did with the regional/global arms race; like I did with the fall of Saigon and 1976; like I did with ’soft’ and ‘hard’ power; like I did with speculated ‘alternative histories’ – the possible scenarios Thailand can historically become a republic and what could happen (you seem to think we’d become a mega (economic) success like Singapore overnight)…etc…etc… Unlike you, I consider myself unqualified to “judge” history the way you do – and I will probably never will how ever much I read and research…
And so I maintain that what has transpired between us was (and can only be) different and selective interpretations of facts/events – and nothing more (unless your ego says otherwise!). This is framed by our different mindsets: your generally pessimistic view of backward Thailand and extreme hatred of the monarchy; and my generally optimistic view of the country and Thai society and my deepest respect and love for HMK. In this context, I can never ‘answer’ your questions to your satisfaction and neither can you respond to mine. We each have our own ‘answers’ already which satisfies us…
37 Teth // Dec 18, 2007 at 1:44 am
See, Sidh, this is why you are still ignorant. You assume too much based on your “context” and “relativist morality”. Here’s a little break down of where you’ve gone wrong assuming things about me (that’s just little me, how much more bollocks are you spouting regarding something like history!)
I don’t have any deep seated hatred for the monarchy, unless you have misinterpreted (which you are very good at) what I have said. I believe I have already told you that that was only an argument I had used.
Lee Kuan Yew is not my hero nor is Juan Carlos II nor PM Thaksin. They are merely comparisons. I could criticize them all day if I want, but I chose to compare their merits to those advertised merits of HMK instead.
“Absolutely” and “vehemently” were used in irony. You can never deny my points because 1) you lack sufficient knowledge and 2) you are too cowardly to accept anything BUT that HMK is deserving of absolute unconditional love and continue to find excuses. I am not surprised that you have nothing to say about my “Sidh-esque” defense of Thaksin, which, surely you can see was done to prove a point more than express any belief.
Changing one thing will not turn Thailand into a mega-economic success, sadly, too many years of backward monarchical rule cannot be switched over night. Instead, if you properly looked at the context of my words (as you always do when it comes to defending that precious ideal that exists only in your head) you would know that I was merely rejecting Dickie’s comparison.
That you continue to show the deepest love and respect means you have judged history. You can be all philosophical about how much data you need to “judge” someone, but that doesn’t change the fact that your current judgment is a crap one: its one based on faith rather than evidence. So go ahead and start a religion.
Have you ever studied statistics, btw? If you have you’ll understand why there is nothing in this world that is 100%. But there are some things that are damned close and there are lines that are drawn arbitrarily which satisfies reasonable people, like confidence intervals. I say the evidence has satisfied my confidence intervals with regards to this matter. You, on the other hand, wouldn’t believe the earth was round even if someone took you off on a spaceship and showed it to you. Maybe you’ll say its just the context and relativity of the matrix that is tricking your eyes?
So keep on repeating your argument endlessly, Sidh. Maybe one day it’ll become true.
I don’t already have pre-existing answers because I was raised to believe one thing, and that thing has been proven false. So there you go, I’ve actually listened to the arguments, I’ve gotten into numerous fights using fouler language to defend the image of HMK. So no, I do not have a preformed answer, I only have an answer which I had arrived to by evidence and by reason and definitely, certainly, not by sentiment. And let me repeat myself once again for your benefit: I do not have any deep seated hate of the monarchy.
And BTW, arguing with you is like speaking to a deaf person. So I rest my case and enjoy your bliss.
38 Teth // Dec 18, 2007 at 1:47 am
Footnote: apologies to deaf people. No offense intended, just an analogy.
39 Sidh S. // Dec 21, 2007 at 2:19 am
Ah, Teth, writing like a true relativist! All a sudden you make perfect sense. Welcome to my “religion” Teth!
My apologies for assuming you harbour deep hatred of the monarchy. I now understand that your offending of the monarchy are all just “analogies”. It’s all for the sake of healthy argument and debate (you are getting good at that that I am not sure now what you really think and where your standpoint is – like a true relativist).
Thus I happily rest my case too. Like I said in #36, this is futile and is not getting anywhere – now I am “ignorant”, “sprouting bullocks”, “lack sufficient knowledge”, “cowardly”, “crap judge”, “think the world is flat”…etc…etc. If this goes on, pretty soon you will “not hate” me more than the monarchy!
Whatever you really believe Teth, I will just assume that you are “right” if that makes you happy – and hold back on the offending. At the end of the day, everybody have someone or something they hold dear – God, gods, kings, democracy, demogogues, ideologies, rock stars, footballers, money, family members…etc. They often look “ignorant”, “sprouting bullocks”, “lack sufficient knowledge”, “cowardly”, “crap judge”, “think the world is flat” from ‘nonbelievers’ viewpoints – “statistics” also say that they are happy to be so (yet they are “wrong” – oh how confusing)…
40 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Dec 21, 2007 at 3:04 am
Sorry for the late entry into this thread, but for the past week I was in the process of repatriating back to my home country. Not to escape any sort of dukkha, as Sidh suggests, but rather that my research on Thai sociopedagogy was finished and other personal/family reasons.
Anyway, while it is hearting to see Teth fight the good fight after Sidh hijacked this thread, I would like to return to the topic of the rationale behind the Thai military’s current spending. While I don’t begrudge the Thai military for modernizing it’s hardware, the question is “why?”
I’m going to take a large leap of faith and assume some modicum of competency on the part of the Thai strategic command and not write all these expenditures as, based on recent troop movements, the fevered paranoid nightmares of Gen. Prem, where the วิญญาณ of Simón Bolívar enters the body of Thaksin and instigates a 70’s-style Issan insurgency. I only assume this because I’m pretty certain that Prem and his band of senile ผู้ใหญ have no idea who Bolívar was.
Officers are trained to prepare for the possible as opposed to the probable. This is why both the American and Canadian militaries for a long time had plans to invade each other’s countries (War Plan Red and Defence Scheme No.1 respectively). So what contingencies do Sonthi and the boys think are possible?
As I’ve stated in another thread, a Burmese attack, while not probable, is certainly possible. A Burmese blitzkrieg into Bangkok would have a devastating effect. While the Thais, counting on their Major Non-NATO Ally status with the United States, would eventually prevail in such a conflict, the damage done to the Thai economy via the destruction of the infrastructure of Thailand’s only urban center would be enough to count any victory as a Pyrrhic one (Sorry for the elitist use of Greco-Roman cultural idiom, by the way). This could be behind the push for Air Force purchases; Thai air superiority would be one way to slow down a Burmese push into the Central heartland.
Looking 10 or 20 years into the future, another “possible” threat would be an aggressive China. Again, it is not very likely that a hawkish, irredentist Dōngfāng Hóng movement will take hold in the PRC, it is possible; and while Siam was never traditionally part of Greater China, it was most definitely a tributary, and even now, is being expected to act as such. A Chinese attack could come in the form of a preemptive strike on airfields, like Udon Thani, that could be used as American staging grounds for an attack on China’s economically developed Southern underbelly. And again, Thailand’s strategy would be to hold off the invading forces until help arrives.
Finally, if either Laos or Cambodia take a turn for the worse and become “failed states” then Thailand might need to perform an Ethiopian-like intervention to keep a massive refugee/insurgency crisis from spilling over onto its borders.
Now, as stated before, I understand why the Thai military sees the need to modernize its forces; however, none of this explains what they are going to do about the situation that has proven itself to be both possible and probable, i.e. the Southern insurgency. As Restorationist pointed out, submarines and tanks aren’t usually used for COINOPS; as PSYOPS has proven itself as the way to win insurgencies, I ask, how much of this money is going to the Department of Applied Psychology at the Institute of Strategic Studies on Vipawadee-Rangsit Road? (You know, the place right next to UTTC with all those Mercedes driving into it?)
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.