The electorate and the “acute state of Thai politics”

January 28th, 2008 by Andrew Walker · 67 Comments

More than one month after the election Thailand is edging ever closer to the formation of a democratically elected government. The coup by stealth has not eventuated, perhaps in part due to the realisation that the international credibility of the coup-makers (and their backers) would be strained beyond breaking point.But what does the formation of a new, elected, government mean for Thailand’s democratic development. According to one respected observer of Thai politics, very little. In a recent article written for Asia Sentinel Michael Connors argues that

The picture of coup and anti-coup forces contending in Thailand is simplistic at best.

Last week the international media was awash in stories of a ‘Thai stealth coup’. They portrayed the Council for National Security, the military grouping that deposed the caretaker government of Thaksin Shinawatra in September 2006, as thwarting the formation of a government by the People’s Power Party (PPP) which won a plurality in the December 23 elections. In news coverage and commentary, the Election Commission of Thailand has been presented as the council’s stooge. The Thaksin PR machine could not have hoped for more.
…
People with a short memory assume the current election commissioners were chosen by the Council. The current commissioners were actually appointed while Thaksin was acting as caretaker prime minister. In early September 2006, pro-Thaksin members of the caretaker Senate voted as a bloc to select the five commissioners from 10 forwarded by the judiciary. The bloc-vote ensured that anti-Thaksin nominations for the election commission were eliminated.
…
Now, given this history, and the fact that the commission is a conflicted organization in which there remain many Thaksin supporters, one might ask whether it is accurate to claim that it is an instrument of a ‘stealth coup’.

It may be preferable to see the situation in different terms. … In these circumstances it is obvious that the Council for National Security might seek to influence the election commission. However, whether the council succeeds is a matter for empirical investigation.

Democracy?

Although the struggle between strategically relevant opposing forces in Thailand is presented through the idiom of democracy, the opposing forces who stand by the coupsters are actually an inter-sectoral mix of business, bureaucracy, police, military and royalists who care little for genuine democracy.

The acute state of Thai politics at this present time has little to do with democracy. An elite struggle that goes back at least a decade is manifest: a new brand of capitalism that seeks to break from the quasi-feudalistic hold of monarchy is in motion, but it is a force that dares not declare its name. Enlightened Thaksin forces want a bourgeois revolution against the current way the monarchy and networks surrounding it work, but they dare not declare their mission. These forces – a mix of the old left, old right, capitalists and technocrats – mobilise forces under a banner of right wing populism, including Buddhist chauvinism, but they have yet to elaborate any genuinely ideological position to challenge the force that thwarts their emergence. They are also hostile to liberal forms of democracy.
…
At this moment in time it appears that the contending fractions of the Thai elite are about to enter the final round of a long struggle. It remains to be seen if they will step back from the brink and instead embrace compromise. One thing, however, is certain: as long as contending elites fail to agree to any rules of the game and instead wage open political warfare for complete victory, Thailand’s chance of returning to some form of liberal democracy are slim.

I am happy for others to argue about the specific role of the Election Commission (see Republican’s comment 28 here). In talking about a “coup by stealth” my intention was to highlight the ongoing attempts to discredit electoral legitimacy by means of the persistent charge of “vote buying.” This more general point about persistent elite attempts to claim that the Thai electorate is unfit to choose its government is one that I would expect Connors to agree with. Indeed it is one of the core themes of his important book on Democracy and National Identity in Thailand.

But I find Connor’s argument that Thai politics can be understood primarily in terms of intra-elite conflict more disturbing. It reflects, I think, an unwillingness to appreciate the significance of electoral participation for the Thai population. In my, very favourable, review of Connor’s book I made the following comment:

Connors textual emphasis is consistent with this primary focus on the “ideological moments” of democracy rather than its social or institutional forms. This focus contributes to what I see as the books key weakness-a failure to adequately address the ways in which democracy discourse has been disseminated, consumed and incorporated into local practice. … This weakness is, I feel, linked to a relatively under-theorised sense of the local, and, in particular, the rural local. Like many in Thailand at present, Connor’s is keen to document the “untold symbolic and real violence that is done in the name of sameness” but his sympathy for the local – although combined with an incisive critique of localism – tends to lead to an overly simplistic dichotomy between the state and the village. In his work there is a tendency to reduce the village to a formerly “bounded” site of state incorporation and local resistance (”the many acts of unexamined resistance that sustain difference and dignity in daily life”). Connors’ account is convincing in demonstrating the disciplinary and regulatory intent of elite democracy discourse but much less so in placing this discourse in the context of a multi-faceted contact zone of practical, institutional and aspirational diversity. Missing, for example, in Connor’s somewhat polarised model is a sense of the extent to which rural people’s desires to engage with state structures – in order to benefits from the resource flows that such engagement can provide – has prompted strategic manipulation and subtle modification of projects of national citizen formation. Incorporation and resistance seem to be somewhat inadequate tools for understanding these multifaceted processes of “democradialogue.” ((Apologies for this inelegant word. It was a reference to Connors’ central concept of “democrasubjection.”))

This lack of engagement with the local underpins Connors recent argument in Asia Sentinel. Of course, in Thailand (as in any other country) there is much in politics that can be understood in terms of intra-elite conflict. But to focus exclusively on the elite dimension is to lose sight of the extent to which the political process is also shaped by the desires, hopes, fears, aspirations and policy agendas of the electorate itself. Of course, Thailand’s democratic development has a long way to go. The return of a democratically elected government is not everything, but it is a crucially important step. And it is a step that could be all too easily undermined by the view that the Thai electorate has little role to play in the “acute state of Thai politics.”

Tags: Coup · Election Watch · Thailand

67 responses so far ↓

1 Michael Connors // Jan 28, 2008 at 5:33 pm

In Response

In response to Andrew Walker’s discussion of my piece “Coup by Stealth or Something Else?” in Asia Sentinel I’d like to make a few points.

First, I’ll restate my basic argument as it was made three weeks ago (before it was clear that a PPP government would be formed and while everyone was waiting for mass disqualifications or even party dissolution at the behest of ‘dirty hands’). I made a case that more was going on than Thaksin/PPP versus the CNS; that the ECT was open to influence from both sides (and it was and is); that ongoing elite struggles were not about genuine democracy. I would stand by my argument that neither of these forces are democratic (Thaksin/CNS), though they are willing, in different measure, to use democratic and undemocratic mechanisms in pursuit of their objectives. To be something and to use something is a different matter.

I wrote the piece because media discourse was insufficiently paying attention to the nature of a conflicted state in Thailand – a conflict that accounts for the very unsuccessful outcome of the coup (judged by the coup objectives). There was, intentionally or not, in the international media a whitewashing of the PPP by explicitly or implicitly supporting its claims of dirty hands imposing on the ECT/courts without doing sufficient work on the complexity of just how numerous are the dirty hands in both camps.

Andrew ignores the point I made about the ECT. On the ECT let me add to the points made in the article. Any attempt to make sense of the ECT’s role in the election has to come to terms with the fact that it was dependent on police and other networks who remained sympathetic to Thaksin, as did many officials. The centralization of the complaints process during the election meant that many complaints never made it to the Central ECT, having been ruled by sympathetic officials as lacking in substance. Thus the organizational politics of the ECT at the centre that I pointed to in the Asia Sentinel article were also reflected in the regions – this observation comes from fieldwork in the Northeast during the election. Different forces work through the ECT, including ‘clean forces’.

None of this means that I think the result of the 2007 election should be discounted. I hold to the idea that many people quite reasonably voted for PPP, given what else was perceived to be on offer and given the unpopular (in the Northeast) illegitimate assumption of power by the CNS and its appointed government. As for vote-buying, electoral rigging and the like, these features of Thai politics have no doubt in different measure impacted on the outcome, but only as aspects of a broader politics of mobilising electoral support. I do find the list-votes interesting in this regard, and we await a proper treatment of what those lists indicate.

I would also hold that we are required to make sense of electoral support not simply as the normative mandate of democracy, but also as part of a struggle for hegemony that ultimately rests on undemocratic means, incorporation, response and the structuring by and of subject positions within the political system. This is I think what Andrew is getting at when he says I do not see the local; I tend to see things through this prism.

I guess if Andrew sees the resilience of the local and its ability to work to its own advantage with the centre, at this moment in time I see the power of the centre (I include in that not just the state but the political system of big capital and its rents) and its mechanisms of control. I think the forces of popular resistance and integration can be idealised and over-emphasised given the current circumstances of Thai politics and the historic repression of those forces. This, despite the heroic struggles of many people in Thailand. On a more positive note, one of the interesting outcomes of the election was the modest electorate support given to the Thai Farmers Network party, which garnered several hundred thousand votes. Such parties, rather than rightwing networks of capital hold out the hope for progressive social change in Thailand.

Now, because I have been accused of not caring about the ballot and “the electorate”, I will state the obvious – the vote is a historic gain resulting from struggles to expand the democratic franchise and the coup was a set back to that gain. The return of electoral means of elite competition is an advance, the coup was always wrong and a set back, things I argued in October 2006 in the postscript to the new edition of Democracy and National Identity in Thailand. Andrew is right to note my lack of discussion of this point in the Asia Sentinel article, and I stand corrected.

If I look at things too generally and my attention to the local is lacking – something that I am not willing to fully concede – I would argue that Andrew’s approach to the national level is similarly lacking. His approach of reading local politics as complex and multifaceted might also be used in his reading of national level politics – a realm given to multifaceted interpretation, given its scale. In doing that he might not so obviously drift into a position that overly associates democracy with the return of the PPP.

I will also take this opportunity to offer a few comments on Republican’s post regarding the same Asia Sentinel article. This will be my only post on this matter, as I do not see the point of discussing politics with someone who wields a blunt axe.

The charges that Republican lays against me in his post have something of a show-trial mentality about them. His dissembling assemblage and misrepresentation of my arguments result either from a jaundiced reading or he is not interested in real debate. I am not going to respond to the various charges. These include: I supported the coup, I wanted it to be a harder coup, I support a royalist ruse on democracy, I buy into the king’s appeals to judicial integrity and believe that judges do too, I think people are stupid etc.

My decision not to respond directly to these charges rests on the fact that they are advanced by the use of a systematically twisted logic of selective mis-reading and quotation, the kind that was perfected into an art form during various show trials. Fortunately we are operating at a much smaller scale, both being marginal academics in the university system with an audience of dozens so I need not face the firing squad.

I am happy for anyone to make their own assessment of Republican’s charges by reading the Asia Sentinel article, and other work.

The tone of, and misrepresentation by, Republican’s post continues an agenda on these pages and elsewhere; that agenda is that everyone should take a position that Republican asserts to be true; that we (anyone who has been at the end of this particular stick) should only attack the monarchy, that we lay down before a “democratic mandate” and remove judicial process in the determination of guilt.

The oddest aspect of this agenda is that in offering thoughts and exchanges on the complexities of Thai politics, and being critical of both sides – in exercising deliberative capacities – we are accused of being elitists, usurping the good common sense of the “folk” (filtered through Republican); perhaps a few years serving as ex-educated youth (if you will allow) among the rural masses might set us on the right track?

Michael Connors 28 January, 2008.
2 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Jan 29, 2008 at 12:09 am

Dear Khun Andrew,
I post this the second time because the first time I post it didn’t show up (with the usual message “your comment awaits moderation”). If in fact the first one did reach you, plaese disregard this one. Somsak.

ตอนที่ผมอ่านบทความใน Asia sentinel ผมนึกในใจว่า Michael ไม่เคยเรียนรู้บทเรียนอะไรเลย ความจริง เขาน่าจะใช้เวลา นั่งทบทวนท่าทีของตัวเองในระยะ 1-2 ปีให้หนัก ในบทความนั้น เขาเขียนตอนหนึ่งว่า

Others on the left…..have found comfort in myths about the monarchy, tradition and elite democratization. They have supported the use of extra-constitutional power to overthrow the Thaksin regime. Beholden to a subjectivist view of history (good versus evil), such forces are willing to turn a blind eye to the palace’s history, and its privileged economic position.

แต่ในช่วงเกิดรัฐประหาร เขาเขียนดังนี้
http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2007/09/fall-of-thaksin.html

The king whispered several times, but Thaksin kept coming back like the proverbial ghost that haunts Thai villages.

Thaksin has thick skin. He was nonplussed when King Bhumiphol lectured him about the need to accept criticism.

ตอนนั้น ผมแสดงความเห็นว่า

Shouldn’t you be asking instead what business the (unelected, uncriticisable, untouchable) King has whispering to the elected PM?

Michael กล่าวหาว่า ผมได้ “attempt to paint ‘neutralists’ as pro-monarchist”

แต่ผมอยากถามเหมือนกันว่า มีฝ่ายซ้ายหรือสังคมนิยมที่ไหน เขียนถึง “The king” ในลักษณะนี้? ถ้าไม่ใช่เพราะความที่ “turn a blind eye to the palace’s history” (อย่างที่ตอนนี้มาพูดในบทความ Asia sentinel)?

การเขียนในเชิงเห็นดีกับการ “กระซิบ” ในเชิงที่วิจารณ์ว่า ทักษิณ “หนังหนา” ไม่ยอมลาออก ตามที่ the king “กระซิบ” อย่างนี้ ไม่ใช่การสนับสนุนการใช้ use of extra-constitutional power to overthrow ทักษิณ หรือ? มีรัฐธรรมนูญที่ไหนที่วา นายกฯควรลาออก ถ้า the king กระซิบ แม้จะ “several times” ก็ตาม?

ต่อมา Michael ได้เขียนโต้ผมโดยตรง ดังนี้
http://sovereignmyth.blogspot.com/2007_09_23_archive.html

Somsak Jeamteerasakul has noted that some who would normally be identified as progressive activists or democrats feel indifferent to Thaksin’s fall and feel no outrage at the military’s actions. I was against the coup, but I can not claim to have felt especially angry. At that time my opinion was that Thaksin was worse than the military – a coup d’etat, the construction of national security complexes and human rights abuses are to be expected from a military steeped in the kind of history the Thai military has. The military was living its soul.

ตอนผมอ่านข้อความนี้ อย่างน้อยผมให้เครดิตว่า Machael ยังซื่อตรงพอจะบอกว่า ตอนเกิดรัฐประหารเขาคิดยังไง คือ เขาเห็นว่า ทักษิณเลวกว่าทหาร เลวกว่าการรัฐประหาร ประโยคสุดท้ายเรียกได้ว่าเท่ากับเป็นการ “แก้ตัว” ให้กับทหารทีทำรัฐประหารด้วยซ้ำ คือ ทหารพวกนี้ทำรัฐประหารเป็นเรื่องที่ธรรมดา to be expected เมื่อดูจาก “ประวัติศาสตร์” (การที่คนที่อ้างว่าเป็นซ้าย มอง “ประวัติศาสตร์” แบบทีเขียนนี่ นับเป็นเรื่องเหลือเชื่อเช่นกัน)

แต่ผมอดงง และเศร้า ไม่ได้ว่า มีสังคมนิยมที่ไหน ที่รู้สึกเฉยๆกับการที่ทหารทำรัฐประหารเพราะเห็นว่านักการเมืองมาแข่งบารมีกษัตริย์? (ดูคำพูดของสนธิ บุญฯ ในเดือนกันยายนปีที่แล้ว ที่อยู่ในเอกสารลับที่ถูกนำมาเปิดเผย ที่เขาอธิบายอย่างชัดเจนว่า เหตุผลของการทำรัฐประหารคืออะไร) มีฝ่ายซ้ายที่ไหนที่เฉยๆกับการที่ทหารยึดอำนาจเพื่อฟื้นฟูเกียรติภูมิกษัตริย์ เพื่อเล่นงานคนที่ “หมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ”?

ตอนนี้ Michael มาพูดเรื่อง “ความขัดแย้งในหมู่ชนชั้นนำ ไม่ใช่ประชาธิปไตย” เมือ่หลายๆเดือนก่อน แอ๊กติวิสต์คนนึงก็พูดทำนองนี้ (โชติศักดิ์ อ่อนสูง) แต่กรณีนั้น ผมไม่วาอะไร เพราะไม่รู้เรื่องอะไร แต่คนระดับ ดร.ที่สอนการเมือง พูดแบบนี้ (เป็นซ้าย, สังคมนิยม อีกต่างหาก) ผมพูดไม่ออกเหมือนกัน ช่าง dogmatic อะไรเช่นนี้!

“ชนชั้นนำทะเลาะกันเอง” สมมุติว่า ใช่ แต่ทำไม ประชาชนจะมีส่วนเกี่ยวข้อง ได้-เสีย กับการ “ทะเลาะกันระหว่างชนชั้นนำ” ไม่ได้? ระหว่าง ชนชั้นนำที่ใช้รัฐสภา กับ ชนชั้นนำที่ใช้เผด็จการทหาร ทะเลาะกัน ประชาชนไม่เกี่ยว? เอาเผด็จการทหารก็ได้? (ในสงครามโลกครั้งที่สอง การทะเลาะกันระหว่างค่ายพันธมิตร กับนาซี ในด้านหนึ่ง ก็เป็นการทะเลาะของ “ชนชั้นนำ” อันที่จริง จุดเริ่มต้น คือการทะเลาะกันของชนชั้นนำนั่นแหละ)

ชนชั้นนำกลุ่มหนึ่งชูธงกษัตริย์มายึดอำนาจ ทำการรณรงค์ฟื้นฟูกษัตริย์อย่างขนานใหญ่ ก็ไม่เกี่ยวกับประชาชน? ไม่ทราบ Michael เรียนรู้เรื่องประชาธิปไตยจากสำนักอะไร?
3 Land of Snarls // Jan 29, 2008 at 12:14 pm

A.W. – ‘The coup by stealth has not eventuated…’ Perhaps you should have added ‘yet.’

The opera’s not over till The Fat Lady sings.
4 Republican // Jan 30, 2008 at 2:59 am

“…This will be my only post on this matter, as I do not see the point of discussing politics with someone who wields a blunt axe…”

(Hmmm… a “blunt axe”? – blunt because of my obtuseness? Or I’m a neanderthal? I guess I’ll never know!). MC says I am “not interested in real debate”, and then refuses to debate me. What a cunning plan. Well as I’ve said before, this is Thai Studies so we shouldn’t hold its practitioners to any high standards – for example, replying to criticism of what they have written. But as for me I am very happy to reply to criticisms, although on this occasion it might sound a bit like one hand clapping.

Where do I start?

First, the “show trial”. To my mind this statement is quite offensive firstly to those people who have actually been victims of real show trials. But it is also rather pathetic to be seeking sympathy by making the ridiculous comparison of an academic debate to a show trial: you are completely free to respond to my criticisms. No state propaganda is whipping up the crowd (who knows, maybe the crowd is on your side anyway?). There is no judge whose sentence is already known before the “trial” has begun. You can call on friends to help defend you. And no police guard is forcing you into court – in fact you’ve already fled the scene! As for vigorous criticism, even misrepresentation, well isn’t it the bread and butter of academics to respond and rebut?

Then there is the comparison to facing the “firing squad”. So not only is Republican the judge and jury but executioner as well. This case reminds me of Thongchai’s reply to a criticism I made a while back that if “Republican” had power in Thailand he would seek “permanent asylum” in another country.

What is it about Thai Studies academics? They find themselves on the receiving end of a little criticism and they start whining about being sent to show trials and firing squads or going into voluntary exile, or people being too “harsh” on them.

A few other comments (self-indulgence, admittedly)

1. “…The tone of, and misrepresentation by, Republican’s post continues an agenda on these pages and elsewhere; that agenda is that everyone should take a position that Republican asserts to be true….”

Well “duh!!”, as they say – isn’t that the whole idea of an argument, to press the case for what you believe to be true? If you don’t believe it to be true then reply with a counterargument. Isn’t that the whole idea of what academic debate is about?

2. “…agenda is that …we lay down before a “democratic mandate” and remove judicial process in the determination of guilt…”

Here we go again, the quotation marks – courtesy of song mai ao. We should never, ever, ever believe that TRT-PPP have received a democratic mandate. But seeing that you ask my agenda, yes, a little more respect on the part of Thai Studies academics for democratically elected governments would be a rather nice thing. As for “judicial process” (now this DOES deserve quotation marks), given the interventions of “The Foot of Power” over the last 2 years we have seen the results of “judicial process” in Thailand. Given this choice I will go for democratic mandate (without the parentheses).

3. The strategy of academics with weak arguments: when you can’t convince by reason make the argument as prolix and unreadable as possible so at least you can fool the readers who are less confident academically into thinking that, since they can’t understand what you have written its reasoning must somehow be superior to their intelligence. Exhibit A:

“…I would also hold that we are required to make sense of electoral support not simply as the normative mandate of democracy, but also as part of a struggle for hegemony that ultimately rests on undemocratic means, incorporation, response and the structuring by and of subject positions within the political system…”

Let me translate this into the language of Thai Studies for Dummies (like me): “elections are a means by which ruthless undemocratic elites manipulate the stupid, uneducated villagers to gain power”.

4. And about this latest ray of hope:

“…the Thai Farmers Network party, which garnered several hundred thousand votes. Such parties, rather than rightwing networks of capital hold out the hope for progressive social change in Thailand…”

Well now I can tell all of my “progressive” friends that all they have to do is to wait for the farmers to come to our rescue. Several hundred thousand votes! Wow. The evil capitalists must be trembling in fear. I mean, the dogmatism of this comment is comical: “rightwing networks of capital…” It’s like something out of a Red Guards pamphlet in China in the 1960s.

Well, that’s what I think anyway. Sorry, slipped into my Thai Studies for Dummies lingo again. What I meant was, that’s how I wish to “exercise my deliberative capacity”.

Republican 24 June, 1932.
5 Mrs. Piyavadee Boonthongchai, Ed. D., Ph. D. // Feb 13, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Thank you for this valuable opportunity for my husband to express his opinion through me in American English in regarding to Thai’s politics. He lives here with me for over 36 years; but, he always follow up news from his country there – in Thailand.

Straight to the points:

The Kingdom of Thailand used to have everything in terms of natural resources. But, due to their backward political tug-a-war among politicians, militaries, influential merchantile groups; caused the Thais majority did not get sufficient prosperity for their supposed to get.

To solve such challenges. the whole NATION need to elect the FAIR LEADERS to build A SOLID POLITICAL FOUNDATION. Thailand has more than 35 coups in 3/4 of a Century. Almost all Coups took the Country’s Political Power by Force; then, rewritten their new version of CONSTITUTION each time! That MUST COME TO AN END; Otherwise, the country will not have the CORE STRUCTURE to build on; therefore, there will not be Democratic Society.

Secondly, according to Thais culture, over reacted, but easy to forget, lack of good and sincer leaderships that the people can really count on for leading them the correct direction. So, people turn to any negative News Media that write with their own narrowed self feeling opionion to flame the situation into more violence negatively!

Then, the bad politicians along with Thai Military will attempt to take advantage on such worser situations; historically, led to many coups; so, the Political Infrastructure have to go back to Square One again!
And Again! And Again! For more than 35 times!

That situation, from outside looking in, if have a civilized Leader that is willing to provide a SOLUTION than negative destruction point of view, then, many of those problems can be solved instead of help flaming them to destruction.

What he hope to see is the GOVERNMENT MUST develop a SOLID and GOOD and FAIR POLITICAL FOUNDATION that whether rain or shine, the CONSTITUTION MUST BE SUSTAINED.

In most civilized Nations, their ARMED FORCE, COMMANDER IN CHIEF sworn in to guard and to protect their INSTITUTIONS. In Thailand coups from those Generals acted totally the opposited; per se, after took the Country by Force, the SOLDIERS destroyed the COUNTRY NATIONAL CONSTITUTION and rewriting that group’s version of LAW. If the CONSTITUTION still did not represent the Majority People’s Thais Citizen interest; there will be NO WAY for Thais Politics to move ahead.

What A good Government must built the CONSTITUTION for NO ONE, can easily run out with their TANKS or Special Forces, and torn down the own COUNTRY’s CONSTITUTION by Military Force! Such actions should be subjected to CHECK BILL to remove those GENERALS and back up power down to PRIVATE…

Without a SOLID PLATFORM or a good DEMOCRATIC Foundation, they will be NO TRUE Democracy in Thailand for the Majority People. Look! 76 years have past since 2475 B.E. 35 coups have ruined the Country and the people more than help. Yet, in this 21st Century, many Thais General are still want to take Thailand backward to rule their own people like those Burmese (Mynmar) bad Military Leaders.

Thanks to the Majority Thais Citizen stand up to vote againt those Military Backed Coup Controlled Government. Your people from the Whole COUNTRY must established your own LOCAL COMMUNITY to be strenght enough for your own POLITICAL SYSTEM. You need to be able to demand for better and fair justice for better future and life style locally. Local Elections throughout will be able to endure and ensure for future grassroot stronger People’s Democracy, and not totally have to depend on the Centralization from the same group of Politicians.

My husbands travelled for more than 50 countries through out the World. He has seen enough; understand what can be done for the sake of the people; so that the Majority Thais Citizens could be able to helping themselves.
6 Prof. Richard Head // Feb 15, 2008 at 4:39 am

To Mrs. Piyavadee Boonthongchai, Ed. D., Ph. D. / : Thanks for your illuminating contribution. Such clarity & depth of thought & expression is rare, especially in American English. I would like to use you as an example. May I ask where your 2 doctoral degrees came from, and when you were awarded them? Any additional information would also be helpful.
7 Michael Connors // Feb 25, 2008 at 12:18 am

I thank Somsak for his comments and his suggestion that I review my stance over the last two years. Oddly, I feel sufficiently comfortable with my politics, and even more so as the monstrosity of the new government becomes apparent.

I want to draw attention to several points that Somsak has consistently made against those who use the words of Bhumiphol in their writings (actually me, but there may be others). I have often used the king’s speech as a kind of foil to Thaksin, also as a kind of narrative setting for the reader. But there is enough in my work to indicate what I think about monarchy and its role. I do not feel the need to hold my red flag all the time.

In his post above Somsak questions my lack of anger regarding the coup (actually I said I was not especially angry) as though anger is a socialist virtue (my anger was spent on Tak Bai and the War on Drugs, among other things). He also notes that I claimed that Thaksin was worse than the military that launched the coup. Well, yes, I did, and here is what I actually said:

“The monarchy in Thailand is a constitutional monarchy with special powers; anyone who imagines that Walter Bagehot has said all there is to say about its functioning (”the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn”) is missing the extraordinary conventional powers that have accrued to the institution, a product of both design and historical evolution. Neither the design nor the evolution would have occurred without a particular constellation of forces, including the demobilisation of radical forces in the 1970s, in which the monarchy played a key role, and the continuing elevation of the institution into the metaphoric soul of the nation.

To recognise and analyse the role of the monarchy in Thai politics is not to endorse that role. It is, however, to appreciate how the balance of forces in Thailand are constituted beyond normative appeals to ‘democracy.’ The monarchy and the military are enduring historical institutions in Thailand. Deeply rooted in various networks, ideologically and culturally embedded, and organizationally present. These are powerful institutions, as former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra learned. While some are now trying to script Thaksin as a bourgeois revolutionary he was always too poorly equipped and lacking in vision to play that role. Thaksin played an insider’s game and lost. Many supporters want to paint him as a democratic martyr; his actions suggest a terrible authoritarian in the making. Any legitimacy he may have had as a consequence of being selected prime minister by elected representatives was negated by his actions in that position.

Does Thaksin’s authoritarianism justify a more insidious authoritarianism in the form of the military coup? No. Other channels were available to restrain or fell Thaksin: further popular protest, the weakening of his parliamentary dominance, the use of legal measures. The military intervened, pre-empting these possibilities, to remind all that behind the flow of contested politics a ‘state of exception’ always lurks. The instrument of that state of exception, the military, bluntly and arrogantly inserted its own solution, showing up the fiction that lies behind people-sovereignty.

Somsak Jeamteerasakul has noted that some who would normally be identified as progressive activists or democrats feel indifferent to Thaksin’s fall and feel no outrage at the military’s actions. I was against the coup, but I can not claim to have felt especially angry. At that time my opinion was that Thaksin was worse than the military – a coup d’etat, the construction of national security complexes and human rights abuses are to be expected from a military steeped in the kind of history the Thai military has. The military was living its soul. And of course it continues to do so , pressing for national security laws and the continued imposition of martial law, thereby illustrating that some of its claimed reasons for the coup to have been excuses or self-delusional. Certainly, the military, at least sections of it, as the instrument of force for national unity was concerned about disunity and apparent slights on the monarchy; but its stated concerns for the health of Thailand’s democracy and the level of corruption have purchase only if we suspend good judgement. The military did in 2006, and does now, what the military can be expected to do.

Thaksin was worse because one might have expected better from the first prime minister elected under the reform constitution. As an elected politician Thaksin de-institutionalised the political system (protected by his hegemonically constructed majoritarianism), aggrandised wealth and power, engaged in intimidation of those against him, and recklessly and with fatal consequences abandoned the rule of law in the war on drugs, thus negating the social compromise effected in the 1997 constitution – however flawed that constitution was. To those who scoff the rule of law as a bourgeois abstraction, consider it from the perspective of those who never had a chance to plead “not guilty” during the wave of extra judicial killings in 2003.

What is implied, but never stated, by those who see a direct line of causality between the anti-Thaksin camp and the coup is that progressive forces should have endured the Thaksin era because it was a popularly elected regime. This is a retrospective argument, made in the light of the coup. So too is the argument that organizing opposition against Thaksin laid the basis for a conservative military backlash. This is a retro-subjectivist view of history, putting hindsight at the steering wheel. It is to say that history is made by will, intent and prudent choices. In part maybe, but not wholly.

The anti-Thaksin movement was a legitimate movement, and like all movements it attracted attention from forces with other agendas and interests who sought to manipulate it for other purposes. By the time that movement was demobilised as a consequence of its misconceived and politically opportunist dependence on Article 7 in April 2006, the game moved to the elite sphere. Social forces on the ground were not sufficiently organized to determine the political outcome. In that context the “no to the two camps” position makes sense. It opposes the coup and forces arrayed behind it and it equally opposes the deepening authoritarianism represented by Thaksin.

I happen to believe that wellbeing and social justice, democratic socialism, are secured by deepening both the democratic and liberal gains of historical struggle – something neither Thaksin, the monarchy nor the military have intended to do.”

The ridiculous picture that Somsak and others have of “the song mai ow” camp can only be sustained by silly and it would seem deliberate misrepresentations.

Being against the coup, does not have to mean that one must support Thaksin. Why people such as Somsak continue to require that people support the legitimacy of figures such as Thaksin I have no idea. I can not imagine such figures as Dr Weng appearing at rallies in Chaing Rai declaring that he misses Thaksin, it is as if some fine tuned abstraction mattered more than the terrible crimes that were committed during the Thaksin era.

More over, to equate the struggle between Thaksin and the CNS and the monarchy as that between fascism and democracy during the 2nd World War, as Somsak implies above, doesn’t cut it.

As pro-Thaksin supporters confront the reality of the thuggish government that has been elected all sorts of mendacious positions will be expressed. The absurd alliance of capitalists, globalizers and ex-communists that has taken shape in the Hi-Thaksin camp reflects the absurdity of historical objectivism when measured against concrete justice.
8 nganadeeleg // Feb 25, 2008 at 9:34 am
9 Teth // Feb 25, 2008 at 1:03 pm

“including the demobilisation of radical forces in the 1970s, in which the monarchy played a key role.”

That’s the key error of your piece. Or at least it is the section that needs clarification.

Otherwise its a thoughtful and comprehensive piece of opinion. As I myself would say that I belong to the “song mai aow” camp.
10 Srithanonchai // Feb 25, 2008 at 6:12 pm

“wellbeing and social justice, democratic socialism” >> Oops — Michael has become a social democrat! Or is the emphasis on “socialism”?
11 Sidh S. // Feb 25, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Well articulated AjarnMichael!
I find it deeply disturbing that many highly respectable, knowledgeable and talented commentors are so quiet (or so easily, conveniently overlook – or even dismissive?) about the War on Drugs (part 2 is sadly on the drawing boards), Krue-sae and Takbai.

While I strongly agree that the tragic events in 1973 and 1976 are critical events in Thai democratic history and certainly needs more study, the three events I mentioned are much more recent and immediate – and relevant to the present. How are the three related to democracy? We have to remember that the violence perpetrated against the innocent in 1973 and 1976 were carried out in pseudo-democratic, military dominated times (a highly muddled time – fights for democracy Vs fight against communism). The War on Drugs, Krue-sae and Takbai have been carried out under a popularly elected government only a few years ago. By that standard, when society has matured democratically, democratic institutions more sophisticated, and the rule of law much more effective than in the 1970s, the crimes and unaccountability of those who committed it are far worse.

In the context of the thousands of death, many of whom are innocent – and with no justice in sight, I find the silence in this blog deafening. The deep hate for monarchy seems to have blinded many here on the very basic issues of basic human rights, crime and justice – and the man most accountable seems to be favourably assessed as a ‘democratic hero’ because he happens to also be the apparent ‘hero of the cause’! Are we confusing personal hate for democracy that we are not thinking and writing with clarity? Michael seems to be that rare exception here.
12 Srithanonchai // Feb 25, 2008 at 8:11 pm

PAD follows Samak in drawing itself into a corner. They haven’t done enough harm, have they?

Activists reverse, oppose return of Thaksin
(BangkokPost.com) – The group that staged huge street demonstrations before the military stepped in and overthrew Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra resurrected itself on Monday and threatened to start the protests again.
The People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) suddenly on Monday morning turned against the return to Thailand by Mr Thaksin for any reason.
Leaders of the group, including newspaper tycoon Sondhi Limthongkul and Buddhist sect activist Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang, said at a special meeting to the current government was acting in the interests of “the Thaksin regime,” and PAD instead to step up protests.
In a seven-point statement, PAD resolved “to oppose the return of Thaksin” and threatened to return to the street protests if, as likely, the ex-premier comes back to Thailand.
“The PAD has never opposed the return of Mr Thaksin if the former premier comes back to fight corruption charges in court, without interference from the current government,” said the statement.
“But since the Thaksin regime has interfered in the justice system, the PAD now must oppose Mr Thaksin’s return.”
The statement called on “the people, civil servants, the military, police who love the country” to be ready to restart street protests which drew up to half a million people during the summer of 2006.
Mr Sondhi, the founder of the anti-Thaksin movement in September, 2005, said the new “Thaksin regime” was “the ugliest government in history.”
The publisher of Manager Group said he and supporters did not wish to act against Mr Thaksin if he wished to return to Thailand to prove his innocence in court. “But the PAD will never allow the government to interfere in the justice system,” he vowed.
Maj Gen Chamlong said the PAD had to emerge again “because the country now faces a big problem.”
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee said he hoped there would be no problem or unrest when Mr Thaksin returns. All parties, including PAD, should recognise the ex-premier is a Thai citizen, with the right of return.
In addition, it is good if he returns to fight criminal charges in court, said Dr Surapong. No matter what PAD thinks about the government, he said, “No one can interfere with the court and justice procedure.”
PAD’s seven-point statement also called on the Election Commission “to have the courage” to recommend that the ruling People Power party be dissolved for acting as a proxy for the disbanded Thai Rak Thai of Mr Thaksin.
It renewed touchy and controversial calls that Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej swear allegiance to nation, religion and King, and “stop acting as a puppet of Mr Thaksin” – words almost custom-designed to raise an equally acerbic response from Mr Samak.
It also called on the government to stop interfering with the media, to review its decision to remove the chief of the Department of Special Investigations, and to stop alleged interference in the work of the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC), the Supreme Court, the National Counter Corruption Commission, the Department of Special Investigation and the National Police Bureau.
TN 25 February 2008
13 Srithanonchai // Feb 25, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Sorry, the source is BP’s web site, of course.
14 Srithanonchai // Feb 25, 2008 at 8:17 pm

PPP is ready for the PAD! Great fun ahead…

People Power ready for headon collision with PAD

The People Power Party is ready to moblilise its 10 million supporters to counter the antiThaksin protests, MP Pracha Prasopdee said on Monday.

Pracha was reacting to the announcement by the People’s Alliance for Democracy threatening to revive street protests to oppose the return of former prime minister Thaksin Shinwatra on grounds of the government’s tampering with the legal proceedings to help him eluding the law.

“If the PAD becomes active, I plan to confront it by mobilising 10 million People Power supporters,” Pracha said.

Although he doubted whether the PAD could attract the crowds to join its street protests, he would not allow PAD leaders to disrupt the restoration of democratic rule, he said.

The Nation 25 February 2008
15 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 25, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Being against the coup, does not have to mean that one must support Thaksin. Why people such as Somsak continue to require that people support the legitimacy of figures such as Thaksin I have no idea

I have no time at the moment for a long reply to Michael’s post. I just want to ask these direct questions:

Would you dare saying the same thing about King Bhumibol? If not, why? If not, why on earth would you say this to an elected PM?
Is KB more legitimate than Thaksin? Even IF you claim BOTH are EQUALLY ILLEGITMATE, WHY NOT DARE SAYING SO?

The PRETENTION of the “song mai aw” camp is just that: they ONLY dare saying “YOU’RE FREAKING ILLEGITMATE to one side. BUT WHERE IS THE SAME COURAGE TO SAY SO TO “ANOTHER SIDE?

There is in fact NO “song mai ao”. Only those ดัดจริต like Michael who can only show “courage” to attack politician.

I CHALLANGE YOU RIGHT NOW TO SAY : IS BHUMIBOL LEGITIMATE? SHOUD HE GO? Issue a call NOW, like you do in Thaksin’s case, to OUST KB!

IF anybody who claim to “DON’T WANT BOTH SIDE” can show he/she applies THE SAME CRITERIA, the SAME KIND OF DENUNCIATION, the SAME KIND of “brave” WORD with KB as he/she does with Thaksin, I’LL STOP WRITING forever!
16 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 25, 2008 at 10:37 pm

I’m really sick to have to argue this same point again. So let’s just do this:

Michael, SAY THE SAME THING TO BHUMIBOL AS YOU SAY TO THAKSIN NOW and I’ll stop writing.

Otherwise, SHAME ON YOU for being only able to denouce elected politician.

ปัญหาทั้งมวลของคนอย่าง Michael และพวก “สองไม่เอา” ก็คือ อย่างนี้แหละ
ทำปากกล้า กับทักษิณ กับนักการเมือง
พูดอย่างเดียวกันกับ KB ให้ดูหน่อย
ไม่เช่นนั้น คุณอาศัยหลักการอะไรที่อ้างว่า ต้องด่าทักษิณ?
คุณทนที่ไม่ด่า KB ได้ แต่ทนไม่ได้ ที่ไม่ด่าทักษิณ?
พวกกล้าปลอมๆแบบนี้ ผม “โคตร” เบื่อ และ เหยียดหยามเลย
17 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 25, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Say the same thing now:

THAKSIN is illegitimate (abuse of power, human right violation, “blood-on-hands”, etc.) and HE MUST GO.

only replace the word Thaksin with KB.

Say it now, otherwise you’re only an imposter!
18 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 25, 2008 at 10:58 pm

In 1957 immediately after Sarit seized power, Bhumibol issued a proclamation appointing Sarit as “Gardian of the Capital” and urged all citizens to obey Sarit. The proclamation HAD NO COUNTERSIGNATURE in DIRECT VIOLATION of the 1952 Constitution. Sarit then went on to kill people without any due process whatsover.

WHO SUPPORTED HIM?

WHO was the ‘invisible hand’ behind 6 Tula, the most brutal massacre in modern Thai history?

ISSUE THE CALL NOW, Michael.

Otherwise all your ‘brave’, ’socialit’, ‘leftist’ denunciations of Thaksin, your call for him to go , etc. ARE ALL FAKE.
19 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 25, 2008 at 11:04 pm

The MORE anyone, like Michael, claims ‘moral high-grounds’ or ‘principles’ (socialists, human rights, or whatever) against elected politicians, but not dare doing the same to THE MUDERER BEHIND SARIT AND 6 TULA, the more that person is a fake.
20 Srithanonchai // Feb 26, 2008 at 1:02 am

One should be careful with the concept of legitimacy. This is an empirical concept. Whether or not something is legitimate depends on the empirical existence of a certain group of people who think that this something is exemplary and should be the way it is. This normally concerns only a small group of people. A bigger group of people is covered by the term mass compliance. People comply with demands for action for a variety of reasons, e.g. because they think a policy direction is good, or a leader is strong. Finally, there are those who do or think things merely out of being used to them.

When a person or group claims that, e.g. Thaksin, had lost his legitimacy, then the questions are: 1) Were there no people any longer who thought that he is good and should be PM; 2) Were there no people any longer who complied with his requests?

Merely claiming that a person or a structure had lost its legitimacy, without looking into the empirical situation, is a rather silly political approach to a social science concept. This approach merely means that a person (Sonthi, e.g.) or group (PAD, e.g.) did not like Thaksin/TRT any longer. It has nothing to do with legitimacy as a scholarly term, but it uses its good name and honorable ring.
21 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 26, 2008 at 1:53 am

Since Michael is a man of high principles and can see no reason to support the legitimacy of an elected politician like Thaksin, he should – in fact, he MUST – agree to the following , with even MORE enthussiasm (since they involve NON-ELECTIVE leaders):

Let’s call for a truly independent enquiry into the case of King Anan’s Death and the WRONGFUL execution of Nai Chit, Butre, Chaliew.

Let’s call for an enquiry into the constitutionality of HMK’s appointment of Sarit, and his support of Sarit during the latter’s six BLOODY years.

Let’s call for an enquiry into the role of HMK in the 1973 events, the constitutionality of the so-called “sapha sanamma”

Let’s call for an enquiry into the 6 Oct 1976 events, the role of HMK, the Crown Prince, the Crown Princess and the Village Scouts under KMK’s patronage.

in deed,

Let’s call for an enquiry into the contitutionality of HMK’s 25 April 2006 speech that set off the so-call “juditiary revolution” which overthrew the general elections.

last, but definitely not least:

Let’s call for an enquiry into the role of KMK and the royal family in the 19 Sep coup d’etat itself.

Now, why on earth a man high principle like Michael wouldn’t make (indeed didn’t already make) such open calls at the same time that he supports the ousting of Thaksin really escapes me!
22 Grasshopper // Feb 26, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Ajarn Somsak, I think it’s because you have to have a double standard for the actions of deities. Imagine angering Zeus on Mount Olympus; calling him out on being less golden than his PR deities told you… you manage to run away but you can never return or slander Zeus to your friends – the whole lightening bolt from atop mountain thing. Maybe Michael Connors wishes to return to Thailand without having his curry spiked??

Less superciliously, it is up to Thai people to decide the role and legitimacy of the King. The Thai people elected Thaksin and Samak so foreign academics can only really talk of this because I think Bhumibol is much more an icon of Thai culture and democracy is just a system of administration. I can criticize an administration and an election, but I cannot criticize a culture.
23 Srithanonchai // Feb 26, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Wow – this is quite an angry outburst!
24 Sidh S. // Feb 26, 2008 at 4:24 pm

My point precisely… so much emotion and hate.
By that standard, HMK takes the responsibility for every action of the Thai state as he ‘constitutionally’ appointed every elected and non-elected leader (including PMThaksin) since his acension to the throne. KhunSomsak almost paints Thailand as a North Korea with power concentrated in the hands of the monarch, reducing other historical agents to puppets and nominees (the ‘in trend’ term).

While I don’t have the “song mai ao” position, I find they are more even-handed and objective in the treatment of the past and present events.

Maybe KhunSomsak (or ajarn) should collate his substantial knowledge into a well researched and argued book – but I doubt this will be any more illuminating, or shed more light on Thai political history. As I’ve said before, we need thick volumes on other critical figures involved in critical events from King Prajadhibok, AjarnPridi, FMPibul, GenSarit, GenPrapas – and the long lineage of powerful soldiers, policemen, chaopohs, tycoons, the very visible hand of America during the Cold War etc. that have variously influenced Thai politics and society. Dismissing their significant roles only leaves us with a highly biased, entrenched view and is very unhelpful.

My inclination is to start from the present, hence my focus on PMThaksin, PMSamak, Chalerm, Newin, Chakrapob, PMSurayud, Gen Sonthi, tycoon Sonthi etc. as it is highly relevant for the now and the future. If any of the Big Men can stop the next massacre in the name of ‘War on Drugs’, can make the South peaceful, can deliver high quality education to all Thai children (and children of immigrants too it is hoped), encourage a more democratic culture, more transparent and inclusive governance, free and high quality media (like SBS and ABC in Australia) etc…etc…, I would be highly grateful. Maybe in that open and fair future (it is hoped), we might be able to make a more objective assessment of the pasts that led to it…
25 Srithanonchai // Feb 26, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Acute: PPP’s House Speaker Yongyuth red-carded by ECT — but only by 3 to 2 votes. Was the case so unclear — after all the investigations? Or was there something more fishy within the ECT? If the case is so weak, what will the Supreme Court say?

EC finds Yongyuth guilty of electoral fraud charge
(BangkokPost.com) – Election Commission (EC) on Tuesday found House Speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat guilty of electoral fraud charge in the Dec 23 general election.
The five-member panel voted 3-2 to red-card him, according to Election Commissioner Somchai Juengprasert.
“The majority voters decided to forward the case to the Supreme Court,” he said.
He added that the Supreme Court will decide on the case, and Mr Yongyuth will be banned from politics for five years if the court follows the EC’s ruling.
The ruling came after one-week delay, after Mr Yongyuth requested the panel to question one more witness before the ruling.
Mr Yongyuth, a list-MP for zone 1 covering Chiang Rai and other provinces in the upper North, was found by the sub-panel to have bribed local administrators in Chiang Rai to campaign for votes for the People Power party in the general election. He was a deputy leader of the PPP at the time.
The ruling causes the Stock Exchange of Thailand index to drop more than 10 points as investors fear that PPP could be resolved.
BP 26 February 2008
26 Michael Connors // Feb 26, 2008 at 8:17 pm

I have no problem in arguing that monarchy is illegitimate from a political perspective that is based on equality of human beings, and indeed this is the drift of much of my work. Even if a vast majority of people voted for a monarchy, and provided that monarchy with immense wealth and power and elevated it to semi-divine status with arbitrary power to be lord of life, I would still consider it illegitimate, and would so argue (if my life and freedom and my loved ones were unharmed, otherwise I am afraid that I would most likely be more circumspect). I assume that Somsak would also argue that an elected hereditary institution was offensive and illegitimate, and so would go against the “popular will” in that instance.

I suspect that my view on monarchy is not shared by many people in Thailand, which points to the need to differentiate between judgement of legitimacy based on personal beliefs, and those based on wide social practise and beliefs, although of course the two often combine. The Thai monarchy’s legitimacy (in the sense of having won broad support based on self and state propagated principles) is rooted in the long history of the modern monarchy, ideological production and state-craft, and this is something even pro-Thaksin forces are unlikely to dispense with (as a resource for social order). The Thai monarchy’ hegemonic position is not merely a product of coercion, but rather rests in processes of identification and material compromise – a historical process. In that sense. I would say that to most Thai people the monarchy remains a legitimate institution (that legitimacy being based on principles related very indirectly to democracy).

Given the different forms of legitimacy in play, Somsak’s attempt to elicit from me a statement of equivalence regarding the monarchy (or more specifically Bhumiphol) and Thaksin is misguided. Thaksin was an elected prime minister and in entering an election he agreed to play by the rules of the democratic game; in not doing so he forfeited his legitimacy, or so I would argue. I also recognise that to most Thais he remained the legitimate prime minister (one among various reasons why people reasonably opposed the coup). In any case, a coup was not a legitimate way to depose him, something I have always argued.

The monarchy has never really claimed a democratic mandate in any operative sense (despite allusions to an elective monarchy), nor has it ever been elected (and in so being elected, agreed to play by the rules of the game). Its assumed legitimacy is based on its own terms of Buddhist leadership and just rule etc. I would argue that the monarchy has been quite successful in propagating this form of legitimacy, and the Thaksin government supported such propagation.
In contrast to Thaksin’s relatively brief rule, the monarchy has risen and consolidated its position through close relations with authoritarian regimes over several generations, and has also adapted itself to semi-democratic forms of power (though this has hardly been a smooth transition). In both contexts, it has been witness to terrible atrocities, and I would have no problem in its role being examined. The Thai monarch has himself commented on the burden of being judged to be superhuman, which I take to mean that he would be happy to be subject to equal treatment in matters of law in his position as an individual, not as an institution. Anything more would require a kind of transitional justice commission, the kind of thing that is only born of major social change.

Somsak’s position (if one can find it after the unnecessary abuse and misrepresentation) obscures the issues of the present and requires that to address present injustices requires that all historical injustices are addressed. In any case, just as those subject to injustices during the 1970s and 1980s remain in a kind of judicial purgatory, I doubt that those who suffered injustice under the Thaksin regime will find much justice in the present political system. That’s a good reason as any to be critical of both sides.
27 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 27, 2008 at 12:17 am

Given the different forms of legitimacy in play, Somsak’s attempt to elicit from me a statement of equivalence regarding the monarchy (or more specifically Bhumiphol) and Thaksin is misguided. Thaksin was an elected prime minister and in entering an election he agreed to play by the rules of the democratic game;

Didn’t you hear HMK claim in the 25 April speech that he ALWAYS acts according to the Constitution, or to use your language “he agreed to play by the rules of the democratic game”

Now you criticises Thaksin by what you claims is a left-wing, socialt stance, why on earth do you now say “given the different forms of legitimacy in play” (see also the first paragraph: KMK “agreed” to “play by the rules …”)? Shouldn’t you apply the same “socilait” stance to both HMK and elected politicians?

…obscures the issues of the present and requires that to address present injustices requires that all historical injustices are addressed.

So for a “socialist”, 6 Tula is just “historical injustice” now? The three pages executed in King Anan’s case too? What about the so-call “juditiary revolution” that overthrew general elections? Too “historical”, not “present” enough as well? What about the 19 Sep coup itself? Where is your call to account for “the other side”?
28 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 27, 2008 at 12:19 am

The last point about “present” vs “historical” injustices is quite sickening really. What kind of “socialism” is this? A NON-HISTORICAL Socialism?
29 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 27, 2008 at 12:46 am

Didn’t you write some thing about ” turn a blind eye to the palace’s history, ?

So it’s “obscure the issues of the present ” now to raise “historical injustice” and require them to be addressed?

So, let’s all worship HIM now for His “refusal” to use Article 7? Let’s now not say anything about Sarit, 6 Tula, etc? Let demand no justice to all those brutally murdered, least it’d “obscure” the “present injustice”?
30 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 27, 2008 at 1:18 am

The monarchy has never really claimed a democratic mandate in any operative sense (despite allusions to an elective monarchy), nor has it ever been elected (and in so being elected, agreed to play by the rules of the game).

What kind of ‘explanation’ or excuse is this?

The monarchy in a DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY “agreed to play by the rule of the game” i.e. the Constitution.

As I said, the 1957 Proclmation appointing Sarit, urging people to obey Sarit was in DIRECT VIOLATION of the 1952 Constitution that the monarchy “agreed to play by [its] rules”

All other cases (6 Tula, 14 Tula, “Sapha Sanamma” even the overthrew of general elections by judges, not to mention the coup itself) are all instances of the VIOLATION of “the rules of the games” by which the monarchy “agreed to play”.

Don’t you know anything about the “rules” of Constitutional monarchy at all?

The kind of excuses you made for HIS behavior is really sad, and sickening.
31 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 27, 2008 at 1:35 am

Finally, let’s talk “the present”:

So, by your excuse, HE doesn’t have to be held to account, for instance, for the role his chief’s adviser played in overthrowing the Contitution?

On the other hand, by any normal standard of democracy, since his adviser, his “circle” (remember the blue kerchief?) and possibly even he himself, violated the Constitution and the law (ka-bot) by which he himself “agreed to play”, WHY DON’T YOU ISSUE A CALL FOR HIS OUSTING AS YOU DID THAKSIN?

What kind of “principle” is this?
What a fake!
32 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 27, 2008 at 2:04 am

P.S. (my last for now.)

Does anyone else notice the kind of language our “leftist” critics of Thaksin and elcted politicians, like Michael or Ji, use nowsaday in regards to the monarch?

Michael:

The Thai monarch has himself commented on the burden of being judged to be superhuman

In both contexts, it has been witness to terrible atrocities,

Just “witness”, Michael? 6 Tula?

Ji:
On occasions the king has supported modern [?!] democratic methods.

Wow! This is certainly new to me. “New kind of Socialists”. Polite, almost deferent to un-elected monarch, WITH SUCH “DISTINGUISHED” CARRER RECORDS (Sarit, 6 Tula, etc.)
33 Alfred Nauman // Feb 27, 2008 at 7:40 am

I think Ajarn Somsak has a point that hasn’t expressed all that clearly. The monarchy has been associated with some decidedly nasty political events and keeps getting away with it – the teflon monarchy perhaps? Despite all the huff and puff over legitimacy and multiple meanings, there is a case that the monarchy and this king should be held accountable.

And, as Ajarn Somsak implies, this accountability should apply to the palace’s allies and the agents of the state. It should also apply to Thaksin and TRT and every other member of the rotten elite that controls Thailand.

Fat chance of that though! Maybe the pigs will fly some day.
34 Grasshopper // Feb 27, 2008 at 10:30 am

Michael,
Somsak’s position (if one can find it after the unnecessary abuse and misrepresentation) obscures the issues of the present and requires that to address present injustices requires that all historical injustices are addressed. In any case, just as those subject to injustices during the 1970s and 1980s remain in a kind of judicial purgatory.

What? This is less clear than Somsak’s position and his overbearing caps lock. Obscure the issues of the present? But these issues are in the present – the present issue being discussed, I think, is that the monarchy place themselves above the constitution whilst supporting democratic constitutional rule publicly? Judicial purgatory everywhere (not just victims of supreme crimes) is the issue! The illegitimacy of governments under the monarchy is just a symptom of having to navigate one institution’s absolute control through muddy waters.

I think Somsak is asking questions that don’t require so much intellectualising.
35 Sidh S. // Feb 27, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Good point by Alfred at #33.
But as I implied – patience is the virtue here and “pigs will fly” in Thai democracy. Never discount that!

I will use the case of Australia – who would have thought, in the midst of the PMHoward years in government that the next head of government will say “sorry” to the Aboriginal stolen generations, a result of formal government polices from early to mid-20th century. And I feel privileged to ‘live’ through that historical moment.

One day, I believe, when histories are more objectively revealed and unravelled, Thai society will reach that point (as I implied in #24). We may not live to see it as those found accountable will not live to be tried – as is the case of Australia (and as is the case of historical patterns. Atrocities and crimes are always commited in war and societal conflicts. Those in the ‘winning’ side can only be ‘tried’ post-humous.).

I also concede that the narrative that will take us there is that of “song mai ao” – not my self-described ‘critical royalist’ views nor AjarnSomsak’s extreme anti-royalist stances, the latter two (or three if we include the nationalist-royalists, who won’t bother turning up here!) will only play supporting roles.

Meanwhile, real-time events are hotting up as I write. The House Speaker gets red-carded and PMThaksin plans to fly back tomorrow (impatient with PMSamak?! Will this be a case of ‘two heads is better than one’ or ‘two tigers can’t share the same cave’???)
36 Land of Snarls // Feb 27, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Sidh S: “…who would have thought, in the midst of the PMHoward years in government that the next head of government will say “sorry” to the Aboriginal stolen generations…” Well, everyone really. I don’t think anyone had any doubt whatsoever that one of the first things Labor would do would be to say ’sorry.’ This was a popular movement, espoused even by many who voted for Howard. When it first became an issue, Sir William Dean, the Governor General (Head of State), made it very clear that he was in favour – & he actually apologised-, despite Howard’s (Head of Government) refusal to do so on behalf of the Australian people & government.

This was in the category of ‘an idea whose time has come.’ It was vigorously and openly discussed by everyone, from schoolkids and uni students to the clergy. This makes it an entirely inappropriate analogy to the current situation in Thailand, where pigs will keep eating & shopping, cringeing & waihing. “Pigs will fly?” I don’t think so.
37 Srithanonchai // Feb 27, 2008 at 9:50 pm

A warm “welcome back home, Dear Leader Thaksin!” (or: another variation of the meaning of legitimacy…)

Poll: People remember Thaksin in good ways
(BangkokPost.com) – More than half the people reponding to an Abac Poll said they think about all the good things ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra has done for the country.
Some 64.7% of the youth interviewed by the Assumption University polling arm think about all the good things he has done more than charges against him. About 66.5% of respondents who are adult think the same way.
The survey assessed opinions of 3,553 people of at least 12 years of age, who live in 27 provinces. The survey was conducted between February 20 to 26.
Some 45.8% of the respondents said they miss Mr Thaksin a lot while 41.6% said they do not quite miss him. About 12.6% said they miss him moderately.
About 80% of the respondents follow political news every week.
BP 27 February 2008
38 Michael Connors // Feb 27, 2008 at 10:22 pm

Somsak’s questions are important, and that is why I am attempting to answer them. They are also important in the Thai context, against which this exchange is a side issue. Also, Somsak was part of the events of 1976 and he rightly demands that those responsible be held accountable.

Again, I state, I have no problem in declaring the monarchy illegitimate from a political perspective based on equality. Few could disagree with that argument (only an oxy moron) , but few will agree with me when the idea is applied to Thailand. Such an argument can only be carried by social forces, not a one person revolutionary band who uses this argument and his willingness to make it to shield political forces, which he currently supports, from criticism. He knows very well that few people in Thailand are ready to make such a public declaration, even if they agree with it.

From the comfort of living in a country where my civil liberties are protected, I can with no danger or discomfort to myself, support inquiries into all the horrible events that scatter Thailand’s modern political history, including those listed by Somsak, and for such inquiries to cover all relevant actors, including the monarchy. The Committee that wrote the important book on 1976 Crimes of State has, I am thinking from memory, made such a recommendation and I can not imagine anyone on this weblog not agreeing with that specific suggestion. That brave report was issued during Thaksin’s rule. However, as we know, no such inquiries are going to be held in the immediate future, neither pro-Thaksin forces nor pro CNS forces are going to work towards any meaningful ones: all have fingers in the pie. Same with 1992. Same with Tak Bai, and on it goes.

It is important to put Somsak’s insistence in proper context. His questions to me and his name calling are quite irrelevant in a Thai context as I am an outsider, not a political actor, and I don’t much care what I get called for holding my political views. But Somsak is also putting the same arguments to people in Thailand who rightly find Samak’s comments about Tak Bai and 1976 offensive and who operate in more difficult circumstances (see http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?s=d2aece1a4fcd2b153817bd528e6cbc2a&showtopic=6258).

What Somsak is really saying, and tell me if I am wrong, is that in the current Thai context no one, and that means no one, has a right to say anything about an elected politician who might be acting in a manner that they find objectionable unless they also criticise the monarchy and simultaneously address every major injustice in modern Thai history. That means no one has a right to raise any question of human rights, corruption and so on, unless they also present a list of grievances against the monarchy. Quite sensibly, Somsak’s position is viewed as untenable by people in Thailand because to take such a position would mean none of the current issues to be addressed would get a hearing among the public.

His absolutism on this point (and I have to say I admire his courage as much as he despises my cowardice) serves the interests of political immobilism on issues that people feel are achievable (human rights and the war on drugs, disappearances in the South). Achievement on current issues can alter greatly the way the Thai state works in the future, it can establish standards of accountability, rule of law, witness protection. It can save lifes. For instance, had the recent War on Drugs Committee recommended some judicial action against the state crimes committed during that “war on drugs” it is hard to imagine Chalerm and Samak now pushing the issue again and talking about future body counts. This is a current issue and the possibility is real of making gains. Of course the Committee made no such suggestion nor was it ever likely too, after all Saruyud was on the 2003 Committee that oversaw the war on drugs. Human rights and people’s lives lost during 2003 were possibly (I am speculating) a bargaining chip used in discussions between the CNS and pro-Thaksin forces.

Despite my reluctance to be drawn into battle of false bravado, I think I have now called Somsak’s bluff. It is now time to hear his criticisms of elected politicians and whether they should be accountable, or does that only become possible in some utopian future when Thailand is a republic? I would also like to see all those with non-deplumes who have been making similar sounds to Somsak and pushing the Thaksin-PPP line to come out of their protective name-shell and criticise the highest institutions in the land and then earn for themselves the Somsak-sanctioned right to care about other state crimes (but about which they feel they can not raise just in case they undermine the democratic legitimacy of an elected regime). Perhaps we should allow that pro-Thaksin forces, out of political necessity of course, can not make such critical sounds, so that the TRT-PPP government can consolidate its position (and do it all again); democracy after all, is a gradual process.

The more I try and answer Somsak the more abuse I get, so this is my last post on this topic.
39 Land of Snarls // Feb 27, 2008 at 11:56 pm

The most interesting thing about this poll for me is that it states that all the respondents think.
40 Sidh S. // Feb 28, 2008 at 12:02 am

Thanks for the clarification Land of Snarls.
As I’ve said patience is the virtue here – and I don’t expect to live to see it! Based on the life expectancy of a Thai male living in Australia, I think that’s another 40 years!
But who knows, it all comes down to the actions/popularity of the next generation of royals…
Cheers.
41 Ladyboy // Feb 28, 2008 at 8:01 am

Michael,
“tell me if I am wrong…That means no one has a right to raise any question of human rights, corruption and so on, unless they also present a list of grievances against the monarchy.”

I thought Somsak asks why are people not raising the issue of the monarchy when this issue raises far greater questions of human rights, corruption and so on than Thaksin and is STILL going on. The answer to that question is probably a fear of a backlash from the vast majority who revere the king. It’s much easier to criticise other injustices.
42 Sidh S. // Feb 28, 2008 at 3:11 pm

Land of Snarls, maybe a better analogy would be the case of Japan’s Emperor and WWII – a case that will never likely be revisited except on historical books on the issue (which is also banned in Japan if I am not wrong?). If Thailand’s case resembles Japan’s more, then I think you and Alfred are right and pigs will never fly – even if the country eventually evolves into a vibrant liberal democracy. The weight of centuries of history, culture and identity will be too much – and apart from published books in other countries, academic conferences and blogs like this may be the most public it gets.

Many of the 1976 generation have also been absorbed into the mainstream (have any research, indepth interviews with them been conducted on why?) – with exceptions such as AjarnSomsak. Post AjarnSomsak – who will carry on the activism (and hate) on 1976? History says that it will not, and 1992’s injustices may get more attention and then eventually 2003 (a bit trickier as no activists have been at the recieving end of the state’s actions this time – only petty drug dealers at most and an ethnic minority. Is this a reason why many here cannot feel empathy for these latter groups?)

On the Stolen Generation issue, have all the perpretators (politicians, church leaders etc.) passed away (and the Australian parliament have said “sorry” on their behalf post-humous?)?
43 Srithanonchai // Feb 28, 2008 at 7:52 pm

Thaksin in the press conference after his return: “I and my family have suffered from injustice but this can not be compared to the hardship befallen the people who are the worst victims of political rivalry,” he said.” (The Nation, February 28, 2008) >> Does Thaksin’s regret include the victims of the anti-drug campaign, Tak Bai, and Krue Se?
44 Land of Snarls // Feb 29, 2008 at 8:33 am

Sidh S: re. your questions on the Stolen Generations, I don’t have time to answer right at the moment, and it’s not a mainland S.E.Asian issue, so probably not appropriate for discussion on NM. I suggest you google it. There’s a lot of material available. You can get the report of the National Enquiry at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/part1.rtf
Sorry I can’t be more helpful – flat out.

BTW, what do you think of A.W’s header, “The return of the king”? (Serious question, I’m not being flippant.) Don’t know what I think. Overload.
45 Republican // Feb 29, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Response to #7 + # 38: I’ve tried hard to restrain myself from commenting on Michael Connors’ intellectually pretentious, morally self-righteous, and very condescending series of posts, but it was just too much for me. I’ve tried to limit myself to just eight points.

Let’s start with this one:

1. “I think I have now called Somsak’s bluff…”

Maybe I missed something in that long-winded, pretentious wankery that is supposed to pass as an intellectually sophisticated comment (#38), but nowhere in his response did I see Connors do what Somsak called for in his posts: to put the same efforts (or even more) into denouncing the king as he does in denouncing democratically-elected Prime Ministers and political parties. The best he could do was say, “…I have no problem in declaring the monarchy illegitimate from a political perspective based on equality…” Whereas almost in the same breath he calls the newly democratically-elected government led by Samak a “monstrosity”. I can’t recall him using the same language to describe the CNS or the king. Connors’ response does not call his bluff at all; it actually proves Somsak’s point: the hypocrisy of Connors and so many other academics who cover themselves in the self-righteous veil of moral superiority in their criticisms of Thaksin and Samak and PPP-TRT, but are virtually silent on the longer, more serious, more insidious, and less visible abuses of the king and the royalist establishment.

2. “…It is important to put Somsak’s insistence in proper context. His questions to me and his name calling are quite irrelevant in a Thai context as I am an outsider, not a political actor …”

Hello? Connors is an academic isn’t he? Why one earth would criticisms by one academic – Somsak – of another academic – Connors – on an academic blog be irrelevant? What has it got to do with being an “outsider”, whatever that means? Connors ought to have the intellectual courage to respond to the points of criticism without calling them “irrelevant”.

3. “… Quite sensibly, Somsak’s position is viewed as untenable by people in Thailand…”

This statement is not only insulting in its condescension (”people” are sensible, Somsak is not), it is untrue. Anyone who has followed debates on Fa Dio Kan over the last couple of years would see that Somsak’s position has many supporters.

4. “…The more I try and answer Somsak the more abuse I get, so this is my last post on this topic…”

This preciousness of academics is what really pisses me off about Thai Studies. An academic finds himself on the end of some sharp criticism (not “abuse”) and he starts whining for sympathy (because he can’t defend himself) then finally runs away. In fact, even if one is “abused” (and I’ve been on the receiving end occasionally) I don’t see why one has to run away, or even feel “hurt”. Connors doesn’t seem to mind heaping abuse on the Thaksin and Samak governments. But when he cops a little criticism on a blog he starts whining. One would wish that academics – especially political “scientists” (I hesitate to use the term) – have thicker skin than this.

As in earlier posts I find myself in disagreement with virtually every sentence of what Connors writes. The tone of condescension and superiority is what really grates. The following from #7 is a beauty:

5. “…Any legitimacy he [ie. Thaksin] may have had as a consequence of being selected prime minister by elected representatives was negated by his actions in that position…”

What does this statement actually mean? Connors has unilaterally declared from on high that Thaksin had no “legitimacy”. So Connors (and the royalists) decides what is or is not “legitimate”, not the Thai people. The fact that Thaksin and his party have been democratically elected now on four consecutive occasions, and that Thaksin enjoys great popularity with the electorate means nothing to Connors in terms of democratic legitimacy. This is EXACTLY the argument of the CNS and their royalist backers. So Connors and the former royalist dictatorship are totally in agreement on this point. In fact, it seems that Connors is not in the “song mai ao” camp after all; the camp that Connors belongs to based on his own arguments is that of the CNS and the royalists.

6. “…Why people such as Somsak continue to require that people support the legitimacy of figures such as Thaksin I have no idea…”

Well obviously Connors has no idea. It is much too much to ask for, that Connors respects the democratic choice of the Thai electorate, that he acknowledges the legitimacy that comes from elections. Connors believes he knows better than the majority of the Thai electorate who elected Thaksin. Another demonstration of the undemocratic, authoritarian, patronizing, even neo-colonial stance of Connors towards the Thai electorate.

7. “…His [ie. Somsak’s] absolutism on this point (and I have to say I admire his courage as much as he despises my cowardice) serves the interests of political immobilism on issues that people feel are achievable (human rights and the war on drugs, disappearances in the South). Achievement on current issues can alter greatly the way the Thai state works in the future, it can establish standards of accountability, rule of law, witness protection. It can save lifes…”

Spot the moral self-righteousness? Connors accuses Somsak of holding a position which will not lead to a politics that will achieve morally good ends. But “people” (?) and Connors do hold a morally superior position – that “can save lives”. Connors as a “khon di”. Right up there with Prem and Surayudh and Mor Prawet and the profoundly undemocratic “phak prachachon”, declaring who is “legitimate” or not, and showing Thais through their superior intelligence and moral consciousness the way to “do good”.

(By the way, nowhere did Somsak accuse Connors of “cowardice”. He criticized his hypocrisy, inconsistency, and ridiculous, perverted understanding of socialism – a travesty of socialist ideals, actually).

And lastly:

8. “…The Thai monarch has himself commented on the burden of being judged to be superhuman, which I take to mean that he [the king] would be happy to be subject to equal treatment in matters of law in his position as an individual, not as an institution…”

This is one of the most ridiculous, naïve, credulous statements I have ever read by any political scientist working on Thailand. “Happy to be subject to equal treatment”?! You mean by us specks of dust? You might expect this from a child indoctrinated on Thai royalist propaganda, but a university academic? What is it with farang academics and the monarchy? Why do they go all gooey in the presence of royalty? In this one statement we have the key to understanding Connors’ apparent total misreading of the Thai political scene.
46 Sidh S. // Feb 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Thanks Land of Snarls.
Maybe Andrew was only referencing Tolkein – or that PMThaksin is now openly promoted as the anti-monarchy posterboy in NM! I am sensing a double personality here. I am much more familiar with Andrew’s writing now and it is of a very high quality academic undoubtedly (one of the best and passionate on his area of interest) – on the other hand, there’s an activist streak in him when it comes to one person, HMK. Personally I think that is unfortunate (especially when he try to link with his very rigorous research), but it does make for very lively discussions here!
47 nganadeeleg // Feb 29, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Daniel Ten Kate says in Asia Sentinel: “It’s hard to find an analyst who doesn’t think Thaksin’s tenure as prime minister was rife with conflict of interest. “
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1074&Itemid=31

Do I win a prize for finding one?
48 Michael Connors // Feb 29, 2008 at 6:37 pm

I am not running away, just prefer to disagree and engage without using name-calling. Much better to cut through the personal abuse and weigh the arguments.

I’ve cut and pasted from my various posts things that I think Republican could agree with and now seek his endorsement, in his own name. There is not a single word of criticism of an elected government or of Samak – not even of Samak’s 1976 comments and Tak Bai comments which were necessary according to Republican in order for Samak to prove his royalist credentials. Republican oddly thinks Samak’s statements were a smart strategy to win favour with the royalists while those such as me who criticise the monarchy are identified with royalist dictatorship)

I ask Republican to take a look at the pastings below and say in his own name that he can generally agree with them. If he can not, then he should stop asking people in Thailand to say these things, and stop identifying my position as pro-royalist.

The Pastings:

“I have no problem in arguing that monarchy is illegitimate from a political perspective that is based on equality of human beings”

“In contrast to Thaksin’s relatively brief rule, the monarchy has risen and consolidated its position through close relations with authoritarian regimes over several generations, and has also adapted itself to semi-democratic forms of power (though this has hardly been a smooth transition). In both contexts, it has been witness to terrible atrocities, and I would have no problem in its role being examined..

“[I] support inquiries into all the horrible events that scatter Thailand’s modern political history, including those listed by Somsak, and for such inquiries to cover all relevant actors, including the monarchy.”

Signed: Republican (Prefer Real Name).
49 Reg Varney // Mar 1, 2008 at 2:36 am

I agree with Republican that Connors is being too precious and all too circumspect. At the same time, I would love to see Republican’s academic writings that display the kind of courage, lack of tendentiousness and so on that he demands of others. Where can I find them?
50 Michael Connors // Mar 1, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Words from a monarchist …and words from a republican

Below are some more “monarchist” comments I have made in published pieces under my own name, including suggestions of a personality cult, terrorizing popular movements, brute force and so on. Republican (in his own name) may or may not wish to endorse them as he may also do so regarding my earlier post (48 in this topic). There are few criticisms of elected politicians in this post and post 48 (except an observation that Thaksin did little to undermine royalist ideology), so Republican should feel reasonably comfortable in endorsing at least some of them in his own name. He demands that others speak critically of the monarchy, I’d like him to take the step also in his own name.

I do not expect many Thais being able to say these things (quotations below) in public; they face certain sanction, especially those not in the relatively protected university sector. And before I am misunderstood as taking a snipe at Somsak because I say the university sector is relatively protected, I think his statements on this blog and elsewhere are extraordinarily challenging and brave in the Thai context. While I disagree with his analysis, I think he is pushing (in his own name) the boundaries more than anyone.

Many Thais and outsiders won’t say critical things about the monarchy or say word for word what Somsak and Republican require them to say, simply because they are likely to disagree with this analysis of the monarchy or they don’t like being told what to say word for word; even those who are critical of it will see it differently, and say it differently. Just because they do not say anti-monarchist things does not mean they forfeit the right to raise questions of human rights abuses during the Thaksin regime. I keep replying in this post-thread, because I find it difficult to accept the argument made by Somsak and Republican that no one has a right to say anything about elected politicians unless they are also willing to touch the monarchy.

I do not think it is hard for western academics to say these things (if they want to, and in their own words, please). The relative openness for western academics may change as the new PPP government may wish to start proving its royalist credentials (something we should understand according to Republican) as the government needs to time to establish itself. See Republican Post 28 (and reproduced below) at: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2008/02/13/samaks-disgrace/

Here then, below, are a few “monarchist” statements I have made in the past, before it became the fashion to criticise the monarchy, and some made after the coup. It may seem self-indulgent to defend myself against the various charges of being in support of monarchy and dictatorship and to provide textual ‘evidence’; I only do so because I want to see if someone does this as requested by Republican and Somsak, whether in response Somsak and Republican will also agree that crimes may have been committed under Thaksin’s rule and these should be examined. Also, I’d like them to consider whether a popular mandate means that a person can walk away from potential responsibility for those crimes (it may be the case that a different kind of popular support has allowed the palace to so far be immune)? I don’t think either electoral legitimacy or ‘traditional legitimacy ’ or ‘constitutional legitimacy’ should provide any one with immunity, be they king, politician, army general and so on. Now before this question is avoided by stating I do not demand the same of the Thai monarchy, please refer to previous posts where I have stated that I have no problem with any body, including the monarchy, being subject to investigations in regard to such crimes.

And now, words from a monarchist, who supports royalist dictatorship, from my book the ultra-royalist grovelfest, Democracy and National Identity in Thailand:

1.
“Liberal elite forces reached their pinnacle of influence in the open period of politics of 1973–76, but only under the shadow of an increasingly aggressive and brutal right-wing backlash. Precisely because of the polarization in these years, the period is often seen as a lost opportunity; the elite pact of ‘first round’ democratization is seen as being undermined by a number of factors, including the mobilization of the masses internally, and the ‘communist’ victories in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. These developments led to a conservative reaction among sections of Thai establishment, including the palace, and the mobilization of mass right-wing organizations to terrorize the popular movement. Ultimately, such forces crushed the pro-democracy movement in the bloody events of 6 October 1976, at Thammasat University, when armed thugs, with the backing of the police and paramilitary elements, shot, battered, mutilated and hanged unarmed students. Using the events at Thammasat as a pretext, a coalition of military, bureaucratic, palace and capitalist forces backed a military coup, once again halting the emergence of progressive forces, as they had done in the late fifties.”

2.
“Most cited [in terms of the king as a pro-democratic force] is his intervention in the May 1992 events. On prime time television Bhumiphol lectured protagonists of the May events, Prime Minister Suchinda and Chamlong Srimuang, who lay semi-prostrate before him. However, a critical reading of that event shows Bhumiphol publicly sympathizing with Suchinda. Bhumiphol expressed frustration that his advice to ‘promulgate now, amend later’ (regarding the military backed 1991 Constitution) had been ignored by those pushing for immediate amendments.”

3
“After the tumultuous events of 1973–76, the monarchy became the focus of a new round of ultra-nationalist drum-beating and identity-seeking. The right wing had monopolized the official ideology of nation, religion and monarchy during the polarized political struggles of the 1970s. Many thus associated the triad with the appalling violence of the ultra-right. To counteract this, an aggressive restoration of the monarchy was pursued, in terms encompassing the progressive themes of democracy and social development and remoralization of the state around the figure of the monarch. The position of the monarchy was promoted by extensive media manipulation, effectively creating a cult of personality around Bhumiphol.”

4
“ The sum effect of this historical image making is that the present king is seen as a mediating power between hostile social forces, despite his family’s position as leading capitalists and landowners with a personal stake in the wellbeing of Thai capitalism. The palace’s unique position as a public exemplar of conservative traditions and its existence as a network of capital have proved an invaluable resource for Thailand’s elite democratic development. With the aura of traditional authority, built up since the 1950s, the monarchy is able to strategically intervene in favour of order.”

5
“The historical processes of the construction of the royal myth cannot be ignored in any attempt to ‘progressively’ appropriate this institution; it has never been a neutral national symbol. It has, rather, been an active political force …the monarchy ideologically disciplines the rural population through the discourse of thrift, self-reliance, national security and moral selfhood.”
…
“A key ideological resource and active agent of power bloc, the palace has succeeded in partly mobilizing resources for its own ends, but it has also been mobilized by social forces to assume a position at the helm of national ideology.”

6
”As an exponent of conservative forms of capitalism, the palace has vested interests in the propagation of ideology. As Chairat Charoensin-O-Larn notes, with the fragmentation and competition in and between the state and the bourgeoisie, the monarchy remained a key force for integration. Thus the constancy of the monarchy’s political position, its abiding regard for security and productive labour, reflects the concerns of a reflexive capitalist agent empowered by the prestige of royalty, and which has subsequently succeeded in positioning itself at the head of an ensemble of bureaucratic and capitalist forces. Given the glaring disparity between the rich and the poor, the monarchy’s dual position, as an agent of political and economic interests, and as a symbol transfigured as the soul and destiny of the nation, requires an iron regime of controlled imagery.”

7.
“The existence of lèse-majesté should not be seen as a minor blotch on an otherwise clean slate of political opening-up. In the 1980s liberalization was a limited affair, opening a political space for elite conflict and expression, bounded by the triad of nation, religion and monarchy. In villages, newspapers and in relations with the bureaucracy and capitalists, ordinary Thais faced the brute rule of superior power and the strictures of national identity and culture propagated by state ideologues and the palace. The stage-managed role of the monarch, the compulsory respect
shown to the institution, and the pressure of social conformity left many people with a taste of bitterness which few felt confident to express.”

8.
“Expectations of reduced policing of lèse-majesté in the near future are sanguine to say the least. Thai elites are well aware of how the free press has led to public mockery of the British monarchy, and they are fearful of what would happen were the Thai royal family open to scrutiny. The existence of the law does not suggest that the royalty is despised and needs protection, although there are elements of this – but who dares speak with universal sanction and prison waiting? The laws have a more general application in that they point to the monarchy as central to the entire modern ideological complex; around the figure of a righteous king, democracy may be defined in a traditionalistic and disciplinary manner.”

Postscript of Dem/National Identity (post coup)

8.

“If under Thaksin the rule of law had been in the intensive care unit, the CDR has taken it to the mortuary table. They annulled the constitution, banned political gatherings, censored the press, and declared their decrees to have the status of law. News soon followed that King Bhumiphol had met with the coup group, bestowing legitimacy on them.”

“The coup group did not move against Thaksin because of corruption, human rights abuses, or erosion of democratic freedoms– a feature of the early years of the Thaksin regime – but because it was clear that Thaksin was fundamentally challenging the power of the palace and the interests that have formed around it. When the coup group say they launched the coup for the sake of democracy, they mean Thai ‘constitutional monarchy’.”

9
“Thaksin’s fatal weakness was that while in power he did nothing to challenge royal ideology at an ideological level. He did not create a space for new ideological forms to take root. An ex-policeman and businessman, he placed too much faith in sheer force, money and capitalist-inspired empowerment of the poor. Ideology in the form of nationness, Thainess and moral order remain central in strategies of enduring political domination in Thailand. Those elements in the ‘people sector’ who played the royalist card – by joining the establishment opposition to Thaksin – understood the monarchy’s great ideological power, but at the cost of a deeper commitment to self-organization and democratic politics.”

10.
From Article of Faith: The Failure of Royal Liberalism

“Bhumibol’s declaration that he would not use Article 7 requires interpretation. Paradoxically, Bhumibol relied on his un-codified power (that which the anti- Thaksin movement had sought to deploy) to effectively compel a judicial solution to the crisis. The king would not be dictated to by street forces and instead relied on the power of his speech (see Thongchai, 2008) to impact on the outcome of political events. This course of action, it may be assumed, ensures the continuing myth of royal distance from politics and secures the reserve powers codified in Article 7 which the king refused to publicly exercise. Public use of those powers, compelled by protests on the street, may well have been judged imprudent in the face of a popular prime minister.”

11.
“…in the Thai context political liberals, believing Thailand to be bereft of a strong nationwide middle class that supposedly grounds liberalism, have entrusted the mission of establishing liberal democracy in the ideologies and institutions simultaneously derived from and legitimated by a mythic social contract embodied in the monarchy. Political liberalism in Thailand is unlikely to find a sure footing based on such exclusive terrain, especially when that base necessarily, because of its own role as the head of a power bloc in the national Thai capitalist formation (Connors, 2007: 131), fails to address the gross economic and social inequalities that led many to support Thaksin.”

“In the longer term, progressive social liberal forces, perhaps now disabused of the notion that the monarchy may be utilised for progressive purposes, may well be the political beneficiaries. The wide debates on the role of the monarchy, partly refracted through debates on the role of Privy Councillor Prem (see Prachathat, 16-22 July, 2007: 11) in the events of 2006, has greatly affected its standing, especially among supporters of Thaksin’s social and economic policies. This has the potential to erode the ideological compact that has taken shape since the 1970s and offers the possibility of the emergence of a more widespread egalitarian sentiment to challenge the hierarchical and deferential sentiment that surrounds the monarchy.”

WORDS FROM A REPUBLICAN
And now, words from Republican who labels me royalist and then allows Thai PM Samak the right to be ‘strategically monarchist’ in order to survive (not Republican’s words, but what I think he means, please tell me if I am wrong).

Posted on New MANDALA FEB 17 by REPUBLICAN
1.
“Given the current circumstances, on this issue [Samak’s comments that one person died during in the October 1976 events] maybe we need to separate moral outrage and political necessity. Those who want to see the neutralization of the royalist-military forces after the debacle of the last 17 months should be hoping for a strong PPP-led government. In this respect what Samak said in the CNN interview could actually work well for Samak himself and the PPP (including the former student activists)
….
(ii) Samak re-emphasizes his credentials (at least in terms of rhetoric) as an unreconstructed rightist-royalist. This helps him gain some confidence from the royalists, smarting from their big defeat following the formation of the PPP government.”
********************************************

Now, please Republican, explain why people who care about human rights have to condemn the monarchy, while those who may well be implicated in the abuse of human rights are allowed to protect the monarchy. And please don’t try and discredit me by simply referring to my wankery, pretentiousness, hypocrisy (I am happy to let you win that point if it helps), just please respond to the following questions:
a) Can you endorse statements (in quotation marks above) that I have made about the monarchy in your own name? Or, if you find something terribly monarchist about my statements quoted above, perhaps you can endorse Somsak’s statements that appear in this post-thread in your own name? Just as you require of others.
b) Will you allow that people with various forms of legitimacy (political, king, general etc) should face due process if there is sufficient evidence of complicity in a state or political crime (even an elected politician)?
c) Do you believe that no one has the right to speak about human rights in Thailand unless they also criticise the monarchy?

Anyone else who thinks I’ve been too precious and circumspect are welcome to endorse the above statements in their own name and address the three questions.

And yes, I’ve learned never say “last post”.
51 Republican // Mar 2, 2008 at 3:54 am

Reply to #48: Well, you just said in #38 that that was your last post on this matter because of alleged “abuse”. What is that if not running away? – the second time: you did it earlier in #1 after complaining that I was a blunt axe wielder… then there was that bit about the “show trial” and the “firing squad”. Sounds a bit like “abuse” to me. I thought you said you prefer to disagree without name-calling?

You say you want to cut through the personal abuse, but there hasn’t been ANY “personal” abuse; any criticisms have been of arguments, not personal matters. And I don’t call criticizing an argument “abuse”. This is an important point, because you are setting up a false man instead of defending your arguments.

There’s no need to repaste what you seem to feel are some choice parts of your posts about the monarchy and ask for my endorsement. In these postings you merely emphasize Somsak’s point: the language you use for the monarchy is entirely of a different order to the language you use to criticize Thaksin and TRT-PPP.

In any case, I wouldn’t put my name to another person’s work. And there is no way I would put my name to such a bland posting as “the monarchy is illegitimate from a political perspective that is based on equality of human beings”. I would have a far longer list of objections. I and many others have talked enough about these things on this blog. If I and they do not use real names the reason should be bleeding obvious.

By your challenge to me to use a real name you IMPLY that the way you write about the monarchy is out of your concern for lese majeste; ie. Republican (and others on this and other blogs) do not use their real names so they have no right to challenge others who do to write more critically about the monarchy.

OK. So you don’t want to run foul of lese majeste. Of course, that is understandable. But at the same time, as a political scientist aren’t you then admitting to hypocrisy? You’re happy to put your name to criticisms of a democratically-elected government precisely at a time it is engaged in a profoundly unfair struggle with “network monarchy” (unfair because the king’s manipulations can not be publicly criticized whereas Thaksin and TRT are abused by all on a daily basis), but you resist criticizing the monarchy in the same terms (Samak’s democratically-elected government a “monstrosity”) because it might cause you problems in your career? Is that what you’re saying?

I am not a political scientist, I don’t publish comments on politics in the mass media and I don’t have any desire to. But for those who do, because of (i) the difficulties in which a democratic government operates in a political game whose rules are largely set by the ratchakan state; and (ii) with constant undemocratic political interventions by the king, both obvious and behind the scenes, that can not be criticized by the government because of lese majeste, I would wish that academic commentators temper their comments to reflect this unfair situation.

The issue is not about stopping people from criticizing democratically-elected governments, or forcing them to publicly commit lese majeste. The issue is about pointing out the hypocrisy and moral self-righteousness of those that criticize the one but are soft or silent on the other. In 2006 it was not just hypocrisy; the demonization of Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai by the academics and “phak prachachon” was a critical factor in softening up the Bangkok middle class to accept a coup. And now they are at it again.

I’ve just noticed your post #50. Will reply in another post to anything that was not addressed in this one.
52 Republican // Mar 2, 2008 at 6:18 am

Reply to #50: The sarcastic tone you take in #50 is a bit tiresome. I didn’t call you a “monarchist” or a “royalist”, I said that your position that Thaksin had no legitimacy despite his electoral victories and great popularity with the electorate is the SAME as that of the CNS and the royalists. It is demonstrably the same and you should not deny it.

There’s no need to drag up any earlier pieces to prove your anti-monarchy credentials or that you were ahead of the “fashion”. My comments were directed at the Asia Sentinel article and your responses to my criticisms of it on this thread.

By using the terms “wankery”, “pretentiousness”, “hypocrisy” I wasn’t trying to discredit you. It was an accurate summary of your argument.

Re. your 3 questions:

Your whole discourse of “people who care about human rights” is distasteful, because the insinuation is that I don’t. Connors as the “khon di”.

a) No, I won’t endorse your statements for all the reasons I gave in #51. I find it perverse in the first place that you should be asking me to put my name to your work, even if I agreed with it.

b) Another example of your moral self-righteousness. You ask me whether I think human rights violators of “various forms of legitimacy” should face “due process”. Why on earth would I not agree that those who have violated human rights should face due process? (“even an elected politician” – how patronizing). But what a naïve question this is from someone who should know better. Do you actually think the courts in Thailand today are free from political interference? and especially on issues of human rights violations with political significance? You and others can trumpet your morally self-righteous demands for human rights violators to face justice and “due process” but these things hardly exist in Thailand for such politically significant violations. So what do you gain from these calls for justice? Your own sense of moral self-satisfaction.

c) Of course they have the “right”. What a patronizing question. But if they do not also criticize the monarchy’s human rights violations then they are hypocrites. And because of the politicization of human rights in Thailand now, effectively their criticisms are partisan; they are effectively supporting network monarchy’s attack on Thaksin and TRT-PPP and the democratic wishes of the Thai electorate using human rights as a political weapon. What do human rights mean if you are partisan?

“…Please Republican, explain why people who care about human rights have to condemn the monarchy, while those who may well be implicated in the abuse of human rights are allowed to protect the monarchy …”

Well, if you are going to use the discourse of “human rights” the monarchy should be criticized because of its daily abuse of the human rights of the Thai people, starting with Article 1 of the UDHR, before listing the many other specific abuses.

I don’t understand what you mean by the second part of your sentence.

Re. my comments about Samak’s statements about 6 October: you joined the moral cheerleaders who condemned Samak – as though what he said was something new. It provided another moral issue for the “khon di” to bash TRT-PPP, while they remained silent on the king’s role in October 6 – and all this coming after the September 19 coup and 17 months of a royalist dictatorship. My post was merely a speculation about the political reasons for Samak’s statements. If one wants to try to understand how politics works (instead of merely displaying what a morally right-thinking academic one is) one might take the time to actually judge politicians’ words on their intended political effect. If that effect is to strengthen a democratically-elected government over the royalist opposition forces, then one might not be so quick to press the moral outrage button.
53 Michael Connors // Mar 2, 2008 at 9:22 am

Republican’s last post gets to the heart of the matter.

Human Rights
I asked Republican whether people have the right to address questions of human rights if they do not also criticise the monarchy. Here is his response:

“Of course they have the “right”. What a patronizing question. But if they do not also criticize the monarchy’s human rights violations then they are hypocrites. And because of the politicization of human rights in Thailand now, effectively their criticisms are partisan; they are effectively supporting network monarchy’s attack on Thaksin and TRT-PPP and the democratic wishes of the Thai electorate using human rights as a political weapon. What do human rights mean if you are partisan?”

My response to this would be that anyone working on human rights in the South, during the war on drugs and so on are inevitably pushing at both the Thaksin regime and those forces connected to the CNS and the palace, by virtue of the wide-spread arms of the state that are implicated in those issues. As an example, I noted in another post CNS PM Sarayud was on the Committee related to the War on Drugs. This is just one example of how the forces cross over. To fight on the War on Drugs will see the underbelly of the Thai state revealed, and I suspect it will implicate all sides.

If Republican will allow PM Samak the right to think strategically in regard to how he relates to royalism and its power in Thailand, he might also allow people who work on human rights in Thailand ( with so much less power than Samak) to also work their way through the difficult questions that face them without calling them hypocrites. He is asking something of them that he won’t do in his own name.

Effectively, the Republican position shields any government from criticism because it asks the politically near-impossible under the guise of radicalism, and therefore leaves areas that can be worked on untouched.

Thaksin

Republican #45
“In fact, it seems that Connors is not in the “song mai ao” camp after all; the camp that Connors belongs to based on his own arguments is that of the CNS and the royalists.”

Somsak and Republican have repeated demanded that Thaksin-critics criticise the monarchy in the same manner that they criticise Thaksin. Of course Somsak and Thaksin do not criticise Thaksin in the manner that they demand others criticise the monarchy, because for them Thaksin had/has an electoral mandate – legitimacy. I have argued that in my opinion Thaksin forfeited democratic legitimacy when he moved outside the rules of the game when his regime launched the war on drugs, when his regime endorsed Tak Bai, when his regime moved against the checks and balances of the political system and so on. Now for most people Thaksin remained the legitimate leader for reasons related to leadership and decisiveness and the fact that they got concrete benefits from the regime, and of course because his government was popularly elected. These things I accept. In arguing that I think the regime was illegitimate based on my understanding of democracy I am one person making an argument in a crowd of arguments, and I reserve my right to do so. I also think people had a right to call for Thaksin’s resignation. If making an argument means putting yourself above other people, then we should all be silent. Indeed, if all commentary ceased when people voted (as is the implication of Republican’s position), I don’t know what the meaning of politics would be. To argue against a majority opinion, to disagree and advance different arguments is key to democracy. It is as if Somsak and Republican had imbibed Thaksin’s “I have 19 million votes” mantra and therefore brook no dissent.

However, illegitimate I think Thaksin was (can a person not have that opinion and express it, or must I toe the majority line) I also think the coup and the CNS were wrong (illegitimate); the use of Article 7 by the PAD was politically opportunist and weakened their commitment to democracy and so on…all these things I have previously said.

In the face of a series of quotations in post 50 that demonstrate that I am indeed critical of both sides Republican moves the issue to my use of adjectives for both sides. As Republican refuses to put his name to his own arguments he is not really in a position to quibble about the colour of my adjectives.
54 Srithanonchai // Mar 3, 2008 at 1:52 am

Maybe, New Mandala should establish a separate running thread called “Republican/Somsak versus Michael Connors”…
55 Republican // Mar 3, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Reply to #53: Because this issue about using real names is so important to you in defending yourself from my criticisms can I ask you one question:

Is the way you write about the monarchy (eg. “…which I take to mean that he [the king] would be happy to be subject to equal treatment in matters of law in his position as an individual, not as an institution…”) by comparison with the way you write about Thaksin and the democratically-elected PPP (”mostrosity”) determined by your fears about lese majeste – since you use your real name – or is it the way you really feel?
56 Michael Connors // Mar 4, 2008 at 9:23 am

Various episodes of exchanges in New Mandala suggest that New Mandala needs to address the issue of language on its blogs. Perhaps a statement on permissible type statements. It is very easy for people to say anything they want to say here without any accountability and therefore no responsibility. I refer to the use of insulting personal language directed at the person rather than the argument that lowers the tone and passes for argument. In the future I won’t be replying to people who do not use their own names, and I won’t be replying to people who happily and gaily throw around insults. Name-calling is one way of bullying one’s way through an argument so that the other retreats because they can’t be bothered. I won’t be engaging anymore, not because I get hurt – there are worse things in life – but because I can’t see much of a productive discussion occurring in such a context.

In this thread I’ve tried to stick with the argument, and ignore the personal accusations, to see where it went. Republican has been reduced to quibbling about my use of adjectives but has not budged on the key issue of giving unqualified support to elected politicians.

I was interested to see what the political implications of the Somsak/Republican position were, as well as the outcome of their attack on anyone not willing to touch the monarchy. The idea that human rights activists are hypocrites unless they also attack the monarchy sums up the sterile-abstract radicalism of the position. In the real world of politics, people will be using both elected politicians and the symbolism of the monarchy to advance the cause of human rights. Republicans may disagree with the strategy but to call it hypocritical is to miss the point of real politics in real places with rational use of symbolic and material resources to advance ends. Republican may also be suprised to learn that people take on very difficult issues in Thailand using their own name, and bravely address questions of injustice while using the symbolism of the monarchy to advance their cause. To label as hypocrites such people is a judgement I can not share.

While the exchange may have been ‘tiresome’ for Republican, I think it has been useful. Some of the consequences of the Somsak/Republican anti-monarchist position have been revealed – political immobilism, the use of principles to stifle real life politics, and a politics of pure majoritarianism in which anyone who questions majoritarian outcomes is seen as elitist and self-righteous (the end of politics if that is so).
57 Dickie Simpkins // Mar 4, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Oh Michael,

Take a Chill Pill.

After all, you’re working and doing things, you write published papers, and write opinions. In the even of getting traction, mobility, and even real world change, you have been compromised.

You see, Republican is so pure, his “untouchableness” in arguments or having to cede points to mortals like Mikey (you), Paul and Thongchai. I mean, when you do nothing, you are never compromised, and thus pure.

When you are so pure, you don’t have to give credit to anyone for pushing social barriers or helping others in their fight. You simply have to point out the fault in others for compromising on their purity, after all, when you do nothing, you never have to rely on realities, and you know how pesky realities can be purity.

that is why you should take a chill pill, go to http://bkkeats.blogspot.com and find yourself a nice place to go for a meal.

- Dickie
58 Grasshopper // Mar 4, 2008 at 7:07 pm

I think the problem is that it is hard not to antagonize more abuse after giving a well thought out answer, as you do Michael, when the questions and statements made by Republican and Somsak are loaded — they know all and see all afterall.

The other academics who are accountable unto this blog don’t seem to get involved with us peons — maybe there is a reason for this?
59 Land of Snarls // Mar 5, 2008 at 3:10 am

ganjabucket #58: How can you possibly put Ajarn Somsak into the same category as Republican?

Please explain “us peons” – is this some kind of obscure irony?
60 Grasshopper // Mar 5, 2008 at 4:44 pm

re 59, both write here with a condescending, know it all tone, which brow beats to the conclusion where I discover the original intent — and secondly, yes. I take it you do not like being a barbaric peon without irony?

Also, I used ‘unto’ in that last sentence in a slightly biblical way without realising. Perhaps I have been influenced too much by Somsak and Republican. Next thing they will have me rolling sticks and preaching my perspective unto all who I can corner!!!
61 Land of Snarls // Mar 6, 2008 at 2:01 am

Grasshopper #60:
“I take it you do not like being a barbaric peon without irony?” I don’t get it. Please expand & elucidate. I hope it’s sanook…

re. yr comments on Somsak & Republican: I can agree with you on Republican, whose terminally boring & obsessively repetitive posts, in which he seems absolutely dedicated to demolishing (as if he could!) people like Thongchai & Michael , who write extremely well-reasoned & informative stuff, & valuable too, whether one agrees with everything they say or not, take up so much space.

As far as Ajarn Somsak is concerned, I don’t see him as having a “condescending & know it all tone.” I think all his hyperactive postings in that recent period were triggered off by a reaction to Samak’s comments on CNN & Al jazeera, & the consequent discussion. As he said, he was amazed at the interest – he didn’t think anyone cared. His demand that farang academics, & Michael in particular, should condemn the royals was unrealistic and impractical, & Michael dealt with it in a reasonable manner, even though Somsak was unwilling to see that. He was somewhat ‘off the rails.’ Well, I can understand that, given the circumstances, although I don’t agree with his targeting of Michael. And I don’t think it would be a good idea for him to target anyone here, in the way he has been doing it. I think the whole episode is rather sad.

The bottom line of that particular issue is that, in a situation where hardly anyone in a population of about 65million seems to genuinely give a damn about Tula 6 & 14 ( not to mention all the other massacres), and those who do are commonly regarded as dangerously subversive, perhaps there is other more important work to be done. Governments, rulers, & laws (& their application!) change as a result of societal change, IMHO. They change because they become unacceptable.

BTW, I’m wearing black for 100 days. HMK is connected with an institution I work for. (I won’t get into my frustrations with it, which have nothing to do with the royal connexion.) I also work for 2 projects (1 for 4 yrs) which were under the patronage of Phra Pinang, as a volunteer. Both are really well-run & socially constructive, not least because about 50 Thai people are donating time & ‘hands-on’ skills to them, and sincerely & passionately espousing their aims. The ‘black’ thing hasn’t been discussed – a waste of time, really. So, my view is ‘when in Rome…’

I must say I like Dickie Simpkins’ remarks on purity & hopeless purists, and his affirmation of the value of Michael’s work – but, as for his advice to go to Bkk Eats, I dunno about that. Maybe he was joking. I took a look at the site – awful! All the restaurants are very expensive, the food is either farang or farang versions of Thai, and the photos show hideously stingey servings. I think I’ll have to start my own Snarlyfood.com site!
62 Grasshopper // Mar 6, 2008 at 11:23 am

Land of Snarls,

As Dickie Simpkins says, social reality conflicts with purity — so my idea is that Somsak and Republican’s social reality here seems to be both determined to be the alpha, or silverback and promote their purity unto us all! Andrew and Nicholas don’t seem to get involved with these ‘I’m not wrong’ opinionated debates because from my perspective, as seen here, they become savage — especially when both arguing are right… and that maybe Michael with his well thought out responses might want to consider this. The irony is simply that I can see I am a barbarous peon on here, so I thought you could relate to this if you saw it too.
63 Republican // Mar 6, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Reply to #56: It gets better and better: a Thai Studies academic calling for censorship of an academic blog in which he is criticized. Given the closeness of your political views to those of the CNS and the royalists as demonstrated above (# 45 and #52) it’s not surprising to me that you have the same reaction to criticism – try to censor it (by appealing to NM to ban posts you do not like) or refuse to respond (to the great majority of people on this blog and on Thai webboards who use pennames). You have no qualms about calling a government elected by the Thai people a “monstrosity”, but when you get called pretentious or hypocritical you start talking about what statements NM should deem “permissible” or not.

I’ve got to say, your constant whining about “abuse” and “insults” annoys the hell out of me. There has been no “insulting personal criticism” on this thread, only criticism of your argument. If you can’t distinguish the two then you have a sad understanding of academic debate. There has also been no “abuse” or “insults”, unless you call criticism of an argument “abuse” or an “insult”. As for “name-calling”, well you’ve indulged in it yourself, so complaining about it here is like the pot calling the kettle black.

So I take these false accusations to be a disingenuous attempt to close down the argument, as you tried to do twice before (#1 and #38), because you are incapable of defending what you write.

What really surprises me is that you insist that your work is inspired by political objectives (“…in the real world of politics…” etc.) but you seemed shocked when someone actually wants to debate you. Isn’t this what politics is all about? If you can’t put up with vigorous debate then perhaps you ought to change your field from politics to ornithology or crochet. Again, your position in regard to debate is all too similar to the CNS and the royalists: their disdain for the free, messy, cut-and-thrust nature of debate that is characteristic of democratic politics.

Lastly, in response:

1. “…Republican may also be surprised to learn that people take on very difficult issues in Thailand using their own name, and bravely address questions of injustice while using the symbolism of the monarchy to advance their cause. …”

Really? I had absolutely no idea. Thank you for enlightening me about the unknown deeds of these brave souls, among whose number no doubt you count yourself. The poor Thai people have so much to be grateful to you for.

2. “…The idea that human rights activists are hypocrites unless they also attack the monarchy sums up the sterile-abstract radicalism of the position…”

How is it “radical” to ask that the same standards for human rights be applied to all? If two sides violate human rights and you only attack the one, then this is by definition hypocritical. I can’t see how you can argue otherwise.

3. “…While the exchange may have been ‘tiresome’ for Republican, I think it has been useful.…”

No, no; I said it was your sarcasm I found tiresome, not the exchanges (your reading comprehension is poor in places). I agree they have been useful, in revealing your true position. What a pity you are cutting them short. I was waiting to hear you explain on what evidence you base your claim that “…[the king] would be happy to be subject to equal treatment in matters of law…”
64 Dickie Simpkins // Mar 6, 2008 at 3:26 pm

First:

I apologize to Nick and Andrew for my post, and I will no longer post about my reply to Snarly whatever he replies back.

1st. http://bkkeats.blogspot.com has a combination of restaurants, I can’t imagine a ‘farang’ ever going into Jae Nui in Samut Sakorn; they don’t even have an english menu there. Add ‘My Choice’ on Sukhumvit 36 to that, in the times I’ve been there, I’ve never seen even 1 farang there.

2nd. Yes, some of the restaurants are expensive as hell. In reference to your comment about small amounts of food, you’ll see that the restaurant was completely badgered and the comment was even made that the Bkkeater will never return. But the idea is to cover both expensive and cheap eats.

3rd. Coming soon will be about the best Phad Thai in Bkk, “Thip Samai” which is near Wat Phukhawthong “the Golden Mountain Temple”, Sorn Thong a seafood on Rama IV just past the Esso gas station between Sukhumvit 24 and 26, and “Sri Fah” in Thonglor. None of these eats are for Farang, and their price ranges are a lot more moderate.

Now, to be *slightly* topical, I’ll close by continuing my advice to Michael in reference to Republican’s post 63. There is a rule on some American political blogs: “DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS”
65 Land of Snarls // Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Dickie S #64 – You are right; I am wrong. I was too hasty in my visit to Bkkeats, only looked at page 1. Stupid! Please allow me to apologise from the heart of my bottom. (End of off-topic)

Grasshopper#62: “especially when both arguing are right” – I can’t see that recommending a course of action that would, at the very least, alienate Thais and almost certainly deny the possibility of future visas, is right.

I think Republican has hinted that he’s a teacher in some institution here. If so, do you think he’s preaching what he advocates to his students & colleagues? Of course not. He’d be lynched.

“Really? I had absolutely no idea. Thank you for enlightening me about the unknown deeds of these brave souls, among whose number no doubt you count yourself. The poor Thai people have so much to be grateful to you for.” (stamps foot & exits stage left, colliding with a barbarous peon, who rudely awakens from Bogarting while Bangkok burns, & leads the trolls, lemming-like, bearing the Great Republican Leader, chanting “unto, unto, unto!” to Anus-a-worry Democ, where GRL strikes a heroic pose and turns to stone, as the trolls self-immolate. The rest is silence.)
66 Democratus // May 14, 2008 at 3:10 pm

I wonder how the two most anti-monarchy correspondents at NM – Republican and Somsak – think about the upcoming launch of the book by Patrick Jory and Michael Montesano at the Princess Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre? Given that the book is on the South and that the monarchy has played such an important political role in that region, what does this launch at a royal institute say about the book?

(I have to say that I haven’t seen the book yet, and a quick search of bookshops didn’t turn a copy up for me).
67 Thailand’s “invisible hand” « RAWBangkok // Oct 23, 2008 at 4:33 am

[...] amidst all the whispering and reading between the lines that you find in other places, one individual called Somsak Jeamiteerasakul on the very intelligent New Mandala site has been all but screaming his opinion out in the comments [...]

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.

Review of Wassana (6)
- Srithanonchai: “I definitely hope not. Wassana’s Thai prose is atrociously bad. Believe...
- Ward Keeler: Followers of Foucault will, I suppose, be happy to learn that the Enlightenment has...
- Somsak Jeamteerasakul: michael : I suppose it’s too much to hope that the book will be...
- Chris Beale: It’s a very debatable point whether Anand was the “quick fix” the...
Lintner on Burma’s army officers (14)
- planB: You be the JUDGE> There is a fundamental lack of “discretion’ in both Mr...
- planB: There is a general misconception about Myanmar that those from the west who has never even...
- Totila: Sanctions debates (over a country now awash in fossil fuels and with opaque finances not...
- planB: Charles F 2)Sabotage the economy: WHat do you think the past US policy has been? Is there...
“Like it or hate it, this book cannot be ignored” (1)
- R. Lindgren: The book appears to be a good example of linear thinking, which is a pity when what...
Thailand’s new rural economy (8)
- Chris Beale: I’ll echoe Chris Bakers’ comments – but with the addition that...
Commentary on Thailand’s Crown Prince (6)
- Chris Beale: This elite obsession with “Thailand’s” Crown Prince is a...
- Chris Beale: Ralph – I’d be surprised if any member of the general public or...
- Ralph Kramden: I want to ask the Australians to find out if he really graduated from Duntroon in...
- arthurson: Last night’s dinner discussion brought up yet another rumor (with enough details...
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai (83)
- CJ Hinke: Dragon’s Mouth Publications informs me that sometimes the ABE website fails to...
Crimes against the state: a long lost manuscript (7)
- David Streckfuss: Frank A. is right. I have done some work on the lese majesty business under...
Amnesty’s silence on lese majeste (17)
- BKK lawyer: Frank: Excellent point about Abhisit. A friend of mine has made the following point:...
- Frank G Anderson: Ralph: Good question! Speaking of Democrats here in Thailand, Abhisit was...
- Ralph Kramden: Frank: intersting that you rais these questions on the very day that the chair of...
Malaysia, to whom do we owe our allegiance? (3)
- Gregore Lopez: Thank you HRK for your insightful comments. They are very profound. I’d like...

New Mandala

New perspectives on mainland Southeast Asia

Features

Link of the Month

Links

Random Images

NM Visitors

Study Option

Admin