Hot on the tail of the lese majeste investigation of his A Coup for the Rich, Ji Ungpakorn is putting his hand up for more trouble. Here is a copy of an article he has written about the king [ji-ungpakorn-2008.pdf]. This is the punchline:
The Monarchy in Thailand can cope with either a democratic regime or a military junta. As an instrument of modern ruling class power, the King is neither a victim nor the most powerful man in society. On occasions the King has supported modern democratic methods. The latest example is the refusal to use Section 7 of the 1997 Constitution to sack Thaksin in 2006. Another example is his statement that Thais should be able to criticise him. Yet he has also supported coups and goes along with the myths of ancient powers. The argument between Thaksin and the coup supporters was never about reducing or increasing the power of the Monarchy because both sides have constantly claimed Royal legitimacy in order to strengthen their rule over us. They have also used lèse majesté laws against their opponents. The 2006 Coup was not a Royalist coup against a republican Thaksin, it was a conflict between two sections of the Thai ruling class, both of whom wish to use the Monarchy as an instrument of class rule.
6 responses so far ↓
1 jonfernquest // Jan 30, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“The 2006 Coup was not a Royalist coup against a republican Thaksin, it was a conflict between two sections of the Thai ruling class, both of whom wish to use the Monarchy as an instrument of class rule.”
A little bit more detail would be nice about who exactly these two “sections” are. I’ve seen entrenched bureaucrats use the Monarchy to build up power and avoid transparency. Obviously soldiers invoke it, who exactly else?
“Yet he has also supported coups and goes along with the **myths of ancient powers**.”
Ji Ungpakorn should study this a little before he dashes off 100 vague generalisations without supporting facts.
Post-WWII Thai Monarchy is probably an “invented” tradition in the sense of Hobsbawm with historical roots in the past, but this invented tradition itself can be studied as history, details provided, then Ji can give us some vague deprecating description “myths of ancient powers.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hobsbawm
For starters, a biography of H H Prince Dhani Nivat would be a good idea, though biographers need to be objective rather than focusing on some preconceived negative Marxist critique which get a little tiresome after a while. Most successful modern states invoke the past for legitimacy, the US included. Tell us something we don’t already know.
Here is a book online by Prince Dhani Nivat:
http://www.aseaninfonet.org/thailand/a-history-of-buddhism-in-siam/
2 Jason Smith // Jan 30, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Why is the word “King” capitalized, as in the second sentence from the quote? What does Elvis have to do with Thailand?
Seriously, I see people do this all the time in reference to HMK. I would expect “the king of Thailand” to be correct, since “king” is his position, not his name. If a writer or other expert can shed some light on this, I would be very grateful.
3 hrk // Jan 30, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Finally some light at the end of the tunnel! Looking at social and political structures instead of endowing individuals with seemingly unlimited power shifts the perspective. Certainly, history is made by humans and not the least by the charisma of a selected few, but history results from the non-intended effects of intended actions. Perhaps it is worthwhile to turn to such unintended effects with regards to the staging of royalty and Thaksin during the last years. What are the non-intended effects? Here Hegel’s argument on the “cunning of reason” might be of interest. If present day Thailand is mainly defined by the charisma of two persons, as official and much of academic discourse seems to indicate (even if the valorization differs, it doesn’t make a difference in terms of the focus on persons), then none can ever be a substitute for them. Consequently, charisma and personalized pattern of political and social organization have to be substituted with new, may be more participatory forms.
So, is Prem an agent of reason without noticing or intending it?
4 Srithanonchai // Jan 31, 2008 at 12:32 am
To Jason: In many Thai contexts, “king” would be seen as “inappropriate,” although it is recognized that, in English, this is incorrect. Not capitalizing “King” is taken as an indication that the author intentionally belittles his importance or does not pay him the proper respect.
5 Jason Smith // Jan 31, 2008 at 1:01 am
Srithanonchai, thank you for your comment. You are correct, of course. The mistake disturbs me because I detest willful ignorance of all kinds. A writer who will ignore or flaunt the rules of the language in a superficial gesture to satisfy his peers has a serious priority problem. Why write in English unless you are targeting the international and educated community? But if you are writing to the educated, why insult them with spelling mistakes?
Mr. Ungpakorn, if you are reading this, consider it minor criticism. I respect your activities. I suggest that you publish your materials under more permissive copyright terms (e.g. Creative Commons), to encourage the sharing of your ideas. If that were the case, I would not hesitate to publish and distribute them myself within Thailand, because I wish to test the extent and workings of the cyber crime law for my own purposes.
6 Srithanonchai // Jan 31, 2008 at 2:06 am
to Jason: I share your feelings, however, it is not the peers, it is the Thai superiors etc. and thus the social, incl hierarchical, pressure that is at work. Working in Thailand, unfortunately, this cannot always be avoided. Finally, publishing in English in Thailand does not necessarily mean that the product is aimed at the “international and educated community.” One even has to fight with Thai superiors over the question of whether an English text written by a non-native speaker should be edited by an experienced native speaker before publication or not. To many Thais, mistakes are perfectly permissable.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.