In recent days there has been a flurry of statements from senior Thai figures about the need to keep the “royal institution” out of politics. In what appears to be a rare point of consensus, Prime Minister Somchai and Army chief Anupong have issued stern warnings against those who seek to use the monarchy for political purposes and draw the “royal institution” into political division. Privy Councillor Prem has declared that “Thai citizens knew how to draw the line between their political differences and their duty to the monarchy.” International web sites have been targeted for their commentary on the royal family and expensive internet “gateways” are being put in place to block inappropriate comment.
With the funeral of the king’s sister fast approaching – and the birthday of the king himself following soon after – the desire to have the “royal institution” presented in its most favourable nationally unifying light is understandable.
But I wonder if there is more going on than a public relations spruce up in preparation for these important events.
In the wake of the October 7 violence in Bangkok, the queen made her support for the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) abundantly clear. As a result of the queen’s actions, the “royal institution” was publically aligned with an opposition group that had clashed with police, besieged parliament and openly courted a military coup. This public alignment took place when the attention of the national and international media was focussed on the events in Bangkok.
Of course, the PAD has been campaigning under the royal banner for a long time. But the “royal institution” itself was able to maintain its distance on the public stage. The palace made no attempt to prevent the use of the royal brand by opposition forces but, at the same time, there was no explicit royal endorsement of the PAD. The public imagery of the “royal institution” standing above politics, however strained, could be maintained.
But the queen’s actions – perhaps independent and not necessarily endorsed by the “institution” - publically shattered the fragile imagery of royal independence. As one Thai political commentator said to me recently, “what had been rumour was now reality.”
The queen let the genie of a politically engaged royalty out of the bottle. The powers that be are desperately trying to put it back in.
One thing that might be worrying the old establishment is that PAD are attacking royalists. According to the Manager – reported to me from a reliable source as I didn’t see it myself – Sondhi Lim attacked Sumet Tantivejkul.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Amid the current Internet messages critical of royalty, a sensible move should be to ascertain why this is so, rather than just to suppress them.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Nothing is forever. Suppose the King were to pass before the current polarization ameliorates or while the re-writing of political rules remains hotly contested, the royal institution could find itself in uncharted waters. There was a time in Nepal when its royal institutions seemed invincible. The situations are different, of course, but the more perceptions about royals being “above politics” are questioned, the more the legitimacy of the institution itself comes into question. We still don’t know just how institutionalized the monarchy is. Inevitable events of mortality will bring new knowledge when that day arrives. To hedge against further crisis, the King could abdicate while alive and oversee a smooth transition to his successor. In the meantime, how new internet firewalls and definitions of les majeste are tested in this politically charged environment will be consequential.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I can confirm, Ralph, that Sondhi did attack Sumet. It appeared on the Manager’s site a few days ago. Not only does it appear that the institution is getting its hands dirty, but the institution appears to have differing opinions: a Princess’s Q&A reply in America, the use of Border Patrol Police, the attacks on the Chaipattana Foundation’s chief, the Ratchaprachanukroah Foundation chief’s recent statements, the Queen and a Princess’s attendance at a funeral, the donations, etc.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“The queen let the genie of a politically engaged royalty out of the bottle. The powers that be are desperately trying to put it back in.”
This is a bit melodramatic, don’t you think? It’s been out of the bottle for years, and Prem — the king’s knight — giving his blessing to the coup two years ago was a clear sign.
What is only interesting is that the queen doesn’t apparently see any risk in openly siding with Sondhi/PAD despite their capriciousness and lack of clear ends. It shows the palace itself does not have a constructive solution, in terms of supplying a strong and capable leader to fill the hole left by Thaksin. It only has the destructiveness of PAD.
So the question is, are they actively playing a destructive political game themselves with no real goal but to destroy the Thaksin forces? Could the palace then be said to be nihilist?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
AA: Thanks. Very useful indeed. And raises a number of issues that I don’t have much of a clue about at present:
It seems that the usual splits etc. are there in the palace but that they may be getting wider. And, the palace seems to be racing to paper over the cracks and prevent an outpouring of criticism. Maybe that means the coup is not far off? But maybe they will let the fascists on both sides fight it out first.
I’m interested to know how NM readers think it is that Sondhi continues to get away with these seemingly anti-royal attacks? Who is his mentor? Prem? Queen?
Are both sides – pro and anti Thaksin/TRT/PPP – now united in their view that the palace’s time is past?
It does seem a step forward if the palace/throne is now being so heavily criticised that they need to spend millions protecting it. That can go along with the hundreds of billions they also get from state coffers for their rides and physical protection.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
I think the issue of succession could be really traumatic any time it occurs and would be very unsettling now while the PAD and other enti-democratic forces are already active
also it will be really sad for the large numbers of Thai that really revere the current King and the Princess if something bad happens to destroy their vision
and, even ignoring the feelings, etc of the Royal Family, I think that the best form of participatory democracy occurs when there is a powerless monarch as head of state, as in the UK, Australia, because the parliament and government composed solely of elected people have all the authority, given directly by the people
republics, especially if the president is elected seem to me to usually have too much power residing in unelected people around and feeding off the authority of the president which reduces the authority of the parliament, eg USA, etc
Quality comment or not?
0 
0