With Thailand’s political standoff rapidly approaching a point of no return, some are speculating that King Bhumibol Adulyadej may intervene to ease the tension. A royal intervention to resolve a seemingly intractable crisis could add much to the authority and mystique of the monarchy. One of the most powerful and enduring images of the king’s reign dates from 1992 when he publically chastised army commander Suchinda Kraprayoon and protest leader Chamlong Srimuang following the death of scores of protesters on the streets of Bangkok. As Paul Handley wrote in The King Never Smiles, “Bhumipol’s regal intervention, shown on television screens and newspaper pages around the world, quickly became a landmark act of great kingship” (375).
But the imagery of a royal intervention in the current escalating conflict may be very different. Since the earliest days of the campaign to unseat the Samak/Somchai government, the People’s Alliance for Democracy has campaigned in the king’s name. Last month Queen Sirikit offered open public support to the protesters in their campaign to provoke a coup. In the international press, at least, there has been increasingly frank comment on royal support for the protest movement. And now dramatic photos of protesters in royal yellow invading Bangkok’s show-piece Suvarnabhumi Airport are being flashed around the world.
The royal brand has been thoroughly caught up in the PAD’s provocative campaign against an elected government. It is possible that a royal call for restraint may prompt private and public questioning about why it had not come much earlier. Why no word when Government House was invaded? Why no public concern when the PAD’s ultra-nationalist campaign over Phra Viharn bought Cambodia and Thailand close to war? Why no condemnation of the blockade of Parliament? Why no royal advice to the PAD to protest lawfully? Some may see a royal intervention at this stage as too little too late. A great deal of damage has already been done and there is now a real risk that the PAD, who have a strong sniff of victory, may find some face-saving way of deflecting any royal advice.
Of course, the king may focus his attention less on the PAD and more on the government. He may, perhaps very subtly, increase the pressure on the government to dissolve parliament. This would also be risky as it would add fuel to the speculation that the palace has some sympathies towards the PAD’s campaign against the government.
The crisis of 1992 produced a powerful image of the king as an apolitical and independent force stepping in to resolve a political crisis. In 2008 this may be much harder to achieve. The royal brand has been thoroughly caught up in the political turmoil and it may prove very difficult to extract it.
28 responses so far ↓
1 HC lau // Nov 27, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Advice to foreigners still at Bangkok airport – get out of there. The next act of the PAD will be hostage taking. Sorry NM, shouldn’t be here but do not want to see more innocent get caught up in Sondhi hellish scheme
2 fall // Nov 27, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Same old bickering. This is what happen when history were not taught and learn, it repeat itself.-
Yellow: “We are loyal. We protect the Country, Buddhism, and Monarchy. Those other guys are Commies and try to overthrow the monarchy.”
Red: “No, we are mo loyal. Those guys are not the real presenter. Mwa, wa wa!”
…but indeed this time could be different because of the “Let them eat cake” moment…
3 NoDorm // Nov 27, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The King ought to denounce the PAD and support the PPP. That way PADs cause would die and allow PPP to govern until the next election.
4 David Brown // Nov 27, 2008 at 4:20 pm
good post, good comments
thanks… I am in Thailand so cant comment anymore
5 Glenn // Nov 27, 2008 at 6:42 pm
The tourists at the airport are already hostages. I was supposed to fly home tonight so I am being held hostage as well. To whom should I send the hotel bill for all of the extra days I am stuck here?
6 Ian // Nov 27, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Perhaps one reason the King has not intervened so far is his possible bad health – a reason many Thais have independently suggested to me. If so the current demonstrations are more about propping up his successor than anything else.
7 anon // Nov 27, 2008 at 8:16 pm
One of the finer posts on your blog during this year’s crisis.
I doubt the message will be for the PAD to stand down. If anything, the message will be for the government to resign or for new elections. The big question mark will be whether Somchai will actually comply.
As a lifelong career civil servant, I’d certainly think he’d follow orders instinctively. Heck, even Thaksin followed orders when he went on TV after his royal audience and announced his “vacation” – just one day after joyfully announcing the TRT’s April ‘06 election victory on TV.
If Somchai does comply, he leaves himself open to getting judicially blindsided, like in ‘06. But a judicial coup would still be better than a military one.
8 hrk // Nov 27, 2008 at 9:52 pm
The question is, I guess, not anymore whether the monarchy should get involved or not. With all the symbolism and refereces, this issue is already deceided and probably the reason why criminals involved in acts of endangering international air transport are not made liable. I’am amazed that a small group like the yellow-shirts can terroize a whole city. I’am amazed that such groups seem to have complete immunity. It was explained to me by commoners that they obviously have support from somewhere high up. This reference should probably be understood in the way that Maha-Chamlong or, rather Maha-Osama bin Srimuang has reached such high stages of meditation that he actually does find support from immortals.
I guess, another story from the amazing land of smiles will probably be that nobody will be made liable for the whole mess created. As long as this is the case, of course yellow-shirts can further enjoy their immunity.
Another amazing issue: Being stranded in Bangkok, I read in the Nation that Chamlong has declared the yellow-shirts will not obey Ahisom (non-violent resistance) anymore. I understand that for them having guns, bombs, running around with steal-pipes etc. is part of non-violence, which is quite amazing. When I saw the yellows approaching, I feared for my life. The nice pictures of yellows giving coffee and rice with pork to hostages do not modify this image.
After these encounters with the yellows, I was amazed to call them “middle class” . Probably this is because they have a car to park on the highway. They are nothing else then a bunch of petty bourgoisie who get the feeling of being someone important when running around with their weapons scaring people.
9 rookie // Nov 27, 2008 at 9:57 pm
It may be too late but let’s hope for the best. A few minutes’ TV appearance calling for peace is worth doing. As of writing this posting at 6 pm local time, reports of coups and tanks begin to appear in local weblogs and community radio stations, including the one belonging to the taxi drivers. (attacked by PAD goons a few days ago). Let us hope that this time democratic-minded people in this country are not alone. The international community is watching the unfolding events and ready to condemn any illegal military take-over (what about imposing diplomatic sanctions to the new junta? — not recognizing their new caretaker govt)
At the same time, the Red Shirts are ready and maverick military officers are also ready to respond to the coup.
10 jonfernquest // Nov 27, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Congratulations! Yet another first.
A new installment in the arrogant new Farang literary genre “Giving advice to the King.” With not-so-subtle little put downs like a “royal brand” as if it is something bought in Big-C and projecting your own concerns onto the institution with the rhetorical: Why no..? Why…no? Why…no? For an anthropologist you certainly seem clueless about local standards in dealing with this institution or perhaps you are just rudely flouting non-conformance to them?
11 Ralph Kramden // Nov 27, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Your comments on the king and his political role show a complete lack of understanding of everything Thai…. oh, sorry, someone already told you that you know nothing and are very, very rude. But, like your critic, you need to develop a more sycophantic approach to the monarchy to really understand.
But to be serious: the monarchy’s brand has been seriously damaged by its active involvement in the coup. You are right. But why are “some” calling for the king’s intervention? It is because the brand still does have some credibility for them. So why doesn’t he do anything. Who knows? Maybe he is, but behind the scenes. Or maybe he is just waiting, with his advisers (Anupong saw Prem a couple of days ago), for a time when the outcome is clear and he can come in to be seen as a saviour again. That’s the way he usually does it: waits until he knows he can come out looking good.
12 amberwaves // Nov 28, 2008 at 5:20 am
jf-
>…For an anthropologist you certainly seem clueless about local standards…blah blah blah..”
Um, pardon, where did you get the idea that blogs should be objective (you’ve indicated that before) and subservient to prevailing social norms?
I always thought the general idea is that they provide diversity and a tinge of subversiveness.
Are you complaining that the NM guys are academics and hence should not wear their hearts on their sleeves?
I’d just say that the best teacher I ever studied with, and many people feel the same way, was the late George Kahin, who wore his politics proudly, helped lead the first teach-ins against the Vietnam War and was ultimately, in my opinion, the most important figure in making Southeast Asian studies a dynamic and critical field, and educating, directly and by inheritance, several generations of top scholars.
So, what exactly was your point?
13 Andrew Walker // Nov 28, 2008 at 6:54 am
From the BBC’s Jonathan Head:
14 Anthony // Nov 28, 2008 at 6:56 am
Jonfernquest is quite right, the author of this piece, and those of the related piece published today in The Age, seem oblivious, if not wilfully blind, to the full array of circumstances which, combined, impel the PAD. As to whether royal intervention is likely, the question, surely, is: what will เปรม ติณสูลานนท์ (Ret. Gen. Prem) and other trusted advisers recommend?
15 Ralph Kramden // Nov 28, 2008 at 9:19 am
Anthony, do you mean that Prem is impelling PAD?
16 Joy // Nov 28, 2008 at 12:05 pm
This article does help shed light to the question why the PAD is so immune to law enforcement and why it is so arrogant and confident of its victory.
17 Ken // Nov 28, 2008 at 3:48 pm
- Great article.
The frailty of the King is irrelevent – when he speaks Thais listen.
Actions speak much louder than words – in the recent past these have included endorsing the last coup, attending the funeral of a PAD activist and remaining silent during the present deep crisis. This clearly shows that the monarchy is aligned with the PAD movement in one form or another.
The PAD are causing enormous damage to Thailand, holding the country hostage against the wishes of the vast majority of Thais whom they clearly hold in contempt. Amidst their increasingly violent and criminal acts the PAD thugs claim to be acting in the name of the King. Meanwhile he remains silent while the Queen attends a PAD funeral.
Thugs approved and supported by the monarchy – not a good look.
This is not an exclusively Thai forum. If stating the blatantly obvious is perceived as rude by precious Thais and ignorant farangs – get over it.
18 Joy // Nov 28, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Of course I’m not offended. This is a constructive discussion.
19 Roger // Nov 28, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I don’t think a judicial coup is going to be any better than a military one. And it looks like the coup is going to take place next Tuesday or soon after, since the court has ordered the political parties to submit their final arguments then. Of course this is bad for a lot of businesses in Thailand, which are suffering the loss of hundreds of million baht a day from the airport closure, but either the backers of the PAD are less directly affected by this or they are figuring they will be able to make it up by looting the treasury after the court appoints a ruling council.
Actually, that looks like the only way PAD and its backers can achieve the radical change of government structure they want. They may not even bother allowing a 30% elected parliament.
20 Ralph Kramden // Nov 28, 2008 at 11:18 pm
In response to Roger, another alternative is to dissolve PPP and then have a quick election so that no PPP member can stand in the election. This would be a flip-side of the boycotted election in 2006.
(My money is currently on this outcome but it is a small wager as things remain fluid.)
21 R. Dayley // Nov 29, 2008 at 2:36 am
No greater demonstration of the royals true colors has ever occured. That 80-90% of Thais disagree with the PAD means nothing to them. If Prem and the royals act to overthrow the government rather than the PAD, they will have to live with how that 80-90% react. The best way for a crisis to be dealt with is through the enforcement of law, not royal intervention. Even in democracies the seizure of government buildings, public utilities, and international airports is resolved by legal use of force (even if it costs lives). If the PAD wins this, every future opposition group can test the sitting government by seizing the airport to force them a choice between resignation or the use of force. The PAD cannot be allowed to win for the good of Thailand’s future political system.
Royal intervention too would exacerbate the inability of the rule of law to govern Thailand, just has it has in the past. If the police and military will not listen to Somchai then they should quickly select a new PM (a less tainted figure) and try again. At some point if the military won’t do it for the elected leaders they will have to do it for themselves. Let them run the government under martial law and hold Chamlong and Sondhi accountable for their actions. Even martial law has constitutional legitimacy in times of crisis. The PAD doesn’t win if the the parliament is disolved. They only win if they can alter the consitution for their assured control of future governments. As long as the military regime then rejects such an impulse and holds new elections, there may be a way out of this that balances rule of law, the legal use of security forces, and without the intervention of anti-rule of law royal intervention, and without setting the precedent that minority political voices can seize the airport to force political change.
22 US observer // Dec 1, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Ralph Kramden — The 90-day rule that applied in 2006 doesn’t apply under the new constitution. Members of parliament who become party-less due to a dissolution can join a new party within 30 days and be eligible to run in the election (if they just quit their party, the 90-day rule applies). An election cannot be called sooner than 30 days (and not more than 45 days). So a quick election can’t be used to cut ex-PPP members out of the election.
An interesting loophole: some PPP members have been quitting in anticipation of dissolution. Samak just sent his resignation letter from his hospital bed in the U.S. They will apparently fall under the 90-day rule, since they resigned and were not forced out by a judicial dissolution.
23 US observer // Dec 1, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Please correct my last post: upon dissolution of the House, a new election must be held at 45 days, and not more than 60 days, from the date of dissolution. (2007 Constitution, sec. 108.)
Judicial dissolution of a party does not automatically result in dissolution of the house. Every member of a dissolved party has 60 days to join another party without losing his membership in the house. (2007 Constitution, sec. 106.)
24 Ralph Kramden // Dec 1, 2008 at 11:38 pm
US Observer, thanks for the correction. So why would Samak resign as he could jump parties under the scenario you lay out? Whatever happens, apparently some 22-25 party execs would be gone, added to the 111 already banned. They can run nominees, but it seems that the banning of politicians in this way is a neat way to convince people to vote for the “right” parties.
25 Anthony // Dec 2, 2008 at 7:10 am
To the question asked of me by Ralph Kramden (post 15), the answer is no.
26 Ralph Kramden // Dec 2, 2008 at 8:12 am
US Observer: I need your assistance. I took your word for this, but when I had time I looked about a bit more. Now confused a bit on this issue.
I found this: “Section 101. A person having the following qualifications has the right to be a candidate in an election of members of the House of Representatives: …
(3) being a member of any and only one political party for a consecutive period of not less than ninety days up to the date of applying for candidacy in an election, or being a member of any and only one political party for a consecutive period of not less than thirty days up to the date of applying for candidacy in an election in the case where the general election is conducted on account of the dissolution of the House of Representatives…”.
Then, in another part: “Section 106. Membership of the House of Representatives terminates upon: …
(8) loss of membership of the political party in the case where the political party of which he is a member is dissolved by an order of the Constitutional Court and he is unable to become a member of another political party within sixty days as from the date on which the Constitutional Court issues its order. In such case, his membership shall be deemed to have terminated as from the day following the date on which such period of sixty days has elapsed…”.
Am I missing something in this long document?
27 US Observer // Dec 2, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Ralph Kramden: You’re observant. I don’t see any inconsistency here. There are two types of dissolution referred to: (1) dissolution of the house and (2) dissolution of a political party by the Constitutional Court.
When the house is dissolved, the minimum party-membership period for each candidate in the next election is 30 days; for other elections (e.g., end of the regular term), the minimum membership period is 90 days. (This provision addressed what many, especially the junta, saw as a too-heavy hammer that the PM (Thaksin) wielded: then, the minimum- membership period was 90 days, period; Thaksin could keep MPs in his party by the threat of calling a snap election and locking out anyone who had just left the party.) (This also raises the question, which The Great One alluded to, why did Samak resign? If a snap election were called, he’d be subject to the 90-day rule, because his change of party was not the result of a house dissolution.)
In the case of dissolution of a PARTY by the Court (which does not automatically result in house dissolution), each member of the party has 60 days to join another party and continue his/her house membership uninterrupted.
There might be a conflict between the two provisions you cited IF there were a judicial dissolution of the party followed shortly by a dissolution of the house. This may be one reason why Chaturon of the PPP is now urging a house dissolution before the Court can decree a dissolution of the PPP party.
28 Ralph Kramden // Dec 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm
US Observer: I think you are right. Dissolving the house now means only 30 days for MPs to be in a new party. The 60 days following dissolution of a party does seem to opens a chance for disqualifying people as Section 108 says, “The King has the prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives for a new election of members of the House. The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed for not less than forty-five days but not more than sixty days as from the day the House of Representatives has been dissolved and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.” So there is room to move if the powers that be want to keep all government MPs out.
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.