New Mandala

33 responses so far ↓

• 1 hrk // Dec 1, 2008 at 4:18 pm

  Lets face it: The road towards a republic hardly ever was an easy way, especialy if the monarchy was rather absolutist and a centre of vested economic interests. Commonly it took a major crisis that showed the deficits, or better irrationality which is always an integral part of monarchic rule. In Thailand we had such a situation in the early 30’s of the last century. As Marx noted: History tends to repeat itself.

• 2 Michael // Dec 1, 2008 at 5:20 pm

  The extraordinary cremation ceremony aroused my curiosity and I wiki-ed and read thehistory of the royal family and the last five Chakri kings. It was very interesting reading and I highly recommend wikiview unadulterated and frank records of events and the personalities woven into thai history

  in short, there is a succession struggle within the palace walls.
  Without the walls, are the people taking sides !!!!

• 3 max // Dec 1, 2008 at 5:24 pm

  i would also like to point out that the army’s vast political monopolies have been as much a mainstay as the monarchy. compounded by their 80 years runnning monopoly on mass coercion the exercise fluctuating yet constant political manipulation, it seems natural to me that they should be considered the most dominant force in society. perhaps the monarchy’s direct and overt involvement in this is also a smokescreen for the military to maintain their elevated role.

  i also believe that any real reform of thai society and politics would involve some sort of new and explicitly defined parameter for the military’s role in politics and society in order to give even a fighting Chance to the development of democratic institutions and independent civil administration and judiciary.

• 4 Dorm // Dec 1, 2008 at 5:57 pm

  And we haven’t even mentioned the Royal Thai Police yet. Or the civil service. Or those business elites who do unscrupulous stuff like ….. have the audacity to back different horses when ever the fancy takes them. This truly is a hydra-headed monster!

• 5 Michael // Dec 1, 2008 at 6:26 pm

  Michael (#2): Apologies, but you’re actually using a name (mine) that has been contributing to NM for some time. To avoid confusion, it would be a good idea for you to change your name. Thanks.

• 6 foreign correspondent // Dec 1, 2008 at 7:26 pm

  Correct to say that foreign reporting is increasingly explicit in tracing the royal parameters of a do-or-die political war. In that respect, PAD has made our job much easier than before. If they wanna drag the crown into the political fray, so be it. Then we can talk about it freely (sorta).

  But as long as Thai media must pretend the royal power play isn’t happening, what does it matter? None of the cited reportage is highlighted in Thai coverage of Thaksin vs Sondhi, round whatever.

  This is the most difficult part of the puzzle – how far does reverence for HM extend to the other players? How many people see through the propaganda? We have no idea. No opinion polls to dissect. Only anecdotes and speculation.

• 7 Dog Lover // Dec 1, 2008 at 11:33 pm

  Actually, the first couple of comments are things that have been said many times before. Linking the queen to these current events is easy because of the funeral, but as people generally think there’s some kind of power struggle within the palace (I don’t – look at the happy family pics on the royal funeral day), the queen can be portrayed as different from the king. Here are some comments I put up at Bangkok Pundit, based on an article in the New Straits Times by long-time American “operative” in SE Asia Scott Thompson:

  Ignoring the historical fallacies in the article to cite some interesting stuff from it:

  “He [the king] is now 80 and frail but intends to stick around until he’s won this recent and, for him, final round.”

  Says it all.

  “There was always, though, a ‘permanent government’ of foreign educated princes, ever expanding their ranks but never ceasing to rule, even today, through great-grandsons of kings keeping a tight hold on day-to-day power, and always holding direct lines to the palace.”

  Chatichai did a bit to shake this up, and Thaksin more so. There lies a problem. See also McCargo and the network monarchy.

  “Bhumipol is a gentle man but has never countenanced opposition gently. It was he who signalled the army to move in September 2006 to depose Thaksin. But the government all but placed in power by him failed to move in the way desired. Even direct encouragement by the palace to the ministers to get on with their mission seemed to fail. In their failure lies the immediate precedent to the present crisis.”

  That seems accurate.

  “Thaksin was seen as an illegitimate upstart; ‘he is not one of us’, a famous prince said to me. In their amor proprio, they came to believe that any means was legitimate to rid Thailand of this bromide, but it hid badly their underlying determination to rule themselves. Thaksin just happened to be in the way.”

  So get rid of him even if it means running the country into the ground for the good and great can bring it back. Well, maybe.

  “Just wait — the king will wave his magic wand and the crisis will be over. The army — or some other appropriate delegate — will take power, and the country will find the patience to wear out the endurance of an expiring Thaksin, who in exile loses wealth and legitimacy by the day. Mai pen rai, things will quiet down and everyone will be wondering what all the fuss was about. It will end not with bang but a whimper.”

  Wishful thinking? I tend to think that this round will end in a wimper, but will those whose interests are rolled back accept it? Will there be a hunting down of PAD/royalist opponents? Will there be a low-level opposition as the “reds” regroup?

• 8 Ken // Dec 2, 2008 at 5:09 am

  As a Thai who just read this blog, i would say there are heaps of people who could actually see right through all the curtain. there are also lots of thai people getting frustrated but couldn’t dare to speak up what it actually is.

• 9 polo // Dec 2, 2008 at 8:11 am

  Mutt lover:
  Thompson got some things seriously wrong: that the palace has somehing to offer after they win the war against Thaksinism, and that the king will truly end this.

  Thompson says: “But the government all but placed in power by him failed to move in the way desired. Even direct encouragement by the palace to the ministers to get on with their mission seemed to fail.”

  It failed in fact mainly because the palace had nothing to offer as an alternative to Thaksin.

  ” they came to believe that any means was legitimate to rid Thailand of this bromide, but it hid badly their underlying determination to rule themselves.”

  Not really: they weren’t determined to rule themselves because they are scared that they can’t handle it. What it “hid badly” was their lack of someone to rule lamely on their behalf — that’s different.

  “Just wait — the king will wave his magic wand and the crisis will be over. … It will end not with bang but a whimper.”

  Bang or whimper is not the issue here. The issue is, will it end? And I don’t think so. This is about the old king, older Prem, a whole bunch of old farts up there far more out of it than John McCain, and a new generation of people who are now even more embittered about the throne than they were before. How it will proceed is the question. The airports might reopen, and government house too. But it will not “be over.”

• 10 Dog Lover // Dec 2, 2008 at 9:51 am

  polo: I agree, he gets lots of things wrong, and his history is terrible, but I thought these quotes interesting in the context of this thread. If you look at my last point and your last point, we agree.

• 11 LTV // Dec 2, 2008 at 11:41 am

  This is a very very very good post. It explains why the police cannot touch the PAD’s terrorist. Military just sit and do totally nothing, eventhough police request them for helping. In fact, the PAD activists have been saying it our loud that they are the soldiers of “the unmentionable”. They shoot innocence people who love the way of democracy with his picture behind, etc.. and this has been happening for months, not only this week. International airports are places that is not totally belong to Thailand but has to follow international regulation too, like free zone areas, etc. Only PAD cannot do this alone. Everyone are talking about the invisible hands. The pictures are getting clearer who are behind this. The may be able to close eyes n’ ears of people in Thailand but not the rest of the world.

• 12 Marty // Dec 2, 2008 at 12:21 pm

  There is a long way before this game of GO is played out fully. PAD, unfortunately for Thailand and all Thai citizens, may be the one that brings down the unspeakable.

• 13 Joy // Dec 2, 2008 at 12:30 pm

  I agree with Ken. As a Thai, I think a great number of Thais can see through the whole propaganda, but we aren’t able to articulate what we think due to.. ‘you know what’..

• 14 oliver // Dec 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm

  This, I hope, will be the start of something that will help nudge Thailand towards a better future.

• 15 Gadfly Thai // Dec 2, 2008 at 12:48 pm

  With the 35 Billion dollar royal fortune at stake (http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/20/worlds-richest-royals-biz-richroyals08-cz_ts_0820royalintro.html) and a political newcomer like Thaksin and his clan challenging the regime, it is easy to see why the vested powers are threatened and are choosing to support the PAD.

• 16 Joy // Dec 2, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  Oliver, That’s my ultimate wish too. As a Thai, we were taught only one version of history when we were young, but those who are exposed to more ‘progressive’ writing about Thailand and who care to learn more can eventually see things for what they are. I’m not saying that we have reached the ‘ultimate truth’ , because obviously, there is no such a thinng, but we have learned to question existing verities and eager to open ourselves to constructive criticism. I think older generations of Thais such as Jitra Pumisak, Kulap Saipradit and Seni Saowapong had posed significant challenge to oppressive status quo in Thailand in their works .. e.g in Sena Saowapong’s “Ghosts’ (Pi-sart, in Thai) .. Kulap also wrote very interesting essays about democracy during his stay in Australia (see “Kulap in OZ” by scot Barme).. well I’m not advocating Maoist ideology here, but just mention them because their thoughts are also crucial in contesting age-old hegemony from the elistist class.

• 17 Tony Loader // Dec 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm

  I hear the ABC’s (Australia) experienced correspondent Geoff (?) Thompson is increasingly cutting Bangkok correspondent Karen Percy’s pro-PAD lunch, and for the first time, on ‘The World Today’ mention made of the man at the top.

  For once on the ABC, a critical assessment of the situation, including the possible outcome of the CC decision. I hope the they keep it up.

• 18 ray // Dec 2, 2008 at 3:48 pm

  I agree with ken. This thing is just getting started. Ten years ago this was unthinkable . People opposing the all mighty yellow?! As a thai and a pad supporter, in the past week i have been re-thinking where i stand. I live in ko samui and have friends from isaan ( udon thani) and asked one of them why do u guys love thaksin so much? he lies ,cheats and steals. Hi reply was ” So do all politicians. But Thaksin gave us money, its not his own but he made it available to us in our times of trouble. ” Thai people ,especially poor people do not forget a favour. (bun khun)You give them an inch and they will give you a mile.”

• 19 Ralph Kramden // Dec 2, 2008 at 11:45 pm

  Tony: her AM report today was truly uninformed. One hopes that someone at the ABC notices.

• 20 aim // Dec 3, 2008 at 7:46 am

  If you guys think the Thai media have not woken up yet, we should all check out the web-based independent new source http://www.prachatai.com (both English and Thai). Do read the recent post from the controversial professor of Chulalongkorn University. Time and time again, he has been brave to voice his opinion about the “unmentionable” institution.

  A Second “Coup for the Rich”

  Giles Ji Ungpakorn

  Today the Constitutional Courts dissolved the democratically elected governing party in Thailand for the second time, forcing the Government to resign. This follows the refusal of the Armed Forces and the Police to follow government instructions to clear the two international airports blocked by armed PAD Fascists. The Royalist alliance against the government are made up of the Fascist PAD, the Military, the Police, the Judiciary, the mainstream Media, the “Democrat Party”, most middle class academics and The Queen. They are all behind this judicial coup. A leading “Democrat Party” MP is one of the leaders of the illegal blockade of the two airports. The Yellow-shirted PAD have “armed guards” which have repeatedly shot at opponents. They constantly use violence and now demand “joint patrols” with the Police. The PAD have constantly broken the law, and yet they are “untouchable”. On the rare occasion when PAD leaders are forced to attend court, they are given bail and allowed to go back and commit the same crimes over and over again.

  The majority of the Thai population, who are poor, face a Double Whammy. First, the elite Royalist are doing everything possible to take away their basic democratic rights. Secondly, mass job-losses are occurring among workers in the tourist industry as a result of the airport blockade. Jobs in agriculture and electronics are also affected and of course we are faced with the serious World Economic Crisis. The elites do not care if the Thai economy is trashed and Thailand returns to a poor Third World nation. In such nations the elites continue to live the same lives as the rich in the Developed World. The PAD protestors are middle-class extremists who do not have to go to work, hence their prolonged protests.

  We are constantly told by the conservatives that the poor are “too stupid to deserve the right to vote”. The army staged a coup in 2006 and re-wrote the Constitution in order to reduce the democratic space and also to absolve themselves of any wrong-doing. The electorate have repeatedly voted in overwhelming numbers for the government party, whether it be Thai Rak Thai or Peoples Power Party. Now Peoples Power politicians are moving to the new Pua Thai Party. Will fair election be held? Or will the elites engineer a “fix” to make sure that their people win?

  What is the root cause of this crisis?

  The root cause of this crisis is not the corruption of the Thaksin government in the past. It isn’t about vote-buying, good governance, civil rights or the Rule of Law. Politicians of all parties, including the Democrats, are known to buy votes. The elites, whether Politicians, Civil Servants or Military, have a history of gross corruption. Even when they don’t break the law, they have become rich on the backs of Thai workers and small farmers. The Democrat Party is stuffed with such millionaires.

  Ironically, the Thai Rak Thai party was helping to reduce the importance of vote-buying because it was the first party in decades to have real policies which were beneficial to the poor. They introduced a universal health care scheme and Keynesian Village Funds. People voted on the basis of such policies. The Democrats and the conservative elites hate the alliance between Thaksin’s business party and the poor. They hate the idea that a government was using public funds to improve the lives of the poor. This is why the anti-government alliance is against democracy. The PAD have suggested reducing the number of elected MPs and a recipe to do away with the principle of “one person one vote”. So the root cause of the problem is the conservative elite’s contempt for the poor and their contempt for democracy. They are prepared to break the law when it suits them.

  What is the solution?

  Business leaders and the Royalist elites are demanding an un-elected National Government. The Democrat Party leader has “volunteered” to be the Prime Minister! Such a National Government would complete the judicial coup for the rich. It would be a victory for the PAD and a defeat for the electorate.

  The Red Shirts, who are organised by government politicians, are the only hope for Thai democracy. They have now become a genuine pro-democracy mass movement of the poor. This is what is meant by “Civil Society”, not the PAD fascists. Thai academia fails to grasp this basic fact. But the Red Shirts are not a “pure force”. Many have illusion is ex-Prime Minister Thaksin. They overlook his gross abuse of human rights in the South and the War on Drugs. But these human rights issues are also totally ignored by the PAD and their friends.

  Throughout this 3 year crisis, the majority of the Thai NGO movement (especially the NGO-Coordinating Committee) has failed to support democracy. Many welcomed the 2006 military coup. Many supported the military Constitution. Now they are either silent or are echoing the demands of the Army Chief, who said last week that the government should resign. At no point have they attempted to build a pro-democracy social movement. Many believe that the poor are “uneducated and lack enough information to vote”. The honourable examples are the Midnight University in Chiang-Mai, some sections of the labour movement, groups of new generation NGO activists and Turn Left.

  The economic crisis

  Millions of jobs are being destroyed by the World Economic Crisis and the unrest in Thai society. People are being driven back into poverty. Yet the Democrat Party, the Military, the conservative elites and the mainstream NGO movement do not have a clue or do not care one jot about the necessary policies to defend the living standards of the poor. They make chants about the King’s Sufficiency Economy and the need for Fiscal Discipline. In other words, the poor must trim their spending and learn to live with their poverty while the rich continue to live in luxury.

  We desperately need massive government spending on infrastructure, job protection and a serious expansion of welfare. Value Added Tax should be reduced or abolished and higher direct taxes should be levied on all the rich elites without any exceptions. The bloated military budget should be cut. Wages should be raised among workers. Poor farmers should be protected. This will only happen in a climate of genuine democracy. This is why we must oppose this second “Coup for the Rich”.

• 21 Land of Snarls // Dec 3, 2008 at 8:09 pm

  Ralph Kramden @18- What exactly was ‘truly uninformed’ about Karen Percy’s AM report on 02.12.2008? The transcript is at

  http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2435067.htm

  Looks alright to me. The only thing that I find odd is her use of ‘tit -for -tat’ (implying that it was done for revenge) in “There was a young women killed in a tear-gas tit-for-tat” (re. Oct.7). But over-all the rather brief piece is factually correct & contains no wild speculation.

  Please enlighten me.

• 22 Ralph Kramden // Dec 3, 2008 at 10:15 pm

  It was actually from the 1st. But you think those two reports are the kind of information that help Australians understand what’s happening in Thailand? They are both uninformed and un-informing. The ABC can do better. There is no analysis, no background, no evidence of even reading the local press or blogs. BBC has been doing better by far.

• 23 Land of Snarls // Dec 4, 2008 at 1:57 am

  RK @ 20: Ah, your ‘today’ actually means ‘yesterday.’ Now I get it: muddled. Yes, I do think “..those two reports are the kind of information that help Australians understand what’s happening in Thailand…” ‘What,’ but not ‘why.’ There isn’t time in a grab like this to give in-depth analysis, background, etc.

  In the 2 reports you’ve specifically slagged, I can see no bending of the facts, no lack of information asked for. A.M. is not the entire ABC. It’s a short, wide-ranging show that brings listeners up to speed early in the day. If you want more detailed analysis, look further. But don’t slander a reporter, who has no control over the length of her reports, for lack of detail.

  As to the excellent BBC – I’m fairly sure Jonathon Head would be amongst the first to admit the impossibility of understanding what’s really going on in Thailand… if you think you know, perhaps you are a Warring Banker.

• 24 Ralph Kramden // Dec 4, 2008 at 8:14 am

  LOS: we’ll disagree. Her reports on Thailand over the past few years have been sadly incompetent. And that includes her longer reports in other parts of the ABC. As a regular listener of AM and PM for many years, and one who has had contact with ABC journalists in Thailand and other parts of Asia for a long time, I know they can do better than this. But you like her and that’s fine. Didn’t say the BBC was excellent, just better.

• 25 Michael // Dec 4, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  The Times (Dec.3) also has a piece, by Richard Lloyd Parry , which is in line with the general thrust of this blog. It’s online:

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5274383.ece

• 26 Land of Snarls // Dec 4, 2008 at 7:13 pm

  RK @ 22: My observations are limited to the 2 AM reports you specifically cited as “uninformed” etc. They are clearly not. I didn’t say I like her (irrelevant). I questioned your criticism of those 2 reports, which I believe was unfair. Nor did I say that you said the BBC is excellent – I didn’t use quotes. Actually, it was I who said “…the excellent BBC…”

  My nitpicking is the result of frustration, caused by seeing the degeneration of a blogsite that has often been way above the level of those others that are usually choked with poorly argued & often quite unreasonable postings by muddled farang retirees, quoting the opinions of their Buriram in-laws, as they work their way through 6-packs of Chang & desperately cling to their delusions of ‘understanding’ (and loving!) Thai culture. The 2 major English-language newspapers here are prime examples, & there are lots of others.

• 27 Ralph Kramden // Dec 5, 2008 at 12:22 am

  I don’t want to keep this small debate going longer. If I go back to the transcripts and earlier reports and pick through them, that will only take this side debate further than it needs to at this point. I maintain that the reports were uninformed. By this I mean that they do not provide the information and especially do not provide the context that I have come to expect from the ABC sans Bangkok. Indeed, that’s what is usually expected from AM and PM. I agree that you are overly nitpicky on the comment on the BBC. As I said, if you find her comments informed, fine, you like her reports; I want more from the ABC in Bangkok.

• 28 Land of Snarls // Dec 5, 2008 at 8:30 pm

  RK @ 25: You are begging the question. My comments, as I have stated in all 3 posts, were related to to 2 specific reports that you labelled as ” uninformed and un-informing.” (@#20) No need to go to earlier reports in order to discuss them – they are not even referred to in the 2 reports in question, so they are irrelevant.

  Many of the participants on NM give evidence to support their arguments. Joy is a case in point: by her own admission she is not a Political Science academic. However, she draws from Thai literature (refreshing & broadening) & her own experience of living as a Thai through recent Thai history to support her contributions. She’s following the basic rules of argument. This makes for a more reasonable discussion in a situation where there could be a tendency towards bigotry & emotionalism (i.e. not a real debate). And it gives her arguments an authority that is equal to those of the academics.This results in a higher standard of (and broader) argument than would otherwise be the case in a discussion involving both academics & ‘lay’ observers.

  re. “the excellent BBC “: I stated that as my personal opinion, with no intention of inferring that it was yours. Perhaps I was going a bit over the top, but in terms of journalistic integrity in a situation where the facts are often very difficult to get hold of, and diplomacy is often a big issue (LM, other forms of censorship), IMO they do an excellent job. “My nitpicking ” was not referring to this issue. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to my refusal to bow out of an argument (re. the 2 reports) in which you were bending the rules by exceeding the parameters.

  That’s all.

• 29 polo // Dec 7, 2008 at 12:05 am

  Is the genie really out of the bottle? Even in offshore blogs? Can we not mention here Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn negatively, even mildly so? Of course NM needs to be cautious at times, but also to be straightforward about that. In its “New Mandala encourages vigorous debate…” note, perhaps it needs a line saying “We too must remain cautious about what is said here about the royal family of Thailand.”

• 30 BB // Dec 8, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  I am Thai and still live in Bangkok. I know what’s going on and what’s wrong with PAD’s action. I just can’t deny that the-past-month action should have great effect to the monarch in long run. It seems that the monarch institue has put impropriate intervene in the situation which will lead to internationally issue not just local issue any more.

  I feel very sorry for the fool of people to shut down the airport and much more trouble in my feeling that government CANNOT DO any thing to end the trouble. Can’t imagine how bad it’s if PAD not come out for another week.

  HOWEVER, I think the root of problem are
  1. Politician’s behave. Things would not be very serious if they have just little good heart to rule their countries.

  2. Thai people has very very lack of responsibility on democracy. Most of them in sub urban area sell their vote for just couple hundred buck. Then, we have bad and greedy politicians in government.

  So, to cure this political crisis, not only who will become the Prime Minister but the education of rights and effect of picking up wrong guys is the must also. This process should take long time 5, 7, or even 10 years to educate people to know their rights but it worth in long run.

  Whist, the Monarch is still very important for Thai social system. In the trouble time, when we can’t find the way out, the Monarch still be the last answer. it’s like A FATHER oand the SPIRIT of Nation which we should protect at all cost.

  BR for all comments

• 31 MikeM // Dec 11, 2008 at 8:49 pm

  Did you pick up the editorial and report in The Economist last week, very critical of the King’s role, although strangely unspecific as to exactly what they were criticising, http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12724832 and http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12724800

• 32 Land of Snarls // Dec 15, 2008 at 1:28 am

  Nation has come out with a response: “Foreign Media coverage of our crisis is distorted,” (Sat. 12th Dec.) @ http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/12/opinion/opinion_30090774.php

• 33 Mariner // Dec 20, 2008 at 1:37 am

  Perhaps it is the end of the Royal Taboo. Perhaps in this, the information age, with an ever more educated populace and expanding middle class people are indeed beginning to reflect critically on traditional institutions and their role in a modern world.
  But the monarchy is not the only institution off limits to discussion; the other is the military. I have never heard, and bet I never will hear, Aphisit (or any other current aspiring politician for that matter) talk seriously about reigning in the generals and placing the army (in particular) more directly under elected civilian jurisdiction. As in the past, a self perpetuating, self serving, clique of generals continues to prevent Thailand evolving into a modern democratic state.

Leave a Comment