At the start of December there was a New Mandala post about the international media’s efforts to break the taboo around public discussion of royal intrigues. Since we identified this relatively abrupt new direction in media analysis and commentary there have been a number of other efforts to examine the role of the palace. Some examples (by no means comprehensive) follow:
If you happened to have been in Thailand this week and wanted to read the December 6-10 issue of The Economist, you could have searched the country without finding a copy. That’s because it contained an article and editorial that were critical of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Rather than risk insulting the king and offending his subjects, Asia Books, which imports the British weekly, chose not to distribute that particular edition. (”Thailand’s King May Play Politics (No Offense)”, Newsweek, 17 December 2008).
The monarchy’s guardians would be much better advised looking at the massive self-damage just inflicted in its name, and working out ways the heir apparent, Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, can steer the institution into a more stable balance with electoral democracy. (Hamish McDonald, “Monarchy damaged by elites”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 December 2008).
King Bhumibol Adulyadej kept conspicuous silence, a hint of where his feelings lay. Abhisit supporters have been going about spreading innuendoes about the allegedly anti-royalist sentiments of Thaksin supporters. It all fell into a pattern. (”Thailand’s continuing crisis”, The Daily Star (Bangladesh), 17 December 2008).
And there are many other interesting fragments. In response to The Economist’s broadside, there have been public statements from inside the Thai establishment:
While respecting your every right to express your view, I believe any analysis of the Thai monarchy should not be approached only from a western perspective, but it must take into account the Thai political, constitutional and cultural contexts. Likewise, a Thai should not criticise a monarch of another country based on his or her experiences with, and perspectives on, the Thai monarchy. We all have customs, traditions and conventions particular to our nations to consider. (Surakiart Sathirathai, “An open letter in reply to the Economist”, Bangkok Post, 15 December 2008).
Of late, speculation about the king’s role in Thailand’s political situation has grown. This appears to be because some political groups have cynically sought to capitalize on the king’s popularity by associating themselves with the monarchy. The king, however, is so strictly bound by laws and traditions that he is all but powerless to defend himself. This is the reason the Thai people called for a lèse majesté law to protect their king in the first place. (Tharit Charungvat, “The Thai monarchy”, The International Herald Tribune, 18 December 2008).
And then there is this selection of Letters to the Editor of The Nation.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Frank G Anderson // Dec 24, 2008 at 8:06 pm
It’s very fascinating to note those who feel others, especially ‘outsiders,’ cannot comment on Thai politics, culture or society. And where is the richest resource of Thai literature and history of Thailand, the most uncensored part? Outside Thailand.
Thai people are censor-minded, almost without limit. That’s why the taboo subjects remain taboo. It’s easy to hate those who wish to see the truth exposed.
2 Ralph Kramden // Dec 27, 2008 at 6:15 pm
The new ICT minister announced today that her top priority is to block websites that insult the monarchy. She stated that “every Thai” would agree with this move.
It is good to know that the Dems are on the job and will vigilantly ensure that there is only good news available on the monarchy. The Democrats have also asked for lese majeste investigations to be accelerated, naming the case against Jakkraphob.
Alongside the various responses to the Economist, ranging from the bizarre (in the Nation) to off-target (by Surakiat), which have mentioned the culturalist notion that Westerners just don’t understand, a deeper royalist objection has been made by Vasit Dejkunchorn.
In a recent article, he argues that foreigners, no matter how long they study Thailand, can never understand the country because they lack the essential element of “Thainess.” This quality comes from being born, raised and educated in Thailand. In Vasit’s scheme of things, “Thainess” appears to mean support for the monarchy. Those Thais who read foreigners’ work and believe them are actually , he asserts, mentally deranged and should seek immediate medical assessment.
Vasit was a policeman to the king and wrote the syrupy “In In His Majesty’s Footsteps” and has a long palace pedigree prior to working with the military-appointed government in 2007.
The palace appears to be fighting back against the sudden out-pouring of critical articles in the media targeting the monarchy. Vasit is one of their faithful tools. Vasit and his kind seem truly astounded at what has happened of late and one response is to lash out and explain to Thais, in Thai, that these foreigners just can’t possibly understand, are malicious and/or stupid (and yes, Vasit says, some are paid by Thaksin).
Vasit and his colleagues seem to lament the passing of a time when there were only a few journalists in Bangkok and they were easily controlled and convinced to write the hagiographical articles that routinely came out of Bangkok agencies who reported on the king. Many of those journalists wanted to stay in Thailand and were wary of lese majeste. That seems no longer the case.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is taking a different approach, suggesting that “all interested to learn more about the lifelong achievements of H.M. the King of Thailand [should] … access a privately-run website: http://www.royalvdo.com which contains various video clips of royal works and activities in English and Thai.” Whether it really is “privately-run” is open to speculation, but it is interesting that it is being promoted over a legion of pro-monarchy sites maintained by the palace’s own organisations. It is also promoted over a myriad of obviously pro-monarchy private sites already available.
So why this one? On a quick search the reason might be that it offers pro-monarchy clips along with careful and detailed instructions on how to post these at YouTube. I guess this is a neat idea. Have unofficial responses to all the bad publicity and try to swamp the web with pro-monarchy stuff.
The Economist, following on Handley (now available in full Thai translation, but many sites blocked in Thailand), and the 2006 coup involvement seem to have unleashed a great deal of criticism in Thailand and abroad. And the palace is responding.
3 Defending the taboo - the royal response // Dec 29, 2008 at 8:39 am
[...] New Mandala reader, Ralph Cramden, made some interesting comments on our recent post Update on the Royal Taboo: Alongside the various responses to the Economist, ranging from the bizarre (in the Nation) to [...]
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.