Regular 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 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.”
As Bangkok Pundit shows, the royal publicity machine has also been active in the international press. Here is Anthony Bailey in the Guardian on “Thailand’s quiet survivor“:
[W]hile the politicians have wrangled and demonstrators have taken to the streets, ordinary Thais, north and south, whatever their political affiliation, have looked to their monarch – the world’s longest serving – for guidance. So great is the affection, even devotion, for King Bhumibol that many had hoped he would intervene to restore some kind of order. The royal house knows that it would be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t by some foreign pundits but it knows too that the secret behind the Thai monarchy’s longevity is its discretion and detachment from the squalid realities of day-to-day politics.
Ever respectful of his constitutional position, the king ignored clamours from those who would purport to act in his name and remained aloof. Now that a political compromise has emerged and a new government has been formed, the king’s course of action – or deliberate inaction – has been vindicated.
And here is former US ambassador Darryl N. Johnson in the Los Angeles Times arguing that “Thailand’s king reigns — but he doesn’t rule“:
Bhumibol is the longest-serving monarch in today’s world and one of the longest ever, having reigned for more than 62 years. He has earned the admiration and love of his subjects in a way that Western observers find difficult to describe. He plays a unique role in Thai society as the personification of the Thai nation, as the head of state, as a kindly uncle who encourages the people in good times and bad, as a doer of good deeds and as a spiritual leader who performs sacred rituals.
What he does not do is to meddle in Thai politics. His powers under the many constitutions that have been promulgated since the overthrow of the absolute monarchy in 1932 are strictly limited. Every prime minister must formally seek his endorsement. Similarly, legislation must be signed by him before it takes effect. But such acts are politically neutral; he does not decide who should be prime minister or what policies the government should pursue. Does he favor some leaders over others? Probably. Does it make any difference in deciding political roles or policies? Rarely or never.
20 responses so far ↓
1 sackman // Dec 30, 2008 at 10:40 am
I’m 100% Thai and I think Mr Vasit himself should seek medical advice. The term ‘Thainess’ he was using is probably a result of the ‘brainwashing’ that has been happenning for 50-60 yrs. In my opinion, no institution (no matter how good or bad) should be exempted from public investigation. A good institution should listen to criticism. It should be able to defend itself. Mr Vasit’s (and others’) attempt to defend the royal is making the royal look more dubious.
2 Bert // Dec 30, 2008 at 9:38 pm
And the piece in the LA Times is just plain silly. It reads like it came straight from the Palace Press Office.
3 Ralph Kramden // Jan 1, 2009 at 12:33 pm
This response it the velvet glove response. In Thailand, things could get more iron-fisted. For a taste, see Wassana Nanuam’s Opinion piece ” On guard against lese majeste on the internet” in the Bangkok Post of 1 January.
Some interesting bits in it regarding and acknowledgment from the highest levels – Generals Anupong and Prem – that the monarchy is under threat, with the former claiming a threat to national security. Gen. Anupong Anupong has ordered “army units to ‘x-ray’ areas in the North and Northeast where lese majeste is believed rife. The crime is reported to be perpetrated by coordinated networks responsible for handing out leaflets, rumour-mongering and even vandalising portraits.”
Gen. Prem claims to be aghast at the whole situation, especially at the rapid proliferation of web sites attacking the monarchy – says he can’t bear to read them.
The author suggests that the drive against lese-majeste has brought the Democrats and the military back together. Gen. Prawit, the defence minister will lead this concerted effort.
Finally, General Prayuth Chan-ocha is reported to have said that all of this anti-monarchy agitation is concerted and all supportive of Thaksin.
I cannot recall a more hysterical time for the royalists since perhaps 1975-77. Of course, the times then were quite different and the avenues for expressing republicanism are now more open. I doubt that the military and Democrats can close this down, especially as it is not a concerted effort as they seem to believe. However, they can clearly make life difficult for those who have been outspoken.
The problem for the royalists, however, is that repression may provide more support for this emerging republicanism.
4 Roger // Jan 1, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I have to agree with Ralph Kramden. I think the PAD have already harmed the monarchy by claiming to be acting to protect the institution. I think the military are going to do the monarchy more harm than good because of their misperception. Unfortunately, every time I see one of these warnings I think back to the “good old days” of the “communist” suppression campaigns and the red barrels.
I think in the long run these guys are doomed, but we see the example of their good friends in Burma. Once established a ruthless military can hold on for decades. The question is whether Anupong, Prawit, and Prayuth are more ruthless than Sarit and his protege Thanom were.
5 nganadeeleg // Jan 2, 2009 at 11:04 am
General Prayuth Chan-ocha is reported to have said that all of this anti-monarchy agitation is concerted and all supportive of Thaksin
There is little doubt that anti-monarchists are supporting Thaksin, but how much reciprocal support is provided?
This might provide the opponents of Thaksin with a ‘wedge’ issue, by simply asking Thaksin publicly whether he accepts or rejects the obvious support from anti-monarchists.
btw, for those who think I’m still Thaksin obsessed – you are right!
(as soon as the ‘reds’ take Thaksin off the pedestal, I will become a supporter).
6 polo // Jan 2, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Thanks to Ralph for pointing this out. It’s not just interesting, it’s essential. Wassana offers up the proof that the last three years of politics at the top level of Thai society has not been about anything but the threat the palace perceives to its very existence. And that explains why themes argued here about government “legitimacy”, “democracy”, “equal treatment under law”, “capitalist rivalry”, and so on have had little real meaning or utility in understanding what happened and predicting what would happen. The palace saw Thaksin and all the people around him as a Republican threat that had to be squashed. The palace persuaded the people that mattered most that its existence was what was at stake. Whether he was such a threat or not, Thaksin failed to defend himself from that charge. While he fought at the level of politics, the palace fought at the higher level of national existence. The palace necessarily won. And now it is cleaning up.
7 Roger // Jan 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Since reading Thai is still difficult for me I don’t yet read Thai web-boards. One result is that I don’t know what’s actually being said that the wannabe-censors are calling anti-monarchist. Of course, thanks to the incredibly stupid overreaction of the ICT Ministry I know about the disgusting youtube video, but not the more common comments.
So I’m wondering, what is all the fuss about? Are there really a lot of people saying bad things about the royal institution? Or is it more a case of there are a few fanatics in high positions who see any reference that is less than adoring as an attack? I mean, given the severity of the lese majeste law and the certainly that it could be applied to the internet despite the ignorant doubts of the Democrats, doesn’t everyone know that anything you publish on the World Wide Web can be traced back to you if they want to badly enough? Even going through a series of anonymizers wouldn’t be enough to protect you if a government, even one as incompetent at IT as Thailand’s, from getting the log data. Are there really people out there who are advocating overthrowing the royal institution?
8 Ralph Kramden // Jan 4, 2009 at 11:24 am
nganadeeleg: Your statement about the anti-monarchists supporting Thaksin is simply wrong as a generalisation.
There are undoubtedly pro-Thaksin people who have “seen the light on the monarchy.” Just about every taxi driver in Bangkok seems in this camp.
There are surely some republicans who have seen a point to linking with the red shirts.
But if you read some of the web boards you’ll get a different picture that suggests there are republicans who are not with the Thaksin forces. Indeed, most splits in PAD revolved around PAD’s royalism.
One rabid PAD supporter who is also a republican commented that, for him, there was an order of enemies, beginning with Thaksin. Once he was dealt with, the next enemy was higher up.
9 nganadeeleg // Jan 6, 2009 at 10:03 am
Ralph: Apart from being a rabid PAD supporter, that one guy might just be on to something
As for generalisations, not much I can say except:- we can each make our own judgements based on what we see, hear and read.
10 Ralph Kramden // Jan 12, 2009 at 1:08 am
Don’t neglect to read the story on Prem in the Nation (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/topstory/30092910/Prem-calls-for-unity-in-Northeast). One has to wonder where he was when PAD were at work? Well, I guess we can suggest reasons why he didn’t see disunity in their activities….
We could accuse him of hypocrisy or worse. But at the same time, he reflects the deep fears that the royalists have. For example, if the report is accurate, he calls on the military to restore unity; he notes the king is only a force for unity while he is around. And, he is clear that the NE has seen considerable diminution of support for royalist-oriented rule of the past.
11 Ralph Kramden // Jan 12, 2009 at 3:07 am
I have just heard that Ji Ungpakorn has been called in by the police on allegations of lese majeste.
It is known that at least 3 people are in jail awaiting trial on lese majeste (and have been held for some time now). It is also known that Jonathon Head has another lese majeste allegation against him. Likewise, other academics have recently been interviewed by the police regarding lese majeste.
Looks like the Democrats are indeed the royalists party.
12 Ralph Kramden // Jan 12, 2009 at 9:02 pm
More from the Democrats on lese majeste: Thai minister vows to get tough on royal critics
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-37357920090109?sp=true
13 Ralph Kramden // Jan 17, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Another arrest on lese majeste in the last couple of days – see Bangkok Pundit for excellent details and links. The Democrats are following through on their promises on lese majeste and the military is also at work. Expect further cases.
14 Frank G Anderson // Jan 19, 2009 at 8:05 pm
I note that the Thai court gave Harry three years because of the seriousness of his crime! Down from six because he confessed.
Another cause for bad karma? And not on Harry’s part.
15 Ralph Kramden // Jan 20, 2009 at 1:16 am
Here is how one Thai Embassy describes the policies of the new Democrat-led government: “Priorities of Thailand’s new government
… comprise: (1) to protect the Monarchy, (2) to foster national reconciliation, (3) to reinvigorate the economy, and (4) to further develop stable democracy and political system. PM has already reached out to win hearts and minds of the public especially in North and Northeast regions of Thailand.”
16 Ralph Kramden // Jan 21, 2009 at 5:15 am
Democrats now claim there are 10,000 web sites (pages?) that offend the monarchy. Expect more censorship, charges and prosecutions.
17 GoodnessGraciousMe // Jan 22, 2009 at 9:06 pm
The steady diminution in public support and respect for the monarchy in the United Kingdom stands as a salutary example of what might happen if / when open debate is allowed. As I said in a recent post relating to LM / the Harry Nicolaides case …
In the case of the UK, the general decline in respect for the institution of monarchy / members of the Royal Family is sometimes said to date from 1969 and the broadcast of the “Royal Family” documentary. This rather humdrum film showed a mass audience – for the first time – footage of the Queen and her family engaged in such activities as having a barbecue, walking dogs and watching TV. In other words, it stripped away a lot of the mystique and showed that, in fact, they were ordinary people. Once you start down that path, it’s a slippery slope, as Bagehot noted:
“There is no authentic explicit information as to what the Queen can do . . . That secrecy is, however, essential to the utility of English royalty as it now is . . . royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about you cannot reverence it. When there is a select committee on the Queen, the charm of royalty will be gone. Its mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.”
Bagehot was writing about the situation in the UK some 152 years ago; change the date and the country, and his comments are just as relevant today. Doubtless, too, someone with a good British education would be familiar with Bagehot.
18 Ralph Kramden // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:18 am
The Democrats are now trying to close community radio stations that “instigate unrest” and use “aggressive language” – see The Nation 29 January.
The stories in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012903736.html) and Asia Times Online (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KA29Ae01.html) are interesting in that they identify linkages between lese majeste, human rights failures and military backing for the Democrats.
I wonder a bit about the view that Abhisit is moving. I tend to think of him as having always been a conservative right winger dressed up as a liberal because of his looks and youth.
19 Mariner // Feb 7, 2009 at 2:53 am
Interesting to see there is now a ‘protecttheking.net’ site, the purpose of which is to allow us to report those who may be committing LM (had this awful image of a list of names and addresses of alleged offenders -a sort of’ lynch roll’).
Apparently a great many websites have already been blocked, in part due to the diligence of the contributors.
I can’t help wondering though, what effect (if any) this all has on on the editorial decisions of New mandala management on what to publish and what not to publish: any effect at all? No effect whatsoever? Is it a time for sensitive editing to keep the site open? Any representations from Thai authorities hinting at future closure?
Of course the more Thai websites that are shut down the more people who will be logging in here.
20 Ged Allen // Aug 9, 2009 at 3:07 pm
There are two different debates incorporated in these pages and comments, one is the debate about how monarchy plays a role as head of state in a democracy, and a second about how freedom of press is either essential for a modern successful democracy in this age of an educted population, or not useful at all, which appears to be the view of certain segments of the Thai elite.
In several European countries which I am familiar with the people are very used to the idea of the separate of executive power from the head of state and whatever our views on hereditary systems, we know it can be a great force for stability and cohesive national identity.
Some countries in Europe have the same experience as the Americans with an elected head of state who also has an executive role in government, this also appears to be capable of generated stable open governments. From the evidence available today it is hard to state that either one of these is the only successful model.
Republican sentiments are fair and valid in certain countries due to their history and culture, and people should be free to hold such views and indeed express them. Equally it is important that people who believe democracy can flourish with a hereditary head of state have copious evidence to prove their approach is fair and valid, despite the apparent (in western structured thinking) illogicality in not having a method of selecting the best person in the country for the role of head of state, though even they admit this depends on the role and powers of the head of state.
It therefore seems to me that the discussion should focus on the second issue that of freedom of the press.
It seems apparent that the world is moving in the direction that it is OK to restrict freedom of speech to ensure that no offence is given to a group of people with common beliefs. This is happening in the so called “politically correct” world of the western democracies where it is no considered appropriate to allow criticism of fundamental beliefs of other as it will cause offence. This is based on some concept of greater good for the greater number of people, which is then guarded in some way by the government of the day.
I find it hard to differentiate this from the Thai governments views on Lese Majeste!
Should people be free to state that they want to change to a republican model in a country, if that is their viewpoint, well of course that does in some if not most countries with a Monarchy, cause offence sometimes great offence. So the question is, really as simple as do you believe in unfettered freedom of speech and if not what are the boundaries and the method of guardianship that you espouse?
My view remains that in Thailand today, the rule of law, with equality for all people under the law, is sadly missing from many aspects of everyday life. Therefore my concern is much more about who decides what is free speech and what is exceeding the boundaries of acceptable free speech. This is difficult to answer in many countries, and is not in itself an issue of republicanism or the current democratic monarchy.
Thus as so many issues in Thailand this devolves down to the even more fundamental issue of the application of the law equally and fairly to all people in Thailand. Currently this appears not to be the model, and I see no intention of any currently active political grouping to make this the core of their efforts. This much more than any other aspect of how Thailand arranges its internal operations and conduct of government is what needs to change.
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.