[This is the text of the presentation by Thongchai Winichakul at the Thailand in Transition workshop held on 8 December 2009.]
The title of the talk today reminds me of the book, Siam in Transition, published in 1939 by Kenneth Landon. The book reported about the 1932 revolution that ended the absolute monarchy and about the country after that major transition.
Part One
Let’s recall the the 1932 revolution.
Let it be clear that I’m talking about 77 years ago and I WILL TELL THE STORY IN REGRESSIVE CHRONOLOGY, i.e. backward in time. It is not about the present and will be removed further and further away from the present. Any parallels are your own imaginations. I do not rewrite the script of the past in anticipation of your imagination about the present.
The People’s Party in 1932 took action amidst the widespread dissatisfaction with the monarchy among the political public.
In their view, the absolute monarchy hindered the country’s progress.
King Rama VII in fact was aware of the dissatisfaction. He tried to initiate some reforms.
But the senior royals in his government and foreign advisors shot down his ideas which, in retrospect, were not even far enough for the critics. Those senior advisors did not think Thai people were ready for democracy because they were too uneducated.
The dissatisfaction among the political public started under King Rama VI, Vajiravudh (r. 1910-1925).
King Rama VI had difficult times throughout 15 years of his reign. He was not a great ruler. He was a fantastic poet and playwright.
The difficulties came not only from the growing public criticism of his government, but the serious problem that undermined his rule, and in retrospect the future of the monarchy as well, also came from the royals and those who once served his father.
The royals and his father’s associates did not trust the King. To them, there were signs before his reign that he was not a competent ruler. They were also concerned about his character and personal behaviors.
Vajiravudh was a royal critic of the royals in response to the latter’s disloyalty to him.
The distrust of the royals and his father’s people began since when Vajiravudh was the Crown Prince. Rumors about his behaviors spread including a well known one that his body guards beat up soldiers but was not punished thanks to the intervention by Crown Prince. (Historians take this incident as a real incident. I don’t care how true it was but the persistence of the rumor reflected the atmosphere at the time. Possibly, there were lots of rumors about the CP’s behaviors.)
Gossips spread that another prince was probably a better choice for the throne. Such gossips put that prince in trouble, so he made it clear that he was loyal to the CP and to his father decision.
CP Vajiravudh was the only legally legitimate heir to the throne. His father made the decision and appointed him when he was young long before his adult characters began to form.
In my opinion, it is so unfair for historians to explain the dissatisfaction and problems under King Vajiravudh by focusing on his personality and behaviors. Historians overlook another factor that contributed to the disappointment with his reign but had nothing to do with him.
Had King Chulalongkorn not been an unmatched monarch, his son could have had a better chance to succeed. The more superhuman the Father was (or was made to look like), the steeper the mountain his son had to climb. Or we may say the deeper hole he got into. The more indispensable King Chulalongkorn was, the uncertain future awaits the next monarch. The royals and his father’s people themselves put Varjiravudh up for failure. The royals shot themselves in the foot.
Today the monarchy has a better chance not to make such a mistake again, the royals have a better chance not to shoot themselves in the foot again, if the monarch is truly above and beyond politics.
The situations that led to the 1932 revolution can be told again in the progressive chronology, starting from the making of the superhuman monarch, and forward in time…. You can do it by yourself – with your imaginations.
In the story, the royals cannot deny responsibility. They themselves were doing damages to the monarchy in the long run at every turn. Even in at the 11th hour, they still refused the change, dismissing the dissents and the dissatisfaction. They too should be held accountable for the trouble to the monarchy.
Many historians of later years put blame on the People’s Party for personal disgruntlement. They said that the failure of Thai democracy is the proof that Thai people were not ready. My question is ready for what? There was never one revolution in the world that took place when people were fully developed for democracy or any ideal cause. But in most cases, they were ready for a revolution.
Part Two
Despite the story I told, there is another way to understand the 1932 revolution.
In the 1910s-1930s, fundamental structural changes took place in Thai socio-economy as the results of the establishment of modern state and bureaucracy, of the expanding economy and education since the 1880s. The growing political public sphere was the outcome of the success of the absolute monarchy itself.
The structural changes meant the greater opportunity for commoners – a new social force that never had desire for political participation until the early decades of the 20th century.
The concrete story of the 1932 revolution I told earlier reflected the structural changes. The behaviors of CP, rumors about him, growing dissents, and so on, were the tip of the iceberg. If we only see the tip, we miss the rest of it.
I created a diagram of the history of democratization in Thailand. It shows three series of conflicts and transitions that were related to the structural changes.
The structural changes in the early decades of the 20th century were the fundamental conditions that produced the 1932 revolution. The structural changes in Thai socio-economy during the modernization period since the end of the 1950s also led to a huge army of the educated middle class who could not tolerate the authoritarian political system anymore, eventually producing the confrontations in 1973, 1976 and 1992 that altogether constitute another transition (series 2 in my diagram).
Since the 1980s Thailand has been going through another socio-economic structural changes related to the economic boom and to globalization. Despite the bust, occasional recessions and the 1997 economic crisis, Thai society has changed fundamentally.
This time the crucial effects have taken place in the rural society. The relationship between the city and the rural has changed; so were rural people’s ways of life. Late 1980s the majority of Thai population was no longer in the agrarian sector. Agriculture was no longer the top commodities the country produced. The poor people are no longer the peasants of the past years or the submissive subjects of the benevolent lord in the Government House.
The relatively regular elections provide a new access and opportunity for the rural and the urban poor to compete for a fairer share of power and public resources which had been controlled by the city. For rural people and the urban poor, it is the first time they not only understand but indeed enjoy the fruits of democracy.
(The electoral behaviors in the rural areas have changed over 20-30 years of frequent elections. All of them are rational responses to the changing democracy since the early 1980s. The elite bias and ignorance cannot understand these people. This is why thousands of millions the government dumped recently to lure them away from Thaksin failed. Money cannot buy rural people now or in recent elections probably since the late 1990s.)
The electoral democracy, however, has been despised by urban elite as the path of the corrupt self-serving politicians to power. The royalists in particular always believe in the benevolent rule of the selfless moral authority exemplified by the good monarch.
But Thaksin, all his abuses, faults and sins, are the tip of the iceberg. The government is trying to scratch the tip of the iceberg and claim it a monumental success. The whole society is missing the point, which is the rest of the iceberg. The focuses on Thaksin, the Red-Yellow conflict, and all tactical or rhetorical victories are missing the point. The believe that the crisis today is by a few evils, and if getting rid of them a happy-ever after would return, is a fantasy.
But the fundamental changes have already taken place. The train has already left the station.
In 1932 the senior royals to do not understand the fundamental changes. In 1973 the Generals did not understand the fundamental changes kept saying the communists were behind the discontent and the anti-government movement. In the current political crisis , …. please complete the sentence by yourself.
The lese majeste issue — how it is used and abused– is the microcosm of the whole problem I am talking about. There are deeper conditions that make people say or do things about the monarchy and that lead to conflict in the society. But those in power refuse to deal with the real problem and instead going after people and their acts to silence the dissents and held them hostage with fear. They are mere reflections or the tip of the iceberg. The result of the law and the elite’s denial of the need for change is likely to backfire.
In Closing
In 50 years from now, history might record that the Thai elites – the royalists and the urban elite – hindered the change for the better. They had the opportunity to institutionalize a decent democratic process, namely the electoral system, the media and the judiciary. But they shot themselves in the foot again. It is inevitable, I believe.
However, I do not know what the outcome would look like. All I have said does not mean I can foresee the exact shapes and forms of the transition. I can’t. Don’t even mention the “R” word. Honestly, I don’t see it coming no matter how wishful some “R” might be thinking. All I can say with confidence are, to repeat again, 1) the transition is happening; the train has already left the station; and 2) Watch out – the royalists, not the other “R”, are dangerous to the monarchy; they are the ones who undermine the future of the monarchy.
22 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Dec 12, 2009 at 4:04 pm
All right, got it: The king has been made to look like a superhuman, and thus the CP will have a steep mountain to climb, etc…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
2 Ralph Kramden // Dec 12, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Landon’s book is nowadays generally regarded as period piece by a missionary rather than a useful account.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
3 John Francis Lee // Dec 13, 2009 at 3:01 am
Watch out – the royalists, not the other “R”, are dangerous to the monarchy; they are the ones who undermine the future of the monarchy.
I think that certainly seems to be the case. The conservatives, reactionaries really, have tried to hitch their star to that of HM King Bhumipol, to borrow his baromi. But in fact the reverse has occurred. By associating themselves and their increasing authoritarian excesses with the monarchy they have drug the monarchy down to their level and actually destroyed a great deal of the baromi that HM King Bhumipol had built up over the course of six decades.
King Canute is said to have learned from his “mistake”, actually to have used it as the occasion of demonstrating to his impatient retainers that leadership consists in adapting to, staying on top of change; that attempting to rule by fiat is foolish and literally does make fools of those who do try to do so.
The lesson seems to be being delivered once again.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
4 New: Political (and cultural) futures « Political Prisoners in Thailand // Dec 13, 2009 at 10:33 am
[...] the steeper the mountain the Crown Prince had to climb.” The text of Thongchai’s talk is at New Mandala while the slides her refers to are [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
5 Srithanonchai // Dec 13, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Landon’s book is nowadays generally regarded as period piece by a missionary rather than a useful account.
I guess that I am not included amongst the people covered by “generally,” which makes the statement false.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
6 BKK lawyer // Dec 13, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Several bookseller sites I checked indicate Landon’s Siam In Transition was published in 1969 (not 1939).
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
7 Thanapol // Dec 14, 2009 at 12:24 pm
The book was first published by Oxford University Press in 1939.
http://madcat.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&CNT=50&Search_Arg=siam%20in%20transition&Search_Code=GKEY^*&PID=I5YOFEEYFCPgeMM3Yg33U_E0oXgAiQ_&SEQ=20091213192136&SID=1
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
8 David // Dec 14, 2009 at 1:30 pm
once again, thongchai hits the spot precisely… i could not possibly agree more with this brilliant and concise analysis..! thank you very much for your wisdom and insight thongchai..! too bad the powers-that-be will not listen to you… so i guess you are right; “it is inevitable”…
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
9 Thongchai // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Landon’s book was first published in 1939, based on his PhD at U of Chicago (1937?). Landon later bcame a diplomat at the beginning of the Cold War.
Landon’s book was dated. It is a historical piece itself. The narrative in my talk is entirely mine; nothing from Landon’s. I refer to the title and subject merely as an entry point to talk about the past/present. If it is misunderstood that the narrative is from Landon’s, I apologize for not making it clear enough.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
10 WLH // Dec 14, 2009 at 7:25 pm
“Any parallels are your own imaginations. ”
Well, as the rule goes, in the face of restriction, imagination flourishes.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
11 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Dec 15, 2009 at 12:33 am
JFL (bold typeface), quoting Thongchai (italics):
Watch out – the royalists, not the other “R”, are dangerous to the monarchy; they are the ones who undermine the future of the monarchy.
I think that certainly seems to be the case. The conservatives, reactionaries really, have tried to hitch their star to that of HM King Bhumipol, to borrow his baromi.
………..
The danger of the first paragraph’s line of argument is that quite a few people will draw the conclusion as in the second paragraph which is at best misleading, at worst completely wrong.
Let take the most important event of the past year, the one that was the watershed for great many people’s political consciousness: HMQ presiding over the funeral of PAD supporter on October 13, 2008 (dubbed by regualars at political webboards like Faw Diew Kan and Prachatai as “The National Eye Opening Day”!). During the funeral, HMQ told the father of the dead girl that the HM the King was well aware of her case and the money she passed on to the girl’s family came from HMK himself. Now as a very, very loyal subject myself, I wholeheartedly believe HMQ’s every word. Therefore, I must wonder who could JFL’s “conservative reactionaries …” be in this historic event?
It should be recalled that, in his recent Time Online interview, Thaksin of course used similar line of argument/explanation. But this is to be expected. Thaksin is, after all, a politician, not an academic.
Speaking of academics, this reminds me. Months ago, there’s a seminar on LM at Thammasat. The prominent historian, Nidhi Iewsriwong also put forward the same argument that “conservative royalists have hidden behind the throne, and in the course of their activity, doing great harms to it.” After his talk, Nidhi refused to take questions from audience, otherwise I would definitely have got up as asked: how in heavens would such argument-explanaiton of what’s been happening to the monarchy, explain events like the “Eye Opening Day”?
P.S. I suggest academic observers listen to phone in at community radio or talk to some taxi drivers. It seems to me that while a lot of these ordinary folks do indeed think like what has been said above, a good many number of them also understand the situations more clearly than many academics.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
12 Ralph Kramden // Dec 15, 2009 at 2:24 am
Thongchai. I don’t think the implication that your talk was like Landon’s. Rather, I was pointing out, as you do, that Landon’s book is a historical piece. I was not put in mind of Landon’s book when reading your commentary. Your talk was excellent. Thanks for your thoughtful and powerful commentaries.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
13 Srithanochai // Dec 15, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Somsak:
Surely, the monarchy cannot just be a bystander that in amazement and total disagreement watches what the royalists etc. have been doing.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
14 Thailand’s next challenge-Bangkok Pundit « FACT – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand // Dec 16, 2009 at 12:17 am
[...] At the “Thailand in Transition: A Historic Challenge and What’s Next?” event on December 8 (blogged on what Bkk Governor Sukhumbhand and former Senator Jon Ungpakorn said here and here respectively) academic Thongchai Winichakul spoke about the 1932 revolution in Thailand where Thailand moved from absolute to constitutional monarchy, precisely what happened and why it happened. New Mandala has the text of Thongchai’s presentation here. [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
15 Nganadeeleg // Dec 16, 2009 at 12:54 am
Ajarn Somsak: Was it really such an ‘Eye Opening Day’?
How different is the Royal involvement in Angkhana Radappanyawut’s funeral to their involvement is the sad case of Juling Pongkunmul?
Have there been any young female ‘red’ victims (in the public eye) to truly prove the ‘eye opening’ point?
Of course, I bow to your your vast knowledge & wisdom, and would not be so bold as to disagree with you critique of the contention that royalists are using the royals/hiding behind the throne line of thought, but I just don’t see that so called ‘eye opening’ day as being as conclusive as some like to make out.
I think that day should be added to all the other actions (& non actions), and observers should then be able to draw their own conclusions, based on the cumulative evidence.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
16 Thongchai // Dec 16, 2009 at 6:13 am
As far as I understand, the monarch is also a royalist, isn’t he?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
17 Fair’s fair – Pasuk on Thailand in transition // Dec 16, 2009 at 9:28 am
[...] Phongpaichit at the Thailand in Transition workshop held on 8 December 2009. The presentation by Thongchai Winichakul is available [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
18 Nganadeeleg // Dec 16, 2009 at 10:56 am
Srithanochai’s point is the one that convinces me more than the ‘eye opening’ day.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
19 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Dec 16, 2009 at 11:28 am
Nganadeeleg:
How different is the Royal involvement in Angkhana Radappanyawut’s funeral to their involvement is the sad case of Juling Pongkunmul?
Actually, they are vastly different. The Angkhana visit was in fact, historically, the first ever* that the King or Queen presided over funeral of a person/persons died in the course of opposing the government and in the hands of government officials. Moreover, her fellow protesters’ conflict with that government was still on-going, with great intensity, at the time of the Queen’s presiding over her funeral. In fact, Angkhana did not just die opposing government, but a particular political party in government. In short, her death was eminently political. And politics is, as every one knows, supposed to be the domain where the monarchy wouldn’t tresspass.
Juling’s case, like a number of civilian deaths during the course of government/state’s war with communism, was the case of “officials and civilians died in the line of duty in the service of the country/state”, which is regarded not only proper, but a key, official duty of the King and Queen, to pay their respect.
I think that day should be added to all the other actions (& non actions), and observers should then be able to draw their own conclusions, based on the cumulative evidence.
It’s my fault not to make it clear earlier that, the Angkhana case was ‘Eye-Opening’ not for me personally (my eyes had been opened long, long time ago), but for great many people especially those who supported Thaksin. Contrary to accusation and widespread belief, the Reds or Thaksin’s supporters did not initially had this ‘critical to the monarchy’ stance (or, to use Sondhi L’s phrase, “khabuankan lom chao” stance) that a large number of them certainly have now. The October 13 events turned things around for them quite abruptly, hence their felling of ‘Eye-Opening’. Of course you’re right, they should have been able to draw conclusion based on cumulative evidence. But, that was actually what happened. (I still remember, earlier in July, when mysteriously the Queen’s personal recording was played at PAD rally, I wrote an article drawing attention to this ‘strange’ occuring, many Thaksin’s supporters on political webboards were still sceptical of its importance. I suppose, it’s kind of like long-held love affairs, people would rather be in a state of denial, that they’re over, for as long as they could.)
*I’m aware that there maybe two partial exceptions to this statement, 14 October and especially the case of a Village Scouts who died during the storming of Thammasat on Oct 6, 1976. But the 14 Oct case was regarded as a ‘national’, not a political matter. (At least initially, by the time the funeral took place, the Palace, I believe, would have wanted to ‘back off’ from their commitment of a royal-sponsored funeral, but it would be too great a problem if they did.) The Village Scout’s case was very similar to Angkhana’s, except that it actually was not ‘official’: the two princesses went there not as offcial representatives of the king and queen. And the funeral was not an official ‘royal-sponsored funeral’ (งานพระราชทานเพลิงศพ), not like Angkhana’s. Also the two princesses at the time, were far from very ‘high-profile’, socially active royals they had later become (think of Princess Sirinthorn especially). In any case, as I said above, the Ankhana case made no different for me personally.
Thongchai:
As far as I understand, the monarch is also a royalist, isn’t he?
I suppose, in a sense, he is. But then again, we wouldn’t normally regard both the King and Queen themselves as just ‘royalists’, would we? Especially, not in the same sentence (“the royalists..are dangerous to the monarchy”)? I would have thought that if anyone deserve to be identified with ‘the monarchy’, surely the King and Queen themselves eminently do. In any case, my argument still stands, namely, even if one is supposed to include the King and Queen as ‘royalists’, to say that “the royalists…..are dangerous to the monarchy; they are the ones who undermine the future of the monarchy” is bound to invite people to draw conclusion as JFL (and many others) do.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
20 Nganadeeleg // Dec 16, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Thanks for the explanations, and FWIW, I agree.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
21 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Dec 16, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I just think of something, that maynot directly concern Thongchai’s point above, but quite relevant.
Certainly, Thongchai’s sentences that JFL quotes deal with the present. But in the context of a discussion that goes back a long way to 1932 and beyond, to identify the monarchs with ‘royalists’ could be problematic. Was King Anan during the 10 years or so between 1933 to around 1944-45, a ‘royalist’? Even in King Bhumibol’s case, was he himself a ‘royalist’, say in the first few years of his reign, perhaps even down to his return in 1950 or 1951-52? They were ‘royals’ alright, but ‘royalists’ as well? I’m not saying that they weren’t, I just think we simply don’t have enough information to say. And it’s important for the understanding of history, because during the two periods, there were indeed many royalists acting, ploting against the People’s Party government (without the monarchs in the country or perhaps even without the monarchs’ roles). To identify ‘monarchs’ with ‘royalists’ in such cases could run the risk of misleading, in the opposite direction from the above.
The issue of monarchy, royalism in modern Thai history is quite complicated, and I’d prefer to be as clear as possible about who did what and how much, who were responsible for what and how much, etc.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
22 Fisherman // Dec 18, 2009 at 11:32 am
Thongchai: How have you interpreted the monarch’s shift to pink? Relevant?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
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.