In 1873, the Royal Siamese Government Gazette published a palace announcement on the abolition of the prostration practice. It reported that King Chulalongkorn called for a meeting at the Amarin Winitchai Hall, with the presence of members of the royal family, senior bureaucrats, phu yai, phu noi and representatives of the armed forces. King Chulalongkorn said that since his enthronement in 1868, he had wanted to ensure the kingdom’s prosperity and to bring happiness to the royal family, nobles, bureaucrats, members of the sangha, and ordinary Siamese. Therefore, during his rule, the King wished to eliminate whatever could be perceived as acts of subjugation that would cause hardship to his peoples.
As reported in the Gazette, the King said:
In other major powers, in other great capitals of the world, in other kingdoms in East Asia, such as in China, Yuan (Vietnam), Japan, and in West Asia, such as India—these countries once enshrined the practice of prostration, commanding the subordinates to prostrate before their superiors (chaonai) and the nobles, just like what is currently experienced by Siam. But now, those countries have abolished the prostration practice. The reason behind this is that they acknowledged the necessity of rebuilding a more equal relationship between different groups in society—no more class oppression. Since the abolition, those countries have become more prosperous. In Siam, the practice of prostration reaffirms the existence of oppression which is unjust. Furthermore, there are other practices that must be abolished or at least reduced in their degree of strictness. But to eliminate all the practices at once will be impossible. The process has to be gradual and timely. At the end of the process, Siam will re-emerge as a much more prosperous kingdom.
King Chulalongkorn added:
The practice of prostration in Siam is severely oppressive. The subordinates have been forced to prostrate in order to elevate the dignity of the phu yai. I do not see how the practice of prostration will render any benefit to Siam. The subordinates find the performance of prostration a harsh physical practice. They have to go down on their knees for a long time until their business with the phu yai ends. They will then be allowed to stand up and retreat. This kind of practice is the source of oppression. Therefore, I want to abolish it.
The 1873 Gazette also reported that the King’s wish truly exhibited his generosity and compassion to bring happiness to his peoples, for them not to suffer any longer from the prostration practice. It said:
From now on, Siamese are permitted to stand up before the dignitaries. To display an act of respect, the Siamese may take a bow instead. Taking a bow will be regarded as a new form of paying respect. The dignitaries may first question the reason behind the abolition of prostration practice. They may ask: How will the change assist in developing Siam? They must know now that the abolition of this practice is indeed to show the world that Siam rejects any oppressive and unjust practice. Powerful countries which have been successful in refraining from oppressing their own peoples are now enjoying prosperity. Henceforth, members of the royal family and senior and junior bureaucrats who wish to have an audience with the King at his residence, or in public places, please adopt this new recommended practice as instructed by the King. His Majesty the King has assigned Than Chao Phraya Srisuriyawongse, his Regent, to enact this new practice for the Siamese kingdom.
Very interesting article. Thank you. Where did you get copies of the 1873 Gazette?
Quality comment or not?
18 
0
a thoughtful piece; the implication being how come it was reintroduced in the twentieth century under the current king as court practice? This came about during Sarit’s time with a new compact between the palace and regime was formed which essentially re-sacralised the monarch. This was undertaken in the interests of the amaat regime (flapping in the wings since 1932!) to regain real control over society, culture, politics, and economy…the rest, as they say, is history.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
41 
1
Let’s not forget too that King Rama VII ROSE to meet the leaders of the People’s Party: “I rise in honour of the Khana Ratsadorn.”
Why don’t we see this image plastered throughout the Kingdom? This moment was a moment of truth for Thailand discarded to make way for the Royalist Restoration after ’32.
Quality comment or not?
24 
1
To Ray
Thank you. I got the copy of this particular Gazette from a Thai historian who is currently with me at ISEAS.
Pavin
Quality comment or not?
11 
2
“Powerful countries which have been successful in refraining from oppressing their own peoples are now enjoying prosperity.”
This statement just goes to show how backward the evolution of Thai democracy has become.
Thailand’s present society is highly paternal and autocratic and I agree with Jim Taylor that laws where changed to serve a small percentage of the population who have assumed some sort of hierarchical superiority over so called inferior Thais.
There are no ‘feudal lords’ in the kingdom only extraordinarily rich families who are connected wanting to retain vestiges of the past that were dissolved when the country changed in the 1930′ s.
They have distorted the once sacred ‘patronage system’ evolving it into the corrupt practice it has become today. A system that still has so called inferior Thais prostrating themselves to their illegitimate superiors. These wealthy families and those that protect them are still oppressing the people and yes holding back all Thais right to prosperity.
Quality comment or not?
24 
1
Yes, this is one bit that has truly gone backwards no matter how you look at it. Unfortunately, royalist will claim that those that did do it ‘willingly’, not because they’re afraid someone might lynch them.
Quality comment or not?
21 
0
Can anyone point to when the practice reverted to what King Chulalongkorn formally abolished – and what were the circumstances? I’d assume (but don’t know) that a Royal Decree stands until it’s over-ridden/replaced by another Royal Decree?
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
Apologies (particularly to Jim Taylor) – I didn’t fully take in the comment at c2 before posting my own questions above.
So – was there a further Royal Decree to supersede the earlier one?
Many thanks to Pavin Chachavalpongpun for unearthing this historical gem.
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
My impression from Handley’s book is that ever since Prem took to slithering around the palace floor like a snake, other subjects considered it prudent to keep even lower. Jim Taylor has indicated that it began earlier with Sarit. Whoever it was, the motive for continuing the oppressive and unjust practice (Chulalongkorn’s words) was the same.
Quality comment or not?
18 
1
With regard to the earlier comments by Jim Taylor and SteveCM, is there any documentary evidence concerning the reintroduction of prostration?
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
I’ll check this information, but as far as I can remember Rama VII, on a trip to the US, shook hands with some Thai students who were studying there. This was the first known time that a Thai monarch had ever touched a subject. As far as I know, it has never happened since.
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
To Mahamekian
No, I have not found any document regarding the reintroduction of prostration.
Pavin
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
to Mahamekian, well, we know that during Phibun/Phibul’s time (he was anti-monarchist) he reinforced the abolishment of prostration (see also Andreas Sturm in Michell Young’s new book “Nationalism in a global era…”); also Thak Chaloemtiarana (1979, “Thailand: the politics of despotic paternalism”) talks about old royal ceremonies and protocols reintroduced or reinvented during Sarit’s time. No doubt historians can expose some relevant social content from the archives. Indeed, the reintroduction of prostration during Sarit’s time was part and parcel of bringing the monarchy back to the front corresponding to a reactionary response to look backward and to the absolute power and authority that this can bring over society (and a “Thai-style democracy”); the king as a higher being…in the order of things.
Quality comment or not?
13 
1
Mahamekian -10
I think if you look for documentation around Sarit time you should be hitting with one eventually.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
I remember that I read that prostration was re-introduced during the Sarit period due to popular demand of the people. They wanted to follow the old ways to pay respect to their beloved king. I tried to find the reference but without success yet. It might be that in one of the writings of Sulak there is a reference to it.
As Sarit was not necessarily a person open for popular demands and “peoples participation”, the explanation remains unconvincing. Why was it then re-introduced?
On one hand, the royalists (especially the Pramote brothers etc., see as well their involvement in blaming Pridi for the death of king Mahidol) were able to make a come back, although still limited. The royalist profile still remained limited during the following Phibul years. Sarit then extended their role. On the other hand, the elite arising after the 1932 revolution followed a cultural programme of nationalist modernization, civilisation and progress. Phibul used the example of Mussolini (rather then Hitler), as in Italy the monarchy was maintained, at least for the time being. In the long run, however, nationalism of the Phibul kind implied popularism and a degree of peoples participation. A republic would be more conductive for such a nationalism and form of government. The arising bureaucratic/military/Thycoon elite that consolidated their power during the late years of Phibul and especially under Sarit needed a new ideology and cultural programme. For them a new-feudal programme basing itself on invented traditions, which could only be monarchic fitted far better, because in such a frame ritualised nationalism is de-connected from peoples participation and popular demands. Such a “neo-feudal” nationalism defines obligations of the people to love the king and nation, without allowing for rights to the nation. In other words, it turns into a rather one sided love affair, in which the lover lies at the feet of the beloved, just like in a proper soap opera.
Quality comment or not?
16 
0
As an American, this is one of the most abhorrent practices in the Kingdom.
Others include sending refugees to their deaths and killing peaceful protesters with snipers.
Amazing Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
28 
2
HRK
The answer may lie in the periods growth of ‘communism’ in the region. The reintroduction of the practice in my view was aimed at the military first with the flow on effects to the broader public. The “neo-feudal” nationalism that evolved has served the elite well in maintaining their control over the country. They have always had influence at a high military level and as long as there was some sort of pay off the practice remains intact today.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
John #16, if we were to talk about Communism in this region, it goes without saying that it must involve the US.
IMO, The rise in popularity of the institute coincides with the threat of Communism. And the royal army receives significant training and backing to help ‘stabilize the region’. Never mind that they decided to stabilize their seat instead with the blood of the people.
With their increase power, reintroducing ‘tradition’ is a piece of cake.
Quality comment or not?
6 
1
leeyiankun
Ive read quite a bit about the US involvement in fighting Communism in the region especially in Thailand. I understand the US has a treaty with Thailand that allows the US certain business freedoms not offered to other nations.
The UK and France also have certain concessions that were bargained in the past to thwart the threat of colonialism.
What interests me is the present foreign policy between these three world powers and the present establishment in Thailand. Maybe you could enlighten me further.
That the US, UK and France have supported autocratic regimes in the past for trade concessions in is no secret.
Do you see Thailand’s establishment linked to counterparts in these western nations and is the turning a blind eye do to Thailand been used as a buffer zone between neighboring non conforming autocratic regimes a factor?.
I’m intrigued that when there is enormous business investment from the west with direct links to ruling families who monopolize the economy, that the west rarely criticizes the establishment for the abuses of power that continue to plague the country.
Much the same could be said of western involvement in Arab countries where their catch cry for pushing democratic rights is quite obviously shallow when there are oil contracts at stake.
Quality comment or not?
11 
1
Asia Sentinel has a similar analysis on the abolition of prostration.
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3192&Itemid=185
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
I know it’s possible to get around but I just thought I’d point out that the article Andy pointed to in Asia Sentinel – a well-known outlet for terrorist lies and propaganda – is blocked by the MICT.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
HRK @ 15: I agree, it does not make sense that Sarit acceded to popular demand. And I don’t think there was such popular demand at that time anyway. The monarchy had lost its prestige, and only during the Sarit period did it start to regain it. Sarit was the one who started building up the monarchy again. His “genius” was realizing the powerful symbiotic relationship that could exist between the military and monarchy (after years of them fighting against each other and yoyoing up and down in power). Sarit built up the king, and the king built up the military. The picture of the king at Sarit’s deathbed says it all.
Thak Chaloemtiarana’s book “The Politics of Despotic Paternalism” is an excellent history of the Sarit era.
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
c21
As Jon (not Giles) Ungphakorn has just tweeted today:
ungjon Jon Ungphakorn
MICT has banned knowledge of history, knowledge of a reform made by Thailand’s most respected King! http://bit.ly/kmCWb8
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
I believe this may be the archived announcement of the original Thai-language decree:
http://th.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A8%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%9B%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B5%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%A1%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%A1%E0%B9%83%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A1%E0%B9%88
Could Dr Pavin or someone else confirm?
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Is there some claim that royals or whomever are of divine origin in some way? It is common practice across Buddhism to perform prostrations at altars or before highly-revered clergy.
If there is no such claim for divinity for the royals, what’s the point of prostrating to royals? It seems to me that Thailand, as a Buddhist country, could surely provided some clarity here.
As the piece mentioned, the practice was revoked, then reinstated because the “people” wanted it. Given the undemocratic nature of Thai politics, it’s not a stretch to believe it probably not a “grass roots” up-welling in favor of reinstatement of the prostration to royals.
I’d say it’s okay for those who wish to do so but it should be optional; certainly no one should be forced to prostrate.
Quality comment or not?
3 
2
John.k
I believe it is still optional and denotes the type of occasion. People from all walks of society may achieve a “state of grace” by proximity to a perceived superior be it a god, king or respected elder. The psychological benefits of prostration, physical or mental are known and well perceived in Thai or secular society.
This is rather different from the psychological pressure induced in standing for the royal anthem in a cinema or remaining stationary for Phibun/Sarits national anthem twice daily.
On a similar note I would be very interested to know what happened to the ho attended an audience with their majesties wearing a “prai” T shirt last year. As I remember her brother had been shot by the army. I think she elected not to prostrate on that occasion.
Quality comment or not?
1 
3
The Latin-derived “prostration” gives the degrading practice a false tone of civility. I humbly suggest that we should use the Norse-derived “grovelling” instead.
All this is probably connected with the offense Thais take at gestures made with the feet, which would have been a convenient way of giving instructions to grovelling slaves. This would place hostility to foot gestures in the same ethos as the abolition of grovelling and slavery. “Do not tolerate foot gestures” fits well in Chulalongkorn’s programme for the liberation of his people.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
I believe Chulalongkorn would be appalled at what Thailand’s monarchy has become, were he alive today.
Quality comment or not?
13 
1
At first when I saw your title “Chulalongkorn abolished prostration” I read it as a present-tense article about a new policy of a major government university. I had a glimmer of hope that the educational system in Thailand would reform to promote universal human rights. Alas, my hopes were crushed like a boy’s love twice scorned.
Of course the practice of prostration and the principle of subservience to superiors is alive and well in government universities as well as private ones in Thailand. A noted exception is in international colleges and schools whose tuition prices place them among the elite for whom no kow towing is expected.
In poorer rural schools, it is interesting to see how people line the sidewalks to receive a royal visit. Are they standing or kneeling or putting their face to the ground? You tell me.
Quality comment or not?
2 
2
See Jon Ungpakorn’s commentary here.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
New Mandala readers following this story closely will want to see what Political Prisoners in Thailand has to say. All of the details are available here.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
It looks very much as if I have been unclear (27) about what I think is an interesting connection between grovelling (prostration) and the Thai attitude to foot gestures.
In the days before Chulalongkorn abolished slavery and grovelling, a slave was required to grovel, with his face pointed downwards whenever he was in the presence of his master. He was never allowed to look up. It seems to me that in that situation, especially if the slave was from a recently conquered region, and understood only the language/dialect of that region, the master would tend to give his instructions with foot gestures, pointing with a foot where he expected the slave to go, for example.
If I am right about this fairly recent Thai history, to gesture to someone with a foot, even these days, is to treat him like a slave. This seems to me to be a better explanation of why foot gestures are resented than the usual one, that the foot is a low part of the body.
To a certain extent this is common to all cultures. A kick in the arse is the most insulting form of violence, because it was typical of the relations between a master and his grovelling slave.
Finally, the revival of grovelling in the Thai Royal Court, is clearly an attempt to reassert the master-slave relationship between the King and his people. It reflects badly on Bhumibol, especially when we compare him with the much more enlightened, polite, and courageous Chulalongkorn.
Quality comment or not?
14 
1
R. N. England
An absolutely fascinating theory – and perfectly in line with how Thais treat each other even today. I’m afraid egalitarianism will be a long time coming in Thailand (as it was in Europe) regardless of who wins what election over the next generation of two. All pretence at democracy will be a sham until all Thais intuitively feel and believe each other to be on an equal footing (excuse the pun). As it stands, some academics still infer that the majority of the population are a “non-mainstream sub-culture.”
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
NM is to be congratulated for kicking off a discussion that led to a rare, good editorial being written in the BKK Post.
Optimistic thoughts are rare these days, so let me just say that ten years ago anything resembling the following paragraph would have never made it into any Thai newspaper:
“The unfairness of the lese majeste law is that anyone can file a complaint and there are no guidelines as to the interpretation of the law. What did the people charged by the military actually say to earn them the charge? The media is not allowed to let us know. Is it considered lese majeste to advocate the abolishment of the lese majeste law, or to criticise institutions under royal patronage? No one knows the boundaries of interpretation.”
Let’s celebrate what progress we have.
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
Thank you Sir, for this fascinating theory. I have often been left unconvinced by explanations for that cultural peculiarity.
This makes incomparably more sense, compared to the implausible and vague explanations I’ve received thus far (from Thai and farang academics).
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Don… Post 29.
All of them, depends on the context….
When one of the princesses came to visit my old school we had to ‘wai’ just before she walked near us (hands in prayer position with little fingers touching the floor, nose to the ground….) and were not allowed to raise our heads until she had passed us.
In the month before her visit, students (the whole school) had spent 3 afternoons (all lessons were cancelled) sitting in the sun, learning how to wai/(though the grovelling motion people make is nothing like a ‘normal’ wai…) correctly.
The actual day itself was hot and sunny and the students had to sit in position (ready for her arrival) for over an hour before she arrived. Worst of all, as she walked down the red carpet she started talking to people. It must have taken her at least 5 minutes to make a 1-2 minute stroll. No one spoke…
She spent almost an hour visiting the classooms, talking to students etc. and the students who were sat on the grass had to stay put. No one was allowed to move, even to go to the toilet/get water etc. Most of the Thai teachers who were supposed to be ‘supervising’ them, got up, and stood in the shade… The students were stuck there and I felt really sorry for them.
Few of the students complained (other than saying they were hot)… but I couldn’t help wondering how this would endear them to, and make them love their royal family.
One year later, the same princess was on her way to visit another school. Everyone living in the street (and a couple of students skipping class) were allowed to kneel by the roadside to watch the procession of cars go past. No one bent down. Most were trying to look inside and work out which car she was in, and cheered when they finally ‘found’ and saw her wave and smile.
Quality comment or not?
12 
0
Many people must have realised that the Thai attitude to foot gestures had its origin in slavery, but this explanation has been censored out, and a lame and unconvincing one substituted by the “education” system. This is just one example of how the “education” system has succeeded in shackling Thais to a fake culture in which fruit-carving is substituted for dangerous subjects like real history.
I suggest that a highly developed system of slavery in the quite recent past is the origin of many of the characteristics of the highly stratified Thai culture, but that this has been censored out of Thai history by the Amart, who are the descendants of the great slave-owning families. Slavery is the source of the appalling Amart arrogance, and of the contempt that the people of central Thailand show towards those of Isaan, a conquered source of slaves. It is the source of the obsequious behaviour that makes Thailand so popular with a certain class of tourists. The power relations common to militarism and slavery explain, to a great extent, the power of the military over the Thai people.
I suggest that the key to Thaksin’s popularity in areas that were sources of slaves, is that his family is untainted by that past. Despite his dishonest populism and his greed for money and power, history will regard him as a successor to Chulalongkorn and Pridi in the ongoing programme of Thai national liberation.
What is needed now is vigorous promotion of the rule of law to hold the country together as the old, brutal, and thoroughly discredited authoritarian framework dissolves. Thailand desperately needs another Pridi, a new, more permanent constitution that gives better protection to parliament, and judges with the ability and the integrity to assert the power of those laws over the Government, the King, the Amart, and the military.
Quality comment or not?
8 
1
R. N. England #38 Your theory on slavery in Thailand’s recent past has already been demonstrated in Jit Phuumisuk’s classic “โฉมห้นาศักดินาไทย”. And if your proposing that the trauma stemming from it is still echoing in the present, then I think you are right on the money. As for Thailand needing another Pridi, then no, he had a lot of courage, but as a political theoretician he was a serial bungler, criminally naive.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
I don’t think the timing is Sarit. Sarit’s cremation volume has several photos of Sarit with the king, but in none is he prostrating. I can’t recall seeing a picture of any of the political figures of the Sarit-Thanom-Praphat era down on the ground. Or Kukrit. Or Kriangsak. Has anyone got counter-evidence?
I remember attending a business awards ceremony in around 1984-5 when my boss, who had to present something to Princess Sirinthorn, suddenly dropped down flat. I was surprised because this was not a common sight at the time. The audience broke into spontaneous applause, which would have been unnecessary if the practice was already standard. Of course everyone else who had to approach the princess on the platform after that had to drop down (and get a little clap) or risk being branded as rebellious. I suspect this is exactly how the practice was revived, through peer pressure. I suspect also that Paul Handley is right in identifying Prem as key.
The Sarit era is not the only turning point for the monarchy. 1976 is another. And I think prostration belongs to the changed role and image of the institution after 1976.
Many thanks, Pavin.
Quality comment or not?
19 
1
Does the ‘Jompol(Grand general)’ title of any significant? That title automatically makes you undisputed supreme commander of all forces. After Sarit’s death, it seemed that the only one who can hold that title is the king himself. Even Prem hasn’t got his hands on that rank.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
chris baker – 40
Yes if I recall correctly, Prem was the first general that got on this knee. Before that the military was seen as major shareholder (therefore, no explicit act of respect so on) but during and after Prem, they retract to be the minor shareholder.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Thank you Ajarn Chris, for this piece of information.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Chris Baker is right. Yes, as someone said way up in this thread, for PMs, it is Prem who set the new standard. But was there a “reintroduction”, officially, of grovelling prostration? I think there was continued prostration after 1932, most especially for palace officials. If you can get through the home movies of the current king getting out and about early in his reign you see prostration. I think the point is that it has become required in recent decades. Just like standing for the king’s anthem in movies (some might remember when it was changed from the end of the movies because no one took any notice and streamed out; that might have been after 1976 as well). Why has it become a requirement? The answer seems pretty clear.
Quality comment or not?
4 
1
Perhaps what you lot derisively dismiss as groveling is a show of respect freely given?
But I forget myself, the bulk here are foreign academics, so of course you must know far more about the subject than mere Thais.
What do you want to abolish next? Respect for Monks? Paying respect to the Buddha image?
Just because an action is not performed in your perfect, utopian (in your eyes) societies does not mean it is wrong in others.
Perhaps a little respect for people who are not ashamed to show respect would be in order here?
Quality comment or not?
3 
22
Soonuk Dum ,
Just think for a second , and ask your self just one question : do these people have a choice or not .
Quality comment or not?
13 
1
Soonuk Dum
Having hit NM’s version of Godwin’s Law in your first paragraph, this string is unofficially dead. We’re tired of the “You no thai; you no respect; you know not about thai ..blah blah” routine.
OK, time to role me eyes and notch up another one to Somchai and his trigger. (sigh)
However, in my death throws I will parry a final riposte. Given you consider your feet as we would consider our arses, the “show of respect freely given”, as you put it, is the equivalent of me shoving my junior colleague’s face in it. How can that possibly be respectful, in any man’s language?
Quality comment or not?
12 
3
c45
It seems very strange that someone would start a comment with something so plainly disrespectful (in fact, insulting) as “you lot” – and then finish it with a request for “respect”…..
One post (c16) used the word “abhorrent”. Even that is nowhere near “derision” – it’s just a negative opinion.
Are you inviting us to follow your example of being so impolite? It seems to me that everyone here is already doing significantly better than that.
Quality comment or not?
8 
1
Aintnoelection #46,
I agree with you. The question should be whether one has a choice. I live in a Western country and I have, from time to time, a Christian knocking at my door, explaining about Christianity, trying to make me ‘believe’ in Christianity. But they would stop and politely leave when I tell him once or twice that I do not believe in Christianity. Do Thai authorities do the same thing with people who would not prostrate to the Royals, people who would not stand in cinema when royal anthem is played? Would the crazy and brainwashed royalists politely accept the opinion, if someone would suddenly say in public that they do not love the Monarchy?
What is happening in Thailand right now is complete madness resulting from massive brainwashing. It reminds me of Nazi era in Germany when people who support Hitler would do anything (no matter how crazy it is, such as slaughtering Jewish people) just because Hitler said it is good thing. Conversely, people who do not like him had to live in fear, because saying that you do not support the regime is a crime.
Fortunately, German people came back to their usual reasonable self after Hitler died. I personally cannot wait for something like that to happen in Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
12 
0
As a Thai, I am shocked to read Soonuk Dum’s comment.
Quality comment or not?
18 
3
But Khun Dum has a point that should not be neglected. The correspondent refers to “a show of respect freely given?” Let’s get evidence of “respect freely given.” I doubt anyone denies that there are such demonstrations. The issue is that there are some (we cannot assess how many) who do not give this respect freely. School children have to be trained and disciplined to show what is said to be proper respect. In many of the venerable institutions this training is continued: bureaucracy, university, military, and so on. Those who refuse to show respect risk all kinds of sanction, including, it seems, accusations of lese majeste. So, perhaps, the real test of freedom is whether one can choose to show disrespect. If that is not possible – and it isn’t in contemporary Thailand – then respect is not freely given.
Quality comment or not?
12 
0
chris baker #40 comment as a historian is frankly surprising in its given the now well documented facts about Sarit’s centre politics; increased palace budgets, royal guards, ritual events reinforcing the current monarch, securing the interests of the ancien regime (old aristocracy) & etc…in essence his intention and implications in reinstituting the sacral power of the monarchy. What happened later (e.g. 1976) was just reinforcing a chain of events that was already well established…
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Free will (45, 51) is, if we look into it clearly, not an explanation for anything. Royal courts being what they are, we can safely speculate that when a high official grovelled before Bhumibol for the first time, the motive would have been ambition. For everybody afterwards it was the peer-group pressure of a frightened mob of sheep. All would naturally be keen to volunteer “Love” or “Respect” as their motive; especially these days, with lèse majesté swallowing up so many people.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
The old princes and monarchists were trying to reinstate power back at the summit since 1932. Sarit later normalised this and other royal ritual practices. Perhaps its is useful to see Thak Chaloemtiarana, an authority on the sarit period (1957-1963), e.g. his “Thailand: The Politics of Despotic Paternalism”, 1979 (Bangkok: Thai Khadi Institute). In describing the Sarit regime, Thak wrote that: “…the development of the Monarchy saw rapid progress after 1957…” with increasing prestige of the king as “old ceremonies were reintroduced or reinvented”. Later he also noted how henceforth the young king was “worthy of worship” (p.317) in accordance with scripturally endorsed royal virtues, Thossaphit Raja Dhamma (=Buddha’s barami), as a Dhamma’raachaa. Jon Ungphakorn (BP article), though not a historian or scholar but one who must know something of post-war history wrote ” Why is this “oppressive” practice (prostration) still carried out today, 138 years later?” The answer he says “can be found in an article by Wat Walyangkurn in Khao Sod (ข่าวสด) of the Matichon Group, dated Oct 24, 2010”. In this article Wat describes how the military coup of Sept 16, 1957 which brought Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat to power, ended an era of relative cultural freedom in which democracy, human rights and social equality were common topics in literature and popular songs. After the coup, many cultural reforms since the fourth and fifth reigns were reversed, “including the reinstatement of prostration before the king, in efforts to re-establish the sacredness, power and mystique of the ruling elite as a means of silencing opposition and reinforcing the legitimacy of the military regime.” It has always been the military that has been keen to enforce absolute reverence towards the monarchy. This is the point: it is a reasonable assumption given that “all military coups in recent history have cited alleged threats to the monarchy as justification for military rule”. Sarit reversed the anti-monarchist sentiment of his predecessor with a passion for ritual obeisance in the sanctity of the young king (and in a new compact with the palace).
Anthropologist Christine E. Gray in a 1992 article “Royal Words and Their Unroyal consequences”, noted: “It was not until 1960s that Sarit introduced royal rituals and “latched onto” the royal virtue (phueng phra’raachaa’barami) (p.449). Bhumibol, thus, came of age as a monarch in an ever-expanding round of ritual displays, albeit radically transformed ones…The royal biography picks up at this point, depicting Bhumibol’s reign as the timeless exemplification of the ten virtues of Buddhist kings…” as made manifest in ritual performances (p.450) (reference Mahamakutrajavidyalaya Foundation 1977; Office of His Majesty’s Private Secretariat 1971). In 1957 the Sarit government began a drive for modernization that began with the development of the nation’s infrastructure the suppression of political dissent, and the transformation of the royal ritual system. Together, the government and the Palace promoted the king as the protector and defender of all of his subjects and the patron of all religious faiths. Thai farmers, audience to the revitalized royal rituals, encouraged to glance into the Buddhist heavens, were reassured by what they saw. Supposed microcosms of the social order, the new royal ritual displays contained systematic distortions”. (p.453)
But it is not just in the reinstitution of high royal language (raachaa-sap [ราชาศัพท์]) but in body language and performances in ritual. As Sarit had emplaced the young king back in the heavens it was natural that people became lower and lower “beneath the dust on the ground” – so prostration became a not unusual event by the 1960s towards the end of Sarit’s period. As for Paul Handley- I am not sure of his sources for saying much the same thing. He quotes (p.151) [pro-amaat academic] Sombat Chantornvong (1992, “To Address the Dust of the Dust Under the Soles of the Royal Feet: A Reflection on the Political Dimension of the Thai Court Language.” Asian Review 6: 145-163) “even a foreign monarch or the Lord Buddha, himself royal by birth, does not received as much reverence and exaltation as the Thai king”. In 1957 the court language was revitalized as prostration came back into fashion. It was promoted through the education system under the Min of Education under royalist ML Pin Malakul (หม่อมหลวงปิ่น มาลากุล). Kids in school learned proper protocol for royalty down at the village level and its antecedents in Sukhothai. It is clear if we put the pieces together that Sarit started it all at a formal level in a compact with the military and palace; elevating the king back at the sacred summit…for mutual interests.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
I share a similar doubt as Chris Baker. Where is the evidence that the prostration was revived under Sarit?
The only source Jim Taylor actually refers to is an article by Wat Wallayangkun, who is a good writer but I am not sure if he did a research or simply follow somebody else’s saying. The rest of Taylor’s argument is circumstantial, explaining the significance of the Sarit’s period to the monarchy but nothing specifically about the revivial of prostration. I agree with him that Sarit’s was a major turning period for the monarchy. But it doesn’t mean it was responsible for everything. And we are dicusssing specifically the revival of the prostration, not the monarchy in general.
If the revivial of prostration was actually reintro after Sarit’s, it doesn’t reduce the significance of Sarit’s. On the other hand, even if it was reintro during Sarit’s, the significance of the post-1976 must not be reduced, as Taylor did, as mere reinforcement of the Sarit’s period. Royalism went “hyper” went after 1976. The political dominance of the monarchy after 76 was elevated to another level not seen under Sarit. The two periods were both significant in different ways.
For the revival of prostration, we simply need evidence. The significance of Sarit’s period is not an evidence. The fact that Sarit revived several royal practices does not in itself an evidence that prostration too must be revived under Sarit.
By the way, the concepts of the monarchy that was realized under/after Sarit and first efforts of revivial of several royal rituals were in 1947-52 under the royalist+army coup — another important period for the revival of the monarchy. For example, the ploughing ceremony (whose revivial many people credited to Sarit) was actually tried by the Regent (Prince Rangsit, the chief of the monarchists at the time) in 1949.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
Thongchai: the revival of royal language encouraged by Sarit and those [palace] amaat working with him is clearly related to body language and regal protocols. Real personal fear in not showing adequate respect to the newly elevated monarch was not insignificant during Sarit’s time. It is reasonable to assume, even though royalists were trying to instill respectful fear/veneration in the figure of the young king since the post-war years (as I indicated), the normalisation of such practice was in fact sanctioned by Sarit and the likes of people such as Pin through court practices and roralist education in manners among the masses…At some point we have to look at the facts, such as they are, and make reasoned arguments (even leaving some room for further evidence)!
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Let us take a minute to examine the true meaning of prostration (grovelling). It was the traditional position of execution. The back of the neck was offered to the sword or axe, or the thinnest part of the skull to the club. The gesture means, “You, my lord, have the power of life or death over me.” For a high official, a general or a judge for example, it means, “You may have me killed if I ever do anything to displease you.” It is a declaration that the master has the right of summary execution, the basis of the master-slave relationship. When all courtiers grovel, it becomes, by way of induction, a declaration that the king has the right of summary execution over all his people. In an organisation as large as the state, this authority is systematically delegated. The high official advises the king as to who should be done away with. The powerful local lord who has declared his loyalty and provides soldiers for the king is granted the right of summary execution over the people of his territory: the loyal slave-master over his slaves. The king’s armed slaves (the military) are delegated the right of summary execution over people who refuse to take orders from them. Professional hit men are protected because they are the executioners employed by powerful people loyal to the king.
Grovelling is an evil act because it corrupts and hardens the heart of the person honoured. It is despised in civilised countries because it is a declaration of welcome to tyranny.
Quality comment or not?
11 
1
If Chulalongkorn abolished prostration, then why do so many of the loyal subjects line up every October 23rd to protrate themselves in front of his Equestrian Statue? Are they showing respect for him by disobeying his edict?
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
a prominent historian in thailand just reminded me that although Rama V discouraged this show of utter deference to the monarch it was just to show to the west how progressive and modern Chulalongkorn was…so it was of course discouraged in front of western dignitaries but somehow continued for thais /until it reached its normative resplendence in Sarit’s time – or after the downfall of the People’s Party, (though presumably seemingly not always applied to the charismatic Sarit himself, with a photograph in Thak’s book “The Politics of Despotic Paternalism” showing him sitting on a chair talking to the king).
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
Not that it proves anything one way or another, but I thought I’d pass on the following which I came across in a very long NYT article from 1989. The paper’s then Bangkok correspondent Barbara Crossette (based in New Delhi as bureau chief) was granted an interview with HM:
“The interview – the first the King has given to a foreign newspaper – is held in the upper room of the Swiss chalet overlooking the reservoir. In a country of elaborate court rituals, where citizens prostrate themselves when they are presented to him, King Bhumibol quickly puts me at ease. Still wearing his military uniform, he dispels any doubt as to the proper way to greet him by walking toward me and extending his hand. We sit down at a small, wooden table and he answers my questions forthrightly and courteously, prolonging the interview beyond the half-hour set by palace aides.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/21/magazine/king-bhumibol-s-reign.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm
Worth reading the rest – HM is remarkably frank….. certainly compared to the impression that one gets from later years.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
Jim Taylor (59). Chulalongkorn’s words quoted by the OP belong to a programme to transform his tyrannical little backwater into something more like the prosperous, glorious, and relatively liberal Empire of the little woman who ruled half the world. The royal programme suggests a desire for self aggrandisement far beyond merely maintaining his position as a tin-pot dictator. Now that the Empire has disappeared, and there is nothing left in the world worth emulating, the Chakris, have reverted to tin-pot concerns centred on their uneasy relationship with a barbarous military.
Quality comment or not?
1 
2
King Chulalongkorn was most kind to abolish prostration and slavery. But many Thais until today refuse to obey him. They still prefer being slaves.
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
More power to King Chulalongkorn. No wonder his reign is treasured forever by Thais. Thailand needs more kings like him, especially at this juncture of history.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Leeyiankun #41:
Until their fall from power in October 1976, Thailand was run by Jorm Phon (Field Marshal) Thanom Kittikachorn and his deputy, Jorm Phon (Field Marshal) Prapat Charusathian.
It was then decided that only the king could hold the rank of jorm phon. The next rank down, phon ek (general), is now the highest in the army, albeit with two grades: phon ek ha dao (five star general) and phon ek si dao (four star general).
On the other hand, there are so many “generals” of various grades in the Thai Army that the rank title in itself doesn’t really mean very much. What matters is the command position. As they say about Supreme Command Headquarters, it isn’t (supreme) and it doesn’t (command). Army Commander is the job they all want.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0