The second starting point in this series is Thailand in 1932.
This is, of course, the year that Thailand’s Absolute Monarchy was shaken by a revolution that instituted a constitutional system. There are many who have dwelled on the changes that followed. Back in 2003, Chris Baker published a translation of “The History of Our Party and Some of its Lessons” by Tho Phianwitthaya (Wirat Angkhathawon). This is a study of the Communist Party of Thailand by one of its leading figures.
Baker’s translation made its way into the Journal of Contemporary Asia under the title “An internal history of the Communist Party of Thailand“.
One of the main stanzas suggests that:
Within the People’s Party, thinking was divided into two wings. The right wing were representatives of big capitalists and landlords who wanted only to share the power of the feudal monarchy; the left wing were representatives of national capital who wanted a western capitalist form of democratic government. This group made a successful coup on 24 June 1932 and changed the way Thailand was governed. In this event, the major power was the military power in the hands of the right wing, while the left wing lacked resolution. Hence the result went the way of the right wing. Even though the king was formally placed under a constitution, and a parliamentary system was introduced, the change in government was essentially from absolutism under which feudalists were the sole class with power, to joint dictatorship between big landlords and big capitalists. Politicians who represented national capital were either swallowed up or shoved out. In the forty years since the change of government, a fascist military government has held power for most of the time.
This is not, I’d expect, how most Thais today look at the events of 1932. But is this analysis a big part of what makes the 1932 starting point so important, and so contested? As always, please let us know what you think.
Next up…Laos, 1975…
This is Yet Another Advertisement for an Expensive (USD$34) Bag of Bits. I’m sure it’s interesting… for you all in the Academic Class.
Do you feel yourselves more closely aligned with the right and the “representatives of big capitalists and landlords” or with the ‘left’ and the “representatives of national capital who want a western capitalism” and, ha ha, “democratic government”?
Quality comment or not?
5 
3
I would like to reemphasize that this is a translation by Khun Chris B. That it costs $34 to download the entire piece of propaganda is remarkable. Not the way to get rich!
Quality comment or not?
0 
2
To make things a bit clearer, the right wing was represented by Plaek Pibulsonggram (better known as Phibun) and the left wing by Pridi Phanomyong.
Pridi wanted Thailand to adopt a democratic system based on the European system.
Phibun supported fascism and nationalism, and wanted to make himself the king. (Thailand didn’t really have a king between 1935 – 1946. Rama VII abdicated in 1935 and spent the rest of his life in England).
Quality comment or not?
3 
2
The partial analysis, regardless of how much it costs to purchase the complete thing (and thanks are due to Nich for providing some of it) , seems pretty true to me.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
The cost is a charge that is common amongst academic publishers and seems unnecessarily high. As co-editor of the Journal of Contemporary Asia, I am sure that many academics have access via libraries and if you know one, get it from them, If you are stuck for a copy, email me at khewison at unc. edu
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
I do have pdf files of both Dr.Chris Baker’s translation and the original Thai version that I published which Dr.Baker uses, together with my own commentary/introduction I published at the same time as the Thai original. I could upload them all for NM readers, except that I’m not sure about any copyright infringement, particularly in regard to Dr.Baker’s translation which, I presume, is held by the Journal.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
I think the Nittarat group is not going nearly far enough. Expunging the results of the 2006 coup alone would overwhelmingly benefit Thaksin without doubt and whatever warning against coups may be intended, if indeed that is the real intention, will be overshadowed by the Thaksin effect so as to be useless. In fact, it might simply encourage future coup makers to be more ruthless and round up execute people like Thaksin, and their family members and cronies, as foreign coup makers do, rather than let them slip away into exile again, if they can no longer be trusted to “play by the rules” and accept a coup sportingly as the Thai way.
There is still a great deal of legislation around that is the result of idiotic revolutionary decrees prior to the 2006 coup and even the so called “peoples’ constitution” of 1997 with its detailed checks and balances that were knocked for a six by Thaksin is the direct result of the 1991 coup. It would be far better to flush out the whole lot without fear or favour. That would take us back to the status prior to the 1932 coup and provide an opportunity to reintroduce democracy through the drafting of a completely new constitution, uninfluenced by military events. All surviving coup makers could be prosecuted to the fullest extent of pre-1932 laws for treason and their assets could be confiscated along with the assets of descendants of deceased coup makers to be paid into a social welfare fund. A few public beheadings with the sword combined with the confiscation of the estates of many prominent families would clearly put the fear of god into any would be coup makers. We would also be freed from the revolutionary decrees that prohibit sales of alcohol at certain times unless over 10 litres, the law that prohibits women from going out after dark without a male chaperone, the requirement to wear hats and proper shoes when visiting government offices or attending horse races at RBSC and the Turf Club, as well as 90 day reporting for foreigners and other foolishness.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
One can just complain about the paywall for academic publications, or one can start to work to change the system. This is one place to begin:
http://www.arl.org/sparc/about/index.shtml
In a similar vein:
http://www.surfsites.nl/open2011en/
Quality comment or not?
1 
0