Kudos to Christine for another very interesting article.
With regard to the crown prince, I feel that many of us in the west may be laboring under two misconceptions.
The first is that we may have given too much weight to the gossip, innuendo and rumor that surround the prince. I, of course, do not have personal knowledge of his personality; but it seems reasonable to me that a good percentage of these stories are exaggerated, or entirely false propaganda spread by his detractors. If we took just half of the stories at face value, the prince would be a figure of almost demonic malevolence. This just seems a little far-fetched to me. I think that it’s entirely possible that he genuinely loves his parents and is experiencing deep sorrow at the passing of his father.
The second and far more important misconception is that the prince is a fool of almost comic opera proportion’s. We’ve all read the descriptions, the prince is “a playboy” “lazy” “whimsical” “Naïve”.
I suspect, and I think Christine speaks to this as well, that the prince may be a creature of a very different kind. His actions since his father’s demise seem to indicate a man who is cunning, astute and politically aware. Traits that any head of state would need in order to prosper. I suspect that he deliberately blindsided the generals when he declared that he would delay his ascension in order to mourn his father’s passing. He would have chosen this course of action for two reasons:
1- He wanted to demonstrate to the junta that he would not be there puppet. That he could stand up to them as his father did. That he too sits above the petty politicking of the politicians, political parties and military factions and is truly his father’s son.
2- He wanted to demonstrate to the Thai people that he loved his father more than the throne. I have little doubt that millions ( and possibly the vast majority ) of Thais will interpret it in just this way.
I’m also intrigued by his choice to not speak a single word in public during the initial period of morning. I suspect that this is also intended to inspire comparisons to his fathers much promoted stoicism. It also has the added benefit of allowing his actions and funerary rituals to speak for him.
Obviously, this is all conjecture on my part. However, it is quite possible that a great many have underestimated prince Vajiralongkorn.
Michael Wilson is absolutely correct. After twenty years in Thailand and having been through every level of bureaucracy, including what passes for the police/judicial system, I’ve come to know they do indeed make it up as they go along. It’s somewhat alike children playing being at pretend generals, police and judges. The Thai admonishment ‘Not serious nah?’ is to be taken absolutely literally, if you do you’ll go insane. So yes, all this rubbish about ‘constitutions’ is just that, rubbish. Now, let’s play dress-up.
I’m really glad to see this topic being researched. I had no idea that Kachin could be found in urban areas of Malaysia in the thousands. Thanks for sharing!
Thais would be totally disinterested in assessments of the British Monarchy, as they are mostly disinterested in anything outside Thailand. As well, given that the British Monarchy is not protected by draconian lese majeste laws that seem usually to be used to silence critics of the elite, and are demonstrably unnecessary to protect reputation od safety of the late beloved King, what would anyone have to say about the British Monarchy?
Thais have greeted the news of the new King with Joy and Admiration, as reported in the Bangkok Post.
As a close live-in observer of current Thai circumstances, I can honestly say that the death of the late King came as a tragic blow to most Thais, notwithstanding the long period of poor health. Most Thais are indeed in mourning and feel a great sense of loss with the demise of the King. The reason for this may be the unremitting PR campaign over many years, or a genuine belief in the good works and concern of the King, but whichever the reason, their grief is deep and heartfelt.
Can Japan tolerate more than one form of Buddhism ? Stupid question. The average Thai is far more tolerant than the average American, Swede, Nigerian or Malay. There has been far too much cynical chatter about Thailand on NM.
Great article. The present situation in Thailand is really sad. and the prospects for democracy really bleak .My only hope is that ,sooner or later , the Red Shirts will lead a popular uprising against the rotten, reactionary Royalist regime ; that may bring democracy at the end, but the cost would be probably high in blood; a civil war could not be excluded… Sadly history teaches us that the struggle of peoples for freedom has always had a high prize to pay.
Marshall is all over the place here: he lambasts tradition and then blasts the Thais for not sticking to tradition; says they didn’t follow the constitution on succession and then notes there has only been one succession before under the constitution — BTW which involved regicide. He blasts the prince for not naming a regent and then notes that Prem was the regent according to the constitution. He says the king’s death was stage-managed, suggesting they should have just pulled the plug years ago on the king — which he then would have called murder. And he blasts the whole process as a farce but also blasts everything else as a farce. Like, Andrew, WTF: Do you want the Thai royals whom you hate to follow the rules or, since you ridicule the rules, do you want them to break the rules? Can you tell us which rules you find worth following and why?
I say this because the transfer of high office in most countries comes with ritual, symbolism, formality based on law and tradition, and so can be either respected or ridiculed, whatever your taste. Andrew seems to want both with Thailand. He ridicules the monarchy, and then says, as if the institution is critical, that Vajiralongkorn is not suitable for the monarchy. That makes this all a meaningless rant rather than insight.
So enlightening (pun completely intended) along with the glossary of Thai words…
After having been through Bangkok so many times, Christine’s article begins to make sense of what goes on behind the closed doors of monarchy and military.
All of the ugly rumours about “Sia O” that I have heard, including the nickname, came from ordinary Thais, mostly in Korat but also the far North and the occasional taxi driver in Bangkok. Feelings may not be to the point of revulsion, but I would certainly say the sentiment I have detected can easily be described as disrespect, perhaps contempt.
Christine, I like your point of view. I like your anger. I like your irony. I like the way you take the rituals and language seriously, letting them speak in their own very specific terms. I am put off by the frequent mention of ‘Sino-Thai’ millionaires and billionaires, as if there is a specific racial/ethnic dimension to the behavior of these actors. Some vast percentage of urban Thailand is “Sino-Thai” by birth and heritage, and the vast majority of those “Sine-Thais” aren’t in on the game. You are encouraging a generalization that is not apt or valid. Perhaps there is a better term?
Well I’ve lived here 7 years, can speak fluently, read and write also! Does that make me any better? I don’t think so, what an immature thing to say sir!
I’ve lived in the North and also down in Prachuap Khiri Khan and generally he is disliked, by government workers,ordinary Thais I’ve met in the street. I’m interested to know which area of Thailand you’re in.
Michael Wilson – in essence I agree with you. I simply say there has most likely – and plenty of WikiLeaks, etc. evidence to suggest : immense arm-wrestling along the way. But I simply say : the CP has come out on top, as the smart operator I always thought he would. His father never lost faith in him. Thailand is a
hard country to rule.
Excellent piece. The late king as an agent of American anti-communism cannot be overstressed, nor the commercial use of his ‘ charisma’ to help the Sino-Thai rich expropriate the poor whilst being happy grovelling in their station.
I think you’re missing the bigger question here. Is Nurmantyo vying for Jokowi’s job? In the meantime, Jokowi spent the most part of this month visiting military barracks, giving speeches on unity. Any thoughts?
It felt hyperbolic to you, but for me, that’s a reasonable piece of writing. The tension is palpable for the week of the event. I live in a mainly Chinese and Ambon neighbourhood. And even though people don’t evacuate like ’98, they decide to stay home. I go to work but most of my Chinese friend took a day off.
I admit Indonesia did awful thing in Papua and Aceh in the past. But current government try to do things better. Try to build infrastructure so Papua can grow along with the rest of Indonesia. Some human rights violation still exist due to mining in Papua and the corporation relation to indigenous people. Not widespread government action.
And about support for independence in Papua, look at Scotland referendum. More than 40% still vote for independence there. Even after hundreds of years under the British government. Give anyone a choice, a vote for independence would gain “widespread” support. Heck the US still fight their civil war 90 years after they declared independence from British rule. Do a pooling in California right now, I bet more than 30% would vote for independence.
And lastly, about Indonesia supporting despot in PNG and Fiji, you should read about what I write: “Leveraging on their power, knowledge and wealth to gain influence and manipulate independent nation”. This is a universal nature of nation and power. What I write is not only for China, or US. It is for any nation with enough power. And the protection from such manipulation is still the same: Freedom of press, freedom of speech, and democracy.
And let’s just take a look at THIS : Andrew MacGregor Marshall posts on his ZenJournalist site British Embassy assessments of Thailand’s Monarchy ? Do Thais get to post assessments of AMM’s British Monarchy ?
The counterproductive nature of sanctions generally has long been attested. In the case of Myanmar Lee Jones exposed remorselessly in his “Societies under Siege” last year the extent to which Western sanctions had little practical effect in persuading the junta to introduce political reform. The present persuasive article by Bryan Early is equally unchallengeable.
We should however not overlook the importance to Western politicians of using sanctions for their own domestic political agendas. During the height of the sanctions regime imposed by the EU against Myanmar, I found no official in the British Foreign Office who thought that sanctions were making any useful contribution at all in persuading the Generals to hasten political change. In Brussels, the EU Commission produced a number of confidential analyses showing how counterproductive sanctions were. While the Generals wallowed in a financial bonanza of revenues from natural gas, jade, precious stones and timber exports to their neighbours, it was the Burmese people who suffered from the denial of development aid and the Western assault on the private sector industries of garments, tourism and agricultural exports.
But views from officials, in both London and Brussels, were continually disregarded and their recommendations swept under the carpet. On no occasion between 1988 and 2012 did the British or European Parliaments ever debate sanctions seriously, on the basis of any informed and objective assessment of their effectiveness. Only in the House of Lords on 12 October 2007 did peer after peer, representing all political parties, unanimously mock the British Government’s pretensions in a debate on the report of the Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs into sanctions generally. Chapter IV of that Report on Burma was an indictment of UK and EU policy, and also of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for demanding them.
Lord Eccles summed up the views of the House when he said: “In essence, the West has opted out of Burma. The sanctions are, in my view, irrelevant. What we are watching reminds me of an ancient Greek tragedy. There is a degree of inevitability. The events will unfold. Nobody can do anything about them. The awful generals are the villains of the piece, but also the victims. Nobody knows what to do, so we retreat into disapproval. This in no way measures up to the needs of the Burmese or the interests of the western world.”
The domestic political imperative at the time however was to be seen to be doing something, however inane and counterproductive, to respond to the fully understandable popular demand from pressure groups and the general public that “something must be done” to counter appalling human rights abuses in the country. But the reality is that both Western interests and the welfare of the Burmese people generally were sacrificed on the altar of UK domestic political expediency for almost 25 years.
Populism did not start with Brexit and Donald Trump. The Post-Truth era has long existed in Western policies on Myanmar. For some, perhaps many, emotion and political gain are more persuasive, and indeed more real, than logic and technical merit.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Kudos to Christine for another very interesting article.
With regard to the crown prince, I feel that many of us in the west may be laboring under two misconceptions.
The first is that we may have given too much weight to the gossip, innuendo and rumor that surround the prince. I, of course, do not have personal knowledge of his personality; but it seems reasonable to me that a good percentage of these stories are exaggerated, or entirely false propaganda spread by his detractors. If we took just half of the stories at face value, the prince would be a figure of almost demonic malevolence. This just seems a little far-fetched to me. I think that it’s entirely possible that he genuinely loves his parents and is experiencing deep sorrow at the passing of his father.
The second and far more important misconception is that the prince is a fool of almost comic opera proportion’s. We’ve all read the descriptions, the prince is “a playboy” “lazy” “whimsical” “Naïve”.
I suspect, and I think Christine speaks to this as well, that the prince may be a creature of a very different kind. His actions since his father’s demise seem to indicate a man who is cunning, astute and politically aware. Traits that any head of state would need in order to prosper. I suspect that he deliberately blindsided the generals when he declared that he would delay his ascension in order to mourn his father’s passing. He would have chosen this course of action for two reasons:
1- He wanted to demonstrate to the junta that he would not be there puppet. That he could stand up to them as his father did. That he too sits above the petty politicking of the politicians, political parties and military factions and is truly his father’s son.
2- He wanted to demonstrate to the Thai people that he loved his father more than the throne. I have little doubt that millions ( and possibly the vast majority ) of Thais will interpret it in just this way.
I’m also intrigued by his choice to not speak a single word in public during the initial period of morning. I suspect that this is also intended to inspire comparisons to his fathers much promoted stoicism. It also has the added benefit of allowing his actions and funerary rituals to speak for him.
Obviously, this is all conjecture on my part. However, it is quite possible that a great many have underestimated prince Vajiralongkorn.
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
Michael Wilson is absolutely correct. After twenty years in Thailand and having been through every level of bureaucracy, including what passes for the police/judicial system, I’ve come to know they do indeed make it up as they go along. It’s somewhat alike children playing being at pretend generals, police and judges. The Thai admonishment ‘Not serious nah?’ is to be taken absolutely literally, if you do you’ll go insane. So yes, all this rubbish about ‘constitutions’ is just that, rubbish. Now, let’s play dress-up.
‘We are surviving without a dream’
I’m really glad to see this topic being researched. I had no idea that Kachin could be found in urban areas of Malaysia in the thousands. Thanks for sharing!
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
Thais would be totally disinterested in assessments of the British Monarchy, as they are mostly disinterested in anything outside Thailand. As well, given that the British Monarchy is not protected by draconian lese majeste laws that seem usually to be used to silence critics of the elite, and are demonstrably unnecessary to protect reputation od safety of the late beloved King, what would anyone have to say about the British Monarchy?
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
Thais have greeted the news of the new King with Joy and Admiration, as reported in the Bangkok Post.
As a close live-in observer of current Thai circumstances, I can honestly say that the death of the late King came as a tragic blow to most Thais, notwithstanding the long period of poor health. Most Thais are indeed in mourning and feel a great sense of loss with the demise of the King. The reason for this may be the unremitting PR campaign over many years, or a genuine belief in the good works and concern of the King, but whichever the reason, their grief is deep and heartfelt.
Can Thailand tolerate more than one form of Buddhism?
Can Japan tolerate more than one form of Buddhism ? Stupid question. The average Thai is far more tolerant than the average American, Swede, Nigerian or Malay. There has been far too much cynical chatter about Thailand on NM.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Great article. The present situation in Thailand is really sad. and the prospects for democracy really bleak .My only hope is that ,sooner or later , the Red Shirts will lead a popular uprising against the rotten, reactionary Royalist regime ; that may bring democracy at the end, but the cost would be probably high in blood; a civil war could not be excluded… Sadly history teaches us that the struggle of peoples for freedom has always had a high prize to pay.
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
Marshall is all over the place here: he lambasts tradition and then blasts the Thais for not sticking to tradition; says they didn’t follow the constitution on succession and then notes there has only been one succession before under the constitution — BTW which involved regicide. He blasts the prince for not naming a regent and then notes that Prem was the regent according to the constitution. He says the king’s death was stage-managed, suggesting they should have just pulled the plug years ago on the king — which he then would have called murder. And he blasts the whole process as a farce but also blasts everything else as a farce. Like, Andrew, WTF: Do you want the Thai royals whom you hate to follow the rules or, since you ridicule the rules, do you want them to break the rules? Can you tell us which rules you find worth following and why?
I say this because the transfer of high office in most countries comes with ritual, symbolism, formality based on law and tradition, and so can be either respected or ridiculed, whatever your taste. Andrew seems to want both with Thailand. He ridicules the monarchy, and then says, as if the institution is critical, that Vajiralongkorn is not suitable for the monarchy. That makes this all a meaningless rant rather than insight.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
So enlightening (pun completely intended) along with the glossary of Thai words…
After having been through Bangkok so many times, Christine’s article begins to make sense of what goes on behind the closed doors of monarchy and military.
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
All of the ugly rumours about “Sia O” that I have heard, including the nickname, came from ordinary Thais, mostly in Korat but also the far North and the occasional taxi driver in Bangkok. Feelings may not be to the point of revulsion, but I would certainly say the sentiment I have detected can easily be described as disrespect, perhaps contempt.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Christine, I like your point of view. I like your anger. I like your irony. I like the way you take the rituals and language seriously, letting them speak in their own very specific terms. I am put off by the frequent mention of ‘Sino-Thai’ millionaires and billionaires, as if there is a specific racial/ethnic dimension to the behavior of these actors. Some vast percentage of urban Thailand is “Sino-Thai” by birth and heritage, and the vast majority of those “Sine-Thais” aren’t in on the game. You are encouraging a generalization that is not apt or valid. Perhaps there is a better term?
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
Well I’ve lived here 7 years, can speak fluently, read and write also! Does that make me any better? I don’t think so, what an immature thing to say sir!
I’ve lived in the North and also down in Prachuap Khiri Khan and generally he is disliked, by government workers,ordinary Thais I’ve met in the street. I’m interested to know which area of Thailand you’re in.
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
Michael Wilson – in essence I agree with you. I simply say there has most likely – and plenty of WikiLeaks, etc. evidence to suggest : immense arm-wrestling along the way. But I simply say : the CP has come out on top, as the smart operator I always thought he would. His father never lost faith in him. Thailand is a
hard country to rule.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Excellent piece. The late king as an agent of American anti-communism cannot be overstressed, nor the commercial use of his ‘ charisma’ to help the Sino-Thai rich expropriate the poor whilst being happy grovelling in their station.
‘Proxyphobia’ in Indonesia
I think you’re missing the bigger question here. Is Nurmantyo vying for Jokowi’s job? In the meantime, Jokowi spent the most part of this month visiting military barracks, giving speeches on unity. Any thoughts?
Echoes of past violence haunt Indonesia
It felt hyperbolic to you, but for me, that’s a reasonable piece of writing. The tension is palpable for the week of the event. I live in a mainly Chinese and Ambon neighbourhood. And even though people don’t evacuate like ’98, they decide to stay home. I go to work but most of my Chinese friend took a day off.
The east is red
I admit Indonesia did awful thing in Papua and Aceh in the past. But current government try to do things better. Try to build infrastructure so Papua can grow along with the rest of Indonesia. Some human rights violation still exist due to mining in Papua and the corporation relation to indigenous people. Not widespread government action.
And about support for independence in Papua, look at Scotland referendum. More than 40% still vote for independence there. Even after hundreds of years under the British government. Give anyone a choice, a vote for independence would gain “widespread” support. Heck the US still fight their civil war 90 years after they declared independence from British rule. Do a pooling in California right now, I bet more than 30% would vote for independence.
And lastly, about Indonesia supporting despot in PNG and Fiji, you should read about what I write: “Leveraging on their power, knowledge and wealth to gain influence and manipulate independent nation”. This is a universal nature of nation and power. What I write is not only for China, or US. It is for any nation with enough power. And the protection from such manipulation is still the same: Freedom of press, freedom of speech, and democracy.
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
The National Legislative Assembly — a fake parliament full of the unelected cronies of the junta
nail head hit .
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
And let’s just take a look at THIS : Andrew MacGregor Marshall posts on his ZenJournalist site British Embassy assessments of Thailand’s Monarchy ? Do Thais get to post assessments of AMM’s British Monarchy ?
Busting the myth that Myanmar is a sanctions success story
The counterproductive nature of sanctions generally has long been attested. In the case of Myanmar Lee Jones exposed remorselessly in his “Societies under Siege” last year the extent to which Western sanctions had little practical effect in persuading the junta to introduce political reform. The present persuasive article by Bryan Early is equally unchallengeable.
We should however not overlook the importance to Western politicians of using sanctions for their own domestic political agendas. During the height of the sanctions regime imposed by the EU against Myanmar, I found no official in the British Foreign Office who thought that sanctions were making any useful contribution at all in persuading the Generals to hasten political change. In Brussels, the EU Commission produced a number of confidential analyses showing how counterproductive sanctions were. While the Generals wallowed in a financial bonanza of revenues from natural gas, jade, precious stones and timber exports to their neighbours, it was the Burmese people who suffered from the denial of development aid and the Western assault on the private sector industries of garments, tourism and agricultural exports.
But views from officials, in both London and Brussels, were continually disregarded and their recommendations swept under the carpet. On no occasion between 1988 and 2012 did the British or European Parliaments ever debate sanctions seriously, on the basis of any informed and objective assessment of their effectiveness. Only in the House of Lords on 12 October 2007 did peer after peer, representing all political parties, unanimously mock the British Government’s pretensions in a debate on the report of the Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs into sanctions generally. Chapter IV of that Report on Burma was an indictment of UK and EU policy, and also of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for demanding them.
Lord Eccles summed up the views of the House when he said: “In essence, the West has opted out of Burma. The sanctions are, in my view, irrelevant. What we are watching reminds me of an ancient Greek tragedy. There is a degree of inevitability. The events will unfold. Nobody can do anything about them. The awful generals are the villains of the piece, but also the victims. Nobody knows what to do, so we retreat into disapproval. This in no way measures up to the needs of the Burmese or the interests of the western world.”
The domestic political imperative at the time however was to be seen to be doing something, however inane and counterproductive, to respond to the fully understandable popular demand from pressure groups and the general public that “something must be done” to counter appalling human rights abuses in the country. But the reality is that both Western interests and the welfare of the Burmese people generally were sacrificed on the altar of UK domestic political expediency for almost 25 years.
Populism did not start with Brexit and Donald Trump. The Post-Truth era has long existed in Western policies on Myanmar. For some, perhaps many, emotion and political gain are more persuasive, and indeed more real, than logic and technical merit.