Mr Vichai (No.45): While some posters expressed their doubts that many rural mothers sell their daughters into prostitution (although I think there might be a lot of pressure in some families to support the parents and that may cause some girls taking the apparently easy way) would you please enlighten me what this has to do with democracy?
Maybe this:
1. The farmers/rural poor are in your eyes to greedy and they should learn from the kings sufficiency-economy where their place in society is.
or is it
2. The wealth of the nation has to be distributed equally so there is no need for immoral acts among the (now not anymore) poor people.
Anyway let me conclude with a modified sentence of yours:
The day I see the Thai middle-class calling for elections and not for royal intervention is the same exact day I forecast that a political mature and strong democracy had already not been reached but fully embedded in Thailand political culture.
Nganadeeleg, at as you know of course there was a very vocal minority opposing Thaksin last year (mostly for other reasons than the killings but that doesn’t matter) and I saw this as a very good sign for the progress of democracy in Thailand (until they started to call for an appointed government) but I had the impression that no side wanted the demonstrations: The PAD wanted of course Thaksin and the TRT gone and Thaksin wanted them “to shut up” but also neutral people saw the demonstrations as a threat to some kind of imagined national unity not considering the fact the democracy needs dissent (and the fact that Thaksin tried to silence and intimidate some of his critics shows that he didn’t understood it either).
You say:”The coup leaders have stated their reasons..”, but I say that the world has never seen military who states that they staged a coup because they were a powerhungry bunch of guys – they will always mention noble motifs. For me the start of the constitutional process and the – I would call it – “blame and hide” tactic (accusation in the media but no legal action) concerning the previous government shows that the military/royalists surely want a bigger piece of the pie (although I think you are right that it is unlikely that they will stick to power directly).
The idea of a philosopher-king as outlined in “╬а╬┐╬╗╬╣╧Д╬╡╬п╬▒” sure has its charm – especially for people with philosophical education who can imagine themselves destined to rule – but I think this is an idea which might have worked 360 BC in the small state of Athens but not in todays globalized world in a country as large and as diversified as Thailand.
Concerning the self interest reasons to vote I want to repeat once more that this is not about money (at least not always) you could – for example – vote for a party who plans to distribute some of the countries wealth among the poor because you might think that otherwise the rifts in society might lead to revolution – so you vote for less money in your pocket (assuming that you are not among the coutries poor) but for long term stability. If everyone votes in his own best interest even corrupt politicians shouldn’t have a chance in long term because if they try to fill their own pockets, the pockets of their cronies and please the majority of the voters they will do serious and visible harm to the economy and/or a very large minority of people and so they will be voted out when their missmanagement becomes obvious (but I live now in a country where politicians have to resign when they use their frequent-flyer-miles for private purpose so I might be too optimistic). To summarise my thoughts on the election-process I see no alternative to voting in self-interest.
Right now we are entering the last days of the 9th reign of the Chakri dynasty. What we are witnessing is something that has been going on for close to 800 years: End of reign politicking. Almost every succession in Thai history has been contested. There has always been political manoveurs before and after a Thai king dies.
Let us look at the Chakri dynasty:
Rama 1- He and his brother, two generals during the Thonburi interregnum, murdered King Thaksin, with consent from the clergy. Was King Thaksin crazy or was he poisoned to make him crazy? No matter. The Chakri brothers had him dragged out of a temple and murdered.
Rama 2-When Rama 2 came to power, he had to go on an unprecedented murdering binge to wipe out all his enemies. He killed brothers and cousins, and anybody who might challenge him.
Rama 3-He usurped the throne from King Mongkut, the legitimate
heir. King Mongkut had to go into the clergy in order not to get murdered by his own brother. King Mongkut’s younger brother, Prince Pin Klao, ran into the arms of the foreign community, learning engineering , the arts, languages, and martial sciences.
Rama 4-Right before Rama 3 died, he tried to install his son as heir at the last minute, but King Mongkut,Rama 4, made a deal with the devil, Chao Phya Suriyawong/Bunnag family, and got himself installed in exchange for handing over all the finances and major ministries to the Bunnags. During his reign, Rama 4 had challenges from the conservatives, the liberals, the moderates, and his own brother, the 2nd King or Upparat, and Western powers who were quickly encroaching onto his kingdom.
Rama 5-King Chulalongkorn was intended to be nothing but a puppet for the Bunnag family. King Mongkut thought he was too young to be king and thought he was going to be murdered right away. King Chulalongkorn, according to his own letters, also thought he wouldn’t last. When he tried to start reforms early in his reign, the Bunnags almost took him out and installed his cousin, Prince George Washington, the Upparat, as first king. The plan backfired and 2nd King George Washington started an international incident by seeking protection from the British consulate. Can you imagine a 2nd King of Thailand running to the farang for protection from the 1st King? I bring this up, because this is the reason why the law of succession changed. Passing the crown to the oldest son born by a full queen is a tradition that only really started after King Chulalongkorn’s reign, and that was because he got rid of the position of 2nd King or Upparat.
Rama 6-The first Crown Prince was Prince Varunhis, but he died. He was born of Prince Mahidol’s mother, who was a queen and not a consort, but because all the sons in that line were dying out, King Chulalongkorn elevated Prince Vajirayudh’s mother to full queen, so he became the Crown Prince, but nobody knew he was gay until it was too late. So Prince Vajirayudh became King and was universally disliked because even though he was extremely well-educated, he was despised for his sexuality, his prodigious spending, and his horrible management and political skills. In other words, he destroyed everything that Rama 5 built up. The military tried to take him out, but they were unsuccessful.
Rama 7-He came to power because there was nobody else left. All his brothers had died or had taken themselves out for one reason or another. Prince Mahidol couldn’t become king because he had married a Chinese commoner. Prince Chakrabongse couldn’t become king because he married a farang. Because King Vajirayudh had installed his gay lovers as his advisors, the country fell into disarray. So when King 7 ascended, he went back to the old princes, the sons of Rama 4, but the new bureaucracy, formed mostly from the commoner classes, didn’t like that, so they plotted to take the monarchy out and replace it with a lot of fascist/communist crap they had learned in Europe. Anyway, we know what happened to Rama 7. Pridi and Plaek took him out. And he spend his last days as British gardener in the English countryside.
Rama 8- We know what happened to him. Pridi and Plaek picked him because they knew he was a boy they could control. Besides, he had no power. He was studying in Switzerland, and he didn’t come home for 11 years after he was chosen as successor. Pridi held all the power as regent.
When King Ananda came home for a short spell before going back to Switzerland, he was murdered. Some say that King Bumibol murdered his brother. And that would be consistent with Thai politics and Thailand’s long history of fratricide and regicide. But even to me, an old cynic, that is hard to believe.
And here are my reasons: 1. From what we know, King Bumibol was close to his brother and loved him very much. 2. Both King Ananda and King Bumibol grew up as farang in a farang country with very little exposure to Thailand and its politics for the first 20 years of their lives. They didn’t ask for the kingship; it was thrust upon them by political opportunists who wanted to use them.
Rama 9-What we know of the early years is that Plaek kept him marginalized and disempowered. From 1946 to 1957, Thailand was run by 3 generals: Plaek Pibunsongkram, General Phao, and General Sarit Thanarat. During Plaek’s reign, he ran the country as if it didn’t have a king. And this pissed King Bumibol off. So he cut a deal with General Sarit, and they got rid of Plaek. So the reign of King Bumibol didn’t really begin until 1957.
And this was when all the propaganda concerning the importance of kingship began, all the dhammaraj and devaraj stuff. It wasn’t until after 1957 and the military’s embrace of the monarchy that we began to see all the Orwellian propaganda surrounding the monarchy.
Anyway, if we were to really examine Thai politics closely, one can see that Thailand really hasn’t changed that much in 800 years. Thailand has never been a peace loving Buddhist country that is portrayed in all the bullshit propaganda. Thailand is a vicious political society with a long history of factional politics, fratricide, and regicide. What we are witnessing today is more of the same.
From where I am sitting, the coup, the dumping of Thaksin, the resurgence of the military is nothing but preparation for the end of the 9th reign. The writing is on the wall.
There are many placing bets on the Crown Prince and the Dowager Queen and their military backers. There are many placing bets on the Chinese capitalists who control Thailand’s means of production and their military backers. And most are waiting to see where the winds will blow strongest.
“Chang Noi”, in his column of December 12, 2006, also advanced the idea that the abolition of the constitution of 1997 was the second major purpose of the coup (the other being getting rid of Thaksin). However, he did not refer to the question of succession, but rather to military and bureaucratic self interest, summarized in the phrase “conservative hatred of the 1997 charter.”
anon #14,
According to Piyabutr Saengkanokkul in this article http://www.onopen.com/2007/01/1437, the 1997 constitution has already given legal instrument for the King to appoint either one of the heirs.
Maybe Anonymous you should reread the 1997 Thai Constitution. I recall a specific clause thereat strongly suggesting that the Princess, or, The Prince are contenders to the throne.
I did say NOT all the time but MOST of the time, didn’t I?
But Bangkok Pundit if you believe ‘higher income’ does not predispose a person to be more ‘democratically responsible’, then how can those uneducated very poor village hicks ever comprehend what the ‘VOTE’ truly stands for? I mean Bangkok Pundit, are you now suggesting that Thailand really really needs a ‘savior’ system more than ever?
The more I think about it, the more I realize the real reason for the coup. It had nothing to do with Thaksin, Sondhi, corruption, or lese majeste.
The purpose of the coup was to get rid of the 1997 Constitution. The 1997 Constitution is the only legal instrument that governs the issue of succession, and it basically says that the Crown Prince will be the next King. The constitution that replaced it, the 2006 Interim Constitution, makes no mention of succession.
Therefore, if the King dies at any time between now and the when next permanent constitution is signed-off, the Privy Council can suggest to the Parliament anybody they want. If my logic is correct, they’ll appoint the Princess as the next monarch.
Given the recent back surgery, Prem and the King must have been really worried that the King might not survive the coming months. They needed to remove the possibility that the Crown Prince would use the 1997 Constitution to force his way to the throne.
As usual, Surayud, Sonthi, Sondhi, Thaksin, and everybody else is just a pawn. This is like mortals fighting a proxy war for gods.
Nganadeeleg said” I think you are a little premature in writing off the current ‘reform’ process, Taxi Driver – you may ultimately be proven correct, but that judgement cannot be made until the end of the year.”
Vichai said” Short-sighted? We will soon learn by the end of this year whether my instincts was wrong and Taxi Driver’s fears was well placed.”
I sincerely hope both of you prove to be correct. But lets not be too trusting of the generals in the meantime eh? Don’t just wait for them to serve up the new constitution for you to vote on in the referendum. Remember, in this unique referendum (only us Thais can come up with one like this), you can effectively only vote “yes” (voting “no” effectively gives the power back to the generals). Have you ever thought why it was designed that way?
” I think a certain ‘per capita income’ hurdle widely distributed among the population maybe predetermines political democratic maturity in aspiring nations.”
You mean like Saudia Arabia and Singapore. A higher per capita incomes doesn’t always mean a democracy. There is no magic per capita income. You seem also to have forgotten that per capita incomes rose under Thaksin and expectations are that growth will be lower this year than under Thaksin.
Mr Vichai – let me assure you that I am also in favor of non-violent solutions to any society’s problems. But then, if my personal viewpoints were decisive, then I’d be a savior – which I am clearly not!
Your comments regarding stability and income are part of an ongoing debate between cause and effect of the two – does high income cause stability, or does stabillity lead to high income? And of course there is the addition question of how democracy and stability are linked – and where is the balance in democracy between individual civil rights and majority rule? All good questions, all worthy of prolonged public debate – where are these debates going on in Thai society and what are we all doing to make sure these questions are being considered by all voters?
Srithanonchai, where do you stand? Every day the Thai media is full of criticism of Thaksin’s “impact on democratic institutions”. Do you think I am unaware of that? At the same time the regime has been censoring anything Thaksin says in the media. That is, the regime does not trust the Thai people to make up their own minds about what Thaksin has to say. And you say I should add to this criticism of Thaksin when he has no right of reply? You may want to give your support to the current royalist-military dictatorship but I certainly do not. Why do you not criticize the hypocrisy of the royalists, who, unlike Thaksin, are protected by the lese majeste law? Thaksin was criticized in the media virtually every day over the last year; where is your criticism of the monarchy’s endorsement of the overthrow of the government elected by the majority of Thai citizens? Where do you stand, on the side of the democratically elected former Prime Minister, or the dictatorship? Or are you cowardly sitting on the fence?
I have this germ of an epiphany in my mind that perhaps ‘instabilities’ or ‘civil wars’ were NOT the ‘transitional agents’ (as suggested by hpboothe) that sparked ‘responsible democracies’ in the Western world, but simple economics . I think a certain ‘per capita income’ hurdle widely distributed among the population maybe predetermines political democratic maturity in aspiring nations. Not every time of course, but MOST of the time.
In Thailand we are probably nearing that ‘magic per capita income’ number but not yet. Not yet in the sense that very wide gap of incomes exist still of rurals vs. urbans, with disparity intuitively I suspect getting wider not narrower as Thailand grows economically (that in my book is Catasprophy unfolding).
The day I see Thailand rural mothers no longer selling their daughters into prostitution is the same exact day I forecast that a political mature and strong democracy had already not been reached but fully embedded in Thailand political culture, and, Kings or Generals would no longer be needed as saviors or knights to protect the people from its elected rulers.
You would be allowed to wonder ‘hpboothe’ but let blood not be spilt in Thailand to test your thesis. I prefer a ‘saviour’ system if that will prevent civil wars . .
But I too wonder whether that man Thaksin Shinawatra was deliberately provoking a crisis . .. near civil war if you may, to get a Republican democracy get going in Thailand? Finland Plan comes to mind . . . . .
The problem of succession is surely an important issue in Thailand. And it seems to be magnified everyday with the king’s frail health condition. I am sure a lot of Thais worry about this. They just can’t show or state their opinions for fear of lese majeste or being judged anti-monarchy. Perhaps western scholars can help by enlivening the debate further. Participants should raise as much perspectives as possible so that those who are lurking, but nonetheless actively ruminating on the points raised, will gain something.
I can understand why Thais would react vehemently to what Handley has written. There is no doubt that Thais love their king dearly. But setting emotions and some bitchiness in Handley’s writing aside, the book contains truth about the obvious machinations by palace insiders to portray the virtue of the monarchy, despite its being anachronistic, not for the benefit of the king itself but those with vested interests, notably certain Thai elites. Although this is unfair to some, but I observed that Thais failed to see the half-truths being peddled around especially when it comes with the monarchy. Or even if they know they refuse to act for fear of reprisals, political or socially. Perhaps it is about time Thais start questioning all these truths for one day (which might not be too far) the dam will just burst and overwhelms everyone.
Mr Vichai – I would argue that many that have been elected were irresponsible well before assuming public office! I understand your resentmen at my suggestion – the question is largely academic. One might wonder if the catastrophe (the bottom end of the J curve) is indeed what is needed to get to a more stable system. The US had it’s catastrophic Civil War, Europe had two catastrophic wars – the transition to stability from authority is never easy.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Mr Vichai (No.45): While some posters expressed their doubts that many rural mothers sell their daughters into prostitution (although I think there might be a lot of pressure in some families to support the parents and that may cause some girls taking the apparently easy way) would you please enlighten me what this has to do with democracy?
Maybe this:
1. The farmers/rural poor are in your eyes to greedy and they should learn from the kings sufficiency-economy where their place in society is.
or is it
2. The wealth of the nation has to be distributed equally so there is no need for immoral acts among the (now not anymore) poor people.
Anyway let me conclude with a modified sentence of yours:
The day I see the Thai middle-class calling for elections and not for royal intervention is the same exact day I forecast that a political mature and strong democracy had already not been reached but fully embedded in Thailand political culture.
One vote, one value
Nganadeeleg, at as you know of course there was a very vocal minority opposing Thaksin last year (mostly for other reasons than the killings but that doesn’t matter) and I saw this as a very good sign for the progress of democracy in Thailand (until they started to call for an appointed government) but I had the impression that no side wanted the demonstrations: The PAD wanted of course Thaksin and the TRT gone and Thaksin wanted them “to shut up” but also neutral people saw the demonstrations as a threat to some kind of imagined national unity not considering the fact the democracy needs dissent (and the fact that Thaksin tried to silence and intimidate some of his critics shows that he didn’t understood it either).
You say:”The coup leaders have stated their reasons..”, but I say that the world has never seen military who states that they staged a coup because they were a powerhungry bunch of guys – they will always mention noble motifs. For me the start of the constitutional process and the – I would call it – “blame and hide” tactic (accusation in the media but no legal action) concerning the previous government shows that the military/royalists surely want a bigger piece of the pie (although I think you are right that it is unlikely that they will stick to power directly).
The idea of a philosopher-king as outlined in “╬а╬┐╬╗╬╣╧Д╬╡╬п╬▒” sure has its charm – especially for people with philosophical education who can imagine themselves destined to rule – but I think this is an idea which might have worked 360 BC in the small state of Athens but not in todays globalized world in a country as large and as diversified as Thailand.
Concerning the self interest reasons to vote I want to repeat once more that this is not about money (at least not always) you could – for example – vote for a party who plans to distribute some of the countries wealth among the poor because you might think that otherwise the rifts in society might lead to revolution – so you vote for less money in your pocket (assuming that you are not among the coutries poor) but for long term stability. If everyone votes in his own best interest even corrupt politicians shouldn’t have a chance in long term because if they try to fill their own pockets, the pockets of their cronies and please the majority of the voters they will do serious and visible harm to the economy and/or a very large minority of people and so they will be voted out when their missmanagement becomes obvious (but I live now in a country where politicians have to resign when they use their frequent-flyer-miles for private purpose so I might be too optimistic). To summarise my thoughts on the election-process I see no alternative to voting in self-interest.
Speculation on succession
The 1997 constitution allowed both Prince and Princess to be specifically appointed to the throne, but if and only if the King specifically said so.
The 1997 constitution further said that If the King didn’t specifically appoint one of them, the throne would go by default to the Prince.
Speculation on succession
Right now we are entering the last days of the 9th reign of the Chakri dynasty. What we are witnessing is something that has been going on for close to 800 years: End of reign politicking. Almost every succession in Thai history has been contested. There has always been political manoveurs before and after a Thai king dies.
Let us look at the Chakri dynasty:
Rama 1- He and his brother, two generals during the Thonburi interregnum, murdered King Thaksin, with consent from the clergy. Was King Thaksin crazy or was he poisoned to make him crazy? No matter. The Chakri brothers had him dragged out of a temple and murdered.
Rama 2-When Rama 2 came to power, he had to go on an unprecedented murdering binge to wipe out all his enemies. He killed brothers and cousins, and anybody who might challenge him.
Rama 3-He usurped the throne from King Mongkut, the legitimate
heir. King Mongkut had to go into the clergy in order not to get murdered by his own brother. King Mongkut’s younger brother, Prince Pin Klao, ran into the arms of the foreign community, learning engineering , the arts, languages, and martial sciences.
Rama 4-Right before Rama 3 died, he tried to install his son as heir at the last minute, but King Mongkut,Rama 4, made a deal with the devil, Chao Phya Suriyawong/Bunnag family, and got himself installed in exchange for handing over all the finances and major ministries to the Bunnags. During his reign, Rama 4 had challenges from the conservatives, the liberals, the moderates, and his own brother, the 2nd King or Upparat, and Western powers who were quickly encroaching onto his kingdom.
Rama 5-King Chulalongkorn was intended to be nothing but a puppet for the Bunnag family. King Mongkut thought he was too young to be king and thought he was going to be murdered right away. King Chulalongkorn, according to his own letters, also thought he wouldn’t last. When he tried to start reforms early in his reign, the Bunnags almost took him out and installed his cousin, Prince George Washington, the Upparat, as first king. The plan backfired and 2nd King George Washington started an international incident by seeking protection from the British consulate. Can you imagine a 2nd King of Thailand running to the farang for protection from the 1st King? I bring this up, because this is the reason why the law of succession changed. Passing the crown to the oldest son born by a full queen is a tradition that only really started after King Chulalongkorn’s reign, and that was because he got rid of the position of 2nd King or Upparat.
Rama 6-The first Crown Prince was Prince Varunhis, but he died. He was born of Prince Mahidol’s mother, who was a queen and not a consort, but because all the sons in that line were dying out, King Chulalongkorn elevated Prince Vajirayudh’s mother to full queen, so he became the Crown Prince, but nobody knew he was gay until it was too late. So Prince Vajirayudh became King and was universally disliked because even though he was extremely well-educated, he was despised for his sexuality, his prodigious spending, and his horrible management and political skills. In other words, he destroyed everything that Rama 5 built up. The military tried to take him out, but they were unsuccessful.
Rama 7-He came to power because there was nobody else left. All his brothers had died or had taken themselves out for one reason or another. Prince Mahidol couldn’t become king because he had married a Chinese commoner. Prince Chakrabongse couldn’t become king because he married a farang. Because King Vajirayudh had installed his gay lovers as his advisors, the country fell into disarray. So when King 7 ascended, he went back to the old princes, the sons of Rama 4, but the new bureaucracy, formed mostly from the commoner classes, didn’t like that, so they plotted to take the monarchy out and replace it with a lot of fascist/communist crap they had learned in Europe. Anyway, we know what happened to Rama 7. Pridi and Plaek took him out. And he spend his last days as British gardener in the English countryside.
Rama 8- We know what happened to him. Pridi and Plaek picked him because they knew he was a boy they could control. Besides, he had no power. He was studying in Switzerland, and he didn’t come home for 11 years after he was chosen as successor. Pridi held all the power as regent.
When King Ananda came home for a short spell before going back to Switzerland, he was murdered. Some say that King Bumibol murdered his brother. And that would be consistent with Thai politics and Thailand’s long history of fratricide and regicide. But even to me, an old cynic, that is hard to believe.
And here are my reasons: 1. From what we know, King Bumibol was close to his brother and loved him very much. 2. Both King Ananda and King Bumibol grew up as farang in a farang country with very little exposure to Thailand and its politics for the first 20 years of their lives. They didn’t ask for the kingship; it was thrust upon them by political opportunists who wanted to use them.
Rama 9-What we know of the early years is that Plaek kept him marginalized and disempowered. From 1946 to 1957, Thailand was run by 3 generals: Plaek Pibunsongkram, General Phao, and General Sarit Thanarat. During Plaek’s reign, he ran the country as if it didn’t have a king. And this pissed King Bumibol off. So he cut a deal with General Sarit, and they got rid of Plaek. So the reign of King Bumibol didn’t really begin until 1957.
And this was when all the propaganda concerning the importance of kingship began, all the dhammaraj and devaraj stuff. It wasn’t until after 1957 and the military’s embrace of the monarchy that we began to see all the Orwellian propaganda surrounding the monarchy.
Anyway, if we were to really examine Thai politics closely, one can see that Thailand really hasn’t changed that much in 800 years. Thailand has never been a peace loving Buddhist country that is portrayed in all the bullshit propaganda. Thailand is a vicious political society with a long history of factional politics, fratricide, and regicide. What we are witnessing today is more of the same.
From where I am sitting, the coup, the dumping of Thaksin, the resurgence of the military is nothing but preparation for the end of the 9th reign. The writing is on the wall.
There are many placing bets on the Crown Prince and the Dowager Queen and their military backers. There are many placing bets on the Chinese capitalists who control Thailand’s means of production and their military backers. And most are waiting to see where the winds will blow strongest.
Speculation on succession
“Chang Noi”, in his column of December 12, 2006, also advanced the idea that the abolition of the constitution of 1997 was the second major purpose of the coup (the other being getting rid of Thaksin). However, he did not refer to the question of succession, but rather to military and bureaucratic self interest, summarized in the phrase “conservative hatred of the 1997 charter.”
Speculation on succession
anon #14,
According to Piyabutr Saengkanokkul in this article http://www.onopen.com/2007/01/1437, the 1997 constitution has already given legal instrument for the King to appoint either one of the heirs.
Speculation on succession
Maybe Anonymous you should reread the 1997 Thai Constitution. I recall a specific clause thereat strongly suggesting that the Princess, or, The Prince are contenders to the throne.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
And your point Bangkok Pundit is?
I did say NOT all the time but MOST of the time, didn’t I?
But Bangkok Pundit if you believe ‘higher income’ does not predispose a person to be more ‘democratically responsible’, then how can those uneducated very poor village hicks ever comprehend what the ‘VOTE’ truly stands for? I mean Bangkok Pundit, are you now suggesting that Thailand really really needs a ‘savior’ system more than ever?
Speculation on succession
The more I think about it, the more I realize the real reason for the coup. It had nothing to do with Thaksin, Sondhi, corruption, or lese majeste.
The purpose of the coup was to get rid of the 1997 Constitution. The 1997 Constitution is the only legal instrument that governs the issue of succession, and it basically says that the Crown Prince will be the next King. The constitution that replaced it, the 2006 Interim Constitution, makes no mention of succession.
Therefore, if the King dies at any time between now and the when next permanent constitution is signed-off, the Privy Council can suggest to the Parliament anybody they want. If my logic is correct, they’ll appoint the Princess as the next monarch.
Given the recent back surgery, Prem and the King must have been really worried that the King might not survive the coming months. They needed to remove the possibility that the Crown Prince would use the 1997 Constitution to force his way to the throne.
As usual, Surayud, Sonthi, Sondhi, Thaksin, and everybody else is just a pawn. This is like mortals fighting a proxy war for gods.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Nganadeeleg said” I think you are a little premature in writing off the current ‘reform’ process, Taxi Driver – you may ultimately be proven correct, but that judgement cannot be made until the end of the year.”
Vichai said” Short-sighted? We will soon learn by the end of this year whether my instincts was wrong and Taxi Driver’s fears was well placed.”
I sincerely hope both of you prove to be correct. But lets not be too trusting of the generals in the meantime eh? Don’t just wait for them to serve up the new constitution for you to vote on in the referendum. Remember, in this unique referendum (only us Thais can come up with one like this), you can effectively only vote “yes” (voting “no” effectively gives the power back to the generals). Have you ever thought why it was designed that way?
Tutu on South Africa’s Burma vote
Desmond Tutu sometimes gets his facts wrong. See http://him.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2007/1/9/2624978.html Nobel prizes are not given for getting your facts right.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
” I think a certain ‘per capita income’ hurdle widely distributed among the population maybe predetermines political democratic maturity in aspiring nations.”
You mean like Saudia Arabia and Singapore. A higher per capita incomes doesn’t always mean a democracy. There is no magic per capita income. You seem also to have forgotten that per capita incomes rose under Thaksin and expectations are that growth will be lower this year than under Thaksin.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Mr Vichai – let me assure you that I am also in favor of non-violent solutions to any society’s problems. But then, if my personal viewpoints were decisive, then I’d be a savior – which I am clearly not!
Your comments regarding stability and income are part of an ongoing debate between cause and effect of the two – does high income cause stability, or does stabillity lead to high income? And of course there is the addition question of how democracy and stability are linked – and where is the balance in democracy between individual civil rights and majority rule? All good questions, all worthy of prolonged public debate – where are these debates going on in Thai society and what are we all doing to make sure these questions are being considered by all voters?
Speculation on succession
Republican: Questions such as your “where do you stand,” or the closely related “are you cowardly sitting on the fence” have always bored me.
Speculation on succession
Srithanonchai, where do you stand? Every day the Thai media is full of criticism of Thaksin’s “impact on democratic institutions”. Do you think I am unaware of that? At the same time the regime has been censoring anything Thaksin says in the media. That is, the regime does not trust the Thai people to make up their own minds about what Thaksin has to say. And you say I should add to this criticism of Thaksin when he has no right of reply? You may want to give your support to the current royalist-military dictatorship but I certainly do not. Why do you not criticize the hypocrisy of the royalists, who, unlike Thaksin, are protected by the lese majeste law? Thaksin was criticized in the media virtually every day over the last year; where is your criticism of the monarchy’s endorsement of the overthrow of the government elected by the majority of Thai citizens? Where do you stand, on the side of the democratically elected former Prime Minister, or the dictatorship? Or are you cowardly sitting on the fence?
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
I have this germ of an epiphany in my mind that perhaps ‘instabilities’ or ‘civil wars’ were NOT the ‘transitional agents’ (as suggested by hpboothe) that sparked ‘responsible democracies’ in the Western world, but simple economics . I think a certain ‘per capita income’ hurdle widely distributed among the population maybe predetermines political democratic maturity in aspiring nations. Not every time of course, but MOST of the time.
In Thailand we are probably nearing that ‘magic per capita income’ number but not yet. Not yet in the sense that very wide gap of incomes exist still of rurals vs. urbans, with disparity intuitively I suspect getting wider not narrower as Thailand grows economically (that in my book is Catasprophy unfolding).
The day I see Thailand rural mothers no longer selling their daughters into prostitution is the same exact day I forecast that a political mature and strong democracy had already not been reached but fully embedded in Thailand political culture, and, Kings or Generals would no longer be needed as saviors or knights to protect the people from its elected rulers.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
You would be allowed to wonder ‘hpboothe’ but let blood not be spilt in Thailand to test your thesis. I prefer a ‘saviour’ system if that will prevent civil wars . .
But I too wonder whether that man Thaksin Shinawatra was deliberately provoking a crisis . .. near civil war if you may, to get a Republican democracy get going in Thailand? Finland Plan comes to mind . . . . .
Speculation on succession
The problem of succession is surely an important issue in Thailand. And it seems to be magnified everyday with the king’s frail health condition. I am sure a lot of Thais worry about this. They just can’t show or state their opinions for fear of lese majeste or being judged anti-monarchy. Perhaps western scholars can help by enlivening the debate further. Participants should raise as much perspectives as possible so that those who are lurking, but nonetheless actively ruminating on the points raised, will gain something.
More debate on The King Never Smiles
I can understand why Thais would react vehemently to what Handley has written. There is no doubt that Thais love their king dearly. But setting emotions and some bitchiness in Handley’s writing aside, the book contains truth about the obvious machinations by palace insiders to portray the virtue of the monarchy, despite its being anachronistic, not for the benefit of the king itself but those with vested interests, notably certain Thai elites. Although this is unfair to some, but I observed that Thais failed to see the half-truths being peddled around especially when it comes with the monarchy. Or even if they know they refuse to act for fear of reprisals, political or socially. Perhaps it is about time Thais start questioning all these truths for one day (which might not be too far) the dam will just burst and overwhelms everyone.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Mr Vichai – I would argue that many that have been elected were irresponsible well before assuming public office! I understand your resentmen at my suggestion – the question is largely academic. One might wonder if the catastrophe (the bottom end of the J curve) is indeed what is needed to get to a more stable system. The US had it’s catastrophic Civil War, Europe had two catastrophic wars – the transition to stability from authority is never easy.