The Asia Sentinel piece is by far the most sober discussion of the succession issue that I have yet seen. Whether one agrees with its assessments or not, it can’t be denied that this is one of the most critical issues in Thailand today which never sees the light of day. I certainly cannot be healthy for any democratic society for a subject of this magnitude not to have a public debate. It would be as if no one ever mentioned Iraq in the US, or if it was illegal to discuss Palestine in Israel. The deafening silence on this issue in Thai media, academia, or even word on the street is a better indication of the state of Thai democracy than Thaksin’s ouster or the discarded constitution.
Thanks to Asia Sentinel and whoever wrote that piece, I hope they both get more constructive dialgue going beyond the ever fascinating and critically important issue of nudie pictures.
Speaking of which, my friend told me they looked like a gynecology exam…
The article states:
“royalists have gone to great pains to deify the king, and the decades of work that went into restoring the once-peripheral Thai monarchy into a central pillar of political legitimacy will not be undone overnight”
I don’t know Thailand intimately enough to know if this is true or not. If I have an opinion, it would be that this is not true. That is, the monarchy’s standing is attached entirely to the current King personally, and his children have few of his characteristics, and many that have discredited those children. So, might the monarchy’s standing indeed be “undone overnight” when the King dies ?
Is Thailand heading for a monarchy that is peripheral to Thai society – like many other countries’ monarchies – rather than central to it ?
Does Thailand need this to happen if it is ever to advance ?
yes Kazumo or anyone else out there. Can we have some information about any important factual errors about the King’s constant repressive use of power. that might raise the level of debate or are the lese majeste laws in place here
Republican may have some points. Unfortunately, he defeats his own purpose by including a very simplistic defence of Thaksin, instead of, for example, having a paragraph that would in a differentiated way reflect on his impact on democratic institutions. One can be critical of the PAD, and the coup, without being uncritical of Thaksin.
Having ‘responsible electorate” is a wonderful thing hpboothe because more often than not those we elect quickly turn ‘irresponsible’ immediately upon assuming public office. And I resent hpboothe’s suggestion that HMK has anything at all to do with ‘impeding’ Thailand’s political development or obstruct the Thai electorate to blossom into ‘responsibility’.
I could easily imagine how Thailand could have coped with its political development had there been no HMK as counterbalance against both the irresponsible electeds and the irresponsible non-electeds! CATASPROPHE!
The king never smile because a privy councillor, king representative, esp. Mr.Paem is bigger than the king and force him to sign everything. His family is under controlled. If the king has conflict to these group of people, they will kill him.
nganadeeleg said “It’s better to have a “savior” than to not have one” – two comments on this; first, this is a false choice – the issue is not savior yes/no, but why do we need a savior at all? Second, relying on a savior can actually impede development of stable processes, which in fact is the case in Thailand. Is the country really better off due to the cult of Rama IX? It’s arguable at best.
I’d also demur on the need for “quality politicians” for systemic stability. I’d offer that what it really takes is a responsible electorate committed to checks & balances, and civil rights. If you had that, quality politicians would emerge; if not, corruption thrives because the electorate essentially doesn’t care or relies on the savior for a rescue – a classic moral hazard.
Thailand seems to be unable to proceed to the far end of the J curve. I really can’t see any alternative to a prolonged period of instability.
According to David Elliott in ‘Thailand:Origins of Military Rule’ pp136-137 Nawapon was a rightist organization which had the direct support of ‘foreign powers’ i.e the CIA.[How Elliott determined this I have no idea.].
The Red Gaurs consisted mostly of vocational students ,and the third paramilitary group was the Village Scouts ” sponsored by the king and queen” provided many of the actual troops to break up demonstrations and strikes and co-operating with these paramilitary groups were the Border Patrol Police and the Communist Suppression Operation Command.
I have a number of criticisms of the Asia Sentinel article, which shows a marked anti-democratic bias:
(i) There is an important mistake regarding one crucial historical event:
Recounting the October 6 massacre the author writes, “… The conservative generals soon pounced on the protestors for this terrible act of lese-majeste. Soldiers proceeded to rape, mutilate and kill hundreds…”
In fact, the main instigator of the massacre and mutilation of students at Thammasat on October 6 was not the military but royalist paramiltaries: Village Scouts, Kratingdaeng, and Nawaphon, backed by police units. What this means is that the monarchy was directly implicated in the killings that took place that day. Normally the monarchy tries to hide its political interventions, but on this occasion its role in the incident was blatantly obvious. See Somsak Jiamthirasakul’s article on this at http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/10/6.html
The problem with the author’s description of this event is that it portrays the military as the villains, while letting the monarchy get off scot free. The airbrushing of the present King’s active political role out of Thailand’s political history has been developed into a fine art in the Thai history textbooks (and even, unfortunately, by some political scientists – most recently, and disgracefully, by Thammasat’s own Nakharin Mektrairat). Following Handley Western journalists should know better. Moreover, unlike their Thai counterparts they are not prevented from writing the truth by the lese majeste law that operates in Thailand. Western cheerleading for the monarchy (by academic institutions, the UN and its various agencies, gullible journalists, etc.), all of whom seem oblivious to how the monarchy’s image is controlled via the lese majeste law) play a major role in the propaganda surrounding the monarchy. Hence they must bear partial responsibility for the democratic disenfranchisement of the Thai people. This cheerleading should stop.
(ii) The author writes, “Ousting Thaksin ensures that he does not hold sway over the prince in the future… ”
Given that Thaksin was elected on three successive occasions by an overwhelming majority, would it not be entirely in keeping with democratic principles if Thaksin were indeed to have held sway over the Crown Prince? Or are you implying that the leader of a democratically elected government should not “hold sway” of the King? Isn’t that precisely the problem that we are faced with today? But even if one gives no importance to democratic principle, surely SOMEONE needs to hold sway over the CP?
(iii) The author writes, “Many democratic activists may have seen Thaksin as a threat–and rightfully so…”
What kind of “democratic activist” can see the only politician who has gone to the electorate 3 times in succession, won overwhelmingly on each occasion, and largely delivered on his election promises as a “threat”? You mean the democratic activists associated with Sondhi Limthongkul’s “People’s Alliance for Democracy”, last seen carousing at a celebratory dinner with the CNS? And how on earth can such a view be “Rightfully so”?
(iv) The author writes, “… Formal charges against Thaksin are expected soon. This is all good news for those who feared that a powerful Thaksin in a post-Bhumibol Thailand would prove much worse than any alternative scenario”
So it is “good news” when a royalist-military dictatorship presses formal charges against the democratically elected Thaksin? Even the author himself admits that the judiciary is already under the control of the monarchy! How on earth can one expect justice? Who is this good news for? Why can’t the author bring himself to say that it is of course good news for the royalist-military dictatorship, but bad news for the majority of the electorate who voted for Thaksin?
(v) “For some there is relief that the country is now under the control of the traditional elite rather than Thaksin’s business elites,” a diplomat said. “But how things will actually play out when the king dies is anyone’s guess.”
Why include such a statement in the article? Of course “for some” it is a relief; but what about THE MAJORITY who voted for Thaksin, most of whom are now living under martial law, media censorship, and the threat of lese majeste if they were to criticize the coup makers too harshly – given that the only legitimacy the CNS has is the King’s endorsement. Why repeat this diplomat’s bias?
If the best that the author’s diplomat source can do at predicting what happens regarding the succession is to say that it’s “anyone’s guess”, why bother even quoting him? (I am continually astounded as to why journalists give such credence to diplomats on a subject as opaque as the poliitical manoeuvrings of the royal family, when most diplomats’ knowledge of the subject does not extend beyond the gossip they have heard during their 3-4 year post in the country. )
Just remember that when the NPKC under Suchinda and Kaset promised electins, they formed one party, Sammakhtitham,and took over another, Chart Thai, to make sure they could win. And they wrote the constitution to make sure they controlled the Senate for years thence.
Anonymous — yes, you must be! But I was wondering about an Asia Sentinel letter writer who mentioned some pictures of Princess Ubonrat’s daughter — what are these?
I read the ‘Asia Sentinel’ article. Sounded very much like Andrew Walker writing anonymously And the first commentary by a guy named ANON was suggesting pornography, not politics.
Well, unlike Hollywood movies, most prostitutes that I know don’t wear jewelry. In fact, outside of work they tend to look incredibly plain and live very spartan lifestyles. The ones that are university students tend to dress less provocatively than normal students.
As for the suspicions of their parents, I really have no idea. When I started working, my mother expected me to send her a certain amount of money every month. If she suspected that I took to drug dealing or pimping to support her, she never told me so.
Based on your attitudes though there certainly seems cause for suspicion. It seems you’re assuming that any country girl who becomes successful in the big city has to have slept her way to the top.
The article reveals an interesting tidbit: it notes that nude pictures of the Prince’s latest wife Srirasmi have become widely available. So widely available that the palace actually had to warn the media not to aid in its distribution.
Am I the only person who hasn’t seen these photos yet?
[…] An anonymous correspondent over at Asia Sentinel echoes a number of commentators here on New Mandala by probing the question: “What happens when the King of Thailand dies?” […]
anon said: “I’ve never slept with a single prostitute (and I’ve slept with dozens of them) who was sold into prositution by her parents. In fact, I’ve never met a single prostitute who told her parents how she was making a living.”
Did the parents ever wonder where the daughter got all that money from that she sends back to them, and also uses to buy jewellry etc?
Are you saying they have no idea?
Do the parents believe that uneducated girls are highly paid as cleaners, factory workers and waitresses in the big city?
21Jan: On the one hand you think the Thai public will vote out Thaksin (one day), and on the other you note there was not much outcry from the Thai public about the extra judicial killings.
Doesn’t that ring any bells for you?
I’ll spell it out for you:
– There WAS outrage at the extra judicial killings – but those people were in a minority.
– There were also people opposed to Thaksin, but they were also in a minority.
The coup leaders have stated their reasons for the coup, and any other reasons you, me or others may come up with are pure conjecture and speculation.
Here’s some speculation on my part:
Caretaker PM, Thaksin, had organised violence for the rally planned on the next day, and would in effect stage his own coup by coming back to restore order by imposing martial law.
The coup leaders got wind of that plan and decided to act first.
As for democracy, I don’t like it much for the self interest reasons you outlined, and also because other peoples votes are worth just as much as mine. Yes, I know I’m elitist.
I think the ultimate system would be something based on Plato’s philosopher kings theory but rather than one ruler I would prefer a committee of the virtuous, with some form of democracy amongst them.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Speculation on succession
The Asia Sentinel piece is by far the most sober discussion of the succession issue that I have yet seen. Whether one agrees with its assessments or not, it can’t be denied that this is one of the most critical issues in Thailand today which never sees the light of day. I certainly cannot be healthy for any democratic society for a subject of this magnitude not to have a public debate. It would be as if no one ever mentioned Iraq in the US, or if it was illegal to discuss Palestine in Israel. The deafening silence on this issue in Thai media, academia, or even word on the street is a better indication of the state of Thai democracy than Thaksin’s ouster or the discarded constitution.
Thanks to Asia Sentinel and whoever wrote that piece, I hope they both get more constructive dialgue going beyond the ever fascinating and critically important issue of nudie pictures.
Speaking of which, my friend told me they looked like a gynecology exam…
Speculation on succession
The article states:
“royalists have gone to great pains to deify the king, and the decades of work that went into restoring the once-peripheral Thai monarchy into a central pillar of political legitimacy will not be undone overnight”
I don’t know Thailand intimately enough to know if this is true or not. If I have an opinion, it would be that this is not true. That is, the monarchy’s standing is attached entirely to the current King personally, and his children have few of his characteristics, and many that have discredited those children. So, might the monarchy’s standing indeed be “undone overnight” when the King dies ?
Is Thailand heading for a monarchy that is peripheral to Thai society – like many other countries’ monarchies – rather than central to it ?
Does Thailand need this to happen if it is ever to advance ?
The King Never Smiles?
yes Kazumo or anyone else out there. Can we have some information about any important factual errors about the King’s constant repressive use of power. that might raise the level of debate or are the lese majeste laws in place here
Speculation on succession
Republican may have some points. Unfortunately, he defeats his own purpose by including a very simplistic defence of Thaksin, instead of, for example, having a paragraph that would in a differentiated way reflect on his impact on democratic institutions. One can be critical of the PAD, and the coup, without being uncritical of Thaksin.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Having ‘responsible electorate” is a wonderful thing hpboothe because more often than not those we elect quickly turn ‘irresponsible’ immediately upon assuming public office. And I resent hpboothe’s suggestion that HMK has anything at all to do with ‘impeding’ Thailand’s political development or obstruct the Thai electorate to blossom into ‘responsibility’.
I could easily imagine how Thailand could have coped with its political development had there been no HMK as counterbalance against both the irresponsible electeds and the irresponsible non-electeds! CATASPROPHE!
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
I agree with hpboothe about the need for a “responsible electorate committed to checks & balances, and civil rights”
If such an electorate existed, Thaksin could only ever have won one election (the first).
I would also contend that it is precisely because such an electorate does not exist, that Thailand is fortunate to have a “savior”.
Speculation on succession
Pictures of Ploy posing nude became public a few years ago. They seem to have been taken in her dorm room. She’s chubby.
The King Never Smiles?
The king never smile because a privy councillor, king representative, esp. Mr.Paem is bigger than the king and force him to sign everything. His family is under controlled. If the king has conflict to these group of people, they will kill him.
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
nganadeeleg said “It’s better to have a “savior” than to not have one” – two comments on this; first, this is a false choice – the issue is not savior yes/no, but why do we need a savior at all? Second, relying on a savior can actually impede development of stable processes, which in fact is the case in Thailand. Is the country really better off due to the cult of Rama IX? It’s arguable at best.
I’d also demur on the need for “quality politicians” for systemic stability. I’d offer that what it really takes is a responsible electorate committed to checks & balances, and civil rights. If you had that, quality politicians would emerge; if not, corruption thrives because the electorate essentially doesn’t care or relies on the savior for a rescue – a classic moral hazard.
Thailand seems to be unable to proceed to the far end of the J curve. I really can’t see any alternative to a prolonged period of instability.
Speculation on succession
According to David Elliott in ‘Thailand:Origins of Military Rule’ pp136-137 Nawapon was a rightist organization which had the direct support of ‘foreign powers’ i.e the CIA.[How Elliott determined this I have no idea.].
The Red Gaurs consisted mostly of vocational students ,and the third paramilitary group was the Village Scouts ” sponsored by the king and queen” provided many of the actual troops to break up demonstrations and strikes and co-operating with these paramilitary groups were the Border Patrol Police and the Communist Suppression Operation Command.
Speculation on succession
I have a number of criticisms of the Asia Sentinel article, which shows a marked anti-democratic bias:
(i) There is an important mistake regarding one crucial historical event:
Recounting the October 6 massacre the author writes, “… The conservative generals soon pounced on the protestors for this terrible act of lese-majeste. Soldiers proceeded to rape, mutilate and kill hundreds…”
In fact, the main instigator of the massacre and mutilation of students at Thammasat on October 6 was not the military but royalist paramiltaries: Village Scouts, Kratingdaeng, and Nawaphon, backed by police units. What this means is that the monarchy was directly implicated in the killings that took place that day. Normally the monarchy tries to hide its political interventions, but on this occasion its role in the incident was blatantly obvious. See Somsak Jiamthirasakul’s article on this at http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/10/6.html
The problem with the author’s description of this event is that it portrays the military as the villains, while letting the monarchy get off scot free. The airbrushing of the present King’s active political role out of Thailand’s political history has been developed into a fine art in the Thai history textbooks (and even, unfortunately, by some political scientists – most recently, and disgracefully, by Thammasat’s own Nakharin Mektrairat). Following Handley Western journalists should know better. Moreover, unlike their Thai counterparts they are not prevented from writing the truth by the lese majeste law that operates in Thailand. Western cheerleading for the monarchy (by academic institutions, the UN and its various agencies, gullible journalists, etc.), all of whom seem oblivious to how the monarchy’s image is controlled via the lese majeste law) play a major role in the propaganda surrounding the monarchy. Hence they must bear partial responsibility for the democratic disenfranchisement of the Thai people. This cheerleading should stop.
(ii) The author writes, “Ousting Thaksin ensures that he does not hold sway over the prince in the future… ”
Given that Thaksin was elected on three successive occasions by an overwhelming majority, would it not be entirely in keeping with democratic principles if Thaksin were indeed to have held sway over the Crown Prince? Or are you implying that the leader of a democratically elected government should not “hold sway” of the King? Isn’t that precisely the problem that we are faced with today? But even if one gives no importance to democratic principle, surely SOMEONE needs to hold sway over the CP?
(iii) The author writes, “Many democratic activists may have seen Thaksin as a threat–and rightfully so…”
What kind of “democratic activist” can see the only politician who has gone to the electorate 3 times in succession, won overwhelmingly on each occasion, and largely delivered on his election promises as a “threat”? You mean the democratic activists associated with Sondhi Limthongkul’s “People’s Alliance for Democracy”, last seen carousing at a celebratory dinner with the CNS? And how on earth can such a view be “Rightfully so”?
(iv) The author writes, “… Formal charges against Thaksin are expected soon. This is all good news for those who feared that a powerful Thaksin in a post-Bhumibol Thailand would prove much worse than any alternative scenario”
So it is “good news” when a royalist-military dictatorship presses formal charges against the democratically elected Thaksin? Even the author himself admits that the judiciary is already under the control of the monarchy! How on earth can one expect justice? Who is this good news for? Why can’t the author bring himself to say that it is of course good news for the royalist-military dictatorship, but bad news for the majority of the electorate who voted for Thaksin?
(v) “For some there is relief that the country is now under the control of the traditional elite rather than Thaksin’s business elites,” a diplomat said. “But how things will actually play out when the king dies is anyone’s guess.”
Why include such a statement in the article? Of course “for some” it is a relief; but what about THE MAJORITY who voted for Thaksin, most of whom are now living under martial law, media censorship, and the threat of lese majeste if they were to criticize the coup makers too harshly – given that the only legitimacy the CNS has is the King’s endorsement. Why repeat this diplomat’s bias?
If the best that the author’s diplomat source can do at predicting what happens regarding the succession is to say that it’s “anyone’s guess”, why bother even quoting him? (I am continually astounded as to why journalists give such credence to diplomats on a subject as opaque as the poliitical manoeuvrings of the royal family, when most diplomats’ knowledge of the subject does not extend beyond the gossip they have heard during their 3-4 year post in the country. )
Speculation on succession
Polo/Anon: No, Anon. is not the only one. I haven’t seen them either (although I’ve heard the rumor about certain photo sessions).
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
Just remember that when the NPKC under Suchinda and Kaset promised electins, they formed one party, Sammakhtitham,and took over another, Chart Thai, to make sure they could win. And they wrote the constitution to make sure they controlled the Senate for years thence.
Speculation on succession
Anonymous — yes, you must be! But I was wondering about an Asia Sentinel letter writer who mentioned some pictures of Princess Ubonrat’s daughter — what are these?
Speculation on succession
I read the ‘Asia Sentinel’ article. Sounded very much like Andrew Walker writing anonymously And the first commentary by a guy named ANON was suggesting pornography, not politics.
One vote, one value
Well, unlike Hollywood movies, most prostitutes that I know don’t wear jewelry. In fact, outside of work they tend to look incredibly plain and live very spartan lifestyles. The ones that are university students tend to dress less provocatively than normal students.
As for the suspicions of their parents, I really have no idea. When I started working, my mother expected me to send her a certain amount of money every month. If she suspected that I took to drug dealing or pimping to support her, she never told me so.
Based on your attitudes though there certainly seems cause for suspicion. It seems you’re assuming that any country girl who becomes successful in the big city has to have slept her way to the top.
Speculation on succession
The article reveals an interesting tidbit: it notes that nude pictures of the Prince’s latest wife Srirasmi have become widely available. So widely available that the palace actually had to warn the media not to aid in its distribution.
Am I the only person who hasn’t seen these photos yet?
Chang Noi on ‘unity’ and the dictatorship
[…] An anonymous correspondent over at Asia Sentinel echoes a number of commentators here on New Mandala by probing the question: “What happens when the King of Thailand dies?” […]
One vote, one value
anon said: “I’ve never slept with a single prostitute (and I’ve slept with dozens of them) who was sold into prositution by her parents. In fact, I’ve never met a single prostitute who told her parents how she was making a living.”
Did the parents ever wonder where the daughter got all that money from that she sends back to them, and also uses to buy jewellry etc?
Are you saying they have no idea?
Do the parents believe that uneducated girls are highly paid as cleaners, factory workers and waitresses in the big city?
And their vote is worth the same as mine!!!!!!!
One vote, one value
21Jan: On the one hand you think the Thai public will vote out Thaksin (one day), and on the other you note there was not much outcry from the Thai public about the extra judicial killings.
Doesn’t that ring any bells for you?
I’ll spell it out for you:
– There WAS outrage at the extra judicial killings – but those people were in a minority.
– There were also people opposed to Thaksin, but they were also in a minority.
The coup leaders have stated their reasons for the coup, and any other reasons you, me or others may come up with are pure conjecture and speculation.
Here’s some speculation on my part:
Caretaker PM, Thaksin, had organised violence for the rally planned on the next day, and would in effect stage his own coup by coming back to restore order by imposing martial law.
The coup leaders got wind of that plan and decided to act first.
As for democracy, I don’t like it much for the self interest reasons you outlined, and also because other peoples votes are worth just as much as mine. Yes, I know I’m elitist.
I think the ultimate system would be something based on Plato’s philosopher kings theory but rather than one ruler I would prefer a committee of the virtuous, with some form of democracy amongst them.