2. The King didn’t have to support the coup. The King actively supported the government in 2 out of the last 3 coups in Thai history. The coup leaders included his most trusted advisors. The advisors serve at his own pleasure. The King is at the 60 year height of his popularity, and can add or remove any advisor he wants.
4. The King continues to actively support the coup-leaders. He strongly praised them during his birthday speech. This wasn’t just politeness – the scathing criticisms in his previous speeches have become legend.
5. Thus, the King is impeding the development of Thai democracy. Q.E.D.
[…] Under the headline Burma: Complicated issue for Indian intellect , Mizzima is carrying a lengthy report on a Burma-related academic conference recently held at northeast India s Manipur University. Some extracts follow: … – more – […]
“Interior Ministry” is really needed. I couldn’t find anything online describing the extensive and shifting functionality of this important ministry. I use such entries extensively in my day job:
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I only have enough time for pre-modern Burmese history. I find a lot of your entries like the “Palang Dharma Party” entry very useful. Thanks.
It’s funny how you are fighting over the king or Thaksin, Thaksin or the king, but no one mentions strengthening the law so that a Thai person’s personal safety, his personal property etc, his human rights are not dependant on one person but a more permanent institution. ‘Course we all know that the military threw out the law.
C’mon, you can choose one — king, thaksin, law, army — but what happens when the king dies? Who ya gonna call?
Patiwat: My sincere apologies for the generalisation – I’m fighting so many battles that I try to cover as much as I can in the one post.
Yes, I concede the general thrust of your posts have been anti coup, pro democracy and I should not have lumped you in with Republican.
There are no perfect individuals or institutions, I just choose to believe that there is one individual who does want the best for his country and would be happy to see it progress and be fully democratic.
That individual wants to, & should, be above politics, but unfortunately he keeps getting dragged back into it due to the behaviour of others.
Some of those ‘others’ are his friends and some are not – but rather than walk away and leave them to sort it out, he does his best to stop the crisis escalating, again with the hope that the situation will improve.
Yes, the constitution is important, but I prefer that he chooses to stay and help, because knowing human nature, I doubt the ability of the others to put the country above their own personal desires.
Nganaridirek, stop putting words in my mouth! I HAVE NEVER urged people to think that the King is the root of all evil in Thailand. I urge you to stop your libel. You (and people like Vichai and Sondhi) have to stop this urge from saying that whoever doesn’t think like you is an enemy of the King. Don’t lump me up with people like Republican. I’m a Thai – you might as well put a sign on me saying “shoot me”!
Your white knight idea is silly and displays a lack of any understanding of Thai political history. Sure, we’ve had marginally benign royally-sponsored white knights like Prem. But we’ve also had horrible royally-sponsored white knights, like Tanin, the Three Dictators, and Sarit. There’s no gene for goodness, unfortunately; no individual should be trusted. The people must be eternally vigilant and the constitution must provide strong checks if they wish to safeguard their rights.
Educate us Republican, articulate please, why you believe HMK was impeding the development of Thai democracy.
Otherwise I will consider your statement as merely malicious, similar to Andrew Walker’s authoritative malicious lie that ‘Sufficiency Economy’ espoused by HMK was designed to impoverish the Thai poor.
I would like to comment on the police and army thing as well as a few others. For one, the Thai people need to build some backbone as they have done in the past and stand up to all these police and army and royals.
Few people would join in my efforts, but the brutality that the police and army used on the Akha people is enormous. The difference between the police and army is that the army folk are a little more disciplined as armies need to be and police are a little more willy nilly. At the end of the day if you end up dead, in jail, hidden in a hole in the ground in an army camp under complete control, both you and your village, there is little difference.
One very interesting thing is all the Royal Projects in Thailand. Particularly in hill tribe areas. The fact is, for all the fawned pretentions, the Royal Projects are massive rip offs of hill tribe land dressed up as helping them, backed by police, army, forestry. When people need the land for food, for their children, it becomes a very blatant form of genocide after a while. Rather than stepping in to stop abuses, which In never saw, the Royals contribute to the mayhem at the village level and give permits to the police and army and forestry to act on their orders with much leeway and self interpretation, in order to get the job done.
Hooh Yoh Akha in Ampur Mae Faluang, is just such one example of how 8500 rai of prime mountain farm land was taken away for the Queens Project to teach the hilltribe how to grow vegetables on land they don’t have any more. Very few westerners would stand up about this case.
The land belonged to five villages, was a complete valley, and took away the self determined lives of more than 1500 Akha, without free, informed and prior consent of the Akha, and is a violation of their human rights no matter who you are, under international law, which more often than not is a moral law.
If you crush people, you crush democracy and human rights.
Thaksin’s Machiavellian divisive bent will always search for ‘an enemy’. ‘An enemy’ was convenient diversion to the people while Thaksin continued on with his stealing, tax evasion, conflicted deals that enrich his family/cronies, and c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n.
The extrajudicial rampage during Y2003-05 was deliberately to pump up the people, keep them entertained and focused on the e-n-e-m-y that hero Thaksin disposed of with macho prowess on TV! Thaksin makes a repeat of same extrajudicial entertainment at the South . . those Muslim were e-n-e-m-y and Muslim thai prisoners repatriated by Malaysia were thus executed.
When things got hot for Thaksin, the urbans became the new e-n-e-m-y and Thaksin rabble roused his villagers-fans.
Now Thaksin had already ousted, Thaksin still creates an e-n-e-m-y, this time HMK, the institution of the monarchy.
Nicholas: Thanks for the post and all the detail. I think one could add that there are not just “kingmakers” but “king-benefitters” that we can assume have a horse in the race: People whose personal interests — job, bank account — will rise in one particular resolution.
In summary:
In one corner we have the scholars Handley, Republican, Patiwat, Andrew etc and a few Thai scholars urging the rumour to be spread that HMK is the root of all evil in Thailand.
Some go so far as to say he is actively manipulating the political situation, deliberately keeping people poor, causing the people to to have mass cynicism for elected officials and holding back true democracy – all this is done so the monarchy and royal patronage system can continue.
In the other corner we have the alternative view (me, the royalist):
We believe HMK allows and encourages democracy, but people have flaws including his advisors, elected politicians, voters, police & the military. Along comes a very slick operator, wealthy, popular, but ultimately divisive and dangerous. The country is in a stalemate and instead of changing his ways slightly, the slick operator plays more games until things reach a crisis point.
The white knight, urges all players to sort things out, and does not want to intervene.
The slick operator still wants it all, money & power, and is prepared to bend the rules to get it.
Some other flawed individuals take matters into their own hands to resolve what they think is a dangerous situation.
They seek the approval of the white knight, who also is a flawed individual, but has his heart in the right place, and wants stability for the country.
I concede all is not right under the Thai system. It is disgusting that people are in poverty while there are so many super rich (including Thaksin & HMK/Royals)
However, such problems seem to be the way of the world and this thing ‘democracy’ combined with capitalism does not seem able to solve all the problems even in more wealthy countries.
Do we blame HMK for all the starving people in the world, also the millions in poverty in USA, the plight of the aborigines in Australia?
Do you really believe that HMK is the root of all evil in Thailand, or is he another flawed individual trying to do his best in a very difficult situation?
There is no need for me to read the book as I am well aware of the main proposition – do you think Handley was the first one to come up with it?
I am not critical of the book – I am critical of the proposition.
By the way, I find it amusing that you call me a royalist.
So you are going to wave a magic want and give Thailand ‘democracy’.
And you are holding up Korea and Taiwan as your examples of the type of democracy you want for Thailand.
I’m glad to know there is no corruption, poverty, cronyism, and violence in Korea & Taiwan – HMK should abdicate immediately now that you have found the solution, and he will no longer be needed as a white knight.
(Might have to ease the Thai population into the longer working hours though.)
In my other post somewhere in pursuit of nganadee’s ‘white knight system’, I was suggesting that perhaps those two: PM Surayud/General Sonthi could eventually (depending on what transpires next 12 months) be such ‘white knights’ to join Grand White Knight Prem.
These ‘white knights’ could be given constitutional powers to intervene during dangerous national emergencies, such as recent one authored by Thaksin Shinawatra.
Maybe I’ll pass on nganadee’s new political system plan for Thailand, ‘white knights’, to Chamlong Srimuang for serious deliberation by the constitutional drafting body.
I can vaguely recall Churchill’s quote on democracy being terrible but the alternatives being worse, or something like that.
Being terrible is about right – we had witnessed how those monsters Ferdinand Marcos, Suharto and now Thaksin Shinawatra could easily manipulate d-e-m-o-c-r-a-cy to enrich themselves and damn the consequences. It is not just Asia . . Latin America, African states, and now East Europe have seen clones of Marcos or Shinawatra posing as democratic leaders and with similar devastations to their national coffers and people’s aspirations.
Thailand’s recent ‘white knight system’ so described by nganadee looks too much fairy-taleish to gain any international credibility. And the catch is, just how ‘white’ must the knight be? I am hopeful Thailand will be seeing two such knights – PM Surayud and General Sonthi. Does Prem qualify as a ‘white knight’? In my book he does . . more of the Grand Jedi if I may suggest.
So perhaps nganadee’s ‘white knight system’ could really work – – we elevate the Privy Council to some kind of ‘Thai Knights in not so round Table’ and the Thai Constitution will clearly give them ‘powers’ to intervene, for King and Country, during ‘states of national emergency’. I’ll leave it to the constitutional drafting body to define ‘national emergencies’.
Nganadeeleg refuses to read Handley because he is too lazy, Vichai because he doesn’t like it, and they both fulminate on how bad the book is! A perfect illustration of the total lack of reason in the royalists’ arguments. Go and read the book, come back to New Mandala and criticize it; then someone may take you two guys seriously.
With respect, we’ve had army officers as prime ministers telling us they are honouring the king for most of the last 50 years, and you have just graphically described the state of the country that that has brought us to. You truly believe a permanent military dictatorship would improve things? Isn’t what is needed a truly representative democratic government (not nganadeeleg’s “white knight” fantasy – a Western fantasy too; I thought he was all for “Thai-style”?), where, not in the short term, but in the longer term, this type of police corruption will gradually be weeded out, as it has been in other countries – (e.g. Taiwan, Korea, if you want some non-Western examples). The police, like the military, like the civil bureaucracy, like the universities, are “kharatchakan” and they share the same problem as all the kharatchakan – they are servants of the raja, not of the people. Which is why they are untouchable. These institutions all date from the era of the absolute monarchy and the mentality has hardly changed. What is needed is “khaprachachonkan” – servants of the people. Only then will they become responsible to the people through their elected representatives. But as we have just seen, the monarchy refuses to accept such a system of elected representatives, and it has continually used the military to prevent it establishing itself. Which is why inevitably the fundamentally political problem remains: the monarchy as the main obstacle to democracy in Thailand.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
Vichai, I’ll let Republican answer on his own, but here’s why I think the King is impeding the development of Thai democracy.
1. The King actively supported the coup. He was with Prem the moment tanks rolled out of Lopburi. The evening after the coup, the King endorsed the coup leaders.
2. The King didn’t have to support the coup. The King actively supported the government in 2 out of the last 3 coups in Thai history. The coup leaders included his most trusted advisors. The advisors serve at his own pleasure. The King is at the 60 year height of his popularity, and can add or remove any advisor he wants.
3. The coup-leaders have governed the country in an undemocratic manner. They cancelled a democratic election that was less than a month away, that was being actively contested by numerous parties. They abrogated the most democratic constitution in Thai history. They shut down hundreds of radio stations, something that had never been done before. They arrested peaceful protestors. They have soldiers sitting inside television control rooms, something that also hasn’t been done in recent history. They have put in place an undemocratic constitution. They have established an undemocratic process for drafting a future constitution.
4. The King continues to actively support the coup-leaders. He strongly praised them during his birthday speech. This wasn’t just politeness – the scathing criticisms in his previous speeches have become legend.
5. Thus, the King is impeding the development of Thai democracy. Q.E.D.
“A classic love triangle”
There was an error in that last link. It should be pointing to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Thailand.
“A classic love triangle”
It’s very hard to do an article on an institution in a way that does the subject justice.
Take a look at Constitution of Thailand, easily my most significant contribution on an institution. Lots of people like to take the snapshot approach on an institution and ignore the historical context (for example, ). For the constitutions of Thailand, it’s important to examine recent constitutions against all previous constitutions in order to appreciate the historical context. Likewise, to examine the current MOI without looking at it through its 70 year history would ignore a lot of issues and historical context.
Besides, you can’t write articles without references, and I don’t have any references on hand on the MOI.
NE Indian perspectives on Burma
[…] Under the headline Burma: Complicated issue for Indian intellect , Mizzima is carrying a lengthy report on a Burma-related academic conference recently held at northeast India s Manipur University. Some extracts follow: … – more – […]
“A classic love triangle”
Patiwat.
In the discussion page of the above WIkipedia page, I saw your extensive Wikipedia contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patiwat#Contributions
Do you take requests?
“Interior Ministry” is really needed. I couldn’t find anything online describing the extensive and shifting functionality of this important ministry. I use such entries extensively in my day job:
http://readbangkokpost.com/business/
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I only have enough time for pre-modern Burmese history. I find a lot of your entries like the “Palang Dharma Party” entry very useful. Thanks.
Against the grain?
It’s funny how you are fighting over the king or Thaksin, Thaksin or the king, but no one mentions strengthening the law so that a Thai person’s personal safety, his personal property etc, his human rights are not dependant on one person but a more permanent institution. ‘Course we all know that the military threw out the law.
C’mon, you can choose one — king, thaksin, law, army — but what happens when the king dies? Who ya gonna call?
New book by Thant Myint-U
Let me rephrase that, specifically it’s “Buddhism in historical context” that is ignored. Here’s another book just out, that examines just that:
Powerful Learning: Buddhist Literati and the Throne in Burma’s Last Dynasty (Michael Charney, SOAS)
http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=225773
The book provides a rigorous look at premodern political culture
(i.e. the themes of the first 12 chapters of Thant Myint-U)
Against the grain?
Nganadeeleg’s figured it out. Post #42 above is the best concise description of what’s going on that I’ve seen.
Against the grain?
Patiwat: My sincere apologies for the generalisation – I’m fighting so many battles that I try to cover as much as I can in the one post.
Yes, I concede the general thrust of your posts have been anti coup, pro democracy and I should not have lumped you in with Republican.
There are no perfect individuals or institutions, I just choose to believe that there is one individual who does want the best for his country and would be happy to see it progress and be fully democratic.
That individual wants to, & should, be above politics, but unfortunately he keeps getting dragged back into it due to the behaviour of others.
Some of those ‘others’ are his friends and some are not – but rather than walk away and leave them to sort it out, he does his best to stop the crisis escalating, again with the hope that the situation will improve.
Yes, the constitution is important, but I prefer that he chooses to stay and help, because knowing human nature, I doubt the ability of the others to put the country above their own personal desires.
Against the grain?
Nganaridirek, stop putting words in my mouth! I HAVE NEVER urged people to think that the King is the root of all evil in Thailand. I urge you to stop your libel. You (and people like Vichai and Sondhi) have to stop this urge from saying that whoever doesn’t think like you is an enemy of the King. Don’t lump me up with people like Republican. I’m a Thai – you might as well put a sign on me saying “shoot me”!
Your white knight idea is silly and displays a lack of any understanding of Thai political history. Sure, we’ve had marginally benign royally-sponsored white knights like Prem. But we’ve also had horrible royally-sponsored white knights, like Tanin, the Three Dictators, and Sarit. There’s no gene for goodness, unfortunately; no individual should be trusted. The people must be eternally vigilant and the constitution must provide strong checks if they wish to safeguard their rights.
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
Educate us Republican, articulate please, why you believe HMK was impeding the development of Thai democracy.
Otherwise I will consider your statement as merely malicious, similar to Andrew Walker’s authoritative malicious lie that ‘Sufficiency Economy’ espoused by HMK was designed to impoverish the Thai poor.
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
I would like to comment on the police and army thing as well as a few others. For one, the Thai people need to build some backbone as they have done in the past and stand up to all these police and army and royals.
Few people would join in my efforts, but the brutality that the police and army used on the Akha people is enormous. The difference between the police and army is that the army folk are a little more disciplined as armies need to be and police are a little more willy nilly. At the end of the day if you end up dead, in jail, hidden in a hole in the ground in an army camp under complete control, both you and your village, there is little difference.
One very interesting thing is all the Royal Projects in Thailand. Particularly in hill tribe areas. The fact is, for all the fawned pretentions, the Royal Projects are massive rip offs of hill tribe land dressed up as helping them, backed by police, army, forestry. When people need the land for food, for their children, it becomes a very blatant form of genocide after a while. Rather than stepping in to stop abuses, which In never saw, the Royals contribute to the mayhem at the village level and give permits to the police and army and forestry to act on their orders with much leeway and self interpretation, in order to get the job done.
Hooh Yoh Akha in Ampur Mae Faluang, is just such one example of how 8500 rai of prime mountain farm land was taken away for the Queens Project to teach the hilltribe how to grow vegetables on land they don’t have any more. Very few westerners would stand up about this case.
The land belonged to five villages, was a complete valley, and took away the self determined lives of more than 1500 Akha, without free, informed and prior consent of the Akha, and is a violation of their human rights no matter who you are, under international law, which more often than not is a moral law.
If you crush people, you crush democracy and human rights.
Against the grain?
Thaksin’s Machiavellian divisive bent will always search for ‘an enemy’. ‘An enemy’ was convenient diversion to the people while Thaksin continued on with his stealing, tax evasion, conflicted deals that enrich his family/cronies, and c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n.
The extrajudicial rampage during Y2003-05 was deliberately to pump up the people, keep them entertained and focused on the e-n-e-m-y that hero Thaksin disposed of with macho prowess on TV! Thaksin makes a repeat of same extrajudicial entertainment at the South . . those Muslim were e-n-e-m-y and Muslim thai prisoners repatriated by Malaysia were thus executed.
When things got hot for Thaksin, the urbans became the new e-n-e-m-y and Thaksin rabble roused his villagers-fans.
Now Thaksin had already ousted, Thaksin still creates an e-n-e-m-y, this time HMK, the institution of the monarchy.
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
Nicholas: Thanks for the post and all the detail. I think one could add that there are not just “kingmakers” but “king-benefitters” that we can assume have a horse in the race: People whose personal interests — job, bank account — will rise in one particular resolution.
Against the grain?
In summary:
In one corner we have the scholars Handley, Republican, Patiwat, Andrew etc and a few Thai scholars urging the rumour to be spread that HMK is the root of all evil in Thailand.
Some go so far as to say he is actively manipulating the political situation, deliberately keeping people poor, causing the people to to have mass cynicism for elected officials and holding back true democracy – all this is done so the monarchy and royal patronage system can continue.
In the other corner we have the alternative view (me, the royalist):
We believe HMK allows and encourages democracy, but people have flaws including his advisors, elected politicians, voters, police & the military. Along comes a very slick operator, wealthy, popular, but ultimately divisive and dangerous. The country is in a stalemate and instead of changing his ways slightly, the slick operator plays more games until things reach a crisis point.
The white knight, urges all players to sort things out, and does not want to intervene.
The slick operator still wants it all, money & power, and is prepared to bend the rules to get it.
Some other flawed individuals take matters into their own hands to resolve what they think is a dangerous situation.
They seek the approval of the white knight, who also is a flawed individual, but has his heart in the right place, and wants stability for the country.
I concede all is not right under the Thai system. It is disgusting that people are in poverty while there are so many super rich (including Thaksin & HMK/Royals)
However, such problems seem to be the way of the world and this thing ‘democracy’ combined with capitalism does not seem able to solve all the problems even in more wealthy countries.
Do we blame HMK for all the starving people in the world, also the millions in poverty in USA, the plight of the aborigines in Australia?
Do you really believe that HMK is the root of all evil in Thailand, or is he another flawed individual trying to do his best in a very difficult situation?
Against the grain?
There is no need for me to read the book as I am well aware of the main proposition – do you think Handley was the first one to come up with it?
I am not critical of the book – I am critical of the proposition.
By the way, I find it amusing that you call me a royalist.
So you are going to wave a magic want and give Thailand ‘democracy’.
And you are holding up Korea and Taiwan as your examples of the type of democracy you want for Thailand.
I’m glad to know there is no corruption, poverty, cronyism, and violence in Korea & Taiwan – HMK should abdicate immediately now that you have found the solution, and he will no longer be needed as a white knight.
(Might have to ease the Thai population into the longer working hours though.)
Surayud did not support coup!
Patiwat you are entitled to withhold belief.
In my other post somewhere in pursuit of nganadee’s ‘white knight system’, I was suggesting that perhaps those two: PM Surayud/General Sonthi could eventually (depending on what transpires next 12 months) be such ‘white knights’ to join Grand White Knight Prem.
These ‘white knights’ could be given constitutional powers to intervene during dangerous national emergencies, such as recent one authored by Thaksin Shinawatra.
Maybe I’ll pass on nganadee’s new political system plan for Thailand, ‘white knights’, to Chamlong Srimuang for serious deliberation by the constitutional drafting body.
Against the grain?
I can vaguely recall Churchill’s quote on democracy being terrible but the alternatives being worse, or something like that.
Being terrible is about right – we had witnessed how those monsters Ferdinand Marcos, Suharto and now Thaksin Shinawatra could easily manipulate d-e-m-o-c-r-a-cy to enrich themselves and damn the consequences. It is not just Asia . . Latin America, African states, and now East Europe have seen clones of Marcos or Shinawatra posing as democratic leaders and with similar devastations to their national coffers and people’s aspirations.
Thailand’s recent ‘white knight system’ so described by nganadee looks too much fairy-taleish to gain any international credibility. And the catch is, just how ‘white’ must the knight be? I am hopeful Thailand will be seeing two such knights – PM Surayud and General Sonthi. Does Prem qualify as a ‘white knight’? In my book he does . . more of the Grand Jedi if I may suggest.
So perhaps nganadee’s ‘white knight system’ could really work – – we elevate the Privy Council to some kind of ‘Thai Knights in not so round Table’ and the Thai Constitution will clearly give them ‘powers’ to intervene, for King and Country, during ‘states of national emergency’. I’ll leave it to the constitutional drafting body to define ‘national emergencies’.
Against the grain?
Nganadeeleg refuses to read Handley because he is too lazy, Vichai because he doesn’t like it, and they both fulminate on how bad the book is! A perfect illustration of the total lack of reason in the royalists’ arguments. Go and read the book, come back to New Mandala and criticize it; then someone may take you two guys seriously.
Siam Rumoured: the Thongchai lecture in London
With respect, we’ve had army officers as prime ministers telling us they are honouring the king for most of the last 50 years, and you have just graphically described the state of the country that that has brought us to. You truly believe a permanent military dictatorship would improve things? Isn’t what is needed a truly representative democratic government (not nganadeeleg’s “white knight” fantasy – a Western fantasy too; I thought he was all for “Thai-style”?), where, not in the short term, but in the longer term, this type of police corruption will gradually be weeded out, as it has been in other countries – (e.g. Taiwan, Korea, if you want some non-Western examples). The police, like the military, like the civil bureaucracy, like the universities, are “kharatchakan” and they share the same problem as all the kharatchakan – they are servants of the raja, not of the people. Which is why they are untouchable. These institutions all date from the era of the absolute monarchy and the mentality has hardly changed. What is needed is “khaprachachonkan” – servants of the people. Only then will they become responsible to the people through their elected representatives. But as we have just seen, the monarchy refuses to accept such a system of elected representatives, and it has continually used the military to prevent it establishing itself. Which is why inevitably the fundamentally political problem remains: the monarchy as the main obstacle to democracy in Thailand.