Comments

  1. Historicus says:

    I have to say that I am amused by Somsak J’s comments concerning the splits and debates about the palace’s role in the coup. The king didn’t know, Prem acted alone. This line began the day after the coup and is laughable. Think about it. This king who is so, so great didn’t know what his own, selected, annointed president of the privy council was doing. Yeah, right. If I then say that this was the palace’s coup, the response will be that the palace itself is split. Yes, perhaps, maybe. But so what? They have family and institutional positions to protect. All of this disassembling just ignores the fact that a whole bunch of royalists who are part of the palace’s network and all are closely linked into the palace in Bangkok and Hua Hin acted to overthrow the government.

  2. anon says:

    This was posted on Slashdot, an extremely popular science/technology/IT news and commentary site.

    Read the comments yourself – hundreds of them were posted. Lots of people are now insulting the King just to spite the law.

  3. Bystander says:

    I wouldn’t know such a clip exist without the action of the government! now that this becomes famous. well, what’s to prevent people from saving the clip and forward it by e-mail?

  4. Sawarin says:

    Think I understand how much general readers of this site know about the history of Thai politics.

  5. Srithanonchai says:

    JFL:

    “The last King, his brother, was murdered. ”

    “And HM the King purposely and necessarily slowly, given the realities to which he was introduced before his majority, has worked for democracy in the face of “stability” over these past sixty years.”

    Just to make sure: You really mean this, right?

    I am not at all sure that the introduction of a “rationalized parliament” (as it it called, I think by referring to similar processes in France) had anything much to do with the monarchy or the King. Rather, it seems to have been a technocratic idea based on the perceived instability and ineffectiveness of weak coalition governments, which translated into an unruly parliament, that could not serve to “lead” the country. Just think of the Chartchai, Chuan, Banharn, and Chavalit governments, and you’ll get the idea.

    These people wanted to make Thailand’s government more stable and effective by enabling the prime minister not only to set policy without too much interference from parliament, but also from his own party, and his coalition partners. Their ideal probably was the Anand Panyarachun government after the coup of 1988.

    They got the strong executive they wanted–but then he became too strong, and not even based on the constitution…

  6. John Francis Lee says:

    All the Italics above are apparently the result of the blockquote tag. The sigle line I Italicized is “Such preparations make the sacrifice of democracy in pursuit of stability unnecessary and unfortunate.”

  7. John Francis Lee says:

    I guess that Republican (why do westerners find it necessary to hide behind psuedonyms?) and I have read the same article, although it’s hard for me to reconcile what I’ve read with his screed.

    In this article, I will argue that, alongside the personal popularity of the current monarch, the institutions of the monarchy have been greatly strengthened in the last four decades. Consequently, future monarchical succession should see considerable continuity and stability.
    Such preparations make the sacrifice of democracy in pursuit of stability unnecessary and unfortunate.

    My italics above. Ockey’s thesis is that the institutions of the monarchy are as strong as they need by, if the monarchy were to provide the stabilizing influence that Bhummipol Adulyadej has personally provided, not only to the nation but to the monarchic institution itself.

    Well that depends upon what you mean by stability.

    Many in Thailand have begun to worry about the future, when a new monarch will reign. They fear that without the wise use of informal royal influence, Thailand may not be able to resolve future crises without major conflict. There have thus been attempts to re-engineer the political system to increase stability, at the expense of democracy and participation. Such attempts were made by the drafters of the 1997 Constitution, which drastically limited the role of the parliament, creating an executive government led by a cabinet chosen through party lists, a cabinet that cannot be easily monitored or checked by the parliament.

    While the 1997 constitution is so often cited as the “most democratic” of Thai constitutions, Ockey points out its patently undemocratic cast. Which was ok with those who sought “stability”, ostensibly after the departure of our beloved Majesty the King, Bhumipol Adulyadej.

    Similarly, the Thai Rak Thai party has sought to monopolise the parliament, force a two party system – or even a one-and-ahalf party system – and stifle debate in the parliament. Ironically, the old system, despite its many flaws, was not unstable.

    And there you have the problem according to those who erred on the side of “stability” in the constitution of 1997 : a new political core wrapped itself up in the cloak of invulnerability that was to have been theirs. When Thaksin began to pick off the military, the last piece of the puzzle he did not control, they came out of the barracks.

    I think that Ockey gives HM the King too much credit for the construction of the massive “monarchic apparatus” which he documents. I think HM the King has been used by the old, now resurgent, political core for their purposes. That in fact his “power” is not in the monarchic apparatus at all, but exclusively of his own creation, that it inheres in his person, that he created it one year at a time over the course of sixty years.

    I think HM the King has no illusions over his power as King. The last King, his brother, was murdered. I distinctly remember him reminding Thaksin not long before the latter’s downfall that he, Thaksin, could die. That the King himself knew upon taking up the throne that he could himself die, and that he changed his behavior accordingly.

    I think it is a mistake to mix the monarchic apparatus with HM the King. I think they are distinct and in reality opposed to one another. The former is the creature, not of HM the King, but of the political core that seeks “stability” over democracy. And HM the King purposely and necessarily slowly, given the realities to which he was introduced before his majority, has worked for democracy in the face of “stability” over these past sixty years.

  8. jonfernquest says:

    Thailand’s university network mindlessly blocked all of Geocities that I (and many other teachers) share their teaching materials on. Chang Noi uses it to distribute old columns.

    IMHO blanket censorship of You-Tube probably also blocks educational lectures, etc.

    But I don’t believe there is a suggestion box.

  9. Amateur says:

    I don’t believe so. The Chinese government I would not consider as weak, but they are masters in internet censoring (http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/test/)
    Censorship is rather a sign that the ruling elite in Thailand (hence not just the junta – I want to emphasise this) have not been nurtured with democratic culture and freedom of expression.

  10. thai news says:

    Censorship is not the sign of a weak government?

  11. Sawarin says:

    I don’t agree with Ji’s approach of interpretating this coup. I doubt that the big h, Prem, junta, and their allies in medias have ever understood or thought of neo-liberal economics. It isn’t essentially the coup for the rich, but for (the cause of) power. Having said this, Ji’s unfailing commitment to pursue his vision of social justice is a quality rarely seen in academia (and he appeared to be less boring than many Thai academics I met 🙂 Well done to Mandala for putting this book in spotlight.

  12. Deborshi Purkayastha says:

    A road link from Guwahati-Shillong-Imphal-Moreh-Mandalay-Yangon-Chaing Mai-Bangkok-Phuket-Kuala Lampur-Singapore will not only give a big boost to tourism but also it will open new doors for trade & commerce. This region has some of the best tourist hot spots and can generate loads of revenue for all governments. I am personally from Shillong buut am working in Mumbai, India. At least personally, i have a dream of driving down the above route.

  13. […] A statement from organizers said more people were expected to join the 230-kilometer (145-mile) march from the capital, Phnom Penh, to Siem Reap province, home of the famed Angkor Wat temple complex an ancient symbol of the Cambodian … – more – […]

  14. Have a look at the discussion and attachments here.

  15. Maylee Thavat says:

    Sounds great, any idea where I can buy it in Bangkok?

  16. Srithanonchai says:

    The secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy, Suriyasai Katasila (of PAD fame), was also feeling some heat, because he had given an interview in Thai that contained passages critical of Prem. I read it yesterday in Matichon and thought that his remarks were quite strong. Today (April 5), The Nation provides a translation of these passages:

    The headline of the article is “Democracy advocate denies attacking Prem.”

    “Prem is a symbol of the aristocratic system. Actually, this system has never disappeared from Thailand even though we had the 1997 [People’s] Constitution. If we look at Prem’s roles we can see that clearly. But the size of the system has been narrowed to some extent as civic space grows and directly challenges the system. At the same time, the aristocracy has been challenged by a new capitalist group, which brought [former prime minister] Thaksin to power.

    “We might say that feudalism borrowed people’s power to topple Thaksin’s regime or the new capitalist group. But I think Prem isn’t the symbol of the existence of ‘half democracy’. It doesn’t mean that without Prem, our country will be fully democratic. But he’s a symbol of authoritarianism or the aristocracy, which still holds some space in Thai society.

    “Today, it’s practically clear that Prem exercised that power through the Council for Democratic Reform [now the Council for National Security]. He sat controlling things at Si Sao Thewes House [his house] and nobody would have thought he would dare to. At least, nobody would have thought that when the 1997 Constitution was drafted that a privy councillor would be involved or take part in this publicly,” Suriyasai told the magazine.

  17. Srithanonchai says:

    Now looking forward to Ockey’s response to Republican’s scathing criticism…

  18. Pig Latin says:

    Thailand blocks access to youtube over material that insults Bhumibol

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6528303.stm

  19. nganadeeleg says:

    I’m not a schloar or a scholar.

  20. nganadeeleg says:

    Republcian said: “You just have to ask yourself once again: why do Western scholars, who, unlike Thai scholars, are not bound by lese majeste, feel obliged to portray the monarchy in this way?”

    I’m not a schloar so I cannot answer for them, however I suspect many believe that the king is a source of stability, and things would be much worse without him.

    That’s what I believe – it will take more than your vitriol to convince me otherwise.