Andrew, I have never, ever heard a critical comment made in public about the initiator of the “royal projects” (“р╣Вр╕Др╕гр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕нр╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕бр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Фр╕│р╕гр╕┤”).
What public criticism one does hear about in relation to the royal projects is corruption among the officials and especially “politicians” associated with the project, or problems in the implementation, etc. That is, the idea is that the projects are brilliant in conception (р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Фр╕│р╕гр╕┤) but the problem is in the implementation.
So the royal projects form an intrinsic part of royalist propaganda that the Thai royal family are geniuses in everything they do, the problem is the corrupt politicians (ie. representatives of the people) and officials. Following this logic you need to enhance “royal power” because that is the thing that will really develop the country.
What if a project is actually bad in conception? Of course no-one would dare publicly criticize a project on those grounds.
There is a larger problem to what you are saying. If you gave me hundreds of millions of baht, a 24/7 propaganda apparatus, no effective government scrutiny of the project budget, a law that prevented anyone criticizing me, chances are that I might carry out a project or two that might benefit someone.
What you are basically saying is, the process doesn’t matter. I can’t agree with that.
Your points about the importance of freedom of speech are well made Patrick, but I think you underestimate the extent to which there is wide-ranging, and often critical, discussion of Royal Project activities. I have spent a lot of time talking with farmers about Royal Project activities (and observing them first hand). Lots of weaknesses, lots of ideology, lots of problems, but also some very significant benefits. Some hard-line government agencies would be very happy indeed if the Royal Project was not part of the local scene. I would love to be advancing knowledge in a fully free and democratic system but, in the interim, I am not going to abandon the effort to improve understanding of social, political and economic dynamics on the basis of what is, of course, imperfect and incomplete information.
Rep. to Colum Graham – my comment re. “stagnant backwaters” of course referred not to the esteemed contributors to debate at NM but to most of the scholarship and commentary on the Thai monarchy.
Rep. to Andrew re. “the royal privilege” – the point is that there is no way of assessing the value of ANY of the royal projects because criticism of the projects is effectively in violation of the lese majeste law.
One can only fairly judge the success or failure of a project if one has the freedom to criticise it and the person who initiated it. You don’t have that freedom in Thailand.
You point to “clear cases … of the beneficial effect of the Royal Project Foundation” – but how can it be a “clear case” when criticism of those projects is forbidden? The criteria of declaring something to be a “clear case” has got to be that one has the choice of saying, “no, it’s not clear that this royal project has had any beneficial effect on people. In fact, it has had a disastrous effect.” But in Thailand people don’t have that choice.
We do not accept in Australia or the Western world more generally a situation where development projects that have a major impact on the lives of people are protected from criticism. Why should Western scholars argue that Thai people should have to put up with such a situation?
Your point was about the royal projects, but my argument applies to the monarchy in general. If scholars want to propose how something should be reformed or changed then there needs to be complete freedom to critically study it and state one’s findings publicly. That is a basic principle of scientific investigation and for academic endeavour more generally. That’s how knowledge advances and human society improves.
This is precisely why the Thai monarchy is such a backward, dysfunctional institution today, because it is protected from the transforming and improving effects of critical thought.
I don’t see why an institution as central to the Thai state as the monarchy should be immune from the same critical analysis that scholars apply to everything else.
Why is it a “bit harsh” to apply the same standards to the Thai monarchy as to other subjects of scholarly study?
Malaysian Chinese in general regards the present governmnent as an UMNO government, the so-called Chinese representation in it is merely an empty vessel and serve no purpose.
Hence, even if BN wins without non-Malay representation, it won’t alter what they are already facing in the economy, social and personal environment.
BN needs to demonstrate it is a Malaysian centric party, not by slogans but by actions. For a start, outline actions how our dear Ringgit can one day be at par with SGD again – that series of actions that follow will ensure most of society’s ills would be mitigated.
Definitely. Which is why the article is interesting, and not hopeless or awful as Jory has claimed – it at least makes an attempt to gauge the shape of how alternative views may be being generated – and pushes the agenda of institutional reform, which could hardly be some sort of apology for censorship. I agree with WLH that simply attacking the Anonymous article for not complying with the REPEAL 112, LIST REASONS (which are I agree with) dogma that has, as Jory comments, become tiresome is, for me, missing what Anonymous has brought to the table.
But Singapore’s bedrooms are getting rather crowded, with observers including PM Lee Hsien Loong, and the 17,000 employees of Perfetti Van Melle corporation, the makers of “Mentos” !
Whilt a situation remains where alternative views can get a Thai a lengthy jail term I am not sure we can properly judge what the shape of those views might actually be.
[…] promises. As Andrew Walker, professor at the Australian National University, wrote in a 2006 New Mandala post, this interpretation of sufficiency economy really means sufficiency […]
[…] lives in exile in Britain after being accused of lèse majesté; Chiranuch is embroiled in an interminable trial; lèse majesté charges have also been lodged against Somsak and Thanapol; and a complaint has […]
[…] the original post: Political change in Malaysia and uncertainty in the future: sobering … Posted in general Tags: a-braces-itself, commanders, contenders-were, for-the, gerindra, […]
Surely any despotic, dictatorial, unelected and unaccountable regime could claim “we done good” to a degree?
I would also wonder if any liberal, democratic and apparently accountable governments have not claimed the same?
If a proper democratic system was in place would there be any need for such patronage?
Patronage is an unavoidable social construct. How the Thais have an overarching patron doesn’t mean their system is less “proper”. Do you mean, by chance, that what has occurred in the UK has been “proper”, a proper model where claims of “we done good” pass with greater legitimacy for you than claims from Thailand? Should this proper model should be replicated everywhere? Seems rather patron-like to me!
While I agree that 112 must be repealed, I disagree with the angle you attack from here because it allows for relativist arguments which are not helpful to its repeal. What would be helpful is considering the views of Thais more, whose opinions are the ones which count, after all.
Patrick Jory
Only on occasion do I see footnotes on this blog, which lends those posts that use them a tinge of credibility. However, I don’t think New Mandala reflects your so-called stagnant academic Thai Studies backwater, but rather, a variety of opinions and anecdotes that make for a much more accessible read. I would be interested to read from you more on the role of the Monarchy. Don’t you think the reaction provoked from you is a good thing? Furthers the conversation. Thai Studies would be more a backwater without reactions such as yours!
It’s all well and good to dogpile on the token royalist in the room for daring to insist the institution is necessary, but realistically the best hope for effective reform is having a majority of Thais thinking among the lines of this article. Specifically, acknowledging that 1) the monarchy lacks resonance among the young generation, 2) its PR is largely based on hollow glorification, 3) the development projects of the king have lacked transparency, critical thinking, and practical relevance in improving anything permanently. A nation of such-minded people, arguing only over whether their institution is needed at all, would be a legitimate constitutional monarchy. To attack Anonymous for failing the shibboleth of condemning LM laws and entertaining republicanism reeks of dogma.
Thanks to Anonymous for writing this, and NM for posting it.
Surely any despotic, dictatorial, unelected and unaccountable regime could claim “we done good” to a degree? If a proper democratic system was in place would there be any need for such patronage?
Patrick is also absolutely right in that the UK monarchy has achieved much of its longevity by consensus and knowing, full well, it’s position in the order of things. The slamming of the House of Commons’ door in the face of the British monarch’s representative, Black Rod, during the state opening of parliament has enormous political and symbolic value. The last time the UK monarch attempted to directly intervene in the Commons he lost his head and Civil War followed. Also the British monarchy are a compromising fudge in many ways – older UK aristocratic families call them The Germans.
I think you’re being a bit harsh here Patrick. I strongly agree with you on the fundamental importance of free speech. But it is quite reasonable to argue, I think, that “the royal privilege can serve to help get things done” in contexts of profound inequality. There are clear cases, for example, of the beneficial effect of the Royal Project Foundation in enhancing tenure security, promoting livelihood development and mitigating the strict conservationism of some other government agencies in the uplands of northern Thailand. Of course, the costs and benefits of RPF activities (and their broader ideological effect etc) need much more concerted scrutiny than they receive, as the article argues. AW
“As all men are in fact not created equal, the royal privilege can serve to help get things done…”
Only in the stagnant backwaters of Thai scholarship could people get away with writing things like this on an academic blog.
The point has been made so many times it’s tiresome to have to repeat it: if you are going to discuss reforming the monarchy then the first step has to be to give people the freedom to openly discuss and criticize the Thai monarchy. That means that the sine qua non of reforming the monarchy is the abolition of the lese majeste law.
The king doesn’t “deserve praise” unless we can openly discuss and debate and criticize the things that he has or has not done.
The same goes for the monarchy’s role in development. Has it been a success or failure? How can anyone know when criticism of the monarchy’s record in development could land you with a 15 year jail sentence?
So if you want to discuss what to do with the monarchy you first have to let EVERYONE discuss it openly.
That’s the difference between the Thai and the British monarchies. The British monarchy has been subject to public scrutiny and criticism for decades.
A better comparison would be with the North Korean or Saudi leadership, which have penalties of a similar order for criticism of the head of the regime.
“We Thais are lucky that there are Americans, Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans in this world, so that Thais can turn to them when problems come up in Thailand.”
Not only when there are problems. Thais are lucky to rely on people in these countries (plus Europe) to provide them with all the nice things that a comfortable middle-class life these days take for granted, as well as with the jobs Thai culture could not create. Yet, it is debatable, whether–in times of globalization–it is really negative when a country is so entirely dependent on foreign input as is Thailand. Why not simply use what others have invented, and be content being part of global socio-economic structures? Still, it would also be nice if the Thais could come up with a few technologies that could be marketed worldwide (not just Thai rice and tom yam gung).
“Who will rid me of this meddlesome ajarn?” That’s what this buffoon, this royalist tool, is saying. Whose sentiments is he obediently mouthing? How far up the chain do they go?
In Thailand assassination is a perfectly acceptable political tool to the “aristocrats”. Killing their perceived enemies is like killing fish to feed the monks.
Junya Lek Yimprasert went to considerable lengths to document at least 10,691 assassinations of Thais undertaken by the alien Bangkok elite over the course of the last sixty-five years. Her list is surely still incomplete.
Is the stage now being set for more “blood sacrifice”?
The curtains need to be drawn back and the light of day allowed to flood in to forestall more murder by the “aristocrats”.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Developing the monarchy
Andrew, I have never, ever heard a critical comment made in public about the initiator of the “royal projects” (“р╣Вр╕Др╕гр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕нр╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕бр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Фр╕│р╕гр╕┤”).
What public criticism one does hear about in relation to the royal projects is corruption among the officials and especially “politicians” associated with the project, or problems in the implementation, etc. That is, the idea is that the projects are brilliant in conception (р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Фр╕│р╕гр╕┤) but the problem is in the implementation.
So the royal projects form an intrinsic part of royalist propaganda that the Thai royal family are geniuses in everything they do, the problem is the corrupt politicians (ie. representatives of the people) and officials. Following this logic you need to enhance “royal power” because that is the thing that will really develop the country.
What if a project is actually bad in conception? Of course no-one would dare publicly criticize a project on those grounds.
There is a larger problem to what you are saying. If you gave me hundreds of millions of baht, a 24/7 propaganda apparatus, no effective government scrutiny of the project budget, a law that prevented anyone criticizing me, chances are that I might carry out a project or two that might benefit someone.
What you are basically saying is, the process doesn’t matter. I can’t agree with that.
Developing the monarchy
Your points about the importance of freedom of speech are well made Patrick, but I think you underestimate the extent to which there is wide-ranging, and often critical, discussion of Royal Project activities. I have spent a lot of time talking with farmers about Royal Project activities (and observing them first hand). Lots of weaknesses, lots of ideology, lots of problems, but also some very significant benefits. Some hard-line government agencies would be very happy indeed if the Royal Project was not part of the local scene. I would love to be advancing knowledge in a fully free and democratic system but, in the interim, I am not going to abandon the effort to improve understanding of social, political and economic dynamics on the basis of what is, of course, imperfect and incomplete information.
Developing the monarchy
Rep. to Colum Graham – my comment re. “stagnant backwaters” of course referred not to the esteemed contributors to debate at NM but to most of the scholarship and commentary on the Thai monarchy.
Developing the monarchy
Rep. to Andrew re. “the royal privilege” – the point is that there is no way of assessing the value of ANY of the royal projects because criticism of the projects is effectively in violation of the lese majeste law.
One can only fairly judge the success or failure of a project if one has the freedom to criticise it and the person who initiated it. You don’t have that freedom in Thailand.
You point to “clear cases … of the beneficial effect of the Royal Project Foundation” – but how can it be a “clear case” when criticism of those projects is forbidden? The criteria of declaring something to be a “clear case” has got to be that one has the choice of saying, “no, it’s not clear that this royal project has had any beneficial effect on people. In fact, it has had a disastrous effect.” But in Thailand people don’t have that choice.
We do not accept in Australia or the Western world more generally a situation where development projects that have a major impact on the lives of people are protected from criticism. Why should Western scholars argue that Thai people should have to put up with such a situation?
Your point was about the royal projects, but my argument applies to the monarchy in general. If scholars want to propose how something should be reformed or changed then there needs to be complete freedom to critically study it and state one’s findings publicly. That is a basic principle of scientific investigation and for academic endeavour more generally. That’s how knowledge advances and human society improves.
This is precisely why the Thai monarchy is such a backward, dysfunctional institution today, because it is protected from the transforming and improving effects of critical thought.
I don’t see why an institution as central to the Thai state as the monarchy should be immune from the same critical analysis that scholars apply to everything else.
Why is it a “bit harsh” to apply the same standards to the Thai monarchy as to other subjects of scholarly study?
Political change in Malaysia and uncertainty in the future: sobering lessons from Indonesia
i love malaysia
Political change in Malaysia and uncertainty in the future: sobering lessons from Indonesia
Malaysian Chinese in general regards the present governmnent as an UMNO government, the so-called Chinese representation in it is merely an empty vessel and serve no purpose.
Hence, even if BN wins without non-Malay representation, it won’t alter what they are already facing in the economy, social and personal environment.
BN needs to demonstrate it is a Malaysian centric party, not by slogans but by actions. For a start, outline actions how our dear Ringgit can one day be at par with SGD again – that series of actions that follow will ensure most of society’s ills would be mitigated.
Developing the monarchy
Andrew Spooner
Definitely. Which is why the article is interesting, and not hopeless or awful as Jory has claimed – it at least makes an attempt to gauge the shape of how alternative views may be being generated – and pushes the agenda of institutional reform, which could hardly be some sort of apology for censorship. I agree with WLH that simply attacking the Anonymous article for not complying with the REPEAL 112, LIST REASONS (which are I agree with) dogma that has, as Jory comments, become tiresome is, for me, missing what Anonymous has brought to the table.
Is Anonymous a Thai Anonymous? Does it matter?
Nationalism, Singapore style
I, Not Stupid is one of my favourite movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Not_Stupid
It never ceases to amaze me, how obedient Singaporeans are to their parents.
Nationalism, Singapore style
As former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau famously declared, “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”
http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/politics/rights-freedoms/trudeaus-omnibus-bill-challenging-canadian-taboos/theres-no-place-for-the-state-in-the-bedrooms-of-the-nation.html
But Singapore’s bedrooms are getting rather crowded, with observers including PM Lee Hsien Loong, and the 17,000 employees of Perfetti Van Melle corporation, the makers of “Mentos” !
Developing the monarchy
Colum
Whilt a situation remains where alternative views can get a Thai a lengthy jail term I am not sure we can properly judge what the shape of those views might actually be.
Sufficiency democracy
[…] promises. As Andrew Walker, professor at the Australian National University, wrote in a 2006 New Mandala post, this interpretation of sufficiency economy really means sufficiency […]
Royal complaint and Prachatai
[…] lives in exile in Britain after being accused of lèse majesté; Chiranuch is embroiled in an interminable trial; lèse majesté charges have also been lodged against Somsak and Thanapol; and a complaint has […]
Political change in Malaysia and uncertainty in the future: sobering lessons from Indonesia
[…] the original post: Political change in Malaysia and uncertainty in the future: sobering … Posted in general Tags: a-braces-itself, commanders, contenders-were, for-the, gerindra, […]
Developing the monarchy
Andrew Spooner,
Surely any despotic, dictatorial, unelected and unaccountable regime could claim “we done good” to a degree?
I would also wonder if any liberal, democratic and apparently accountable governments have not claimed the same?
If a proper democratic system was in place would there be any need for such patronage?
Patronage is an unavoidable social construct. How the Thais have an overarching patron doesn’t mean their system is less “proper”. Do you mean, by chance, that what has occurred in the UK has been “proper”, a proper model where claims of “we done good” pass with greater legitimacy for you than claims from Thailand? Should this proper model should be replicated everywhere? Seems rather patron-like to me!
While I agree that 112 must be repealed, I disagree with the angle you attack from here because it allows for relativist arguments which are not helpful to its repeal. What would be helpful is considering the views of Thais more, whose opinions are the ones which count, after all.
Patrick Jory
Only on occasion do I see footnotes on this blog, which lends those posts that use them a tinge of credibility. However, I don’t think New Mandala reflects your so-called stagnant academic Thai Studies backwater, but rather, a variety of opinions and anecdotes that make for a much more accessible read. I would be interested to read from you more on the role of the Monarchy. Don’t you think the reaction provoked from you is a good thing? Furthers the conversation. Thai Studies would be more a backwater without reactions such as yours!
Developing the monarchy
It’s all well and good to dogpile on the token royalist in the room for daring to insist the institution is necessary, but realistically the best hope for effective reform is having a majority of Thais thinking among the lines of this article. Specifically, acknowledging that 1) the monarchy lacks resonance among the young generation, 2) its PR is largely based on hollow glorification, 3) the development projects of the king have lacked transparency, critical thinking, and practical relevance in improving anything permanently. A nation of such-minded people, arguing only over whether their institution is needed at all, would be a legitimate constitutional monarchy. To attack Anonymous for failing the shibboleth of condemning LM laws and entertaining republicanism reeks of dogma.
Thanks to Anonymous for writing this, and NM for posting it.
Developing the monarchy
Andrew Walker
Surely any despotic, dictatorial, unelected and unaccountable regime could claim “we done good” to a degree? If a proper democratic system was in place would there be any need for such patronage?
Patrick is also absolutely right in that the UK monarchy has achieved much of its longevity by consensus and knowing, full well, it’s position in the order of things. The slamming of the House of Commons’ door in the face of the British monarch’s representative, Black Rod, during the state opening of parliament has enormous political and symbolic value. The last time the UK monarch attempted to directly intervene in the Commons he lost his head and Civil War followed. Also the British monarchy are a compromising fudge in many ways – older UK aristocratic families call them The Germans.
Developing the monarchy
I think you’re being a bit harsh here Patrick. I strongly agree with you on the fundamental importance of free speech. But it is quite reasonable to argue, I think, that “the royal privilege can serve to help get things done” in contexts of profound inequality. There are clear cases, for example, of the beneficial effect of the Royal Project Foundation in enhancing tenure security, promoting livelihood development and mitigating the strict conservationism of some other government agencies in the uplands of northern Thailand. Of course, the costs and benefits of RPF activities (and their broader ideological effect etc) need much more concerted scrutiny than they receive, as the article argues. AW
Developing the monarchy
This piece really is hopeless, awful.
“As all men are in fact not created equal, the royal privilege can serve to help get things done…”
Only in the stagnant backwaters of Thai scholarship could people get away with writing things like this on an academic blog.
The point has been made so many times it’s tiresome to have to repeat it: if you are going to discuss reforming the monarchy then the first step has to be to give people the freedom to openly discuss and criticize the Thai monarchy. That means that the sine qua non of reforming the monarchy is the abolition of the lese majeste law.
The king doesn’t “deserve praise” unless we can openly discuss and debate and criticize the things that he has or has not done.
The same goes for the monarchy’s role in development. Has it been a success or failure? How can anyone know when criticism of the monarchy’s record in development could land you with a 15 year jail sentence?
So if you want to discuss what to do with the monarchy you first have to let EVERYONE discuss it openly.
That’s the difference between the Thai and the British monarchies. The British monarchy has been subject to public scrutiny and criticism for decades.
A better comparison would be with the North Korean or Saudi leadership, which have penalties of a similar order for criticism of the head of the regime.
Review of Land and Loyalty
#8
“We Thais are lucky that there are Americans, Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans in this world, so that Thais can turn to them when problems come up in Thailand.”
Not only when there are problems. Thais are lucky to rely on people in these countries (plus Europe) to provide them with all the nice things that a comfortable middle-class life these days take for granted, as well as with the jobs Thai culture could not create. Yet, it is debatable, whether–in times of globalization–it is really negative when a country is so entirely dependent on foreign input as is Thailand. Why not simply use what others have invented, and be content being part of global socio-economic structures? Still, it would also be nice if the Thais could come up with a few technologies that could be marketed worldwide (not just Thai rice and tom yam gung).
Threatening violence and the end of logic
“Who will rid me of this meddlesome ajarn?” That’s what this buffoon, this royalist tool, is saying. Whose sentiments is he obediently mouthing? How far up the chain do they go?
In Thailand assassination is a perfectly acceptable political tool to the “aristocrats”. Killing their perceived enemies is like killing fish to feed the monks.
Junya Lek Yimprasert went to considerable lengths to document at least 10,691 assassinations of Thais undertaken by the alien Bangkok elite over the course of the last sixty-five years. Her list is surely still incomplete.
Is the stage now being set for more “blood sacrifice”?
The curtains need to be drawn back and the light of day allowed to flood in to forestall more murder by the “aristocrats”.