Jesse, I think there may be some other important variables that could determine how rich or developed a country is, other than the presence (or not) of lese majeste laws! As for Libya, it may, in very general terms, have some wider teachings for us on the dangers of not allowing a political system (or even “civil society”) to develop whilst the country is (inevitably) changing/developing in other respects.
As for tourists, it is not likely (or relevant) that they will be experts on the political and legal systems of the country that they visit for their two week break.
Finally, when you state “the transitions had been smooth in most parts and less in some”, were you intending to hedge your bets??
looking at your C.V., Ashley, and looking at David Scott Mathieson’s… I’m surprised that you don’t have more respect for him than you do. Mathieson isn’t a partisan hack, and he isn’t a short-term intern at an NGO: he has produced substantive, detailed historical research. Both of you are unconventional, self-made scholars, who have published non-fiction dealing with the political history of Burma, and the conditions of slow-burning civil war in the region. If you can’t respect his contribution to the field, what can you respect? I’ve laid hands on a copy of Mathieson’s study of para-militarism in Thailand (not his other books)… I don’t think that anyone who has even flipped through this guy’s published work would venture comments such as those from Martino (above). I’m willing to assume that there are some employees of H.R.W. who approximate the Chiang-Mai-permanent-vacation-stereotype alluded to above –but Mathieson isn’t one of them.
I do not see anything “ugly” in the Asia Times article “criticising the eminent Burma/Myanmar scholar David Steinberg”; if he is eminent, that alone is a good reason to criticize him (it certainly doesn’t elevate him above criticism!). The article doesn’t provide citations, but it does quote specific passages, and offers direct criticism of Steinberg’s actual hypothesis (it isn’t a hatchet job, and it doesn’t fail to demonstrate that the reviewer carefully read and considered the source before denouncing it); as such, I can only behold it as a positive contribution to the field.
It isn’t an attack on academic freedom, nor on freedom of speech in any wise: you had the freedom to publish your work, and they had the freedom to publish a critique of your work. Employees of Human Rights Watch are not in a position to censor anyone, and are themselves frequent victims of censorship. However, as I say, Mathieson is hardly a typical employee of HRW; his publication record makes him exceptional, and distinguishes him as a research.
The review in The Nation is very poorly written, but that, also, does not entail censorship (nor “suppression”, as you say). Whenever I see someone denounced for being a “self-proclaimed expert”, I get the sense that I’m reading a hatchet job –and, even so, a hatchet job written against a tight deadline. It’s always poor form to criticize someone for their sense of entitlement to write a book, rather than criticizing the content of the book itself (and the article in The Nation is guilty of this); however, you’re quite wrong to say that either of these reviews is an attempt to “suppress” your work.
As Francis Bacon said it, the province of knowledge is ever a “Democratie”. You’re entitled to your opinion, and they’re entitled to denounce you for it. The nature of opinion is that we entitle ourselves.
Re It’s Martino, I suspect Ashley South is taking the time to write about this because some of the people who are doing the attacking have influence in policy circles. I’ve kept abreast of the Burma debate in DC for years and have been shocked by what I’ve heard. If you listen to some of the prodemocracy lobbyists in DC, they all seem to believe that academics like Steinberg are actually working on behalf of the regime. So, it’s not quite that these people are “doing nothing,” but rather that they’re actually having a negative influence on policy by suppressing and denigrating other views.
Why dont you compare Thailand to some civilized country like, say, Japan (this one is eastern for sure) or UK (got to put it there), now, how many years do you think we are behind those countries?
Furthermore, of cause the tourist could careless about the law since no Thai authority will do anything to them because they will most likely stay for a week and go. Unlike “Thais” who got “stuck” here, or expat who has to live for good. Remember the Swiss man?
After reading (and then rereading) both Ashley South’s newest report and the op-ed piece by Naw Htoo Paw in the Nation, the first question that came to mind was why Naw Htoo Paw slipped into an vitriolic ad hominem argument so early on.
That is disappointing. Whether you agree with South’s recommendations on pg5 of the report or not, it would have been nicer to have read a polemic argument against what South has just published–something more point by point–and not against the man.
Pavin states that the 1924 law originated because of controversies in the chulalongkorn era. But the succession to Vajiravudh (Rama VI) was completely smooth and uncontested. The law was more the result of uncertainties surrounding Vajiravudh’s successor due to the lack of a direct heir at the time.
Given the 1924 law and various constitutional amendments detailed by others above, the next succession to Vajiralongkorn should be smooth.
Will the succession be smooth ? Not a chance. Since Sarit the palace and military have supported each other in a symbiotic relationship. The Palace deliver Barami to gain the support of the masses whilst the military provide force to support the Palace. It appears that the CP will be unable to keep his end of the bargain. This will force a change in the balances of power. And as Somsak #4 points out who ever wins the struggle can rewrite the rules to suit.
First of all, thank you for following up and detailing the case of this woman who has been condemned to 15 years jail for thought crime. And thank you for forensically analysing the flaws in the justice system that brought this result about.
And in answer to the rhetorical question posed in your headline. No, no, no
I confess to knowing very little about what’s happening in Burma. But it is quite clear that both articles cited in Ashley South’s post criticized him. Denigrated if you like.
They did not threaten to jail him or kill him for his views.
Ah, Jesse, of course, no one in Thailand cares about such mundane and inconsequential issues as the upcoming succession or the draconian enforcement of the Lese Majeste and Computer Crimes laws.
The food’s great, the guest houses are cheap, plenty of nice beaches to lie on, warm seas to frolic in and cute chicks by the tens of thousands to hustle and barfine.
As you point out, Thailand’s history for the last 700 years has been smooth and problem-free.
Those attacking on Mr. South do not represent Myanmar nor work for democracy. They are working for their own interest. The majority of the educated people, especially Barman knows these groups have been trying to downgrade the image of the country buy spreading spreading false news and made up stories.
They complained to UN and other world bodies as they want to get refugee status in developed countries.
The international communities neglected the fact that stories of rape, murders and torturing people are made up by these people and organizations. Most of these stories are fake.
Quit your whining. You should be thrilled that your work was attacked. You got noticed after all. It’s called vigorous debate and this is part of your job description as a scholar/journalist/activist.
The Steinberg attack doesn’t seem to be trying to supress his views. I just see a jackass from HRW reading apples to be oranges, and then making an ad-hominem attack against a fruit that’s far more edifying than he is. Probably from an iPad. Don’t spill your Chiang Mai chai latte on it spluttering about doing nothing while doing nothing, Mathieson. Why worry about these people? They just reveal themselves to be myopic. Why are you giving them credit?
I wouldn’t worry about being criticized in The Nation, although it can occasionally have a good story it basically is a rag dripping with bias, take it a compliment.
Likewise as much as freedom of opinion should be encouraged, so should freedom of dissent. Readers with any modicum of intelligence can see the difference between a well thought out rebuttal and a personal attack, the latter being due to a lack of intelligent or objective counter-comment. Blogs are no different.
For the past 700 years, the transitions had been smooth in most parts and less in some. Why should this one be different ?
Uganda and Libya do not have Lese Majese law and I don’t see the country any more advance or richer than Thailand.
Also many western tourists in Thailand that I spoke to never had problem with Lese Majeste at all. The public is not obsessed about the topic like some people on this board !
I was a bit perplexed by the Tajuddin Ramli case and also the involvement of Nazri Aziz issuing such order. The stance in corruption cases is not consistent. I can’t help to feel that the SPRM are catching the big fishes often enough. But I understand that these cases are very hard to prove and its very hard to find people brave enough to be whistle blowers. Thus making its a bit difficult for these hardy folks to catch bad guys.
On your argument regarding the top post in public sectors, I genuinely believe that they’re occupated people with the right qualification. But there are a few bad apples. I won’t paint a bad picture to all public post. There are some that needs reforms and improvement, but I disagree that every top post you see is filled with people just because they’re aligning themselves with the current ruling party. To paint everything so black and white or in your case everything wrong in this country is UMNO is the err that I see in your logic.
Replacing UMNO is not the solution, as I’ve said before, UMNO does not rule this country alone. Barisan Nasional is – The coalition of UMNO, MCA, MIC and a dozen of other parties are ruling the country. Everyone is responsible for everything that has become of this country. They’re responsible by voting them in power.
Pakatan Rakyat(PR) came quite close during the last election and it’s a very good indicator of our political climate. But what’s a shame is PR themselves seem flaky at times. Internal power struggle and sometimes inconsistent policy undermined what ever they have achived so far in their political milestone. I for one like to see a prominent leader from PR that everyone could see and trust to lead this country. But all I see are politicians being very good at their game.
I also would like to see that the ruling government address all the issues you’ve raised. Greater economic progress, transparency in government awards, subsidies, etc. And I also agree with you that the Malays will be much more respected if the policy is more geared towards merit rather than favor.
I don’t believe that this current administration of the ruling government is pro Malay. Rather it is really trying to gradually be less of pro Malay in government policy. Evident in this case is the rise of Perkasa headed by the infamous Ibrahim Ali (this guy was and still is a hard case since his ITM days alongside with Anwar Ibrahim in ABIM). Perkasa sees UMNO not upholding the Malay supremacy ideology thus filling the void left by Najib on this part.
Thus in saying that we’ve reached an impasse. I don’t see that the problem will solve itself by replacing UMNO. BN is and still remain in power because the people chose them to be. It’s just the question that PR must present themselves as viable and trusted alternatives as a ruling government. Come forth the next general election, we’ll see how the people will decide.
Working behind the scenes just supports the continued use of these laws. Raising hell, as Andrew says, would probably be more useful for Joe Gordon and maybe, just maybe, embarrass the Thai government in to really doing something about it.
The LM law is a chancre on Thailand’s image. But alas, states and their diplomats prefer stealth and sneakery and so keep the wound oozing.
Paul Sidwell, aid has sometimes been delivered to NGOs and local organisations to circumvent poor state governance. However, this is a grey area because aid organisations don’t want to be (or at least seen to be!) promoting political change in a sovereign state. NGOs can have positive impacts on employment with local businesses. At the same time NGOs can be very much poorly governed which results in greater corruption, so it’s incumbent on the donor to make sure that who they are providing aid to is worthwhile.
there have been two major amendments of the Palace Law of Succession. In 1974, the palace added two clauses….
This is not quite correct.
Technically, the text of the Succession Law of 1924 has never been amended. It still stands as it was first promulgated by Rama VI in Royal Gazette, 195, 12 November 1924, including article 13 “at present, it is still not an appropriate time to allow female to ascent to the throne to be the sovereign queen …” [my own rough translation].
Changes to the law had instead taken the form of being overwritten by new provisions in the Constitutions, including the “two clauses” Khun Pavin refers to that were added, one to article 25 of the 1974 Constitution, the other to an earlier 1968 Constitution (see below).
It is because of this, that the interesting issue that Khun BKK Lawyer raises could arise. For the text of the 1924 Law has not been changed, which means that, under it, female is not allowed to be sovereign Queen, while the overwriting clause in the Constitution only allow such scenario with the approval of the parliament.
However, I think the issue Khun BKK Lawyer raises is not that serious, for the present Constitution gives absolute power (no parliamentary approval is required) to change the 1924 Law to the King himself. Hence, if he so wishes, he could at the same time as naming a female to be his Heir, changes (strikes out, amends) article 13 of the 1924 Law. No complicated legal procedure would be needed; no more than (re)naming a new (female) Heir anyway.
Khun Pavin:
In 1974, the palace added two clauses….Second, the Palace Law could in the future be amended. Previous constitutions declared the law immutable. ..
This is not quite correct, either.
Prior to the 1974 Constitutions, there had been 6 “permanent” Constitutions, the first three by the People’s Party (including Pridi’s 1946 Constitution – I’m not counting the short-lived, post 1947 coup Constitution). It was only with the forth royalist Constitution of 1949 that the 1924 Law was declared immutable. The previous 3 Constitutions (1932, 1932, 1946) did not mention how the law could be amended because the People’s Party regime (including the post-war Pridi’s) regarded it as being like any other laws that came down from the Absolute Monarchy era. In other words, it could be amended in the usual process, by the act of parliament and/or proposal by the existing government.
With the royalists’s short-lived resurgence after the 1947 coup, the immutability clause was added to their 1949 Constitution, which the Phibun’s clique felt convenient to retain in their fifth 1952 Constitution.
Then in the sixth 1968 Constitution (not the 1974 Constitution, as Khun Pavin writes), that clause was replaced by a new one (article 22), which stated that the 1924 Law could be amended in the same manner as Constitutional amendment. The 1974 Constitution only carried over this clause.
Finally, Khun Pavin cites the current 2007 Constitution as the present law governing the succession issue. Perhaps, it should be pointed out that this present arrangement in the current Constitution was first formulated in the military-coup institued 1991 Constitution. The subsequent, last two Constitution, the so-called “People’s Constitution” of 1997 and the present 2007 Constitution, only carried all the provisions of the succession issue verbatim.
My point is that, all the above mentioned changes regarding the succession in the constitutions were not accidental, they reflected the changing balance of power between the monarchy and other ruling groups (the People’s Party, the military). I have attempted to explain them in an article (in Thai) I wrote a few years ago. For those interested, see here: http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2007/07/blog-post.html
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s succession planning
Jesse, I think there may be some other important variables that could determine how rich or developed a country is, other than the presence (or not) of lese majeste laws! As for Libya, it may, in very general terms, have some wider teachings for us on the dangers of not allowing a political system (or even “civil society”) to develop whilst the country is (inevitably) changing/developing in other respects.
As for tourists, it is not likely (or relevant) that they will be experts on the political and legal systems of the country that they visit for their two week break.
Finally, when you state “the transitions had been smooth in most parts and less in some”, were you intending to hedge your bets??
Threats to academic freedom
looking at your C.V., Ashley, and looking at David Scott Mathieson’s… I’m surprised that you don’t have more respect for him than you do. Mathieson isn’t a partisan hack, and he isn’t a short-term intern at an NGO: he has produced substantive, detailed historical research. Both of you are unconventional, self-made scholars, who have published non-fiction dealing with the political history of Burma, and the conditions of slow-burning civil war in the region. If you can’t respect his contribution to the field, what can you respect? I’ve laid hands on a copy of Mathieson’s study of para-militarism in Thailand (not his other books)… I don’t think that anyone who has even flipped through this guy’s published work would venture comments such as those from Martino (above). I’m willing to assume that there are some employees of H.R.W. who approximate the Chiang-Mai-permanent-vacation-stereotype alluded to above –but Mathieson isn’t one of them.
I do not see anything “ugly” in the Asia Times article “criticising the eminent Burma/Myanmar scholar David Steinberg”; if he is eminent, that alone is a good reason to criticize him (it certainly doesn’t elevate him above criticism!). The article doesn’t provide citations, but it does quote specific passages, and offers direct criticism of Steinberg’s actual hypothesis (it isn’t a hatchet job, and it doesn’t fail to demonstrate that the reviewer carefully read and considered the source before denouncing it); as such, I can only behold it as a positive contribution to the field.
It isn’t an attack on academic freedom, nor on freedom of speech in any wise: you had the freedom to publish your work, and they had the freedom to publish a critique of your work. Employees of Human Rights Watch are not in a position to censor anyone, and are themselves frequent victims of censorship. However, as I say, Mathieson is hardly a typical employee of HRW; his publication record makes him exceptional, and distinguishes him as a research.
The review in The Nation is very poorly written, but that, also, does not entail censorship (nor “suppression”, as you say). Whenever I see someone denounced for being a “self-proclaimed expert”, I get the sense that I’m reading a hatchet job –and, even so, a hatchet job written against a tight deadline. It’s always poor form to criticize someone for their sense of entitlement to write a book, rather than criticizing the content of the book itself (and the article in The Nation is guilty of this); however, you’re quite wrong to say that either of these reviews is an attempt to “suppress” your work.
As Francis Bacon said it, the province of knowledge is ever a “Democratie”. You’re entitled to your opinion, and they’re entitled to denounce you for it. The nature of opinion is that we entitle ourselves.
Threats to academic freedom
Re It’s Martino, I suspect Ashley South is taking the time to write about this because some of the people who are doing the attacking have influence in policy circles. I’ve kept abreast of the Burma debate in DC for years and have been shocked by what I’ve heard. If you listen to some of the prodemocracy lobbyists in DC, they all seem to believe that academics like Steinberg are actually working on behalf of the regime. So, it’s not quite that these people are “doing nothing,” but rather that they’re actually having a negative influence on policy by suppressing and denigrating other views.
Thailand’s succession planning
Jesse – 5
Why dont you compare Thailand to some civilized country like, say, Japan (this one is eastern for sure) or UK (got to put it there), now, how many years do you think we are behind those countries?
Furthermore, of cause the tourist could careless about the law since no Thai authority will do anything to them because they will most likely stay for a week and go. Unlike “Thais” who got “stuck” here, or expat who has to live for good. Remember the Swiss man?
Threats to academic freedom
After reading (and then rereading) both Ashley South’s newest report and the op-ed piece by Naw Htoo Paw in the Nation, the first question that came to mind was why Naw Htoo Paw slipped into an vitriolic ad hominem argument so early on.
That is disappointing. Whether you agree with South’s recommendations on pg5 of the report or not, it would have been nicer to have read a polemic argument against what South has just published–something more point by point–and not against the man.
Thailand’s succession planning
Pavin states that the 1924 law originated because of controversies in the chulalongkorn era. But the succession to Vajiravudh (Rama VI) was completely smooth and uncontested. The law was more the result of uncertainties surrounding Vajiravudh’s successor due to the lack of a direct heir at the time.
Given the 1924 law and various constitutional amendments detailed by others above, the next succession to Vajiralongkorn should be smooth.
Will the succession be smooth ? Not a chance. Since Sarit the palace and military have supported each other in a symbiotic relationship. The Palace deliver Barami to gain the support of the masses whilst the military provide force to support the Palace. It appears that the CP will be unable to keep his end of the bargain. This will force a change in the balances of power. And as Somsak #4 points out who ever wins the struggle can rewrite the rules to suit.
Are secret trials compatible with liberties and rights?
Free Da Torpedo
Are secret trials compatible with liberties and rights?
Elizabeth,
First of all, thank you for following up and detailing the case of this woman who has been condemned to 15 years jail for thought crime. And thank you for forensically analysing the flaws in the justice system that brought this result about.
And in answer to the rhetorical question posed in your headline. No, no, no
Thailand’s succession planning
Jesse,
I don’t know where to begin.
And every proposition you make is probably right.
Threats to academic freedom
I confess to knowing very little about what’s happening in Burma. But it is quite clear that both articles cited in Ashley South’s post criticized him. Denigrated if you like.
They did not threaten to jail him or kill him for his views.
S o, what’s the problem?
Thailand’s succession planning
Ah, Jesse, of course, no one in Thailand cares about such mundane and inconsequential issues as the upcoming succession or the draconian enforcement of the Lese Majeste and Computer Crimes laws.
The food’s great, the guest houses are cheap, plenty of nice beaches to lie on, warm seas to frolic in and cute chicks by the tens of thousands to hustle and barfine.
As you point out, Thailand’s history for the last 700 years has been smooth and problem-free.
Threats to academic freedom
Those attacking on Mr. South do not represent Myanmar nor work for democracy. They are working for their own interest. The majority of the educated people, especially Barman knows these groups have been trying to downgrade the image of the country buy spreading spreading false news and made up stories.
They complained to UN and other world bodies as they want to get refugee status in developed countries.
The international communities neglected the fact that stories of rape, murders and torturing people are made up by these people and organizations. Most of these stories are fake.
Threats to academic freedom
Quit your whining. You should be thrilled that your work was attacked. You got noticed after all. It’s called vigorous debate and this is part of your job description as a scholar/journalist/activist.
Threats to academic freedom
The Steinberg attack doesn’t seem to be trying to supress his views. I just see a jackass from HRW reading apples to be oranges, and then making an ad-hominem attack against a fruit that’s far more edifying than he is. Probably from an iPad. Don’t spill your Chiang Mai chai latte on it spluttering about doing nothing while doing nothing, Mathieson. Why worry about these people? They just reveal themselves to be myopic. Why are you giving them credit?
Threats to academic freedom
I wouldn’t worry about being criticized in The Nation, although it can occasionally have a good story it basically is a rag dripping with bias, take it a compliment.
Likewise as much as freedom of opinion should be encouraged, so should freedom of dissent. Readers with any modicum of intelligence can see the difference between a well thought out rebuttal and a personal attack, the latter being due to a lack of intelligent or objective counter-comment. Blogs are no different.
Thailand’s succession planning
For the past 700 years, the transitions had been smooth in most parts and less in some. Why should this one be different ?
Uganda and Libya do not have Lese Majese law and I don’t see the country any more advance or richer than Thailand.
Also many western tourists in Thailand that I spoke to never had problem with Lese Majeste at all. The public is not obsessed about the topic like some people on this board !
Malaysia – a simple institutional analysis
I was a bit perplexed by the Tajuddin Ramli case and also the involvement of Nazri Aziz issuing such order. The stance in corruption cases is not consistent. I can’t help to feel that the SPRM are catching the big fishes often enough. But I understand that these cases are very hard to prove and its very hard to find people brave enough to be whistle blowers. Thus making its a bit difficult for these hardy folks to catch bad guys.
On your argument regarding the top post in public sectors, I genuinely believe that they’re occupated people with the right qualification. But there are a few bad apples. I won’t paint a bad picture to all public post. There are some that needs reforms and improvement, but I disagree that every top post you see is filled with people just because they’re aligning themselves with the current ruling party. To paint everything so black and white or in your case everything wrong in this country is UMNO is the err that I see in your logic.
Replacing UMNO is not the solution, as I’ve said before, UMNO does not rule this country alone. Barisan Nasional is – The coalition of UMNO, MCA, MIC and a dozen of other parties are ruling the country. Everyone is responsible for everything that has become of this country. They’re responsible by voting them in power.
Pakatan Rakyat(PR) came quite close during the last election and it’s a very good indicator of our political climate. But what’s a shame is PR themselves seem flaky at times. Internal power struggle and sometimes inconsistent policy undermined what ever they have achived so far in their political milestone. I for one like to see a prominent leader from PR that everyone could see and trust to lead this country. But all I see are politicians being very good at their game.
I also would like to see that the ruling government address all the issues you’ve raised. Greater economic progress, transparency in government awards, subsidies, etc. And I also agree with you that the Malays will be much more respected if the policy is more geared towards merit rather than favor.
I don’t believe that this current administration of the ruling government is pro Malay. Rather it is really trying to gradually be less of pro Malay in government policy. Evident in this case is the rise of Perkasa headed by the infamous Ibrahim Ali (this guy was and still is a hard case since his ITM days alongside with Anwar Ibrahim in ABIM). Perkasa sees UMNO not upholding the Malay supremacy ideology thus filling the void left by Najib on this part.
Thus in saying that we’ve reached an impasse. I don’t see that the problem will solve itself by replacing UMNO. BN is and still remain in power because the people chose them to be. It’s just the question that PR must present themselves as viable and trusted alternatives as a ruling government. Come forth the next general election, we’ll see how the people will decide.
FACT’s plea for Joe Gordon
Working behind the scenes just supports the continued use of these laws. Raising hell, as Andrew says, would probably be more useful for Joe Gordon and maybe, just maybe, embarrass the Thai government in to really doing something about it.
The LM law is a chancre on Thailand’s image. But alas, states and their diplomats prefer stealth and sneakery and so keep the wound oozing.
Wikileaks on Laos
Paul Sidwell, aid has sometimes been delivered to NGOs and local organisations to circumvent poor state governance. However, this is a grey area because aid organisations don’t want to be (or at least seen to be!) promoting political change in a sovereign state. NGOs can have positive impacts on employment with local businesses. At the same time NGOs can be very much poorly governed which results in greater corruption, so it’s incumbent on the donor to make sure that who they are providing aid to is worthwhile.
Thailand’s succession planning
Khun Pavin writes:
there have been two major amendments of the Palace Law of Succession. In 1974, the palace added two clauses….
This is not quite correct.
Technically, the text of the Succession Law of 1924 has never been amended. It still stands as it was first promulgated by Rama VI in Royal Gazette, 195, 12 November 1924, including article 13 “at present, it is still not an appropriate time to allow female to ascent to the throne to be the sovereign queen …” [my own rough translation].
Changes to the law had instead taken the form of being overwritten by new provisions in the Constitutions, including the “two clauses” Khun Pavin refers to that were added, one to article 25 of the 1974 Constitution, the other to an earlier 1968 Constitution (see below).
It is because of this, that the interesting issue that Khun BKK Lawyer raises could arise. For the text of the 1924 Law has not been changed, which means that, under it, female is not allowed to be sovereign Queen, while the overwriting clause in the Constitution only allow such scenario with the approval of the parliament.
However, I think the issue Khun BKK Lawyer raises is not that serious, for the present Constitution gives absolute power (no parliamentary approval is required) to change the 1924 Law to the King himself. Hence, if he so wishes, he could at the same time as naming a female to be his Heir, changes (strikes out, amends) article 13 of the 1924 Law. No complicated legal procedure would be needed; no more than (re)naming a new (female) Heir anyway.
Khun Pavin:
In 1974, the palace added two clauses….Second, the Palace Law could in the future be amended. Previous constitutions declared the law immutable. ..
This is not quite correct, either.
Prior to the 1974 Constitutions, there had been 6 “permanent” Constitutions, the first three by the People’s Party (including Pridi’s 1946 Constitution – I’m not counting the short-lived, post 1947 coup Constitution). It was only with the forth royalist Constitution of 1949 that the 1924 Law was declared immutable. The previous 3 Constitutions (1932, 1932, 1946) did not mention how the law could be amended because the People’s Party regime (including the post-war Pridi’s) regarded it as being like any other laws that came down from the Absolute Monarchy era. In other words, it could be amended in the usual process, by the act of parliament and/or proposal by the existing government.
With the royalists’s short-lived resurgence after the 1947 coup, the immutability clause was added to their 1949 Constitution, which the Phibun’s clique felt convenient to retain in their fifth 1952 Constitution.
Then in the sixth 1968 Constitution (not the 1974 Constitution, as Khun Pavin writes), that clause was replaced by a new one (article 22), which stated that the 1924 Law could be amended in the same manner as Constitutional amendment. The 1974 Constitution only carried over this clause.
Finally, Khun Pavin cites the current 2007 Constitution as the present law governing the succession issue. Perhaps, it should be pointed out that this present arrangement in the current Constitution was first formulated in the military-coup institued 1991 Constitution. The subsequent, last two Constitution, the so-called “People’s Constitution” of 1997 and the present 2007 Constitution, only carried all the provisions of the succession issue verbatim.
My point is that, all the above mentioned changes regarding the succession in the constitutions were not accidental, they reflected the changing balance of power between the monarchy and other ruling groups (the People’s Party, the military). I have attempted to explain them in an article (in Thai) I wrote a few years ago. For those interested, see here:
http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2007/07/blog-post.html