Comments

What became of Rassamee? Can any Thai history/politics scholars out there recommend articles or texts that detail the organization and leadership of the CPT pre-1985? I think Dr. Somsak is the only person who did a thorough study of the CPT, but his thesis is difficult to access. Recently I came across the grave site of Bunyen Wothong in Vientiane. He was a Thai socialist from Ubon who fled to Laos in the 1970s. Bunyen served as a teacher in Vientiane before his death. I wonder how many Thai revolutionaries remain in Laos and elsewhere today? A whole cluster of Isan Lao joined the Pathet Lao and became major players in the military, e.g. General Chamnien, and in the administration, e.g. Heuan Manivongsa – former governor of Champasak.

Thanks for the various comments, especially the message from Chris Baker and recommendation for the passage in Lomax’s book.

It still seems that Khrong is an enigmatic figure in the English language, like perhaps his daughter “Rassamee” (what became of her I wonder?), so I wonder if any Thai readers can access Thai language sources about the life and views of Khrong and translate what they find and post it up here. I would be particularly interested to learn what his attitudes to Isaan separatism were and was he at all influential in the thinking and writing of Jit Phumisak (it is reported I believe that Vithit spent some time in jail with Jit)?

Thak Chaloemtiarana in “Thailand: The Politics of Despotic Paternalism” translates the announcement from the Press Agency of the Prime Minister’s Office, May 31, 1961, as follows:

“……in accordance with the power invested by Article 17 of the Constitution, and the decision of the Cabinet, which met on May 30, 1961, the Prime Minister has ordered the execution of Khrong Chandawong and Thongphan Sutthimat to protect national security and the Throne. This is to be an example to prevent this type of crime in the future. Police authorities have already executed Khrong Chandawong and Thongphan Sutthimat at Sawang Daendin District, Sakhon Nakhon Province on May 31, 1961 at 12.13 hours.”

Presumably the time of execution was significant in some bizarre way? It also was not explicit about what the crime they had allegedly committed actually was, but maybe that was reported earlier in the news piece, but Thak ommited it? Thak also reports that in December 1961, 91 followers of Khrong were arrested in upper Isaan provinces and jailed, although Sarit was quite keen to have them all executed as well, apparently. Does anyone know the fate of these 91 people and how many are still alive today? And how about Thongphan – any background on him?

Given the half century anniversary of his death coming up at the end of May, I’m sure an essay on Khrong by a Thai historian and posted on NM would be a fitting tribute to this Isaan political martyr.

Agree with Anonymous Thai, the more PAD supporters vote no (especially in BKK), the worse it becomes for the Democrats

I think it is becoming clearer every day that Abhisit is going to lose the upcoming election despite all the manipulation, imprisonment, one sided propaganda and blatant bullying of the Amart .
The only question I have is : what’ s next for Thailand after the puppet disaster ?
I have my own take on the subject but I am not at will to discuss it under the current climate of ruthless repression of freedom of speech .
Yet to anyone with just an inch of historical perspective, it is crystal clear what will eventually happen .
The course of history can be tampered with , but simply won’t be stopped .

I share a similar doubt as Chris Baker. Where is the evidence that the prostration was revived under Sarit?

The only source Jim Taylor actually refers to is an article by Wat Wallayangkun, who is a good writer but I am not sure if he did a research or simply follow somebody else’s saying. The rest of Taylor’s argument is circumstantial, explaining the significance of the Sarit’s period to the monarchy but nothing specifically about the revivial of prostration. I agree with him that Sarit’s was a major turning period for the monarchy. But it doesn’t mean it was responsible for everything. And we are dicusssing specifically the revival of the prostration, not the monarchy in general.

If the revivial of prostration was actually reintro after Sarit’s, it doesn’t reduce the significance of Sarit’s. On the other hand, even if it was reintro during Sarit’s, the significance of the post-1976 must not be reduced, as Taylor did, as mere reinforcement of the Sarit’s period. Royalism went “hyper” went after 1976. The political dominance of the monarchy after 76 was elevated to another level not seen under Sarit. The two periods were both significant in different ways.

For the revival of prostration, we simply need evidence. The significance of Sarit’s period is not an evidence. The fact that Sarit revived several royal practices does not in itself an evidence that prostration too must be revived under Sarit.

By the way, the concepts of the monarchy that was realized under/after Sarit and first efforts of revivial of several royal rituals were in 1947-52 under the royalist+army coup — another important period for the revival of the monarchy. For example, the ploughing ceremony (whose revivial many people credited to Sarit) was actually tried by the Regent (Prince Rangsit, the chief of the monarchists at the time) in 1949.

Some see this as a 2 sided affair. Amart vs RedShirts.

However, there are many different and competing sides. Each having their own agenda.

These sides include the military with its different factions. Competition between them etc.

The various gangster godfathers incorportated and running blocks within the Democrat, PT, BJT, CP, SAP etc.

What are the interests of each of these godfather families, think of Banharn Silapha Archa, Somchai Khunpluem, the Thaugsubans, and the Chidchobs. Do they compete? How?

Each family has ‘Soldiers’.

Did these ‘soldiers’ blend into the red shirts, the black shirts, the yellow shirts? Were they among the people who participated in burning Central World?

Who has benefited the most from dealing with protesters being shot with snipers rather than using traditional crowd control techniques of riot control?

Why were protesters killed, yet not one Central World arsonist? Why did they CW arsonists wearing red shirts in some pictures have Thai Flag wrist bands when none were visible in pictures prior to the burning?

Why could photographers take the pictures of Black Shirts, and CW arsonists yet not one was killed?

One year on, so many questions? So few answers.

The old princes and monarchists were trying to reinstate power back at the summit since 1932. Sarit later normalised this and other royal ritual practices. Perhaps its is useful to see Thak Chaloemtiarana, an authority on the sarit period (1957-1963), e.g. his “Thailand: The Politics of Despotic Paternalism”, 1979 (Bangkok: Thai Khadi Institute). In describing the Sarit regime, Thak wrote that: “…the development of the Monarchy saw rapid progress after 1957…” with increasing prestige of the king as “old ceremonies were reintroduced or reinvented”. Later he also noted how henceforth the young king was “worthy of worship” (p.317) in accordance with scripturally endorsed royal virtues, Thossaphit Raja Dhamma (=Buddha’s barami), as a Dhamma’raachaa. Jon Ungphakorn (BP article), though not a historian or scholar but one who must know something of post-war history wrote ” Why is this “oppressive” practice (prostration) still carried out today, 138 years later?” The answer he says “can be found in an article by Wat Walyangkurn in Khao Sod (р╕Вр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕кр╕Ф) of the Matichon Group, dated Oct 24, 2010”. In this article Wat describes how the military coup of Sept 16, 1957 which brought Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat to power, ended an era of relative cultural freedom in which democracy, human rights and social equality were common topics in literature and popular songs. After the coup, many cultural reforms since the fourth and fifth reigns were reversed, “including the reinstatement of prostration before the king, in efforts to re-establish the sacredness, power and mystique of the ruling elite as a means of silencing opposition and reinforcing the legitimacy of the military regime.” It has always been the military that has been keen to enforce absolute reverence towards the monarchy. This is the point: it is a reasonable assumption given that “all military coups in recent history have cited alleged threats to the monarchy as justification for military rule”. Sarit reversed the anti-monarchist sentiment of his predecessor with a passion for ritual obeisance in the sanctity of the young king (and in a new compact with the palace).
Anthropologist Christine E. Gray in a 1992 article “Royal Words and Their Unroyal consequences”, noted: “It was not until 1960s that Sarit introduced royal rituals and “latched onto” the royal virtue (phueng phra’raachaa’barami) (p.449). Bhumibol, thus, came of age as a monarch in an ever-expanding round of ritual displays, albeit radically transformed ones…The royal biography picks up at this point, depicting Bhumibol’s reign as the timeless exemplification of the ten virtues of Buddhist kings…” as made manifest in ritual performances (p.450) (reference Mahamakutrajavidyalaya Foundation 1977; Office of His Majesty’s Private Secretariat 1971). In 1957 the Sarit government began a drive for modernization that began with the development of the nation’s infrastructure the suppression of political dissent, and the transformation of the royal ritual system. Together, the government and the Palace promoted the king as the protector and defender of all of his subjects and the patron of all religious faiths. Thai farmers, audience to the revitalized royal rituals, encouraged to glance into the Buddhist heavens, were reassured by what they saw. Supposed microcosms of the social order, the new royal ritual displays contained systematic distortions”. (p.453)
But it is not just in the reinstitution of high royal language (raachaa-sap [р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕▓р╕ир╕▒р╕Юр╕Чр╣М]) but in body language and performances in ritual. As Sarit had emplaced the young king back in the heavens it was natural that people became lower and lower “beneath the dust on the ground” – so prostration became a not unusual event by the 1960s towards the end of Sarit’s period. As for Paul Handley- I am not sure of his sources for saying much the same thing. He quotes (p.151) [pro-amaat academic] Sombat Chantornvong (1992, “To Address the Dust of the Dust Under the Soles of the Royal Feet: A Reflection on the Political Dimension of the Thai Court Language.” Asian Review 6: 145-163) “even a foreign monarch or the Lord Buddha, himself royal by birth, does not received as much reverence and exaltation as the Thai king”. In 1957 the court language was revitalized as prostration came back into fashion. It was promoted through the education system under the Min of Education under royalist ML Pin Malakul (р╕лр╕бр╣Ир╕нр╕бр╕лр╕ер╕зр╕Зр╕Ыр╕┤р╣Ир╕Щ р╕бр╕▓р╕ер╕▓р╕Бр╕╕р╕е). Kids in school learned proper protocol for royalty down at the village level and its antecedents in Sukhothai. It is clear if we put the pieces together that Sarit started it all at a formal level in a compact with the military and palace; elevating the king back at the sacred summit…for mutual interests.

The PAD has more or less come to the end of the show. Despite the name, its core leaders’ political motives from the onset have nothing to do with promoting democracy or stepwise reform of any scale.

Since the rift with the Democrat, I’d say 3/4 of its virtual supporters have been gone for good. With today’s scene where Somkiat and Pipope have practically eluded; Sonthi, Chamlong, Somsak each goes separate ways; and Suriyasai is deeply in turmoil with donation mismanagement, the PAD is no longer PAD.

It is absurd pointing a finger at your neighbours and demanding them to clean up their houses when your own home is an absolute filth.

Free will (45, 51) is, if we look into it clearly, not an explanation for anything. Royal courts being what they are, we can safely speculate that when a high official grovelled before Bhumibol for the first time, the motive would have been ambition. For everybody afterwards it was the peer-group pressure of a frightened mob of sheep. All would naturally be keen to volunteer “Love” or “Respect” as their motive; especially these days, with lèse majesté swallowing up so many people.