Why is Taksins corruption preferable to Democrat corruption.
For the simple reason that without some sort of system of democracy it makes no sense to talk of corruption. – there is no such thing as corruption. Corruption is the system.
Just thinly veiled whine by an academic that people are not paying enough attention to his expertise.
The nature of the language is not some independent variable it stems directly from the objectives and biases of the commentators.
Just as irrelevant to listen to a journalist complaining how dry and un-entertaining the academic is.
I’ve met more than a few academic’s who however much they complain about the hoi-poloi they are quite happy to occupy the high ground and are not at all keen to see their expertise leave their control and become common knowledge.
Hence you never really see any suggestions about educating people which don’t revolve around them.
Thanks for this thread uncovering a historical fact delving into old canonical texts. Sorry, I remain unimpressed by the significance of the Buddha’s lack of hair vis-a-vis the popular imagery. But I’d love to read more from the author.
I thought it was a good post from @LesAbbey. While not always in agreement with your analysis in the comments, this came across as predominantly balanced and informative comment on the HRW report.
And kudos to Mandala for publishing submissions from all sides of the spectrum.
* ‘predominantly’: not sure I’m convinced that the ‘black shirts’ can be emphatically linked with the ‘red shirts’.
Was in Bangkok last year during this terrible event and state media were blaming the reds for “arson”. One year later, they keep on blaming the reds for burning buildings but hardly mentioned the fact that soldiers and snipers killing unarmed civilians inside a Buddhist temple. There must be something wrong with this country when the same government remains in power despite the massacre.
I’m watching live broadcasting from Ratchprasong. The Red shirts are gathering to pay respect to those who lost their lives during the crackdown.
It’s useless to say who killed those protesters because people who is behind the scene. It’s interesting to see the new government will dig this up and re investigate.
Thailand has been in the dark age during past few years.
Yep, MP buying is a far bigger problem than “vote buying”.
But, from all accounts, Newin was made an offer he couldn’t refuse… the money helped, of course.
Chalerm comes over as a straight up gangster – but so are plenty of other people in the Thai elite whom, remarkably, never seem to attract any kind of negative comment from the Dem supporters…
WLH: “The Chinese have a wall. The Thais have a rope strung between two trees.” And, ‘give them enough rope …’ one hopes!
The whole ‘blocking’ saga is quite bizarre. Given the extaordinarily large number of pages that are blocked, it’s obvious that no legally valid process (investigation, written report with argument for blocking, examination by a judge, court order with proper reasons given) could possibly have been applied.
It’s also most peculiar that the government, who are constantly claiming to be the representatives of the people, don’t believe they have any responsibility to make any information available to the electorate. Only ‘dissident’ organisations (e.g. FACThai) have leaked lists & are able to give estimates of numbers.
I frankly don’t care if Yingluk has had no experience in parliament. She couldn’t do a worse job of running the country than the current impotent PM. I’m not a great admirer of Mr T, but it’s quite obvious that as her mentor he can bring her up to speed fairly quickly – he certainly did a better job as an administrator than anyone since, & it looks like Y will head a more cohesive government (with real power) than the present one. Hopefully T will have learnt some lessons, & will behave better this time. Surely the objective is to get proper elections going again and eventually get the army & its associates out of the picture. It will be difficult, but T is the only contender with any hope of getting the second process going.
The most recent campaign promise by Thaksin’s party (meaning it IS Thaksin’s promise) is AMNESTY. Amnesty for everyone – red, yellow, black, green, brown, or whatever color there is . . . but of course Thaksin gets his amnesty first.
If Red Shirt leader Thaksin himself is not keen, eager and downright indifferent to calls by the families seeking justice/redress for the Red Shirts killed or maimed during the April-May2010 very violent Red protests, because Thaksin’s priority had always been taking care of himself first . . . so what follows next people?
All those Red blood shed, all those Red bones shattered, all the Red sacrifices in response to Thaksin’s calls to his followers for a ‘revolution’ . . .
Die-hard Red Shirts should be asking themselves, does Thaksin Shinawatra truly care for them, or for himself only?
So the argument that is supposed to blow my point out of the water is that…wait for it…the 32 marks are just ‘blandishments’.
First of all, the fact that an attribute has metaphorical, symbolic, or hagiographical significance does not make it a mere blandishment. This would entirely undervalue and misinterpret the role of metaphorical and devotional language. A full explanation of why this would be the case would be impossible to achieve here; it is so fundamental to literary analysis that I can do no more than make the point.
Secondly, the fact that the 32 marks have symbolic, metaphorical, or devotional import is about as obvious as a brick in the face. For example, skin to which dust does not attach is an obvious way of associating the Buddha with the gods. (Indeed, if you had read my posts properly, you would have noticed that I have repeatedly stated that, if the Buddha is depicted with hair, we need to consider the metaphorical, symbolic, and hagiographical meaning of this attribute and to consider the nature and role of this genre of text within the tradition. This takes nothing away from the fact that this is still a mode of representing the Buddha’s appearance which needs to be appreciated and assessed according to its important role within the tradition without branding it as heretical. For more on which, see below.)
Thirdly, the fact that an attribute of the Buddha has symbolic, metaphorical, or devotional import does not mean that the attribute is not also a representation or depiction of the Buddha’s appearance. It simply means that this mode of literary expression is a different way of depicting the Buddha from the passages that you have pinpointed (and, as I myself stated in an earlier post, merely reflects a different genre of text). Just because golden skin is a mark of beauty does not mean that the Buddha is not being depicted with golden skin (just as Krishna is depicted with blue skin). Just because hair between the eyebrows has symbolic or karmic importance does not mean that the Buddha is not being represented with such hair.
You pinpoint the antelope legs, but if this aids your argument at all, it is only because it is not one of those marks which provides much specific detail to the Buddha’s physical representation. As you rightly state, the mark simply states that the Buddha has legs which are LIKE an antelope’s (not that the Buddha has the legs OF an antelope) – similarly with respect to the lion-like chest. Therefore here, regarding this specific mark, we are indeed left only with the general impression that the Buddha has legs which are as beautiful/strong or perhaps as slender as an antelope’s. Other marks, on the other hand, do make assertions about the physical appearance of the Buddha. A long tongue is long; 40 teeth means 40 teeth.
I do not for a moment state, of course, that the 32 marks can be taken as historically accurate depictions of the Buddha, but this does not change that they are representations of the Buddha (including abnormal and supernatural characteristics) which have meaning and importance within the tradition.
In respect of the historical accuracy of the passages in which the Buddha is bald, while Jayarava is of course correct that one must be careful about ascribing historical accuracy to texts composed orally over centuries, and while it is also important to consider whether a bald Buddha is in fact only a reflection of the fact that such baldness accords with Vinaya rules (and therefore cannot be used as historical evidence), I am not as sceptical as Jayarava on this point and am willing to accept that, in this instance, there is a plausible argument that the baldness passages may recall some historically accurate memory that has been passed down (although it is far from a stable argument). This does not mean, however, that we can take the entire passages in which the Buddha is depicted as being bald to be historically accurate. In particular, I put no more weight (in terms of historical accuracy) on a person not recognising the Buddha in a sutta than I do on the Buddha having a long tongue. The weight that I do put on both accounts is that both are representations of the Buddha that need to assessed in terms of their role and meaning within their textual tradition.
This is my last post on the matter. The tone of the author has been inappropriate throughout. Further discussion is, in my view, unlikely to be productive.
“Of course the local press will be full of ‘vote Yingluck get Thaksin’ but don’t forget you get Chalerm and a few others too.”
Fair comment, but most major parties (and certainly those with any prospect of office) here have their Chalerms – it’s part of the Thai political package.
It’s voting for the Dems that guarantees you get a much more dangerous (green) cuckoo in the nest – one that will only be further consolidated in its already greatly strengthened position since handing office to Abhisit. The Thai military will inevitably see a Dem victory as endorsement of all that they have done – starting with the coup and including all the many self-serving machinations since – and take it as an encouragement to go even further behind their very convenient facade of “Yes, sir/no, sir” civilian government.
Lousy choice – but it’s surely clear which is the lesser of the evils.
Ralph the devil is always going to be in the details. Let’s start from a point we can probably agree on. The HRW report is at least attempting to be independent while Amsterdam wouldn’t be foolish enough to make that claim. He is after all employed by Thaksin Shinawatra.
Of course if we write a diary over the period of the 2010 protest the major happenings will likely agree whatever side one supports. The bias has to creep in with the details. It seems to me that HRW tries very hard to hold a non-biased view. So looking at the 2009 reporting HRW does point out that claims of more bodies were never substantiated while Amsterdam lets the reports stand.
(The gangster connection with the two bodies fished out of the water was in the press within a day I seem to remember. The talk was of some Bangkapi hoodlums falling out. That doesn’t mean it’s true of course and that they weren’t just regular red shirts, but at the time the UDD leadership didn’t seem to want use them as examples which was a bit suspicious.)
As I say in the post the problem for the red shirt supporters was that they were writing a different history of the 2010 events which clashes with this first independent report. Because it has become such talking point we can use the burning of Central World as an example.
The story of it not being the red shirts must have come straight out a spin doctor’s handbook. That’s not to say it’s impossible it was the army, an insurance job, a serial arsonist or even UFOs. We should all know better than to say ‘impossible’. But whoever did do it is not the whole story unless we say they also burned the cinema, the supermarket, the Rama 4 Lotus Express, the SET bookshop and so on. The CW just becomes a red herring thrown in by the Thaksin’s PR to muddy the water.
Now I was at the SET arson attempt so I can give an eye-witness report of a kind, but can I say for sure there were no agent-provocateurs. No of course not, but it didn’t strike me that there were. That’s the best anyone can do without far more knowledge.
If you listen to Thaksin’s latest interview with the Post you will hear him make a claim that the red shirts were not smart enough to burn CW so it had to be the army. Does that also count for these other buildings.
I think we should welcome the HRW report for what it is, an attempt at an impartial report which will never be in total agreement with ones produced by either Thaksin’s people or the government.
Blocking in Thailand is inconsistent except in one fact: incompetence. The Thai firewall is easily bypassed using proxies or Tor/Vidalia, and any site on WordPress is HTTPS encrypted by Firefox (using HTTPS Everywhere add-on).
The Chinese have a wall. The Thais have a rope strung between two trees.
When an unelected army imposes tyranny, the will of the people is clearly suppressed. When an elected leader imposes tyranny, well, at least you can say the people made their choice and have to live with it, or go the other way at the next election.
The point of democracy is not to instantly have perfect leadership, but to have an institutional process for incremental improvement based on learning. You either believe the electorate has the right to this learning process or you don’t. I do. The PAD, amaart, and farangs on Thaivisa do not. What do you believe?
Is there any mention of the 20 that died from head-shots in the report? Such numbers happened anywhere else should have invoked international outcry. Thailand does enjoy a special place in the world indeed.
When one of the princesses came to visit my old school we had to ‘wai’ just before she walked near us (hands in prayer position with little fingers touching the floor, nose to the ground….) and were not allowed to raise our heads until she had passed us.
In the month before her visit, students (the whole school) had spent 3 afternoons (all lessons were cancelled) sitting in the sun, learning how to wai/(though the grovelling motion people make is nothing like a ‘normal’ wai…) correctly.
The actual day itself was hot and sunny and the students had to sit in position (ready for her arrival) for over an hour before she arrived. Worst of all, as she walked down the red carpet she started talking to people. It must have taken her at least 5 minutes to make a 1-2 minute stroll. No one spoke…
She spent almost an hour visiting the classooms, talking to students etc. and the students who were sat on the grass had to stay put. No one was allowed to move, even to go to the toilet/get water etc. Most of the Thai teachers who were supposed to be ‘supervising’ them, got up, and stood in the shade… The students were stuck there and I felt really sorry for them.
Few of the students complained (other than saying they were hot)… but I couldn’t help wondering how this would endear them to, and make them love their royal family.
One year later, the same princess was on her way to visit another school. Everyone living in the street (and a couple of students skipping class) were allowed to kneel by the roadside to watch the procession of cars go past. No one bent down. Most were trying to look inside and work out which car she was in, and cheered when they finally ‘found’ and saw her wave and smile.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
Why is Taksins corruption preferable to Democrat corruption.
For the simple reason that without some sort of system of democracy it makes no sense to talk of corruption. – there is no such thing as corruption. Corruption is the system.
Selth on Burma’s weapons
Just thinly veiled whine by an academic that people are not paying enough attention to his expertise.
The nature of the language is not some independent variable it stems directly from the objectives and biases of the commentators.
Just as irrelevant to listen to a journalist complaining how dry and un-entertaining the academic is.
I’ve met more than a few academic’s who however much they complain about the hoi-poloi they are quite happy to occupy the high ground and are not at all keen to see their expertise leave their control and become common knowledge.
Hence you never really see any suggestions about educating people which don’t revolve around them.
The Buddha was bald
Thanks for this thread uncovering a historical fact delving into old canonical texts. Sorry, I remain unimpressed by the significance of the Buddha’s lack of hair vis-a-vis the popular imagery. But I’d love to read more from the author.
HRW fires a few grenades
I thought it was a good post from @LesAbbey. While not always in agreement with your analysis in the comments, this came across as predominantly balanced and informative comment on the HRW report.
And kudos to Mandala for publishing submissions from all sides of the spectrum.
* ‘predominantly’: not sure I’m convinced that the ‘black shirts’ can be emphatically linked with the ‘red shirts’.
May 2010: A year later
Was in Bangkok last year during this terrible event and state media were blaming the reds for “arson”. One year later, they keep on blaming the reds for burning buildings but hardly mentioned the fact that soldiers and snipers killing unarmed civilians inside a Buddhist temple. There must be something wrong with this country when the same government remains in power despite the massacre.
May 2010: A year later
I’m watching live broadcasting from Ratchprasong. The Red shirts are gathering to pay respect to those who lost their lives during the crackdown.
It’s useless to say who killed those protesters because people who is behind the scene. It’s interesting to see the new government will dig this up and re investigate.
Thailand has been in the dark age during past few years.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
Les
Yep, MP buying is a far bigger problem than “vote buying”.
But, from all accounts, Newin was made an offer he couldn’t refuse… the money helped, of course.
Chalerm comes over as a straight up gangster – but so are plenty of other people in the Thai elite whom, remarkably, never seem to attract any kind of negative comment from the Dem supporters…
Somsak’s open letter to the princess
WLH: “The Chinese have a wall. The Thais have a rope strung between two trees.” And, ‘give them enough rope …’ one hopes!
The whole ‘blocking’ saga is quite bizarre. Given the extaordinarily large number of pages that are blocked, it’s obvious that no legally valid process (investigation, written report with argument for blocking, examination by a judge, court order with proper reasons given) could possibly have been applied.
It’s also most peculiar that the government, who are constantly claiming to be the representatives of the people, don’t believe they have any responsibility to make any information available to the electorate. Only ‘dissident’ organisations (e.g. FACThai) have leaked lists & are able to give estimates of numbers.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
I frankly don’t care if Yingluk has had no experience in parliament. She couldn’t do a worse job of running the country than the current impotent PM. I’m not a great admirer of Mr T, but it’s quite obvious that as her mentor he can bring her up to speed fairly quickly – he certainly did a better job as an administrator than anyone since, & it looks like Y will head a more cohesive government (with real power) than the present one. Hopefully T will have learnt some lessons, & will behave better this time. Surely the objective is to get proper elections going again and eventually get the army & its associates out of the picture. It will be difficult, but T is the only contender with any hope of getting the second process going.
HRW fires a few grenades
The most recent campaign promise by Thaksin’s party (meaning it IS Thaksin’s promise) is AMNESTY. Amnesty for everyone – red, yellow, black, green, brown, or whatever color there is . . . but of course Thaksin gets his amnesty first.
If Red Shirt leader Thaksin himself is not keen, eager and downright indifferent to calls by the families seeking justice/redress for the Red Shirts killed or maimed during the April-May2010 very violent Red protests, because Thaksin’s priority had always been taking care of himself first . . . so what follows next people?
All those Red blood shed, all those Red bones shattered, all the Red sacrifices in response to Thaksin’s calls to his followers for a ‘revolution’ . . .
Die-hard Red Shirts should be asking themselves, does Thaksin Shinawatra truly care for them, or for himself only?
The Buddha was bald
So the argument that is supposed to blow my point out of the water is that…wait for it…the 32 marks are just ‘blandishments’.
First of all, the fact that an attribute has metaphorical, symbolic, or hagiographical significance does not make it a mere blandishment. This would entirely undervalue and misinterpret the role of metaphorical and devotional language. A full explanation of why this would be the case would be impossible to achieve here; it is so fundamental to literary analysis that I can do no more than make the point.
Secondly, the fact that the 32 marks have symbolic, metaphorical, or devotional import is about as obvious as a brick in the face. For example, skin to which dust does not attach is an obvious way of associating the Buddha with the gods. (Indeed, if you had read my posts properly, you would have noticed that I have repeatedly stated that, if the Buddha is depicted with hair, we need to consider the metaphorical, symbolic, and hagiographical meaning of this attribute and to consider the nature and role of this genre of text within the tradition. This takes nothing away from the fact that this is still a mode of representing the Buddha’s appearance which needs to be appreciated and assessed according to its important role within the tradition without branding it as heretical. For more on which, see below.)
Thirdly, the fact that an attribute of the Buddha has symbolic, metaphorical, or devotional import does not mean that the attribute is not also a representation or depiction of the Buddha’s appearance. It simply means that this mode of literary expression is a different way of depicting the Buddha from the passages that you have pinpointed (and, as I myself stated in an earlier post, merely reflects a different genre of text). Just because golden skin is a mark of beauty does not mean that the Buddha is not being depicted with golden skin (just as Krishna is depicted with blue skin). Just because hair between the eyebrows has symbolic or karmic importance does not mean that the Buddha is not being represented with such hair.
You pinpoint the antelope legs, but if this aids your argument at all, it is only because it is not one of those marks which provides much specific detail to the Buddha’s physical representation. As you rightly state, the mark simply states that the Buddha has legs which are LIKE an antelope’s (not that the Buddha has the legs OF an antelope) – similarly with respect to the lion-like chest. Therefore here, regarding this specific mark, we are indeed left only with the general impression that the Buddha has legs which are as beautiful/strong or perhaps as slender as an antelope’s. Other marks, on the other hand, do make assertions about the physical appearance of the Buddha. A long tongue is long; 40 teeth means 40 teeth.
I do not for a moment state, of course, that the 32 marks can be taken as historically accurate depictions of the Buddha, but this does not change that they are representations of the Buddha (including abnormal and supernatural characteristics) which have meaning and importance within the tradition.
In respect of the historical accuracy of the passages in which the Buddha is bald, while Jayarava is of course correct that one must be careful about ascribing historical accuracy to texts composed orally over centuries, and while it is also important to consider whether a bald Buddha is in fact only a reflection of the fact that such baldness accords with Vinaya rules (and therefore cannot be used as historical evidence), I am not as sceptical as Jayarava on this point and am willing to accept that, in this instance, there is a plausible argument that the baldness passages may recall some historically accurate memory that has been passed down (although it is far from a stable argument). This does not mean, however, that we can take the entire passages in which the Buddha is depicted as being bald to be historically accurate. In particular, I put no more weight (in terms of historical accuracy) on a person not recognising the Buddha in a sutta than I do on the Buddha having a long tongue. The weight that I do put on both accounts is that both are representations of the Buddha that need to assessed in terms of their role and meaning within their textual tradition.
This is my last post on the matter. The tone of the author has been inappropriate throughout. Further discussion is, in my view, unlikely to be productive.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
c10
“Of course the local press will be full of ‘vote Yingluck get Thaksin’ but don’t forget you get Chalerm and a few others too.”
Fair comment, but most major parties (and certainly those with any prospect of office) here have their Chalerms – it’s part of the Thai political package.
It’s voting for the Dems that guarantees you get a much more dangerous (green) cuckoo in the nest – one that will only be further consolidated in its already greatly strengthened position since handing office to Abhisit. The Thai military will inevitably see a Dem victory as endorsement of all that they have done – starting with the coup and including all the many self-serving machinations since – and take it as an encouragement to go even further behind their very convenient facade of “Yes, sir/no, sir” civilian government.
Lousy choice – but it’s surely clear which is the lesser of the evils.
HRW fires a few grenades
leeyiankun – 3
Is there any mention of the 20 that died from head-shots in the report?
There is a link to the report in the article, but as I may not have made that very clear here it is again.
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2011/05/03/descent-chaos-0
HRW fires a few grenades
Ralph Krandem – 2
Ralph the devil is always going to be in the details. Let’s start from a point we can probably agree on. The HRW report is at least attempting to be independent while Amsterdam wouldn’t be foolish enough to make that claim. He is after all employed by Thaksin Shinawatra.
Of course if we write a diary over the period of the 2010 protest the major happenings will likely agree whatever side one supports. The bias has to creep in with the details. It seems to me that HRW tries very hard to hold a non-biased view. So looking at the 2009 reporting HRW does point out that claims of more bodies were never substantiated while Amsterdam lets the reports stand.
(The gangster connection with the two bodies fished out of the water was in the press within a day I seem to remember. The talk was of some Bangkapi hoodlums falling out. That doesn’t mean it’s true of course and that they weren’t just regular red shirts, but at the time the UDD leadership didn’t seem to want use them as examples which was a bit suspicious.)
As I say in the post the problem for the red shirt supporters was that they were writing a different history of the 2010 events which clashes with this first independent report. Because it has become such talking point we can use the burning of Central World as an example.
The story of it not being the red shirts must have come straight out a spin doctor’s handbook. That’s not to say it’s impossible it was the army, an insurance job, a serial arsonist or even UFOs. We should all know better than to say ‘impossible’. But whoever did do it is not the whole story unless we say they also burned the cinema, the supermarket, the Rama 4 Lotus Express, the SET bookshop and so on. The CW just becomes a red herring thrown in by the Thaksin’s PR to muddy the water.
Now I was at the SET arson attempt so I can give an eye-witness report of a kind, but can I say for sure there were no agent-provocateurs. No of course not, but it didn’t strike me that there were. That’s the best anyone can do without far more knowledge.
If you listen to Thaksin’s latest interview with the Post you will hear him make a claim that the red shirts were not smart enough to burn CW so it had to be the army. Does that also count for these other buildings.
I think we should welcome the HRW report for what it is, an attempt at an impartial report which will never be in total agreement with ones produced by either Thaksin’s people or the government.
Somsak’s open letter to the princess
Blocking in Thailand is inconsistent except in one fact: incompetence. The Thai firewall is easily bypassed using proxies or Tor/Vidalia, and any site on WordPress is HTTPS encrypted by Firefox (using HTTPS Everywhere add-on).
The Chinese have a wall. The Thais have a rope strung between two trees.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
Erwhon @14:
“But is it preferable? Why?”
Because he was elected, that’s why.
When an unelected army imposes tyranny, the will of the people is clearly suppressed. When an elected leader imposes tyranny, well, at least you can say the people made their choice and have to live with it, or go the other way at the next election.
The point of democracy is not to instantly have perfect leadership, but to have an institutional process for incremental improvement based on learning. You either believe the electorate has the right to this learning process or you don’t. I do. The PAD, amaart, and farangs on Thaivisa do not. What do you believe?
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
The oysters go off very quickly between the sea and the table Andrew.
Seafood’s a gamble but still worth the risk.
HRW fires a few grenades
Is there any mention of the 20 that died from head-shots in the report? Such numbers happened anywhere else should have invoked international outcry. Thailand does enjoy a special place in the world indeed.
Agen DominoQQ Online Paling Populer
Andrew Spooner:
My election slogan:
Vote for Yinglak, the only fresh item on the menu.
Chulalongkorn abolished prostration
Don… Post 29.
All of them, depends on the context….
When one of the princesses came to visit my old school we had to ‘wai’ just before she walked near us (hands in prayer position with little fingers touching the floor, nose to the ground….) and were not allowed to raise our heads until she had passed us.
In the month before her visit, students (the whole school) had spent 3 afternoons (all lessons were cancelled) sitting in the sun, learning how to wai/(though the grovelling motion people make is nothing like a ‘normal’ wai…) correctly.
The actual day itself was hot and sunny and the students had to sit in position (ready for her arrival) for over an hour before she arrived. Worst of all, as she walked down the red carpet she started talking to people. It must have taken her at least 5 minutes to make a 1-2 minute stroll. No one spoke…
She spent almost an hour visiting the classooms, talking to students etc. and the students who were sat on the grass had to stay put. No one was allowed to move, even to go to the toilet/get water etc. Most of the Thai teachers who were supposed to be ‘supervising’ them, got up, and stood in the shade… The students were stuck there and I felt really sorry for them.
Few of the students complained (other than saying they were hot)… but I couldn’t help wondering how this would endear them to, and make them love their royal family.
One year later, the same princess was on her way to visit another school. Everyone living in the street (and a couple of students skipping class) were allowed to kneel by the roadside to watch the procession of cars go past. No one bent down. Most were trying to look inside and work out which car she was in, and cheered when they finally ‘found’ and saw her wave and smile.