[…] aspects of the interview. At New Mandala, Guest Contributor Skye Phu-ngarm has a post entitled “A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview.” Ignoring the allusion to “Thai-style” anything, it does present a sympathetic position […]
After reading through this thread, may I comment on your arguments about who own the asset of CPB.
CPB is not owned by any particular person, not King Rama IX. It is an asset of the crown, anyone who become the head of state have some rights to control and use the money.
In the end, it is wealth own by the people, by the country and by law we let the head of state use and control it to some extent. The law and constitution can be changed through democratic legislation process. Over times, if there is a public agreement to change this law, it will.
I am not sure what would be the point of this thread. I am not sure you have any bad intentions to defame the institution. Each country has its own historical background, its historical context, you cannot impose western style ideology to Thailand and Thai people.
It has been nearly a thousand year from Mag na Carta to the current state of democracy in UK. There has been dictator kings, good kings bad kings, the rise of people and so on. When you look through the history of democratisation process around the world, you will see that Thailand 79 years under democracy is relatively young compared to the west. We may not be the best example of democracy but we have improved, we enjoy more freedom than hundred years ago and I am sure as part of the democratisation process we will certainly be better than now in hundred years to come. No one can turn the tide or else they risk destroying themselves.
You can argue that we can be better than this without lese majeste, without the powerful institution and/or even without the royal family at all. I can argue with you that it may be worse and the argument can go on and on forever depending on your view and my view. But I believe that no institution can oppress their citizens forever regardless of they intend or not intend to do so. The system will evolve as it has been in other countries and it will evolve to its new equilibrium. If you want to change things, you can gradually influence the society to move/to change or you can quickly remove one component and allow the equilibrium to shift instantly. However you have to know that the effect of the latter may be more tragic/detrimental to the country as a whole.
There are very few successful democratic countries in Asia. And most of the successful ones have their own historical context. We can observe those less unfortunate ones whose democracy fail again and again. I am not sure we have any single case that a swift change by removing a controlling institution can create an observable benefits.
In my opinion, for Thailand, it is not about whether we have the king or not but it is about we are ready to be fully democratic. Thais have been given some sorts of self-ruling since King Rama V’s village chief election more that a century ago. You can see how we still elect those corrupted politicians to take control of various municipalities around Thailand. Those local mafia, construction contractors and so on are part of our elected local administration. We cannot deny responsibility as we, the people of Thailand, elect them ourselves. I am sure if you go back in history, you will see vote buying ballot rigging as part of those developed countries like UK, US and so on too. It is not because they are under monarchy or not, it is people, it is their education system, the characteristics of local people. This all add up to the system/problems/issue of any particular countries. Therefore it involves many factors beyond your simple argument that some of you have tried to put forward throughout this webboard. The argument that all blame one particular Thai institution, condemning it for whatever bad things that happened in Thailand.
In my view again, the problem is from the root not from the top, you can cut the tree at its shoot and new shoot (new form of ruling institution, better or worse is arguable) will come out. Cutting the problem at its root (education, welfare to lessen the income gap and improve well-being), the tree of problem will totally diminish.
The Thai word for irony, depending on exact context, and there are a few idiomatic phrases that fit well. The problem, perhaps, with the word irony is that we are probably looking at a definition along the lines of “That is what you set up and now you have to live with it – despite the fact that you, who were not supposed to be subject to it, are the first to feel the pain.”
Thailand’s greatest irony, however, seems to be the irony between being guaranteed equality on the one hand in the charter and exposed, on the other, to the difference between sky and earth. This is a human irony.
My question wasn’t intended to be rhetorical at all. I really would like to know how the Royal Thai propaganda machine can justify pushing “sufficiency economy” for the masses when the Crown Property Bureau seems to be following a much different economic model, that of maximizing profits.
Nick Nostitz,
Good point you have made about the burning mentioned by Princess Chulabhorn. Why was the fact that 91 people killed deliberately disregarded?
“being divisive is not good for the country. We should try to talk. Don’t use violence. Divisiveness and blocking roads makes traffic jams, and people are moody. ”
Chularbhorn is right
Thai people should try to talk
The Thai royals should refuse to accept Thai military use of force to “protect them”
The Thai military should be banned from any involvement in operations or any activities involving the population, including migrants and refugees, in Thailand
The royals should avoid contributing to traffic jams and travel without special privileges and police actions
The royals should remove a major reason for the moodiness of the people by supporting free and fair elections and accept the authority of democratically elected governments to manage their institution as well as the military for the benefit of the people
The royals should remove another reason for the moodiness of the people by ceasing the use of lese majeste and grovelling at their feet
Oouch! My ears! Resorting to being SHOUTY now, are we?
Perhaps it’s best to be selective in cause and effect, make no connection whatsoever between policymakers, nay an autocratic ruler, and the citizenry. Let’s keep our heads in the sand and concentrate on breathing instead. What a breath of fresh air you are!
“…Although her father had tirelessly done so, she explained that young Thais were poorly aware of his great dedication, and urged the local media to keep them reminded. This, as she asserted, was not to bolster his image but to provide the people with correct information to enable them to form the correct judgement he deserves…”
I hear this all the time from Malaysia’s corrupt rulers, including Malaysia’s less than perfect monarchy.
“….. have we not established that Democracy isn’t working?”
No – we haven’t. Only that it’s not working perfectly in Thailand – something common to all other countries that have it.
“You haven’t proposed a viable alternative to military intervention in the cases of improper administrations.”
No need to propose it – it’s already present in the Thai constitution:
Section 108
The King has the prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives for a new election of members of the House.
The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within the period of not less than forty five days but not more than sixty days as from the date of the dissolution of the House of Representatives and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.
The dissolution of the House of Representatives may be made only once under the same circumstance.
And, please – don’t let’s have anyone trundle out the all-too-familiar “above politics” line in relation to this vital part of the Constitution. If the constitutional monarch doesn’t have the legitimate right, then for sure the military don’t.
The predictable doubletalk from the Thai government has begun.
Government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn says the Thai army used Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) which is artillery designed to attack missiles and Thailand does not consider it a cluster bomb. (Bangkok Post.)
Wikipedia describes the DPICM:
A Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) is an artillery or surface-to-surface missile warhead designed to burst into sub-munitions at an optimum altitude and distance from the desired target for dense area coverage. The sub-munitions are designed for both antiarmor and antipersonnel attack. Some sub-munitions may be designed for delayed reaction or mobility denial (mines). The air-to-surface variety of this kind of munition is better known as a cluster bomb.
GlobalSecurity,org:
The Cluster Munitions Policy Memo (19 June 2008) directed that after 2018, cluster munitions must not produce >1% UXO; a limit that will not be waived. It provided no differentiation between types of UXO (hazardous or non-hazardous duds). All cluster munition stocks that exceed operational planning requirements will be removed from the inventory as soon as possible, but not later than June 2009. The previous UXO Requirement: < 2% 20-60km; < 4% 60km. GMLRS DPICM with Self Destruct Fuze (SDF) development and performance demonstrated “hazardous” dud rate of only 0.15%, overall UXO 3.7%, which does not comply with the new DOD Policy.
The nature of the device doesn’t change depending on who or what it’s fired at. Once again, the Thai government thinks everyone will believe what it says, no matter how incredible.
The Thai ambassador who first admitted use of the cluster munitions says they were used in “self defense.” Sound familiar?
But David, have we not established that Democracy isn’t working?
How do we established that since we never in anyway came close to the thing call “Democracy”?
Ain’t we been using the 3 pillars structure since 50 years ago? maybe its time to change?
However, the 3 pillars structure that you suggest, the Politician, Monarchy, and the Military is in no way can be considered as democratic. What is not work here is not democracy but the “Dictatorship with electorate” that is what more accurate way to portray situation in Thailand now.
they need an outside “enemy” to be a scapegoat for their own problems?</cite
You are partly right about the need of creating the "enemy" to keep everything together. Never in the history that the country is so disunited that I actually heard a Thai guy who actually say "I hope the Cambodian teach the Army a damn lesson".
Not only to find common enemy so people can be united but also the Army can use this as a reason to expand their budget. The formation of the new infantry division was a direct response to the "threat" in the eastern border, fortunately Hun Sen was smart enough not to play into the elite card.
The maybe most important part of the interview should be pointed out as well, to be found on the fourth part. To my knowledge Princess Chulabhorn made there the first public comment of any member of the Royal family regarding the protests last year. She mentioned here the burning of the buildings (“phau ban phao mueang”), how much it affected the health of the king, and brought this in relation to the burning of Ayutthaya by the Burmese.
Soonuk dum – It is perplexing, no, simply stunning, that you still fail the see the circularity of your own argument. The underlying point behind it all, and at the core of any political theory, I believe, is how justness is justified.
Your analogy does not answer this. Instead it assumes the military and the monarchy to be completely seperate entities with legitimacy on equal footings with representatives of the electorate. Let alone your aforementioned argument which proclaim the monarchy to be the source of moral behind it all. It sure begs the question, and inconsistent even between yourself.
As others have pointed out, you do make a lot of unjustified claims in each and every sentence of yours.
“have we not established that Democracy isn’t working?” No, aside from your mere assertions, we have not.
“You haven’t proposed a viable alternative to military intervention in the cases of improper administrations.” Again this begs the question of legitimacy, which the unaccountable military or monarchy simply do not have.
Even that aside your incongruity reminds me of the ministry of truth in the dystopic novel 1984.
It’s simply not comprehensible to me that one can really think and still hold such circular and incongruible beliefs.
That is, of course, assuming that you do.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
“During the interview with Wuttitorn, the princess also talked about music, her pet dogs and her views about doomsday.”
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/04/08/national/His-majesty-the-king-still-works-tirelessly-in-hos-30152799.html
This is probably in the next installment. ********!
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
[…] aspects of the interview. At New Mandala, Guest Contributor Skye Phu-ngarm has a post entitled “A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview.” Ignoring the allusion to “Thai-style” anything, it does present a sympathetic position […]
Thailand’s royal billions
After reading through this thread, may I comment on your arguments about who own the asset of CPB.
CPB is not owned by any particular person, not King Rama IX. It is an asset of the crown, anyone who become the head of state have some rights to control and use the money.
In the end, it is wealth own by the people, by the country and by law we let the head of state use and control it to some extent. The law and constitution can be changed through democratic legislation process. Over times, if there is a public agreement to change this law, it will.
I am not sure what would be the point of this thread. I am not sure you have any bad intentions to defame the institution. Each country has its own historical background, its historical context, you cannot impose western style ideology to Thailand and Thai people.
It has been nearly a thousand year from Mag na Carta to the current state of democracy in UK. There has been dictator kings, good kings bad kings, the rise of people and so on. When you look through the history of democratisation process around the world, you will see that Thailand 79 years under democracy is relatively young compared to the west. We may not be the best example of democracy but we have improved, we enjoy more freedom than hundred years ago and I am sure as part of the democratisation process we will certainly be better than now in hundred years to come. No one can turn the tide or else they risk destroying themselves.
You can argue that we can be better than this without lese majeste, without the powerful institution and/or even without the royal family at all. I can argue with you that it may be worse and the argument can go on and on forever depending on your view and my view. But I believe that no institution can oppress their citizens forever regardless of they intend or not intend to do so. The system will evolve as it has been in other countries and it will evolve to its new equilibrium. If you want to change things, you can gradually influence the society to move/to change or you can quickly remove one component and allow the equilibrium to shift instantly. However you have to know that the effect of the latter may be more tragic/detrimental to the country as a whole.
There are very few successful democratic countries in Asia. And most of the successful ones have their own historical context. We can observe those less unfortunate ones whose democracy fail again and again. I am not sure we have any single case that a swift change by removing a controlling institution can create an observable benefits.
In my opinion, for Thailand, it is not about whether we have the king or not but it is about we are ready to be fully democratic. Thais have been given some sorts of self-ruling since King Rama V’s village chief election more that a century ago. You can see how we still elect those corrupted politicians to take control of various municipalities around Thailand. Those local mafia, construction contractors and so on are part of our elected local administration. We cannot deny responsibility as we, the people of Thailand, elect them ourselves. I am sure if you go back in history, you will see vote buying ballot rigging as part of those developed countries like UK, US and so on too. It is not because they are under monarchy or not, it is people, it is their education system, the characteristics of local people. This all add up to the system/problems/issue of any particular countries. Therefore it involves many factors beyond your simple argument that some of you have tried to put forward throughout this webboard. The argument that all blame one particular Thai institution, condemning it for whatever bad things that happened in Thailand.
In my view again, the problem is from the root not from the top, you can cut the tree at its shoot and new shoot (new form of ruling institution, better or worse is arguable) will come out. Cutting the problem at its root (education, welfare to lessen the income gap and improve well-being), the tree of problem will totally diminish.
Thanks
Ken
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
The Thai word for irony, depending on exact context, and there are a few idiomatic phrases that fit well. The problem, perhaps, with the word irony is that we are probably looking at a definition along the lines of “That is what you set up and now you have to live with it – despite the fact that you, who were not supposed to be subject to it, are the first to feel the pain.”
Thailand’s greatest irony, however, seems to be the irony between being guaranteed equality on the one hand in the charter and exposed, on the other, to the difference between sky and earth. This is a human irony.
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
Talking of the protests, she also lamented how closing down roads caused traffic jams and made people angry!!
Is there a Thai word (or concept) for irony?
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
@ Stephen Johnson – 4
My question wasn’t intended to be rhetorical at all. I really would like to know how the Royal Thai propaganda machine can justify pushing “sufficiency economy” for the masses when the Crown Property Bureau seems to be following a much different economic model, that of maximizing profits.
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
And their legacy is Thaksin ……
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
Nick Nostitz,
Good point you have made about the burning mentioned by Princess Chulabhorn. Why was the fact that 91 people killed deliberately disregarded?
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
“being divisive is not good for the country. We should try to talk. Don’t use violence. Divisiveness and blocking roads makes traffic jams, and people are moody. ”
Chularbhorn is right
Thai people should try to talk
The Thai royals should refuse to accept Thai military use of force to “protect them”
The Thai military should be banned from any involvement in operations or any activities involving the population, including migrants and refugees, in Thailand
The royals should avoid contributing to traffic jams and travel without special privileges and police actions
The royals should remove a major reason for the moodiness of the people by supporting free and fair elections and accept the authority of democratically elected governments to manage their institution as well as the military for the benefit of the people
The royals should remove another reason for the moodiness of the people by ceasing the use of lese majeste and grovelling at their feet
Benedict Rogers deported from Burma
plan B,
Oouch! My ears! Resorting to being SHOUTY now, are we?
Perhaps it’s best to be selective in cause and effect, make no connection whatsoever between policymakers, nay an autocratic ruler, and the citizenry. Let’s keep our heads in the sand and concentrate on breathing instead. What a breath of fresh air you are!
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
“…Although her father had tirelessly done so, she explained that young Thais were poorly aware of his great dedication, and urged the local media to keep them reminded. This, as she asserted, was not to bolster his image but to provide the people with correct information to enable them to form the correct judgement he deserves…”
I hear this all the time from Malaysia’s corrupt rulers, including Malaysia’s less than perfect monarchy.
Thailand accused of using cluster bombs against Cambodia
c14
Sorry to say, Thailand is not a signatory. Neither is Cambodia, come to that.
http://www.clusterconvention.org/ratifications-and-signatures/
Is an election the answer for Thailand?
c27
“….. have we not established that Democracy isn’t working?”
No – we haven’t. Only that it’s not working perfectly in Thailand – something common to all other countries that have it.
“You haven’t proposed a viable alternative to military intervention in the cases of improper administrations.”
No need to propose it – it’s already present in the Thai constitution:
Section 108
The King has the prerogative to dissolve the House of Representatives for a new election of members of the House.
The dissolution of the House of Representatives shall be made in the form of a Royal Decree in which the day for a new general election must be fixed within the period of not less than forty five days but not more than sixty days as from the date of the dissolution of the House of Representatives and such election day must be the same throughout the Kingdom.
The dissolution of the House of Representatives may be made only once under the same circumstance.
And, please – don’t let’s have anyone trundle out the all-too-familiar “above politics” line in relation to this vital part of the Constitution. If the constitutional monarch doesn’t have the legitimate right, then for sure the military don’t.
William Young dies in Thailand
Don Person, what do you mean by “They too were confused.” Are you saying they are crazy.?
Is chaing Mai the retirement place of the CIA hitmen?
Thailand accused of using cluster bombs against Cambodia
The predictable doubletalk from the Thai government has begun.
Government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn says the Thai army used Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) which is artillery designed to attack missiles and Thailand does not consider it a cluster bomb. (Bangkok Post.)
Wikipedia describes the DPICM:
GlobalSecurity,org:
The nature of the device doesn’t change depending on who or what it’s fired at. Once again, the Thai government thinks everyone will believe what it says, no matter how incredible.
The Thai ambassador who first admitted use of the cluster munitions says they were used in “self defense.” Sound familiar?
Thailand accused of using cluster bombs against Cambodia
Not sure if a scapegoat is needed for a country that insists its problems are caused by others.
Is an election the answer for Thailand?
Soonuk Dum – 27
But David, have we not established that Democracy isn’t working?
How do we established that since we never in anyway came close to the thing call “Democracy”?
Ain’t we been using the 3 pillars structure since 50 years ago? maybe its time to change?
However, the 3 pillars structure that you suggest, the Politician, Monarchy, and the Military is in no way can be considered as democratic. What is not work here is not democracy but the “Dictatorship with electorate” that is what more accurate way to portray situation in Thailand now.
Thailand accused of using cluster bombs against Cambodia
Nok – 15
they need an outside “enemy” to be a scapegoat for their own problems?</cite
You are partly right about the need of creating the "enemy" to keep everything together. Never in the history that the country is so disunited that I actually heard a Thai guy who actually say "I hope the Cambodian teach the Army a damn lesson".
Not only to find common enemy so people can be united but also the Army can use this as a reason to expand their budget. The formation of the new infantry division was a direct response to the "threat" in the eastern border, fortunately Hun Sen was smart enough not to play into the elite card.
A Thai response to Princess Chulabhorn’s interview
The maybe most important part of the interview should be pointed out as well, to be found on the fourth part. To my knowledge Princess Chulabhorn made there the first public comment of any member of the Royal family regarding the protests last year. She mentioned here the burning of the buildings (“phau ban phao mueang”), how much it affected the health of the king, and brought this in relation to the burning of Ayutthaya by the Burmese.
Is an election the answer for Thailand?
Soonuk dum – It is perplexing, no, simply stunning, that you still fail the see the circularity of your own argument. The underlying point behind it all, and at the core of any political theory, I believe, is how justness is justified.
Your analogy does not answer this. Instead it assumes the military and the monarchy to be completely seperate entities with legitimacy on equal footings with representatives of the electorate. Let alone your aforementioned argument which proclaim the monarchy to be the source of moral behind it all. It sure begs the question, and inconsistent even between yourself.
As others have pointed out, you do make a lot of unjustified claims in each and every sentence of yours.
“have we not established that Democracy isn’t working?” No, aside from your mere assertions, we have not.
“You haven’t proposed a viable alternative to military intervention in the cases of improper administrations.” Again this begs the question of legitimacy, which the unaccountable military or monarchy simply do not have.
Even that aside your incongruity reminds me of the ministry of truth in the dystopic novel 1984.
It’s simply not comprehensible to me that one can really think and still hold such circular and incongruible beliefs.
That is, of course, assuming that you do.