According to the constitution, the king is the king-maker. He can even re-write the palace law of succession at will. Any more precise discussion of the succession thereby becomes presumptuous in the extreme. His majesty is of course free to change his mind at any time…
If there were more men or women as brave As Giles Umprakorn in Thailand they would not be as brain washed as they are. From birth they are mentally manipulated through school into the monks and then into the Army. A bit like 1984 by Orwell. They follow ‘ He who must be obeyed’. without a rational thought. It’s only when they can’t feed their children as they are passed out on the road by a brand new BMW. Which the owner paid more than it cost to feed their chrildren for a life time, the penny begins to drop. Decent people see this anomoly as discusting and an outrage. Keep going Ji.
David in Ireland
Thairath printed-edition (19 May), in editorial scoop, it interviewed a red guard & soldiers
Interesting, a soldier said he’s from Lopburi province (army base), this team was assigned to block anyone to enter the main stage at Rajprasong.
He said “personally, I think it’s not too hard if we want to disperse the protesters. Only difficulty is, from Army Intel, the mob is heavily armed.”
…
He said “My relatives from Amphur Banmi, Lopburi, joining the rally the whole village. I don’t know what to do if something bad happen. Not only mine, hundred of soldier relatives from Lopburi are joining the redshirt and are in the main stage. We all are worried”.
“..Army intel. flows in saying the mob has snipers and rapid weapons with laser guidance. ”
So far, almost 40 all civilians has been killed, that’s the fact.
I greatly appreciate the last point here – I’m glad that Thais recognize the failures of the foreign press; in any case it’s not like they get their news from them but I’m sure they would appreciate the rest of the world knowing the truth. The amount of spin and ridiculous assumptions made by some foreign reporters is disgusting.
There are of course good outlets, like this, but the large mainstream international press has trended towards sensationalism.
Somehow the situation is kind of surrealistic. Perhaps someone has some more information on the following questions:
1. So far in Thai history bloodshed on the streets on Bangkok lead to changes in government. In 1973 and 1992 authoritarian governments were toppled, while 1976 rightists used bloodshed to install an authoritarian government. Even though Abhisit is no historian, he should know about these facts. Is it because in the mentioned cases the protesters were drawn mainly from the Bangkok middle classes, while this year they are portrayed as rural folks? Does he think he would not be affected in his position as prime minister from the dead bodies or because in 1973 and 1992 (not in 1976!) the media were critical of the government while today they are supporting it?
2. In the mentioned cases the military send in quite well trained troops. From the video coverage I have the impression that most of the troops are not specially trained but common troops and even draftees. Of course this excludes the snipers, which are an innovation. Why were no really trained troops used? Are there none available?
3. Extended fighting destabilizes those responsible namely the government, military leadership etc. While this year the violence continues already for five days and is spreading rather then calming down, in the other cases it was over after two or three days! Why was the military intervention not organized as a rapid sweep? Is it due to incompetence of the soldiers and their leaders? Do they try to minimize casualties? Certainly, a fast charge would have costs many lives, may be more then the so far admitted close to 50 dead, but looking at 1973, 1976 and 1992 I don’t think that in these cases this was of higher relevance. Although it might sound cynical, but to me it appears as if the military wants to show that they are doing something, but in fact take care that the protests can continue. The questions for me are, is there an intention that the government is damaged beyond repair after five days of fighting? Are the options of the military leadership limited because among the troops many sympathise with the protesters, who might be their friends and relatives from the rural areas? Are there opponents of the current leadership within the military that even appreciate a loss of reputation of the political and military leaders?
4. The military and political leaders should have an interest to contain the protests instead of spreading them, as it is happening now. Why don’t they? Do they feel so secure in support from the old elites? That they either go abroad or hide in military installations is not an indicator of feeling secure!
– Thairath reports the soldiers are blocking some small Soi, to cut the food supply or people to join the main stage at Rajprasong by deploying snipers (i.e., M-16 with scope, etc). They are trying to narrow the perimeter down.
– CRES issues statement to cut off the financial transactions of those who they believe linked to the Red Shirt and related to Thaksin’s allies. Any one wants to withdraw/deposit 500 Baht must ask permission from the CRES.
– CRES issues another statement to siege the tire business as they warn those traders to report the sale of used/new tires. They’re afraid it might be used by protesters to set fire.
At around 4-5 p.m. there’s building on fire, 4 civilian injured, one from fire burn, the rest got shot.
– The coalition parties asked the Redshirt to stop protesting, and come back to have table talk.
I think it’s the money trail threatening to go public that has been causing the red shirt leadership problems the last couple of days. Be worth keeping an eye on as the information begins to be leaked out.
Merriam Webster Dictionary:
lynch
Pronunciation: \╦Иlinch\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: lynch law
Date: 1836
: to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction
You (and the Nation) should chose your words more wisely and stop contributing to the rhetoric.
Disclaimer: This is a debate where little substantiated information is available, well… almost none, actually because of the LM laws. Therefore, one has to work out theories based essentially on rumors and speculations. And take everything with a big pinch of salt.
I believe it is unnecessary to remind that the CP doesn’t have a very good personal reputation; at a younger age he is widely reported to have acted as a spoiled kid with little insight on what is appropriate or not to do in his position. Even now, his penchant for women seems not to have faded. However, little is known of his political views and his intentions when/if he accesses the throne.
He’s had business ties with Thaksin, but as of now it is unclear where the relationship between those two stands. Allegedly, though, the CP and Thaksin have met a couple of times abroad after Thaksin was ousted from power.
The CP, despite being a former combat pilot, doesn’t seem to maintain a large network of military acquaintances. However, it is strongly suggested that the late Seh Daeng was his protege, reason why the assassinated general was overly confident that his enemies wouldn’t dare touch him.
As the article starting this discussion mentions, there is little doubt that he’s the next in line, however there is some widely propagated rumor that some people are contemplating avoiding this scenario by appointing his son (now aged 5) with a regency – the rumors sometimes go even further by naming the potential regents as Queen Sirikit and Prem Tisulanonda, chairman of the Privy Council. As of know, such scenario has absolutely no legal ground, except in the case that the incumbent himself explicitly pronounces it.
The other alternative scenario of a succession by HRH Maha Chakri was, allegedly, rejected by herself for she’s uninterested and not comfortable with that for her own safety. Anyway, the legal possibility is also very thin.
IF the current turmoil is related to the succession and IF all the above stated rumors have some accuracy, then the theory one could extrapolate is that the protests are putting pressure to dissuade any interested party to mess with the succession by preventing Vajiralongkorn to access the throne. There’s no need for a PhD to figure out who would feel uncomfortable about the next king being in good intelligence with people like Thaksin and Seh Daeng (RIP).
Here’s an odd story. Maybe insignificant, maybe not… :
Athita# 6,
Can’t agree more with you. As I have been watching Aljazeera, BBC and CNN, all I can see is PM’s deputy secretary-general Panitan Wattanayagorn tries his best to “twist” the on- goings in Thailand, especially on answering Veronica Pedrosa – a news pesenter on Aljazeera to the question why Panitan said that the security forces have been attacked by the red shirts when soldiers being fully armed but the red shirts having either slingshots or Molotov Cocktail, he said that reporters see things on ONE side only and went on that there are many angles that reporters cannot see. Maybe he meant whoever is not in line with his version of truth(?) is not in the position to see the whole truth? Another point is on the 28th April I saw soldiers with light blue scarves fire at the red shirts on the suburb of BKK, were they the queen’s guards? And at the moment around BKK as well as near the red camp there are armed soldiers with pink ribbons pinned on their sleeves; are they the king’s guards? Do they try to indicate something? I personally haven’t heard any comment by correspondents on this issue yet.
Democracy is a concept that will provide the right to govern from one person or one group to group all people in the form of elected representatives of each region into the parliament. Democracy is to honor each other and equal rights, however, the democracy of country do not have to be like each other. Thailand’s democracy will be designed and customized by all Thai people.
So if you are a democratic person, please respect us. We choose to respect our king with our rights from Thai style democratization. So as long as me and Thai nation never criticize you and your country. Please respect Thailand and honor to our king. Moreover, never come to Thailand even again, because you are not welcome anymore.
“King-makers”, I think the power resides in the Privy Council.
I have long thought that the succession and control of the Privy Council has been part of a lot of recent disputes. It’s just that I’m not smart enough to know who supports who
Andrew, can you possibly make a NM link available for those 2 Prachatai English memorials? It’s impossible for many in Thailand to get to Prachatai now. I used to be able to, through a VPN, but I get an “oops” message now when I try to open it. Thanks.
Something I have been thinking about recently- and to be clear, all of these thoughts are the very opposite of evidence-based.
Assuming that the CP is- or views himself as being- marginalized from the Queen’s and Council’s elite circles. And assuming that he must aligning himself with someone, anyone, else as a counterweight to those circles. Finally, assuming that the majority of Thais are sensing the degraded relevance of HMK’s ability and/or willingness for extra-political intervention (i.e.- the degradation mentioned in the Herald articles).
Then: the CP could, at any point in time and as the expressed heir to the throne, break protocol and speak against the violence He could even go so far as to summon the leaders as his father did 18 years ago.
Such a move would be rash and it would, again, break protocol. But if he were to intervene- and in such a way that publicly appeared as though he were doing so with his father’s blessing- no one could stop him from doing so. No one could come out and say he was abusing his authority, insulting/shaming HMK, physically stop the summoned meeting from occurring, or refuse to attend.
Were he to intervene as such (extrinsically an unbiased intervention for the good of the whole country, obtusely demanding peace from both sides; an intervention viewed by most as intrinsically in favor of the Reds) he would out-flank rival, more powerful, power bases. And, he might go some distance towards mending his main weakness as heir to the throne: no nexus of personal respect and support for him from his subjects.
Anyway, his mother has stepped forward and acted definitively. His sister has stepped forward and acted. The CP is the one individual, under both the constitution and the King’s own declarations, with the standing to act as definitely as his father did in 1992.
Again, any action would need to appear unbiased. But like ’92 and other interventions, the appearance and truth of extra-political impartiality are not one and the same.
So why is he not acting? Is he uncertain of where he will draw power and support during the succession struggle? Does he disagree with the Sydney Herald’s assessment of HMK’s faded image? Since September, has HMK been more active in palatial politics than he has been given credit for- enough so that the CP would still fear his father’s power to personally sway the succession?
Setting aside the idea of the CP replicating ’92, “Why is he not acting?” strikes me as both fascinating and central to what is happening in BKK today.
while I have to agree on most of what Hartcher says I disagree on a few comments: (1) quote: “four-year-old political and constitutional dysfunction that was part-engineered by Bhumibol himself”/ Unquote. I personally doubt that because the monarchy was used by some elites/amaat under Prem for their own personal ambitions; (2) Quote: “When the army and business establishment united to bring down the populist, and popular, Thaksin Shinawatra in a 2006 coup, the king was involved through his chief aide, Prem”/ Unquote. The fact is that the king complimented Thaksin on his government on a number of occasions, even when the coup-makers under General Sondhi came to see him (there was a youtube recording of this), but this was not published in the media for obvious reasons. (3) Quoting AW and NF: ”In attacking these prominent royal advisers, Thaksin took a step closer to an attack on the monarchy itself.”/ unquote. To my mind there is significant leap of conjecture from the irrefutable mischief-making Puppet Master Prem to the king himself. Thaksin spoke highly of the king on numerous occasions and still does so today. (4) quote: Why would Bhumibol want Thaksin removed from his democratically elected post? The pretext is Thaksin’s corruption, and he is certainly corrupt” (!)/ Unquote. Wrong on two counts: firstly the king never wanted Thaksin removed. It was the amaat around him and those who controlled power in the palace. It overstates the monarchy’s effective versus symbolic power. Secondly, it has to be shown that Thaksin was “certainly corrupt”. Where is the evidence? Because everyone says so? (how many times since Sondhi Lim started this media fiction five years back?) he was no more or less “corrupt” than the access and privilege of wealthy individuals to certain knowledge/power and networked corporate systems. Like it or leave it- none of it was actually found to be “illegal” (unless one retrospectively changes the law- which they tried to do). I guess he looks “certainly corrupt”, which is enough to pass irrefutable judgement on the man. So lets all keep saying this over and over again as a mantra and it will become a embedded truth… If it were found out one day that much of the accusations against Thaksin were largely fiction, what would we all do? Even many academics fall into this uncritical fallacy…Hartcher could reasonable say, “allegedly corrupt” person etc. But I’ll bet the current regime would love to get their hands on his dosh as the country’s coffers become nearly empty after paying out past four years such massive amounts for the anti-Thaksin witch hunt; army of censors, nice fascist toys for the military mates, & financing media propagandists to justify coup actions in September 2006…
I once asked some feminine looking gays I have met in Burma about how they would prefer to be called. They said they like the word “Ah La Phan Thi Shin” that literally means “creators of beauty”. I think some of those gays also don’t mind to be called “achauk” which literally means “dryness” or to refer to the action which is sissy and feminine.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A chance for peace?
Rumours on email and twitter of a 5 AM crackdown.
Assumptions about the next in line
According to the constitution, the king is the king-maker. He can even re-write the palace law of succession at will. Any more precise discussion of the succession thereby becomes presumptuous in the extreme. His majesty is of course free to change his mind at any time…
Giles Ungpakorn on asset seizures, etc
If there were more men or women as brave As Giles Umprakorn in Thailand they would not be as brain washed as they are. From birth they are mentally manipulated through school into the monks and then into the Army. A bit like 1984 by Orwell. They follow ‘ He who must be obeyed’. without a rational thought. It’s only when they can’t feed their children as they are passed out on the road by a brand new BMW. Which the owner paid more than it cost to feed their chrildren for a life time, the penny begins to drop. Decent people see this anomoly as discusting and an outrage. Keep going Ji.
David in Ireland
A chance for peace?
Also video of a shot man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJE-fNnJuKg
Thairath printed-edition (19 May), in editorial scoop, it interviewed a red guard & soldiers
Interesting, a soldier said he’s from Lopburi province (army base), this team was assigned to block anyone to enter the main stage at Rajprasong.
He said “personally, I think it’s not too hard if we want to disperse the protesters. Only difficulty is, from Army Intel, the mob is heavily armed.”
…
He said “My relatives from Amphur Banmi, Lopburi, joining the rally the whole village. I don’t know what to do if something bad happen. Not only mine, hundred of soldier relatives from Lopburi are joining the redshirt and are in the main stage. We all are worried”.
“..Army intel. flows in saying the mob has snipers and rapid weapons with laser guidance. ”
So far, almost 40 all civilians has been killed, that’s the fact.
A chance for peace?
I greatly appreciate the last point here – I’m glad that Thais recognize the failures of the foreign press; in any case it’s not like they get their news from them but I’m sure they would appreciate the rest of the world knowing the truth. The amount of spin and ridiculous assumptions made by some foreign reporters is disgusting.
There are of course good outlets, like this, but the large mainstream international press has trended towards sensationalism.
17 May 1992 and 17 May 2010
Somehow the situation is kind of surrealistic. Perhaps someone has some more information on the following questions:
1. So far in Thai history bloodshed on the streets on Bangkok lead to changes in government. In 1973 and 1992 authoritarian governments were toppled, while 1976 rightists used bloodshed to install an authoritarian government. Even though Abhisit is no historian, he should know about these facts. Is it because in the mentioned cases the protesters were drawn mainly from the Bangkok middle classes, while this year they are portrayed as rural folks? Does he think he would not be affected in his position as prime minister from the dead bodies or because in 1973 and 1992 (not in 1976!) the media were critical of the government while today they are supporting it?
2. In the mentioned cases the military send in quite well trained troops. From the video coverage I have the impression that most of the troops are not specially trained but common troops and even draftees. Of course this excludes the snipers, which are an innovation. Why were no really trained troops used? Are there none available?
3. Extended fighting destabilizes those responsible namely the government, military leadership etc. While this year the violence continues already for five days and is spreading rather then calming down, in the other cases it was over after two or three days! Why was the military intervention not organized as a rapid sweep? Is it due to incompetence of the soldiers and their leaders? Do they try to minimize casualties? Certainly, a fast charge would have costs many lives, may be more then the so far admitted close to 50 dead, but looking at 1973, 1976 and 1992 I don’t think that in these cases this was of higher relevance. Although it might sound cynical, but to me it appears as if the military wants to show that they are doing something, but in fact take care that the protests can continue. The questions for me are, is there an intention that the government is damaged beyond repair after five days of fighting? Are the options of the military leadership limited because among the troops many sympathise with the protesters, who might be their friends and relatives from the rural areas? Are there opponents of the current leadership within the military that even appreciate a loss of reputation of the political and military leaders?
4. The military and political leaders should have an interest to contain the protests instead of spreading them, as it is happening now. Why don’t they? Do they feel so secure in support from the old elites? That they either go abroad or hide in military installations is not an indicator of feeling secure!
A chance for peace?
Did you forget the link to the “compelling, but misunderstood, critique”?
A chance for peace?
Update: 10:40 p.m. of 18 May
– Thairath reports the soldiers are blocking some small Soi, to cut the food supply or people to join the main stage at Rajprasong by deploying snipers (i.e., M-16 with scope, etc). They are trying to narrow the perimeter down.
See full report (in Thai) http://www.thairath.co.th/content/pol/83830
Video shows residents blame soldiers for shooting randomly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihSoz3WZKDs
Video shows people set up a small stage at Klong Toey, with Kru Prateep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUqOS0RS0qI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3VHxGTNit8
– CRES issues statement to cut off the financial transactions of those who they believe linked to the Red Shirt and related to Thaksin’s allies. Any one wants to withdraw/deposit 500 Baht must ask permission from the CRES.
– CRES issues another statement to siege the tire business as they warn those traders to report the sale of used/new tires. They’re afraid it might be used by protesters to set fire.
At around 4-5 p.m. there’s building on fire, 4 civilian injured, one from fire burn, the rest got shot.
– The coalition parties asked the Redshirt to stop protesting, and come back to have table talk.
Day 5 – how much longer?
I think it’s the money trail threatening to go public that has been causing the red shirt leadership problems the last couple of days. Be worth keeping an eye on as the information begins to be leaked out.
A chance for peace?
UPDATE: 18 May 2010
I think this is the best piece in months! Please read on.
http://www.somtow.org/2010/05/dont-blame-dan-rivers.html
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Don’t Blame Dan Rivers
Posted by Somtow Sucharitkul (S.P. Somtow) at 3:41 PM
Day 5 – how much longer?
@ Jasmin # 69 –
No, she wasn’t almost “lynched.”
Merriam Webster Dictionary:
lynch
Pronunciation: \╦Иlinch\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: lynch law
Date: 1836
: to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction
You (and the Nation) should chose your words more wisely and stop contributing to the rhetoric.
Assumptions about the next in line
Disclaimer: This is a debate where little substantiated information is available, well… almost none, actually because of the LM laws. Therefore, one has to work out theories based essentially on rumors and speculations. And take everything with a big pinch of salt.
I believe it is unnecessary to remind that the CP doesn’t have a very good personal reputation; at a younger age he is widely reported to have acted as a spoiled kid with little insight on what is appropriate or not to do in his position. Even now, his penchant for women seems not to have faded. However, little is known of his political views and his intentions when/if he accesses the throne.
He’s had business ties with Thaksin, but as of now it is unclear where the relationship between those two stands. Allegedly, though, the CP and Thaksin have met a couple of times abroad after Thaksin was ousted from power.
The CP, despite being a former combat pilot, doesn’t seem to maintain a large network of military acquaintances. However, it is strongly suggested that the late Seh Daeng was his protege, reason why the assassinated general was overly confident that his enemies wouldn’t dare touch him.
As the article starting this discussion mentions, there is little doubt that he’s the next in line, however there is some widely propagated rumor that some people are contemplating avoiding this scenario by appointing his son (now aged 5) with a regency – the rumors sometimes go even further by naming the potential regents as Queen Sirikit and Prem Tisulanonda, chairman of the Privy Council. As of know, such scenario has absolutely no legal ground, except in the case that the incumbent himself explicitly pronounces it.
The other alternative scenario of a succession by HRH Maha Chakri was, allegedly, rejected by herself for she’s uninterested and not comfortable with that for her own safety. Anyway, the legal possibility is also very thin.
IF the current turmoil is related to the succession and IF all the above stated rumors have some accuracy, then the theory one could extrapolate is that the protests are putting pressure to dissuade any interested party to mess with the succession by preventing Vajiralongkorn to access the throne. There’s no need for a PhD to figure out who would feel uncomfortable about the next king being in good intelligence with people like Thaksin and Seh Daeng (RIP).
Here’s an odd story. Maybe insignificant, maybe not… :
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2010/03/photographer-of-hrh-crown-prince-of.html
Royal sponsorship for “terrorist” funeral
Let’s see Weng trying his best to justify a protester having a gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwTCl4EYMpc&feature=player_embedded
A gun is still a gun. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought this was supposed to be a peaceful protest.
Interview with Nick Nostitz
Athita# 6,
Can’t agree more with you. As I have been watching Aljazeera, BBC and CNN, all I can see is PM’s deputy secretary-general Panitan Wattanayagorn tries his best to “twist” the on- goings in Thailand, especially on answering Veronica Pedrosa – a news pesenter on Aljazeera to the question why Panitan said that the security forces have been attacked by the red shirts when soldiers being fully armed but the red shirts having either slingshots or Molotov Cocktail, he said that reporters see things on ONE side only and went on that there are many angles that reporters cannot see. Maybe he meant whoever is not in line with his version of truth(?) is not in the position to see the whole truth? Another point is on the 28th April I saw soldiers with light blue scarves fire at the red shirts on the suburb of BKK, were they the queen’s guards? And at the moment around BKK as well as near the red camp there are armed soldiers with pink ribbons pinned on their sleeves; are they the king’s guards? Do they try to indicate something? I personally haven’t heard any comment by correspondents on this issue yet.
Paul Handley replies to comments
р╕Цр╕╢р╕З р╕Юр╕нр╕е р╣Бр╕ор╕Щр╣Ар╕ер╕вр╣М
р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕Др╕╖р╕нр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╕бр╕нр╕Ър╕кр╕┤р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ър╕гр╕┤р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Др╕Щр╣Жр╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕ер╕╕р╣Ир╕бр╕Др╕Щр╕Бр╕ер╕╕р╣Ир╕бр╣Ар╕Фр╕╡р╕вр╕зр╣Др╕Ыр╕кр╕╣р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Др╕Щр╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕╣р╕Ыр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Бр╕Чр╕Щр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕ер╕░р╕Юр╕╖р╣Йр╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Др╕Ыр╕кр╕╣р╣Ир╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕кр╕ар╕▓ р╣А р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╣Гр╕Щр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕ер╕░р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Ир╕│р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Щр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ р╕кр╕│р╕лр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╣Др╕Чр╕в р╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕нр╕нр╕Бр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Бр╕│р╕лр╕Щр╕Фр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Хр╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕З
р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в р╕Вр╕нр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Бр╕гр╕╕р╕Ур╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Ар╕Бр╕╡р╕вр╕гр╕Хр╕┤р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕▓ р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Др╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕лр╕▒р╕зр╕ар╕╣р╕бр╕┤р╕Юр╕ер╕пр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕кр╕┤р╕Чр╕Шр╕┤р╕Вр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕Юр╕╖р╣Йр╕Щр╕Рр╕▓р╕Щр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╣Бр╕Щр╕зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╣Др╕Чр╕в р╕Фр╕▒р╕Зр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╕Хр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕вр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Др╕вр╕зр╕┤р╕Юр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╣Мр╕зр╕┤р╕Ир╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕╕р╕У р╕Бр╕гр╕╕р╕Ур╕▓р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Ар╕Бр╕╡р╕вр╕гр╕Хр╕┤р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╣Др╕Чр╕вр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕лр╕▒р╕зр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕гр╕▓
р╕Щр╕нр╕Бр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╕Бр╕гр╕╕р╕Ур╕▓р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕ер╕▒р╕Ър╕бр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╣Др╕Чр╕вр╕нр╕╡р╕Б р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Щр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Др╕Щр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ы
р╕Ир╕▓р╕Б р╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕Чр╕в
To Mr. Paul HandLey,
Democracy is a concept that will provide the right to govern from one person or one group to group all people in the form of elected representatives of each region into the parliament. Democracy is to honor each other and equal rights, however, the democracy of country do not have to be like each other. Thailand’s democracy will be designed and customized by all Thai people.
So if you are a democratic person, please respect us. We choose to respect our king with our rights from Thai style democratization. So as long as me and Thai nation never criticize you and your country. Please respect Thailand and honor to our king. Moreover, never come to Thailand even again, because you are not welcome anymore.
From Thai Citizen
Assumptions about the next in line
“King-makers”, I think the power resides in the Privy Council.
I have long thought that the succession and control of the Privy Council has been part of a lot of recent disputes. It’s just that I’m not smart enough to know who supports who
A chance for peace?
Andrew, can you possibly make a NM link available for those 2 Prachatai English memorials? It’s impossible for many in Thailand to get to Prachatai now. I used to be able to, through a VPN, but I get an “oops” message now when I try to open it. Thanks.
Assumptions about the next in line
Something I have been thinking about recently- and to be clear, all of these thoughts are the very opposite of evidence-based.
Assuming that the CP is- or views himself as being- marginalized from the Queen’s and Council’s elite circles. And assuming that he must aligning himself with someone, anyone, else as a counterweight to those circles. Finally, assuming that the majority of Thais are sensing the degraded relevance of HMK’s ability and/or willingness for extra-political intervention (i.e.- the degradation mentioned in the Herald articles).
Then: the CP could, at any point in time and as the expressed heir to the throne, break protocol and speak against the violence He could even go so far as to summon the leaders as his father did 18 years ago.
Such a move would be rash and it would, again, break protocol. But if he were to intervene- and in such a way that publicly appeared as though he were doing so with his father’s blessing- no one could stop him from doing so. No one could come out and say he was abusing his authority, insulting/shaming HMK, physically stop the summoned meeting from occurring, or refuse to attend.
Were he to intervene as such (extrinsically an unbiased intervention for the good of the whole country, obtusely demanding peace from both sides; an intervention viewed by most as intrinsically in favor of the Reds) he would out-flank rival, more powerful, power bases. And, he might go some distance towards mending his main weakness as heir to the throne: no nexus of personal respect and support for him from his subjects.
Anyway, his mother has stepped forward and acted definitively. His sister has stepped forward and acted. The CP is the one individual, under both the constitution and the King’s own declarations, with the standing to act as definitely as his father did in 1992.
Again, any action would need to appear unbiased. But like ’92 and other interventions, the appearance and truth of extra-political impartiality are not one and the same.
So why is he not acting? Is he uncertain of where he will draw power and support during the succession struggle? Does he disagree with the Sydney Herald’s assessment of HMK’s faded image? Since September, has HMK been more active in palatial politics than he has been given credit for- enough so that the CP would still fear his father’s power to personally sway the succession?
Setting aside the idea of the CP replicating ’92, “Why is he not acting?” strikes me as both fascinating and central to what is happening in BKK today.
A chance for peace?
while I have to agree on most of what Hartcher says I disagree on a few comments: (1) quote: “four-year-old political and constitutional dysfunction that was part-engineered by Bhumibol himself”/ Unquote. I personally doubt that because the monarchy was used by some elites/amaat under Prem for their own personal ambitions; (2) Quote: “When the army and business establishment united to bring down the populist, and popular, Thaksin Shinawatra in a 2006 coup, the king was involved through his chief aide, Prem”/ Unquote. The fact is that the king complimented Thaksin on his government on a number of occasions, even when the coup-makers under General Sondhi came to see him (there was a youtube recording of this), but this was not published in the media for obvious reasons. (3) Quoting AW and NF: ”In attacking these prominent royal advisers, Thaksin took a step closer to an attack on the monarchy itself.”/ unquote. To my mind there is significant leap of conjecture from the irrefutable mischief-making Puppet Master Prem to the king himself. Thaksin spoke highly of the king on numerous occasions and still does so today. (4) quote: Why would Bhumibol want Thaksin removed from his democratically elected post? The pretext is Thaksin’s corruption, and he is certainly corrupt” (!)/ Unquote. Wrong on two counts: firstly the king never wanted Thaksin removed. It was the amaat around him and those who controlled power in the palace. It overstates the monarchy’s effective versus symbolic power. Secondly, it has to be shown that Thaksin was “certainly corrupt”. Where is the evidence? Because everyone says so? (how many times since Sondhi Lim started this media fiction five years back?) he was no more or less “corrupt” than the access and privilege of wealthy individuals to certain knowledge/power and networked corporate systems. Like it or leave it- none of it was actually found to be “illegal” (unless one retrospectively changes the law- which they tried to do). I guess he looks “certainly corrupt”, which is enough to pass irrefutable judgement on the man. So lets all keep saying this over and over again as a mantra and it will become a embedded truth… If it were found out one day that much of the accusations against Thaksin were largely fiction, what would we all do? Even many academics fall into this uncritical fallacy…Hartcher could reasonable say, “allegedly corrupt” person etc. But I’ll bet the current regime would love to get their hands on his dosh as the country’s coffers become nearly empty after paying out past four years such massive amounts for the anti-Thaksin witch hunt; army of censors, nice fascist toys for the military mates, & financing media propagandists to justify coup actions in September 2006…
Going to Pagan: Gay slang in Burma
I once asked some feminine looking gays I have met in Burma about how they would prefer to be called. They said they like the word “Ah La Phan Thi Shin” that literally means “creators of beauty”. I think some of those gays also don’t mind to be called “achauk” which literally means “dryness” or to refer to the action which is sissy and feminine.