Aladdin, thank you for clarifying your thoughts on this issue. I am not sure that creating a separation between monarch and buddhism automatically implies republicanism. I’ve met so many buddhists who were quite able to defend intellectually their position without the assistance of a self appointed security service.
Although you are probably correct in assuming that a long term implementation of some of your proposed democratic reforms would eventually lead to reevaluation of the relationship between the royal family and and religion.
I completely agree that constructive engagement is the best option for any type of progressive change to take place in Myanmar/Burma. However the Australian government must be very careful on how it chooses its candidates for the post-graduate scholarships. It is traditionally the elites, and many of them who are in support of the current regime and its practices that often have access to the “West.” By awarding to those who are in support of continuing current practices might in the longer run be counter productive. So in principle I think the Australian government is being quite responsible, however the actual implementation of its policies might be more difficult.
Established academic narratives die a slow, hard death, it would seem. Presumably Professor Reynolds agrees with McDaniel’s argument regarding the idea of the Theravada canon in mainland Southeast Asia, since he states: “As he works his way through the manuscripts, it becomes clear that the Buddhist canon is fluid and open, a work in progress.”
Yet if that is so, how does one make sense of Reynolds’ opening framing of the era and dynamics under study by McDaniel? Reynolds – like many other scholars – describes the 19th and 20th century era of reform of Theravada Buddhism as motivated by a fundamentalist impulse, demanding a return to orthodoxy and the Buddhist canon. But if Justin is correct, what was that orthodoxy and that canon? Or rather, perhaps we should ask, which orthodoxy and which canon? What did either of those terms even mean for the agents of reform? And does it even make sense to think of this as a “return” – either in the eyes of locals or the framing of modern scholarship? Why not view it instead as an invention, in the sense of an invented tradition?
[…] there were the fire-bombings of places of worship (mostly Christian) after the “Allah” court ruling which shattered Malaysia’s facade as a peaceful nation where people of different […]
Srithanonchai – good post, especially re. highly respectable Dr. Prawase.
The point needs to be made that the Thai term “love the King” would more usually be expressed in English as “loyalty to the King”, at least towards a Western monarch.
Thai language has a vast number of “Jai” (heart) words.
An important point, because the “emotional nature” of Thai culture has often been remarked and written upon. In many respects this is a very nice, charming feature of Thailand – but the downside is that rationality flies out the window when conflict gets as intense as currently.
On your point re. Thaksin’s family being “truly independent owners” : they’d be judged so under most (if not all) Western law.
“It will be a big mistake for the Supreme Court to take away all of Thaksin’s seized wealth, because that will only intensify the sense of unfairness that is currently felt. Make no mistake, we are sitting on a powder keg. The events of last year’s Songkran will not be played out in the same manner, but something massive is about to happen.”
It is interesting that hardly any word is uttered these days about legal considerations in this context. It all seems to be about politics. And then you have to deal with this truly bizarre idea, on which one of the two important elements of the case is based (the other being “policy corruption”), that when the children of Thaksin and the brother of Pojamarn own the Shin shares, that they are truly independent owners, rather than Thaksin and Pojamarn, and that therefore any “conflict of interest” has disappeared. Is this a legal Fantasia or the real world of Thai-Chinese family businesses?
Anyway, to return to the content of the post, I recently read an article on “Building a new Thai society” by Prawase Wasi in 1974 (Sangkhomsat Parithat, Vol. 12, No. 1). At one point, it says (in rough translation),
“Everybody who loves the king must translate this love into benefits for the people. If one loves the king, one must be determined to perform one’s duties honestly. If one loves the king, one must have kindness and support for each other. If one loves the king, one must help each other to sacrifice one’s selfishness and build a system so that the great number of poor people can support themselves with dignity. If one loves the king, we must help each other in building a Thai society that has morality. One must not love the king in order to be close to his royal feet but seek various benefits for oneself.” (p. 69)
Now, one might well think that Prawase’s strange way of thinking hasn’t changed much during the past 36 years (he has become older, but not wiser, so to speak). However, the final sentence of his quote might well be applied by the people behind http://www.weloveking.org and all others who currently try to use the monarchy and the king in order to promote their political and economic self-interests.
laoguy – I’m not sure by your post if you meant that the role of the King as defender of religion should be abolished.
I think that this is more or less a republican agenda and therefore unrealistic, at least in the short to medium term. It would be extremely difficult to discuss publicly, and counter-productive to raise as a political agenda, in my view.
(If you mean the democratization of the Sangha, I agree that this is desirable, but it would occur of its own accord if the monarchy had been neutralized politically along the lines discussed above).
The gist of what Somsak was arguing, and I agree with him, is that there are proposals for the modernization and democratization of the monarchy that can be talked about now in public, at least in academic forums, without incurring lese majeste.
This debate ought to start to happen now, in blogs, seminars, conferences, even newspaper columns – and especially in those forums outside of Thailand where scholars are much freer to express their views.
I think if you look at public debate about Thai politics over the last 3-4 years there has been a lot of progress. There is a much greater understanding of the monarchy’s political role and the problem that it poses for democracy in Thailand. I think that a result of this debate is that there is a large and growing constituency that believes that the monarchy must be reformed. Reform of the Privy Council, lese majeste, and maybe even the Crown Property Bureau, are issues which can be discussed without provoking accusations that one is calling for an “overthrow of the monarchy”.
The problem is that there isn’t enough rational debate and concrete proposals being put forward. Most comment tends to be in the form of commentary or analysis, or else is adversarial, which means that it is very difficult to get reform of the monarchy onto the political agenda.
I realize that this is a difficult thing to do and would not happen easily. I think it is as a long term project.
I was at a concert recently – something I rarely do. Not realising what was going on, I went in early for there was a huge crowd outside. Inside, the place was empty. 15 mins before the concert started they played the king’s anthem. People stood up, but continued conversations and using their phones. Some people walked about. The minute the anthem finished, the crowds outside stormed in…. 10,000+ people filling the venue. It seems this is a political statement by (mainly) people in their early 20s.
I agree with Chris Beale. Not reported here was the size of the Red Shirt rallies held last weekend in Khon Kaen and Ubon Ratchatani. I read on another site, I think it was PPT, that there were 100,000 in Khon Kaen and 30,000 in Ubon. I have been to Khon Kaen recently and can report that there are billboards of Thaksin up all over the countryside, side by side with images of local Puea Thai politicians. Udon Thani seems to be the epicenter of Red Shirt resistance, with an estimated 300,000 listeners to a popular radio show by a local Red Shirt firebrand.
It will be a big mistake for the Supreme Court to take away all of Thaksin’s seized wealth, because that will only intensify the sense of unfairness that is currently felt. Make no mistake, we are sitting on a powder keg. The events of last year’s Songkran will not be played out in the same manner, but something massive is about to happen.
I don’t mind standing in the cinema at present. They have even added the option to sing along, which allows me to practice my Thai reading skills and makes the event much less tedious. Prior to that I would attempt to entertain myself by catching any false or staged scenes (e.g. the boy with the paint brush doesn’t have any paint on his brush, the watering can doesn’t have any water in it, there are no postholes for the sign that is being erected, etc.)
However, I will refuse to stand when “you know who” becomes “you know what”. I’ve resolved that when that happens I will simply wait in the lobby until after the movie has started and walk in late. I wonder how many others will start doing the same. I further wonder if that behavior, too, will be criminalized. It’s a sad state of affairs to actually hold this expectation, but knowing how rabid some Thais can become these days about the M.on.ar.chy, I will probably have to stop going to the cinema altogether.
In his statement, Stephen Smith said that he agreed with Hillary Clinton that to lift sanctions now would send the wrong signal. At the same time he announced an increase in aid and drew attention to the meagre US$ 4 per head per annum which Myanmar receives compared with 10 times as much for Cambodia and 16 times as much for Laos.
The reason aid to Myanmar is so low, of course, is precisely because of sanctions against the provision of bilateral and multilateral assistance for the past twenty years. Myanmar has been missing out on some US$ 2 billion annually of development assistance for the people.
It is right that the US, EU and Australia have started ever so quietly to lift sanctions, even though they would never admit this. The signal that is being sent is that the West is at last acknowledging that it got sanctions wrong. Those against development aid will be slowly removed, those which target the people (US and EU sanctions) in labour-intensive industries may also begin to fade, while those minimalist measures which are statutory sanctions targeted specifically against the generals and their cronies will stay.
If you were to ask Stephen Smith what amount of assets has been frozen in Australia, he would be too embarrassed to tell you. It could be as low as A$ 100,000, and even less than A$10,000. It might even be zero. In the 25 countries of the EU the total of assets seized turned out after two years to have reached the derisory total of only Euro 87, so the EU has now stopped counting and nobody asks any more. The generals and their wives, of course, can’t travel to Australia, but their sons and daughters are being made welcome as students.
I have to say that I don’t somehow feel that the generals will mind at all if Western “sanctions” continue against them indefinitely.
I think the real contribution of Hansen’s work and what makes it distinct from Kamala’s book and my book is that Hansen is well-trained in Ethics. She not only emphasizes the importance of narrative ethics, but also of understanding the way Buddhist ethics is informed and driven by modernist debates. I won’t go on since I wrote a formal review of her book in the Journal of Religion, but I think Hansen speaks both to the fields of Religious Studies and History in more complex ways than I do.
The Burmese generals’ ambitious nuclear deterrent programme is aimed at the West so they won’t be deterred from their jolly pursuit of exploitation, repression and human rights violations, an example pointedly set by North Korea. Next in line are the giant neighbours, China and India. Thailand hardly figures in this particular equation. The three giant statues at Naypyidaw are enough to scare the Thais.
Australia’s line of approach has inevitably followed closely its big cousins, the US and the British. No surprises there. Myint Cho instinctively and corretly assessed the junta’s likely response, happy to play along and receive charity in lieu of its very low priority for public sector spending. The Australian minister’s concluding statement is quite telling: it is not a one way street. So far it is.
I don’t get how a German board game could be compared with the royal websites. The movie “Anna and the king” was a praise of Thai monarchy from Hollywood? Seems its not only the Thai authorities paranoid about seeing insults to monarchy everywhere, but now others seeing royal praise everywhere, even where there is none.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
SOAS Thai politics event
Aladdin, thank you for clarifying your thoughts on this issue. I am not sure that creating a separation between monarch and buddhism automatically implies republicanism. I’ve met so many buddhists who were quite able to defend intellectually their position without the assistance of a self appointed security service.
Although you are probably correct in assuming that a long term implementation of some of your proposed democratic reforms would eventually lead to reevaluation of the relationship between the royal family and and religion.
Australia’s constructive Burma engagement
I completely agree that constructive engagement is the best option for any type of progressive change to take place in Myanmar/Burma. However the Australian government must be very careful on how it chooses its candidates for the post-graduate scholarships. It is traditionally the elites, and many of them who are in support of the current regime and its practices that often have access to the “West.” By awarding to those who are in support of continuing current practices might in the longer run be counter productive. So in principle I think the Australian government is being quite responsible, however the actual implementation of its policies might be more difficult.
Review of McDaniel
Established academic narratives die a slow, hard death, it would seem. Presumably Professor Reynolds agrees with McDaniel’s argument regarding the idea of the Theravada canon in mainland Southeast Asia, since he states: “As he works his way through the manuscripts, it becomes clear that the Buddhist canon is fluid and open, a work in progress.”
Yet if that is so, how does one make sense of Reynolds’ opening framing of the era and dynamics under study by McDaniel? Reynolds – like many other scholars – describes the 19th and 20th century era of reform of Theravada Buddhism as motivated by a fundamentalist impulse, demanding a return to orthodoxy and the Buddhist canon. But if Justin is correct, what was that orthodoxy and that canon? Or rather, perhaps we should ask, which orthodoxy and which canon? What did either of those terms even mean for the agents of reform? And does it even make sense to think of this as a “return” – either in the eyes of locals or the framing of modern scholarship? Why not view it instead as an invention, in the sense of an invented tradition?
Australian Foreign Minister on Burma policy
I now have a short article on NM on this same topic, which can be found here.
Please feel free to read and comment over there.
Thanks,
Dylan
The Allah dilemma in Malaysia
[…] there were the fire-bombings of places of worship (mostly Christian) after the “Allah” court ruling which shattered Malaysia’s facade as a peaceful nation where people of different […]
Is Najib on his way out?
[…] Posting an article from New Mandala from the anu.edu.au site. The article has several links to blog articles on Malaysia, including my […]
www.weloveking.org and other websites
Srithanonchai – good post, especially re. highly respectable Dr. Prawase.
The point needs to be made that the Thai term “love the King” would more usually be expressed in English as “loyalty to the King”, at least towards a Western monarch.
Thai language has a vast number of “Jai” (heart) words.
An important point, because the “emotional nature” of Thai culture has often been remarked and written upon. In many respects this is a very nice, charming feature of Thailand – but the downside is that rationality flies out the window when conflict gets as intense as currently.
On your point re. Thaksin’s family being “truly independent owners” : they’d be judged so under most (if not all) Western law.
www.weloveking.org and other websites
“It will be a big mistake for the Supreme Court to take away all of Thaksin’s seized wealth, because that will only intensify the sense of unfairness that is currently felt. Make no mistake, we are sitting on a powder keg. The events of last year’s Songkran will not be played out in the same manner, but something massive is about to happen.”
It is interesting that hardly any word is uttered these days about legal considerations in this context. It all seems to be about politics. And then you have to deal with this truly bizarre idea, on which one of the two important elements of the case is based (the other being “policy corruption”), that when the children of Thaksin and the brother of Pojamarn own the Shin shares, that they are truly independent owners, rather than Thaksin and Pojamarn, and that therefore any “conflict of interest” has disappeared. Is this a legal Fantasia or the real world of Thai-Chinese family businesses?
Anyway, to return to the content of the post, I recently read an article on “Building a new Thai society” by Prawase Wasi in 1974 (Sangkhomsat Parithat, Vol. 12, No. 1). At one point, it says (in rough translation),
“Everybody who loves the king must translate this love into benefits for the people. If one loves the king, one must be determined to perform one’s duties honestly. If one loves the king, one must have kindness and support for each other. If one loves the king, one must help each other to sacrifice one’s selfishness and build a system so that the great number of poor people can support themselves with dignity. If one loves the king, we must help each other in building a Thai society that has morality. One must not love the king in order to be close to his royal feet but seek various benefits for oneself.” (p. 69)
Now, one might well think that Prawase’s strange way of thinking hasn’t changed much during the past 36 years (he has become older, but not wiser, so to speak). However, the final sentence of his quote might well be applied by the people behind http://www.weloveking.org and all others who currently try to use the monarchy and the king in order to promote their political and economic self-interests.
SOAS Thai politics event
laoguy – I’m not sure by your post if you meant that the role of the King as defender of religion should be abolished.
I think that this is more or less a republican agenda and therefore unrealistic, at least in the short to medium term. It would be extremely difficult to discuss publicly, and counter-productive to raise as a political agenda, in my view.
(If you mean the democratization of the Sangha, I agree that this is desirable, but it would occur of its own accord if the monarchy had been neutralized politically along the lines discussed above).
The gist of what Somsak was arguing, and I agree with him, is that there are proposals for the modernization and democratization of the monarchy that can be talked about now in public, at least in academic forums, without incurring lese majeste.
This debate ought to start to happen now, in blogs, seminars, conferences, even newspaper columns – and especially in those forums outside of Thailand where scholars are much freer to express their views.
I think if you look at public debate about Thai politics over the last 3-4 years there has been a lot of progress. There is a much greater understanding of the monarchy’s political role and the problem that it poses for democracy in Thailand. I think that a result of this debate is that there is a large and growing constituency that believes that the monarchy must be reformed. Reform of the Privy Council, lese majeste, and maybe even the Crown Property Bureau, are issues which can be discussed without provoking accusations that one is calling for an “overthrow of the monarchy”.
The problem is that there isn’t enough rational debate and concrete proposals being put forward. Most comment tends to be in the form of commentary or analysis, or else is adversarial, which means that it is very difficult to get reform of the monarchy onto the political agenda.
I realize that this is a difficult thing to do and would not happen easily. I think it is as a long term project.
Elephants in the room – Part 3
I was at a concert recently – something I rarely do. Not realising what was going on, I went in early for there was a huge crowd outside. Inside, the place was empty. 15 mins before the concert started they played the king’s anthem. People stood up, but continued conversations and using their phones. Some people walked about. The minute the anthem finished, the crowds outside stormed in…. 10,000+ people filling the venue. It seems this is a political statement by (mainly) people in their early 20s.
www.weloveking.org and other websites
Another website would be more realistic: http://www.newinlovesnewin.com
www.weloveking.org and other websites
I agree with Chris Beale. Not reported here was the size of the Red Shirt rallies held last weekend in Khon Kaen and Ubon Ratchatani. I read on another site, I think it was PPT, that there were 100,000 in Khon Kaen and 30,000 in Ubon. I have been to Khon Kaen recently and can report that there are billboards of Thaksin up all over the countryside, side by side with images of local Puea Thai politicians. Udon Thani seems to be the epicenter of Red Shirt resistance, with an estimated 300,000 listeners to a popular radio show by a local Red Shirt firebrand.
It will be a big mistake for the Supreme Court to take away all of Thaksin’s seized wealth, because that will only intensify the sense of unfairness that is currently felt. Make no mistake, we are sitting on a powder keg. The events of last year’s Songkran will not be played out in the same manner, but something massive is about to happen.
Elephants in the room – Part 3
I don’t mind standing in the cinema at present. They have even added the option to sing along, which allows me to practice my Thai reading skills and makes the event much less tedious. Prior to that I would attempt to entertain myself by catching any false or staged scenes (e.g. the boy with the paint brush doesn’t have any paint on his brush, the watering can doesn’t have any water in it, there are no postholes for the sign that is being erected, etc.)
However, I will refuse to stand when “you know who” becomes “you know what”. I’ve resolved that when that happens I will simply wait in the lobby until after the movie has started and walk in late. I wonder how many others will start doing the same. I further wonder if that behavior, too, will be criminalized. It’s a sad state of affairs to actually hold this expectation, but knowing how rabid some Thais can become these days about the M.on.ar.chy, I will probably have to stop going to the cinema altogether.
Australian Foreign Minister on Burma policy
In his statement, Stephen Smith said that he agreed with Hillary Clinton that to lift sanctions now would send the wrong signal. At the same time he announced an increase in aid and drew attention to the meagre US$ 4 per head per annum which Myanmar receives compared with 10 times as much for Cambodia and 16 times as much for Laos.
The reason aid to Myanmar is so low, of course, is precisely because of sanctions against the provision of bilateral and multilateral assistance for the past twenty years. Myanmar has been missing out on some US$ 2 billion annually of development assistance for the people.
It is right that the US, EU and Australia have started ever so quietly to lift sanctions, even though they would never admit this. The signal that is being sent is that the West is at last acknowledging that it got sanctions wrong. Those against development aid will be slowly removed, those which target the people (US and EU sanctions) in labour-intensive industries may also begin to fade, while those minimalist measures which are statutory sanctions targeted specifically against the generals and their cronies will stay.
If you were to ask Stephen Smith what amount of assets has been frozen in Australia, he would be too embarrassed to tell you. It could be as low as A$ 100,000, and even less than A$10,000. It might even be zero. In the 25 countries of the EU the total of assets seized turned out after two years to have reached the derisory total of only Euro 87, so the EU has now stopped counting and nobody asks any more. The generals and their wives, of course, can’t travel to Australia, but their sons and daughters are being made welcome as students.
I have to say that I don’t somehow feel that the generals will mind at all if Western “sanctions” continue against them indefinitely.
Review of Hansen
I think the real contribution of Hansen’s work and what makes it distinct from Kamala’s book and my book is that Hansen is well-trained in Ethics. She not only emphasizes the importance of narrative ethics, but also of understanding the way Buddhist ethics is informed and driven by modernist debates. I won’t go on since I wrote a formal review of her book in the Journal of Religion, but I think Hansen speaks both to the fields of Religious Studies and History in more complex ways than I do.
Elephants in the room: Part 2
[…] [This is the third of a three part article. Part 1 is available here. Part 2 is available here.] […]
Australian Foreign Minister on Burma policy
Suzie Wong,
The Burmese generals’ ambitious nuclear deterrent programme is aimed at the West so they won’t be deterred from their jolly pursuit of exploitation, repression and human rights violations, an example pointedly set by North Korea. Next in line are the giant neighbours, China and India. Thailand hardly figures in this particular equation. The three giant statues at Naypyidaw are enough to scare the Thais.
Australia’s line of approach has inevitably followed closely its big cousins, the US and the British. No surprises there. Myint Cho instinctively and corretly assessed the junta’s likely response, happy to play along and receive charity in lieu of its very low priority for public sector spending. The Australian minister’s concluding statement is quite telling: it is not a one way street. So far it is.
Elephants in the room: Part 2
In answer to Chris Beale (comment 7), yes they are. Censors have operated and continue to operate in all societies.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s leaking roof
Moe Aung,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20312681/Political-Prisoner-Profile Nyi Nyi Aung
Ko Nyi Nyi Aung is banned family visit
http://www.aappb.org/release161.html
Urgent Appeal: AHRC_Activist Nyi Nyi Aung_ Due to Be Sentenced Over Alleged Bombing Plot
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25842071/Urgent-Appeal-AHRC-Activist-Nyi-Nyi-Aung-Due-to-Be-Sentenced-Over-Alleged-Bombing-Plot
His mother has cancer and maybe last time to see her
www.weloveking.org and other websites
I don’t get how a German board game could be compared with the royal websites. The movie “Anna and the king” was a praise of Thai monarchy from Hollywood? Seems its not only the Thai authorities paranoid about seeing insults to monarchy everywhere, but now others seeing royal praise everywhere, even where there is none.