StanG: “a matter of principle and not a matter of politics or legalities”
That’s plain stupid Stan, and you know it.
As a matter of principle, elected governments should not be overthrown by military coup, constitutions should not be torn up, and the military should be under the control of the government.
(and you also seem to be forgetting that constitutional monarchs are above politics).
Stan G: When Thaksin ignored his promise to the King it became a matter of principle and not a matter of politics or legalities.
Since records of the meeting at Hua Hin, if there were any, have never been made public, I would not know if there’s any promise. If there were, Thaksin shouldn’t have made it in the first place.
But here are some episodes concerning “matter of principle”, for which public records exist and are indisputable:
In 1958 HMK issued a proclamation appointing Sarit (who just staged a coup overthrowing an elected governemnt – coup not unlike the September 2006 coup, indeed it happened in September too) as “Military Defender of the Capital”. This Royal Proglamation had no counter-signature as required by the Constitution (which was still in force).
In 1961 HMK spoke at Chula without prior scripts. It was until then a constitutional practice that the monarch had to submit a transcritption of any public speech to a minister for approval and counter-signature. In fact, HMK himself told the Chula students that what he was doing (delivering uncritped speech) was wrong and such practice should not be followed.
etc.
Now, draw your own conclusion, regarding such “matter of principle”.
I’m Gordon Young’s third daughter, Debbie. I’m happy to report that Gordon is alive and well, living in California. Each time I visit him, about once a month, I enjoy asking him about his life growing up in China, Burma, India and of course, the great times he experienced with the Lahu people in northern Thailand. He continues to be one of the world’s greatest bird watchers, too (at age 82).
Nick – how inevitable do you think civil war is now ?
As far as I can see it is certain – Bangkok elite will not accept
Isaarn’s electoral vedict.
Isaarn will not accept Bangkok’s rejection.
I think certainly there is going to be a civil war – with Lao Isaarn attempting to break-away from “Thailand”, into an independent Lao state aligned with China.
until the military and aristocrats got scared that they would lose their power
Thailand was a good approximation to a full participatory democracy under the 1997 Constitution when the Chuan Democrats and Thaksin TRT governments were elected
almost by definition, all ministerial level politicians are power hungry and it is the job of the voters to keep them under control
as they say (perhaps untruthfully in Thailand?) the King (and his advisors) are above politics
so it is not their place to judge or participate in punishment of politicians
as Terry says, it is the voters whose job it is to weigh the politicians behaviour and determine their fate
and the military and aristocrats will fail to accept this at their peril
Right.. I understand. So it was perfectly alright for the military top brass to take matters into their own hands. Good to see a handful of coup cheerleaders still lingering around here.
I wish there were more people like Supinya Klangnarong, who has the guts to admit that her initial support for the coup was wrong.
David Brown – the “full participatory democracies”, assuming you mean most, if not all Western democracies plus Japan, South Korea and Taiwan – took long, turbulent times to become such.
In no small measure, this was also a function of their industrialisation, and consolidation of capitalism.
Given that Thailand has only partially industrialised over only the past four decades (at most), it can hardly be expected to be a “full participatory democracy” yet.
But yes – I agree with you : the traditional elite needs to modernise more.
Despite perhaps some wishes on the part of some reactionary PAD, I don’t see Thailand regressing to being another Burma.
But like Burma, Thailand could face SEVEREAL intractable regioinal insurgencies, if the PAD succeed in pushing their agenda
of in effect, disenfranchising Isaarn.
“In the eyes of many people Thaksin has failed to uphold his oath. This could be construed as anti-monarchy behaviour by those who hold the King in high esteem (the large majority of the population) and this view or doubt is used by the populace when weighing up Thaksin……not a court of law. “Democracy” at work perhaps”.
I agree – let the people decide.
Q: How do the people decide?
A. By voting in elections
Hardly the point…..and he hasn’t been charged under the law.
While perhaps largely ceremonial, any incoming PM has to swear an oath to the King.
In the eyes of many people Thaksin has failed to uphold his oath. This could be construed as anti-monarchy behaviour by those who hold the King in high esteem (the large majority of the population) and this view or doubt is used by the populace when weighing up Thaksin……not a court of law. “Democracy” at work perhaps.
Question: Is it true, as some Lao exiles claim, that you authorized salary payments to Lao right-wing anti-Lao PDR government rebels based in Thailand in 1976 when you were Military Region 2 chief? Was that Thai government money, or did it come from elsewhere? Who provided the funds, and why did the salary payments apparently end when you left that position?
“in the recognised full participatory democracies, the military, and the monarchy, are subservient to the government chosen by the people”
Maybe Thailand is not a full participatory democracy as you expect it to be?
Monarchy subservient to the people? You seriously expect that?
I also don’t see how they could put it into a constitution – what to do if a power hungry politician breaks his promises to the king. Shall we have a referendum, or elections, or take him to the court and get the King to testify.
They just don’t include this kind of contingency into law books.
The King is inviolable and constitutions are dime a dozen, they’d use any means necessary.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
So Phumipon is the hindrance to democracy then.
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
Stan…
which particular promise do you have in mind?
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
StanG: “a matter of principle and not a matter of politics or legalities”
That’s plain stupid Stan, and you know it.
As a matter of principle, elected governments should not be overthrown by military coup, constitutions should not be torn up, and the military should be under the control of the government.
(and you also seem to be forgetting that constitutional monarchs are above politics).
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
Stan G:
When Thaksin ignored his promise to the King it became a matter of principle and not a matter of politics or legalities.
Since records of the meeting at Hua Hin, if there were any, have never been made public, I would not know if there’s any promise. If there were, Thaksin shouldn’t have made it in the first place.
But here are some episodes concerning “matter of principle”, for which public records exist and are indisputable:
In 1958 HMK issued a proclamation appointing Sarit (who just staged a coup overthrowing an elected governemnt – coup not unlike the September 2006 coup, indeed it happened in September too) as “Military Defender of the Capital”. This Royal Proglamation had no counter-signature as required by the Constitution (which was still in force).
In 1961 HMK spoke at Chula without prior scripts. It was until then a constitutional practice that the monarch had to submit a transcritption of any public speech to a minister for approval and counter-signature. In fact, HMK himself told the Chula students that what he was doing (delivering uncritped speech) was wrong and such practice should not be followed.
etc.
Now, draw your own conclusion, regarding such “matter of principle”.
Interview with Professor Duncan McCargo
[…] […]
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
When Thaksin ignored his promise to the King it became a matter of principle and not a matter of politics or legalities.
Elections have nothing to do with this, they are fought about completely different issues.
New year wishes from …
They were Saudi – never stressed by the US as they need their oil. Are Thais allowed to visit Saudi Arabia? Aren’t diplomatic ties very problematic?
From the archives: Gordon Young
I’m Gordon Young’s third daughter, Debbie. I’m happy to report that Gordon is alive and well, living in California. Each time I visit him, about once a month, I enjoy asking him about his life growing up in China, Burma, India and of course, the great times he experienced with the Lahu people in northern Thailand. He continues to be one of the world’s greatest bird watchers, too (at age 82).
Interviews with Nick Nostitz
Nick – how inevitable do you think civil war is now ?
As far as I can see it is certain – Bangkok elite will not accept
Isaarn’s electoral vedict.
Isaarn will not accept Bangkok’s rejection.
I think certainly there is going to be a civil war – with Lao Isaarn attempting to break-away from “Thailand”, into an independent Lao state aligned with China.
Najib in 2010 – More of the same?
Allah Unites Some, Divides Others.
More analysis on the current unrests in Malaysia.
On academic blogging
On this topic, I’d like to invite you to visit my blog at http://soraj.wordpress.com/ Comments are welcome.
Soraj
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
until the military and aristocrats got scared that they would lose their power
Thailand was a good approximation to a full participatory democracy under the 1997 Constitution when the Chuan Democrats and Thaksin TRT governments were elected
almost by definition, all ministerial level politicians are power hungry and it is the job of the voters to keep them under control
as they say (perhaps untruthfully in Thailand?) the King (and his advisors) are above politics
so it is not their place to judge or participate in punishment of politicians
as Terry says, it is the voters whose job it is to weigh the politicians behaviour and determine their fate
and the military and aristocrats will fail to accept this at their peril
Interviews with Nick Nostitz
as previously – Nick give very good opinion, and I would say pretty balanced, or even more important – REALISTIC !
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
Right.. I understand. So it was perfectly alright for the military top brass to take matters into their own hands. Good to see a handful of coup cheerleaders still lingering around here.
I wish there were more people like Supinya Klangnarong, who has the guts to admit that her initial support for the coup was wrong.
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
David Brown – the “full participatory democracies”, assuming you mean most, if not all Western democracies plus Japan, South Korea and Taiwan – took long, turbulent times to become such.
In no small measure, this was also a function of their industrialisation, and consolidation of capitalism.
Given that Thailand has only partially industrialised over only the past four decades (at most), it can hardly be expected to be a “full participatory democracy” yet.
But yes – I agree with you : the traditional elite needs to modernise more.
Despite perhaps some wishes on the part of some reactionary PAD, I don’t see Thailand regressing to being another Burma.
But like Burma, Thailand could face SEVEREAL intractable regioinal insurgencies, if the PAD succeed in pushing their agenda
of in effect, disenfranchising Isaarn.
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
“In the eyes of many people Thaksin has failed to uphold his oath. This could be construed as anti-monarchy behaviour by those who hold the King in high esteem (the large majority of the population) and this view or doubt is used by the populace when weighing up Thaksin……not a court of law. “Democracy” at work perhaps”.
I agree – let the people decide.
Q: How do the people decide?
A. By voting in elections
Hence the reason for a coup 🙂
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
Hardly the point…..and he hasn’t been charged under the law.
While perhaps largely ceremonial, any incoming PM has to swear an oath to the King.
In the eyes of many people Thaksin has failed to uphold his oath. This could be construed as anti-monarchy behaviour by those who hold the King in high esteem (the large majority of the population) and this view or doubt is used by the populace when weighing up Thaksin……not a court of law. “Democracy” at work perhaps.
What would you like to ask General Prem?
Something a bit different…
Question: Is it true, as some Lao exiles claim, that you authorized salary payments to Lao right-wing anti-Lao PDR government rebels based in Thailand in 1976 when you were Military Region 2 chief? Was that Thai government money, or did it come from elsewhere? Who provided the funds, and why did the salary payments apparently end when you left that position?
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
Is breaking a promise a punishable offense under the law?
Thaksin on Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn
“in the recognised full participatory democracies, the military, and the monarchy, are subservient to the government chosen by the people”
Maybe Thailand is not a full participatory democracy as you expect it to be?
Monarchy subservient to the people? You seriously expect that?
I also don’t see how they could put it into a constitution – what to do if a power hungry politician breaks his promises to the king. Shall we have a referendum, or elections, or take him to the court and get the King to testify.
They just don’t include this kind of contingency into law books.
The King is inviolable and constitutions are dime a dozen, they’d use any means necessary.