Thanks for your comments Aiontay. My work is a bit elite-centered. In the book, I do look at abusive practices and mis-governance on the part of ceassfire groups, and especially some of the smaller, fragmentary militias.
Andrew asks if political appeals to ethnicity are empowering at all. I agree with his analysis of the (unintended) disempowering entailed in notions of Karen as stewards of the forest. But there remains a larger issue that Engelhardt’s paper does not get far into, which is the racialism of Thai national ideology. This is a 20th century phenomenon that has systemically precluded any rights to “non-Thai” upland farmers, and has since the 1960s fixated on the stereotyped Meo (Hmong) as subversive and dangerous. Most political action among uplanders since the early 1980s (after the fighting ended, against CPT units, with a lot of attacks on highland areas) has aimed to get away from the hill tribe image. Hayami’s 1997 paper on a Karen tree-ordination notes that this was perceived to show that they were not an ecologically destructive hill tribe. That simply moves some Karen from that racialized bracket, leaving Hmong and others there in the Thai view. The attacks on Hmong orchards in Nan belong there. The string of cases that Chusak describes is compelling and troubling, but the question remains whether to describe the events as ethnic. I have written on one of these cases, about the Mien in Huai Kok (125 in his paper). Throughout the case, the Mien people showed no sign of their ethnicity, they dressed, acted, and spoke Thai, and at the many meetings that followed they presented themselves as Thai farmers wanting the benefits of development (see my Mien Relations 127-147). The killing that took place was not a part of the protest, it was an individual vendetta. The villagers said “you have to arrest us all” not in relations to that, but when the authorities (about 100 soldiers and police, heavily armed, in seventeen trucks) arrived and demanded that the perpetrators be identified, they were going to arrest them. There is another description of this case in the book Sitthi Chumchon Thongthin: Chao Khao Nai Phakneua, that was done under the directorship of Saneh Chammarik and Cholthira Sattyawatthana (2546/2003), pp.272-286. At one of the meetings following the burning of Sanctuary buildings, people said that the wildlife sanctuary there had brought poaching and illegal logging, that they had lived with this forest longer and taken quite good care of it. This was not in reference to Mien eco-wisdom, but a contrast between farmers and nai-thun (capitalists). The setting is shaky. Many of the villages were given an eviction order in about 1991. Then nothing happened until about 2003 when the whole sub-district was declared a class A1 watershed, so all villages became illegal, including some that had been in the lowlands growing wet rice since about 1945. Mien hold ethnic festivals centered on sports and ethnic dress entertainment in order to gain a favorable outsider view, they have not agitated as ethnics as far as I can tell. But here, the contrast between the state and the ethnics is overdrawn. For one, the Highway Dept and the Forestry Dept have long been at odds about how to “lay out” the countryside. Perhaps more important, the area has had a Subdistrict Administrative Council for some time now, and that along with Mien schoolteachers (for close to thirty years) and an ethnically Mien kamnan (in place since tambol were established, 60-some years) makes it hard to draw clear lines between Mien and Thai, farmers and the state. The one time when people made a special appeal to their need (as ethnic minority highlanders) for authorized access to forest land, at a meeting in 1993, an MP for the province said “hill tribes are so numerically insignificant, barely one percent of the nation, that to give in to their demands would set a precedent that would lead to absolute chaos.” As I see it, Thai racialism has accentuated ethnic consciousness among highland people and at the same time it has precluded any ethnically based political action among the upland minorities. That’s the success that Engelhardt’s paper describes, and the problem described by Chusak.
“…the structural issues associated with royal power. And, the story of their role in the police is largely untold/unknown.”
I don’t see what that has to do with concerned citizens and intellectuals actually pushing for fundamental change in the legal system, instead of frittering their time away taking jabs at the monarchy, which IMHO most non-intellectuals really seem to consider a non-issue.
Basic laws are not enforced. Running red lights, hit and run, murders that have a trail of evidence a mile long, institutionalized extortion from those arrested in jails, stolen cars in a “car rental” scheme, border police kidnapping and extorting from people as a matter of course, and everyone seems to be too afraid to raise the issue in print or poke around into provincial police activities where most of the bad stuff goes on. Similar **but more important** to what’s going on with institutionalised “lese majeste” self-censorship of the variety discussed in that 2008 Thai Studies conference paper. A recent article on the horrendous procedure of pre-trial hearings was done by English teacher who took a concern in one of his students. Take this article, for instance: ICT to ‘hack & crack’ foreign websites offensive to Thai supreme institution http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=565
At the end of the article it says they are going to waste their time “hacking and cracking” a site that photoshopped a dog head onto the Buddha. That even sounds like something some weird Zen master would do. Why waste the time trying to censor some weird guy far away in a foreign country when the country lacks the very basics of law enforcement?
For those interested in Burmese literature, they may have a look at the working papers produced in the context of the “Myanmar Literature Projekt” at Southeast Asian Studies, University of Passau. The link is http://www.iseap.de/content/view/89/
Nice work. Certainly the power of the masses will reach its zenith and that a new constitution in favor of the majority will govern Burma. However, my concern is that how sure are we that it will not end up as another wrong concept of democracy to be abuse my the minor aristocracy.
jonfernquest: “But IMHO the obsession with putting the institution of monarchy under a microscope is a little misplaced when there are other issues like the way that the police department works.”
I doubt you’ll get much disagreement over a suggestion that the Thai cops need to be investigated and reformed. They behave like gangsters and, indeed, are gangsters.
However, the so-called obsession with examining the monarchy is actually long overdue. Reynolds tries to make out that there has been lots of this in the Thai literature, but as others have said, this is not necessarily the case, at least until recently. The monarchy does deserve critical scrutiny as its power and values have underpinned a lot of troubling events and outcomes in Thailand, of which 1976 and 2006 are just two examples.
To say that looking at the case of a frustrated forensic scientist and media star (and royalist) is worthy of attention ignores the structural issues associated with royal power. And, the story of their role in the police is largely untold/unknown (leaving aside the well-known and notorious links to BPP and the awful memoir by royal bum polisher Vasit, who was also junta-appointed police reformer).
Ungpakorn: Actually, its Puay, Jon, Peter Maitree, and Giles. While I have no problems with the first three, decidedly non-revolutionary, members of the clan, I will certainly not agree with the idea that Giles’ ideas for a future Thailand are any better than what we have now.
Dog Lover writes: “I thought Handley’s point was that he had conducted numerous interviews? His references list these.”
I’m agreeing with Handley’s approach. Neither an academic nor a journalist could avoid using mostly interviews with the subject he wrote about.
But IMHO the obsession with putting the institution of monarchy under a microscope is a little misplaced when there are other issues like the way that the police department works (I think Khun Ying Pornthip said she was going to resign this week after being harassed for a decade) that I cringe to even mention, fearing I’ll be thrown in a garbage can and burned. There’s a courageous academic at Chulalongkorn that is dealing with this subject.
Dog lover writes: “Instead of “neutrality” you might want to adopt the term “Thai-style neutrality” as a more appropriate descriptor of the palace’s never-ending political interventions.”
OK, “Thai Style neutrality.” If there are deep underlying class antagonisms in a society, what else besides compromise and balancing the two sides is possible?
Dog lover writes: “Obviously Anand is a royalist flunky who deals reasonably well with foreigners”
Well, I guess that is one way of looking at it. Diplomatic relations are important for small open economies like Thailand though.
Jamie, thanks for being forthright, but you really have to read the book, otherwise your input into this debate is meaningless. I will vouch that it has got the academic values and did shatter my views as a previously King-loving Thai.
By the way, people in Thailand will not admit readily that they don’t like the King. If you haven’t noticed, its taboo, and, for your own safety and well being…
Jamie: You are full of crap. Frankly, I think you are making your post up out of thin air. Plenty of Thais don’t like the king but often they aren’t willing to say so to any old dope who asks them. How on earth can you make judgments about a book you haven’t read yet and you proclaim that you haven’t read anything else on the king either. What a pile of rubbish you peddle.
CT: Take your pick – IMO all would be better than what is currently on show.
Interestingly, Puey withdrew his candidacy, and from Wikipedia:
“Some have argued, however, that Puey’s withdrawal was based upon his mature understanding of the nature of society and that he had accurately foreseen that the upcoming democratic period would be inherently unstable, dangerous and short-lived”.
btw, and I apologise for taking this thread way off topic, I referred to a revolution of the Ungpakorn kind as a contrast to that offered by Thaksin, and again refer back to the link I posted in #26 above.
I really like Ashley South’s work, but I wish he had fleshed this argument out more (perhaps he does in the book). I think he looks at this too much from the standpoint of the armed ethnic groups, which are in fact a small subset of the ethnic minorities. I’d say that it is in the interest of the armed ethnic groups to participate in the process, it is the unarmed elements of the ethnic minorities where there are questions.
He writes “the continuation of human and civil-political rights abuses have led many to criticise these agreements. Such complaints have weakened the standing of most ceasefire groups, at least in some sectors of the community. ” In fact it isn’t just the continuation of human and civil rights abuse that cause problems for the ceasefire groups, it is the fact that in the wake of the ceasefires they’ve committed the same abuses. I remember the villagers in one Kachin village in the Shan state being absolutely livid that one of the Kachin ceasefire groups had ordered them to provide free labor (forced labor) on a road on Christmas Day. They said they would have understood it from the Burmese military, but they couldn’t understand how the “Christian” Kachin ceasefire group could order such a thing. It certainly wasn’t a win-win situation for them, and I doubt participation by the ceasefire group in the referendum is going to change that.
Sorry, Grasshopper. Yes, I was indeed referring to Observer. To those drafters, this might not be a contradiction. They might theoretically accept the role of politicians and political parties. However, they probably think that, in their Thai version, these groups rather are a threat to democracy than its “liberal crux.” The dominance of Thaksin and TRT led them strongly to go against the “monopolization of power” in their proceedings. Anyway, it is certainly not an easy task to distill coherent standpoints, much less a clear constitutional intent, out of all the statements made in the press and the CDC meeting room.
“All politicians around the world are the same. They steal as much as they can get away with.” > Quite a far-reaching statement…
I use to live in Thailand. I never met a person who said they didn’t like the king, although many don’t like the son. I have had the book for 6 months and not been inclined to read it yet. Skimming a few pages it seems to have more gossip value than academic value. Not a book to be taken too seriously and although I haven’t read other books on the king I would say most of them would be subjective and not to be taken too seriously.
“…it allows almost **instantaneous peer review** and it is far better than, for instance, forums on WebCT, which have never seemed to be so alive. The biggest personal development that I have garnered from this blog is that I am increasingly aware of my language.”
jonfernquest says: “How could the following book [Katherine Bowie] be written with only written sources” – I thought Handley’s point was that he had conducted numerous interviews? His references list these.
jonfernquest says: “And as far as the institution of Thai monarchy not being neutral (Reynolds says obviously not, Anand used the words non-partisan, detached, and indirect in his address), there is a whole spectrum between neutral and proactive, and wouldn’t balancing partisan interests or middle way [Pali: majjhimaa paс╣нipadaa] be a better description of how “neutrality” maybe is conceived. Nothing was was done to block the elections, for instance.” Are you really saying that the monarchy has been politically neutral? If you are, then post-TKNS, post-Bowie etc., you may has well just put up the royal flag and be done with it. No amount of evidence would convince you otherwise. Instead of “neutrality” you might want to adopt the term “Thai-style neutrality” as a more appropriate descriptor of the palace’s never-ending political interventions. Obviously Anand is a royalist flunky who deals reasonably well with foreigners, and that has been one of the tasks he has been set since the coup – tell foreigners that they don’t understand the king/monarchy and “Thai-style neutrality”.
I guess I am a bit more cynical than Nganadeeleg and Srithanonchai.
I do think it was an intentional plan by the junta to reverse democratic progress. After every coup the military put into place a very similar constitution and set of rules, Thaksin or no Thaksin.
Hoping politicians behave is futile. All politicians around the world are the same. They steal as much as they can get away with. Thai politicians only steal a lot because they can get away with a lot. Creating a legal framework that enforces this is the solution, not hoping politicians become nice guys or that dogs start liking cats or whatever.
I don’t have any sympathy with the theory that the junta may have wanted to strengthen democracy in the long run. I do think they screwed things up so badly that a stronger democracy may be the result. But this coup was only one step in a long series of efforts to create military rule at the expense of democracy.
Srithanonchai, think you are referring to Observer.
However, is it really possible for the intent of those rewriting the constitution to be ‘strengthening democracy’ by severely limiting it’s liberal crux? Isn’t this method a contradiction?
“I doubt this is the place to discuss political leanings.” > Well, if you put together revolution and Ungpakorn, then this is about what kind of society you would like Thailand to be in the future. And thus you need to know and discuss the supposed key person’s normative political stance. Otherwise, one should better not make political projections, determine the means that is supposed to effect the change, and name a person who is supposed to symbolize all this.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Burma’s constitutional direction
Thanks for your comments Aiontay. My work is a bit elite-centered. In the book, I do look at abusive practices and mis-governance on the part of ceassfire groups, and especially some of the smaller, fragmentary militias.
Northern Thailand’s phony war
Andrew asks if political appeals to ethnicity are empowering at all. I agree with his analysis of the (unintended) disempowering entailed in notions of Karen as stewards of the forest. But there remains a larger issue that Engelhardt’s paper does not get far into, which is the racialism of Thai national ideology. This is a 20th century phenomenon that has systemically precluded any rights to “non-Thai” upland farmers, and has since the 1960s fixated on the stereotyped Meo (Hmong) as subversive and dangerous. Most political action among uplanders since the early 1980s (after the fighting ended, against CPT units, with a lot of attacks on highland areas) has aimed to get away from the hill tribe image. Hayami’s 1997 paper on a Karen tree-ordination notes that this was perceived to show that they were not an ecologically destructive hill tribe. That simply moves some Karen from that racialized bracket, leaving Hmong and others there in the Thai view. The attacks on Hmong orchards in Nan belong there. The string of cases that Chusak describes is compelling and troubling, but the question remains whether to describe the events as ethnic. I have written on one of these cases, about the Mien in Huai Kok (125 in his paper). Throughout the case, the Mien people showed no sign of their ethnicity, they dressed, acted, and spoke Thai, and at the many meetings that followed they presented themselves as Thai farmers wanting the benefits of development (see my Mien Relations 127-147). The killing that took place was not a part of the protest, it was an individual vendetta. The villagers said “you have to arrest us all” not in relations to that, but when the authorities (about 100 soldiers and police, heavily armed, in seventeen trucks) arrived and demanded that the perpetrators be identified, they were going to arrest them. There is another description of this case in the book Sitthi Chumchon Thongthin: Chao Khao Nai Phakneua, that was done under the directorship of Saneh Chammarik and Cholthira Sattyawatthana (2546/2003), pp.272-286. At one of the meetings following the burning of Sanctuary buildings, people said that the wildlife sanctuary there had brought poaching and illegal logging, that they had lived with this forest longer and taken quite good care of it. This was not in reference to Mien eco-wisdom, but a contrast between farmers and nai-thun (capitalists). The setting is shaky. Many of the villages were given an eviction order in about 1991. Then nothing happened until about 2003 when the whole sub-district was declared a class A1 watershed, so all villages became illegal, including some that had been in the lowlands growing wet rice since about 1945. Mien hold ethnic festivals centered on sports and ethnic dress entertainment in order to gain a favorable outsider view, they have not agitated as ethnics as far as I can tell. But here, the contrast between the state and the ethnics is overdrawn. For one, the Highway Dept and the Forestry Dept have long been at odds about how to “lay out” the countryside. Perhaps more important, the area has had a Subdistrict Administrative Council for some time now, and that along with Mien schoolteachers (for close to thirty years) and an ethnically Mien kamnan (in place since tambol were established, 60-some years) makes it hard to draw clear lines between Mien and Thai, farmers and the state. The one time when people made a special appeal to their need (as ethnic minority highlanders) for authorized access to forest land, at a meeting in 1993, an MP for the province said “hill tribes are so numerically insignificant, barely one percent of the nation, that to give in to their demands would set a precedent that would lead to absolute chaos.” As I see it, Thai racialism has accentuated ethnic consciousness among highland people and at the same time it has precluded any ethnically based political action among the upland minorities. That’s the success that Engelhardt’s paper describes, and the problem described by Chusak.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
“…the structural issues associated with royal power. And, the story of their role in the police is largely untold/unknown.”
I don’t see what that has to do with concerned citizens and intellectuals actually pushing for fundamental change in the legal system, instead of frittering their time away taking jabs at the monarchy, which IMHO most non-intellectuals really seem to consider a non-issue.
Basic laws are not enforced. Running red lights, hit and run, murders that have a trail of evidence a mile long, institutionalized extortion from those arrested in jails, stolen cars in a “car rental” scheme, border police kidnapping and extorting from people as a matter of course, and everyone seems to be too afraid to raise the issue in print or poke around into provincial police activities where most of the bad stuff goes on. Similar **but more important** to what’s going on with institutionalised “lese majeste” self-censorship of the variety discussed in that 2008 Thai Studies conference paper. A recent article on the horrendous procedure of pre-trial hearings was done by English teacher who took a concern in one of his students. Take this article, for instance: ICT to ‘hack & crack’ foreign websites offensive to Thai supreme institution
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=565
At the end of the article it says they are going to waste their time “hacking and cracking” a site that photoshopped a dog head onto the Buddha. That even sounds like something some weird Zen master would do. Why waste the time trying to censor some weird guy far away in a foreign country when the country lacks the very basics of law enforcement?
Message from Burma
For those interested in Burmese literature, they may have a look at the working papers produced in the context of the “Myanmar Literature Projekt” at Southeast Asian Studies, University of Passau. The link is http://www.iseap.de/content/view/89/
Burma’s constitutional direction
Nice work. Certainly the power of the masses will reach its zenith and that a new constitution in favor of the majority will govern Burma. However, my concern is that how sure are we that it will not end up as another wrong concept of democracy to be abuse my the minor aristocracy.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
jonfernquest: “But IMHO the obsession with putting the institution of monarchy under a microscope is a little misplaced when there are other issues like the way that the police department works.”
I doubt you’ll get much disagreement over a suggestion that the Thai cops need to be investigated and reformed. They behave like gangsters and, indeed, are gangsters.
However, the so-called obsession with examining the monarchy is actually long overdue. Reynolds tries to make out that there has been lots of this in the Thai literature, but as others have said, this is not necessarily the case, at least until recently. The monarchy does deserve critical scrutiny as its power and values have underpinned a lot of troubling events and outcomes in Thailand, of which 1976 and 2006 are just two examples.
To say that looking at the case of a frustrated forensic scientist and media star (and royalist) is worthy of attention ignores the structural issues associated with royal power. And, the story of their role in the police is largely untold/unknown (leaving aside the well-known and notorious links to BPP and the awful memoir by royal bum polisher Vasit, who was also junta-appointed police reformer).
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Ungpakorn: Actually, its Puay, Jon, Peter Maitree, and Giles. While I have no problems with the first three, decidedly non-revolutionary, members of the clan, I will certainly not agree with the idea that Giles’ ideas for a future Thailand are any better than what we have now.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Dog Lover writes: “I thought Handley’s point was that he had conducted numerous interviews? His references list these.”
I’m agreeing with Handley’s approach. Neither an academic nor a journalist could avoid using mostly interviews with the subject he wrote about.
But IMHO the obsession with putting the institution of monarchy under a microscope is a little misplaced when there are other issues like the way that the police department works (I think Khun Ying Pornthip said she was going to resign this week after being harassed for a decade) that I cringe to even mention, fearing I’ll be thrown in a garbage can and burned. There’s a courageous academic at Chulalongkorn that is dealing with this subject.
Dog lover writes: “Instead of “neutrality” you might want to adopt the term “Thai-style neutrality” as a more appropriate descriptor of the palace’s never-ending political interventions.”
OK, “Thai Style neutrality.” If there are deep underlying class antagonisms in a society, what else besides compromise and balancing the two sides is possible?
Dog lover writes: “Obviously Anand is a royalist flunky who deals reasonably well with foreigners”
Well, I guess that is one way of looking at it. Diplomatic relations are important for small open economies like Thailand though.
The King Never Smiles?
Jamie, thanks for being forthright, but you really have to read the book, otherwise your input into this debate is meaningless. I will vouch that it has got the academic values and did shatter my views as a previously King-loving Thai.
By the way, people in Thailand will not admit readily that they don’t like the King. If you haven’t noticed, its taboo, and, for your own safety and well being…
The King Never Smiles?
Jamie: You are full of crap. Frankly, I think you are making your post up out of thin air. Plenty of Thais don’t like the king but often they aren’t willing to say so to any old dope who asks them. How on earth can you make judgments about a book you haven’t read yet and you proclaim that you haven’t read anything else on the king either. What a pile of rubbish you peddle.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
CT: Take your pick – IMO all would be better than what is currently on show.
Interestingly, Puey withdrew his candidacy, and from Wikipedia:
“Some have argued, however, that Puey’s withdrawal was based upon his mature understanding of the nature of society and that he had accurately foreseen that the upcoming democratic period would be inherently unstable, dangerous and short-lived”.
btw, and I apologise for taking this thread way off topic, I referred to a revolution of the Ungpakorn kind as a contrast to that offered by Thaksin, and again refer back to the link I posted in #26 above.
Burma’s constitutional direction
I really like Ashley South’s work, but I wish he had fleshed this argument out more (perhaps he does in the book). I think he looks at this too much from the standpoint of the armed ethnic groups, which are in fact a small subset of the ethnic minorities. I’d say that it is in the interest of the armed ethnic groups to participate in the process, it is the unarmed elements of the ethnic minorities where there are questions.
He writes “the continuation of human and civil-political rights abuses have led many to criticise these agreements. Such complaints have weakened the standing of most ceasefire groups, at least in some sectors of the community. ” In fact it isn’t just the continuation of human and civil rights abuse that cause problems for the ceasefire groups, it is the fact that in the wake of the ceasefires they’ve committed the same abuses. I remember the villagers in one Kachin village in the Shan state being absolutely livid that one of the Kachin ceasefire groups had ordered them to provide free labor (forced labor) on a road on Christmas Day. They said they would have understood it from the Burmese military, but they couldn’t understand how the “Christian” Kachin ceasefire group could order such a thing. It certainly wasn’t a win-win situation for them, and I doubt participation by the ceasefire group in the referendum is going to change that.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
“Ungpakorn”: Puey, Ji, or Jon?
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Sorry, Grasshopper. Yes, I was indeed referring to Observer. To those drafters, this might not be a contradiction. They might theoretically accept the role of politicians and political parties. However, they probably think that, in their Thai version, these groups rather are a threat to democracy than its “liberal crux.” The dominance of Thaksin and TRT led them strongly to go against the “monopolization of power” in their proceedings. Anyway, it is certainly not an easy task to distill coherent standpoints, much less a clear constitutional intent, out of all the statements made in the press and the CDC meeting room.
“All politicians around the world are the same. They steal as much as they can get away with.” > Quite a far-reaching statement…
The King Never Smiles?
I use to live in Thailand. I never met a person who said they didn’t like the king, although many don’t like the son. I have had the book for 6 months and not been inclined to read it yet. Skimming a few pages it seems to have more gossip value than academic value. Not a book to be taken too seriously and although I haven’t read other books on the king I would say most of them would be subjective and not to be taken too seriously.
New Mandala on New Mandala
“…it allows almost **instantaneous peer review** and it is far better than, for instance, forums on WebCT, which have never seemed to be so alive. The biggest personal development that I have garnered from this blog is that I am increasingly aware of my language.”
Writing Wikipedia articles is good for this too.
A new book covers all the conventions:
http://missingmanuals.com/wikipedia_tips.csp
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
jonfernquest says: “How could the following book [Katherine Bowie] be written with only written sources” – I thought Handley’s point was that he had conducted numerous interviews? His references list these.
jonfernquest says: “And as far as the institution of Thai monarchy not being neutral (Reynolds says obviously not, Anand used the words non-partisan, detached, and indirect in his address), there is a whole spectrum between neutral and proactive, and wouldn’t balancing partisan interests or middle way [Pali: majjhimaa paс╣нipadaa] be a better description of how “neutrality” maybe is conceived. Nothing was was done to block the elections, for instance.” Are you really saying that the monarchy has been politically neutral? If you are, then post-TKNS, post-Bowie etc., you may has well just put up the royal flag and be done with it. No amount of evidence would convince you otherwise. Instead of “neutrality” you might want to adopt the term “Thai-style neutrality” as a more appropriate descriptor of the palace’s never-ending political interventions. Obviously Anand is a royalist flunky who deals reasonably well with foreigners, and that has been one of the tasks he has been set since the coup – tell foreigners that they don’t understand the king/monarchy and “Thai-style neutrality”.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
I guess I am a bit more cynical than Nganadeeleg and Srithanonchai.
I do think it was an intentional plan by the junta to reverse democratic progress. After every coup the military put into place a very similar constitution and set of rules, Thaksin or no Thaksin.
Hoping politicians behave is futile. All politicians around the world are the same. They steal as much as they can get away with. Thai politicians only steal a lot because they can get away with a lot. Creating a legal framework that enforces this is the solution, not hoping politicians become nice guys or that dogs start liking cats or whatever.
I don’t have any sympathy with the theory that the junta may have wanted to strengthen democracy in the long run. I do think they screwed things up so badly that a stronger democracy may be the result. But this coup was only one step in a long series of efforts to create military rule at the expense of democracy.
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
Srithanonchai, think you are referring to Observer.
However, is it really possible for the intent of those rewriting the constitution to be ‘strengthening democracy’ by severely limiting it’s liberal crux? Isn’t this method a contradiction?
Reynolds on Handley’s The King Never Smiles
“I doubt this is the place to discuss political leanings.” > Well, if you put together revolution and Ungpakorn, then this is about what kind of society you would like Thailand to be in the future. And thus you need to know and discuss the supposed key person’s normative political stance. Otherwise, one should better not make political projections, determine the means that is supposed to effect the change, and name a person who is supposed to symbolize all this.