1. You say that Sidh and Dickie say the King is “always right” and “give priority” to his statements.
Well, I consider HMK like a father to the country (maybe you can argue its the propaganda, but that is another story, lets not get there in this discussion)
like a ‘father’, I tend not to disagree openly with my parents when I think they are wrong, I just ignore or “don’t give priority” to their statement.
Likewise, I never say that HMK is ‘always right’, and “give priority” to all his statements.
I just don’t give any priority to the disagreements (unless they are major and infringe on human rights). Does that make me a naughty child? 555 😀
1. Use common sense, we are talking about military planes that are capable in defense. Framing the issue that we are discussing ‘flight training’ planes is off the mark and purposefully misleading.
2. Sondhi L is a nobody, and without Thaksin giving way in any issue he (Sondhi) got legitimized. I agree with you that ‘the palace’ is also looking after their own interests. I think everyone does, so it really is a moot point. I believe in this case that Thaksin should have conceded 1-2 issues. You seem to confuse majority rule with the legal one. In the end, segregation in the US was stopped because their Supreme court decided it, not because politicians pushed for it. Similarly, HMK advised judges that it was ‘their duty’ to get us over the political impasse. Let us also not forget these judges failed us when they cited ‘majority rule’ as their reason for letting Thaksin off his ‘honest mistake’ in asset declaration in 2001 meaning that one could argue the constitution had been torn up since then.
Also, notice Thaksin ‘took a break’ from politics after consulting HMK at ‘klaikangwon’, presumably with HMK advise, though like the Queen of England with her PM’s, we don’t know exactly what is said. Then, Thaksin suddenly returned from his break prior to the October election. That means that Thaksin either did not heed the advise of HMK, and the conflict was brought back front and center. Now, Royal advice, be it here, England, Norway, etc. is ALWAYS done behind closed doors. There is no precedent (not even in Spain) where they (the Royal) gives the advice in front of the media spotlight. Perhaps had Thaksin RESPECTED the advice back then none of this would’ve happened. As all precedent had been broken and the spirit of ‘Article 7’ been shredded by Thaksin and TRT (in that they didn’t go along with the precedent of behavior expected with the rule of law with the King as a head of state), the military jumped in to do it formally.
Either way, I feel that the constitution was already torn up prior to the coup.
3. Already answered in #2. I find these 2 points intertwined and can’t seem to be able to get to one without involving the other. Maybe it is just my inability to see each point clearly, if so, I apologize.
4. In this point, I conceded in my answer to you, and you conceded in your answer to Sidh, so calmer heads prevail 🙂
5. I disagree on the ‘despicability’ of monarchy. I ignore your comparison to those dictators because you seem to have really stretched your argument. Prior to getting to my point, what I say is this:
The modern monarch knows too well the power of political freedom and understands the risk to the monarchy should they curtail these freedoms. Also, the monarchy (especially here) has legitimized their social positions via Buddhism, meaning they have to alway be calm, serene, and non-violent. Dictators that I mentioned earlier are/were not bound by these expectations. Hence, the monarchy is not able to behave in a way that shows any vices ie: caught to behave in a way that portrays the image, always in public and almost always in privatre. I think till this point you agree.
If the monarch is not to behave under these imposed expectations and was different (especially in the vices), I believe strongly, despite any harsh LM law that these ‘truths’ would be made public. Apparently the harsh LM has never stopped “whispered rumors” about any the family, has it?
So my conclusion (whether you agree or not) that monarchy is preferable to a republic state is that the monarch too is limited by their public image. I reiterate again, should they fail to live up to their image (at the very least sincerely attempt to live to that image) they face what happens in Nepal, France, etc. and posters like our “republican” here in NM will be out on tv giving a Mel Gibson braveheart freedom speech… (thanks grasshopper for the metaphor).
Now, if you are still rooted in your belief, and I obviously am rooted in mine, then we should agree to disagree. As we are people without power, and have nothing to gain/lose from the political fights, we should continue our debates on other point-by-point issues.
Getting back to the point about hard and soft power here, they both needed to make some concessions. The ‘hard’ power “Suhartoness” felt they had a mandate from the people to ‘do whatever they wanted’, and didn’t concede. The soft power are power players and proxies who don’t like the media spotlight, so they took a big risk in the coup. In the end, they both lost, and created a terrible mess for the country in the process. My belief is had the hard power conceded (as advised) things would’ve worked out for the square face in the long run.
6. Since you didn’t reply to me, and I have no opinion on this matter, I consider it dropped. (between us, not you and Sidh).
Thanks Dickie! I suppose it is my penchant for context and precedence in addressing any issue that makes me “very very around”!
Teth made me a “five year old” now while he is beginning to sound like a spoilt three year old who wants everything his way!
1. That is being sarcastic in the extreme Teth (or simplistic to the extreme – which I don’t associate with you) and I’m beginning to wonder if this is about HMK’s ego or yours.
I’ve called for context here and maintain that military spending is more often than not relative to regional/global spending which I know for a fact that is on the rise. For one, the F16s the RTAF has is considered not a match for the Russian MIG29 that the Myanmese have ordered. I’m also not a military specialist (unlike you) – although I remember Donald Rumsfeld, a ‘civilian specialist’, calling for similarly compact and efficient force to conquer and control Iraq against the advice of many senior generals in the US armed forces.
2. Let’s not tiptoe around this one Teth, in this point you raise the issue of “unity” and have not explained how your prefered “unity government” is democratic and will resolve Thai societal divide.
Please don’t tiptoe around your earlier statement “(HMK) should not be expressing his opinion as a constitutional monarch”. If King Juan Carlos could, as a constitutional monarch, then HMK could. Period. It is probably a basic, democratic right too – come to think of it and I don’t think you are against that.
3. “Let me ask you this question, what is the role of the constitutional monarch? To advise, warn, and be consulted?” That is already contradicting your point in ‘2’ already.
“…And, it would be well within the bounds of Article 7 of the Constitution” such bold statements when even legal experts debate this! Moreover, you talk as if you were in the middle of things, privy to all the “whispers” and “understandings” between the HMK, PMThaksin and the proxies. I’m with Dickie here:
“… So the ‘understanding’ and the work from the proxies were there, but no concessions were made. What is difficult here is determining exactly what concessions were asked…”
Make up your mind Teth, first you say HMK should not express his opinion, while in another context, you want HMK to do an extra-constitutional act in the appointment of a prime minister. Sounds like a relativist to me (and I welcome you with open arms).
Additionally you add: “That is not my preferred hypothetical way out of the anti-Thaksin crisis…”. What is? And who actually had the real and very legal power to make that decision? I’m with Dickie here, 1-2 steps back by PMThaksin would have made a world of difference – remember that saying along the line of “there are only two certainties in life – taxes and death”. It is the least any society can expect from its leader…
4. That’s a start Teth, it’s important put together all the facts. A comparative biography of King Prajadhipok and King Juan Carlos – before and after inheriting absolute power. I will argue the facts on time and place is critical too and must be considered in any assessment. Siam in the unstable inter-war, towards the end of European colonial period of SEAsia, Spain in the mid-70s – a relative stable period in Europe, post-war reconstruction mostly complete and the visioning a democratic united continent.
5. Make up your mind Teth, what HMK’s “UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY”??? Earlier you said:
“… If no, his urges are worthless, like how every politician takes five minutes of their time to say, “I agree with the King. I urge for unity” before going off and continuing their campaigns (and rejecting the idea of a unity government).”
Let’s not tiptoe around this it was PMThaksin’s HARD POWER and UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY (notice that the TRT dominated lower house and the rubber stamp Senate never stood up to him when it was clearly their legal role) that MEDDLED HEAVILY in the military/police forces; that led to the WAR ON DRUGS infringing on the most basic of human rights; that led to the SOUTHERN UNREST which not only divided Thai society but threatens to divide the country. “I am fully responsible” he proudly declared – “no, I issued the policy only”, now he says.
And you just keep mixing soft and hard power up “… you’ll find that he indeed fits in with the likes of Marcos, Suharto, and Mahathir rather than the likes of Juan Carlos”. And you also tiptoed around Dickie’s point – Marcos, Suharto and Mahathir “who maybe good for the nation in the short-medium term, but terrible for long term progress”. You also never answered the issue I raised in other posts – how could Thailand, with centuries old deeply embedded monarchic tradition, practically transform itself into a republic? Please stop the spoilt kid’s idealism and address the real issues on ground. By now, you should know full well the nature of our politicians who you will have to entrust this job to carry out democratically…
6. That is your point of view. I respect that and maybe you should learn to also respect contrary viewpoints. It is only democratic – thinking you are 100% right while others are “fifth graders” smells paternalistic and dictatorial…
“A genius is someone who’s projects, over the past 30-40 years would have bought our country out of poverty instead of needing excuses like “its the Gov’t who are holding it back””
At the end of the day, your blinding hate of the monarchy – and especially of HMK – is affecting your logic. You prefer to lay all Thailand’s ills on one person and one person only and any rational person knows that is clearly wrong (read Charles Keyes’s interview for instance – and this is based on 40 years of observation and research). We are discussing highly complex societies facing grave political, social, economical, environmental problems. We have multiple agencies, whether people or institutions tackling these issues, both successfully and unsuccessfully due to many factors. Last I am aware off, Thailand is not a failed state (why?). Ofcourse, the country could still become one – or it can do much better. The next election puts us at another cross-roads – where are we going from here?
Reply to #193: Your exhortation in the last sentence is lighthearted, but it raises an issue (while I have political views I’ve never been interested in direct political activity; academic blogs are enough for me):
Would you be willing to lead, or even call for, a demonstration of the kind you describe above (lightheartedly) or, more seriously, against the CNS-royalists? And if the demonstrators were gunned down in the streets would you feel responsible? And given the lese majeste law, would it be possible for you or me to state publicly who was behind the massacre, and who ultimately gained politically from the massacre?
Think of all the massacres that the royalists and the military have committed over the last 35 years; have any of the perpetrators of the massacres ever been brought to justice? Thanom was actually given a royally-sponsored cremation a few months ago. Suchinda was there. Surayudh too, the commander of the force that shot to death unarmed pro-democracy protesters at the Royal Hotel on Ratchadamnoen Ave. in May ’92, who is now Prime Minister (formerly privy counsellor), and even praised in the international media as a “career soldier”. You can understand why these people are so loyal to the throne, because apart from rewarding them so well it is the only thing that protects them.
Anyone who considers political activity in Thailand, especially at the present, has to consider these questions. When their power is threatened the royalists have shown time and time again that they are willing to use deadly violence. And they have never been brought to justice.
Good idea, imagine the Ministry of Finance owning Siam Cement or possibly selling its stake, raising billions with which we can develop the country with. Imagine an auctioning off of all prime Crown Property Bureau land, the wealth could be put to immense use of the nation.
I’m sure that wealth would be enough to finance all the King’s royal projects and expand its scope. If that is what he actually cares about rather than spending the government’s money, using government officials, but receiving all the praise.
I think I’m beginning to get what Republican has been trying to say. (Though I haven’t read EVERY single post here–what a long discussion!)
Most Thai academics are silent on the subject of the king/monarchy/royal family (is it self-censorship? is it LM law?). Heck, it wasn’t even critically discussed in a Nation and Nationalism graduate class in an anthropology department! Whenever we do see their articles, they seem to soften the argument – to the point where most readers wouldn’t even question whether they are criticizing the monarchy or not. The only way you can mention the king and monarchy in public is to praise them!
It is obvious that the monarchy plays an important role in Thai politics, pulling every string and mobilizing every resource they have to produce and reproduce their power AND accumulate their wealth.
I think the king and family should transfer all their wealth and assets to the nation, and let the government manage it. In fact, this budget should be allocated for universal health care and free education. They can keep their palaces (1 family is allowed 2 palaces only– hey everybody deserves holiday home!). Apart from the palaces, all assets and property should be turned into state property.
1. No, its quite simple really, he said if we built planes, it would fall out of the sky. I think I know why, because they weren’t “designed” by him unlike those T.991 ships, which of course will not sink because HMK had a hand. How Gripen Jets and 300 billion baht military purchases will help solve the biggest pressing concern of Thailand’s security situation is beyond me. Like I’ve said before, the forces need to become more compact and efficient (and spend money on basic training equipment and military welfare) before buying their toys.
You say the King has a point: yes he does. But his points are not always right nor should they always be a priority. Dickie and Sidh seem to always interpret as so, however.
2. You say Thaksin was fighting for his own interests, I say so is the palace. You say the popular leader should be gracious and give way, but I say the firm reconfirmation of the people’s mandate means it was Sondhi L who should give way. But their dismissal of the people’s mandate is evident in their eventual acceptance of the coup. We can go on forever about who should have backed off one step, but in the end, neither did and both are to blame, Sondhi L for not respecting the people’s voice and Thaksin for not respecting the rule of law.
Yes, majority rule is not always correct, but the US did resolve the segregation issue without a coup did it not.
Juan Carlos is clearly human and his actions are being debated in Spain. His image was burnt by Catalonian separatists. Whether he overstepped his role is being debated not only by Venezuelans but by Spainards. When you see this type of debate happening openly in Thailand, then I will condemn Juan Carlos for overstepping his duty in this case.
3. Let me ask you this question, what is the role of the constitutional monarch? To advise, warn, and be consulted? Or is it the right to perch on a throne publicly oblivious to a constitutional crisis, advising a solution before all of a sudden endorsing a coup? The King should have advised Thaksin to step down, if only momentarily, to defuse the crisis before a clean and fair election should dictate the direction the country could have gone. Alternatively, in the midst of the impasse and the potential for violence (according to the coup group) the King could have negotiated a settlement as he did with Suchinda and Chamlong: the apolitical arbiter, a force for unity who did not command, but advised as is well within his rights and duties. Why did it not happen or did he have to wait until there was violence again? Surely such a move would have done more for towards fostering national unity than a coup or rambling speeches could ever do. And, it would be well within the bounds of Article 7 of the Constitution. So much for the ever-wise King.
By the way, a royally appointed prime minister is very much a more democratic than a constitution-shredding, emergency-ruling, military-appointed government. That is not my preferred hypothetical way out of the anti-Thaksin crisis, but one of the ways that were better than a coup.
4. Prajadhipok is no constitutional monarch nor benevolent bestower of democracy. Plus, the accumulated soft power of Bhumibol and his popular position should be sufficient grounds for him reprimanding the coup.
My evidence regarding Prajadhipok? See how he meddled post-coup, how he blocked reform for the interest of his noble brothers before whisking away to England claiming he had protected the interest of democracy. There’s more if you care to know, but in the meantime, don’t be naive. For all your harping about “time and place” its all a construct to belie the fact that deep down inside, you’re still a fifth grader who believes everything his history teacher tells him.
I don’t want to seem pedantic or demagogic because historical figures are also humans with whom we could sympathise with to a certain extent, but viewpoints such as yours (Sidh) needs a nice vigorous destruction, by facts of course. I have conceded this point, surely we should not be locked in a Sondhi L-Thaksin impasse?
5. Thaksin was a right demagogue in the making, but with the increasing stupidity of the coup makers and government, they have managed to erode much of my disagreement with Thaksin. The other day I found myself arguing for Thaksin and against the coup before looking back to the ills he committed. It is still very clear that Thaksin committed much wrongdoing, but the coup was more divisive, more useless, and more harmful to Thailand than Thaksin in all his five years ever was.
But I do pray, tell me how different Thaksin’s HARD POWER is from the King’s soft power of PRESTIGE and UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY. What about his proxies, the political manoeuvres, palace favourites, and those acts done in his name?
As for Dickie’s point, monarch in principle is despicable compared to Republican forms of government. Constant figure or not, if you looked into the King’s role further than what they say on television or in Sidh’s school of thought, you’ll find that he indeed fits in with the likes of Marcos, Suharto, and Mahathir rather than the likes of Juan Carlos. Clearly, we are using a broad definition of “the likes”.
6. What genius? Talents, perhaps. But genius? No. A genius is someone who’s projects, over the past 30-40 years would have bought our country out of poverty instead of needing excuses like “its the Gov’t who are holding it back”. Neither would an actual genius need people on television calling him a genius every night , lest people forget the fact?
Just turning the argument on its head, why doesn’t Thongchai use a pseudonym instead of his real name? Thailand has a long history of seditious intellectuals using pseudonyms. Then he could attack the monarchy on webboards as strongly as he likes and he wouldn’t have to worry about lese majeste. My guess would be that more academics and students in Thai Studies would read NM and Fa Dio Kan than The Nation (well, I hope so at least, otherwise it would be very sad), so he would be reaching a receptive and well-informed audience. He wouldn’t have to censor himself or use royalist arguments out of fear of lese majeste. Isn’t that better than using a real name and having to falsify oneself?
I’ve never had a problem with people using pseudonyms because I think it’s just important for the arguments to be publically articulated. This has been the real problem with lese majeste, in the era before blogs and webboards. Now we can make the arguments publically so much more easily than before, why hinder our ability to articulate them by using real names?
(Also, pseudonyms are kind of democratic; you never know whether you’re debating with a Cornell professor or a first year Asian Studies major, or even someone really smart, like a taxi-driver.)
Of course, the verification process is another matter, when the “author function” becomes part of the way that academic institutions declare what is true or false, a la Foucault. But that can come later. First, let’s make the arguments.
Reply to #192: Well I guess that I am not quite sure how to “play the game”, so it is safer for me to use a different name. I told you already, maybe I’m a bigger “coward” than him.
RE 192. “Two famous webboard players in Prachatai” had been arrested and put in jail for several days because they had “insulting monarchy” on webboard.
You may says that it’s just “several days”, at least, much more better than 10-15 years in jail. But, for statistic, how many cases in Thai History that “anyone” has been sentensed to be jailed 10-15 years?
No I hadn’t heard about this, stupidly, I was only thinking of Oliver Jufer, the Swiss man acquitted earlier in 2007.
Don’t you see the “Power of Propaganda” from this law? You say that it do more “harm than good”? I still do not talk about how it prevents the king and originates the “UNTOUCHABLE ANGEL!!!”.
Yes I see 😉 , that’s why I mentioned people like myself who watch the BBC and see the King forgive so its all nice and friendly, which helps the King’s popularity as he can be supposedly virtuous with mercy.
But my opinion about the process which sees people needing to be forgiven would only reflect one which believes that power should be restrained and capped for the well being and growth of all people, and this view, because of my environment, bares no legitimacy to people who potentially have to deal with facing lese majeste like “Republican”??, who won’t watch Braveheart and lead Thailand to Freedom… Embrace Mel Gibson/William Wallace, Republican, embrace his spirit!!! I will flash my kilt baring my buttocks to the tanks along any thanon you wish to begin the rebellion!
First of all, thanks for answering my question.
I still got some problem with one of your answer, hence I would like to ask you a bit more. (If youplease…)
“…I do think that the law has done more harm than good for the monarchy because lese majeste allows for this kind of discussion which is not doing the King’s reputation good on New Mandala. How can a law protecting Royals like this be construed as something other than unjust to people on this site with liberal educations? However, in lots of international media, because of the King’s popularity, the lese majeste law is treated lightly as it is (at least recently) written that the King lets offenders off and deports them-which is not as bad as spending 10-15 years in prison. There seems to be a ‘oh, it is crazy Thailand where there are beautiful beaches and as long as the tourists don’t have to leave’ attitude from these journalists. So maybe if you ask BBC or CNN believers these questions you will get a different answer.”
I’m not sure whether you got the recent information or not (because I am extremely newbie in this webboard). “Two famous webboard players in Prachatai” had been arrested and put in jail for several days because they had “insulting monarchy” on webboard.
You may says that it’s just “several days”, at least, much more better than 10-15 years in jail. But, for statistic, how many cases in Thai History that “anyone” has been sentensed to be jailed 10-15 years?
For me, the lese majeste law is written to “promote” monarchy, and do good more than harm to the king.
This law jails people who insult the king, then (several days) the king will smile and say; “It’s all right, I do not care, etc. etc. ….. (at last) Please free them.”
Don’t you see the “Power of Propaganda” from this law? You say that it do more “harm than good”? I still do not talk about how it prevents the king and originates the “UNTOUCHABLE ANGEL!!!”.
Thus, really want to ask you again that: Do you still insist your words?
R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9
Re: Republican comment 187
Also thanks for your answer.
Your answer really touch me, indeed, esp. this sentense:
“…If you gave me the choice to write in a national newspaper, but I had to use royalist arguments, then I would simply refuse, because I think it is unnecessary and in fact has bad “side-effects”…”
Anyway, as I have said I am an extremely newbie in this board, so I have not so much chance to read your opinion or work further than in this issue.
Hence, I do not have enough information that what you have said, so far, is “stronger” and “do more harm to the monarch” than whatever Ajarn Somsak have done or not.
If the answer is YES, then I have no more question because I think you may need “more protection than Ajarn Somsak”.
If the answer is NO, then I would like to ask you a bit more.
(Actually, just like what Dickie Simpkins had said)
– Ajarn Somsak also said that he is a coward, he isn’t brave enough to insult the monarch “directly”, etc etc. (You may find out many times esp. in his replies to “Choatisak’s Case” in the old-sameskybooks webboard)
Then, why can’t you do the same thing that Ajarn Somsak do, use real identity?
R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9
With Respect
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. I think I should tell you (Republican) that I am (also?) “Ajarn Somsak fanclub”.
Great interview. Staying at one place long enough to contribute to the building of that place and passing on what you’ve built, a legacy of past students thriving in the world. Exemplary and worth emulating.
Thanks for the reference to the novel Fieldwork, sounds like something that happened in Chiang Rai.
Another fascinating interview Nicholas – thanks!
So many gems of wisdom from a very long hindsight – as teacher, researcher and observer of SEAsia:
“… At the event a number of Thai scholars who had been my students presented me with a book of articles in Thai in which they (and a few others) critiqued my writings on Thailand.”
This, I believe, is the highest honor Thais bestow their Khru and the fact that the articles are “…far from hagiographic and several take strong issue with some of my ideas” reflects the great teacher that he is and is truly inspiring (especially the way that things has come full circle with his tribute in honor of Professor Lauriston Sharp).
We’ve read lots of commentaries on Thailand and SEAsia framed by ideologies, cultural biases and attached emotions, here is one of those often rare occasions when I feel that issues/events are being decribed ‘as it is’…
Hehehe – Teth I’ve already explained earlier that we will always frustrate each other as I see things relative to time and place (almost a word play on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) while you see things in black and white. Let’s not “tiptoe” around this and I will directly address your points:
1) HMK clearly did refer to fighter jets. This was discussed in the context that the airforce have ordered the Swedish Gripen jets and not trainers that the Thai airforce have been able to make themselves for around two decades now – so HMK was definitely not uninformed.
2) That’s clearly your personal interpretation – and you have revealed the thinking behind that view, favoring PMThaksin’s proposed “unity government”. I think that is worth debating as an issue in NM whether this is consistent with the notion of ‘democracy’ (and if there are vested interests behind the idea). I wonder where you got “(HMK) should not be expressing his opinion as a constitutional monarch” – a few months ago King Juan Carlos I (your hero, who I also respect) told a president of another sovereign state, Hugo Chavez of Venezuella to “shut up”… (what would you like to say to HMK JC Teth?)
3) “… the King rejected a more democratic solution for the coup…” Teth, I expect a rational person like yourself to come up with much better line of logic. Since when is a ‘royally appointed prime minister’ more democratic than a coup?! And now you want HMK, as a constitutional monarch to “express his opinion” on the matter? You are contradicting yourself.
4) Time to revisit Spanish history 101. King Juan Carlos was Franco’s designated heir apparent and inherited Franco’s absolute power. I totally agree that what he then did with that power (AFTER Franco’s death) is to be highly commended. HMK, in contrast, was never in that position and in fact spent the early part of his career in the shadow of a Siamese ‘Franco’ of FMPibul and other ambitious military figures. Based on your strong sense of ‘fairness’, if you want to compare King Juan Carlos with a Chakri king, then it must be with HM King Prajadhipok, Thailand’s last absolute monarch not HMK.
5) Yes “we” are as we in NM are trying to put “soft power” in center stage when “hard power” was clearly on steriods since PMThaksin’s reign. This is not about “whispers” and “understanding”, it is DIRECT STATE POWER and MONEY (PMThaksin’s money was only used in setting up TRT party) combined. Remember that PMChuan took the initiative to try to remove the military from politics, PMThaksin not only meddled with the military, but also with the police, bringing it directly under his control. This meddling was also a crucial factor of today’s Southern unrest. Let’s give PMThaksin where credit is due (now he doesn’t want to take credit for it if you read a recent NM post!) as an artful “divider” not “uniter”.
6) The content is excellent and well balanced. It also says a lot about “they” – that they are, in fact, not over-advertising too much. There are certainly much more truth in HMK’s genius than many in NM are willing to give him credit for.
But, as I only recently begun reading and commenting on NM, may I ask if you are a PMThaksin-TRT fan? It will really help me understand your comments/views. Please don’t “tiptoe” around this one.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Military sufficiency
Teth,
In addition to your point 1 and mine:
1. You say that Sidh and Dickie say the King is “always right” and “give priority” to his statements.
Well, I consider HMK like a father to the country (maybe you can argue its the propaganda, but that is another story, lets not get there in this discussion)
like a ‘father’, I tend not to disagree openly with my parents when I think they are wrong, I just ignore or “don’t give priority” to their statement.
Likewise, I never say that HMK is ‘always right’, and “give priority” to all his statements.
I just don’t give any priority to the disagreements (unless they are major and infringe on human rights). Does that make me a naughty child? 555 😀
Military sufficiency
Teth,
I’ll try to make my points concise:
1. Use common sense, we are talking about military planes that are capable in defense. Framing the issue that we are discussing ‘flight training’ planes is off the mark and purposefully misleading.
2. Sondhi L is a nobody, and without Thaksin giving way in any issue he (Sondhi) got legitimized. I agree with you that ‘the palace’ is also looking after their own interests. I think everyone does, so it really is a moot point. I believe in this case that Thaksin should have conceded 1-2 issues. You seem to confuse majority rule with the legal one. In the end, segregation in the US was stopped because their Supreme court decided it, not because politicians pushed for it. Similarly, HMK advised judges that it was ‘their duty’ to get us over the political impasse. Let us also not forget these judges failed us when they cited ‘majority rule’ as their reason for letting Thaksin off his ‘honest mistake’ in asset declaration in 2001 meaning that one could argue the constitution had been torn up since then.
Also, notice Thaksin ‘took a break’ from politics after consulting HMK at ‘klaikangwon’, presumably with HMK advise, though like the Queen of England with her PM’s, we don’t know exactly what is said. Then, Thaksin suddenly returned from his break prior to the October election. That means that Thaksin either did not heed the advise of HMK, and the conflict was brought back front and center. Now, Royal advice, be it here, England, Norway, etc. is ALWAYS done behind closed doors. There is no precedent (not even in Spain) where they (the Royal) gives the advice in front of the media spotlight. Perhaps had Thaksin RESPECTED the advice back then none of this would’ve happened. As all precedent had been broken and the spirit of ‘Article 7’ been shredded by Thaksin and TRT (in that they didn’t go along with the precedent of behavior expected with the rule of law with the King as a head of state), the military jumped in to do it formally.
Either way, I feel that the constitution was already torn up prior to the coup.
3. Already answered in #2. I find these 2 points intertwined and can’t seem to be able to get to one without involving the other. Maybe it is just my inability to see each point clearly, if so, I apologize.
4. In this point, I conceded in my answer to you, and you conceded in your answer to Sidh, so calmer heads prevail 🙂
5. I disagree on the ‘despicability’ of monarchy. I ignore your comparison to those dictators because you seem to have really stretched your argument. Prior to getting to my point, what I say is this:
The modern monarch knows too well the power of political freedom and understands the risk to the monarchy should they curtail these freedoms. Also, the monarchy (especially here) has legitimized their social positions via Buddhism, meaning they have to alway be calm, serene, and non-violent. Dictators that I mentioned earlier are/were not bound by these expectations. Hence, the monarchy is not able to behave in a way that shows any vices ie: caught to behave in a way that portrays the image, always in public and almost always in privatre. I think till this point you agree.
If the monarch is not to behave under these imposed expectations and was different (especially in the vices), I believe strongly, despite any harsh LM law that these ‘truths’ would be made public. Apparently the harsh LM has never stopped “whispered rumors” about any the family, has it?
So my conclusion (whether you agree or not) that monarchy is preferable to a republic state is that the monarch too is limited by their public image. I reiterate again, should they fail to live up to their image (at the very least sincerely attempt to live to that image) they face what happens in Nepal, France, etc. and posters like our “republican” here in NM will be out on tv giving a Mel Gibson braveheart freedom speech… (thanks grasshopper for the metaphor).
Now, if you are still rooted in your belief, and I obviously am rooted in mine, then we should agree to disagree. As we are people without power, and have nothing to gain/lose from the political fights, we should continue our debates on other point-by-point issues.
Getting back to the point about hard and soft power here, they both needed to make some concessions. The ‘hard’ power “Suhartoness” felt they had a mandate from the people to ‘do whatever they wanted’, and didn’t concede. The soft power are power players and proxies who don’t like the media spotlight, so they took a big risk in the coup. In the end, they both lost, and created a terrible mess for the country in the process. My belief is had the hard power conceded (as advised) things would’ve worked out for the square face in the long run.
6. Since you didn’t reply to me, and I have no opinion on this matter, I consider it dropped. (between us, not you and Sidh).
Very naughty video!
I couldn’t find the video. Could you check the link or provide a hint?
Military sufficiency
Thanks Dickie! I suppose it is my penchant for context and precedence in addressing any issue that makes me “very very around”!
Teth made me a “five year old” now while he is beginning to sound like a spoilt three year old who wants everything his way!
1. That is being sarcastic in the extreme Teth (or simplistic to the extreme – which I don’t associate with you) and I’m beginning to wonder if this is about HMK’s ego or yours.
I’ve called for context here and maintain that military spending is more often than not relative to regional/global spending which I know for a fact that is on the rise. For one, the F16s the RTAF has is considered not a match for the Russian MIG29 that the Myanmese have ordered. I’m also not a military specialist (unlike you) – although I remember Donald Rumsfeld, a ‘civilian specialist’, calling for similarly compact and efficient force to conquer and control Iraq against the advice of many senior generals in the US armed forces.
2. Let’s not tiptoe around this one Teth, in this point you raise the issue of “unity” and have not explained how your prefered “unity government” is democratic and will resolve Thai societal divide.
Please don’t tiptoe around your earlier statement “(HMK) should not be expressing his opinion as a constitutional monarch”. If King Juan Carlos could, as a constitutional monarch, then HMK could. Period. It is probably a basic, democratic right too – come to think of it and I don’t think you are against that.
3. “Let me ask you this question, what is the role of the constitutional monarch? To advise, warn, and be consulted?” That is already contradicting your point in ‘2’ already.
“…And, it would be well within the bounds of Article 7 of the Constitution” such bold statements when even legal experts debate this! Moreover, you talk as if you were in the middle of things, privy to all the “whispers” and “understandings” between the HMK, PMThaksin and the proxies. I’m with Dickie here:
“… So the ‘understanding’ and the work from the proxies were there, but no concessions were made. What is difficult here is determining exactly what concessions were asked…”
Make up your mind Teth, first you say HMK should not express his opinion, while in another context, you want HMK to do an extra-constitutional act in the appointment of a prime minister. Sounds like a relativist to me (and I welcome you with open arms).
Additionally you add: “That is not my preferred hypothetical way out of the anti-Thaksin crisis…”. What is? And who actually had the real and very legal power to make that decision? I’m with Dickie here, 1-2 steps back by PMThaksin would have made a world of difference – remember that saying along the line of “there are only two certainties in life – taxes and death”. It is the least any society can expect from its leader…
4. That’s a start Teth, it’s important put together all the facts. A comparative biography of King Prajadhipok and King Juan Carlos – before and after inheriting absolute power. I will argue the facts on time and place is critical too and must be considered in any assessment. Siam in the unstable inter-war, towards the end of European colonial period of SEAsia, Spain in the mid-70s – a relative stable period in Europe, post-war reconstruction mostly complete and the visioning a democratic united continent.
5. Make up your mind Teth, what HMK’s “UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY”??? Earlier you said:
“… If no, his urges are worthless, like how every politician takes five minutes of their time to say, “I agree with the King. I urge for unity” before going off and continuing their campaigns (and rejecting the idea of a unity government).”
Let’s not tiptoe around this it was PMThaksin’s HARD POWER and UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY (notice that the TRT dominated lower house and the rubber stamp Senate never stood up to him when it was clearly their legal role) that MEDDLED HEAVILY in the military/police forces; that led to the WAR ON DRUGS infringing on the most basic of human rights; that led to the SOUTHERN UNREST which not only divided Thai society but threatens to divide the country. “I am fully responsible” he proudly declared – “no, I issued the policy only”, now he says.
And you just keep mixing soft and hard power up “… you’ll find that he indeed fits in with the likes of Marcos, Suharto, and Mahathir rather than the likes of Juan Carlos”. And you also tiptoed around Dickie’s point – Marcos, Suharto and Mahathir “who maybe good for the nation in the short-medium term, but terrible for long term progress”. You also never answered the issue I raised in other posts – how could Thailand, with centuries old deeply embedded monarchic tradition, practically transform itself into a republic? Please stop the spoilt kid’s idealism and address the real issues on ground. By now, you should know full well the nature of our politicians who you will have to entrust this job to carry out democratically…
6. That is your point of view. I respect that and maybe you should learn to also respect contrary viewpoints. It is only democratic – thinking you are 100% right while others are “fifth graders” smells paternalistic and dictatorial…
“A genius is someone who’s projects, over the past 30-40 years would have bought our country out of poverty instead of needing excuses like “its the Gov’t who are holding it back””
At the end of the day, your blinding hate of the monarchy – and especially of HMK – is affecting your logic. You prefer to lay all Thailand’s ills on one person and one person only and any rational person knows that is clearly wrong (read Charles Keyes’s interview for instance – and this is based on 40 years of observation and research). We are discussing highly complex societies facing grave political, social, economical, environmental problems. We have multiple agencies, whether people or institutions tackling these issues, both successfully and unsuccessfully due to many factors. Last I am aware off, Thailand is not a failed state (why?). Ofcourse, the country could still become one – or it can do much better. The next election puts us at another cross-roads – where are we going from here?
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to #193: Your exhortation in the last sentence is lighthearted, but it raises an issue (while I have political views I’ve never been interested in direct political activity; academic blogs are enough for me):
Would you be willing to lead, or even call for, a demonstration of the kind you describe above (lightheartedly) or, more seriously, against the CNS-royalists? And if the demonstrators were gunned down in the streets would you feel responsible? And given the lese majeste law, would it be possible for you or me to state publicly who was behind the massacre, and who ultimately gained politically from the massacre?
Think of all the massacres that the royalists and the military have committed over the last 35 years; have any of the perpetrators of the massacres ever been brought to justice? Thanom was actually given a royally-sponsored cremation a few months ago. Suchinda was there. Surayudh too, the commander of the force that shot to death unarmed pro-democracy protesters at the Royal Hotel on Ratchadamnoen Ave. in May ’92, who is now Prime Minister (formerly privy counsellor), and even praised in the international media as a “career soldier”. You can understand why these people are so loyal to the throne, because apart from rewarding them so well it is the only thing that protects them.
Anyone who considers political activity in Thailand, especially at the present, has to consider these questions. When their power is threatened the royalists have shown time and time again that they are willing to use deadly violence. And they have never been brought to justice.
Salawin
“Some may think that framing the issues in ethnic terms is a strategically useful move. I’m not convinced”
Neither am I.
The King Never Smiles?
Good idea, imagine the Ministry of Finance owning Siam Cement or possibly selling its stake, raising billions with which we can develop the country with. Imagine an auctioning off of all prime Crown Property Bureau land, the wealth could be put to immense use of the nation.
I’m sure that wealth would be enough to finance all the King’s royal projects and expand its scope. If that is what he actually cares about rather than spending the government’s money, using government officials, but receiving all the praise.
The King Never Smiles?
I think I’m beginning to get what Republican has been trying to say. (Though I haven’t read EVERY single post here–what a long discussion!)
Most Thai academics are silent on the subject of the king/monarchy/royal family (is it self-censorship? is it LM law?). Heck, it wasn’t even critically discussed in a Nation and Nationalism graduate class in an anthropology department! Whenever we do see their articles, they seem to soften the argument – to the point where most readers wouldn’t even question whether they are criticizing the monarchy or not. The only way you can mention the king and monarchy in public is to praise them!
It is obvious that the monarchy plays an important role in Thai politics, pulling every string and mobilizing every resource they have to produce and reproduce their power AND accumulate their wealth.
I think the king and family should transfer all their wealth and assets to the nation, and let the government manage it. In fact, this budget should be allocated for universal health care and free education. They can keep their palaces (1 family is allowed 2 palaces only– hey everybody deserves holiday home!). Apart from the palaces, all assets and property should be turned into state property.
U.S. Senate Hearing on Burma
Thanks, Jotman.
I am sure you also already saw UN Human Rights Rapporteur for Burma Sergio Pinhiero’s report.
He has a list with names.
It is important to keep track as the junta is constantly releasing (mostly non-political prisoners) and re-arresting.
I think the best source is AAPPB (Association for the Assistance of Political Prisoners — Burma) with whom Ko Aung Din also works.
Best,
kmk
Military sufficiency
1. No, its quite simple really, he said if we built planes, it would fall out of the sky. I think I know why, because they weren’t “designed” by him unlike those T.991 ships, which of course will not sink because HMK had a hand. How Gripen Jets and 300 billion baht military purchases will help solve the biggest pressing concern of Thailand’s security situation is beyond me. Like I’ve said before, the forces need to become more compact and efficient (and spend money on basic training equipment and military welfare) before buying their toys.
You say the King has a point: yes he does. But his points are not always right nor should they always be a priority. Dickie and Sidh seem to always interpret as so, however.
2. You say Thaksin was fighting for his own interests, I say so is the palace. You say the popular leader should be gracious and give way, but I say the firm reconfirmation of the people’s mandate means it was Sondhi L who should give way. But their dismissal of the people’s mandate is evident in their eventual acceptance of the coup. We can go on forever about who should have backed off one step, but in the end, neither did and both are to blame, Sondhi L for not respecting the people’s voice and Thaksin for not respecting the rule of law.
Yes, majority rule is not always correct, but the US did resolve the segregation issue without a coup did it not.
Juan Carlos is clearly human and his actions are being debated in Spain. His image was burnt by Catalonian separatists. Whether he overstepped his role is being debated not only by Venezuelans but by Spainards. When you see this type of debate happening openly in Thailand, then I will condemn Juan Carlos for overstepping his duty in this case.
3. Let me ask you this question, what is the role of the constitutional monarch? To advise, warn, and be consulted? Or is it the right to perch on a throne publicly oblivious to a constitutional crisis, advising a solution before all of a sudden endorsing a coup? The King should have advised Thaksin to step down, if only momentarily, to defuse the crisis before a clean and fair election should dictate the direction the country could have gone. Alternatively, in the midst of the impasse and the potential for violence (according to the coup group) the King could have negotiated a settlement as he did with Suchinda and Chamlong: the apolitical arbiter, a force for unity who did not command, but advised as is well within his rights and duties. Why did it not happen or did he have to wait until there was violence again? Surely such a move would have done more for towards fostering national unity than a coup or rambling speeches could ever do. And, it would be well within the bounds of Article 7 of the Constitution. So much for the ever-wise King.
By the way, a royally appointed prime minister is very much a more democratic than a constitution-shredding, emergency-ruling, military-appointed government. That is not my preferred hypothetical way out of the anti-Thaksin crisis, but one of the ways that were better than a coup.
4. Prajadhipok is no constitutional monarch nor benevolent bestower of democracy. Plus, the accumulated soft power of Bhumibol and his popular position should be sufficient grounds for him reprimanding the coup.
My evidence regarding Prajadhipok? See how he meddled post-coup, how he blocked reform for the interest of his noble brothers before whisking away to England claiming he had protected the interest of democracy. There’s more if you care to know, but in the meantime, don’t be naive. For all your harping about “time and place” its all a construct to belie the fact that deep down inside, you’re still a fifth grader who believes everything his history teacher tells him.
I don’t want to seem pedantic or demagogic because historical figures are also humans with whom we could sympathise with to a certain extent, but viewpoints such as yours (Sidh) needs a nice vigorous destruction, by facts of course. I have conceded this point, surely we should not be locked in a Sondhi L-Thaksin impasse?
5. Thaksin was a right demagogue in the making, but with the increasing stupidity of the coup makers and government, they have managed to erode much of my disagreement with Thaksin. The other day I found myself arguing for Thaksin and against the coup before looking back to the ills he committed. It is still very clear that Thaksin committed much wrongdoing, but the coup was more divisive, more useless, and more harmful to Thailand than Thaksin in all his five years ever was.
But I do pray, tell me how different Thaksin’s HARD POWER is from the King’s soft power of PRESTIGE and UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY. What about his proxies, the political manoeuvres, palace favourites, and those acts done in his name?
As for Dickie’s point, monarch in principle is despicable compared to Republican forms of government. Constant figure or not, if you looked into the King’s role further than what they say on television or in Sidh’s school of thought, you’ll find that he indeed fits in with the likes of Marcos, Suharto, and Mahathir rather than the likes of Juan Carlos. Clearly, we are using a broad definition of “the likes”.
6. What genius? Talents, perhaps. But genius? No. A genius is someone who’s projects, over the past 30-40 years would have bought our country out of poverty instead of needing excuses like “its the Gov’t who are holding it back”. Neither would an actual genius need people on television calling him a genius every night , lest people forget the fact?
The King Never Smiles?
Just turning the argument on its head, why doesn’t Thongchai use a pseudonym instead of his real name? Thailand has a long history of seditious intellectuals using pseudonyms. Then he could attack the monarchy on webboards as strongly as he likes and he wouldn’t have to worry about lese majeste. My guess would be that more academics and students in Thai Studies would read NM and Fa Dio Kan than The Nation (well, I hope so at least, otherwise it would be very sad), so he would be reaching a receptive and well-informed audience. He wouldn’t have to censor himself or use royalist arguments out of fear of lese majeste. Isn’t that better than using a real name and having to falsify oneself?
I’ve never had a problem with people using pseudonyms because I think it’s just important for the arguments to be publically articulated. This has been the real problem with lese majeste, in the era before blogs and webboards. Now we can make the arguments publically so much more easily than before, why hinder our ability to articulate them by using real names?
(Also, pseudonyms are kind of democratic; you never know whether you’re debating with a Cornell professor or a first year Asian Studies major, or even someone really smart, like a taxi-driver.)
Of course, the verification process is another matter, when the “author function” becomes part of the way that academic institutions declare what is true or false, a la Foucault. But that can come later. First, let’s make the arguments.
Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
another good interview, nich! kudos.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to #192: Well I guess that I am not quite sure how to “play the game”, so it is safer for me to use a different name. I told you already, maybe I’m a bigger “coward” than him.
The King Never Smiles?
RE 192. “Two famous webboard players in Prachatai” had been arrested and put in jail for several days because they had “insulting monarchy” on webboard.
You may says that it’s just “several days”, at least, much more better than 10-15 years in jail. But, for statistic, how many cases in Thai History that “anyone” has been sentensed to be jailed 10-15 years?
No I hadn’t heard about this, stupidly, I was only thinking of Oliver Jufer, the Swiss man acquitted earlier in 2007.
Don’t you see the “Power of Propaganda” from this law? You say that it do more “harm than good”? I still do not talk about how it prevents the king and originates the “UNTOUCHABLE ANGEL!!!”.
Yes I see 😉 , that’s why I mentioned people like myself who watch the BBC and see the King forgive so its all nice and friendly, which helps the King’s popularity as he can be supposedly virtuous with mercy.
But my opinion about the process which sees people needing to be forgiven would only reflect one which believes that power should be restrained and capped for the well being and growth of all people, and this view, because of my environment, bares no legitimacy to people who potentially have to deal with facing lese majeste like “Republican”??, who won’t watch Braveheart and lead Thailand to Freedom… Embrace Mel Gibson/William Wallace, Republican, embrace his spirit!!! I will flash my kilt baring my buttocks to the tanks along any thanon you wish to begin the rebellion!
The King Never Smiles?
Re: Grassshopper comment 186
First of all, thanks for answering my question.
I still got some problem with one of your answer, hence I would like to ask you a bit more. (If youplease…)
“…I do think that the law has done more harm than good for the monarchy because lese majeste allows for this kind of discussion which is not doing the King’s reputation good on New Mandala. How can a law protecting Royals like this be construed as something other than unjust to people on this site with liberal educations? However, in lots of international media, because of the King’s popularity, the lese majeste law is treated lightly as it is (at least recently) written that the King lets offenders off and deports them-which is not as bad as spending 10-15 years in prison. There seems to be a ‘oh, it is crazy Thailand where there are beautiful beaches and as long as the tourists don’t have to leave’ attitude from these journalists. So maybe if you ask BBC or CNN believers these questions you will get a different answer.”
I’m not sure whether you got the recent information or not (because I am extremely newbie in this webboard). “Two famous webboard players in Prachatai” had been arrested and put in jail for several days because they had “insulting monarchy” on webboard.
You may says that it’s just “several days”, at least, much more better than 10-15 years in jail. But, for statistic, how many cases in Thai History that “anyone” has been sentensed to be jailed 10-15 years?
For me, the lese majeste law is written to “promote” monarchy, and do good more than harm to the king.
This law jails people who insult the king, then (several days) the king will smile and say; “It’s all right, I do not care, etc. etc. ….. (at last) Please free them.”
Don’t you see the “Power of Propaganda” from this law? You say that it do more “harm than good”? I still do not talk about how it prevents the king and originates the “UNTOUCHABLE ANGEL!!!”.
Thus, really want to ask you again that: Do you still insist your words?
R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9
Re: Republican comment 187
Also thanks for your answer.
Your answer really touch me, indeed, esp. this sentense:
“…If you gave me the choice to write in a national newspaper, but I had to use royalist arguments, then I would simply refuse, because I think it is unnecessary and in fact has bad “side-effects”…”
Anyway, as I have said I am an extremely newbie in this board, so I have not so much chance to read your opinion or work further than in this issue.
Hence, I do not have enough information that what you have said, so far, is “stronger” and “do more harm to the monarch” than whatever Ajarn Somsak have done or not.
If the answer is YES, then I have no more question because I think you may need “more protection than Ajarn Somsak”.
If the answer is NO, then I would like to ask you a bit more.
(Actually, just like what Dickie Simpkins had said)
– Ajarn Somsak also said that he is a coward, he isn’t brave enough to insult the monarch “directly”, etc etc. (You may find out many times esp. in his replies to “Choatisak’s Case” in the old-sameskybooks webboard)
Then, why can’t you do the same thing that Ajarn Somsak do, use real identity?
R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9
With Respect
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. I think I should tell you (Republican) that I am (also?) “Ajarn Somsak fanclub”.
Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
Great interview. Staying at one place long enough to contribute to the building of that place and passing on what you’ve built, a legacy of past students thriving in the world. Exemplary and worth emulating.
Thanks for the reference to the novel Fieldwork, sounds like something that happened in Chiang Rai.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to Republican: But it is not actualised in Thai, is it?
Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
Another fascinating interview Nicholas – thanks!
So many gems of wisdom from a very long hindsight – as teacher, researcher and observer of SEAsia:
“… At the event a number of Thai scholars who had been my students presented me with a book of articles in Thai in which they (and a few others) critiqued my writings on Thailand.”
This, I believe, is the highest honor Thais bestow their Khru and the fact that the articles are “…far from hagiographic and several take strong issue with some of my ideas” reflects the great teacher that he is and is truly inspiring (especially the way that things has come full circle with his tribute in honor of Professor Lauriston Sharp).
We’ve read lots of commentaries on Thailand and SEAsia framed by ideologies, cultural biases and attached emotions, here is one of those often rare occasions when I feel that issues/events are being decribed ‘as it is’…
The King Never Smiles?
in my post #189 – any ‘food’ with a keyboard = any ‘fool’ with a keyboard.
Military sufficiency
Hehehe – Teth I’ve already explained earlier that we will always frustrate each other as I see things relative to time and place (almost a word play on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) while you see things in black and white. Let’s not “tiptoe” around this and I will directly address your points:
1) HMK clearly did refer to fighter jets. This was discussed in the context that the airforce have ordered the Swedish Gripen jets and not trainers that the Thai airforce have been able to make themselves for around two decades now – so HMK was definitely not uninformed.
2) That’s clearly your personal interpretation – and you have revealed the thinking behind that view, favoring PMThaksin’s proposed “unity government”. I think that is worth debating as an issue in NM whether this is consistent with the notion of ‘democracy’ (and if there are vested interests behind the idea). I wonder where you got “(HMK) should not be expressing his opinion as a constitutional monarch” – a few months ago King Juan Carlos I (your hero, who I also respect) told a president of another sovereign state, Hugo Chavez of Venezuella to “shut up”… (what would you like to say to HMK JC Teth?)
3) “… the King rejected a more democratic solution for the coup…” Teth, I expect a rational person like yourself to come up with much better line of logic. Since when is a ‘royally appointed prime minister’ more democratic than a coup?! And now you want HMK, as a constitutional monarch to “express his opinion” on the matter? You are contradicting yourself.
4) Time to revisit Spanish history 101. King Juan Carlos was Franco’s designated heir apparent and inherited Franco’s absolute power. I totally agree that what he then did with that power (AFTER Franco’s death) is to be highly commended. HMK, in contrast, was never in that position and in fact spent the early part of his career in the shadow of a Siamese ‘Franco’ of FMPibul and other ambitious military figures. Based on your strong sense of ‘fairness’, if you want to compare King Juan Carlos with a Chakri king, then it must be with HM King Prajadhipok, Thailand’s last absolute monarch not HMK.
5) Yes “we” are as we in NM are trying to put “soft power” in center stage when “hard power” was clearly on steriods since PMThaksin’s reign. This is not about “whispers” and “understanding”, it is DIRECT STATE POWER and MONEY (PMThaksin’s money was only used in setting up TRT party) combined. Remember that PMChuan took the initiative to try to remove the military from politics, PMThaksin not only meddled with the military, but also with the police, bringing it directly under his control. This meddling was also a crucial factor of today’s Southern unrest. Let’s give PMThaksin where credit is due (now he doesn’t want to take credit for it if you read a recent NM post!) as an artful “divider” not “uniter”.
6) The content is excellent and well balanced. It also says a lot about “they” – that they are, in fact, not over-advertising too much. There are certainly much more truth in HMK’s genius than many in NM are willing to give him credit for.
But, as I only recently begun reading and commenting on NM, may I ask if you are a PMThaksin-TRT fan? It will really help me understand your comments/views. Please don’t “tiptoe” around this one.