Comments

To my fellow Thai (Taxi Driver), with Teth’s #30 third paragraph, I don’t completely agree with the first sentence (esp. if “instrumental” means having a large role in the instigation, planning and implementation of coups) and totally disagree with last statement (I’m fine with the rest). That is Paul Handey’s and Teth’s call. From my own analysis (expressed in many comments), HM the King was more a big force for democracy than for military dictatorship. If we take the institution of the monarchy out of the equation (or the country has a less capable and/or uncharismatic monarch), I have little doubt Thailand will be continuously run by the military for the past half century until today (probably from Ajarn Pridi’s exile onward).

I still remember my teenage years when I begun reading Thairath and being very frustrated with PMPrem (and how AjarnKukrit, PMPrem’s nemesis, criticized him!) – and being happy when he declined the prime ministership in 1988. I only realize much later the difficult role he played in nurturing democratic party politics, while keeping more unscrupulous and ambitious army generals at bay. I based my favorable viewpoint on the past 20 years that I ‘lived’ Thai politics – prior to that (the mid-80s) I relied on historical accounts.

The military dictatorship is Burma has been a complete disaster and the question is not whether it will come crashing down but when and how. Will it be a violent overthrow with excessive bloodshed or will it end in the realization of the junta that its time has passed? As I am currently working near the Thai-Burmese border and there are more Burmese (and other ethnic minorities) than Thais in town I am staying, so this is obviously the number one topic locally. It does not appear that there is much consensus amongst the Burmese living here across the border in Thailand to what will be the outcome of the protests; however there does appear to be cautious optimism.

When will mankind learn that freedom works better than oppression? How many more people have to suffer under military dictatorships before the realization that this form of government stinks sinks in?

I am not quite sure what all these comments about socialism have to do with democracy and poor people. I haven’t read the book but I assume I would agree with the general concept that poor people are not necessarily stupid when it comes to using their (or if looking at my bank balance, maybe I should use “our” instead of their) vote. The coup in Thailand or the military dictatorship in Burma or any other form of non-democratic government is based on the concept that the poor are too stupid to know what is good for them and it is up to the “elites” (leftists, rightists, socialists, academics, etc…) to decide what is best for the “lower” classes. The extremely strong correlation between democracy and improvements in the quality of life of the poor as measured by infant mortality, life span, and income levels are proof to all but the most die hard supports of dictatorships that the poor do a better job of improving their lives with their votes within democracies than the elites do in dictatorships.

James: It would be the beginning of true reform. They would vote for policies that improve their right of self-determination.

Interesting interview.

Republican, you wrote:

“Handley has done what no other Thai Studies academic has done in 50 years: write a critical biography of the King of Thailand. After awarding the prize there should be serious reflection among Thai Studies academics about their own failure to do what should have been done a long time ago. I say again, you have to ask yourself why this critical work hasn’t been already been done by farang scholars, when, unlike for their Thai counterparts, there is no lese majeste law preventing them from such criticism. ”

Well said Republican!!!! I started to write a very long post to this effect for my blog, but never got around to posting it.

I hope and pray this does not end in violence like in 1988. I understand that the monks are proposing dialogue and I hope that the Junta (with pressure from a new generation of more democratic minded generals?) agrees to it. It will be very difficult to remove the army from politics especially after decades of direct military rule (Indonesia and Thailand at least had ‘elected’ working parliaments through the decades of military influence and, critically, economic growth that yielded the middle-class). It does essentially require a ‘cultural change’ from within the ranks of the military – for instance reform minded-generals like Indonesia’s SBY (the Burmese Junta, in contrast, seem to take the ancient warrior-kings as models for their rule of the country).

Thanks Lleij Samuel Schwartz for the clarification.
However, personally I won’t count AjarnPridi as one of the “scoundrels” and, as far as I have learnt, his intentions for Thai society have been honorable. FMPibul, AjarnPridi’s collaborator and competition, did not wanted to merely ‘govern’ Siam/Thailand – but also to ‘rule’ it, so he was more in competition with the monarchy (at least at the height of his powers). It is GenSarit who many commentators credit with resusitating the monarchy – and here I disagree with you – which I see has mainly been a force for the good in a transforming Thai society. I am certain that one day the Thai monarchy will have a respectable, apolitical role not different from Japan’s royals – the building blocks of such a society are gradually falling into place (and as long as the ‘cool heads’ hold sway, we might just get there sooner rather than later).

I generally agree with your comments on human trafficking and child sexual exploitation – but that is also such a highly complex issue in which much more qualified researchers/commentators have and are addressing. For instance, just being a relatively richer, politically stable country sharing thousands of kilometers of borders with some of the world’s poorest (and for quite a long time, unstable polities) is a critical factor. It is a big challenge on how to deal with unethical capitalism – and again, it is a global issue not limited to Thailand’s border. Thailand getting lots of global press on this is also partially due to the relatively free and open media (bar PMThaksin’s and the CNS political related actions). Maybe if the elites are not sweeping this under the carpet, it’s a good sign that they acknowledge the problems exists – but are, unfortunately, much too slow to redress it.

“…insulting, elitist, unenlightening and orientalist.”

Restorationist, if you are a Thai I accept your allegations – if not, you are entitled to your foriegn views (do remember that Paul Handey made a similar blanket statement in this interview: “…Whatever I wrote, Thais will love him, and worship him after he dies.”)

The same applies to Taxi Driver – unless he is a real Bangkok taxi driver:

“p.s. your attempt to discredit Handley’s intentions and methods smacks of someone who doesn’t like the book but can’t refute its contents, so he/she attacks the author instead. Very Thai.”

Srithanonchai, funny example of AjarnPasuk’s hair style! On this case, I believe I gave a better example of Fox News and how the same set of data/rumors can be manipulated/twisted based on believes/ideology. Paul Handey stated so along the line of:

“…No one I met ever had first-hand information on this, it was just rumor. Rumor that benefitted the monarchy. There are countless examples like this which shape the king’s image, and image is crucial.

The critics focus though on the negative rumors that I repeat. Most of these are rumors that either I believe to be true, or that are probably not true but nevertheless have substantial impact on the image of the throne and the royal family…”

Teth’s third paragraph is his interpretation of what he reads and if his/her main source is Paul Handey’s thesis, then that is not surprising.

You know, it wasn’t until the third paragraph that I knew whether this was referring to Thailand or Myanmar.

Re. Prachai, I just don’t know. As I say, I would be interested in what the political economists have to say.

I don’t think we should be using this concept, “rabob Thaksin” / “Thaksin system”, which was, after all, merely a rhetorical weapon used by Thaksin’s enemies to destroy his legitimacy; ie. the legitimacy of a democratically elected government.

I don’t think the term “Sino-Thai” has very much saliance as an analytical concept today, at least in comparison to 30-40 years ago.

I don’t see much in common with Sondhi, Prachai and Thaksin, apart from the fact that they were all (at one time) successful in business and have some Chinese ancestry.

I certainly don’t believe that Thailand “fell into the hands” of Thaksin; this is the rhetoric of the royalists or the song mai aos.

And in my opinion there is only ONE “megalomaniac” in Thailand today.