Thanks for the interesting report. One minor comment:
Insurgents almost universally use cell phones to detonate their bombs.
I am not sure this is the case any longer. For example just from today:
“Inspecting the ambush site Friday morning, a police bomb disposal team determined that the bomb was command-detonated by battery cable in an intended ambush, a now familiar mode of insurgent attack.”
From what I have been reading there has been a shift away from using cell phones to other ways of detonating bombs.
re: Sidh> I don’t see any negative emotions in my comments to you, but if you read that into them, that’s your prerogative.
You see, unlike you, I live in Bangkok, and thusly, do not have the luxury to comment on these events from a distance. What you are theorizing and arguing about as an intellectual game, I have to suffer the consequences for in my everyday life.
I am glad that we can agree that East-West, and other sundry things, are constructs of the mind. But if so, why are you comfortable having “two” mindsets? Where I come from, we call that schizophrenia. I think it would be better into integrate the aspects of your mind into one working whole, without dissonance and without conflict. I mean, that is the goal of Buddhism.
I agree with you that it’s simplistic and convenient to blame the monarchy for all of democracy’s ills. Just as it’s simplistic and convenient to blame the West/America/et al. for all of Thailand’s ills, as you do.
Also, I do enthusiastically agree with you that Plaek, Sarit, and Pridi should receive their due by history as well. But, therein lies the rub for a pious devaracha-worshiping animist, like yourself. How can one criticize a person invested with executive power over the Senatus Populusque Thailandensis by a living demi-god and not have that criticism be a reflection upon the deity himself? If the Pope is considered infallible when speaking ex cathedra, how much more so the avatar of Narayana?
What you have written reminds me of 2005 Nepal where there was repeated Maoist attacks in Pokhara and the confusion generated a complete mobile phone ban and a complete ban of motorcycles. At the time Nepal also was arrowing for a civil war. That nobody could get around or communicate outside of Pokhara or on the highway to KTM meant that people milled about while bomb attacks came from the Maoists who were dressed as civilians. Eventually there was plain clothed military people milling about with the civilians but still the attacks persisted until a 7pm curfew was imposed and only foreigners or those identified to the military were allowed into the main part of town or alongside the Phewa Tal (where of course, there were appropriate targets.)
Thanks for this link. (Especially in the context of Peter Skilling’s presentation last night at the Siam Society on the parallel genealogies of: 1. iconography in carving and painting representing events from 2. sacred Buddhist texts, he presented examples from all over India, not just limiting the analysis to Pali sources, and discussed the influence of Pala India on Pagan iconography.)
Lleij Samuel Schwartz, you are probably reading too much into my comments and have been taking things way too far! Why all the anger? Why the emotion? The accusations? Relax – if you are in Melbourne, we should have a beer and talk in good spirits (unless you are uncomfortable hanging around with a “racist”, “ignorant”, “р╕Др╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕Ир╣Лр╕▓” Thai that is).
I agree with you – if you just read my previous comment:
“My position is to mitigate what I see is the negative repurcussions of dualistic thinking …” East-West, like are merely constructs of the mind – and I must admit that I am totally comfortable with my two mindsets of “animist-Buddhist” and “Western enlightened” (maybe you are accusing me of being racist against myself!)
Unfortunately, I find very few people think along those lines and I felt it necessary to clarify the ‘West’ for many here who views the Thai monarchy negatively and so conveniently points to the Thai monarchy for all democracy’s ills. I find such unempathic views culturally chauvinistic and unhelpful. I feel we should move on and bring in the so many other colorful figures that peppers Thai political history post 1932 and give them their due treatment. Give the evolving social groups a more detailed treatment. This is a great blog and it would be unfortunate if it devolves into another anti-monarchist site.
“I doubt it – In the west it’s ‘pork barreling’ (plus dog whistle & wedge politics etc), not ‘vote buying’ !”
Yes, so let’s have a coup in Australia so we can reset the system and plant some ethical seeds. There is an election due but those silly voters may give John Howard yet another term, especially if he appeals to their self interest rates yet again!
Even if “ethical democracy” was/is an illusion in the “West”, (and I have a sad feeling that the next decade will prove this to be true) the fact that you can see through the illusion means that you need not depend on them to justify your own pursuit of liberty.
What you are currently seeing in the “first world” is the death throes of the nation-state. Thanks to a confluence of technology, globalization and ideology, the Westphalian model has become irrelevant. (I refer you to the work of John Robb for more information.) In the future, people will return to aligning themselves along ethno-tribalistic, linguistic, racial, or ideological lines, than by arbitrary lines drawn by cartographers. Hence, a “New Mandala” system. In the end, it will bring about a greater net-amount of personal liberty.
Of course, the current elite who profit from the nation-state model are currently fighting this development, tooth and nail. Southeast Asia, with her history and culture of decentralized governance has the potential to lead the way for the rest of the world; however, I fear, the ghost of Sarit Dhanarajata, who lives off the heartblood of men like Sidh, Vichai, and pvt. jeru, will prevent the Thai people from claiming their true heritage until it is too late.
Re: Sidh> I didn’t call you a racist for the reasons Srithanonchai did. I realized you weren’t making a direct comparison between the Holocaust and the so-called “War on Terror”; however, placing them side-by-side, as you did in your previous argument, does have a rhetorical effect of linking them together (which reveals a small, but profound, insight into your subconscious thinking concerning the subject). Nevertheless, I’m not sure what America’s history of capitulation, dhimmitude, and ongoing transference of her wealth via petrodollars, the largest such transference of wealth in history, to the Muslim world has to do with the Holocaust anyway. I mean, the Jews should have been so lucky!
I believe you are a racist because you indulge in that old, tired canard that there are “two” minds, the “Western” one (i.e. White European Male) and the “Eastern” one (i.e. everyone else). The “Western/White” mind, you argue, is unnatural and the cause of everything bad in the world; as if the genocides committed by Genghis Khan, the Ottoman Empire, and the Burundian Tutsis all stemmed from a so-called Western philosophy of Aristolean logic and dualism.
You contrast this to a nebulously defined “Eastern” thought, which you argue is inherently superior and peaceful, which why the both the Chinese and Japanese have never committed wartime atrocities during their long and glorious histories. (That’s sarcasm, in case you were wondering.)
The point is, “West” and “East” are nonsense concepts. Neither Europe, Africa, nor Asia evolved in isolation. Their cultures and philosophies have always been interwinded. Thanks to the Silk Road, we hear of Buddhist monks coexisting side-by-side with Druids in 2nd century Britian . (Read up on St. Origen, if you don’t believe me.) Indeed, the Buddha himself was a product of a long history of pagan Indo-European thought, that is “Western” thought by your definition.
“East” and “West” and their “never the twain shall [meeting]” only exist to you due to your ignorance of both “Western” and “Eastern” philosophy. Have you ever read Phyrro? Diogenes? The Abhidharma?
or even Lao Tsu’s thoughts on property rights?
I do agree with you that “we are all accountable for the problems of the world today,” so let’s not compound the problem by spouting off fashionable post-modern mumbo-jumbo to obfuscate our own prejudices, shall we?
“Misunderstanding”, and “No debates there.” >> All right. (Just fyi, I was completely void of any emotions while reading your post and composing my response. I merely found your statement rather misleading.)
“It will only go away when people believe that the politicians they elect will do something for them through policy, ie. that there are real differences between political parties which will act on their policies.” >> There has been huge disenchantment with politics and politicians in Western countries. Will we thus see a reemergence of vote buying there?
Reducing Thai political structures and Thaksin’s success to vote buying is simplistic, and a moralistic perspective of this kind will remain ineffectual.
“it will only go away when people believe that the politicians they elect will do something for them through policy, ie. that there are real differences between political parties which will act on their policies. Thaksin delivered on that,”
talk about a fantastic statement, then having to add “THAKSIN DELIVERED ON THAT”?
What a load of bull crap.
Thaksin delivered on buying votes through machinations of the state, not personal money with government bank loans and then forgiving of the loans. If he had only stopped at 30baht health care, OTOP, One tambol One million, etc.
Dude, you talk great, but you’re either purposefully or literally delusional when it comes to Thaksin’s crimes.
Don’t bother replying if you’re gonna rant about my being undemocratic or stupid or continuing the justification of showing Thaksin is a ‘man of the poor’. You’d only be talking to a blank wall.
If you wanna talk anti-coup, or structural problems with Thai democratic institutions (which you so eloquently put till you put mrT on the pedestal) or discuss the jibba jabba I pity the foo of my preferred Mr.T from the A team. I’d be happy to partake in the exchange.
To win elections in Thailand, to the majority of the politicians BUYING the vote is the only way. The ones who understand these are the many political families in Thai upcountry . . . fathers handing down the vote-buying skills to their daughters and sons who later on become MPs themselves. I think the vote-buying to-win \’ideology\’ is not unique to Thailand but also probably more notorious at the Philippines or Indonesia, for example. That is the real \’rural constitution\’ that allowed the criminal Thaksin Shinawatra to be re-elected twice, despite all the criminal allegations hanging over his head.
I think that Handley should be awarded some kind of prize by the international Thai Studies community. (In fact, if Thammasat’s International Conference on Thai Studies organizers were sincere about their commitment to freedom of criticism of the monarchy THEY should award the prize to Handley at the conference in January 2008 – perhaps after they finish their celebrations of the king’s 80th birthday. At the same time as a number Thai Studies academics will “bravely” present their papers on the monarchy Handley is effectively banned from the country for doing what they should have done long before. 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. It has to stand as a monumental failure of Thai Studies as a discipline. How to explain this failure? The marginal nature of Thai Studies in universities outside of Thailand? The farang attraction to exotic Asian feudal society and all its privileges? A farang scholarly bias against capitalism and liberalism which attracts them to a natural ally – the monarchy? Insufficient skills in language and cultural interpretation? For any young Thai Studies scholar who may frequent NM this would be a good PhD topic to take up.
I think about all the criticism of Queen Elizabeth or Prince Charles, arguably two largely benign royals, and then compare this with the way Thai scholars have portrayed Bhumibol, a ruler who has been hand in glove with military dictators his whole working life, whose anti-democratic thinking has been on display for all to see in his books, his speeches, and not least his actions over the last 50 years, and whose avarice makes Indonesia’s Suharto look like a model practitioner of sufficiency economy (the recent news in Forbes that Thailand’s King Bhumibol was the 5th wealthiest monarch in the world should be food for thought for those associated with the UNDP report last year – used to good effect as a propaganda tool for the junta – and for all those academics currently working earnestly on the King’s “new theory”). In fact, the king is a Thai version of Suharto, yet far worse, because he is also surrounded and protected by this poisonous miasma of religious and feudal symbolism and taboo. Again, the image that comes to my mind is of his subjects forced to grovel in prostration at the feet of this man. But yet you still have academics writing in scholarly journals very recently about the king as a democratic force necessary to counteract the “anti-democratic” Thaksin. And you have Thai Studies programs at SOAS and the ANU rolling out the red carpet for the propagandists for the coup that was carried out in his name!
Having said this, I don’t think (and I would guess that Handley would not want) this book to stand as the definitive portrayal of the king. In fact, I have a number of criticisms of the book. I think he was far too sympathetic to the king, and still has a rather na├пve belief in the ability, let alone the desire, of the monarchy to transform itself. (These things don’t transform themselves, they get transformed by others). The death of the King’s elder brother in 1946, an enormously important event, was insufficiently dealt with. I think he takes much too seriously all that bodhisattva-devaraja stuff. If you have a look at some of the anti-monarchy websites (especially Phraya Phichai’s one that was just closed) you will see that a lot of Thais treat that as a joke. And for the latter part of his reign to my mind it is essential to read McCargo’s network monarchy alongside TKNS. Also, I think this endlessly repeated idea of the “highly revered” Thai king should be deconstructed. Where is the evidence? Has a survey ever been done without the lese majeste law in place preventing people from speaking freely? Just look at the referendum: over 40% of people voted against a constitution that was promoted by the junta partly as being about protecting the monarchy. After the junta’s attempts to demonize Thaksin for “insulting” the king and even for planning to overthrow the monarchy, Thai Rak Thai still has huge support in the countryside.
None of this criticism, however, should detract from my respect for what Handley has done with this book.
In America and Australia there were more sinister, though abortive attempts to short-circuit the democratic process through coups, using the disgruntled veterans of WWI as muscle. The Business Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Business_Plot) in America and and two attempts in Australia: one to draft General John Monash to lead a coup against Canberra (there’s little doubt that Monash could have succeeded in doing so if he had so desired) and another, by a group called the New Guard, to lead a coup against the socialist premier of New South Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guard) both date from this period. Notably, the New Guard listed “the abolition of machine politics” (vote buying) as one of their aims.
In all of these cases cooler heads eventually prevailed and social-democrat compromises were arrived at, either before or after WWII. Sadly, Thailand’s elites have chosen the fascist route to resolve (or rather, suppress) the massive divisions within Thai society.
Vote buying is a symptom of people believing that they have no say in government and so their vote is worth nothing, in which case they will take whatever they can get. It will only go away when people believe that the politicians they elect will do something for them through policy, ie. that there are real differences between political parties which will act on their policies. Thaksin delivered on that, but his opponents were unable to take up the challenge.
The coup reverses the clock by showing a vote is worthless, and so will promote more, not less, vote buying activity.
“dilutes Thai sovereignty” >> First, this semantic element is an echo of the Westphalian peace agreement (1648) rather than a Thai “development”. Is there a way of anchoring it in Thai culture, which was based on dynasties? Second, do you refer to political sovereignty (state-state relations) or to societal sovereignty? And how can the latter be seriously claimed given that Thailand without very substantial Khmer, Mon, Indian, Chinese, Western, and Japanese influences is impossible to imagine? If we insist on only keeping what was “developed by the Thais themselves,” what would we be left with?
“Bhumibol is an essential element in Thai sovereignty” >> Do you mean “identity”? If so, the problematic status of an essentialized understanding of Thai identity has often been pointed out on this blog.
Sure, if one looks for models in the West and perceives them as being flawed, then why make the same mistakes in Thailand? But what if it is the perceptions that are flawed, thus making the conclusion invalid?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
so let’s have a coup in Australia
Not sure if John Howard can be nailed on corruption, but what about war criminal?
Security in the Deep South
Thanks for the interesting report. One minor comment:
Insurgents almost universally use cell phones to detonate their bombs.
I am not sure this is the case any longer. For example just from today:
“Inspecting the ambush site Friday morning, a police bomb disposal team determined that the bomb was command-detonated by battery cable in an intended ambush, a now familiar mode of insurgent attack.”
From what I have been reading there has been a shift away from using cell phones to other ways of detonating bombs.
Youtube’s privy politics
re: Sidh> I don’t see any negative emotions in my comments to you, but if you read that into them, that’s your prerogative.
You see, unlike you, I live in Bangkok, and thusly, do not have the luxury to comment on these events from a distance. What you are theorizing and arguing about as an intellectual game, I have to suffer the consequences for in my everyday life.
I am glad that we can agree that East-West, and other sundry things, are constructs of the mind. But if so, why are you comfortable having “two” mindsets? Where I come from, we call that schizophrenia. I think it would be better into integrate the aspects of your mind into one working whole, without dissonance and without conflict. I mean, that is the goal of Buddhism.
I agree with you that it’s simplistic and convenient to blame the monarchy for all of democracy’s ills. Just as it’s simplistic and convenient to blame the West/America/et al. for all of Thailand’s ills, as you do.
Also, I do enthusiastically agree with you that Plaek, Sarit, and Pridi should receive their due by history as well. But, therein lies the rub for a pious devaracha-worshiping animist, like yourself. How can one criticize a person invested with executive power over the Senatus Populusque Thailandensis by a living demi-god and not have that criticism be a reflection upon the deity himself? If the Pope is considered infallible when speaking ex cathedra, how much more so the avatar of Narayana?
Security in the Deep South
Thanks to whomever wrote this…
What you have written reminds me of 2005 Nepal where there was repeated Maoist attacks in Pokhara and the confusion generated a complete mobile phone ban and a complete ban of motorcycles. At the time Nepal also was arrowing for a civil war. That nobody could get around or communicate outside of Pokhara or on the highway to KTM meant that people milled about while bomb attacks came from the Maoists who were dressed as civilians. Eventually there was plain clothed military people milling about with the civilians but still the attacks persisted until a 7pm curfew was imposed and only foreigners or those identified to the military were allowed into the main part of town or alongside the Phewa Tal (where of course, there were appropriate targets.)
Bodhicaryavatara Historical Project
Thanks for this link. (Especially in the context of Peter Skilling’s presentation last night at the Siam Society on the parallel genealogies of: 1. iconography in carving and painting representing events from 2. sacred Buddhist texts, he presented examples from all over India, not just limiting the analysis to Pali sources, and discussed the influence of Pala India on Pagan iconography.)
Interview with Paul Handley
And I am relieved that is the case Srithanonchai. Cheers.
Youtube’s privy politics
Lleij Samuel Schwartz, you are probably reading too much into my comments and have been taking things way too far! Why all the anger? Why the emotion? The accusations? Relax – if you are in Melbourne, we should have a beer and talk in good spirits (unless you are uncomfortable hanging around with a “racist”, “ignorant”, “р╕Др╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕Ир╣Лр╕▓” Thai that is).
I agree with you – if you just read my previous comment:
“My position is to mitigate what I see is the negative repurcussions of dualistic thinking …” East-West, like are merely constructs of the mind – and I must admit that I am totally comfortable with my two mindsets of “animist-Buddhist” and “Western enlightened” (maybe you are accusing me of being racist against myself!)
Unfortunately, I find very few people think along those lines and I felt it necessary to clarify the ‘West’ for many here who views the Thai monarchy negatively and so conveniently points to the Thai monarchy for all democracy’s ills. I find such unempathic views culturally chauvinistic and unhelpful. I feel we should move on and bring in the so many other colorful figures that peppers Thai political history post 1932 and give them their due treatment. Give the evolving social groups a more detailed treatment. This is a great blog and it would be unfortunate if it devolves into another anti-monarchist site.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
“I doubt it – In the west it’s ‘pork barreling’ (plus dog whistle & wedge politics etc), not ‘vote buying’ !”
Yes, so let’s have a coup in Australia so we can reset the system and plant some ethical seeds. There is an election due but those silly voters may give John Howard yet another term, especially if he appeals to their self interest rates yet again!
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Re: nganadeeleg and Sidh>
Even if “ethical democracy” was/is an illusion in the “West”, (and I have a sad feeling that the next decade will prove this to be true) the fact that you can see through the illusion means that you need not depend on them to justify your own pursuit of liberty.
What you are currently seeing in the “first world” is the death throes of the nation-state. Thanks to a confluence of technology, globalization and ideology, the Westphalian model has become irrelevant. (I refer you to the work of John Robb for more information.) In the future, people will return to aligning themselves along ethno-tribalistic, linguistic, racial, or ideological lines, than by arbitrary lines drawn by cartographers. Hence, a “New Mandala” system. In the end, it will bring about a greater net-amount of personal liberty.
Of course, the current elite who profit from the nation-state model are currently fighting this development, tooth and nail. Southeast Asia, with her history and culture of decentralized governance has the potential to lead the way for the rest of the world; however, I fear, the ghost of Sarit Dhanarajata, who lives off the heartblood of men like Sidh, Vichai, and pvt. jeru, will prevent the Thai people from claiming their true heritage until it is too late.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
There has been huge disenchantment with politics and politicians in Western countries. Will we thus see a reemergence of vote buying there?
I doubt it – In the west it’s ‘pork barreling’ (plus dog whistle & wedge politics etc), not ‘vote buying’ !
Youtube’s privy politics
Re: Sidh> I didn’t call you a racist for the reasons Srithanonchai did. I realized you weren’t making a direct comparison between the Holocaust and the so-called “War on Terror”; however, placing them side-by-side, as you did in your previous argument, does have a rhetorical effect of linking them together (which reveals a small, but profound, insight into your subconscious thinking concerning the subject). Nevertheless, I’m not sure what America’s history of capitulation, dhimmitude, and ongoing transference of her wealth via petrodollars, the largest such transference of wealth in history, to the Muslim world has to do with the Holocaust anyway. I mean, the Jews should have been so lucky!
I believe you are a racist because you indulge in that old, tired canard that there are “two” minds, the “Western” one (i.e. White European Male) and the “Eastern” one (i.e. everyone else). The “Western/White” mind, you argue, is unnatural and the cause of everything bad in the world; as if the genocides committed by Genghis Khan, the Ottoman Empire, and the Burundian Tutsis all stemmed from a so-called Western philosophy of Aristolean logic and dualism.
You contrast this to a nebulously defined “Eastern” thought, which you argue is inherently superior and peaceful, which why the both the Chinese and Japanese have never committed wartime atrocities during their long and glorious histories. (That’s sarcasm, in case you were wondering.)
The point is, “West” and “East” are nonsense concepts. Neither Europe, Africa, nor Asia evolved in isolation. Their cultures and philosophies have always been interwinded. Thanks to the Silk Road, we hear of Buddhist monks coexisting side-by-side with Druids in 2nd century Britian . (Read up on St. Origen, if you don’t believe me.) Indeed, the Buddha himself was a product of a long history of pagan Indo-European thought, that is “Western” thought by your definition.
“East” and “West” and their “never the twain shall [meeting]” only exist to you due to your ignorance of both “Western” and “Eastern” philosophy. Have you ever read Phyrro? Diogenes? The Abhidharma?
or even Lao Tsu’s thoughts on property rights?
I do agree with you that “we are all accountable for the problems of the world today,” so let’s not compound the problem by spouting off fashionable post-modern mumbo-jumbo to obfuscate our own prejudices, shall we?
Interview with Paul Handley
“Misunderstanding”, and “No debates there.” >> All right. (Just fyi, I was completely void of any emotions while reading your post and composing my response. I merely found your statement rather misleading.)
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
“It will only go away when people believe that the politicians they elect will do something for them through policy, ie. that there are real differences between political parties which will act on their policies.” >> There has been huge disenchantment with politics and politicians in Western countries. Will we thus see a reemergence of vote buying there?
Reducing Thai political structures and Thaksin’s success to vote buying is simplistic, and a moralistic perspective of this kind will remain ineffectual.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
“it will only go away when people believe that the politicians they elect will do something for them through policy, ie. that there are real differences between political parties which will act on their policies. Thaksin delivered on that,”
talk about a fantastic statement, then having to add “THAKSIN DELIVERED ON THAT”?
What a load of bull crap.
Thaksin delivered on buying votes through machinations of the state, not personal money with government bank loans and then forgiving of the loans. If he had only stopped at 30baht health care, OTOP, One tambol One million, etc.
every walked through Suvarnbhumi?
Ever wondered why AIS always got preferred treatment.
Dude, you talk great, but you’re either purposefully or literally delusional when it comes to Thaksin’s crimes.
Don’t bother replying if you’re gonna rant about my being undemocratic or stupid or continuing the justification of showing Thaksin is a ‘man of the poor’. You’d only be talking to a blank wall.
If you wanna talk anti-coup, or structural problems with Thai democratic institutions (which you so eloquently put till you put mrT on the pedestal) or discuss the jibba jabba I pity the foo of my preferred Mr.T from the A team. I’d be happy to partake in the exchange.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
To win elections in Thailand, to the majority of the politicians BUYING the vote is the only way. The ones who understand these are the many political families in Thai upcountry . . . fathers handing down the vote-buying skills to their daughters and sons who later on become MPs themselves. I think the vote-buying to-win \’ideology\’ is not unique to Thailand but also probably more notorious at the Philippines or Indonesia, for example. That is the real \’rural constitution\’ that allowed the criminal Thaksin Shinawatra to be re-elected twice, despite all the criminal allegations hanging over his head.
Interview with Paul Handley
I think that Handley should be awarded some kind of prize by the international Thai Studies community. (In fact, if Thammasat’s International Conference on Thai Studies organizers were sincere about their commitment to freedom of criticism of the monarchy THEY should award the prize to Handley at the conference in January 2008 – perhaps after they finish their celebrations of the king’s 80th birthday. At the same time as a number Thai Studies academics will “bravely” present their papers on the monarchy Handley is effectively banned from the country for doing what they should have done long before. 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. It has to stand as a monumental failure of Thai Studies as a discipline. How to explain this failure? The marginal nature of Thai Studies in universities outside of Thailand? The farang attraction to exotic Asian feudal society and all its privileges? A farang scholarly bias against capitalism and liberalism which attracts them to a natural ally – the monarchy? Insufficient skills in language and cultural interpretation? For any young Thai Studies scholar who may frequent NM this would be a good PhD topic to take up.
I think about all the criticism of Queen Elizabeth or Prince Charles, arguably two largely benign royals, and then compare this with the way Thai scholars have portrayed Bhumibol, a ruler who has been hand in glove with military dictators his whole working life, whose anti-democratic thinking has been on display for all to see in his books, his speeches, and not least his actions over the last 50 years, and whose avarice makes Indonesia’s Suharto look like a model practitioner of sufficiency economy (the recent news in Forbes that Thailand’s King Bhumibol was the 5th wealthiest monarch in the world should be food for thought for those associated with the UNDP report last year – used to good effect as a propaganda tool for the junta – and for all those academics currently working earnestly on the King’s “new theory”). In fact, the king is a Thai version of Suharto, yet far worse, because he is also surrounded and protected by this poisonous miasma of religious and feudal symbolism and taboo. Again, the image that comes to my mind is of his subjects forced to grovel in prostration at the feet of this man. But yet you still have academics writing in scholarly journals very recently about the king as a democratic force necessary to counteract the “anti-democratic” Thaksin. And you have Thai Studies programs at SOAS and the ANU rolling out the red carpet for the propagandists for the coup that was carried out in his name!
Having said this, I don’t think (and I would guess that Handley would not want) this book to stand as the definitive portrayal of the king. In fact, I have a number of criticisms of the book. I think he was far too sympathetic to the king, and still has a rather na├пve belief in the ability, let alone the desire, of the monarchy to transform itself. (These things don’t transform themselves, they get transformed by others). The death of the King’s elder brother in 1946, an enormously important event, was insufficiently dealt with. I think he takes much too seriously all that bodhisattva-devaraja stuff. If you have a look at some of the anti-monarchy websites (especially Phraya Phichai’s one that was just closed) you will see that a lot of Thais treat that as a joke. And for the latter part of his reign to my mind it is essential to read McCargo’s network monarchy alongside TKNS. Also, I think this endlessly repeated idea of the “highly revered” Thai king should be deconstructed. Where is the evidence? Has a survey ever been done without the lese majeste law in place preventing people from speaking freely? Just look at the referendum: over 40% of people voted against a constitution that was promoted by the junta partly as being about protecting the monarchy. After the junta’s attempts to demonize Thaksin for “insulting” the king and even for planning to overthrow the monarchy, Thai Rak Thai still has huge support in the countryside.
None of this criticism, however, should detract from my respect for what Handley has done with this book.
Youtube’s privy politics
Long life to youtube !
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
In America and Australia there were more sinister, though abortive attempts to short-circuit the democratic process through coups, using the disgruntled veterans of WWI as muscle. The Business Plot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Business_Plot) in America and and two attempts in Australia: one to draft General John Monash to lead a coup against Canberra (there’s little doubt that Monash could have succeeded in doing so if he had so desired) and another, by a group called the New Guard, to lead a coup against the socialist premier of New South Wales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guard) both date from this period. Notably, the New Guard listed “the abolition of machine politics” (vote buying) as one of their aims.
In all of these cases cooler heads eventually prevailed and social-democrat compromises were arrived at, either before or after WWII. Sadly, Thailand’s elites have chosen the fascist route to resolve (or rather, suppress) the massive divisions within Thai society.
Vote buying is a symptom of people believing that they have no say in government and so their vote is worth nothing, in which case they will take whatever they can get. It will only go away when people believe that the politicians they elect will do something for them through policy, ie. that there are real differences between political parties which will act on their policies. Thaksin delivered on that, but his opponents were unable to take up the challenge.
The coup reverses the clock by showing a vote is worthless, and so will promote more, not less, vote buying activity.
Interview with Paul Handley
“dilutes Thai sovereignty” >> First, this semantic element is an echo of the Westphalian peace agreement (1648) rather than a Thai “development”. Is there a way of anchoring it in Thai culture, which was based on dynasties? Second, do you refer to political sovereignty (state-state relations) or to societal sovereignty? And how can the latter be seriously claimed given that Thailand without very substantial Khmer, Mon, Indian, Chinese, Western, and Japanese influences is impossible to imagine? If we insist on only keeping what was “developed by the Thais themselves,” what would we be left with?
“Bhumibol is an essential element in Thai sovereignty” >> Do you mean “identity”? If so, the problematic status of an essentialized understanding of Thai identity has often been pointed out on this blog.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Sure, if one looks for models in the West and perceives them as being flawed, then why make the same mistakes in Thailand? But what if it is the perceptions that are flawed, thus making the conclusion invalid?