I read 3/4 of the book already. And unbelievably, it has opened my eyes about the Thai monarchy. It was published just in time almost to predict the Sept 19 coup and explains monarchy’s involvement in Thai politics. I really thank Paul Handley for such an insightful piece of Thailand’s history.
[…] Monks in Burma have collectively announced their decision (via the Alliance of All Burmese Monks) to stop receiving donations from the military regime, in response to repression of monks by the regime, including forcible defrockings, imprisonment, and other forms of harassment and assault. The military government has called these monk organizations ‘unions’ in the past, and I think that’s an excellent word to describe a group of people who take decisive collective action in defense of themselves as a class. In the West, it is a common misperception that the primary activity of Buddhists is meditation and the quest for nirvana. While this is the ultimate goal for most Buddhists, it is far from the dominant activity. Enlightenment is a long-term goal that takes uncountable lifetimes to achieve, and while meditation is useful, most of us are more likely to benefit from the making of merit. […]
My blood boils with Andrew. I keep reminding myself that the richer will always patronize the poorer, it is only universal human nature. Look at how many foriegn academics/commentators from ‘developed’ countries preaching to Thai academics/elites on how to ‘fix’ their democracy here (but do please carry on – I understand the Thais will find many aspects of the discussion/debates relevant and useful)!
I am repeating myself here – but ‘ethical democracy’ is dead when the inventors of modern democracy the US and Great Britain (and Australia) rained bombs on poor Iraqis to impose democracy and freedom. My blood boiled when the ‘coalition of the willing’ including the colluding Western media and uncaring voters (who went on to re-elect Bush, Blair and Howard anyway) branded the death of thousands of innocent civilians through not-so-smart bombs as ‘collateral damage’ (and what of the thousands dead and the millions displaced since?). How can these actions carried out by our governments (and youth in the military) ever be conciled with basic human rights we hold so dear here in Australia? What are the short and long term repurcussions for ‘democracy’ worldwide when it is being killed in the broad daylight of the global media by rich, democratic, ‘morally-superior’ societies? What precedents are these events setting?
And I am not going into the economics of war (OIL) otherwise we’ll also have to bomb repressed Myanmar, N.Korea, Zimbabwe etc. into becoming liberal democracies. PMThaksin and the generals in the CNS may have taken Thai democracy many, many steps back but once that is put into context with the actions carried out by democratically elected Western governments – it becomes quite clear where PMThaksin’s statement along the line of “democracy is merely a means to an end” is coming from…
I agree with Andrew and don’t subscribe to laying the blame on the poor for democracy’s ills. My tendency is to blame those who exploit them to gain power, fame and fortune – whether the damage is within or across national boundaries…
The idealists at NM insist that the vote is empowerment of the people that gives democracy its truth and its strength. Yet the same idealists will dismiss us unavoidable, insignificant and even irrelevant the buying-and-selling of Thai votes which allow the criminal opportunists to gain political power and thus debase the very democracy the idealists hold so dear.
I just can’t see Thai democracy having any solid foundations when educated Thais will easily dismiss Thai vote buying-and-vote-selling as the Thai way. A vote sold is criminal . . . and winking at the practice each election nourishes the evil to the monster we will call Thai democracy that the Thaksins will readily embrace and exploit, and as we recently learned, will not easily be slain.
“And I said that to stop the rot, Thailand should seriously start jailing people who sell their votes.” >> This makes certainly more sense than to solely blame the politicians. Most of them, I assume, would be happy enough not having to spend large amounts of money. But, then, they also want to win. If all candidates stopped paying money to hua khanaen and to voters, would the election result actually be that much different from what we have now (given that the available candidate choices are very limited, and they have different sizes of voter bases)? It might be more difficult to solve the pre- and post-election patronage activities (the paying of social taxes, giving assistance, etc.). It would be a start if all civil servants stopped asking politicians for giving their underfunded institutions financial support, and also stopped their wing ten for positions. Mind you, position buying in the bureaucracy is at least as big a problem as vote buying is.
Ngarn asks: “who are you gonna call to restrain the Thaksins of this world after HMK is gone?”
Please select from the following multiple choice answers (a or b):
a) the Ballot Box, aka “the Hard Way”… Thai democracy still weak, susceptible to manipulation, will require decent opposition parties with decent policies, strong independent media, strong independent anti-corruption watchdog, strong independent jury, and a vigilant public to make work. Society not fully there yet, but have taken quite a few collective steps over past decade up to 2006. No guarantees will work, however.
b) Thai Military Juntas, aka “The Easy Way”…send in tanks and soldiers, kick out incombent government, set up puppet, rig new constitution — everything should be a-OK again after that. In the meantime military to operate without accountability, secret funds to grow (but care should be exercised to ensure never to become larger than CPB funds). Guaranteed to work (unless bloodshed on streets force soldiers back to barracks temporarily).
…I think we know which answer Ngarn has chosen…
(of course, Ngarn, please feel free to come up with alternative c)
Who are you gonna call to restrain the Thaksins of this world after HMK is gone? Nobody . . . Thailand will be on its own.
There will be even worse Thaksin-wannabes in the future. I mean it must be obvious the “rural constitution” are so easily manipulated, bought or intimidated.
Who does the elite favor to form the core of the post-election coalition government? Maybe, here is part of the answer (ceilings for donations do not yet apply):
Democrats get 601 million cash injection
(BangkokPost.com) – The Charoen Phokapand group has donated millions of baht to the Democrat party, according to the Election Commission website. The latest contribution means the Democrat party has so far received a total of 601 million baht in donations in the first ten months of this year. According to sources, the highest financial contribution to the Democrat party was made by subsidiary companies of the Charoen Phokapand group and the Chearavanont family which totaled 35 million baht. The contributions, combined with the 427 million baht raised during the party’s election campaigns, have resulted in a total of 601 million baht in funds. Chart Thai party did not fare well with regards to receiving donations. Only 300,000 baht was donated to the party led by former prime minister Banharn Silpa-Archa.
I recall I posted long long ago that Thailand’s true or virtuous democracy would never be possible if the Thais maintain their patronizing attitude towards the so-called ‘village poor’.
And I said that to stop the rot, Thailand should seriously start jailing people who sell their votes . . . making arrests in a few dozen villages to put fear into their sorry asses that people who sell votes will be treated as criminals.
But of course that will go against Andrew Walker’s high regard for the ‘rural constitution’.
Although I think the last paragraph is rather hypocritical, I don’t disagree with his analysis. I am a semi autonomous liberal though, so of course I would agree. Col Jeruchai – please tell me liberalism is the work of the devil and that I should become a carpenter like my forefathers.
I think its amusing that Thaksin also refers to a world community that has functioning democracies that won’t tolerate undemocratic behaviour. Yes, we are the benchmark! hah! (Just look at what has happened to the West with baby boomers who have no value for the language they use or goals beyond their elected time periods!)
At least what is going on in Thailand is obvious compared to KEVIN 07!!! *shakes the pom poms*
Teth: “Talk about pots and kettles!” “As for the junta, let’s say they’re just all idiots. Thats pretty clear.” >> You are pretty daring in your simplicity…
you say, “I continue to be both annoyed and astonished by the view that the problem with Thailand’s political system lies in the population’s lack of electoral ethics.”
riiiight.
I had the pleasure to be in a village in Lampang during the TRT one party ‘election’ last year. Granted, I was there for business and not for any of the communal work you guys do here, I was able to notice and sense the fear people had when they saw the ballot box facing outwards. I even pointed it out to a few people, one girl who told me she wanted to vote for no one but voted for a TRT candidate because thats what their kamnan told them to.
I also remember in 2005 election when I was in Kalasin, and asked a restaurant owner who his pick was for the election, unsurprisingly TRT. When asked why, he answered that they gave more money to the poor, and he didn’t just mean government money, he meant cash money; not to mention the forgiving of debt that he spent on his brand new red-plated pickup truck.
People blatantly selling their vote is annoying and astonishing.
I would say that selling your vote without any regard for the standings and policies of the candidate, nor the candidates using the government to consolidate their own personal power and money is indeed highly unethical and makes a perversion and a mockery of democracy. If anything should be making your blood boil its the selling of the vote, khaochai?
But I agree with you, there is a vast difference between the rural and city people in their views of governance. Debate is good, military coups are not. The main issue in my opinion is that democracy should come about within political parties. Parliamentarians should be free to vote their own conscience, not what the PM tells them to without debate. Hey wait, another major perversion of democracy, stifling debate!
So man, if you want to stop your blood boiling, you should consider stepping on a plane to Amsterdam and having one of them space brownies and find your own 3 little imaginary birds to sing at your doorstep singing their pure and true melodic message to you.
Look who’s talking, Srithanonchai. Talk about pots and kettles!
Let me be clear here, I hate Thaksin apologists as much as I hate junta apologists!
Thaksin correcting the income gap was merely redistributing the lottery money (in greatly simplified terms). I didn’t see concrete, system-wide educational reform or any sort of “affirmative action” for the poor. I find it funny that of all the people to be trumpeted as a hero of the poor, it is this raving capitalist and his corrupt cronies. He had his 400 MPs and managed to waste it.
As for the junta, let’s say they’re just all idiots. Thats pretty clear.
I agree with Houghton. As for nganadeeleg, I ask you, who will restrain the HMKs of the world? Or who will restrain the future Kings of Thailand? Themselves?
Down with lese majeste I say. (At the very least).
James, to add to the complexity of the Southern unrest, PMThaksin also dissolved a pre-existing security apparatus that seemed to function giving a more prominent role to the police (renown for their incorruptibility!). PMThaksin also sent troops to Iraq (even if humanitarian), which is unpopular amongst the Muslim population. He also admitted to issue orders to storm Krue-se Mosque and initially claiming responsibility for Takbai (before passing the buck)…
He was a great PM for Isan, a terrible PM for the South, split down the middle for Bangkok (agreeing with Srithanonchai). He could have retained popularity of Bangkok had he merely pay some taxes on the ShinCorp sale and concurrently show more care in using state revenue, most of which are derived from the urban middle class taxes(and not just Bangkok).
Khun Somsak, thank you for your bold comments. However, I would urge you to see HM the King’s actions in the context of his 60+ years career, Thai socio-political history and the nature of monarchic cycles. A young King, with his position uncertain amidst elder and experienced powerbrokers (and the brand new notion of ‘constitutional monarchy’), would make decisions in ways that are different from an old, experienced King, confident of his place in Thai society (with an increasingly clear definition and practice of ‘constitutional monarchy’ – with m.lardprao’s account as an example).
James, to add to the complexity of your first point on the state bailing out of CPB businesses – let’s also see it from the view that these businesses were not privy to PMChavalit’s government to float the baht unlike some (including PMThaksin) in the inner circle which seem to actually even benefited.
To your point three, I would also like to add that the bloating of generals in the arm forces was quite pronounced during PMChavalit’s previous career as army commander – and it was to build his political base towards becoming prime minister. Throughout the past 70+ years of Thai ‘constitutional monarchy’, there have always been various actors and agents (both internal and external) that have acted independently, many in fact being more influential than the monarchy in the course of Thai political evolution…
Dickie’s analogy of Thai democracy with a kid learning how to ride a bike is also interesting. In relation to HM the King I would say this only applies later in his career – after the events of the 70s (even then PMPrem, with tacit support of the monarchy, had several unsuccessful coups against his government). In that context, the ‘first’ time the elite decided to take off the ‘training wheels’ was in 1988 when PMPrem decided to step down and let an elected politician, PMChatchai take the wheels. The second time was during the vote to pass the 1997 Constitution when I remember even the military (acting independently of the monarchy?) were pressuring the parliament to pass the constitution (which wasn’t popular with many politicians).
I also see Dickie’s paternalistic analogy as apt as Thai society also has a Confucionist respect for elders – so that makes it much more critical to differentiate the actions of the King in various stages in his career and resist the extreme temptation to reduce Thai democracy to the prerogatives of one person or one institution.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
“criminal opportunists” > Do you apply this label to the great majority of Thai politicians?
Interview with Paul Handley
I read 3/4 of the book already. And unbelievably, it has opened my eyes about the Thai monarchy. It was published just in time almost to predict the Sept 19 coup and explains monarchy’s involvement in Thai politics. I really thank Paul Handley for such an insightful piece of Thailand’s history.
Monastic protests in Burma
[…] Monks in Burma have collectively announced their decision (via the Alliance of All Burmese Monks) to stop receiving donations from the military regime, in response to repression of monks by the regime, including forcible defrockings, imprisonment, and other forms of harassment and assault. The military government has called these monk organizations ‘unions’ in the past, and I think that’s an excellent word to describe a group of people who take decisive collective action in defense of themselves as a class. In the West, it is a common misperception that the primary activity of Buddhists is meditation and the quest for nirvana. While this is the ultimate goal for most Buddhists, it is far from the dominant activity. Enlightenment is a long-term goal that takes uncountable lifetimes to achieve, and while meditation is useful, most of us are more likely to benefit from the making of merit. […]
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
My blood boils with Andrew. I keep reminding myself that the richer will always patronize the poorer, it is only universal human nature. Look at how many foriegn academics/commentators from ‘developed’ countries preaching to Thai academics/elites on how to ‘fix’ their democracy here (but do please carry on – I understand the Thais will find many aspects of the discussion/debates relevant and useful)!
I am repeating myself here – but ‘ethical democracy’ is dead when the inventors of modern democracy the US and Great Britain (and Australia) rained bombs on poor Iraqis to impose democracy and freedom. My blood boiled when the ‘coalition of the willing’ including the colluding Western media and uncaring voters (who went on to re-elect Bush, Blair and Howard anyway) branded the death of thousands of innocent civilians through not-so-smart bombs as ‘collateral damage’ (and what of the thousands dead and the millions displaced since?). How can these actions carried out by our governments (and youth in the military) ever be conciled with basic human rights we hold so dear here in Australia? What are the short and long term repurcussions for ‘democracy’ worldwide when it is being killed in the broad daylight of the global media by rich, democratic, ‘morally-superior’ societies? What precedents are these events setting?
And I am not going into the economics of war (OIL) otherwise we’ll also have to bomb repressed Myanmar, N.Korea, Zimbabwe etc. into becoming liberal democracies. PMThaksin and the generals in the CNS may have taken Thai democracy many, many steps back but once that is put into context with the actions carried out by democratically elected Western governments – it becomes quite clear where PMThaksin’s statement along the line of “democracy is merely a means to an end” is coming from…
I agree with Andrew and don’t subscribe to laying the blame on the poor for democracy’s ills. My tendency is to blame those who exploit them to gain power, fame and fortune – whether the damage is within or across national boundaries…
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
The idealists at NM insist that the vote is empowerment of the people that gives democracy its truth and its strength. Yet the same idealists will dismiss us unavoidable, insignificant and even irrelevant the buying-and-selling of Thai votes which allow the criminal opportunists to gain political power and thus debase the very democracy the idealists hold so dear.
I just can’t see Thai democracy having any solid foundations when educated Thais will easily dismiss Thai vote buying-and-vote-selling as the Thai way. A vote sold is criminal . . . and winking at the practice each election nourishes the evil to the monster we will call Thai democracy that the Thaksins will readily embrace and exploit, and as we recently learned, will not easily be slain.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
“And I said that to stop the rot, Thailand should seriously start jailing people who sell their votes.” >> This makes certainly more sense than to solely blame the politicians. Most of them, I assume, would be happy enough not having to spend large amounts of money. But, then, they also want to win. If all candidates stopped paying money to hua khanaen and to voters, would the election result actually be that much different from what we have now (given that the available candidate choices are very limited, and they have different sizes of voter bases)? It might be more difficult to solve the pre- and post-election patronage activities (the paying of social taxes, giving assistance, etc.). It would be a start if all civil servants stopped asking politicians for giving their underfunded institutions financial support, and also stopped their wing ten for positions. Mind you, position buying in the bureaucracy is at least as big a problem as vote buying is.
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
Ngarn asks: “who are you gonna call to restrain the Thaksins of this world after HMK is gone?”
Please select from the following multiple choice answers (a or b):
a) the Ballot Box, aka “the Hard Way”… Thai democracy still weak, susceptible to manipulation, will require decent opposition parties with decent policies, strong independent media, strong independent anti-corruption watchdog, strong independent jury, and a vigilant public to make work. Society not fully there yet, but have taken quite a few collective steps over past decade up to 2006. No guarantees will work, however.
b) Thai Military Juntas, aka “The Easy Way”…send in tanks and soldiers, kick out incombent government, set up puppet, rig new constitution — everything should be a-OK again after that. In the meantime military to operate without accountability, secret funds to grow (but care should be exercised to ensure never to become larger than CPB funds). Guaranteed to work (unless bloodshed on streets force soldiers back to barracks temporarily).
…I think we know which answer Ngarn has chosen…
(of course, Ngarn, please feel free to come up with alternative c)
New Mandala’s election watch
Observers the “neutrals’ are the real enemies. Those who can’t make up their minds make possible the rise of an evil like Thaksin.
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
Who are you gonna call to restrain the Thaksins of this world after HMK is gone? Nobody . . . Thailand will be on its own.
There will be even worse Thaksin-wannabes in the future. I mean it must be obvious the “rural constitution” are so easily manipulated, bought or intimidated.
New Mandala’s election watch
Grasshopper,
Yes, the last paragragh is hypocritical. Coming from one of the partisans, no one will listen to it.
However, it is a tragedy that the words haven’t come out from a more neutral messenger, or thousands of them. They are the future for Thailand.
New Mandala’s election watch
Who does the elite favor to form the core of the post-election coalition government? Maybe, here is part of the answer (ceilings for donations do not yet apply):
Democrats get 601 million cash injection
(BangkokPost.com) – The Charoen Phokapand group has donated millions of baht to the Democrat party, according to the Election Commission website. The latest contribution means the Democrat party has so far received a total of 601 million baht in donations in the first ten months of this year. According to sources, the highest financial contribution to the Democrat party was made by subsidiary companies of the Charoen Phokapand group and the Chearavanont family which totaled 35 million baht. The contributions, combined with the 427 million baht raised during the party’s election campaigns, have resulted in a total of 601 million baht in funds. Chart Thai party did not fare well with regards to receiving donations. Only 300,000 baht was donated to the party led by former prime minister Banharn Silpa-Archa.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
More to Dickie S [#18] post.
I recall I posted long long ago that Thailand’s true or virtuous democracy would never be possible if the Thais maintain their patronizing attitude towards the so-called ‘village poor’.
And I said that to stop the rot, Thailand should seriously start jailing people who sell their votes . . . making arrests in a few dozen villages to put fear into their sorry asses that people who sell votes will be treated as criminals.
But of course that will go against Andrew Walker’s high regard for the ‘rural constitution’.
New Mandala’s election watch
Just regarding Thaksin’s opinion piece in the WSJ – reproduced by the nation >
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/19/headlines/headlines_30049529.php
Although I think the last paragraph is rather hypocritical, I don’t disagree with his analysis. I am a semi autonomous liberal though, so of course I would agree. Col Jeruchai – please tell me liberalism is the work of the devil and that I should become a carpenter like my forefathers.
I think its amusing that Thaksin also refers to a world community that has functioning democracies that won’t tolerate undemocratic behaviour. Yes, we are the benchmark! hah! (Just look at what has happened to the West with baby boomers who have no value for the language they use or goals beyond their elected time periods!)
At least what is going on in Thailand is obvious compared to KEVIN 07!!! *shakes the pom poms*
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Teth: “Talk about pots and kettles!” “As for the junta, let’s say they’re just all idiots. Thats pretty clear.” >> You are pretty daring in your simplicity…
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Andrew:
you say, “I continue to be both annoyed and astonished by the view that the problem with Thailand’s political system lies in the population’s lack of electoral ethics.”
riiiight.
I had the pleasure to be in a village in Lampang during the TRT one party ‘election’ last year. Granted, I was there for business and not for any of the communal work you guys do here, I was able to notice and sense the fear people had when they saw the ballot box facing outwards. I even pointed it out to a few people, one girl who told me she wanted to vote for no one but voted for a TRT candidate because thats what their kamnan told them to.
I also remember in 2005 election when I was in Kalasin, and asked a restaurant owner who his pick was for the election, unsurprisingly TRT. When asked why, he answered that they gave more money to the poor, and he didn’t just mean government money, he meant cash money; not to mention the forgiving of debt that he spent on his brand new red-plated pickup truck.
People blatantly selling their vote is annoying and astonishing.
I would say that selling your vote without any regard for the standings and policies of the candidate, nor the candidates using the government to consolidate their own personal power and money is indeed highly unethical and makes a perversion and a mockery of democracy. If anything should be making your blood boil its the selling of the vote, khaochai?
But I agree with you, there is a vast difference between the rural and city people in their views of governance. Debate is good, military coups are not. The main issue in my opinion is that democracy should come about within political parties. Parliamentarians should be free to vote their own conscience, not what the PM tells them to without debate. Hey wait, another major perversion of democracy, stifling debate!
So man, if you want to stop your blood boiling, you should consider stepping on a plane to Amsterdam and having one of them space brownies and find your own 3 little imaginary birds to sing at your doorstep singing their pure and true melodic message to you.
The ethical poverty of sufficiency democracy
Look who’s talking, Srithanonchai. Talk about pots and kettles!
Let me be clear here, I hate Thaksin apologists as much as I hate junta apologists!
Thaksin correcting the income gap was merely redistributing the lottery money (in greatly simplified terms). I didn’t see concrete, system-wide educational reform or any sort of “affirmative action” for the poor. I find it funny that of all the people to be trumpeted as a hero of the poor, it is this raving capitalist and his corrupt cronies. He had his 400 MPs and managed to waste it.
As for the junta, let’s say they’re just all idiots. Thats pretty clear.
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
And don’t tell me the Chakri’s are all good, benevolent, and godlike. (You’re having a laugh).
Attacking Thailand’s anti-Thaksin academics
I agree with Houghton. As for nganadeeleg, I ask you, who will restrain the HMKs of the world? Or who will restrain the future Kings of Thailand? Themselves?
Down with lese majeste I say. (At the very least).
Sovereign Myth
James, to add to the complexity of the Southern unrest, PMThaksin also dissolved a pre-existing security apparatus that seemed to function giving a more prominent role to the police (renown for their incorruptibility!). PMThaksin also sent troops to Iraq (even if humanitarian), which is unpopular amongst the Muslim population. He also admitted to issue orders to storm Krue-se Mosque and initially claiming responsibility for Takbai (before passing the buck)…
He was a great PM for Isan, a terrible PM for the South, split down the middle for Bangkok (agreeing with Srithanonchai). He could have retained popularity of Bangkok had he merely pay some taxes on the ShinCorp sale and concurrently show more care in using state revenue, most of which are derived from the urban middle class taxes(and not just Bangkok).
Sovereign Myth
Khun Somsak, thank you for your bold comments. However, I would urge you to see HM the King’s actions in the context of his 60+ years career, Thai socio-political history and the nature of monarchic cycles. A young King, with his position uncertain amidst elder and experienced powerbrokers (and the brand new notion of ‘constitutional monarchy’), would make decisions in ways that are different from an old, experienced King, confident of his place in Thai society (with an increasingly clear definition and practice of ‘constitutional monarchy’ – with m.lardprao’s account as an example).
James, to add to the complexity of your first point on the state bailing out of CPB businesses – let’s also see it from the view that these businesses were not privy to PMChavalit’s government to float the baht unlike some (including PMThaksin) in the inner circle which seem to actually even benefited.
To your point three, I would also like to add that the bloating of generals in the arm forces was quite pronounced during PMChavalit’s previous career as army commander – and it was to build his political base towards becoming prime minister. Throughout the past 70+ years of Thai ‘constitutional monarchy’, there have always been various actors and agents (both internal and external) that have acted independently, many in fact being more influential than the monarchy in the course of Thai political evolution…
Dickie’s analogy of Thai democracy with a kid learning how to ride a bike is also interesting. In relation to HM the King I would say this only applies later in his career – after the events of the 70s (even then PMPrem, with tacit support of the monarchy, had several unsuccessful coups against his government). In that context, the ‘first’ time the elite decided to take off the ‘training wheels’ was in 1988 when PMPrem decided to step down and let an elected politician, PMChatchai take the wheels. The second time was during the vote to pass the 1997 Constitution when I remember even the military (acting independently of the monarchy?) were pressuring the parliament to pass the constitution (which wasn’t popular with many politicians).
I also see Dickie’s paternalistic analogy as apt as Thai society also has a Confucionist respect for elders – so that makes it much more critical to differentiate the actions of the King in various stages in his career and resist the extreme temptation to reduce Thai democracy to the prerogatives of one person or one institution.