As the barge slowly sinks, will the common man be allowed to come to the rescue?
I’ve started this comment about ten times. Each time it goes nowhere. We are all completely hamstrung! I sometimes think I don’t want to hang around and watch the inevitable catastrophe. We shouldn’t have to sit around and watch an accident that even one of us mere underlings could have the power to prevent. No wonder people decide to emigrate! Who can really blame them for wanting to go somewhere where their word will count for something, however minor!
Why the hell would you give everyone the money? They aren’t working for it. Look, just because it is off the southern coast DOES NOT mean that Cambodia owns the rights to it. The way borders are situated, Cambodia claims hardly any ocean past the shoreline. Let the company take the oil. If people want a way to get money, have them find jobs that are related to it. It isn’t like the company will have a choice in how they export the oil. Just don’t do something stupid by giving it directly to the people. If you have ever lived in Cambodia you immediately should understand my reasoning.
Our Thai King’s adherence to the principle of a constitutional monarch….HMK then said that it was unconstitutional and the way out of the impasse had to be found through constitutional means…
Since by law I cannot criticise the King and to challenge what he says runs the risk of being slapped with lese majeste charge, I will not dispute His Majesty’s claim (in the speech Borwornsak cites here) that HM has ALWAYS “adhere to the princilple of constitutional monarch”. But let me give here just two FACTS:
(1) In 1957 after Sarit seized power in a military coup (I pointed out elsewhere that the situations that led to the 1957 coup bear striking similarity to the ones last year), HM issued a proclamation IN HIS OWN NAME WITHOUT ANY COUNTER SIGNATURE appointing Sarit as “phu raksa pranakon” (guardian of the capital) and URGED all citizens to obey Sarit. Not only this was against the “principle of a constitutional monarch” as universally understood, but at the time the 1952 Constitution was still in effect in which any proclamation, order, speech, etc had to be counter-signed by a Minister.
(2) In fact, even the episode Borwornsak cites as example of HM’s “adherence to the principle of a constitutional monarch” and espically what happened afterward (cf. the notorious Jakrapob’s Secret Tape) had NO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATION whatsoever. Anyone who thinks otherwise, let him/her produce just ONE article of the 1997 Constitution which provides the King with power to ORDER the three highest courts to solve a political crisis.
Indeed, give me just one example anywhere in the world wher a CONSTITUTIONAL moarch has the power to give UNPREPARED, UNCOUNTER-SIGNED (“live”) speech on such important matters.
In any democracy, public power has to be ACCOUNTABLE. And since we don’t want the monarch to be accountable, it’s universally understood that a constitutional monarch cannot do things on his own (e.g. give “live” important speeches). Otherwise it’s UNFAIR, UNDEMOCRATIC to be able to have such enormous power without ACCOUNTABILITY.
I could go on with many similar FACTS (as in the 1973 case of so-called “Racehorse Rigns Assembly” for in stance), but I am already frightened to my bone just to say the above.
nganadeeleg says, “I know the constitution, parliament, counter corruption institutions, courts etc are meant to provide checks and balances, but what happens when they are manipulated?”
Good question, and one that was regularly raised during Thaksin’s period in power and since. But that constitution is now dead and the institutions re-made. So, today, one might equally ask these questions of the military and the palace. What happens when there are no checks and balances on their power? What happens when they manipulate these re-made bodies?
Vichai N asks: Is Thailand really capable of achieving a “strong and respected parliamentary system”? Yes, it is. But it requires the reigning in of the military and the palace first, bringing them under real constitutional controls. Because these two groups interfere in the writing of constitutions, parliamentary systems are always hamstrung. Look at the new constitution. It is bound to lead to “elected and non-elected leaders” (odd term, because it means all leaders…. In the case of the new constitution, the appointed senators) failing again. They have to fail as the constitution demands weak, coalition government with the military and the palace lurking in the shadows.
Bowornsak’s statement is the standard explanation from the current military regime. Rewriting history is the role adopted by the regime’s propagandists.
P.S.: The author of what “M.Lardprao” has posted here is Ajarn Borwornsak Uwanno, previously the cabinet’s secretary general under Thaksin Shinawatra, and now the secretary-general of the King Prajadhipok’s Institute. The full text of his article on “Dynamics of Thai Politics” can be downloaded from its original place, namely KPI’s home page at
After Ajarn Borwornsak had resigned from his position in the Thaksin government, he published a five-part series on the Thai monarchy, from a royalist perspective, in the Bangkok Post. This is well worth reading. The series is as follows:
June 12, 2006: Ten principles of a righteous King
June 13, 2006: Thailand’s Dhammaraja
June 14, 2006: The King and the constitution
June 15, 2006: A proof beyond any shadow of doubt
June 16, 2006: The King’s paternalistic governance
1) “According to the administrative customs established by the Constitution, the King had as his royal prerogative the right to be informed” > The coup group rather went there because they knew were the power is in Thailand, and to apologize to the King that they had violated his expressed wish to see fair and just elections in October 2006 as his preferred solution to end the crisis. They also needed, as you mention, to make sure that he gave his blessings in order to avoid encouraging resistance.
2) “Hence HMK’s assent to the royal command which coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin presented and countersigned was the most neutral act and was in line with the country’s administrative customs.” > To many people, in particular those who had supported the coup, that act did not look neutral at all but legitimizing.The media coverage reflected this perspective. I cannot remember this detail–did the King sign a similar command after the NPKC coup in 1991?
3) “the way out of the impasse had to be found through constitutional means, that is, through the decisions by the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court and the Courts of Justice.” > However, the result of the King’s instruction to the courts seemed to have been a bending of the laws to achieve certain political ends (what some Thai academics criticize as “rule by law” as opposed to the “rule of law”).
Aiontay – many thanks for your comment and I agree that the chapter in isolation does read in the way that you have interpreted it. Elsewhere in the thesis I hopefully deal with the issue you’ve raised in a clearer way. Thanks very much for your comment ; it’s so helpful to get feedback. I’m really interested to hear more about your work on the Lisu – if you (or anyone else) want to get in touch, my email (easy to track down on the web anyway) is [email protected] . All the best.
you said:
”
easily be solved by the “Third World” countries: They could stop importing everything they need from the “First World” and start developing their very own law, medicine, science, and technology, i.e. as fundamentally different from what the West has to offer.
”
Could never have guessed you were a strong proponent of the principles of Sufficiency Economy! Good for you!
Guess even you’re endowed with the strong belief of ‘kwam pen thai’ as much as the anti-Thaksinites you like to criticize for being pro-militaristic, etc.
Is Thailand really capable of achieving a “strong and respected parliamentary system”? That had been the ideal from the start but with the disgraceful profiles of Thailand ‘representatives of the people’, the members of Thai parliament, getting there may be two or three decades ahead.
But in the meantime? Could strengthening Thailand’s political party and election funding rules help in reducing the influence of ‘big money’ politics, or the rise of deeply flawed manipulative big-pocket politicians like Thaksin? And how in the hell to arrest the culture of vote-buying and vote-selling that undermine the very spirit of democracy and encourage the rise to power of thug-politicians like Newin, Snoh and many others?
Rule one is to ensure no one, Prime Minister of King, will be above Thailand’s constitutional rule of law but who will enforce Rule one?
And at this crucial moment in Thailand’s political development, when the unifying or calming influence of HMK Bhumibhol would inevitably soon be absent considering his advanced age (and the Crown Prince should he assume the throne will bring more distress than calm to Thailand’s troubled political waters), will the Thai people allow its Kingdom to degenerate into a political morass similar to the Philippines for lack of collective purpose and collective will?
I am afraid our elected and non-elected leaders have failed us since democracy day-one and Thailand should be prepared for rise of demagogue and charlatan politicians . . . a Thai Chavez or even a Thai Mugabe with their open-ended promises to the Thai poor (almost like Thaksin) . . .
I suggested earlier that universal suffrage should be scrapped and voting be reserved to that small group of Thai people, mostly residing in Bangkok (academics, businessmen, journalists, technocrats, bureaucrats, soldiers) , who deem themselves politically-morally more “responsible” than the great majority of the Thai voters. This group can assemble at the Queen Sirikit Convention Center (this choice of place is not accidental!) and determine who should be the government amongst themselves.
People belonging to the above groups but do not display the required “responsibility”, such as Ajarn Somsak J., Thanapol, Jakraphop, Mo Weng, Khru Pratheep, Kasian, Rangsan, Supalack, Worachet, Jon, Pitch, Pravit, etc., will not be eligible. Alternatively, one could give responsible members of the above groups, such as nganadeeleg, Gothom, Surichai, Witthaya, Sonthi, Chermsak, Banjerd, Kaewsan, Surayudh, Anand, Sumet, Aree, etc., 10 votes, while Ajarn Somsak J, and his likes would receive only 1 vote. One could even do a written exam with those thought of tending to be “irresponsible”, and then assign votes from 1-8 according to their test results.
Today, I repeat my suggestion. It would also not cost the two billion baht the ECT has to spend on organizing the election of 480 MPs, and then another two billion for the election of 76 Senators in February.
Our Thai King’s adherence to the principle of a constitutional monarch was seen most clearly during that serious political confrontation between the Government of ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra and the PAD (People’s Alliance for Democracy). Many respected academicians and the media at that time were calling for the invocation of Article 7 of the 1997 Constitution, which means a request for His Majesty the King to exercise the royal prerogative to dismiss the current Prime Minister and appoint a new one. HMK turned down such request which he regarded as wrong. HMK then said that it was unconstitutional and the way out of the impasse had to be found through constitutional means, that is, through the decisions by the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court and the Courts of Justice. The King’s action, wrote one foreign analyst, proved that the rumor of the King being behind the political events in Thailand was false.
After the coup on 19 September 2006, the coup leaders sought an audience with His Majesty the King to report their action and the situation to him as Head of State. According to the administrative customs established by the Constitution, the King had as his royal prerogative the right to be informed. He, however, was in no position to object or support such fait accompli by the military. Had he objected it, a second political crisis could have ensued. Had he supported it, that would have given legitimacy to the coup leaders. Adhering to the administrative customs by acting in accordance with the recommendations of those with real authority was thus the best course of action. Hence HMK’s assent to the royal command which coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin presented and countersigned was the most neutral act and was in line with the country’s administrative customs. The rumor that the coup had royal backing was incorrect.
Rumors to draw the monarchy into political conflicts have often been floated when such conflicts occurred. The conflicting parties, in shoring up their own advantage over the other side, would seek to use the monarch, who is the center of unity of all Thais, to justify and legitimize their own actions or to undermine their opponents. One disadvantage of constitutional monarchy is that the King and the Royal Family are not in a position to publicly deny any such references. Those who instigate the rumors were thus able to continue reaping political gains by spreading rumors. Nevertheless, as a saying goes, action speaks louder than words. Those who have wanted to use lese majesté charges against their opponents have had hard time achieving their aims because almost every lese-majesté case from past to present has been granted royal pardon either before or after the ruling by the court. Even before the political change which ended absolute monarchy, the King had granted royal par-don to those writers who criticized him, saying: “The expression of thoughts is the voice of the brain. The expression of loyalty is the voice of the heart.” A distinction must be made between the two.
Indeed, if the King had other means, short of making verbal clarifications, to prove all other rumors false by his action, then the political impartiality of the Thai monarchy would become much more evident.
Only through a fair election based on the collective consent can people in society learn to live in peace under political rules based on mutual respect. And that is true national security.
Sounds good, but what happens when voters habitually ignore politicians wrongdoings and instead support whomever gives them the most, thereby giving the green light to certain unscrupulous politicians to do whatever they want as long as they appease certain sections of society (in this case the poor masses, but it could be the military, or business) .
The Prachatai article compares Sarit with Thaksin, but ask yourselves would it be acceptable if Sarit was elected (on a poor friendly platform)?
‘Full Democracy’ requires responsibility from both the politicians and the electorate.
I know the constitution, parliament, counter corruption institutions, courts etc are meant to provide checks and balances, but what happens when they are manipulated?
If the electorate in not prepared to monitor and punish unscrupulous politicians, then do not be surprised if the military continues to interfere, and ‘full democracy is replaced by ‘guided democracy’.
[…] is the paper presented by Chairat Charoensin-o-larn of Thammasat University at the Thailand Update held at the ANU late last month [chairat-2007.pdf]. I think it is a balanced and nuanced account […]
Somsak asks: What business the (unelected, uncriticisable, untouchable) King has whispering to the elected PM?
I cannot answer for Michael (or Thaksin), but here is how Anand answers: “He remains detached from politics, playing a non-partisan role in the country’s political process and development.As a constitutional monarch, however, he possesses “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn”. Under normal circumstances, he exercised these rights through private audiences he grants to the prime minister of the day. What transpires during these meetings remains private and confidential, and even after the statutory silent period, part of the consultations may not be made known.
In a constitutional monarchy, the King does have certain powers and responsibilities under constitutional provisions. In exercising this power, he must be ever conscious of his responsibility and objectivity. All bills approved by the National Assembly are to be presented to the King for signature. This is not just a formality, as the King retains discretionary power to withhold his assent temporarily. In private consultations with the prime minister, the King’s comments, be they “encouraging” or “warning”, provide an important input for the head of government, if he wishes, to re-evaluate the government’s position and direction.
His Majesty alone possesses continuous political experience and has always kept to constitutional proprieties. His remarks, whether made privately or publicly, have always been listened to with great attention and circumspection.”
Here is an article from the English-language section of Prachatai on the questions raised in this thread. It should be added in this context that the Election Commission of Thailand has asked their provincial branches to prepare black lists of vote canvassers (hua khanaen) and influential people (phu mee itthiphon) in their areas (don’t quite know how the PECs’ staff can know this in any detail).
Whose security is it?
Chuwat Rerksirisuk
14 September 2007
Frontliner
Like other Subdistrict Heads in Thailand, Kamnan Thong commands respects from people in his community, though not at the level of the “extra-constitutional power”.
During election campaigns, like other Kamnans, he works as a canvasser for politicians who give him favours or those who he claims to be his close allies.
But in the election later this year, he will hardly be able to help marshal votes for any politician. It will be difficult for him to persuade people to attend their speeches at the rallies, even though his pockets are stuffed with travel expenses. A few days ago, a ranking military officer approached him and told to him bluntly that martial law is still in force in this area. To mobilize people for any purpose may simply affect reconciliation and security.
An ordinary Kamnan, though he has a big gut, he is not too stupid to understand what the officer meant.
He passes as a “good person” and the Commander in Chief recently remarked that no “good person” would be affected by martial law. Yet, he will not be able to help the same politician. At most he can simply try to see to it that canvassers of opponent politicians will not have the chance to mobilize people to attend their political rallies, either.
This is a common phenomenon in the forthcoming election. And this has nothing to do with the notion whether or not good people are affected by martial law which is still in force in almost half the country.
Incredibly, the Commander in Chief backed his refusal to lift martial law by saying that “good people will not suffer (from the enforcement of the law).” This is the same reason touted by every previous military dictator to justify their cause. When Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat was in power, he invoked a Coup Order to have people shot without any judicial review. The same reason was used by Thaksin Shinawatra during the launch of his War on Drugs which led to rampant killings. Of course, “good people” did not suffer then, either.
Though the enforcement of martial law in the past months deserves condemnation and opposition, there was a certain justification. But now that the draft Constitution has been endorsed through a referendum held under martial law, and the national charter which is claimed to promote rights and freedoms has come into force, martial law is still in place. Those pro-coup factions who held high in their hands the flags of rights and freedoms and pushed people to come out in support of the Constitution have not come out to campaign to lift martial law. They show indifference to the fact that half of the country is ruled under this state of warfare as if these 35 provinces were “insecure”. And these provinces are all strongholds of voters who support political parties which have opposed the coup.
Let us be frank with ourselves, let us be straightforward, the security claimed by the coup makers is in fact their own security. And their insecurity stems from their fears and cowardice. Yet, they trade this off against fairness in elections and the national image. They do not care if this security comes at the expense of the consent and cooperation of people in society, even though it would really be a stepping stone towards genuine reconciliation.
Here is the demand.
We call on those who seized the power (and who so far have failed to return it to us) to allow a fair election by lifting martial law.
This is because fair elections and respect for the people’s free will are our fundamental rights and freedoms. And these political rights and freedoms are the watershed of all the rights to set our own policies and enjoy self-determination.
This is because the country belongs to “all Thai citizens”, whether they come from Isan (Northeast), whether they are poor, or stupid, or love Thaksin, or hate Thaksin. It definitely does not belong to a handful of military officers and their few lapdogs.
Please listen (to others) again, the refusal to lift martial law is tantamount to a deliberate attempt to conduct unfair election.
And an unfair election is the only means through which the coup makers can sustain their power.
Only an unfair election can guarantee security for the coup makers.
And of course, your security has nothing to do with the national security. On the contrary, it has prolonged divisiveness in society.
Only through a fair election based on the collective consent can people in society learn to live in peace under political rules based on mutual respect. And that is true national security.
Prachathai 14 September 2007
A late addition to this thread. On 1 September, Anand was appointed Chairman of the Board at the Siam Commercial Bank (http://www.scb.co.th/html/eng/about_news_07-08-30-1-ng.shtml). On the face of it, it does seem that one can be handsomely rewarded for the kind of loyalty to the king that Anand has displayed.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The security state
As the barge slowly sinks, will the common man be allowed to come to the rescue?
I’ve started this comment about ten times. Each time it goes nowhere. We are all completely hamstrung! I sometimes think I don’t want to hang around and watch the inevitable catastrophe. We shouldn’t have to sit around and watch an accident that even one of us mere underlings could have the power to prevent. No wonder people decide to emigrate! Who can really blame them for wanting to go somewhere where their word will count for something, however minor!
Cambodia’s oil curse?
Why the hell would you give everyone the money? They aren’t working for it. Look, just because it is off the southern coast DOES NOT mean that Cambodia owns the rights to it. The way borders are situated, Cambodia claims hardly any ocean past the shoreline. Let the company take the oil. If people want a way to get money, have them find jobs that are related to it. It isn’t like the company will have a choice in how they export the oil. Just don’t do something stupid by giving it directly to the people. If you have ever lived in Cambodia you immediately should understand my reasoning.
Sovereign Myth
Re: M.Ladprao (Borwornsak)
Our Thai King’s adherence to the principle of a constitutional monarch….HMK then said that it was unconstitutional and the way out of the impasse had to be found through constitutional means…
Since by law I cannot criticise the King and to challenge what he says runs the risk of being slapped with lese majeste charge, I will not dispute His Majesty’s claim (in the speech Borwornsak cites here) that HM has ALWAYS “adhere to the princilple of constitutional monarch”. But let me give here just two FACTS:
(1) In 1957 after Sarit seized power in a military coup (I pointed out elsewhere that the situations that led to the 1957 coup bear striking similarity to the ones last year), HM issued a proclamation IN HIS OWN NAME WITHOUT ANY COUNTER SIGNATURE appointing Sarit as “phu raksa pranakon” (guardian of the capital) and URGED all citizens to obey Sarit. Not only this was against the “principle of a constitutional monarch” as universally understood, but at the time the 1952 Constitution was still in effect in which any proclamation, order, speech, etc had to be counter-signed by a Minister.
(2) In fact, even the episode Borwornsak cites as example of HM’s “adherence to the principle of a constitutional monarch” and espically what happened afterward (cf. the notorious Jakrapob’s Secret Tape) had NO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATION whatsoever. Anyone who thinks otherwise, let him/her produce just ONE article of the 1997 Constitution which provides the King with power to ORDER the three highest courts to solve a political crisis.
Indeed, give me just one example anywhere in the world wher a CONSTITUTIONAL moarch has the power to give UNPREPARED, UNCOUNTER-SIGNED (“live”) speech on such important matters.
In any democracy, public power has to be ACCOUNTABLE. And since we don’t want the monarch to be accountable, it’s universally understood that a constitutional monarch cannot do things on his own (e.g. give “live” important speeches). Otherwise it’s UNFAIR, UNDEMOCRATIC to be able to have such enormous power without ACCOUNTABILITY.
I could go on with many similar FACTS (as in the 1973 case of so-called “Racehorse Rigns Assembly” for in stance), but I am already frightened to my bone just to say the above.
Observing an electoral fiction
nganadeeleg says, “I know the constitution, parliament, counter corruption institutions, courts etc are meant to provide checks and balances, but what happens when they are manipulated?”
Good question, and one that was regularly raised during Thaksin’s period in power and since. But that constitution is now dead and the institutions re-made. So, today, one might equally ask these questions of the military and the palace. What happens when there are no checks and balances on their power? What happens when they manipulate these re-made bodies?
The security state
Vichai N asks: Is Thailand really capable of achieving a “strong and respected parliamentary system”? Yes, it is. But it requires the reigning in of the military and the palace first, bringing them under real constitutional controls. Because these two groups interfere in the writing of constitutions, parliamentary systems are always hamstrung. Look at the new constitution. It is bound to lead to “elected and non-elected leaders” (odd term, because it means all leaders…. In the case of the new constitution, the appointed senators) failing again. They have to fail as the constitution demands weak, coalition government with the military and the palace lurking in the shadows.
Sovereign Myth
Bowornsak’s statement is the standard explanation from the current military regime. Rewriting history is the role adopted by the regime’s propagandists.
Sovereign Myth
P.S.: The author of what “M.Lardprao” has posted here is Ajarn Borwornsak Uwanno, previously the cabinet’s secretary general under Thaksin Shinawatra, and now the secretary-general of the King Prajadhipok’s Institute. The full text of his article on “Dynamics of Thai Politics” can be downloaded from its original place, namely KPI’s home page at
http://www.kpi.ac.th/mod_news/news_view.asp?id=MTkg&g=NSAg&rand=1189851820491
After Ajarn Borwornsak had resigned from his position in the Thaksin government, he published a five-part series on the Thai monarchy, from a royalist perspective, in the Bangkok Post. This is well worth reading. The series is as follows:
June 12, 2006: Ten principles of a righteous King
June 13, 2006: Thailand’s Dhammaraja
June 14, 2006: The King and the constitution
June 15, 2006: A proof beyond any shadow of doubt
June 16, 2006: The King’s paternalistic governance
Sovereign Myth
1) “According to the administrative customs established by the Constitution, the King had as his royal prerogative the right to be informed” > The coup group rather went there because they knew were the power is in Thailand, and to apologize to the King that they had violated his expressed wish to see fair and just elections in October 2006 as his preferred solution to end the crisis. They also needed, as you mention, to make sure that he gave his blessings in order to avoid encouraging resistance.
2) “Hence HMK’s assent to the royal command which coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin presented and countersigned was the most neutral act and was in line with the country’s administrative customs.” > To many people, in particular those who had supported the coup, that act did not look neutral at all but legitimizing.The media coverage reflected this perspective. I cannot remember this detail–did the King sign a similar command after the NPKC coup in 1991?
3) “the way out of the impasse had to be found through constitutional means, that is, through the decisions by the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court and the Courts of Justice.” > However, the result of the King’s instruction to the courts seemed to have been a bending of the laws to achieve certain political ends (what some Thai academics criticize as “rule by law” as opposed to the “rule of law”).
Scum of the earth
Dickie: See, traditional northern German Christian protestantism and Thainess are almost the same!
Manau analysis from Mandy Sadan
Aiontay – many thanks for your comment and I agree that the chapter in isolation does read in the way that you have interpreted it. Elsewhere in the thesis I hopefully deal with the issue you’ve raised in a clearer way. Thanks very much for your comment ; it’s so helpful to get feedback. I’m really interested to hear more about your work on the Lisu – if you (or anyone else) want to get in touch, my email (easy to track down on the web anyway) is [email protected] . All the best.
Scum of the earth
Hey Srithanonchai,
you said:
”
easily be solved by the “Third World” countries: They could stop importing everything they need from the “First World” and start developing their very own law, medicine, science, and technology, i.e. as fundamentally different from what the West has to offer.
”
Could never have guessed you were a strong proponent of the principles of Sufficiency Economy! Good for you!
Guess even you’re endowed with the strong belief of ‘kwam pen thai’ as much as the anti-Thaksinites you like to criticize for being pro-militaristic, etc.
The security state
Is Thailand really capable of achieving a “strong and respected parliamentary system”? That had been the ideal from the start but with the disgraceful profiles of Thailand ‘representatives of the people’, the members of Thai parliament, getting there may be two or three decades ahead.
But in the meantime? Could strengthening Thailand’s political party and election funding rules help in reducing the influence of ‘big money’ politics, or the rise of deeply flawed manipulative big-pocket politicians like Thaksin? And how in the hell to arrest the culture of vote-buying and vote-selling that undermine the very spirit of democracy and encourage the rise to power of thug-politicians like Newin, Snoh and many others?
Rule one is to ensure no one, Prime Minister of King, will be above Thailand’s constitutional rule of law but who will enforce Rule one?
And at this crucial moment in Thailand’s political development, when the unifying or calming influence of HMK Bhumibhol would inevitably soon be absent considering his advanced age (and the Crown Prince should he assume the throne will bring more distress than calm to Thailand’s troubled political waters), will the Thai people allow its Kingdom to degenerate into a political morass similar to the Philippines for lack of collective purpose and collective will?
I am afraid our elected and non-elected leaders have failed us since democracy day-one and Thailand should be prepared for rise of demagogue and charlatan politicians . . . a Thai Chavez or even a Thai Mugabe with their open-ended promises to the Thai poor (almost like Thaksin) . . .
Observing an electoral fiction
I suggested earlier that universal suffrage should be scrapped and voting be reserved to that small group of Thai people, mostly residing in Bangkok (academics, businessmen, journalists, technocrats, bureaucrats, soldiers) , who deem themselves politically-morally more “responsible” than the great majority of the Thai voters. This group can assemble at the Queen Sirikit Convention Center (this choice of place is not accidental!) and determine who should be the government amongst themselves.
People belonging to the above groups but do not display the required “responsibility”, such as Ajarn Somsak J., Thanapol, Jakraphop, Mo Weng, Khru Pratheep, Kasian, Rangsan, Supalack, Worachet, Jon, Pitch, Pravit, etc., will not be eligible. Alternatively, one could give responsible members of the above groups, such as nganadeeleg, Gothom, Surichai, Witthaya, Sonthi, Chermsak, Banjerd, Kaewsan, Surayudh, Anand, Sumet, Aree, etc., 10 votes, while Ajarn Somsak J, and his likes would receive only 1 vote. One could even do a written exam with those thought of tending to be “irresponsible”, and then assign votes from 1-8 according to their test results.
Today, I repeat my suggestion. It would also not cost the two billion baht the ECT has to spend on organizing the election of 480 MPs, and then another two billion for the election of 76 Senators in February.
Sovereign Myth
Anand is not a good “witness”, being one of the most aristocratic propagandists of the monarchy.
Sovereign Myth
Our Thai King’s adherence to the principle of a constitutional monarch was seen most clearly during that serious political confrontation between the Government of ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra and the PAD (People’s Alliance for Democracy). Many respected academicians and the media at that time were calling for the invocation of Article 7 of the 1997 Constitution, which means a request for His Majesty the King to exercise the royal prerogative to dismiss the current Prime Minister and appoint a new one. HMK turned down such request which he regarded as wrong. HMK then said that it was unconstitutional and the way out of the impasse had to be found through constitutional means, that is, through the decisions by the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court and the Courts of Justice. The King’s action, wrote one foreign analyst, proved that the rumor of the King being behind the political events in Thailand was false.
After the coup on 19 September 2006, the coup leaders sought an audience with His Majesty the King to report their action and the situation to him as Head of State. According to the administrative customs established by the Constitution, the King had as his royal prerogative the right to be informed. He, however, was in no position to object or support such fait accompli by the military. Had he objected it, a second political crisis could have ensued. Had he supported it, that would have given legitimacy to the coup leaders. Adhering to the administrative customs by acting in accordance with the recommendations of those with real authority was thus the best course of action. Hence HMK’s assent to the royal command which coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin presented and countersigned was the most neutral act and was in line with the country’s administrative customs. The rumor that the coup had royal backing was incorrect.
Rumors to draw the monarchy into political conflicts have often been floated when such conflicts occurred. The conflicting parties, in shoring up their own advantage over the other side, would seek to use the monarch, who is the center of unity of all Thais, to justify and legitimize their own actions or to undermine their opponents. One disadvantage of constitutional monarchy is that the King and the Royal Family are not in a position to publicly deny any such references. Those who instigate the rumors were thus able to continue reaping political gains by spreading rumors. Nevertheless, as a saying goes, action speaks louder than words. Those who have wanted to use lese majesté charges against their opponents have had hard time achieving their aims because almost every lese-majesté case from past to present has been granted royal pardon either before or after the ruling by the court. Even before the political change which ended absolute monarchy, the King had granted royal par-don to those writers who criticized him, saying: “The expression of thoughts is the voice of the brain. The expression of loyalty is the voice of the heart.” A distinction must be made between the two.
Indeed, if the King had other means, short of making verbal clarifications, to prove all other rumors false by his action, then the political impartiality of the Thai monarchy would become much more evident.
(http://sirichai108.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!5DDE323A1C0D265F!156.entry
Observing an electoral fiction
Only through a fair election based on the collective consent can people in society learn to live in peace under political rules based on mutual respect. And that is true national security.
Sounds good, but what happens when voters habitually ignore politicians wrongdoings and instead support whomever gives them the most, thereby giving the green light to certain unscrupulous politicians to do whatever they want as long as they appease certain sections of society (in this case the poor masses, but it could be the military, or business) .
The Prachatai article compares Sarit with Thaksin, but ask yourselves would it be acceptable if Sarit was elected (on a poor friendly platform)?
‘Full Democracy’ requires responsibility from both the politicians and the electorate.
I know the constitution, parliament, counter corruption institutions, courts etc are meant to provide checks and balances, but what happens when they are manipulated?
If the electorate in not prepared to monitor and punish unscrupulous politicians, then do not be surprised if the military continues to interfere, and ‘full democracy is replaced by ‘guided democracy’.
Six threats and one opportunity
[…] is the paper presented by Chairat Charoensin-o-larn of Thammasat University at the Thailand Update held at the ANU late last month [chairat-2007.pdf]. I think it is a balanced and nuanced account […]
Sovereign Myth
Somsak asks: What business the (unelected, uncriticisable, untouchable) King has whispering to the elected PM?
I cannot answer for Michael (or Thaksin), but here is how Anand answers: “He remains detached from politics, playing a non-partisan role in the country’s political process and development.As a constitutional monarch, however, he possesses “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn”. Under normal circumstances, he exercised these rights through private audiences he grants to the prime minister of the day. What transpires during these meetings remains private and confidential, and even after the statutory silent period, part of the consultations may not be made known.
In a constitutional monarchy, the King does have certain powers and responsibilities under constitutional provisions. In exercising this power, he must be ever conscious of his responsibility and objectivity. All bills approved by the National Assembly are to be presented to the King for signature. This is not just a formality, as the King retains discretionary power to withhold his assent temporarily. In private consultations with the prime minister, the King’s comments, be they “encouraging” or “warning”, provide an important input for the head of government, if he wishes, to re-evaluate the government’s position and direction.
His Majesty alone possesses continuous political experience and has always kept to constitutional proprieties. His remarks, whether made privately or publicly, have always been listened to with great attention and circumspection.”
Observing an electoral fiction
Here is an article from the English-language section of Prachatai on the questions raised in this thread. It should be added in this context that the Election Commission of Thailand has asked their provincial branches to prepare black lists of vote canvassers (hua khanaen) and influential people (phu mee itthiphon) in their areas (don’t quite know how the PECs’ staff can know this in any detail).
Whose security is it?
Chuwat Rerksirisuk
14 September 2007
Frontliner
Like other Subdistrict Heads in Thailand, Kamnan Thong commands respects from people in his community, though not at the level of the “extra-constitutional power”.
During election campaigns, like other Kamnans, he works as a canvasser for politicians who give him favours or those who he claims to be his close allies.
But in the election later this year, he will hardly be able to help marshal votes for any politician. It will be difficult for him to persuade people to attend their speeches at the rallies, even though his pockets are stuffed with travel expenses. A few days ago, a ranking military officer approached him and told to him bluntly that martial law is still in force in this area. To mobilize people for any purpose may simply affect reconciliation and security.
An ordinary Kamnan, though he has a big gut, he is not too stupid to understand what the officer meant.
He passes as a “good person” and the Commander in Chief recently remarked that no “good person” would be affected by martial law. Yet, he will not be able to help the same politician. At most he can simply try to see to it that canvassers of opponent politicians will not have the chance to mobilize people to attend their political rallies, either.
This is a common phenomenon in the forthcoming election. And this has nothing to do with the notion whether or not good people are affected by martial law which is still in force in almost half the country.
Incredibly, the Commander in Chief backed his refusal to lift martial law by saying that “good people will not suffer (from the enforcement of the law).” This is the same reason touted by every previous military dictator to justify their cause. When Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat was in power, he invoked a Coup Order to have people shot without any judicial review. The same reason was used by Thaksin Shinawatra during the launch of his War on Drugs which led to rampant killings. Of course, “good people” did not suffer then, either.
Though the enforcement of martial law in the past months deserves condemnation and opposition, there was a certain justification. But now that the draft Constitution has been endorsed through a referendum held under martial law, and the national charter which is claimed to promote rights and freedoms has come into force, martial law is still in place. Those pro-coup factions who held high in their hands the flags of rights and freedoms and pushed people to come out in support of the Constitution have not come out to campaign to lift martial law. They show indifference to the fact that half of the country is ruled under this state of warfare as if these 35 provinces were “insecure”. And these provinces are all strongholds of voters who support political parties which have opposed the coup.
Let us be frank with ourselves, let us be straightforward, the security claimed by the coup makers is in fact their own security. And their insecurity stems from their fears and cowardice. Yet, they trade this off against fairness in elections and the national image. They do not care if this security comes at the expense of the consent and cooperation of people in society, even though it would really be a stepping stone towards genuine reconciliation.
Here is the demand.
We call on those who seized the power (and who so far have failed to return it to us) to allow a fair election by lifting martial law.
This is because fair elections and respect for the people’s free will are our fundamental rights and freedoms. And these political rights and freedoms are the watershed of all the rights to set our own policies and enjoy self-determination.
This is because the country belongs to “all Thai citizens”, whether they come from Isan (Northeast), whether they are poor, or stupid, or love Thaksin, or hate Thaksin. It definitely does not belong to a handful of military officers and their few lapdogs.
Please listen (to others) again, the refusal to lift martial law is tantamount to a deliberate attempt to conduct unfair election.
And an unfair election is the only means through which the coup makers can sustain their power.
Only an unfair election can guarantee security for the coup makers.
And of course, your security has nothing to do with the national security. On the contrary, it has prolonged divisiveness in society.
Only through a fair election based on the collective consent can people in society learn to live in peace under political rules based on mutual respect. And that is true national security.
Prachathai 14 September 2007
Anand’s speech on “the People’s King”
A late addition to this thread. On 1 September, Anand was appointed Chairman of the Board at the Siam Commercial Bank (http://www.scb.co.th/html/eng/about_news_07-08-30-1-ng.shtml). On the face of it, it does seem that one can be handsomely rewarded for the kind of loyalty to the king that Anand has displayed.