I think that you brought up many important points that I think need to be elucidated by academia.
The frame of the political discussion. Who controls the tools of mass media/propaganda? Why? And to what end?
And I think your breakdown of what constitutes cultural authenticity, morality and political space dictated by the elites is quite revealing.
The things that you brought up are not trivial issues!
The Thai elites would have us think what they think about culture, morality and politics is right, good and authentic, but if the 20th century has proven anything, what they think has been fabricated to sustain their power. What they think and what they practice are not authentic at all, because there is plenty of evidence to contradict what they propagate official Thai culture to be. And there is certainly a lot of evidence that proves that the guardians of the authenticity of Thai culture don’t practice what they preach.
They have hijacked the words culture, morality and democracy and have re-interpreted them to suit their own political agenda whenever they feel like it, and they continue to use this language even though what they say, do and believe actually contradict the evidence that exists concerning their own actions.
The very notion that the King of Thailand, whose estimated wealth is $40 billion and most of that earned through crony capitalistic means, is lecturing the poor, who have no material wealth to speak of, about sufficiency economics is ludicrous. It is absurd. It is tragic and comical.
When you have the head of a military junta lecturing the poor people about their ignorance of democracy, it makes me want to pull my hair out in frustration.
It is truly Orwellian.
And then you have the entire Thai propaganda infrastructure configured to fit a circle into a square peg- the press and Thai academy actually get on board to justify all the lies, contradictions and blatant hypocrisy. For them, it is more important to protect the elite’s mythology more than it is to tell the truth. Why? How does it serve the press and the academy to keep lying?
All of us are children of the 20th century. We are the survivors of fascism, communism, Cold War politics, War on Terrorism propaganda etc. Yet, Thailand continues to go down the totalitarian path with the totalitarian mindset. And, for what reason? Who does it serve?
Of course, we are not even allowed to ponder these questions. To even ask the questions, makes you a criminal under Thai law eg lese majeste, Cyber Crime Bill, Printing Act of 1941, and if you are to ponder these questions within the law, you are labeled un-Thai and western minded, which is the equivalent of calling you a racist or anti-Semite. In any event, the crimes and the de facto restrictions against free thought are meant to shut down debate, because the truth is that anybody who challenges the official superstructure in Thailand is seen as a threat.
“Rural constitution” merely is more catchy than referring to “rural political culture.” Look out for the first 2008 issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia.
Excellent article, but I am still rather confused by what you mean by the “Rural Constitution”. The idea seems to be almost as abstruse as that of the Sufficiency Economy. You have deconstructed the latter concept masterfully.
Thai Gal, you are quite inspiring. I also have done something very similar to you. Being an Australian born westerner, I feel my experiences mirror yours in quite a lot of ways.
I moved from Sydney to Latin America, and have not looked back! The richness and humanity you describe is very much a part of my experience too.
I will be putting together a website very soon. Love to compare notes with you sometime.
The issue of ethnicity is an appendix to my previous post dissolving your claim to represent “the” Thai worldview into the worldviews of different groups. You might know that Thai-Thais do not really like Sino-Thais that much, including when the latter try to re-define what Thainess is. However, if you strictly remain within the sphere of political analysis, this point might be less relevant, unless you relate all this to the question of who it is who holds economic and political power in Thailand. Thaksin, after all, was a Chinese, who was opposed by another Chinese of very similar personal traits.
My question concerning identity resulted from my impression that you had kept your Thai defensiveness in check in your first few posts, while it seemed to get out of hand in the final one.
“Thai democracy will take its own course, whether we like where it goes or not…” >> So, Thai democracy is its own actor which cannot be influenced by its component citizens and groups? The military did not like where Thai democracy or, more neutrally, Thai politics was going, and they–contrary to other forces in the polity–had the means to translate their dislike into consequential action everyone else had to follow. Sonthi L. and some of the activists also acted, but they lacked the tanks and guns. The scores of academics who joined the coup plotters also had choices, etc.
Srithanonchai – yes, #41 & #43 are both my posts – why ask? And, why, may I ask, is the issue of ethnicity relevant here?
This is one of my views that is consistent – that anyone who explains the present Thai political phenomena into liberal, democratic Thaksin VS feudal, authoritarian monarchy is taking a highly simplistic and reductivist approach. I understand that the complex realities are extremely hard to articulate (probably requires theses and books) and it is rather convenient to reduce the main players till you get an ‘Us Vs Them’ scenario (and hence the #43 post). I will admit to using a few myself in past posts such as ‘ambitious generals Vs greedy tycoons’, ‘Guns Vs Money’, ‘Isaan Vs Bangkok’ – having some first-hand experience of Thai democracy (did follow politics since a young age and did always voted, with careful consideration, when in the country), I felt that more accurately reflects the situation Thailand is in – hence I can also empathize with ‘song mai ao’ position. Considering the actual situation on ground, we all know that both ‘song mai ao’ and Republican’s positions for Thailand is problematic and impractical. We are speculating academic ‘what ifs’ and Thai democracy will take its own course, whether we like where it goes or not…
On the King’s Address to the Thai Ambassadors, 29th August:
I wrote this a few days ago and have been waiting for a suitable blog topic to come up to post it as a comment, but none have. So, in order that it doesn’t get out of date please forgive me if I post it here.
Thailand’s overseas Embassies are a crucial node of network monarchy because they represent the monarchy to the world. Anyone who has had anything to do with the Embassies will know that they are one of the strongest bastions of Thai feudalism. The aristocracy, elite families and cronies surrounding the Palace have a monopoly on the key positions. Hence the outcry from some Thai diplomats when early in his premiership Thaksin tried to place his people into important overseas missions. In fact, the Thai Embassies often appear to represent not so much the Thai people, but the Thai monarchy (this is the essential problem with the kha ratchakan system generally). One has to credit the Embassies with doing a brilliant job in managing the image of an anti-democratic, autocratic, feudal monarchy that has stood side-by-side with military dictatorship for much of the last 50 years, so that it appears to the international community as a successful “constitutional monarchy” and a benign, even “democratic” force that has played an important stabilizing role in “Thailand’s sometimes turbulent political and economic development”, etc. etc. etc. This is basically the discourse of Anand’s speech – and note that Anand himself is a former diplomat, married to minor royalty. The Embassies have played an important role in conveying to foreign governments and the international media the notion that the Thai king is “highly revered” by all Thai people (and so, in a way, “democratic”). But the current political crisis will be a hard test for even the most skilful PR team.
As I said in an earlier post, I think the King’s August 29th address was another significant speech. It was a big story on the radio and TV news and was reported prominently in the papers. But when I tried to look for the full text of the speech on the web I couldn’t find it anywhere. All I could find were shortened, edited versions of it. If someone could find and post the full text of the speech on NM I think it would be of value to NM readers. In fact, even the version I found on Matichon’s website on the morning of the 30th had disappeared by the evening. The versions I found elsewhere appear to have edited out certain crucial sections of the speech which I had read earlier and which were reported to me by sources who had listened to the speech on the radio and watched it on TV. A colleague told me that parts of the speech recorded in an audio file of the speech downloadable from Matichon’s website had clearly been cut. Which makes me wonder whether, after the speech had been reported in the media, Palace officials may have contacted the newspapers requesting them to edit out sections of the speech. This is admittedly conjecture, but we do know that the Palace does contact the media regularly. (Here we should again point out the hypocrisy where the morally self-righteous campaigners for media freedom in Thailand (and overseas) enthusiastically condemn the democratically-elected Thaksin’s attempts to control the media but seem to have no problem with the much more insidious manipulation of the media by network monarchy.)
So we may not know everything that the King actually said in the speech, but even what was reported should fill the more intelligent of the royalists with alarm, while Thaksin must be smiling in London. The fact that it was a speech to the Thai Ambassadors I think confirms that the network is now very worried that it is rapidly losing control of the monarchy’s international image. If you look at the last issue of The Economist (25th-31st August) the report on Thailand suggests that the referendum was marred by the junta’s “massive propaganda effort”, that the “royalist-military elite” staged the coup, and that Prem, the “chief advisor to King Bhumibol” was the “driving force behind the coup”. This is the strongest statement in any high-profile international news magazine that I have read of the monarchy’s implication in the coup and its support for the dictatorship. The story was featured prominently: it was the second story in the issue (after Putin’s “neo-KGB state” – intentional?), the first on Asia, and given a headline on the front cover. The Economist is very influential in international government circles, so the report should be a huge worry to the network. The story may encourage other media groups to follow The Economist’s lead. Up until quite recently the military has had to play the role of the scapegoat in the theatre choreographed by the network for the international community. Foreign reporters are used to reporting on “military coups”, but find it more difficult to understand the subtleties of Thailand’s “royalist” coups. Many Thais, on the other hand, do understand but are not at liberty to say because of lese majeste – not to mention the deep-seated and very rational fear that people have of the consequences of talking openly about the monarchy. As I have said before, the memory of the massacre of October 6 1976 is a very useful tool for the network to remind anyone of what happens to those who may entertain the thought of being publicly seen to be disloyal to the monarchy.
The King’s speech comes after similar high-profile speeches by key figures in the network which were prominently reported in the media: by Anand to the Foreign Correspondents Club eulogizing the “People’s King”; and by Chai Phattana’s Sumet Tantiwechakul on sufficiency economy (apparently some blog sites have been talking about Sumet as a possible future PM – seems possible to me, these people are capable of anything when pushed to the wall). It is remarkable that all of these speeches contain similar themes.
The King’s speeches usually appear rambling and incoherent. This last one was worse than usual. But I think he always has a clear political message that is directed to certain groups of people who are the targets of the speech. Often he will speak in a code that is only intelligible to those who are the target of the speech. In this case I think the King was telling the ambassadors that now “Thailand” (ie. the monarchy) was being attacked by the foreigners, and that it is your job to defend us (ie. me).
The theme of all the recent speeches is very similar: royalist nationalism with a strong anti-Western element. Let me comment on just a few of the speech’s highlights.
(i) The King’s emphasis of the importance of the Thai language:
The issue of the Thai language has for a very long time been very close to the King’s heart. Over the years he has given dozens of speeches on the subject. This is interesting for a number of reasons. I defer to the experts in Thai language on this matter, but it seems to me that the King himself speaks Thai very badly, and even has a bit of an accent. But also, anyone who has any experience with Thailand would have to wonder why the Thai language should be seen to be in danger and in need of the king’s support. Is there anywhere in Asia where English is more poorly spoken than in Thailand? But if one thinks about it it makes absolute sense that the King and the network should want to emphasize Thai and downplay English as much as possible (apart from among those who are ideologically pure). Thai is a discourse that the network can control, through its hold on the schools and the media. English, on the other hand, is a dangerous language because it gives Thais access to the world outside of the prison of Thai language discourse. This English language world contains many ideas that are potentially lethal to the monarchy – especially liberalism. I know a lot of Thai English language teachers who one would think would be the most globalized Thais, but who instead habitually dress in their dowdy Thai silk outfits and constantly warn their students of the importance of retaining their Thai identity when learning English. I think this discourse has an organic connection with the king’s speeches over the years. Is it any wonder the English-learning experience in Thailand is generally so unpleasant for Thai students.
(The subject of the network’s control of the Thai education system I will save for another post, but this has to count as one of its greatest achievements, because it literally allows the network to control – or at least set the limits to – the way Thai students think. This control was well demonstrated when the academics were mobilized to help bring down Thaksin in 2006, and then when many of them were brought in to serve the royalist-military dictatorship. Also, note the junta’s choice of Education Minister following the coup, the elderly Wichit Srisa-an, one of the Palace’s most loyal academic cronies (also a senior figure in the Democrats Party), who replaced the ex-lefty, republican-leaning Jaturon Chaisaeng. So the second step to creating a democratic Thailand (after gaining political control) should be to totally sever the links between the monarchy and Thailand’s education system).
(ii) That Thailand had developed language before the West, and that it was more “developed” than the West in the Middle Ages:
This was embarrassing. Even a school student could tell the King he is wrong on this count. But then, we have lese majeste, so technically speaking, telling the King that he has just rewritten the history of the world could land you with a 15-year jail sentence. Yes, “Amazing Thailand”. A perfect example of why any attempt to modernize Thailand’s education system (especially in the social sciences and humanities) is doomed to failure unless one deals with the monarchy first.
(iii) That he was worried that after going overseas for a few days the ambassadors might come back not being able to speak Thai:
At one level, again embarrassing for the idiocy of the remark, even if spoken in jest, but at another level I think it was a warning to the ambassadors: you should not forget that your job is to represent Thailand (ie. me and everything I stand for) abroad. Also, some of you (maybe the Thaksinists in the Embassies? Or maybe Thaksin himself?) seem to have forgotten what your job is. The King advised the Ambassadors to “brainwash” these people so they remembered that the Thais had language and culture and were civilized before many European countries.
(iv) That Thais were mindlessly praising (р╣Ар╕лр╣Ир╕н) “farang”, which was making them “stupid” (р╣Вр╕Зр╣И) and allowing the farang to take advantage of Thailand:
Sumet said a very similar thing in his speech. This section of the speech was actually the headline in the Matichon on-line report that I read on the morning of the 30th, but when I tried to find it in the evening it was gone. As I say, maybe there is another explanation, but it seems to me not beyond the realms of possibility that a Palace minder might not have wanted this section of the speech to receive international attention. The anti-Western tone of his remarks here was quite surprising, for a guy who has much to thank the West for politically.
I agree with your main points and do think the junta made fools of themselves by attacking a proposition that the EU has probably made to dozens of countries.
However, they may have had little choice. Even P-net accused the junta of trickery during the constitutional vote. The military’s 1992 election was reknowned as Thailand’s worst ever. Now the junta has their back against the wall. They are not going to have their hands tied now.
And if the EU caught them cheating that would be checkmate. An own goal is pretty easy to take compared to that.
As I mentioned eralier, I am waiting for the UDD to call on the junta to allow the EU in. It would be a precarious position to accuse the politicians of cheating, but blocking the light from shining on what is really happening.
On the EU-MOU controversy: It seems to me that every time Prem, Prasong, Meechai, Surayudh or the King himself comes out with a public statement they “score an own goal” against the Thaksin side. The case of the rejection of the proposal by the EU to sign a memorandum to allow EU officials to monitor the up-coming election is a good example. What a disaster in international (and domestic) PR: how else can this be interpreted than as an attempt by the dictatorship to cover up their plans to rig the elections? Prasong the other day was even talking about postponing the December 23 election date that Surayudh had announced – presumably so that the dictatorship can solve the “Isan problem”. The international community will love that. The dictatorship doesn’t appear to realize that once the government of a country like Thailand which depends on global integration (unlike, say, North Korea or Burma), loses international confidence it is in very deep trouble.
This highlights one of the big problems for the network: it is run by a gerontocracy. They are just too old to compete with Thaksin’s younger, much more globalized team. Not only that but they are so entrenched in feudal ideology that they will never listen to advice by a subordinate which may actually be in their own political interest. Prem (87), the King himself (80), Prasong (79), were all born in the era of the Absolute Monarchy. Meechai at 69 is not far from it. Anand is in his 70s. The Privy Counsellors are mostly in their late 60s and above. The “old ginger” Cabinet looks like a retirement home. Surayudh in his mid-60s by comparison is a spring chicken but in any case does what he’s told. The so-called “social critics” who lined up against Thaksin and have demonstrated their support for the CNS (either directly or indirectly) like Sulak, Prawes, and Saneh are also well into their 70s. (The other day Sulak was talking about how free the media was under the military junta compared to the Thaksin era. A sad end to a talented man).
(Aphisit is what a certain great man would have referred to as a “young fogey” – young in years but already a very old man in his thinking)
I think that the network will increasingly resort to playing the nationalist card (“the last refuge of scoundrels”). But it will be a nationalism of the post-colonial, Cold War-era type, when these guys cut their teeth. Here the difference between the network’s nationalism and that of Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai is interesting. The network is constantly talking about Western interference in Thailand’s internal affairs, the precariousness of “Thai culture” and the Thai language, that Westerners want to make Thais “stupid” so as to take advantage of them, the hoary “nation, religion, king” mantra, sufficiency economy and the dangers of globalization, and even the survival of the nation – one of the king’s favourite themes. It’s interesting that “the West” and “farang” are still the bogey man for the network, when, one would think, in a globalized economy Thailand may actually have more to worry about from competitors like communist China, India, and other emerging economies, and when so-called “Western” values and systems like equality, democracy, human rights, market-economy capitalism, freedom of speech and expression, may actually be attractive to many if not most Thais today. Thaksin’s nationalism, on the other hand, is (dare I say it) a “populist” kind of nationalism which is more along the lines of, Thais can be comfortable with increased integration with the world, capitalism, and material accumulation (anathema for the network, the academics and NGOs), and that all Thais (not just the “king of kings”) can compete successfully and win in the globalized economy, and yet retain their Thai identity. To put it more simply, it’s the difference between Manchester City and the Royal Barge Procession.
In #46 I implied that your article was published in The Nation when in fact it came out in the Bangkok Post. My error – apologies. But I stand by the point I made in that paragraph.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Six threats and one opportunity
Andrew-
Thanks for this.
I think that you brought up many important points that I think need to be elucidated by academia.
The frame of the political discussion. Who controls the tools of mass media/propaganda? Why? And to what end?
And I think your breakdown of what constitutes cultural authenticity, morality and political space dictated by the elites is quite revealing.
The things that you brought up are not trivial issues!
The Thai elites would have us think what they think about culture, morality and politics is right, good and authentic, but if the 20th century has proven anything, what they think has been fabricated to sustain their power. What they think and what they practice are not authentic at all, because there is plenty of evidence to contradict what they propagate official Thai culture to be. And there is certainly a lot of evidence that proves that the guardians of the authenticity of Thai culture don’t practice what they preach.
They have hijacked the words culture, morality and democracy and have re-interpreted them to suit their own political agenda whenever they feel like it, and they continue to use this language even though what they say, do and believe actually contradict the evidence that exists concerning their own actions.
The very notion that the King of Thailand, whose estimated wealth is $40 billion and most of that earned through crony capitalistic means, is lecturing the poor, who have no material wealth to speak of, about sufficiency economics is ludicrous. It is absurd. It is tragic and comical.
When you have the head of a military junta lecturing the poor people about their ignorance of democracy, it makes me want to pull my hair out in frustration.
It is truly Orwellian.
And then you have the entire Thai propaganda infrastructure configured to fit a circle into a square peg- the press and Thai academy actually get on board to justify all the lies, contradictions and blatant hypocrisy. For them, it is more important to protect the elite’s mythology more than it is to tell the truth. Why? How does it serve the press and the academy to keep lying?
All of us are children of the 20th century. We are the survivors of fascism, communism, Cold War politics, War on Terrorism propaganda etc. Yet, Thailand continues to go down the totalitarian path with the totalitarian mindset. And, for what reason? Who does it serve?
Of course, we are not even allowed to ponder these questions. To even ask the questions, makes you a criminal under Thai law eg lese majeste, Cyber Crime Bill, Printing Act of 1941, and if you are to ponder these questions within the law, you are labeled un-Thai and western minded, which is the equivalent of calling you a racist or anti-Semite. In any event, the crimes and the de facto restrictions against free thought are meant to shut down debate, because the truth is that anybody who challenges the official superstructure in Thailand is seen as a threat.
This is disgusting and it is evil.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Thank you Republican. I think that was ‘Yes’, meaning a gag order. Am I right?
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Maybe, Sonthi L. was the one who rolled out the red carpet or, as it was put in Fai Diewgun, issued the invitation card. 🙂
Republican on Thailand after the coup
It looks like Sonthi L. did have the tanks and guns, or maybe he was just a nominee!
Six threats and one opportunity
“Rural constitution” merely is more catchy than referring to “rural political culture.” Look out for the first 2008 issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia.
Six threats and one opportunity
Thanks Tim. For my previous posts that relate to the “rural constitution” go here.
Six threats and one opportunity
Excellent article, but I am still rather confused by what you mean by the “Rural Constitution”. The idea seems to be almost as abstruse as that of the Sufficiency Economy. You have deconstructed the latter concept masterfully.
“Thai culture” in a Western context…
Thai Gal, you are quite inspiring. I also have done something very similar to you. Being an Australian born westerner, I feel my experiences mirror yours in quite a lot of ways.
I moved from Sydney to Latin America, and have not looked back! The richness and humanity you describe is very much a part of my experience too.
I will be putting together a website very soon. Love to compare notes with you sometime.
Ciao!
Republican on Thailand after the coup
The issue of ethnicity is an appendix to my previous post dissolving your claim to represent “the” Thai worldview into the worldviews of different groups. You might know that Thai-Thais do not really like Sino-Thais that much, including when the latter try to re-define what Thainess is. However, if you strictly remain within the sphere of political analysis, this point might be less relevant, unless you relate all this to the question of who it is who holds economic and political power in Thailand. Thaksin, after all, was a Chinese, who was opposed by another Chinese of very similar personal traits.
My question concerning identity resulted from my impression that you had kept your Thai defensiveness in check in your first few posts, while it seemed to get out of hand in the final one.
“Thai democracy will take its own course, whether we like where it goes or not…” >> So, Thai democracy is its own actor which cannot be influenced by its component citizens and groups? The military did not like where Thai democracy or, more neutrally, Thai politics was going, and they–contrary to other forces in the polity–had the means to translate their dislike into consequential action everyone else had to follow. Sonthi L. and some of the activists also acted, but they lacked the tanks and guns. The scores of academics who joined the coup plotters also had choices, etc.
Interview with Professor Pasuk Phongpaichit
Fantastic. You certainly are getting all the people who’ve made a real difference over the long-run in your interview series.
Boys in black
The logo is really friendly…
Interview with Professor Pasuk Phongpaichit
Thanks for the interview
Respecting the outcome and buffet democracy
Republican: I hope you haven’t got shares in the Thai nuclear industry:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/09/04/national/national_30047650.php
More great advice from HMK – It’s scary to think where the country would be without his guidance.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
Srithanonchai – yes, #41 & #43 are both my posts – why ask? And, why, may I ask, is the issue of ethnicity relevant here?
This is one of my views that is consistent – that anyone who explains the present Thai political phenomena into liberal, democratic Thaksin VS feudal, authoritarian monarchy is taking a highly simplistic and reductivist approach. I understand that the complex realities are extremely hard to articulate (probably requires theses and books) and it is rather convenient to reduce the main players till you get an ‘Us Vs Them’ scenario (and hence the #43 post). I will admit to using a few myself in past posts such as ‘ambitious generals Vs greedy tycoons’, ‘Guns Vs Money’, ‘Isaan Vs Bangkok’ – having some first-hand experience of Thai democracy (did follow politics since a young age and did always voted, with careful consideration, when in the country), I felt that more accurately reflects the situation Thailand is in – hence I can also empathize with ‘song mai ao’ position. Considering the actual situation on ground, we all know that both ‘song mai ao’ and Republican’s positions for Thailand is problematic and impractical. We are speculating academic ‘what ifs’ and Thai democracy will take its own course, whether we like where it goes or not…
Interview with Professor Pasuk Phongpaichit
Another great interview.
Respecting the outcome and buffet democracy
On the King’s Address to the Thai Ambassadors, 29th August:
I wrote this a few days ago and have been waiting for a suitable blog topic to come up to post it as a comment, but none have. So, in order that it doesn’t get out of date please forgive me if I post it here.
Thailand’s overseas Embassies are a crucial node of network monarchy because they represent the monarchy to the world. Anyone who has had anything to do with the Embassies will know that they are one of the strongest bastions of Thai feudalism. The aristocracy, elite families and cronies surrounding the Palace have a monopoly on the key positions. Hence the outcry from some Thai diplomats when early in his premiership Thaksin tried to place his people into important overseas missions. In fact, the Thai Embassies often appear to represent not so much the Thai people, but the Thai monarchy (this is the essential problem with the kha ratchakan system generally). One has to credit the Embassies with doing a brilliant job in managing the image of an anti-democratic, autocratic, feudal monarchy that has stood side-by-side with military dictatorship for much of the last 50 years, so that it appears to the international community as a successful “constitutional monarchy” and a benign, even “democratic” force that has played an important stabilizing role in “Thailand’s sometimes turbulent political and economic development”, etc. etc. etc. This is basically the discourse of Anand’s speech – and note that Anand himself is a former diplomat, married to minor royalty. The Embassies have played an important role in conveying to foreign governments and the international media the notion that the Thai king is “highly revered” by all Thai people (and so, in a way, “democratic”). But the current political crisis will be a hard test for even the most skilful PR team.
As I said in an earlier post, I think the King’s August 29th address was another significant speech. It was a big story on the radio and TV news and was reported prominently in the papers. But when I tried to look for the full text of the speech on the web I couldn’t find it anywhere. All I could find were shortened, edited versions of it. If someone could find and post the full text of the speech on NM I think it would be of value to NM readers. In fact, even the version I found on Matichon’s website on the morning of the 30th had disappeared by the evening. The versions I found elsewhere appear to have edited out certain crucial sections of the speech which I had read earlier and which were reported to me by sources who had listened to the speech on the radio and watched it on TV. A colleague told me that parts of the speech recorded in an audio file of the speech downloadable from Matichon’s website had clearly been cut. Which makes me wonder whether, after the speech had been reported in the media, Palace officials may have contacted the newspapers requesting them to edit out sections of the speech. This is admittedly conjecture, but we do know that the Palace does contact the media regularly. (Here we should again point out the hypocrisy where the morally self-righteous campaigners for media freedom in Thailand (and overseas) enthusiastically condemn the democratically-elected Thaksin’s attempts to control the media but seem to have no problem with the much more insidious manipulation of the media by network monarchy.)
So we may not know everything that the King actually said in the speech, but even what was reported should fill the more intelligent of the royalists with alarm, while Thaksin must be smiling in London. The fact that it was a speech to the Thai Ambassadors I think confirms that the network is now very worried that it is rapidly losing control of the monarchy’s international image. If you look at the last issue of The Economist (25th-31st August) the report on Thailand suggests that the referendum was marred by the junta’s “massive propaganda effort”, that the “royalist-military elite” staged the coup, and that Prem, the “chief advisor to King Bhumibol” was the “driving force behind the coup”. This is the strongest statement in any high-profile international news magazine that I have read of the monarchy’s implication in the coup and its support for the dictatorship. The story was featured prominently: it was the second story in the issue (after Putin’s “neo-KGB state” – intentional?), the first on Asia, and given a headline on the front cover. The Economist is very influential in international government circles, so the report should be a huge worry to the network. The story may encourage other media groups to follow The Economist’s lead. Up until quite recently the military has had to play the role of the scapegoat in the theatre choreographed by the network for the international community. Foreign reporters are used to reporting on “military coups”, but find it more difficult to understand the subtleties of Thailand’s “royalist” coups. Many Thais, on the other hand, do understand but are not at liberty to say because of lese majeste – not to mention the deep-seated and very rational fear that people have of the consequences of talking openly about the monarchy. As I have said before, the memory of the massacre of October 6 1976 is a very useful tool for the network to remind anyone of what happens to those who may entertain the thought of being publicly seen to be disloyal to the monarchy.
The King’s speech comes after similar high-profile speeches by key figures in the network which were prominently reported in the media: by Anand to the Foreign Correspondents Club eulogizing the “People’s King”; and by Chai Phattana’s Sumet Tantiwechakul on sufficiency economy (apparently some blog sites have been talking about Sumet as a possible future PM – seems possible to me, these people are capable of anything when pushed to the wall). It is remarkable that all of these speeches contain similar themes.
The King’s speeches usually appear rambling and incoherent. This last one was worse than usual. But I think he always has a clear political message that is directed to certain groups of people who are the targets of the speech. Often he will speak in a code that is only intelligible to those who are the target of the speech. In this case I think the King was telling the ambassadors that now “Thailand” (ie. the monarchy) was being attacked by the foreigners, and that it is your job to defend us (ie. me).
The theme of all the recent speeches is very similar: royalist nationalism with a strong anti-Western element. Let me comment on just a few of the speech’s highlights.
(i) The King’s emphasis of the importance of the Thai language:
The issue of the Thai language has for a very long time been very close to the King’s heart. Over the years he has given dozens of speeches on the subject. This is interesting for a number of reasons. I defer to the experts in Thai language on this matter, but it seems to me that the King himself speaks Thai very badly, and even has a bit of an accent. But also, anyone who has any experience with Thailand would have to wonder why the Thai language should be seen to be in danger and in need of the king’s support. Is there anywhere in Asia where English is more poorly spoken than in Thailand? But if one thinks about it it makes absolute sense that the King and the network should want to emphasize Thai and downplay English as much as possible (apart from among those who are ideologically pure). Thai is a discourse that the network can control, through its hold on the schools and the media. English, on the other hand, is a dangerous language because it gives Thais access to the world outside of the prison of Thai language discourse. This English language world contains many ideas that are potentially lethal to the monarchy – especially liberalism. I know a lot of Thai English language teachers who one would think would be the most globalized Thais, but who instead habitually dress in their dowdy Thai silk outfits and constantly warn their students of the importance of retaining their Thai identity when learning English. I think this discourse has an organic connection with the king’s speeches over the years. Is it any wonder the English-learning experience in Thailand is generally so unpleasant for Thai students.
(The subject of the network’s control of the Thai education system I will save for another post, but this has to count as one of its greatest achievements, because it literally allows the network to control – or at least set the limits to – the way Thai students think. This control was well demonstrated when the academics were mobilized to help bring down Thaksin in 2006, and then when many of them were brought in to serve the royalist-military dictatorship. Also, note the junta’s choice of Education Minister following the coup, the elderly Wichit Srisa-an, one of the Palace’s most loyal academic cronies (also a senior figure in the Democrats Party), who replaced the ex-lefty, republican-leaning Jaturon Chaisaeng. So the second step to creating a democratic Thailand (after gaining political control) should be to totally sever the links between the monarchy and Thailand’s education system).
(ii) That Thailand had developed language before the West, and that it was more “developed” than the West in the Middle Ages:
This was embarrassing. Even a school student could tell the King he is wrong on this count. But then, we have lese majeste, so technically speaking, telling the King that he has just rewritten the history of the world could land you with a 15-year jail sentence. Yes, “Amazing Thailand”. A perfect example of why any attempt to modernize Thailand’s education system (especially in the social sciences and humanities) is doomed to failure unless one deals with the monarchy first.
(iii) That he was worried that after going overseas for a few days the ambassadors might come back not being able to speak Thai:
At one level, again embarrassing for the idiocy of the remark, even if spoken in jest, but at another level I think it was a warning to the ambassadors: you should not forget that your job is to represent Thailand (ie. me and everything I stand for) abroad. Also, some of you (maybe the Thaksinists in the Embassies? Or maybe Thaksin himself?) seem to have forgotten what your job is. The King advised the Ambassadors to “brainwash” these people so they remembered that the Thais had language and culture and were civilized before many European countries.
(iv) That Thais were mindlessly praising (р╣Ар╕лр╣Ир╕н) “farang”, which was making them “stupid” (р╣Вр╕Зр╣И) and allowing the farang to take advantage of Thailand:
Sumet said a very similar thing in his speech. This section of the speech was actually the headline in the Matichon on-line report that I read on the morning of the 30th, but when I tried to find it in the evening it was gone. As I say, maybe there is another explanation, but it seems to me not beyond the realms of possibility that a Palace minder might not have wanted this section of the speech to receive international attention. The anti-Western tone of his remarks here was quite surprising, for a guy who has much to thank the West for politically.
Respecting the outcome and buffet democracy
I agree with your main points and do think the junta made fools of themselves by attacking a proposition that the EU has probably made to dozens of countries.
However, they may have had little choice. Even P-net accused the junta of trickery during the constitutional vote. The military’s 1992 election was reknowned as Thailand’s worst ever. Now the junta has their back against the wall. They are not going to have their hands tied now.
And if the EU caught them cheating that would be checkmate. An own goal is pretty easy to take compared to that.
As I mentioned eralier, I am waiting for the UDD to call on the junta to allow the EU in. It would be a precarious position to accuse the politicians of cheating, but blocking the light from shining on what is really happening.
Respecting the outcome and buffet democracy
On the EU-MOU controversy: It seems to me that every time Prem, Prasong, Meechai, Surayudh or the King himself comes out with a public statement they “score an own goal” against the Thaksin side. The case of the rejection of the proposal by the EU to sign a memorandum to allow EU officials to monitor the up-coming election is a good example. What a disaster in international (and domestic) PR: how else can this be interpreted than as an attempt by the dictatorship to cover up their plans to rig the elections? Prasong the other day was even talking about postponing the December 23 election date that Surayudh had announced – presumably so that the dictatorship can solve the “Isan problem”. The international community will love that. The dictatorship doesn’t appear to realize that once the government of a country like Thailand which depends on global integration (unlike, say, North Korea or Burma), loses international confidence it is in very deep trouble.
This highlights one of the big problems for the network: it is run by a gerontocracy. They are just too old to compete with Thaksin’s younger, much more globalized team. Not only that but they are so entrenched in feudal ideology that they will never listen to advice by a subordinate which may actually be in their own political interest. Prem (87), the King himself (80), Prasong (79), were all born in the era of the Absolute Monarchy. Meechai at 69 is not far from it. Anand is in his 70s. The Privy Counsellors are mostly in their late 60s and above. The “old ginger” Cabinet looks like a retirement home. Surayudh in his mid-60s by comparison is a spring chicken but in any case does what he’s told. The so-called “social critics” who lined up against Thaksin and have demonstrated their support for the CNS (either directly or indirectly) like Sulak, Prawes, and Saneh are also well into their 70s. (The other day Sulak was talking about how free the media was under the military junta compared to the Thaksin era. A sad end to a talented man).
(Aphisit is what a certain great man would have referred to as a “young fogey” – young in years but already a very old man in his thinking)
I think that the network will increasingly resort to playing the nationalist card (“the last refuge of scoundrels”). But it will be a nationalism of the post-colonial, Cold War-era type, when these guys cut their teeth. Here the difference between the network’s nationalism and that of Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai is interesting. The network is constantly talking about Western interference in Thailand’s internal affairs, the precariousness of “Thai culture” and the Thai language, that Westerners want to make Thais “stupid” so as to take advantage of them, the hoary “nation, religion, king” mantra, sufficiency economy and the dangers of globalization, and even the survival of the nation – one of the king’s favourite themes. It’s interesting that “the West” and “farang” are still the bogey man for the network, when, one would think, in a globalized economy Thailand may actually have more to worry about from competitors like communist China, India, and other emerging economies, and when so-called “Western” values and systems like equality, democracy, human rights, market-economy capitalism, freedom of speech and expression, may actually be attractive to many if not most Thais today. Thaksin’s nationalism, on the other hand, is (dare I say it) a “populist” kind of nationalism which is more along the lines of, Thais can be comfortable with increased integration with the world, capitalism, and material accumulation (anathema for the network, the academics and NGOs), and that all Thais (not just the “king of kings”) can compete successfully and win in the globalized economy, and yet retain their Thai identity. To put it more simply, it’s the difference between Manchester City and the Royal Barge Procession.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
In #46 I implied that your article was published in The Nation when in fact it came out in the Bangkok Post. My error – apologies. But I stand by the point I made in that paragraph.
Republican on Thailand after the coup
“…what was *really* going on but was never openly analyzed–let alone criticized..”
I don’t understand – Are you talking about Thaksin’s far sighted, brilliant strategic plan?