Republican: Yes, I’ve heard about lese majeste (and I dont like it).
But, if Bhumibol is as bad as you make out, then you would think at least one insider would have turned informant after all these years despite the lese majeste laws. It is an incredible feat to not piss off anyone in the inside circle in over 50 years – it is hard to imagine that everyone can be bought off or that they were unable to escape the country to avoid the lese majeste laws.
I agree that the institutions in Thailand need to be democratized, however to date, in my opinion, the majority of thai people have failed to live up to their responsibilities in a democracy: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/citizen.htm
You raise some good points (sometimes), but at other times your bitterness seems to cloud your judgement and that will not help your crusade.
From the above link: “There is a saying in free societies: you get the government you deserve. For democracy to succeed, citizens must be active, not passive, because they know that the success or failure of the government is their responsibility, and no one else’s. In turn, government officials understand that all citizens should be treated equally and that bribery has no place in a democratic government.”
I have to agree that I also find the King’s “elaborations” upon Buddhist “philosophy” and teachings to be quite banal, conservative rehashings of the official, establishment, status-quo state Buddhist ideology. While he captures something of the spirit of moderation and ethos behind the virtue-orientated ethical vision of classical Indian mainstream Buddhism, it obviously conveys nothing of the subtlety, precision and even radicalness of the underlying philosophy as evident in canonical and commentarial teachings. Again, in this sense his public pronouncements don’t differ much from most other pronouncements by 90% of Thai monastics, except that the rhetoric of hierarchy contains a quite different moral tone when delivered by him given his strongly stressed quasi-divine status in the contemporary moment.
I also find it difficult to deny that the corruptness, inadequacy and incapacity of politicians in Thailand is hightened in the public mind precisely because there exists a virtuous king who is seen as embodying a range of public (political) virtues such purity, competency, morality, unity and agency (a perception that can’t but be aided by lese majeste laws – this seems to me undeniable; even common “human” mistakes are seemingly ‘impossible’ for the king as excellence is the only register in which he acts). This alone would cause any politician headaches, but when you add in pragmatic meddling in political policy by the institution of the palace, then it is even more inevitable that Thai politicians will come out on the short end of the stick.
Again, Handley does a nice job of exploring both of these points in his book. I wonder though, are there any careful critical readings out there by scholars or interested public intellectuals in the actual pronouncements on Buddhism – written or oral – by the King? A close reading would be quite useful and informative, I suspect.
“… would have been …”, “… could have been…”; where is the evidence? Let’s deal with what actually exists.
1. No. I don’t imagine a conspiracy; lese majeste is a fact. Do you actually believe that we can know what really happens at the highest levels of Thai politics where the actions of the most important institution in the country are rendered invisible by this law? Since it is forbidden for us serfs to know we can only imagine. The reason you can see how politicians behave is because there is no law protecting them from criticism. This is very basic stuff, the reason why the king is seen as an icon of virtue while the politicians – the elected representatives of the people – are seen as “immoral”. Of course, this is one aspect of the feudal theory of virtue still so powerful here, where moral qualities can only exist among the “nobles” (in the Thai case, those with superior merit: jao, the ratchakan, the thanphuying, etc.) and be passed on amongst them, while the phrai are by definition of inferior virtue/merit. (Incidentally this theory is one of the most important impediments to developing a democratic ethos in Thailand). No wonder Bhumibol is so captured by the myth of the bodhisattva king: it proves his superior virtue and wisdom and the immorality and ignorance of the people. Just read his Mahachanok to understand his condescending view of the people and his exalted sense of his own excellence.
Yes, imagination can take many forms. You can imagine how the system probably works (given what we do know, as well as who we know benefits from it) or you can imagine based on the propaganda spoon-fed to you by the ratchakan. Now, which one will you choose?
2. Re. the myth of the king’s Buddhist qualities, Bhumibol wouldn’t be the first king to wrap himself in religion for political purposes. As for the political use of religion I am sure Bhumibol has read his Machiavelli – as you should too. But if the king’s musings make you think of the Buddha’s thoughts they remind me more of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book, or Kim Il Sung’s “Juche” philosophy: official, often very banal dogma, of which criticism was forbidden, and imposed on society by totalitarian means, through the bureaucracy and the state controlled education system and media. If free debate and criticism of the king’s thoughts were allowed, as they were in Buddha’s time, I might accord these “thoughts” some respect.
As for Buddhism’s problems in Thailand (what remains of Buddhism, that is; right now Buddhism appears to have been hijacked by Bhumibolism), far be it for me to blame the Buddha. These must be blamed on the strangulation and corruption of the Sangha by the ratchakan since Sarit (legitimized by Bhumibol) and the way it has been transformed into a cynical propaganda vehicle for the monarchy. Buddhism, like every other institution in Thailand, needs to be democratized. Then it might be responsive to the needs of the people, instead of to the ratchakan, and ultimately to its head.
The Thai press sinks at its historical record. Voices of dissent were found and heard during previous dictatorships, now what you currently have is a culture of consensus. Journalists don’t even think of their practice as self-censorship, but a form of Thai-rationality or something along that line. Worse is, without being asked, the media people are so keen to please the institutions of power.
Repubican: “One can only imagine what we DON’T know, that which has been covered up courtesy of the lese majeste regime of censorship.”
You have your imagination, and I have mine.
I see how the politicians behave and how the people vote, and conclude that without Bhumibol’s moderating and stabilising influence things would have been worse.
I also can see the situation in neighbouring countries.
You imagine some conspiracy, but 50 years is a long time for a secret society to exist without at least one turncoat (informer).
Bhumibol is not perfect, and I have similar concerns as you do about the military and palace cronyism, but to lay all of the blame on him is simplistic.
The way I see it, the individual at the head of the apex could have been much worse than Bhumibol.
Reading the king’s speeches and comparing his thoughts and wishes to the real situation in Thailand reminds me of reading the Buddha’s thoughts and comparing it to the way Buddhism is practiced in Thailand.
Do you blame the Buddha for all of Buddhisms problems?
Polo? Sure Wikipedia does say that it was infact the Persians who invented it. But British elites have been stealing from the Persians for a while! ‘Football’ was invented by the Mayans.. but the British did take out the human sacrifice element, no?
However Wikipedia does say that Cricket was invented in Sussex in the 15th C. You don’t mention Rugby either? British! Wikipedia does not lie!
If these games of the ‘mind’ have no sex, how do you explain golf?!
Look around the immediate neighbors of Thailand and we would immediately appreciate the debt of gratitude we owe HMK Bhumibhol. Conclusion: Things surely would have been much much worse for Thailand without HMK Bhumibhol. (Could Thailand have ended up a Socialist state had there been no King Bhumibhol?)
Farther away, we see how Philippines fared and this country were much more economically better off immediately after WWII and its Republican democratic system was actually an American clone sort of.
It is NOT easy being a KING! We see how Cambodia’s Sihanouk failed and the Khmer Rouge bloody reign that followed.
But of course it is obvious that the military always shielded their coups and grabs for power in the name of the King. It is very likely that after HMK Bhumibhol is gone, the military would think twice or thrice of using the monarchy. And again maybe not . . . a lot depends on whether or not Thailand’s future elected leaders would continue to be massively corrupt as Thaksin.
Well the seeds of republicanism germinate slowly, but I am hopeful that with the fertilizer we provide on this blog we will speed things up (not to mention with the help of the good political rains in Thailand over the last year, which are providing much needed moisture after the drought of the last 50 years). We should not forget that republicanism was the original meaning of “prachathipatai” as expressed in the “kham prakat khana rat” in 1932. Hence the need for the qualifier, “an mi phra maha kasat song pen pramuk” to describe the regime under Bhumibol (even in this qualifier we can detect the unwillingness of the king to yield sovereignty to the people.)
Nganadit, you say that you “call it like you see it”, but in fact you do the opposite: you say that things “COULD” have been much worse without Bhumibol. Well perhaps, but we have no way of knowing. We DO know how bad things have been under him – mind you, not for the military, the ratchakan, and the crony business elite that pays its protection money annually to the monarchy just as gangsters do to the mafia boss (the difference is in Thailand it is no secret, it is actually broadcast on the 8pm royal news). We know all this despite all the royalist propaganda and indoctrination. One can only imagine what we DON’T know, that which has been covered up courtesy of the lese majeste regime of censorship.
I just can’t agree with absolving the man from responsibility for the regime he heads, and that he has constructed over the last 50 years. Thailand’s 21st century feudalism is impossible without the king at the apex.
I look forward to Burma one day taking on Bangladesh and India in a tri-nation series! Whilst lamentably there was that colonialism spat, the British did come up with some decent games for forgiveness!
Republican, surely this conclusion you give is just a result of loaded questions that are born from a desire of Thai modernity? I put it to you that this position is simply infantile propaganda of those already deemed modern. Hopefully thinking for yourself would inspire some originality!?
Republican: I call it like I see it, and I am not so sure that I am coming around to your point, because I believe Thailand’s experiment with democracy would have been much worse without the stabilising effect of Bhumibol.
You correctly pointed out that the population has been turned into twenty-first century serfs controlled by their modern-day lords, and the fact that they have allowed that to happen is ample evidence that things could have been much worse without Bhumibol.
Blame: Singapore & Malaysia model democracies – you’ve got to be kidding, right?
Nganadit, thanks so much for thinking of me and saving that news about the royal honours list. You finally seem to be beginning to come around to my point of view, thanks to your attendance at NM school. You see, I told you: once you actually start reading things for yourself, thinking for yourself – *daring* to think for yourself, in the Thai context – instead of believing in the edifice of infantile propaganda created around the monarchy, you can only come to one conclusion – that the monarchy has arrested Thailand’s democratic development by 50 years and turned the population into twenty-first century serfs controlled by their modern-day lords, the ratchakan.
By the way, does anybody have a report on the seminar at the Asia Foundation?
Democracy is only functional when everyone gives the system power. Only one person has had the authority to remove the peoples ability to give and take power and that person is Bhumibol.
Are Thai’s better off? Yes. Without a public that truly understands the value of democracy – that public will find themselves in authority. Out of this very clear situation, it is possible for people to learn to respect an ideal that presently escapes them.
Without Bhumibol, Thailand might have ended up like Singapore, which is plagued with a regular schedule of democratic elections, has never had a coup, has racial and religious peace, and has an economy that is the envy of the world.
Or Malaysia, which also has democratic elections, has never had a coup, has racial and religious peace, and has always been more prosperous than Thailand.
But some of us would rather be ruled by a military government under the royal mandate, have little say in choosing their legislators, have soldiers in their television stations, and have absolutely no idea what will happen to their country once Bhumibol dies.
As for me, I’d rather have a republic. Power to the people, for better or for worse.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: The saga continues
The Sydney Morning Herald is carrying a story on the proposed Thai action against Youtube:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/thai-king-to-sue-youtube/2007/05/08/1178390264540.html
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Well at the moment he is blamed for nothing, so let’s just say I am restoring some balance.
Cambodia’s oil curse?
Also, what will happen to Sihanoukville now? — as the article alludes to the oil being found near there… Will there be plans to ‘save’ it?
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Republican: Yes, I’ve heard about lese majeste (and I dont like it).
But, if Bhumibol is as bad as you make out, then you would think at least one insider would have turned informant after all these years despite the lese majeste laws. It is an incredible feat to not piss off anyone in the inside circle in over 50 years – it is hard to imagine that everyone can be bought off or that they were unable to escape the country to avoid the lese majeste laws.
I agree that the institutions in Thailand need to be democratized, however to date, in my opinion, the majority of thai people have failed to live up to their responsibilities in a democracy:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/citizen.htm
You raise some good points (sometimes), but at other times your bitterness seems to cloud your judgement and that will not help your crusade.
From the above link: “There is a saying in free societies: you get the government you deserve. For democracy to succeed, citizens must be active, not passive, because they know that the success or failure of the government is their responsibility, and no one else’s. In turn, government officials understand that all citizens should be treated equally and that bribery has no place in a democratic government.”
The king cannot be blamed for everything.
Has the coup been good for democracy?
I have to agree that I also find the King’s “elaborations” upon Buddhist “philosophy” and teachings to be quite banal, conservative rehashings of the official, establishment, status-quo state Buddhist ideology. While he captures something of the spirit of moderation and ethos behind the virtue-orientated ethical vision of classical Indian mainstream Buddhism, it obviously conveys nothing of the subtlety, precision and even radicalness of the underlying philosophy as evident in canonical and commentarial teachings. Again, in this sense his public pronouncements don’t differ much from most other pronouncements by 90% of Thai monastics, except that the rhetoric of hierarchy contains a quite different moral tone when delivered by him given his strongly stressed quasi-divine status in the contemporary moment.
I also find it difficult to deny that the corruptness, inadequacy and incapacity of politicians in Thailand is hightened in the public mind precisely because there exists a virtuous king who is seen as embodying a range of public (political) virtues such purity, competency, morality, unity and agency (a perception that can’t but be aided by lese majeste laws – this seems to me undeniable; even common “human” mistakes are seemingly ‘impossible’ for the king as excellence is the only register in which he acts). This alone would cause any politician headaches, but when you add in pragmatic meddling in political policy by the institution of the palace, then it is even more inevitable that Thai politicians will come out on the short end of the stick.
Again, Handley does a nice job of exploring both of these points in his book. I wonder though, are there any careful critical readings out there by scholars or interested public intellectuals in the actual pronouncements on Buddhism – written or oral – by the King? A close reading would be quite useful and informative, I suspect.
Cambodia’s oil curse?
The only fair way to do this is to determine the profit and send every man, woman and child citizen a check for their fair share.
Has the coup been good for democracy?
“… would have been …”, “… could have been…”; where is the evidence? Let’s deal with what actually exists.
1. No. I don’t imagine a conspiracy; lese majeste is a fact. Do you actually believe that we can know what really happens at the highest levels of Thai politics where the actions of the most important institution in the country are rendered invisible by this law? Since it is forbidden for us serfs to know we can only imagine. The reason you can see how politicians behave is because there is no law protecting them from criticism. This is very basic stuff, the reason why the king is seen as an icon of virtue while the politicians – the elected representatives of the people – are seen as “immoral”. Of course, this is one aspect of the feudal theory of virtue still so powerful here, where moral qualities can only exist among the “nobles” (in the Thai case, those with superior merit: jao, the ratchakan, the thanphuying, etc.) and be passed on amongst them, while the phrai are by definition of inferior virtue/merit. (Incidentally this theory is one of the most important impediments to developing a democratic ethos in Thailand). No wonder Bhumibol is so captured by the myth of the bodhisattva king: it proves his superior virtue and wisdom and the immorality and ignorance of the people. Just read his Mahachanok to understand his condescending view of the people and his exalted sense of his own excellence.
Yes, imagination can take many forms. You can imagine how the system probably works (given what we do know, as well as who we know benefits from it) or you can imagine based on the propaganda spoon-fed to you by the ratchakan. Now, which one will you choose?
2. Re. the myth of the king’s Buddhist qualities, Bhumibol wouldn’t be the first king to wrap himself in religion for political purposes. As for the political use of religion I am sure Bhumibol has read his Machiavelli – as you should too. But if the king’s musings make you think of the Buddha’s thoughts they remind me more of Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book, or Kim Il Sung’s “Juche” philosophy: official, often very banal dogma, of which criticism was forbidden, and imposed on society by totalitarian means, through the bureaucracy and the state controlled education system and media. If free debate and criticism of the king’s thoughts were allowed, as they were in Buddha’s time, I might accord these “thoughts” some respect.
As for Buddhism’s problems in Thailand (what remains of Buddhism, that is; right now Buddhism appears to have been hijacked by Bhumibolism), far be it for me to blame the Buddha. These must be blamed on the strangulation and corruption of the Sangha by the ratchakan since Sarit (legitimized by Bhumibol) and the way it has been transformed into a cynical propaganda vehicle for the monarchy. Buddhism, like every other institution in Thailand, needs to be democratized. Then it might be responsive to the needs of the people, instead of to the ratchakan, and ultimately to its head.
Today is World Press Freedom day
The Thai press sinks at its historical record. Voices of dissent were found and heard during previous dictatorships, now what you currently have is a culture of consensus. Journalists don’t even think of their practice as self-censorship, but a form of Thai-rationality or something along that line. Worse is, without being asked, the media people are so keen to please the institutions of power.
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Repubican: “One can only imagine what we DON’T know, that which has been covered up courtesy of the lese majeste regime of censorship.”
You have your imagination, and I have mine.
I see how the politicians behave and how the people vote, and conclude that without Bhumibol’s moderating and stabilising influence things would have been worse.
I also can see the situation in neighbouring countries.
You imagine some conspiracy, but 50 years is a long time for a secret society to exist without at least one turncoat (informer).
Bhumibol is not perfect, and I have similar concerns as you do about the military and palace cronyism, but to lay all of the blame on him is simplistic.
The way I see it, the individual at the head of the apex could have been much worse than Bhumibol.
Reading the king’s speeches and comparing his thoughts and wishes to the real situation in Thailand reminds me of reading the Buddha’s thoughts and comparing it to the way Buddhism is practiced in Thailand.
Do you blame the Buddha for all of Buddhisms problems?
Cricket: “It’s a game for the mind”
Polo? Sure Wikipedia does say that it was infact the Persians who invented it. But British elites have been stealing from the Persians for a while! ‘Football’ was invented by the Mayans.. but the British did take out the human sacrifice element, no?
However Wikipedia does say that Cricket was invented in Sussex in the 15th C. You don’t mention Rugby either? British! Wikipedia does not lie!
If these games of the ‘mind’ have no sex, how do you explain golf?!
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Look around the immediate neighbors of Thailand and we would immediately appreciate the debt of gratitude we owe HMK Bhumibhol. Conclusion: Things surely would have been much much worse for Thailand without HMK Bhumibhol. (Could Thailand have ended up a Socialist state had there been no King Bhumibhol?)
Farther away, we see how Philippines fared and this country were much more economically better off immediately after WWII and its Republican democratic system was actually an American clone sort of.
It is NOT easy being a KING! We see how Cambodia’s Sihanouk failed and the Khmer Rouge bloody reign that followed.
But of course it is obvious that the military always shielded their coups and grabs for power in the name of the King. It is very likely that after HMK Bhumibhol is gone, the military would think twice or thrice of using the monarchy. And again maybe not . . . a lot depends on whether or not Thailand’s future elected leaders would continue to be massively corrupt as Thaksin.
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Well the seeds of republicanism germinate slowly, but I am hopeful that with the fertilizer we provide on this blog we will speed things up (not to mention with the help of the good political rains in Thailand over the last year, which are providing much needed moisture after the drought of the last 50 years). We should not forget that republicanism was the original meaning of “prachathipatai” as expressed in the “kham prakat khana rat” in 1932. Hence the need for the qualifier, “an mi phra maha kasat song pen pramuk” to describe the regime under Bhumibol (even in this qualifier we can detect the unwillingness of the king to yield sovereignty to the people.)
Nganadit, you say that you “call it like you see it”, but in fact you do the opposite: you say that things “COULD” have been much worse without Bhumibol. Well perhaps, but we have no way of knowing. We DO know how bad things have been under him – mind you, not for the military, the ratchakan, and the crony business elite that pays its protection money annually to the monarchy just as gangsters do to the mafia boss (the difference is in Thailand it is no secret, it is actually broadcast on the 8pm royal news). We know all this despite all the royalist propaganda and indoctrination. One can only imagine what we DON’T know, that which has been covered up courtesy of the lese majeste regime of censorship.
I just can’t agree with absolving the man from responsibility for the regime he heads, and that he has constructed over the last 50 years. Thailand’s 21st century feudalism is impossible without the king at the apex.
Cricket: “It’s a game for the mind”
Football, polo, and cricket were not British inventions.
‘Mind’ has no sex.
Has the coup been good for democracy?
“He is foremost to blame for the mess we’re in.”
“the monarchy has arrested Thailand’s democratic development by 50 years”
I wished there was less one-sided blame and more comprehensive analysis of political structures and their development over the past decades.
Of course, blame is a lot easier to come up with…
Cricket: “It’s a game for the mind”
I look forward to Burma one day taking on Bangladesh and India in a tri-nation series! Whilst lamentably there was that colonialism spat, the British did come up with some decent games for forgiveness!
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Republican, surely this conclusion you give is just a result of loaded questions that are born from a desire of Thai modernity? I put it to you that this position is simply infantile propaganda of those already deemed modern. Hopefully thinking for yourself would inspire some originality!?
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Republican: I call it like I see it, and I am not so sure that I am coming around to your point, because I believe Thailand’s experiment with democracy would have been much worse without the stabilising effect of Bhumibol.
You correctly pointed out that the population has been turned into twenty-first century serfs controlled by their modern-day lords, and the fact that they have allowed that to happen is ample evidence that things could have been much worse without Bhumibol.
Blame: Singapore & Malaysia model democracies – you’ve got to be kidding, right?
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Nganadit, thanks so much for thinking of me and saving that news about the royal honours list. You finally seem to be beginning to come around to my point of view, thanks to your attendance at NM school. You see, I told you: once you actually start reading things for yourself, thinking for yourself – *daring* to think for yourself, in the Thai context – instead of believing in the edifice of infantile propaganda created around the monarchy, you can only come to one conclusion – that the monarchy has arrested Thailand’s democratic development by 50 years and turned the population into twenty-first century serfs controlled by their modern-day lords, the ratchakan.
By the way, does anybody have a report on the seminar at the Asia Foundation?
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Democracy is only functional when everyone gives the system power. Only one person has had the authority to remove the peoples ability to give and take power and that person is Bhumibol.
Are Thai’s better off? Yes. Without a public that truly understands the value of democracy – that public will find themselves in authority. Out of this very clear situation, it is possible for people to learn to respect an ideal that presently escapes them.
Has the coup been good for democracy?
Without Bhumibol, Thailand might have ended up like Singapore, which is plagued with a regular schedule of democratic elections, has never had a coup, has racial and religious peace, and has an economy that is the envy of the world.
Or Malaysia, which also has democratic elections, has never had a coup, has racial and religious peace, and has always been more prosperous than Thailand.
But some of us would rather be ruled by a military government under the royal mandate, have little say in choosing their legislators, have soldiers in their television stations, and have absolutely no idea what will happen to their country once Bhumibol dies.
As for me, I’d rather have a republic. Power to the people, for better or for worse.