“The situation has changed. I’d imagine the US can be blackmailed in certain situations given our own war on terror when before we could not.”
Blackmail is not really needed. Commercial coercion and obvious disadvantages in trade that favor Thailand are sufficient. I think the real issue is besides being fed up with kraengjai toward farang is the reality of western hypocrisy and overbearing of faulty ignorant policies that arise in part from those double, triple and ill defined standards of diplomacy and perceived interests. Thailand also has new friends that fit the glove better. Davies said the US has not lost Thailand, and that had to cause a big laugh in the Thai oval office.
As to that ambiguity you referred to, Christine, I posted earlier references on its origins and structure some time ago, I believe on FB. It is a consensus coalition, if you will, that is comprised of the entities you already mentioned. Remember that Thais are always in consensus when it comes to major issues (5555555) at least on the surface. Behind that is network that perhaps is interpreted as royalist but which is rather functioning and able to continue to exist because of shared power interests. The ambiguity can be partly cleared by looking at the phenomenon perhaps by doing the “If everything else is impossible then…”. In a sense we know the “who’s” and “whys” but not the hows. In the past what took place on a regular basis, what were the connections, who acted behind the scenes as well as up front? Back to ambiguity! This is perhaps a misleading phenomenon to westerners because our natural reaction is to try to identify who is calling the shots. In Thailand it depends on who defines the issue and whether the other composites in the consensus infrastructure agree or not. Possibly a failure to do so when Thaksin’s influence became obvious to everyone involved led to several in this network to reevaluate their strategies and then implement the purge that was assented to before before the 2014 coup. In one manner of speaking, Thais’ mai pen rai attitude became “unhinged” over the changes partly demonstrated by Thaksin and caution was thrown to the winds as far as international diplomacy was concerned. Structural integrity of Thai society was failing up to this point – as a result of lax “policing” over the last couple of decades or so.
BTW: check use of ‘affect’ and ‘effect;. All the best…
Well, it may have escaped your notice, but for the past 10 years i have followed the different street mobs, and since 7 1/2 years i have published plenty about them – photos, texts, books, papers, given interviews, etc. In that sense, what i state isn’t “just my opinion”, but my analyses based on 10 years following the events possibly closer than any other observer. And different than many people think, i have not just followed the Red Shirts but until November 25, 2013, spent about equal amount of time with all of the different Yellow Alliance street incarnations (there were far more than PDRC and Pitak Siam, which was just a bit of a laugh – 2 meetings that ended in lots of teargas – been at both, published about them here on New Mandala).
As to Jonathan Head’s reporting – it is stellar, and yes, Red Shirt armed militants do exist – i have seen them operating on several occasions. I will not deny facts just because they do not fit the narrative of some people. As to why they did not fight the coup there are strategic reasons. In this day and age one cannot fight a military in such a way anymore. That would be idiotic. Which should be obvious. Also in the CPT was not exactly successful in their fight 30 years ago.
We have struggled with the correct description of the PDRC. Jonathan, me and many other colleagues have at the time discussed this problem quite often of how to correctly describe them. Two major problem – one was, as i explained, that, and as this discussion reflects, that it is indeed not easy to find a suitable term. Secondly was personal security. While you may sit and rant anonymously on the computer and nobody knows who you are, for us on the street the situation was extremely dangerous. I could not go any close to the PDRC anymore, for fear of my life, but Jonathan and many others had to face them every day to be able to report. PDRC did not like foreign journalists, and followed what foreign media reported closely. Not just i was assaulted, but several other foreign journalists were beaten up. This wasn’t reported as these journalists were afraid that they would then face the same hate campaign and horrible situation i have had to face.
The PDRC had/has without doubt many fascist elements, and might be described as such. There is however a difference between the military junta and the PDRC. While it might appear that they are a unified block, in fact though the PDRC was used by the military and the traditional elites. There are clear indications and much evidence that there was collaboration, but the coup changed the game. The PDRC was quite quickly contained, and the military is doing what they wanted to do since years (albeit far less successful that they hoped).
What they are doing is not fascism, but what i described before – a strange mixture of Thai traditional military dictatorship with many elements in which the traditional stakeholders all have to be satisfied. There is nothing revolutionary in what they are doing – which is a main element of fascism. Instead it is utterly reactionary, and more reminiscent of Wilheminian militarism with strong elements of sakdina and other pure Asian contexts.
Of course describing the Golden Dawn in Greece as fascist or Neonazi is suitable, as this party stands in direct tradition of that ideology and uses the exact same symbolisms.
But this is Thailand, and not Europe, with its own tradition of Dictatorships and its own historical context.
Maybe you need the crutch of transporting European terminology to understand the context of the Red/Yellow conflict. I do not, and when i explain this i prefer not to use potentially misleading terms but try to explain the Thai and Asian context which this Junta is based on, which is distinctly different from European history.
Stripped of whatever you think about Agus’s attitude, the question or contention he poses is interesting I think – the King’s and indeed the palace apparatus’s agency in all this. The police/prosecutors don’t, I speculate, get an order directly from the palace – and neither do the judges who would try the case. Pressure from hyper-royalist sections of society, from the police/prosecutors respective conservative civil service organizations, personal loyalty to the King would have all been factors in deciding whether to bring the case.
In some way, LM has perhaps ‘escaped’ the control of the palace. I don’t think this denies that the monarchy had, as an organization, intentionally (and unintentionally) built up the LM ‘regime’ to the way it is now, and that they have been resoundingly silent in curbing its excesses.
The role of the media is to impartially inform and also to offer analysis and insight.
To do that it needs to enact a set of practices and disciplines that enable it to maintain at least some form of objectivity.
Objectively, there are more than enough grounds to cite the last few years of “military-royalist” street movements – Pitak Siam and PDRC – and the resulting military dictatorship as both fascist and anti-democratic.
The Western media in Bangkok universally referred to both the PDRC and Pitak Siam as “anti-government” failing to offer an explicit and objective description of those movement’s politics that could’ve impartially informed their audiences.
It didn’t need to be “screamed” (yes, it’s possible to report the rise of a fascist movement without “screaming” Nick – please refer to the reporting of Golden Dawn in Greece), just cooly and dispassionately stated. After all Thai academics, pro-democracy activists and even human rights groups had referred to the PDRC and their forerunners in the PAD as “fascist” so it was hardly some huge imaginative leap to do the same.
And no Nick, not every critique of fascism comes from the “dogmatic left” as you appear to claim. In fact there’s a very strong liberal and social democratic tradition of critiquing fascism as you well know. And no Nick, not every criticism of fascism necessarily involves the romanticization of jungle fighters either (wasn’t it the BBC’s Jonathan Head who reported back in early 2014 his imaginings of a huge network of Red Shirt guerrilla fighters waiting to rise up in the event of coup? We’re still waiting for that, of course).
In fact, it’s perfectly possible to call the PDRC, Pitak Siam and the Thai military junta fascistic whilst remaining perfectly reasonable about it.
You should try it.
Of course you may choose to import your own views and opinions onto what constitutes the political make-up of Pitak Siam, PDRC and Prayuth’s military junta. That’s fine. But then it’s not objective or impartial. It’s just your opinion and it’s perfectly reasonable to then challenge you why you won’t refer to Thailand’s fascistic military dictatorship or its precursors in the violent anti-democratic, royalist-militarist street movements as fascist.
When the obituary on the civilianized military junta of General Prayuth is written, as it eventually will be, ridicule will be seen as having played its part in its collapse. This recent arrest on lèse majesté charges of a Thai factory worker for having insulted in a blog the King’s dog received worldwide attention with media reports oscillating between amusement and disdain. For the uninformed outside observer Thailand seems to be a kind of Hollywood style ‘King and I’ parody of itself , albeit one with an added dose of oppression.
Prayuth’s own ‘father knows best demeanor’ and his rather silly campaigns on Thainness are greeted with indifferent amusement even by his own middle-class supporters. Keeping to the Hollywood vein, for me Prayuth’s behavior has strange echoes of Charlie Chaplin’s parody of Hitler, “The Dictator” which contributed in a way the ultimate defeat of Nazism.
Not only is the Thai Royalist establishment in its own self parody making satire a somewhat redundant artistic exercise in Bangkok, by instrumentalizing the monarchy to protect its own interests it may well be the greatest contributing factor to the monarchy’s possible post-Bhumibol demise.
I guess the final point is that there’s no dignity in the monarchy, so it has to be in democracy. Hopefully. An entire generation invested themselves in belief in the king, unaware of the $ 34 billion build up in Crown Properties, etc. while ordinary citizens suffered, particularly farmers, and an entire underclass of prostitutes, drug smugglers, etc. was built up.
Interesting. Thanks for the comment. I was unaware of R VI’s dog, and was wondering if prior kings had paraded dogs in the manner of QE II’s corgis. The affect of R IX and heir towards their dogs seems similar to that of QE II: animals are simple, loyal, reliable and can be trusted in the midst of Machiavellian politics. Unlike one’s children, relations w whom are far more complicated. The dogs are QE II’s inner circle. Same w Thai royals. Because of the qualities of dogs.
The satire re dogs and the Dog Dialogues between R IX and his son, and both towards the farang community, are at a different symbolic and linguistic register. The message to subjects is “Stay out!” (I can insult my relative, but Don’t you even think it!” R IX’s message to farang, using the formal word for dog, was probably satirical insult as well: You don’t even get that we are insulting you. You are ignorant about our culture, even as we are forced to kriengcai you. No more.
The whole subtext of the king-heir dialogue is pure blood v impure, which is the essential idiom of succession. The message to subjects and farang: Keep out! This is an inside battle.
The king and queen’s murders were more disassociated, done through their networks. Those of the Crown Prince are direct, linked to his sexual exploits, and lack finesse. Still, he knows how to play the game. He grew up on the inside, he operates globally despite the infamy, and it’s his birthright to manage Royal ritual and charitable machinery. Since the king couldn’t be any more near-dead, “Bike for Dad.” That’s cold. (Excessive deference is a form of insult) A more murderous Prince Charles waiting in the wings. Because there has been so much violence, the Crown Prince’s competitors, military and police factions, have nothing about which to complain.
I think also that the Thai just got tired of having to kriengcai farang. After 200+ years, and seeing the actuality of American democracy, at this historical point they are fed up. Students who objected to the Vietnam war, etc at Thammasat were certainly shown their place,which was a terrifying message to their middle class parents as well.
The situation has changed. I’d imagine the US can be blackmailed in certain situations given our own war on terror when before we could not.
Ergo the very public prostration around royals (and their dogs) which used to be taboo in certain contexts. This undercurrent would seem to be feeding into the lese majeste situation. Inchoate to some degree. And to the lese dog situation as well. Having subjects prostrate themselves at the level of dogs, using dogs to back off farang. Head shake.
Obviously the king is not lucid. Without modern medicine, he would probably have had the death he wanted, dying like the Buddha, in the supposed manner of King Mongkut. Modern medicine wrecked that. Wheeling him out in the present manner is macabre and seems almost like a form of elder abuse. I also raises interesting questions about McCargo’s network monarchy. How it sustains itself in the absence of a functioning sovereign. I almost said the military junta was issuing the double warning — which it is — but obviously royals? The Privy Council? Have a hand in this as well. The fact that it is so ambiguous is the key … A handful of less than graceful military frontmen absorb blame, while behind the scenes actors remain anonymous. “The Royal Gazette”!?? Then outraged Yellow Shirt demonstrators construe insult where there is none. That bike rally was brilliant as theater.
1. Franco was a incompetent military leader, not my analysis, but that of his Italian and in particular German allies, who he drove to utter distraction during the Civil War.
2. Franco didn’t keep Spain out of WWII, Hitler did. Even as late as 1943 Franco was still knocking at the door of the Axis, long after it had become obvious to all but the most myopic that the Allies were – eventually, going to prevail. Again, the historical record is clear on this point. Post Civil War Spain was an economic basket case that the Germans, for all their brotherly posturing were determined not to have in their “tent”.
3. I can’t take issue with the “ruled until the 1970’s”, but then again you lose the plot. Juan Carlos – to his great credit, turned out to be the antithesis of what the old bastard – excuse my language, but my great-uncle and namesake was murdered by the fascists, had in mind when he groomed him for the accession.
One last thing, that you judge the decades of abject poverty suffered by ordinary Spaniards as “the basis for modern Spain’s prosperity”, would suggest that not only do you have a problem with historical fact, but also with making any kind of meaningful socio-economic analysis.
“a day after he seized power from Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra in May 2014, he had an audience with King Bhumibol …”
Not correct. On 23 May the Bangkok Post reported:
“Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha has already informed His Majesty the King about the seizure of the ruling power, the coup leader told a meeting on Friday. A letter has been sent to Office of His Majesty Principal Private Secretary so there is no longer the need to seek audience with His Majesty, he reportedly said. This would eliminate the fear that the palace would be dragged into the conflict, he said. In past coups, shortly after the coup makers successfully staged the putsches, they customarily sought an audience with the King in televised broadcasts.” http://www.bangkokpost.com/archive/prayuth-sends-letter-to-king/411446
At last – a clear, well-written account of a complex-compound case. Many have understandably found this yarn difficult to grasp, so turn to the trite and trashy sex and ‘celebrity’ stories that dominate much of the media. I hope this is available in BI. Thank you for disentangling -it must have been a tough job.
The author should have started by asking questions, like:
1) Why did Maroef Sjamsoeddin bring the tape to Sudirman?
2) Why did JK decide to go public with the tapes
3) Why did they only released the tape in Dec, when they had it for months?
4) Is Riza really going to come back to Indonesia, or is he gone forever?
5) Why was Riza involved with Freeport? Is it because of dismemberment of Petral?
With a person like Riza involved, you can’t separate what is happening in Freeport with what Sudirman is doing with the Ministry overall, particularly with regards to Petral.
The author didn’t ask enough question, and treats the Freeport issues as a single transaction.
It’s a pity that a tedious minority of people insist on making this kind of comment on New Mandala – unpleasant and embittered snide little put-downs that seek to denigrate the work of others without offering any new insight or information, and lacking even the courage of commenting under their own name. It does nothing to enhance the debate.
I can recall one of the king’s interminable birthday speeches – 2005/6 perhaps (hard to remember as they all tended to blur a bit into one another), the monarch making a somewhat derogatory comment about р╕кр╕╕р╕╕р╕Щр╕▒р╕▒р╕Вр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕З (the genteel term for western/Caucasian? dog). At the time I was unaware of the existence of the CP’s prized hound, the diminutive Foo Foo. So perhaps he was having a dig at his son’s canine preferences – would anyone with a greater familiarity with the speech care to enlighten us? (BTW you need to go to the actual footage itself, the original Thai may have been ‘cleaned up’ (ie. carefully edited); and forget about the English language version altogether – they provide no sense whatsoever of the unusual syntax, the feeling or the expression of the speaker)
Since my memory is a little hazy about this particular royal ramble I can’t say for certain whether the dog references were followed by a broader jibe about foreign experts, or (western) knowledge more generally. Such comments struck me as rather revealing, underling a degree of anti-intellectualism in the king’s thinking.
Returning to the dog theme. I recommend to those who haven’t already done so, a recent post on AMM’s FB page where he featured a very nice graphic of a statue of Rama VI’s (Vajiravudh) beloved beast Ya Le with a number of public servants (or ‘king’s slaves р╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕гр╕▒р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕г) genuflecting to an image of the dog who, I believe, had recently gone to meet its maker.
Agus George – what’s with the snide put-down of Christine Gray?
Having said that you’re right on about the king not acting. The man is clearly in LaLa land and no longer capable of acting. It seems cruel when the old fellow is wheeled out in a public area of Siriraj Hospital simply to demonstrate he’s still breathing. Anyone familiar with aged care facilities knows this state of befuddled senility may continue on for some years before the patient finally drops.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
“The situation has changed. I’d imagine the US can be blackmailed in certain situations given our own war on terror when before we could not.”
Blackmail is not really needed. Commercial coercion and obvious disadvantages in trade that favor Thailand are sufficient. I think the real issue is besides being fed up with kraengjai toward farang is the reality of western hypocrisy and overbearing of faulty ignorant policies that arise in part from those double, triple and ill defined standards of diplomacy and perceived interests. Thailand also has new friends that fit the glove better. Davies said the US has not lost Thailand, and that had to cause a big laugh in the Thai oval office.
As to that ambiguity you referred to, Christine, I posted earlier references on its origins and structure some time ago, I believe on FB. It is a consensus coalition, if you will, that is comprised of the entities you already mentioned. Remember that Thais are always in consensus when it comes to major issues (5555555) at least on the surface. Behind that is network that perhaps is interpreted as royalist but which is rather functioning and able to continue to exist because of shared power interests. The ambiguity can be partly cleared by looking at the phenomenon perhaps by doing the “If everything else is impossible then…”. In a sense we know the “who’s” and “whys” but not the hows. In the past what took place on a regular basis, what were the connections, who acted behind the scenes as well as up front? Back to ambiguity! This is perhaps a misleading phenomenon to westerners because our natural reaction is to try to identify who is calling the shots. In Thailand it depends on who defines the issue and whether the other composites in the consensus infrastructure agree or not. Possibly a failure to do so when Thaksin’s influence became obvious to everyone involved led to several in this network to reevaluate their strategies and then implement the purge that was assented to before before the 2014 coup. In one manner of speaking, Thais’ mai pen rai attitude became “unhinged” over the changes partly demonstrated by Thaksin and caution was thrown to the winds as far as international diplomacy was concerned. Structural integrity of Thai society was failing up to this point – as a result of lax “policing” over the last couple of decades or so.
BTW: check use of ‘affect’ and ‘effect;. All the best…
A state of madness
Well, it may have escaped your notice, but for the past 10 years i have followed the different street mobs, and since 7 1/2 years i have published plenty about them – photos, texts, books, papers, given interviews, etc. In that sense, what i state isn’t “just my opinion”, but my analyses based on 10 years following the events possibly closer than any other observer. And different than many people think, i have not just followed the Red Shirts but until November 25, 2013, spent about equal amount of time with all of the different Yellow Alliance street incarnations (there were far more than PDRC and Pitak Siam, which was just a bit of a laugh – 2 meetings that ended in lots of teargas – been at both, published about them here on New Mandala).
As to Jonathan Head’s reporting – it is stellar, and yes, Red Shirt armed militants do exist – i have seen them operating on several occasions. I will not deny facts just because they do not fit the narrative of some people. As to why they did not fight the coup there are strategic reasons. In this day and age one cannot fight a military in such a way anymore. That would be idiotic. Which should be obvious. Also in the CPT was not exactly successful in their fight 30 years ago.
We have struggled with the correct description of the PDRC. Jonathan, me and many other colleagues have at the time discussed this problem quite often of how to correctly describe them. Two major problem – one was, as i explained, that, and as this discussion reflects, that it is indeed not easy to find a suitable term. Secondly was personal security. While you may sit and rant anonymously on the computer and nobody knows who you are, for us on the street the situation was extremely dangerous. I could not go any close to the PDRC anymore, for fear of my life, but Jonathan and many others had to face them every day to be able to report. PDRC did not like foreign journalists, and followed what foreign media reported closely. Not just i was assaulted, but several other foreign journalists were beaten up. This wasn’t reported as these journalists were afraid that they would then face the same hate campaign and horrible situation i have had to face.
The PDRC had/has without doubt many fascist elements, and might be described as such. There is however a difference between the military junta and the PDRC. While it might appear that they are a unified block, in fact though the PDRC was used by the military and the traditional elites. There are clear indications and much evidence that there was collaboration, but the coup changed the game. The PDRC was quite quickly contained, and the military is doing what they wanted to do since years (albeit far less successful that they hoped).
What they are doing is not fascism, but what i described before – a strange mixture of Thai traditional military dictatorship with many elements in which the traditional stakeholders all have to be satisfied. There is nothing revolutionary in what they are doing – which is a main element of fascism. Instead it is utterly reactionary, and more reminiscent of Wilheminian militarism with strong elements of sakdina and other pure Asian contexts.
Of course describing the Golden Dawn in Greece as fascist or Neonazi is suitable, as this party stands in direct tradition of that ideology and uses the exact same symbolisms.
But this is Thailand, and not Europe, with its own tradition of Dictatorships and its own historical context.
Maybe you need the crutch of transporting European terminology to understand the context of the Red/Yellow conflict. I do not, and when i explain this i prefer not to use potentially misleading terms but try to explain the Thai and Asian context which this Junta is based on, which is distinctly different from European history.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Stripped of whatever you think about Agus’s attitude, the question or contention he poses is interesting I think – the King’s and indeed the palace apparatus’s agency in all this. The police/prosecutors don’t, I speculate, get an order directly from the palace – and neither do the judges who would try the case. Pressure from hyper-royalist sections of society, from the police/prosecutors respective conservative civil service organizations, personal loyalty to the King would have all been factors in deciding whether to bring the case.
In some way, LM has perhaps ‘escaped’ the control of the palace. I don’t think this denies that the monarchy had, as an organization, intentionally (and unintentionally) built up the LM ‘regime’ to the way it is now, and that they have been resoundingly silent in curbing its excesses.
A state of madness
The role of the media is to impartially inform and also to offer analysis and insight.
To do that it needs to enact a set of practices and disciplines that enable it to maintain at least some form of objectivity.
Objectively, there are more than enough grounds to cite the last few years of “military-royalist” street movements – Pitak Siam and PDRC – and the resulting military dictatorship as both fascist and anti-democratic.
The Western media in Bangkok universally referred to both the PDRC and Pitak Siam as “anti-government” failing to offer an explicit and objective description of those movement’s politics that could’ve impartially informed their audiences.
It didn’t need to be “screamed” (yes, it’s possible to report the rise of a fascist movement without “screaming” Nick – please refer to the reporting of Golden Dawn in Greece), just cooly and dispassionately stated. After all Thai academics, pro-democracy activists and even human rights groups had referred to the PDRC and their forerunners in the PAD as “fascist” so it was hardly some huge imaginative leap to do the same.
And no Nick, not every critique of fascism comes from the “dogmatic left” as you appear to claim. In fact there’s a very strong liberal and social democratic tradition of critiquing fascism as you well know. And no Nick, not every criticism of fascism necessarily involves the romanticization of jungle fighters either (wasn’t it the BBC’s Jonathan Head who reported back in early 2014 his imaginings of a huge network of Red Shirt guerrilla fighters waiting to rise up in the event of coup? We’re still waiting for that, of course).
In fact, it’s perfectly possible to call the PDRC, Pitak Siam and the Thai military junta fascistic whilst remaining perfectly reasonable about it.
You should try it.
Of course you may choose to import your own views and opinions onto what constitutes the political make-up of Pitak Siam, PDRC and Prayuth’s military junta. That’s fine. But then it’s not objective or impartial. It’s just your opinion and it’s perfectly reasonable to then challenge you why you won’t refer to Thailand’s fascistic military dictatorship or its precursors in the violent anti-democratic, royalist-militarist street movements as fascist.
Madness and loyalty in Thailand
When the obituary on the civilianized military junta of General Prayuth is written, as it eventually will be, ridicule will be seen as having played its part in its collapse. This recent arrest on lèse majesté charges of a Thai factory worker for having insulted in a blog the King’s dog received worldwide attention with media reports oscillating between amusement and disdain. For the uninformed outside observer Thailand seems to be a kind of Hollywood style ‘King and I’ parody of itself , albeit one with an added dose of oppression.
Prayuth’s own ‘father knows best demeanor’ and his rather silly campaigns on Thainness are greeted with indifferent amusement even by his own middle-class supporters. Keeping to the Hollywood vein, for me Prayuth’s behavior has strange echoes of Charlie Chaplin’s parody of Hitler, “The Dictator” which contributed in a way the ultimate defeat of Nazism.
Not only is the Thai Royalist establishment in its own self parody making satire a somewhat redundant artistic exercise in Bangkok, by instrumentalizing the monarchy to protect its own interests it may well be the greatest contributing factor to the monarchy’s possible post-Bhumibol demise.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
I guess the final point is that there’s no dignity in the monarchy, so it has to be in democracy. Hopefully. An entire generation invested themselves in belief in the king, unaware of the $ 34 billion build up in Crown Properties, etc. while ordinary citizens suffered, particularly farmers, and an entire underclass of prostitutes, drug smugglers, etc. was built up.
So where is the dignity?
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Interesting. Thanks for the comment. I was unaware of R VI’s dog, and was wondering if prior kings had paraded dogs in the manner of QE II’s corgis. The affect of R IX and heir towards their dogs seems similar to that of QE II: animals are simple, loyal, reliable and can be trusted in the midst of Machiavellian politics. Unlike one’s children, relations w whom are far more complicated. The dogs are QE II’s inner circle. Same w Thai royals. Because of the qualities of dogs.
The satire re dogs and the Dog Dialogues between R IX and his son, and both towards the farang community, are at a different symbolic and linguistic register. The message to subjects is “Stay out!” (I can insult my relative, but Don’t you even think it!” R IX’s message to farang, using the formal word for dog, was probably satirical insult as well: You don’t even get that we are insulting you. You are ignorant about our culture, even as we are forced to kriengcai you. No more.
The whole subtext of the king-heir dialogue is pure blood v impure, which is the essential idiom of succession. The message to subjects and farang: Keep out! This is an inside battle.
The king and queen’s murders were more disassociated, done through their networks. Those of the Crown Prince are direct, linked to his sexual exploits, and lack finesse. Still, he knows how to play the game. He grew up on the inside, he operates globally despite the infamy, and it’s his birthright to manage Royal ritual and charitable machinery. Since the king couldn’t be any more near-dead, “Bike for Dad.” That’s cold. (Excessive deference is a form of insult) A more murderous Prince Charles waiting in the wings. Because there has been so much violence, the Crown Prince’s competitors, military and police factions, have nothing about which to complain.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Thank you
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
I think also that the Thai just got tired of having to kriengcai farang. After 200+ years, and seeing the actuality of American democracy, at this historical point they are fed up. Students who objected to the Vietnam war, etc at Thammasat were certainly shown their place,which was a terrifying message to their middle class parents as well.
The situation has changed. I’d imagine the US can be blackmailed in certain situations given our own war on terror when before we could not.
Ergo the very public prostration around royals (and their dogs) which used to be taboo in certain contexts. This undercurrent would seem to be feeding into the lese majeste situation. Inchoate to some degree. And to the lese dog situation as well. Having subjects prostrate themselves at the level of dogs, using dogs to back off farang. Head shake.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Hang on Ricardo and Khaen Phet. The 2005 Speach was the one where His Majesty CLEARLY said “the king should be criticised, because the king is human’.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
Obviously the king is not lucid. Without modern medicine, he would probably have had the death he wanted, dying like the Buddha, in the supposed manner of King Mongkut. Modern medicine wrecked that. Wheeling him out in the present manner is macabre and seems almost like a form of elder abuse. I also raises interesting questions about McCargo’s network monarchy. How it sustains itself in the absence of a functioning sovereign. I almost said the military junta was issuing the double warning — which it is — but obviously royals? The Privy Council? Have a hand in this as well. The fact that it is so ambiguous is the key … A handful of less than graceful military frontmen absorb blame, while behind the scenes actors remain anonymous. “The Royal Gazette”!?? Then outraged Yellow Shirt demonstrators construe insult where there is none. That bike rally was brilliant as theater.
A state of madness
Dear Chris,
Just a couple of points of historical correction:
1. Franco was a incompetent military leader, not my analysis, but that of his Italian and in particular German allies, who he drove to utter distraction during the Civil War.
2. Franco didn’t keep Spain out of WWII, Hitler did. Even as late as 1943 Franco was still knocking at the door of the Axis, long after it had become obvious to all but the most myopic that the Allies were – eventually, going to prevail. Again, the historical record is clear on this point. Post Civil War Spain was an economic basket case that the Germans, for all their brotherly posturing were determined not to have in their “tent”.
3. I can’t take issue with the “ruled until the 1970’s”, but then again you lose the plot. Juan Carlos – to his great credit, turned out to be the antithesis of what the old bastard – excuse my language, but my great-uncle and namesake was murdered by the fascists, had in mind when he groomed him for the accession.
One last thing, that you judge the decades of abject poverty suffered by ordinary Spaniards as “the basis for modern Spain’s prosperity”, would suggest that not only do you have a problem with historical fact, but also with making any kind of meaningful socio-economic analysis.
Madness and loyalty in Thailand
Also, Prayuth did not seize power from Yingluck, who had already been ejected from power on 7 May by the Constitutional Court.
Madness and loyalty in Thailand
“a day after he seized power from Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra in May 2014, he had an audience with King Bhumibol …”
Not correct. On 23 May the Bangkok Post reported:
“Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha has already informed His Majesty the King about the seizure of the ruling power, the coup leader told a meeting on Friday. A letter has been sent to Office of His Majesty Principal Private Secretary so there is no longer the need to seek audience with His Majesty, he reportedly said. This would eliminate the fear that the palace would be dragged into the conflict, he said. In past coups, shortly after the coup makers successfully staged the putsches, they customarily sought an audience with the King in televised broadcasts.”
http://www.bangkokpost.com/archive/prayuth-sends-letter-to-king/411446
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
The Nation’s English translation of the ’05 speech is here:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2005/12/05/headlines/data/headlines_19334317.html
Indonesia’s Freeport saga
At last – a clear, well-written account of a complex-compound case. Many have understandably found this yarn difficult to grasp, so turn to the trite and trashy sex and ‘celebrity’ stories that dominate much of the media. I hope this is available in BI. Thank you for disentangling -it must have been a tough job.
Indonesia’s Freeport saga
The author should have started by asking questions, like:
1) Why did Maroef Sjamsoeddin bring the tape to Sudirman?
2) Why did JK decide to go public with the tapes
3) Why did they only released the tape in Dec, when they had it for months?
4) Is Riza really going to come back to Indonesia, or is he gone forever?
5) Why was Riza involved with Freeport? Is it because of dismemberment of Petral?
With a person like Riza involved, you can’t separate what is happening in Freeport with what Sudirman is doing with the Ministry overall, particularly with regards to Petral.
The author didn’t ask enough question, and treats the Freeport issues as a single transaction.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
It was the 05 speech, and I and many others took the dog reference to be an indirect dig at Thaksin at the time.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
It’s a pity that a tedious minority of people insist on making this kind of comment on New Mandala – unpleasant and embittered snide little put-downs that seek to denigrate the work of others without offering any new insight or information, and lacking even the courage of commenting under their own name. It does nothing to enhance the debate.
Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum
I can recall one of the king’s interminable birthday speeches – 2005/6 perhaps (hard to remember as they all tended to blur a bit into one another), the monarch making a somewhat derogatory comment about р╕кр╕╕р╕╕р╕Щр╕▒р╕▒р╕Вр╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕З (the genteel term for western/Caucasian? dog). At the time I was unaware of the existence of the CP’s prized hound, the diminutive Foo Foo. So perhaps he was having a dig at his son’s canine preferences – would anyone with a greater familiarity with the speech care to enlighten us? (BTW you need to go to the actual footage itself, the original Thai may have been ‘cleaned up’ (ie. carefully edited); and forget about the English language version altogether – they provide no sense whatsoever of the unusual syntax, the feeling or the expression of the speaker)
Since my memory is a little hazy about this particular royal ramble I can’t say for certain whether the dog references were followed by a broader jibe about foreign experts, or (western) knowledge more generally. Such comments struck me as rather revealing, underling a degree of anti-intellectualism in the king’s thinking.
Returning to the dog theme. I recommend to those who haven’t already done so, a recent post on AMM’s FB page where he featured a very nice graphic of a statue of Rama VI’s (Vajiravudh) beloved beast Ya Le with a number of public servants (or ‘king’s slaves р╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕гр╕▒р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕г) genuflecting to an image of the dog who, I believe, had recently gone to meet its maker.
Agus George – what’s with the snide put-down of Christine Gray?
Having said that you’re right on about the king not acting. The man is clearly in LaLa land and no longer capable of acting. It seems cruel when the old fellow is wheeled out in a public area of Siriraj Hospital simply to demonstrate he’s still breathing. Anyone familiar with aged care facilities knows this state of befuddled senility may continue on for some years before the patient finally drops.