The monkey cheek idea was put forward when bangkok was flooded back in the 90s and has nothing to do with the forest.
That said, it’s not clear that this kind of “royal wisdom” on very technical matter are on the whole a good thing. A thorough and rigorous study may prove otherwise, and nobody really can say they know for sure without having all the data. However, with everyone accepting this kind of wisdom from on high, it’s not going to be easy to get things done right.
I heard a while back that some big shots in Thailand is trying to find someone in a food science department in reputable first world university to conduct a study ‘that proves that Thai food is good for health’. Well, if you already ‘know’ the answer you want…
The royal family has certainly contributed a lot to popular views about the relationship between forests and water. Here is just one example (from the paper I mention above). It is a quote from a brochure put out by one of the queen’s projects in northern Thailand:
Everyone knows that forest is the source of water for all people who live on Thai soil. We do not have any other source of water in Thailand … [the forest] provides for underground water storage, making the ground moist as a benefit for all people… The result of cutting forest is the destruction of the water source of the Thai people.
But I am not sure that the “monkey cheeks” idea is really about the hydrological role of forests. Here is a brief description:
His Majesty the King observed that most monkeys, when they have obtained bananas, will store them in their mouths. They will do this for a whole bunch of bananas or until their cheeks are filled up. Only then they will start to chew and swallow the bananas. His Majesty has modeled the technique for water retention on the way monkeys eat. He has directed the Royal Irrigation Department to construct large water retention reservoirs in a ten square kilometre area near the coast, in order to store water from natural water courses and newly-dug canals. New water gates are also to be constructed to release water into the sea during low-tides, with the gates to be closed during high-tides to prevent sea-water from flooding the reservoirs and the surrounding areas. The full implementation of the Kaem Ling Project needs careful study and planning which takes time, however in the preliminary stages, certain phases of the project can be carried out to alleviate flood problems in the interim.
I don’t have any particular knowledge or expertise on this specific proposal.
Nganadeeleg: I have read Handley. He is very good on explaining the official, public ideology of the King. But what he doesn’t really address, since its not his project and he isn’t approaching the topic in terms of on the ground fieldwork, is how groups beyond elites might envision the meaning and legitimacy of the monarchy. As other posts have indicated, it is evident that not everyone and perhaps sizeable segments of the public don’t in fact buy into the dominant ideology of kingship presented by the palace and its network. And it would be strange to presume that there is no diversity on this topic in Thai society. Also, there is essentially no documentation or study in a systematic manner of the details of how average Thais interact with the idea or presence of the monarchy on an everyday basis (rather than highly occassional moments of annual ceremonies). So our knowlege about what Thais really think about the monarchy in general is, I would argue, very limited to idealization and stereotypes. And regarding what contemporary Thais think about the monarchy and kingship in terms of its religious meaning and significance, we are essentially blind I would argue. Tosakan’s references to Wales and Tambiah are useful. But they are also extremely dated (30s and 70s, respectively). And again, they rely heavily on a reading of these issues from the perspective of official, dominant, elite understandings. There is little or no discussion of non-elite opinion or actual daily practice.
Jon Fernquest: I don’t deny that the King is treated “inside” Thailand as if he was the equivalent of the Dalai Lama or the Pope. But as analysts we should be clear that this is historically and religiously speaking a deeply confused fallacy. I also suspect it is a self-interested one on the part of the palace, for the power of their ideology about the role of the King as a religious icon and spiritual leader relies upon slippery metaphors and associations that are not, or cannot, be examined with precision. The same with the ambivalent manner in which he is described as “like a god”. Thus the King is both fully human and fully divine, since they want to preserve both of those options when positioning the King as a political and social actor. If he was restricted to either one of those options, his authority would be significantly impaired.
I also don’t deny that he is involved in lots of (state) ceremonial activity as reported on the news. But how much of that is specifically identified as “religious” or “Buddhist”? And in how much of the religious ceremony that does occur is he positioned as a religious leader or icon (vs the monks or other religious actors taking part) instead of as a devout lay patron? Are other patrons of Buddhist ritual marked as spiritual leaders by the Thai media (obviously the King is seen as the greatest patron and thus by extension the greatest lay devotee in official, orthodox terms). These are not academic questions. Orthodox Theravadin notions of kingship are clear that the living kings are subordinate to monks as a religious actor. Which is why it would be strange to see offerings made to the living King as if he was Rama 5, for instance, who is treated as a thep in a way that the living monarch could never be (again, from an orthodox perspective).
My point is that there is a lot about the religious identity, role and significance of the current monarch that we simply don’t really know about because it hasn’t been studied. And the reason why it hasn’t been studied is obvious, of course.
Thai government in the past had never been support all estential thing for Thais, the keep of many people are under than should be. Kosit said from above, he can’t understand it.
A de facto amnesty was given to the September 19 coup makers in the new constitution.
When the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) told the press conference after the half-day secret meeting in Chon Buri, they didn’t mention anything about granting amnesty to last September’s coup makers in the new charter.
However, the amnesty was stated in Article 299 of the new draft.
The article states: “Whatever has been recognised under the Thai (interim) constitution of 2006 to be legal and constitutional, including all actions related to the incident be it before or after the promulgation of this constitution, will be legal under this charter.”
I wouldn’t describe the relationship that Thais have with Rama IX as a religious one. I for one have never thought of it in that way and I doubt that many comptemporary Thais do either. (maybe other Thai bloggers on this site would like to add their two cents worth on this issue).
IMHO, the relationship Thais have with their current King is an emotional one, and its a personal relationship – i.e. the feeling is attached to Bhumipol personally more so than the institution he represents. I think this is an important point that is often missed.
All the years of royalist propaganda may have succeeded in creating the genuine “love” Thais have for Rama IX, but it has been far less successful in creating “love” for the institution of monarchy. Prince Vachiralongkorn will know this well. The “love” Thais have for King Bhumipol grew of out respect, which over decades became “love”. V. still has to earn respect before he can hope of earning “love” of the people. It will take years of propaganda (and his own good behaviour) to achieve this.
For electronic resources, please allow me to refer you to a google search along the lines of “Thailand South Insurgency.” This should return quite a number of sources. I have also posted two or three links in the thread on the South here on New Mandala. As soon as Askew’s paper comes out, I will place the link here as well.
Just in case you have access to books, here are four titles:
Rohan Gunaratna, Arabinda Acharya, Sabrina Chua. 2005. Conflict and Terrorism in Southern Thailand. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Aademic.
Imtiyaz Yusuf and Lars Peter Schmidt, eds. 2006. Understanding Conflict and Approaching Peace in Southern Thailand.” Bangkok: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
Utai Dulyakasem and Lertchai Sirichai, eds. 2005. Knowledge and Conflict Resolution: The Crisis of the Border Region of Southern Thailand. Nakhon Sri Thammarat: The Asia Foundation, School of Liberal Arts, Walailak University, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
On April 5, Sanitsuda Ekachai had a commentary in the Bangkok Post that ended as follows:
“If we are honest to ourselves, we should be able to answer if we have lost touch with the Buddhist teachings and if our Buddhism has been reduced to mere rites and rituals.
The Jatukam Ramathep phenomenon does not only reflect public insecurity from political uncertainties and terrorism threats, it also shows that we are basically animists.
Accept reality.
If we really need a national religion, animism should be the one. At least it can help us stop fooling ourselves that we are still Buddhists, and see who we really are.”
When the group of students I belonged to was introduced to Thailand by Niels Mulder (Everyday Life in Thailand, later called Inside Thai Society) way back in 1984, he related how he had come to Thailand about 20 years earlier with the idea of explaining Thai everyday behavior by reference to Buddhist teachings–after all, Thailand was said to be a Buddhist country! So he studied the scripts and tried his best to bring them together with the behavior he could observe everywhere.
In the end, he realized that this approach won’t work, simply because Thai everyday behavior was not informed by Buddhism but by Animism.
Enjoy reading Streckfuss and Durkheim. You might want to add the following two titles:
Pattana Kitiarsa. 2005. “Beyond Syncretism: Hybridization of Popular Religion in Contemporary Thailand.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 36 (3):461-487.
Terwiel, B. J.: Monks and Magic. An Analysis of Religious Ceremonies in Central Thailand. Lund: Studentlitteratur and London: Curzon Press, 1975 296 p.
(= Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series, No. 24) (New edition White Lotus Press Bangkok)
Srithanonchai: “Rather, I could not fail but notice that most Thais merely pay lip-service, stress the ceremonial and symbolic side, but take care that, in everyday life, their self interest prevails over all moral demands (same goes for Buddhism).”
When I was making a similar argument regarding some country, I forget which, which I was currently burned out culturally with and dealing with intractable mindsets among the populace like lese majeste, an Australian colleague at the Korean University I was working at, pointed out that it could be a **function of economics**, namely **widespread poverty (less affluence)** is often accompanied by **predatory behaviour** (self-interest over morality) which gradually disappears as the burden of economics disappears.
IMHO if religions don’t go through periodic renewal and reform, young people start heading for the doors in dillusionment, I’ve seen a lot of intelligent young people/students in Thailand turning towards Christianity lately, some similar phenomenon was the topic of the Princeton Volunteer at the Far Eastern Economic Review in a recent article in that magazine. It will be interesting to see if Buddhism adapts. Like Catholicism, most Buddhists in Thailand don’t seem to directly read the Buddhist scriptures, but rely on second-hand interpretations by monks. Chanting Pali, like my wife does, leaves me cold, whereas reading a nice analogy in the scriptures of why such and such a moral act is good, may actually inspire me to do it…a lot of people seem to be listening to tapes with monks explaining Dhamma nowadays though, taxidrivers, coworkers. The discussion here has certainly inspired me to get Streckfusse’s dissertation at Thammasat and read Durkheim’s “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,” something to do over Songkran.
I agree, names are interesting and demonstrate a lot of ‘rewriting’ of history. Amerigo Vespucci does present a dilemma for the current designation of “America,” since he did not arrive in North America, yet for some reason the U.S.A has for some reason claimed “America” as its own (whereas Chile, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, etc. all are America– and the southern countries more so due to Vespucci’s voyage).
If you are a member of the TLC you can view the history off the list website. For the October 2006 emails, all were either neutral or negative regarding the coup, save for mine– which sparked severe retorts from Albritton, Jory, et. al.
[…] Siam as it was used prior to 1938 ESPECIALLY during the time of the Absolute Monarchy was NOT an ethnically inclusive name as Charnvit suggests. In fact, like the name Thai , it refered MANINLY to an ethnic group … – more – […]
[…] readers may be interested in my recent post on New Mandala about the supposed relationship between forest loss and dry season water shortage in […]
Thank for the partial clarification. I still don’t know who it that you think “consistantly make(s) insecure comparisons between Thailand and the US”. Neither do I see why references to Osama Bin Laden should be unfathomable. It doesn’t seem important and you’re not trying very hard to explain yourself, so it will likely remain a mystery.
A comparison of who is offended by what certainly seems important. We can say that Thais should be so uptight about the King, but if we are equally uptight about our pet issues, it is hypocritical. The offense taken by Muslims at cartoons of the prophetis certainly apt. I think it is valuable for us to consider what would offend each of us if it appeared on Youtube. in this regard, OBL is germaine.
I did chuckle at your post and have enjoyed the unique viewpoint you bring to this discussion of Thailand.
observer: I find it hard to fathom why there is a serious reference to Bin Laden on New Mandala.
jfl: I attempted to be a political victim in my native tongue — as Bush and Bin Laden are being referenced, I thought that this site being run by Australians ought to have representation…
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Wishful thinking about forests and water
The monkey cheek idea was put forward when bangkok was flooded back in the 90s and has nothing to do with the forest.
That said, it’s not clear that this kind of “royal wisdom” on very technical matter are on the whole a good thing. A thorough and rigorous study may prove otherwise, and nobody really can say they know for sure without having all the data. However, with everyone accepting this kind of wisdom from on high, it’s not going to be easy to get things done right.
I heard a while back that some big shots in Thailand is trying to find someone in a food science department in reputable first world university to conduct a study ‘that proves that Thai food is good for health’. Well, if you already ‘know’ the answer you want…
The regime’s royal ridicule
David W: I must have read Handley differently because IMO he does explain how the king has been positioned in respect of the religion.
As to how the majority of people feel about the king (as distinct from the monarchy), I think Taxi Driver has summed it up best in post #41 above.
The regime’s royal ridicule
david w, you might want to check out some studies by phra Paisan Wisalo (he’s a Buddhist monk).
Anyone mystified of deity kingship shoud visit the site of ‘Fah Diew Kan’. They really ‘love him’ over there!
Wishful thinking about forests and water
The royal family has certainly contributed a lot to popular views about the relationship between forests and water. Here is just one example (from the paper I mention above). It is a quote from a brochure put out by one of the queen’s projects in northern Thailand:
But I am not sure that the “monkey cheeks” idea is really about the hydrological role of forests. Here is a brief description:
I don’t have any particular knowledge or expertise on this specific proposal.
Wishful thinking about forests and water
Andrew, so you’re saying the King’s monkey cheeks idea doesn’t work?
The regime’s royal ridicule
Nganadeeleg: I have read Handley. He is very good on explaining the official, public ideology of the King. But what he doesn’t really address, since its not his project and he isn’t approaching the topic in terms of on the ground fieldwork, is how groups beyond elites might envision the meaning and legitimacy of the monarchy. As other posts have indicated, it is evident that not everyone and perhaps sizeable segments of the public don’t in fact buy into the dominant ideology of kingship presented by the palace and its network. And it would be strange to presume that there is no diversity on this topic in Thai society. Also, there is essentially no documentation or study in a systematic manner of the details of how average Thais interact with the idea or presence of the monarchy on an everyday basis (rather than highly occassional moments of annual ceremonies). So our knowlege about what Thais really think about the monarchy in general is, I would argue, very limited to idealization and stereotypes. And regarding what contemporary Thais think about the monarchy and kingship in terms of its religious meaning and significance, we are essentially blind I would argue. Tosakan’s references to Wales and Tambiah are useful. But they are also extremely dated (30s and 70s, respectively). And again, they rely heavily on a reading of these issues from the perspective of official, dominant, elite understandings. There is little or no discussion of non-elite opinion or actual daily practice.
Jon Fernquest: I don’t deny that the King is treated “inside” Thailand as if he was the equivalent of the Dalai Lama or the Pope. But as analysts we should be clear that this is historically and religiously speaking a deeply confused fallacy. I also suspect it is a self-interested one on the part of the palace, for the power of their ideology about the role of the King as a religious icon and spiritual leader relies upon slippery metaphors and associations that are not, or cannot, be examined with precision. The same with the ambivalent manner in which he is described as “like a god”. Thus the King is both fully human and fully divine, since they want to preserve both of those options when positioning the King as a political and social actor. If he was restricted to either one of those options, his authority would be significantly impaired.
I also don’t deny that he is involved in lots of (state) ceremonial activity as reported on the news. But how much of that is specifically identified as “religious” or “Buddhist”? And in how much of the religious ceremony that does occur is he positioned as a religious leader or icon (vs the monks or other religious actors taking part) instead of as a devout lay patron? Are other patrons of Buddhist ritual marked as spiritual leaders by the Thai media (obviously the King is seen as the greatest patron and thus by extension the greatest lay devotee in official, orthodox terms). These are not academic questions. Orthodox Theravadin notions of kingship are clear that the living kings are subordinate to monks as a religious actor. Which is why it would be strange to see offerings made to the living King as if he was Rama 5, for instance, who is treated as a thep in a way that the living monarch could never be (again, from an orthodox perspective).
My point is that there is a lot about the religious identity, role and significance of the current monarch that we simply don’t really know about because it hasn’t been studied. And the reason why it hasn’t been studied is obvious, of course.
Sufficiency grass-roots
Thai government in the past had never been support all estential thing for Thais, the keep of many people are under than should be. Kosit said from above, he can’t understand it.
Sufficiency design principles
yes , but I can’t recommend for that , someday , I could
Sufficiency design principles
Yes , Its my Thailand , dont permit to criticite all everthing about these.
Offending the mainstream
Coup amnesty:
New draft charter to grant amnesty to coup makers
A de facto amnesty was given to the September 19 coup makers in the new constitution.
When the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) told the press conference after the half-day secret meeting in Chon Buri, they didn’t mention anything about granting amnesty to last September’s coup makers in the new charter.
However, the amnesty was stated in Article 299 of the new draft.
The article states: “Whatever has been recognised under the Thai (interim) constitution of 2006 to be legal and constitutional, including all actions related to the incident be it before or after the promulgation of this constitution, will be legal under this charter.”
The Nation online 11 April 2007
The regime’s royal ridicule
I wouldn’t describe the relationship that Thais have with Rama IX as a religious one. I for one have never thought of it in that way and I doubt that many comptemporary Thais do either. (maybe other Thai bloggers on this site would like to add their two cents worth on this issue).
IMHO, the relationship Thais have with their current King is an emotional one, and its a personal relationship – i.e. the feeling is attached to Bhumipol personally more so than the institution he represents. I think this is an important point that is often missed.
All the years of royalist propaganda may have succeeded in creating the genuine “love” Thais have for Rama IX, but it has been far less successful in creating “love” for the institution of monarchy. Prince Vachiralongkorn will know this well. The “love” Thais have for King Bhumipol grew of out respect, which over decades became “love”. V. still has to earn respect before he can hope of earning “love” of the people. It will take years of propaganda (and his own good behaviour) to achieve this.
Offending the mainstream
JFL #33:
For electronic resources, please allow me to refer you to a google search along the lines of “Thailand South Insurgency.” This should return quite a number of sources. I have also posted two or three links in the thread on the South here on New Mandala. As soon as Askew’s paper comes out, I will place the link here as well.
Just in case you have access to books, here are four titles:
Duncan McCargo, ed. 2007. Rethinking Thailand’s Southern Violence. Singapore: SUP.
Rohan Gunaratna, Arabinda Acharya, Sabrina Chua. 2005. Conflict and Terrorism in Southern Thailand. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Aademic.
Imtiyaz Yusuf and Lars Peter Schmidt, eds. 2006. Understanding Conflict and Approaching Peace in Southern Thailand.” Bangkok: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.
Utai Dulyakasem and Lertchai Sirichai, eds. 2005. Knowledge and Conflict Resolution: The Crisis of the Border Region of Southern Thailand. Nakhon Sri Thammarat: The Asia Foundation, School of Liberal Arts, Walailak University, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Hope this helps.
The regime’s royal ridicule
Jon:
On April 5, Sanitsuda Ekachai had a commentary in the Bangkok Post that ended as follows:
“If we are honest to ourselves, we should be able to answer if we have lost touch with the Buddhist teachings and if our Buddhism has been reduced to mere rites and rituals.
The Jatukam Ramathep phenomenon does not only reflect public insecurity from political uncertainties and terrorism threats, it also shows that we are basically animists.
Accept reality.
If we really need a national religion, animism should be the one. At least it can help us stop fooling ourselves that we are still Buddhists, and see who we really are.”
When the group of students I belonged to was introduced to Thailand by Niels Mulder (Everyday Life in Thailand, later called Inside Thai Society) way back in 1984, he related how he had come to Thailand about 20 years earlier with the idea of explaining Thai everyday behavior by reference to Buddhist teachings–after all, Thailand was said to be a Buddhist country! So he studied the scripts and tried his best to bring them together with the behavior he could observe everywhere.
In the end, he realized that this approach won’t work, simply because Thai everyday behavior was not informed by Buddhism but by Animism.
Enjoy reading Streckfuss and Durkheim. You might want to add the following two titles:
Pattana Kitiarsa. 2005. “Beyond Syncretism: Hybridization of Popular Religion in Contemporary Thailand.” Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 36 (3):461-487.
Terwiel, B. J.: Monks and Magic. An Analysis of Religious Ceremonies in Central Thailand. Lund: Studentlitteratur and London: Curzon Press, 1975 296 p.
(= Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series, No. 24) (New edition White Lotus Press Bangkok)
The regime’s royal ridicule
Srithanonchai: “Rather, I could not fail but notice that most Thais merely pay lip-service, stress the ceremonial and symbolic side, but take care that, in everyday life, their self interest prevails over all moral demands (same goes for Buddhism).”
When I was making a similar argument regarding some country, I forget which, which I was currently burned out culturally with and dealing with intractable mindsets among the populace like lese majeste, an Australian colleague at the Korean University I was working at, pointed out that it could be a **function of economics**, namely **widespread poverty (less affluence)** is often accompanied by **predatory behaviour** (self-interest over morality) which gradually disappears as the burden of economics disappears.
IMHO if religions don’t go through periodic renewal and reform, young people start heading for the doors in dillusionment, I’ve seen a lot of intelligent young people/students in Thailand turning towards Christianity lately, some similar phenomenon was the topic of the Princeton Volunteer at the Far Eastern Economic Review in a recent article in that magazine. It will be interesting to see if Buddhism adapts. Like Catholicism, most Buddhists in Thailand don’t seem to directly read the Buddhist scriptures, but rely on second-hand interpretations by monks. Chanting Pali, like my wife does, leaves me cold, whereas reading a nice analogy in the scriptures of why such and such a moral act is good, may actually inspire me to do it…a lot of people seem to be listening to tapes with monks explaining Dhamma nowadays though, taxidrivers, coworkers. The discussion here has certainly inspired me to get Streckfusse’s dissertation at Thammasat and read Durkheim’s “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,” something to do over Songkran.
Thailand? Siam? Who cares?
I agree, names are interesting and demonstrate a lot of ‘rewriting’ of history. Amerigo Vespucci does present a dilemma for the current designation of “America,” since he did not arrive in North America, yet for some reason the U.S.A has for some reason claimed “America” as its own (whereas Chile, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, etc. all are America– and the southern countries more so due to Vespucci’s voyage).
If you are a member of the TLC you can view the history off the list website. For the October 2006 emails, all were either neutral or negative regarding the coup, save for mine– which sparked severe retorts from Albritton, Jory, et. al.
Thailand? Siam? Who cares?
[…] Siam as it was used prior to 1938 ESPECIALLY during the time of the Absolute Monarchy was NOT an ethnically inclusive name as Charnvit suggests. In fact, like the name Thai , it refered MANINLY to an ethnic group … – more – […]
Wishful thinking about forests and water
[…] readers may be interested in my recent post on New Mandala about the supposed relationship between forest loss and dry season water shortage in […]
The regime’s royal ridicule
Thank for the partial clarification. I still don’t know who it that you think “consistantly make(s) insecure comparisons between Thailand and the US”. Neither do I see why references to Osama Bin Laden should be unfathomable. It doesn’t seem important and you’re not trying very hard to explain yourself, so it will likely remain a mystery.
A comparison of who is offended by what certainly seems important. We can say that Thais should be so uptight about the King, but if we are equally uptight about our pet issues, it is hypocritical. The offense taken by Muslims at cartoons of the prophetis certainly apt. I think it is valuable for us to consider what would offend each of us if it appeared on Youtube. in this regard, OBL is germaine.
I did chuckle at your post and have enjoyed the unique viewpoint you bring to this discussion of Thailand.
Sufficiency design principles
Don’t the houses look quite small, and where are their occupants supposed to earn their living?
The regime’s royal ridicule
observer: I find it hard to fathom why there is a serious reference to Bin Laden on New Mandala.
jfl: I attempted to be a political victim in my native tongue — as Bush and Bin Laden are being referenced, I thought that this site being run by Australians ought to have representation…