I guess time makes fools of all of us, and it is always hazardous making predictions, but I wonder whether a year and a half after the article was published Ockey would be quite so confident that “… with the institutions of the monarchy strong and stable, the next monarch will have sufficient support, so that we should not expect a crisis…” (p.124). It would seem to me that in fact the monarchy is already in profound crisis, and the succession is still not in sight. I fail to see how Thailand’s monarchy will avoid the fate of monarchies elsewhere; the question is, whether it will be a French Revolution style event or something more orderly. But given the way dissent in Thailand has been so rigorously suppressed for so long, and that no opportunity has ever been given to discuss how the monarchy might have a more rational future in the Thai state, the former more explosive scenario unfortunately seems to me more likely.
In fact, there is much in Ockey’s article that is highly questionable. Much of it reads to me more like a eulogy written by palace officials than a critical analysis: “… Many believe that without a wise king to take a hand in these times of crisis,Thailand would have plunged into chaos….” (p. 115) ; “… The King is thus available to rescue the nation when its political institutions fail…” (p.116); and this unfortunate statement: “Although Thais and friends of Thailand hope that the present king will reign for many more years …” (p.116). So, if one did NOT want the king to reign for many more years, if one actually wanted, at long last, a truly democratic system for Thailand without the king “reigning”, one is not a friend of Thailand? A perfect example of how Western scholarship and academic institutions have been one of the main allies of a deeply, fundamentally anti-democratic Thai monarchy.
I could spend several pages on this but I will limit myself to comments on just a few of the article’s claims:
(i) “…The informal role of the monarch in supporting democracy has also been shared, to some degree, with the privy council and especially with its president…” (p.124) Well, this is a staggering claim to make, it hardly needs my commentary. I mean, how can “monarchy” (especially in Thailand) be mentioned in the same sentence as “democracy”? The privy coundil?!! The president!!!!??
(ii) the quotation by the king he gives on p.124 to describe the king’s relationship with “his” people, without any critical comment, is worthy of one of the countless royal hagiographies: “… So a constitutional monarch
is first of all a symbol of the country […] It’s like being a representative of our embodiment, or the soul of the country…” Well maybe, or perhaps the king is in fact the apex of a system of political control and repression unique in the modern world: the head of a rigid, fascistic ratchakan state that controls not only the civilian bureaucracy but the military, the police, the Sangha, the universities, the education system, the mass media; the head of the largest corporate group in the country, and lastly and most importantly, this control is made invisible through the lese majeste law.
(iii) Then there is the familiar anti-Thai Rak Thai bias of most academics, Western and Thai:: “… Others have noted a further deterioration of democracy under the Thai Rak Thai government …” (p.117) Now let me get this right: when we have democratic elections won overwhelmingly by Thai Rak Thai, which send representatives from electorates all over the nation to the National Assembly, who carry out in government what they promised in their election campaign, that is a “deterioration” of democracy, but when we let a deeply authoritarian feudal ruler, who owes his position to a military dictatorship supported by the US during the Cold War, who still requires people in his presence to grovel and kowtow on the floor under the specks of dust on the soles of his feet, to “strengthen the institutions of monarchy” with the hope that he will “reign for many more years…”, that is presumably “supporting democracy”?!
You just have to ask yourself once again: why do Western scholars, who, unlike Thai scholars, are not bound by lese majeste, feel obliged to portray the monarchy in this way?
First, some academics have also criticised Prem. Here is Thitinan, who is never one to hold back:
“General Prem has been compromised,” said Chulalongkorn’s Thitinan. “He can’t have it both ways. He got so involved and now he wants to be untouchable. But we are in a big mess and people want to know who is responsible. Look at the choice of prime minister, of the National Legislative Assembly… it’s not surprising people are pointing the finger at General Prem.”
Thitinan also worried that the increasing polarization of the Thai political scene was hurting political discourse. “Why can’t we be anti-Thaksin, anti-coup, and anti-government?” he said. “It’s dangerous for some anti-Thaksin people and pro-Prem people to be brushing aside criticism by saying if you criticize General Prem, you are paid by Thaksin. It’s very dangerous. People are frustrated, and they have the right to be mad at the master. It doesn’t mean that they support Thaksin.”
Master? Compromised? Strong words from Thitinan.
Second, I think you need to separate out the institutions of the monarchy from the monarchy. While, there has been much discussion on how the role/influence has increased over the last 50 years, I think you cannot ignore the institutions of the monarchy. Jim Ockey wrote an article just over a year ago arguing that the institutions of the monarchy have also increased over the last 40 years. If you follow the below link you can read up on the institutions on the monarchy and their ever increasing role. The question which is difficult to answer is, are the interests of the institutions on the monarchy the same as the monarchy? I guess the protesters don’t think so.
Ockey’s article has been mysteriously made available here (PDF File).
[…] 4, 2007 at 6:20 am · Filed under Thailand Comment on Thailand’s climate of repression by Bangkok Pundit Normally, in Thailand, the foreign prisoner will receive a pardon after a third of their sentence. […]
Thanks for the very useful comments. Here is an update from the Bangkok Post.
Anti-coup group continues attempt to remove Prem
(BangkokPost.com) – An anti-coup group Wednesday vowed to continue collecting signatures in support of a petition to His Majesty the King for the removal of Prem Tinsulanonda as president of the Privy Council despite warnings from the coup makers. Wiphu Poompattanathai, spokesman of the Saturday Voice group, spoke at a press conference in Bangkok that the military junta tried to make this look like a lese majeste act but he confirmed that the group had no intention to do so. He said the group would continue to collect the signatures. It has got about 10,000 signatures so far. He added that it would inform Gen Prem when it gets 30,000 names, and call on his resignation when it gets 50,000 names. Once it gets 100,000 names, it would petition HM the King to ask him to resign. The Council for National Security spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd said Tuesday that thet CNS viewed the signature campaign against Gen prem as being “inappropriate.” Col Sansern said it was improper to do that since Gen Prem was appointed to the post by HM the King, thus the act could be deemed as lese majeste.
p.s. for anyone interested, you can listen to record of a press conference held this morning (10 a.m. BKK time) by the SaturdayVoice Anti-Coup Group who organizes the pettion, here :
You write:
“Whether or not Prem had any direct role in the coup is beside the point. What is important is that in this protest action Prem appears to be a symbolic proxy for the king himself.”
It’s more complicated than that. Among the various groups now opposing the coup, though they are one in condemning Prem (none of them doubt his role), they are actually NOT unaniimous in their views of the monarchy and the role of the King himself in this coup (or during last year political crises). Some of them genuinely believe that Prem acted on his own. Their attack on Prem stems from (strange as this may sound) their strong royalty to the King. They naturally insist on separating Prem’s role from that of the monarch. Other groups / persons follow this separation line as a tactic (legal protection), though they are quite aware of (or see) the actual connection. (I suspect Thaksin himself in his famous “charismatic person” pronouncement during the crises could be regarded as belonging to this category, though he could be in the first group I just said too.) Finally, there could of course be some who are attacking Prem in the way you describe (but you’d appreciate why nobody can really admit this.)
What complicates the matter further is you cannot judge who are in which category by their outward attack on Prem. Some in the first group, for instance, are among the most vituperative when it comes to the Prem issue, though they would see themselves as true royalists. In other word, the most active in attacking Prem may not be the most (in fact I know they’re not) anti-monarhist.
It would be useful to note that there is no unified “anti-coup protest movement,” but rather a number of groups, at least 12, with different leaders, causes, and strategies. One group (or more?) amongst them has moved against Prem.
[…] indeed. Prem is very close to the king. One of the most useful contributions of Handley’s controversial biography of the king is his documentation of this close relationship and of Prem’s enduring influence in […]
Its all hot air, and reflects a completely clueless administration when it comes to economic management. What the hell do a bunch of third rate generals know about economics?
They should instead try to apply “sufficiency principles” to area where it might actually help the people. For example, why not use sufficiency principles as a campaign to reduce the country’s horrible annual road death toll (>13,000 deaths per annum officially, and estimated at >20,000 unofficially)? e.g. stable growth = reduce speed, sound macro-economic discipline = obey road rules; risk management = don’t overtake on double lines, etc etc.
Oh I forgot…the road toll is a barn-norg problem. Most of the deaths are dumb pick-up drivers & their back-tray passengers, and motocyclists. Got nothing to do with the elites in Rattanakosin. Silly me.
CNS also follows the sufficiency principle! I am really glad for these poor chaps, who have sacrificed so much and worked so hard. Thus, the amnesty and the pay raise are well deserved and fully sufficient.
Pay rise for CNS staff
The Cabinet agreed Tuesday to a pay rise for military officials who work for the Council for National Security (CNS) on “special assignment” with little leave.
Assistant government spokesman Natthawat Suthiyodhin said Cabinet approved the proposal from the CNS secretary-general, who sought a 30 per cent pay rise for 423 military and security officials.
The officials included eight CNS leaders, who staged the coup, 60 officials who work for the junta, and 335 officials who work for the special operations centre in the CNS office.
The CNS said previously these personnel deserved the new pay rate as they had worked hard and had not a break, even on public holidays.
Excuse me, can any one tell me WHO this Jay Solmonson is? Is he a media figure of any importance at all or just a poor littly local writer, whose account of ignorance should not deserve much more than a merciful smile?
I am not for isolating Burma, but tourists like Jay are counterproductive. Unfortunately, the majority of Burma tourists are like him.
The notion that Thailand is a leader in sustainable development is ridiculous.
Indeed, it is probably the world leader in unsustainable development, ranging from its energy and environmental policies to its education and rural development policies.
I can’t think of one policy this Surayud government has passed that has anything to do with wisdom, dhamma, sustainable economic growth, environmental protection, or an investment in human resources.
The Crown Property Bureau, the investment arm of the monarchy, certainly hasn’t led by example in the area of sufficiency economics.
[…] Bangkok Pundit:. Normally, such petitions can take years to work their way through the system, but things might quicken up if there is international concern . I wonder what is happening through the diplomatic back channels. … – more – […]
[…] Fall and Sawarin, surely your arguments fall apart in the face of last year s pardoning of Bradley Pendragon, the Australian who raped three little girls (the youngest of whom was 8, and one of whom was a cripple) and producing child … – more – […]
[…] Bangkok Pundit:. Normally, such petitions can take years to work their way through the system, but things might quicken up if there is international concern . I wonder what is happening through the diplomatic back channels. … – more – […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A royal petition
I guess time makes fools of all of us, and it is always hazardous making predictions, but I wonder whether a year and a half after the article was published Ockey would be quite so confident that “… with the institutions of the monarchy strong and stable, the next monarch will have sufficient support, so that we should not expect a crisis…” (p.124). It would seem to me that in fact the monarchy is already in profound crisis, and the succession is still not in sight. I fail to see how Thailand’s monarchy will avoid the fate of monarchies elsewhere; the question is, whether it will be a French Revolution style event or something more orderly. But given the way dissent in Thailand has been so rigorously suppressed for so long, and that no opportunity has ever been given to discuss how the monarchy might have a more rational future in the Thai state, the former more explosive scenario unfortunately seems to me more likely.
In fact, there is much in Ockey’s article that is highly questionable. Much of it reads to me more like a eulogy written by palace officials than a critical analysis: “… Many believe that without a wise king to take a hand in these times of crisis,Thailand would have plunged into chaos….” (p. 115) ; “… The King is thus available to rescue the nation when its political institutions fail…” (p.116); and this unfortunate statement: “Although Thais and friends of Thailand hope that the present king will reign for many more years …” (p.116). So, if one did NOT want the king to reign for many more years, if one actually wanted, at long last, a truly democratic system for Thailand without the king “reigning”, one is not a friend of Thailand? A perfect example of how Western scholarship and academic institutions have been one of the main allies of a deeply, fundamentally anti-democratic Thai monarchy.
I could spend several pages on this but I will limit myself to comments on just a few of the article’s claims:
(i) “…The informal role of the monarch in supporting democracy has also been shared, to some degree, with the privy council and especially with its president…” (p.124) Well, this is a staggering claim to make, it hardly needs my commentary. I mean, how can “monarchy” (especially in Thailand) be mentioned in the same sentence as “democracy”? The privy coundil?!! The president!!!!??
(ii) the quotation by the king he gives on p.124 to describe the king’s relationship with “his” people, without any critical comment, is worthy of one of the countless royal hagiographies: “… So a constitutional monarch
is first of all a symbol of the country […] It’s like being a representative of our embodiment, or the soul of the country…” Well maybe, or perhaps the king is in fact the apex of a system of political control and repression unique in the modern world: the head of a rigid, fascistic ratchakan state that controls not only the civilian bureaucracy but the military, the police, the Sangha, the universities, the education system, the mass media; the head of the largest corporate group in the country, and lastly and most importantly, this control is made invisible through the lese majeste law.
(iii) Then there is the familiar anti-Thai Rak Thai bias of most academics, Western and Thai:: “… Others have noted a further deterioration of democracy under the Thai Rak Thai government …” (p.117) Now let me get this right: when we have democratic elections won overwhelmingly by Thai Rak Thai, which send representatives from electorates all over the nation to the National Assembly, who carry out in government what they promised in their election campaign, that is a “deterioration” of democracy, but when we let a deeply authoritarian feudal ruler, who owes his position to a military dictatorship supported by the US during the Cold War, who still requires people in his presence to grovel and kowtow on the floor under the specks of dust on the soles of his feet, to “strengthen the institutions of monarchy” with the hope that he will “reign for many more years…”, that is presumably “supporting democracy”?!
You just have to ask yourself once again: why do Western scholars, who, unlike Thai scholars, are not bound by lese majeste, feel obliged to portray the monarchy in this way?
A royal petition
BP: Thanks very muchy for this link to Ockey’s article.
A royal petition
I agree with Somsak. A couple of points.
First, some academics have also criticised Prem. Here is Thitinan, who is never one to hold back:
“General Prem has been compromised,” said Chulalongkorn’s Thitinan. “He can’t have it both ways. He got so involved and now he wants to be untouchable. But we are in a big mess and people want to know who is responsible. Look at the choice of prime minister, of the National Legislative Assembly… it’s not surprising people are pointing the finger at General Prem.”
Thitinan also worried that the increasing polarization of the Thai political scene was hurting political discourse. “Why can’t we be anti-Thaksin, anti-coup, and anti-government?” he said. “It’s dangerous for some anti-Thaksin people and pro-Prem people to be brushing aside criticism by saying if you criticize General Prem, you are paid by Thaksin. It’s very dangerous. People are frustrated, and they have the right to be mad at the master. It doesn’t mean that they support Thaksin.”
Master? Compromised? Strong words from Thitinan.
Second, I think you need to separate out the institutions of the monarchy from the monarchy. While, there has been much discussion on how the role/influence has increased over the last 50 years, I think you cannot ignore the institutions of the monarchy. Jim Ockey wrote an article just over a year ago arguing that the institutions of the monarchy have also increased over the last 40 years. If you follow the below link you can read up on the institutions on the monarchy and their ever increasing role. The question which is difficult to answer is, are the interests of the institutions on the monarchy the same as the monarchy? I guess the protesters don’t think so.
Ockey’s article has been mysteriously made available here (PDF File).
Thailand’s climate of repression
[…] 4, 2007 at 6:20 am · Filed under Thailand Comment on Thailand’s climate of repression by Bangkok Pundit Normally, in Thailand, the foreign prisoner will receive a pardon after a third of their sentence. […]
A royal petition
Thanks for the very useful comments. Here is an update from the Bangkok Post.
Anti-coup group continues attempt to remove Prem
(BangkokPost.com) – An anti-coup group Wednesday vowed to continue collecting signatures in support of a petition to His Majesty the King for the removal of Prem Tinsulanonda as president of the Privy Council despite warnings from the coup makers. Wiphu Poompattanathai, spokesman of the Saturday Voice group, spoke at a press conference in Bangkok that the military junta tried to make this look like a lese majeste act but he confirmed that the group had no intention to do so. He said the group would continue to collect the signatures. It has got about 10,000 signatures so far. He added that it would inform Gen Prem when it gets 30,000 names, and call on his resignation when it gets 50,000 names. Once it gets 100,000 names, it would petition HM the King to ask him to resign. The Council for National Security spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd said Tuesday that thet CNS viewed the signature campaign against Gen prem as being “inappropriate.” Col Sansern said it was improper to do that since Gen Prem was appointed to the post by HM the King, thus the act could be deemed as lese majeste.
A royal petition
Somsak: Very interesting, thank you. Please, keep contributing.
A royal petition
p.s. for anyone interested, you can listen to record of a press conference held this morning (10 a.m. BKK time) by the SaturdayVoice Anti-Coup Group who organizes the pettion, here :
http://www.saturdaynews.org/read.php?id=334
A royal petition
Dear Khun Andrew,
You write:
“Whether or not Prem had any direct role in the coup is beside the point. What is important is that in this protest action Prem appears to be a symbolic proxy for the king himself.”
It’s more complicated than that. Among the various groups now opposing the coup, though they are one in condemning Prem (none of them doubt his role), they are actually NOT unaniimous in their views of the monarchy and the role of the King himself in this coup (or during last year political crises). Some of them genuinely believe that Prem acted on his own. Their attack on Prem stems from (strange as this may sound) their strong royalty to the King. They naturally insist on separating Prem’s role from that of the monarch. Other groups / persons follow this separation line as a tactic (legal protection), though they are quite aware of (or see) the actual connection. (I suspect Thaksin himself in his famous “charismatic person” pronouncement during the crises could be regarded as belonging to this category, though he could be in the first group I just said too.) Finally, there could of course be some who are attacking Prem in the way you describe (but you’d appreciate why nobody can really admit this.)
What complicates the matter further is you cannot judge who are in which category by their outward attack on Prem. Some in the first group, for instance, are among the most vituperative when it comes to the Prem issue, though they would see themselves as true royalists. In other word, the most active in attacking Prem may not be the most (in fact I know they’re not) anti-monarhist.
Tutu on South Africa’s Burma vote
[…] Archbishop Desmond Tutu s PA says he does not claim to be an expert. http://him.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2007/1/30/2686857.html. – more – […]
A royal petition
It would be useful to note that there is no unified “anti-coup protest movement,” but rather a number of groups, at least 12, with different leaders, causes, and strategies. One group (or more?) amongst them has moved against Prem.
The King Never Smiles?
[…] indeed. Prem is very close to the king. One of the most useful contributions of Handley’s controversial biography of the king is his documentation of this close relationship and of Prem’s enduring influence in […]
Cambodia rights march
You could find more information about this Rights March here
AFEC Rights March
Surayud’s “final word” on sufficiency economy
Its all hot air, and reflects a completely clueless administration when it comes to economic management. What the hell do a bunch of third rate generals know about economics?
They should instead try to apply “sufficiency principles” to area where it might actually help the people. For example, why not use sufficiency principles as a campaign to reduce the country’s horrible annual road death toll (>13,000 deaths per annum officially, and estimated at >20,000 unofficially)? e.g. stable growth = reduce speed, sound macro-economic discipline = obey road rules; risk management = don’t overtake on double lines, etc etc.
Oh I forgot…the road toll is a barn-norg problem. Most of the deaths are dumb pick-up drivers & their back-tray passengers, and motocyclists. Got nothing to do with the elites in Rattanakosin. Silly me.
Surayud’s “final word” on sufficiency economy
CNS also follows the sufficiency principle! I am really glad for these poor chaps, who have sacrificed so much and worked so hard. Thus, the amnesty and the pay raise are well deserved and fully sufficient.
Pay rise for CNS staff
The Cabinet agreed Tuesday to a pay rise for military officials who work for the Council for National Security (CNS) on “special assignment” with little leave.
Assistant government spokesman Natthawat Suthiyodhin said Cabinet approved the proposal from the CNS secretary-general, who sought a 30 per cent pay rise for 423 military and security officials.
The officials included eight CNS leaders, who staged the coup, 60 officials who work for the junta, and 335 officials who work for the special operations centre in the CNS office.
The CNS said previously these personnel deserved the new pay rate as they had worked hard and had not a break, even on public holidays.
The Nation, April 3, 2007
“…put on a happy face. The face of Myanmar”
Excuse me, can any one tell me WHO this Jay Solmonson is? Is he a media figure of any importance at all or just a poor littly local writer, whose account of ignorance should not deserve much more than a merciful smile?
I am not for isolating Burma, but tourists like Jay are counterproductive. Unfortunately, the majority of Burma tourists are like him.
Surayud’s “final word” on sufficiency economy
I agree with the comments above.
The notion that Thailand is a leader in sustainable development is ridiculous.
Indeed, it is probably the world leader in unsustainable development, ranging from its energy and environmental policies to its education and rural development policies.
I can’t think of one policy this Surayud government has passed that has anything to do with wisdom, dhamma, sustainable economic growth, environmental protection, or an investment in human resources.
The Crown Property Bureau, the investment arm of the monarchy, certainly hasn’t led by example in the area of sufficiency economics.
Thailand’s climate of repression
[…] Bangkok Pundit:. Normally, such petitions can take years to work their way through the system, but things might quicken up if there is international concern . I wonder what is happening through the diplomatic back channels. … – more – […]
Thailand’s climate of repression
[…] – more – […]
Thailand’s climate of repression
[…] Fall and Sawarin, surely your arguments fall apart in the face of last year s pardoning of Bradley Pendragon, the Australian who raped three little girls (the youngest of whom was 8, and one of whom was a cripple) and producing child … – more – […]
Thailand’s climate of repression
[…] Bangkok Pundit:. Normally, such petitions can take years to work their way through the system, but things might quicken up if there is international concern . I wonder what is happening through the diplomatic back channels. … – more – […]