Bystander said: “As for Thailand? I think we’re gonna grow old before we grow rich”
It appears that you have fallen into the trap of thinking that money can buy happiness. Maybe when you are older you will see things differently, and may even realise what the king means when he talks about ‘enough to live on and enough to live for’.
There have been many studies that show happiness levels do not continue to increase with more money (once a certain ‘sufficiency’ level has been achieved).
Well, if young people is not needed in Thailand, they will go where their skills and their energy is more appreciated.
As a young people myself, I think we’re doomed. Or maybe not that bad, we’re just loser.
Just look at the new budget, a cut for the ICT and Science ministry and a big boost for defense!
To the “old” people who thinks Thailand has made it quite well: yeah, maybe, given that we’re in a rough neighborhood, but I think we can do much better, or at least we should collectively aspire to do much better. Look at Taiwan and South Korea, they started out worse off that Thailand was, but they managed to make it in this world, without the guiding light or the unity or various patronizing influence from a father figure, blah blah blah, For all I’m concerned, they’re home free now, they can take care of themselves. As for Thailand? I think we’re gonna grow old before we grow rich.
I think we have already missed the boat. The momentum is gone.
Maybe the king’s sufficiency economy is right after all. Coz it’s increasingly difficult if not hopeless now to catch up to the front rank of nations. We’re doomed to sell low margin labor, service, and commodities, for the foreseeable future.
There was one other unusual democracy in Asia: SINGAPORE. Singaporeans can vote but there was only one party to choose from. The Lee dynasty was sacred and criticisms of the Lees or the government can get a Singaporean locked up by the Internal Security Apparatus. The Singaporean democracy is as close to a police state as any.
I still cannot understand what Republican complains about. Without our Thai King, Thaksin could have easily succeeded to divide the country.
Thailand does not have to copy any other country’s political system . . and our Thai style of democracy, coups and royal whispers et al suit our ideals and limitations nicely. In the far future we may or may not have a monarch as head of state. But that will be decided by futurre generations and not by mine.
The simple fact is that 100 years ago most countries were monarchies, today only a handful remain. The most stable and prosperous countries have been those where the monarchy plays a purely symbolic role, a la “Finland Declaration”. But the king has never been content to play that role, and his successor is certainly never going to settle for such a role.
Yes, the key is understanding the historical background to the monarchy’s political rise since 1947. The narrative of the king as a stabilizing influence that you describe is the one that is promoted by the royalists; the reason it has been so popular is that lese majeste has been so successful in stifling alternative narratives, such as the monarchy’s role in stunting Thailand’s democratic development. The simple fact is, the image of a monarchy above and uninvolved in politics is a fiction. You talk about crises: as Handley shows, 9 of the 11 coups – “crises” – since 1947 were in fact royalists coups: engineered to secure the political dominance of the monarchy-military political alliance. Enemies of the regime were ruthlessly dealt with; political opposition exiled or worse. One has to ask in 2006, is it right for the monarchy to be using the military – which in most countries is responsible for defending the country against external enemies – to ensure its political and economic dominance? You keep on about Thaksin’s wealth; why are you so blind to the far greater wealth of monarchy? To the corruption that surrounds the monarchy’s financial interests? To the monarchy’s authoritarian streak? By all means condemn corruption, but condemn it wherever it is found. And while we are on the subject of corruption, what greater corruption can there be than stealing from 60 million people the right to elect their government? This is precisely the corruption that the king has endorsed.
I am wondering now what Thailand’s youth are thinking; their king has just told them that they are “inferior” to the elderly, and that the country will never grow unless the gerontocracy is in control. So he is basically saying they will need to wait another 50-60 years before they are eligible to be in positions of political leadership. This is no ordinary dictatorship. Thai-style dictatorship!
Tell me honestly, when you see members of the royal family jaunting around the world every night on the TV at 8pm, at the same time as the king is lecturing the villagers, who hardly have enough money to eat three square meals a day, and to pay their children’s school fees, and to buy the medicine for a sick grandmother, to adhere to his self-sufficiency theory, you are telling me this is a system that is worth preserving?
I suggest you have another look at history and try to imagine what would have happened during the periods of crises if the king was not available as a stabilising/uniting force (the last resort).
Personally, I am generally not a fan of royalty, but I think overall this king has done a good job, given the nature of the the problems and people.
OK, lets say you had a republic – who will provide stability when power hungry/corrupt/greedy politicians/military get out of control – what institution will replace the king ?
What will be respected by the majority of the people as well as the elite?
I’ll let you think of the best case scenarios, but worst case would be the emergence of a Saddam-like ruler, or a series of warlords battling for control.
You are way off the mark comparing the King to Thaksin.
Of course the King will do what he can to protect the institution – where else is the stability going to come from?
Thaksin, on the other hand, seeks money and power for his own sake, not for the benefit of the country or it’s people.
I did enjoy your posters Republican. The spite and malice comes out blatant and pure . . . no pussyfooting, no convoluted English.
Hope you are having fun Republican . . . you appear to be so consumed by gloom and desperation.
You have not truly explained your motives well Republican. Maybe you cannot even explain to yourself.
Not malice, historical fact. But your point that someone would not “last too long” in the street expressing such truths is precisely my argument: violence is used time and time again against anyone questioning the role of the monarchy in Thailand. Yes, you are right that people in Thailand must keep such feelings “bottled up”; maybe even those wearing yellow shirts, because they know what might happen to them if they opened the bottle. That is the perfect explanation for the lack of open criticism of the monarchy: people are too afraid. Thailand, kingdom of fear.
Tax and the Monarchy: “Maybe Thaksin was accumulating his wealth and dodging tax just so he could become more philanthropic…” Again, one might say exactly the same of the monarchy’s business dealings, but on the tax issue I confess I am not sure: do the King and the royal family actually pay any tax? There was a big furore when it was revealed in the UK over a decade ago that the Queen did not pay any tax. I understand that that anomaly has been rectified and she does now pay tax. What about Thailand’s royals?
So much malice, Republican – not only for the institution, but also for the man.
Obviously, you are not in Thailand (or if you are you must have to keep a lot bottled up, because I dont think you would last too long expressing those thoughts on the street – forget about lese majeste laws, you would never make it to the court)
I am just thankful that Thaksin come on to the scene while the king is still alive, because the situation would have been much worse if Thaksin rose to power after the king was gone.
Regarding lese majeste post-Thaksin, I see the junta fleeing for cover behind the monarchy at every turn. Someone should file a lese majeste charge against the junta. The latest example is their efforts to dissuade protesters from attending the 10 December (Constitution Day!) demonstration on the grounds, that Thais should remember that this is the 60th Jubilee. How dare the Thai people protest that their Constitution was ripped up by a royalist dictatorship! Next year they will say people shouldn’t protest because of the king’s 80th birthday. 2008 it will be something else. How long will this go on?
Whatever view one has of the Handley book the truly remarkable thing is that it is the ONLY critical biography of the king written in 60 years. How to explain this extraordinary neglect of the country’s most important political institution? One would think there is enough factual material to fill dozens of critical biographies: the death of his brother; the king’s refusal to intervene to stop the executions of the three royal pages who everyone knew were innocent; the king’s alliance with the authoritarian Sarit, and then his support of the Thanom-Praphat dictatorship; the building up of the Crown Property Bureau into a multi-billion baht conglomerate; his resurrection of the demeaning tradition of prostration abolished by Chulalongkorn 100 years earlier; the royal family’s involvement in the massacre of students at Thammasat in 1976 by royalist paramilitaries; his promotion of the idiotic self-sufficiency theory when his own family are in the same league as the Suharto children; and this is just the tip of the iceberg. In my view this neglect must count as one of the greatest failures of Thai Studies as a field of study. It is understandable in Thailand where lese majeste and the ideological regime that has been erected since Sarit makes rational discussion of the monarchy impossible. But not in the case of foreign scholars. Think of all the learned studies of the military in Thai politics, the military AS the major obstacle to democratization, when the true “problem” for Thai politics remains the same as it was in 1932: the monarchy. In this sense Thailand is no different from any other country that has had a monarchy, except that by a mixture of good fortune, circumstance, skill, and let’s face it, ruthlessness, Thailand’s monarchy survived and in fact augmented its power and wealth while others fell by the wayside. But unfortunately for some, Thailand is not on the planet Mars. This historical problem will have to be faced up to, sooner rather than later. For the last 50 years the monarchy’s poltical manipulations have been largely invisible. Perhaps this is the one positive result of the coup: finally the political role of the monarchy is coming under greater scrutiny.
As for the “kilet” of the younger people, you may be right Johpa. But they do not represent themselves ad infinitum as “khon di” in the way that the gerontocracy does, who, one would think, have had a lifetime of trying to develop their self-control in order to restrain that kilet – completely unsuccessfully it seems. What you say about the self-interestedness of the middle class – or any class – is of course true, which is why the ballot box, not tanks with yellow ribbons, is the most legitimate means of expressing that self-interest politically.
If the King doesn’t take lese majesty seriously, then why are most conservative Thai people outraged at the accusations that Thaksin insulted the King?
Why was such a silly charge like “Thaksin was plotting with the communists to overthrow the monarchy” given so much credibility by the coup-apologists?
The answer is that the King doesn’t have to take lese majesty seriously – his “chlear’ers” take it seriously for him.
“Honesty and integrity”, like using the threat of violence to overthrow a democratically elected government, tear up the Constitution, and appoint a Cabinet, Legislative Council and Government Boards full of cronies! 555, “Amazing Thailand”, where educated people can say such ridiculous things (only in Thailand!). Talking of mass murder, when will the monarchy apologise to the families of the Thammasat students massacred in 1976 by royalist paramilitaries? As the king said, “the King Can Do Wrong”.
Well now the proponents of the Thai-style democracy argument finally have another country they can compare themselves to, Fiji! Forget comparing yourself to the developed countries of the world, Thailand’s royalist dictatorship has placed itself in a league of failed states.
Anyway, maybe it’s just me, but Thai people collectively seems to have this interesting fatalistic habits of not planning much for the future beyond their next meals, so to speak. As such, we always take the easy way out, despite future cost.
Well Thailand is rather notorious as the “land of short time.”
But I daresay Khun Republican, younger Thais have as much trouble controling their greed, the ability to “daap khilet”, as do more elderly Thais. I see little difference betweeen the older Royalist circles and any of the younger middle class Bangkok up and coming young turks. Everyone is posturing for their piece of the pie with the hopes of getting a bigger piece than the next guy. Its no different than when young kids play monopoly and form temporary alliances. And one of the players is the Palace, which also enters into alliances when it is to the benefit of its members. But I agree with Handley that at the moment there is a unique subplot as these same groups posture amongst themselves for the inevitable sucession.
By the way, I just got the Handley book yesterday from the local library. I am only a chapter or two into it, but clearly Handley has read the English language anthropological literature and is using it as a historical base point.
The first chapters present a fairly balanced view with both positive and critical observations of His Majesty and the larger Palace, and so far it is the larger Palace that is the focus. This is interesting to me as the only person I was able to speak to who is personally familiar with the Royal Family (the now semi-retired doyenne of Southeast Asian academic journalism JS) also spoke of the Thai Palace as being broader than the immediate Royal Family.
Republican : The king himself has said he will no longer take lese majeste seriously.
You may laugh at the king, but at least he tries, and it is obvious he has a heart.
You should save your malice for the heartless politicians who only serve themselves and their cronies.
It’s interesting how Republican, Andrew etc paint the king as actively manipulating the political situation, rather than accept that he only gets involved when he forced to (to provide stability)
The kings ‘politics is boring’ statement shows that he is reluctant to be involved, and would prefer to get on with other matters (if only the politicians would do the right thing and behave properly)
I will admit there are some things surrounding the monarchy that bother me, such as the belief that he is semi-divine, and the crawling around in his presence.
But those things appear to be promoted by others and not the king himself (It is clear that he does not consider himself semi-divine)
It’s a pity that Republican, Andrew etc cannot be as critical of Thaksin and others of his ilk, as they are of the monarchy.
Also, Andrew has shown a definite bias towards the rural poor and seems to see them through rose colored glasses. In my opinion, his academic analysis would be better served if he could see their flaws, as well as their charms.
With all due respect, I think the royalist regime is not all bad, or rather wasn’t all bad, especially during the cold war era. However, Thailand is now like a full-grown adult, but the ancien regime is still insisting on babysitting like overprotective parents. Imagine if you have grown up, has a good job, can support yourself and then some, and your parents mess with everything you’re doing, meanwhile lecturing that by virtues of ages they are smarter, have more experiences, yada yada. It’s probably motivated by good intention, but you would still find it very patronizing, annoying, and this is not going to do good to the health of the relationship. I would think Thailand is best left to deal with this growing pains of democratization without such a drastic measure as a coup.
One of of the key messages of Handley’s is that you’ve gotta think about the big picture, you know, the future. Good time cannot last forever. He’s concerned that Thai people won’t be able to cope with the inevitable changes.
Anyway, maybe it’s just me, but Thai people collectively seems to have this interesting fatalistic habits of not planning much for the future beyond their next meals, so to speak. As such, we always take the easy way out, despite future cost.
Dear Vichai and Thanakarn: when I make posts or comments to this site I do so under my own name. I do not assume other identities. I do not invent other characters to agree (or disagree) with me. What about you?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
“Politics is boring”
Bystander said: “As for Thailand? I think we’re gonna grow old before we grow rich”
It appears that you have fallen into the trap of thinking that money can buy happiness. Maybe when you are older you will see things differently, and may even realise what the king means when he talks about ‘enough to live on and enough to live for’.
There have been many studies that show happiness levels do not continue to increase with more money (once a certain ‘sufficiency’ level has been achieved).
You mentioned South Korea – apparently it ranks 11th in the world in terms of wealth, but only 102nd in terms of happiness.
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_editorial/148717.html
Maybe it’s because they spend too much time working (they are known for having near the longest working hours per week)
“Politics is boring”
Well, if young people is not needed in Thailand, they will go where their skills and their energy is more appreciated.
As a young people myself, I think we’re doomed. Or maybe not that bad, we’re just loser.
Just look at the new budget, a cut for the ICT and Science ministry and a big boost for defense!
To the “old” people who thinks Thailand has made it quite well: yeah, maybe, given that we’re in a rough neighborhood, but I think we can do much better, or at least we should collectively aspire to do much better. Look at Taiwan and South Korea, they started out worse off that Thailand was, but they managed to make it in this world, without the guiding light or the unity or various patronizing influence from a father figure, blah blah blah, For all I’m concerned, they’re home free now, they can take care of themselves. As for Thailand? I think we’re gonna grow old before we grow rich.
I think we have already missed the boat. The momentum is gone.
Maybe the king’s sufficiency economy is right after all. Coz it’s increasingly difficult if not hopeless now to catch up to the front rank of nations. We’re doomed to sell low margin labor, service, and commodities, for the foreseeable future.
New species of military democracy discovered in the Pacific!
“In the far future we may or may not have a monarch as head of state. But that will be decided by futurre generations and not by mine.”
Well said, Suvimol. If this is what the older generations think, then all the more reasons for younger people to retire them the sooner.
New species of military democracy discovered in the Pacific!
There was one other unusual democracy in Asia: SINGAPORE. Singaporeans can vote but there was only one party to choose from. The Lee dynasty was sacred and criticisms of the Lees or the government can get a Singaporean locked up by the Internal Security Apparatus. The Singaporean democracy is as close to a police state as any.
I still cannot understand what Republican complains about. Without our Thai King, Thaksin could have easily succeeded to divide the country.
Thailand does not have to copy any other country’s political system . . and our Thai style of democracy, coups and royal whispers et al suit our ideals and limitations nicely. In the far future we may or may not have a monarch as head of state. But that will be decided by futurre generations and not by mine.
“Politics is boring”
The simple fact is that 100 years ago most countries were monarchies, today only a handful remain. The most stable and prosperous countries have been those where the monarchy plays a purely symbolic role, a la “Finland Declaration”. But the king has never been content to play that role, and his successor is certainly never going to settle for such a role.
Yes, the key is understanding the historical background to the monarchy’s political rise since 1947. The narrative of the king as a stabilizing influence that you describe is the one that is promoted by the royalists; the reason it has been so popular is that lese majeste has been so successful in stifling alternative narratives, such as the monarchy’s role in stunting Thailand’s democratic development. The simple fact is, the image of a monarchy above and uninvolved in politics is a fiction. You talk about crises: as Handley shows, 9 of the 11 coups – “crises” – since 1947 were in fact royalists coups: engineered to secure the political dominance of the monarchy-military political alliance. Enemies of the regime were ruthlessly dealt with; political opposition exiled or worse. One has to ask in 2006, is it right for the monarchy to be using the military – which in most countries is responsible for defending the country against external enemies – to ensure its political and economic dominance? You keep on about Thaksin’s wealth; why are you so blind to the far greater wealth of monarchy? To the corruption that surrounds the monarchy’s financial interests? To the monarchy’s authoritarian streak? By all means condemn corruption, but condemn it wherever it is found. And while we are on the subject of corruption, what greater corruption can there be than stealing from 60 million people the right to elect their government? This is precisely the corruption that the king has endorsed.
I am wondering now what Thailand’s youth are thinking; their king has just told them that they are “inferior” to the elderly, and that the country will never grow unless the gerontocracy is in control. So he is basically saying they will need to wait another 50-60 years before they are eligible to be in positions of political leadership. This is no ordinary dictatorship. Thai-style dictatorship!
Tell me honestly, when you see members of the royal family jaunting around the world every night on the TV at 8pm, at the same time as the king is lecturing the villagers, who hardly have enough money to eat three square meals a day, and to pay their children’s school fees, and to buy the medicine for a sick grandmother, to adhere to his self-sufficiency theory, you are telling me this is a system that is worth preserving?
“Politics is boring”
I suggest you have another look at history and try to imagine what would have happened during the periods of crises if the king was not available as a stabilising/uniting force (the last resort).
Personally, I am generally not a fan of royalty, but I think overall this king has done a good job, given the nature of the the problems and people.
OK, lets say you had a republic – who will provide stability when power hungry/corrupt/greedy politicians/military get out of control – what institution will replace the king ?
What will be respected by the majority of the people as well as the elite?
I’ll let you think of the best case scenarios, but worst case would be the emergence of a Saddam-like ruler, or a series of warlords battling for control.
You are way off the mark comparing the King to Thaksin.
Of course the King will do what he can to protect the institution – where else is the stability going to come from?
Thaksin, on the other hand, seeks money and power for his own sake, not for the benefit of the country or it’s people.
“Politics is boring”
I did enjoy your posters Republican. The spite and malice comes out blatant and pure . . . no pussyfooting, no convoluted English.
Hope you are having fun Republican . . . you appear to be so consumed by gloom and desperation.
You have not truly explained your motives well Republican. Maybe you cannot even explain to yourself.
“Politics is boring”
Not malice, historical fact. But your point that someone would not “last too long” in the street expressing such truths is precisely my argument: violence is used time and time again against anyone questioning the role of the monarchy in Thailand. Yes, you are right that people in Thailand must keep such feelings “bottled up”; maybe even those wearing yellow shirts, because they know what might happen to them if they opened the bottle. That is the perfect explanation for the lack of open criticism of the monarchy: people are too afraid. Thailand, kingdom of fear.
I admit, I am a “free-spirited bookish-type” person
Tax and the Monarchy: “Maybe Thaksin was accumulating his wealth and dodging tax just so he could become more philanthropic…” Again, one might say exactly the same of the monarchy’s business dealings, but on the tax issue I confess I am not sure: do the King and the royal family actually pay any tax? There was a big furore when it was revealed in the UK over a decade ago that the Queen did not pay any tax. I understand that that anomaly has been rectified and she does now pay tax. What about Thailand’s royals?
“Politics is boring”
So much malice, Republican – not only for the institution, but also for the man.
Obviously, you are not in Thailand (or if you are you must have to keep a lot bottled up, because I dont think you would last too long expressing those thoughts on the street – forget about lese majeste laws, you would never make it to the court)
I am just thankful that Thaksin come on to the scene while the king is still alive, because the situation would have been much worse if Thaksin rose to power after the king was gone.
“Politics is boring”
Regarding lese majeste post-Thaksin, I see the junta fleeing for cover behind the monarchy at every turn. Someone should file a lese majeste charge against the junta. The latest example is their efforts to dissuade protesters from attending the 10 December (Constitution Day!) demonstration on the grounds, that Thais should remember that this is the 60th Jubilee. How dare the Thai people protest that their Constitution was ripped up by a royalist dictatorship! Next year they will say people shouldn’t protest because of the king’s 80th birthday. 2008 it will be something else. How long will this go on?
“Politics is boring”
Whatever view one has of the Handley book the truly remarkable thing is that it is the ONLY critical biography of the king written in 60 years. How to explain this extraordinary neglect of the country’s most important political institution? One would think there is enough factual material to fill dozens of critical biographies: the death of his brother; the king’s refusal to intervene to stop the executions of the three royal pages who everyone knew were innocent; the king’s alliance with the authoritarian Sarit, and then his support of the Thanom-Praphat dictatorship; the building up of the Crown Property Bureau into a multi-billion baht conglomerate; his resurrection of the demeaning tradition of prostration abolished by Chulalongkorn 100 years earlier; the royal family’s involvement in the massacre of students at Thammasat in 1976 by royalist paramilitaries; his promotion of the idiotic self-sufficiency theory when his own family are in the same league as the Suharto children; and this is just the tip of the iceberg. In my view this neglect must count as one of the greatest failures of Thai Studies as a field of study. It is understandable in Thailand where lese majeste and the ideological regime that has been erected since Sarit makes rational discussion of the monarchy impossible. But not in the case of foreign scholars. Think of all the learned studies of the military in Thai politics, the military AS the major obstacle to democratization, when the true “problem” for Thai politics remains the same as it was in 1932: the monarchy. In this sense Thailand is no different from any other country that has had a monarchy, except that by a mixture of good fortune, circumstance, skill, and let’s face it, ruthlessness, Thailand’s monarchy survived and in fact augmented its power and wealth while others fell by the wayside. But unfortunately for some, Thailand is not on the planet Mars. This historical problem will have to be faced up to, sooner rather than later. For the last 50 years the monarchy’s poltical manipulations have been largely invisible. Perhaps this is the one positive result of the coup: finally the political role of the monarchy is coming under greater scrutiny.
As for the “kilet” of the younger people, you may be right Johpa. But they do not represent themselves ad infinitum as “khon di” in the way that the gerontocracy does, who, one would think, have had a lifetime of trying to develop their self-control in order to restrain that kilet – completely unsuccessfully it seems. What you say about the self-interestedness of the middle class – or any class – is of course true, which is why the ballot box, not tanks with yellow ribbons, is the most legitimate means of expressing that self-interest politically.
“Politics is boring”
If the King doesn’t take lese majesty seriously, then why are most conservative Thai people outraged at the accusations that Thaksin insulted the King?
Why was such a silly charge like “Thaksin was plotting with the communists to overthrow the monarchy” given so much credibility by the coup-apologists?
The answer is that the King doesn’t have to take lese majesty seriously – his “chlear’ers” take it seriously for him.
I admit, I am a “free-spirited bookish-type” person
“Honesty and integrity”, like using the threat of violence to overthrow a democratically elected government, tear up the Constitution, and appoint a Cabinet, Legislative Council and Government Boards full of cronies! 555, “Amazing Thailand”, where educated people can say such ridiculous things (only in Thailand!). Talking of mass murder, when will the monarchy apologise to the families of the Thammasat students massacred in 1976 by royalist paramilitaries? As the king said, “the King Can Do Wrong”.
New species of military democracy discovered in the Pacific!
Well now the proponents of the Thai-style democracy argument finally have another country they can compare themselves to, Fiji! Forget comparing yourself to the developed countries of the world, Thailand’s royalist dictatorship has placed itself in a league of failed states.
“Politics is boring”
Anyway, maybe it’s just me, but Thai people collectively seems to have this interesting fatalistic habits of not planning much for the future beyond their next meals, so to speak. As such, we always take the easy way out, despite future cost.
Well Thailand is rather notorious as the “land of short time.”
But I daresay Khun Republican, younger Thais have as much trouble controling their greed, the ability to “daap khilet”, as do more elderly Thais. I see little difference betweeen the older Royalist circles and any of the younger middle class Bangkok up and coming young turks. Everyone is posturing for their piece of the pie with the hopes of getting a bigger piece than the next guy. Its no different than when young kids play monopoly and form temporary alliances. And one of the players is the Palace, which also enters into alliances when it is to the benefit of its members. But I agree with Handley that at the moment there is a unique subplot as these same groups posture amongst themselves for the inevitable sucession.
By the way, I just got the Handley book yesterday from the local library. I am only a chapter or two into it, but clearly Handley has read the English language anthropological literature and is using it as a historical base point.
The first chapters present a fairly balanced view with both positive and critical observations of His Majesty and the larger Palace, and so far it is the larger Palace that is the focus. This is interesting to me as the only person I was able to speak to who is personally familiar with the Royal Family (the now semi-retired doyenne of Southeast Asian academic journalism JS) also spoke of the Thai Palace as being broader than the immediate Royal Family.
“Politics is boring”
Republican : The king himself has said he will no longer take lese majeste seriously.
You may laugh at the king, but at least he tries, and it is obvious he has a heart.
You should save your malice for the heartless politicians who only serve themselves and their cronies.
It’s interesting how Republican, Andrew etc paint the king as actively manipulating the political situation, rather than accept that he only gets involved when he forced to (to provide stability)
The kings ‘politics is boring’ statement shows that he is reluctant to be involved, and would prefer to get on with other matters (if only the politicians would do the right thing and behave properly)
I will admit there are some things surrounding the monarchy that bother me, such as the belief that he is semi-divine, and the crawling around in his presence.
But those things appear to be promoted by others and not the king himself (It is clear that he does not consider himself semi-divine)
It’s a pity that Republican, Andrew etc cannot be as critical of Thaksin and others of his ilk, as they are of the monarchy.
Also, Andrew has shown a definite bias towards the rural poor and seems to see them through rose colored glasses. In my opinion, his academic analysis would be better served if he could see their flaws, as well as their charms.
“Politics is boring”
With all due respect, I think the royalist regime is not all bad, or rather wasn’t all bad, especially during the cold war era. However, Thailand is now like a full-grown adult, but the ancien regime is still insisting on babysitting like overprotective parents. Imagine if you have grown up, has a good job, can support yourself and then some, and your parents mess with everything you’re doing, meanwhile lecturing that by virtues of ages they are smarter, have more experiences, yada yada. It’s probably motivated by good intention, but you would still find it very patronizing, annoying, and this is not going to do good to the health of the relationship. I would think Thailand is best left to deal with this growing pains of democratization without such a drastic measure as a coup.
One of of the key messages of Handley’s is that you’ve gotta think about the big picture, you know, the future. Good time cannot last forever. He’s concerned that Thai people won’t be able to cope with the inevitable changes.
Anyway, maybe it’s just me, but Thai people collectively seems to have this interesting fatalistic habits of not planning much for the future beyond their next meals, so to speak. As such, we always take the easy way out, despite future cost.
“Politics is boring”
Dear Vichai and Thanakarn: when I make posts or comments to this site I do so under my own name. I do not assume other identities. I do not invent other characters to agree (or disagree) with me. What about you?
Mistreatment of Hmong refugees
Thais hate Hmong. That’s why all the Thaksin haters used to call Thaksin “Ai Maew”.