polo, thanks for the corrections. The King jammed with Elvis during the filming of GI Blues – that might have been in his first trip abroad after the coup. And the party at Perseopolis with Pahlavi was in 1971. He’s had a long passion for sailing and jazz, but pretty much stopped major public displays of those passions after he stepped up to his Development King role, circia the 60’s/70’s – after the Sarit coup.
Also, a typo: “Relatively democratic 1932/1957 Constitutions” should be read “Relatively democratic 1932/1952 Constitutions”. There was no 1957 Constitution.
As for whether the similarities between Sarit and Prem/Surayud/Sonthi are only skin deep, I’ll let the reader (and history) decide. For me, the clincher isn’t the tiny details, but the structural similarity in the role of the network, its relationship to the military, and its 50 year distrust of constitutionalism.
Nganadeeleg: Thailand would be more democratic under Thaksin – see Anon’s comment for reasons.
Anon: I slight clarification. “The public has absolutely no say in the constitutional process.” I don’t think this is correct unless there has been a change which I haven’t read about. As McCargo says (in an excellent piece btw):
“The extensive consultation process that produced the much-
heralded 1997 ‘people’s constitution’ contained provision for a referendum – but only if the draft constitution was rejected by both houses of parliament. The junta has proposed an apparently more liberal process than was followed in 1996-97, by making a referendum an integral element in approving the constitution. In effect, the junta is offering a referendum on its own performance, offering the voting public an opportunity
retrospectively to legitimate the coup d’etat.
The politics surrounding this referendum promise to be extremely interesting, especially if some groups – perhaps those loyal to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra – are mobilized to campaign for a ‘No’ vote.”
I am not quite sure I would go as far as McCargo suggests and say that the the referendum would be on the “junta’s” own performance. Rejecting the constitution would just give us a longer period of unelected government and no guarantee that there would be significant change in any draft constitution.
I do not know Handley, although I am familiar with a couple of pieces he did earlier in FEER. I will not debate specific issues as this is not my intention although it would appear that is exactly what Handley would like. I have extensive experience on Thailand professionally (state department) and personally (lived there 18 years) and have PhDs in law and economics.
Anyone interested in understanding Thailand and Thai culture I urge you please do your own homework. There is well researched scholarly work and analysis available that would qualify for refereed journals. Handley’s book does not fit that category. That doesn’t matter much. It has far different purposes. (I did not say “don’t buy this book.”) All of the controversy following the publication is the reward Handley sought and has now achieved. My initial reaction was hostility and desire to have at it face off with Handley. But then this is not even ideology when you look at in perspective. Getting into in a debate in print is what Handley wants. A hint of a modus operandi. Google on Handley And “king never smiles” and look at the “history” tab, did Handley make nearly all of these entries. Look at the links and find cross references to other Wikipedia entries. (there is a basic problem with Wikipedia – that is, it is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can make entry’s for publication without any editorial review. My god, take look at Handley’s repartee in this month’s (Nov 06) FEER http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/ 0611/free/p006.html.
If parts of this book appear well researched and documented but others appear as opinion and gossip (as the lead-in to this blog suggests, then proceed with caution because dear Hobbes you are not told which parts are self serving commere pejoratif and which are not. I can without risk of persecution say that “in my opinion” U.S. president an incompetent stupid ass. There is no “in my opinion” here but declarative style meaning to appear authorative, “this is fact.” In today’s world anyone can say things about anyone but the risk in a country like Thailand is of becoming a persona non grata. Which Mr. Handley now is.
Vichai N:
If Andrew does not respond to your comments, it is because you show all the maturity of a fourteen year old, which leads me to suspect that you are one. Let me make some basic facts clear to you, since Andrew and Nick are exercising such admirable restraint – I suspect because they either find you amusing, or hope that you will eventually get bored and go find someone else to annoy.
This is an academic forum. We are here to discuss events and share and improve our knowledge and understanding. We are not here to score points, support any particular politician, or indulge in ad hominem attacks or abuse. We are not here to repeat ourselves over and over, about the ‘war on drugs’ or any other subject, in the vain hope that someone will soothe our ego by paying attention to us.
Various commentators, including Andrew and myself, share an opinion that rural people in Thailand are generally discriminated against and that some of Thaksin’s policies worked against that discrimination. We also think that the military intervening in politics is a bad idea. We are open to being convinced otherwise, by reasoned arguments based upon evidence.
However, to make an effort to address your concerns, neither I nor anyone else I know (and I know quite a few people on this forum, including Andrew) thinks that the War on Drugs was a good thing. Personally, I would have been delighted if Thaksin had been placed on trial in a legally constituted court and charged with responsibility for all those deaths, though the balance of probabilities is that a certain charismatic figure gave the go ahead as well. That did not happen. Nor is it likely to happen, because the people who did the killings were the police and the military, and it is almost axiomatic that military dictatorships (which is what Thailand is now, no matter how benign it may be – any country under martial law is under a military dictatorship, that is what martial law means) do not investigate human rights abuses by their own police and military. They are not showing any clear signs of doing so now, which leads many people to believe that the CNS doesn’t care at all about the killings in the war on drugs, and are only using them as a smokescreen to hide their power grab, a smokescreen which you, Vichai, are a part of.
Please feel free to post again when you have something new, reasonable, and backed by evidence to say (though I will make an exception for your rantings about Khmer voodoo – please, carry on on that topic).
To Thai in Seattle: The Nation, Bangkok Post, “independent”?! Ho ho ho, Merry Christmas! I hope you are not a student there in Seattle, because if you were you must already have failed Journalism 100. Now I understand why you post the way you do. Perhaps you should actually talk to some of those “native Thai” people you refer to instead of repeating what is written in phu jat kan, because you have obviously been living out of your country for so long that you don’t have any idea about what is really happening. But it’s not hard to find out, just ask any taxi driver, or read any of the alternative websites, or ask any of the 60% of people who voted for Thaksin, next time you “visit” your native country. You live in America, I hope you would understand the meaning of majority rule in a democracy. Better that, than try to support your argument by referring to your “Thainess” and saying that farang can never understand the mysterious Thai culture.
I think Patiwat has shown parallels between the framework/underlying philosophy of the Sarit and Sonthi coups without showing how the two men are alike. Indeed, Sonthi is hardly the strongman figure as was Sarit, and Surayuth has power independent from Sonthi, whereas Sarit was his own power. Johpa must be right that it is too early to draw parallels between their persons and means of keeping power.
BTW the king’s pictures with the Shah and elvis are from the Sarit period, when he traveled abroad. I think the sailing and jazz pix were before, during and after Sarit.
[…] In a lengthy reply to Johpa’s statement that “Quite frankly, I thought that the comparison of the current coup leaders to Sarit to be at minimum a bit premature and, dare I say, perhaps politically naive”, regular New Mandala commentator Patiwat has put together a helpful summary that attempts to put this year’s events in a broader historical perspective. […]
[…] The Irrawaddy’s Khun Sam – a rising star who I have highlighted in the past as a top contributor to regional media – has penned an informative new report that follows his previous article on forced labour in the southern Kachin State. It looks like he has asked some pretty hard questions of the local Kachin Independence Organization liaison officer in his efforts to probe road construction projects. […]
Johpa, on the contrary, the comparison of Sarit to Sonthi displays quite a bit of historical insight, even though there is a lot they’re not mentioning.
Sarit overthrew Marshal Por Phibulsongkhram. Marshal Por ruled at the expense of the palace. He sidelined the King and kept him a figurehead ruler, restricting his activities to harmless non-political roles. All those black and white photos you see of the King sailing, playing in jazz bands, partying with the Shah of Persia, meeting with Elvis, etc. – those are from the Por era. One of Por’s key allies was the police force, led by Phao Sriyanon. Por ruled under the 1952 Constitution, which was a copy of the 1932 Constitution: a relatively democratic instrument, allowing parliamentary elections, among other things. Por also ruled with strong support from the USA, which wanted Thailand’s support in the Cold War.
In 1957, right after parliamentary elections (which, as a footnote to history, Surayud’s father successfully contested), Sarit accused Por of lese majeste regarding Por’s management of the 2,500th anniversary of Buddhism. Por visited the King to seek support for his government – the King told him to resign to avoid a coup. Por resigned, and that evening Sarit seized power. Two hours after the coup, the King endorsed it and named Sarit “Champion of the Capital.” Por spent the rest of his life in exile in Japan.
Sarit ripped up the Constitution, declared martial law, and ruled via Revolutionary Council. He ruled with an iron fist, and even after he died, the Three Dictators continued his legacy. He replaced the democratic 1952 Constitution with the 1959 Charter – a travesty of constitutional law (it should have been called a р╕гр╕▒р╕Р-р╕нр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕б-р╕Щр╕╣р╕Н “rule of the state with evil” instead of р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Н “rule of the state with dharma”). Sarit cracked down hard on all remnants of the “Por regime” (including Surayud’s father, who was hounded into the forest), branding anyone who contested his dictatorship a “communist.” Sarit also rebranded the King to the image which we are familiar with today: a development King who visits the provinces, a genius in all fields of knowledge, and a semi-holy man whose image is sacred. The royal image was boosted with a rebirth of tradition and ceremony: people again had to crawl before him during audiences (this was banned by R.5 as uncivilized), the royal barge procession was reinitiated for the first time in decades, etc. Sarit was also a very charming man – he had many many many wives. Sarit was a favorite of the King. After Sarit died, the King gave him the highest of honors during his funeral.
Where are the similarities between the Sarit and the current junta?
Por Phibulsongkram = Thaksin Shinawatra
Sidelining the King = “Finland Plot”
Support from the US in the Cold War = Support from the US in the War on Terror
Lese majeste accusastion over 2,500th anniversary of Buddhism = Lese majeste over caretaker committee for the Supreme Patriarch
Por’s support from the police = Thaksin’s support from the police
Phao Sriyanon’s death squads = Thaksin’s War on Drugs
Sarit Thanarat = Sonthi/Prem/Surayud
The 1957 Coup = The 2006 Coup
Por’s exile in Japan = Thaksin’s exile in the UK
Relatively democratic 1932/1957 Constitutions = Relatively democratic 1997 Constitution
Undemocratic 1959 Charter = Undemocratic 2006 Constitution
Sarit as a favorite of the King = Prem/Surayud as favorites of the King
Sarit makes pomp and celebration of the King his no. 1 priority = Sonthi makes pomp and celebration of the King his no. 1 priority
Sarit’s charm with the ladies = Surayud’s charm with the ladies
“Communists” = “undercurrents”
nganadeeleg asked, “Do you really believe the country would be more ‘democratic’ if Thaksin remained (even if he was elected).”
That’s a hypothetical question which doesn’t really have an answer.
But what is clear is that the country is not more democratic with Surayud and Sonthi in power. The public has no elected MPs with which it can block or even question the government’s actions. The public has no right to impeach the PM, Cabinet, or junta for misconduct. The public has absolutely no say in the constitutional process. Television stations have tanks on standby outside their offices and soldiers inside their broadcasting rooms. Under martial law, the public has no right to normal legal procedures or protections. The junta’s constitution doesn’t mention anything about freedom of information, community rights, freedom of the airwaves, or the right to protest – consequently, the junta has cracked down on all of these rights.
Yet, despite all of these abuses, the press continues to “chlear” the junta. It becomes clear the reason The Nation and Phoochatkarn hated Thaksin so much was not because of his abuses, but because they were vested interests that lost Thaksin put on the bottom of his list of priorities.
Thanks Thai in Seattle for your contributions. I am not sure what happened to the comment you made previously. I may have deleted it in error when I thought I was deleting duplicate comments. Sorry. Rest assured, we have no intention or desire to delete comments that disagree with us. The only comments that are not approved are those that are considered offensive.
Based on my comment above, I hope you’ll find some of the answers you asked me in your comment. Whenever I have the time, I’ll provide the rest.
In the meantime, I’d suggest you to at least read the Nation and Bangkok Post to find more info or answers you don’t have. Both are English newspapers & rather independent ones too. Reading Manager will give you another perspective. If you have real closed friends or relatives in Thailand, it’ll even be better. Quite often, when native Thais talk to foreigners, they really do not open up speaking the truth out of courtesy.
And if you know the facts, I dare say that your view on Thaksin’s behaviors & practices as the man, businessman and head of a government will not be positive or favorable as you’ve shown based on a few comments you posted here.
I was there attending the event. The event was actually organized by Thai business owners & professionals in Seattle not the Thai Students in UW. According to a member of the organizing group, SE Asia Center sponsored only in name so that the meeting hall could be secured for use without going through the red tape. Actually, there’re only 2 students who distributed flyers protesting against the coup. Since the group paid for the rental cost, and since the 2 protesters took over the spot where the event organizer had planned to put a large table full of free refreshment (hot coffee & tea included) without informing the organizer in advance, members of the organizer were not pleased to begin with. They viewed the protest as the support for Taksin Shinnawatra. When the 2 protesting students aggressively handed out flyers to the attendees who started to come in, members of the organizer got upset. So, they contacted the staff manning the facility & asked that the 2 students moved their table & materials away from the spot slated for their use. Since their action created considerable confusion to the arriving attendees, they were asked to be outside the hall separate from the originally planned event.
My acquaintance said that in having the event opened to the public & held at UW, they were aware that there would be disagreements arising from Khun Sondhi & his co-speakers’ speech. Many members of the organizing team have lived in the US for decades; they know Americans are very opinionated. Therefore, disagreement or opposition was expected. But they did not appreciate that the young lady who led the protest disguised herself days earlier trying to extract information on who actually funded the event and then made the pre-emptive move occupying the rented space before the organizer came to set up the meeting. Nevertheless, after knowing that the 2 protesting students created no trouble other than distributing the flyers, they offered the student free coffee and refreshment including the beverage as well as cookies and donuts.
It should be noted that both Mr. Sondhi & Senator Karoon went out of their way to chat with the 2 protesting students. They invited the students to sit in & listen to their information. The students sat next to a member of the organizer. They applauded at times during the speech by both speakers.
By the way, the auditorium can seat 440 people at full capacity. In my estimate, there were close to 400 people attended the symposium.
It is clear to me & others who know the facts & have the critical thinking ability that in protesting the coup, these 2 students & those people in Thailand are mostly supporters of the ex-PM. They protest because their idol lost out in the game of politics & power. Knowing that their favorite man is homeless & wandering aimlessly from one country to another & knowing that anti-graft committees are piling up evidence against the ex-PM, his wife, relatives & close associates are too much to bear. They feel powerless because the base of their power was gone, suddenly taken away by the coup. One has to question their motives in the protest against the coup despite the 4 main reasons given by the coup leader & despite things are getting better now compared to several months ago. If they are genuinely against the coup, they should include future coups and the counter-coup as well. Since the day after the coup, there have consistently been widespread rumors about counter-coup. If their common goal & motive is against the coup, they must fairly & clearly condemn all coups including the counter-coup because the coups & counter-coups are all the same, different than the chicken coup. This applies to all Farangs or non-Thais every where too.
There is another error I made in my comment. The sentence “On your answer that rural Thais already knew how to fish, I got it all wrong” should be “On your answer that rural Thais already knew how to fish, YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG.”
By the way, I posted the factual information about Mr. Sondhi’s visit to Seattle a few days ago here at this web site. But it disappeared. It must have been deleted. I wonder, is there anyone who is afraid of the fact here or what? Is there a censorship here in this web site?
Please tell me that we don’t have Thaksin’s ex-officials or agents here who will delete people’s comments for speaking out against him like in Thailand’s web sites during his regime.
Because my first posting that contains factual information on Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul’s visit to Seattle was deleted, I have to post it here again after this.
The issue is that on New Mandala debate and discussion are encouraged, but in Thailand it is forbidden – by the regime that you support. THIS is what is “criminal”: the use of the threat of violence to seize political power – no different from a common bandit. Why don’t they lift martial law? Do YOU support their use of martial law? Are these your “convictions”?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Patiwat on Sarit and Sonthi
polo, thanks for the corrections. The King jammed with Elvis during the filming of GI Blues – that might have been in his first trip abroad after the coup. And the party at Perseopolis with Pahlavi was in 1971. He’s had a long passion for sailing and jazz, but pretty much stopped major public displays of those passions after he stepped up to his Development King role, circia the 60’s/70’s – after the Sarit coup.
Also, a typo: “Relatively democratic 1932/1957 Constitutions” should be read “Relatively democratic 1932/1952 Constitutions”. There was no 1957 Constitution.
As for whether the similarities between Sarit and Prem/Surayud/Sonthi are only skin deep, I’ll let the reader (and history) decide. For me, the clincher isn’t the tiny details, but the structural similarity in the role of the network, its relationship to the military, and its 50 year distrust of constitutionalism.
Surayud charms Nation reporter
Apologies, the link to McCargo’s thoughts on the coup is here.
Surayud charms Nation reporter
Nganadeeleg: Thailand would be more democratic under Thaksin – see Anon’s comment for reasons.
Anon: I slight clarification. “The public has absolutely no say in the constitutional process.” I don’t think this is correct unless there has been a change which I haven’t read about. As McCargo says (in an excellent piece btw):
“The extensive consultation process that produced the much-
heralded 1997 ‘people’s constitution’ contained provision for a referendum – but only if the draft constitution was rejected by both houses of parliament. The junta has proposed an apparently more liberal process than was followed in 1996-97, by making a referendum an integral element in approving the constitution. In effect, the junta is offering a referendum on its own performance, offering the voting public an opportunity
retrospectively to legitimate the coup d’etat.
The politics surrounding this referendum promise to be extremely interesting, especially if some groups – perhaps those loyal to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra – are mobilized to campaign for a ‘No’ vote.”
I am not quite sure I would go as far as McCargo suggests and say that the the referendum would be on the “junta’s” own performance. Rejecting the constitution would just give us a longer period of unelected government and no guarantee that there would be significant change in any draft constitution.
The King Never Smiles?
I do not know Handley, although I am familiar with a couple of pieces he did earlier in FEER. I will not debate specific issues as this is not my intention although it would appear that is exactly what Handley would like. I have extensive experience on Thailand professionally (state department) and personally (lived there 18 years) and have PhDs in law and economics.
Anyone interested in understanding Thailand and Thai culture I urge you please do your own homework. There is well researched scholarly work and analysis available that would qualify for refereed journals. Handley’s book does not fit that category. That doesn’t matter much. It has far different purposes. (I did not say “don’t buy this book.”) All of the controversy following the publication is the reward Handley sought and has now achieved. My initial reaction was hostility and desire to have at it face off with Handley. But then this is not even ideology when you look at in perspective. Getting into in a debate in print is what Handley wants. A hint of a modus operandi. Google on Handley And “king never smiles” and look at the “history” tab, did Handley make nearly all of these entries. Look at the links and find cross references to other Wikipedia entries. (there is a basic problem with Wikipedia – that is, it is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can make entry’s for publication without any editorial review. My god, take look at Handley’s repartee in this month’s (Nov 06) FEER http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/ 0611/free/p006.html.
If parts of this book appear well researched and documented but others appear as opinion and gossip (as the lead-in to this blog suggests, then proceed with caution because dear Hobbes you are not told which parts are self serving commere pejoratif and which are not. I can without risk of persecution say that “in my opinion” U.S. president an incompetent stupid ass. There is no “in my opinion” here but declarative style meaning to appear authorative, “this is fact.” In today’s world anyone can say things about anyone but the risk in a country like Thailand is of becoming a persona non grata. Which Mr. Handley now is.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Vichai N:
If Andrew does not respond to your comments, it is because you show all the maturity of a fourteen year old, which leads me to suspect that you are one. Let me make some basic facts clear to you, since Andrew and Nick are exercising such admirable restraint – I suspect because they either find you amusing, or hope that you will eventually get bored and go find someone else to annoy.
This is an academic forum. We are here to discuss events and share and improve our knowledge and understanding. We are not here to score points, support any particular politician, or indulge in ad hominem attacks or abuse. We are not here to repeat ourselves over and over, about the ‘war on drugs’ or any other subject, in the vain hope that someone will soothe our ego by paying attention to us.
Various commentators, including Andrew and myself, share an opinion that rural people in Thailand are generally discriminated against and that some of Thaksin’s policies worked against that discrimination. We also think that the military intervening in politics is a bad idea. We are open to being convinced otherwise, by reasoned arguments based upon evidence.
However, to make an effort to address your concerns, neither I nor anyone else I know (and I know quite a few people on this forum, including Andrew) thinks that the War on Drugs was a good thing. Personally, I would have been delighted if Thaksin had been placed on trial in a legally constituted court and charged with responsibility for all those deaths, though the balance of probabilities is that a certain charismatic figure gave the go ahead as well. That did not happen. Nor is it likely to happen, because the people who did the killings were the police and the military, and it is almost axiomatic that military dictatorships (which is what Thailand is now, no matter how benign it may be – any country under martial law is under a military dictatorship, that is what martial law means) do not investigate human rights abuses by their own police and military. They are not showing any clear signs of doing so now, which leads many people to believe that the CNS doesn’t care at all about the killings in the war on drugs, and are only using them as a smokescreen to hide their power grab, a smokescreen which you, Vichai, are a part of.
Please feel free to post again when you have something new, reasonable, and backed by evidence to say (though I will make an exception for your rantings about Khmer voodoo – please, carry on on that topic).
Have a nice day.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
To Thai in Seattle: The Nation, Bangkok Post, “independent”?! Ho ho ho, Merry Christmas! I hope you are not a student there in Seattle, because if you were you must already have failed Journalism 100. Now I understand why you post the way you do. Perhaps you should actually talk to some of those “native Thai” people you refer to instead of repeating what is written in phu jat kan, because you have obviously been living out of your country for so long that you don’t have any idea about what is really happening. But it’s not hard to find out, just ask any taxi driver, or read any of the alternative websites, or ask any of the 60% of people who voted for Thaksin, next time you “visit” your native country. You live in America, I hope you would understand the meaning of majority rule in a democracy. Better that, than try to support your argument by referring to your “Thainess” and saying that farang can never understand the mysterious Thai culture.
Patiwat on Sarit and Sonthi
If Surayud has power independent from Sonthi then he hasn’t been able to show it, judging from the CNS’s continued meddling.
Patiwat on Sarit and Sonthi
I think Patiwat has shown parallels between the framework/underlying philosophy of the Sarit and Sonthi coups without showing how the two men are alike. Indeed, Sonthi is hardly the strongman figure as was Sarit, and Surayuth has power independent from Sonthi, whereas Sarit was his own power. Johpa must be right that it is too early to draw parallels between their persons and means of keeping power.
BTW the king’s pictures with the Shah and elvis are from the Sarit period, when he traveled abroad. I think the sailing and jazz pix were before, during and after Sarit.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
To Thai in Seattle:
Now I understand excatly after you advise reading the Nation, Bangkok Post and Manager.
cheers
Asian Human Rights Commission on the coup
[…] In a lengthy reply to Johpa’s statement that “Quite frankly, I thought that the comparison of the current coup leaders to Sarit to be at minimum a bit premature and, dare I say, perhaps politically naive”, regular New Mandala commentator Patiwat has put together a helpful summary that attempts to put this year’s events in a broader historical perspective. […]
Asian Human Rights Commission on the coup
The rally from Samlaoung on25 Nov 2006 pls visit:
http://tmctoday.com/radio/index.php
And see all the activity at http://www.tmctoday.com
From the Far-Flung Corners
[…] The Irrawaddy’s Khun Sam – a rising star who I have highlighted in the past as a top contributor to regional media – has penned an informative new report that follows his previous article on forced labour in the southern Kachin State. It looks like he has asked some pretty hard questions of the local Kachin Independence Organization liaison officer in his efforts to probe road construction projects. […]
Asian Human Rights Commission on the coup
Johpa, on the contrary, the comparison of Sarit to Sonthi displays quite a bit of historical insight, even though there is a lot they’re not mentioning.
Sarit overthrew Marshal Por Phibulsongkhram. Marshal Por ruled at the expense of the palace. He sidelined the King and kept him a figurehead ruler, restricting his activities to harmless non-political roles. All those black and white photos you see of the King sailing, playing in jazz bands, partying with the Shah of Persia, meeting with Elvis, etc. – those are from the Por era. One of Por’s key allies was the police force, led by Phao Sriyanon. Por ruled under the 1952 Constitution, which was a copy of the 1932 Constitution: a relatively democratic instrument, allowing parliamentary elections, among other things. Por also ruled with strong support from the USA, which wanted Thailand’s support in the Cold War.
In 1957, right after parliamentary elections (which, as a footnote to history, Surayud’s father successfully contested), Sarit accused Por of lese majeste regarding Por’s management of the 2,500th anniversary of Buddhism. Por visited the King to seek support for his government – the King told him to resign to avoid a coup. Por resigned, and that evening Sarit seized power. Two hours after the coup, the King endorsed it and named Sarit “Champion of the Capital.” Por spent the rest of his life in exile in Japan.
Sarit ripped up the Constitution, declared martial law, and ruled via Revolutionary Council. He ruled with an iron fist, and even after he died, the Three Dictators continued his legacy. He replaced the democratic 1952 Constitution with the 1959 Charter – a travesty of constitutional law (it should have been called a р╕гр╕▒р╕Р-р╕нр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕б-р╕Щр╕╣р╕Н “rule of the state with evil” instead of р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Н “rule of the state with dharma”). Sarit cracked down hard on all remnants of the “Por regime” (including Surayud’s father, who was hounded into the forest), branding anyone who contested his dictatorship a “communist.” Sarit also rebranded the King to the image which we are familiar with today: a development King who visits the provinces, a genius in all fields of knowledge, and a semi-holy man whose image is sacred. The royal image was boosted with a rebirth of tradition and ceremony: people again had to crawl before him during audiences (this was banned by R.5 as uncivilized), the royal barge procession was reinitiated for the first time in decades, etc. Sarit was also a very charming man – he had many many many wives. Sarit was a favorite of the King. After Sarit died, the King gave him the highest of honors during his funeral.
Where are the similarities between the Sarit and the current junta?
Por Phibulsongkram = Thaksin Shinawatra
Sidelining the King = “Finland Plot”
Support from the US in the Cold War = Support from the US in the War on Terror
Lese majeste accusastion over 2,500th anniversary of Buddhism = Lese majeste over caretaker committee for the Supreme Patriarch
Por’s support from the police = Thaksin’s support from the police
Phao Sriyanon’s death squads = Thaksin’s War on Drugs
Sarit Thanarat = Sonthi/Prem/Surayud
The 1957 Coup = The 2006 Coup
Por’s exile in Japan = Thaksin’s exile in the UK
Relatively democratic 1932/1957 Constitutions = Relatively democratic 1997 Constitution
Undemocratic 1959 Charter = Undemocratic 2006 Constitution
Sarit as a favorite of the King = Prem/Surayud as favorites of the King
Sarit makes pomp and celebration of the King his no. 1 priority = Sonthi makes pomp and celebration of the King his no. 1 priority
Sarit’s charm with the ladies = Surayud’s charm with the ladies
“Communists” = “undercurrents”
Surayud charms Nation reporter
nganadeeleg asked, “Do you really believe the country would be more ‘democratic’ if Thaksin remained (even if he was elected).”
That’s a hypothetical question which doesn’t really have an answer.
But what is clear is that the country is not more democratic with Surayud and Sonthi in power. The public has no elected MPs with which it can block or even question the government’s actions. The public has no right to impeach the PM, Cabinet, or junta for misconduct. The public has absolutely no say in the constitutional process. Television stations have tanks on standby outside their offices and soldiers inside their broadcasting rooms. Under martial law, the public has no right to normal legal procedures or protections. The junta’s constitution doesn’t mention anything about freedom of information, community rights, freedom of the airwaves, or the right to protest – consequently, the junta has cracked down on all of these rights.
Yet, despite all of these abuses, the press continues to “chlear” the junta. It becomes clear the reason The Nation and Phoochatkarn hated Thaksin so much was not because of his abuses, but because they were vested interests that lost Thaksin put on the bottom of his list of priorities.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Hi Thai in Seattle (again). In fact your comment was not deleted. It is still available here.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Thanks Thai in Seattle for your contributions. I am not sure what happened to the comment you made previously. I may have deleted it in error when I thought I was deleting duplicate comments. Sorry. Rest assured, we have no intention or desire to delete comments that disagree with us. The only comments that are not approved are those that are considered offensive.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
To Curious, commentator #20 –
Based on my comment above, I hope you’ll find some of the answers you asked me in your comment. Whenever I have the time, I’ll provide the rest.
In the meantime, I’d suggest you to at least read the Nation and Bangkok Post to find more info or answers you don’t have. Both are English newspapers & rather independent ones too. Reading Manager will give you another perspective. If you have real closed friends or relatives in Thailand, it’ll even be better. Quite often, when native Thais talk to foreigners, they really do not open up speaking the truth out of courtesy.
And if you know the facts, I dare say that your view on Thaksin’s behaviors & practices as the man, businessman and head of a government will not be positive or favorable as you’ve shown based on a few comments you posted here.
Have a good weekend.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
I was there attending the event. The event was actually organized by Thai business owners & professionals in Seattle not the Thai Students in UW. According to a member of the organizing group, SE Asia Center sponsored only in name so that the meeting hall could be secured for use without going through the red tape. Actually, there’re only 2 students who distributed flyers protesting against the coup. Since the group paid for the rental cost, and since the 2 protesters took over the spot where the event organizer had planned to put a large table full of free refreshment (hot coffee & tea included) without informing the organizer in advance, members of the organizer were not pleased to begin with. They viewed the protest as the support for Taksin Shinnawatra. When the 2 protesting students aggressively handed out flyers to the attendees who started to come in, members of the organizer got upset. So, they contacted the staff manning the facility & asked that the 2 students moved their table & materials away from the spot slated for their use. Since their action created considerable confusion to the arriving attendees, they were asked to be outside the hall separate from the originally planned event.
My acquaintance said that in having the event opened to the public & held at UW, they were aware that there would be disagreements arising from Khun Sondhi & his co-speakers’ speech. Many members of the organizing team have lived in the US for decades; they know Americans are very opinionated. Therefore, disagreement or opposition was expected. But they did not appreciate that the young lady who led the protest disguised herself days earlier trying to extract information on who actually funded the event and then made the pre-emptive move occupying the rented space before the organizer came to set up the meeting. Nevertheless, after knowing that the 2 protesting students created no trouble other than distributing the flyers, they offered the student free coffee and refreshment including the beverage as well as cookies and donuts.
It should be noted that both Mr. Sondhi & Senator Karoon went out of their way to chat with the 2 protesting students. They invited the students to sit in & listen to their information. The students sat next to a member of the organizer. They applauded at times during the speech by both speakers.
By the way, the auditorium can seat 440 people at full capacity. In my estimate, there were close to 400 people attended the symposium.
It is clear to me & others who know the facts & have the critical thinking ability that in protesting the coup, these 2 students & those people in Thailand are mostly supporters of the ex-PM. They protest because their idol lost out in the game of politics & power. Knowing that their favorite man is homeless & wandering aimlessly from one country to another & knowing that anti-graft committees are piling up evidence against the ex-PM, his wife, relatives & close associates are too much to bear. They feel powerless because the base of their power was gone, suddenly taken away by the coup. One has to question their motives in the protest against the coup despite the 4 main reasons given by the coup leader & despite things are getting better now compared to several months ago. If they are genuinely against the coup, they should include future coups and the counter-coup as well. Since the day after the coup, there have consistently been widespread rumors about counter-coup. If their common goal & motive is against the coup, they must fairly & clearly condemn all coups including the counter-coup because the coups & counter-coups are all the same, different than the chicken coup. This applies to all Farangs or non-Thais every where too.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Andrew,
There is another error I made in my comment. The sentence “On your answer that rural Thais already knew how to fish, I got it all wrong” should be “On your answer that rural Thais already knew how to fish, YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG.”
By the way, I posted the factual information about Mr. Sondhi’s visit to Seattle a few days ago here at this web site. But it disappeared. It must have been deleted. I wonder, is there anyone who is afraid of the fact here or what? Is there a censorship here in this web site?
Please tell me that we don’t have Thaksin’s ex-officials or agents here who will delete people’s comments for speaking out against him like in Thailand’s web sites during his regime.
Because my first posting that contains factual information on Mr. Sondhi Limthongkul’s visit to Seattle was deleted, I have to post it here again after this.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
The issue is that on New Mandala debate and discussion are encouraged, but in Thailand it is forbidden – by the regime that you support. THIS is what is “criminal”: the use of the threat of violence to seize political power – no different from a common bandit. Why don’t they lift martial law? Do YOU support their use of martial law? Are these your “convictions”?