Bystander has raised a few good points:
“I think most of us have good intention and wants Thailand to be a better place. We may disagree when it comes to which directions we think Thailand should head toward, but that’s why we talk about it.”
– What defines a better place?
– Is it a US style democracy (or what)?
“And don’t you think you are not a little hypocritical, as His Majesty himself said he should not be above criticism either?”
-The King has said he would no longer take lese majeste charges seriously anymore – is it feasible to have the lese majeste laws taken off the books to stop them being used by politicians as a threat and smokescreen?
Any other suggestions for the new constitution?
For those who like to criticise the King:
– How would Thailand be a better place without him?
Can academics only criticise, or is it possible to make positive suggestions?
hammer, I’m not making negative comments about him, and its laughable that you are questioning whether I’m a “good Thai” or not.
Your interpretation of his speech is also questionable. I mean, read it. The guy is literally saying that it doesn’t matter how many people died, because they would have died anyway. But as you noted, the King’s genius is in making comments that anybody can interpret any way they want – quite literally, the King can do no wrong.
“How good a Thai are you, anyway? ” I think you’re taking this way too personally. I think most of us have good intention and wants Thailand to be a better place. We may disagree when it comes to which directions we think Thailand should head toward, but that’s why we talk about it. If you start down the path of condemning those who disagree with you, I don’t think that will be productive, to say the least. And don’t you think you are not a little hypocritical, as His Majesty himself said he should not be above criticism either?
Patiwat, you make me laugh. No, the king did not praise the “war on drugs,” he more likely condemned it. Your translation is not quite correct. Here are mine:
English translation:
The victory of the drug suppression – good to have suppressed it – and those criticisms (about the drug suppression), “Hey! 2,500 people died! 2,500 people? That’s nothing (no big deal), if the PM didn’t do it, he didn’t do it every year.” Mark it down that there were 2,500 deaths including those who were addicts. And they (meaning the authorities) went up to kill people or do something (meaning some violent acts), burning things including those officers who routinely suppress drugs, they died too but nothing was said about them, they didn’t count. But they point, point, point! And count those drugs dealers, many of whom died too before this, but were never mentioned. It is the same as marking down those who died in the drug war are many.
And what was said of 2,500 deaths, (I) don’t believe this. There were more deaths but I don’t know and those that the officers executed were not 2,500, they (the drug dealers or drug warlords, drug addicts) were killing each other, so how could we (the drug suppression authorities) take responsibility. They criticized that the PM started the war on drugs and caused 2,500 people to die. Really it wasn’t like that all 2,500 people, they counted that only the majority of those who died were those who killed each other … those who deal, those who produced … they killed each other … many of them. The authorities took the responsibility for some of the deaths. Just go and ask the National Police Chief to separate and sort out how many. It is believed that in 2,500 deaths, mostly killed each other and the blame were thrown at the super PM.
You see, you misinterpreted the “р╕Фр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ъ” part thinking that he praised the war on drug. Incidentally, he merely said in agreement on this part only, the rest were not even praises. Most of what he said shunned Thaksin and the “War on Drugs.” In a way he used a third person narration to describe the “War on Drugs” just to make a point. Most people misinterpreted what he said in his speech because they don’t get the message he was trying to conveyed. He avoided commenting directly and that is why people don’t understand what he was saying. This is an extremely intelligent and multi-talented man who excelled far more than normal people, including the so-called intellectuals or academics who posted in this forum. He has done great feat in his lifetime, more than you can even do in one life. What have you contributed to society so far? Have you and the academic scholars contributed anything but making negative comments about a man who has done many good things for his people and his nation. If you were in his shoe, would you have done better? How good a Thai are you, anyway?
Plot One: The southern violence had been the threat to ‘the Thai State’ for a century, un-or-fortunately, it had, in the past few years, been resurrected and become part of the national debates and therefore national secuirty and polity.
Plot Two: The Defeat of Thanksin Regime’, no matters whether this really existed, but it had already been existed in many Thai mental space, was in itself represented a real structural change in Thai society. It was a sign and symptom of a process of structuring a re-structured society. (see Thongchai W’ short note on a history of Thai Monarchy in Krungthep Turakit Online for your further idea if you like)
Plot Three: The Coup 19/09/49 was a juxtaposition of both.
Monks, temples and teachers are all symbols of the thai state in muslim, non-thai speaking southern areas. Ditto thai banks which always act as money pumps to the centre (Does anyone know if the CPT ever targeted banks, compradors, etc?). Hence why I think attacking Hat Yai is qualatitively different.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t disagree that monks, temples, and teachers are symbols of the Thai State – I actually said the same thing the other day in regards to monks and temples, but also agree about teachers.
Since 2004, the insurgents have also attacked the economy. They have been able to slowly, but systematically, almost destroy (for want of a better word) the economy. They attack wet markets, threaten small shop owners, shrimp farms, rubber tappers, banks etc. These are not symbols of the Thai state, but part of the economic structure of the southern border provinces. If the economy is bad then blame can be put on the central government for not caring enough.* For me, the attacks on Hat Yai was just another attack albeit on a greater scale and I don’t see it as that different. I also think the coup had been planned weeks in advance and why they might want to use Hat Yai as an excuse, I think it is generally irrelevant to why the coup took place.
I seem to recall it lead to Sonthi making that rather extraordinary public statement along the lines of of “just give the army a completely free hand and stop political meddling and we will sort it out” – which I take as evidence for my suggestion that the situation there had a lot to do with the coup.
In private, the situation in southern Thailand has been stated as a reason for the coup, but I think this is more posturing. Lese majeste has also been stated as a reason for the coup, but again these are just excuses to justify the coup. I am sure Sonthi/Surayud/Prem et al have different ideas on the situation in southern Thailand, but I don’t think the coup played a major part in the decision to stage the coup. Yes, they want to restore the bureaucratic structures that Prem put in place, but they want to do this as they were Prem’s little toys which Thaksin had taken away.
It was after the Yala bombings that Sonthi for the first time publicly raised the idea of talks/negotiations. This seemed a new development and then after the coup this was downgraded to low-level talks. Subsequently, it was leaked (and then people went on record) that talks had been going on for almost a year already. I believe those within the government close to Thaksin leaked details of the talks to imply that talks had already happened under Thaksin and low-level talks were not a new development.
I also wanted to mention that one reason why the CPT fell was that the Thai government had established better bilateral relations with Beijing and negotiated with the Chinese government to cut off funding to CPT. With CPT’s patron disappearing and with an amnesty and other government policies (66/2523 etc) , the Thai government was able to succeed. The situation in Southern Thailand is different as the money behind the violence comes from a number of varied sources including criminal activities and foreign Muslim organisations. There is no patron for Southern Thailand that the Thai government can negotiate with.
*To be honest I have been long surprised on this focus on poverty in the southern border provinces as being a reason behind the violence. One reason why the economy is in such a bad state is precisely because of the violence. If you injure and kill people at random, workers and investors will not come. Government money tries to balance out the lack of private investment, but until the killings stop private investment won’t be flowing freely.
James, nice attempt for your analysis which, contrary to what many people here say, I have to admit, is rather long and confusing.
I also admit that I agree with Patiwat, Ananymous Thai, and Curious, not trying to make myself sound like falling for a different way of seeing the king as a so-called monarchical institutiton.
As someone who was trained to adopt critical thinking and analytical reasoning as a mantra in my profession, I couldn’t help but see that many aspects if not all of possible reasons behind the coup need to be taken into consideration. Thus, taking the “institutional role” of the king for granted and failing to perhaps realize his “behind-the-scene potential power” may be prohibitive of truly recognizing the current status of the situation in Thailand. One thing I believe for sure is any institutions for which there are no effictive and thorough means of inspection and scrutiny cannot be 100% trusted.
Sonthi’s original request for negotiations was made on 1 September 2006, right after the Yala bank bombings. His idea met immediate opposition.
The next day, he made his ”Free the military and let it do the job. And when things happen, everyone must give them moral support. I’d like to say this to state officials, people and politicians,” quote. However, this was before the Had Yai bombings.
I should say I am in Laos at the moment – I don’t have access to a library, so I write from memory or quick checks on the internet. I could easily have got specific details wrong. So I am grateful for the checks on who did what in previous coups.
Polo: I am sure that Prem is the king of the front palace, and would do anything to protect the institution. Including taking unilateral action, and informing the king (who is the symbol of the institution, not the institution itself) later. If I remember my Ayutthayan history, the front palace king role came about because the King himself was so sacred (and so vulnerable to coups) that he didn’t dare leave the palace…
Bangkok Pundit: Monks, temples and teachers are all symbols of the thai state in muslim, non-thai speaking southern areas. Ditto thai banks which always act as money pumps to the centre (Does anyone know if the CPT ever targeted banks, compradors, etc?). Hence why I think attacking Hat Yai is qualatitively different.
I thought I had read something about Thaksin slapping down suggestions of negotiating in the Bangkok post just before the coup, it could well have been one of his ministers as you say. I seem to recall it lead to Sonthi making that rather extraordinary public statement along the lines of of “just give the army a completely free hand and stop political meddling and we will sort it out” – which I take as evidence for my suggestion that the situation there had a lot to do with the coup.
Curious is of course correct that I may be falling for the “royalist” discourse – but I think seeing the king’s PERSONAL, ACTIVE role in everything is falling for it in a different way; as opposed to the king being a figurehead for the “monarchical institution” which may take decisions which he might personally disagree with. If the king had personally wanted to get rid of Thaksin that badly, surely he could have just done what he did in 1992 – called Thaksin and Sondhi on the carpet and told them to back down. A coup is overkill for personal royal authority, but par for the course for an over-centralised state with the king as its symbol.
As for Prem being 89, the saying is that old generals are always ready to refight the previous war.
Nice idea about the democrats patron-client breakdown Chris – shows why they would consider rural populism such a threat.
I am going to venture further out on the limb and speculate that the Hat Yai bombings may have been a turning point in the way Prem thought about the results of abandoning his CPM methodology. They marked the first time that the Islamists turned to Al Quaeda tactics of large-scale terrorist attacks against targets frequented by westerners, as opposed to attacking the Thai state in its various forms (army bases, schools, etc), one-on-one terror, and leaving the tourist trade alone.
I am not sure that the Hat Yai bombings were really aimed at attacking westerners. I see them as aimed at the economy – they came in the aftermath of the coordinated bank bombings in Yala. Since 2004, nothing has been sacred, monks, temples, teachers have all been attacked – see here. You might be right that Prem, Sonthi etc believe that the Hat Yai bombings took things to a new level, but I don’t believe they actually did. Now, if there was a suicide bombing or an attack outside of the 5 southern provinces this to me would indicate a new level since January 2004.
I can’t think of any other reason why Gen Sonthi is taking an approach of trying to open negotiations with the insurgents within weeks of such an atrocity (for which he was rebuked publicly by Thaksin, just a day or two before the coup – note that there were sufficient troops in Bangkok for a coup because they were in transit from the north “to deal with the southern insurgency” – perhaps they were used for just that).
Do you have any reference from Thaksin rebuking Sonthi? I have followed the idea of talks/negotiations closely and only know of Chidchai and Kongsak disagreeing with Sonthi. Thaksin was quiet on the issue – or at least it was not well publicised.
You also have to remember there have been talks since 2005. On whether Thaksin knew of the talks, here is what Dr Mahathir has to say:
“Although, I believe Thaksin and Chidchai were aware of this. They didn’t say no and they were quite willing to, but I think they wanted to wait and see or something like that”
An SMH report quoting an unamed source also says the peace plan proposals were sent to Chidchai. A Nation report also states that in 2005 when Defence Minister Thammarak said insurgents were using Langkawi to plan attacks was his annoyance at being sidelined by Thaksin about the talks who gave the authority to Chidchai.
This is pretty neat – legit writers/columnists (albeit from India) are relying on new media like blogs to bypass junta control and get the word out to the world about the real situation in Thailand.
Andrew, when you say that Sondhi and Kraigsak emphasized the *this* in “the role of *this* king,” how did they actually do that? It was a speech, right – not written.
Sondhi was also in New York City last week, and the talk he gave to the PAD NYC also made several mentions of the King. Probably because he wasn’t in front of any academics or media (and because 90% of the people attending were wearing yellow), he was much more forceful in his comments about the King, even claiming that if it weren’t for Sonthi’s coup, Thaksin would have surrounded the palace with tanks.
Nothing new of course: “Pridi killed the King” and “The students lynched the a mock-up of Crown Prince” were used to justify coups in 1947 and 1976.
Let me clarify things for people reading polo’s comments – the King *praised* the war on drugs. In his 2003 birthday speech, here’s what he said: “р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Кр╕▒р╕вр╕Кр╕Щр╕░р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕вр╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕Щр╕╡р╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╕Фр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕ЪтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Хр╕│тАЛр╕лр╕Щр╕┤р╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕нр╣Йр╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гр╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕ер╣Зр╕БтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕Цр╣Йр╕▓тАЛр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕птАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕птАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Ыр╕╡тАЛ тАЛр╣ЖтАЛ тАЛр╕Ир╕ФтАЛр╣Др╕зр╣ЙтАЛр╕Щр╕░тАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕╡р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕ФтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╣Др╕ЫтАЛ тАЛр╕Жр╣Ир╕▓р╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нтАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓р╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╣ЖтАЛ тАЛр╕гр╕зр╕бтАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕ЗтАЛр╣Др╕Ыр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╕Ыр╕Бр╕Хр╕┤тАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕ЩтАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ”
In english: “The victory of the supression of drugs – it’s good that we supressed drugs. As for criticisms that ‘hey, 2,500 people died!’ – 2,500, that’s really nothing. If the PM didn’t do it, he didn’t do it. Remember, every year more than 2,500 people die. Those that take drugs due, but they’ll kill people and do stuff like that – burning stuff. And then there’s the plenty of officials that get killed while supressing them.”
Don’t know how anyone could assume that Prem, as the king’s right hand man for more than a quarter-century, is not working for the king and the throne. One really has to strain logic and information to conclude he is an independent actor: he is the absolutely loyal king of the front palace and would not do anything that would hurt the institution.
1. Sondhi would not have any idea whether the king wants to reform the monarchy — he doesn’t talk to the king and no one around the king talks to Sondhi. It might be true but it’s hearsay at best. Mostly dreaming, for a guy who has fed the mythologization of Rama V while speculating big time in Rama V amulets and mementos.
2. The king spoke out about Thaksin’s “bloodthirsty war on drugs” 2-3 months after it began, meaning months after global human rights groups said anything, after foreign embassies raised questions, well after more than 1,000 were killed and probably after it already was winding down. And his comments were hardly unequivocal. Nor did they mention rule of law.
[…] Kraisak argued that it is ridiculous to suggest that the monarchy is on the rise in Thailand and said that any suggestions that the king was behind the coup are “absolutely false”. He suggested that the idea of a god-king (deva-raja) is contrary to democratic ideology. Like Sondhi he emphasised the positive role of this king. He referred to the role of the king in protecting people in the violent crises of both 1973 and 1992. He applauded the king for speaking out against Thaksin’s bloodthirsty war on drugs. Like Sondhi, Kraisak also emphased the role of the king in welfare provision: many of the minorities in the north of Thailand would still be very poor if it wasn’t for the king’s projects (whereas Thaksin, he claimed, had annulled the citizenship of many uplanders and, through the free trade agreement with China, destroyed the opium substitution initiatives of the Royal Project Foundation). And, Kraisak argued, prior to the Thaksin era, the “network monarchy” had played an important role in easing tensions in the south. […]
[…] One of the interesting features of the London seminar by Sondhi Limthongkul and Kraisak Choonhavan was their comments on the role of the monarcy in contemporary Thai politics. (The following is based on my handwritten notes, a full recording of the seminar is available online.) […]
We have to understand Prem as the front man, the fall guy, or more accurately, the “spirit medium”. Prem, and his patronage network, is nothing without that spirit flowing into him and talking through him. So I think paragraph 2 is a little naive. It is necessary that coups have Prem’s fingerprints over them, because that deflects attention from the true source of the action – even if that source can not be confirmed by a direct order that appears in the government gazette. Obviously it is an unspeakable thing for a king to carry out a coup, so it is handled in another, much more subtle way.
Yes, the king is 79, but Prem is 87! And I’m not sure whether I believe all that soap opera about the poor health.
“The king has always ridden coups out rather than actively supporting them “. That’s a big statement and would be very hard, if not impossible to prove. But it does fit very nicely into the dominant royalist discourse of a king with the best interests of the nation at heart sitting above the cut and thrust of everyday politics – rather than doing what kings are there to do (especially in countries with no history of true constitutionalism), that is, rule. We need to separate spectacle and theatre from what is really happening, which is an extremely difficult thing to do.
Mr. Haughton, your analysis is very well written and it depict balance views of a nation under crisis. Though, I may not agree in some parts but most of what you have wrtten clearly justify what should be said of Thailand at this moment. You help justify HM the king’s role in the coup by analyzing past history. This is what I have been waiting for. I am not someone with words in explaining what my country is going through but she is trying to the best she can to survive as a nation.
About the south, it may be beyond trouble-free, but it wouldn’t hurt to try to bring back peace to the people of the three provinces.
I think you are a true man of integrity in sharing your knowledge with everyone here. I personally thank you for a very informative piece.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
“Thou shalt not criticise dad”
Bystander has raised a few good points:
“I think most of us have good intention and wants Thailand to be a better place. We may disagree when it comes to which directions we think Thailand should head toward, but that’s why we talk about it.”
– What defines a better place?
– Is it a US style democracy (or what)?
“And don’t you think you are not a little hypocritical, as His Majesty himself said he should not be above criticism either?”
-The King has said he would no longer take lese majeste charges seriously anymore – is it feasible to have the lese majeste laws taken off the books to stop them being used by politicians as a threat and smokescreen?
Any other suggestions for the new constitution?
For those who like to criticise the King:
– How would Thailand be a better place without him?
Can academics only criticise, or is it possible to make positive suggestions?
“Thou shalt not criticise dad”
hammer, I’m not making negative comments about him, and its laughable that you are questioning whether I’m a “good Thai” or not.
Your interpretation of his speech is also questionable. I mean, read it. The guy is literally saying that it doesn’t matter how many people died, because they would have died anyway. But as you noted, the King’s genius is in making comments that anybody can interpret any way they want – quite literally, the King can do no wrong.
“Thou shalt not criticise dad”
“How good a Thai are you, anyway? ” I think you’re taking this way too personally. I think most of us have good intention and wants Thailand to be a better place. We may disagree when it comes to which directions we think Thailand should head toward, but that’s why we talk about it. If you start down the path of condemning those who disagree with you, I don’t think that will be productive, to say the least. And don’t you think you are not a little hypocritical, as His Majesty himself said he should not be above criticism either?
“Thou shalt not criticise dad”
Patiwat, you make me laugh. No, the king did not praise the “war on drugs,” he more likely condemned it. Your translation is not quite correct. Here are mine:
Thai:
р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Кр╕▒р╕вр╕Кр╕Щр╕░р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕вр╕▓р╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕Щр╕╡р╣И р╕Фр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ъ р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Бр╣Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Хр╕│р╕лр╕Щр╕┤р╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╣Ар╕нр╣Йр╕в р╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕в р╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕З р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р р╕Др╕Щ р╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щ р╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕ер╣Зр╕Б р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р р╕Др╕Щ р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕п р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Чр╕│ р╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕п р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Чр╕│ р╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Ыр╕╡ р╣Ж р╕Ир╕Фр╣Др╕зр╣Йр╕Щр╕░ р╕бр╕╡р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р р╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕в р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Ф р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Бр╣Зр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╣Др╕Ы р╕Жр╣Ир╕▓р╕Др╕Щ р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Чр╕│р╕нр╕░р╣Др╕г р╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓р╕нр╕░р╣Др╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕З р╣Ж р╕гр╕зр╕бр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕Ыр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╕Ыр╕Бр╕Хр╕┤ р╕Бр╣Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Щр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Юр╕╣р╕Фр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕З р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Ыр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ъ р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Бр╣Зр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╣Др╕Ыр╕Кр╕╡р╣Й р╕Кр╕╡р╣Й р╕Кр╕╡р╣Йр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Др╣Йр╕▓ р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕│ р╕Бр╣Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕вр╕нр╕░р╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Щр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ р╕Бр╣Ир╕нр╕Щр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Юр╕╣р╕Фр╕Цр╕╢р╕З р╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Юр╕нр╣Ж р╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕Ир╕Фр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕бр╕╡р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╕вр╕▓р╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Ф р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕в р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕вр╕▓р╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕Щр╕╡р╣И р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕бр╕▓р╕в
English translation:
The victory of the drug suppression – good to have suppressed it – and those criticisms (about the drug suppression), “Hey! 2,500 people died! 2,500 people? That’s nothing (no big deal), if the PM didn’t do it, he didn’t do it every year.” Mark it down that there were 2,500 deaths including those who were addicts. And they (meaning the authorities) went up to kill people or do something (meaning some violent acts), burning things including those officers who routinely suppress drugs, they died too but nothing was said about them, they didn’t count. But they point, point, point! And count those drugs dealers, many of whom died too before this, but were never mentioned. It is the same as marking down those who died in the drug war are many.
р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ър╕нр╕Б р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р р╕Др╕Щ р╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╕Бр╣Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕н р╕бр╕╡р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕гр╕╣р╣Й р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Бр╣Зр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕г р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Гр╕Кр╣И р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р р╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕З р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Ьр╕┤р╕Фр╕Кр╕нр╕Ър╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Др╕г р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Фр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕п р╕Чр╕│р╕кр╕Зр╕Др╕гр╕▓р╕б р╕Чр╕│р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕в р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р р╕Др╕Щ р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р р╕Др╕Щ р╕бр╕▒р╕Щр╕лр╕бр╕Фр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕лр╕бр╕Ф р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╣Гр╕лр╕Нр╣И р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Жр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕З р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Др╣Йр╕▓ р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ьр╕ер╕┤р╕Х р╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Жр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕З р╕Ир╕│р╕Щр╕зр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Б р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ир╕░р╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Ьр╕┤р╕Фр╕Кр╕нр╕Ъ р╕Бр╣Зр╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╕Ир╕░р╕бр╕╡р╕Ир╕│р╕Щр╕зр╕Щр╕лр╕Щр╕╢р╣Ир╕З р╕Бр╣Зр╕ер╕нр╕Зр╕Цр╕▓р╕бр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Нр╕Кр╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╕│р╕гр╕зр╕Ир╣Бр╕лр╣Ир╕Зр╕Кр╕▓р╕Хр╕┤ р╣Др╕Ыр╣Бр╕вр╕Б р╕Ир╕│р╣Бр╕Щр╕Бр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╣Др╕г р╕Бр╣Зр╣Ар╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Гр╕Щ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р р╕Щр╕╡р╣И р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╕▓р╕Жр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╣Ар╕нр╕З р╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Бр╣Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ьр╕┤р╕Фр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓ р╕бр╕▓р╣Вр╕вр╕Щр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Ьр╕┤р╕Фр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕Лр╕╣р╣Ар╕Ыр╕нр╕гр╣Мр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕п
And what was said of 2,500 deaths, (I) don’t believe this. There were more deaths but I don’t know and those that the officers executed were not 2,500, they (the drug dealers or drug warlords, drug addicts) were killing each other, so how could we (the drug suppression authorities) take responsibility. They criticized that the PM started the war on drugs and caused 2,500 people to die. Really it wasn’t like that all 2,500 people, they counted that only the majority of those who died were those who killed each other … those who deal, those who produced … they killed each other … many of them. The authorities took the responsibility for some of the deaths. Just go and ask the National Police Chief to separate and sort out how many. It is believed that in 2,500 deaths, mostly killed each other and the blame were thrown at the super PM.
You see, you misinterpreted the “р╕Фр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ъ” part thinking that he praised the war on drug. Incidentally, he merely said in agreement on this part only, the rest were not even praises. Most of what he said shunned Thaksin and the “War on Drugs.” In a way he used a third person narration to describe the “War on Drugs” just to make a point. Most people misinterpreted what he said in his speech because they don’t get the message he was trying to conveyed. He avoided commenting directly and that is why people don’t understand what he was saying. This is an extremely intelligent and multi-talented man who excelled far more than normal people, including the so-called intellectuals or academics who posted in this forum. He has done great feat in his lifetime, more than you can even do in one life. What have you contributed to society so far? Have you and the academic scholars contributed anything but making negative comments about a man who has done many good things for his people and his nation. If you were in his shoe, would you have done better? How good a Thai are you, anyway?
The empire strikes back
Plot One: The southern violence had been the threat to ‘the Thai State’ for a century, un-or-fortunately, it had, in the past few years, been resurrected and become part of the national debates and therefore national secuirty and polity.
Plot Two: The Defeat of Thanksin Regime’, no matters whether this really existed, but it had already been existed in many Thai mental space, was in itself represented a real structural change in Thai society. It was a sign and symptom of a process of structuring a re-structured society. (see Thongchai W’ short note on a history of Thai Monarchy in Krungthep Turakit Online for your further idea if you like)
Plot Three: The Coup 19/09/49 was a juxtaposition of both.
The empire strikes back
James: On Prem, I agree.
Monks, temples and teachers are all symbols of the thai state in muslim, non-thai speaking southern areas. Ditto thai banks which always act as money pumps to the centre (Does anyone know if the CPT ever targeted banks, compradors, etc?). Hence why I think attacking Hat Yai is qualatitively different.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t disagree that monks, temples, and teachers are symbols of the Thai State – I actually said the same thing the other day in regards to monks and temples, but also agree about teachers.
Since 2004, the insurgents have also attacked the economy. They have been able to slowly, but systematically, almost destroy (for want of a better word) the economy. They attack wet markets, threaten small shop owners, shrimp farms, rubber tappers, banks etc. These are not symbols of the Thai state, but part of the economic structure of the southern border provinces. If the economy is bad then blame can be put on the central government for not caring enough.* For me, the attacks on Hat Yai was just another attack albeit on a greater scale and I don’t see it as that different. I also think the coup had been planned weeks in advance and why they might want to use Hat Yai as an excuse, I think it is generally irrelevant to why the coup took place.
I seem to recall it lead to Sonthi making that rather extraordinary public statement along the lines of of “just give the army a completely free hand and stop political meddling and we will sort it out” – which I take as evidence for my suggestion that the situation there had a lot to do with the coup.
In private, the situation in southern Thailand has been stated as a reason for the coup, but I think this is more posturing. Lese majeste has also been stated as a reason for the coup, but again these are just excuses to justify the coup. I am sure Sonthi/Surayud/Prem et al have different ideas on the situation in southern Thailand, but I don’t think the coup played a major part in the decision to stage the coup. Yes, they want to restore the bureaucratic structures that Prem put in place, but they want to do this as they were Prem’s little toys which Thaksin had taken away.
It was after the Yala bombings that Sonthi for the first time publicly raised the idea of talks/negotiations. This seemed a new development and then after the coup this was downgraded to low-level talks. Subsequently, it was leaked (and then people went on record) that talks had been going on for almost a year already. I believe those within the government close to Thaksin leaked details of the talks to imply that talks had already happened under Thaksin and low-level talks were not a new development.
I also wanted to mention that one reason why the CPT fell was that the Thai government had established better bilateral relations with Beijing and negotiated with the Chinese government to cut off funding to CPT. With CPT’s patron disappearing and with an amnesty and other government policies (66/2523 etc) , the Thai government was able to succeed. The situation in Southern Thailand is different as the money behind the violence comes from a number of varied sources including criminal activities and foreign Muslim organisations. There is no patron for Southern Thailand that the Thai government can negotiate with.
*To be honest I have been long surprised on this focus on poverty in the southern border provinces as being a reason behind the violence. One reason why the economy is in such a bad state is precisely because of the violence. If you injure and kill people at random, workers and investors will not come. Government money tries to balance out the lack of private investment, but until the killings stop private investment won’t be flowing freely.
The empire strikes back
James, nice attempt for your analysis which, contrary to what many people here say, I have to admit, is rather long and confusing.
I also admit that I agree with Patiwat, Ananymous Thai, and Curious, not trying to make myself sound like falling for a different way of seeing the king as a so-called monarchical institutiton.
As someone who was trained to adopt critical thinking and analytical reasoning as a mantra in my profession, I couldn’t help but see that many aspects if not all of possible reasons behind the coup need to be taken into consideration. Thus, taking the “institutional role” of the king for granted and failing to perhaps realize his “behind-the-scene potential power” may be prohibitive of truly recognizing the current status of the situation in Thailand. One thing I believe for sure is any institutions for which there are no effictive and thorough means of inspection and scrutiny cannot be 100% trusted.
The empire strikes back
Sonthi’s original request for negotiations was made on 1 September 2006, right after the Yala bank bombings. His idea met immediate opposition.
The next day, he made his ”Free the military and let it do the job. And when things happen, everyone must give them moral support. I’d like to say this to state officials, people and politicians,” quote. However, this was before the Had Yai bombings.
The empire strikes back
I should say I am in Laos at the moment – I don’t have access to a library, so I write from memory or quick checks on the internet. I could easily have got specific details wrong. So I am grateful for the checks on who did what in previous coups.
Polo: I am sure that Prem is the king of the front palace, and would do anything to protect the institution. Including taking unilateral action, and informing the king (who is the symbol of the institution, not the institution itself) later. If I remember my Ayutthayan history, the front palace king role came about because the King himself was so sacred (and so vulnerable to coups) that he didn’t dare leave the palace…
Bangkok Pundit: Monks, temples and teachers are all symbols of the thai state in muslim, non-thai speaking southern areas. Ditto thai banks which always act as money pumps to the centre (Does anyone know if the CPT ever targeted banks, compradors, etc?). Hence why I think attacking Hat Yai is qualatitively different.
I thought I had read something about Thaksin slapping down suggestions of negotiating in the Bangkok post just before the coup, it could well have been one of his ministers as you say. I seem to recall it lead to Sonthi making that rather extraordinary public statement along the lines of of “just give the army a completely free hand and stop political meddling and we will sort it out” – which I take as evidence for my suggestion that the situation there had a lot to do with the coup.
Curious is of course correct that I may be falling for the “royalist” discourse – but I think seeing the king’s PERSONAL, ACTIVE role in everything is falling for it in a different way; as opposed to the king being a figurehead for the “monarchical institution” which may take decisions which he might personally disagree with. If the king had personally wanted to get rid of Thaksin that badly, surely he could have just done what he did in 1992 – called Thaksin and Sondhi on the carpet and told them to back down. A coup is overkill for personal royal authority, but par for the course for an over-centralised state with the king as its symbol.
As for Prem being 89, the saying is that old generals are always ready to refight the previous war.
Nice idea about the democrats patron-client breakdown Chris – shows why they would consider rural populism such a threat.
The empire strikes back
James: Great comment. I disagree on a few points
I am going to venture further out on the limb and speculate that the Hat Yai bombings may have been a turning point in the way Prem thought about the results of abandoning his CPM methodology. They marked the first time that the Islamists turned to Al Quaeda tactics of large-scale terrorist attacks against targets frequented by westerners, as opposed to attacking the Thai state in its various forms (army bases, schools, etc), one-on-one terror, and leaving the tourist trade alone.
I am not sure that the Hat Yai bombings were really aimed at attacking westerners. I see them as aimed at the economy – they came in the aftermath of the coordinated bank bombings in Yala. Since 2004, nothing has been sacred, monks, temples, teachers have all been attacked – see here. You might be right that Prem, Sonthi etc believe that the Hat Yai bombings took things to a new level, but I don’t believe they actually did. Now, if there was a suicide bombing or an attack outside of the 5 southern provinces this to me would indicate a new level since January 2004.
I can’t think of any other reason why Gen Sonthi is taking an approach of trying to open negotiations with the insurgents within weeks of such an atrocity (for which he was rebuked publicly by Thaksin, just a day or two before the coup – note that there were sufficient troops in Bangkok for a coup because they were in transit from the north “to deal with the southern insurgency” – perhaps they were used for just that).
Do you have any reference from Thaksin rebuking Sonthi? I have followed the idea of talks/negotiations closely and only know of Chidchai and Kongsak disagreeing with Sonthi. Thaksin was quiet on the issue – or at least it was not well publicised.
You also have to remember there have been talks since 2005. On whether Thaksin knew of the talks, here is what Dr Mahathir has to say:
“Although, I believe Thaksin and Chidchai were aware of this. They didn’t say no and they were quite willing to, but I think they wanted to wait and see or something like that”
An SMH report quoting an unamed source also says the peace plan proposals were sent to Chidchai. A Nation report also states that in 2005 when Defence Minister Thammarak said insurgents were using Langkawi to plan attacks was his annoyance at being sidelined by Thaksin about the talks who gave the authority to Chidchai.
The aftertaste of the Thai coup
Why do I have the feeling that Satya Sagar reads the Bangkok Pundit blog? Two paragraphs of his article are devoted to explaining why taxi drivers like Thaksin. Which seems to to be sourced exclusively from a post I made to Bangkok Pundit (http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-panel-to-investigate-corruption.html).
This is pretty neat – legit writers/columnists (albeit from India) are relying on new media like blogs to bypass junta control and get the word out to the world about the real situation in Thailand.
The aftertaste of the Thai coup
It doesn’t sound too provocative to me, and I would even submit that the lack of a real ‘democratic’ choice causes many of the problems in Thailand.
“Thou shalt not criticise dad”
Andrew, when you say that Sondhi and Kraigsak emphasized the *this* in “the role of *this* king,” how did they actually do that? It was a speech, right – not written.
Sondhi was also in New York City last week, and the talk he gave to the PAD NYC also made several mentions of the King. Probably because he wasn’t in front of any academics or media (and because 90% of the people attending were wearing yellow), he was much more forceful in his comments about the King, even claiming that if it weren’t for Sonthi’s coup, Thaksin would have surrounded the palace with tanks.
Nothing new of course: “Pridi killed the King” and “The students lynched the a mock-up of Crown Prince” were used to justify coups in 1947 and 1976.
I’ll send you my notes from the talk.
“Thou shalt not criticise dad”
Let me clarify things for people reading polo’s comments – the King *praised* the war on drugs. In his 2003 birthday speech, here’s what he said: “р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Кр╕▒р╕вр╕Кр╕Щр╕░р╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕вр╕▓тАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕Щр╕╡р╣ИтАЛ тАЛр╕Фр╕╡р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕ЪтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕Вр╕▓тАЛр╕Хр╕│тАЛр╕лр╕Щр╕┤р╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕нр╣Йр╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гр╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕ер╣Зр╕БтАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕Цр╣Йр╕▓тАЛр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕птАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╕Щр╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕птАЛ тАЛр╣Др╕бр╣ИтАЛр╣Др╕Фр╣ЙтАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Ыр╕╡тАЛ тАЛр╣ЖтАЛ тАЛр╕Ир╕ФтАЛр╣Др╕зр╣ЙтАЛр╕Щр╕░тАЛ тАЛр╕бр╕╡р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓тАЛ р╣Т,р╣Хр╣Рр╣Р тАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛ тАЛр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Хр╕▓р╕втАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╣Ар╕кр╕Юр╕Хр╕┤р╕ФтАЛ тАЛр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕зтАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╣Др╕ЫтАЛ тАЛр╕Жр╣Ир╕▓р╕Др╕ЩтАЛ тАЛр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нтАЛр╕Чр╕│тАЛр╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гтАЛ тАЛр╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓р╕нр╕░тАЛр╣Др╕гр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕ЗтАЛ тАЛр╣ЖтАЛ тАЛр╕гр╕зр╕бтАЛр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕ЗтАЛр╣Ар╕Ир╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕Щр╣Йр╕▓р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Чр╕╡р╣ИтАЛр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕ЗтАЛр╣Др╕Ыр╕Ыр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╕Ыр╕Бр╕Хр╕┤тАЛ тАЛр╕Бр╣Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕ЩтАЛр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ”
In english: “The victory of the supression of drugs – it’s good that we supressed drugs. As for criticisms that ‘hey, 2,500 people died!’ – 2,500, that’s really nothing. If the PM didn’t do it, he didn’t do it. Remember, every year more than 2,500 people die. Those that take drugs due, but they’ll kill people and do stuff like that – burning stuff. And then there’s the plenty of officials that get killed while supressing them.”
The empire strikes back
Don’t know how anyone could assume that Prem, as the king’s right hand man for more than a quarter-century, is not working for the king and the throne. One really has to strain logic and information to conclude he is an independent actor: he is the absolutely loyal king of the front palace and would not do anything that would hurt the institution.
“Thou shalt not criticise dad”
1. Sondhi would not have any idea whether the king wants to reform the monarchy — he doesn’t talk to the king and no one around the king talks to Sondhi. It might be true but it’s hearsay at best. Mostly dreaming, for a guy who has fed the mythologization of Rama V while speculating big time in Rama V amulets and mementos.
2. The king spoke out about Thaksin’s “bloodthirsty war on drugs” 2-3 months after it began, meaning months after global human rights groups said anything, after foreign embassies raised questions, well after more than 1,000 were killed and probably after it already was winding down. And his comments were hardly unequivocal. Nor did they mention rule of law.
The deva-raja
[…] Kraisak argued that it is ridiculous to suggest that the monarchy is on the rise in Thailand and said that any suggestions that the king was behind the coup are “absolutely false”. He suggested that the idea of a god-king (deva-raja) is contrary to democratic ideology. Like Sondhi he emphasised the positive role of this king. He referred to the role of the king in protecting people in the violent crises of both 1973 and 1992. He applauded the king for speaking out against Thaksin’s bloodthirsty war on drugs. Like Sondhi, Kraisak also emphased the role of the king in welfare provision: many of the minorities in the north of Thailand would still be very poor if it wasn’t for the king’s projects (whereas Thaksin, he claimed, had annulled the citizenship of many uplanders and, through the free trade agreement with China, destroyed the opium substitution initiatives of the Royal Project Foundation). And, Kraisak argued, prior to the Thaksin era, the “network monarchy” had played an important role in easing tensions in the south. […]
SOAS discussion on the Thai coup
[…] One of the interesting features of the London seminar by Sondhi Limthongkul and Kraisak Choonhavan was their comments on the role of the monarcy in contemporary Thai politics. (The following is based on my handwritten notes, a full recording of the seminar is available online.) […]
The empire strikes back
We have to understand Prem as the front man, the fall guy, or more accurately, the “spirit medium”. Prem, and his patronage network, is nothing without that spirit flowing into him and talking through him. So I think paragraph 2 is a little naive. It is necessary that coups have Prem’s fingerprints over them, because that deflects attention from the true source of the action – even if that source can not be confirmed by a direct order that appears in the government gazette. Obviously it is an unspeakable thing for a king to carry out a coup, so it is handled in another, much more subtle way.
Yes, the king is 79, but Prem is 87! And I’m not sure whether I believe all that soap opera about the poor health.
“The king has always ridden coups out rather than actively supporting them “. That’s a big statement and would be very hard, if not impossible to prove. But it does fit very nicely into the dominant royalist discourse of a king with the best interests of the nation at heart sitting above the cut and thrust of everyday politics – rather than doing what kings are there to do (especially in countries with no history of true constitutionalism), that is, rule. We need to separate spectacle and theatre from what is really happening, which is an extremely difficult thing to do.
The empire strikes back
Mr. Haughton, your analysis is very well written and it depict balance views of a nation under crisis. Though, I may not agree in some parts but most of what you have wrtten clearly justify what should be said of Thailand at this moment. You help justify HM the king’s role in the coup by analyzing past history. This is what I have been waiting for. I am not someone with words in explaining what my country is going through but she is trying to the best she can to survive as a nation.
About the south, it may be beyond trouble-free, but it wouldn’t hurt to try to bring back peace to the people of the three provinces.
I think you are a true man of integrity in sharing your knowledge with everyone here. I personally thank you for a very informative piece.