Thank you Bryan Lindsay for your very sensible comment. The ‘similarities’ between the contemporary throne in Britain and that in Thailand are virtually non-existent apart from both being referred to as monarchies, with queens, princes, princesses and so on in English. No time in the foreseeable future will we be hearing a Thai equivalent of the Pistols’ ‘ God Save the Queen’ (and the fascist regime), nor reporting about the CP similar to that in the UK tabloid press: who can forget when it was reported that Prince Charles had made the rather indelicate comment about wanting to be a Tampax in Camilla Parker Bowles fanny (naturally in the English not the American sense of the word)? Etc, etc, etc.
“Supporters of Burma’s opposition party will withhold celebrations in lieu of further signs the government is committed to a genuine political transition”
Whilst Ma Ba Tha’s muddying the waters successfully with the blessing of the incumbent president and his ilk has compounded an already vexed issue, the R word remains a no go area with all the good will and hand wringing in the world as demonstrated by the CIC in an interview by The Washington Post last week.
It can hardly be among the top priorities for the new administration either (in contrast to the ethnic minorities some of them still subjected to a bloody civil war) even without the military breathing down their neck.
It’s the military that casts a long shadow over the nation that cannot yet properly celebrate a new dawn, a collective sigh of relief still being suppressed for now. The elephant in the room might turn rogue and trample on them with or without provocation. No one in their right mind is going to provide a pretext that could still be manufactured somehow.
The exchange of views on the British Monarchy is a bit of a diversion from the main discussion thread, so I will conclude my participation by making a couple of final points.
Simon’s claim that I paint him as a “lunatic Trot” just for criticising the monarchy is just plain silly. Apologies for the cliché, but some of my best friends are republicans. In Britain one isn’t demonised for holding such a view.
Of course the British monarchy isn’t perfect, and isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but Britain is most certainly not a kingdom in crisis. Nor indeed are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the Queen’s other remaining “realms beyond the seas”
Change may be coming to some or all of these countries, but when and if the transition happens it will I am sure be smooth and incident free. Much of the credit for that will be down to the monarchy’s skill at adapting to changing times, and not seeking to protect its status at all costs.
The contrast with what is currently happening elsewhere couldn’t be more stark.
Congrats to Serhat and Andrew for laying down the hatchet. It occurs to me that any political outcome in Thailand that isn’t going to involve bloodshed is going to require a negotiated settlement. We all have have our legitimate gripes, and most of us have experienced the chill of police oppression in some form or or other, but we also enjoy a margin of safety that our Thai compatriots do not. If scholars and commentators outside the country cannot keep up a civil, creative discourse in moving this topic forward, what kind of role models are we? Our job, insofar as we are able, is to cast as much truth upon the situation as possible, to keep “eyes on” Thailand as a form of protection for our Thai colleagues. In this both Andrew and Serhat have provided stellar examples. No shade on Serhat, as Nicki Minaj might say, but Andrew has been a blazing light in this regard. Together we are more. Happy Thanksgiving (speaking from the Native American side, of course… “No! No!” shouts Donald Trump, “It’s the Pilgrims!”…)
Umm The above was an unauthorized post from a private FB page. One fingered texting, people.
But okay, that was a total misinterpretation of my intentions with regard to the role of the modern British monarchy vis a vis the British economy and class system. I um kinda agree with that French imaginary character … minus the vituperative tone, which I don’t think extends the dialogue at all. British royalty, after huge missteps, have masterfully adapted at keeping the institution intact. Modest tone. Exceptional private land holdings, unknown tax advantages (like the late Queen Mother’s estate, I gather). Relentless and relentlessly sincere public works, including those that keep up British military interests. Just a soup├зon of impropriety, enough to keep the “peek-a-boo” PR effort up. Did I say total mastery of social media? The “peek-a-boo” media presentation, at which Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt excel, refers to select, carefully withheld public appearances, including those that purport to indicate the real, “just folks” humanity beneath all that privilege. I’d imagine that the Americans pay more attention to British royals, including the Kate Middleton fashion show, than many British do. At least that’s what I learned from a Liverpudlian tennis pro. (That was just about as dismaying as find out that his “Grannie,” too, loved “A Touch of Frost.”)The CP of Thailand rebelled against his father by shredding a PR facade that took decades to develop: an effort to get the entire country, rich and poor, “working towards the monarchy,” as Serhat’s forthcoming work demonstrates so convincingly. There are, indeed, great subtleties involved in sustaining a monarchy and its enchantments — and in figuring out where it stands with regard to other centers of power, since one cannot discuss even the obvious or ridiculous. Having broken with longstanding conventions of public/private royal displays in so irrevocable a medium, it’s hard to see where the CP and his surviving supporters can go, and what their their rivals will make of it. One cannot just erase that image of the half-naked Srirasmi, crawling on the ground with the dog, out of one’s mind, nor the CP’s casual disregard for his courtiers. It’s like watching a car wreck in slo-mo. And yes, the royal show is diversion of sorts…but not entirely. Therein lies the question.
Many thanks for clarifying, Serhat, I really appreciate it. I’m looking forward to reading your book, which I have no doubt will be superb. Meanwhile, the second edition of A Kingdom In Crisis has just been published, with a new preface that acknowledges the invaluable help and support that I have received from others. Best wishes.
Thanks for that. My background is anthropology, so I try to see how symbols are implemented and enacted. In a suppressed context where the symbols have been sacralized by force of arms, your call to be objective sounds like “nice work if you can get it.” What was cited from Fred seemed to do that as best as I can recall, thereby preceding the others (“usual suspects”) by a long time. That is what motivated my question.
Crises must be resolved. Andrew and I have done so.
We both follow different approaches to advancing knowledge about the Thai monarchy, but I have long followed Andrew’s work. His book is, as I write in my review, an important one. But given the vital contribution of others to the discourse, it could have used a few more references to these contributors. Andrew himself now regrets that, due to publication constraints, he was forced to omit some of the sources that inspired him. On one specific point, however, I admit that I was wrong as I had overlooked one of his earlier pieces on the anti-royal graffiti, but certainly did not intend to imply plagiarism in any way. Andrew and I have talked this over and will move on as one has to wonder who benefits from continual chewing on this bone when other issues are at stake.
No, my reference to the German/Greek origins of the present royal family wasn’t intended to be “derogatory” but only to allude to the way that the propaganda surrounding them is very very adept at portraying them as an essential, part of Britishness which is immutable and exists beyond history.
It’s great you feel a need to make a contribution to that.
To claim that it is somehow “racist” to point out the origins of the royals, shows you’d pretty much use any desperate slur and smear to shut down a debate on the British monarchy. Which seems a bit overwrought given the context of this debate.
The British royals are born out of centuries of blood, murder, brutality and outright theft as is much of the rest of the history of the UK. To that extent they are clearly not unique.
But this idea the UK is at where it is with the British royals due only to the munificence and wise workings of the royals is pernicious and dishonest and helps nobody understand history and its workings, least of all Thais.
It is the British people, through centuries of struggle, who created the template within which they allowed the monarchy to survive.
On a personal note I am relatively agnostic when it comes to monarchies and am fairly rightwing, so this attempt to paint anyone who is critical of the British monarchy and those who pander to it as some lunatic Trot is laughable.
Bryan, your misinformation and dehistoricisation are something to behold.
The Duchies are held in trust to pay for the Prince of Wales and other royal expenses. The payment of tax on any profits from them is entirely voluntary – so no, not the same as for other property owners. They are huge swathes of land and property that were feudally parceled out in the 13th and 14th centuries.
Of course, the English monarchs of the 13th & 14th centuries were noted for acquiring land through the use of force, not through something as tawdry as working hard, saving up the money and buying for the land at a fair market price.
Obviously if you want to defend feudalistic Medieval practices of land ownership that’s entirely up to you.
Of course (much like in Thailand now) it was the rise of the bourgeoisie and capital that threatened British feudalism the most.
I’m sure the British royal family are well-liked but that doesn’t then mean they are above criticism, does it or make it an immutable “fact”. At the time of Diana’s death they were in a profound crisis and it could’ve tipped either way – who knows what is around the corner for them?
Yes, the reality of British foodbanks are just a “comic invocation”.
Whilst many British people go hungry the British royals still live an incredibly luxurious at taxpayers’ expense.
It’s not a rant to point that out – just a fact.
To see the British monarchy and nation – a nation with some of the worst inequalities in the EU – as a “model” for Thailand would is a nonsense. Why not the Scandinavian monarchies – Sweden, Norway, Denmark – where the royals live far far more modestly than in the UK and where the societies are far more egalitarian?
Also to equate republicanism only with the Trotsykite left – after all what are the US Republican Party? – reveals a complete lack of political nuance and analysis.
Excellent Bryan Linfsay. I 100% agree. I’d simply point out to the current rulers of Thailand : that both Australia and Canada are highly succesful federal systems, UNDER THE CROWN.
[…] iconic former spiritual leader of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic party (PAS), the late Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, stated that only a Muslim could be the prime minister of Malaysia. His popular argument was […]
Although Fred’s work spanned decades and so it of course changed in focus and interpretation, I think it is correct to say that primarily, he was a Public Administration scholar and secondarily a classic Political Scientist. If this is your focus, then you know about the complexities of the bureaucracy-democracy relationship (in short, there is a necessary tension), and you probably are aware that the administration reflects the regime, not the other way round. It is also questionable whether you could then describe Thailand (although it changed over time during Fred’s tenure) as especially bureaucratic and/or feudal other than in a very journalistic sense; both concepts are really quite precisely defined in the US social science discourse. (Feudalism is also a political slogan, of course, and bureaucracy a journalistic one, but it was not for Fred.)
What I would also say in this context is that by being a social scientist with this kind of background, while there is in Fred the general orientation towards a Western type of democracy, he does first try to find out what actually is the case, and then to judge, so the approach is empirical first of all. I would say that this is different from some of the people you cite who may have a tendency to judge first and inquire later 🙂 and who are better understood as activists, or at least as academics very much driven by specific views of Thailand or of the world (that is the definition of ideology).
As we see on the “New Mandala” and elsewhere, in Western Thai scholarship, this activist drivenness is now the dominating mainstream (├Ьnaldi actually says so in his review) – there are very few people among the “usual suspects” who would approach the Monarchy even trying to be even-handed, and there is literally not a single one who defends Prayutismo. But if one believes that even in times of struggle, you do not have to be a committed activist, but a scholarly, hopefully objectively verifiable approach might actually help (if in the long run) everyone around, then the reference to Riggs is really a great reminder for the Marshall/├Ьnaldi “controversy”.
Few people will take Simon de Montfort’s absurd rant, with its unintentionally comic invocation of foodbanks, on the British monarchy very seriously.But it does raise a significant point about foreign commentators on Thailand who are apparently unable to accept a modern constitutional monarchy on grounds of principle.If even a modern European or Japanese model of monarchy is unacceptable to the likes of AMM and de Montfort, how on earth can those Thais, culturally attached to the monarchical institution but hoping for reform, be expected to take their views seriously?
It is interesting that genuine scholars like Hewison seem much less likely to take a Spartist view (to invoke that old Private Eye character) on this issue.
The reference to the English Civil War and the execution of Charles 1 brings this exchange of views back to issues more relevant to the above article. The Civil War was an isolated “bloody” struggle in the gradual evolution of the British monarchy to where it stands today.
That change has been particularly radical in recent decades, and this is where the Windsors set an example to their royal counterparts elsewhere. Adapt and stand a chance of survival as society changes ever more rapidly. Christine Grey’s observation is not romantically imagined, it is factually correct.
The reference to the German/Greek genes of the British Royal Family is also factually correct, up to a point, but when used in a presumably derogatory way, as it sometimes is when anti monarchists have run out of better arguments, is a cheap shot and smacks of racism. It’s not an issue which is of any interest to the British public, and anyway if one wants to go down this route I could point out that the present Queen is half Scottish.
So, back off the British monarchy. They have set the template for survival in the 21st. century, so far anyway, and they don’t need defending by draconian laws.
Autarky is a recurring term in Robert Taylor’s writings on Ne Win’s Burma. It is a widespread perception among the Burmese that while he jealously guarded the country like his own fiefdom against meddlesome foreigners (‘lock up your daughters’) his protégé have prostituted it like a pimp. Ne Win’s nationalism to some compares favourably with the current lot of comprador bourgeoisie paying lip service to patriotism, race and religion.
if party politicians earned Ne Win and his men’s contempt for preferring self-interest above the national interest it is a+ case of the pot calling the kettle black. Worse, at least those politicians were happy enough with the lion’s share whereas his brand of ‘autarky’ excluded the domestic populace from any meaningful economic activity by establishing a state monopoly military bureaucratic capitalism masquerading as socialism of which nationalisation of everything that moved was a cynical and lethal blow not just to the dominant Kalar and Tayoke private enterprise but to the Bamar national bourgeoisie hence the entire national economy.
If Ne Win knew the policy of Socialist autarchy had failed he also knew the one party state had failed by 1987. It wouldn’t have stopped him changing tack despite the ‘fact’ that those around him were averse to change and those he had to work with had been cut off from the outside world. It was all his own doing as an autocratic ruler whose second in command wouldn’t dare question or answer him back for fear of being physically beaten up by the man.
Taylor’s consistent efforts as a Ne Win apologist and attempts at rehabilitation of the despot will not wash with one audience – the Burmese nation who were on the receiving end of the man’s acts of commission – violent and unjust, and his acts of omission – total neglect of their welfare, stunted all these decades in their physical and creative intellectual potential for generations.
If Ne Win earned rare praise for his staunch nationalism from his people (and for his staunch anti-communism as leader of the Socialist officers in the Burma Army from the West), the incumbent military elite did so for the limited reforms opening up the country and a certain degree of freedom of the media.
Can anyone place Fred Riggs in the context of these many “ta sawang” writers (Grey, McCargo, Keyes, Ji, etc)? Elsewhere on NM, he has been cited as being deeply pessimistic that democracy could ever work in the feudal bureauratic polity.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Thank you Bryan Lindsay for your very sensible comment. The ‘similarities’ between the contemporary throne in Britain and that in Thailand are virtually non-existent apart from both being referred to as monarchies, with queens, princes, princesses and so on in English. No time in the foreseeable future will we be hearing a Thai equivalent of the Pistols’ ‘ God Save the Queen’ (and the fascist regime), nor reporting about the CP similar to that in the UK tabloid press: who can forget when it was reported that Prince Charles had made the rather indelicate comment about wanting to be a Tampax in Camilla Parker Bowles fanny (naturally in the English not the American sense of the word)? Etc, etc, etc.
Sunshine and shadows
The Irrawaddy reports:
“Supporters of Burma’s opposition party will withhold celebrations in lieu of further signs the government is committed to a genuine political transition”
Sunshine and shadows
Whilst Ma Ba Tha’s muddying the waters successfully with the blessing of the incumbent president and his ilk has compounded an already vexed issue, the R word remains a no go area with all the good will and hand wringing in the world as demonstrated by the CIC in an interview by The Washington Post last week.
It can hardly be among the top priorities for the new administration either (in contrast to the ethnic minorities some of them still subjected to a bloody civil war) even without the military breathing down their neck.
It’s the military that casts a long shadow over the nation that cannot yet properly celebrate a new dawn, a collective sigh of relief still being suppressed for now. The elephant in the room might turn rogue and trample on them with or without provocation. No one in their right mind is going to provide a pretext that could still be manufactured somehow.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
The exchange of views on the British Monarchy is a bit of a diversion from the main discussion thread, so I will conclude my participation by making a couple of final points.
Simon’s claim that I paint him as a “lunatic Trot” just for criticising the monarchy is just plain silly. Apologies for the cliché, but some of my best friends are republicans. In Britain one isn’t demonised for holding such a view.
Of course the British monarchy isn’t perfect, and isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but Britain is most certainly not a kingdom in crisis. Nor indeed are Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the Queen’s other remaining “realms beyond the seas”
Change may be coming to some or all of these countries, but when and if the transition happens it will I am sure be smooth and incident free. Much of the credit for that will be down to the monarchy’s skill at adapting to changing times, and not seeking to protect its status at all costs.
The contrast with what is currently happening elsewhere couldn’t be more stark.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Congrats to Serhat and Andrew for laying down the hatchet. It occurs to me that any political outcome in Thailand that isn’t going to involve bloodshed is going to require a negotiated settlement. We all have have our legitimate gripes, and most of us have experienced the chill of police oppression in some form or or other, but we also enjoy a margin of safety that our Thai compatriots do not. If scholars and commentators outside the country cannot keep up a civil, creative discourse in moving this topic forward, what kind of role models are we? Our job, insofar as we are able, is to cast as much truth upon the situation as possible, to keep “eyes on” Thailand as a form of protection for our Thai colleagues. In this both Andrew and Serhat have provided stellar examples. No shade on Serhat, as Nicki Minaj might say, but Andrew has been a blazing light in this regard. Together we are more. Happy Thanksgiving (speaking from the Native American side, of course… “No! No!” shouts Donald Trump, “It’s the Pilgrims!”…)
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Umm The above was an unauthorized post from a private FB page. One fingered texting, people.
But okay, that was a total misinterpretation of my intentions with regard to the role of the modern British monarchy vis a vis the British economy and class system. I um kinda agree with that French imaginary character … minus the vituperative tone, which I don’t think extends the dialogue at all. British royalty, after huge missteps, have masterfully adapted at keeping the institution intact. Modest tone. Exceptional private land holdings, unknown tax advantages (like the late Queen Mother’s estate, I gather). Relentless and relentlessly sincere public works, including those that keep up British military interests. Just a soup├зon of impropriety, enough to keep the “peek-a-boo” PR effort up. Did I say total mastery of social media? The “peek-a-boo” media presentation, at which Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt excel, refers to select, carefully withheld public appearances, including those that purport to indicate the real, “just folks” humanity beneath all that privilege. I’d imagine that the Americans pay more attention to British royals, including the Kate Middleton fashion show, than many British do. At least that’s what I learned from a Liverpudlian tennis pro. (That was just about as dismaying as find out that his “Grannie,” too, loved “A Touch of Frost.”)The CP of Thailand rebelled against his father by shredding a PR facade that took decades to develop: an effort to get the entire country, rich and poor, “working towards the monarchy,” as Serhat’s forthcoming work demonstrates so convincingly. There are, indeed, great subtleties involved in sustaining a monarchy and its enchantments — and in figuring out where it stands with regard to other centers of power, since one cannot discuss even the obvious or ridiculous. Having broken with longstanding conventions of public/private royal displays in so irrevocable a medium, it’s hard to see where the CP and his surviving supporters can go, and what their their rivals will make of it. One cannot just erase that image of the half-naked Srirasmi, crawling on the ground with the dog, out of one’s mind, nor the CP’s casual disregard for his courtiers. It’s like watching a car wreck in slo-mo. And yes, the royal show is diversion of sorts…but not entirely. Therein lies the question.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Many thanks for clarifying, Serhat, I really appreciate it. I’m looking forward to reading your book, which I have no doubt will be superb. Meanwhile, the second edition of A Kingdom In Crisis has just been published, with a new preface that acknowledges the invaluable help and support that I have received from others. Best wishes.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Thanks for that. My background is anthropology, so I try to see how symbols are implemented and enacted. In a suppressed context where the symbols have been sacralized by force of arms, your call to be objective sounds like “nice work if you can get it.” What was cited from Fred seemed to do that as best as I can recall, thereby preceding the others (“usual suspects”) by a long time. That is what motivated my question.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Crises must be resolved. Andrew and I have done so.
We both follow different approaches to advancing knowledge about the Thai monarchy, but I have long followed Andrew’s work. His book is, as I write in my review, an important one. But given the vital contribution of others to the discourse, it could have used a few more references to these contributors. Andrew himself now regrets that, due to publication constraints, he was forced to omit some of the sources that inspired him. On one specific point, however, I admit that I was wrong as I had overlooked one of his earlier pieces on the anti-royal graffiti, but certainly did not intend to imply plagiarism in any way. Andrew and I have talked this over and will move on as one has to wonder who benefits from continual chewing on this bone when other issues are at stake.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Bryan
No, my reference to the German/Greek origins of the present royal family wasn’t intended to be “derogatory” but only to allude to the way that the propaganda surrounding them is very very adept at portraying them as an essential, part of Britishness which is immutable and exists beyond history.
It’s great you feel a need to make a contribution to that.
To claim that it is somehow “racist” to point out the origins of the royals, shows you’d pretty much use any desperate slur and smear to shut down a debate on the British monarchy. Which seems a bit overwrought given the context of this debate.
The British royals are born out of centuries of blood, murder, brutality and outright theft as is much of the rest of the history of the UK. To that extent they are clearly not unique.
But this idea the UK is at where it is with the British royals due only to the munificence and wise workings of the royals is pernicious and dishonest and helps nobody understand history and its workings, least of all Thais.
It is the British people, through centuries of struggle, who created the template within which they allowed the monarchy to survive.
On a personal note I am relatively agnostic when it comes to monarchies and am fairly rightwing, so this attempt to paint anyone who is critical of the British monarchy and those who pander to it as some lunatic Trot is laughable.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Bryan, your misinformation and dehistoricisation are something to behold.
The Duchies are held in trust to pay for the Prince of Wales and other royal expenses. The payment of tax on any profits from them is entirely voluntary – so no, not the same as for other property owners. They are huge swathes of land and property that were feudally parceled out in the 13th and 14th centuries.
Of course, the English monarchs of the 13th & 14th centuries were noted for acquiring land through the use of force, not through something as tawdry as working hard, saving up the money and buying for the land at a fair market price.
Obviously if you want to defend feudalistic Medieval practices of land ownership that’s entirely up to you.
Of course (much like in Thailand now) it was the rise of the bourgeoisie and capital that threatened British feudalism the most.
I’m sure the British royal family are well-liked but that doesn’t then mean they are above criticism, does it or make it an immutable “fact”. At the time of Diana’s death they were in a profound crisis and it could’ve tipped either way – who knows what is around the corner for them?
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Yes, the reality of British foodbanks are just a “comic invocation”.
Whilst many British people go hungry the British royals still live an incredibly luxurious at taxpayers’ expense.
It’s not a rant to point that out – just a fact.
To see the British monarchy and nation – a nation with some of the worst inequalities in the EU – as a “model” for Thailand would is a nonsense. Why not the Scandinavian monarchies – Sweden, Norway, Denmark – where the royals live far far more modestly than in the UK and where the societies are far more egalitarian?
Also to equate republicanism only with the Trotsykite left – after all what are the US Republican Party? – reveals a complete lack of political nuance and analysis.
Cara Menghasilkan Uang Dengan Bermain Dominoqq
[…] This article first appeared in New Mandala. […]
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Excellent Bryan Linfsay. I 100% agree. I’d simply point out to the current rulers of Thailand : that both Australia and Canada are highly succesful federal systems, UNDER THE CROWN.
Remembering “Tok Guru”
[…] iconic former spiritual leader of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic party (PAS), the late Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, stated that only a Muslim could be the prime minister of Malaysia. His popular argument was […]
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Although Fred’s work spanned decades and so it of course changed in focus and interpretation, I think it is correct to say that primarily, he was a Public Administration scholar and secondarily a classic Political Scientist. If this is your focus, then you know about the complexities of the bureaucracy-democracy relationship (in short, there is a necessary tension), and you probably are aware that the administration reflects the regime, not the other way round. It is also questionable whether you could then describe Thailand (although it changed over time during Fred’s tenure) as especially bureaucratic and/or feudal other than in a very journalistic sense; both concepts are really quite precisely defined in the US social science discourse. (Feudalism is also a political slogan, of course, and bureaucracy a journalistic one, but it was not for Fred.)
What I would also say in this context is that by being a social scientist with this kind of background, while there is in Fred the general orientation towards a Western type of democracy, he does first try to find out what actually is the case, and then to judge, so the approach is empirical first of all. I would say that this is different from some of the people you cite who may have a tendency to judge first and inquire later 🙂 and who are better understood as activists, or at least as academics very much driven by specific views of Thailand or of the world (that is the definition of ideology).
As we see on the “New Mandala” and elsewhere, in Western Thai scholarship, this activist drivenness is now the dominating mainstream (├Ьnaldi actually says so in his review) – there are very few people among the “usual suspects” who would approach the Monarchy even trying to be even-handed, and there is literally not a single one who defends Prayutismo. But if one believes that even in times of struggle, you do not have to be a committed activist, but a scholarly, hopefully objectively verifiable approach might actually help (if in the long run) everyone around, then the reference to Riggs is really a great reminder for the Marshall/├Ьnaldi “controversy”.
Sorry for the academic answer. 🙂
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Few people will take Simon de Montfort’s absurd rant, with its unintentionally comic invocation of foodbanks, on the British monarchy very seriously.But it does raise a significant point about foreign commentators on Thailand who are apparently unable to accept a modern constitutional monarchy on grounds of principle.If even a modern European or Japanese model of monarchy is unacceptable to the likes of AMM and de Montfort, how on earth can those Thais, culturally attached to the monarchical institution but hoping for reform, be expected to take their views seriously?
It is interesting that genuine scholars like Hewison seem much less likely to take a Spartist view (to invoke that old Private Eye character) on this issue.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
The reference to the English Civil War and the execution of Charles 1 brings this exchange of views back to issues more relevant to the above article. The Civil War was an isolated “bloody” struggle in the gradual evolution of the British monarchy to where it stands today.
That change has been particularly radical in recent decades, and this is where the Windsors set an example to their royal counterparts elsewhere. Adapt and stand a chance of survival as society changes ever more rapidly. Christine Grey’s observation is not romantically imagined, it is factually correct.
The reference to the German/Greek genes of the British Royal Family is also factually correct, up to a point, but when used in a presumably derogatory way, as it sometimes is when anti monarchists have run out of better arguments, is a cheap shot and smacks of racism. It’s not an issue which is of any interest to the British public, and anyway if one wants to go down this route I could point out that the present Queen is half Scottish.
So, back off the British monarchy. They have set the template for survival in the 21st. century, so far anyway, and they don’t need defending by draconian laws.
Review of General Ne Win: A Political Biography
Autarky is a recurring term in Robert Taylor’s writings on Ne Win’s Burma. It is a widespread perception among the Burmese that while he jealously guarded the country like his own fiefdom against meddlesome foreigners (‘lock up your daughters’) his protégé have prostituted it like a pimp. Ne Win’s nationalism to some compares favourably with the current lot of comprador bourgeoisie paying lip service to patriotism, race and religion.
if party politicians earned Ne Win and his men’s contempt for preferring self-interest above the national interest it is a+ case of the pot calling the kettle black. Worse, at least those politicians were happy enough with the lion’s share whereas his brand of ‘autarky’ excluded the domestic populace from any meaningful economic activity by establishing a state monopoly military bureaucratic capitalism masquerading as socialism of which nationalisation of everything that moved was a cynical and lethal blow not just to the dominant Kalar and Tayoke private enterprise but to the Bamar national bourgeoisie hence the entire national economy.
If Ne Win knew the policy of Socialist autarchy had failed he also knew the one party state had failed by 1987. It wouldn’t have stopped him changing tack despite the ‘fact’ that those around him were averse to change and those he had to work with had been cut off from the outside world. It was all his own doing as an autocratic ruler whose second in command wouldn’t dare question or answer him back for fear of being physically beaten up by the man.
Taylor’s consistent efforts as a Ne Win apologist and attempts at rehabilitation of the despot will not wash with one audience – the Burmese nation who were on the receiving end of the man’s acts of commission – violent and unjust, and his acts of omission – total neglect of their welfare, stunted all these decades in their physical and creative intellectual potential for generations.
If Ne Win earned rare praise for his staunch nationalism from his people (and for his staunch anti-communism as leader of the Socialist officers in the Burma Army from the West), the incumbent military elite did so for the limited reforms opening up the country and a certain degree of freedom of the media.
The crisis behind ‘A Kingdom in Crisis’
Can anyone place Fred Riggs in the context of these many “ta sawang” writers (Grey, McCargo, Keyes, Ji, etc)? Elsewhere on NM, he has been cited as being deeply pessimistic that democracy could ever work in the feudal bureauratic polity.