Comments

According to Malay NGOS like Perkasa and Isma and Ketuanan Melayu devotees, Malays don’t kill people (threatening in the same breath that they might run ‘amok’ among the
non-Malays), that it is all “liberalism, Zionism, humanism, foreign influence on Islam, yadda, yadda, yadda. What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a failure to
self-reflect. Far too many Malays go for the easy fix and to spread the blame to everyone, but themselves, and that is where the problem begins….and ends.

Agree Sam that it does seem likely that the army will have to be involved in a far more proactive way than the “retreat to the barracks” handwaving of the 90s.

I think there is a problem with many folks who are interested in Thai politics being very tunnel-vision when it comes to thinking about “democracy” in the Thai context.

The worst instance of this is the tendency to equate democracy with elections. And while the consent of the governed is central and necessary in any system that calls itself democratic, it is far from sufficient.

And of course the next most egregious example of the inability and/or refusal to “think outside the box” is the mistaken labeling of the UDD/PT condominium as a “pro-democratic” movement.

Where are the liberal-democratic “colonels”, frustrated with the old-boy network and convinced that in a professional military, appropriate to the Thai state and under its control, they would be doing much better and so would their country?

Far more likely for a liberal democratic system to grow from a coup mounted by such a group than from a congeries of factions led and funded by an authoritarian billionaire.

I am sorry that you have reached such opinion of me. I am not sure how. I never referred to voting rights and, in fact, do not at all agree with Dr. Seree and his often hysterical elitist nonsense. I am questioning the nature of New Mandala as an academic website that has people with the title of editor and yet does nothing to edit papers that are badly written and include “facts” without any support or even explanation. Since New Mandala is hosted by Australian National University and lists Dr. Nicholas Farelly as editor and Prof. Thorn Pitidol as country editor for Thailand, I had expectation that there would be some editing and academic quality control involved. Many articles are of good quality, but some are not. If New Mandala is intended to be simply bulletin board where anyone can post anything without editing for language or content, then Dr. Farrelly should make this clear.

True, I grew up in Burma during the 50’s and the 60’s and never tasted a Coke. I drank mainly water. The first time I had a Coca-Cola was in Calcutta, India, in the late 60’s (I actually didn’t like the taste!). Burma must have changed a lot since those days. A lot more pollution, contamination and all kinds of environmental damage (too bad for endangered species like me!)

Tom

I’m not Joshua but I agree with his statement not because it can be proven in fact – like the notion that events are driven by a succession crisis, it’s just a theory – but because it makes sense in rational terms. Of course I’m making an assumption the CP is a rational actor and, if he is, then gaming out a scenario in which he’d stand to lose everything just to side with Thaksin seems completely and totally irrational.

In short, the CP would be much more likely to just take the role as the power play at that time dictates.

And the most powerful players in the room remain the military – that’s if the military remain relatively united, again a very likely scenario.

Furthermore, if there’s one thing histories of ANY monarchies teach us is that monarchs and their direct lineage are always replaceable. Rama 8’s ascent is a lesson in point – the Glorious Revolution in the UK is another.

If the CP doesn’t behave they’ll find a way to find another king – after all, all monarchies are essentially myths.

The real crisis for the elites and military in Thailand is the emergence of the masses seeking some form of agency via democracy. That is the REAL threat to their power – not what mannequin gets to sit in the palace going mad and counting their money.

I still don’t know why the obsession with the succession has replaced a hard-headed political analysis when people comment on Thailand’s situation. Maybe it feeds on and draws from the Western Orientalist fantasy of Asian mystery and inscrutability that only the correct anthropology can discern?

A split in the army – eg if a significant element came out supporting democracy and the sovereignty of an elected parliament – would be a far more interesting “crisis” for Thailand than which dull royal gets to sit on the throne. But that particular crisis seems very remote right now.

Nich

The following statements that can only come from intimate understanding of Myanmar lu myo make you a Bamar in spirit in I and my ilk book.

“The threats to their success will not, however, come from the headline-grabbing human rights challenges that have a habit of drawing megaphone attention.

In almost all cases it will be the ordinary threats – petty officialdom, selfish neighbours, workplace bullies and exploitative bosses – that will destroy chances for happiness for the tens of millions of people seeking to carve out better lives for themselves.”

Keep on with your great exposée.

Relax. Thailand will muddle through.

Vajiralongkorn is the recognised heir to the throne and will take it upon the death of his father. He won’t risk his position by upsetting the existing order, and he certainly won’t provoke the old elite by welcoming Thaksin back. The new king won’t be very popular to begin with and will have his enemies in the establishment, just as his father did when he assumed the throne.

Not much new being said here – ordinary Thais have been discussing this kind of thing in private for years. And like other writing on the “succession” it’s based mainly on theory and little hard evidence.

Of course monarchy by its very nature has in-built “crises” at times of succession. The real issue is how determinative such moments are.

Yet the obsession by some Western commentators with Thailand’s “succession” seems more about a failure of those commentators to really understand the actual politics. For example some of those Western voices obsessed with succession continually stated there’d be “no coup” right up to the point there was one and that the Red Shirts had a vast armed wing to resist any moves by the Army – this imagined Red “Army” never materialized, of course, how ever much everyone dreamed it would.

What is certain is that real power in Thailand lies with the military – the monarchy has been tolerated by the military as long as it played it’s role in securing hegemonic dominance. Prior to Sarit the military were largely indifferent to the monarchy with significant elements – Phibun etc – being openly hostile.

Like in the 60s/70s when some generals (Surayud’s father for example) joined the communists, splits in the military are likely to have a far bigger impact on Thailand than a backroom bitchfight between this or that prince/princess whose power, ultimately, would rely on which direction the military blows.

At the end of the day, in Thailand’s real politik power plays it comes down to tank divisions not what some “theorist” believes is going to happen.

The monarchy will be spectators to most of this as much as anyone else but will, of course, take full advantage to the best of their ability of any situation.

I also think that much of this analysis also fails to understand that the “splits” in the monarchy would disappear quickly once they were genuinely threatened by outside forces or were ordered to “reconcile” at de facto gun point.