“Some of you anonymous types need to pay more attention.” I’ll pass thanks Nich, however humble your advice.
You publish an article which offers no references or analysis to back any of it’s grandiose statements.
Now if this article had been published on the first of April it maybe would have raised a wry smile in it’s reader. But, outside that single context The author is calling for the continuity of a regime which has lead to the death, dislocation and dispossession of many peop;e. Then you object when emotion is generated. When is a troll article not funny? Well I quess you found out with this one, Andrew was forced to write a diversionary troll article to draw fire from this one, but then, Andrew does have a checkered history of trolling his own web site.
I am aware that you have been harping on for some time about anonymous commenters ruining the elegantly crafted reputation of Newmandala. Be brave, go ahead and block them. The combination of those that remain and the artilces of this quality should make for an entertaining echo chamber.
Goodluck with Newmandala, if things do go south, maybe a name change, “Not Newmandala” does have a curious appropriate harmony.
“laoguy”
“Any person or group of persons, that would use its power, no matter where it derives from, is a danger to the whole all the way down to the individual.”
Power can be used for good eg a policeman stopping someone from being murdered or speed limits slowing down traffic in accident blackspots or tough drunk driving laws or army generals going to prison after ordering the shooting of unarmed prisoners.
The question is not just about being elected but also being accountable – not hiding behind draconian forms of censorship or using military force to keep yourself in power.
Would Thaksin have much of the power he has if he didn’t appeal to voters and win elections? Likely not.
How does he appeal to voters? Not through “demagoguery” (Abhisit does that and it is not a vote winner) but through offering them decent policies which he has a track record of delivering. That’s democracy.
It’s quite simple really.
As for your list of democratic countries – you seem to have taken leave of your senses and by invoking them as democracies reveals that you have no understanding at all of what a democracy is.
A police reform only?
What about reforming the military, whose powers even allowed them to get away with a coup?
The so-called independent organizations which in the past years of conflict have been following to a large part agendas other than being independent?
What about reforming the courts, in particular the constitution court?
etc.
How did the UDD “fail the people”? The UDD is not an organization with official powers. But other than street protests the UDD organizes its UDD schools, is countrywide organized down to the Mu Ban level. Political ideology and strategies are taught and discussed constantly. The UDD has community radio stations, publications and a very popular TV station. What else shall they do?
And in addition to that you have the free Red Shirt organizations, whose political ideology are mostly more radical (in the Thai context) than the UDD. While they may not have large budgets, they still have many affiliated community radio stations, and grass roots networks as well.
I really wonder how you can state that these organizations do not enough to enhance the power of the common people. Have you ever listened to the discourse that takes place there? Or do you just rely on the quite insufficient reporting of the English language local media?
Is this elected government really free to carry out its policies? One of this government’s main policies, one which they also strongly emphasized during the election campaign – changing the constitution – they are not exactly allowed perform, so far.
The government is also not allowed to file cases at court against the military over the 2010 deaths, leaving only Suthep and Abhisit to file cases against.
How is that the best possible result? This is just a continuation of the conflict of the past 7 years – just on a different stage, but neither solution nor compromise. Nothing of any importance has so far been allowed to be reformed, and discussion of key issues, such as the appropriate role of the military in modern Thailand or the future role of the monarchy in the Thai state is still not possible or allowed.
In case you hadn’t noticed, on Friday we did post a note on New Mandala by the editor of that journal issue, Pavin Chachavalpongpun. It has a link to all of the relevant articles. Some of you anonymous types need to pay more attention.
Nick – there are no easy answers, but one thing I do know that the table thumping and vacuous hyperbole on this site matches any PAD rally.
I think the monarchy deserves far more respect that in gets here, getting Thailand to this point was no mean feat.
People here are quite ready to believe that there is an equivalence to Kim Song Il and the king of thailand and thai people are stupid and have been duped over the last 60 years.
How is this any different from PAD beliefs that Thais are too stupid to vote and thaksin is evil incarnate?
You point out issues here go far beyond Thaksin, yes they do, and the issues also go far beyond LM.
Both sides have a point, one points out the corruption of politicians and the other the double standards of the courts, but both sides have a disingenuous selfish solution to these issues. One want to get rid of politicians and the other wants to get rid of troublesome courts. Both do not address the issue and are drivel.
My solution would be wholesale police reform, if you have a police force ready to prosecute anyone who breaks the law, the link between criminal enterprise and politics will be severed and the courts will have little room to maneuver in trying to favour one side over the other.
How this can come about is another issue, and one where I feel a organisation like the UDD has let down the thai people. I don’t see anything that they do that enhances the power of the common people over patronage networks and they are part of patronage networks themselves.
The old way has failed and so has the new way.
What we have now is the best possible result. An elected goverment free to carry out its policies and be judged on them, but are not allowed to play the political games that got us into this mess in the first place.
“…what cutural baggages do you carry from your own culture that you can’t respect the culture or beliefs of others just because it goes against your own personal beliefs?”
notdisappointed, it’s not called ‘respect’ if one goes to jail for publicly failing to ‘love’ the richest and most powerful person in the country. It’s called ‘fear’.
It’s like me saying you should ‘love’ and ‘respect’ Thaksin – refusing to do so because of your own ‘personal beliefs’ and other non-sense ‘baggage’ is disrespectful of Thai culture.
notdisappointed, what system of government are you proposing? What specific solutions are you proposing for the problems you see in democracy?
You seem to be trying to discredit democracy, arguing it’s flaws, while at the same time arguing Thaksin isn’t democratic. If democracy is bad, and if Thaksin is non-democratic, it would mean you are pro-Thaksin, no? I’m confused.
I would also like to add this to my reply above: I don’t disagree in this day and age with the complex questions asked and postulated to do with “instant” communications, but I don’t believe a line should be drawn, because I am not only a Malay veteran, but also a Viet Nam veteran and they do not address the real issues.
What I do disagree with is people/academics that have no experience, other than studying “reports”, written works or “talking to people”, writing in depth synopsis based on their discovery of the “facts” over the last few years. I refer here to two books written by Professor Desmond Ball about the armed forces of Thailand (scouts and others) and the implications for Myanmar and Indonesia, what he didn’t really say, (perhaps because he couldn’t) and what I will say. Nothing but fluff, but with many quotes (from other sources/books) and none of them credible.
Australian Battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment in previous years (read Malays/Viet Nam) give a complete account of operations and what they either achieved or didn’t. They do not add all the real facts.. during the TET Offensive 1968 an intense firefight on the Song Nai between C Company 2RAR, two Australian soldiers were killed and one wounded…. what they don’t say is that soldiers and national service soldiers were traumatised. What they also don’t say is the Pl Comd 8 Pl, CSM C Coy (later DSM and MID) and 8Pl sig took over and rallied the troops through air support (US Tac Air: Playboy 99 (gunship). Neither do they say the OC and his “operations staff”, (excluding the 2IC MC I recall) (NZ who was back in camp) hiding in a bunker and offered nothing to the fray, even though it concerned one of their own dead (the Company medic)
My whole point is that unless you were there and experienced the whole thing, then don’t exaggerate, or make up your own story about what you thought happened: or you would have wanted to have happened.
It’s like two academics saying the Thai army (small a) is now more professional….. than what? The Thai forces in Viet Nam or the Thai Army Scouts? Bah to that. They are both useless and always have been
I want feed back, but I doubt I’ll get it. It’s time to draw the lines between the books and the make believe.
The best feed back I have is the current Australian Army Commander.
In other words, be quiet unless you actually know and have been there and have experienced the trauma.
But sometimes I do respect academics…….rarely. And I welcome the comments from Professor Desmond Ball and Dr. whoever, who are supposed to teach this subject.
Nicholas Herriman you are doing what Nicholas Farrelly and Desmond Ball are doing, postulating untruths with a lot of fluff.
I am very angry.
Bernard R Newson (I’m on the Viet Nam role and I’m sure you can investigate me).
A little too complex for the young idealists not brought up on propaganda and the internet and a little bit far fetched for the Kachin State: without the help of the internet and foreign reporters and academics.
Perhaps you should write for Soldier of Fortune along with the rest of the references?
Or perhaps you should stop reading books written by “academics” on the real issue.
Nick,
One of the major questions today to answer is ,are constitutions and the rule of law vital for a democracy? Afterall, the 1997 constitution has been ripped up by the illegal coup makers and a new military constitution was forced onto the people with a gun to the head.
“I see events now being a power struggle between three main players: thaksin, those against thaksin, and vested interests (military, business, old guard). That’s why I focus on the democratic dictatorship that i know will arise with thaksin. The signs are readily seen for those who wish to see them.”
I believe that this same analyses of the conflict has been the biggest fallacy the traditional elites and rabid Thaksin opponents have committed.
No, it is not just Thaksin vs the other elite players as it completely ignores the role of the Red Shirts (and there i mean not just the leadership but foremost the ordinary Red Shirts!) and TRT/PP/PT voters in all that (many of them are actually not Thaksin supporters, but are in alliance with him lacking any other alternative).
Their allegiance to Thaksin is a very conditional alliance: as long as Thaksin represents their aspirations they will support him. Thaksin becoming what many like you are paranoid of – a dictator – would easily find Thaksin being alone without mass support.
There is also clear evidence of this: on May 19, 2012, Thaksin did a phone-in at the 2 year anniversary at Rajaprasong (the famous ship speech). This did not please the Red Shirts, and Thaksin had to apologize twice shortly after.
So, i am sorry, as in 2005/2006, i also now do not see the signs you see.
Why cannot ordinary Thais be finally trusted and allowed to direct the future of their country, without the interference of nebulous (and not so) powers in the background?
“As a Constitutional Monarch, by protocol, he must sign-off on any change to government. ”
But does that include illegal military coups? Did the king in the 80’s not approve two coup attempts, which consequently failed?
I agree completely that the role of the king is a very difficult one. When to intervene, when not, and if, how to intervene?
Where i strongly disagree with is that to label the 7 year conflict as merely a political one. It is an identity crises unprecedented in Thai history (look at somewhat similar European conflicts of the past, and see how they played out).
People get mixed signals. The king in ’92 intervened. Red Shirts hoped for a similar intervention after April 10, and a few words after May 19. But none came, and many Red Shirts were deeply disappointed.
Other members of the royal family have acted differently: the Queen presiding over the funeral of the killed PAD protester Nong Bo in 2008 has led to the impression that she is in favor of the aims of the PAD – under both Yellow and Red Shirts. And Princess Chulabhorn (who also was at Nong Bo’s funeral) has in the now infamous Woody interview accused the Red Shirts of “burning down the land worse than the Burmese in Ayuthaya”, in addition to closely allying herself with the late Luang Taa Maha Bua – a strong Thaksin critic and supporter of the PAD.
Article 8 of the constitution, and the subsequent 112 laws are not sufficient anymore to legally deal with the role of the monarchy in today’s society. In in many cases – as they stand they actually harm the monarchy more than protecting it.
Isn’t it time for thinking about reforms, also of the role of the monarchy in the modern Thai state?
This, by the way, would not be without precedent in Thai history – the Thai monarchy went through reforms in the past, such as from a feudal monarchy to an absolute monarchy, and then to a semi-constitutional monarchy.
Given the imminent succession issue, and the almost surely resulting insecurity in society, would it not be a matter of urgency to re-think and/or re-define the (future) role of the monarchy in Thai society and in the Thai state?
“Would thailand be better off without this wilful paertnership?”
That is a potent question for which there is no easy answer. What can be clearly stated though is that this triangle is not functioning anymore for the better of society, as the conflict of the past 7 years has proven (well, unless you believe in the gospel of Prem, who in his recent address has comically congratulated police and military to their unity, even though a blind man with a crutch can see that the hatred and power wrangling between police and military is reaching ever new heights).
Is it because the power of the people and their elected representatives has been institutionally weakened in (unbalanced) favor of unelected bodies, and a modern Thailand needs a reform to a full-fledged democracy, and not attempts to return to a so called ‘managed democracy’?
Whatever may or may not have been valid in the 70’s is not necessarily valid anymore in the 2000’s. Thailand has developed economically, socially and politically. Large sectors of Thai society do not accept old limits anymore. When and how will they and their views be included?
The 2006 military coup and its aftermath has shown that the willful partnership has been unable so far to adapt to today’s Thailand – hence the 7 year ongoing conflict.
What would you suggest as a realistic solution? But please – not the simplistic “Thaksin” argument – the issues here at bay are far beyond Thaksin.
Reform?
A new social contract?
But how can we explore that as long as open discussion and debate has clearly set legal limits?
I definitly would agree that the King’s ‘stamp-of-approval’ or acceptance of coups (and elected governments) in the early period of his kingship was one of survival. HMK, did try to stay away from politics. As a Constitutional Monarch, by protocol, he must sign-off on any change to government. And I would like to say that Sarit was insrumental in helping to raise the then profile of HMK. A profile that HMK increased due to his travels and concern for the population and Royal projects.
The power players – military or elected do play their games then and now. You must agree that it’s a slippery slope for HMK to maneuver on. I would likie to say that HMK only has one card to play; that of his prestige and respect that the players hold in high regard. It’s a balancing act on how to be above it all but still play a discreet role to soften or reduce the sharp edges. He got directly involved at the time of Suchinda/Chamlong. And then quickly reverted into the background.
During recent events with so much divisiveness; red/yellow/112-LM/thaksin/mob democracy and added to this, his but now improving)and HMQ health; it can be said that these political events were not the focus of the crown. And I suspect no longer an issue in events to played out.
I see events now being a power struggle between three main players: thaksin, those against thaksin, and vested interests (military, business, old guard). That’s why I focus on the democratic dictatorship that i know will arise with thaksin. The signs are readily seen for those who wish to see them.
In the 70s was there an alternative? Either be a partner and exert your influence or sit impotently on the sidelines while others decide the fate of yourself and your nation.
There always limits to influence and other realities that need to be faced.
Would thailand be better off without this wilful paertnership?
“Nick – History aside, the point is that “bureaucrats and military leaders used monarchy to cement their hold on power.” ”
True.
But wasn’t (isn’t) the monarchy not a willful partner of that alliance of convenience as well? If not since the Sarit coup, then at least since the mid 70’s?
Have not all power players in this game used each other equally? Why exclude the role of the monarchy?
Or, do you view the monarchy as a basically weak institution that can easily be used and abused by any faction of power in Thailand?
JohmH, ok you win. Nice turnaround play on words. However it doesn’t reflect my point. In a democracy of the “majority”; it’s still the minority, of whatever stripe, who hold executive power. It is against these that the individual must be protected. But the power holders gained their power from a majority democracy. Who holds them in check? The democratic majority? REALLY?
Turning the statement around to make your own point and to weaken mine, only makes us argue about the same thing. Or don’t you care but only wish to win a debate that actually focuses on the realtively same point. Any person or group of persons, that would use its power, no matter where it derives from, is a danger to the whole all the way down to the individual.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Why Thailand needs its king
“Some of you anonymous types need to pay more attention.” I’ll pass thanks Nich, however humble your advice.
You publish an article which offers no references or analysis to back any of it’s grandiose statements.
Now if this article had been published on the first of April it maybe would have raised a wry smile in it’s reader. But, outside that single context The author is calling for the continuity of a regime which has lead to the death, dislocation and dispossession of many peop;e. Then you object when emotion is generated. When is a troll article not funny? Well I quess you found out with this one, Andrew was forced to write a diversionary troll article to draw fire from this one, but then, Andrew does have a checkered history of trolling his own web site.
I am aware that you have been harping on for some time about anonymous commenters ruining the elegantly crafted reputation of Newmandala. Be brave, go ahead and block them. The combination of those that remain and the artilces of this quality should make for an entertaining echo chamber.
Goodluck with Newmandala, if things do go south, maybe a name change, “Not Newmandala” does have a curious appropriate harmony.
“laoguy”
Why Thailand needs its kings
Notdisapointed.
“Any person or group of persons, that would use its power, no matter where it derives from, is a danger to the whole all the way down to the individual.”
Power can be used for good eg a policeman stopping someone from being murdered or speed limits slowing down traffic in accident blackspots or tough drunk driving laws or army generals going to prison after ordering the shooting of unarmed prisoners.
The question is not just about being elected but also being accountable – not hiding behind draconian forms of censorship or using military force to keep yourself in power.
Would Thaksin have much of the power he has if he didn’t appeal to voters and win elections? Likely not.
How does he appeal to voters? Not through “demagoguery” (Abhisit does that and it is not a vote winner) but through offering them decent policies which he has a track record of delivering. That’s democracy.
It’s quite simple really.
As for your list of democratic countries – you seem to have taken leave of your senses and by invoking them as democracies reveals that you have no understanding at all of what a democracy is.
Why Thailand needs its king
A police reform only?
What about reforming the military, whose powers even allowed them to get away with a coup?
The so-called independent organizations which in the past years of conflict have been following to a large part agendas other than being independent?
What about reforming the courts, in particular the constitution court?
etc.
How did the UDD “fail the people”? The UDD is not an organization with official powers. But other than street protests the UDD organizes its UDD schools, is countrywide organized down to the Mu Ban level. Political ideology and strategies are taught and discussed constantly. The UDD has community radio stations, publications and a very popular TV station. What else shall they do?
And in addition to that you have the free Red Shirt organizations, whose political ideology are mostly more radical (in the Thai context) than the UDD. While they may not have large budgets, they still have many affiliated community radio stations, and grass roots networks as well.
I really wonder how you can state that these organizations do not enough to enhance the power of the common people. Have you ever listened to the discourse that takes place there? Or do you just rely on the quite insufficient reporting of the English language local media?
Is this elected government really free to carry out its policies? One of this government’s main policies, one which they also strongly emphasized during the election campaign – changing the constitution – they are not exactly allowed perform, so far.
The government is also not allowed to file cases at court against the military over the 2010 deaths, leaving only Suthep and Abhisit to file cases against.
How is that the best possible result? This is just a continuation of the conflict of the past 7 years – just on a different stage, but neither solution nor compromise. Nothing of any importance has so far been allowed to be reformed, and discussion of key issues, such as the appropriate role of the military in modern Thailand or the future role of the monarchy in the Thai state is still not possible or allowed.
Why Thailand needs its king
Thanks “laoguy”,
In case you hadn’t noticed, on Friday we did post a note on New Mandala by the editor of that journal issue, Pavin Chachavalpongpun. It has a link to all of the relevant articles. Some of you anonymous types need to pay more attention.
My humble advice — read more, judge less.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Why Thailand needs its king
Thanks for those pertinent links bernd. The contrast is sharp indeed from those that NM chose to publish.
Why Thailand needs its king
@notdisappointed
just so you have a tiny glimpse into my kind of truth – just read that in NM also published document:
http://kyotoreview.org/wp-content/uploads/Streckfuss-English.pdf
and this one:
http://kyotoreview.org/wp-content/uploads/review-Marshall-.pdf
– But be sure – there is still much more –
tha sawang !
thai – means free – when they are ??????
Why Thailand needs its king
Nick – there are no easy answers, but one thing I do know that the table thumping and vacuous hyperbole on this site matches any PAD rally.
I think the monarchy deserves far more respect that in gets here, getting Thailand to this point was no mean feat.
People here are quite ready to believe that there is an equivalence to Kim Song Il and the king of thailand and thai people are stupid and have been duped over the last 60 years.
How is this any different from PAD beliefs that Thais are too stupid to vote and thaksin is evil incarnate?
You point out issues here go far beyond Thaksin, yes they do, and the issues also go far beyond LM.
Both sides have a point, one points out the corruption of politicians and the other the double standards of the courts, but both sides have a disingenuous selfish solution to these issues. One want to get rid of politicians and the other wants to get rid of troublesome courts. Both do not address the issue and are drivel.
My solution would be wholesale police reform, if you have a police force ready to prosecute anyone who breaks the law, the link between criminal enterprise and politics will be severed and the courts will have little room to maneuver in trying to favour one side over the other.
How this can come about is another issue, and one where I feel a organisation like the UDD has let down the thai people. I don’t see anything that they do that enhances the power of the common people over patronage networks and they are part of patronage networks themselves.
The old way has failed and so has the new way.
What we have now is the best possible result. An elected goverment free to carry out its policies and be judged on them, but are not allowed to play the political games that got us into this mess in the first place.
Why Thailand needs its king
“…what cutural baggages do you carry from your own culture that you can’t respect the culture or beliefs of others just because it goes against your own personal beliefs?”
notdisappointed, it’s not called ‘respect’ if one goes to jail for publicly failing to ‘love’ the richest and most powerful person in the country. It’s called ‘fear’.
It’s like me saying you should ‘love’ and ‘respect’ Thaksin – refusing to do so because of your own ‘personal beliefs’ and other non-sense ‘baggage’ is disrespectful of Thai culture.
Why Thailand needs its kings
notdisappointed, what system of government are you proposing? What specific solutions are you proposing for the problems you see in democracy?
You seem to be trying to discredit democracy, arguing it’s flaws, while at the same time arguing Thaksin isn’t democratic. If democracy is bad, and if Thaksin is non-democratic, it would mean you are pro-Thaksin, no? I’m confused.
Emulating the state
I would also like to add this to my reply above: I don’t disagree in this day and age with the complex questions asked and postulated to do with “instant” communications, but I don’t believe a line should be drawn, because I am not only a Malay veteran, but also a Viet Nam veteran and they do not address the real issues.
What I do disagree with is people/academics that have no experience, other than studying “reports”, written works or “talking to people”, writing in depth synopsis based on their discovery of the “facts” over the last few years. I refer here to two books written by Professor Desmond Ball about the armed forces of Thailand (scouts and others) and the implications for Myanmar and Indonesia, what he didn’t really say, (perhaps because he couldn’t) and what I will say. Nothing but fluff, but with many quotes (from other sources/books) and none of them credible.
Australian Battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment in previous years (read Malays/Viet Nam) give a complete account of operations and what they either achieved or didn’t. They do not add all the real facts.. during the TET Offensive 1968 an intense firefight on the Song Nai between C Company 2RAR, two Australian soldiers were killed and one wounded…. what they don’t say is that soldiers and national service soldiers were traumatised. What they also don’t say is the Pl Comd 8 Pl, CSM C Coy (later DSM and MID) and 8Pl sig took over and rallied the troops through air support (US Tac Air: Playboy 99 (gunship). Neither do they say the OC and his “operations staff”, (excluding the 2IC MC I recall) (NZ who was back in camp) hiding in a bunker and offered nothing to the fray, even though it concerned one of their own dead (the Company medic)
My whole point is that unless you were there and experienced the whole thing, then don’t exaggerate, or make up your own story about what you thought happened: or you would have wanted to have happened.
It’s like two academics saying the Thai army (small a) is now more professional….. than what? The Thai forces in Viet Nam or the Thai Army Scouts? Bah to that. They are both useless and always have been
I want feed back, but I doubt I’ll get it. It’s time to draw the lines between the books and the make believe.
The best feed back I have is the current Australian Army Commander.
In other words, be quiet unless you actually know and have been there and have experienced the trauma.
But sometimes I do respect academics…….rarely. And I welcome the comments from Professor Desmond Ball and Dr. whoever, who are supposed to teach this subject.
Nicholas Herriman you are doing what Nicholas Farrelly and Desmond Ball are doing, postulating untruths with a lot of fluff.
I am very angry.
Bernard R Newson (I’m on the Viet Nam role and I’m sure you can investigate me).
Why Thailand needs its king
Agree. The Orwellian nail on the head.
Over to you Winston, post 101, of course, and, of course, sadly.
Emulating the state
A little too complex for the young idealists not brought up on propaganda and the internet and a little bit far fetched for the Kachin State: without the help of the internet and foreign reporters and academics.
Perhaps you should write for Soldier of Fortune along with the rest of the references?
Or perhaps you should stop reading books written by “academics” on the real issue.
Why Thailand needs its king
Nick,
One of the major questions today to answer is ,are constitutions and the rule of law vital for a democracy? Afterall, the 1997 constitution has been ripped up by the illegal coup makers and a new military constitution was forced onto the people with a gun to the head.
Why Thailand needs its king
“notdisappointed”:
“I see events now being a power struggle between three main players: thaksin, those against thaksin, and vested interests (military, business, old guard). That’s why I focus on the democratic dictatorship that i know will arise with thaksin. The signs are readily seen for those who wish to see them.”
I believe that this same analyses of the conflict has been the biggest fallacy the traditional elites and rabid Thaksin opponents have committed.
No, it is not just Thaksin vs the other elite players as it completely ignores the role of the Red Shirts (and there i mean not just the leadership but foremost the ordinary Red Shirts!) and TRT/PP/PT voters in all that (many of them are actually not Thaksin supporters, but are in alliance with him lacking any other alternative).
Their allegiance to Thaksin is a very conditional alliance: as long as Thaksin represents their aspirations they will support him. Thaksin becoming what many like you are paranoid of – a dictator – would easily find Thaksin being alone without mass support.
There is also clear evidence of this: on May 19, 2012, Thaksin did a phone-in at the 2 year anniversary at Rajaprasong (the famous ship speech). This did not please the Red Shirts, and Thaksin had to apologize twice shortly after.
So, i am sorry, as in 2005/2006, i also now do not see the signs you see.
Why cannot ordinary Thais be finally trusted and allowed to direct the future of their country, without the interference of nebulous (and not so) powers in the background?
“As a Constitutional Monarch, by protocol, he must sign-off on any change to government. ”
But does that include illegal military coups? Did the king in the 80’s not approve two coup attempts, which consequently failed?
I agree completely that the role of the king is a very difficult one. When to intervene, when not, and if, how to intervene?
Where i strongly disagree with is that to label the 7 year conflict as merely a political one. It is an identity crises unprecedented in Thai history (look at somewhat similar European conflicts of the past, and see how they played out).
People get mixed signals. The king in ’92 intervened. Red Shirts hoped for a similar intervention after April 10, and a few words after May 19. But none came, and many Red Shirts were deeply disappointed.
Other members of the royal family have acted differently: the Queen presiding over the funeral of the killed PAD protester Nong Bo in 2008 has led to the impression that she is in favor of the aims of the PAD – under both Yellow and Red Shirts. And Princess Chulabhorn (who also was at Nong Bo’s funeral) has in the now infamous Woody interview accused the Red Shirts of “burning down the land worse than the Burmese in Ayuthaya”, in addition to closely allying herself with the late Luang Taa Maha Bua – a strong Thaksin critic and supporter of the PAD.
Article 8 of the constitution, and the subsequent 112 laws are not sufficient anymore to legally deal with the role of the monarchy in today’s society. In in many cases – as they stand they actually harm the monarchy more than protecting it.
Isn’t it time for thinking about reforms, also of the role of the monarchy in the modern Thai state?
This, by the way, would not be without precedent in Thai history – the Thai monarchy went through reforms in the past, such as from a feudal monarchy to an absolute monarchy, and then to a semi-constitutional monarchy.
Given the imminent succession issue, and the almost surely resulting insecurity in society, would it not be a matter of urgency to re-think and/or re-define the (future) role of the monarchy in Thai society and in the Thai state?
Why Thailand needs its king
“longway”:
“Would thailand be better off without this wilful paertnership?”
That is a potent question for which there is no easy answer. What can be clearly stated though is that this triangle is not functioning anymore for the better of society, as the conflict of the past 7 years has proven (well, unless you believe in the gospel of Prem, who in his recent address has comically congratulated police and military to their unity, even though a blind man with a crutch can see that the hatred and power wrangling between police and military is reaching ever new heights).
Is it because the power of the people and their elected representatives has been institutionally weakened in (unbalanced) favor of unelected bodies, and a modern Thailand needs a reform to a full-fledged democracy, and not attempts to return to a so called ‘managed democracy’?
Whatever may or may not have been valid in the 70’s is not necessarily valid anymore in the 2000’s. Thailand has developed economically, socially and politically. Large sectors of Thai society do not accept old limits anymore. When and how will they and their views be included?
The 2006 military coup and its aftermath has shown that the willful partnership has been unable so far to adapt to today’s Thailand – hence the 7 year ongoing conflict.
What would you suggest as a realistic solution? But please – not the simplistic “Thaksin” argument – the issues here at bay are far beyond Thaksin.
Reform?
A new social contract?
But how can we explore that as long as open discussion and debate has clearly set legal limits?
Why Thailand needs its king
I definitly would agree that the King’s ‘stamp-of-approval’ or acceptance of coups (and elected governments) in the early period of his kingship was one of survival. HMK, did try to stay away from politics. As a Constitutional Monarch, by protocol, he must sign-off on any change to government. And I would like to say that Sarit was insrumental in helping to raise the then profile of HMK. A profile that HMK increased due to his travels and concern for the population and Royal projects.
The power players – military or elected do play their games then and now. You must agree that it’s a slippery slope for HMK to maneuver on. I would likie to say that HMK only has one card to play; that of his prestige and respect that the players hold in high regard. It’s a balancing act on how to be above it all but still play a discreet role to soften or reduce the sharp edges. He got directly involved at the time of Suchinda/Chamlong. And then quickly reverted into the background.
During recent events with so much divisiveness; red/yellow/112-LM/thaksin/mob democracy and added to this, his but now improving)and HMQ health; it can be said that these political events were not the focus of the crown. And I suspect no longer an issue in events to played out.
I see events now being a power struggle between three main players: thaksin, those against thaksin, and vested interests (military, business, old guard). That’s why I focus on the democratic dictatorship that i know will arise with thaksin. The signs are readily seen for those who wish to see them.
Why Thailand needs its king
In the 70s was there an alternative? Either be a partner and exert your influence or sit impotently on the sidelines while others decide the fate of yourself and your nation.
There always limits to influence and other realities that need to be faced.
Would thailand be better off without this wilful paertnership?
Why Thailand needs its king
“Nick – History aside, the point is that “bureaucrats and military leaders used monarchy to cement their hold on power.” ”
True.
But wasn’t (isn’t) the monarchy not a willful partner of that alliance of convenience as well? If not since the Sarit coup, then at least since the mid 70’s?
Have not all power players in this game used each other equally? Why exclude the role of the monarchy?
Or, do you view the monarchy as a basically weak institution that can easily be used and abused by any faction of power in Thailand?
Why Thailand needs its kings
JohmH, ok you win. Nice turnaround play on words. However it doesn’t reflect my point. In a democracy of the “majority”; it’s still the minority, of whatever stripe, who hold executive power. It is against these that the individual must be protected. But the power holders gained their power from a majority democracy. Who holds them in check? The democratic majority? REALLY?
Turning the statement around to make your own point and to weaken mine, only makes us argue about the same thing. Or don’t you care but only wish to win a debate that actually focuses on the realtively same point. Any person or group of persons, that would use its power, no matter where it derives from, is a danger to the whole all the way down to the individual.
Why Thailand needs its king
Thank you for the link. Interesting read.