Is the article suggesting a political system similar to Malaysia’s, where each state has a Sultan? But in Thailand, I am not sure how and from where we can pluck out heirs of a bygone era. Will they have legitimacy to rule, having been absent for practically 100 years?
Also, who’s going to assess their “suitability” to come back as jao muangs? The people? The present government? The king in Bangkok?
Although I appreciate the nostalgic tone of the article, I think the argument is too far-fetched… Perhaps A. Walker is just trying to be the devil’s advocate… It is a wicked idea, judging from the extreme and emotional responses on this website.
blinking. We aren’t in the business of trying to engineer “balance” (especially the one-dimensional royalist versus republican balance you seem to be arguing for). In fact we have already published one critique of Cod’s post. But I accept that some of our readers can’t recognise critique or debate unless the goodies and baddies are very clearly identified.
blinking. If we receive an article arguing for a republic in Thailand we would very willingly consider it for publication. Such an article would be perfectly consistent with our long record of hosting frank and open discussion about the monarchy in Thailand.
Even if we grant Khun Cod that the Thai king provides a sort of continuity, it’s still doubtful that it’s the kind of continuity that we want.
Not all kinds of continuity are desirable. The continuity of a tyranny is, no doubt, a bad thing. So, too, is the continuity of an unstable, undemocratic political system.
The desirable kind of continuity is the continuity of democracy. This has NOT been provided for by the Thai monarchy so far.
I cannot mention here about your royal family as my understanding of the power struggles in 20th and 21st centuries differ to yours and would breech 112 and 2007 computer act.
However, I will mention what is happening in my country of birth, England. For many years I actually believed that the Queen did not interfere in politics. Now it transpires that she and her son actively interfered in bills going before the house. Not all the details have been published yet.Most of my life I saw the Queen as totally irrevelent and actually did not really care very much about her outdated customs and practices.
As far as Thai culture is concerned, which Thai culture are you talking about? The hill tribes, the northern cultures of Chiangmai and Isaan? or the subservient culture where you MUST obey your master? Thailand is multi cultural and once that fact is realised we all can move on. Anyone who actually tried to get a fairer society was brutally crushed by the state. Political Murders of farmers leaders were common. 1974/5 the Farmers federation of Thailand is a prime example of the elite murdering with impunity.I am not an expert on Thai history as being unable to read Thai I have to rely on English language books and most are banned in Thailand. what I can say is that because of your so called “culture” your history has been either totally ignored or so distorted by the educational system.
I just wonder why you mention Thaksin in an article dedicated to your king. Like many on this site I am not a Thaksin supporter. However, his ousting in an illegal military coup was totally wrong and the perpetuators of this crime should face justice along with ALL the living coup makers of past crimes against the people. In any democracy a bad leader is always better than a dictatorship and Thailand has had to many dictators under whose protection? Thailand needs proper democratic political parties to survive in the future. None of your parties are run on democratic principals.
Blinking, clearly you are much more radical and brave than anyone else contributing to the discussion of Thai issues. We all accept that. But do you really think my argument is similar to Cod’s? Really? Really?
A few republican-tinged comments here and there don’t make the kind of debate you’ve set up here.
What you’ve done is put up one ill-considered, pseudo piece by Cod, backed up by something similar by Walker.
There’s no new perspective, no new ideas, no new research, no new analysis – all you’ve done with this “debate” is bring in a dominant, well-established, law-enforced, over-bearing and widely distributed and well represented perspective into a space where normally difference could flourish.
It would be great, seeing as you’ve mentioned it, that you repost the links from New Mandala of a lengthy article, backed up by another, that offers an outright call for a Thai republic.
What truth is this? Oh, I see it’s a truth that can’t be voiced because it would go against 112. But in fact what underlying basis do you cite this truth? A truth that you see from your perspective, understood from your readings, acknowledge as fact?
From where does your truth arise? From where have you acquired such in-depth and detailed inside knowledge to state that it is truth? Can you say honestly that you are balanced in your analysis?
Hi Roy, Sorry if I seem to be condescending towards you. I think my analysis and knowledge of Thai history, is as informed as anyone else on this site. I am disgusted as anyone else that the first coup that took control and put vested interst in power, by making the excuse that Thailand needed democracy. In a one sentence summary – Rama VII was on the brink of giving feedom and democracy to the people; but not wishing to lose power the coup occured. And subsequent coups were of this same order.
My Thai perspective is of course much different than yours or those others who would wish to make an argument either for or against the institution. The institution was not involved with subsequent coups, because it had no power. Any prestige or ‘soft influence’ was built up over the years steeming from selfless concern for His subjects. But of course my one voice is of no value to this discussion since I am branded a royalist. Therefore this discussion is only for those who would want ‘free’ discussion based on your own knowledgeable (or hearsay) views. But how can you say that your views are more worthwhile while mine are relegated to the same mouthings of royalist? I try to maintain balance in my analysis while you and others have a happily simplified view of no to the instution and no to 112. Tis without a true understanding of Thai history and culture.
As an example, when I mention thaksin, many here say, although accepting his corruption and use of so-called democratic election to further his own goal; that he is accorded legitimacy, is good and acceptable because he came through elections. But no one cares that once elected he bastardized ‘democracy’ and utilized ‘class’ to cement his legitimacy and create a divisive society.
Does democracy mean that any person(s) can do as they wish and while taking the country towards a self-serving ‘democratic dictatorship’?
Notdisappointed
Your misinformed analysis disappoints me. Your condescending attitude towards me is understandable. Your lack of knowledge of Thai history is understandable. I really feel sorry for you.
On the one hand Ron says no one is addressing the individual on the other hand Roy wishes to have free discussion regarding the King. But the point here is, if you have nothing of value to add to the subject and everything is from your own personal viewpoint without understanding the cultural aspect and why Thais evere and respect their King. You see through your own western perspective and democratic ideals that cannot be transfered onto the situation on the ground. You feel you know the feelings of the majority of Thais just because you have had some association with a group who appear to reject the institution. Were a poll taken one would see that the majority of Thais would side with the institution.
Sorry — this clearly isn’t getting anywhere. Part of the problem with Internet back-and-forth is that you can’t see the glint in my eye, and the strong message that we don’t disagree. I am very sympathetic, in case you didn’t realise…
…but you should still do your own homework. For the record, here’s a piece we published by none other than Ajarn Ji. Plenty of republicanism there, I suppose. And on the topic of Ji there’s also the two-part interview we did with him (here and here).
I think our willingness to publish such views is reasonably well-established. And, for the third time this week, it has consequences.
And now that you’ve got me thinking we used to have a strident and regular commentator who went by the nom de guerre “Republican”. He or she never hid their true colours. Furthermore, I just did a quick search and we have almost 1000 comments related to the term “republican”.
Not sure what else you want. As I have said, New Mandala is not your enemy.
I’ll leave it at that, while noting my appreciation for your interest.
My question on anonymity was leading and ironic. It’s very clear why people remain anonymous – fear.
This notion NM are setting up some kind of free interaction and debate between the pro and anti is self-evidently not correct and must be contested.
By publishing the pro view all you’re doing is circulating the same old same old, a dominant view we’ve all heard a million times before. There’s nothing new in it at all and for NM to publish it here adds nothing to the debate. With 112 and all the other “power” backing up the pro debate any sense of equanimity in this discussion is just simply not possible. Freedom of speech is not only restricted it is enforced by brutal, draconian and quite terrifying laws.
Quite frankly, the simple fact you’ve NEVER even had a piece submitted that adopts a republican position says it all.
Instead we get this fudge that “oh yeah, we’ll consider that, at some point, maybe.”
I’m sure you could easily get Ji to write you something – have you asked him? Maybe you should.
[…] Schissler refere-se ao surgimento de um “nacionalismo budista anti-mu├зulmano” [en]. Ele menciona a postagem de adesivos de '969 ‘e cartazes em algumas lojas […]
“…there is no doubt that it is crucial in perpetuating a simplified narrative about the monarchy that, in more liberal circumstances, may well be unsustainable”
Andrew makes a very good point. The current system guarantees future conflict between an elected government and the power hegemony surrounding the king. The system was able to survive thus far because both sides have great respect for the current king. I can imagine one day Thailand got itself an unpopular king. At such time, will the Thais be able to avoid a civil war? To avoid this possible fate, perhaps a new narrative may be necessary.
And I don’t think bring back old system of jao muang is the answer. This, I think Dr. A Walker would agree. But I think he makes his point, there are alternatives. It is unfortunates certain people see their personal interest ahead of the society.
I publish under my own name, with my contact details for all to see. Plenty of other people don’t. How about you ask them why they want to remain anonymous. As I said, I understand why those in Thailand need to be careful and I do what I can to protect their opportunities to present their views.
But, just so we all understand the situation, Andrew Walker and I don’t set the rules for debate in Thailand — we never have and we never will. But our open and consistent criticism of the lese majeste law, and other such provisions, is well known. And it comes at a price.
What we do set is the rules for debate on New Mandala, and that means we accept anonymous posts and comments, including from you. You don’t seem to grasp the implications this has for us. Understand that New Mandala is not your enemy.
Finally, when somebody writes this essay titled “Why Thailand needs its republicans” I hope they send it to us for consideration. We have always sought to provide an open forum for debate and discussion, and I trust that you all understand why.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
New work on Southeast Asian monarchies
Am I allowed to read Andrew’s review of ” life’s work ” or will it be deemed as breeching Thailand’s draconiam Lese Majeste laws? lol
Why Thailand needs its kings
Is the article suggesting a political system similar to Malaysia’s, where each state has a Sultan? But in Thailand, I am not sure how and from where we can pluck out heirs of a bygone era. Will they have legitimacy to rule, having been absent for practically 100 years?
Also, who’s going to assess their “suitability” to come back as jao muangs? The people? The present government? The king in Bangkok?
Although I appreciate the nostalgic tone of the article, I think the argument is too far-fetched… Perhaps A. Walker is just trying to be the devil’s advocate… It is a wicked idea, judging from the extreme and emotional responses on this website.
Why Thailand needs its kings
blinking. We aren’t in the business of trying to engineer “balance” (especially the one-dimensional royalist versus republican balance you seem to be arguing for). In fact we have already published one critique of Cod’s post. But I accept that some of our readers can’t recognise critique or debate unless the goodies and baddies are very clearly identified.
Why Thailand needs its kings
Isn’t the real question is who could have done a better job?
Plenty of places in SE asia that have had far more violent upheavals and far more brutal.
If you want the lay the ills of a nation at the feet of one man, why not give credit where it is due as well?
Otherwise its just carping on like a fishwife.
Why Thailand needs its kings
Andrew
So you’re unable to approach Ji and ask him?
He’s pretty easy to contact and I’m sure would relish the chance to do so.
Surely, in the spirit of providing a proper balanced debate you should seek out an opposing point of view and not wait for it to arrive?
After all you are a publisher and it is very common for publishers to seek out stories.
Let’s wait and see.
Why Thailand needs its kings
blinking. If we receive an article arguing for a republic in Thailand we would very willingly consider it for publication. Such an article would be perfectly consistent with our long record of hosting frank and open discussion about the monarchy in Thailand.
Why Thailand needs its kings
No Andrew,
I make no such claim to being “more radical” and wonder why you would make a childish ad hom comment like that.
It’s a simple challenge – When will New Mandala publish a full pro-republican article on Thailand?
Because, if you can’t, your claims to be giving “both sides” a fair hearing are totally false and an intellectual deceit.
Why Thailand needs its kings
Even if we grant Khun Cod that the Thai king provides a sort of continuity, it’s still doubtful that it’s the kind of continuity that we want.
Not all kinds of continuity are desirable. The continuity of a tyranny is, no doubt, a bad thing. So, too, is the continuity of an unstable, undemocratic political system.
The desirable kind of continuity is the continuity of democracy. This has NOT been provided for by the Thai monarchy so far.
Why Thailand needs its king
I cannot mention here about your royal family as my understanding of the power struggles in 20th and 21st centuries differ to yours and would breech 112 and 2007 computer act.
However, I will mention what is happening in my country of birth, England. For many years I actually believed that the Queen did not interfere in politics. Now it transpires that she and her son actively interfered in bills going before the house. Not all the details have been published yet.Most of my life I saw the Queen as totally irrevelent and actually did not really care very much about her outdated customs and practices.
As far as Thai culture is concerned, which Thai culture are you talking about? The hill tribes, the northern cultures of Chiangmai and Isaan? or the subservient culture where you MUST obey your master? Thailand is multi cultural and once that fact is realised we all can move on. Anyone who actually tried to get a fairer society was brutally crushed by the state. Political Murders of farmers leaders were common. 1974/5 the Farmers federation of Thailand is a prime example of the elite murdering with impunity.I am not an expert on Thai history as being unable to read Thai I have to rely on English language books and most are banned in Thailand. what I can say is that because of your so called “culture” your history has been either totally ignored or so distorted by the educational system.
I just wonder why you mention Thaksin in an article dedicated to your king. Like many on this site I am not a Thaksin supporter. However, his ousting in an illegal military coup was totally wrong and the perpetuators of this crime should face justice along with ALL the living coup makers of past crimes against the people. In any democracy a bad leader is always better than a dictatorship and Thailand has had to many dictators under whose protection? Thailand needs proper democratic political parties to survive in the future. None of your parties are run on democratic principals.
Why Thailand needs its kings
Blinking, clearly you are much more radical and brave than anyone else contributing to the discussion of Thai issues. We all accept that. But do you really think my argument is similar to Cod’s? Really? Really?
Why Thailand needs its kings
A few republican-tinged comments here and there don’t make the kind of debate you’ve set up here.
What you’ve done is put up one ill-considered, pseudo piece by Cod, backed up by something similar by Walker.
There’s no new perspective, no new ideas, no new research, no new analysis – all you’ve done with this “debate” is bring in a dominant, well-established, law-enforced, over-bearing and widely distributed and well represented perspective into a space where normally difference could flourish.
It would be great, seeing as you’ve mentioned it, that you repost the links from New Mandala of a lengthy article, backed up by another, that offers an outright call for a Thai republic.
Why Thailand needs its king
What truth is this? Oh, I see it’s a truth that can’t be voiced because it would go against 112. But in fact what underlying basis do you cite this truth? A truth that you see from your perspective, understood from your readings, acknowledge as fact?
From where does your truth arise? From where have you acquired such in-depth and detailed inside knowledge to state that it is truth? Can you say honestly that you are balanced in your analysis?
Why Thailand needs its king
Hi Roy, Sorry if I seem to be condescending towards you. I think my analysis and knowledge of Thai history, is as informed as anyone else on this site. I am disgusted as anyone else that the first coup that took control and put vested interst in power, by making the excuse that Thailand needed democracy. In a one sentence summary – Rama VII was on the brink of giving feedom and democracy to the people; but not wishing to lose power the coup occured. And subsequent coups were of this same order.
My Thai perspective is of course much different than yours or those others who would wish to make an argument either for or against the institution. The institution was not involved with subsequent coups, because it had no power. Any prestige or ‘soft influence’ was built up over the years steeming from selfless concern for His subjects. But of course my one voice is of no value to this discussion since I am branded a royalist. Therefore this discussion is only for those who would want ‘free’ discussion based on your own knowledgeable (or hearsay) views. But how can you say that your views are more worthwhile while mine are relegated to the same mouthings of royalist? I try to maintain balance in my analysis while you and others have a happily simplified view of no to the instution and no to 112. Tis without a true understanding of Thai history and culture.
As an example, when I mention thaksin, many here say, although accepting his corruption and use of so-called democratic election to further his own goal; that he is accorded legitimacy, is good and acceptable because he came through elections. But no one cares that once elected he bastardized ‘democracy’ and utilized ‘class’ to cement his legitimacy and create a divisive society.
Does democracy mean that any person(s) can do as they wish and while taking the country towards a self-serving ‘democratic dictatorship’?
Why Thailand needs its king
Notdisappointed
Your misinformed analysis disappoints me. Your condescending attitude towards me is understandable. Your lack of knowledge of Thai history is understandable. I really feel sorry for you.
Why Thailand needs its king
On the one hand Ron says no one is addressing the individual on the other hand Roy wishes to have free discussion regarding the King. But the point here is, if you have nothing of value to add to the subject and everything is from your own personal viewpoint without understanding the cultural aspect and why Thais evere and respect their King. You see through your own western perspective and democratic ideals that cannot be transfered onto the situation on the ground. You feel you know the feelings of the majority of Thais just because you have had some association with a group who appear to reject the institution. Were a poll taken one would see that the majority of Thais would side with the institution.
Why Thailand needs its kings
Thanks “Blinking in the light”,
Sorry — this clearly isn’t getting anywhere. Part of the problem with Internet back-and-forth is that you can’t see the glint in my eye, and the strong message that we don’t disagree. I am very sympathetic, in case you didn’t realise…
…but you should still do your own homework. For the record, here’s a piece we published by none other than Ajarn Ji. Plenty of republicanism there, I suppose. And on the topic of Ji there’s also the two-part interview we did with him (here and here).
I think our willingness to publish such views is reasonably well-established. And, for the third time this week, it has consequences.
And now that you’ve got me thinking we used to have a strident and regular commentator who went by the nom de guerre “Republican”. He or she never hid their true colours. Furthermore, I just did a quick search and we have almost 1000 comments related to the term “republican”.
Not sure what else you want. As I have said, New Mandala is not your enemy.
I’ll leave it at that, while noting my appreciation for your interest.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Why Thailand needs its kings
Nich
My question on anonymity was leading and ironic. It’s very clear why people remain anonymous – fear.
This notion NM are setting up some kind of free interaction and debate between the pro and anti is self-evidently not correct and must be contested.
By publishing the pro view all you’re doing is circulating the same old same old, a dominant view we’ve all heard a million times before. There’s nothing new in it at all and for NM to publish it here adds nothing to the debate. With 112 and all the other “power” backing up the pro debate any sense of equanimity in this discussion is just simply not possible. Freedom of speech is not only restricted it is enforced by brutal, draconian and quite terrifying laws.
Quite frankly, the simple fact you’ve NEVER even had a piece submitted that adopts a republican position says it all.
Instead we get this fudge that “oh yeah, we’ll consider that, at some point, maybe.”
I’m sure you could easily get Ji to write you something – have you asked him? Maybe you should.
Everyday ethnic tensions in Myanmar
[…] Schissler refere-se ao surgimento de um “nacionalismo budista anti-mu├зulmano” [en]. Ele menciona a postagem de adesivos de '969 ‘e cartazes em algumas lojas […]
Why Thailand needs its kings
“…there is no doubt that it is crucial in perpetuating a simplified narrative about the monarchy that, in more liberal circumstances, may well be unsustainable”
Andrew makes a very good point. The current system guarantees future conflict between an elected government and the power hegemony surrounding the king. The system was able to survive thus far because both sides have great respect for the current king. I can imagine one day Thailand got itself an unpopular king. At such time, will the Thais be able to avoid a civil war? To avoid this possible fate, perhaps a new narrative may be necessary.
And I don’t think bring back old system of jao muang is the answer. This, I think Dr. A Walker would agree. But I think he makes his point, there are alternatives. It is unfortunates certain people see their personal interest ahead of the society.
Why Thailand needs its kings
“Blinking in the light”,
I publish under my own name, with my contact details for all to see. Plenty of other people don’t. How about you ask them why they want to remain anonymous. As I said, I understand why those in Thailand need to be careful and I do what I can to protect their opportunities to present their views.
But, just so we all understand the situation, Andrew Walker and I don’t set the rules for debate in Thailand — we never have and we never will. But our open and consistent criticism of the lese majeste law, and other such provisions, is well known. And it comes at a price.
What we do set is the rules for debate on New Mandala, and that means we accept anonymous posts and comments, including from you. You don’t seem to grasp the implications this has for us. Understand that New Mandala is not your enemy.
Finally, when somebody writes this essay titled “Why Thailand needs its republicans” I hope they send it to us for consideration. We have always sought to provide an open forum for debate and discussion, and I trust that you all understand why.
Best wishes to all,
Nich