Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Army boss General Prayut Chan-ocha maintains that the Military’s top priority is to repress the Red Shirt pro-democracy movement and defend the Monarchy. Recently he said that “everyone is obligated, in an act of loyalty, to root out certain individuals from offending the country’s revered institution because without the Monarchy, we may live but things will never be the same…”. The truth is that without the Monarchy the military would not know how to legitimise its brutality.
Prayut’s views are supported by the General Wantip Wongwai, head of the 3rd army, who says that there is a serious republican movement headed by Jakrapop Pencare and myself. The army will go into villages and tell the truth about the army and the Monarchy to the people!!
Mainstream accounts of Thai society and politics always include the cliché that “the King is loved and respected by all Thais”. This may have had some truth at certain periods in history, yet it over looks the constant changes in public opinion and the severe repression, especially the use of the lèse majesté law, and also the manic propaganda associated with the ideology of the Monarchy. Today there are people serving up to 18 years in prison for merely criticising the Monarchy, yet despite this repression there is now a serious republican mood among millions of citizens. The King is openly verbally insulted and criticised in public, especially when demonstrations take place. The reason for this is that since 2006, the Military and the conservatives have systematically destroyed the democratic rights of millions of people who voted for Thai Rak Thai, using the excuse that they were “protecting the Monarchy”. The King also remained silent when the Military gunned down pro-democracy demonstrators in April and May 2010 and the Queen has openly supported the fascist PAD and the actions of the army.
It is ironic that the majority of both the opponents and supporters of the Monarchy believe today that Thailand is run by the King in some kind of Absolute Monarchy system. For most Red Shirt republicans, the King is the root of all evil and has ordered military coups and dominated politics for his own benefit. For most royalists, the King is an Absolute Monarch, a Constitutional Monarch and a “god” all at the same time! Reason does not come into the royalist thinking. This is partial convergence of belief is achieved by imposing and socialising the view among the population that the King is an all powerful god who is to be loved and feared. Today millions of Red Shirts have started to hate the King, but they still fear his power. Yet, the King’s power is a myth, created for ideological purposes by the ruling class, especially the Military.
If we are to understand the role of the King in Thai society, we have to understand the double act performed by the Military and the King. For ruling classes to achieve hegemony in most modern societies, they require both coercion and legitimacy. The Military and their bureaucratic allies have their armed might to stage coups and manipulate political society. The King symbolises the conservative ideology which gives legitimacy to the authoritarian actions of the Military and their allies. It is a double act of “power” and “ideological legitimacy”. In this double act the weak-willed King has no real power, but he is a willing participant.
The Military has intervened in politics and society since the 1932 revolution against the Absolute Monarchy. This is because the revolutionary Peoples Party led by Pridi Panomyong relied too much on the Military rather than building a mass party to stage the revolution. Yet it is also a cliché to just state the number of coup d’états that have taken place in order to say that Thailand is plagued by coups. The power of the Military is not unlimited and it relies on the ideology of the Monarchy and an alliance with businessmen, civilian technocrats and corrupt politicians in order to supplement its violent means of coercion.
At important moments in history, the power of the Military has been significantly reduced or kept at bay by social movements and popular uprisings. The post 1973 and1992 periods are good examples. It would be more accurate to state that the Military is an important centre of power among many. Other elite centres include big business, political bosses and high ranking bureaucrats. What is unique about the Military, however, is its weaponry and decisive ability to topple governments through coup d’états. The Military has a monopoly on the means of violent coercion which it has been prepared to use by gunning down unarmed protestors in the streets. The latest example was in April and May 2010 when over 90 people died. Previously, the Military shot unarmed protestors in 1973, 1992, 2004 and 2009 and in 1976 the Border Patrol Police, a paramilitary police force created to fight the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT), was used, along with fascist mobs, in order to murder and brutalise students in Bangkok.
Because the Military has always had a problem with trying to legitimise its actions by quoting “Democracy”, it has relied heavily upon using the Monarchy to shore-up its legitimacy. At the same time, the Military also needed to promote the Monarchy. This process was initiated in the 1960s. Today the Military always claim that they are “protecting the Monarchy” and that “they are the servants of the King and Queen”. We see the generals in photo poses, supposedly taking orders from royalty. Yet it is the generals who are really in charge of the Palace. The Palace willingly cooperates in this arrangement, gaining much wealth and prestige. Claiming legitimacy from the Monarchy is a way to make the population afraid of criticising the Military and all the elites, and the draconian lèse majesté law is in place to back this up.
That’s the mainstream view by now, isn’t it?
0
0
Yes, I very much fear that Ji has it about right, and the more repression and oppression that are used, the more likely it is that change, when it comes (as come it must and come it therefore will) will be violent.
It would be prudent of those in power and those ascending the ladders of power to be careful whose head they stomp on (in typical Thai pooyay fashion) on the way up the ladder, because they will certainly meet them again on the way down. When they are no position to stomp on anyone.
I forsee many, many exiles, come the day, and they will then discover for themselves that Thais and Thailand have no friends outside Thailand, even their close neighbours cannot abide them, such is their habitual behaviour.
0
0
Excellent article Giles.
0
0
It’s equally impossible to measure and express, in cold numbers of statistics, the degree of love or hate afforded to King Bhumibol.
Similarly, it is rather unthinkable, for both Thais and foreigners living in Thailand and beyond, to back up Giles’ opinions in public or workplace without creeping fear of losing face, one’s standing in the society, freedom, and even life. On the other hand, demeaning comments are more than welcome. So much for democracy and freedom, Thai style.
0
0
This otherwise valid analysis is marred the usual clichéd revolutionary rant from Ji.
eg. :
1)”now a serious republican mood among millions of citizens.”
How can Ji possibly know this – in absence of a referendum ?
Also – he’s been outside Thailand for considerable time now – so his ability to know the current local scene has become limited.
2) “the revolutionary Peoples Party led by Pridi Panomyong relied too much on the Military rather than building a mass party to stage the revolution.”
Realistically – did Pridi have any choice – apart from the high-risk, very chancey strategy he adopted? Which included what now seem some pretty radical attempts : eg. nationalisations, State welfarism, land reform, and neutralism towards America’s build-up against Ho Chi Minh.
Pridi came to power through a small combination of bureaucrats and military, in a country which was one of the poorest and most backward socio-economically, in the world – and without much of that radicalisation generated by imperialism in almost every other Afro-Asian country.
Ji’s rant ignores this historical contxt.
3) Ji here continues treating the Military as if it is a unified monolith : it most certainly is n’t – as Ji himself has shown in some of his other, better writings.
0
0
“Yet it is the generals who are really in charge of the Palace. ”
I am looking forward to reading a full substantiation of this statement.
0
0
As a resident of Isaan and living in the center of ‘red country’ I think I can say without fear of contradiction the love and respect for the royal family especially the King is as strong now as it ever was when I first started coming here over 20 years ago. For the Army chief to say that there is an anti monarchy, republican movement is utter nonsense. It is of course just a ploy to maintain a hard line against the ‘reds’.
The ‘red’ movement appears to be a strong as ever. The locals feel put down and frustrated, and therefore have ‘lost face’ which they bitterly resent. To say that this leads to anti monarchy I feel just isn’t true.
I feel that I should also add that they are very worried about His Majesty’s health.
0
0
Jenny, you needn’t demand Giles to substantiate that claim. Just dig up a copy of The King Never Smiles or The Revolutionary King (both banned in the Kingdom, of course, and both heavily annotated) and read away. Considering the military budget has doubled since 2006, and the fact that the number of active-duty generals has swelled from 750 to 1,100, Thailand’s military have become even more powerful since those books were published — not less.
0
0
When murder and repression are committed in the King’s name, it is reasonable to expect that his popularity will suffer, at least amongst decent people.
0
0
I don’t have time to provide long answer to Ji’s argument that the military is more powerful than the monarchy, but a short one will suffice:
Had that been the case, would Ji have to flee the country?
What did he attack, that led to his flight? The military? A few months ago, a headline in Manager referred to Anuphong, the then Army’s C-in-C as “р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕лр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕Цр╕┤р╕Б”. What happened? Nothing. In this country at the present time, you can say such thing, or worse. Can you do the same with the monarchy?
This short answer involved two closely related fundamentals which Ji never understand, despite claiming to be a Marxist.
First, the monarchy is NOT the King. (cf a very silly sentence above “Yet, the King’s power is a myth, created for ideological purposes by the ruling class, especially the Military.” – who say the power of the monarchy means the power of the king?) ALL of Ji’s writing about the monarchy present it as an individual, a frailed old man as we see today. This is not Marxist, not even a SOCIAL analysis. It’s crude empiricism.
(The monarchy is above all, an organization, or – if you’d like – a structure. the central structure of the current Thai state.)
Secondly, and this is very important, Ji NEVER understand “power”. As when he refers to the monarchy as the king (or a few of his immediate family members) all the time, when Ji speaks of “power”, he only means “ordering”, i.e. the capacity to order persons to do things. This, again, is crude empiricism.
If I, or better still, my organization, do somethings, from my and fellow members of the organization making speeches to all kinds of activities, and people cannot say anything critical of what we do, least they would be put in jail for a long time. What should this be called? Is this not power? It is definitely. Does any of the organizations and/or structures that make up the current Thai state have this same kind of power? No, nothing comes even close. I could go on to the issue of the Crown Property, the so-called Royal Projects, and the 24-7 propaganda on the merits of the monarchy on all communicative channels.
…………….
For over two years, Ji stubbornly insisted that the monarchy and the elected politicians like Thaksin are basically similar. Hence, his silly declaration of “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” (rejecting both) stance. (The phrase “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” is mine, but Ji adopted it himself in his numerous writings for over two years with pride.) Then in late 2008 he abruptly turned 180 degrees and started saying, as he is now, that the politician including Thaksin are at least elected by the people, and thus it is the duty of activists to defend them. Ji would do well to, at least once, ponder why did he get it seriously wrong, and make public auto-critique before embarking on this silly and dangerous new mistake about the issue of the monarchy.
……………..
Finally, Ji could also do well to take a serious study of Thai political history. Let me raise just one issue: since 14 Tula (1973) how many royal-appointed PMs we had, as against a military PM? General Kriangsak and Gen Prem who came to power successively in 1977 and 1980 were NOT really a military PM. Both, it is true, initially had power base in the military (Prem more than Kriangsak), but their real base overall were the monarchy and the parliament (the political parties). Later on, Suchinda tried against the tide of history to be PM himself, based on his control of the military. How long did he hold on to the post? What 14 Tula did, decisively and so far irreversibly, was to weaken the military politically to the point that it has never been able to be the leading actor of the state again, a situation that had expressed itself in the fact that there had not been a real military government again since Thanom-Praphat.
On the other hand, we now had since 1973, 3 or 4 “royal-appointed” PMs, Thanin, Prem (from the latter half of 1980), Anan (after May 1992) and Surayut after the 2006 coup. If the military is so powerful, why didn’t we see a military government after this last coup?
By the way, Prem himself who Ji is now, following the Red Shirts, calling “р╕нр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕вр╣М”, why is he having this “р╕нр╕│р╕бр╕▓р╕Хр╕вр╣М”-power? He was out of his PM job for 20 years, out of his military job even longer than that. What is his power now based on? Does any former military men have this same kind of power? (cf. the first of two fundamentals I said above regarding the monarchy is not the king.) Last, but not least, the so-called “р╕Хр╕╕р╕ер╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕ар╕┤р╕зр╕▒р╕Тр╕Щр╣М”. Was it “activated” by the military?
…………….
I could go on, but I’ll stop now. The problem with Ji over the past ten years or so is he never really learned anything, neither Thai politics nor Marxism. Worse, he had this unenviable track records of clinging to wrong positions despite feeble arguments on his part. The so-called “р╕кр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕нр╕▓” above is just the latest. The issues of the role of Samak and Bangkok Post in 6 Tula earlier are of the same kind. Then, after refusing to think seriously or listen to better argument (and facts), he would suddenly turn around, adopting the previous positions of others that he just yesterday condemned as wrong, un-Marxist,etc, and then claimed – rather shamelessly – that his new positions were always his.
0
0
When Giles writes we always have the same problem. It’s not how it is, it’s how he would like it to be. We no longer have facts, or the truth. We have propaganda.
So in Giles’s mind we have a republican Issan and a revolutionary red shirt movement just in need of the correct leadership. Neither of course is true. Just taking the latter, if we could see one of the major red shirt leaders, you know the ones that get to speak from the main stage, who wasn’t Thaksin’s man we could start to have some faith in Giles’s writings.
Writing from England Giles could maybe inform us that the man planning on spending the Christmas holidays with his old school friend Abhisit, is far more dangerous to the international working class than the host.
0
0
Nigella #8 –
I was interested and surprised to see a copy of THE REVOLUTIONARY KING in Kinokuniya bookshop in Emporium, Bangkok 3 months ago. More recently I noticed another copy in a Chiang Mai bookshop.
What’s more, I just picked up a copy of SAYING THE UNSAYABLE in a different Chiang Mai bookshop. Would be interested to hear other’s reactions to this book and/or a review.
I am constantly surprised at the amount of ‘airplay’ given to Giles Ungpakorn on this site, which I otherwise enjoy and check regularly. His academic work reads like political pamplets.
0
0
Somsak is correct on this. While I respect Ji’s political activism, he is wrong on the power of the monarchy. Back in 2008, in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, where there was a review of Ji’s “A coup for the rich,” this criticism was made in a pretty favourable review: “One criticism of this chapter – and much of the book’s analysis – is the omission of a discussion of the source of the ruling class’s power. For example, this chapter might have included a little more detail of the
monarchy’s fabulous wealth or the palace’s re-emergence as one of Thailand’s major capitalist business groups.”
0
0
Nontok:
Giles gets deserved airplay because nobody articulated the military triangulation dynamic better. His consistency and coherency are an anxiety to the bildungsphilister. A leitmotif to their impending loss.
That is loss of respect, loss of credibility, loss of status and finally loss of wealth not to mention the plot.
The Royal Thai Army has its own poetic consistency. Periodically massacring Thai citizens with asymmetric force while safeguarding with first class whitewash. A matter of least vulgarity to those most disinclined to sharing the peoples burden no less.
Instead of applauding he who speaks truth to power, the calumny commentariat debase reason, side with might and bully in unison. They are intolerant to pluralism, ignorant of Marxism, drunk on capitalism while hallucinating on history.
Why else would one solitary exiled voice continue to rock every institution his attention focuses on.
0
0
Giles should less hyperbole and avoid classic leftist rhetorical terms that are used so often they mean nothing like the word “fascist.”
From my experience up north and at these recent protests I never got any feeling that “millions” of these red shirts were republicans who hated the King. I also didn’t get the feeling that they adored him the same way that the elite do. He is simply their king who they respect and that’s it. The red shirts I spoke with would like to contain the abuse of the monarchy/people around the monarchy, not get rid of it.
I remind a very royalist person I know that red, yellow, or pink–they are all very Thai at the end of the day in their acceptance of a king.
“The King is openly verbally insulted and criticised in public, especially when demonstrations take place.”
Could Giles provide some hard evidence for this? A transcript of a speech, an excerpt? I’d be very interested to actually read for myself what is considered an insult.
That the monarchy, the military, and the bureaucratic elite exist in a symbiotic relationship points more to the truth than focusing on which is more in control. All three anoint one another in different ways.
Giles’ opinions would carry more weight if they were more nuanced. CRES probably celebrates that he writes so bluntly because it gives them all the more reason to crack down in the name of saving the monarchy and the Thai nation.
0
0
Somsak Jeamteerasakul – 10
Thank you ajarn Somsak, you’ve provided a very good way to explain the power structure in Thailand. I’ve been attempting to explain this very complicated relation between each power within the country.
0
0
Barry, comment #7 I mix with a lot of the Thai people in UK.Last week we met up to visit a local show.We all talked about the “Monarchy”….and all were in agreement with me about the “hate” now surfacing which is explained by Giles.All these Thai born also agreed too that….and I qoute; “but we dare not say anything”…wake up Barry.
0
0
To Darren. I can only comment on what I see and hear at a ‘grass roots’ level here in Isaan. I would well imagine that Thais living in the U.K. with whom you associate would have a different attitude to th monarchy than those living as ‘rural peasants’ in Isaan. I have never been to a ‘red’ rally and have no intention of ever doing so, for a start my Thai is not good enough. You may well be correct that some of the red leaders may have become anti royalty, but I do not see it with ordinary people with whom I assocate.
0
0
barry – 18
If you went to the 19th Sep rally you would see a lot of “ambiguous” writing on the floor and wall, I think that’s where Ji get his assumption from.
0
0
Barry I have a house in “rural Issan” too.Lived there for over a decade.Chaiyaphum to be exact.You never heared “stories” about Sia O ? Come on now.Really ?
0
0
Darren #20. I live in Buriram Province, and it could well be that the locals are slightly out of step with the rest of Issan and those in the North. This could well be due to the heavy political influence of the “blues’ run by the Chitchop family. As a farang it is difficult to tell what the Thai political hoi poloi are thinking.
As for Sia Oh I confess that I had no idea as to what you were referring, however it would appear to be a nickname, and if it is who I think it is, as has been suggested, then of course I can make no comment whatsoever.
0
0
Charles –
“rock every institution his attention focuses on”? haha
A tad too sanguine surely. I concede he does seem to attract a not insignificant following though.
His writing and activities proclude him, in my opinion, from being taken seriously as an academic. As some have pointed out here his written work is simplistic and sometimes seriously flawed. It is inflammatory political ranting, as opposed to sober, balanced analysis. Some may feel his experience justifies the tone of his output, but that doesn’t make it sound. No other writer that contributes to this site shares these characteristics, in spite of the moral positions some of them openly take.
0
0
Looking at the British revolutionary left, to which Giles belongs, you should not see their support of the UDD in isolation. They also managed to support the Iranian government and nationalist Serbs. They can find people they like in the strangest places, so we shouldn’t be surprised they find one in Thaksin.
0
0
LesAbbey
How very topical. As you’re judging people on the company they keep why don’t you acquaint yourself with the comments below this piece and discover why your comments on Thaksin and Giles have no substance.
Nontok
You’re entitled to your opinions. I for one urge you to continue working on them.
0
0
Les: More specifics, please. Which group do you say Ji belongs to in Britain? Then provide specific links to support the assertiosn you make.
0
0
Ralph Kramden – 25
Les: More specifics, please.
The Socialist Workers Party Ralph. Afraid you will have to wade through their website looking for their position on the break-up of Yugoslavia and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
Try the party website at http://www.swp.org.uk/
The British SWP is the continuation of Tony Cliff’s old International Socialists, one of the many splits within the Trotskyist movement.
0
0
There is much in Giles’ article that I cannot disagree with but I think his estimates of the numbers of red shirt supporters who know hate the king and the royal family are more his wishful thinking than based on any type of empirical survey. While the military has a great deal to answer for over the decades, Thaksin , himself, was also responsible for a very impressive body count and numerous human rights abuses during his short stint in power, especially in the South. Thus the question is what does Giles wish to see installed in place of the current system? He railed against Thaksin when he was in power but later attempted to hang on to the coat tails of Thaksin’s red shirt movement which is dedicated solely to restoring Thaksin and his brutal and corrupt right wing clique to power, not to the Marxist style revolution Giles has been dreaming of since the 70s. It would be easier to take Giles seriously, if he could remain true to his ideals rather than be seen cavorting with such unsavoury bedfellows. Presumably he believes that such capitalist dross can easily be rounded up and liquidited as revionists after the revolution in true Stalinist style.
0
0
What I find interesting in all these debates about military and royal institution is that so little gets said about the CPB and other businesses.
0
0
Ralph Kramden #26 and Les Abbey # 27 :
it must be Nicholas following Oxford’s famed tolerance of an extremely wide range of opinions, which allows this pursuing of Ji’s
very wide-of-mainstream views.
Trotskyists are incredibly marginal in Western societies – even more so in Thailand.
I pity you Ralph – having to “wade” through all that SWP stuff.
Les Abbey’s equivalent of that old Chinese curse :
“may you live in interesting times ” !!
0
0
I can certainly sympathise (to a degree) with the frustrations of those who believe there is a genuine republican movement underway, when they come up against those who believe Thailand overwhelmingly supports the King and / or the institution of the monarchy (the two are very separate, of course). When they cannot even poll to gauge the level of support they have amongst Thais, it’s quite understandably frustrating – I’m sure.
But as Portman pointed out above, their position (which would be inherently valid, if not popularly supported) is just completely comprised by their grasping onto anything and everything that presents as ‘anti-monarchist’. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
Backing Thaksin in a fight with the Thai monarchy? It’s not only unconscionable on the basis of human rights concerns and relative ‘freedom’; it’s strategically foolish as well.
Replacing the Thai monarchy with King Taksin? Heaven help us.
0
0
Chris Beale.
If it’s Stalinists you prefer then I’m your man. I wont however send you to the Gulag. But you’re down fort two years re-education.
0
0