Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Back in May 2010 I canvassed some of the “assumptions about the next in line” to Thailand’s throne. I questioned whether the prevailing consensus that Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn will be the next monarch is the full story when his support among factions of the elite is taken into consideration. More specifically I wrote that:
…I fail to see how the constant and hysterical attacks on the Red shirts over the past few years could be strategic unless there is significant fear, among Thailand’s highest echelons, that the succession plan (whatever it is) will be interrupted by Thaksin-aligned politicians.
Now, with Wikileaks providing the public with unexpected and unprecedented access to recent United States government communications, we are starting to see just how much support the Crown Prince actually has among Thailand’s highest echelons.
The Guardian has the story: it is headlined “Thai leaders doubt suitability of prince to become king”. It couldn’t be much more blunt. And the details in the raw cable, while not exactly news to seasoned Thailand-watchers, are so potent that there will, surely, be repercussions from this latest release. Somewhat notably (given wise redactions in cables about, for instance, Burma) this particular cable names names and puts in context a range of matters that have, until now, been the subject of quiet speculation alone.
These are potentially explosive revelations and so I imagine they will get little, if any, public airing in Thailand. But they will receive ferocious scrutiny elsewhere in the world and in Thailand I have no doubt that they are already informing many whispered conversations. Their release may also make life difficult for United States officials. I can only imagine the headaches this latest exposure is causing around Bangkok this morning although there were probably already significant efforts underway to warn the relevant people about what was likely to be released.
The Guardian is also soliciting queries from readers about what they would like to see examined next. One reader, for instance, has previously asked “for mention of the Thai royals in connection with the 2006 coup”. The process for sending in queries is as follows:
To make further suggestions, tweet @GdnCables with as many specifics as possible (names, dates, embassies). Twitter refuseniks can email [email protected] with the same specific information in the subject field, but please keep the rest of the message short.
I’m sure that among New Mandala readers there are some dates, names and places that you would like to see checked closely. To give you an idea, a selection of previous Thailand-related suggestions for The Guardian to check is available here.
Of course, for Thailand, and for many other countries, we have only seen a tiny fraction of the leaked cables. And as I have asked as a means of concluding previous posts about the implications of Wikileaks for mainland Southeast Asia: what next?
Fantastic! What’s the best way to get this disseminated to Thais?
0
0
these docs are basically views of the amaat regime led by Prem and his entourage with US officials lapping up the spoof…The only excitment is that they show openly the real face of the amaat; I for one don’t give credence to the comments which are only viewpoints which many of us knew before; except that they do show the real face, intrigue and danger of the current regime as it tries to institutionalise its power base and undermine any attempt to bring back democracy.
0
0
…I fail to see how the constant and hysterical attacks on the Red shirts over the past few years could be strategic unless there is significant fear, among Thailand’s highest echelons, that the succession plan (whatever it is) will be interrupted by Thaksin-aligned politicians.
But Nich you fail to follow what is now coming out to it’s logical conclusion. Once you start to look at where Thaksin possibly stands in the question of succession many parts of the dispute inside Thailand’s ruling classes may begin to make sense. Long before the 2006 coup the relationship between the Privy Council and Thaksin was breaking down. Thaksin was trying to disable any power centre in the country outside of his control.
Unless the rules have changed since Kukrit Pramoj wrote about them many years ago in, I think, the Bangkok Post, the next monarch will be chosen by the Privy Council. Hopefully we will find out more with further releases of the Wikileaks cables.
Just to point out that it is easier for those outside Thailand to comment on this issue.
0
0
[…] Lire la suite: Wikileaks and Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn […]
0
0
I can only hope that I am as lucid as Prem and Siddhi when I am in my nineties!
Given their points of view, the privy councillors’ analyses seem pretty perceptive and straightforward to me. IMHO, there is little in there that could embarrass them — one could even imagine this leak helping their cause, by putting the contentious issues on the table.
The most telling revelation, after all, is this (semi-) admission by Anand: “After another pause, Anand added that someone really should raise the matter with the King, before adding with regret that there really was no one who could raise such a delicate topic…”
0
0
[…] here to see the original: Wikileaks and Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn Share and […]
0
0
@LesAbbey:
The cable says that “Anand suggested only the King would be in a position to change succession, and acknowledged a low likelihood of that happening.” So its not the Privy Council.
It’s so much fun to read the cables. Please we need a Bradley Manning 2.0 because i want to read the cables from April/May/Jun 2010 too
0
0
An informant has kindly sent updates which I would like to share with NM readers; the recent WikiLeaks about Thailand, exciting as they seem, may not of course ever appear in the Thai media (unless they happen to “slip through” in part or whole unnoticed for a day or so and then removed when the overworked state censors notice): but at least these confirm internal anti-monarchy stories…
Here are some Thai media headlines,
http://www.thairath.co.th/content/pol/134408
Director of DSI states the charges against Red Shirts who are still on the run will be changed from violating SOE to committing criminal acts according to the penal code (if SOE is lifted). Now it is also suggested (elsewhere) that certain staff within DSI are to be removed because their unethical tasks in the past few years have been achieved (*under the amaat regime people are removed when they have served a particular purpose for the elites)
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1292482474&grpid=00&catid=&subcatid=
Suthep [generously!] states that he is quite willing to testify on the Bangkok crackdown anywhere, even in the ICC (International Criminal Court; Cour Pénale Internationale; Bob Amsterdam will be happy to hear that!)
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1292417519&grpid=00&catid=&subcatid=
Jatuporn, who exposed admission from the five soldiers from Lopburi regiment that they were ordered to kill people inside Wat Pathum states that more information of a leaked document will be disclosed on Dec 23.
http://www.khaosod.co.th/view_news.php?newsid=TUROd01ERXdPREUyTVRJMU13PT0=§ionid=TURNd01RPT0=&day=TWpBeE1DMHhNaTB4Tmc9PQ==
Japanese diplomat meets and discusses with Police Chief, Pol. Gen. Vichian (р╕Юр╕е.р╕Х.р╕н.р╕зр╕┤р╣Ар╕Кр╕╡р╕вр╕г р╕Юр╕Ир╕Щр╣Мр╣Вр╕Юр╕Шр╕┤р╣Мр╕ир╕гр╕╡) regarding the death of Japanese camera; Vichian tells the journalists after the meeting that the Japanese diplomat also brings and shows him the leaked document handed to the Japanese by Jatuporn…
http://www.dailynews.co.th/newstartpage/index.cfm?page=content&categoryID=8&contentID=110285
After the govt is given the nickname “fried large noodles in black soy-sauce” (“р╣Ар╕кр╣Йр╕Щр╣Гр╕лр╕Нр╣Ир╕Ьр╕▒р╕Фр╕Лр╕╡р╕нр╕┤р╣Кр╕з”) by Kasetsart University students (seemingly it is a Thai tradition that the govt and each politician will be given nicknames at the end of each year), Suthep, always ready to defend the indefensible, responds that those students simply misunderstand about the govt being backed by the army! (the nickname implies that the govt is backed by powerful groups and the army)
0
0
Peter – 6
So its not the Privy Council.
And yet Peter the article by Kukrit sticks in my mind even though it must have been published more than twenty years ago.
In very general term and about all monarchies, succession usually takes place after the demise of the previous monarch. I guess then who succeeds can be decided by other than that previous monarch.
0
0
I like the part about traffic:
“… noting that something as simple as excessive motorcade-related traffic jams caused by minor royals was an unnecessary but enduring irritant. Personal Private Secretary Arsa Sarasin had raised this with the King about eight years ago, according to Siddhi, and the King had agreed, authorizing Arsa to talk to royal family members and to set up new rules limiting entourages and occasions when traffic would be stopped. Nothing had changed…”
It suggests both the intractable nature of the lower royals as well as the impotence of the king in family matters. If we believe Siddi, that is.
0
0
From the 2007 Constitution:
Section 22: Subject to Section 23, succession to the throne shall be in accordance with the Palace Law on Succession, B.E. 2467.
Section 23: In the case where the Throne becomes vacant and the King has already appointed his heir to the Throne under the Palace Law on Succession, B.E. 2467, the Council of Ministers shall notify the president of the National Assembly. The president of the National Assembly shall convoke the National Assembly for acknowledgment thereof, and the president of the National Assembly shall invite such heir to ascend the Throne and proclaim such heir as King.
In the case where the Throne becomes vacant and the King has not appointed His heir* under paragraph one, the Privy Council shall submit the name of the successor to the Throne under Section 22 to the Council of Ministers for further submission to the National Assembly for approval. For this purpose, the name of a Princess may be submitted**. Upon the approval of the National Assembly, the president of the National Assembly shall invite such successor to ascend the Throne and proclaim such successor as King.
http://www.asianlii.org/th/legis/const/2007/1.html#C02
* On 28 December 1972 the King granted the title “Somdech Phra Boroma Orasadhiraj Chao Fah Maha Vajiralongkorn Sayam Makutrajakuman” – thus appointing him Crown Prince and heir to the throne.
** I’ve seen it suggested that this was brought into the 2007 constitution for the first time. Not true – the same wording is in the 1997 constitution.
I’ll choose my next words very carefully….. While I’m no lawyer, it would seem clear-cut that – unless his titular status were changed (according to the 1924 Palace Law, a prerogative belonging solely to the reigning monarch) or he became unavailable or a coup suspended the current Constitution – then the present Crown Prince is automatically the successor. If a coup happened, then all bets are off anyway – the leaders can replace whatever institutions they choose with a barracks kitchen cabinet concoction of their own. I
0
0
LesAbbey: very boring this question as it has been dealt with several times, by government, in law and in these cables. Of course, palace coups and regicide are not unknown in Thailand, so a wild card is always there.
0
0
You’re darned right that the excessive motorcade-related traffic jams caused by minor (and not so minor) royals are an unnecessary and enduring irritant. They are a major pain in the butt. In addition, they occasionally result in real tragedies, such as preventing ambulances from getting critically ill patients to hospitals for emergency medical treatment. Did you know that the police are required to line up in the hot Sun an hour before the motorcades pass by? What a needless waste of human resources!
0
0
It would seem that the King’s succession plan is to have his son follow him. It would also seem that his son and Mr. T would be able to communicate and cooperate without any major problems. So it would seem unlikely that the threat to the King’s succession plan would be coming from Mr. T and/or his followers.
The real threat to the King’s succession plan would instead be coming from those members of the Privy Council (there are at least three and possibly more in this group) who are opposed to the King’s son following the King. And it would appear that their succession plan would be to wait until after the King passes on, and then connive to somehow eliminate the son and appoint the “good” daughter in his place. With the actual power and control of the 38 billion USD fortune remaining with the mother, at least for the time being.
0
0
Now is 2014. Prayuth (said to be so much better than Anupong) has set a coup d’Etat and will probably not give the power back to civilian soon. At the time of the coup, the prince has moved to the UK with a lot of bags and heavy security (to avoid being killed???). So seems your theory comes true.
0
0
Superanonymous said: Given their points of view, the privy councillors’ analyses seem pretty perceptive and straightforward to me. IMHO, there is little in there that could embarrass them – one could even imagine this leak helping their cause, by putting the contentious issues on the table.
Wrong.
When/if the Crown Prince ascends to power, I really don’t see what Anand and Siddhi can do other than remove themselves from the scene.
Seriously. If what they’re saying about the Crown Prince is true, do they really think – now that their disdain for the Prince has been exposed – that they will be allowed to remain? If they don’t remove themselves after the death of R9, they’ll be removed by R.10.
[I have modified some of the language in this comment. AW]
0
0
Readers of Thai might be interested to see the actual Royal Gazette entry for 28 December 1972 (referred to in c11):
http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2515/A/200/1.PDF
I don’t read Thai, but a Thai friend (while struggling with some of the ornate wording) tells me that it’s explicit about declaring Vajiralongkorn as heir to the throne. Perhaps a helpful NM Thai reader could confirm that?
0
0
Steve #16
Yes that’s the official document declaring Vajiralongkorn the Crown Prince, heir to the throne; and unless His Majesty himself changes his mind and appoint somebody else, Prince Vajiralongkorn will be the next king.
I think I discussed this issue together with Khun Bangkok Pundit some times ago somewhere in his blog.
(There’s also another official document declaring Prince Sirinthorn, Princes Maha Chakri. But it’s clear from the text of that document that her title does not imply that she’s an heir.)
0
0
Doesn’t what was discussed by the Privy Council et al. in this article constitute Lese Majeste? How do I report this?
0
0
It seems I am still wrong on the powers of the Privy Council and therefore withdraw my earlier suggestion. Unless there was a change in the King’s wishes they would not have the power. But then again many things are possible.
0
0
Dan, just go to a police station and report it!
The government and the military will be obliged to protect the monarchy and give the matter serious investigation, possibly even calling the former US Ambassador back to Thailand for questioning. After all, if a former PM can be charged of trying to overthrow the monarchy (Thaksin), then why can’t another former PM (Anand) be charged with the same?
It would be a scandal of biblical proportions… I can’t wait!
0
0
Superduperanonymous(#15) – Your point is well taken, of course. The three are now in an awkward situation vis-a-vis the CP . I was thinking of “embarrassed” in a broader sense: that they didn’t expose themselves as particularly blinkered, duplicitous or dishonorable. Regardless, your comments set up a scenario worth watching.
0
0
superanonymous – 21
…that they didn’t expose themselves as particularly blinkered, duplicitous or dishonorable.
They do across as rather well meaning men which must worry Thaksin. If they seem reasonable men while Thaksin seems to be Machiavellian in these US Embassy cables it will start to erode some of the international and local support among those on the left who were favouring him.
0
0
Princess Sirindhorn is about to receive an honorary degree from Indiana University tomorrow. She had left for the US some days ago. I wonder if the press would ask her about this since the cable mentioned her name more than once. When she was in the US during the PAD demonstrations, the press asked her about it and she did respond to their questions, prompting some bloggers to write that Sirindhorn has “entered the fray”.
0
0
A. Wales: I doubt the media outside of Thailand, especially in Indiana, are much interested in what she says. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be. It is just that the palace’s honorary degree hunt is a local affair and for Thai purposes.
More broadly, it seems that this leak of information will suit some of those who plot about succession. The prince probably already know that these old men are his opponents and longs for the day when he can re-do the privy council. Will succession look like an Ayutthayan version of a family fight for the throne? Or was that also the case last time?
0
0
Bringing together two elements from the cables (royal motorcades and the negative comments about the Crown Prince), I start to wonder if HRH has already had his people contact the US Secret Service to pick up a few pointers on how to achieve something approaching their level of security for the President.
If, as reported, he already insists on 2nd floor windows being cleared along his route while his father is still on the throne – what more security measures will he decide he needs when that’s no longer the case?
0
0
Les Abbey(#22)- I’m glad you raise this point about Thaksin, though it remains a hypothetical at this point. What will be the reaction when cables focusing on Thaksin – which I don’t expect will be very complimentary – are released? On the other hand, I’m sorry to see you perpetuating that business about Thaksin’s support on the left. Occasional lip service aside – SOP for politics – the leftists in the red camp are allies rather than supporters. There’s a distinction there.
0
0
Khun Somsak #17. If part of Somdet Phrathep’s title becomes Sayammakut Ratchakumari from Sayamborom Ratchakumari, do you think that qualifies her as the heir and Crown Princess?
0
0
The bit about minor royals and their entourage of motorcade reminds me of the many anecdotes that can be found in Thai language fora and websites recounting personal experiences of individuals who had bumped into Princess Sirindhorn riding the skytrain incognito.
0
0
superanonymous – 26
the leftists in the red camp are allies rather than supporters. There’s a distinction there.
SOP or not the distinction is pretty fine;-)
0
0
in summary we must assume that he was set up to fall long time back as the myth of incompetence was spun by the amaat regime concerned over certain matters of control (or lack thereof in this case), and over power and estate. How did certain tapes suddenly appear in the media on birthday event (remember?); can we any longer believe everything we hear? [In much the same way Thaksin was set up to fall by the regime]. Never underestimate the might, determination and fearlessness of the amaat regime who will stop at nothing to get what they want. BTW/Informants told me that ‘he’ was seen briefly at the protest site in April 2010 smiling and waving to red shirts, and was subsequently told make himself scarse and get out of the country…Who would sit at the summit? work it out…
0
0
Jim Taylor – 30
Poor Jim. See where this has led you. Next you will be arguing in favour of the Divine Right.
Sometimes it’s not so great to be proved right. Like a mother warning her children not to play with fire, I really didn’t want to be proved right. I warned that if you try to find a class conflict in this dispute between different members of the ruling class you will have to perform some pretty difficult mental gymnastics. And now you have not only burnt your fingers, you have burnt your entire arm. Now your conspiracy theory takes you into supporting sides in the palace.
I can lay back and enjoy the Wikileaks but Thaksin’s supporters must be dreading each cable from the Bangkok embassy coming out. What happens when they get to things like the CTX scandal? The only answers they can have now will be that the US diplomats were lying in their internal communications.
0
0
This is a general comment and not necessarily on the posts above.
LesAbbey’s view of class conflict seems remarkably naive. Classes have internal differences. Indeed, one of the very basic facts of the capitalist class is that it is in constant internal conflict – a point also missed by Ji – and that is in Marx. This applies to all classes as far as I can see. So the arguments for total class solidarity seem very blunt.
0
0
The key point in the Wikileaks revelations so far is the Ambassador’s opinion that ALL the significant operators in Thai politics are corrupt. It is one that most unbiased observers would accept. That is what makes LesAbbey’s obsessive hatred for Thaksin as tiresome as a cracked record. It just doesn’t make sense to blame one person for problems that also affect everyone else, and that clearly predate the Thaksin era.
0
0
on the contrary Les Abbey, i think Thaksin’s supporters will be cheering every WikiLeaks revelation because it supports their argument since the beginning about an institutional set-up starting at the amaat “gentlemen’s club” [Prem’s Privy Council cronies]; so more please!
In regard to CTX and other matters at Suvarnabhumi Airport- it was all cleared by several investigations – so no issue for Abbey and his falangistas to rant about here…Even that intractable pro Democrat Party reactionary English-language newspaper The Nation had to retract unfounded allegations back in 2008. Abbey’s hysterics show how allegations can so easily be made against those who we want to target and without any hard evidence, and in an inversion of legal standards where people are proclaimed guilty before they can establish innocence…
0
0
So RN England says they are all corrupt while Doctor Jim says Thaksin is a pure as the driven snow. Interesting times ahead.
0
0
I’m sorry if this post seems a little tangential to the discussion, but the fact that all Thai politicians are seen as corrupt might suggest that it would be sensible to shift the level of analysis from actors such as Thaksin and Abhisit to Thai society and culture. I personally developed a very low opinion of Thaksin based on the events that transpired during his time in office. Nevertheless, I would suggest that Thaksin and his ilk (Chalerm etc) are a natural emergent property of Thai subjective culture, and so doing away with Thaksin will not necessarily solve the problem.
0
0
Chalerm was Prem’s ilk long before he was Thaksin’s. Read history. See how it repeats. Thaksin was not good, but this is much bigger than him.
0
0
Nigel – 36
but the fact that all Thai politicians are seen as corrupt might suggest that it would be sensible to shift the level of analysis from actors such as Thaksin and Abhisit to Thai society and culture.
Nigel, and possibly Leah, if we do shift the analysis away from the individual we would then tend to remove the blame from the individual. This is basically the “double standards” argument that the UDD leadership have used. Of course if you are trying to escape blame as an individual it’s a good idea.
How easy it would be say that Thai culture is to blame, or even one that I have used before to my shame, that it’s (Thai-)Chinese business practice to be corrupt or to corrupt.
The Thaksin defense has the smell of a high paid PR campaign and it’s wrong. The corrupt individual is to blame. Keep removing the corrupt individuals until we find one that’s clean.
The worse thing was that Thaksin was first elected using anti-corruption as one of his themes. At least with Newin and Chalerm you knew what you were getting. they didn’t pretend to be clean.
0
0
what “events that transpired during his time on office” Nigel? err…the stuff of media fiction? or the truth regime created out of some nonsense started byanti-democratic media? we are all influenced by what we are told, read or hear, but few of us have the wisdom to question its sources. Look into “his time in office” and talk to the people under whom his policies were directed and then…well then -you may just see another story emerging that has been smudged over by the amaat regime wanting to get rid of him so badly. And the reason? because he did nothing to maintain the status quo ante and everything to work in the interests if ordinary folk…
As for Leah’s definitive statement “Thaksin was not good” (!): so who said? He was (in terms of criminality) probably the least corrupt and most certainly the most efficient if idiosyncratic of all PMs Thailand has ever has. The ancien regime had a lot to fear from his successes in creating social, economic inversions and in ensuring local level political inclusion. No doubt when the White Crow has been destroyed, the truth will reveal itsef…
0
0
Re: Leah Hoyt
My point is that Prem, Thaksin and Chalerm are all the product of the same underlying conditions.
Re Les Abbey – 36:
I’m inclined to agree with you. Individuals should cetrainly still be held responsible for their acts, and unless they are, little is likely to change. It has been demonstrated that psychopathy is, to a large extent, genetic. That doesn’t mean we should let psychopathic murderers off. In fact, it implies that they should be punished severely for their crimes as a deterrent to other psychopaths who, lacking a conscience, need to reason that behaving within the rules set by society is the most sensible strategy to adopt.
My point is not that we should excuse individuals because they are, in a sense, a product of their culture. Rather, it is that the problems in Thailand cannot be understood in terms of good guys and bad guys, and they will not be solved by removing one or two players (though that might help). I may have this wrong, but reading some of the posts on New Mandala suggests that many people view much that happens within Thailand as being the result of institutions imposing their will on the people. I see things differently. I don’t believe changing a few politicians will alter the underlying problems that are a barrier to the development of a successful liberal democracy in Thailand, namely, the shared beliefs, attitudes norms, roles and values of the majority of Thai people. Corruption is tolerated partly because rules governing behaviour are seen as context dependant rather than absolute. Officials are corrupt because they see their primary responsibility as being towards a particular in group rather than the country as a whole, and hence they do not feel any moral obligation to behave honestly. Indeed, by enriching themselves and other in group members, they may in fact feel good about themselves.
Re Jim Taylor
I actually felt quite positive towards Thaksin when he first came to office. However, the behaviour of his government was quite clearly beyond the pale and I’m still astonished that anyone would consider him at all defensible. He completely undermined the checks and balances written into the constitution; he tolerated not one iota of criticism in the press; he was responsible for a tidal wave of vigilante killings during the so called “war on drugs”. Thaksin was a totalitarian dictator in waiting. I really do wonder why I should be writing this. I don’t think these claims are controversial.
0
0
Nigel: so lets take them one at time if they are not “controversial”:
firstly Thaksin “undermined…the constitution”? he exmpliefied the 1997 People’s Constitution and electoral democracy; he was voted into power twice by a landslide – by folk who could see his policies and program were working well fo them; he epitomised good governance and representation; he introduced the People’s Audit system and held gov officials accountable for their actions directly to the people (including teachers and medical practitioners); for the first time the “king’s servants” (kharatchakan) became the “public servants”; and gov officials, jaophor & others were no longer controlling their fiefdoms as they had in the past: Thaksin showed the country that the constitution can indeed work for the people. Why else would the ancien regime want to get rid of him so badly? His fault was his mangerialism, and sometimes too direct decision-making style. But why do the masses call for the return of both Thaksin AND the now abrogated democratic 1997 Constitution of Thailand? They are inseparable as Thaksin for the first time in Thai history really empowered grassroots constituencies. Secondly, the press was actually at its most free during Thaksin’s time otherwise how could they been able to get together in a compact with amaat/military interests in a vocal condemnation with spin and fiction day after day. It started with Sondhi Lim. Now I recall Thaksin threatened to sue once when it became too personal – which any citizen would do (but he never did). Reporters Without Borders ranked Thailand 153rd in its annual “World Press Freedom” index; before the coup, Thailand was ranked 66th. Despite Thailand’s slide into authoritarianism, some foreign media can still be convinced that things were so much worse back when Thaksin was PM and the country was still a democracy. People see what they want to see. Thirdly, you say that he “was responsible for a tidal wave of vigilante killings during the so called ‘war on drugs'”. That sounds horrid to me. But why does the anti-democratic media in Thailand like to bring this up time and time again? It has a purpose. As head of the Gov he, as anyone else, would need to be accountable for any action undertaken by the various agencies under him at the time, including the police (and god forbid -even the army -which we know is answerable to no one). The mafias or big players connected to the amaat slipped through the net on the WoD; we know this, and that small players got hit because they were easy targets. The police seemingly in some cases clearly overreached. So what do you want to do? keep ruminating on this and meanwhile just remain blind to the last five years? And remember, the number of those killed is still contested. I am also reminded of one of my informants last year who told me at a rally that she wanted to “thank” Thaksin for saving her children from falling into drug addiction. It was, and remains, a serious/critical situation in Thailand. There are always two sides. We need to keep those events in perspective and not fall into the trap set by the yellow Shirt media to detract from the massacres, repression and violence carried out against majority peoples since 19 September 2006. It all depends what you read Nigel and how you want to view history. These claims, contrary to what you say are indeed “controversial” and need to be uprooted from their assumptions and biases. Are you brave enough to do that?
0
0
I find it so tiring that every topic of conversation about contemporary Thailand ends up reiterating the same old arguments about Thaksin.
The Privy Council places less trust in Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn than the public? Ah, but they place less trust in Thaksin.
Abhisit’s military is torturing red-shirt and muslim detainees? Ah, but Thaksin’s extrajudicial war on drugs was even nastier, wasn’t it.
The royalty is being used as a tool to censor the media? Well, as we all know, Thaksin wasn’t exactly tolerant of the media either.
Pardon me, but it’s just so damn bloody-minded. Move on already! Such fixations on one man isn’t healthy and certainly can’t cure every subsequent ill that affects Thailand.
0
0
LesAbbey – 31
I can lay back and enjoy the Wikileaks but Thaksin’s supporters must be dreading each cable from the Bangkok embassy coming out. What happens when they get to things like the CTX scandal?
In case you didn’t know the Bangkokbiz news had retract and apologize for the news (which they got awarded for) for being inaccurate and misleading couple of years ago (I think in 2008), if you want to I believed its still on their website but this is ages ago so it could already been deleted.
Furthermore, the cable thus far did more damage to the establishment themselves than to Thaksin. The only negative thing that came out of the cable regarding Thaksin was “Thaksin was corrupted so as his opponent” that phase alone doesn’t quite explain anything (who didn’y already know all that?). Furthermore, the person who said this go out and bash other nations like Japan, Malaysia, and India.
On the other hand, we get to see the in side of back door discussing with people that we will never know what they are up to, ala the Privy Councilors.
0
0
LesAbbey – 38
Western countries are not less corrupt than Thailand because their leaders are cleaner. It’s because they have more effective control systems in place that are preventing them from becoming corrupt.
0
0
Christoffer Larsson – 44
It’s because they have more effective control systems in place that are preventing them from becoming corrupt.
Christoffer, I would actually argue that many Western governments are as corrupt as Thailand’s, it’s just that it’s better hidden.
Again though if we argue that Thaksin, or others, are only corrupt because of the lack of control systems we will end up going down a strange road of logic. Will we argue that murderers are really innocent because it was a lack of control systems to stop them murdering? There must be personal responsibility. This belief of responsibility explains why there have been UN sponsored trials in Cambodia.
0
0
Tarrin – 43
In case you didn’t know the Bangkokbiz news had retract and apologize for the news (which they got awarded for) for being inaccurate and misleading …
Tarrin you are possibly correct and I will have to retract the CTX bit. I was suspicious that the Nation’s retraction was to stop Thaksin suing them. Still let’s see what comes out of the US Embassy cables shall we?
Not sure if I’m alone thinking this, but didn’t Prem and Anand come out of the leaks so far looking rather reasonable? I’m still looking forward to more from Wikileaks anyway.
How about Jim Taylor’s comment number 41 Tarrin? Could you go along with that piece of Stalinist rewriting of history? Or are you more of a “they all corrupt so why pick on Thaksin” believer?
0
0
I was suspicious that the Nation’s retraction was to stop Thaksin suing them.
IMO I think any news outlet that went along with Bangkokbiz’s reporting on CTX without checking their source deserve to be sued.
Anyway, lets see what we are going to see in other cable, so far we know who the US manipulate Thailand’s foreign policy and how things were discuss behind the scene. Would be interesting to see what is inside the other leaks, we still have about 3,000 more documents to go.
Not sure if I’m alone thinking this, but didn’t Prem and Anand come out of the leaks so far looking rather reasonable?
Their opinions were very ordinary elite class piece of mind, whether it is reasonable or not is up for interpretation, but Anand suggestion that “anything can happen” if the certain who died is not very encouraging consider that Thailand establishment is relying on an individual to survive.
How about Jim Taylor’s comment number 41 Tarrin? Could you go along with that piece of Stalinist rewriting of history? Or are you more of a “they all corrupt so why pick on Thaksin” believer?
Let me clear up a bit, first I’m not sure what do you mean by whether I believe in “go along with that piece of Stalinist rewriting history” since I felt like right now its the establishment that is the one who is rewriting history. I was just advising a law student from Ramkumhang University (I’m not a teacher btw), she was studying Thailand modern history, period from 1973 to today, which is odd since the modern Thai political development was actually initiate in 1932. Anyhow, to my surprise, I didn’t see any reference to 1976 massacre, or the fall of communist in the early 80s. All that was mention was the 1973 and the 1992 massacre. Should I believe in this history book? I might, but I really have to take it with a grain of salt.
Second, I’m not old enough to remember what was happening during Prem premiership, but I remember well enough what happened during Chuan I, Banharn, Chuvalit, Chuan II, and Thaksin. I still recalled how Sor-Por-Gor 4-01 corruption scandal made the Chuan I collapse. I still remembered how Banharn’s Pak Panang Reservoir project (in corroboration with unmentionable institution) destroy a large part Pak Panang’s mangroves forest in the south (with it an enormous damage in range of billion of Baht) . I recalled that during Chuan II the amphetamine was as easy to find as a candy. Certainly Thaksin did not invent corruption and I felt that the allegation against him was blown out of proportion and very misleading, take CTX for example. If Thaksin was to be jail for 2 years for the ambiguous Ratchada land deal then Suthep deserve a 50 years jail term for this Sor Por Gor 4-01 or the Kor Samui land scandal.
Whether or not I am the believer of “they all corrupt so why pick on Thaksin” or ” Could you go along with that piece of Stalinist rewriting of history”, well, I can be all of that depending on what context we are discussing. Its not that simple to categorized people to just one or another.
Several of Jim’s points are valid in term if explaining why we are here today (whether the charge against Thaksin is valid is up for debate). If we get the 1997 constitution drafted in 1982 and then Thaksin was running the country in 1988 in stead of Chartchai then we might see what happened in 2010 actually happened in 2000. My point is, what we see today is inevitable, its ought to happen sooner or later. Jim’s points about Thaksin were just the catalyst.
0
0
LesAbbey asked: “Not sure if I’m alone thinking this, but didn’t Prem and Anand come out of the leaks so far looking rather reasonable? I’m still looking forward to more from Wikileaks anyway.”
I’m sure the Crown Prince agrees with you!
He probably laughs off these personal insults thrown at him behind his back by his fathers’ most trusted and most powerful advisors. Sure, they can say that Thailand would be better off with him dead, but they’re just a bunch of old geezers who wouldn’t harm a fly, right? They were probably still drunk from their New Years parties when the Ambassador visited them.
Besides, all of Thailand knows that the Crown Prince is not one to hold a vendetta, or to veer from the ten-fold royal road of justice.
And his rise to the throne has nothing to do with what color shirt the Premier at the time wears – since whoever it is will be obliged to follow the constitution! He’s known for his entire adult life that he would one day ascend to the Chakri throne, and a few reasonable comments by some wise men won’t affect that. Didn’t his own father tell the Thai public that even Kings may be criticized?
Yes, yes, I’m sure that the Crown Prince will certainly forgive and forget, and maybe even send some of his royal staff to Prem and Anand’s houses during the holidays with souvenirs from Munich!
0
0
Tarrin – 47
Tarrin I’m afraid you lost me in your answer. I will drop the ‘Stalinist rewriting of history’ bit if that helps. So the question could be put this way.
“Are you one of those like Jim Taylor that now argues that Thaksin was without blemish or do you follow the ‘double standards’ school of thought in that, ‘yes, Thaksin was corrupt, but then so is/was everyone else’?”
You see with Jim it has led him down a strange path of taking sides in internal palace politics regarding the succession. See, as he feels he has to take Thaksin’s side on everything, then obviously he also has to support him on this question as well. So the move from republican to support of the palace rules on succession is no greater than moving from the left to supporter of a Berlusconi-like businessman-politician.
It still seems to me that the ‘double standards’ argument was dreamed up by a highly paid PR man. It’s a fallback position when claims of one’s client’s purity are obviously not working. Then again the beginnings of the red shirt movement seemed to come out of the minds of a very cynical PR team working on a “How to overthrow a government textbook”.
0
0
LesAbbey – 45
Nobody is arguing that murderers are innocent nor that they should not be held accountable.
Some 500 years ago the murder rate in Europe was about 50 times higher than it is today. Some of the factors behind this decline in murders are; a change of culture, a more effective police force, a better legal system, etc…
These factors are parts of what I called control systems. People in Europe are less likely to murder someone today because the incentives against it are so much stronger than it was a few hundred years ago.
Exactly the same argument applies to corruption. More accountability and transparency in governments will cause politicians to become less corrupt.
Thailand, I believe, also have another problem. As Thai politics is quite dirty and laws are being applied arbitrarily, it’s very difficult for Thailand to attract its brightest minds to enter politics.
0
0
Christoffer Larsson – 50
Nobody is arguing that murderers are innocent nor that they should not be held accountable.
…Exactly the same argument applies to corruption.
And yet this is what the ‘double standards’ idea argues against. It’s not that there are ‘double standards’ so everyone should be punished, it’s that there are ‘double standards’ so Thaksin should not be blamed.
Whether the control systems allow more or less murders or more or less corruption is not an argument. The individual murderer or corrupt official, no matter how many of them there are in total, is still personally responsible.
The whole ‘double standards’ argument was put up to try and defend Thaksin’s indefensible position. The surprise is how many supposedly educated people have fallen for it. Of course for old Stalinists like Weng there is no problem with the contradiction. For them it has purely propaganda value.
0
0
LesAbbey : “It still seems to me that the ‘double standards’ argument was dreamed up by a highly paid PR man. ”
‘Double standards’ are when the Privy Council and Yellow Shirt former PMs can commit obvious lese majeste against the Crown Prince and can get away with it, while progressives or poor farmers doing the same get thrown in jail.
0
0
c51
“And yet this is what the ‘double standards’ idea argues against. It’s not that there are ‘double standards’ so everyone should be punished, it’s that there are ‘double standards’ so Thaksin should not be blamed.”
“The whole ‘double standards’ argument was put up to try and defend Thaksin’s indefensible position.”
Errr…… no. Among many other things, the ‘double standards’ argument asks why Thaksin is singled out and treated as almost unique while a blind or near-blind eye is turned to others. I daresay you can find a pro-Thaksin zealot somewhere who will say he/she can see no wrong in anything Thaksin did and does, but that’s hardly a flicker of the needle in the real “whole ‘double standards’ argument” – as opposed to the straw version that you set up to knock down so easily.
0
0
Steve – 53
Errr……. no Steve. I have already removed those you call pro-Thaksin zealots like Jim from the ‘double standards’ argument because they obviously believe, or pretend to believe, that Thaksin has done nothing wrong so ‘double standards’ don’t apply in that case.
So let’s follow the logic of your argument Thaksin is singled out and treated as almost unique while a blind or near-blind eye is turned to others.
How many others would need to be ‘singled out’ to make it OK to make Thaksin take responsibility for his actions? Less than ten? More than ten? More than a hundred?
Could we apply this to other crimes? For example could we say of a murderer, “Why single this one out while so many others are not caught?”
The pro-Thaksin zealots are at least understandable, whether really true believers or just using the red shirt movement for their own ends. Those educated people pushing the ‘double standards’ argument to support the pro-Thaksin movement are not looking close enough at the logic of their argument.
0
0
LesAbbey, your hatred of Thaksin is blinding you from seeing the facts right on front of you.
Have you even read Nicholas’ post? Can you deny that Siddhi and Anand committed lese majeste?
How can you reconcile the silence of the Abhisit government over the lese majeste in the Wikileak, with the fact that the military has announced that it will “eliminate” people who insult the monarchy from the Kingdom? From Abhisit’s claiming that his first priority is protecting the palace? From the fact that there has been a 2000% increase in lese majeste cases by this regime, and that numerous human rights agencies
I call that a double standard! And the very fact that you’re ignoring the very subject of Nicholas’ post shows that you have no intention of focusing on anything other than Thaksin.
0
0
LesAbbey – 51
Can you explain what it was that Thaksin actually did wrong in the Ratchadaphisek land purchase controversy?
0
0
LesAbbey – you seem intent on trying to reduce the “whole ‘double standards’ argument” to just the sliver that you select, sophistically ignoring all the rest. Plainly, all should “take responsibility” for their actions when the credibility of the accusations is properly established, so your question as to “How many others would need to be ‘singled out’…..” etc is just a non sequitur – and your wandering off into comparisons with singling out one murderer likewise.
The core of the “whole ‘double standards’ argument” is about who gets and who doesn’t get even-handedly charged/prosecuted/punished for their actions – and not about whether they “take responsibility” for them. This being Thailand, can you cite many (any?) examples of political figures taking responsibility for criminal or otherwise reprehensible actions?
0
0
Superduperanonymous – 55
Can you deny that Siddhi and Anand committed lese majeste?
No, of course not. Lese majeste is a stupid counter-productive law and will only bring the end of monarchy closer. The sooner it’s dropped and everyone arrested under it released the better.
Is Thaksin the only corrupt politician we have had in Thailand? Of course not, he isn’t even the only corrupt prime minister we have had. We could all use most of our fingers counting those.
But what you call my hatred of Thaksin is that I refuse to join the herd in supporting a movement to reinstall a corrupt authoritarian businessman back into power.
Why?
Well first he doesn’t need my help. He will be back soon enough.
Second, when he gets back into power he will continue the job he started. His CEO premiership means he will take out any other centres of power that threaten his total rule of Thailand.
Third, I could never support someone who was shopping in the brand name stores in Paris airport while asking his followers to sacrifice their lives at the same time. Nero had nothing on this guy. Bring him back and we will end up with Thailand being considered a failed state by the rest of the world.
I guess I had better stop asking about the ‘double standards’ argument as used by the UDD or I will outstay my welcome, but strange nobody can answer it with any logic.
0
0
LesAbbey, based on the Wikileaks, what do you think will be worse for Thailand: the return of Thaksin, or King Vajiralongkorn?
0
0
“Superduperanonymous // Dec 23, 2010 at 6:07 pm
what do you think will be worse for Thailand: the return of ****, or ****?”
Those are not really interchangable options. What we are almost certainly going to get is both at the same time. Added to which, the dinosaur advisors will continue to exist and do damage, because no already rich or powerful person is ever shamed into silence or punished. Democracy cannot exist, and never has existed, in this anarchy of the feckless rich. If we seek to justify any of the factions in this power struggle, we are undoubtedly allowing all their sponsors off the hook.
0
0
@relo (#60), if you think that XXX and YYY are inseparable, what do you think is more likely to happen: that the amart block XXX’s return in order to prevent YYY’s succession, or that they somehow prevent YYY’s succession in order to block XXX’s return?
0
0
Superduperanonymous – 59
I think we get the perfect storm scenario.
0
0
#61
The succession will happen as planned. The bent cop will be allowed to return. The opposing factions of his ‘fellow’ amaart will continue to make life difficult for him. But more importantly he and his parasite friends and enemies will both continue to conspire to murder any real hope of democracy in this country. Contrary to popular belief, miracles do not happen here.
0
0
Hate to be the one to state what should be the obvious, but the only hope for Thailand of getting out of this mess is to stop obsessing about the Institution. If it is to continue to exist, its place in the society should be defined in such a way that the country can move forward without the hindrance caused by the the old ways with all their trappings.
0
0
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2010/12/16/wikileaks-and-crown-prince-vajiralongkorn/ […]
0
0
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2010/12/16/wikileaks-and-crown-prince-vajiralongkorn/ […]
0
0
Well I said it back in December and it was just a matter of waiting. The red faces should really start replacing the red shirts soon. Let’s start with this one – with thanks to Andrew Marshall.
http://thaicables.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/05bangkok7305-besieged-auditor-general-talks-to-embassy-about-corruption-and-airport-procurement-scandal-ge-invision/
Jaruwan said candidly that the Prime Minister is very aware of the corruption that takes place within his government, and that his administration would fall apart if she were allowed to fully pursue these numerous incidents of graft and bring them to light. Jaruwan noted that Thaksin allies (and in one instance, Thaksin’s sister) repeatedly tried to bribe her. Her continued refusals to be suborned amid her deeper probes into the CTX GEInVision equipment graft, however, was the issue that led to the effort to remove her from office…
Jaruwan is no stranger to Bangkok’s nearly complete Suvarnabhumi airport, as she has been auditing its USD $3.7 billion expenditures since she went to work for the Office of the Auditor General in 1997. The CTX scandal, she claims, has been heavily publicized due to the amount of money involved and because it involves a US company. It is, however, just one of many cases of corruption at the airport. Jaruwan mentioned a one billion baht ($25 million USD) loan involving the Siemens company of Germany, and numerous buildings in and around the airport where the government had been overcharged. Jaruwan was prepared to hold Thaksin directly accountable for these grafts, as she showed Poloff a copy of a document where he gave significant powers to one of the airport committees by allowing them to appoint contracts without bidding.
Myself – 31
I can lay back and enjoy the Wikileaks but Thaksin’s supporters must be dreading each cable from the Bangkok embassy coming out. What happens when they get to things like the CTX scandal? The only answers they can have now will be that the US diplomats were lying in their internal communications.
Jim Taylor – 34
In regard to CTX and other matters at Suvarnabhumi Airport- it was all cleared by several investigations – so no issue for Abbey and his falangistas to rant about here…Even that intractable pro Democrat Party reactionary English-language newspaper The Nation had to retract unfounded allegations back in 2008. Abbey’s hysterics show how allegations can so easily be made against those who we want to target and without any hard evidence, and in an inversion of legal standards where people are proclaimed guilty before they can establish innocence…
Jim just open any of the cables at http://thaicables.wordpress.com which mention Thaksin and see who you are supporting.
And as for this:
Jim Taylor – 39
As for Leah’s definitive statement “Thaksin was not good” (!): so who said? He was (in terms of criminality) probably the least corrupt and most certainly the most efficient if idiosyncratic of all PMs Thailand has ever has.
Least corrupt? Again just read the cables. I think you will need a bit of damage limitation here.
Tarrin do you remember this?
Myself – 46
Tarrin you are possibly correct and I will have to retract the CTX bit. I was suspicious that the Nation’s retraction was to stop Thaksin suing them. Still let’s see what comes out of the US Embassy cables shall we?
Well we are getting the cables now, again thanks to Andrew Marshall. I suspect some of the pro-Thaksin supporters will have to change some of their arguments otherwise they will begin to look rather silly.
0
0
Les: You’d best be wary of relying too much on the word of Jaruvan lest you end up with a red face 🙂
http://saiyasombut.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/the-eternal-auditor-general-why-thailands-duck-lady-wont-retire-that-easily/
0
0
Jaruwan is no stranger to Bangkok’s nearly complete Suvarnabhumi airport blah blah blah
After the palace seized power, it appointed Jaruwan to lead a formal all-powerful investigation into Taksin’s alleged corruption. A specially-appointed court was established to hand out sentences. She was even given a prime-time reality TV show to ensure that her findings would be well publicized.
What corruption did she find? What charges did she file?
Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
And now, suddenly, we have diplomatic cables of meetings with the Ambassador where she describes her iron-clad suspicions? LOL WTF If she had found anything solid, she would have announced it on her freaking reality TV show. Red faces indeed.
0
0