Several colleagues have encouraged me to blog the comments I made during the Handley panel at the International Conference on Thai Studies this past January 2008. One of three panels on the monarchy organised by Thongchai Winichakul, the panel, chaired by Michael Herzfeld, was called Critical Comments on Paul Handley’s The King Never Smiles (Yale University Press 2006). Unlike most other panels at the conference, this one was billed as a roundtable discussion. The conference organisers did not require papers in advance for this panel. Each of the four panelists was to speak briefly, and a free-flowing discussion was to follow. Indeed, the four speakers (Nidhi Eoseewong, Annette Hamilton, Kobkua Suwannathat-Pian, and me) did not coordinate their remarks beforehand. To my knowledge, none of us knew what the others would say.
The remarks that follow are necessarily edited, in the sense that at the time of the conference I had no intention of making my comments available for a wider audience. I spoke from notes, sentence fragments as well as complete sentences, and marginal notes I made as others were speaking. In the order above, I spoke after Nidhi and Annette Hamilton, and before Ajarn Kobkua . During my own presentation I edited out some material in order to keep within the time allotted to each speaker. For the purposes of this blog, I have filled out the incomplete sentences, polished the translations, and included citations to the works I referred to. I have also included, as best I can recall, a few things I threw in while speaking that were not in my original notes. I have resisted the temptation to add new material. My objective was not to provide a tidy argument but to provoke questions and discussion.
Here is the text of my remarks: reynolds-on-handley.pdf
79 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Mar 17, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Thanks for this!
2 Dog Lover // Mar 18, 2008 at 5:47 am
Reynolds notes that Handley only used 2 Thai sources and makes the point that the book would have been different if Handley had read more Thai language materials. I just looked through the references of my copy of TKNS and found a further 17 references to Thai-language materials. There might be more than this. Each of the works Reynolds refers to in his little piece were published after TKNS was out.
3 Teth // Mar 18, 2008 at 8:25 am
It is good to have read your entire piece, Mr/Dr/Prof Reynolds, because after reading many quotes off of news articles about the conference, I had thought you meant to say “nothing new here” as in: nothing new for the general population. “Nothing new” for Thailand’s political landscape. It must be nothing new for something who have extensively studied it beforehand, but, it was quite a new thing for me as a common man-on-the-street Thai.
If it were translated and disseminated as widely as royalist propaganda is, then bring it on. Unfortunately if it were to be translated and published, it will only be disseminated amongst those who will say it is “nothing new.”
4 nganadeeleg // Mar 18, 2008 at 9:54 am
Teth: Do you really think it would make that much of a difference if it was published in Thai and widely distributed?
I have read (& enjoyed) the book - It debunks much of the royal propaganda and reiterates that the king does not trust politicians, but IMO there was no ’smoking gun’ proving that he does not want democracy and a happy and prosperous nation, or that he does not care about the people.
I know Dog Lover says I am blinkered to critical comment, but if so, would I be alone?
…. and once the dust settles, what would stop the book being classed as just more politicised opinion?
btw, I would like to see the book published in Thai and freely available - it raises many things that need to be discussed, openly, for a better future.
5 Observer // Mar 18, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Interesting and useful remarks. However, I find the conclusion absurd. Yes, it does seem that there have been scattered critical comments on the role of the King, but never a book laying the whole thing out and certainly not one aimed a the public.
The monarchy apparently put enormous pressure on Yale not to publish the book at all. It seems obvious that had someone attempted to publish it here it would have been quashed.
The idea floated by academics that there really is a lively discussion on the monarchy in Thailand looks to me like an effort to avoid blame for years of avoiding the issue. The cases of the webmasters whose doors were knocked down by police in the night and were carted away hidden from any due process makes a mockery of this weak claim.
If it would be no big deal to translate the book, why doesn’t someone do it. I’m sure Reynolds knows the answer as well as I do: It would be a big deal, at least for them.
6 Srithanonchai // Mar 18, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Pressure on Yale: Reportedly, Thaksin’s cabinet secretary, Borwornsak Uwanno, went to Yale to convince them to at least defer the publication date to after the king’s anniversary.
Translation: As far as I know, chapters 1-14 of TKNS have been translated into Thai and are circulating as pdf files and print-outs. Apparently, the interest in these texts is quite high.
7 Teth // Mar 19, 2008 at 10:37 am
nganadeeleg, the smoking gun is 6 October.
I have read (& enjoyed) the book - It debunks much of the royal propaganda and reiterates that the king does not trust politicians, but IMO there was no ’smoking gun’ proving that he does not want democracy and a happy and prosperous nation, or that he does not care about the people.
I rest my case when your best defense is that of “there is no proof that his intentions were bad”.
If it were translated and presented properly (ie. use the same propaganda tactics against the royalist, but this time with the flip side of the coin), all hell will break loose. Subtle is probably the best way.
8 Teth // Mar 19, 2008 at 10:43 am
P.S. On breaking the psychological and propaganda hold of the royalists, Thais must at least know that loving the King is NOT a consensus in society. That I used to think everybody loved the King was a main factor in establishing his invincibility in my mind. Should reasonable people (important to note the word reasonable as I only used to think evil, evil people would be those who didn’t love HMK) doubt him would shake this confidence and allow Thais to begin to dare step out of line and actually examine the evidence critically rather than with blinkered and grossly skewed viewpoints.
9 Srithanonchai // Mar 19, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Re the king’s support for democracy: In “Alone on the sharp edge” on Seni Pramoj (van Praagh; 1989, p. 176), we read, “On King Bhumiphol switching from suport of democratic forces in October 1973 to support of renewed military rule three years later, Seni asserts: ‘The King didn’t turn about - he was always for law and order. The end result (in both 1973 and 1976) was law and order.’”
10 nganadeeleg // Mar 19, 2008 at 7:59 pm
If it were translated and presented properly (ie. use the same propaganda tactics against the royalist, but this time with the flip side of the coin)
Bit of a contradiction there, Teth - I fail to see how embellishing with propaganda tactics can be considered presenting it properly.
Yours would just be another version of history, and I doubt it would be a smoking gun amongst the general populace.
To present it properly, you would also need to put things into historical perspective (fear of communists etc), as well as Srithanonchai/Seni’s well made point about law & order (stability).
Comparison with other events of the time in the region and further afield would also be relevant to coming to a proper understanding of what happened.
For instance, regarding the latest events in Tibet - who do you believe has the correct version of events?
The free-Tibet activists or the Chinese Communist Party, or might the real version be somewhere in between both versions?
Are you sure that the Thai general population have not already heard the claims on the gossip/rumor mill already.
Also, will they really care?
Arguably Thaksin was involved in episodes just as brutal and more recent than 1976 (War on Drugs particularly, and Tak Bai to a lesser extent), and yet he seems fairly popular (’loved’, even)
I don’t love, worship, or crawl to HMK, and don’t believe he is semi-divine or has super human powers, yet I did not find the Handley book a smoking gun, so I imagine it would be much harder to get that reaction from his more ardent supporters.
It is regrettable, however, that all these thing cannot be discussed openly (and rationally) in Thailand.
11 Dog Lover // Mar 19, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Smoking gun that the king opposes democratic development and feels more comfortable with authoritarian and military governments? In my estimation, Handley provides sufficient evidence of this.
Hewison’s older 1997 paper also argued that the king favored authoritarian political arrangements over democratic arrangements and presented considerable evidence in support of this. And Kobkua’s book makes similar claims, albeit in a slightly more circumspect manner.
The quote from Seni is interesting when read in its context. Seni says he ‘agonized’ over the King’s role in his downfall.
12 Teth // Mar 19, 2008 at 9:33 pm
No, nganadeeleg, I meant the dissemination and constant bleating in a similar scale to the propaganda used today, but with subtlety and truth, of course.
Historical perspective or not, murder is still murder. Fear is still just that, fear. Especially if you shatter the illusion held by so many, do expect them to care.
Why is it all about stability and order when we’re speaking about royalist forces rioting and killing civilians. Somehow that doesn’t strike me as very lawful, stable, nor orderly. Again, its only the perception of stability when you and your friends have power in your hands. Instability = when you’re not the one in power. Tell me how the King’s reign has produced stability in Thailand in real terms rather than in fear-mongering “what if’s” and vague intentions.
Comparisons with the region? Well, the Khmer Rogue are being held on trial. Last I checked, they were supported in part by the Thai government. Hmm. So when are the royalist forces going to be held on trial?
No they haven’t. I’m absolutely sure. I’ve heard pretty nasty and totally fake rumors about the royal family, but not this. People who discuss 6 Oct are the people who already dislike the King.
13 nganadeeleg // Mar 19, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Smoking gun that the king opposes democratic development and feels more comfortable with authoritarian and military governments? In my estimation, Handley provides sufficient evidence of this.
Or to put it another way: - Rightly or wrongly, the king feels many elected politicians have been disappointing, and with his conservative nature, he therefore prefers the stability offered by authoritarian governments .
You’ve got your blinkers, and I’ve got mine.
14 jonfernquest // Mar 19, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“…Almost all the sources are in English,…”
“Almost all the sources are in Thai” would be the more desirable starting point but foreign journalists rarely seemed to be immersed in any of the many different Thai discourse worlds.
Sinlapawatthanatham magazine being an instance of one kind of discourse world that intellectuals are involved in.
The daily TV news being an important instance of another. I know you don’t get a good idea of what most people are thinking about news-wise from watching TV if you are just reading the newspaper. You have to listen to the Thai TV continuously like my boss does.
As op-ed piece type journalism gets outsourced to academics more and more hopefully more of this sort of reversal of perspective will take place.
15 Michael Connors // Mar 19, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I think Craig overestimates the level of critical material in Thai on the monarchy. Handley’s book is undoubtedly unique, even if it is in some ways a surprisingly sympathetic portrayal. There are of course underground publications, but on the whole its a struggle to find critical things on the monarchy before the 2000s, though of course not impossible. In the last few years Ji Giles Ungpakorn’s interventions - for instance his translation of Thomas Paine on monarchy and other materials are notable and of course Somsak Jeamteerasakul in Faa Diaw Kan and elsewhere. Somsak especially seems to be working the archives for what they are worth. There is no doubt a project here, as Craig mentions, and this would involve looking at critical left writers mostly.
Despite the relative opening in the last few years there has been nothing like Handley’s book in published Thai materials nor in English. The big fuss is that someone was finally willing to lift the benchmark. We are all better for it.
16 Dog Lover // Mar 20, 2008 at 10:22 am
“Or to put it another way: - … the king feels many elected politicians have been disappointing, and with his conservative nature, he therefore prefers the stability offered by authoritarian governments.”
I can accept that interpretation. Except that I don’t buy the “rightly or wrongly”. He is wrong to intervene in political processes in the ways that he has because this retards democratic development. All the usual stuff on this: he is meant to be a constitutional monarch, he is not elected, etc.
And, to get nganadeeleg ’s blood boiling, I’d argue that he’s basically pretty dumb and needs to be put on a short leash. There are my blinkers, perhaps. I have read his speeches over many years and see these shallow homilies as evidence of limited intellectual capacity. His rambling and incoherent speeches of late are particularly awful. His great strength was his ability to listen to smarter people (Handley shows this). He’s lost that ability since the time he began to see himself as being a kind of super hero. What do we make of a man who draws inspiration from comics? The quote from him is: “Everybody has faults. That is one thing I see in the comics (I read comics, Superman and all that) where the people want to always find faults. Take Superman, he is as fallible as all superheroes…. A leader should not be fallible. He should be a superhero.”
On another point, I think Connors is undoubtedly correct. Reynolds provides little evidence for his comments on the Thai literature. Handley’s book is a breakthrough, even if most of the sources are not in Thai (see my comment above on Reynolds miscount or misrepresentation), he has brought together a story that no one else has been willing or able to tell in English or Thai.
17 nganadeeleg // Mar 20, 2008 at 1:12 pm
And, to get nganadeeleg ’s blood boiling……
No blood boiling here, and it’s quite amusing from where I sit, which is a long way from the throne.
Only those close to him would know whether the ‘dumb’ label is appropriate, but I wonder how it fits in with the fact that he has survived for a long time, including during some quite turbulent periods.
(is he also a master manipulator?)
I think ’slow learner’ might be a more appropriate tag, particularly the ability to move with the times.
Any such assessment should also take into account what he has been trying to achieve:
- If it was longevity of his reign, then he’s a success
- If it was to protect from communists: Success
- If it was to hold the country together & not split it up: Success ?
- Ensure the monarchy’s future: Doubtful, unless changes are made
Just about every other measure would result in failure, particularly when viewed from westerners eyes, although one does not have to look very far from Thailand to see how things could have been much worse.
I see him as a mere human, not superhuman, and not evil - a product of his upbringing and time in history.
As for the “rightly or wrongly”, I can accept that democratic development has been retarded, but the blame for that should also be shared by the politicians and the people (as well as the military, of course).
btw - what’s wrong with getting inspiration from comics?
Hobby
18 Teth // Mar 20, 2008 at 1:53 pm
He may choose to see that. But what I don’t understand is why you, a Western-educated, modern person seems to sympathize with this feudal lord quite a fair bit. Especially since authoritarian governments are staggeringly incompetent and corrupt, even more so than their elected counterparts!
I still stand by the fact that power and influence is what he is after, not a long term, sustainable, nor visionary plan for the country. Instability is a code word for “when you don’t know what is going to happen to the power you previously had and assume you deserve.”
19 Observer // Mar 20, 2008 at 6:34 pm
This article doesn’t exactly make it sound like the powers behind the power are as open to critical discussion as Reynolds implies.
The King may well have been a force for good in Thailand, but it is clear that the image and adulation has been carefully manufactured. It will be interesting to see not only how the monarch’s image fares in a more open dialogue, but how the country reacts when they find out the propaganda machine was massive and extremely powerful.
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=565
20 nganadeelg // Mar 20, 2008 at 7:39 pm
But what I don’t understand is why you, a Western-educated, modern person seems to sympathize with this feudal lord quite a fair bit.
I’m not so sure about the modern bit.
Actually, I generally dislike royalty…… but I can sympathize with him trying to keep a lid on things in Thailand, and also with his disappointment in politicians.
I’d like to see a revolution in Thailand (of the Ungpakorn kind), however I would prefer to wait and endure a temporary status quo, rather than have it led by greedy/corrupt/vindictive people like Thaksin, Chalerm, Samak, Newin, Jakrapob & co, and academics like Republican.
21 Observer // Mar 20, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Is the royalist network really disapointed with politicians being weak and looking bad? I would suggest that not only are they happy with this condition, but have intentionally manufactured it.
The junta Constitution is what brought us clowns like Vattana, Sanmak and Chalerm. The 1997 Constitution provided a road map for improving politics. If the junta/palace gang had modified that document to fix its weaknesses, they could claim to be trying to improve politicians. Since they went back to the old methods that weakened politicians and forced them to be horsetraders, it seems clear that they are actually happy with politicians, as long as don’t threaten their feudal benefits.
It seems that the monarchy not only undermined democracy, but has tried to taint the entire concept. If democracy worked here, why would you need a King?
22 Srithanonchai // Mar 20, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Of the Ungpakjorn kind? Why should a Leninist Thailand be any better than the current system?
23 paul handley // Mar 21, 2008 at 9:06 am
Thanks to Craig Reynolds for his kind comments. I’d like to make a few points here in response.
The reason this book is here, and has attracted interest, is not because academics save their best points for the end, but because Thailand academics save their best points for private discussions over drinks. And I think these private discussions may have given them, and educated Thais, the idea that much of what is in the book is already out there in the public domain. The book’s sales suggest it is not. I disagree that the controversy is that a journalist wrote something, rather than an academic. Had an academic directly and critically assessed the reign of King Bhumibol, the reaction would have been the same. It’s not that academics are trusted to do it differently, but that they have never taken up the subject directly.
Reynolds says no academic “could” or “would” write this book. But why not? Just look at all the popular, straightforward books by noted historians on the US presidents.
Academics deal with not only linear history and the meaning of events, but also with the power of ritual, the importance and impact of rumor, the construction of image, and the social and political thought of important leaders. Agree with my book or not, it is a synthesis of much of that, from academics. Just not constructed the way they do things.
And many academic books rest not only on what can be documented in footnotes but also what the author garners visually and from interviews, conversations and gossip, to shape his assessment. While my book may not stand up in a thesis defense based on attributions, and because it lacks (very consciously) a theoretical framework, I don’t see why someone else from academia could not do the same — and without succumbing to the “post-modernist” label.
Getting to the nub of the problem, Reynolds mentions various academic discussions that deal with the way the modern monarchy is talked about, and how that has changed over time. That would be a worthwhile research topic, he says.
It would be, indeed. But a study about how the monarchy is talked about when you don’t even have the basic substance of the monarchy down on paper is hollow for most people. If you were teaching a course on modern Thai history, and you assigned the Thongchai-Saichol debate, would the students completely get it — not having any basic account of the modern monarchy to begin with?
If you are a foreign businessman or journalist moving to Thailand and you want to know about the monarchy, how helpful would it be to only have an academic book on how the monarchy is talked about in history?
Again, many academics “think” that everything fundamental to say about the monarchy is already out there, when it is only out there in private discussions over bottles of whiskey in restaurants on the banks of the Chao Phraya or Ping. No footnotes there.
As Reynolds’ friend suggests, you have to have the history written before you can debate about the way history is written. The Silpawatthanatham cognoscenti “know” the alternative history to the palace-controlled version, but that is not the same as having it down in print. This situation is almost an exercise which enjoys — in all senses of the word — the decades of the lese majeste laws going unchallenged. The reason you have Fah Diawkan is not just Thaksin and the yellow shirt brigades, is not just the internet, but because there was a gaping space open for it for too long.
I don’t want to sound like “Republican” faulting people for what they don’t say or do. Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that. But this is an important context for the book.
As for the sourcing issue: As “Dog Lover” noted, there are more than two Thai language sources behind The King Never Smiles. It is regrettable that my publisher did not want to include a bibliography to clarify this point. I do read Thai, only not so quickly, so it took longer to do the book. I went through the king’s speeches in Thai; went through the constitution in Thai (translations are horribly inconsistent, suggesting changes in language that didn’t change in Thai); went through Thai biographies and funeral volumes to find bits and pieces; examined some Thai academic theses; read old issues of Siam Rath in the National Library to see how Kukrit reported the king; religiously watched the royal news; and so on. I didn’t dedicate a career to combing Thai source material, as a full-fledged academic might. Reynolds suggests that the book would have been different had I digested more than two Thai-language sources. Since I did, I can guess that he is really finding some particular faults in the book — faults he wasn’t willing to enumerate. I look forward to that some day.
Additionally, as Michael Connors says here, there is in fact really not much written about the monarchy in English or in Thai before 2000. Indeed, there’s a huge range of subjects unaddressed — for instance, an account, non-biographical, of what happened in Thai political, economic and social development in the 1960s would be useful. Or an assessment of the 1980s under Prem.
Just look at the bibliographies in academic works. There really isn’t much. Certainly one could go through decades of Matichon Weekly and Silpawatthanatham and if one knows the authors and the inflections one can pry out bits of information. But besides that, there’s not much there. As for what came out in the past 4-5 years, TKNS was already on the bumpy road to publication. But I’m not sure it would have changed my views.
24 Observer // Mar 21, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Is professor Reynolds following this discussion and planning to comment? He started by saying he planned to “blog” on this topic, but instead seems to have just used the forum to disseminate his notes. That alone is great, but using the word blog may have raised some expectations.
By the way, the Bangkok Post editorial today echoes my comments above that the intention of the 2007 constitution was to damage democracy and says that “laws were methodically changed so as to weaken politicians and stunt the growth of political parties”.
So clearly the royalist coup had overt anti-democratic objectives.
25 Teth // Mar 21, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Paul Handley, thank you for your replies, and above all, your book. I would like to confirm what you’ve brought up with regards to seeing a written alternative to palace propaganda. Your book has enabled me to see an alternative history of the monarchy and understand those with a different paradigm without going through the hard work and dedication they have put through to garner their knowledge. Your book has allowed me to critically examine my King without either experiencing these events first-hand or trawling and studying through them from first-hand sources, much to your credit. Also, as it has been said, though this information may not be anything new for those in the know or those who have examined the archives or lived it firsthand, its dissemination is vitally important for the future advancement of Thai politics, society, and studies.
It is truly a shame that people were scared into not sharing information while people like me were too complacent to look into it ourselves. So kudo’s to your hard work.
26 nganadeeleg // Mar 21, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Srithanonchai: I doubt this is the place to discuss political leanings, but just FYI, I agree with most of what Giles says here:
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=344
Observer: Regarding the constitution, I agree, and have always said the junta should have merely modified the weaknesses of the 1997 constitution - unfortunately, they were so spooked by one man that they threw everything out to try to stop him.
As for the monarchy tainting the concept of democracy, even if true, I doubt it would be possible if the politicians elected were better behaved.
Mr Handley: Thanks again for a good book - Pity about the pictures though
27 jonfernquest // Mar 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“…because Thailand academics save their best points for private discussions over drinks. And I think these private discussions may have given them, and educated Thais, the idea that much of what is in the book is already out there in the public domain.”
How could the following book be written with only written sources:
Katherine Bowie, Rituals of National Loyalty: An Anthropology of the State and the Village Scout Movement in Thailand (New York: Columbia University Press), 1996. (Once copy in Chula’s poli sci library as far as I can see)
Or Matthew McDaniel’s documentation of went on in the Chiang Rai hinterland or Desmond Ball’s paramilitary studies. Working in a Thai university, word of mouth was the only way to know what was going on. I still haven’t read Handley’s book. People keep saying they are going to lend me a copy but they never do, but relying on interviews would seem like a necessity. I think you could argue that any research of value on contemporary situations has to rely mainly on interviews and firsthand experience as source material.
And as far as the institution of Thai monarchy not being neutral (Reynolds says obviously not, Anand used the words non-partisan, detached, and indirect in his address), there is a whole spectrum between neutral and proactive, and wouldn’t balancing partisan interests or middle way [Pali: majjhimaa paṭipadaa] be a better description of how “neutrality” maybe is conceived. Nothing was was done to block the elections, for instance.
28 Srithanonchai // Mar 21, 2008 at 3:29 pm
On Grashopper’s “by the way” (and thus off-topic): The intentions of the constitution drafters were probably a bit more complex than to weaken democracy. One might well say that they wanted to strengthen democracy in the medium term by weakening the politicians in the short term. From this perspective, politicians/political parties (the way they are, and the way they are perceived) are not identical with democracy (the way it should be).
Moreover, CDC and CDA were certainly rather factious, worked under immense time constraints, and suffered from a lack of expertise and reflection. Contrary to what the coup plotters had wanted, CDC and CDA even produced an election system that paved the way for the return of those they had toppled in their coup, although an election system with a pro-coup effect had indeed been suggested.
It is sort of funny to observe now how the ECT and others are caught in the legalistic web they had constructed themselves, and don’t know what to do about it. The ECT’s sub-committee tried the Srithanonchai escape, but some on the ECT seem to be reluctant to follow this path. Contrary to the Bangkok Post’s editorial, a lead article in Matichon (March 16, 2008, p. 2) strongly warned the ECT that the only way was to dissolve Chart Thai and Matchima (which, obviously, would pave the way to dissolve PPP, if the Supreme Court confirms the ECT’s red card for Yongyudh). This article concluded, “Therefore, if the ECT follows the suggestion of its sub-committee, those who should be dissolved rather is the ECT, because they are the ones who destroy the law and the constitution.”
29 Srithanonchai // Mar 21, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“I doubt this is the place to discuss political leanings.” > Well, if you put together revolution and Ungpakorn, then this is about what kind of society you would like Thailand to be in the future. And thus you need to know and discuss the supposed key person’s normative political stance. Otherwise, one should better not make political projections, determine the means that is supposed to effect the change, and name a person who is supposed to symbolize all this.
30 Grasshopper // Mar 21, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Srithanonchai, think you are referring to Observer.
However, is it really possible for the intent of those rewriting the constitution to be ’strengthening democracy’ by severely limiting it’s liberal crux? Isn’t this method a contradiction?
31 Observer // Mar 21, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I guess I am a bit more cynical than Nganadeeleg and Srithanonchai.
I do think it was an intentional plan by the junta to reverse democratic progress. After every coup the military put into place a very similar constitution and set of rules, Thaksin or no Thaksin.
Hoping politicians behave is futile. All politicians around the world are the same. They steal as much as they can get away with. Thai politicians only steal a lot because they can get away with a lot. Creating a legal framework that enforces this is the solution, not hoping politicians become nice guys or that dogs start liking cats or whatever.
I don’t have any sympathy with the theory that the junta may have wanted to strengthen democracy in the long run. I do think they screwed things up so badly that a stronger democracy may be the result. But this coup was only one step in a long series of efforts to create military rule at the expense of democracy.
32 Dog Lover // Mar 21, 2008 at 10:34 pm
jonfernquest says: “How could the following book [Katherine Bowie] be written with only written sources” - I thought Handley’s point was that he had conducted numerous interviews? His references list these.
jonfernquest says: “And as far as the institution of Thai monarchy not being neutral (Reynolds says obviously not, Anand used the words non-partisan, detached, and indirect in his address), there is a whole spectrum between neutral and proactive, and wouldn’t balancing partisan interests or middle way [Pali: majjhimaa paṭipadaa] be a better description of how “neutrality” maybe is conceived. Nothing was was done to block the elections, for instance.” Are you really saying that the monarchy has been politically neutral? If you are, then post-TKNS, post-Bowie etc., you may has well just put up the royal flag and be done with it. No amount of evidence would convince you otherwise. Instead of “neutrality” you might want to adopt the term “Thai-style neutrality” as a more appropriate descriptor of the palace’s never-ending political interventions. Obviously Anand is a royalist flunky who deals reasonably well with foreigners, and that has been one of the tasks he has been set since the coup - tell foreigners that they don’t understand the king/monarchy and “Thai-style neutrality”.
33 Srithanonchai // Mar 22, 2008 at 2:19 am
Sorry, Grasshopper. Yes, I was indeed referring to Observer. To those drafters, this might not be a contradiction. They might theoretically accept the role of politicians and political parties. However, they probably think that, in their Thai version, these groups rather are a threat to democracy than its “liberal crux.” The dominance of Thaksin and TRT led them strongly to go against the “monopolization of power” in their proceedings. Anyway, it is certainly not an easy task to distill coherent standpoints, much less a clear constitutional intent, out of all the statements made in the press and the CDC meeting room.
“All politicians around the world are the same. They steal as much as they can get away with.” > Quite a far-reaching statement…
34 CT // Mar 22, 2008 at 2:40 am
“Ungpakorn”: Puey, Ji, or Jon?
35 nganadeeleg // Mar 22, 2008 at 10:50 am
CT: Take your pick - IMO all would be better than what is currently on show.
Interestingly, Puey withdrew his candidacy, and from Wikipedia:
“Some have argued, however, that Puey’s withdrawal was based upon his mature understanding of the nature of society and that he had accurately foreseen that the upcoming democratic period would be inherently unstable, dangerous and short-lived”.
btw, and I apologise for taking this thread way off topic, I referred to a revolution of the Ungpakorn kind as a contrast to that offered by Thaksin, and again refer back to the link I posted in #26 above.
36 jonfernquest // Mar 22, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Dog Lover writes: “I thought Handley’s point was that he had conducted numerous interviews? His references list these.”
I’m agreeing with Handley’s approach. Neither an academic nor a journalist could avoid using mostly interviews with the subject he wrote about.
But IMHO the obsession with putting the institution of monarchy under a microscope is a little misplaced when there are other issues like the way that the police department works (I think Khun Ying Pornthip said she was going to resign this week after being harassed for a decade) that I cringe to even mention, fearing I’ll be thrown in a garbage can and burned. There’s a courageous academic at Chulalongkorn that is dealing with this subject.
Dog lover writes: “Instead of “neutrality” you might want to adopt the term “Thai-style neutrality” as a more appropriate descriptor of the palace’s never-ending political interventions.”
OK, “Thai Style neutrality.” If there are deep underlying class antagonisms in a society, what else besides compromise and balancing the two sides is possible?
Dog lover writes: “Obviously Anand is a royalist flunky who deals reasonably well with foreigners”
Well, I guess that is one way of looking at it. Diplomatic relations are important for small open economies like Thailand though.
37 Srithanonchai // Mar 22, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Ungpakorn: Actually, its Puay, Jon, Peter Maitree, and Giles. While I have no problems with the first three, decidedly non-revolutionary, members of the clan, I will certainly not agree with the idea that Giles’ ideas for a future Thailand are any better than what we have now.
38 Dog Lover // Mar 22, 2008 at 10:38 pm
jonfernquest: “But IMHO the obsession with putting the institution of monarchy under a microscope is a little misplaced when there are other issues like the way that the police department works.”
I doubt you’ll get much disagreement over a suggestion that the Thai cops need to be investigated and reformed. They behave like gangsters and, indeed, are gangsters.
However, the so-called obsession with examining the monarchy is actually long overdue. Reynolds tries to make out that there has been lots of this in the Thai literature, but as others have said, this is not necessarily the case, at least until recently. The monarchy does deserve critical scrutiny as its power and values have underpinned a lot of troubling events and outcomes in Thailand, of which 1976 and 2006 are just two examples.
To say that looking at the case of a frustrated forensic scientist and media star (and royalist) is worthy of attention ignores the structural issues associated with royal power. And, the story of their role in the police is largely untold/unknown (leaving aside the well-known and notorious links to BPP and the awful memoir by royal bum polisher Vasit, who was also junta-appointed police reformer).
39 jonfernquest // Mar 23, 2008 at 12:04 pm
“…the structural issues associated with royal power. And, the story of their role in the police is largely untold/unknown.”
I don’t see what that has to do with concerned citizens and intellectuals actually pushing for fundamental change in the legal system, instead of frittering their time away taking jabs at the monarchy, which IMHO most non-intellectuals really seem to consider a non-issue.
Basic laws are not enforced. Running red lights, hit and run, murders that have a trail of evidence a mile long, institutionalized extortion from those arrested in jails, stolen cars in a “car rental” scheme, border police kidnapping and extorting from people as a matter of course, and everyone seems to be too afraid to raise the issue in print or poke around into provincial police activities where most of the bad stuff goes on. Similar **but more important** to what’s going on with institutionalised “lese majeste” self-censorship of the variety discussed in that 2008 Thai Studies conference paper. A recent article on the horrendous procedure of pre-trial hearings was done by English teacher who took a concern in one of his students. Take this article, for instance: ICT to ‘hack & crack’ foreign websites offensive to Thai supreme institution
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=565
At the end of the article it says they are going to waste their time “hacking and cracking” a site that photoshopped a dog head onto the Buddha. That even sounds like something some weird Zen master would do. Why waste the time trying to censor some weird guy far away in a foreign country when the country lacks the very basics of law enforcement?
40 Dog Lover // Mar 24, 2008 at 2:31 am
Yes, indeed, let’s worry more about running red lights than running coups.
41 Observer // Mar 24, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Jon,
Maybe it is all the same thing. On the one hand we have an inability to scutinize powers behind the scene that may control what really happens. on ther other hand law enforcement, basic governmance and so forth is conducted in a way that is not professional or transparent.
Two side of the same coin. Until the all elements of politics are scuntinized, transparency is impossible. Until transparency is possible, government can not be fixed.
Royal scuntiny is a small, but integral part of this. The important thing is not to let the powerful do whatever they want just because they are powerful. I think it is hard to deny that the Royalist network is big, powerful, influential, and non-transparent.
42 jonfernquest // Mar 24, 2008 at 10:01 pm
“I think it is hard to deny that the Royalist network is big, powerful, influential, and non-transparent.”
I certainly wish people would be precise in identifying this “Royalist network” who they are and exactly what the methods used to influence people are. Without details it seems all rather foggy. I do see frequently how people try to cloak their own aggression and dignify it by invoking the monarchy, but this has more to do with what is going on in the average joe’s head than the institution of monarchy.
For example, I was just walking down the hall in back of this guy whose shirt read: “Love my king.”
My first thought when reading his shirt was: “No, love my king.”
That shirt is basically what Sonthi (the media mogul guy) did in his fire breathing PAD speeches to Thaksin. There was absolutely no way that Sonthi was going to allow Thaksin to love the King in his own way. Thaksin’s smart, he got Samak with unparalleled royalist credentials, to do his loving for him, in a way that no one, particularly Sonthi, now smothered in criminal defamation jail sentences, could equal or object to.
[Also interesting is the way that intellectuals built up the institution of Buddhist monarchy to begin with, especially Tambiah with his simplification of the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta, so popular that no one ever went back to the original sutta, but instead quoted him, except Steven Collins in Nirvana and Other Buddhist Felicities (1998), who with chapter headings like "Why all kings are bad" on Temiya Jataka I believe, is probably guilty of lese majeste. Check out the Tambiah and Melford Spiro debate over Spiro's book review of Tambiah when Tambiah gets all angry after Spiro says that some Buddhist kings are actually violent and not at all like the sutta says they are.]
43 Teth // Mar 25, 2008 at 1:42 am
That is the whole point, jon. The network is vast and ambiguous, connected by the usual Thai connections, so you really have to look hard: graduating classes, subordinates, personal sponsorship, blood relations, official positions, etc. Let me name a few members (dead and alive) of the royalist network: certain past military dictators, the entire privy council, Prem and his underlings, the Border Patrol Police (very much involved in the 6 Oct incident), some members of the military, the people at the Crown Property Bureau, rich families who give money to the royals in exchange for favors and particularly royal titles, government bureaucrats, His Majesty’s Private Secretaries, et cetera. Maybe in specific instances it would be easier to point out this network but in essence it is non-transparent and vague. Thai-style.
You cannot excuse the current monarch’s role in this network because he is the epicenter, the beneficiary, the patron, and the quasi-religious figure of this network.
I will agree with you on this point. “Loving the King” has become such a polarizing thing in Thailand so much so that I would argue the King’s role as a unifying figure is ineffective. Particularly since he has always been meddling, I don’t think he has actually ever fulfilled his constitutional duties in this regard (or at least the way Bagehot dreamt it).
“Loving the King” does more harm to Thailand than good. It shrouds rationality, encourages wild, almost fanatical behavior, and is actually divisive. And court-convicted Sondhi Limthongkul milks this to his advantage.
I could have told you that all kings whether Buddhist, Christian or Muslim will not necessarily hold on to their religious beliefs.
Our present King as well, he does not uphold Buddhist doctrine in deed perfectly, especially when he represents the confused and hypocritical ideals of Thai conservatism. Regardless of what the propaganda machine tries to say.
[My take on Thai conservatism is the notions of Thainess and Thai nationalism (one might even go as far as to say Thai xenophobia, the King has expounded an us-vs-them idea quite often in his speeches) coupled with Victorian-style morality and hypocrisy. All this smothered with a resistance to change and general fear mongering when change beckons makes up my take on Thai conservatism.]
To say any King is Buddhist is almost self-contradictory in my opinion. Did not Siddharta himself give up his princely title to pursue dhamma?
44 Dog Lover // Mar 25, 2008 at 5:11 am
On the network, you could begin by reading Handley, TKNS; Handley on the Privy Council; McCargo in Pacific Review; Kasian’s estimate of numbers, the Journal of Contemporary Asia special issue; Kobkua’s book and so on…. Not details down to the last name and each method, but you’d get the gist, if you are at all interested.
45 Observer // Mar 25, 2008 at 11:15 am
If he was at all interested he would know by now.
46 Srithanonchai // Mar 25, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Maybe, one should note that “networks” are a principal building bloc in Thai society at all levels, from national-level actors through province to village. They do not constitute a particular form of social organization concerning only the monarchy. Generalized modes of social structuring seem to be less important.
47 Land of Snarls // Mar 25, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Dog Lover (or anyone else), where can I get a copy of Handley on the Privy Council? I did ask some time ago where I could get the Thai Studies conference papers, but there was no response.
48 jonfernquest // Mar 25, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“On the network, you could begin by reading Handley, TKNS; Handley on the Privy Council; McCargo in Pacific Review; Kasian’s estimate of numbers, the Journal of Contemporary Asia special issue; Kobkua’s book and so on….”
Thanks. I have never seen a bibliography on this topic. Maybe someone should make one.
BTW Collins book mentioned above really opens a whole new area of Buddhist humanities. Western humanities are dominated by the West’s Greek and Roman literary inheritances, which both construct and deconstruct notions of kingship btw. Pali Buddhist literature does the same, as Collins demonstrates (perhaps that is why the book is not widely available in Thailand?), the only problem being in my estimation, that this corpus of thought has remained in the hands of the Sangha, off limits to lay people. (Pali Buddhist literature is a very rich philosophical, intellectual, and literary inheritance that Thailand, Burma, and Sri Lanka share in common.)
49 Observer // Mar 25, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Snarls,
The Handley piece on the Privy Council was accidentally posted to a website for a short time. I printed a copy, but did not save a hard version before it was removed.
I don’t know why it hasn’t reemerged. It is quite good.
50 Land of Snarls // Mar 25, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Thanks, Observer, for responding. Paul Handley, if you’re there - please post it somewhere…anywhere. Maybe Prachatai? (I’m giving you a VERY high waih as I say this - you get one, anyway, for The Book!)
BTW, 2 items for the Significant Trivia Department, re. possible damage-control following TKNS: 1. On the way home recently, driving along Ratchadamnoen, I was looking at the royal photos, & realised that over the last few months HMK has been depicted smiling on these big blow-ups, and 2. in a tourist booklet published by the Bangkok admin., given to me last year by a Thai colleague, there is a page on Wat Bovornives, which states that HMK spent ***10 days*** there, as a monk. (First time I’ve ever seen the length of time mentioned, apart from TKNS.)
51 david w // Mar 26, 2008 at 12:38 am
Land of Snarls,
My understanding is that this link leads to a rapid share version of the Thai Conference CD. I haven’t actually used it though so I can’t confirm details.
http://rapidshare.com/files/83934265/10_Thai_Studies.rar
52 Mr. X // Mar 26, 2008 at 2:04 am
Leave your email address, I’ll send you a copy.
Would you like to have Somchai’s and Prawit’s papers on Less Majesty Law (on the same panel) as well?
53 Land of Snarls // Mar 26, 2008 at 9:10 am
David W- thanks. I’ve tried downloading & can’t get it to open. Quelle dommage! Mai pen rai…
Mr X - Yes please, I’d like them all. Please send to : landofsnarls@gmail.com Thanks a lot!
54 langavulin // Mar 26, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Mr X and/or Land of Snarls,
I would appreciate a copy of Paul Handley’s paper too, if you would be so kind. Thanks
55 langavulin // Mar 26, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Oops, my e-mail: langavulin@yahoo.com
56 Mr. X // Mar 26, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I just sent you 3 pdf files (Somchai’s and Prawit’s papers on Less Majesty Law, Handley on Privy Council).
I do have the whole disk (these three files were not on it) but I can’t sent lots of files at once. I live in uncivilized place with pre-historic (slow) internet connection.
57 Mariner // Mar 26, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Off topic, but I was wondering what you guys thought of the front page of the Bangkok Post which reported on dangerous air borne dust particles, and his majesty’s preparedness to step in to resolve the issue.
Surprising is that there is no mention of asbestos dust and the vast amounts spewed into the air daily as workers cut, grind and saw asbestos cement on almost any residential and commercial building. I have yet to see a Thai worker wearing protective gear. I have never, in Thailand, seen an asbestos containing product labelled as such. If you live in Thailand ask yourself where that dust from the new housing estate being built down the road ends up? If you dare, then look in the internet under ‘asbestos + health.’
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the largest importer of asbestos Siam Cement? Isn’t Siam Cement the largest money earner of the crown property bureau? And isn’t Thailand now one of the world’s formost asbestos importers? I’m left wondering if asbestos dangers will ever get a mention given the royal linkage -certainly not in the utterly gutless Banglok Post and the (almost) equally pathetic Nation.
Mariner
58 Ralph Cramden // Mar 27, 2008 at 11:19 am
Good question on SCG, Mariner. There is quite a bit at various sites on asbestos in Thailand and Asia. See http://www.hvbg.de/e/asbest/konfrep/konfrep/repbeitr/siriruttanapruk_en.pdf
http://www.thaiwebsites.com/asbestos.asp
59 Observer // Mar 27, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I spent quite a lot of time on the Chiang Mai air issue several years ago. The big issues were agricultural burning and vehicle pollution, largely from mafia operated taxis and shuttles, which were untouchable. I don’t recall asbestos ever getting even the smallest mention in surveys of pollution sources. Finally, I haven’t seen asbestos cited as a major of worker injuries or sickness. Siam Cement is doing much motre damage to the environment by burning coal and all sorts of junk in its kilns.
60 paul handley // Mar 27, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Snarls, others: I have forwarded the paper to Nich here for posting; I’ll try to post it in another public place. There was an error in the version delivered at the conference which is corrected in this one, about the date of a key change to the constitution.
Snarls: according to the government’s official publications for the event, the king was at Wat Boworn over 22.10-5.11.56. As I found in researching the book, there is a wealth of inaccurate and imprecise info about the king — like specific dates and locations, harmless but still in error — in both government and non-government publications.
61 Ladyboy // Mar 27, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I see asbestos roofs on houses throughout Thailand and question people about the dangers - they are totally unaware or are mai bpen rai about it. Do hospitals diagnose for asbestos related deaths? It’s an insidious product that could be causing great damage to working people. Canada exports but cannot use asbestos in its own industries.
62 Mariner // Mar 28, 2008 at 2:07 am
Srichant Uthayopas, director of the Industrial Works Department’s Hazardous Substance Control Bureau, stated a couple of years ago that ‘Safety and environmental protection are important, but economics is more so.’ I think that sort of sums things up. Onto specific questions: Why is it that in spite of declaring the import of the most dangerous form of asbestos (crocidolite) illegal in 1992, figures for the year 2002 from the Thai Customs Department show that 451 tons were imported? Why is it that the Thai government defines the safe occupational exposure to asbestos as 5 fibers per ml, a figure which is 50 times (I believe)the minimum exposure level permissible in the US? Finally, I think I’m correct in saying that, to date, no cases of asbestos disease have been reported to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund -do I detect a cover up somewhere?
63 Land of Snarls // Mar 28, 2008 at 7:32 am
Paul Handley: Thanks for your response, & for making the revised paper freely available. When you do place it on another site, I’d be very grateful (& I’m sure others would) if you’d let us know – more discussion may open up.
Re. my comment concerning HMK at Wat Boworn: I haven’t seen any full dates in English-language references to this, prior to the recent one I mentioned. The effect of this has been an impression that he spent a substantial amount of time engaged in religious study, so I was quite amazed when you revealed the actual length of time in TKNS, as I’m sure many people were. Such “inaccurate and imprecise information” may be harmless, as you state, but it does rather contribute to the development of the (misleading) image.
I’ve just checked the 10 references in Stevenson, William: ‘The Revolutionary King,’ which, because it was apparently written at the King’s request, and with his cooperation, & also because of its often sycophantic tone, reads IMO like a Press Release. Although WS does once mention the date of his entry to the monastic life, he doesn’t give the exit date. On page 128 he states, ” His monastic retreat was brief, but he discovered the mind could travel great distances in what he would have previously called the short span of a month.”
One wonders whether this is merely inaccurate & imprecise, or whether it is in fact deliberate. It’s certainly not in line with conventional standards of research for biographical writing.
Fortunately, in your own work you have been as meticulous in regard to such matters as Stevenson has been sloppy, and this is one of the many virtues of TKNS which have ensured that it will be used as a reference by serious scholars & journalists, whereas it may be that Stevenson’s book will be regarded as a bit of a joke. This is of course furthered by what I think of as the ‘Bumper, Boy’s Own’ nature of Stevenson’s work, which comes from the use of irritatingly repetitive devices such as the nicknames ( “Old Gran”, “Lek”, “Nan”), the pretentious “Far-From-Worry” (the Hua Hin palace), “Palace of Lotus Ponds” (Old Gran’s residence behind Siam Paragon), “Lords of Life River” (the Chaophraya), and the very strange ‘Japanese master-spy’ theme, which is developed without a shred of evidence.
One thing I especially appreciate about your work, which I find is almost totally ignored by other Western journalists, is that you do discuss the degree to which the supernatural is a normal influence in daily life, including very important decision-making by high officials. Where it does emerge in the Western press, it is usually in a sensational context, e.g. the magic monk Luang Por Khun’s statement to the government before the Drug War, which had the effect of validating & sanctioning the extra-judicial killings of suspects, which has been widely reported. Stevenson’s work is saturated in magic, but it could be argued that it is to quite a large extent – not always, however - used to give the impression that HMK really does have magic powers, &, e.g., that he communicates with the people through extra-sensory means, rather than to intelligently discuss magico-religeous belief as a social, especially political, phenomenon. In his favour, he does show that HMK rather cleverly used the belief in magic, as a powerful manipulative device against the Establishment in the annual allegiance rituals in Wat Phra Khaew.
While I’ve been writing this post, I’ve had BBC World playing on my TV. 2 major news items have been the highly theatrical visit of the new French President to UK, and the shoddily stage-managed visit of the selected foreign journalists to Tibet. It’s interesting to see once again the differences between Asian and European ways of attempting to repair damage. They don’t seem to change.
In the middle of all this, the Dalai Lama was shown, speaking on the move. “It’s time: I think the Chinese Government, the officials, must accept reality,” he said. “In any case we are 21st century. Pretending or lies cannot work.” Huzzah!!!! The dear old Dalai Lama once again shows himself to be a truly modern person, although the inheritor and guardian of ancient tradition. If he’d said that 10 years ago, everyone would have said, “Well done! The poor old Dalai Lama’s said a Good Thing again. Let’s give him another consolation prize.” But today, in the age of mobile phones that can take photographs and videos & send them immediately to virtually anywhere, of almost universally available internet, of YouTube, of satellite television that can be received & transmitted in the Hindu Kush, the meaning of his words is so different. We can all SEE the evidence, not only through the mainstream channels, but also via the new ‘folk media,’ and it’s getting very hard for the fascists to control. And so their words have less power. It’s undeniable: pretending or lies cannot work. While the Chinese are still living in the 50s, rigidly ‘laying down the law,’ ridiculously trying to push their mendacious version of events, he’s been absolutely forthright & honest: no attempts to cover up anything, no denials, no lies, no lack of understanding or compassion, and he hasn’t compromised his fundamental ideals.
If the Chinese were 21st century people they would let him go back and be a leader to his people. He could very well be the negotiator to save the Tibetans & their culture, & within the context of contemporary Tibet: advantages for both sides. He is a realist and a peacemaker, AND a Buddhist. The Thai establishment could learn a lot from him. What a pity he, as a Buddhist leader, did not mentor HMK. (Significant Trivia Dept: The D.L. & HMK are believed to be incarnations of the same deity.)
64 Land of Snarls // Mar 28, 2008 at 7:54 am
Whoops! My last sentence should have been “….are believed by some
to be incarnations of the same deity.”
65 Somsak // Mar 28, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Paul Handley writes:
Snarls: according to the government’s official publications for the event, the king was at Wat Boworn over 22.10-5.11.56. As I found in researching the book, there is a wealth of inaccurate and imprecise info about the king — like specific dates and locations, harmless but still in error — in both government and non-government publications.
This is absolutely correct. The King was ordained for 15 days between 22 October 1956 and 5 November 1956.
The number of days he stayed in monkhood - 15 - was not accidental.
It was the same duration Chulalongkorn was ordained in 1873.
In fact this whole episode - Bhumibol ordained, Sirikit appointed regent, after which her name was added with the word “nat” (meaing “ผู้เป็นที่พึ่ง”) - were all “pure Chulalongkorn”. (Chulalongkorn was the first king of the Bangkok era to be ordained during his reign, the first to appoint his wife regent, the first to add “nat” to his wife name.)
It’s what I call (borrowing a phrase from Ben Batson) a “return to Chlalongkorn” strategy.
See my article (in Thai only, sorry) ความเป็นมาของคำว่า “นาถ” ใน “พระบรมราชินีนาถ” first published in Faw Diew Kan (3:3, July-September 2005) or on by blog at
http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/09/blog-post_5358.html
Here’s the relevant passage I describe this “Return to Chulalongkorn” strategy.
ในความเห็นของผม เราควรมองว่าการตั้งพระราชินีเป็นผู้สำเร็จราชการและเฉลิมพระนามเพิ่มคำว่า “นาถ” ไม่ใช่การทำตาม “ประเพณี” แต่มีลักษณะของการพยายาม “กลับไปหารัชกาลที่ ๕” (Return to Chulalongkorn) คือทำอะไรแบบที่รัชกาลที่ ๕ เคยทำ เช่นเดียวกับที่สมัยต้นรัชกาลที่ ๗ เคยพยายามมาก่อน(๗) (อันที่จริง การออกบวชขณะเป็นกษัตริย์ก็เป็นการทำแบบรัชกาลที่ ๕ ซึ่งเป็นกษัตริย์พระองค์เดียวสมัยกรุงเทพที่เคยทำมาก่อนในปี ๒๔๑๖ เป็นเวลา ๑๕ วัน เท่ากับจำนวนวันที่ในหลวงปัจจุบันจะทรงผนวช) เป็นวิธีฟื้นฟูสถานะและเกียรติยศของสถาบันกษัตริย์หลังจากช่วงตกต่ำหรือวิกฤติ กรณีรัชกาลที่ ๗ คือหลังจากปัญหาภายในราชสำนักของรัชกาลที่ ๖ ส่วนกรณีรัชกาลปัจจุบันคือ หลังจากช่วงตกต่ำของสถาบันจากการปฏิวัติ ๒๔๗๕ และการสละราชย์ของ ร.๗ ซึ่งทำให้ประเทศไทยไม่มีพระมหากษัตริย์ในทางปฏิบัติเป็นเวลาเกือบ ๒๐ ปี (ไม่มีกษัตริย์ประทับอย่างถาวรในประเทศระหว่างปลายปี ๒๔๗๗ ถึงปลายปี ๒๔๙๔)
66 Teth // Mar 29, 2008 at 7:38 am
If the Chinese were 21st century people they would let him go back and be a leader to his people. He could very well be the negotiator to save the Tibetans & their culture, & within the context of contemporary Tibet: advantages for both sides. He is a realist and a peacemaker, AND a Buddhist.
Funny how he seemed to side with the rioters initially. I know this is a side issue, but regardless of China’s role in Tibet, its rather clear that Tibetan protesters were anything but peaceful, riotous, in fact. This is understandable, but the way some in the West have decided to ignore this fact and portray China as the all-evil oppressor has totally turned me against those “Free Tibet” protesters who are stirring up anti-Chinese hatred. To me, they are similar to militant animal rights activists, their cause can be reasonable, but their methods and manipulations are not.
Yes, the DL would be a great mediator and I’m wondering why the usually pragmatic Chinese have not embraced him as a solution…
67 Land of Snarls // Mar 29, 2008 at 9:41 am
Teth: “Funny how he seemed to side with the rioters initially.” He’s still ’siding’ with them. (supporting them, & deeply sympathetic & committed to their cause) But he’s made it very clear all through his time as Dalai Lama that he doesn’t support violence. And he doesn’t have any objection to the Chinese having the Olympics. The ’cause’ of the Tibetan people is not that the Chinese have been given the Olympics. It’s their desire to stop the Chinese perpetration of genocide and the taking away of their civil rights. They chose this time to demonstrate because the eyes of the world are favorably turned to China, despite the fact that they’ve broken their promise to improve Human Rights ( a condition of getting the Olympics). It’s really unfortunate that the young monks who have never known the DL have not listened to the older ones. It’s a battle they can’t possibly win through violence. I like your ‘militant animal rights’ analogy. (Fighting for peace is like f-ing for virginity!)But the Tibetans still get my support, although not for the violence (look what the Chinese have done to them since the 50s). I think the Chinese are being really stupid in accusing the DL of initiating the riots. They know he didn’t, so they are just being manipulative. And by doing this they’re painting themselves into a corner, as far as using him as a negotiator goes. And they do need a negotiator.
68 Dog Lover // Mar 29, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Maybe the Dalai Lama has nothing much to do with this really younger generation of Tibetans who have rioted all over Tibet and some of China’s provinces? Maybe he is essentially irrelevant to what is going on in these places now? Maybe these events represent a response to Chinese rule that is oppressive and exploitative? Maybe this younger generation realises that the peace and love stuff that has long emanated from the Phil Silvers lookalike feudalist, and that so captures the Hollywood and Californian acolytes, is meaningless drivel and that they need to be more confrontational? Maybe this is what China fears more than the Dalai Lama?
69 Land of Snarls // Mar 30, 2008 at 6:38 am
Dog Lover - Maybe - maybe not.
The answer to your question, “Maybe these events represent a response to Chinese rule that is oppressive and exploitative?” is obvious, and I did say, “It’s their desire to stop the Chinese perpetration of genocide and the taking away of their civil rights.” In fact it’s so obvious that even the Chinese Ambassador to London admitted that they have understandable grievances, although she didn’t specify any, in a recent BBC World News interview. (Yes, of course she was only doing a PR damage-control thing, but she did say it.)
re. your ‘Phil Silvers Lookalike Feudalist Maybe’: Do the Tibetans inside Tibet know how the “Hollywood & Californian acolytes” hear & see the DL and the Tibetan situation? And would they understand their thinking? I agree with you that the trendoids & sycophants do cloud the issue with sentimentality & make it difficult to focus on the much more complex reality. But I think it’s a mistake to assume that they are the mouthpieces of the DL. He’s much more lucid, pragmatic, & flexible, and to call him a feudalist is to show ignorance of the way his thinking & perception have developed in exile. I don’t think he wants Tibet to go back to anything like what it was. Why would he want it to become a sort of ‘ethno-religeous zoo’? Anyway, it’s way too late.
In regard to whom or what the Chinese fear, I really don’t think there’s much at all. They don’t really have to. They know they can get away with almost anything; Western governments haven’t intervened yet, & why would they? Is anyone going to stop buying Chinese products? And would that help? (Look at Burma) China has had 7 years (13th July 2001) to keep its promises to do something about pollution & clean up their human rights act, and what has it done? Nothing much. This is well-known, but what are the other Olympic nations doing about it? Nothing much. “Maybe this younger generation…..need to become more confrontational.” If that means being violent & getting slaughtered, & having their freedom restricted further (because they CANNOT succeed), definitely not!
IMO the Chinese have shown themselves to be a people who know the price of everything & the value of nothing. They are doing their best to destroy not only a racial group, but a system of thought & thinking (& one that doesn’t have to be stuck in the archaic – the DL is evidence of that) that we can learn from.
Personally, I can’t stand Phil Silvers (he doesn’t look anything like the DL!), or any of those beige, wise-cracking Americans. (Lenny Bruce was good, though.) I’m more of a Monty Pythonesque person. That’s why I stay in Thailand.
70 Teth // Mar 30, 2008 at 11:14 am
Sometimes these arguments can go into a bit of over-generalization, especially with the the categorization of “the Chinese”. That’s over 1 billion people for you…
However, I really do sympathize with your statement that “The Chinese have shown themselves to be a people who know the price of everything & the value of nothing.” Many of them, especially the worst polluters, et cetera, are really odious. The environmental degradation China suffers is unbelievable… Maybe its time for an updated set of Confucian values. Say, checks-and-balances Confucius. Emphasize the respect and unity, but instead, focus it on things like rule of law, love of justice, and human rights rather than an entirely top-down relationship where even though the upper strata are technically duty-bound to the lower strata, only the obligation from the lower strata towards the upper ones are enforced.
Another note about Tibet, how much of the rioting is actually due to xenophobia? Seeing as all parts of China (excluding perhaps HK and Macao) are under a repressive dictatorship, is the Tibetan cause (reflected in the recent riots) really just? I’m all for the proposals from the Dalai Lama. What I don’t comprehend is why China doesn’t treat Tibet in a much more conservative version of “I’ll leave you alone, you’ll leave me alone” type fashion as it is doing in Hong Kong or Macao? And I always thought “the Chinese” were known for compromise.
71 Land of Snarls // Mar 30, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Teth, my use of “the” with “Chinese” was intended to mean the Chinese administration (the government, including its officials). Their treatment of the Tibetans since the invasion has been extremely brutal. It has included mass slaughter, mass rape (including the public raping of Buddhist nuns), mass torture, and all of the specific elements necessary for the classification ‘genocide’ as a deliberate policy. A reaction against such treatment is “just,” IMO. Hong Kong and Macau people didn’t dispute that they are Chinese, and were not invaded. In fact the Hong Kong Chinese couldn’t wait for the British lease to expire. The Tibetans don’t see themselves or their land as Chinese, and were invaded. They don’t want the Chinese & never have.
The idea that you put forward in the 2nd half of your middle paragraph is fanciful - at present. However, as China comes more into economic prominence it does seem to be loosening up, & it is possible that they will eventually move in the direction of having the luxuries you list (as the West did) in some form. It’s a ‘maybe.’
72 Dog Lover // Mar 30, 2008 at 11:31 pm
To elaborate one my “maybes” - I said that, Maybe this is what China [govt] fears more than the Dalai Lama? I think the Chinese probably do fear these events because they are more widespread than the Tibet AR and for the fact that they cannot identify “leaders”. The Chinese Govt worries about “spontaneous” rebellions/riots/strikes etc. because they can see a potential for uprising in them. They have less to fear when these events involve ethnic minorities, but even here they fear fraying at the edges - Tibet, Xinjiang might lead to more, maybe. These “edges” are of vital concern to the Beijing regime. So I think they are worried and fearful.
Internationally, perhaps they don’t care too much about the views of the West, but they do worry about the pictures that cause their “peaceful rise” position to look entirely like propaganda.
73 paul handley // Mar 31, 2008 at 3:19 am
Somsak,
Interesting stuff! Another example of how this reign consciously seeks to identify with the most important reigns of the past, whether Sukhothai or Ayutthaya or Bangkok periods, to claim “direct” lineage and justify their family position. Besides Chulalongkorn, the palace has tried to tie King Bhumibol with King Mongkut, maybe even moreso. I’m sure observant Thais can see more of these small but important assertions of linkages than I could.
74 Random // Mar 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Paul,
Especially interesting as the current monarch was selected by Phibul Songkram, based on factors other the purity of direct lineage playing a major role.
75 Surang Saitip // Mar 31, 2008 at 3:39 pm
You have no need to link Bhumibol to King Mongkut, for they are indeed related by blood, King Mongkut being Bhumibol’s great grandfather.
Spending 15 days in the monkhood is favored by many Thai men who hold regular jobs. It is not expected that much will be gained in the sense of the Dhamma, but it is believed that merit is gained by this act of being in the monkhood. It seems that a lot of Thais follow the motion of merit earning without actually doing things of real merit.
76 Land of Snarls // Mar 31, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Dog Lover- Yes, good point. I agree.
Other posters- Sorry for taking the discussion off track. Back to TKNS.
77 The Devil’s Discus - in Thai // May 29, 2008 at 8:06 am
[...] was only banned in 2006. Perhaps this backs up the point suggested by Craig Reynolds at the recent panel discussion on The King Never Smiles that Thai language discussions of the monarchy may be less offensive to the [...]
78 MawHom // Jul 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I enjoyed most of Reynold’s notes from the roundtable, and I especially like his characterization of the discourse surrounding the monarchy as a “war of position.” However, I have to strongly disagree with Reynold’s “yawn, sigh” conclusion about the likely impact of Handley’s book in Thailand. It probably reflects Reynold’s distorted sense of the current state of discourse about the monarchy (based on his own circle of conversation partners?) and/or a bit of wishful thinking on his part (ah yes, everyone in Thailand knows this already, or at least “everyone who matters.”)
An anecdotal contribution: I’ve assigned the book in an undergraduate seminar on Southeast Asian history at an Ivy League University in the U.S. (there were at least 3 upper class Thai students in that class, each from wealthy and/or powerful families in Thailand, and each planning to return to Thailand–some to get involved in politics–after graduation), and the reaction from the Thai students in the class was like charting the stages of grief in reaction to death: denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance.
It took a *great* deal of convincing before two of my Thai students were even willing to pick up the book (as in, literally touch the book): they knew it from reputation in Thailand as an evil, defamatory text not even worthy of critical scrutiny. Remember, these students would be in their late teens/early twenties, and one thing Handley’s book does well is to offer a sense of their worldview regarding the monarchy: by the time they were born, the palace PR machine was up and running smoothly and well-oiled, and the *political* consciousness of these students is likely dominated by the 1992 images of the antagonists in that political crisis knelling at the feet of the king while with a few nationally televised words he ends the bloodshed and restores peace and democracy to the kingdom.
For students and Thai people of this generation, the power of Handley’s book lies *not* in its systematic attack on the Thai monarchy (the book contains no such programmatic attack), but rather in its willingness to analyze the king and the institution of the monarchy as a *political* institution. To say, as Reynolds does, that the book contains “not much new” for Thai speakers and to suggest that its value is primarily for the English speaking world not acquainted with contemporary Thai discourse is to vastly underestimate the continuing hold of the “king and monarchy is above politics” narrative.
Handley’s book should hardly be taken as the last word on the monarchy. Rather, its promise lies in clearing some land–much like in swidden agriculture–and fertilizing the soil for what will hopefully be many more such studies (academic or not) to follow.
Handley, on the subject of the monarchy as a political institution in Thai politics and history, your book changed at least two of my Thai students to the core, Reynolds’ “yawn, sigh” concluding line notwithstanding.
79 Suriyon Raiwa // Aug 9, 2008 at 8:18 pm
First, we impute a serious scholar’s views to his “circle of conversation partners.”
Then, we advance our own views on the basis of our experience with three wealthy Thai undergrads so alienated from their country’s intellectual life that they are taking their first degrees, in English, “at an Ivy League university in the U.S.” (as opposed, perhaps, to an Ivy League university in Swaziland, or in Bulgaria?).
Who is really out of touch here?
Not sure who you might be, “Maw Hom,” but I am afraid that you have to do better than this.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.